Rich Lowry's false and nonsensical attack on health care reform

National Review's Rich Lowry writes of health care reform: "If the bill becomes law, it will suffer a legitimacy gap that will make it vulnerable to repeal."  But Lowry's reasons why health care reform will lack "legitimacy" don't make much sense -- and at least one is clearly dishonest.

First, Lowry notes the bill "will have passed on strictly partisan votes. ...Support from the minority party would show that it has the kind of broad, sustainable base of support it now lacks as the spawn of a heedless ideological bender."  Lowry overstates the extent to which a lack of bipartisan support in Congress makes legislation appear illegitimate, particularly after the fact.  No Republicans voted for Bill Clinton's 1993 budget -- a fact that, in the following years, undermined Republicans more than the budget.  And the Senate vote to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq won the support of several Democrats -- but I don't see many people pointing to that vote as a great moment in Senate history.

Next, Lowry writes:

Two, its skids were greased with rotten deals. Democrats hope to eliminate the special provisions that have tarred the bill in a separate package of "fixes." Regardless, the bill wouldn't exist in its current form if key senators hadn't been bought off with hundreds of billions of dollars in legislative bribes. That taint can't be undone. 

Those weren't "bribes." They were "negotiations." That's what happens in legislative bodies in order to secure sufficient votes for passage.  I'm quite certain Rich Lowry is not prepared to argue against the legitimacy of any legislation that is passed after individual members hold out for the inclusion of provisions they favor.  "Bribes" are different things entirely, and they are illegal.

Lowry:

Three, a parliamentary trick is necessary to its final passage. Because Democrats no longer have 60 votes for the bill in the Senate, they have to pass their fixes under "reconciliation," short-circuiting the normal amendment process.

First, "the bill" has already passed the Senate.  The "normal amendment process" is what happens before a bill passes.  Reconciliation is a means of tweaking legislation that has already passed.  Nothing is being "short circuited" -- the bill already went through the "normal amendment process" before it passed the Senate, winning 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the process.  And reconciliation isn't a "parliamentary trick," it's a part of the rules.  When Rich Lowry loses a hand of poker, does he complain that his adversary's full house defeated his pair of 4s only because of a "trick"?  Does he think a batter who reaches base via a walk does so by illegitimate trickery?

Next, Lowry insists "the bill has been sold under deliberately false pretenses. ...Obama insists that it will cut the deficit, bend the cost curve down, and reduce premiums, when it's likely to do the opposite on all three counts."  

Lowry must be using some definition of "deliberately false" that I'm unfamiliar with -- one that requires neither intent nor falsity.  See, the Congressional Budget Office says health care reform will reduce deficits -- that's a big part of why Barack Obama says health care reform will reduce deficits.  But in Rich Lowry's fantasy world, it's "deliberately false" to rely on the CBO's projections.  You should, instead, accept Rich Lowry's completely unsubstantiated assertions.

Now, it's pretty much inconceivable that Rich Lowry is unaware of CBO's projections.  So when Lowry writes that it is "deliberately false" to say something that is consistent with CBO's projections, one of two things must be true: Either Rich Lowry knows that Barack Obama knows that CBO is wrong, or Rich Lowry is being deliberately dishonest.