President
Obama signed a bill into law on Wednesday. This law involved making a change to
the Affordable Care Act that would essentially make the law more effective (it
includes making health care premiums more available to small business). This
law—passed through Congress and onto the president’s desk through a bipartisan
effort—seems a little odd. And it is not the content of this bill that makes it
so strange. In fact, the bill acknowledges certain aspects of the ACA that need
changing, and does so in a straightforward and uncomplicated way, which is
surprisingly sane in comparison to most bills that circulate around Congress
regarding the ACA. What makes this occurrence strange is that both parties in
Congress supported this bill, when both historically seem to stay away from
making changes to Obamacare. The Democrats, afraid that making changes to
improve the ACA is an acknowledgement that the ACA is faulty, seem to refrain
from working towards making as many changes as arguably the act needs. Republicans,
on the other hand, are known for their passionate and unending hatred for the
bill, and have continuously tried to get it repealed pretty much since the day
it was passed in 2010. However, in this case, both parties worked to amend this
law in a positive way.
My gut
reaction to this occurrence is to suggest that Democrats found that it was time
enough to improve their party’s landmark piece of legislation before Obama
leaves office after which it could—potentially—fall apart. And Republicans,
trying to present themselves as a party willing to compromise in the wake of
this whole bye-bye Boehner fiasco, supported the bill as well. However,
Republicans in Congress did not wait to jump back on the anti-Obamacare
bandwagon. In fact, later that same day
Republicans in Congress were drawing up measures to once again, repeal the ACA.
So, I think they made it pretty obvious to everyone that Republicans certainly
weren’t trying to look accepting of Obamacare. But maybe, even despite this
strange move, they were demonstrating a willingness to compromise.
I think
that this bizarre occurrence in Congress is one that shouldn’t necessarily be
so bizarre. I think that Republicans—and Democrats—were working this past week
with a “work with what we’ve got” mentality. Obamacare is what we’ve got. After
nearly 6 years of trying to repeal the law, it’s still hanging around. In light
of this, I think Republicans in Congress made a choice—and an interesting one
at that. They essentially chose to work simultaneously to repeal and to improve Obamacare. I think this
move illuminates an important dynamic of Congress—although it is their duty (in
recent years at least) to serve as beacons of their party’s agenda, members of
Congress also have a responsibility to maintain a stable and decent status quo.
In other words, Congressmen can’t (or at least shouldn’t) blindly pursue the
goals of their party at the expense of the country being effectively governed.
Obamacare is the status quo and members of congress, even if they disagree ideologically,
should make that status quo a livable one.
Some could
agrue that this move is hypocritical. Why would you work to improve a law that
you don’t even think should exist? Well, because some people think the law
should exist, and those people have continuously kept that law in existence. So
now, it’s my job as a governing agent to
govern…whatever laws are currently in place.
This clearly was not an abandonment
of their ideologies, as they continued to attempt to repeal Obamacare despite
having just worked to make it more effective. Rather, it was an attempt to make
the law as effective as possible while it is in place—either short term or long
term. Perhaps, Republicans are aware that, much like New Deal programs of
Medicare or Social Security that jack up the national deficit, Obamacare is
here to stay. As such, their actions to continuously repeal Obamacare are more
of an act of political speech than of political action. They are just trying to
show their ideological distaste for
the law, knowing full well that it isn’t going anywhere. Or, maybe they truly
do believe that Obamacare should and will be repealed, and their actions to
improve the law are done believing that regardless of changes in its effectiveness,
the law is still unrealistic, inadequate, a waste of money, time, whatever, and
will someday be repealed.
Regardless of their true
motivations, I think this move demonstrates a potentially effective way of
viewing work in Congress and the dual nature of governing a body politic in
which around 50% disagree with you ideologically. It is necessary for congressmen’s
belief systems to not only concern economics, military strategy and social politics,
but by the overarching belief that the government is meant to govern.
1 comment:
It's terribly interesting that the GOP, who frequently claim that the Affordable Care act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent memory, would help pass something like this. If they were doing it to look like they were more willing to compromise, then why go back the same day and kick the act into the dirt again? I feel like helping a bill pass and then turning against it shortly after or taking measures to destroy the bill with later bills is extremely counterproductive for any party. It's true that there is a great call for more party cooperation and compromise, but isn't a back and forth like this hurting the parties more? Just "compromising" to make the party look better certainly isn't helping the constituents who's livelihoods are congruent with that of the laws the government creates. Perhaps if more events like this occur between the parties just so that it seems like there is more compromise going on, the legislative branch will get even LESS done, because each party will be constantly backtracking on the bills that they helped pass as a way of "compromising"
Post a Comment