The Corner

Congressman on Obamacare Exemption: ‘Go Home and Talk to Your Wife’

A debate among congressional Republicans over a potential line of attack on Obamacare is pitting their pocketbooks against the chance at political gold.

At issue is a requirement in the law that congressional staffers purchase their health insurance in the exchange markets. The Office of Personnel Management recently ruled that the federal government can continue providing a subsidy to use in the exchange markets, which critics such as Senator David Vitter have railed against as a special exemption from the law for Congress.

But at a closed-door conference meeting this morning in the Capitol basement as they discussed a proposal to reverse the ruling, some lawmakers were more concerned about their own well-being.

“Before you support this, go home and talk to your wife,” said Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, who warned colleagues the change would amount to a 7 percent cut to their paychecks.

Representative Joe Barton of Texas said that he had never been a wealthy man. The change, he estimated, would cost him $12,000. “That’s a burden. And it’s a burden on our staff, too.”

Speaker John Boehner told Barton that he understood where he was coming from, but that it is “very difficult to explain to the American people.”

Then Representative Phil Gingrey spoke up. Gingrey has led the charge in the House to end the subsidy, introducing the “No Special Treatment for Congress Act” and joining Vitter on a letter to OPM questioning whether its ruling is legal.

The Georgia Republican, whose latest personal financial-disclosure forms show his net worth is at least $3 million, had little sympathy for lawmakers and even less for staff.

Capitol Hill aides, he said “may be 33 years old now and not making a lot of money. But in a few years they can just go to K Street,” the Washington, D.C., vernacular for becoming a lobbyist, “and make $500,000 a year. Meanwhile I’m stuck here making $172,000 a year.”

The comment incensed some of the GOP aides in the room, two of whom relayed Gingrey’s comments to me. One person noted that many lower-rung congressional aides make relatively low wages and have no real expectation of a future cash-out.

In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that “it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting.”

“I was engaged in a dialogue with some members of our conference who truly believe that Congress should get special treatment. And some also believe that staff members should get special treatment. I happen not to believe that,” he added.

The episode underscores the politics of pushing to end the subsidy. Politically, it’s a no-brainer. Mix special treatment for Congress with an already unpopular law and you have the equivalent of dynamite.

But were GOP leaders to embrace ending the subsidy, it would significantly reduce the income of the world’s most well-connected special-interest group: the denizens of Capitol Hill.

Vitter, for example, has seen Senate Democrats dredge up his 2007 prostitution scandal, and even threaten to remove the subsidy only for people who vote to remove the subsidy. Those are beyond even the normal hardball tactics on Capitol Hill and show a special viciousness.

But the issue is unlikely to go away anytime soon, and could easily morph into something like earmarks, which drew blood for years and years until they were finally done away with.

Congressmen and staffers may want to start discussing it with their wives.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns

At the Democratic-primary debate in Houston last night, Beto O’Rourke formally killed off one of the gun-control movement’s favorite taunts: The famous “Nobody is coming for your guns, wingnut.” Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have ... Read More
White House

Politico Doubles Down on Fake Turnberry Scandal

It's tough to be an investigative reporter. Everybody who feeds you a tip has an axe to grind. Or, alternatively, you find yourself going, "I wonder if . . . ?" You put in your research, you talk to lots of people, you accumulate a huge pile of information, but you still haven't proved your hypothesis. A wise ... Read More
Culture

Four Cheers for Incandescent Light Bulbs

It brought me much -- indeed, too much -- joy to hear of the Trump administration's rollback of restrictions on incandescent light bulbs, even if the ban will remain in place. The LED bulbs are terrible. They give off a pitiable, dim, and altogether underwhelming "glow," one that never matched the raw (if ... Read More
White House

Rachel Maddow’s Turnberry Tale

To a certain kind of Rachel Maddow viewer, there are few more titillating preludes to a news segment than the one she delivered Monday: “If you have not seen it yet, you are going to want to sit down.” Maddow’s story began, as many of her stories do, with President Trump, this time focused on his hotel ... Read More