January 6, 2017
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: The Right Way to Repeal Obamacare
Last November, the American people voted for change in Washington. They elected Republican majorities to both chambers of Congress and elected a Republican President because, as a party, we pledged to fix the broken status quo of the past eight years. Reforming our dysfunctional federal government and restoring sanity to our nation’s capital starts with relieving the American people from the burdens and excessive costs of our defective health-care system and requiring Washington to once again live within its means.
These objectives are two sides of the same coin. Enacting real healthcare reform that will clean up the mess created by Obamacare is a crucial step toward paying down our nearly $20 trillion national debt and putting the federal government on a path of fiscal sustainability. For this reason, some have called on Congress to use the first major legislative vehicle of the year – a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017 – to repeal and replace Obamacare and to balance the federal budget.
I, for one, would love to see a bill that simultaneously repeals and replaces Obamacare while also balancing the budget, but this approach fails to account for the protracted and piecemeal nature of the legislative process.
The bigger and more complex a piece of legislation is, the harder it is to build a consensus around it. So, instead of trying to accomplish everything at once, we should proceed step by step, starting with the measure that we know already has majority support: repealing Obamacare.
Since 2010 most Republican members of Congress – myself included – were elected and reelected because we promised to take any opportunity possible to end this disastrous law. In December 2015 House and Senate Republicans followed through on that promise and passed a bill, H.R. 3762, that repealed much of Obamacare. President Obama promptly vetoed the bill, but the exercise was not a fruitless effort because it established the minimum standards against which any future Obamacare repeal bills would be measured. H.R. 3762 zeroed out Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, scrapped the taxes, revived health savings accounts, and rolled back the Medicaid expansion and subsidies.
Majorities in the House and Senate are on record voting for all of these items, and we owe it to the Americans who voted for us this past November to ensure that we do it again, this time with a President who will sign it into law.
That’s Step One, and we can take it next week by passing the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017. Step Two is to tackle our fiscal crisis, which will involve replacing Obamacare with a health-care law that actually works.
For the past six years, Republicans in Congress have been developing free-market health-care reform proposals that will lower costs, improve quality, and increase access for all Americans. But we have yet to build the consensus around a detailed plan that we can enact into law. So, Step Two is going to take some time to complete, but we can start by passing a budget resolution for fiscal year 2018 later this year that sets our new, unified Republican federal government on a path to balance in 10 years without the use of budgetary gimmicks or tax increases.
The American people voted for change in 2016. But they know it can’t all come at once. The Republican majorities in Congress have a lot of work ahead of us, and the only way we can do it all is to proceed one step at a time.
Issue in Focus: Use Term Limits to Drain the Swamp
Our first and perhaps greatest Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, ended his Gettysburg Address by calling on his fellow Americans to rededicate themselves to the “great task” of preserving our “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.” I share that commitment, which is why I have always supported term limits for our elected federal officials.
Too often today our representatives and senators seek reelection not by making an argument to their constituents, but by issuing an ultimatum. It usually goes something like this: “I know we’re all citizens in a free republic and that means you can vote for whomever you want, but given the amount of seniority and authority that I’ve built up during my long career in Washington, if you don’t vote for me, our district or state will lose money, power, and influence.”
But this is not a choice – it’s a ploy to increase the power of Washington elites at the expense of everyone else.
Instead of intimidating voters into supporting the candidate with a proven record of maximizing their share of government spoils, Americans should be empowered to choose the candidate they think is best suited to help preserve our government of, by, and for the people.
That is why I have always supported a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress, and it’s why I recently co-sponsored Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) plan to limit senators to two six-year terms and representatives to three two-year terms.
I may introduce my own amendment that would equalize the total number of years that members of the two chambers of Congress are allowed to serve (so that senators could serve two six-year terms and representatives could serve six two-year terms), but the final numbers are not as important as the principle: a government of, by, and for the people requires elected representatives who are more interested in securing the common good rather than maximizing their own power and prestige.
I’m often asked whether my support for mandatory term limits means that I will voluntarily impose a term limit on myself. My answer: no, because I don’t want the term-limit movement to suffer the same fate as the Shakers.
Who are the Shakers? They were an 18th century Christian sect that believed in celibacy. Now, celibacy is a fine choice for an individual to make, but it’s not exactly a wise policy for an entire group of people that is interested in self-preservation.
So, when we do succeed, and term limits are finally in the Constitution, I will happily abide by them. But until that time, I will continue the fight to make that possibility a reality.
