With regard to this impasse on healthcare reform, I've been meaning to look up the 1935 and 1965 votes tallied in the successful passage of the Social Security Act and the Medicare bill, respectively. I have also been curious to learn the level of Republican support for both bills. Here 'tis...

1935 Social Security Act:
House voted 372 for and 33 against with 81 Republicans in tow
Senate voted 77 for and 6 against with 16 Republicans in tow

1965 Medicare bill:
House voted 307 for and 116 against with 70 Republicans in tow
Senate voted 70 for and 24 against with 13 Republicans in tow

Politifact.com had some other interesting historical tidbits, including a mention of Johnson's 2/3 majority in the House following the 1964 elections.

(I wasn't looking to prove or disprove any assertion Howard Dean made last August, which is the focus of this Politifact piece. That's just where I happened to find the numbers I wanted.)

(link...)

Tamara Shepherd's picture

More context

And here's the composition by political party of each house during each era...

1935 (73rd Congress):
Senate had 59 Dems, 36 Repubs, 1 other* (composition 61% Dem)
House had 313 Dems, 117 Repubs, 5 other (composition 72% Dem)

* I don't know why only 96 Senate seats were occupied...

1965 (88th Congress):
Senate had 68 Dems, 32 Repubs (composition 68% Dem)
House had 259 Dems, 176 Repubs (composition 60% Dem)*

* It appears, then, that Politifact.com's assertion that Johnson had a "2/3 majority in the House" is slightly overstated...unless I should be looking at numbers for the 89th Congress?

Senate stats here (link...)

House stats here (link...)

Tamara Shepherd's picture

More context (corrected)

OK, here's the (corrected) composition by political party of each house during each era...

1935 (73rd Congress):
Senate had 59 Dems, 36 Repubs, 1 other* (composition 61% Dem)
House had 313 Dems, 117 Repubs, 5 other (composition 72% Dem)

* 96 seats because Alaska and Hawaii weren't yet states.

1965 (89th Congress):
Senate had 68 Dems, 32 Repubs (composition 68% Dem)
House had 295 Dems, 140 Repubs (composition 68% Dem)

So the Politifact.com assertion that Johnson enjoyed a 2/3 majority in the House in 1965 is correct.

Also, my 1965 stats as to the Senate are unchanged here because I had previously given you 89th Congress stats for the Senate, but 88th Congress stats for the House.

Clearly, I hadn't drunk enough coffee prior to posting. Apologies.

Senate stats here (link...)

House stats here (link...)

R. Neal's picture

I don't know why only 96

I don't know why only 96 Senate seats were occupied...

Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

(Blush.)

Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet?

(Blush.)

Tamara Shepherd's picture

89th Congress

...and Medicare was, indeed, passed in the 89th Congress, not the 88th.

Please talk among yourselves while I continue trying to get this right. Repost forthcoming...

R. Neal's picture

Realizing there were only 48

Realizing there were only 48 states when I was born makes me feel really old.

ANGRYWOLF's picture

Most repubs nowadays

would vote against those bills, as well as the Fair Housing Act and the Voting Rights Act if they were up for a vote now..

The right wing of their own party would force them to..the Rush Limbaughs and Fox News that exist now that didn't exist back then.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

My unspoken question

That was really my unspoken question in looking into these stats: Is the cause of this impasse on healthcare reform that Dems hold a smaller majority today than in 1935 and/or 1965, or is the impasse due to something else--like a different brand of Republican legislator today, or a different focus among today's media, or maybe just today's greater influence from lobbyists?

If you looked at those two charts indicating the political party composition in this session's Senate/House, you saw that we do hold smaller majorities in both than we did in 1935 or 1965. Today, Dems comprise just 59% of legislators in both chambers, but...is that the only reason this legislation has stalled?

lonnie's picture

I think it is a mixture of

I think it is a mixture of both. I think FDR was a great President, but even with his huge mandate and Democrats in control of Congress, he was never able to sign anything into law regarding civil rights. He knew, that even with 15 New Deal measures rubber stamped by the Democratic Congress in 1933 and many more later, civil rights measures did not have a prayer of passing in that those years. He would have alienated the Southern Dems that supported the New Deal. FDR and Johnson were great at twisting arms and using their political power to the greatest extent, but they did have the advantage of a huge majority. On the other hand, as Bob Dole recently stated, he or Reagan would not be welcome in today's Republican Party if you look at policy and compromise. I have never agreed with the Republican Platform, but it is much worse today than any time in the past. With the Tea Party nut cases controlling the Republican Party, great programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Headstart, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc would never have happened.

I think another big difference from the past is that legislators do not get to know each other as they have in the past. Without the human interaction, common sense solutions are ignored in favor of petty politics.

Michael D.

Bea Reed's picture

health care reform

Republicans have slways been emphatically pro-business. Thus, any legislation that will ultimately hurt the bottom line for insurance companies and their CEOs will be vigorously lobbied against by those companies, and our airways will be filled with scare tactics and prophesies of doom. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Here's a provocative question: Why are health insurance companies exempt from anti-trust laws?

Joel 's picture

Social security , Medicare , obamacare

Seems repbulicans always seems to be against history when goverment pass legislation that help ppl lives ! They were against social security, Medicare in 1965 And now obamacare in 2013 ! Seems history. Keep repeating with this party !

Bbeanster's picture

Bill Maher does a pretty dang

Bill Maher does a pretty dang good job of debunking that "Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP meme.
Reagan, who was paid to campaign against Medicare before he was ever elected to anything, and who invoked "states rights" (wink, wink) when he chose to kick off his first presidential campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi, practically on the graves of three murdered civil rights workers, who couldnt bring himself to mention the word AIDS for years and years and and who couldn't remember whether he really served in WWII or just played a soldier in the movies, was the original Teabagger, Maher says.
I agree.
(link...)

lonnie's picture

I love to listen to Maher. No

I love to listen to Maher. No convincing needed for me to believe how bad Reagan was for America. I was just using the Dole interview to point out that Rand Paul & Cruz & company are even to the right of a guy the right wing conservative movers and shakers used as a puppet as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Then they gave him a national audience with his speech at Goldwater's 64 convention. Then governor of CA. and on to be a disaster for healthcare and every other issue that would help most Americans during his 8 yrs. as President. The "Great Communicator" repeated the words of Nancy and his handlers so well he ruined the lives of millions of Americans. I don't want to say anything good about the crook....but Nixon was a hell of a lot smarter and better than Reagan. That aint saying much but Nixon did create the EPA and was more moderate than Reagan on just about everything.

lonnie's picture

Thanks for the link....just

Thanks for the link....just listened.....Maher's words are a good reminder to some folks with short memories,so true about "the great communicator", when he says "Reagan just made shit up".

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives