Members of the House Freedom Caucus have shown they want the moon, or nothing, when considering reform of health-care policy. They aren’t going to get the moon, so what they should do is nothing. If they won’t vote “yes,” they also should not vote “no” and not vote “present” either. Just put out a press release making all their usual assertions that everybody else is a weak-kneed coward unwilling to stand on principle, and then, in a great show of moral purity, walk out of the House chamber in protest just as the vote is being called.
That way, they will be able to signal their disgust without actually killing the only extant vehicle to replace Obamacare with something that tremendously improves Medicaid, expands health-savings accounts, re-introduces market forces into the system, repeals numerous taxes, and reduces the federal debt (compared to current law) bytens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
For the bill to pass the House at this stage, it does not need a majority of all elected House members; it needs a majority of those present and voting. So for every two congressmen who walk out in protest, the number of votes needed for passage drops by one.
A walk-out thus would signal that they strongly disapprove of the bill as currently constituted and that they will oppose it when it comes back from the Senate unless it has been substantially improved. But it wouldn’t undermine their leadership and a new administration of their own party, poke a finger in the eye of fellow conservative Republicans trying sincerely to navigate difficult legislative terrain, or relegate 320 million Americans to a continuation of an unimproved Obamacare system that is a job-killing, choice-destroying, premium- hiking nightmare.
What the Freedom Caucus must understand is that this vote today essentially amounts to a procedural ballot. It merely provides a blueprint from which the Senate can work. The Senate will probably take several months, if the bill is sent its way, to re-mold it and fix any flaws while the Freedom Caucus weighs in from across the Capitol, knowing that its block of votes eventually will be crucial. When the Senate has done its work, the bill will go back to the House — and then, not before, will come the vote on final passage at which time the Freedom Caucus can decide once and for all if the new legislation well serves the American public.
Of course most of the Freedom Caucus believes the Senate will make the bill worse rather than better. But what’s the harm in finding out? Whom does it hurt? To repeat: This vote scheduled for today is not a vote to send a bill to the Oval Office for the president’s signature. This is merely a vote to keep the process going. If the Freedom Caucus doesn’t want to signal assent, fine — but there is no reason it should deny the ability of the vast super-majority of their Republican colleagues to try to uphold their own pledges to replace Obamacare with something better. There are times to stand firm — and other times to cooperate for the good of the order while at least showing respect for the efforts of usually allied colleagues, even if cooperation just means temporarily getting out of the way.
#1: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#0)
The Freedom Caucus recalls quite well the eventual fate of the House Blue Dogs and of Bart Stupak and the (supposed) "pro-life Dems". They too were presented with the same choices and went along with Pelosi, only to get steamrolled in the final push of 0dingaCare. And all of those Blue Dogs got voted out of Congress shortly after casting that vote, many in districts that were won by current members of the Freedom Caucus.
If the House GOP caucus wants to pass a successful bill, they can pass the repeal-replace bill they passed almost unanimously in 2015 and then almost unanimously voted to override 0bama's veto. That bill had almost universal support in the House and Senate.
Suggesting something this dishonest goes far toward explaining how this flyweight got defeated in two runs for the House.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-03-24 22:03:03 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#1)
That was not a repeal-replace bill. It was repeal only. Second, it wasn't a complete repeal.
misterwhite posted on 2017-03-25 12:11:20 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#2)
If it was good enough for a veto override effort in 2015, why wasn't it good enough now?
Tooconservative posted on 2017-03-25 12:48:27 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#3)
Nope. All they demonstrated was that it could pass the House knowing it would be blocked by Obama. So they look like heroes, even though they're gutless cowards who don't know how to handle the power WE gave them.
"If it was good enough for a veto override effort in 2015, why wasn't it good enough now?"
Because people would see how little it does (talk about Obamacare lite!). And it was chock full of procedural flaws that would have been challenged in the Senate.
It wasn't well-thought-out because they knew Obama was going to veto it. It was for show. And you know that.
misterwhite posted on 2017-03-25 13:02:38 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#4)
Ah ha …
Hmmm….where have I seen that stated before, TC?
Gatlin posted on 2017-03-25 13:16:17 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: misterwhite, Gatlin (#4)
Wrong. You obviously don't bother to read or keep up with events.
It passed both House and Senate twice, once as a bill, once in a veto override effort.
Again, if that was good enough then, why isn't it good enough now?
The Freedom Caucus and Rand and Ted and Mike Lee and the rest (including the RINO squishes) all voted for it then. Why let Ryan pork it up with the northeastern lib RINOs and then try to ram it down our throats and then give up and try to blame conservatives for it.
Ryan has to go. He's as dishonest as Boehner was. With Boehner, I did understand it but he was from Ohio, a squishy state. WI Republicans have no right to be that squishy.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-03-25 13:20:48 Reply Private Reply
#7: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#6)
Then why wasn't that bill brought up ONCE in this go-around? I read NOTHING about it. No memtion by anyone.
Why? Because it was an empty, flawed bill meant only as a protest.
misterwhite posted on 2017-03-25 13:30:09 Reply Private Reply
#8: Gatlin To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#7)
Ah ha….I asked TC why Rand Paul didn’t reintroduce this same bill and why instead, Rand Paul chose to write his very own new bill.
I don’t remember TC’s answer….but I think that’s when he called me an “asshole.”
Gatlin posted on 2017-03-25 13:56:54 Reply Private Reply
#9: Tooconservative To: Gatlin, misterwhite (#8)
Tooconservative posted on 2017-03-25 13:59:59 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: Tooconservative (#9)
Obviously you don’t….you are following every word.
Gatlin posted on 2017-03-25 14:13:14 Reply Private Reply
#11: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#8)
No one does. Because there's never anything there.
misterwhite posted on 2017-03-25 17:52:19 Reply Private Reply