Obama and the Health Plan

Ah...a frustrating day on the Internet trying to explain how government works.

Background: The founding fathers feared primarily two things - too powerful a government and mob rule. To take care of the first, they gave us checks and balances; to take care of the second, they fore go direct democracy and gave us representative government.

They intended that the two chambers of Congress to off-set one another...sort of a check and balance within Congress, as well as the others between branches. Te House was elected from numerous districts and directly by the people. Roughly, this the House equates to Britain's House of Commons, as it used to be. The House was intended to be "the people's chamber." It was designed to be larger than the Senate on purpose...to make it more difficult to get consensus. To off-set this, they gave them the "right" to propose appropriations (and more difficult to get them).

The upper chamber, the Senate, was elected via the Sate legislatures...not directly by the people. This was the equivalent of Britain's House of Lords, as it used to be. Although there was no inherited aristocracy, the F/F's recognized American elites, in the form of successful businessmen, planters, and a professional class (doctors, lawyers, etc.). By electing the Senate through the State legislatures, they created a barrier for the popular election of a demagogue and expected the Senate to represent these elites. Being a smaller chamber, it also was intended to be more collegial and more conservative than the lower chamber.

Although we abandoned, through Constitutional amendment, state legislature election of the Senate and went to direct popular elections, many of the basic intentions of the F/F's remain today in regard to the "nature" of the separate chambers.

In other words, the F/F's foresaw that legislation coming out of the House would be more representative of the "people" and perhaps transitory in nature. The brake on momentary popular fads was the requirement that legislation pass both chambers and be signed by the President before coming law.

Subsequent evolution enhanced rather than reduced these peculiar chamber orientations. The seniority system coupled to the gerrymandering of "safe districts" for both parties, virtually ensured that bills coming out of the House would represent the extremes of the Parties' positions. In other words, Committee Chairmen tend to be those who have been elected and reelected from safe districts and as such represent the views of either the most Republican of Republican districts or the most Democratic of Democratic districts.

All of which brings me to Obama and health care...but keep in mind the above.

One reason Obama is appearing to "rush" the House toward a vote is that he understands the legislative process and the above. He knows that whatever comes out of the House will not be the same bill that is eventually sent to him for signature.

The Senate will review the House bill and propose, in their own bill, less radical and more conservative alternatives. Both bills will then go to a Conference Committee, composed of representatives fom the House and Senate, for resolution of the differences. If Obama is reluctant to read every word of the thousand page House bill, it is with the understanding that there are two additional thousand word bills that lie ahead and that he will only have to put his name to the last one out of Congress. So, his impatience is in the vein of "let's get on with the process."

The second factor lies in how he reached the Presidency in particular. Remember that the real election in 2008 was fought out in the primaries for the Democratic nomination. The party was split very closely between himself and Clinton and one of their most pronounced differences was in the health plans each presented. So, he recognizes that there is a wide difference within the Democratic Party as to just what is meant by universal health care...and he must tread carefully to arrive at a Party consensus.

The third factor lies in his position within the Party itself. Clinton was, for the most part, the choice of the Party establishment, taken over from Bill (and with notable exceptions in the left wing who never forgave Bill for blowing his opportunities over...well, we all know that story...moving toward the center after his election and losing Congress in the 1994 elections). Indeed, many in the left of the Democratic Party had the same reaction to Bill as many on the right in the Republican Party had to George Bush and John McCain...i.e. they were not successful because of their lack of faithfulness to he cause.

I've digressed. In sum, Obama knows he must unify the Party and "prove" himself to Party pros. Many of these "pros" are old timey Democratic politicians, who now head up Committees and want to make sure Obama shows them proper respect, understands the limits of his authority, etc. I suspect, this is the major reason he has been vague with Congress on exactly what he wants, instead of sending them a detailed draft bill. He is "deferring" to them and the legislative process.

However, some form of universal health care has been on the Democratic agenda since Harry Truman. Additionally, he is right about the need for reform and future costs (more on that tomorrow). He'll wait it out to year end and expect something to reach his desk before then. In this way, no one gets mad on the Democratic side (and since they have the votes, it doesn't matter if Republicans get mad or not). And, he comes out the winner. When history forgets who held what committee chairmanship, he will be remembered as the Democratic President that enacted Health Care Reform...and if he handles all of this well, he'll gain respect among those same Chairman, who will be so quickly forgotten.