So the Senate health care bill made it through committee on a party-line vote, with zero Republican support.  Not one vote, even though they added 160 amendments.  I haven't read the amendments, but if they conform to Republican health care philosophy, they likely weakened the bill significantly.

I think when this bill gets to the floor, it needs to be made clear that if Republicans aren't going to support the bill anyway, they shouldn't be allowed to touch it.  If they're going to hold health care reform hostage by refusing to compromise, then Dems need to counter by completely shutting them off.  If a Republican proposes an amendment on the floor, it should be voted down as a matter of principle.  It's like saying 'if you're not going to play ball with us, we're not going to play ball with you.'  Any of their amendments are probably just going to weaken the bill anyway.  And if some democrats like the idea, they can propose it themselves.  But in an environment in which a 60-40 party-line divide is already an assumption, there's no reason to let Republicans have any say in this bill at all.  When Democrats have the clear upperhand, there must be consequences for refusing to compromise.   

 So how does a typical day go for the weak Republican minority in the House?  Let's look at July 8th and 9th. Here's a list of completely unhelpful amendments proposed by Republicans that were soundly rejected.  Most of them are half-baked homages to conservative dogma (i.e. cutting programs indiscriminately), and they were clearly not written based on their practical effects.

 

·         Rejected: cut aid and global aid funding by $1 billion (Buyer, R-IN)

·         Rejected: cut Peace Corps funding by $77 million (Stearns, R-FLA)

·         Rejected:  cut foreign aid by a half billion (Culberson, R-TX)

·         Rejected: four separate Republican motions to adjourn on July 8th

·         Rejected: cut FDA employee salaries by $373 million (Broun, R-GA)

·         Rejected: cut discretionary spending in Ag appropriations bill by 5% (Blackburn, R-TN)

 

Somebody should tell these guys they need some new ideas.  Just saying 'cut this and cut that' can end up directly causing a lot of suffering.  Republican Jeff Flake proposed a few amendments to chisel away funding to specific programs, like an environmental cleanup project in Maryland, which tells me there is a chance that the project could be porky.  But to call for hammering a billion dollars out of global aid, or $373 million from FDA employees really shows you how a lot of Republicans just want to cut something and don't care enough to cut carefully.  

Sometimes I still find myself in awe that after eons of the drama of the human species, a long story of advancements and setbacks for human progress, we can now comfortably say we live in an advanced society.  One of the most important aspects of an advanced society, which we are fortunate to have, is a large number of thinkers and researchers dedicated to studying policy.  We have thousands of experts studying how to make policies serve society most effectively, asking what's wrong with them and how they can serve society better.  Most of these experts are incredibly smart, and they demand that arguments be supported by facts, rather than dead-end appeals to ideology.    

Despite the infinite complexity and breadth of policy issues, coming up with the optimal policy solution is the easy problem.  The way to study the problem is pretty clear: it should be studied like any scientific discipline: rationally, skeptically, and methodologically.  It's usually possible to identify what policy will best ameliorate a given societal problem just by subjecting all policy ideas to a rational, focused debate.   If you have enough scholars and experts setting their sights on a single problem, they will be quick to call out bullshit and they won't hesitate to concede a valid point from the other side, and a good policy will emerge.  Of course, there are some policy areas where reasonable experts disagree, but in most policy areas, such as health care reform or stimulus spending, there is widespread agreement as to the general approach that should be taken.    

 The hard problem is making the legislative process work more like the academic policy discussion process.  As you know, members of Congress regularly tell lies.  They lie about their opponents legislation, they make up numbers, they lie about basic facts (e.g. climate change), and they lie about who's responsible for what, and they call each other names.  They are constantly committing crimes against reason, and they are rewarded for it.  Politicians have little incentive to debate policy honestly and with focus, and they have every incentive to simplify complicated subjects.  The result is very poor legislation riddled with terrible ideas and senseless compromises that cut the teeth out of good ideas. 

So I would love to hear some ideas on how to address the hard problem.  The way I see it, good ideas are worthless if they're ignored, and they usually are, so fixing the hard problem is arguably the most urgent problem facing our country.