Certainly not with the current clowns that are running wild. With everything, it's low and ever lower.

On the Republican side, one could argue that the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans anything they way, which prevents the kind of bipartisanship that was had in the 80s.

On the Democratic side, one could argue that the Republicans won't be satisfied until they get everything they way, so it's the Republicans that are blocking the bipartisanship.

The bottom line is: you can't compare this bill will the tax reform bill. Whether the bill is too far left, or too far right, or a perfect compromise is entirely a subjective matter.

The Democrats weren't talking about it much, other than the say that the rich should pay their fair share. They have attempted to implement that incrementally. The latest example is the President's logic about why the rich should not get as big of a tax break for charitable donations as they do now.

So I guess I disagree with your premise. Why should we have had such high expectations for tax reform?

Rather than any rigged-competition public imitation of an insurer, a more practical and effective thing (which is why it's unlikely) is for the Dems to concentrate instead not only on real reform of the system as it exists now (regulation), but with less controversial things related to the “safety net” concept such as providing vouchers or subsidies to low-income people (with the money comes the chance to attach strings, in addition to regulation), or taking over Medicaid or taking over or providing assistance to states and the equivalent of high-risk pools for automobile (true) insurance.

[snicker]