×
In an otherwise useful breakdown of committee hurdles facing the president's legislative agenda -- basically his entire legislative agenda -- this Times piece observes that
Mr. Obama is taking a gamble in outsourcing the drafting of his agenda’s details to these five veteran lawmakers and others in Congress, each with his own political and parochialcalculations.But it's not like Obama was choosing between that option and simply issuing executive orders that would enact his plan. Congress was always going to be involved and always going to meddle in the details; it's not that often that presidents come before congress with a fully formed piece of major legislation that passes without interference. It's also intentional on the part of the administration to be less specific at the outset; they see it as avoiding the 1994 health care reform mistakes and a stronger bargaining position that leaves them more room to work across the aisle. That might not be the best decision but it's worth noting that the president isn't just blundering around without considering these things.Also worth keeping an eye on: The article reports that "the chairmen of the House and Senate tax-writing committees, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, have objected to the proposal, citing a potential drop in tax-deductible gifts to charities." But does the Times try and figure out if that is true? Nah.For your info, the CBPP has put together a little research showing that the drop in giving would be about 1.3 percent. And charitable giving doesn't just come to "charities," it also comes to all kinds of non-profits (like TAP), religious organizations and schools, so the actual affect on "charities" as we concieve them and not Harvard's endowment is even smaller. People also argue that health care reform financed by the tax break would help many smaller non-profits that bear heavy burdens from health coverage for their employees. But those arguments (or arguments against them) aren't presented in the piece. You could be forgiven for leaving that sentence under the impression that the president's tax proposal was going to gut charities, as opposed to barely affecting them at all. And sadly, that's also how it always works.
-- Tim Fernholz
