Friday, March 19, 2010

Last Call

Jane Hamsher of FDL makes her final case as to why the unimproved Senate bill must not be passed.  I can't argue against her that the Senate bill is pretty lousy as is, but to accept Jane's argument that this has to die, you have to accept the following conditions:

1)  There is no way this bill will ever be improved in order to meet the criteria Jane wants.

2) Point 1 is true because the House and Senate are not progressive enough.  It must be made so.

3) The only way to achieve the goal of Point 2 is to primary the Dems that are not progressive enough until they are replaced with those that are, then win general elections with them, then create and pass a new bill with far more progressive elements.

4) Point 3 is only possible if this bill is killed now.

5) The status quo is bad, but the zero odds of ever improving the bill means that Point 4 must happen and that we must accept the status quo until we can get to the promised land.

Therefore the bill must die.

The counter to that, the "we must pass this bill now" argument, entails these following conditions:

1) This bill can be improved incrementally later.  The first step will be in reconciliation in the Senate this year.

2) Point 1 is true because an incremental change to legislation is easier than going from the status quo of nothing straight to the criteria Jane wants.

3) The only way to get incremental change in Point 2 is a stopgap bill that can later be improved as people see the provisions make their lives better, meaning the bill must pass.

4) Point 3 is only possible if we pass this bill now, because failing to do so will hand Congress over to the Republicans, who are satisfied with the status quo, which is worse than the Senate bill.

5) The Senate bill is bad, but we must improve it.  However the only way to gain the ability to achieve the incremental change in Point 4 is accepting that the Senate bill is necessary.

Therefore, the bill must pass.

I believe argument two is the correct one.  The main reason was we tried argument one in 1993.  That hasn't exactly worked out so far, ya know?

3 comments:

djchefron said...

To mistress jane and her fellow firebaggers FUCK OFF!!!! That is all.

Paul W. said...

Yeah, Jane makes me as sick as anyone else who likes their "gut" instincts better than facts, seriously that women has been unhinged for well over 3 years now.

BillCinSD said...

Are these incremental changes going to happen before or after we get around to the changes we were promised in NAFTA when it was passed and signed in the Clinton years?

Related Posts with Thumbnails