×
I've long kept a tally of efforts by Senate moderates to inexplicably trim various pieces of legislation by $100 billion. Via Steve Benen, looks like the game is back on:
Another Republican negotiator voiced concerns to Fox. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, said there is still concern about the size of the package which is carrying a near $900 billion price tag. "Maybe we could shrink that to $800 billion or below," the moderate senator said, citing a skeptical public with bailout fatigue and concern for rising deficits.Oy. I've made strenuous efforts in the past to give members of the $100 billion club the opportunity to justify their mysterious cuts -- I've got a query into Snowe's office now and will update this post accordingly -- but thus far no one has ever explained why it is better to a tailor a policy to a "reasonable" price rather than figuring out what good policy would be and how to fund it. That's especially problematic for health care, given the pressing need reform, the goal of making it deficit neutral, and the inherent problems of doing reform through half measures -- for instance, mandating individual health insurance without providing people with the means to afford it (In what seems like something of a conflict of ideas, Snowe is reportedly pushing for larger low-income subsidies in the "Gang of Six" negotiations).
-- Tim Fernholz
