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.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
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)
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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.
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
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
Monday, March 22, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)