Consistent with memes given voice in David Brooks’ column yesterday — ref. here and here — the WaPo’s Michael Gerson writes:
It is difficult to imagine that an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress will do nothing on health reform. But as deadlines slip, and moderate arguments gain in momentum, the legislation is likely to disappoint liberal Democrats in several ways. William Galston of the Brookings Institution — who kept an eye on moderate congressional opinion as part of the Clinton White House — predicts that centrists “are not going along with a bill that isn’t genuinely revenue neutral, without tricks.” Taxes will need to be “sensible,” which “takes the House approach (boosting taxes on the rich) off the table.” Moderates, he says, “won’t support a version of the public option that weakens or eviscerates the private sector in the provision of health insurance.” And “there is broad agreement that any bill that is 90 percent expanded coverage and 10 percent cost control would be a disaster in the long run.”
Some may accuse such moderates of lacking in boldness or ambition. It is better than lacking in responsibility and good judgment.
If you care, this “moderate” largely agrees, especially on the points about being “genuinely revenue neutral, without tricks” and “any bill that is 90 percent expanded coverage and 10 percent cost control would be a disaster in the long run.” In fact, my sole material difference with Galston’s summary of the moderate mind is this: I could argue that a modest incremental tax (1% or less) on the genuinely wealthy ($1M plus annual household income) — for something as important as expanded access to health insurance — is “sensible,” although given the choice, I’d probably favor the “Conor Friedersdorf Alternative” over any new tax.