The Primacy of Congress
Photo credit: By Charles Dharapak — Associated Press
The problem with David Brooks's column today isn't that it's wrong on the specifics. It's not, really. It would be good if the health-care proposals on the table accorded more closely with the views of the most ambitious experts. But Brooks's explanation of why health-care reform differs from this technocratic ideal is misleading to his reader. He argues that the health-care reform proposals on the table are insufficiently ambitious because of some intellectual oversight on the part of the White House. If only they read more white papers! That's simply not true: This particular White House contains more expertise on the economics of health care than any in memory. What they don't possess is the capacity to change the incentives of Congress.
Take the simplest way to both pay for health-care reform and cut health-care costs: reforming the employer tax exclusion. House Democrats quickly shot that down, no Republicans offered their vote in exchange for the policy, and the Senate Democratic Leadership eventually killed the idea. What was the White House to do?
Or take the Wyden-Bennett bill, which Brooks brings up as an ambitious alternative. When this process began, that bill had eight Republican co-sponsors. Now it has, in reality, five, and only two of them, to my knowledge, have committed to voting for it. What was the White House to do?
Or take the "Gang of Six" process, which pared health-care reform back significantly. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and thus the gatekeeper for legislation involving Medicaid, Medicare or new revenues, wanted to pull the bill into a backroom and negotiate its shape with a few of his closest friends. What was the White House to do?
To put it more simply, Congress writes and passes legislation. The president cannot write legislation or pass it. What is the White House to do about that?more here...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_primacy_of_congress.html