Security of Personal Information is an Administrative Burden on Government

That’s what the Obama administration claims, and they’re actually serious.

The House of Representatives last Friday passed and sent to the Senate the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, HR 3811, by 291-122, with 67 (!) Democrats voting in the affirmative, also.

The one-sentence bill says that no later than two business days after any security breach on an ObamaCare site is discovered, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to each individual.”

In response to that one sentence bill (who says we need 2,000 pages to write a bill?), the Obama administration, through its OMB, issued a one-page statement decrying the bill, saying, in part,

The Administration opposes House passage of HR3811 because it would create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally-identifiable information in the Health Insurance Marketplaces.

After all, the administration said, the Web site is fine, and Americans’ information is secure.  We said so.  So why should we have to tell anyone their information has been stolen or leaked?  They don’t need to know, and telling them would work a hardship on us.

Never mind that this “hardship” is answered by private enterprise as a matter of unfortunate routine.  Is the administration terrified that Obamacare security breaches might surpass the recent Target breach?  Or are they just worried about the political hardship news of such a breach might work on them in the ballot box?

Oh, and half the OMB statement was wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand, being devoted to Obama’s campaign speech of how wonderful Obamacare is.

The statement can be seen here.

Filibusters and the Senate

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) blew up the Senate filibuster with his manufactured claim of Republican obstructionism and with his Senate rules-breaking move to eliminate it (for now only regarding Presidential nominees) with a (Democrat only) majority vote.

Yet Republican-led (note that: not the Republican satrapy, as Reid views his Senate to be for Democrats) House passed 200 jobs- and economy-related bills in 2013 and some dozen that were passed with 250 or more votes—i.e., with considerable Democrat (that would be bipartisan, for those Progressives following along at home) voting support.

The Democrat-ruled Senate?  An immigration bill and a farm bill.  A budget, but only under the embarrassment of having Senators’ pay withheld if they didn’t pass one.  Under real pressure, a sequester bill (that originated with President Barack Obama) and a natural disaster relief bill.

Indeed, of the 70-ish bills Obama signed last year, 56 originated in the House, and all of 16 came from Reid’s fiefdom.

The rest of those 200 House-passed bills?  Reid wouldn’t even let them come to a vote.  There are, for instance, 40 explicitly jobs-related bills that Reid refuses to allow the Senate even to discuss.  Of the Senate-originated bills, Reid wouldn’t let the minority party even offer amendments.  Under Senate rules, there are only so many amendments allowed to be proposed for a bill.  Reid routinely, and universally, “filled the tree” with his own or those of his trusted lieutenants, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL).

There is the filibuster.