When you’re on top, it’s hard to find sympathy against the underdog.
An editorial in The New Republic online today implies that founding father James Madison would cry out loud over the partisanship and factionalism characterizing the fight over health care reform.
But, this week, as the health care reform battle reached a crucial juncture, the violence of faction has become gratuitous.
We refer, of course, to Max Baucus’s long-awaited health care reform bill–and the resounding thud with which it landed on Capitol Hill. There are many flaws in Baucus’s bill, but there is one thing that can be said for it: It represents as sincere an attempt in recent memory to achieve consensus.
The editorial continues, characterizing as a compromise a bill that violates nearly every tenet of Republican philosophy, “when it came to winning over Republicans, Baucus went more than halfway: eliminating the public option, strengthening protections against federal funding of abortions, and lowering the legislation’s price tag.”
The American Spectator’s Quin Hillyer re-named the article Michael Kelly Weeps, implying that the former New Republic editor would be grieved by the Madison editorial. “TNR went on to whine at great length that those meanies in the GOP have turned into the ‘Party of No’.”
Hillyer accuses TNR of 8th grade logic and 7th grade self-absorption.
The National Review Online’s Ramesh Ponnuru similarly lambasted the editorial with unvarnished snarkiness, leading with, “Every time you resist Democratic health-care legislation, you make James Madison cry in heaven.”
The New Republic’s commitment to the idea that minority parties should try to meet majorities halfway is not deep. The magazine never complained about the Democrats’ repeated filibusters of judicial appointments, for example. The editorial expresses dismay that only nine Republicans voted for Sotomayor’s confirmation. Only four Democrats voted for Alito’s. As I recall, the New Republic was urging no votes.
Expect change
Regardless of whether the Baucus bill represents a true compromise, the media is already forecasting additional changes in efforts to make a passable bill.
Politico’s Live Pulse blog reported $28 billion might be added to the bill to provide higher tax credits and lower penalties for those who do not purchase insurance.
The Hill’s Eric Zimmerman provides a little more clarity:
The changes were spurred by a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found Baucus’s original bill would reduce the deficit by $49 billion over 10 years. Baucus has decided to instead spend $28 billion of those savings to make the bill more palatable to centrists.
The Wall St. Journal’s Greg Hitt reported that “Mr. Baucus said the changes would help ‘garner broader support in the committee’.”
The Finance Committee is expected to take up the broader health bill on Tuesday.
Tags: Politico, Quin Hillyer, Ramesh Ponnuru, The American Spectator, The Hill, The National Review, The New Republic, Wall Street Journal
