Fact Checking The Sunday Shows - March 14, 2010

Fox News Sunday

CLAIM: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Falsely Stated "six out of ten" Americans oppose passage of health care reform.

REP. ERIC CANTOR:  Chris, there's a reason why we're here today and still the vote hasn't been taken.  And that's because a large portion of [Rep. Chris Van Hollen's] caucus doesn't support the bill because six out of ten Americans don't support the bill.

FACT: Support for health care reform is growing.  According to a recent Gallup poll, less than half of the public opposes the bill.

Gallup: Americans Are Evenly Split On The President's Health Care Reform Proposal.  According to a recent Gallup poll, 48% of those surveyed would advise their member of Congress to vote against the health care reform bill.  45% would advise their Representative to vote in favor of the bill.  The poll had a +/-4% margin of error.

[Gallup, 3/9/10]

Poll: Americans Support Proposals Included Within The Bill, Want Reforms Strengthened. CBS News released a telling poll on January 11, 2010.  Regarding extending coverage to the uninsured, the poll showed that 57% of Americans support the current plan or want it stronger - only 32% believe it goes too far.  On controlling health care costs, 60% support the plan or want it to go even further - only 24% think it goes too far.  And concerning new regulations on health insurance companies, 61% support the plan or want it stronger - only 27% believe it goes too far. [CBS News poll, 1/6-10/10]

This Week

CLAIM: Sen. Lindsey Graham Compared Democrats Utilizing Reconciliation To Fix Health Care To The 2005 "Nuclear Option" Fight.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: If they use this device called reconciliation to deal out Republicans it will open up Pandora's box.

[...]

I've been in bipartisan deals. I was in the gang of 14 to stop the Senate from blowing up when the Republicans wanted to change the rules and use a majority vote to get judges through. If they do this, it's gonna poison the well for anything else they would like to achieve this year or thereafter.

FACT: In 2005, Republicans sought to change Senate rules in order to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.  Democrats are simply using the reconciliation process as it is intended per the Budget Act of 1974.

Salon: "It's Frist's Plan To Change The Standing Rules Of The Senate In Order To Prohibit Democrats From Using The Filibuster." According to Salon:

It's Frist's plan to change the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to prohibit Democrats from using the filibuster to block votes on Bush's judicial nominees. Under the current rules, senators in the minority can indefinitely delay a floor vote on judges -- or on just about anything else, for that matter -- by engaging in extended debate.

The Senate's rules have allowed unlimited debate, or filibusters, since 1806, when senators dropped a rule that allowed a majority of the Senate to put an end to discussion and call for a vote. For the next 111 years, there was no way to stop a filibuster once it had started. But in 1917, when filibusters were blocking Woodrow Wilson's plans for World War I, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, which allowed senators to end a filibuster by a two-thirds vote on a motion to cut off debate -- a procedure called "cloture." In 1975, the Senate amended Rule XXII so that cloture required, in most cases, the vote of not two-thirds but rather three-fifths of the senators. In today's 50-state, 100-member Senate, that means it takes 60 rather than 67 senators to put an end to most filibusters.

With the nuclear option, Frist and his supporters would effectively change that rule so that filibusters on judicial nominees could be cut off by a simple majority vote.  [Salon, 5/12/05]

Budget Reconciliation Is NOT The "Nuclear Option." As described by ThinkProgress' Ian Millhiser:

The most important difference between budget reconciliation and the so-called nuclear option is that the reconciliation process was created by federal law, while the "nuclear option" was dreamed up by an article published in the right-wing Federalist Society's official journal. Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Senate may pass a law bringing federal tax and spending levels in line with a previously enacted budget resolution by a simple majority vote.  This process allows senators to bypass the filibuster when enacting health reform provisions that impact the federal budget. President Clinton used it to enact his budget in 1993, and President Bush used it to enact trillions of dollars of tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003.

Conversely, the nuclear option was an unprecedented proposal to simply eliminate the filibuster altogether if 50 Senators agreed. Although there is a very strong constitutional argument that a bare majority of the Senate can eliminate the filibuster immediately after a new Senate is seated, nothing in federal law provides for the nuclear option.

The distinction here is very clear.  Reconciliation is authorized by an Act of Congress; the nuclear option is a power play dreamed up by a right-wing policy shop. As former Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist said of reconciliation, "It's legal, it's ethical, you can do it." Simply put, there's nothing "nuclear" about progressives believing that they can pass health reform by a majority vote; that's simply known as "democracy." [Think Progress, 8/20/09]

CLAIM: Sen. Lindsey Graham Said Reconciliation Is "Sleazy" And A "Trick."

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:  If you wanna look forward, you've gotta look forward with reality. If they jam through health care through the House, and try to use a trick or a gimmick called "reconciliation," which is playing with 12 people on the field if it were a football game, you're gonna have a hard time convincing Democrats or Republicans to do the hard things because you've poisoned the well.

FACT: Health insurance reform has already passed the Senate with 60 votes.  Once the House of Representatives passes the Senate-passed version of reform, Congress will then act to amend the budgetary aspects of the bill through the reconciliation process. 

Health Insurance Reform Passed The Senate With A 60 Vote Majority.  According to the Washington Post, "Senate Democrats approved landmark legislation just after sunrise Christmas Eve that would transform the nation's health-care system by requiring people without insurance to obtain coverage and protecting those who have it from the most unpopular private insurance practices. Vice President Biden presided over the 60 to 39 party-line vote, described as a historic milestone by senators on both sides of the aisle. Despite the early hour, Democrats sat alert at their desks, exhausted but exuberant, savoring a victory that had eluded so many of their predecessors. 'This is probably the most important vote that every sitting member of the Senate will cast in their tenure here,' said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the authors of the bill." [Washington Post, 12/25/10]

Experts: "The Use Of Reconciliation Is This Case...Is Compatible With The Law, Senate Rules, And The Framers Intent." Thomas E. Mann and Raffaela Wakeman of the Brookings Institution and Norman J. Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote:

Reconciliation was intended to be a narrow procedure to bring revenues and spending into conformity with the levels set in the annual budget resolution. But it quickly became much more. The 22 reconciliation bills so far passed by Congress (three of which were vetoed by President Bill Clinton) have included all manner of budgetary and policy measures: deficit reductions and increases; social policy bills like welfare reform; major changes in Medicare and Medicaid; large tax cuts; and small adjustments in existing law. Neither party has been shy about using this process to avoid dilatory tactics in the Senate; Republicans have in fact been more willing to do so than Democrats.

The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case - amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture - is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers' intent. [New York Times, 3/7/10; emphasis added]

Republicans Have Used Reconciliation Several Times In Recent History, Including Passage Of The Bush Tax Cuts.  The New York Times reported: "Republicans carry a long record of having employed reconciliation themselves on big and controversial legislative packages. Sixteen of the 22 'reconciliation bills' that have made it through Congress were passed in the Senate when Republicans had majorities. Among them were the signature tax cuts of President George W. Bush, the 1996 overhaul of the welfare system, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare Advantage insurance policies and the Cobra program allowing people who leave a job to pay to keep the health coverage their employer provided (the 'R' and 'A' in Cobra stand for 'reconciliation act')." [New York Times, 2/24/10]

Reconciliation Will Be Used For Budgetary "Fixes" That Even Republicans Support.  During an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd explained the reconciliation process likely to be used for fixing health care reform:

             

CHUCK TODD: A little fact check on reconciliation - they're not trying to pass the entire health bill on reconciliation.

MATTHEWS: I think the Democrats are in good shape right now to get this thing through in a two-step. Get the House to pass the Senate bill and get through the Senate reconciliation. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/25/10]

MATTHEWS: That's what he means.

TODD: However, that's how it's framed. Correct, that's what he - what's happened here is the Republicans are saying, they already tried to pass out the bill. They're going to pass health care through the Senate.

They're trying to do these fixes, which is - the irony is, it's all of the - most of the fixes, about half of them are the ones that Republicans have been complaining about with the cornhusker kickback. They're going to get rid that. They're going to do -

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: Jim Clyburn just said they're going to get rid of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We're on the record. The great thing about tonight's show is we're getting the facts out here. The facts are they're not going to use reconciliation to pass health care.

(CROSS TALK)

They're going to pass the Senate bill in the House and then, right around the same time, they're going to pass the fixed bill with reconciliation which is basically dealing with the fiscal numbers, which is an appropriate way to use reconciliation.

TODD: The parliamentarian is going to have an easy time with that one. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/2/10]

Face the Nation

CLAIM: Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Falsely Claimed Health Care Reform Would Cut Medicare, Raise Health Insurance Premiums And Increase The Deficit.

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER: We're not trying to end the health care debate, we're trying to change it and we're trying to say: the American people don't want higher individual premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts.  They don't want an increase in the deficit.  They're wondering why, if we are trying to reduce costs, it costs a trillion dollars. 

FACT: The health care reform package in congress would strengthen Medicare, lower premiums and cut the deficit by over $100 billion.

FactCheck.org: "None Of The 'Savings' Or 'Cuts' (Whichever You Prefer) Come From Reducing Current Or Future Benefit Levels For Seniors." According to FactCheck.org, "The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the 'savings' or 'cuts' (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors." [FactCheck.org, accessed 9/9/09]

• CBO: Cost Changes To Medicare Made From Savings. According to the CBO letter to Senator Baucus: "Changes to the Medicare program and changes to Medicaid and CHIP other than those associated directly with expanded insurance coverage:  Savings from those provisions are estimated to total $93 billion in 2019, and CBO projects that, in combination, they will increase by 10 percent to 15 percent per year in the next decade." [CBO.gov, 10/7/09]

CBO: Democratic Bill Would Cut The Federal Budget Deficit By $118 Billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office:

CBO and JCT now estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period. [Congressional Budget Office, 3/11/10]

PolitiFact: "For Most People, Premiums Would Stay About The Same, Or Slightly Decrease."  According to PolitiFact.com: "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop." [PolitiFact.com, 1/27/10, emphasis added]

CBO: House Bill Will Result In Lower Costs For American Families.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2016, premiums will be $5,300 for an individual and $15,000 for a family of four in the Exchange.  Without reform, the average family premium is expected to grow to $24,000. [CBO, 11/2/09; House Education and Labor Committee, 11/2/09]

41 Top Economists Declared Reform Would "Slow The Growth Of Health Care Spending." In March 2010, 41 top economists wrote a letter to President Obama and members of Congress declaring health care reform critical to containing health care costs. The economists wrote:

The health care reforms passed by the House and Senate - with recent modifications proposed by President Obama - include serious measures that will slow the growth of health care spending. Putting the brakes on health care spending will take multiple measures, and we must start now. Democratic and Republican experts have proposed many different approaches to "bending the cost curve."

[...]

Taken together, these measures are a serious, multi-faceted initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of American medical care, rein in the fastest growing portion of government and private budgets and provide a valuable platform for future cost-control efforts. If this nation is committed to cost containment and deficit reduction we must pass health care reform. If this legislation fails, the chances of reducing the growth of health care spending in the future will be greatly reduced. [Economists' Letter on Health Care Reform, 3/11/10; emphasis added]