Turning Point Reached? GOP’s Dick Armey Predicts Health Care Reform Will Pass
If you’re following the health care reform debate — and ongoing drama — you know that it apparently is right down to the wire. THE DEMOCRATS MAY PASS IT (Republicans fear). THE DEMOCRATS MAY CAVE AND NOT PASS IT (Some Democrats fear).
But was there a turning point of sorts today? Former Republican House Majority Leader and current Tea Party leader Dick Armey took some blunt potshots at House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and also asserted his view that health care reform will likely pass. The fact that it’s coming from Armey and not one of the smug partisan talking heads on TV (both parties have an oversupply of them) suggests that it’s closer to passage than ever. (But never underestimate the Democratic party to take a shotgun, aim it south and shoot itself in its own foot). ABC News reports:
Former Republican House Majority Leader and current Tea Party leader Dick Armey said today that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “inept” but that Congress would likely still pass health care reform.
“What has probably surprised me more than anything else about Speaker Pelosi is her ineptness,” Armey said at luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. “I didn’t realize anyone could rise to the position of Speaker and be that inept.”
Despite his harsh criticism of the Speaker, Armey said that he personally liked Pelosi and he defended her from people who say she’s mean.
“She’s more inept than I thought she was, but she’s not as mean as people think she is,” Armey said.
But even with Pelosi’s “inept” leadership, Armey says Democrats will most likely pass health care reform legislation that has been debated for the last year and is expected to come to a vote this week.
“They’ll probably force this through,” he said. “But you can’t discount the number of people who can be moved by a ruthless and powerful political leader or group of political leaders.”
The FreedomWorks chairman also had harsh word for the rest of Congress – the “self-serving” people he suggests are equally to blame for the passage of health care legislation.
“The average member Congress – House and Senate – is first and foremost only a self-serving inconvenience-minimizer who doesn’t have a lot of principle they stand on the first place,” he said. “It doesn’t take much to move a jellied spine, so they’ll probably get their votes.”
And will the Dems reap political dividends? Armey sees the opposite:
Asked if Democrats will get a bounce in poll numbers if they pass health care reform, Armey said Democrats “will get politically bounced” from office. Armey is confident that Harry Reid will lose his Senate seat in November and that Republicans will regain a majority in both houses of Congress either this election cycle or the next..
Reid does indeed now seem to be Political Dead Man Walking.
However, the Democratic party will be in far worse shape if it fails to pass some version of health care reform and totally turns off its base. It seems unlikely that Democrats would get support from tea party members anyway if they nixed health care reform. Meanwhile, at this writing, it already seems as if President Barack Obama and his political party are starting to lose many of the young voters that helped propel the party and Obama to victory and are losing — or have aleady completely lost — a golden opportunity to substantially influence the Supreme Court’s political anchor via future appointments.
In a way it is indeed “heads I win, tails you lose” for the Democrats on this one.
The question is the extent of the loss, its shelf life (an election, a decade or a generation?), and how well positioned the GOP is to take advantage of an erosion in Democratic support. (If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are the faces of the GOP the party will not be able to capitalize on Democratic toe stubbing or self-destruction).
That aside: Armey indicating that he thinks it’s going to pass should reassure some — and concern others. Just as the final action will.
24 Responses to “Turning Point Reached? GOP’s Dick Armey Predicts Health Care Reform Will Pass”
“And will the Dems reap political dividends?”
Good or bad? No telling yet. The public is against the current effort but the actual details of the legislation are still not set. It also depends on what happens after health care. More far-left stuff is High-Risk Behavior.
I haven't seen any evidence that young voters are going sour on Obama or the Democrats. Decrease in excitement? Sure. 2008 was an epic level of excitement for young liberal voters. What would truly turn them off is to do nothing. Note, for example, how many people in the progressive blogosphere – many of them young adults – have come around from outright opposition to support as a “first step.” Jane Hamsher is quite alone these days.
That is because you are a professor. Go talk to the younger voters who are out there trying to get jobs. They are not so enthralled anymore.
“I haven't seen any evidence that young voters are going sour on Obama or the Democrats.”
The elections in prior months, including Massachusetts, may be the evidence you don't see.
However, at the same time, I believe some of the “Coffee Party” crowd is formed by young “progressives.”
Stolen headline from http://hillbuzz.org : “Democrats Position Death Star Within Firing Range of Alderaan”
“Meanwhile, at this writing, it already seems as if President Barack Obama and his political party are starting to lose many of the young voters that helped propel the party and Obama to victory …”
“I haven't seen any evidence that young voters are going sour on Obama or the Democrats.”
“The elections in prior months, including Massachusetts, may be the evidence you don't see.”
From Eunomia, an economics blog of the 'The American Conservative' magazine, commenting on a survey of recent generic party preference broken down by age. (link to survey is in the article).
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/02/20/losi…
“There have been small shifts in other age groups toward the Republicans, but by far it is the alienation of voters aged 65-82 that has been most damaging to the Democrats’ political strength.”
The irony is that this group has shifted from the Democrats out of fear of losing entitlements the Republicans have pledged to cut or eliminate, Medicare and Social Security. How long do you think the Republicans can keep the support of these people? Even if they can keep them what is their long term outlook when relying on this age group while trailing in all younger groups?
If you don't know this magazine was founded in part by Pat Buchanan although he is no longer associated with it. It mottoes itself as “The Magazine for Thinking Conservatives” (which I am sure some could say dramatically limits its potential readership). It is a traditional conservative publication, considered pro-immigration, anti-war, anti-neocon – what is occasionally called paleoconservatism.
Young people trying to get jobs aren't blaming Obama for their predicament. I talk to my students all the time and they know that the local East TN and the national economy are struggling for reasons that long pre-date Obama and that, frankly, have little to do with anything Obama does or does not do.
The Massachusetts election (and Virginia election) showed young voters staying home – not going to the Republicans. That lack of enthusiasm makes sense, but doesn't mean they have been lost to Obama and the Democrats. Wait until 2012. If the young folk are still unmotivated and alienated from Obama then you are right. Of course, the immediate predicament for the Democrats is to hold their losses in 2010 without the fully engaged youth.
Not the ones that I've talked to. Total debt and the future of a country whose government is growing uncontrollably is a bigger concern. I don't have a poll to back me up this time, but I'd be very interested to see one, if anyone has seen one directed at that group.
Dick Armey claims to be a follower of Austrian school of economics. His reading of the school's principles is a bit selective. From one of the school's founders, Friedrich von Hayek's seminal work “The Road to Serfdom”:
“But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes.”
Considering that the Austrian's emphasis on free markets and their acceptance of the need for the accompanying boom and bust cycles with their swings in unemployment, it is not surprising that they would see the need for a safety net including health care for the unemployed paid for by the employed. If unemployment is a part of your economic policies it seems reasonable to make sure it is at least not life threatening for the unemployed. Dick must have missed this section.
So you believe the over 65 group will support the Republicans cutting Medicare and Social Security to cut the debt. But you need a survey to be sure?
I am willing to go out on a limb here and say they wouldn't, sans a survey. Just call me wild, crazy and carefree.
elrod -
Again, you prove my point.
First, 18 – 24year-olds are not likely voters. Their turnout percentages are historically low. From the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html
Second, they (18-24 year-old college students) are a captive audience of the very liberal, left-leaning politics on the vast majority of campuses, and their thought process are influenced as such. I am not saying that in any manner other than a simple statement of the reality of political thought on college campuses.
If it were part of a larger package of cuts, cleanups, and restrictions on future spending, then yes. If it was just another “you cut back that we don't have to”, then no. Of course, they're not a monolithic group, but I'm gleaning this from actual conversations, not just speculation.
“”The Magazine for Thinking Conservatives” (which I am sure some could say dramatically limits its potential readership).”
Yep, some who would invert reality. But both sides are capable of some good thought when moved.
* * *
As far as this health bill, I still believe it's likely to pass, too — the GOP must resist everything the rest of the year, and the Dems have to break through — but now I'm getting alarmed at what lengths the Dems are going to, to try to get this done. (Now they don't merely want to vote on legislation they don't read; now they want to not even really have to vote on legislation to pass it!) It's also a disturbing show of desperation, though, and that is actually starting to overshadow the ethical lapses.
The other thing to look at is, they're so desperate now, is failure a possibility?
If it is, they need to prepare to face and deal with it. They (Dems) would do well to proceed on something good, and to do other, uncharacteristic, good fiscal moves (other than stimulus measures), concentrating on the economy, and if they did well there, they would be okay for November. (GOP is not attractive or even definitive!)
They might even be able to do better by postponing health care reform and press for action on the economy (which the public would not approve anywhere as much of the GOP resisting, if the Dems had good legislation, for a Change [tm]). Economy probably first, health care next — reenacting last year but doing it right this time — that's a possible alternative strategy that would be a success, not a failure, for them.
“So you believe the over 65 group will support the Republicans cutting Medicare and Social Security to cut the debt.”
Entitlement reform is overdue. Current programs are unsustainable.
Many of all ages are like those who respond to polls and don't want higher taxes or reduced benefits. But others are real. (And I suspect many who reject all reforms know it can't continue, but they just don't want unpleasantness of any kind.)
Reasonable reform will be accepted by those who understand.
Plus, we can be “complex,” “nuanced,” (favorite fad word nowadays), or “sophisticated.” That enables us to be accomodative. Meet that word used as a verb as well a noun: “grandfather.”
We needn't treat everyone equally, but give current and soon-to-be retirees a break from the changes to come.
“they (18-24 year-old college students) are a captive audience of the very liberal, left-leaning politics on the vast majority of campuses, and their thought process are influenced as such”
They comprised many of the Obamaniacs.
The question is, what fraction of the Coffee Party are they? (They're too granola-ish to call Latte Liberals.)
Side note for the interested:
“18-24 year-old college students”
Then there's the 25-34 group: Among these (25-34s, working, first time typically exposed to and also able to seriously think about government and politics, often white and resentful of PC nonsense that often includes attacks on them for being white, how many are being marketed to by Glenn Beck in his current way, the marketing as well as the “teacher” or “coach” and personal (personality-cult) stuff? And how many would he appeal to among the Tea Party populist crowd, and is Beck just exploiting his current popularity (while developing it, too) more successfully than Sarah Palin, and what might that say about a future political campaign for him?
(Look at the photo, everyone. Think about it.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
Food for thought. Returning to main subject…
“Entitlement reform is overdue. Current programs are unsustainable.”
Current programs are very sustainable. We have the money. You know what is not sustainable? Two endless wars.
Cut the wars and we can have all the entitlements we want.
You are just plain wrong on this one. You are my new David Brooks. You say stuff that sounds sensible because it has been repeated in mainstream media ad nauseum, but is false.
My point was to respond to Joe's reference to Obama losing younger voters. There's a difference between losing younger voters and the normal cyclical downturn in younger voter interests at midterms. The latter is undoubtedly happening. The former is not there…yet.
“Of course, they're not a monolithic group, but I'm gleaning this from actual conversations, not just speculation.”
Actually, I am not speculating. I am on both Social Security and Medicare. I paid taxes into both Social and Medicare at the maximum rate for thirty years (after serving eight years in the military). Most of my friends are on Social Security. I don't find a lot of support among them to reduce their benefits. Especially along the lines of the Republican plan, see below.
That is a remarkable group you are talking to. I can't be as accepting of the Republican's plans as your solid sources are. Like me they paid into the Social Security and Medicare system for their whole lives, including a premium paid since 1984 to cover the baby boomers excess costs, and yet they are supportive of the Republican budget plans.
Based on Paul Ryan's ‘Roadmap For America’s Future‘ these plans are:
1) Effectively default on the debt the general revenue system ran up borrowing the excess Social Security tax funds to spend. This borrowing over 25 years allowed lower taxes, primarily those of the wealthy, and now the Republicans are unwilling to pay it back, pretending it is not a debt at all. This makes the extra Social Security taxes collected nothing more than a general revenue tax, constituting the largest tax increase in history (and signed by Reagan — say it isn't so Gipper!) , paid by everyone earning up to (now) $100,000 a year primarily for the benefit of people who earn more than $250,000 a year.
2) Institute means testing and later eligibility to effectively cut Social Security payments by 20%.
3) Privatize Medicare, transfer the elderly from the most efficient medical care delivery system, Medicare, to the least efficient, individual health insurance policies provided by private, for profit companies. The “premium support payment” would be income based. They didn't offer any details on how it would be done but it is worthwhile to note that from 2000 to 2007 individual health care insurance premiums went up 78% while the median income went up 14%. Under these conditions an income based system will pay a decreasing percentage of the premiums over the years.
4) Limit the increases in the federal matching payments to states for Medicaid to the change in general population and the overall rate of inflation. If medical costs increase faster than the overall rate of inflation (and medical costs have been going up two to three times faster than inflation) or the Medicaid population increases faster than the general population (say due to a recession) the states are left to make up the difference or to reduce coverage.
5) On health care the Republican plan to let the number of uninsured to increase to 52 million by 2015 is well known. They will mainly rely on tax code changes to do next to nothing to improve the number of uninsured. The code changes including increased reliance on tax deductions and health accounts will, have you guessed yet, mean that the wealthy high income taxpayers will get the largest benefit.
6) Of course, as always the Republicans really shine on taxation. They will eliminate the corporate income tax, the alternative minimum tax and the inheritance tax. They will replace the income tax with a combination flat tax and 10% federal sales tax. The combination would constitute the largest shift of tax burden from the highest 10% income to the poor and middle class in history.
7) If you are looking for cuts or freezes in defense or homeland security spending, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, any climate change efforts, any solutions for any of debt ridden funds such as the pension, flood, crop, FDIC,etc. you must look elsewhere.
Not just the over 65 group would be unhappy with this proposal, I would think. Especially the 90% of the tax paying population being asked once again to pay for the rich and powerful's tax cuts. Is this the “larger package of cuts, cleanups, and restrictions on future spending” you referred to?
And the bottom line on the plan depends on who you ask. The CBO says the plan reduces the deficit. But the CBO was restricted by Ryan to using his assumptions about the economic impact of the tax changes. Using the same assumptions they use for the annual budget the plan shows a deficit far into the future.
I would think that the over 65 group you have found who supports this plan either are wealthy and stand to gain from it or don't understand it. Or I do realize that historically the majority of conservatives consistently vote against their own economic self-interest, sacrificing for the greater good of the wealthy and high income folks. Perhaps that is what we are seeing here. Do these people who support this plan fall into this category?
????
I never said that they liked any of the plans that the Republicans (or current politicians) were offering, or of any of their actions in the past, which pretty much nixes most of your post. Many (but not all) are aware that the “trust fund” has more or less been a farce. For that matter, I've found their partisanship to be far more realistic than the younger generations. That is, they're still able to see bad actions from either party, and are more likely to listen to outside suggestions, but choose one party in general as a preferred party. There's a lot less political blindness.
.. at far lower rates than starting workers are paying today. Care to compare the deduction percentage that you paid when you started working to what starting workers are paying today? All in all, you're getting a pretty sweet deal.
I vote Libertarian. I did look elsewhere.
“Current programs are very sustainable. We have the money.”
You are incorrect. I suppose you haven't and won't read and accept what the Trustees have said, or what Social Security's early deficit (this year, now, rather than beginning in 2016) obviously means.
As far as “we have the money,” the burden of proof is on you. Never mind if it's an irrational and angry (mentally ill) look at the USA and presuming we have enough (inequitable) wealth to wave a magic wand and get anything we went, like Chomsky and other extremists. Where can we expect to get the money, and do we want our economy even more crippled than we're going to see once the Baby Boomers retire in large numbers? And does the current state of the economy mean nothing, as well as the massive misspending and overspending by Obama and the Dems, dwarfing all that has come before, making normal people world-wide (not only here at home) wonder if we'll risk default someday on our debt (as well as massive inflation), or if we'll imitate Greece and the other, similar EU nations who have behaved as though they can do anything and that there's plenty of money? Does all that unpleasant but obvious truth mean nothing to you?
Probably nothing, is the answer.
We have a bigger problem than a few individual programs. For the last thirty years we have been in the grip of a large number of people who claim we can have something for nothing, more spending and lower taxes. Some even went to the point of proposing we intentionally run huge budget deficits so we can shock people into not running deficits, which is as nutty as it sounds.
Until we can collectively face up to the fact that what is unsustainable is this idea that we can 'something for nothing', we will continue producing deficits. Even if we were to pass taxes or cut benefits in a few established programs or institute new programs that are fully funded we would not be out of the woods. Look how quickly the rather modest surplus of the late 1990's disappeared under tax cuts and new, unfunded spending in just three years of back to 'something for nothing'.
“Until we can collectively face up to the fact that what is unsustainable is this idea that we can 'something for nothing', we will continue producing deficits.”
Absolutely. There is no magic here and now, or postponing the unpleasant indefinitely.
(NOTE that the NYT, Dem Flagship [tm], was willing to show a Heritage graph. I guess it's important.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/business/econ…
There's a lot of concern in this country right now with the deficits, but some may keep insisting on them and if that happens, perhaps the only brake eventually will be a debt trap.
What's timely with this is what's on pages 199-200 of Roger Bootle's latest book, here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uMCrq3OhPQAC&p…
(The entire chapter starting on page 177 is worth your time, and other sections of this book.)