paul ryan health

bjbjlulu judy woodruff: and to the analysisof shields and brooks. that is syndicated columnist mark shields and new york timescolumnist david brooks. welcome, gentlemen, on this friday. so, this week, three daysof hearings before the supreme court on the president's health care reform law. david,what did you make of it all? david brooks: well, it's -- i'm not a constitutional lawyer,but it certainly sent shockwaves through washington. people have been overconfident. i think theviews of the conservatives have been under-reported for months and months, and their views slighted.and it turns out there are serious concerns. and i don't pretend to pass judgment, butit strikes me as a perfectly valid constitutional issue. basically, what the individual mandatedoes, it asks -- it compels people to enter

into a contract with an insurance company,which is not really in their best interest, in order to subsidize other people who areforced to enter into that contract. that strikes me as a very -- as a step forward in executiveor governmental power. so it strikes me as a perfectly legitimate thing to do. i cansee why, morally, we are all responsible for each other's health. we're not going to letsomebody die on the street. but, constitutionally, why the government should be compelling peopleto do this, that strikes me as a completely valid concern, and the justices honed rightin on that one. judy woodruff: so, what did you hear, mark? mark shields: what i heard,judy, was a political discussion, a reminder that a judge is a lawyer who is appointedto that office by a politician, and that it

struck me as rather remarkable to hear judges-- justices of the united states supreme court reciting lines that were -- actually questionsthat were written by the tea party opposition to the law. david's point is a legitimateone. it's a question -- i don't know it's not to my advantage. i think it is to my advantageto have people, everybody in society covered by health insurance, that it is now. if someoneis forced to go to an emergency room, we do cover all the expenses, and at a cost to everybody.and that's the right thing to do, to cover it. but i think most of all, it hit me that-- the change in two years. i mean, there's no question the political sea change with.. . judy woodruff: you mean since the law went into effect. mark shields: since thelaw was passed. there was a confidence on

the part of the administration and the whitehouse that once people became aware of this, there would be a change. and people like kencuccinelli, who is the attorney general of virginia, and other conservatives saying,no, they're going to challenge this in the supreme court, they were dismissed, they weretreated with some disdain. and you could see this grow to the point where it's not onlypossible, it may be plausible that this law will be overturned, if not in entirety, inpart. judy woodruff: so, did you hear the justices reciting tea party lines. . . davidbrooks: sometimes, yes. i mean, i ran into some judges this week who said, it went ontoo long. there was no reason for it to go on three full days -- or not full days, butthree days. and so within -- on the fringes,

it's true there were some political statementsmade. there were some comments, inaccurate comments, in summary of the bill. but -- andso that was there, no question. but at the core, there was this core issue, does thegovernment -- we all know that if you enter into a relationship, the government has thepower to regulate it. does the government have the power to compel you to enter intoa relationship? and that strikes me as a purely constitutional matter, a role of governmentmatter. and there are many ways to get people to have universal coverage. and it's worthremembering, when barack obama was running for president, he was against the individualmandate because he thought it would be ineffective, you could not enforce it. you could tax peopleand pay them. you could give people strong

economic incentives to get universal coverage.but compelling that mandate, which was the most politically convenient, is far from theonly way to get there. judy woodruff: so you're saying that that was the right argument tohave, over the mandate, over the validity of the mandate? mark, i mean. . . mark shields:yeah, i think the argument, they went to the point that is the vulnerability, and it wasa point that democrats didn't -- they came to out of a sense of necessity, politicalnecessity. the mandate had its origins, the individual mandate, some 20 years ago whenbill clinton and hillary rodham clinton, the president and first lady, a democratic administration,came up with their health care plan, and this was the republican rebuttal. it was hatchedat the heritage foundation, a republican conservative

-- conservative think tank here in town. itwas backed by republicans. and this -- david's absolutely right in his recitation of history,that candidate obama opposed it. most democrats opposed it. most democrats wanted a single-payer,at least the democrats who were engaged and involved in this. they couldn't pass it. theydidn't have the votes to pass it. and this was the compromise plan. david brooks: andi would say, first, i'm for it as a matter of policy. i think the mandate is somethingyou need if you're going to have a good system. as a matter of constitutional law, that'ssort of different. and so we do have to respect the constitution. one other thing i did wantto say, and i have heard this from a lot of people, is we got to see the justices in amore high-tension setting than we normally

do. and i can't tell you how many conservativeshave told me this week, we were opposed to sotomayor, but she's really good. and theywere really impressed with her. i thought roberts was very good. i think scalia is alwaysflamboyant, but also super-smart. but sotomayor and kagan i think really showed on that public,or the newest justices, how smart they are. judy woodruff: what was your take on the justices?mark shields: i think -- i can't make an assessment of the judges. i just -- i didn't listen inits entirety. i dropped in and out and listened to our summaries. but i do want to say thisone thing about the court. and that is, at a time when american institutions are undersiege -- gallup poll last year had the favorable or unfavorable evaluation of these fallinginstitutions -- the court had been up pretty

high, had been 61 percent favorable. and afterthe citizens united decision, when they opened up corporate contributions, unlimited corporatecontributions, for the first time in 100 years in american politics by a 5-4 vote, the courthas dropped, and a decision that 80 percent of americans when polled opposed. the court'sfavorability has dropped to 46 percent. and i think the court is in danger of becomingvery much a political institution. the reality has been in the past. . . judy woodruff: politicalinstitution. mark shields: a political institution that s become politicized as part of the politicalcampaign. fifty years ago, judy, it was not uncommon to see cars with bumper stickerson them, "impeach earl warren," who was the chief justice, at a time when the court expandedcivil liberties and civil rights and upset

established order. judy woodruff: so are yousaying you expect a political decision? mark shields: i expect a political reaction tothe decision, if in fact -- i think the losing side in this kind of a decision, high-profile,high-intensity decision, is where the political energy lies. i think the initial reaction,if the mandate is overturned, if the law itself is overturned, there ll be a celebratory victorylap by the part of the conservatives who prevailed, and disdain for the president, the constitutionalprofessor who didn't understand the constitution. i think after that settles in, i think whatyou will see is political energy on the democratic side to -- because once these rights and these-- those changes have been repealed. judy woodruff: but just to make sure i hear youright, mark. . . mark shields: sure. judy

woodruff: . . . you're not saying the courtis making -- is injecting politics into this? you're saying. . . mark shields: oh, i thinkthat it will be seen very much as a political decision, i mean, based upon the questioning.judy woodruff: okay. mark shields: you got charles fried, who was ronald reagan's solicitor,i mean, a very conservative harvard professor, you know, say he just couldn't believe someof the questions, that they sounded like they'd been written by the tea party. i think itdoes become part of the political -- you would then have the citizens united decision, thebush v. gore decision, and this decision in the space of, what, 11 years, 12 years, thatare serious political decisions that have all come down on one side. judy woodruff:how do see you the politics? david brooks:

well, and then that happened the opposite-- roe v. wade, both sides were pretty energized after that one. i don't see this having thatkind of scope, a roe v. wade, which has gone on forever. what i frankly think what's goingto happen, a lot of people on the left, the champions of the bill, will be furious, noquestion, if it's struck down. we should emphasize we don't know what is going to happen. butas for the country at large, it's worth remembering the bill -- the law is unpopular. and thelatest study, and i think the best study, suggested that 25 democrats in the house losttheir seats because of this law, aside from the economy in 2010. so i think what is goingto happen for most of the country is, they will say, fine. i'm not saying this majority-- minority. and i think, on the electoral

effect, it will actually help the democrats,because the republicans are losing the economy as an issue as it improves. they are settlingon health care as their number one issue. and if that's taken away from them, it's tougherto run the sort of campaign they want to run. judy woodruff: so you're saying there wouldn'tbe the backlash or the reaction from. . . david brooks: i think among real champions of thebill -- of the law, it will be there. mark shields: i think -- i disagree with davidon roe v. wade. i think the energy on roe v. wade was on the losing side. that's beenkept alive by -- that led to an entire political movement. judy woodruff: anti-abortion, pro-life.mark shields: yes, the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and in part because it was seenthat the court interrupted what had been the

legislative and political process, and thatthis would be a case of the court for the first time in, what, 70 years, overturninga legislative act of this nature. judy woodruff: just one other thing i want to ask you about.we're on the edge of our seats on this, and that is the budget. the house, mark, overwhelminglyrejected the president's budget proposal. mark shields: yes. judy woodruff: and thenthey turned around and passed, along party lines, david, the paul ryan budget. what -- whatis -- it's not a shock that this happened. but what's the next step here? what happens?david brooks: we have an election. judy woodruff: does it matter? it's march. david brooks:we have an election. we wait until december, which is the cataclysm month, when all sortof things, bad fiscal things happen all at

once. but i give ryan credit. i don't agreewith all parts of it, but he's taken a step forward. one of the saddest things that hashappened this week is jim cooper, a democrat from tennessee, and others put together asimpson-bowles bill, sort of an outline, and had them vote on that. i think it got like38 votes in the house. and so we're going to end up there eventually. i don't know when,before or after a fiscal crisis. we ll end up with something like simpson-bowles. butyou see the two parties not wanting to get there yet. judy woodruff: including tax increases.david brooks: right. exactly. judy woodruff: but the republicans aren't ready. david brooks:right. and neither are the democrats, apparently. almost nobody voted for this thing. judy woodruff:mark. mark shields: the rejection of the simpson-bowles

approach is proof that bipartisanship is nolonger on life support. it's dead in this city. i think the ryan budget, which i thinkis indefensible in a social sense, in a social justice sense, with a $394,000 tax cut forthe average millionaire, i think -- i think what it is, is the blueprint that house republicansare laying down right now for the lame-duck session that follows the election. they havestaked out their position, so that this is their negotiating position. let the whitehouse and the democrats try and come up with theirs. but i think that's what they're doing.and, plus, what they have done is they have stopped any cuts in the military that wereagreed to last summer in the grand budget agreement last year, 2011. judy woodruff:and just quickly, real consequences of this.

do people just say, oh, there goes washingtonagain? david brooks: well, we see what they -- the parties believe in. we don't see whatthey're going to do. so, if you're looking for the practical consequences, zero. markshields: i think there could be political consequences in the election. i think someof the cuts that the republicans have voted for could become issues in certain house races.judy woodruff: well, we are always thrilled, our hearts race when you're here. (laughter)mark shields: oh, my goodness, judy. (laughter) judy woodruff: mark shields, david brooks,thank you both. urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags state urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscity urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place judy woodruff: and to the analysis ofshields and brooks normal microsoft office

word judy woodruff: and to the analysis ofshields and brooks title microsoft office word document msworddoc word.document.8