Thirteen members of Congress hold health care hostage

For those still clinging to quaint notions of the American ideal, these have been a faith-shaking 10 years. Just as evolutionary science once got in the way of Creationists' catechism, so has politics now undermined patriots' naive belief that the United States is a functioning democracy.

The 21st century opened with a handful of Supreme Court puppets appointing George W. Bush president after he lost the popular vote — and we all know the costs in blood and treasure that insult wrought. Now, the decade closes with another cabal of stooges assaulting the "one person, one vote" principle — and potentially bringing about another disaster.

Here we have a major congressional push to fix a health-care system that leaves one-sixth of the country without coverage. Here we have 535 House and Senate delegates elected to give all 300 million of us a voice. And here we have just 13 of those delegates holding the initiative hostage.

In the Senate, both parties have outsourced health care legislation to six Finance Committee lawmakers: Max Baucus, D-Mt.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Mike Enzi, R-Wy.; Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The group recently announced it is rejecting essential provisions like a public insurance option that surveys show the public supports. Meanwhile, seven mostly southern House Democrats have been threatening to use their Commerce Committee votes to gut any health care bill.

This, however, isn't about the majority. These lawmakers, hailing mostly from small states and rural areas, together represent only 13 million people, meaning those speaking for just 4 percent of America are maneuvering to impose their health-care will on the other 96 percent of us.

Census figures show that the poverty rates are far higher and per-capita incomes far lower in the 13 legislators' specific districts than in the nation as a whole. Put another way, these politicians represent exactly the kinds of districts whose constituents would most benefit from universal health care.

So why are they leading the fight to stop — rather than pass — reform? Because when tyranny mixes with legalized bribery, constituents' economic concerns stop mattering.

Thanks to our undemocratic system and our corrupt campaign finance laws, the health-care industry doesn't have to fight a 50-state battle. It can simply buy a tiny group of congresspeople, which is what it's done. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions — a massive sum further enhanced by geography.

Remember, politicians trade favors for re-election support — and the best way to ensure re-election is to raise money to for TV airtime (read: commercials). In rural America, that airtime is comparatively cheap because the audience is relatively small. Thus, campaign contributions to rural politicians like these 13 buy more commercials — and, consequently, more political loyalty.

The end result is an amplifier of tyranny: precisely because the undemocratic system unduly empowers legislators from sparsely populated (and hence cheap) media markets, industry cash can more easily purchase tyrannical obstruction from those same legislators. In this case, that means congresspeople blocking health-care reform that would most help their own voters.

Of course, there is talk of circumventing the 13 obstructionists and forcing an un-filibuster-able vote of the full Congress. Inside the Washington palace, the media court jesters and political aides-de-camp have reacted to such plans by raising predictable charges of improper procedure, poor manners, bad etiquette and other Versailles transgressions.

But the real crime would be letting the tyrants block that vote, trample democracy and kill health-care reform in the process.

David Sirota is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future. Find his blog at OpenLeft.com or e-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com