Republicans Would Never Exaggerate A Bill's Cost, Would They?

Ezra Klein persuasively argues that the Democrats erred by wandering into a $900 billion ceiling on the cost of health care legislation. Megan McArdle responds that no, the limit makes sense:

it seems to me quite obvious how the number got picked and why it became a hard limit:  it would be very difficult to sell a bill that's any bigger.  A health care bill much bigger could be plausibly rounded up to a trillion dollars by the opposition, and though the American public is still somewhat blinded by sticker shock from the last eight years of deficits, $1 trillion still sounds like a lot of money.

Has McArdle been following the health care debate? Does she not realize that describing the under-$900 billion Senate bill as a "trillion dollar bill" is a routine Republican talking point? Even if this wasn't already happening, doesn't she remember that the exact same thing happened with the stimulus? There may be good reasons for $900 billion but that's not one of them.

COMMENTS (1)

11/11/2009 - 5:22pm EDT |

If that was the logic, I would have gone for 1.2 trillion for that stimulus, that way Republicans could just scream "over a trillion dollars" which doesn't sound too much worse than just a trillion dollars. At least then, the country would have benefited from a stimulus closer to what we actually needed.

get the magazine

Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.

Get our newsletters

Get Our Feed