What exactly would Chuck Grassley have to do to convince Max Baucus that the Republicans simply are not going to accept any health care reform?
After delaying Senate Finance Committee negotiations three separate times, ranking member Charles Grassley now says that he wants a further delay in coming up with a Finance Committee health care bill. An estimated 3 people nationwide were surprised at this.
The trouble is that one of those three people apparently is Finance Chair Max Baucus, who continues to insist that a bipartisan compromise can be reached. So here is the question for all you therapists (professional and otherwise) out there:
What exactly would Grassley have to do to convince Baucus that the Republicans simply are not going to accept anything? Would it require showing up on Rush Limbaugh’s show and comparing Baucus to Hitler? Maybe TPing Baucus’ house? Spitting in Baucus’ face in front of a nationwide television audience?
The possibilities abound! Use your imagination — although keep it clean.
UPDATE: A reader points out that Grassley and Enzi might simply be fronts for Baucus. This is a fair point. Thus, budding psychoanalysts may also fruitfully consider the question of “Max Baucus: Stupid or Evil?”
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff