Whatever you think about the “Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare” which recently passed in the House of Representatives, most observers would agree that it was a tough vote. It just passed the House with one extra vote (217 “yeas”), 216 was the needed threshold.
I recall some “tough votes” when I was in the New York Legislature. In 1975, when New York City was going bankrupt, there were a lot of them. Usually, they occurred in the middle of the night after hours of floor debate… after members had been worn to a frazzle. Often the legislation had been negotiated only hours before and opponents would allege that “the ink is still wet on this bill!” The goal was always to have at least one more vote in favor than the bare minimum to pass. You didn’t want members voting “yes” on a controversial piece of legislation who would then have to go out and defend themselves in the next election with an accusation that “without your vote, it wouldn’t have passed!”
There was also another axiom on tough voting that, I believe, was coined by former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn: “If you’ve got the votes, call the roll!” Another way to state that would be: “Don’t call the roll until you have the votes!” You don’t want to put members on the spot where they may end up making a tough vote only to have it fail to pass. (That is why a similar bill on Obamacare had been pulled from the floor in March.) So by all counts, the recent vote to “repeal and replace” met the criteria of being a “tough vote.” It also qualified for the “ink not being dry” on the bill, since the Congressional Budget Office did not have the time to estimate the financial and human impact of the legislation prior to its passage.
There is one aspect of the vote which might make the recent action in the House even tougher. If someone goes on the line to cast a difficult vote, it is usually best, politically, if the bill becomes law. Perhaps the worst situation in voting in a legislative body occurs when you go on the line in support of a controversial “one-house” bill. That is, it might pass one house of the legislature but not the other.
I remember a lot of walks I made during those days in 1975 from the Assembly chamber over to the State Senate floor to discuss legislation with my counterpart in the State Senate, Jess Present. Jess and I both subscribed to the position that it was best that bills which were difficult to pass should “end up on the Governor’s desk” and signed into law. We weren’t much interested in passing “one-house” bills.
The matter of whether the “Repeal of Obamacare” actually makes it to the President’s desk is something that still seems unclear in Washington. The Republican Party controls both houses of the federal legislature and also the Presidency. Yet, the U.S. Senate has made it clear they will not be putting a “rubber stamp” on what was passed in the House. They want to hear what the Congressional Budget Office and health care providers have to say about the legislation.
If the Senate makes substantive changes to the legislation, it is questionable whether the “Freedom Caucus” in the House would accept those changes. If that happens, there could be a stalemate and no legislation would go to the President. (For those interested in maintaining coverage for the uninsured, this might be a good result.) We have been debating health care politics for the past 8 years. It would be nice if we could finally settle on a national health policy and move on to other issues… like rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in public works such as sewers around Chautauqua Lake!
Rolland Kidder
Stow, NY
I recall some “tough votes” when I was in the New York Legislature. In 1975, when New York City was going bankrupt, there were a lot of them. Usually, they occurred in the middle of the night after hours of floor debate… after members had been worn to a frazzle. Often the legislation had been negotiated only hours before and opponents would allege that “the ink is still wet on this bill!” The goal was always to have at least one more vote in favor than the bare minimum to pass. You didn’t want members voting “yes” on a controversial piece of legislation who would then have to go out and defend themselves in the next election with an accusation that “without your vote, it wouldn’t have passed!”
“If you’ve got the votes, call the roll!”
There was also another axiom on tough voting that, I believe, was coined by former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn: “If you’ve got the votes, call the roll!” Another way to state that would be: “Don’t call the roll until you have the votes!” You don’t want to put members on the spot where they may end up making a tough vote only to have it fail to pass. (That is why a similar bill on Obamacare had been pulled from the floor in March.) So by all counts, the recent vote to “repeal and replace” met the criteria of being a “tough vote.” It also qualified for the “ink not being dry” on the bill, since the Congressional Budget Office did not have the time to estimate the financial and human impact of the legislation prior to its passage.
There is one aspect of the vote which might make the recent action in the House even tougher. If someone goes on the line to cast a difficult vote, it is usually best, politically, if the bill becomes law. Perhaps the worst situation in voting in a legislative body occurs when you go on the line in support of a controversial “one-house” bill. That is, it might pass one house of the legislature but not the other.
I remember a lot of walks I made during those days in 1975 from the Assembly chamber over to the State Senate floor to discuss legislation with my counterpart in the State Senate, Jess Present. Jess and I both subscribed to the position that it was best that bills which were difficult to pass should “end up on the Governor’s desk” and signed into law. We weren’t much interested in passing “one-house” bills.
The matter of whether the “Repeal of Obamacare” actually makes it to the President’s desk is something that still seems unclear in Washington. The Republican Party controls both houses of the federal legislature and also the Presidency. Yet, the U.S. Senate has made it clear they will not be putting a “rubber stamp” on what was passed in the House. They want to hear what the Congressional Budget Office and health care providers have to say about the legislation.
If the Senate makes substantive changes to the legislation, it is questionable whether the “Freedom Caucus” in the House would accept those changes. If that happens, there could be a stalemate and no legislation would go to the President. (For those interested in maintaining coverage for the uninsured, this might be a good result.) We have been debating health care politics for the past 8 years. It would be nice if we could finally settle on a national health policy and move on to other issues… like rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in public works such as sewers around Chautauqua Lake!
Rolland Kidder
Stow, NY
No comments:
Post a Comment