Edwards: No Health Plan For Congress If They Don't Pass Universal Coverage
John Edwards will reportedly propose to SEIU today that as president, he would propose a bill to strip Congress of their health coverage by mid-2009, as well as the president and political appointees, if Congress fails to pass a universal health plan for all Americans.
Obviously, this is a rhetorical exercise — first of all, Congress would never pass such a bill. And if he vetoed appropriations bills providing for their coverage, the veto would could easily be overridden. And as Matthew Yglesias points out, the idea is probably unconstitutional, in that it would change the compensation for members of Congress in the middle of a two-year term, violating the 27th Amendment.
That said, it's a pretty funny rhetorical exercise. And if he gets elected and is actually serious about the gesture, he could voluntarily waive his coverage, and urge cabinet members and friendly members of Congress to follow suit.
Comments (12)
Daniel wrote on September 17, 2007 10:44 AM:No offense to Edwards, but this seems like a blatantly populist proposal, nothing less nothing more.
www.campaigndiaries.com gqmartinez wrote on September 17, 2007 10:56 AM:Did he propose something like this while in the Senate? Did he waive his health insurance as a Senator? Funny rhetorical device that it may be, it's a little stomach turning in it's pure pandering. Why didn't Edwards try this stuff when he had a chance?
DaveW wrote on September 17, 2007 10:58 AM:I think you're missing the point, Eric. Yeah, it's rhetorical, but it isn't aimed at getting the bill passed. It's aimed at putting legislators in the position of having to vote for their own universal health care while denying it to all other Americans. All he'd need would be enough Congressional allies to make sure it was a rollcall vote.
It would certainly get media attention and, I think, change some attitudes among the electorate if he went through with it. He once again shows himself as the shrewdest of the lot when it comes to framing the issues for maximum effect. Too bad he doesn't have the "experience" of being married to a big shot.
Roberta wrote on September 17, 2007 11:05 AM:Isn't this straight pandering?
JJHunsecker wrote on September 17, 2007 11:13 AM:Pandering? Why? Because Congress is so out of touch that a reminder of their inflated sense of privilege is somehow offensive?
Next, Edwards can require the members of Congress to participate in Social Security, too. That will concentrate their minds.
All of you are aware that Congress has its own pension plan?
In the "ownership" society, they should own as little as the rest of us.
outside the beltway wrote on September 17, 2007 11:25 AM:If pandering disqualifies a candidate than Hillary takes the cake and after dinner coffee.Who wants to be the first politician to defend benefits for themselves, PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS but deny the taxpayers and voters?
it's a rhetorical device much like Hillary's logo of 'change' on her banners. Not to be taken literally
Richard L. Adlof wrote on September 17, 2007 11:30 AM:As member of the population not serving in Washington , D.C., I like it. I'd vote fot the propsal OR open the membership to the House and Senate to all citizens. They are Representatives not a privileged class.
While we are at it . . . We need to peg the minimum wage to congressional pay. Congress would be voting to raise everyones pay everytime they COLA'd or raised their pay.
Populist pandering . . . Yes. But my kind of populist pandering. PLUS it beats all hell outta raising the terror alert level every time someone sneezes . . . Heck, getting health care to the masses would mitigate sneezing . . . Double bonus!
Outside the beltway wrote on September 17, 2007 11:39 AM:for all the wannabe constitutional scholars, 5 states never ratified this amendment and congress is receiving annual COLA increases in their salaries despite it not being settled law as to whether or not this is legal. (they are not voting on it - even though they get pay raises each year).
so it's not as clear that the 27th amendment is being followed right now.
DaveW wrote on September 17, 2007 11:46 AM:Pandering? Damn some folks here sure have learned Rove's techniques. Please explain how this is more pandering than any other political rhetoric.
Will wrote on September 17, 2007 12:20 PM:For all his intelligence, Yglesias is not a lawyer, nor does he have a legal education. Nevertheless, when it comes to constitutionality in the blogosphere, apparently he's John Marshall reincarnate. Both TPM and Politico.com are trumpeting "Yglesias says it's unconstutional!" without any evidence of having researched the merits of this argument.
phil james wrote on September 17, 2007 12:57 PM:I find it interesting that commenters on this blog use the term "populist" as a pejorative, apparently having been so thoroughly brain-washed by unending, venomous, right-wingian blather that they have completely bought into the negative connotation of such terms as "liberal" (to be used as often as possible with the term elite) and "left-wing" as well as populist. So let me join you in your lunacy. Let the right-wingers forever define the terms of debate and the "values" at issue. After all, the American public doesn't deserve affordable health care anymore than they deserve a government that is responsive to any of their other unmet needs. They deserve 4 more years of fundamentalist pandering. Right? After all, this is a government of, by, and for whoever can afford to pay for it.
First, I like populism.
Second, unconstitutional? Ya gotta be kidding me. Compensation of members of Congress is about pay, not benefits---there were no benefits when the constitution was written for God's sake. It's just about pay.
Third, yes this is a tactic, but it is no more pandering than saying you are for an end to the war. The point was and is quite simple which is that Congress should be denied health insurance until they provide insurance for the people. If they were to over ride a veto of a bill that provides their benefits it would make clear what their position is vis a vis providing health care for the people of the US.
One would think that people on the left in particular would be very happy to see such a gesture being made by any of the candidates. The more pressure Edwards applies to the Congress for accomplishing nothing, the better as far as I'm concerned.
