BLOGROLL

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Washington Post. -Staff

America's Founders gave us a system of governance designed to limit government power and maximize liberty. The legislative branch is different from the executive, and the Senate is different from the House. No single branch has all the power. That can be frustrating for those with ambitious agendas, but everyone benefits by respecting those checks and balances even as we fight over policies.

While the House is designed for action, the Senate is designed for deliberation. That is why Senate rules and procedures give a minority of senators the power to slow or even stop legislation. Both parties do it when in the minority, and both find it frustrating when they are in the majority. But such checks are central to the nature of the institution and to the Senate's place in our constitutional system. These rules temper majority power and generate strong incentives to develop mainstream legislation that commands broad, bipartisan support.

To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the "reconciliation" process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford. This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.

Comment (8)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Staff

Health care reform is a critical national issue that must transcend political labels and parties. It should be guided by the voices of the American people, who expect Congress to work together to solve this challenge in an open, bipartisan and fiscally prudent manner. If we take a realistic approach, we can achieve responsible health care reform that enjoys support on both sides of the aisle.

Americans want health care reform that reduces costs and provides affordable access. But they also worry about preserving their current quality of care, improving a struggling economy and reducing the nation's debt. Amid this uncertainty, Congress should be careful about doing too much, too fast and risking mistakes that cannot be undone.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in USA Today. -Staff

Obama's big-government proposal attempts to do too much, too fast.

Americans want health care reform that reduces costs and provides affordable access. But they also worry about preserving quality, improving a struggling economy and reducing the nation's unsustainable debt. Amid this uncertainty, we should be careful not to do too much too fast, risking mistakes of lasting consequence.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Staff

Tomorrow night, President Obama will head to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address to the nation. While it is sure to include the rhetorical flourishes and impeccable delivery that President Obama is renowned for, I fear it will unfortunately be dominated by populist rhetoric instead of the actual policies the administration is pushing behind closed doors -- away from the scrutiny of the American people. Health care is a prime example.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Mark Shurtleff in the LA Times. -Staff

Congress is ignoring the Constitution by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance and ordering states to establish health benefit exchanges to run the new federal healthcare system.

The House and Senate have passed their respective versions of the legislation to take over the healthcare system, and a common bill is being hammered out, once again behind closed doors. The essential elements that we know will be in the final product are bad policy for America and, perhaps worse, a threat to liberty itself. The courts may have to enforce the constitutional boundaries that Congress has ignored.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Mark Shurtleff in the Salt Lake Tribune. -Staff

The legislation being crafted in Washington to take over the health care system is not only bad policy for Utah and America but a threat to liberty itself. It undermines the rights of both individual Americans and states. We will work together, fighting on both political and legal fronts, to prevent this big-government plan from unconstitutionally expanding federal power and control over all of us.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with J. Kenneth Blackwell and Kenneth A. Klukowski in the Wall Street Journal. -Staff

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Staff

We, as a nation, are standing at historic crossroads. Despite growing opposition from the American people, the Democratic majority continues their brazen efforts to jam through a 2,074-page edict before Christmas day that will impact every American life and every American business. The most disturbing part of this exercise is that it is a bill that is yet to be seen in its entirety. Major sections of this bill are nothing more than amorphous policies that continuously shape-shift behind closed doors in the Capitol in an effort to buy 60 votes.

We have all heard a lot of speeches over the past few weeks. I want to take this opportunity to lay out some cold, hard numbers about this bill and the reality we are facing as a nation for all my fellow Utahns.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed on CNN.com. -Staff

The Democratic health care proposal being debated in the Senate not only contains large new taxes, enormous government expansion and huge spending, but I'm convinced it also seeks to allow federal funding for abortion -- something 61 percent of Americans do not support, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in Human Events. -Staff

The federal government takeover of America's health care system is under way. Whatever form it finally takes, Americans need to know what is being done to them and who is responsible.

Everything the Senate or the House does has two parts, process and substance. In the Senate, for example, debate on a bill must end before there can be a vote on the bill itself. When there might be enough votes to pass a controversial bill but fewer than the 60 votes needed to end debate on it, some senators may be tempted to say they oppose the bill but still vote to end debate. When the Senate bill to take over the health care system comes up, senators cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they oppose the bill but then support the process that makes passage possible. A vote for ending debate is a vote for the bill.

Comment (1)