Compromise

Bart Stupak had a bunch of imaginary objections to health care reform.
Barack Obama just promised to keep them imaginary.

The good guys win.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

7 thoughts on “Compromise”

  1. Burt Stupak had the conviction of character to fight for the assurance of protection of unborn children.

    Barack Obama has no character but needed to sell his soul for any votes to pass something.

    The unborn children win!

    I guess we can all find winners here. I look forward to the winners during the election cycle this Fall.

  2. Bart Stupak had the conviction of character to fight, until he was given personalized plausible deniablity to wave in front of the voters this fall. But everybody, including Stupak, knows how little that promise he received is really worth. The President can't reverse statutes by executive order. If the bill permits abortion funding, the executive order will fall the first time it's challenged in court.

    I don't think the voters who care about abortion will be fooled.

  3. Good point Brett. I guess in the end Stupak was just another sell-out. I agree too that the voters will not be fooled.

  4. Stupak reportedly wanted "stronger language" against abortion in the reform law, which said that federal funds may not be used to pay for any abortions. The law therefore has been amended to read that federal funds may not be used to pay for any m***er f***ing abortions. Stupak can relax now.

    There is a story about a man on a train carrying a box with a hole on the top. A fellow passenger asked what he was carrying in the box.

    "A mongoose. My brother suffers from alcoholism and when he is in withdrawal, he sees terrible snakes all around him. The mongoose is to eat the snakes."

    "But those are imaginary snakes!"

    "That is OK. This is an imaginary mongoose."

  5. The final bill's language and the original House language aren't the same, as everyone knows, and they're not the same because the Senate Democrats rejected the pro-life position inserted by Stupak. They rejected it because its restrictions weren't imaginary. Stupak abandoned his position when pressured, as we all knew he would, because there's no such thing as a pro life Democrat.

  6. "The final bill’s language and the original House language aren’t the same, as everyone knows, and they’re not the same because the Senate Democrats rejected the pro-life position inserted by Stupak."

    Huh? The final bill and the original House language aren't 'the same', because there was no original House language. The Senate originated this bill, and stuck onto it a House number so they could pretend they'd satisfied the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House. But there was no original House language, because the bill originated in the Senate. This is the first time the House has voted on it, and so there was never any pro-life language inserted into it by Stupak.

Comments are closed.