dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It hasn't shielded them from charges of fiscal profligacy because there's a two trillion dollar deficit this year. It's not all or even mostly the Democrats fault, but jesus, you going to argue they're being responsible either? I think most Republicans don't defend Republicans' fiscal responsibility because they're disappointed with the fiscal record of the Bush administration and the GOP congress.

What would you have had them do? Everybody agreed that some stimulus was necessary, and anyone in good faith agrees that at the very least it's ensured that things didn't get much worse. The bailouts I guess are more debatable and certainly don't sit as well with me... but both started under Bush and had bipartisan support.

Yes, the deficit has gotten worse, and nobody is happy about that. It's terrifying. But that's what happens in a downturn: spending goes up to cushion the blow, while revenue drops. If we'd followed the McCain course of massive cuts in government spending, unemployment probably would be over 12 percent now and GDP likely wouldn't have turned around yet.

As for Republicans' evaluation of their own record on fiscal issues, I can credit that they feel Bush and the DeLay/Frist congresses were irresponsible, even if they don't talk about it above a mumble. But what about going forward? Brown just campaigned on big new tax cuts and zero reductions to Medicare, I have a hunch he'll be a supporter of any bump in defense spending that's proposed, and I doubt he'll be a strong voice for big cuts to discretionary spending (never mind that you could cut it all, every cent of it, and still not get us back to balance). If that adds to less debt, I'm not seeing how.

I don't know where we're going as a party. Right now we're just throwing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks. We don't have a leader, or even people vying to be leaders of the party on policy issues. I hope a lot of this sorts itself out in the 2012 primaries. I don't foresee a whole lot of brilliant policy ideas coming from the GOP minority between now and then. You often say the GOP isn't interested in governing the country, but I imagine it will look more up to it when it seems like we might actually be able to play a sizable role. I don't think the Democratic party was all that interested in governing throughout a lot of Bush's administration, preferring to snipe from the sidelines.

One thing that might be interesting is to see if this summer we try a new Contract with America type thing with specifics. I'm not sure who would be "in charge" of producing a list, but it would be nice if someone in House or Senate leadership (Paul Ryan? John Kyl?) would articulate a set of policy action items (tax reform? entitlement reform? health care reform?) that could get near unanimous GOP support.

Edit: As for what I'd have the Democrats do, it's fine by me if they're too busy saving the economy to be fiscally responsible on budgetary matters I guess, but don't look for too many plaudits on the fiscal responsibility front when you're presiding over a budget that triples the highest deficit ever.

A long time ago, I noted that the Dems were making a mistake in always running against Bush. The obvious reason was that Bush wasn't going to be around forever.

The second reason, however, is becoming apparent. Note the exchange between dajafi and JH. The emergency measures taken at the end of Bush's second term and the beginning of Obama's term were not pretty, but necessary. Responsible people from both parties (among them Obama, McCain, and Bush) quickly put together a deal that probably saved the economy from much worse.

The program was easily attacked by demagogues. If however, the Democrats were more comfortable talking about the way in which Bush (as opposed to many Congressional Ds and Rs) acted and that he was right to do so, I think they'd be more persuasive on how they've handled the economy.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd seriously consider going back to schips expansion passed by large margins in Congress and vetoed by Bush. That's clearly a framework for expanding access to coverage.

some variant of SCHIP expansion's a logical plan b.

Cshort, the items you listed are out of the right-of-Newt policy playbook. While some of them are actually practical ideas, they're politically thorny, so won't get consideration (eg cross-border health ins sales, which is more a matter of regulatory turf than functional impairments - but which perversely does impact rates, etc).

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't know where we're going as a party. Right now we're just throwing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks. We don't have a leader, or even people vying to be leaders of the party on policy issues. I hope a lot of this sorts itself out in the 2012 primaries. I don't foresee a whole lot of brilliant policy ideas coming from the GOP minority between now and then. You often say the GOP isn't interested in governing the country, but I imagine it will look more up to it when it seems like we might actually be able to play a sizable role. I don't think the Democratic party was all that interested in governing throughout a lot of Bush's administration, preferring to snipe from the sidelines.

Without even going back and looking, I probably could give you six or eight big things the Democrats proposed in 2004 and 2006 while "sniping from the sidelines." And in '08, with the presidency open, Obama (ironically, given how the campaign was covered and presented) proposed a ton of stuff with loads of detail while McCain essentially ran a "believe in my leadership" campaign. Admittedly he sort of had to do this because the Bush agenda was discredited and he couldn't explicitly repudiate his sitting president, but even so there was very little policy meat on the bone.

Maybe some big idea will emerge from the Republicans. But I'm hearing only more of same: tax cuts and a few cosmetic and essentially meaningless reforms like "no more czars," which might be the contribution of noted policy wonk Glenn Beck. Big proposals require a willingness to inflict pain on some constituency; the Democrats are doing a little of this very unwillingly, and the Republicans continue to promise everything to everyone with no evident regard for the laws of economics.

Republican tax reform (which Bush nodded to but never seriously pursued) won't happen because it would risk refocusing populist anger on the rich. Entitlement reform isn't really credible after trying to privatize Social Security and dying on the last hill for every cent of Medicare Advantage. Health care reform? Crickets.

jerseyhoya wrote:Edit: As for what I'd have the Democrats do, it's fine by me if they're too busy saving the economy to be fiscally responsible on budgetary matters I guess, but don't look for too many plaudits on the fiscal responsibility front when you're presiding over a budget that triples the highest deficit ever.

So: no context, no history, no acknowledgment of extenuating circumstances, no positive alternatives proposed.

McCain proposed plenty of policy initiatives on the campaign trail, like taxing health insurance for example. Then Senator Obama was like zOMG McCain wants to tax your health insurance. Then President Obama was like zOMG I want to tax your health insurance.

dajafi wrote:Brown just campaigned on big new tax cuts and zero reductions to Medicare, I have a hunch he'll be a supporter of any bump in defense spending that's proposed, and I doubt he'll be a strong voice for big cuts to discretionary spending (never mind that you could cut it all, every cent of it, and still not get us back to balance). If that adds to less debt, I'm not seeing how.

I'd put the affable frat-boy Senator Ding-a-ling under a health-care heat lamp so hot it'd tan his hang-downs...along with those of whomever else puts words in his mouth. His "no vote on the health bill" would become the hottest potato he's had his hand on since his Cosmo spread.

He'd be my poster boy for a health reform across-the-aisle compromise, and the pose would not be one he or any other republicans would want in their portfolios - but they'd take it & like it. He voted for Romney's state-level health care freak show and I'd beat him around the tender parts with that every single day for the next 4 years until he's ridden out of office on a rail by a candidate who makes Martha Coakley look like Lyndon Johnson.

I don't know the details of how I'd do it. But I'd do it. Yea, I'm a vengeful mfer & he's an easy mark.

I'm probably also into the warmth metaphors b/c, well, this posting naked thing is not a good idea in late January.

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain proposed plenty of policy initiatives on the campaign trail, like taxing health insurance for example. Then Senator Obama was like zOMG McCain wants to tax your health insurance. Then President Obama was like zOMG I want to tax your health insurance.

Yes, that's true. Senator McCain denounced what Candidate McCain proposed. Both times, of course, he was putting "Country First."

Economist editorial on Obama's first year.Worth a read.

I think a more combative Obama could maintain his centrist policies, and please both the liberal base and moderate independents.

dajafi wrote:Yeah, they passed S-CHIP. That's why poor kids are all Bolsheviks today.

At one point I rather naively asked (probably on here, but maybe not) why we didn't just incrementally move toward universal coverage by lowering Medicare eligibility and raising S-CHIP eligibility until they met in the middle. But coming up with a good answer to that question--aside from "we can't afford it" (which is defensible but IMO ultimately incorrect; it's the incredibly wasteful status quo we can't afford)--would entail explaining why some statism is okay but not more than that nebulous amount.

Medicare, as it is currently structured, isn't any more affordable than the current status quo, so I would argue "we can't afford it" is actually correct. Considering we already spend more on our piecemeal public health care programs than other countries with single payer systems spend on providing health care for their entire populations, we'd still have to make sweeping reforms to Medicare first in order to make it work. And we all know how current Medicare recipients would feel about that.

TheBrig wrote:Medicare, as it is currently structured, isn't any more affordable than the current status quo, so I would argue "we can't afford it" is actually correct. Considering we already spend more on our piecemeal public health care programs than other countries with single payer systems spend on providing health care for their entire populations, we'd still have to make sweeping reforms to Medicare first in order to make it work. And we all know how current Medicare recipients would feel about that.

"We can't afford what we have, so let's .... not head toward anything different, but just run into the wall with what we have."

Hmmmmm. Need anyone really debate the merits of that "policymaking" proposition?

Health care is supply driven (everywhere, not just the US).

Politically, and practically, the likeliest way, in the US, in 2010, to reform a (non) system is a) pass a slimmed-down version of the existing bills, almost any version (even a cosmetically slimmed down version), and then b) almost immediately start starving selected appendages of it.

My personal preference would be to re-set to spring 2009 and formulate a "man to the moon"-type reform program, narrower, clear enough for even a MA voter to understand, potentially easier to fund, and do it that way. That time has probably passed.

dajafi wrote:Democrats blast off their own feet:

I live in Barney Frank's district, and I called his office this morning. To my surprise, he took my call and I asked him why on earth couldn't the House simply pass the Senate version of the health care bill. He told me straight up that the votes weren't there to pass the Senate bill. He said that labor is totally against it, the abortion caucus is against it, and more than a few progressives were against it.

I asked him about Democrats' prospects in the 2010 election if they don't get something done on health care. He told me it would be worse electorally for Democrats if they passed the bill versus dropping it and facing voters having done nothing. I told him I disagreed with him on that point, but I suppose he knows more about this stuff than I do. I hope.

I believe Frank about lacking the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill but if he truly believes the Democrats would be better off doing nothing than passing the bill, he's promoting a recipe for 1994 all over again.

I have to believe the Democrats would be better off passing the Senate bill and then trying to run on what it would do than they would by doing nothing and then blaming the minority party for gridlock (even though that would be true.)

How did we get to a point in this country where even reasonable, responsible Republicans like Snowe, Collins and Lugar are marching in lockstep with their reactionary leaders to just bloody the new president's nose? I honestly would have believed that at least those three would care more about doing something to help with the awful healthcare system that we have now than about partisan politics. (Lugar, while not as moderate as Snowe or Collins, is pretty principled on matters of policy from what I know. I used to work for a child nutrition advocacy group and he had a sterling record in that area. From what I know, he's also usually substantive and fair on matters of foreign policy.)

Now that the Dems don't have their filibuster-proof majority and almost no chance of the House passing the Senate's bill, is there no chance that Obama and co. could go to the Congress and reach out to the more substantive Republicans and see what it would take to get them on board with at least a moderate reform bill that would put us on a path to insuring everyone, eliminating lifetime coverage caps, and doing away with insurers' ability to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Not to echo what's already been said here, but please, yes, let's kick Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus. I only wish the Democrats had had the guts to do that in the first place. As for Scott Brown, now he has to govern. I look forward to watching the intricate dance he will have to do in the next 3 years to have any chance of reelection.

Finally, as to Curt Schilling, well Deadspin already said it for me ...

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

dajafi wrote:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

So let me get this straight, according to Obama, "GWB-fatigue is responsible for Brown's victory in MA"?



Funny guy...

I really thought 2010 would be when Obama finally stopped using the "blame Bush" tactic.

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

So let me get this straight, according to Obama, "GWB-fatigue is responsible for Brown's victory in MA"?



Funny guy...

You've misinterpreted. Deliberately or not, I am uncertain.

I will explain. People are angry and scared. They were angry and scared last November, and voted for a guy who brought "hope" and "change". Alas, a year later, they're still angry and scared. So, they vote against the guy who promised "hope" and "change" but has so far failed to fulfill those expectations.

Obama could have been more generously interpreted as saying, Look, I ran against Bush, but in reality, he wasn't quite as bad as many of his critics said.

Or, to put it another way--a lot people voted for Obama in the same way a lot of people want Kolb to start for the Eagles next year. If Kolb doesn't get them a SB win, they'll want someone else. Matt Leinart maybe.

The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

Brown raised $12 million online in January.

That's so unbelievably amazing for a Senate race I can barely fathom it. I wonder how much he spent? He's going to have a lot of CoH for his reelect, I imagine.

My unbiased interpretation is that the "8 years" reference indicates that he is squarely taking aim at GWB.

Bucky wrote:My unbiased interpretation is that the "8 years" reference indicates that he is squarely taking aim at GWB.

Pat Burrell's tenure as a Phillies 2000-2008. You ever listen to WIP? Obama was just pointing out that Pat the Bat frustrated people with his poor left field play and his tendency to strike out looking.

Ezra Klein perfectly captureswhat seems to me is going on here:

[T]he reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.
...
If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that's as it should be. If the Democratic Party won't uphold its end of the bargain, there's no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.