Classic fear-mongering editorial today in the WSJ about the dangers of what Dems will try to do re universal coverage. Look, it’s fine for conservatives to raise questions about Democratic hubris given the power they’ll have starting in January, and I don’t rule out the prospect that editorial page editor Paul Gigot & his team will raise some useful cautions. But the striking thing about today’s latest in the genre is that it acts as if the paramount public priority of the coming health care debate is restraining Democratic excess. What about solving the scandal of the 50 million uninsured and the 25 million underinsured? Or costs that our private sector-centric system has pushed to 16% of GDP on their way to 20%? Memo to Gigot: instead of just taking predictable potshots, why not lay out what comprehensive reforms the WSJ would endorse that would (1) assure basic health coverage for every American while (2) restraining cost growth and (3) boosting quality. Put out a plan that meets those goals in ways that honor the WSJ’s values, and it would help kickstart a conversation that eventually brings a bipartisan deal. Come on, Paul. As Washington Monthly guru (and one of my mentors) Charlie Peters always told me, "Don’t just tell people what you’re against – tell them what you’re for."