President is preparing to use "reconciliation" to force health care, despite bipartisan opposition

President Obama

It is beginning to look like the President is planning to use a controversial budget provision known as reconciliation to push his health care plan through Congress, despite objections from within his own party. While the President likes to claim the problem in Congress is Republican opposition, the fact is, the Democrats have large enough majorities in both Houses to pass whatever they want. The real issue blocking passage of the President’s vision for health care is opposition from fellow Democrats. That being said, President Obama has an interest in passing his plan, and he may resort to a controversial and potentially unconstitutional “nuclear option” to do so. Liberals, and Liberal activists, have also begun encouraging the President to use this option.  Despite what you may hear from either side, the fact is reconciliation is only intended to be used to ensure the Government has an operating budget.  This means when folks say "Republicans used reconciliation to pass tax cuts for the wealthy", the likely argument from the left, it doesn't hold water because that was a budget issue and so, right or wrong, reconciliation was properly used.

As an article in The Hill points out, by offering “olive branches” to Republicans, the Democrats set up a scenario whereby they can take credit if the bill is success, but spread the blame if the bill is a failure. The problem is, by asking Republicans to accept a huge government intervention in the health care market, Democrats are essentially asking Republicans to act like “Democrats” in the interest of “bi-partisanship”. Republicans could never accept such a bill, as it is diametrically opposed to their governing philosophy. While Republicans and others have proposed alternatives, these are being largely ignored by Congressional leaders.

Tactically this was a smart move by the President; he can now blame Republicans and “those opposed to reform” for the difficulty he is having getting his own party to support his plan. The only downside is, if the plan proves unpopular, he loses the ability to claim it was a “bi-partisan” bill, and therefore not the fault of his party. The President is willing to take this risk however, because of the long term gains for his party, and his liberal agenda.

As Mark Steyn points out, by passing nationalized health care the President effectively institutionalizes the concept of health care as a right, rather than a personal responsibility. This essentially and permanently forces the right to conduct all future debates according to the left’s terms. Mark Steyn is correct when he states the right in much of Europe has given up pushing for limited government and personal responsibility. Instead, many rightist parties in Europe, such as the Tories and the Gaullists, are reduced to attempting to convince voters they can run a left wing welfare state more efficiently than the left wing. Even as some European countries are collapsing under the weight of their own unsustainable welfare states, the right is reduced to little more than tinkering around the edges.

This is the real point. If the President uses reconciliation, a budget maneuver never intended to be used for this type of legislation, to pass his health care plan, the public outcry will be intense. Further, the public will take out their frustrations on Democrats at every level for the next few election cycles. However, once the smoke clears, the President and his agenda will be in a good position. Most of the spending in his plan is not set to take effect until after the 2012 election. President Obama is effectively insulated from any real negative election consequences by this point as he will (he hopes) be in his second and final term.

In the meantime, Government health care will do what every Government program does, except on a much larger scale. The plan will create a new class of “dependents” relying on the Government for services they will come to consider “essential”. Once citizens rely on their Government for their health care, the relationship between citizens and Government in the United States will be fundamentally altered. The very concept of the Government limiting itself to national defense, commerce and public safety will be destroyed forever. In its place will be a growing acceptance of Government as the “womb to tomb” provider of practically everything, and our protector from the capriciousness of life. In short, passage of Government health care will forever change the US from the country the founders intended, to a European style nanny and welfare state.

It is not my intention to argue for or against this, though I do have my own opinions. I am simply putting forward a suggestion of what the eventual results will be. That is, passage of Government health care freezes the pendulum on the left side of the aisle at “statism”. It is for this reason the President is willing to ignore public opinion, and the constitution and parliamentary procedure, in order to force his vision for health care upon the country.