The 'Moderate' Republican Senator Is a Dangerous Myth
Chuck Schumer had a nice moment on the Senate floor on Wednesday, and he had it at the expense of my new BFF Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, who was presiding at the time. The topic under discussion was the bootleg tax cut disguised as a healthcare bill that the Republicans are trying to enact from deep within the Phantom Zone. One of the chief non-facts that's been cited in support of this unprecedented legislative smuggling is that, back in 2009, the Democrats did the same thing with the Affordable Care Act. This is demonstrable nonsense, but it's good for a soundbite or three.
Anyway, Schumer asked Ernst to tell the Senate how many days of hearings, and how many hours of consideration, the ACA got back then, and Ernst, who sounded like she had a mouthful of angry salamanders, had to announce that the ACA had been subject to 25 days of hearings and 169 hours of consideration and debate. In effect, Schumer forced Ernst to admit, acting as president of the Senate, that this most helpful of talking points has been a lie for eight years now.
The Senate has been rendered a hopeless burlesque by its Republican majority, and by that majority's leader, Mitch McConnell. A bill is being crafted in secret that is going to disrupt the lives of millions of Americans and the intention of the Senate majority is that it will be presented possibly as early as tomorrow, that it will be subject to minimal (if any) real debate, and then it will be voted upon through a procedure that requires only 50 votes-and-a-Pence to pass.
It will suck untold gallons of pondwater. There are people in that majority more than willing to strap on the clown shoes and dance along to the tune being called by their leadership. (Hi, Joni!) It was what they promised America they would do! But they are not our immediate concern. Our immediate concern is the shadow play being performed by those perfectly predictable lost souls: the "moderate Senate Republicans." From The New York Times:
Republican senators from states that have been hit hard by the opioid drug crisis have tried to cushion the Medicaid blow with a separate funding stream of $45 billion over 10 years for substance abuse treatment and prevention costs, now covered by the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. But that, too, is running into opposition from conservatives. They have been tussling over the issue with moderate Republican senators like Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine. Without some opioid funding, Mr. Portman cannot vote for the bill, he said, adding, "Any replacement is going to have to do something to address this opioid crisis that is gripping our country."
The Medicaid and opioid issues are far from the only ones dividing Republican senators, who have been kept largely in the dark about a bill they are supposed to finally see on Thursday. Republican leaders are determined to keep their seven-year promise to unravel President Barack Obama's signature health care law, but the near unanimity they need on a replacement is proving elusive. The House bill would allow per-capita Medicaid payments to states to grow along with the prices of medical goods and services, starting in 2020, with an extra allowance for older Americans and people with disabilities. Senator Toomey and several other conservatives have been pushing for a slower growth rate, to reflect increases in the overall Consumer Price Index, starting in 2025. Medical prices have historically grown faster than the overall index.
So the state of play on a bill practically nobody has seen yet goes as follows: There are a handful of moderate Republicans who are deeply concerned and very troubled that the bill is far too grotesquely punitive to the users within their constituencies. (Imagine what would have ensued if an urban Democratic senator had made this same argument regarding crack addicts in, say, 1988. Actually, you don't have to imagine it.) However, there is also a faction of conservative hardbars who have a theological objection to any government program that helps those people incapable of writing fat campaign checks. Given what we know about congressional Republicans, I wonder which faction is going to win out?
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Here's what I think will happen: McConnell will roll out his bill on Thursday. It will suck gallons of pondwater, as expected. It will be transparently a vehicle for shoving the nation's wealth upwards and only incidentally a bill concerning America's healthcare system, which it will make immeasurably worse for the great majority of the people in the country. All of these things will deepen the concern and more deeply trouble the "moderate" Republicans, who will be very public in their deep concern and in the depths of their troublehood. (The conservatives will look at it and think, well, this still has to go to conference and we can make it worse because the Republicans in the House are largely insane.) Susan Collins and Rob Portman will find themselves sniffing great bouquets of microphones over the following several days.
At some point, the Congressional Budget Office will release its score for the bill, measuring precisely how many gallons of pondwater the bill sucks. Meanwhile, back on Capitol Hill, McConnell and his leadership team will paint pretty flowers on the uglier parts of the bill and, one by one, enough of the "moderates" will pronounce themselves satisfied that their deep concerns have been satisfied most deeply, and that they no longer are as deeply troubled as they once were. A couple of them-Collins, say, or Lisa Murkowski-even will be allowed to vote against the bill, provided the winning margin of 50-plus-Pence is in the bag.
The tell in all this is how many of the "moderate" Republicans are complaining about the "process" now, rather than pointing out how many gallons of pondwater the bill will suck. True, this bill should not pass because of the blatantly undemocratic way it has been conceived and constructed. But it also should not pass because it very likely will immiserate countless vulnerable Americans due to the gallons of pondwater that it will suck. If your basic concern about it is the former, then you're already lost.
Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.
You Might Also Like
