January 14, 2017

The inside-the-Beltway interregnum kabuki theater

Yes, good Democrats are in a tizzy over the Senate's concurrent resolution gutting Obamacare.

But, just what IS a "concurrent resolution"? Glad you asked, as Wiki has the answer:
A concurrent resolution is a resolution (a legislative measure) adopted by both houses of a bicameral legislature that lacks the force of law (is non-binding) and does not require the approval of the chief executive (president). Concurrent resolutions are typically adopted to regulate the internal affairs of the legislature that adopted them, or for other purposes
See, that was simple enough, especially the part where I added the emphasis.

The deal is, per the "interregnum" of the title, between Jan. 3 and Jan. 19, since the Twenty-Second Amendment, though it moved the presidential inauguration back from March 4 to Jan. 20, did NOT move it back to Jan. 3, in a presidential change of administration like the current one, we have a 16-day gap.

Congress can pass all sorts of concurrent resolutions knowing that the heavy lifting comes later. Or it can pass nutbar regular bills knowing Obama will veto them.

Beyond that, as I've said before, "Obamacare" of today is NOT what Congress passed, and two-thirds of the changes since then are due to executive order by Dear Leader himself. A Forbes blogger has the details. It IS a conservative Forbes blogger; I reject her claim that all of the executive orders were "illegal." And, to put an earlier, similar claim in perspective, here's Politifact. And even the Old Gray Lady said just a couple of months ago it has problems. And, among the things that Obama delayed was implementation of the so-called "Cadillac tax," which means that if you're a CEO with gold-plated company health insurance, Obama threw you another bone.

This is one of the reasons I most get mad at professional liberals, and their chattering subservient scribes like Charles Pierce, linked at the top. 

I don't know which of the multiple split brains of Donald Trump will rise to the fore on this issue after Jan. 20. Let's at least wait a day or two, let the House vote, then let's hear what Trump has to say. Let's hear more of what he has to say after Jan. 20.

But, trying to find the middle ground on his mercurial word leaves me to think he'll keep at least some protections on getting insurance with pre-existing conditions and on letting kids stay on their parents' insurance to age 26. He may also seriously, contra not only many Republicans but the Cory Booker neolib Dems of the Beltway world, push and push successfully for pharmaceutical pricing control. At the same time, I do expect that he's also serious about wanting to block-grant Medicaid.

Oh, and yes, Dear Leader could have gotten single-payer passed. He could have told Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, each individually:

"Do you want to be the one vote — the one Democratic vote — that actually blocks health care reform?"


But, he didn't — in part, IMO, due to his Preznit Kumbaya nature documented so well by Jeff St. Clair. And this, along with the two just-mentioned jackwagons, is why I'm not a Democrat. Yet another way in which Dear Leader kept his mellifluous voice lodged in his throat.

No comments: