Bipartisan support should be required

A July 2014 survey conducted by Rasmussen found that just 20 percent of likely U.S. voters rate the new national health care law, ObamaCare, a success. Does that sound like strong popular support to you?

These immense, debt-ridden, pervasive social programs should require widespread support before being thrust upon the American people. In a free country, 51percent of the people should not be able to impose their will on the other 49 percent? Much less 20 percent on 80 percent. This is the type situation that creates the political divide, bitter animosity, and distrust of the political system that defines Washington D.C. today.

Before ObamaCare, there were three huge social programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) that cost the American taxpayer $1.6 trillion or 46 percent of the yearly federal budget. That level of impact on each and every citizen should require nearly unanimous support by the citizenry to be considered. In fact, these laws did earn bipartisan support when they were passed and signed into law. This is the appropriate way for an imposing piece of legislation to be enacted.

In 1935, the 37 page Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was a bipartisan vote with only 15 Republican and 15 Democrat Congressmen voting against the law. The senate had similar bipartisan support with five Republicans and one Democrat voting no.

In 1965 Medicare was approved with similar across the aisle support. In the House, 48 Democrats and 68 Republicans voted against the bill. In the Senate seven Democrats and 17 Republicans voted no.

Now compare this with ObamaCare. Not one Republican voted for this law (178 Republican Congressmen, 34 Democrat Congressmen, and 39 Republican Senators all voted no). It took political shenanigans that bordered on the criminal to get the law passed. We had the Cornhusker Kickback where Senator Ben Nelson’s vote earned concessions from the federal government to fully fund his state’s expanded Medicaid costs. The Louisiana Purchase where in exchange for her vote, Senator Mary Landrieu procured $300 million in extra federal money for her home state. This was blatant bribery, vote buying using taxpayer money.

The bait-and-switch had to be used at the Supreme Court not to have the law struck down as unconstitutional. ObamaCare was sold to the American people as definitively not a tax. But when facing certain defeat at the Supreme Court, the administration switched the argument claiming to the Justices that the mandate was in fact a tax. If a citizen tried this maneuver they would be charged with fraud. But I guess when it comes to this administration, the rule of law does not apply.

This still would not have been enough to get the law past Supreme Court scrutiny if Justice Kagan had not committed judicial malfeasance by not recusing herself. There is a judicial rule that requires Supreme Court justices recuse (disqualify) themselves if in their previous capacity there is anything about the case by which the justice’s impartiality can reasonably be called into question. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealed that when Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan was deeply involved with preparing the legal defense to any challenges to ObamaCare. This is a textbook case of conflict of interest and exactly the situation the recusal rule was put in place to avoid.

Any one of these “irregularities” should have been enough to doom ObamaCare to the trash heap of history, but not in the age of Obama. The “by whatever means necessary” modus operandi, no matter the illegality, seems to be business as usual in Washington these days. And we the people don’t seem to care.

Far-reaching laws, that directly affect hundreds of millions of people, should require a super majority, two thirds affirmative vote, for passage. A president who wants to be the president of all Americans, not just those whose ideology he agrees with, should veto any such law that doesn’t achieve a supermajority vote thus ensuring bipartisan support. Only with this level of across the board support will there be public acceptance of these types of legislation and a mending of the vast chasm that now separates us.

It is little wonder that ObamaCare is tearing the nation apart. The disingenuous way that it was passed into law, against the will of the majority of the people, has fostered hatred for the government that has never before been experienced. The Tea Party protests, populated by Americans that never before even vaguely considered taking part in a protest movement, exemplifies the anger that this deceitful process has bred. The one thing that has been learned by the ObamaCare experience is that one party cannot shove their ideology down the throats of the American people without the people rising up to fight back. It is yet to be seen which side will prevail, the obtuse political class or the citizenry fighting to maintain their liberty.

Read Jack Loesch’s web site at

He may be reached at: