This is what happens when a willful President and his party try to govern America from the ideological left, imposing a reckless expansion of the entitlement state that most Americans, and even dozens of Democrats in Congress, clearly despise.
Actually, it’s not clear whether public opinion has changed all that much: a substantial fraction of those who disapproved of the reform did so because it didn’t go far enough. Anyway, true to form, one of the key talking points of reform’s opponents — that passing reform was an outrage because it denied the clear will of the people — turns out to be completely bogus.
Remember, the more accurate post-passage numbers won't be out until Thursday-ish. But these are the first numbers I've seen in a while that actually differentiate between those that were unsatisfied because they feared IRS agents putting down gran'ma and those who were unsatisfied because the legislation didn't go far enough.
Just one more reminder of what a victory Obama and Pelosi pulled off: here’s the Intrade price on passage of Obamacare from the aftermath of the Massachusetts election to actual success:
As health reform moves to its final, make or break vote — I think it’s going to go through, but I’ll be hanging on by my fingernails all week — Republicans are still denouncing it as a vast, evil government takeover. But they have a problem: Obamacare is very much like the Massachusetts health reform, which was not only implemented by a Republican governor, but by a governor who is a serious contender for the 2012 presidential nomination.
So they insist that the two plans have nothing in common — but the only real difference they can point to is that Massachusetts didn’t fund its plan in part out of Medicare savings.
Of course, it couldn’t. But think about this a bit more: Republicans are saying that what makes Obamacare a socialist takeover, whereas Romneycare wasn’t, is the fact that unlike Romney’s plan, Obama’s plan cuts government spending.
Oh, my. Dick Armey invokes the Federalist Papers on behalf of the tea party movement:
“Who the heck do these people think they are to try to sit in this town with their audacity and second-guess the greatest genius, most creative genius, in the history of the world?” Armey demanded.
A member of the audience passed a question to the moderator, who read it to Armey: How can the Federalist Papers be an inspiration for the tea party, when their principal author, Alexander Hamilton, “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government”?
Historian Armey was flummoxed by this new information. “Widely regarded by whom?” he challenged, suspiciously. “Today’s modern ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case in fact about Hamilton.”
Actually, of course Hamilton was very much a strong-government type. More than that: he was the author of the Report on Manufactures, an early call for — drum roll — industrial policy, backed by public investment.
I’m sure the response to Armey’s comeuppance will be a denunciation of liberal snobbery. But remember, it was Armey who was trying to pull intellectual rank, proclaiming himself the true heir of the Founding Fathers … whose writings he hasn’t bothered to read.
The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.
Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.
The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?
... So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
If we want to have a health care debate, let's have a health care debate. The wingnuttia, and the media who gives them credence, have turned this into a debate about everything other than health care: socialism, citizenship, death panels, hypocrisy about debt (given what Bush spent in 8 years).
If you want to debate, let's debate Krugman's points. What is wrong with reforming a broken market? and don't quote me anything from the Tea Parties, who have been duped itno siding with those who do not promote their interests.
Republicans argue that reconciliation is a partisan tactic that would limit their ability to offer amendments and limit debate to 20 hours in what's considered "the world's most deliberative body." They also say it's inappropriate to use a fast-track budget process to craft health care policy.
But Democrats are quick to point out that the process has been used by both parties — more than 20 times since 1980 — on things like tax cuts, student loan programs, children's health insurance, and welfare reform.
"They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Reid said last week. "It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else."
This is why Democrats suck: they don't frame issues well.
They're letting the GOP frame this issue as "Democrats going to extraordinary lengths to ram health care through". And the Democratic response is "well, you did it too".
While that is true, that's not the issue. The issue is that the GOP has turned the Senate from a body that operates on majority rule to a body that needs a supermajority of 60 votes to get anything done. That was NOT the intent of the Framers. The intention was that 1 vote more than half would pass legislation.
The filibuster is being used as a parliamentary tactic (superbly, I might add) to stop passage of anything that might reflect positively on this president. They're paralyzing the nation to score political hits.
Why the Democrats have not noted this - the fact that the Republicans are trying to change the rules of the Senate to require 60 votes for almost anything - is beyond me.
It used to be that to filibuster, one has to have continuous floor speeches until and unless cloture is invoked. Now, it's not necessary - which is ridiculous. If you're going to stop the business of the country, you should at least have to hold your pee for it. Here's the big unless...the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. That's always an option.
On the subject of reconciliation (and liars), Paul Krugman contributes this:
So, on the This Week panel today I didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the biggest whopper from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who told Elizabeth Vargas that reconciliation — I don’t have the exact transcript — had in the past been used for small things and “to reduce the deficit”.
In fact, reconciliation was used to pass the two major Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit — by $1.8 trillion.
And there’s no penalty for this kind of deception.
Update: Brad DeLong has the transcript, including my final lament.
Here's Rachel Maddow taking on the latest lie regarding reconciliation. How do we allow these Republicans to lie and contradict their own statements and votes.
Then there's Jim Bunning, the retiring senator from Kentucky who used to pitch for the Phillies and is likely suffering from some form of dementia (I'm not joking). He decided to throw a hissy-fit and... let's let Jon explain. My only reaction is: if a Democrat did this, the outrage would be legendary. THIS is why Democrats suck. Bunning got a way with this and the very serious media was never forced to deal with it.
It’s crucial to realize that the trillion dollars’ worth of goods and services we could have produced this year, but won’t, is a loss we’ll never make up. And that doesn’t count the suffering and damage to our future inflicted by the non-monetary costs of mass long-term unemployment.
And yet, the prevailing sentiment in Washington and other centers of power is that we’ve done enough, and that it’s time to start pulling back — to normalize monetary policy, tighten our fiscal belts. Policymakers are congratulating themselves for avoiding total collapse, when they should be berating themselves for failing to engineer recovery.
So, on the This Week panel today I didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the biggest whopper from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who told Elizabeth Vargas that reconciliation — I don’t have the exact transcript — had in the past been used for small things and "to reduce the deficit". In fact, reconciliation was used to pass the two major Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit — by $1.8 trillion.
And there’s no penalty for this kind of deception.
Why does the Very Serious Media continue to treat both sides as if they both have valid points? One side is obviously lying, Fox News is the mouthpiece for the right and no one will say a thing about it.
(via Cesca) If you're a Krugman follower, this New Yorker piece is a must-read.
Why do I like Paul Krugman? Because he calls "bullshit" to bullshit. Here he is cutting off Sam Donaldson's holding forth about Desiree Rogers.
DONALDSON: People who work for the president understand or should understand their place, which is to be spear-carriers. There are two stars in anyone’s White House, the president and the president’s spouse. After that, this passion for anonymity that once was a hallmark of people who worked for a president, has been lost. She wanted to be a star herself…
[....]
KRUGMAN: Can I say that 20 million Americans unemployed, the fact that we’re worrying about the status of the White House social secretary…
...the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized. And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, each and every Republican voted against raising the debt ceiling. Now remember, from 1995-2007 the Republican-controlled Congress voted eight times to raise the debt ceiling. But not this time. Because they think their voters are idiots who can't remember anything prior to January 20, 2009.
(NYT) Paul Krugman There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
Leave your questions about the economy for the columnist on his blog. He will be answering a selection of them in the coming days.
“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
Long ago I said that if liberals said the Earth was round, while conservatives said it was flat, the news headlines would read “Shape of the planet: both sides have a point.” But I encountered a new wrinkle today. I was tentatively scheduled to be on a broadcast dealing with — well, I won’t embarrass them. But first they had to find someone to take the opposite view. And it turned out that they couldn’t — which led to canceling the whole segment. - Paul Krugman
This move towards staged "balance" is part of what's killing America right now. The idea that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion on some topics just isn't true.
It's why the birthers get airtime. It's why the anti-science/creationist crowd gets treated as if they're not insane. It's why outright liars like Mike Pence are given repeated segments on MSNBC.
It's wrong. and it's illustrated below....
"If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government." —Arthur Laffer on CNN
Number one: are you telling me the government DOESN'T currently run Medicare and Medicaid?
Number two: As Bill Maher said recently, anyone can drop a letter into a blue metal box on the sidewalk and in a couple of days it arrives at the place listed on the envelope. For 44 cents. Off the top of your head, can you name anything that costs 44 cents and actually functions exactly as advertised? (Cesca)
I like Paul Krugman, and I think it's a good thing to have a national discussion about the economic crisis, the bailout, cleanup of toxic assets and the range of our problems.
My question is, why wasn't Newsweek putting him on the cover when he went after Bush for 8 years, which a lefty like Krugman certainly did with regularity? Why weren't the wingnuts bending over backwards to embrace Krugman when he ripped the Bush White House for mismanaging us into this mess? As Bob Cesca correctly points out, this is all about ratcheting up the drama.
WAQB: Wednesday Afternoon Quarterbacking. After Obama's speech last night, let's look at some of the threads.
First, Bobby Jindal tried to mock some of the Recovery Act spending by criticizing volcano monitoring. Really? The guy whose state got destroyed because the government did not have early monitoring for hurricanes now mocks natural disaster preparation.
And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.
I suggest that Krugman not float that idea. Methinks the GOP would go for it.
On top of that, this is an old GOP ploy to criticize legitimate programs by citing them in an indignant voice. In 1932 it would have been: "The government thinks they're going to put asphalt and cement coast-to-coast? For cars to go all willy-nilly? Oh ha-ha-ha. Next thing you know they'll be telling us we can skip the train and FLY to our destinations. Silly pinkos."
The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Then Jindal decides to go after federal spending when his state has benefited from federal spending in hurricane recovery finds. Jindal was throwing red meat to the hard right while showing himself to be nothing more than a hypocrite.
This shows the total lack of ideas on the right. They trot out Jindal because he's not white. He's exotic. But he's no Obama. To the GOP, Jindal is their counter-punch to Obama simply because he looks "different".
They trot out Michael Steele as head of the GOP. Now, Steele is qualified, but I'll eat my old socks if he wasn't elected partly because of his color. It's an "oooh, we need one of those" move.
And then Steele TRIES to act black, promising an "off the hook" approach to strategy. Really? Off the hook? You think using hip urban language is what will get you inner-city votes? Keep going. Nice work.
Jindal was a smarmy condescending joke. He spoke to us like we're retarded. Actually, no he didn't. People don't talk to the retarded like that. Referencing my post last night, someone posted the following on YouTube.
I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.
Jindal's speech was panned from both sides of the aisle. From HuffPost: "he came up short. Both Democrats and Republicans alike panned Jindal's rebuttal in terms that were decidedly harsh: "amateurish," "laughable" and, most commonly, "a missed opportunity. "
Finally, HuffPost's Jason Linkins makes the comparison between Jindal and Kenneth the Page from NBC's 30 Rock.
They're both Southern, and they both have weird religious things going on what with Jindal's exorcisms and Kenneth's views that "choosing is a sin" and that hot is "the devil's temperature." They also both have the tendency to look like they're dressing up in their fathers' suits.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. 
like Paul Krugman, and I think it's a good thing to have a national discussion about the economic crisis, the bailout, cleanup of toxic assets and the range of our problems.
Posts
