Lawmaker, regulate thyself

“Washington is an island surrounded by reality,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, likes to say.

In an effort to inject some reality into the Beltway, Grassley introduced an amendment to the Affordable Care Act to require that members of Congress and their staff get their health care from the new Obamacare exchanges. “Congress should live under the laws it creates. That includes Obamacare,” Grassley explained.

Enter Washington reality: The rules don’t apply to the governing class.

Congress eventually passed the Grassley amendment, and it was included in the bill President Barack Obama signed, but that doesn’t mean Washington insiders can’t get around it.

There are two things for the political class not to like in the Grassley amendment.

To start, the 11,000 or so members and Capitol Hill staffers now enjoy Cadillac coverage as participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Grassley provision is supposed to make that go away and force those individuals to buy their own coverage through the less prestigious Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

But also, the government — read: taxpayers — picks up more than 70 percent of the premiums. There was no language in the final Grassley provision to continue the federal subsidy.

Supporters have been able to sell Obamacare coverage as affordable because the government subsidizes premiums for some middle-income workers. Senators and representatives make $174,000, and their staffers make too much to qualify for the Obamacare subsidies. Thus, the Grassley amendment represents a pay cut for Hill aides.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted the pay cut would cause savvy Capitol Hill staffers to stampede toward the private sector. Politico reported that both Republicans and Democrats were looking for a way around the law to prevent what wags had dubbed the coming Beltway “brain drain.”

After Obama reportedly told Democrats behind closed doors that he would help, the Office of Personnel Management announced a proposed rule to save Congress from its own law.

So the government would continue to pay its employer contribution of premiums. On the one hand, that seems fair. Who wants to get a pay cut and a second-tier health package? On the other hand, this is another example of Washington’s taking care of its own in order to prop up a health care plan that costs taxpayers money by discouraging employers from hiring full-time workers.

In Congress, members cannot lose, but the public can.

Worse, the Office of Personnel Management didn’t stop there. Its new proposed rule also would allow each member of Congress to “determine whether an employed individual meets the statutory definition” of “congressional staff.” The OPM’s rationale was that there is “no existing statutory or regulatory definition of the term ‘official office.’” As if “official office” is an exotic cipher.

What do we pay these people for if they can’t figure out what an official office is?

As a result of that brilliant maneuver, senators and congressmen will be able to exempt their staffers if they so choose. Capitol Hill, it turns out, is one colossal golden-domed exemption.

In pushing his amendment in 2010, Grassley rightly argued: “It’s only fair and logical that administration leaders and congressional staff, who fought so hard to overhaul America’s health care system, experience it for themselves. If the reforms are as good as promised, then they’ll know it firsthand. If there are problems, public officials will be in a position to really understand the problems, as they should.”

But there’s this ugly reality on Obamacare Island: The rules do not apply to the people who make them.

Email Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Nov. 15

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: From opposite ends of crime, a plea for justice reform

A survivor of crime and an incarceree support a bill to forge better outcomes for both communities.

Comment: Misnamed Fix Our Forest Act would worsen wildfire risk

The U.S. Senate bill doesn’t fund proven strategies and looks to increase harvest in protective forests.

Comment: City governments should stay out of the grocery market

Rather than run its own grocery stores, government should get out of the way of private companies.

Forum: Grading students needs shift from testing to achievement

Standardized tests are alienating students and teachers. Focus education on participation and goals.

Forum: Varied interests for ecology, civil rights can speak together

A recent trip to Portland revealed themes common to concerns for protecting salmon, wildlife and civil rights.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, Nov. 14

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Editorial: Welcome guidance on speeding public records duty

The state attorney general is advancing new rules for compliance with the state’s public records law.

The Buzz: Shutdown? What shutdown? We’ got 20,000 emails to read.

Trump was tired of talking about affordability, until emails from a former friend were released.

Schwab: Democratic Party was caught between caving and caring

Those who ended the shutdown ended the challenge but restored vital benefits, because Democrats care.

A state income tax is fair and can fund our needs

The constant tug-of-war between raising taxes and cutting spending is maddening. The… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.