A series of checks and balances is what the United States calls its government — a democratic nation that respects both majority rule and states’ rights. Yet somehow a minority can hold the country hostage when it doesn’t get what it wants.
The Affordable Care Act passed through Congress by majority rule, and other than requiring states to participate in the Medicare expansion, most of the bill was determined to be constitutional. Despite successfully passing all three branches of government, opponents refuse to take no for an answer. The House of Representatives voted against the ACA for the 40th time at the beginning of August, and most recently passed a budget that did not include any money for the act.
In July of 2012, when the House had voted 33 times to repeal parts of the ACA, the media calculated that around 80 hours — 2 full weeks of session — were used to vote for a law that it knew with near certainty was never going to pass through the Senate nor the President’s veto. CBS reported the House of Representatives were paid $50 million while it accomplished nothing.
Other than reminding the country that the ACA was not supported by Republicans, which was already made blatantly obvious by its nickname “Obamacare,” the House forced Americans to link the House’s decision of shooting down the ACA with being productive. If citizens want the American Jobs Act passed or minimum wage raised, then they have to decide on who’s going to be more stubborn, the House or the Senate.
The House’s latest tactic is nothing short of holding its own country hostage.
“The American people don’t want the government shut down, and they don’t want Obamacare,” said Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). The first part at least was proven a few years ago when the debt ceiling caused the country to come dangerously close to government shutdown. However, forcing the U.S. to link the two is childish, and government shutdown should be the number one priority to avoid. Each member of Congress represents a vote from a single part of the country. If a majority did not want the ACA at the time, there would not have been enough representatives voting to pass it, and if a majority wanted it repealed, then the House just needs to wait until the next election to get a majority, instead of using tricks and stubbornness to bypass democracy.
There is time to let it be repealed in the natural way if the majority truly wants it. It isn’t in effect yet, and it will not be difficult to remove it within the first few years of the act, before it becomes integrated into society. Waiting helps make a more educated decision anyway. The nation voted to try it, and it isn’t unreasonable to save a re-vote until after it has been seen in practice, not just on paper.
The House of Representatives is taking liberties it doesn’t have and refuses to respect majority rule and the structure of the government. It is setting a horrible precedent by trading cooperation to get what they want, which is not specific to this issue. Like earmarks and filibusters, this stubbornness can be used by Democrats or Republicans for anything that requires money to run.
House needs to respect majority rule
September 25, 2013
Nate • Sep 27, 2013 at 9:22 am
I see a few problems with your logic. First, if the government is simply meant to follow ‘majority rule’ in general, then Obamacare would be immediately repealed (http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/). America doesn’t want it. Even the unions are turning their backs on it. Second, if we are talking solely about ‘majority rule’ within the houses of Congress, then I think that they are following it perfectly. The House has a GOP majority and votes that way. The Senate has a Democrat majority and votes that way. Sounds like ‘majority rule’ to me. If you are suggesting that the new majority must follow the rules made by the previous majority, we’d still have slavery, prohibition and no suffrage. All examples of stupid ideas that didn’t work or were immoral that a later majority fixed. The House is making the same claim, namely, that Obamacare doesn’t work and is immoral and therefore should be reversed by the new majority. Third, we have a republic, not a democracy, for this exact reason. A democracy becomes, by definition, ‘majority rule,’ and is unstable because ‘mob rule’ has a tendency to destroy itself. A democratic republic prevents ‘mob rule’ by balancing the powers. It appears to me that our republic is working as intended. The majority of politicians passed a law, but the balance of powers is attempting to slow it as the majority if the public doesn’t like it. The House is not ‘bypass[ing] democracy,’ they are exercising it. Finally, don’t think for a minute that ‘tricks and stubbornness’ weren’t used to get the ACA passed in the first place. I think Speaker Pelosi’s quote says quite enough: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…”
Nate • Sep 27, 2013 at 9:22 am
I see a few problems with your logic. First, if the government is simply meant to follow ‘majority rule’ in general, then Obamacare would be immediately repealed (http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/). America doesn’t want it. Even the unions are turning their backs on it. Second, if we are talking solely about ‘majority rule’ within the houses of Congress, then I think that they are following it perfectly. The House has a GOP majority and votes that way. The Senate has a Democrat majority and votes that way. Sounds like ‘majority rule’ to me. If you are suggesting that the new majority must follow the rules made by the previous majority, we’d still have slavery, prohibition and no suffrage. All examples of stupid ideas that didn’t work or were immoral that a later majority fixed. The House is making the same claim, namely, that Obamacare doesn’t work and is immoral and therefore should be reversed by the new majority. Third, we have a republic, not a democracy, for this exact reason. A democracy becomes, by definition, ‘majority rule,’ and is unstable because ‘mob rule’ has a tendency to destroy itself. A democratic republic prevents ‘mob rule’ by balancing the powers. It appears to me that our republic is working as intended. The majority of politicians passed a law, but the balance of powers is attempting to slow it as the majority if the public doesn’t like it. The House is not ‘bypass[ing] democracy,’ they are exercising it. Finally, don’t think for a minute that ‘tricks and stubbornness’ weren’t used to get the ACA passed in the first place. I think Speaker Pelosi’s quote says quite enough: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…”