The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Democratic Party Page 6 of 7

Enough

Ok, enough.

Enough, Enough, Enough.

After reading this compilation by Thomas Schaller of various leading “progressives” views on whether the Senate bill should be killed or not, I am beyond disgusted at many of the putrid, spineless, stupid quislings who call themselves progressives.

Just… enough.

Exhibit A:

On MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” Joan Walsh derides Joe Lieberman but compares progressives who want to kill the entire Senate bill to people who voted for Nader over Al Gore in 2000.

Thank you Joan “lesser evil” Walsh.  That election has been trotted out ever since to justify voting for Democrats no matter what they do.  It’s good to know that your support is completely unconditional.  Of course, perhaps it might have helped if Al Gore and Joe Lieberman had actually fought.  Buses full of union members and other demonstrators were willing to go, and Al Gore, the “good man” didn’t want to risk that flaring into violence.  So he told them not to roll, and the Supreme Court, seeing that no one gave a damn, gave the election to Bush 5-4.  The result was, literally, hundreds of thousands of dead people.  Why?  Because a good man wasn’t willing to fight.  Just like you, a “good woman”, I’m sure. Just like Democratic progressive in Congress.  If you won’t fight, and the other side will, the other side will always get what they want.  But people like you, who belong to the party of wimps, never understand that, do you?

Exhibit B, Ezra Klein:

And as I spent yesterday arguing, it has a tendency to overshadow the lives in the balance. You can choose your estimate. The Institute of Medicine’s methodology says 22,000 people died in 2006 because they didn’t have health-care coverage. A recent Harvard study found the number nearer to 45,000. Since we talk about the costs of health-care reform over a 10-year period, may as well talk about the lives saved that way, too. And we’re looking, easily, at more than a hundred thousand lives, to say nothing of the people who will be spared bankruptcy, chronic pain, unnecessary impairment, unnecessary caretaking, bereavement, loss of wages, painful surgeries, and so on.

Why people think Ezra is capable of understanding policy has always been beyond me.  He can’t, and he never has been able to.  The bill will not save all of those lives.  What the bill does is force people to buy insurance who don’t have it right now.  Force them.  The standard shitty insurance (the silver plan) is 70% of actuarial value, which means the company has to spend 70% of premiums on health care.  And it’s not capped.  So if you get seriously ill, you blow through the cap, and can’t afford the care which would save you life.  I don’t know how many people the bill will save, but it’s not 220,000 or 450,000 over ten years.  Anyone who thinks  it is is incompetent.

Exhibit C, Jonathan Cohn, who writes for the New Republic  (which should tell you everything you need to know anyway):

Is health care reform without a public option still worth passing? Unequivocally, unambiguously yes.

The case for is simple and straightforward: 30 million additional people, maybe more, will have health insurance. Many more who have insurance will see their coverage become more stable. The ability of insurers to exclude people based on pre-existing conditions will diminish significantly, if not disappear. And that’s on top of a host of delivery reforms which should, in combination, help make medical care less expensive over time. The bill could be much better, for sure, but to argue that it’s worse than nothing you have to make the case that nothing will somehow lead to more progress in some reasonable frame of time.

30 million more people will be FORCED to buy insurance, which many of them can’t afford.  If they could afford insurance, many of them would already have it.  What part of FORCED don’t these idiots understand?  Let me repeat: Forced, Forced, Forced.

Yes, Jonny, it is worse than nothing, because it will push many of these people over the edge financially in order to give them insurance which is capped, and which, therefore when they get really sick, will not save their life anyway.  Not just a moron, but a moral imbecile.

Angela Glover Blackwell, of some group called Policylink is the only person who swings for not killing the bill and gets some bat on the ball:

Politics is the art of the possible. It rarely gives us everything we want — and often it doesn’t even give us what we need. The health-care debate has been a case study in compromise — alternating between hopeful and infuriating and back again.

Oh puke. If someone tells me once more about the art of the possible, instead of the art of the necessary I am going toss my cookies all over them next time I meet them at some conference.

But we are still left with a proposal that takes several important, relatively moderate steps toward a more insured, healthier nation. The protections against rescission and rejections for “pre-existing conditions” should help curb the most egregious abuses of the insurance industry. And subsidies for low-income people will help bring millions of struggling Americans into the health insurance system for the first time.

Ok, that’s at least an argument that makes some sense.  I don’t think it’s worth it, because again, the insurance they’re being forced to buy is shitty 70% actuarial value with caps it won’t save their bloody lives, and may well drive them into bankruptcy, because the subsidies are inadequate, but at least she mentions recissions and pre-existing conditions: virtually the only major things the bill does right.

With Progressives Like These…

Who needs Republicans or Conservadems? Honestly, mode one is always, “well, if someone is going to give me one cent, that’s better than no deal no matter what I give up in return!”  Plop these fools down in a 3rd world bazaar with $1,000 dollars and they’d be begging for food by the end of their first week.

As Stephanie Taylor says:

When Democratic leaders refuse to fight, they can’t then ask progressives to cave with them. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is continuing to fight for the best health care bill possible, and we’re intent on holding Democrats’ feet to the fire. But we need to think very seriously about whether there will be a moment when it is clear that the bill does more harm than good–we need to be prepared to kill the bill.

Part of being a great negotiator is being able to walk away. (emphasis mine).

No more Mr. Nice Blogger. The idiots calling for surrender, meekly begging for table scraps, are not due any pretend respect or collegial refusal to call them out for their stupidity and cowardice.

Democratic Strategy

Dave Anderson nails it, I think:

The current Democratic bet is three fold.  The first is that there will be an internal Republican civil war that will cost the GOP numerous winning opportunities.  The prime example would be the NY-23 special election as the Teabagger+GOP vote was greater than the Democratic vote, but the Democrats won anyways.  The second is that the GOP is still fundamentally discredited and most swingable voters would be pinching their noses with three ton vises to vote for the GOP.

Finally, the Democratsa are making a bet that they bad policy that they ares supporting is “good policy” for the swing money.  And they expect to see the swing money continue to back the Democrats which will be enough to either depress GOP turnout or get enough apathetic Democrats to turnout to hold a decent size majority next year.

I agree : they are betting that they are lesser of two evils, the Republicans are borked beyond saving for at least another couple years and that the money they make through bad policy (aka: seeing to the interests of the rich rather than the majority of the population) is sufficient to make up for the negative electoral effects of those policies.

Parliamentary Politics in a non Parliamentary System

Yglesias begins to get it:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

I’ve been explaining this for going on five years.  The first time I tried to explain parliamentary politics to Americans was after the 2004 election (sadly, gone with BOP’s archives).  The most recent was in July, where I pointed out that without the possibility of snap elections, the US form is particularly virulent:

Now in parliamentary systems a majority government just does what it likes, and the opposition reflexively opposes but can’t stop anything.  In a minority government, the opposition can’t just stop everything because if it defeats the government on the wrong vote it’ll cause an election and you don’t want one of those till you’re sure you’ll win and the governing party won’t get a majority.  So the government can still get through a fair bit of its agenda, even if it doesn’t have a parliamentary majority.

In the US there’s no threat of a snap election, and the opposition can often hold up significant legislation, especially in a case like the current one where the governing party has unreliable members (something that’s very rare in most parliamentary systems).

So the Republicans have taken parliamentary opposition one step further.  Instead of just opposing everything but letting it pass, then running against it, they figure why not oppose everything in the hopes of weakening policy to the point where it doesn’t work?  The stimulus bill was compromised to the point where it didn’t do the necessary job.  The global warming bill likewise, and the health care bill appears headed for the same fate.

Lousy policy leads to lousy outcomes. Lousy outcomes make the population unhappy, and less likely to vote the incumbents back in.

What the Republicans are doing makes perfect sense from an electoral point of view.  Voters are not going to primarily blame Republicans for Democrats failing to govern effectively.

This is something that many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise (Obama) don’t seem to get.  But Republicans get it in their limbic system.

Learn it.  Live it.

Hell No Dems Won’t Vote

When 40% of democrats don’t want to vote, the solution is not to tell them to vote.  The solution is to institute policies which make them want to vote.  That’s up to Obama and Congress, it is in their hands.

People do not get excited by the lesser evil, and while those of us who studied Obama in detail knew he was a conservative democrat, the overarching themes and rhetoric of his campaign amounted to “Big Change for the better!!”

He has not delivered on that and it is to be expected that people will be disappointed in him.  To expect otherwise is remarkably naive.

Remember the last few years of Bush?  All those conservatives trying to say “no really, the economy is better than it feels to you, I have numbers”?

This is the same sort of thing.  Trying to tell people “no really, it’s not so bad” doesn’t work when their experience is “Yeah, this sucks and no, you didn’t do what I think you said you’d do”.

People feel betrayed, and they should, because Obama has signed on with giving trillions to rich people and screwing over the middle and working class.  Trust me on this, that’s what’s happening and will happen.  The next twenty years economically are going to be worse than the last twenty, and Obama had options which would have made that not so.

Furthermore, only people who threaten to walk, get things. If you will vote Obama/Democrat no matter what, why would they give you anything?

They wouldn’t, and they won’t.

The rule of Bush applies to Obama and Congressional Democrats

Dean, the man who should have been president:

“The biggest time bomb in the short run is the Public Option. Without a Public option, basically the activists of the Democratic party sit on their hands in 2010. Obama is not on the ballot. There’s no reason to go out and vote for a Democratic Congressman or give them any money if they can’t pass a healthcare bill that’s worth anything. And that’s a huge problem for the Democrats if its not in there and so it looks like some of the, a few of the folks aren’t going to let it in there. [snip] [The Public Option] has been watered down, it’s about as as watered down as it can get and still be a real bill. So there’s not a lot left in this bill. For example, there’s really no insurance reform in this bill. … I think Sanders has got the right idea. You might as well kill this thing because the people are going to be furious if it passes if it doesn’t have a Public Option.”

Dean has carried a lot of water for Obama on health care, despite Obama’s blatant disrespect of Dean when he stepped down from DNC.  For him to being saying this is… interesting…  He’s also made the point that if Democratic Senators won’t vote with their party on procedural votes, it’s the death of fundraising for the DSCC—for years they’ve talked about getting to 60, now they have, and they still can’t pass anything that isn’t crap.  What next, 65?

2010 is shaping up very nicely for the Republicans.  Their base is motivated, the Democratic base is less and less motivated, and by 2010 will be demoralized.  The economy will not have recovered by the time of the election, Republicans have effectively demonized stimuluses and deficits, so no new meaningful stimulus is likely to pass, so there’s nothing Democrats can do to fix the job situation.  Of course, 700 billion of stimulus, done right, would have created a lot more jobs than the lousy stimulus bill Obama put through.

Not doing things right when you can, has consequences.

Imagine that.

As you sow, so shall you reap.  Pity Obama and Democrats incompetence, venality and cupidity will cause so much real world suffering.  But in 2011 at least they’ll have a good excuse for doing nothing or passing only conservative bills.  Which is good, because whenever they do something they screw it up anyway.  As with Bush, if you believe in a policy (say stimulus) the last thing you want is for Obama and this Democratic Congress to do it, because they’ll screw it up beyond measure and thus discredit it.

Oh hey, look at that: Republicans ahead on Generic ballot

When I wrote that Rasmussen found Republicans more trusted than Dems, the immediate response was “you can’t trust Rasmussen”, ignoring the fact that even Rasmussen hadn’t found such results for years.  In other words, they were a leading indicator.

Now this:

Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup’s generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

The Nov. 5-8 update comes just after Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections, which saw Republicans replace Democrats as governors of those states.

As was the case in last Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, independents are helping the Republicans’ cause. In the latest poll, independent registered voters favor the Republican candidate by 52% to 30%

What a surprise.

Not.

Meanwhile, we have further stupidity from the “centrists”:

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the  committee legislation.

The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.

Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083.

The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.

Brilliant.  Now, the purpose of this committee would be to provide cover to slash Medicare and Social Security.  Imagine the reaction if, under a Democratic President, with a Democratic majority Congress, Medicare and Social Security got slashed.  Who do you think would get the blame?

A number of Democratic Senators are strongly backing this.  The hypothesis that Democrats want to be back in the minority is proving to have great predictive power.

A bill stripping abortion rights from women couldn’t pass in the Republican Congress.  It may well in a Democratic Congress.  Likewise a bill allowing Social Security and Medicare to be gutted couldn’t pass under Bush.  Will it pass under Obama?

Destroying the Democratic Majority

By now you’ve probably heard about the Stupack amendment, which would make it illegal for any insurance offered on the exchanges set up by the health care reform bill to cover abortion services.  It is being allowed to the floor by the leadership, and indications are that there may be enough votes for it to pass.  If it were to remain in the final bill, it would strip practical access to abortion from millions of women, a number which would increase when the exchanges open to businesses.

Recently we have also seen the proposal to tie prices for procedures to Medicare +5% fail.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that the public option will likely only get 6 million enrollees and will cost more than private offerings because it will get more sick people than private plans since it won’t anti-select, has no auto-enrollment, and won’t have any scale advantages for bargaining since it will have so few people and not be linked to Medicare.

Meanwhile the bill itself will force people to buy insurance, provides inadequate subsidies, and falls hardest on the middle class and young people—forcing them to spend a huge chunk of their discretionary income on average, and doubtless pushing many families into bankruptcy (plenty are on the verge, it is impossible to imagine that this won’t push them over the edge).

And yet it is still supported by the same people who supported it all along.  Apparently nothing can happen which would cause them not to support it.

This is the sort of “deal at any cost” thinking which bloggers used to decry.  I find it amazing.  Absolutely amazing.  For any provision which is called “public option”, no matter how weak, folks are apparently willing to swallow hard and get over any number of deficiencies.

At this point, I’m wondering if the Democrats will even maintain control of the House in 2010.  It’s looking like a close run thing.  The jobs recovery will probably start in Spring, but it’s going to be slow, and most people who lost jobs are not going to find new ones (the recovery will probably not even keep up with population gains).  The legislative record of Congress and Obama will stink.  And they’re willing to pass a bill which falls hardest on the young (who can’t afford the cost of buying insurance) and on child-bearing age women, two extremely strong Democratic voting cohorts.  This behavior seems designed to depress turnout in 2010 and 2012.

I can only conclude that both Democratic politicians and many progressive bloggers want to be back in the opposition, since they keep being willing to swallow bad policy.  Policy so bad, in fact, that it seems designed to hurt Democratic electoral prospects.  Forget doing the right thing morally, I don’t expect that of Democratic politicians.  But apparently they are also incapable of acting in a way designed to make sure they keep their majority.

Remarkable.

Republicans Now More Trusted than Democrats on Every Issue

According to Rasmussen polling:

For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.

Granted that this is Rasmussen, not the most credible source.  But as they note, even they haven’t found this much Republican lean in years.

  • 49 to 35% on economic issues
  • 54 to 31% on national security
  • 50 to 31% on Iraq
  • 33 to 29% on government ethics
  • 46% to 40 on health care
  • 50% to 35% on taxes
  • 43% to 38% on eductation
  • 45% to 37% on Social Security?

Etc…  Oh, and on healthcare?

Separate polling released today shows 49% of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress.

Trying to pass an unclear dog’s breakfast, easily demonized, instead of something clear, has had its cost.

And it takes real talent to be less trusted on social security, considering Bush tried to privatize it not so long ago.

On the generic Congressional ballot, Republicans are now favored 42% to 37%.  No wonder the Democratic Congress is becoming less and less willing to follow Obama’s lead.  He may not have to face voters till 2012, most of them will be staring down the barrel of voter discontent in 2010.

But the worst number is this: 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.

In other words, Democrats are right.  Republicans aren’t trusted.  It’s just that Democrats are trusted even less.

Trust is earned.  By making the economy work for banks and not for Americans; by refusing to put through a clean health care bill; by repeatedly not coming through on campaign promises and by not providing a clear alternative to Republicans, Democrats have lost the trust of Americans.

If Democrats want to turn this around they should simply start doing what they should have always done.  Break up the big banks, institute real bankruptcy reform and other help for real Americans, pass a medicare-for-all bill, get out of Afghanistan and push through a real and effective stimulus bill immediately paid  for it with a tax on America’s rich.

If not, as I’ve been saying for some time, they will pay a heavy price in 2010.  Americans expect results for them, not mealy mouthed platitudes, trillions for the rich and broken promises.

Page 6 of 7

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén