Neal urges piecemeal votes on health care reform
1
NORTHAMPTON - If U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal had his druthers, the 1,000-plus pages of stalled health care reform would be broken into pieces and voted on one by one.
Citing the high cost of emergency care for the uninsured, Neal, who represents the 2nd Congressional District, including Northampton and Hadley, said he has long supported health care reform.
Neal, a Springfield Democrat, said he supports the bill's goal to close the pre-existing conditions loophole, put a cap on out-of-pocket expenses and allow dependents to stay on their parents' health insurance plans through age 26. But he is frustrated that the debate has, at times, gotten bogged down by detractors touting nonexistent "death panels" and an alleged government takeover of health insurance.
Having individual votes on pieces of health care reform legislation, instead of passing it as a complete package, may allow for a more informed discussion, he said.
"It gives a chance to smoke out the opposition," Neal said with a smile. "If these things are so bad, vote against them."
Neal met with Gazette editors Thursday afternoon following his attendance at a Northampton ceremony to unveil 20 new transit vehicles for the Pioneer Valley Transportation Authority. Purchased with federal stimulus money, the vehicles are expected to benefit seniors and disabled riders.
In Washington, D.C., Neal, who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, the Subcommittee on Trade and chairs the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, has found recent success in getting two initiatives into the presidential budget - one that would allow small businesses to set up employee IRA retirement accounts, and another that would close a tax loophole that allows corporations to dodge taxes by claiming residency in another country.
Facing what may be the first serious challenge for Neal's Congressional seat in years this November, Neal answered questions on all things political.
What follows is a recap of what the former Springfield mayor - who has been the area's representative in Washington, D.C., since 1989 - had to say about Scott Brown, the filibuster, the stimulus, Sarah Palin and running a campaign.
On Scott Brown
"I think Senator Brown caught a number of breaks in the campaign, and I think that as the narrative on health care began to fracture, he used the argument, skillfully, that what worked in Massachusetts couldn't be applied nationwide.
"There were a series of issues that broke his way, and I thought the fact that the AG (Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Senate Martha Coakley) went dark (stopped running political ads) after the primary, I thought that created an enormous problem. She said she ran out of money, but you need to plan for that contingency, because no matter what you say or do, if your opponent is on TV you have to be on TV."
On campaigning
"There's no bigger mistake than trying to refight the last election. Use it as a scorecard for what might happen in the future. The decision to go dark had an enormous consequence nationally.
"You've got to stay visible and active. I've got some legislative achievements and some appropriations achievements and that's a pretty good combination. I'm not a shrinking violet."
On Sarah Palin
"She's a phenom, there's no question about it, but the criticism of her comes from seasoned hands within the McCain campaign. It remains to be seen if she has the staying power needed in a presidential campaign when all of a sudden the magnifying glass grows much bigger.
"And also I think you really need to master foreign policy. The idea that (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin had to travel through the air space of Alaska doesn't make it."
On Barack Obama
"I'd give him a B. Considering what he inherited, he's learning some hard lessons. I think some of the nature of the opposition was totally unfair - he's a socialist, he's not a citizen of the United States, the idea he embraced death panels ... At the same time, I think he's probably figured out that getting into the weeds and slugging it out is not a bad position any longer. Think about Clinton's presidency, his first two years were pretty tough, the next two were pretty good."
On the Stupak amendment
(This amendment was added to the House bill to health care reform, with regard to abortion.)
"I have always opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. I'd keep Roe v. Wade and restrict it, I've always thought: keep abortion, with restrictions for late-term abortion. (Given) the voting pattern I have, both sides would say I'm mixed and guess what? That's where the American people are."
On bipartisanship
"The breakdown, I suspect, began with the media that became more conflict-driven, but that's not solely the problem. Then there became the proceeds of interest groups dominating on both sides. You no longer say 'I disagree with you,' you say, 'I disagree with you because you're corrupt.'
"Partisanship can be good. It crystallizes ideas and the public can make up its mind. I think where we can find common ground we should embrace it."
On the filibuster
"There is no provision in the Federalist papers for the filibuster. It's been a legal courtesy for a long, long time. The problem with the filibuster today is that it used to be a closing position of respective parties and today it's an opening position.
"It used to be applied to block big pieces of legislation and today it's used to block judicial nominees. It's an institutional conflict that is yet to be resolved."
On the stimulus
"I voted for TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and I think it was the right thing to do and a responsible position to undertake. The stimulus I voted for because the stimulus was done to create demand in the absence of demand. You forget that people were changing their patterns all at once. The stimulus was to substitute for a lack of demand in the private sector and to address many long-standing public initiatives."
Kristin Palpini can be reached at kpalpini@gazettenet.com.
