Comments on: Who Will Be the Democrats’ Mezvinsky on Health Care?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:10:48 +0000

Or, perhaps she should be in the Profile of Cowardice book for failing to keep her promise to her constituents (who she represented) and instead caving to pressure from the President and party leaders?

It all depends on one’s perspective, doesn’t it?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:05:38 +0000

Nick – I’m on the road, so unable to give this the full response it deserves. But the short answer is yes, there are “bureaucratic” reasons that constrain the CBO – or at least limit – its ability to “score” the health care plan. Part of the limit, of course, simply has to do with the nature of scorekeeping – they need to predict how consumers and insurance companies will react to a new policy, which is a very very difficult thing to do. The other problem is they are not allowed to “score” the bill in terms of its impact on other spending programs (Medicare, for example.) The biggest “bureaucratic” reason, however, is that that CBO must appear nonpartisan, or it will lose its reputation for objectivity. “Nonpartisanship”, as you might expect, is often driven by the need to retain autonomy, which means not rocking the boat of who ever is in charge. Having said all that, there’s no reason that I can see to believe that the CBO estimate is not as good as any other estimate that’s floating around re: the likely cost implications of the bill. In other words, it’s up to the CBO detractors to point out where its estimates are wrong, or where there are greater uncertainties than it shows. A final thought – keep in mind the difference between “cost” and “impact on the deficit” – Republicans focus on the former, Democrats on the latter.

By: Nick Alexander

Nick Alexander — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:13:39 +0000

Hi Professor Dickinson,

I have a quick question that’s not immediately relevant to your recent post. Having just completed your class in Bureaucracy, I’m wondering if there’s any interesting “bureaucratic” reason as to why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has confirmed that Obama’s healthcare legislation is likely to reduce the deficit. In other words, is there any particular ‘red-flag’ we should be keeping in mind here? Or should we simply interpret it as a good sign?

By: Jack Goodman

Jack Goodman — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:25:01 +0000

Mezvinsky should be in one of those “Profiles in Courage” books, edited by David Brooks. Stupak should be in a “Profiles in Cowardice” book, edited by Michelle Bachman.