Beyond ObamaCare

Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin respond to their critics:

The first thing to note is that none of our critics actually defend Obamacare, and therefore none dispute the argument of the piece. Their dispute is entirely with what we propose instead — which our piece of course lays out only briefly and broadly, since we assumed that the argument that replacement is still the right way to think about things first had to be made. Their lack of interest in defending the law is interesting. Do they agree with us that Obamacare cannot work as enacted? Do they agree that piecemeal reforms will not work and Obamacare must be replaced? If they do, do they imagine that the party that forced this unpopular law down the country’s throat will be trusted to fix or replace it once it fails?

If they don’t agree that Obamacare is untenable (as we assume at least some of them don’t), how would they defend it? Do they not think it is headed for an insurance death spiral? Do they not think the financial incentives it sets up will result in far higher federal spending and far fewer insured Americans than its advocates promised? Do they think it will lower premium costs? Is it sustainable over time? Have you seen much of a substantive answer from the left to these commonly voiced concerns?

The critics of our piece offer no such answers, and actually suggest that we’re wasting our time repeating the obvious case against Obamacare. Several of them want to get right to a debate about what should replace it. That’s great. Not all of them, though, want to discuss the solution we pointed to. Kevin Drum acknowledges (twice) that he didn’t actually read our piece; he just read Yglesias and Klein (who just summarized Yglesias) and “sighed.” We know the feeling.

Don’t we all?

Gun Control

The great fizzle:

…the assault weapons ban has been deep-sixed by Democrats in the Senate. Same with any limit on the size of magazines. The argument now is all about increasing the reach of background checks, although any bill that can pass the Senate and the House will be much less extensive than the president or his supporters would like.

The gun control debate has shown the president again to be hopelessly detached as a legislative mechanic and ineffectual as a shaper of public opinion. Before writing rhetorical checks that his own party’s majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, couldn’t cash, the president might have at least consulted with the wily old son-of-a-gun about what was plausible and adjusted accordingly. He might have taken into consideration Reid’s ribbon-cutting ceremony with National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre at the Clark County Shooting Park in Las Vegas in 2010.

Once again, we’re saved from the fecklessness of the electorate by his incompetence.

Free Speech

A victory, in western Michigan:

Van Den Heuvel told National Review Online after the hearing today, “a real pitched battle with the township” that took almost three hours, that the defense laid out a variety of arguments, but emphasized that the county’s statude [sic] was invalid because it privileged commercial over political speech. They argued that the measure, and Verduin’s ticket, amounts to “selective enforcement,” since even the government’s attorney couldn’t explain to the judge what the ordinance exactly meant. Van Den Heuvel explains that, at one point, “they were saying to the judge, you can’t understand this.” The township’s lawyer at one point admitted to the judge that Meijer’s trucks could have as large a message as they liked displayed on the side of their vehicles, but Verduin’s trailers, in order to be legal, would have to be kept out of sight, like in a barn.

Tar. Feathers.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!