By the Numbers: Health Care Reform and Budget Deficit

In his recent State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.”

How long did jobs remain his primary focus? To answer such a question, we must examine the evidence before us.

Instead of using his political capital to push his jobs bill, Obama has decided to revisit the unpopular health care legislation.

Late last week, the president sent a message to members of Congress. He said, “We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system.”

I want to know what polling data the president is viewing. Maybe he is conducting his own polls and offering free money if the respondent answers with the president’s most preferred response. The point is that legitimate polling data shows the president is either wrong or is simply lying.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 37 percent of voters say the president’s top priority should remain his promise to “cut the deficit (his administration) inherited by half by the end of (his) first term in office.”

Apparently, the president will not be able to do as he promised. By the end of his term, the president could potentially cut the deficit from his first year in half.

This is only possible because the budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2009 is somewhere between two to four times larger than it was in Fiscal Year 2008. Such being the case, the president would not be capable of “cutt(ing) the deficit we inherited by half.”

According to his own Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, the budget deficit by the end of his term would be slightly above that which he inherited.

When the president says the American public desires health care reform, he can’t be referring to any proposed Democratic legislation. According to polling data, only 39 percent of Americans approve of health care reform legislation and 58 percent disapprove.

Even more condemning is the fact that only 19 percent strongly approve while 48 percent strongly disapprove.

Regardless of the view of voters, President Obama has decreed that health care must pass.

The president is now solidly in favor of using the reconciliation process in order to pass health care legislation.

The bill currently being authored in the White House is described by a Democratic aide as “a reconciliation bill.” The aide further notes that the administration has vowed that “if Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”

The aide is alluding to an upcoming health care summit. Obama has asked both parties to come up with a single plan.

However, Obama has refused to begin the process anew and promised to have a unified Democratic proposal completed before the summit begins.

After the president found previous Republican proposals to be unbeneficial, who thinks he will incorporate any of them into his bill? Even more, why would he be willing to incorporate Republican ideas if he is now committed to using a reconciliation process which only requires 51 votes in the Senate?

Everyone should focus on the idea that Obama will push his own bill through by reconciliation if the Republicans don’t bring “any substantial offers.” To him, nothing the Republicans offer will be substantial.

This is despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has verified that the proposed Republican health legislation would lower premiums by 10 percent and shave $68 billion off the deficit over the next ten years. The CBO has agreed with Republicans that this could be done without increasing taxes on families and small businesses.

At the very least, the people want a chance to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections before more healthcare legislation is voted upon. In fact, 54 percent are in favor of waiting until after the election and only 35 percent want legislation to be passed prior to the election.

As Chancellor Dan Jones says, we can’t have an election every day. What we need, however, are politicians who play by the rules and listen to the people.

Originally, the reconciliation process wasn’t intended to be used for passing such legislation.

As long as the Senate maintains the tradition of requiring 60 votes to end debate, the reconciliation process should not be used by either party — even though both have used it in the past.

It is important that this traditional rule must be allowed to serve its noble purpose of slowing down the legislative process and protecting the rights of the minority party.

We must demand that our elected leaders be honest and open. In order to keep them in check, we must always be a bit suspicious. Such advice comes from none other than James Madison when he said, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, February 22, 2010