An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Way Things Should Be Done
Why doesn’t this happen more often, on more issues?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “The Way Things Should Be Done”
Doesn't it?
It happens because of the willingness of both sides to try to come to a compromise, something that usually is lacking from both sides.
I think it remains to be seen whether this centrist approach is going to yield good legislation (I'm of the opinion that it often doesn't- because instead of moderates negotiating for a policy that has evidence of really working well, they're usually engaged in horsetrading, watering down one approach to make it palatable to those whose districts aren't ideologically inclined to accept the farther left or farther right approach- or worse, ladling on the pork in order to buy off those reps who would otherwise take heat from their constituents, while doing nothing to improve or moderate the substance of the bill.)
So, we'll see. If the public option really is stripped out of this, I'll consider that a step in the right direction, but then again based on Harry Reid's statements about coops I'm skeptical of whether they might be just changing the language without really changing the plan.
I think Jay Cost makes a good point here about the absence of Obama's leadership on healthcare reform, despite having been voted into office by people who thought he would pragmatically mediate from the center. His hands off approach didn't help him politically, nor did it help us get to the point where we're finally seeing some real negotiation. That only happened when Obama's attempt to rush this through led to the implosion of the whole process.
If the public option is stripped out of it then the whole exercise will have been a waste of time. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
CStanley beat me to it!! Jay Cost's article is very well done.
“.. absence of Obama's leadership on healthcare reform, despite having been voted into office by people …”
Stop me if I'm wrong, but he's the President, the head of the Executive branch, he's not in the legislature where this type of laws/reforms are written. The President doesn't form policy, once a bill begins to really coalesce from the committees that is the time for him to step forward.
FTA, “And that could force Mr. Obama to choose between backing the bipartisan deal or rank-and-file Democrats who want a bill that more closely reflects their liberal ideals.”
He has already said what he wanted in a bill, and it's not all going to happen (which is good actually). Like, CS, I'm also worried that it'll be too watered down or full of pork and won't be as effective but having it be a Democrat, or Republican, ONLY plan would be worse.
I agree with Ryan. Counting on the existing corporations to do enough to help the people of this country instead of their profit margins, executive compensation and share prices is an approach that is doomed to failure. The coops won't be allowed to be large enough to really have any clout in negotiations by the time the Republicans in that little room and Senator Baucus are done. The end result will be a bill that will be voted for in order to say they've done something but that will leave us on the same path we're already on. Eliminating the public plan is how you tell the poor and lower middle class to just screw off while giving yourself political cover by voting for inadequate tax credits which will not even attempt to keep up with increasing costs.
The President doesn't form policy, once a bill begins to really coalesce from the committees that is the time for him to step forward.
There are various ways that the President influences the writing of legislation, Rambie, and as far as I can tell, Obama hasn't done any of it effectively. As Cost noted, he seemed to have overcorrected for the Clinton's error of writing the legislation and expecting Congress to rubber stamp it, but now Obama gave free reign to a Dem leadership that's out of touch with what can be sold to the American public.
One thing that he said in that conference call to liberal bloggers which really concerns me is that he basically told liberals not to worry if the legislation appears to be more moderate than they'd like it to be because during reconciliation of the House and Senate bill they'd shift back to the left's wishes. Not only is that nontransparent and possibly unconstitutional, it makes me wonder if the moderate Dems got wind that they were being played and balked at it (it was shortly afterward, I believe, that one of the Blue Dogs came out and said that the Dem leadership was not negotiating in good faith- a pretty serious charge for an intraparty squabble.)
CStanley I continue to suspect Obama is mainly a figurehead/spokesman and not very involved in policy. He seems to have given Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, etc a free rein. Given his rapid ascent in politics, much of which he spent campaigning, I don't know if he is used to formulating policy or mainly just standing where somebody told him to.
The point has been made, which I think is accurate, that Bush made policy and Congress rubber-stamped it while the Democratic Congress makes policy and Obama rubber-stamps it. Neither of these is a very desirable situation.
The point has been made, which I think is accurate, that Bush made policy and Congress rubber-stamped it while the Democratic Congress makes policy and Obama rubber-stamps it. Neither of these is a very desirable situation.
I couldn't agree more. I get the impression that Pelosi et al are operating under the assumption that they can quickly pass sweeping, progressive policy by having Obama give his imprimateur (using his political capital since she and other liberal Congressional leaders don't have the personal popularity or the mandate for their policies.) Inevitably though, the moderates and moderate conservatives who believed that Obama would be more centrist are becoming disappointed at his inability or unwillingness to rein in the more extreme party leadership in Congress.
CS: “There are various ways that the President influences the writing of legislation… Obama hasn't done any of it effectively… “
” One thing that he said in that conference call to liberal bloggers which really concerns me is that he basically told liberals not to worry if the legislation appears to be more moderate than they'd like it to be… “
I agree that President Obama hasn't put enough influence on health care reform. After re-reading I can see my last statement was remiss in saying that. What I deserve for posting in a hurry and not being sure to cover all my thoughts.
I think you are over-reacting there is no way that the bill is going to move too far back to the Left, if it does at all, when it comes to reconciliation between the Senate and House.
Jim_Satterfield, “Counting on the existing corporations to do enough to help the people of this country instead of their profit margins, executive compensation and share prices is an approach that is doomed to failure. The coops won't be allowed to be large enough to really have any clout in negotiations by the time the Republicans in that little room and Senator Baucus are done… “
I agree, corporations aren't around to provide for the public good because it's not their purpose.
Co-Ops need to have the ability to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies and health care providers to purchase in large enough lots to get discounts and pass those savings to their customers.
Fighting for that makes more sense than whining over a public option that isn't going to pass.
I think you are over-reacting there is no way that the bill is going to move too far back to the Left, if it does at all, when it comes to reconciliation between the Senate and House.
Maybe, but to me there are only two possible interpretations of what he told the liberal bloggers. Either he means what he said, and there will be shady backroom deals at that point in the legislative process (frankly I think a lot of that went on during the stimulus bill reconciliation- remember the Dodd amendment?)
Or, alternatively he's lying/overpromising to the liberal wing of the party, to get them to hold their powder so that he can get a more moderate bill to pass. Personally I don't really care, but that seems like a very risky political move that will probably come back to haunt him.
“I get the impression that Pelosi et al are operating under the assumption that they can quickly pass sweeping, progressive policy by having Obama give his imprimateur (using his political capital since she and other liberal Congressional leaders don't have the personal popularity or the mandate for their policies.)”
I get a similar impression, though I suspect sometimes Obama is more involved, and exploits his political capital, which indeed is superior to that of the lib Dems in Congress.