Patterico's Pontifications

12/23/2009

Megan McArdle on Making Laws

Filed under: Government,Health Care — DRJ @ 7:42 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Megan McArdle lists her problems with the process of ObamaCare/ReidCare and why it matters. First, the problems (I’m paraphrasing):

  • The ObamaCare legislation is messy because it was primarily written to meet CBO targets. The fact that the Democrats already intend to change it means it’s based on a process that is unlikely to produce good legislation; and
  • The ReidCare gimmick that prevents future Congresses from altering legislation is a bad and possibly unconstitutional process. This provision was highlighted by Senator DeMint, who says the ReidCare bill “declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses.”
  • Second, McArdle explains why these problems matter:

    “Before my readers start accusing me of hypocrisy–I just complained that the process of changing the bill will be messy and likely to make it worse, and now I’m complaining that Reid is trying to prevent the bill from being changed–let me explain. These are two different problems. Legislation does sometimes need to be changed. Making it impossible to do so is not a good idea. But passing crappy legislation that has to be changed in order to function as you desire it is not a good idea.

    Think of it as building a bespoke suit. They usually do need to be altered after the first cut. But if your wife wants to order a dress, while you want a new blazer, you don’t order a dress on the assumption that you can later have it altered into a blazer. This is a particularly stupid idea if the same wife has to approve each of the individual alterations. You are not likely to end up with a serviceable blazer, or even a decent miniskirt.”

    I agree, especially with the idea that it’s a bad idea to pass “crappy legislation that has to be changed in order to function.” It’s one thing to believe government work is messy, like making sausage. It’s another thing entirely to say that whatever we make, we hope we can eventually turn it into sausage.

    — DRJ

    17 Responses to “Megan McArdle on Making Laws”

    1. Hey DRJ:

      Did you want to include a link to the piece? Feel free to spike this comment if you purposely did not want the link available (maybe because someone might accidentally stumble onto a Sullivan piece there).

      JVW (0fe413)

    2. What’s wrong with stumbling over a Sully piece?
      A little humor is always in order.

      AD - RtR/OS! (a9bf4b)

    3. I know the CBO has to score a bill based on the assumptions put forth in the bill, but Reid’s back and forth with the CBO, just to get a ‘winning’ score was a joke.

      There are a number of things in the bill that seem to be open to constitutional challenges, including Reid’s “out of order” clauses, and of course the individual mandate.

      JHTRazor (a1f2bc)

    4. JVW,

      Thanks! I meant to include a link but apparently I forgot. I’ve added it now.

      This time of year I would blame the eggnog but I actually prefer Margaritas, so I’ll blame them instead.

      DRJ (84a0c3)

    5. In my courses on constitutional law, I seem to recall that Congress cannot bind or inhibit the actions of future Congresses.

      But then, Mr. Reid may have a different Constitution in mind than the one with which I am most familiar (which would be the one I swore to “preserve, protect, and defend”).

      navyvet (c99bbf)

    6. I expect before Obama’s ink is dry on the blank sheets of paper (where the law will be written), a quiver-full of lawsuits will be brought challenging its constitutionality. But, given the track record of the Courts, I’m not entirely certain they will admit the thing is unconstitutional in a vast array of ways.

      John Hitchcock (3fd153)

    7. “declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses.”

      So I guess that means Obamacare is a higher law than the Constitution, which itself is subject to “repeal” (aka change) through the amendment process.

      How nice to know that the country is in the very best of hands, hands that are well-acquainted with the concept of liberty and have a high regard for that concept. How nice to know indeed.

      chaos (9c54c6)

    8. Fox News reports several groups are looking into possible legal action, and the non-profit Liberty Legal Institute has shown interest in challenging the health care legislation in particular. Here’s some background on the Liberty Legal Institute.

      DRJ (84a0c3)

    9. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/12/22/health-care-the-cbo-s-alternate-universe.aspx

      …it should be easier to take future action to control medical costs after everyone’s covered–then we’ll all be in the soup together, and it will be harder for distinct demographic groups (e.g. seniors on Medicare) to argue that they are being singled out for sacrifice unfairly or unnecessarily.

      Shorter Kaus: No one will be able to object to rationing when everyone’s being rationed!

      chaos (9c54c6)

    10. Next Congress will take up and unchangeable bill to force every American family to buy a union made Chevy.

      Isn’t this what the Soviets did?

      bill-tb (541ea9)

    11. So when does the MSM apologize to Palin for being correct about her claim of death panels?

      (crickets chirping)

      Or when will the MSM admit that now that Theresa Heinz – Kerry has said that the proposed rules against allowing “unnecessary” mammograms should be junked permanently (now that she was just diagnosed with breast cancer), the GOP was correct in their claims of rationed care at the risk of needless deaths?

      (crickets chirping)

      Dmac (a964d5)

    12. The bottom line is that the Democrats entire strategy for health care “reform” is to lie to the American people.

      Deceit is fundamental to the process.

      That’s a great formula for success.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    13. I suggest the inclusion of a amendment to a bill that would require the SCOTUS to meet only while hopping on one foot and require that it can only be repealed by a unanimous vote of both the House and Senate.

      Neo (7830e6)

    14. Comment by SPQR — 12/24/2009 @ 6:54 am

      They have to lie; if they told the truth about what they wish to do,
      nobody would vote for them (with the possible exception of the criminally-insane – birds of a feather, what)!

      AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

    15. They could have saved time and ended with the same result if they had written a short bill that said “Democrats will reform your health care next year.” Nothing that is in the bill is necessarily going to remain once the bureaucrats get at it.

      Mike K (2cf494)

    16. “..Nothing that is in the bill is necessarily going to remain once the bureaucrats get at it.”
      Comment by Mike K — 12/24/2009 @ 10:26 am

      The delegation of rule writing to the bureaucracy is another whole can-of-worms that needs to be deep-sixed.
      If every law/rule/regulation not specifically found in Congressional Legislation were thrown out,
      the Federal Registry and USC would be documents of a reasonable size, and scope.

      AD - RtR/OS! (396a30)

    17. Couldn’t the “gimmick” part of the bill that protects the IMAB be changed by a simple majority vote?

      Socratease (3ae362)


    Powered by WordPress.

    Page loaded in: 0.0753 secs.