Senate secrecy:
A normal legislative process allows time for journalists and citizens to digest the consequences of legislation.
“We aren’t stupid.” That was how one Republican aide explained why Senate leaders wouldn’t release the text of their proposed plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
Republican secrecy became Senate Democrats’ central talking point. In one viral video, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) fumed: “There’s a group of guys in a back room somewhere that are making these decisions.”
Secrecy matters. A normal legislative process allows time for journalists and citizens to digest the consequences of major legislation. But even now that the Senate bill has been released, a larger problem remains.
Until now, many Republicans have refused to acknowledge the consequences of their repeal-and-replace plan. Even before the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released analyses showing the House version of the bill would result in coverage losses for at least 23 million Americans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich started the Twitter hashtag #abolishtheCBO. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price simply refused to acknowledge the findings when questioned about them. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney went so far as to suggest that the analysis was, “not a good use of CBO’s time.” Recently, Mulvaney was forced to apologize for accusing the CBO of rigging the numbers.
Little wonder, then, that CBO Director Keith Hall has said he worries that the average American, “doesn’t know
what to believe anymore.”
Hall is right to be concerned. Today, public trust in government is at a historic low. Ironically, however, the CBO was born during a crisis of trust. Created by Congress to respond to abuses of executive authority during the Nixon administration, the CBO has also seen its share of disputes with the White House under presidents of both parties.
In the early 1980s, CBO was quick to criticize what proved to be the Reagan Administration’s overly optimistic predictions about the effects of “trickle down” economics. During the Clinton administration’s failed attempt at health reform, congressional Democrats lobbied CBO Director Robert Reischauser to tweak the assumptions of economic models of the legislation’s effects on the deficit. In the end, Reischauser refused and the CBO report citing massive deficit increases became a crucial weapon for congressional Republicans.
During these disputes, the CBO has developed a reputation for impartial analysis based on reasonable assumptions rather than Panglossian guesswork. While the CBO slightly overestimated enrollment in Obamacare exchanges, its came closer than any other organization that tried.
This reputation has made
the CBO a political gatekeeper. As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, “CBO is God around here because policy lives and dies by CBO’s word.”
Advocates of large-scale policy changes see the CBO as a hurdle. For example, proponents of expanded access to long-term care insurance have long feared dismal CBO scores that expose the high costs of their program to public scrutiny. In 2009, they attempted to dodge the CBO by designing legislation to produce a numerical mirage that made a budgetbusting program appear revenue neutral. While the legislation eventually passed, the reality of the explosive costs bit back, resulting in a swift repeal.
That story highlights an important point. Dismantling the CBO or ignoring its conclusions may be politically expedient, but the consequences of legislating have a way of catching up with you.
Nevertheless, toxic levels of partisanship and distrust are threats to impartial analysis.
On a subject as complex and as grave as health care reform, there is no substitute for honest accounting. And when the health of millions is at stake, the burden of proof is a heavy one.