|
|
|
|
Obama Rationale for Recess
Appointment of Donald Berwick Collapses Part Two of Four By Dave Andrusko Yesterday I posted National Right to Life's take on the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as well as my own. Bypassing the Senate Finance Committee (which is where Berwick's nomination to head the sprawling Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would be heard) was not surprising.
What was surprising is that anyone believed the rationale offered for the highly unusual move by President Barack Obama. In a statement he said, "It's unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes." Writing on WhiteHouse.gov Dan Pfieffer, the administration's communications director, was more specific. Obama made the appointment, he said, because "[m]any Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points." But on his blog, ABC's Jack Tapper titled an entry yesterday, "President Obama Attacks Congress for Delaying His Nominees -- Is He Right?" Tapper writes, "But Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick's nomination." Indeed, "they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick's past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system." Later, Tapper wrote, "But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections." Tapper got to the heart of the private justification that were offered. "Democrats say that the GOP was planning to use this confirmation fight to re-litigate the health care legislation battle, a fight they lost." Excuse me? You can't ask a man who will play a pivotal role in implementing the law where he's coming from, especially a man with a treasure trove of controversial statements? And you can't have a public hearing to discuss a few of the many, many dangerous details of ObamaCare that were rushed through with virtually no debate? Tapper poses two rhetorical questions: "Is the desire to avoid that debate enough of a justification for a recess appointment? Does using the Constitutional recess appointment prerogative so as to avoid having to expend political energy and capital on a fight one doesn't want to wage – does that live up to the president's stated promise of transparency?" I think most fair-minded people would say no, to both. For our two discussions of Berwick yesterday, which offer many specifics, please go to http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/July10/nv070710.html and http://www.nrlc.org/NewsToday/BerwickAppointment.html. Please send all of your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are now following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
