Next week the Senate will resume debate on Harry Reid’s version of Obamacare. Don’t expect too much out of this so-called debate. All the version of the healthcare bill being considered raise taxes, add to the debt, increase healthcare costs and leave millions of people uninsured. They also start the process of nationalizing healthcare via a government option (also known as the “public option”) that is taxpayer-subsidized and will underbid private insurance until most private insurers are out of business or confined to tiny segments of the market. 
This healthcare bill is not about solving real issues, but instead is an ideologically-driven expansion of government power that will permanently change the United States. Once passed, it is almost certainly irreversible since any move to undo the damage will require 60 votes in the Senate. Given that the Obama administration is working hard on making more and more people dependent on government, it is hard to see how even stunning election defeats of the Obama Democrats will result in a 60 vote free market super majority in the Senate.
If it passes, Obamacare will have won not because 60 senators are ideologically dedicated to the cause. Some senators will support the bill for special provisions having nothing to do with healthcare that are inserted into the bill to gain their votes.
The true “debate” will not be about the benefits of the bill, but rather about backroom deals to see how much pork individual senators can gain in exchange for selling their votes. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu sold herself for $300 million and went on to the floor of the Senate to brag about it.
It doesn’t take a majority of dedicated socialists in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government through Obamacare and other initiatives. All it takes is enough corrupt politicians willing to sell their votes in exchange for supporting Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the King of Pork, may be unable to fully participate in the Obamacare feast because of poor health, but he provides a classic example of a politician going home to his constituency to shamelessly brag about diverting taxpayer money for local pork barrel projects. Here is “Big Daddy” as he refers to himself:
Voters have been reelecting politicians who bring home the pork while at the same time complaining about taxes, spending and the increasing reach of the federal government into more and more areas of our lives. They cannot have it both ways. Yet, the percentage of incumbents reelected make the House of Representatives look like the Supreme Soviet. A graph from the University of Texas shows that 90% or more of incumbents in the House are routinely reelected. The percentage of senators is more variable because they are elected by states rather than gerrymandered Congressional districts and there are only 33 up for reelection each time rather than 435 representatives.
Maybe the outrage expressed by the Tea Party movement and more general discontent with Washington will change enough votes to throw out a lot of incumbents. Still most Congressional districts are gerrymandered to guarantee a majority to one party.
A better, more permanent way to make politicians in our legislature less focused on their reelection would be to pass a Constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms senators and representatives can serve. The Republican’s 1994 Contract with America supported such term limits, but given the votes required to pass a Constitutional amendment, term limits were never enacted. Some of the Republicans elected to Congress in 1994 voluntarily limited themselves to a few terms, but the only effect of this was that the most principled politicians left Washington and the career politicians in both parties were left to their usual ways.
To be effective, term limits must be mandatory at the federal level. Voluntary or state-specific term limits just weaken the advocates of principled politics. Many of our neighbors to our south have instituted term limits for their heads of state to prevent the re-occurence of strongmen that were so common for much of Latin America’s history.
Over 200 years ago, our first President, George Washington, set a precedent by stepping down after two terms in an age where no head of state relinquished power voluntarily. This precedent held until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times. Roosevelt was president during unusual times (i.e. the Great Depression and World War 2), but our government should never become dependent on a single man no matter how severe the crisis. As a result of Roosevelt’s four elections, we passed a Constitutional Amendment in the 1940s to limit our presidents to two terms.
There are two ways of initiating amendments to the Constitution. Two thirds of both Houses of Congress can initiate an amendment. But an amendment can also be initiated if two thirds of all state legislatures support it. This second method would lead to a constitutional convention and has never been utilized. If such a convention were to become a possibility, in all likelihood, Congress would act and support the amendment.
Congressional term limits are now essential for preserving America’s system of government and for reducing the level of corruption. To win their votes, the Tea Party movement and all Americans concerned about power and corruption in Washington should require candidates for Congress and state legislatures to support term limits.
{ 3 trackbacks }