A couple quick letters for policy wonks

Decided to drop a couple notes to Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan, not on issues but on policy. My representatives are well to the left in both chambers and my communications fall on deaf ears, but with the new president and Republican control of both houses, perhaps now is the time to reform some of the ways that we do business. For what it's worth, here they are.

Subject: Omnibus Spending Bills

Dear Congressman Ryan,

I am writing to you as the Speaker of the House, not as a representative of the people, to promote some strategy for the upcoming work that you will be doing with President Trump. I believe that it is time to abandon the idea of omnibus spending bills and return to the practice of funding each department and activity of government separately.

The concept of omnibus bills has, in my opinion, led to a lack of transparency in funding. Spending bills are so large that it is impossible to determine what exactly they are funding. Departmental appropriation bills, while perhaps requiring more time to craft and pass, have two advantages as I see it.

One, they are more transparent. Here is the money that we are planning on spending to fund programs x, y, and z. Easily understandable to the average citizen for whom the spending is supposedly being made. This is what we are going to do and here is how much we are going to spend on it.

Two, they are less susceptible to veto and political considerations. One of my frustrations with omnibus bills is that a president who wishes to make a political point can shut down the government by exercising his veto of the complete spending plan represented by an omnibus bill (I do understand that the vast majority of government spending continues to plod along without Congressional action but most people don't). A return to individual appropriations would allow Congress and the President to agree on the vast majority of spending items while saving the political fight for the issues on which they actually have major disagreements. I believe that this would be beneficial to both parties and to the people.

I hope you will consider my idea as you move forward with a new President and new opportunities to determine how Congress and the federal government can work more effectively to actually serve the people within Constitutional bounds.

Subject: Affordable Care Act Repeal

Dear Senator McConnell,

I am writing to you as the leader of the Senate, not as a representative of the people, to promote some strategy for the upcoming work that you will be doing with President Trump.  I know that you have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with free market reforms and I will leave the details of those reforms up to those who study the topic and are well placed to provide educated and meaningful advice.  However, I did want to address a legislative strategy regarding this repeal and replacement.

The Republican party seems, on occasion, to undermine themselves by playing by the old rules while the opposition changes the rules to benefit themselves.  One example of the oppositions misuse of the rules was the passage of the ACA on a simple majority vote using parliamentary tricks.  I don't have to remind you that the ACA was passed without one single Republican vote and there was no opportunity for a filibuster of the legislation.

It would make sense, in my opinion, to pass the repeal under the exact same provisions, thereby only requiring a majority vote for repeal.  The arguments that the Democrats made to pass the legislation in this manner should be vigorously repeated on every talk show and to every media outlet who will grant an interview.  The American people must understand that both sides are playing by the same rules, a point which the media will ignore as they condemn Republican tactics if you pursue this strategy.

I am not suggesting that we necessarily resort to such tactics to advance a conservative agenda, but rather than we use the actions of the Democrats as they relate to specific legislation to repeal their agenda items.  The Republican party can no longer afford to play by a completely different set of rules.  With the media aligned against conservative ideas and a Democratic party willing to do whatever it takes in contravention of established and agreed upon convention, I believe that the time has come to use the system that they have established rather than constantly fall behind by insisting on abiding by a system that only one side utilizes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to see a headline soon about the complete repeal and replacement of the ACA legislation that is destroying our health care system.

 

That was then, this is now

From the people who brought you "Benghazi is just a made up scandal by Fox News", and "the IRS is just doing their job when they investigate conservative groups", and "If you like your doctor/health care plan, you can keep your doctor/health care plan":  In other words, liberals.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in DC ruled that when Congress wrote the words "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" when explaining who could get subsidies, what they really meant was that people enrolled in an Exchange established by the Sate could get subsidies.  In other words, the language is perfectly clear.  No grey area.  The left wants you to think that this is a ridiculous interpretation and that "obviously" Congress could not possibly have intended that.

Enter Jonathan Gruber, the "architect" of Obamacare.   Gruber is a professor at MIT who has written several books on health care and public policy.  Here are two tidbits that may shed some light on what is going on.

2012:

Gruber: In the law, it says if the states don't provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.  I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they'll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

2014:

Gruber: "Chris (Matthews), it is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states. And why would they?"

Update: Gruber now claims that the original statement was just some off-the-cuff remarks. Only problem is that they were actually prepared remarks and the original paper that he made the remarks from still exists.  Whoops.  The cover-up continues.

An anecdotal Obamacare story

My sister Alice had good health care for her six year old son.  It had about a $2500 deductible, $20 copays, and provided her with six free "Wellness" visits each year to make sure that he stayed healthy and got regular checkups.

Cancelled.  Didn't meet the minimum requirements under the Affordable Care Act.  Her cheapest option now has a $5000 annual deductible, $50 copays, and no free visits.  It is a little cheaper each month but not enough to offset the increased expenses.

So what does a single mom with limited income do?  She has no idea.  She needs to have health insurance for her son, she had health insurance for her son that she was happy with, and she can't afford the new options.  Unless she signs up for Medicaid she really has no options and she doesn't want to do that.  She values her independence and isn't interested in being on the government dole.

Is there any chance that one of the intents of the program's authors was to force people onto government insurance or is this just an unintended side effect?  A person who is skeptical of government programs might conclude the former.  After all, if the government has more people on their programs, they need more bureaucrats to run those programs and a larger budget to pay for them, and a higher paid manager to be in charge of the larger budget and workforce.