The idea goes something like this:
The Hill: Democrats would have to vote either to give Congress special treatment under ObamaCare — a politically unpopular move — or delay the implementation of the controversial law before getting a chance to consider the government funding bill.Two bad choices and one transparently devious scheme designed not to serve the public, but to serve their own selfish reelection efforts in 2014.
For the Record: The Democratic position simply treats politicians and staff like every other American. An attempt to make Democrats appear otherwise is deceitfully dirty politics.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday, said “Let's stop these really juvenile political games. The one dealing with healthcare for senators and House members and our staff, we are going to be part of the exchanges. That's what the law says, and we'll be part of that,” he added. “We'll be treated like the rest of the federal employees. It's nothing unique that employers help pay for healthcare. Ford Motor Company, Sears, doesn't matter.”Again, just to reaffirm the intent of the GOP scheme:
A senior Senate Republican aide characterized Reid’s remarks as a sign Democrats feel vulnerable on the issue. “He was very defensive about federal subsidies for congressional staff,” said the aide.
Holding the GOP’s scheme against them would neutralize it’s impact, and should elicit voter feedback asking lawmakers to stop playing games and get serious.
Even more interesting, this “scheme” actually runs counter to another Republican amendment being pushed by Sen. Vitter:
The inspiration for the GOP strategy is an amendment Vitter has pushed this week on the Senate floor. The Vitter bill would clarify the law to ensure that members of Congress do not have the authority to exempt so-called “official staff” from going into the healthcare exchange set up by ObamaCare.
A Republican source said that if Democrats reject these restrictions, they would, in effect, be voting to give themselves special treatment under ObamaCare. They could escape political harm — or having to buy insurance through the exchanges without subsidies — by choosing to delay the law’s implementation, the source noted.