CQ published an infuriating article ($) this morning that explores Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) health care reform proposals, with a particular focus on whether those reforms will be implemented in a budget neutral way. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Monday that he hopes to make sure a health care overhaul proposal he released last week is paid for over a 10-year period. But he left open the possibility that it would not comply with pay-as-you-go budget rules over five years, or perhaps at all. "There are going to be some upfront costs, but they'll be investments," Baucus said after speaking at a Brookings Institution seminar on health care reform. "Over 10 years, some of the bulk of the upfront investments will be offset by cost reductions. But that's over a 10-year period." The budget rules, which Democrats adopted at the beginning of the 110th Congress, generally require legislation authorizing new spending to be offset with spending decreases elsewhere or with tax increases. Democrats have often pointed to the budget rules as evidence of their fiscal discipline. I've got a bit of an issue with that last sentence - or perhaps my issue is with the Democrats. They do like to cite PAYGO rules as evidence of their fiscal discipline. And it is good they voted to reinstate those rules in early 2007. But to be fiscally responsible, they actually need to follow the rules rather than waiving them whenever they please. Unfortunately, their commitment to PAYGO has been much more rhetorical than real over the last two years. The CQ article goes on to state that Democrats will feel pressure from their supporters, particularly labor unions, to pass health care reform regardless of costs. That's comforting. Who is steering this ship anyway? The Republicans have been no better. In the same article, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican Charles Grassley (R-IA) states that "paying for health care reform needs to be done in an intellectually honest way for the fiscal health of our country." Is Grassley serious? I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. It leaves me wondering why Grassley hasn't had any problems with eight years of irresponsible, reckless, and downright stupid justifications for passing budget-busting tax cuts at any cost? He hasn't seem too concerned with the fiscal health of our country when he has repeatedly advocated that since the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was never intended to impact millions of Americans, we might as well not pay for repealing it. That's what fiscal responsibility is about - intentions. Grassley can't even be honest about the money-suck that is the IRS's private tax collection program, which has repeatedly been shown to cost the government more money than it brings in. Now he's seen the light and wants to be intellectually honest about budgeting and being fiscally responsible? That's not change we can believe in. Image by Flickr user PhotoJonny used under a Creative Commons license.