One Question

I think the bill is too large and vague in its effects to be the subject of a substantive negotiation in seven hours. The economics of the bill as described by Paul Ryan and others were daunting, and the answers to those concerns would not be effectively discussed by such a panel. The most positive outcome would have been to create a list of points raised for response, with the Republicans raising the points and the Democrats responding. That way if we wind up with the likely agreement to disagree, we have a record of the points of difference. It the bill is forced through, it would be instructive to the public to see which party's forecast of outcomes is most predictive. In either case, a formal public record of the negotiation would have shown a seriousness to reach an understanding. The president's classification of certain arguments as "talking points" suggested that the points were polemical and suited to partisan argument. That was his least convincing technique. I thought the points deserved better consideration, not rhetorical deflection. If the Democrats want to override Republican objections and pass the bill, they owe the public an explanation of the differences presented by the Republicans, and why they think the best approach is to override those objections. The fact that that did not happen means that this discussion is not open to the public. For that reason, I now oppose the bill in any form. These are far reaching issues and members of the public deserve a comprehensive explanation. That is the only way to progress on this issue.

Ron Paul for president in 2012. That's all I had to say. -Henway of DailySnap