Look, I get it. It doesn’t do anybody any good (except maybe politicians) to caricature the opposition, and I understand that Big Government types believe, at some level, in the mission of government, and on that level, an equivalence between funding and policy goals is justified. But reading news from up north, I can’t help but think a critical line of perspective has been crossed:
The health care bill that Congressional Republicans plan to bring to the House floor for a vote Thursday afternoon would result in “a massive loss of critical funds” for Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker said. …
The potential loss of federal revenues, a major source of funds for the state budget, could compound budget problems associated with tax collections that for many months now have come in well short of the projections that Baker and legislative leaders have used to plan state spending.
Somewhere in this process of elected officials’ making statements and journalists’ reporting them, shouldn’t somebody have the role of putting front and center the key question, here, which is whether a particular policy is better for the people of the United States of America? If ObamaCare crashes of its own weight, wouldn’t that be bad, too? If so, wouldn’t that be worse than a state-level budget crunch?
(Yes, look, I get it… a health-industry collapse would just mean more money and power for the federal and state governments. I’m being rhetorical, here.)