Pro-Life Works: Status Quo

March 18, 2010

Status Quo

Caleb Fleming

Intern

During an interview with Fox news anchor Bret Baier on Wednesday March 17, President Barack Obama used the phrase “status quo” a minimum of four times regarding the estimated $875 billion health care reform bill.  “We have to vote on the status quo,” the President said, “If they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo.”  So those opposed to this bill are opposed to health care reform altogether?  What about the provisions included by the Republicans in congress, the ones that were tough on abortion issues and end of life legislation?  He continued by saying that the American people deserve to have closure on this topic: either yes or no.  He and the Democratic leadership are making every possible promise and compromise to the blue dog Democrats in the House to make sure the answer is yes.  The day after the interview they “bought” the vote of Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) with a ride on Air Force One and a high profile job for his wife.              

The Democratic Party is doing its best to remain upbeat in the midst of the uncertainty, relying on shady political tactics as its safety net.  Monday March 15, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut said "the votes are there" to pass the health care bill (www.cnn.com Charles Riley and Jeff Simon).  Nonetheless, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still trying to use some tactics that are not the most popular with House Republicans.  Speaker Pelosi is advocating for the use of the Slaughter Solution, first used in 1933, and the “self-executing rule” to pass this massive piece of legislation.  Pelosi’s solution is to deem and pass the Senate bill that passed in December of 2009, then make the necessary revisions to it, and then tweak it until it is acceptable to all Democrats in the house.  Pelosi is quoted as saying “I like it (deem and pass), this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the senate bill (Fox News).” When asked about the process being suggested during the interview with Bret Baier, President Obama said “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.”  Then later on in the same interview Baier asked the President point blank if he was in favor of the deem and pass process, the President said “No.”  The president was also asked about some comments he made as Senator Obama about a President having to eek out a victory 50 + 1; at that time Senator Obama had said “you can’t govern.”  Now that he is facing the same equation he was asked if he could govern.  Instead of answering the question with a yes or a no, he reasoned that his situation was different.  President Obama stated he had spoken with Presidential nominee Bob Dole and former Republican leader Howard Baker in an attempt to show he has crossed party lines to cater to both sides of the coin.  Apparently, because he has had a few meetings and phone calls with a couple of Republicans, this is why he can still “govern.”

I guess the question is what is really wrong with the “status quo?”  If there is so much controversy surrounding this issue, and so much bi-partisan resistance, why do we need to “vote on the status quo?”  In an interview conducted by Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, she presented the argument of checks and balances vs. parliamentary rule.  The Founding Fathers instituted the checks and balances idea to stay away from the parliamentary system of Britain so as to hold each branch accountable for its actions.  This is so one party would not be able to steam roll the government/nation with no opposition.  The position America finds itself in right now is just this case.  With the use of these political strategies suggested by Speaker Pelosi, regardless of the opinions of those in the House, this bill will be passed and the “status quo” will be changed forever.  Perhaps the whole health care system does need to be revamped, but not like this.  Not in a way sheds light on the dirty side of politics.  This is supposed to help the people, not the government; at the end of the day to whom does the “status quo” pertain?