A Pundit Explains What’s Wrong With Washington
Or, actually, demonstrates
by example what’s wrong with Washington.
Matt
Yglesias finds Ron
Fournier saying this about health reform:
On health care, we needed a market-driven plan that decreases the percentage of uninsured Americans without convoluting the U.S. health care system. Just such a plan sprang out of conservative think tanks and was tested by a GOP governor in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.Instead of a bipartisan agreement to bring that plan to scale, we got more partisan warfare. The GOP resisted, Obama surrendered his mantle of bipartisanship, and Democrats muscled through a one-sided law that has never been popular with a majority of the public.
The mind reels. How is it
possible for anyone who has been following politics and, presumably, policy for
the past six years not to know that Obamacare is, in all important respects,
identical to Romneycare? It has the same three key provisions —
nondiscrimination by insurers, a mandate for individuals, and subsidies to make
the mandate workable. It was developed by the same people. I and many others
have frequently referred to ObamaRomneycare.
Well, I’ve know for years that
many political pundits don’t think that understanding policy is part of their
job. But this is still extreme. And I’m sorry to go after an individual here —
but for God’s sake, don’t you have to know something about the actual content of
a policy you critique?
And what’s actually going on
here is worse than ignorance. It’s pretty clear that we’re watching a rule of
thumb according to which if Republicans are against a proposal, that means it
must be leftist and extreme, and the burden on the White House is to find a way
to make the GOP happy. Needless to say, this rewards obstructionism — there is
literally nothing Obama can do to convince some (many) pundits that he’s making
a good faith effort, because they don’t pay any attention to what he does, only
to the Republican reaction.
Awesome.
No comments:
Post a Comment