Saturday, February 27, 2010

Time is Running Out

"It is time for us to act. It is time for us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and get this done" said president Obama recently. He was not speaking of addressing the exploding national debt or the still flagging economy. He was speaking in regard to his plan to overhaul health care in the United States. He not only wants national health care reform passed, he needs it passed. The failure of his health care plan would deal a major blow to his presidency. The action he was referring to was in regard to the use of parliamentary maneuvering to circumvent opposition in the Senate. It is a maneuver that even some of his allies are warning him against.

President Obama is growing increasingly irritated at those who are standing between him and destiny. His ambition to enshrine government as the single most salient force in the lives of Americans and himself in history is at risk of being thwarted by 41 Republican Senators. Obama went on to say somewhat ominously that "we cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks time or six week's time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, that is what elections are for."

He is very much correct. That is what elections are for. Of course, Obama was referring to the election 17 months ago, not the election 7 months from now. I suspect it is his apprehension regarding the upcoming elections that underlay his growing impatience. Polls are showing that, not only is Obama's Health Care plan steadily losing support among the public, but that the Democrats can expect to lose a considerable number of seats in the House and the Senate this Fall. While they may not lose their majority, they very well may lose enough seats that they will no longer be able to muscle their agenda through Congress. Significant losses would chasten surviving Democrats in Congress and make their support less reliable for Obama as well as embolden Republican opposition. On the other hand, if it turns out the Democrats fair well in the elections, Obama can claim his policies have been vindicated. Not only that, but Republican intransigence would undoubtedly be softened. But Obama doesn't want to take a chance. Which is to say, he doesn't really want to put his health care plan up for a vote, not to the American people anyway.

In the contest to move his agenda forward and keep the support of the American people and Congress, time is not on Obama's side. That, perhaps, is the true cause of Obama's sense of urgency. If Obama and his allies in Congress are so convinced that this bill is what the American people want, why can't they wait seven months to see if they are correct? If they are, surely the American people will still want national health care reform in November. Moreover, the public frustration with those obstructing it would only increase in the intervening months which in turn could only work to Obama's and the Democrats' advantage in the Fall.

The stakes are indeed high. We should put health care to a vote. But we should put it to the American people for a vote, not the U.S. Senate. It is the people, after all, who will have to pay for it. They will also have to live with it. They ought to have a say. It is not often when an election occurs amidst heated debate over a major policy issue. We should not waste the opportunity. Why not wait seven months and let emotions cool. Then we can see what the people have to say about national health care. With so much invested in its existence, it is unlikely the health care issue is going to go away. If it gets worse, so much the better for the Democrats in the Fall. In the mean time, there are plenty of other things to keep Obama and Congress busy.

As for Washington living up to its responsibilities to the American people, whether and to what extent those responsibilities include providing health care is precisely what the debate is about.

No comments: