Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
We've already documented many of the ways the Republicans in Congress have shown rank hypocrisy over the health care reform bill. Their latest meme is that the Democrats are trying to "shove health care reform down the throats of the American people" by arm-twisting their own party and giving away favors to get people to vote for it. Ezra Klein looks at how the Republicans managed to pass the Medicare drug prescription benefit -- a totally unfunded mandate that ballooned the deficit, pushed through by a Republican president whose party was in control of both houses of Congress -- in 2003.
Here are some things that happened on the night the GOP pushed the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit through the House of Representatives:A 15-minute vote was scheduled, and at the end of 15 minutes, the Democrats had won. The Republican leadership froze the clock for three hours while they desperately whipped defectors. This had never been done before. The closest was a 15-minute extension in 1987 that then-congressman Dick Cheney called "the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I've ever seen in the 10 years that I've been here."
Tom DeLay bribed Rep. Nick Smith to vote for the legislation, using the political future of Smith's son for leverage. DeLay was later reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee.The leadership told Rep. Jim DeMint that they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina if he didn't vote for the bill.
The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal."
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, a "no" vote, spent the night "hiding on the Democratic side of the floor, crouching down to avoid eye contact with the Republican search team."
Rep. Butch Otter, who provided one of the final votes after hours of arm-twisting from the Republican leadership, said, "I thought there was a chance I would get sick on the floor."
Remember all this? Probably not. There wasn't much reporting on it at the time. It wasn't a major controversy, despite resulting in multiple official investigations. I went back through the archives of National Review's "The Corner" to see if they covered the scandal. Not really. There are four or five posts on it, and the most substantive is Ramesh Ponnuru telling some columnist that "it's silly to act as though holding a vote open for a long time is an act of lawbreaking."
They're considerably more exercised about the use of reconciliation today. Obama is "shoving health care down the throats of the American people in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition and any sense of parliamentary decency," writes Mark Steyn, and I think he means "without" any sense of parliamentary decency.
But the point isn't to claim hypocrisy, as I think charges of hypocrisy are boring. First, it's to note that the health-care reform process has been a model of transparency and parliamentary decency in comparison to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit process (no actuaries have been intimidated into silence, for instance); second, to note that Americans don't really care about process, and people forget about even serious abuses of legislative power; and third, to suggest that Republicans are a whole lot better at making controversies out of their opponents' behavior than Democrats are.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Politics
Comments
Oh, but conservatives won't try to argue with that... they all know that Bush was "No True Conservative" so therefor everything that happened during his presidency that is bad is still the democrats fault.
Posted by: DJ | March 14, 2010 9:16 AM
All Democrats need to learn from it is that the American public does not care about Congressional procedure. If you pass a bill they like then they are happy, if they don't like it they are unhappy. No one is voting for a different party or not voting because of this inside baseball stuff.
Posted by: penn | March 14, 2010 10:29 AM
Can liberals and conservatives at least agree that expediency and bribing is wrong? Or does it depend on the purpose of the bribe?
Posted by: Paul Williamson | March 14, 2010 11:00 AM
Paul Williamson
They cannot even agree on definitions of liberal and conservative. Right and wrong are maybe in the next round.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 14, 2010 11:09 AM
I most appreciate Howard Dean for writing a book on healthcare policy and Ezra Klein's detailed blogging on the healthcare reform debate. Both have provided much needed perspective to weigh the process and policy debates. In fact I'm not sure what benefit the country derives from the existence of the Washington Post anymore these days beyond the bully pulpit Mr. Klein enjoys; which he'd probably achieve even if he was blogging solo (though perhaps not if the WaPo provides valued resources).
I would argue that the current policy, even with the President's improvements to the Senate Bill is a center-right policy. That should illuminate the combination of how far to the right Republicans have migrated and their willingness to obstruct reform for short-term political gain.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 14, 2010 11:15 AM
penn @ 2:
While this is the obvious common wisdom, I'm not sure it's as true now and in the future as it once was. I think movements can realize political damage by not managing their way through the mine-fields of policy debates and the legislative process. Right-wing media power continues to grow and influence voting patterns. They are providing attractive arguments that have been impacting independents and even moderates which has diverted debates away from meritorious arguments into process (which I think is important as well) but also sideshows that do influence legislation, e.g., death panels.
While I'm in favor of Democrats growing a pair and being far more aggressive in fighting policy debates; I don't think you can ignore the affects Fox News, viral emails, conservative websites, and AM Talk Radio have on an ever-aging populace who are both gullible to such, do influence others, and disproportionately vote.
My personal opinion is that the Democrats, and specific government agencies, need public relation operations much broader in scope and with higher competency than we encounter now in an era where media is both fragmented and so many people never leave their favored echo chambers.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 14, 2010 11:24 AM
I doubt the process was as clean from sleazy deal making as Mr Klein makes it out.
What transpired for the Medicare drug prescription benefit is disturbing. Americans might care more if the media paid more attention to this kind of thing as it happens.
Posted by: TheDude | March 14, 2010 11:49 AM
I'd add one caveat. There are perhaps liberal media venues, at least in the sense that reality has a liberal bias as expressed on various platforms, from Scientific American to the Wikpedia. But those so called liberal media venues work hard to eliminate mistakes and start with the premise that dishonesty is unwelcome. Many conservative media outlets proudly carry no such restriction. The conservative versions don't seem nearly as concerned with finding facts, but with fighting them. See evo, climate change, or Karl Rove's latest Kampf for examples.
This tilts the field; metaphorically it's like a battle where one side has to march onto the field wearing glaring red coats with a big X on their chest and the other can shoot from hidden positions in the trees and bushes wearing camo. It's just a lot easier to 'frame' with catchy soundbites or create 'controversy' to insist on 'teaching' when you are 1) willing to lie your ass off repeatedly and 2) do so with confidence that those lies will be delivered intact and unexamined by your preferred media apparatus.
Posted by: Darksyde | March 14, 2010 12:01 PM
TheDude @ 7:
I agree, furthermore I'd argue it's the relatively new power of the right wing media in bed with the GOP that now puts such topics to the forefront. That's why I think Democrats need to be sensitive to such while getting ever more aggressive in exploiting any opportunities they can to promote policies supported by functional experts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 14, 2010 12:05 PM
Republicans can all fucking die. Read my latest post on my recent debacle with trying to see my doctor for why.
http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2010/03/broken-health-care-system-and-credit.html
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | March 14, 2010 12:49 PM
Hopefully this bill will pass really soon. This video tells more about the forthcoming House vote: http://bit.ly/9HAlL8
Posted by: Ryan Taylor | March 14, 2010 4:31 PM
Disgusted,
I read your plight, but while I sympathize, I don't think anyone is proposing things that would have made your situation less likely.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 14, 2010 5:23 PM
JasonTD - sure there would be. The public option. Or single payer. No one in Britain gets denied a doctor's appointment because of a billing issue - because no one has to pay any bills to see the doctor.
Right now, I don't have any options except to go through a long and difficult process to find a doctor and change my insurance for primary care physician.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | March 14, 2010 9:18 PM
Disgusted,
Even in single payer, let alone a public option, I still think the situation wouldn't have been much different. From what you wrote about it, it looks like the doctor's office itself is really to blame for poor record keeping and/or not handling the move to a new practice well. Single payer would work similar to Medicare, in that everyone would have the same insurance, paid for through taxes of some kind, but doctors and hospitals would still be independent entities. Also, my understanding of the UK's system is that it goes beyond single payer in that the doctors themselves are employed by the government health service, so this is why it might not have happened to you there.
I'm sorry for your troubles, but I don't see anyone but your doctor's office as deserving a significant amount of blame for them.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 15, 2010 10:57 AM
JasonTD - In Britain, there is no billing office - you don't get a bill. Therefore it is impossible for a billing issue, bogus or otherwise, to prevent you from seeing your doctor.
That is not to say that in this instance the doctor's office is not worthy of much blame - but in the British system, the doctor's office, no matter how big of an asshole they wanted to be, could not have done this. That's the point of health care reform - to protect patients from assholes in the system that would prevent you from getting the care you need. Therefore, I place an equal amount of blame on our system that allows this sort of behavior in the first place.
If the law were changed to make armed robbery legal, and then I got robbed, of course one would place much blame on the robber - but I'd think an equal amount of blame would go to the system that allows me to be robbed with no consequences for the robber.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | March 17, 2010 9:22 AM
ed,
my mommy towd me sumfin rite be4 i wend to skewls
to wrawngs dont mayk a rite
i oneder wut she ment
Posted by: Buffoon | March 19, 2010 1:03 AM
@DJ, I am agree with you.Everything that happened during Bus presidency that was totally wrong. He never took right decision for USA people.
Posted by: Maximuscle Products | November 25, 2010 10:27 AM