Musings of Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)
Charlie Rangel's Malarkey and Why Obama Care Is Failing
The 2010 Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or Obama Care is not even four years old and is already in serious trouble. The reason lies in understanding American history, but not the false history Charlie Rangel opined about.
Congressman Rangel's comment that no Republican voted for Social Security is partisan baloney (see below*).
Modern Presidents like to pass transformative legislation but it is a rare feat. The 1935 Social Security Act, 1956 Interstate Highway Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Medicare/Medicaid Acts all transformed America in a fundamental ways.
Rangel’s lie is informative, however, as it highlights the underlying failure of Obama Care.
This failure centers on two facts, the first is the one that Charlie Rangel hates and which likely forced him to resort to falsehoods:
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION IS BETTER BECAUSE IT CREATES LAWS FOR ALL AMERICANS
As Charlie Rangel would have it, PPACA was legislation to announce the supremacy of the Democratic Party under President Obama. Its proponents exhibited a flawed groupthink that concluded what was good for the Democratic Party was good for America.
The Beltway pundits understood the score. Upon passage of PPACA, the Washington Post sagely proclaimed: “Democrats score historic victory.”
Obama Care was not legislation for America and we are all suffering now for that sin of hubris.
The second point of failure deals with inside-the-beltway strategy:
It is impossible to get transformative legislation right on the first try. That is why past Presidents obtained bipartisan support even if it meant painful compromises.
Past Presidents knew that problems would arise and a bipartisan deal guaranteed future help from both parties as BOTH had skin in the game. They had to get together to succeed.
If you make the legislation a purely partisan battle, it stays a partisan fight. In Washington, a zero sum game closes the door to a future “let’s fix it together” solution.
Obama Care focused too much on scoring a Democratic victory and a Republican defeat. Now, the tables are turned. Obama Care is struggling and the bridges to the Republicans are burned.
It looks like this Democratic victory might have been badly overrated.
But the Washington Post was right in one sense: This baby is all Democrat and is certainly historical, painfully or otherwise.
*For the record, here are the voting records for the legislation cited above:
(Totals may not add up because abstaining votes were not counted)
1935 Social Security Act
Senate House
Yea Nay Yea Nay
Democrats 60 1 284 15
Republicans 16 5 81 15
1956 Interstate Highway Act
This act was so popular on both sides of the aisle that vote in the Senate was 89-1 and in the House, 388-19. By the way, that act was the largest public works program in modern history, equal to one half trillion dollars in today's currency.
1964 Civil Rights Act
Senate House
Yea Nay Yea Nay
Democrats 46 21 152 96
Republicans 27 6 138 34
This was the classic example of compromising. The legislation was dead in the Senate because of both Democratic and Republican opposition. But the Republicans opposed because they did not get their key changes included. The Democratic leadership then brought in the Senate Republicans and together worked out a compromise (see link below to Senator Dirksen's speech in support of the measure). The rest was history.
1965 Medicare-Medicaid Act
Senate House
Yea Nay Yea Nay
Democrats 57 7 237 48
Republicans 13 17 70 68
Now look at 2010 PPACA:
Senate House
Yea Nay Yea Nay
Democrats 58 0 219 34
Republicans 0 39 0 178
Mike
