Yeah, I know, tweet storms are supposed to be on Twitter. This one is, except I didn’t “thread” my tweets properly, as several people, including Paul Rosenzweig, patiently explained to me. I will try to do that next time. Anyway, for the moment, I am presenting the thread here, even though a bunch of tweets outside of Twitter read like some sort of weird haiku.
This is a tweet storm about Congress, healthcare reform, and pathological partisanship in America 1/31
I will cite Congress and the Constitution, ed. by Neal Devins and @kewhittington, and Congress’s Constitution by @joshchafetz 2/31
An important question addressed by these books is how Congress can restore itself to its proper role as a co-equal branch of government 3/31
Congressional dysfunction may be both cause and effect of what started as polarization and now is pathological partisanship in US 4/31
Pathological partisanship is when interests, policies & ideas are secondary to goal of defeating & dehumanizing an opposing tribe 5/31
Winning for winning’s sake is illustrated by spectacle of zero sum struggle between “repealing and replacing” vs. “fixing” Obamacare 6/31
Even though the exact same bill could be characterized either way 7/31
In such an atmosphere small wonder that Congress is viewed so unfavorably 8/31
When major political figures, media personalities and interest groups push perpetual conflict w/ no compromises, Congress looks useless 9/31
Sen. McCain said these “bombastic loudmouths” “don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.” 10/31
Congress’s institutional advantage is mediating conflict, not resolving philosophical questions or designing brilliant policies 11/31
“Congress is an institution skilled at reaching specific agreements that allow all parties to preserve their abstract commitments” 12/31
That was a quote from Elizabeth Garrett and Adrian Vermuele 13/31
Similarly Sen. McCain: “Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn’t the most inspiring work.” 14/31
“There’s greater satisfaction in . . .not letting [differences] prevent agreements that don’t require abandonment of core principles.” 15/31
There are tools Congress can use to bridge differences without requiring congressional factions to renounce their ideological views. 16/31
One is federalism, which allows states to develop their own approach to healthcare reform. 17/31
Another is the use of sunset provisions, which allow Congress to adopt reforms on an experimental basis. 18/31
Devins says sunsets improve congressional factfinding & incentivize Congress to monitor its empirical assumptions (p. 237). 19/31
As Chafetz notes, sunsets also enhance congressional power vis a vis the executive 20/31
Without sunsets, major legislation (like ACA) can be a one-time transfer of power to POTUS, who thereafter shapes policy. 21/31
Another mechanism to forge compromise on healthcare reform would be to hold hearings on issues beyond health insurance 22/31
Such as irrational & discriminatory pricing by medical & drug cos., abuse of tax-exempt status by “nonprofits,” and med liability. 23/31
Judicious use of these tools could help forge a broader compromise than now seems possible. 24/31
This will take time, however, & Congress must take action now to stabilize ins mkts & ensure that both sides have incentive to bargain 25/31
Congress could do this by providing temporary funding for cost-sharing subsidies currently in litigation before D.C. Circuit. 26/31
Importantly, funding for these subsidies would sunset, making it clear that admin cannot continue paying them unless Congress acts 27/31
This would be an “extremely skinny” bill, which might need to be fattened to attract R support 28/31
But if cong. leadership can attract substantial D support for this bill, it would set the table for a serious bipartisan reform effort 29/31
If Ds refuse to support bill or make concessions, leadership has unilateral options to employ. 30/31
But for the moment, let’s close w @SenJohnMcCain again: “What do we have to lose by trying to work together to find . . . solutions?” 31/31