Good discussion here about the fact that Republicans, should they take the Senate next year, could repeal the Health Care Act using reconciliation. Should they take the White House that would mean the act would be repealed. Should Obama be reelected, he would veto the repeal, after which the Republicans would no doubt refuse to fund it, which would effectively kill it. In fact, no one’s talking about the fact that even controlling one house (and they actually control two) they can kill it that way. Under the split government scenario the Republicans might go the reconciliation route, but should they take the White House, my own belief is that they won’t need to, because the Democrats won’t stand in the way of a repeal. They don’t have the guts. When Republicans get beat, they insist that it was because they weren’t conservative enough. When Democrats get beat, they say the same thing, and move right.
But I think this article misses the larger point. Should the Republicans take both houses and the presidency, they will not countenance the filibuster. They will be in a position to repeal the 20th century, and that’s just what they’ll do, and they won’t let Senate rules stand in their way. Assisted by a media that will suddenly realize how undemocratic the filibuster is (right now, the press doesn’t even use the term, preferring to say that a bill has been “blocked”, thereby implying that it lacks majority support, while also blaming both sides for Senate inaction despite the unprecedented number of filibusters), they will either pressure the Democrats to back down, like they did under Bush, or repeal the rule.
The question is: How much harm can they do in two years before a sickened public throws them out. It is a price we may have to pay to get rid of the filibuster for good, so the Democrats, as timid as they are, can finally, possibly, maybe accomplish something when they get back in.
Post a Comment