Rational Arguments

Austin Frakt answers my question:

I think the effort here is to continue the meme that Democrats are “ramming this down the throat of the American people.” Reconciliation is so easy to spin as “outside the normal process” that the uninformed might buy the argument that Democrats are not playing fair.

Ezra Klein had it right last night when he said (in a tweet and on MSNBC) that Republicans are using process-based arguments to confuse people into fear. Meanwhile Democrats are talking substance and policy, about what they want to fix and improve.

Well, that’s certainly an explanation that fits.  I think they are over-reaching here, though.  It will be too easy to spin their defiance as “protecting special deals” and “raising taxes” this time.  Won’t it?  Or will the Democrats not go there?

And since we’re on the subject of Austin, I want to second what he says here:

I know from my own experience working on much simpler policy-relevant analysis that such work is incredibly hard. To achieve even one arguably credible result that can withstand the scrutiny of public disclosure takes hundreds, if not thousands, of person-hours. Many people put their heart and soul, and no doubt many all-nighters, into getting health reform right and analyzing it properly, within the constraints of the political necessities dictated by their ultimate masters, our elected representatives.

Nancy Pelosi deserves Person of the Year status for her efforts and her mark on history. But it is the largely invisible and un-thanked analysts I want to recognize. They receive too little credit relative to the amount of work they do. Though convention and institutional objectivity prevent most of them from taking a deserved bow I applaud them anyway. If you contributed to health care policy analysis that shaped health reform and its debate, thank you. Excellent job. Stand proud. And then go get some rest.

He’s right.  In the coming weeks as all praise focuses on the people at the top, we should also acknowledge the many people behind the scenes whose work makes all policy possible.  Thank you!

Ok, the House passed the Senate bill last night.  It looks like President Obama will sign it into law on Tuesday.

And then it’s done.

So what’s with the big push I’m seeing to “derail health care reform” by opposing reconciliation.  Reconciliation isn’t health care reform.  I know many of you heard that talking point, but it’s just not so.

If – IF – they block it completely, the Senate bill is still law.  Health care reform happens.

And lots of stuff in reconciliation is… popular.  They want to cut out the “cornhusker kickback”.  Don’t Republicans want that to happen?  They want to push the excise tax back.  Do Republicans oppose that?  They want to make it even more deficit reducing.  That’s good, right?

What does all this accomplish?  I’m seriously asking.  Someone tell me.

I’m starting to despair that no one in the media has any idea what they are talking about. I get why Republicans are trying to portray the passage of health care reform as some betrayal of principles or the tyranny of the majority, but it’s not.

Using reconciliation is not “ramming it through”.

Look – the bill has already passed through the Senate.  It got 60 votes.  It’s done.  Was that ramming it through?

Now, let’s say the House of Representatives passes the Senate bill, by a majority.  Is that ramming it through?

And then, the President signs the bill – passed by both houses of Congress.  Is that ramming it through?

No, it’s not.  It’s how laws (that overcome filibusters) are supposed to pass.  And then we would have health care reform.  No reconciliation.  No “ramming it through”.

That’s what the Democrats plan to do.

The bill will expand Medicaid, set up the exchanges, put in place an excise tax, establish subsidies, increase regulation – and everything else it’s supposed to do.  No reconciliation.  No ramming.

BUT – the House of Representatives and the Presiedent want to make some tweaks.  They want to delay and change the excise tax.  They want to increase the subsidies.  They want to add in another tax.  THAT’S what will go through reconciliation.

If the Republicans and the media want to outlaw reconciliation, health care reform could STILL PASS.  The House of Representatives can vote, and the President can sign.  Then we would just have the Senate bill as law. But no one is saying that.  They are claiming that the only way the bill passes at all is if it all goes through reconciliation.

That’s not true.  Stop saying it.

Politico reports that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are in talks for the House to pass the Senate bill if the Senate will tweak it in reconciliation:

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill – a move that would preserve President Barack Obama’s vision of a sweeping health reform plan.

They also go on about the risks of doing this.  Yes, it will upset all the people who oppose reform, but that’s nothing new.  They also talk about the new “calls to slow down/pare back/etc.” but I don’t put much stock in those.  They won’t work.

There’s just as much risk, and arguably more, for them to just fail.

Moreover, I agree with Nate Silver that there is a big difference between hating the bill, and hating misinformation about the bill.  I think we may be seeing much more of the latter.

(h/t Paul Krugman)

Sarah Binder breaks it down.