Filed under: U.S. Politics | Tags: boehner, cbo, health care, narratives, repeal
House Republicans are, as I type, moving to vote on a repeal of the Democratic health care reform law. In an early legislative season that’s been tumultuous in the wake of the Jared Loughner rampage, this has nonetheless been the expected, first major initiative that Speaker Boehner and company have taken up. They’ve conspicuously stopped calling it a “job-killing” bill, which is endearing as evidence of shame, even if it’s only political, but it’s ultimately a silly and somewhat vacuous gesture. Calling it “job-killing” versus “job-crushing” doesn’t fix the truly relevant question about that statement, namely; is it true?
The CBO says no (via Factcheck.org).
Both Democrats and Republicans have decried the findings of the Congressional Budget Office when those findings haven’t suited their politics, I won’t deny that. But what does that suggest about the CBO? Perhaps, it means that they are the very thing they’re supposed to be- a non-partisan entity that focuses on fiscal impacts, not political ones. Whether the CBO’s projections are proven to be entirely accurate, though, the Republican claim is still demonstrably false. They cite the source of their “job-killing” claim as the CBO itself, and misrepresent a portion of their analysis to an absurd extent to seal it. The above Factcheck.org link tells the full story.
So, in an honest policy debate, insofar as we have systems to predict fiscal impact of legislation, the correct answer is no, you can’t credibly call the health care reform law a “job-killer,” or “job-crusher.” They could change it to “respectfully, we know this bill will cost us jobs,” and while less verbally edgy, the core problem stands.
But what about the political benefits? Politicians, as it happens, sometimes lie to improve their standing with voters. In the case of the present Republican congress, many of the newly elected rode on a promise to their constituents to repeal health care (insurance) reform. They knew then, as they know now, that this is flatly impossible so long as Obama and his veto pen are in office. But the political value of a divisive issue only lasts so long, and as the law’s rather benign nature becomes more apparent in the years to come, waiting for a potential Republican president in 2012 to sign a repeal is futile, and would almost certainly be calamitously unpopular. If the Republicans want to make good on their umbrage, they more or less have to do what they’ve done, and tackle this as soon as possible.
I somehow suspect, though, that the entire strategy was doomed from the moment they started telling a fired-up, reactionary base that they were going to tear down the law that they loathe so well. The baldly obvious concern for Republicans is whether those fervent, passionate supporters will be sated by what essentially amounts to a show vote. With no genuine chance of repeal, Speaker Boehner has resigned himself to engineering a display of the new Republican power in the House- a power that he knows from the get-go will be insufficient to deliver the goods.
Were I a political strategist, I would argue that the first priority for such a loud, demonstrative takeover of one branch of congress should be to sponsor conservative legislation with enough crossover appeal to pass the Senate, and at least force Obama into a gut-check on using the veto. Regardless of what your rhetoric has been, nobody is going to be impressed that your bold new majority heard the people’s mandate and accomplished… not really anything. It’s an inept attempt at forming a political narrative, which is shocking considering the Republican Party has always run circles around the Democrats at narratives. And as the claims prominent Republicans made during the health care fight, the stuff of “pulling grandma’s plug” and “government takeovers” become more starkly ridiculous by the visible lack of upheaval our system has suffered, this issue’s value has nowhere to go but down.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
The Crater 