Obstructionism Is Not The Problem

Debbie Wasserman’s tweet this morning is vague notwithstanding the limitations Twitter places on complete thoughts.  

 “In 2014, let's resolve to end obstructionism and push for a more constructive dialogue with each other”

But her next tweet is even more strange  “For people like Nathan (and me) who have pre-existing conditions,#Obamacare is a huge relief.”   Huh?  She’s a US Representative from Florida, covered with a very plush health care plan, until people choked at the audacity of the US Legislators to exclude themselves from PP/ACA.

The Republicans who were coaxed by "strategists" into a filibuster did not know how bad the mechanism of “ObamaScare” would turn out in the ensuing days.  They only knew the budget was flawed, the government could not (and still cannot) afford to fund an Insurance Industry bailout aka PP/ACA. Furthermore, apparently they were short of support if they stood up and correctly called it an illegal bailout, with taxation on premiums, and far reaching powers by the IRS.  Now we know. They probably would have had less bad press if they had stood back and let the whole program fall on its face…which it did and will continue in 2014.

Consider these votes by Congressman Schultz, to create more questions as to why she wants to embrace the far reaching powers afforded in the  PP/ACA , beyond the scope of providing Affordable Care or Protecting Patients.

Voted Against House Amendment 450

Requires Congressional Approval for Any Rules Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The amendment was adopted by the House on August 2, 2013, with a vote of 227-185. The amendment requires all changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be approved by Congress before taking effect.  

Sounds reasonable to me – if Congress did not read the 2000+ pages when they voted it in to effect Dec of 2009 how can changes to unread text be made by some entity the Act created (which by the way said entity had not been able to effectively provide the means to enroll in a timely manner).

Voted against HR 2009 - Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013.

The bill passed through the House on August 2, 2013, with a vote of 232-185. The bill would prevent the IRS and Treasury Secretary from enforcing the powers provided to them in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Sounds reasonable to me – the whole point of needing the Gov’t to help us out with Health Care was the dire straits the BIG INSURANCE CORPORATIONS had put the average American into, by not providing coverage, by raising rates, by denying claims, etc

So we are going to change the oversight, for all intents and purposes, from a Corporation to the IRS?  This is the same IRS we discovered, under the current administration, was targeting certain organizations who were American and utilizing American rights to protest or speak their mind.

 Now let’s go back to obstructionism.  Exactly 109 years ago the  Political Science Quarterly, published by the Academy of Political Science, featured an article “Parliamentary Obstruction” http://www.jstor.org/stable/2140322  dealing with the history of obstruction and the value of not legislating too many limits.  While some would lead you to believe there are two entities (and therefore a need to legislate rules separately) obstruction(-ism) is the same as a filibuster.

 “History, indeed, can show one parliament in which obstruction was practically impossible.  This was the French legislative body under the Consulate and the First Empire.  In it neither debates nor comments nor interpellations were permitted: it did nothing but vote. In this instance the idea of the voting machine was fully realized.  How insignificant such a parliament is, how little strength it  possesses to withstand a despotic government, the French history of those days most distinctly demonstrates" "……… When no methods are left within the rules for carrying on obstruction, a determined minority will resort to methods contrary to the rules.  Against single members, in such cases, sever disciplinary measures may be useful; but the expulsion of whole parties from parliament means only that the struggle is transferred from the House to the streets.”

“To the streets”

This is akin to what President Obama and the Democrat Party initiated September 17, 2011 via the Occupy Movement; which was "against social and economic inequality, with a primary goal being to make the economic and political relations in all societies less vertically hierarchical and more flatly distributed."

Back to the 1904 article

“In the world-historic struggle between power and freedom, obstruction is no ally of freedom. It serves imperium, not libertas,  since it destroys the foundations of political liberty.  The relation between the two pillars that support the modern state, the government and the representation of the people, is such that when one pillar is weakened the carrying strength of the other must be increased, or the whole structure collapses…..The Swiss and the Americans have already constructed an institution which, for the present, supplements parliamentary representation.  It is the referendum, the immediate decision of the people,  in its various forms.  Against the referendum no obstruction is possible; ………..”

BUT as we are seeing happen with various Initiatives voted by the public,  the referendum in America is being obstructed via the Supreme Court. The Court has become it's own un-elected form of government.  

Consider this caution within the distinction of America – a Republic (which the US Constitution Article 4 section 4 guarantees to each State) limits government by the law, which has implications on behalf of minority rights.  Our Constitution  protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure" democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

SO there we have it Rep. Wasserman.  Discussions …filibusters….protests…referendum’s….voting.   All have their places in a Republic but not in a Democracy.