Ah, Village math. David Broder says that bringing in more federal revenue by increasing tax would bust the budget.
While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says [. . . t]hese bills, as they stand, are budget-busters. Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases."
And, as we know, in the Village the only entitlements they like are the ones that get them invitations to the best cocktail parties and their kids into the best colleges. Those big ol' CBO liars.
At any rate, this led to the most interesting exchange thus far in today's debate (although I'm still kind of fond of Thune's argument that the Chinese should be dictating our health policy).
"In tomorrow's Washington Post, David Broder, their distinguished senior columnist, certainly not a political conservative, expresses his reservation as a citizen about the steps that we could be about to take," McConnell said.
Reid couldn't have been less impressed. "To focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be."
No more cocktail weenies for Harry.