When and Why the Legislative System Fails

There are a few basic truths that have to be discussed initially.

First, we are not a true democracy; we have a representative republic. The difference is that, in the former, the electorate meets and votes on the minutiae of public issues. The best example of this can be found in the traditional Vermont Town Meetings dramatized on the most recent Bob Newhart television series. This form of governing depends on a relatively small number of voters who are familiar with the details of the propositions upon which they vote. Should the roadway near the school be repaved? Should the police Chief be given a new contract with a salary increase? Should the fee for parking at meters be increased?

On national issues or where the electorate is too large to squeeze into a room, we choose elected representatives who serve a term before they must face the voters and seek reappointment. Here is the first possible conflict.

Are the representatives supposed to take a poll of their constituents and then act as a mere proxy, voting as the majority of voters direct at any particular moment? Are the representatives whom we have selected because of their aptitude and intelligence, supposed to use that intelligence to make decisions that they feel are in the public interest? This would not be a delegation of authority without limits; the cumulative decisions would be ratified or rejected at the next election. There is no simple answer to this question and it has been a topic of discussion over the years.

When the issues are extremely complex, we do not expect each legislator to be fully conversant with arcane details. Legislatures do much of their work in specialized committees where details are established and recommended to the legislative body as a whole.

I would suggest that the representative government demands independent thought and decisions by the representative. (I realize that the foregoing is Utopian and much more idealistic than realistic, but ....)

The First Amendment of the Constitution grants to the people, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Thus we all, each and every one of us, has the right to go to our Senator or Congressman or, for that matter, County Commissioner, and urge him or her to vote in a particular manner.

At this point, another "fact of life": it is very expensive to seek public office or re-election. One result of short terms for Legislators is that each is constantly and perpetually looking for campaign donations. Therefore, the average person's petition for a "redress of grievances" is going to be given far less weight and significance than a well-funded corporate donor or a political action committee anxious and willing to contribute buckets of cash to the candidate.

Which means that, often, the collective will of the people gets ignored in favor of the special interests of wealthy donors.

This brings us to the issue of health care reform, the power, influence and money of insurance companies and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

I have written about Senator Lieberman's lapses in decency and consistency, his taking opposing positions at the same time and his opportunistic character.

He has now outdone himself.

Specifically, the issue addressed here is that of a public option as part of the health care reform legislation now being considered by Congress. Essentially, and to simplify matters, this would allow the public to choose, on a voluntary basis, a government run insurance program that would compete with those offered by private insurance companies. Such an option is anathema to private insurance companies who feel that a sizable portion of the public would choose the program that would be less expensive, more inclusive, have a less burdensome claim procedure and be more responsive to its needs and concerns. The insurance industry reasonably assumes that it would not be the preferred choice of many; and this is likely correct.

Recent polls in Connecticut conducted by Quinnipiac University show that that the including a public option is favored by that state's voters by a 56%-37% margin. This is following a massive public relations push by the Republican Party and its spokesmen on the far Right fringe of talk radio, whose goal is to thwart President Obama regardless of the issue involved, and the major private insurance companies who see their near monopolies and money factories under attack.

This brings Senator Lieberman to mind. One of the most promising proposals for a public option is to expand an existing program that is widely popular with the public and does its job quite well: Medicare. This week Senator Lieberman has now threatened to filibuster any health care reform that includes a Medicare buy-in for anyone under the age of 65. Any suggestion to expand Medicare is so bad that he is willing, if not anxious, to scuttle any health care reform is such expansion is included. That's pretty clear, right?

The only problem is that, when the Senator was running for Vice-President, he proposed such an expansion.

My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid. When it came to Medicare, I was very focused on a group post-50, maybe post-more like post-55, people who have retired early or, unfortunately, have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they're too young to qualify for Medicare. And what I was proposing is that they have an option to buy into Medicare early.

Then, last week, Senator took a 180° turn and now opposes the very program for which he had advocated. The reason is not that hard to figure out.

Connecticut is the home state of several large health insurance companies, among them Travelers, Aetna and Cigna. Connecticut has the highest U.S. concentration of insurance jobs, with the industry accounting for about 64,000 jobs as of June 2009, according to the state's labor department. The state is home to 72 insurance headquarters, with three times the U.S. average of insurance jobs as a percent of total state employment. Mr. Lieberman has been the recipient of over $5 Million in political contributions from health related companies and associations. As I have noted, it is very expensive to run for office or seek re-election.

Senator Lieberman insists that he opposes much of health care reform, and especially any program that threatens insurance company profits because of an increased federal deficit. Forget for a moment that the Congressional Budget Office, universally acclaimed as being non-partisan and authoritative, found that the public option would not increase the deficit but, in fact, would lessen it; I cannot accept the Senator as being sincere!

Lieberman has railed against the public option, the one sure way to bring competition to the insurance company cartel and drive down costs. I don't believe for a second that Lieberman is not shilling for those that have poured tens of thousands into his coffers. Where was all this fiscal religion when President Bush was doubling the deficit and spending trillions on his war of choice? Senator Lieberman was right in there, backing Bush and the Republicans!

Joe, you used to be a mensch.