House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement
"We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of
this democracy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "There's kind of a
unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing
statements."
By Walter Alarkon
Posted: 07/09/09 06:48 PM [ET]
The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to
international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing
the administration to abide by its constraints.
House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama
administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental
standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010
funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.
The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106
billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a
statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the
conditions.
They would "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct
foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in
negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign
governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such
negotiations or discussions," Obama said in the signing statement.
Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the
president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed.
"We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of
this democracy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "There's kind of a
unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing
statements."
President George W. Bush had used signing statements to ignore a
number of provisions in bills that he signed into law, frustrating Democrats
in Congress. One Bush signing statement allowed the administration to ignore
a provision banning the torture of terror detainees in situations
threatening the nation's security.
Frank and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said that one way they could get
presidents to stop issuing signing statements casting aside laws would be to
refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed Thursday seeks to
nullify Obama's signing statement by withholding funds from any agreement
involving the Treasury Department that doesn't follow the conditions set out
in the supplemental bill.
"The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear: Ignore statute at
your peril," Kirk said.
The U.S. funding for the IMF, which will come in the form of a $108
billion credit line, was a sticking point in negotiations over the war
supplemental bill. House Republicans opposed the legislation despite their
support for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because they viewed
the IMF funding as an unnecessary "global bailout." House and Senate leaders
included constraints on the IMF and World Bank funding as a way to ensure
support from lawmakers skeptical over sending more money abroad, said House
Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.).
"Sometimes, the only way the votes can be found to provide the funds
the admin wants is to provide certain limitations on the money," Obey said
Thursday in a floor speech criticizing Obama's signing statement.
The State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill that
contained the amendment was expected to win passage late Thursday. Both
Democratic and Republican appropriators spoke in support of it during the
floor debate Thursday afternoon
***
What's So Scary About Offering People the Option of a Public Health Plan?
By Dean Baker,
AlterNet. Posted July 8, 2009.
If the public plan is bad, then people will just stay with the options
currently available in the private sector.
Independence Day is a time to reflect on the United States and to ask what
it is that we really value about our country. Most people would probably
list the freedoms that it has usually guaranteed to most members of society.
The opportunities for economic success, while not as great as often touted,
are nonetheless impressive.
However, some members of Congress were apparently celebrating our system of
employer-provided health insurance last weekend. Or, at least that is what
they want us to believe.
As Congress starts to delve into the dirt of a health care reform package,
the clearest point of conflict is over the existence and structure of a
public health care plan. Some members of Congress have thrown down the
gauntlet, insisting that they could never allow the public to have the
option of buying into a government-run plan.
These members tell us that a government-run plan will be like having the
post office manage our health care. While the post office actually does a
pretty good job where I live, if the point is that a government-run plan is
going to be bureaucratic and inefficient, then why are opponents of a public
plan so worried about giving people the choice to buy into it? If the public
plan is bad, then people will just stay with the options currently available
in the private sector. As those of who believe in the free markets like to
say: "what's wrong with giving people a choice?"
In addition to the members who just say "no" when it comes to a public plan,
there are also members who are willing to allow a public plan, but only if
they can be sure that it will not provide real competition with existing
private plans. This route involves crippling the public plan in various ways
to make it less competitive.
For example, one proposal is to establish a series of health insurance
cooperatives, which would be prohibited from acting jointly to maximize
their bargaining power. The idea is that a newly formed Nebraska health
insurance cooperative, insuring a few thousand people, will not be able to
put too much pressure on Pfizer or the American Medical Associations when
negotiating prices. It also will not be able to provide much competition for
Aetna, Cigna, and the other major insurers.
Several members of Congress have made protecting these insurers and the
current system of employer-provided health insurance into a basic principle.
Max Baucus, the head of the Senate Finance Committee, who will probably have
more to say in the final bill than anyone else in the Senate, falls into
this camp. Senator Baucus has explicitly said that he would not support a
bill that jeopardized our system of employer-provided health insurance.
This is truly bizarre. The United States has employer-provided health care
insurance as an accident -- it came about as a way to evade wage controls
during World War II -- it was not some grand principle.
It is almost impossible to imagine why someone would consider
employer-provided insurance as an end in itself. I say this both as an
economist and as an employer. I am going to waste several hours tomorrow
discussing my center's health insurance plan with an insurance broker.
It is very difficult to compare the merits of the different insurance plans
that we are considering. There is an endless list of conditions that are or
are not covered (which can change after the fact). There are also issues
about how quickly and consistently the insurer will pay bills. We can ask
people with other insurers about their experience, but there is no guarantee
that our experience will be comparable.
Of course, our broker is of little use. She will only get paid if she
persuades us to change insurers. How much can we trust her?
I am trying to do research and run a think tank. Senator Baucus might think
that it is a good idea that I have to waste my time dealing with insurance
brokers, but I don't, and I suspect that millions of other small employers
feel the same way.
So, why not give us a choice of a good, simple, public plan? Employers that
want to read through insurance contracts will still have that option. The
rest of us can get back to our work.
No comments:
Post a Comment