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

2024 Presidential Election Day Symbolic Elements.
Editorial: A recap of Herald Editorial Board endorsements

By The Herald Editorial Board Voters, open up your ballots and voters… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Oct. 25

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

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, Oct. 24

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

Comment: Criticism of Everett’s budget woes raises valid concerns

Two former Everett City Council members question descisions regarding the city’s financial stability.

Comment: State’s roadless forests key to water, salmon, recreation

A bid to end the federal Roadless Rule invites impacts to wildlife, recreation and more wildfires.

Comment: Workforce training is building futures, saving money

But recent success in Snohomish County and elsewhere could be threatened by federal budget cuts.

Forum: Criticism of Everett School District, board unfounded

Political attack ads have misrepresented facts and unfairly criticized members of the school board.

French: Trump has dragged our discourse down to his level

We’re trapped in a dynamic that is tempting many millions of Americans to indulge their worst impulses.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Oct. 23

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

2024 Presidential Election Day Symbolic Elements.
Editorial: Elect Allison, Golebiewski to Mill Creek council

Allison merits a second term for Position 3. Golebiewski should be elected to Position 4’s open seat.

Schwab: 7 million American demonstrators can’t be wrong

Last Saturday wasn’t a ‘Hate America’ rally of Hamas supporters and criminals. Just concerned citizens.

Everett Mayor: Franklin moving city in right direction

As someone who has lived and worked in Everett for many years… 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.