It is truly sad that the WSJ gives so much ink to a big-government leftist like Alan Blinder.  The piece on June 22, titled "Congressional Maneuvers in the Dark," is especially worthless.

Blinder, Democrats, and most of the media complain that Republicans are writing the health care bill replacing the rapidly collapsing Obamacare in the dark.  Somehow, as all these complainers say they know nothing about the bill, they complain about what is in the bill.  They must be prophets.

Blinder and the others, as far as I remember, never complained about Obama, Gruber, and others continually lying that people would be able to keep their doctors and keep their plans and that the costs would go down substantially, even though it was obvious that those statements were demonstrably false.

Blinder knows that the CBO's projections weren't even close, yet he pretends that the CBO projections for the replacement bill should be taken as fact.  In 2010, CBO projected that 26 million would be covered by Obamacare by 2016.  The number was actually 11 million.  The CBO projected that the cost over ten years would be under $1 trillion and would reduce the deficit.  By 2014, the projections had increased to over $2 trillion.  Why should anyone believe what the CBO says on the new bill, and why does Blinder cite it as a good source?

Blinder, Senator Feinstein, and others pretend this is the first time they have ever seen a major bill handled like this.  These people must be a few bricks short of a load if they don't remember Pelosi saying they have to pass Obamacare to see what is in it.  That truly means that it was done in the dark.  Everyone is going to actually see this replacement bill before he votes on it.

Blinder talks about Medicaid cuts, but there aren't any actual "cuts" – merely cuts in future pretend projections versus previous pretend projections.  There is actually a $25-billion increase in 2018 proposed over 2017, but Blinder intentionally chose not to tell his readers about the increase because that wouldn't support his agenda.  

It's a shame that Blinder, never having seen a tax, large government program, or regulation he didn't like, is allowed to teach at Princeton to push those theories on young adults.

Blinder chose to throw in a token comment about the Russian collusion garbage.  He said, with absolutely no actual evidence, that "it got worse during the 2016 election, when the Russians intervened massively to try to elect Donald Trump," so I have two easy questions for Blinder.  Why wouldn't the DNC let the FBI see the hacked computers instead of just showing them a report from an outside vendor, and why would Putin have wanted Trump over Hillary, since Obama and Hillary essentially did nothing to stop Putin's quest for power?