tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4660942312817041005..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The Tanning Tax, the GOP, and the 113th CongressJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35000335688666209962012-11-17T01:07:41.504-06:002012-11-17T01:07:41.504-06:00Matt, that's very well put, I agree.
I'm ...Matt, that's very well put, I agree.<br /><br />I'm hopeful that we'll see a liberal awakening on the Democratic side, maybe towards 2016.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-53401856183631776862012-11-16T16:31:31.541-06:002012-11-16T16:31:31.541-06:00That's excellent Anastasios. Here's hopin...That's excellent Anastasios. Here's hoping. If all goes well, the Diet Soda constituency will hold its own against the Anti-Aspartame constituency in the great, every-interest-has-a-platform world of tomorrow.<br /><br />If nothing else, perhaps there would be quite a bit more educational material on the tube. (I know, I know, that's been misforecast for years! But this time it will be different, as the Anti-Aspartame and Diet Soda forces will really feel empowered in the world of tomorrow).CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78415352794920794922012-11-16T16:00:25.992-06:002012-11-16T16:00:25.992-06:00No arguments on drones/wiretapping/torture/Gitmo h...No arguments on drones/wiretapping/torture/Gitmo here. I've been more than a little bothered by my side on this one. To be fair, a number of Dems haven't changed, but rather just soft-pedaled their opposition to Obama.<br /><br />That said, Obama's (rather cowardly, in my opinion) about-face on these issues isn't just a question of emphasis: he had choices, and made the wrong one.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39820166176689929682012-11-16T13:38:20.996-06:002012-11-16T13:38:20.996-06:00I think that is a very good point, CSH. I would j...I think that is a very good point, CSH. I would just tweak your thought experiment a little bit. Let's tell Mr. Supermoocher, "go down to the office and put in 90 hours. I give you 5% chance of getting to the Romney level, but 95% chance of getting to the middle of the middle class." It would still work in most, but not all cases (only because nothing works in all cases).<br /><br />Now, let's imagine a much less rosy, but more realistic, scenario. "Go down to the office and put in 40 hours. You have much less than a 1% chance of getting to the Mitt level, but a 75% chance of a comfortable middle-class lifestyle." Not as attractive, and not as successful at getting people up and moving, but quite a bit more successful, and more attainable, than what we have. Throw in a few more things, like "don't worry that if you lose the job you won't have health care, and we'll work real hard to make sure your children can get the education they need and go to college even if you have a rough spot," and we are at a place that would not solve all problems, and not motivate everyone (because once again nothing does) but the middle class and the aspirants to the middle class would be breathing a lot easier and smiling a lot broader. <br /><br />Now remove some irritants (or in some neighborhoods major threats) like "we won't send you to prison for years on minor drug charges," and "we don't really care who you have sexual relations with as long as its a consenting adult" and "yes, you may share your benefits with your family however that is constituted" and suddenly we have a formula that might disappoint liberals (still too much inequality and too much focus on accumulation and individualism), irritate libertarians (sorry, Couves, heavily directive health care systems are inevitable, and no one will tolerate the kind of free-wheeling regulatory environment libertarian theory favors), and give social conservatives heartburn (many of them are nice people, but what passes for nice and normal in this kind of world isn't what they have in mind). However, for all the grumbling and gnashing of teeth it might be a system that works for 90% of people, maybe even 95% if we try really hard, 90% of the time, and that's a pretty livable, and pretty peaceful, society. Maybe not the Free Society libertarians want, but the pretty wide-ranging society. Maybe not the Great Society liberals would like, but a Really Good Society ain't so bad for government work (and make no mistake much of this is government work). Maybe not the Godly and Moral society Social Cons want, but still a pretty nice place, and as long as Grandma ain't a prudish old curmudgeon she shouldn't have any more to complain about than her hip replacement (hate that I had to fill out those government forms, but they paid for the darned thing), the operation her new great-Grandchild needed for a split palate (ditto), and Young People These Days. <br /><br />I just hope there's still giant sodas. But I wouldn't mind if they were all the Diet varieties.<br /><br />Anastasiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34232362455724202982012-11-16T12:52:00.830-06:002012-11-16T12:52:00.830-06:00Matt,
You make a good point about Bush’s domestic...Matt,<br /><br />You make a good point about Bush’s domestic agenda. It’s not unimaginable that Bush could have passed something like Obamacare. But a lot has changed in a very short period of time in Republicanland. Today it would be hard to imagine Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind getting passed without substantial Republican opposition and even a Senate filibuster. A Republican health care plan would be possible, but only with substantial changes:<br /><br />http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/05/would-democrats-block-a-republican-plan-for-universal-coverage-out-of-spite/<br /><br />I’ll definitely agree that a significant amount of Congressional voting is simply dictated by “whose side you’re on,” but that doesn’t mean there aren’t honest and meaningful differences on policy issues, and that those differences can’t change through democratic discourse and grassroots pressure. The individual mandate clearly elicited genuine disgust by most of the GOP base. That’s a “win” for the tea party wing -- maybe the neocons will win next time… see how it works? There’s a real give-and-take on the major issues of the day. Most issues, of course, are never subject to such intense scrutiny, and neither was the individual mandate until recently.<br /><br />It makes sense that Republicans would wake up after an orgy of spending to rediscover their fiscal conservative roots. You can also say it’s “convenient” that this occurred once they left office, and I’d agree. What’s more troubling to me is how Democrats abandoned the Constitution on issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA once their guy was in the White House. I find it hard to believe that they suddenly found themselves convinced by Cheney’s words of wisdom. Or maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised -- power, like money, is too easily used by government today. Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11394786812285426912012-11-16T11:24:45.277-06:002012-11-16T11:24:45.277-06:00@Couves (and, I think this is obeying JB's edi...@Couves (and, I think this is obeying JB's edict to keep it respectful, as I think you and I have done through this thread),<br /><br />No Rs voted for Obamacare. That IS my point. A LOT of them voted for Medicare Part D, when it was THEIR GUY'S proposal.<br /><br />Ds have done the same, but they're simply not as lock-step about it. No Child Left Behind was originally Clinton's idea. Congressional Republicans hated it. Democrats were lukewarm. It became law when the president pushing for it had an R after his name. Dems really didn't move much on it; those who liked it before, still liked it, by and large. Some "changed their minds," but not the whole party. However, the Rs suddenly found what is really the same thing Clinton had proposed in 1998 to be awesome. That was a flip in 3 years. <br /><br />Look, preferences CAN change. Most research on Congresspeople tends to suggest that they don't change much. But the simplest explanation I can find for Republican positioning on health care is: <br />1) the system is fine<br />2) our position that the system is fine is unpopular<br />3) therefore, we have to pretend to have fixes, when we really see nothing to be fixed<br /><br />Democrats clothe themselves in autsterity all the time, by "lowering the rate of increase" in programs and calling it savings. It's really quite similar to the Rs. My argument is that the Rs do this more often and on more issues of substance. Ds seem to me to soft-pedal their less popular viewpoints (climate change, gun control, affirmative action); Rs seem to obfuscate. <br /><br />Post-Columbine, the House passed a gun show restriction. They purposely did so as an amendment to an unrelated bill that had a clear path in the Senate. When the two chambers passed that bill, it was then substantively different. And the Republican leadership appointed the NRAs favorite legislators to the conference committee. It never met, and the gun show restriction died. But Rs from suburban districts got to vote for one!<br /><br />Charges of hypocrisy in politics are a dime a dozen. But, I really think that in this case, it's an entire party that's hypocritical on health care. And I think it matters.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-32344663029400445202012-11-16T10:13:06.602-06:002012-11-16T10:13:06.602-06:00There was a Great Truth about the Romney campaign:...There was a Great Truth about the Romney campaign: America is populated by a growing, dependent underclass that threatens the viability of the state. And a Great Lie: that state of affairs came about because "those people" are not as <i>teh awesome</i> as Lord Mittens and his black tie cronies.<br /><br />To illustrate the lie, consider a thought experiment. Imagine the very moochiest of the moochers in the 46/7%. Now suppose that supermoocher perceived there was some probability that he could, through an extended period of challenging 90 hour workweeks, join Lord Mittens and friends in Livin' the High Life. What would that probability have to be to get our supermoocher off his ass and down to the office?<br /><br />Even if you have a "Mitt Romney is my hero" bumper sticker, you know the answer is not north of 25%. Its probably quite a bit less than that. Which leads to what I believe is the really hopeful aspect of the Obama Era in America - contra Ezra Klein, I don't think its legislation or anything like that.<br /><br />Its that the conservativish people of Scott Walker's Wisconsin are no longer afraid to elect a lesbian to the august Senate. Blacks, browns, pinks, blues, all types are no longer cowing to the sternly worded recommendations of American Crossroads that they keep voting for the pasty-faced white guy "or else!", and instead those people are voting their perceived interests.<br /><br />That's good. That's hope. That's how the country will survive. And someday, when all the various groups and interests are fully enfranchised, that's also how conservatism will come back in this country - good conservatism, not the insane xenophobic stuff we see today. CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17143603897564469212012-11-16T07:48:37.776-06:002012-11-16T07:48:37.776-06:00That is an interesting exception in Ponnuru, howev...That is an interesting exception in Ponnuru, however! "The Party's Problem" is a feature article by the magazine's senior editor. And its diagnosis is quite close to David Frum's, cutting quite deep into electoral realities and the weaknesses of the party's substantive message before an electorate whose conservatism, he argues most forcefully, has always been relative and dispositional, not ideological. By saying that the electorate has always behaved in such a way, he essentially excludes any possible argument along the "free stuff"/moocher declinist lines.<br /><br />Ponnuru never once mentions Frum or The American Conservative circles, and he by no means uses the article to start directly offering suggestions for reform/retooling -- he certainly doesn't articulate the vision of modernization that Frum does in "Why Romney Lost" -- but it's a notable move toward sober self-critique. I would have thought such an article would be written by Reihan Salam (aligned with Douthat's Sam's Club Republicanism), but, no, Ponnuru -- usually a quite loyal foot soldier -- is the one to make it.PFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263515090451316188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-21450136155191361672012-11-16T07:41:33.821-06:002012-11-16T07:41:33.821-06:00Just to clarify:
I'd ask everyone to use gene...Just to clarify:<br /><br />I'd ask everyone to use generous language about other commenters. Less so for comments.<br /><br />I didn't call a strike on anyone here; no one said anything I would zap. I just thought that things were escalating over the last three comments at least, and wanted to ask everyone to step back and think before they replied further. <br /><br />I probably should have left it at that rather than calling out one specific example. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67258181055764311012012-11-16T07:20:28.626-06:002012-11-16T07:20:28.626-06:00Implausible?
I'm sick and tired with the pabl...Implausible?<br /><br />I'm sick and tired with the pablum covering for lying.<br /><br />It's the same lie I hear the wingnut welfare pundit write, so why should I give a benefit of the doubt for the refrain?<br /><br />Your house, tho.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-25747292122705350612012-11-16T07:18:12.165-06:002012-11-16T07:18:12.165-06:00I'm always hearing the front piece on NPR stor...I'm always hearing the front piece on NPR stories conform to the right-wing version... And that's not counting their right-wing anchors, which is really frustrating. 'Hero of 9/11' for instance.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64512566197505413382012-11-16T07:11:51.737-06:002012-11-16T07:11:51.737-06:00OK, everyone, take a step back...let's keep it...OK, everyone, take a step back...let's keep it respectful.<br /><br />"Without GOP input" is an interpretation. Perhaps a correct one; perhaps an implausible one. But let's keep the language about other commenters as generous as possible, please.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5529735478687549792012-11-16T07:04:42.484-06:002012-11-16T07:04:42.484-06:00Why is it you put up the lie that the ACA passed &...Why is it you put up the lie that the ACA passed 'without input'? They had months of input and the original plan was the Republican option.<br /><br />It's a lie. It doesn't make you sound anything but a liar.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66932710234742751392012-11-16T05:03:42.853-06:002012-11-16T05:03:42.853-06:00The notion that Republicans have principled object...The notion that Republicans have principled objections to individual mandates as such as is ludicrous and you should feel embarrassed arguing that it's true. We already have them for car insurance and no one objected to them.star15389https://www.blogger.com/profile/02349899585178825093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29171524660353526832012-11-16T00:33:54.351-06:002012-11-16T00:33:54.351-06:00Matt, how many Republicans voted for Obamacare aga...Matt, how many Republicans voted for Obamacare again? Your need to find perfidy in everything Republicans do is overwhelming your common sense on this one. <br /><br />Mitt Romney is the only Republican who ever had a role in passing the mandate (actually, it was a Democratic MA legislature with a veto-proof majority, but Mitt went along for the ride), and he then discovered that the Republicans don't like it one bit. Did a few Republican pols and think-tankers talk about this over the years? Sure. But that's not the same thing as it being "the actual GOP position on health care reform over the last 2 decades"... whatever that's supposed to mean.<br /><br />And again, if Republicans did change their mind, who cares? You're allowed to do that, right? It's not exactly a secret that the party has become A LOT more conservative since the Bush admin. It's really well documented -- some call it the tea party takeover, or the ascendance of libertarian ideas. I believe around here it's known "the crazy."Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78140490651418008602012-11-15T23:25:49.680-06:002012-11-15T23:25:49.680-06:00Couves:
Yes, there can be honest disagreement. Th...Couves: <br />Yes, there can be honest disagreement. There's honest disagreement over many issues...taxes, abortion, what-have-you.<br /><br />However, I go back to what is the actual GOP position on health care reform over the last 2 decades? I see individual mandates up until 2009. Buying insurance across state lines in recent years. Tort reform over the last 15 years-ish. Besides that, the GOP position on health care reform has been "no." <br /><br />And, if that is the GOP position...that's fine! That's honest disagreement! But, when the GOP acknowledges that health care is a problem, but doesn't actually want the few proposals they offer (exchanges, mandate)...I have a really tough time seeing anything but DIShonest disagreement. The Republicans have been moving the goalposts on health care for 2 decades. <br /><br />This isn't restricted to health care: see cap-and-trade....the GOP plan for climate change before they managed to move public opinion into sheer insanity among their base. <br /><br />Democrats have engaged in similar behavior on things like affirmative action...and more, I'm sure, but cognitive dissonance is likely preventing me from remembering more.<br /><br />But, on health care, I just have a tough time accepting that the GOP position has been honest.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-53312291686656121122012-11-15T21:39:41.384-06:002012-11-15T21:39:41.384-06:00Scott,
And when the individual mandate actually ...Scott, <br /><br />And when the individual mandate actually became a viable policy, how did Republicans react?<br /><br />Someone may have talked about it 20 years ago, but it came nowhere close to becoming law. I'd be surprised if most Republicans were even aware of it at the time. <br /><br />Even if Republicans did change their mind -- so what? Twenty years ago you would have been hard-pressed to find a Democrat who supported same-sex marriage.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-22453536736813311672012-11-15T20:20:41.001-06:002012-11-15T20:20:41.001-06:00"Again, the problem with your story of the Tw..."Again, the problem with your story of the Two-Faced Republican Party is that almost no one in the party was even thinking about the individual mandate until Romney made it into law."<br /><br />The individual mandate and the exchanges were part of the Republican free-market alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's socialist-government takeover of health care back in 1993.<br /><br />Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73338045713185683842012-11-15T19:53:36.594-06:002012-11-15T19:53:36.594-06:00Matt,
Again, the problem with your story of the T...Matt,<br /><br />Again, the problem with your story of the Two-Faced Republican Party is that almost no one in the party was even thinking about the individual mandate until Romney made it into law. Outside of Massachusetts, almost nobody was thinking about it until Obama made it into law. As soon as Republicans learned about these laws, they decided that they didn’t like what they saw. I can tell you from my perspective in Massachusetts, that there was a lot of unhappiness amongst otherwise moderate Republicans with what Mitt Romney did. So while I’m sure there’s an element of reflexive anti-Obama-ism going on here, for most people the individual mandate is just something that violates their principles. This is obviously the case since Obama easily won reelection in spite of the majority opposition to the mandate.<br /><br />You can mess around with Glenn Beck’s chalkboard all you want, but sometimes the truth is that honest people simply disagree.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72261674483305247502012-11-15T17:37:50.927-06:002012-11-15T17:37:50.927-06:00Couves:
Our point (or at least mine) is really tha...Couves:<br />Our point (or at least mine) is really that, if you go by what Republicans have publicly claimed on health care over the last 2 decades, that Republicans either favored an individual mandate-based approach, health insurance exchanges, or nothing, with the insurance exchanges being a very recent addition to the Republican lexicon on health care. However, when offered the very thing that many Republicans had extolled the virtues of, they all turned their noses up at it. Not just voted against the final package that included it: down the line, the GOP opposed the whole kit-and-kaboodle, and made the individual mandate central to their opposition. (Well, that and "death panels" and other distortions, but on ACTUAL policy, the mandate was their stated objection. They didn't say much bad about pre-existing conditions, Cadillac taxes, lifetime limits, or many of the other parts)<br /><br />The argument is that Republicans made the decision to oppose Obama on health care before there was any substance to that. They were opposing Obama for political reasons. The fact that the mandate polled poorly (or well, from the perspective of Republicans) made it the publically offered rationale for their objections, but their objections were fundamentally political, not based on policy. <br /><br />Now, our argument (I'm lumping most of the pushback to you in this subthread in with me, here) can be wrong. Republican objections to PPACA could have been based in principled differences on what the ideal society would look like. However, from our side of the aisle, it looks an awful lot like "Republicans SAID they liked this, then said they DIDN'T like it once we offered it to them."<br /><br />However, that's one part of it. Put aside whether Republicans were disingenuous or not. The other part of it is, well, Obamacare is now pretty settled. There will be more court cases on certain elements of it, sure. But elected Republicans have pretty much conceded that they cannot change the core of what passed after last week's elections. They lack the Senate, the Presidency, the votes to override a veto, and a "mandate". So, politically, Obamacare is now settled. Not wanting to fix existing law....well, now we're back to the question of what about Obamacare did Republicans really object to? And, we come back to: they either didn't want Dems getting credit for it, or they just didn't want any reform at all.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40096848036286540632012-11-15T17:03:00.911-06:002012-11-15T17:03:00.911-06:00Shorter JB: "Why don't you hateful lunati...Shorter JB: "Why don't you hateful lunatics co-operate with me?"<br /><br />I can't imagine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9926250655044089912012-11-15T16:32:29.950-06:002012-11-15T16:32:29.950-06:00Anon,
The reality is that no one but a few policy...Anon,<br /><br />The reality is that no one but a few policy wonks were even talking about it until Romney made it part of MA law -- and the overwhelming response of Republicans was that they loathed it. Even Massachusetts Republicans are unhappy with what Romney did here.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-796498062719393352012-11-15T15:54:48.627-06:002012-11-15T15:54:48.627-06:00Well of course they were against it in 2011, 2010 ...Well of course they were against it in 2011, 2010 and 2009 even! But in 2008? Not really. 2007? No. 1993, when this was THE alternative to Hillarycare? Obviously not. How about in 1989 when the right-wing think tanks introduced the idea? Definitely not then. And it was not a secret, they were quite open about it. Though of course they disagreed with Democrats back then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-57108939898576317262012-11-15T15:43:39.099-06:002012-11-15T15:43:39.099-06:00Scott, politics is a conversation. You're sim...Scott, politics is a conversation. You're simply repeating a small snippet of that conversation. Some Republicans may have liked the idea of the individual mandate, but they ultimately came to decide, overwhelmingly, that they oppose it. I'm sure the fact that the voters oppose it played no small part in this. Of course this consensus may change, since, as you point out, a conservative case can be made in favor of individual mandates.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11051007502018307152012-11-15T15:34:58.702-06:002012-11-15T15:34:58.702-06:00long walk - When top officials mislead the America...long walk - When top officials mislead the American public about a major world event -- that is a major scandal, whether Democrats care to admit it or not.<br /><br />Anon, Republicans were against it before 2012 -- that's why they voted against it to begin with. Romneycare was the single greatest handicap he had during the primary. I seem to remember a little supreme court case as well. <br /><br />Look, if pretending that Republicans actually secretly agree with you on everything helps you guys get through the day, don't let me get in your way... But ignoring political reality ultimately isn't good for anyone.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.com