As my previous post attempted to demonstrate, the Republicans, as the minority party, have been wildly successful in blocking--or at least delaying and weakening--Democratic efforts for economic recovery. This is a tragedy in itself, since millions of Americans are suffering every day. But this is also a tragedy of democracy. Democratic theory will have you believe that political actors/parties are competing within a more or less even electoral marketplace. The actions of said political actors and parties are understood by voters and are judged accordingly, namely with electoral reward or punishment. Outcomes are judged by their perceived causal origins.
But in this situation, Republican actions are highly shielded from clear public view--similar to a market externality in the language of economics--while Democrats--as the party in power--are judged by the ultimate outcomes of their policies. Largely hidden from those outcomes are the tools, procedures, and methods used by the minority party to prevent the majority party's intended outcomes. Instead, there are undemocratic forces at play--particularly within the Senate--and imperfect information available to the voting public. The role played by the Republicans' strategy of obstruction barely enters the electoral equation. That is the tragedy.
***
UPDATE: I missed this earlier, but Matt Yglesias makes some similar points in this piece describing how the routine use of the filibuster is undermining democratic accountability.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Economic Sabatoge: The Republican Strategy for Electoral Victory
1.Water down the stimulus package so that it is less than half of what is needed, based on the economy's output gap and unemployment projections, with a larger than ideal percentage of the total package consisting of tax cuts, which are, dollar-for-dollar, less effective than direct spending. (In the end, the total package was for $775 billion, 40% of which was in the form of tax cuts. This with an estimated production gap of over $2 trillion.)
2. As the economy continues to sputter, in no small part due to the inadequacy of said stimulus, begin attacking the administration and democrats for poor economic performance, blaming the economy's woes on the stimulus itself.
3. Continue, throughout 2009 and 2010, to filibuster, delay, and block the extension of unemployment benefits, aid to states and municipalities, and any further stimulus--including a jobs bill consisting solely of tax cuts for small businesses!
4. While Democrats and Obama work out details of health care reform and other domestic legislation in 2009 and early 2010, complain that Obama/Dems should be paying more attention to the economy.
5. Summer of 2010, continue to block unemployment extension and aid to states/municipalities. The more who suffer, the better! The general public senses a worsening economic environment, characterized by staggering unemployment and low growth. Republicans are aware that the general voting public doesn't have time to pay attention to the arcane procedural workings of the United States Senate and isn't going to recognize the role of Republican intransigence--via the fillibuster and other procedural maneuvers--in the economy's worsening condition. After all, the Democrats are the party in power! And that's the ingenius of it all! The Republicans, using arcane congressional procedural rules, are allowed to sabatoge the Dermocrats' recovery efforts while, in the eyes of the avergae voter, come out with little or no blood on their hands.
6. And, all the while, pump up the rhetoric about the deficit, debt, and inflation.
This was the Republican strategy from the start, folks, and we're about to reward this party by handing over control of the House and possibly the Senate in November?
Now, elections are won and lost on a converging mass of issues, personalities, and momentary circumstances. But the number one indicator of electoral success is the state of the economy. Republicans were wise in devising and adhering to a strategy of economic sabotage--their party will certainly benefit this November and perhaps beyond. But at what expense to the economy and to the lives of millions of Americans?
2. As the economy continues to sputter, in no small part due to the inadequacy of said stimulus, begin attacking the administration and democrats for poor economic performance, blaming the economy's woes on the stimulus itself.
3. Continue, throughout 2009 and 2010, to filibuster, delay, and block the extension of unemployment benefits, aid to states and municipalities, and any further stimulus--including a jobs bill consisting solely of tax cuts for small businesses!
4. While Democrats and Obama work out details of health care reform and other domestic legislation in 2009 and early 2010, complain that Obama/Dems should be paying more attention to the economy.
5. Summer of 2010, continue to block unemployment extension and aid to states/municipalities. The more who suffer, the better! The general public senses a worsening economic environment, characterized by staggering unemployment and low growth. Republicans are aware that the general voting public doesn't have time to pay attention to the arcane procedural workings of the United States Senate and isn't going to recognize the role of Republican intransigence--via the fillibuster and other procedural maneuvers--in the economy's worsening condition. After all, the Democrats are the party in power! And that's the ingenius of it all! The Republicans, using arcane congressional procedural rules, are allowed to sabatoge the Dermocrats' recovery efforts while, in the eyes of the avergae voter, come out with little or no blood on their hands.
6. And, all the while, pump up the rhetoric about the deficit, debt, and inflation.
This was the Republican strategy from the start, folks, and we're about to reward this party by handing over control of the House and possibly the Senate in November?
Now, elections are won and lost on a converging mass of issues, personalities, and momentary circumstances. But the number one indicator of electoral success is the state of the economy. Republicans were wise in devising and adhering to a strategy of economic sabotage--their party will certainly benefit this November and perhaps beyond. But at what expense to the economy and to the lives of millions of Americans?
Monday, July 5, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Classic Lewis Black Tirade
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's | ||||
| ||||
Jon Stewart nails it
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Release the Kagan | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Politics of Health Care Reform
In the wake of health care reform's successful passage into law by Congress and President Obama, a lot of attention is being focused on how this all plays out in November and beyond.
What I think will become increasingly clear over the next several months (and years) is that the sky is not falling, Armageddon is not just around the corner. This health care reform law is not a government takeover of America's health care. It's not some Bolshevik plot. In fact, it leaves the decentralized, private health care system largely in tact, merely reforming it around the edges. Most Americans will either benefit immensely from this bill or experience no change at all--at least for the first several years.
Jonathan Chait points out that the health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama is a very moderate, even centrist Republican, bill. It closely resembles the reforms Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts in 2006, as well as the Republican alternatives to "Clintoncare" in 1993. At its core, the bill relies on the existing private system that's in place, only marginally increasing the number of people who get their health insurance from a government program.
Already we are beginning to see a shift in public perceptions of the bill. A new Gallup poll shows that more people now support the passage of the reform bill (49%) than oppose it (42%). This is largely due to the following:
(1) Liberals who were reluctant to support the bill previously--due to its aforementioned centrism--have now come on board. These "opponents" of the bill were generically counted in the "oppose" column of public opinion surveys, even though said opposition was because they didn't think the bill went far enough. These folks have now gotten behind the largest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, despite its perceived inadequacies.
(2) Success breeds support. Through the often rough legislative slog, the public became disillusioned in the process and the rhetoric. That part is now over, and in its place is a pretty good bill.
(3) We now have a definitive bill with definitive reforms. As the public's understanding of what's actually in the bill increases, support has increased. And I expect even more of increased support in the weeks and months and years ahead. People will realize that, contra Republican rhetoric, the sky is not falling. Before the Democrats had a single, actual bill, politicians and pundits and advocates had a difficult time defending the legislation against some of the more outlandish criticisms. That now changes.
And what about the 2012 Presidential election? Many viewed Mitt Romney as a favorite to win the Republican nomination and possibly challenge Obama for the presidency. In many ways, as Matt Yglesias points out, that ship has sailed. This plan so closely mirrors Romney's 2006 Massachusetts plan that it will be nearly impossible for Romney to justify his past embrace of health care reform to the far-right of his party.
What I think will become increasingly clear over the next several months (and years) is that the sky is not falling, Armageddon is not just around the corner. This health care reform law is not a government takeover of America's health care. It's not some Bolshevik plot. In fact, it leaves the decentralized, private health care system largely in tact, merely reforming it around the edges. Most Americans will either benefit immensely from this bill or experience no change at all--at least for the first several years.
Jonathan Chait points out that the health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama is a very moderate, even centrist Republican, bill. It closely resembles the reforms Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts in 2006, as well as the Republican alternatives to "Clintoncare" in 1993. At its core, the bill relies on the existing private system that's in place, only marginally increasing the number of people who get their health insurance from a government program.
Already we are beginning to see a shift in public perceptions of the bill. A new Gallup poll shows that more people now support the passage of the reform bill (49%) than oppose it (42%). This is largely due to the following:
(1) Liberals who were reluctant to support the bill previously--due to its aforementioned centrism--have now come on board. These "opponents" of the bill were generically counted in the "oppose" column of public opinion surveys, even though said opposition was because they didn't think the bill went far enough. These folks have now gotten behind the largest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, despite its perceived inadequacies.
(2) Success breeds support. Through the often rough legislative slog, the public became disillusioned in the process and the rhetoric. That part is now over, and in its place is a pretty good bill.
(3) We now have a definitive bill with definitive reforms. As the public's understanding of what's actually in the bill increases, support has increased. And I expect even more of increased support in the weeks and months and years ahead. People will realize that, contra Republican rhetoric, the sky is not falling. Before the Democrats had a single, actual bill, politicians and pundits and advocates had a difficult time defending the legislation against some of the more outlandish criticisms. That now changes.
And what about the 2012 Presidential election? Many viewed Mitt Romney as a favorite to win the Republican nomination and possibly challenge Obama for the presidency. In many ways, as Matt Yglesias points out, that ship has sailed. This plan so closely mirrors Romney's 2006 Massachusetts plan that it will be nearly impossible for Romney to justify his past embrace of health care reform to the far-right of his party.
Inside Health Care Reform
We've all heard the shouting, the anger, and the misrepresentations. But, in reality, what exactly will this bill do? What's in it? And how will it affect you?
How much will health care reform cost?
Many of the provisions in the bill don't go into effect immediately. Here are the provisions that go into effect within the first year.
What does the bill do to control health care costs? Here are the five most promising cost controls in the bill.
The health care bill is projected to insure 95% of all Americans by 2019. Who will be left uninsured?
The health insurance "exchanges" are a major aspect of this bill. What's their role and how will they work?
Did the health care reform process lack sufficient transparency?
What does the bill do for prevention?
Want to know how your family will be directly impacted by health care reform? Here's an easy to use calculator.
UPDATE: How does the individual mandate work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)