On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved “a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health system . . . , voting over unanimous Republican opposition to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans after an epic political battle that,” according to The New York Times, “could define the differences between the parties for years.”[1] The vote was 219 to 212. “This isn’t radical reform,” the U.S. president said, “but it is major reform.”[2] Whether that was real change is an open question. House Speaker Pelosi said, “Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege.”[3] While Obama was referring to the bill’s reliance on extant private insurance companies, absent even a public option, Pelosi made explicit the change to the American social contract—access to health-care would henceforth be a right for all citizens rather than a benefit to be conferred to those able to pay from their own wherewithal and insurance. The basis of this new right was undoubtedly the human right to life, as in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The closeness of the House vote suggests that the people were divided on whether the new right ought to be conferred (and/or whether it should be conferred by the U.S. Government rather than decided on a State by State basis). Sure enough, the pendulum did indeed shift. On January 19, 2011, the U.S. House voted 245-189 to repeal the health-care law. Then, on April 15th, the House voted 235 to 193 for a budget that “would significantly scale back federal domestic programs and cut $5.8 trillion over the next decade."[4] Medicaid would be a set amount sent as a block grant to the States for them to use for their poor (the States or the poor having to make up for any shortfall), while Medicare would be subsidies sent to the elderly for use in their health insurance premiums. Neither the poor nor the elderly would be guaranteed access to health care. "A Congressional Budget Office review of the Ryan proposal predicted that retirees would pay more for their health care under it than they would under traditional Medicare. The agency also said the Ryan plan to convert federal Medicaid spending into block grants for states would most likely end up reducing benefits for those enrolled in the program."[5] The bill would also reduce the top tax rates for individuals and corporations. Democrats “accused Republicans of promoting a morally skewed vision of America by taking savings out of medical care for older Americans and the poor while supporting tax breaks for corporate America and the affluent.”[6]
In effect, the Republicans in the House were rejecting the change to the American social contract passed the previous year with respect to there being a right to health-care. Furthermore, the House Republicans were redoing the social contract with respect to the Great Society programs even before the passage of the health-care right because Medicaid and Medicare would be a fixed amount and transferred to the States (in all but funding), and limited to a fixed subsidy, respectively, rather than being open-ended commitments of the U.S. Government. The poor and retirees would have to pay more than what had been the case even without "Obamacare." In other words, the Republicans were pushing to change the social contract in the other direction with respect to the extent of the federal government's obligation, rather than merely undoing the creation of the right that occurred in 2010.
In short, two visions for a social contract pushing the House in opposite directions more or less simultaneously. Even more significant than the electoral pendulum swing in November of 2010, the existence of two different visions for a social contract contending at the same time was evident. All of the House Republicans had opposed the health-care law in 2010 while all of the Democrats opposed the Ryan budget in 2011. Two distinct social contracts were in a tug-of-war. The assumption was that only one could be enacted, or a compromise that could only result in a third that neither vision wanted. I contend that this is a false choice--that we are making the problem harder than it need be, given our governmental system of federalism.
The two social contract visions differ not only with respect to redistribution and the extent to which government should secure the survival of its citizens, but as to whether federalism is at all relevant. Whereas the Democrats wanted the general government of the union to be the governmental agent in the contract, Republicans sought either a mixture of federal and state involvement or, perhaps ideally, a state by state basis on the government side of the social contract.
Having some federal involvement would allow for a minimal governmental obligation as part of a social contract spanning the union, while involvement by the state governments would enable various social contracts such that both visions could be realized with respect to rights and obligations. Lest “minimal” actually be “maximal,” a one-size-fits-all social contract would stymie the two mutually exclusive visions. At the same time, leaving the entire matter of social contract to the states would deny a floor of human rights for all Americans. Social contract itself is complex in the United States, as per the nature of a union of states wherein governmental sovereignty is divided between two systems of government (state and federal).
That the debate had been allowed to funnel into a “one social contract” only scenario at the federal level essentially truncated the union into a consolidated system, as if Congress were only a national legislature, or a state legislature. In his book, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas writes that the federal system of government, "if respected, allows people of varying beliefs to live together united as Americans."[7] He notes that "we can tailor solutions to our own values and perspectives rather than trying to create national one-size-fits-all policies" while agreeing "that there are certain things we must do together."[8] While Perry views activities of union as only those that the republics in the union cannot accomplish, union could also involve a floor of governmental obligations in keeping with what each generation determines as due Americans simply in being Americans. Yet such a criterion is vulnerable to a slippery slope so the floor feature must be safeguarded by governmental or federal design.
In conclusion, there need not be one choice between the Republican and Democratic proffered social contracts wherein only one of them exists in the United States; the Republican variant could be the law of the land in Texas, for example, while the Democratic alternative could be the social contract in Massachusetts. The only thing to be compromised would be a minimum “floor” of rights for all Americans by virtue of what it means to be an American. Such a matter of compromise would enable us to get past the false dichotomy that presumes a one-size-fits-all decision must be made. In other words, both the Democrats and the Republicans can have what they want--just not U.S.-wide. To have their respective visions enacted somewhere in the United States means giving up the objective of seeing all of the United States in their own image.
1. Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn, “Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History,” The New York Times, March 22, 2010, p. A1.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4.Carl Hulse, “House Approves Republican Plan to Cut Trillions,” The New York Times, April 16, 2011, pp. A1, A12.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Rick Perry, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (New York: Little Brown, 2010), p. 26. See Skip Worden, American and European Federalism: A Critique of Rick Perry's 'Fed Up!'."
8. Ibid.
