A 2000+ page legislative atrocity can be repealed with a two-page bill. Won’t take long to read that one. Now that’s what I would call efficient government.
8 thoughts on “Short And Sweet”
Comments are closed.
A 2000+ page legislative atrocity can be repealed with a two-page bill. Won’t take long to read that one. Now that’s what I would call efficient government.
Comments are closed.
Forget “job-killing.” It’s “freedom-killing.”
And, come to think of it, “health-care killing.”
Whereas I agree completely on repealing the health care law, I question the political wisdom of emphasizing “job-killing.” Are they trying to undermine their chances of passing the repeal by such “in-your-face” language, or are they trying to score political points on a measure they expect to fail? I suspect the latter. It does make me wonder though that if the law actually increased the number of “jobs” what would Boehner and company do? There are many better reasons, as MfK mentions, to hate the Health Care Law than job-killing. Even if the law did all of the things that it is supposedly designed to do, it should not have passed. By framing the argument in terms of what the law “does” it seems the GOP is conceding the principled argument that the government didn’t have the authority to “do” it in the first place.
That would be Standard Operating Procedure for them, yes.
Dunno, so they repeal Health Care Reform and the Senate or the President’s veto pen stops the repeal.
Since the whole thing is tactical anyway, how about the Fairness in Health Care Reform bill, say that the exemptions given to special parties apply to everyone, or the Health Care Reform — Good and Hard bill, where the exemptions are outlawed?
That may get the same treatment, but it makes for better 2012 campaign ads.
If you are writing a purely symbolic bill that you expect to die in the Senate, it’s easy to be concise.
If you want to actually change the law, you need to do better.
That would be true of a 2,000 page bill. Not “easy”, efficient.
In this case, “doing better” is nothing less than winning the Senate and WH in 2012.
By framing the argument in terms of what the law “does” it seems the GOP is conceding the principled argument that the government didn’t have the authority to “do” it in the first place.
They’re also doing that with respect to the new “Cut and Grow” policy mentioned in the House.
The thing is, there are both a lot of people who foolishly think it’s government’s job to create or save jobs, and copious evidence that the Democrat policies don’t fulfill their alleged purposes. So I think it’ll be an effective argument despite a degree of compromise inherent in the argument.
it’s government’s job to create or save jobs
Kind of like there are some people who think you should eat certain foods to lose weight. Or spend on certain products and services to save money.