I’ve been more flip about this on Twitter, but I do want to take a moment to highlight this passage from Josh Marshall that I think highlights something important about the national mood:
What the Democrats — and a lot of this is on the White House — have done is get so deep into the inside game of legislative maneuvering, this and that ‘gang’ of senators and a lot of other nonsense that they’ve let themselves out of sync with the public mood and the people’s needs.
I have a few small things to add to this: I’ve found a lot of the angst about this bill from both left and right inexplicable in the basic sense. I get the general outline of the concerns. From the right, folks think this is a massive entitlement that may or may not get at the issues they feel are important (e.g. malpractice reform, more concrete cost controls, etc.). From the left, folks are clamoring that they voted for Change and Obama has failed them.
These things may or may not be true, but I’d argue that these complaints are a symptom of what Josh Marshall highlights above.
Obama is and was always a cautious centrist. I don’t have time now to link to all the pieces matching up his actions this first year with his campaign promises, but if you have doubts ask and I’ll find the pieces. He ran a nuanced tack about gay rights and DADT. He ran a nuanced tack about Guantanamo. He laid out his version of health care reform, maintaining private insurance and doing the least to disrupt the system. Both bills, quite frankly, follow the basic layout of his campaign proposals (exchanges, pooling risk, taxing the top bracket to pay for it).
The issue I have is that there’s a disconnect from the communicative candidate, who used his presence and skill to get in front of people to convince them to trust him, and the quiet President who only seems to come out with a “major” speech when something is going wrong.
I’m not suggesting he’s hiding, no.
He’s simply not leading. What I voted for was a competent executive who, as I wrote then, seemed to be running a very good campaign with a very good ground effort and delegation. Someone who could stand up and communicate with people. Well, it’s been a while since he’s been out doing that, and he’s turned over the message and the communication to folks like Reid and Pelosi who, for their other strengths, are horrible communicators.
So, this is where we find ourselves today.
I’ve tried over the last few weeks to talk to more people I disagree with, especially on this issue. I’ve been able to have productive conversations, generally. I certainly understand and respect those folks who think government shouldn’t help people at all (the no entitlements crowd), but that’s not me. I am pretty sure that it’s also not most of this country.
In the end, I don’t think people would be so upset about the bills if they actually understood what’s in it. Or if someone would point out how getting the exchanges in place would make it easier to start businesses. Or that this bill, like the stimulus is about getting America back on stronger economic footing, not disconnected from the effort to create jobs but part of it.
Not everyone would love the bill, I’m sure, but I’m sure more people would be willing to trust the President about this. I wish the he would stand up and try to make that case so we could find out.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:47 AM
A good read. You may have a defendable argument that Obama appears to come across as a centrist but I believe he is trying to play ball with both sides in terms of not requesting too radical of an agenda as he would like to see. They’re tons of documented footage showing Obama’s true colors with dreams of an entitlement society, support for wealth distribution, a desire for universal healthcare, etc., and that simply can’t be ignored. A politician’s history should always be considered when awarding them credibility. However, his biggest mistake is providing only vague outlines and letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid interpret it into legislation. A wise man once told me the more you hear about the health care bill the more people hate it. According to polls, I would agree with that. Personally, I would love to see a real bipartisan committee over see legislation with this kind of price tag so they can be the ones debunking the lies and confirming the truths rather than parties no one trusts. I understand the differences in the branches of government but even Obama can not sell the plan to the American people himself. Conservatives (at least the fair-minded ones) are not saying “no” to reform. Trust me, I cringe when I hear people screaming Nazi, Socialism, killing grandma, etc., I am not sure they are thinking on their own outside of talking points and they are not doing anything positive for conservatism. However, all should be weary of the COST. The sobering fact is the nation is BROKE. To prove it, I would refer you to a money supply that has grown 300% in the last year and additional multi-billion dollar loan requests financed by China. I believe that fiscal responsibility is the key to this nation’s security and prosperity. We are simply asking to show us responsible spending and some results and then we would be willing to talk about reforming social programs. I think most would agree that the Obama response to the economy has been very sluggish. The Keynesian model is still being followed to its definition and, as history has shown, has not been successful. I would direct you to the Democratic hero JFK (who was ACTUALLY a center-right conservative by today’s standards) and more recently Ronald Regan. Tax incentives are most effective and lead to sustained economic growth. However, that system needs a reform. I outline my thoughts about this on my blog. Feel free to check it out. If you really want to remove the middle class from “bondage”, how about a tax system fair to all and free of “fat cat” loopholes. I think Obama would have been immensely successful dealing with tax reform right along side of Republicans which could have paved the way for an easier passage of a health care package and shown the world he really meant “Hope and Change” and an outreach to the other side in the name of bipartisanship. Perhaps my greatest fear is the next candidate that utters those words is doomed as they have been branded as a farce in comparison to what we have seen so far. I am not trying to change your mind or open it up for a long debate. Just trying to explain another side.
Thanks.
Ed
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 AM
Tax incentives, tax incentives, tax cuts. Conservatives are a broken record.
You talk on one hand about fiscal responsibility while advocating that the government cut taxes. There’s no attempt by you or anyone else advocating for tax cuts to show how tax cuts will actually balance the budget. Just some hand waving about economic growth.
On the other hand, the health care bill is projected to be deficit neutral, actually saving money by CBO projections ($10-18 bil / year avg). Each significant modification to the bill caused Reid and Pelosi to send the bill back to the CBO for updated projections. They have followed a process which makes sense and is open to review.
Even if you think the CBO projections are not 100% accurate, at least the Democrats are trying to explain how their bill will save money. So, I share your concerns about cost, but the evidence (not conjecture) shows that the bill will save some money or, at worst, be deficit neutral. Doing this, btw, while providing health insurance for 40 million additional people who don’t have it today.
On the other hand, the GOP and conservatives believe in the tax incentive fairy.
George W Bush decided to beef up security, created 3 new government agencies to boost our post-9/11 security. He started two wars that have tied our hands in both Iraq & Afghanistan. He paid for it… by cutting taxes. twice. The tax cuts haven’t helped the economy. They increased borrowing. Our economy didn’t grow that much.
Besides, tax cuts are a tool, not a policy. We’ve had good times w/ Presidents who increase taxes and bad times w/ Presidents who cut taxes. Using a tool has tradeoffs, and you can’t talk about a massive budget deficit, claim it’s a terrible thing, and then propose policies that exacerbate it w/o an explanation.
On top of that, the exact nature of the tax cuts matter. George W Bush’s tax cuts gave the biggest cut to the top bracket. I’ve written about how those tax cuts were terrible policy. That post contains economic analysis from The Economist magazine, hardly a leftist publication. I believe the same issues hold now. The bill to taxpayers would be greater than the payoff in stimulus.
I’m not going to acknowledge your opinions about Pelosi and Reid. These are hardly radical leftists.
Obama has said from before the campaign that his healthcare policy will aim to tweak at the margins. During the campaign he talked about the exchanges, he talked about increasing competition. He was, IIRC, against a mandate (this was a Clinton idea). So, this is what he promised, this is what this bill (senate and house) do. The bill is hardly the result of Reid & Pelosi operating from vague outlines. It lines up almost perfectly with the proposals Obama outlined. The public option is hardly socialist. It’s basically a limited medicare/medicaid.
It’s funny that you criticize the Keynsian model. We’ve never actually followed the model to its definition outside of the Great Depression. And we’ve never done it the way that the model requires, which is with a large stimulus proportionate to the recession. If it weren’t for WWII, boosting government spending, it wouldn’t have worked for the Great Depression. I believe that Bush’s deficit spending and two wars plus the creation of DNI, Homeland Sec, and boosts to CIA/NSA budgets (and the contracting they buy) did more to boost the economy than the tax cuts. This isn’t my theory, btw.
So, we’ve never done the keynesian model in practice. It’s hard to see what you’re pointing at as “history shows.”
Sujal