RECONCILIATION MY FOOT

Michael Medved has written an excellent column entitled Reconciliation: Disdain For The Public, Disregard For Democracy. Here are some excerpts.

The legislative tactic known as “reconciliation” uses a soothing word to mask an ugly reality. Far from the dictionary definition of “restoring to friendship and harmony,” the Congressional term “reconciliation” suggests the spurning of cooperation and the brute use of partisan power. Worst of all, in the case of Obamacare, it also involves a dangerous, destructive violation of democratic principle.

The original idea of reconciliation, first employed in 1980, involved desperate efforts during the Carter era to bring the exploding federal deficit under control –a goal embraced by both political parties. [It was intended only for] budgetary and tax policy adjustments designed to produce spending and taxation levels in line with previously declared Congressional goals. The attempt to use reconciliation to jam through Obamacare represents a drastic and dangerous departure from original intent.

More important, it violates democratic principles at the very heart of the idea first articulated in the Declaration of Independence – that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In what sense do the “governed” consent to Obama’s health care take-over – when every national survey, and the avalanche of constituent communication with Congress, indicate impassioned and overwhelming opposition to the so-called reforms? The most recent Rasmussen Survey shows that independent, unaffiliated voters – the same voters who placed Obama in the White House – oppose his health care proposals by a margin of 64% to 32%.

The President and his allies assure nervous Democrats in Congress that the public will readily embrace the new legislation once they’re presented by a fait accompli —promising that even though the majority hates the reforms now, the public will ultimately learn to love it. This obnoxious attitude expresses the very essence of liberal elitism: the idea that enlightened policy-makers know best, and that the great unwashed will eventually appreciate the fact that their betters imposed changes that were ultimately good for them.

Well said, Michael