The Washington Monthly

November 22, 2009

TACKLING BRODER'S SKEPTICISM.... David Broder isn't sure if health care reform will cut the deficit, and as such, isn't sure if he likes the bill pending in the Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was delighted to see the column, and called the writer a "distinguished senior columnist" with important "reservations as a citizen."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) replied, "To focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be."

Technically, Broder never exactly retired, and continues to churn out fairly predictable content (next week's column: politicians should be more moderate). But in his latest item, Broder doubts that the Senate's reform plan will achieve the promised deficit reductions. The columnist is aware of the CBO report, but reads it in such a way as to conclude that "the promised budget savings may not materialize."

Broder's Washington Post colleague Ezra Klein seems to think Broder should have taken a closer look at the details.

The net increase of $160 billion in the first 10 years is part of CBO's analysis, not a caveat to it. It doesn't mean the bill doesn't cut the deficit, it just means that overall spending is larger before you add revenues into the equation. Moreover, the CBO continues: "during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out."
In other words, the revenue and the savings grow more quickly than the costs. Extend that line out further and, yes, federal spending on health care falls as a result of this bill. In other words, the bill satisfies Broder's conditions. But he doesn't come out and say that.

Instead, he pivots to the now-traditional argument that Congress won't be able to stick to the savings and revenue measures in this bill. That, however, is another way of saying that Congress can't cut health-care costs and the American government will go bankrupt. For one thing, that's not a very good reason not to at least try and avert that outcome. But if Broder's position is that we face certain fiscal collapse, then the only real question is whether we would prefer that 30 million Americans had insurance in the meantime, or went uninsured over that period.

Reading Broder's column reminds me of listening to center-right Democrats complain about the bill for no apparent reason. Harry Reid crafted a modest, affordable bill that would significantly reduce the deficit, cut systemic costs, and steer clear of massive tax increases. This is what the center-right says it wants. And yet, they're reluctant to take "yes" for an answer.

Broder's argument seems to be, "Well, maybe policymakers won't follow through and do what the legislation explicitly mandates they do." By any reasonable measure, that's simply not an argument.

—Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Comments

Actually technically he did retire. In one of the Post cutbacks he accepted a retirement buyout and then was "rehired" to do his column. Yeah it probably was just him cashing out while not actually giving anything up but he did "retire".

Posted by: Rob on November 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

This is a wonderful example of ideology getting in the way of reality. HCR is coming together, not in the mindless way Broder prefers as some delusional compromise between Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus but as a largely Democratic process.

For that reason, the guy will bad-mouth it no matter how effective the legislation might be. It's a grudge more than anything -- a grudge that would prefer the legislation fail and millions have no access finally to heath care in this country.

Posted by: leo on November 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

The so-called "Dean" is now the Dunce. I don't know what political planet the guy lives on nowadays. He imagines a world where reasonable, moderate Republicans negotiate in good faith. He secretly thinks he's one of them. He tries with his columns to make that fantasy a reality.

Posted by: sjw on November 22, 2009 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

We are ruled by stupid and unreasonable people.

The CBO does an analysis using the best predictive techniques available.

Broder declares his gut tells him the analysis is wrong, but he and his anti-reform allies can't find any major flaws in the analysis.

What can be done to affect how Broder feels about health care reform in his gut if he won't let facts persuade him?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on November 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

It's nice to see you pointing out the center-right Dems as obstructionist.Unfortunately they are the majority of the Dems,and I don't see a progressive majority taking over the party again.

Posted by: par4 on November 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

It's fine to be skeptical. But continuing what we are doing is not an option.

Thanks to republican inertia and demagoguery this is the only show in town and we need to move on it.

Posted by: Cycledoc on November 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

I am surprised he did not say to pass the bill whether it is the right thing to do or not- what was his opinion for Medicare Part D?

Posted by: Raoul on November 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

one has to wonder if he and others commentators opposed to health care for all American citizens with competition have recieved a pay off from the health care industry and if that has influenced the position

Posted by: Keith Loomis on November 22, 2009 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Read "Nixonland." Broder hasn't been right about anything since 1962.

Posted by: TCinLA on November 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Harry Reid's been making me smile a lot lately, but the Broder remark made me laugh out loud.

Posted by: hells littlest angel on November 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Broder cites the Concord Coalition (founded by Pete Peterson) and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (which has Pete Peterson on the board of directors).

To be fair, Broder reaches out beyond those two "nonpartisan sources" and cites "Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin" who - hold your breath! - is also on the board of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Kudos to David Broder for giving a well-rounded survey of opinions on health care legislation.

Posted by: Quiddity on November 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

"Well, maybe policymakers won't follow through and do what the legislation explicitly mandates they do." By any reasonable measure, that's simply not an argument.

Maybe not, but there are plenty of historical precedents. Neither Social Security nor Medicare/Medicaid has ever been run on an actuarially sound basis.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Goodness. Think of all the things Broder must have been against in the past, using this logic. Oh, wait.

Posted by: paul on November 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Badly need your help. Reality is nothing but a collective hunch. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: Stock trading comparison. I found only this - free online stock trading. Home time is increasing particularly email even, stock trading. Stock trading, there are daily key canadians; two many dollars are got as either corporate market-maker or right ". With best wishes :o, Linu from Herzegovina.

Posted by: Linu on March 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK