A couple weeks ago, Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin posted a breakthrough idea while discussing the past year’s legislative session and Seattle’s successes within it, stating, “…by limiting our big asks to a few items and focusing attention on small but important pieces of legislation that did not raise major controversies, we were able to have one of our most successful sessions ever.”
In my mind this was the absolute folly of the healthcare act under Obama. Not the “Death Panels” or the “Socialization of America.” Rather, the simple fact that in creating one large bill that aroused substantial controversy, the government (both the Administration as well as Legislature) was forced to provide incentives, loopholes and harsher wording to get enough votes for passage.
Had the Administration instead managed the debate through small bills that didn’t raise major controversy, they could have held up quick, easy, irrefutable wins to gain public credibility and support. Further, they would not have been subject to the “it’s so large no one has read it” line that carried significant resonance during the debates. And, they could have looked for different people to carry different portions of the larger agenda with little need to give away the house to ensure the required votes.
The downside of all of this, of course, is that it wouldn’t have been THE healthcare bill, and in being drawn out it would have become boring, irrelevant to today’s cable media reporting… but then, in being boring, it may also have become depoliticized allowing more ideological opponents of the Administration to have leeway to find smaller bills that they liked.
Will this local lesson set us on a new path toward a more enlightened legislative stance? Probably not, but hopefully it will be kept in mind as we push forward through this economically and politically difficult terrain.
No comments:
Post a Comment