Our brands of cynicism, they clash
But what exactly is the evidence cited for accusations like “the plan is to pass basically anything, and then go and totally rewrite it when the budget spotlight is off” other than Megan McArdle saying it? It may exist, I genuinely don’t know. I’d be very interested in it.
Look, it’s hard to have “evidence” of something that hasn’t happened yet, but this fixing-it-later thing is something we’ve been reading from progressives just about EVERYWHERE. Like this, from TAP:
Liberals in Congress should also recognize that with either a 2013 or 2014 date for implementation, there will be time enough to revise the program before it goes into effect (indeed, time enough for the opponents to roll it back). Many of the specifics, such as the level of subsidies, almost certainly will be changed in the intervening years. And many of those specifics can be changed through budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate.And this, from Ezra Klein:
You take what you can get, and then you go back and get a little bit more. Do that for long enough, and you’ve got a pretty good bill.Or this, from Gail Collins:
I only have one thought, which is that the Democrats should pass the health care bill now. If that means having the House pass the Senate version, fine. Even the stupid parts. Even the part about how Nebraska doesn’t have to pay its share of the Medicaid bills, which is so ridiculous that even Nebraskans are embarrassed.They can fix it later.Or this:
Pass universal coverage now, fix it later.Or this:
There are many lessons to learn from the health care war that has raged over the past year. We’ll get to some of them below. But here’s the bottom line: Pass the bill, then improve it.Or this from Krugman. Or this from Koch. Or, if you need to hear an actual politician talk about this, then here:
Stephen Lynch of the 9th district of Massachusetts, which (I haven’t crunched the numbers yet) probably voted for Brown, says, “If it comes down to the Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end up with nothing. I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill. Folks are telling me I should vote yes and fix it later. You wouldn’t buy a car for a $1 trillion and have somebody tell you ‘It won’t run but we’ll fix it later.’ You know?”And here’s another one:
“There is only one guarantee — that if we don’t pass something the notion of trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again is a real long shot,” said Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late senator. “If you understand the legislative process, it’s a lot easier to pass something and fix it later.”And Obama himself told progressive congressmen just yesterday that he wants to revisit the idea of a pubic option after this bill passes:
Progressives aren’t without demands of their own. They are looking for all assurances that the Senate bill won’t pass without a companion reconciliation bill amending it. Obama assured the members he sees the two bills as companions.
“We don’t want to get trapped voting for the Senate bill as is without a full understanding that what he signs, and comes to his desk, are the two pieces of legislation, and the other part being the critical part being the reconciliation,” Grijalva said.
Obama also apparently pledged to revisit the public option in the future.McArdle wasn’t making things up. The plan is to pass what they’ve got, and then change it.
It’s an impressive array you’ve pulled together. I looked at all of it.
Nevertheless, I see very little here except people, mostly commentators, acknowledging the legislative process. Your mileage may vary, obviously. I was asking for evidence because what was referenced was something called a “plan.” The Democrats’ plan. To pass whatever old crap and then do something completely different. And I’m saying that this “pass it now, fix it later” notion is almost completely something a bunch of pundits say. McArdle didn’t mean to imply that lefty pundits were running a scam, but rather that Democrats were.
All I hear is
“What we are able to pass is not going to be perfect. We have to push forward anyway. If the past is any example, then we will be incrementally improving this. Just like we did with Social Security, etc.”
Which is a far cry from
“What we really want to do would never get passed. Let’s just create a bill we think we can pass, and once it’s passed, we’ll be able to do whatever we want!”
This is all I’m saying: either to the CBO, or to the politicians in congress, your argument depends on imputing bad faith. You may be entirely justified. But it doesn’t matter WHAT bill passes if you have so little faith in the people charged with crafting, executing and improving the plan.
