”In the days and weeks following 9/11 did any legislator insist that we bring the perpetrators of that slaughter to justice, but only if we do it in a deficit-neutral fashion?”
I thought this was a great question and merited creating lots of variations and also some statements about “deficit neutrality.” So, here they are.
After 9/11, did any legislator insist that we remove the Taliban in Afghanistan, but only if we do it in a deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we depose Saddam Hussein, but only if we do it in a deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we save the banks from destruction by bailing them out, with TARP funds, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we stimulate the economy with an $800 billion stimulus package, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass the Medicare Advantage program and associated prescription drug benefits, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass the Bush 43 Tax cuts for the wealthy, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass the Reagan Tax cuts for the wealthy, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass Medicare for those 65 and over, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass the Kennedy Tax Cuts for stimulating the economy, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass appropriations for the Vietnam War, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass appropriations for the Korean War, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass appropriations for the Marshall Plan and our participation in NATO, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Did any legislator insist that we pass appropriations for World War II expenditures, but only if we do it in deficit neutral fashion?
Of course, there’s only one answer to all of these questions, and it’s pretty much no, except for the occasional nitwit with a fanatical religious belief in balanced budgets.
So, what does it mean when someone insists on deficit neutrality as a condition for doing something? I think it can mean a number of things, all of them bullshit. For example: 1) they don’t really want to do that thing and are looking for an out; 2) they want an excuse for raising taxes on the middle class; and 3) they really don’t believe that the thing to be done is as important as the other things mentioned on the list above, and, in particular, is not important enough to incur debt to accomplish.. So, I’d like to know which of these President Obama and the Democrats think is (are) the reason(s) for insisting that health insurance reform be deficit neutral over 10 years?
Whichever one or more of these they select, however, I suspect it (or they) would be quite unacceptable to the American people. Considering only the last reason, I think that the outcomes of our present health insurance system, in particular, 45,000 deaths per year, over one million bankruptcies, life expectancy lower than most other wealthy industrial nations, infant mortality rates higher than most other wealthy industrial, and expenditures per person about twice what the next most profligate nation spends on health care, suggest that a solution to our health insurance problem is more important and urgent than a good many of the problems addressed in the list of initiatives that didn’t require deficit neutrality in the past. In short, the insistence on deficit neutrality in health care legislation is bullshit. It is an underhanded way of saying that health insurance reform, and putting a stop to the outcomes of the present non-system isn’t important enough to prioritize ahead of deficit neutrality
So, I agree with ralphbon. I, too, don’t want to hear another word about deficit neutrality in health insurance reform. I want the problem of the private insurance industry and its predatory behavior solved. I want health care expenditures quickly cut to 11 or 12% of GDP from the current 17.5%, and I don’t care about any budget deficit, or the continued existence of the health insurance industry, or what Empress Snowe, or President Collins, or Benedict Arnold Lieberman, or Rahm, or BHO think, or any other BS the politicians think they can throw my way. All I have to say to them is: solve the health insurance problem and get rid of these outcomes, and these outlandish health care expenditures, or face my undying wrath and enmity.
Finally, make no mistake, I know that Harry Reid has the authority to write a health insurance reform bill that will substitute Bernie Sanders’ S 703 enhanced Medicare for All bill, for the very poor bills produced by the Senate HELP committee, and the Senate Finance Committee, and bring that bill to the floor. I also know that if that bill is filibustered, the Democrats can implement “the nuclear option,” pass S 703, and eliminate the filibuster in the bargain, if only they want to. So, if that doesn’t happen, the Senate Democrats and Harry Reid will bear the responsibility for failing to pass S 703. Again, they can pass an enhanced Medicare for All, single-payer bill if they choose. Let’s make them do it! Forget about the Public Option! Why should we settle for second best?
(Also posted at firedoglake.com where there may be more comments)