Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Holy Boland Amendment, Batman!

It's a longstanding Washington tradition -- using the legislative process to score cheap points and complicate the lives of your opponents. We're going to see a lot of it in the coming days.

First, a little history. If you were around in the 1980s, you might remember something called the "Boland Amendment." The Boland Amendment was the handiwork of a backbencher Massachusetts congressman named Edward Boland. During the Reagan years, Boland would routinely attach an amendment to the last-second omnibus spending bills that Congress would pass to keep the government running. The amendment would bar the Reagan administration from aiding the efforts of the Nicaraguan contras against the Marxist Sandinista government. This was ridiculous, of course -- it wasn't the purview of a backbencher congressman to dictate foreign policy, but Reagan was forced to either sign the budget bill with the Boland Amendment or issue a veto and shut the government down. And it was precisely because of the Boland Amendment, which was treated as a Holy of Holies by the Democrats and their media pets, that we had the Iran-contra "scandal."

Now that ObamaCare is law in the form of the Senate bill that is much hated for the corrupt dealings that were involved in its passage, Congress is acting to take up a reconciliation bill that would supposedly fix things like the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and other such goodies that grabbing Senators received for their votes. And this gives the Republicans a chance to embarrass the Democrats. We have two pretty good examples already.

First, the amusing one:

On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled “No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders” it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.

While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.

“Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House,” Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced.

Allahpundit makes an appropriately mordant observation:

Everyone get the joke here? If the Dems amend the reconciliation bill for any reason, they have to send it back to the House for yet another vote. So anything the GOP proposes — anything — they’re basically bound to vote no on. And Coburn knows it. One tasty shinola sandwich, coming up! Although I’m confused: If, as the left has convinced itself, ObamaCare is pure win for them politically (see, e.g., today’s ridiculously overhyped Gallup poll), what’s the aversion to another House vote? In fact, why not ping-pong the bill back and forth between the chambers for another month, loading it up with ever more crowd-pleasing amendments? It’s time to own the glorious political victory that looms in November, liberals.

Then there's this:

As the Senate grinds through 20 hours of debate on the health care reconciliation bill, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Tuesday night offered an amendment that would require the president, vice-president, members of Congress, political appointees and congressional staff to get their federal health benefits through the soon-to-be-created health insurance exchanges.

This group currently gets insurance through a system overseen by the Office of Management and Budget and under the health care bill signed into law today, some of the congressional staff would have to sign up for insurance through the exchanges. But some would be exempted. Politico filed a story Tuesday night pointing out that leadership and committee staff are exempt from having to use the exchanges. This has caused a bit of an uproar on Capitol Hill, with Republicans accusing top Democratic staff of writing a health care law that's not good enough for them to participate in.

"President Obama has publicly advertised that his reforms would give members of the public the same coverage available to Members of Congress," reads a GOP summary of the Grassley measure. "This amendment would ensure that he, his
successors, and all his appointed political officials would also have the same coverage members of the public enrolled in the Exchange receive."
Your assignment: tell me why such an amendment is a bad idea.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is what's wrong with Washington and a two party political system. In truth both sides play the same game, and nothing really gets done. I can't blame the republicans for doing what they can, because the democrats did what they could do to ram the thing through which included excluding the republicans. The biggest problem is that the polticians see this as a "game" while the rest of us all have to pay for it. Meanwhile the debt meter keeps rising....I really think an agrument could be made to throw them all out, and start over. How could it be any worse?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Anon,

Exactly right about the game playing. In this instance, I think an argument can be made that the Republicans are trying to make this as ridiculous as possible so that they CAN get something done: Repeal the darn thing and actually pass limited reform that might make insurance cheaper and not blow the deficit sky high.

Mr. D said...

In truth both sides play the same game, and nothing really gets done.

I hear ya, but when they get things done, it's things like HCR. Maybe if they spent more time playing games it would be beneficial....

my name is Amanda said...

The Contras were a terrorist group that routinely participated in kidnapping, rape, and murder of civilians. The CIA funded several of their efforts at sabotage (read: terrorist acts) in order to help throw out Teh Marxists!, so the Boland Amendment made that illegal. Doesn't sound so nefarious thus far, on the part of Boland & Co.

It's interesting that you should comment about the purview of a backbencher congressman to dictate foreign policy in light of the fact that Reagan okay'd an arms deal (via Israel) before allowing a number of relatively low-level government and military officials to take complete control of the project. Then he got to go on TV and state "I guess this illegal thing I didn't know about happened on my watch. Whoopsie."

Senate bill that is much hated for the corrupt dealings that were involved in its passage...

What corrupt dealings with those be? Also, it's not so much hated by the majority of Americans.

And this gives the Republicans a chance to embarrass the Democrats.

Actually, this allows Republicans to show how dishonest they really are. Do you, Mr. D, actually think that it's OK to propose an amendment that you KNOW will not go through, for the sole process of manipulating the unthinking masses at election time?

Aside from that, barring these men from getting viagra is so ridiculous and beside the point. A sex offender doesn't deserve to participate in a healthy, LEGAL sexual activity after they've served their time and/or been through rehabilitation? That kind of thinking is so hopelessly backwards and typical. We should be preventing rape and molestation by working to bring down rape culture. (Here is the basic definition of rape culture, but this one explains what it really means.) Decreasing the number erections isn't going to help - a rapist doesn't need an erect penis to touch OR rape someone. (Sorry, but that's such a male thing to think.)

What's a great example of people working to bring down rape culture, you ask? Well, I will pretend you asked. Offering an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies who force their employees to sign a contract saying they won't sue if they get raped by other employees. Or gang raped. That's one.

Oh wait. That happened.

You're right. The anti-erection amendment is hilarious.

Mr. D said...

The Contras were a terrorist group that routinely participated in kidnapping, rape, and murder of civilians. The CIA funded several of their efforts at sabotage (read: terrorist acts) in order to help throw out Teh Marxists!, so the Boland Amendment made that illegal. Doesn't sound so nefarious thus far, on the part of Boland & Co.

No, that's wrong on a number of levels. It was a war and it was ongoing. Ordinarily, a President gets to decide which side to choose. I complained loudly about Obama's decision to support the would-be caudillo Zelaya, but I didn't question his right to make that choice. I can only assume that you'll be fine with it if the Republicans retake the House in 2011 and start to attach similar provisions to omnibus appropriations bills, in ways that tie President Obama's conduct of foreign policy.

Boland and his enablers (e.g. Tip O'Neill) knew that they couldn't win the argument about foreign policy if it had been done out in the open, which is why it went down the way it did. And yes, Reagan let Ollie North run wild in an attempt to end-run Boland. That would not have happened if we'd had an honest debate about the relative merits of the Sandys and the Contras. Trust me on this -- I was watching it closely in those days, especially since I'd spent time in Central America.

There's a lot more to say about your comment, especially the sneering about "manipulating the unthinking masses at election time" Thomas Frank channeling that you are doing here, but I have to take my kids to religious ed right now. More later.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

No Amanda, you're hilarious. Your dear liberal politicians are just as scuzzy, maybe even worse, than their Republican counterparts. None is righteous, not one. I'd be willing to bet that your side of the aisle is full of sexists, the racially intolerant, folks who are in it for the money, etc... (cf. Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel.) But you actually think your side is full of better, more moral people.

You're getting played.

(I know many on my side are bums because that's what power does to folks. That's why I don't want them to have much of it.)

Night Writer said...

"Boland like to rock, now, yes he does..."

Oops, sorry...caught me channeling some of the old T.Rex "Slider" album. Sheesh, I've got to clean out that mental attic (and yes, I know, the lyric is "Bolan" not "Boland").

Anyway, I was also thinking about all those Sandinistas down there in the 80s singing "Kumbaya" while serving tarts to the Miskito and clipping coupons and offending articles from La Prensa. Good times, good times.

Mr. D said...

Actually, this allows Republicans to show how dishonest they really are. Do you, Mr. D, actually think that it's OK to propose an amendment that you KNOW will not go through, for the sole process of manipulating the unthinking masses at election time?

Well, doesn't that beg a number of questions, Amanda? Should the amendment go through? How about the one denying preferential treatment to senior government officials? It's difficult for me to see how you can justify Boland and have much outrage over what the Republicans are doing right now.

Meanwhile, let's talk about the "manipulating the unthinking masses" business. Are you arguing that those who have been actively protesting the imposition of ObamaCare are all unthinking masses? That they couldn't have come to a conclusion that a governmental takeover of 1/6th of the American economy is problematic? Have you actually listened, really listened, to their concerns? Or do you just wave them off?

I'm not going to address your point about rape culture because it isn't germane to this discussion, no matter how much you'd like to pretend it is. Susan Brownmiller and her friends had a chance to speak truth to power back in the late 1990s and they begged off.

Let me sum it up for you. While I find it amusing that the Democrats are being hoist on their own petard, which was the whole point of this post, not the specifics of the tricks the Republicans are playing, I would prefer that the Republicans not do these things. Having said that, I recognize that when the stakes are this high, and when I have witnessed the other side use every trick, stunt and maneuver at their disposal, repeatedly and without remorse, I have a difficult time feeling too bad when the Republicans fight back. Obama, Pelosi and their acolytes brought this fight on. We're not going to simply accept their diktats. Game on.

Meanwhile, I'd strongly suggest you read the piece I wrote about the bond markets. The day of reckoning is coming due and this law will expedite it, and with far more complicated circumstances. Watch and see.

my name is Amanda said...

There's a lot more to say about your comment, especially the sneering about "manipulating the unthinking masses at election time" Thomas Frank channeling that you are doing here,

I'm sorry you think that was a sneer. It wasn't. I know people personally who actually vote that way.

my name is Amanda said...

Re: Iran-Contra
Yes, it was a war. Yes, we get to "support" a side. But that doesn't include manipulating the outcome. (Not sure how the Zelaya situation comparable to the Contra situation, where our CIA literally assisted their efforts.)

WBP, my side made concessions to Stupak in order to get him to sign the bill. Feminists are very unhappy about that. I know that there are sexists, racists on both side of the aisle. But a person is going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that one side doesn't have a stronger record of promoting civil rights than the other. Do I think that's more moral? Yes, I do.

Mr. D's stuff:
Are you arguing that those who have been actively protesting the imposition of ObamaCare are all unthinking masses?
No, I'm talking about passive voters who look for a couple buzzwords and go from there.

(Although the Tea Partiers in general are quite incoherent.)

That they couldn't have come to a conclusion that a governmental takeover of 1/6th of the American economy is problematic?
To the extent that "more government = bad," sure, I can give them credit for that.

Have you actually listened, really listened, to their concerns? Or do you just wave them off?
Intelligent Republicans who have coherent things to say? Yes, I listen. Mostly I fundamentally disagree, but I listen. I read this blog, for example. Lately I've been disagreeing a lot, but it's focused specifically on healthcare, and topic which I feel very passionately about.

Re: What is germane to this conversation.
The whole point of my comment is that I don't find it amusing. The fact that they have done this is completely offensive, and a slap in the face to any victim of sexual assault, and not reflective of anything Pelosi & Co did to get congresspeople to vote for healthcare.

I know that the point was "Game on," though, but I was a little beside myself with "!!!" when I read it. So I'm sorry if I came off like I was trying to shame people.

And I recommend people read the rape culture stuff anyway.

Finally, about the preferential treatment for government officials - I didn't comment, because I didn't have enough information to give an opinion either way.

Mr. D said...

Yes, it was a war. Yes, we get to "support" a side. But that doesn't include manipulating the outcome. (Not sure how the Zelaya situation comparable to the Contra situation, where our CIA literally assisted their efforts.)

So helping the contras was "manipulating the outcome." Well, yeah. That's the idea. Anyone who gets involved in a conflict is trying to manipulate the outcome. Boland and his pals were trying to manipulate the outcome, too. The point is this: in our system of government, the executive branch is responsible for foreign policy. Congress can hold the power of the purse, but if Congress has an objection, the matter should be discussed in an open forum, not by tacking on an amendment to an unrelated bill.

Reagan supported the Contras, Obama supported Zelaya. Both should have been able to make that call, but one wasn't. I'm asking for consistency here.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

No Amanda, the Democrats have not been stronger on civil rights. That's what Democrats tell themselves. It fits the narrative. (Just as an example: The 1964 Civil Rights act had broader support from Republicans than from Democrats.)

Democrats have certainly been more adamant about symbols. They have talked a good game. But has it helped? Or has it hurt the cause of civil rights? Look at LBJ's Great Society legislation and explain to me how that helped minorities.

Your conceit and the conceit of most liberals is that you care for people more than conservatives. No, you equate caring with supporting government intervention and then laud yourselves for supporting the government. That's not the only way to care about people you know. The argument could easily be made that it's a rather paltry way of caring, a way that actually hurts people.

Gino said...

if you really care, the outcome doesn't matter, right?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

The link below speaks to the same issue that I raised vis-a-vis Democrats taking credit for being holy while damning Republicans as anti-civil rights. It simply isn't borne out in fact.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/25/lehrer-accuses-gop-blocking-civil-rights-act-kyl-corrects-him

my name is Amanda said...

I am not going to argue further about how Boland & Co should have stayed out of foreign policy. But the Contra/Zelaya - Reagan/Obama argument is not itself an example of consistency - doing nothing (as per Boland) is the same as doing something (as per US-aided destruction)? Don't think so. (And I forgot to say this earlier, but kidnapping/raping/murdering civilians has never an acceptable act of war, which is why we call the people who do those things terrorists.)

WBP - Once the South (which in the 60s - and regrettably today - had a huge racist population) switched from voting Democrat to voting Republican during the last three decades, the Republican Party started looking worse than the Democrats on the Civil Rights score sheet.

But's not a competition, just a personal reason for own political bearing, though I appreciate being told what my conceit is.

*Everyone* should all be Republicans, right!

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Amanda,

Nope. The Democrats have gotten even worse. Instead of being genuinely concerned with race, they have demagogued the issue for political gain. And who has this hurt? The very people it purported to help. And after all that there is preening and self-congratulation. Yes, conceit is the word.