Why is Bipartisanship Dead? (posted by DT)

So the Health Care Reform bill is now behind us, barring an unlikely bit of judicial activism from the Supreme Court. One more post-mortem (maybe not the last- there's a lot rattling around in my brain):

Can serious people please dispense with the "Obama hasn't delivered on his bipartisanship promise" and even the "pox on both your houses" argument about why Democrats and Republicans can't get along in Washington? I get why Republican politicians put out that spin, but it would be nice if the rest of the media would leave Fox News pundits alone and stop repeating their talking points.

What do you mean, DT? The Dems passed a Health Care Reform bill without a single Republican vote? What could be more partisan? True enough, but we have to look with some depth at the facts of the policy before we slice up the Blame Pie for this. The HCR bill is a moderate bill; it's nearly identical to the Massachusetts bill that was passed with the enthusiastic support of Mitt Romney, with the help of Scott Brown's affirmative vote. (When Brown was asked about this in the recent Senatorial campaign he said he opposed Obamacare not because it was different from the MA bill, but because MA already has a good system and he didn't want to subsidize other states doing it). Olympia Snowe voted in favor of almost exactly the same bill in committee. The individual mandate, which Republicans are now calling unconstitutional, has been in numerous past Health Care plans proposed by them. HCR ended up much closer to past Republican plans than liberals wanted- there's no single payor, there's no public option, there's no socialization of anything- if you look at the actual bill, it's just not that radical.

So what happened? The Republican leadership made a decision to refuse any compromise whatsoever. They decided that if the Dems want it, then we'll oppose it. Democrats reportedly offered during the negotiations to put in Malpractice Reform, a provision that conservatives have been agitating for, but when they asked Republicans they were reportedly told that they wanted it, but still would have to vote against the full bill. So there's an idea that liberals have no big problem with, but which results in loss of support of trial lawyers. Democrats were willing to forgo that support to gain some Republicans, but found it wouldn't deliver any votes!

So I know I'm a partisan; I plead guilty there. But let's face it; in this case Republicans have decided to fight instead of compromise. Maybe there will be change on future issues (banking reform? Can't wait for that one), but the blame for partisanship in HCR has to be put on the GOP.

Defense Spending (posted by DT)

Back in the '70s and '80s I remember that liberals wanted to decrease spending on the military; my recollection was that this was one of the issues that the Left agreed about for the most part. Then Reagan increased defense spending even more and the accepted narrative is that this drove the Soviet Union out of existence. And I have to admit that, much as I am a Reagan-hater, it's probably true: the Soviet economy couldn't keep up with us in an arms race, and trying to do so was a factor in their whole enterprise going south.

So I'll accept that high defense spending in the 1980s was good for the US. But how about now? The US spends almost twice as much as the next-highest spender per capita on defense. Why? There's no Soviet Union now.

When we talk about ways to decrease spending, why is the military always off the table?

(chart is from Matt Yglesias- sorry if it's hard to read, I'm just learning this stuff)

Financial Ruin! (posted by DT)

Well the Wall Street Journal crowd, which includes most of the conservatives I know, has been predicting economic catastrophe if the Health Care Bill passes. OK, that's a little strong, but a common argument I've heard is that it will slow productivity in the US economy. So I would expect that the week when HCR finally passes, we would see that the Smart People who follow stocks for a living and whose livelihood depends on accuracy, selling off stocks since the economy is about to decline.

But lo and behold, the stock market is holding steady this week! The Dow Jones is higher at the end of today than it was on Monday morning!

Now I'm not saying that this proves HCR will help the economy. I know that tons of factors feed into stock market performance. I'm just saying that while conservative politicians and pundits and radio talk show hosts predict terrible things for the economy with the socialists in charge, the people whose livelihood depends on being right about the future seem to have at least a little confidence.

Torture Apologists (posted by DT)

Marc Thiessen, a Bush speechwriter with no training in journalism or in interrogation procedure, has written a book explaining why torture has kept us safe. This take-down from a real journalist is pretty good, and not too long:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/29/100329crbo_books_mayer?printable=true
Bottom line: torture is not a useful tactic to gain intelligence, and there is no credible evidence that torture has stopped a single terrorist attack from happening.

What torture has helped to do is change our country from one that is seen as the "good guys" into one seen by others as a cruel bully. It's helped Muslim extremists recruit. In short it's a shande.

Tea Party Terrorism (posted by AS)

I am continuously amazed at the Tea Party's willingness to encourage radical, almost treasonous, criminal behavior. A sign like this is no less than an implicit threat that the President and Members of Congress who support the health care reform bill should be shot.

I have no doubt that if signs of this level of threatening physical harm were carried by anti-Iraq War or anti-Dubya demonstrators, many on the right would have demanded, and correctly so, that the people carrying such signs be charged with making terroristic threats. Yet, today there is largely silence from Republicans and the right or even open encouragement.

Shameful.

Ugly Is as Ugly Does (posted by AS)

From today's politico.com:

The only thing worse than winning ugly is losing uglier.

The Democrats’ ungainly march toward a victory on health care reform Sunday night provoked a graceless response from angry House Republicans, who shouted insults across the chamber, encouraged outbursts from the galleries, brandished “Kill the bill” placards from the Speaker’s Balcony and, apparently, left veiled threats of electoral retribution on the benches of undecided Democrats.

And that all came before Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer shouted “baby killer!” as anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) spoke on the House floor.

That incident followed an even uglier series of events outside the chamber Saturday, when tea party protesters reportedly shouted the N-word at civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and hurled an anti-gay insult at Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34838.html#ixzz0j16ixe1c

Sausage Making (Posted by AS)

Yes, I am still alive out there. Lest you millions of devoted readers think that DT has completely taken over this blog, I thought it was time for another post. For now, just a few observations from watching the deliberations in the House over the health care bill last night. I turned on the TV at 8:00, having been told that each side would get one hour of "debate". Of course, 2 hours in Congress is like the last 2 minutes of an NCAA March Madness game. Both take MUCH longer than the actual time allotted on the clock.

1. CNN's coverage was (somewhat) surprisingly lame. Wolf Blitzer, who is purported to be a political sage, was more of a play-by-play man. In fact, Joe Buck could have done a better job. Wolf's primary responsibilities consisted of letting viewers know that the vote had not yet happened and re-introducing the esteemed panelists. I know it was a Sunday, and maybe his contract requires him to have a day off, but I would have much preferred Anderson Cooper driving the bus. Blitzer provided absolutely no insight, but only directed the camera to the various panelists. As for said panelists, only Sanjay Gupta, Donna Brazile, and the token Republican strategist (whose name eludes me) brought anything to the table. The problem seemed to be that CNN was so worried about being labelled pro-Democrat that it bent over backwards to have its own version of "fair and balanced." There were far too many commercial breaks, most of which seemed to be taken when Democrats were speaking. All in all, CNN's coverage fell flat, but I really had no choice. On principle, I refuse to watch Fox. And CSPAN? Well, its not in HD. C'mon, are we barbarians?

2. In the long run, the Republicans did their party a tremendous disservice last night. History will not judge them kindly. The sheer hypocrisy of expressing righteous indignation for procedural matters which they themselves have used many times is astounding. And then, the outrageous gall to accuse the Democrats of arrogance, is so hypocritcal it should collapse under its own weight. I mean, who are the Republicans to claim the mantle of speakign for "the American public"? Yes, lots of Americans oppose the legislation (mostly because they are ill-informed but that's a different argument), but guess what guys? There are millions of Americans who support it too! Talk about arrogant!

3. Nancy Pelosi should be discouraged from speaking publicly as much as possible. She is hardly the face that the Democrats should put forward. I know, she's a very smart woman and an astute politician. She didnt get to be Speaker of the House for nothing. But her final speech was nothing short of disturbing. Her oratory skills are poor. What was that strange humming and muttering? Bizarre.

4. John Boehner is truly frightening. To quote Jason Berlin, he must sleep in a coffin during the day. See my point #2 above for my substantive disagreement. In my opinion, it's absolutely shameful for a party leader to rant and rave the way he did.

5. After last night, I have a lot more respect for John Stupak and Steven Lynch. Even though I disagree with Stupak on the abortion issue, good for him for standing up for his principles and good for him for calling out the Republicans for cynically trying to kill the health care bill in the name of being pro-life. As Stupak so eloquently pointed out, you can't be "pro-life" without also caring about the lives of the pregnant women carrying the fetuses in their wombs. I hope that the irony and idiocy of the Republican representative who shouted out "baby killer!" as Stupak was speaking further exposes how the right is motivated by blind ideology.

As for Rep. Lynch, he also stuck to his beliefs in the face of what must have been withering pressure from the White House, Unions and just about everyone else in his power base. I found it very funny that he was labelled one of the so-called "Brave Democrats" to vote against the bill, when the reason he was voting against it was that he felt it didn't go far enough to controlling insurance company profits or providing a public option.

6. Speaking of "bravery", it's quite revealing that not a single Republican house member had the guts to vote for the bill. You mean to tell me that not a single one of them supported the idea of insuring 35 million uninsured, or the ability to continue coverage despite illness or a pre-exising condition? Were they so scared of their own leadership, or the perception that a vote for the bill meant an automatic defeat in November? Because it appears to me, that a large part of the opposition to the bill was based on fear, but fear is not an appropriate motivation for passing or not passing laws.

7. I think it was a mistake for the Democrats to invoke Ted Kennedy's legacy as a reason to pass the bill. Yes, Kennedy toiled tirelessly and made it his life's work. But that's putting sentiment before substance. By the way, I wonder how all the Massachusetts voters feel who voted for Scott Brown because they were convinced that he would be the hero would would kill health care reform? Kind of like being stood up waiting for a prom date? Or sold the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge? Unfortunately, many Brown voters are not even politically aware enough to realize they've been duped.

8. The Republicans, despite their loss on this issue, still seem to be better at getting their message out, and energizing their base. Obama's Cult of Personality notwithstanding, the Republicans still maintain a large enthusiasm advantage. Of course, some of this comes from the Tea Partiers, but in many ways, the Democrats fall far short in getting their core message out.

Time will tell how things play out on health care, and other important issues, between now and November, and beyond. But if nothing else, last night's scene on Capitol Hill confirmed the old adage that people who enjoy eating sausage should never watch it being made.

Health Care Reform Truths & Lies (posted by DT)

As I watch congress voting for HCR:

Last night I was at a wonderful party with neighbors talking politics. In discussing Health Care Reform I was surprised once again by the misconceptions out there about this bill. In fact the Right Wing Noise Machine is so great at what it does, that more myth is known about the bill than fact.

So here's a little myth vs. fact:

• Myth: The HCR bill is a government takeover of health care. Fact: the health care system in the US is not being taken over by the government. It is still insurance-based, and those who are getting insurance through their employer will continue to do so.
• Myth: The bill will increase the deficit. Fact: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill and says that it will reduce the deficit.
• Myth: The Democrats rammed this bill down the throats of the American people through unusual and unprecedented parliamentary maneuvers. Fact: None of the parliamentary tactics used were unusual or unprecedented. Republicans and Democrats have been using all of these tactics for years.

I may have more in a while. Anyway, I predict that this law will not destroy the system of health care in our country, and will not lead to a socialist dictatorship.

Stimulate This (posted by DT)

My morning surfing led me today to this WSJ article about the opinions of surveyed economists that the Obama stimulus was an overall positive for the economy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115674057260664.html

It stresses that actions of the Fed had an even bigger effect.

Now it would be nice if, given that the journal of the American economic Right is reporting that the the Stimulus worked, we could stop hearing Republican politicians and pundits insist that it did nothing except increase the deficit.

Congressman Stephen Lynch- Dead to Me (posted by DT)

I'm driving to work today and on the radio I hear Stephen Lynch, a Democratic US Congressman from South Boston, say that he is voting against the Health Care Reform bill because "it doesn't cut costs enough".

Now as I see it, there are some actual legitimate substantive reasons to vote against this bill. True fiscal conservatives can reasonably argue that this bill costs money and raises taxes, and if one believes in small government above all (as many conservatives do), that's an argument to vote no.

But there are parts of this bill that address the increasing costs of health care. While one can certainly argue that it doesn't do as much as it could to cut future costs, it's not really debatable to say that it cuts costs more than the alternative. We're currently on a trajectory that is increasing government health care costs (Medicare and Medicaid) at an unsustainable rate. This bill addresses this issue. Doing nothing does not address this issue.

What is Stephen Lynch's real reason for voting no? And is anyone running against him in a primary this year?

Health Care Finale (posted by DT)

Well it looks like the Health Care Reform bill is going to be passed by the House along with a "sidecar" bill improving the Senate version, which will go through Reconciliation in the Senate. Yesterday we saw that Dennis Kucinich, the most left-wing member of congress and an opponent of the bill because it doesn't go far enough, has been convinced to vote in favor. At the same time, some Catholic organizations have come out in opposition to the Conference of Catholic Bishops and announced that they support the bill because it promotes social justice while still allowing no government funds to be available for abortions. This presumably gives cover to some pro-life Catholics who have voted no because the bill doesn't restrict abortion enough more than current policy.

So now Republican opposition has stopped talking about the facts of the bill (perhaps their fiction department has stopped working on new lies about the legislation) and has moved on to bogus process arguments. To be fair, the party out of power always resorts to this crap when they're about to lose, and many examples of Democratic party hypocrisy are out there to be found too. Still, at the end of the day, the Democrats have a large majority in Congress, and to argue that this is somehow anti-democratic is patently absurd.

It's hard to encapsulate such a complex political and policy issue into a pithy statement, but I think it's clear what the difference between the parties is: Democrats want to cover all Americans with health care, like the rest of the civilized world. Republicans don't want taxes to go up one dime in any area for any purpose whatsoever, lest we become like the rest of the (socialist) world.

Keep in mind that the Congressional Budget Office came out today saying that this legislation will reduce the deficit, in both the short and long run. If that sounds surprising to you, it's because the conservative noise machine has cleverly framed the issue: How could something that costs money reduce the deficit? There must be funny business going on! Well the answer is simple: it reduces the deficit because it raises revenue to pay for the extra costs, and then has cost controls to reduce health care expenditures later. This is apparently difficult to understand for Republicans, who are accustomed to doing things that cost money (the Medicare drug benefit for example) but refusing to pay for it.

The fiscal choice is pretty clear to me: Democrats may tax and spend, but Republicans will borrow and spend. Pretty easy choice for me- I'd rather pay now than make my grandkids pay later.

Another Quick Prediction (posted by DT)

Here is a post that I plan to look up in a few years to say "I told you so".

The Republicans are going to end the filibuster as soon as they are back in power and the Democrats are using it to stop them from enacting their agenda.

Please don't misunderstand- this is not an anti-Republican post. The filibuster is being used maximally by the Republicans in an unprecedented manner in order to try to deny the Democrats any passage of their agenda. I think it's cynical and bad for the country, but it's within the rules and can be stopped by the Democrats if they want. Witness what happened early in President Bush's presidency when Democrats were filibustering judicial nominees- Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" and forced a compromise, allowing most of their judges to be voted on.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are now in power and won't even talk about the nuclear option. It seems they're hoping they can whine enough and convince the country to keep them in office. As I've said before, Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions and don't want to really fight for anything, which is why they will richly deserve the comeuppance that is looming in November. Republicans have no such qualms, and now that they've started a precedent of universal stalling, the Democrats will follow suit when they're in the minority and the GOP won't put up with that- they'll go nuclear.

Then the Democrats will whine that Republicans are ruining the comity of the Senate while the Republicans flip them the bird. For once I'd like to see Democrats be the ones flipping the bird.

Health Care prediction (posted by DT)

So while I'm predicting things, I'll do one with a little more importance to us all. I predict that the House will indeed pass the Senate Health Care Bill, and then pass a patch of minor changes through reconciliation in the Senate. I predict this will be done by the end of March.

I wish I were really confident about this, but I'm not. The Democrats are fully capable of screwing it up even this close to the finish line.

"Lost" Prediction

A break from politics for a quick detour regarding the Best TV Drama Ever:

I predict that Jack will be the last candidate standing and will take over the island. OK, I can prove 2 months from now that I predicted it here.

Poker Face (posted by DT)

I think this is really interesting:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/health-care-reform-poker

It makes the point that Republicans are generally better poker players than Democrats, and I think this is probably true. I hate poker- I'm too risk-averse. (I know my co-blogger feels differently, though since I don't play with him I don't know how good a bluffer he is).

In the Health Care fight, Democrats seem so easily spooked that it's pathetic, while Republicans have taken on this huge all-in gamble to stop health care. Similarly, when Republicans were in charge they immediately initiated their economic agenda of huge tax cuts, with nary a worry about consequences. Democrats, on the other hand, got in charge and immediately started backtracking to half-measures, with a too-small stimulus package that has not done enough to slow unemployment. Dems also wouldn't stand up to Joe Lieberman and his possible bluffs about refusing to support their agenda, and they won't risk upsetting their wavering members and double down on health care reform.

Once again, it seems that Democrats just don't want to lead. Republicans want to lead and know how to get stuff done, but unfortunately they're leading us over the cliff. I'm not excited about the prospects.

Anti-Gay Gay Politicians (posted by DT)

Speaking of the Christian Right, this stuff can be seen a few ways:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/roy-ashburn-im-gay_n_490297.html

One is tempted to gloat about the hypocrisy of a politician who has enthusiastically sponsored anti-gay legislation while leading a secret gay lifestyle himself. But I think a more appropriate response is sadness for this pathetic man who is so self-hating and twisted that he is forced to deny who he is.

In any case, I suspect his political career is over.

Abortion, Health Care, & the Christian Right (posted by DT)

Here's something that's been bugging me for a while: the positions of those who identify with the Christian Right.

Now I'm not a Christian, and I don't know much about Christian theology or religious practice. It seems to me, though, that Jesus was a pretty righteous religious figure whose teachings of peace, brotherhood, caring for the downtrodden ("The meek shall inherit the Earth"), etc are in concert with the way I see the world and what is moral behavior.

So there seems to be no question that the Christian position would be that medical care should be accessible to the poor and near-poor. But there's been a hangup in passing this legislation; some pro-life Democrats inserted the "Stupak Amendment" into the House legislation that is very restrictive of abortion, and which would essentially make it impossible for any health plan to cover abortions, even if the government is not subsidizing it. This is clearly an attempt to make abortions more difficult to obtain for middle class women. Stupak and his colleagues are making a stand to get their language put back in the bill somehow. Liberals contend that the Senate language is also plenty restrictive on abortion, and if anything makes abortion more restricted, though not as much as in the House bill. But Stupak & friends are threatening to blow up the whole thing if they don't get what they want.

Now maybe they're bluffing- it actually seems possible that these so-called moderates are just driving a hard bargain but won't let the whole bill go down. But if they're not bluffing, then what does that say about their Christian values? In order to slow abortions they're willing to blithely let living people continue to die without health insurance? The Catholic church too seems to share these priorities- I can understand the maximalist position on abortion, but it would be nice to hear some sort of moral argument from such a powerful institution in favor of legislation that would undoubtedly aid the poor.

Which brings me to what really bugs me about the positions I hear from Christians: what about the torture debate? Is there anything more antithetical to Christian values than the use of torture on our enemies? Why is there no outcry from the churches about waterboarding or about the fact that more than 100 people have been killed in US custody in the War on Terror?

It's not that I think it's wrong for churches to fight with all their power against abortion- it's an important theological issue for them, and they have every right to whip up support for their position- it's just that we hear nothing but crickets chirping from the churches on a similarly huge moral issue. Why don't they care? Wasn't Jesus himself a victim of torture?

Elephant Hunting (posted by DT)

I don't spend much time on Sarah Pailin, as criticizing her is like shooting fish in a barrel, but this is hard to pass up. During a speech in Alberta, Pailin is quoted saying:

We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in
Canada...and I think now, isn't that ironic.

Irony is when one says something, but actually means the opposite. Of course, Pailin is unintentionally ironic here, praising the Single Payor health care in Canada she used as a youngster while decrying a much less liberal plan being proposed for the US.

It just leads me to remember again that the health care plan being discussed now is essentially the same as the Massachusetts plan enthusiastically signed by Mitt Romney, with the addition of cost controls, and it is similar to the Republican alternative to Clintoncare in 1993. It's just not that radical, and if Republican party discipline was just a little less awesome there'd be plenty of Republicans voting for it. [Sigh]

Scott Brown's Legislative Career Begins (posted by DT)

So Scott Brown wants to spend unused TARP funds to give tax relief to American workers http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scott-Browns-first-legislative-proposal-is-Immediate-Tax-Relief-Act-for-Americas-Workers-amendment-86044517.html
I eagerly await Scott's fellow Republicans falling all over each other rushing to criticize him for spending money that could go toward reducing the deficit. What? The Right likes his idea? Don't tax cuts increase the deficit just like spending increases? Wait, I'm confused, I thought the burgeoning deficit was the biggest problem facing our country. It's almost as if Republicans talk about reducing the deficit as a point-scoring device against Obama and Pelosi and Reid, while their actual policy positions would actually make the deficit way worse!
Well, that couldn't be it- Republicans have proven that they are the party of Fiscal Responsibility. Remember when they were in power and we went from a surplus in 2000 to a $1 Trillion deficit 8 years later- oh, wait, that proves just the opposite.

Well there it is anyway.

Health Care Reform may pass! (posted by DT)

Sorry to my legions of fans out there for not posting for a few days, but I have a large Event coming up in my family this Saturday so I'm not spending much time writing.

I'm trying not to get too jacked up about the prospects of Health Care Reform, but I can't seem to stop the optimism from creeping in (we liberals are optimistic about human nature and the good government can do, after all). News reports indicate that the House may pass the Senate Health Care Bill as early as next week, which would be a huge win. Then the plan would be for some relatively minor "fixes" to the Senate bill would be passed, taking some of the best from the House bill that is out of the Senate one, and putting it back in. This would have to be passed through Reconciliation, so that only 50 votes (with Joe Biden casting a tie-breaker) would be needed in the Senate.

Republicans are stomping their feet about using Reconciliation, which is absurd given that it's been used often over the years, was in fact used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and is the only way to pass anything at this point given that Republicans have decided to use the filibuster to an unprecedented degree this term.

But this post isn't about the Republicans- they should be dismissed as irrelevant to passing health care. As I've noted earlier, the Republican party doesn't really want universal health care, in which case they're quite right to vote against it.

Democrats just have to be tough, which is unfortunately not in their nature. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama need to tell wavering congressmen that if they don't vote for health care they'll be relegated to miserable, leaky basement offices, they'll face primary opponents from the Left, they'll lose whatever committee assignments they care about, etc. It's hardball, and it's how you get things done in the Big Leagues.

So here's hoping they can stick with it. I can't say I'll be shocked if it all falls apart, but I'm feeling good tonight- don't spoil it!