« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Walt Minnick Is Not Willing to Repeal Obamacare

By: Russ Vought (Diary)  |  August 9th, 2010 at 05:54 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Walt Minnick (D-ID) voted against Obamacare, but he doesn’t want to repeal it.

In a general form letter to his constituents asking him to support repeal, Minnick writes:

I understand that you support repealing the bill in its entirety. I do not believe that it will be possible to fully repeal the bill. Even if a bill to repeal the law were able to pass Congress, the President would still have the authority to veto the legislation.

Ah, the “it’s impossible” argument. Democrats who voted against Obamacare, who are nervous about going against Nancy Pelosi, are employing this line to explain their refusal to sign Rep. Steve King’s Discharge Petition #11 to force a full repeal vote.

And that’s all it is—a line.

Members of Congress sign on to legislation all the time where there is substantial legislation uncertainty. In the 111th Congress, Walt Minnick has now sponsored 27 pieces of legislation by himself and co-sponsored 289 other bills with other members of Congress. A good number of them have absolutely no chance of passing with the current political makeup of Congress. Most strikingly, Walt signed onto four different Constitutional amendments ranging from desecrating the flag to calling for constitutional conventions for limited objectives. Now he must support these amendments, but they’re not exactly going anywhere this year. Right or wrong, a critic of these amendments could easily argue that “it’s impossible” to enact all of these amendments in the near future. But that didn’t stop Walt from joining their cause. Why?

Walt wanted to sign those amendments, and he just doesn’t really want to sign on to repealing Obamacare. It’s that simple.

While we’re on the subject, repealing Obamacare is not impossible. It can happen, and it starts with accepting it as a possibility. It certainly requires more Republicans or Democrats willing to join with the repeal effort (none currently have). This election cycle is likely to see that prerequisite accomplished. The public needs to continue to be engaged all over the country, and if one considers the bipartisan supermajority that voted for Proposition C in Missouri last week, it is. There probably needs to be a new president, but forcing a veto fight in the meantime will help build the coalition and the momentum for repeal, while continuing to ensure the president stays on the defensive, explaining a fundamentally flawed and intolerable law. Many of these arguments are fleshed out more fully in Ramesh Ponnuru’s outstanding article on whether Obamacare could and should be repealed—it’s worth a read.

Finally, the fate of another health care law is informative on this subject. In 1988, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act by margins of 328-72 in the House and 86-11 in the Senate. The legislation both increased Medicare benefits and increased taxes to pay for the benefits (sound familiar?). Seniors revolted, many of whom had similar benefits from their old employers (sound familiar?). Then-Ways and Means Chairman, Dan Rostenkowski, was famously chased out of a meeting and swarmed by some of these seniors in his car (sound familiar?). The deeply unpopular legislation was repealed the next year. Repeal was possible then, and it’s possible now.

Walt Minnick knows it’s possible. He just doesn’t want to admit it, because it means he’ll get called down to Nancy Pelosi’s office. And as uncomfortable as the prospect of that visit might be, it’s the most telling sign of whether Walt intends to stand on principle over party.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • coldair

    Where the rubber really meets the road will be funding authorization. Obama can’t do squat if he doesn’t get funding from Congress. And Congress can be pretty specific about what it funds and what it does not fund.

    Of course, the Beltway Repubs probably still have nightmares about trying this with Slick Willy – and getting shredded for their troubles. Still – a Republican House Con Cojones does not need to repeal ObamaCare to deal it a pretty fatal blow. Guts, anyone?

    {Incidentally, they should also pass the legislation repealing the monstrosity – and make Obama veto it. That sends a great – and crucial – message. But it does not get the job done.

    • IJB

      If the GOP sticks to their guns on defunding ObamaCare, they’ll win hands down (and make Obama look like a slug in the process).

      The open question is whether they’ll stick to their guns…

      • Spiral

        The Republicans in 1995 over-stepped their mandate.

        Lamar Alexander said it best when he said, “Newt Gingrich was trying to be both President of the United States and Speaker of the House at the same time. No one, no matter how talented, can do both jobs at once.”

        The bottom line is that the goals the 1995 Republican Congress set for themselves could not be achieved without first electing a Republican president.

        Instead of understanding that fact they got way, way, way, way out ahead of public opinion. The public turned against the GOP and Bill Clinton, considered politically dead in January 1995, was considered a strong favorite for reelection by April 1996.

        Newt Gingrich, and his lack of political skill and his lack of ability to keep his mouth shut when talking to the press, handed the 1996 Presidential election to Bill Clinton.

        John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are smarter politicians than Newt Gingrich. They understand that the median American voter isn’t a solid conservative or a solid liberal, but an extremely unpredictable voter who has no real ideology other than “what’s in it for me and why can’t I understand these issues in the time it takes to read a bumper sticker?”

        • eburke

          that he totally shut down the Senate by using every parlimentary procedure available to prevent a hugely unpopular health care bill from passing.

          Oh wait….

          • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

            .

          • Spiral

            Well, the Democrats used the nuclear option. At least give the Democrats credit for having the guts to govern when they have the majority whereas Republicans bow to the extra-constitutional 60 vote cloture requirement.

            So, while McConnell couldn’t make 41 greater than 59, he is more capable than Gingrich, although that isn’t saying much. Gingrich is the Democrats best friend. One word out of Gingrich’s mouth and the GOP approval in the polls goes down 10 points.

          • eburke

            to use the nuclear options if McConnell had any ‘nads because he could’ve tied the bill up in the Senate *forever* and the election of Scott Brown would have meant that the Dems would’ve never been able to break the filibuster to send it over to the House which means they could’ve *never* sent it back to have the nuclear option used on it.

            And on top of that, what happened to all the threats from the GOP that if the Dems used the nuclear option, the GOP would see to it that nothing else saw the light of day for the rest of the session?

            What we actually got were crickets chirping.

          • Spiral

            In reality the majority rules the US Senate, if it wants to. When Robert Byrd was Senate Majority Leader, he used the nuclear option to shut down the use of loopholes in the Senate rules.

            So, ultimately, no one, not Mitch McConnell, not anyone, can prevent a bill passing the US Senate if the majority is determined to pass it.

            Also, why would the Republicans want to make themselves look like sore losers by shutting the Senate down just because they got outvoted on the health care bill?

            Instead, the smart thing to do is to take the issue to the voters, a majority of whom want the health care bill repealed.

            The real question is whether in 2013, under a hypothetical scenario of the GOP controlled White House, US Senate and US House, would the GOP rather use the nuclear option to repeal Obama-care, or would it prefer to adopt a McCain-like belief in “bi-partisanship?” And we all know that McCain like bi-partisanship means that Dick Durbin and Chuch Schumer get veto power over any conservative ideas.

            You can’t blame McConnell for the fact that the Democrats had 59 while we had 41 and Rule 22 of the US Senate is a worthless piece of paper when the Democrats really, really, really want to pass something.

            The 60 vote cloture requirement never did make sense. The Senate should be governred by on a majority basis. When the GOP retakes the US Senate in 2013, the GOP should not whine about Democrat obstructionism. Instead, they should junk the 60 vote cloture requirement and govern from the right. Then let the voters decide if they like the results.

            Back to Gingrich. Gingrich forgot the first rule of politics: There is nothing like a great cause who’s time has not yet come. Lamar Alexander might be wrong on a lot of things, but he was right about Gingrich trying to do two jobs at once.

          • Spiral

            In fact, during the 2005 dust-up over the Democrats’ filibustering of Bush’s federal appeals court nominees Mitch McConnell quoted Robert Byrd from previous speeches. Byrd bragged how he ignored Senate rules and ended “post-cloture filibusters.”

            McConnell quoted Byrd saying: “I broke filibusters. Back, neck and legs.”

            Yep. Byrd did that, which proves the majority rules in the Senate, but only if it really wants to.

          • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

            Your arguments are simply unpersuasive. As you see, the folks you are discussing this with are entirely unpersuaded.

            If have found that if you don’t want to see half a dozen blue lines to the left of your comment, you must measure your words carefully, reason your arguments rationally, and bring to bear all the powers of persuasion you can muster.

            It really is OK if you practice here as long as you don’t take too much of our time to instruct you.

          • eburke

            senator can so gum up the works that it’s unbelievable. Why do you think there’s an unending stream of ‘unanimous requests’ every day in the Senate.

            It takes *one*, count ‘em *one* senator to shut things down if you really want to and if you have 40 other senators to back you up. We had 41. You can force the reading of bills, ammendments, quorum calls. Hell, Judd Gregg wrote a multi-page manifesto detailing the umpteen ways that Republicans could tie up the Senate from now until kingdom come. But we opted instead for the same ‘messaging ammendment’ strategy that you’re apparently in favor of.

            So, as a result, we now have the government running 1/6th of our economy, mandating that formerly free Americans purchase a product against their will, and making life and death decisions for my family.

            You’re damn right I wanted the Republicans to shut down the Senate and keep this steaming pile of unConstitutional manure from becoming law. And so did an overwhelming majority of the American people.

          • Spiral

            eburke,

            Let me give you an example of a situation where the majority, by ignoring the Standing Rules of the Senate, forced a vote on a bill even as some Senators attempted to use dilatory tactics.

            On 19 May 2005 US Senator Jon Kyl described how this was done.

            In 1977, two Senators attempted to block a natural gas deregulation bill after cloture had already been invoked. They were succeeding through a strategy of

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Cloture had already been invoked, which means a supermajority was ruling, not a majority.

          • Spiral

            That’s correct. But my point was that the US Senate completely ignored the Standing Rules of the US Senate in that case.

            But another example is the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Remember how Vice President Al Gore put that tax increase over the finish line by casting his tie braking vote?

            Not a single Republican US Senator voted for the 1993 tax increase and many Democrat US Senators voted against it because they were running for reelection in 1994. The vote in the Senate was a tie and Al Gore broke the tie to make the tax increase law.

            The Democrats only had 57 US Senators in 1993.

            So, how did the Democrats pass the tax increase in the US Senate when they lacked the required 60 votes for cloture?

            Answer: Because the 1974 Budget Act includes procedures that operate akin to a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate on matters specified by the Budget Act.

            So, there is no need to obtain 60 Senate votes in favor of cloture in order to stop debate on budget items.

            This explains why both the 1993 Clinton tax increase passed over the objections of 43 Republican US Senators and why the 2010 Obama-care health plan passed over the objections of 41 Republican US Senators.

            But in my 1977 example, the Senate wasn’t even debating a budget issue. Still, when the majority found that the Standing Rules of the Senate got in the way of passing the legislation, they ignored the rules and created a Senate precedent.

            Get it? In other words, the majority really does rule the US Senate. But only if it decides that it wants to.

          • Spiral

            Correction: At the time of the Clinton tax increase there were 44 Republicans in the US Senate, not 43.

            Of the 56 Democrat US Senators, 50 voted for the Clinton tax increase and 6 voted against it (for political cover during the 1994 elections, presumably).

            All 44 Republican US Senators voted against the Clinton tax increase.

            So, the vote in the Senate was tied, 50 to 50 and Vice President Al Gore broke the tie. There was no need to invoke cloture, which would require 60 votes (votes the Democrats did not have), because the 1974 budget act restricts debate.

            This is the same tactic the Democrats used to pass Obama-care this year. They didn’t have 60 votes. So they used budget reconciliation to pass it by a majority vote.

            But, as I mentioned before, even if the issue is not budget related, like natural gasoline price de-control, the Senate can ignore its own Standing rules if it wants to and create what is called a Senate precedent.

            US Senator Jon Kyl talked extensively on the Senate floor about how the Senate’s precedents are just a binding as the Senate’s Standing Rules and that the Senate can create precedents in direct conflict with a Standing Rule.

            That’s why I say that in reality the majority does rule the Senate if it really wants to.

            Also, did you know that the US House used to have a filibuster loophole?

            During the time frame between the Mexican War and the Civil War (1848-1861) Alexander Stephens, who eventually went on to become Vice President of the Confederate States of America (and who said that slavery is the negro’s natural condition), filibustered legislation that he believed was unfavorable to the slave holding states.

            The House eventually got rid of it using the Constitutional or Nuclear option. And the federal courts held that either the US House or the US Senate can change its rules by majority vote at any time, not just during the beginning of a Congressional session.

            That’s important to think about if the GOP regains the Senate majority.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    Whether running for Senate or House, should make this a primary campaign promise. “Vote for me and I will repeal Obamacare.”

  • IJB

    …I guess due to his purported money advantage, but I don’t see it. Things like this are going to absolutely kill Minnick in a R+18 district.

  • chihank

    On paper, Minnick has no business being Congressman.

    However in the GOP primary, we had two 2nd tier candidates running. So we have a no so great candidate challenging Minnnick.

  • IJB

    The only problem for Labrador is campaign cash – if he can either get that for himself, or if the NRCC can get it for him, Labrador should be able to take Minnick out.