Last night, Democrats suffered a humiliating defeat, lost the Senate seat Teddy Kennedy had held for more than four decades and surrendered the 60-seat majority they had built so painstakingly. This extraordinary upset, which has few if any rivals among the past 2 decades, emboldens Republicans to push for still-greater gains in 2010 and deals a terrible blow to Democrats’ agenda, starting with the health-care bill that just two weeks seemed certain to adopted.
Even with that introduction, I fear I am not doing justice to the magnitude of what happened last night. After all, as we entered January, Scott Brown would have been considered lucky to get within 10% of Martha Coakley but a few voices started wondering whether little-known state Senator Scott Brown could pull off a victory; I confess I did not awake to the possibility until just two weeks ago. (That might sound late but it’s nevertheless earlier than the time at which Coakley recognized the danger she was facing.) Fast forward 15 days, and Brown pulled off a jaw-dropping 4,8% victory.
Democrats are already consumed by the blame game
In the days leading up to the election, prominent figures like Barney Frank and as many anonymous D.C. aides was there are journalists were blasting Coakley’s hapless campaign; yesterday, in the middle of Election Day, the Attorney General’s camp fired back with a memo accusing national Democrats of failing to engage and being responsible for the tough environment that has contributed to her decline. Putting aside that it is telling of the campaign’s disorganization that a top Coakley staffer found the time on Election Day to write such a lengthy postmortem, we can surely all agree that everyone is right here: such an unlikely even can only be explained by a perfect storm of factors.
The first is the Democratic nominee. Coakley ran a strong primary campaign, but she paid no attention to the general election. It’s one thing for observers like myself to declare her the heavy favorite, it’s another for the candidate to decide that she does not have to put in any work to secure her first victory in a federal race. She took a long vacation, and her campaign did not go up on TV until the final 10 days of the campaign - after her opponent started airing his third ad. As such, Brown had ample time to introduce himself to voters in a positive light. By the time Democrats woke up, it was much too late: the Republican’s favorability rating was impressively high, and a sudden blitzkrieg of negative advertisement cannot be expected to change one month’s worth of good will.
And it’s not like Coakley can blame her lack of a campaign on financial woes: as of December 31st, Coakley had more than $1 million in the bank. Furthermore, most of her failures have nothing to do with fundraising: Not only did she come across as stiff and conventional (it’s not like she seemed a particularly original and intriguing candidate back during the primary campaign), but numerous news stories reported that she scoffed at the idea of holding events and shaking hands. As of Monday, Coakley had only held 19 events since her primary victory - that’s less than one every two days!
(It’s hard to imagine Rep. Capuano, the energetic champion of progressive causes, would have given the GOP such an opening - a thought that sure to haunt Democrats so much over the next 3 years that Capuano has to be considered the front-runner to win the Senate nomination in 2012 if he wants to challenge Brown.)
Brown, meanwhile, mounted an unexpectedly formidable campaign. That Democrats should never have allowed that to matter doesn’t change the fact that not all Republicans could have pulled off what the state Senator did: He managed to navigate the GOP’s ideological divide with a talent that other Republicans will want to imitate, simultaneously presenting himself as an “independent” supportive of abortion rights and getting Tea Partiers/national conservatives to embrace him. His populist message (his attempts to channel voters’ anger over the economic crisis, his effective self-portrayal as a “regular guy” who rides a pick-up truck) clearly resonated with voters.
But in a state like Massachusetts, even the worst Democratic candidates shouldn’t lose against the best Republican ones - and let’s not forget that Coakley is, after all, the sitting Attorney General while Brown had no statewide profile as of 5 months ago. Last night’s results obviously comes in the context of a tough environment for Democrats, and despite the White House’s best efforts to put all of the blame on Coakley’s failures, there is no question that national politics played a great role in yesterday’s upset.
Had a Senate special election been held in Mississippi or Louisiana in the spring of 2008, Democrats might very well have won it. They did, after all, win House races in those two states in districts that were arguably more Republican than Massachusetts is Democratic. 18 months later, the White House has changed hands and so has the entire political landscape. Many voters who typically Democratic, starting with blue-collar workers, either cast a ballot for Brown (how many of these had ever cast a ballot for a Republican in a federal race?) or did not vote (turnout was higher than would be expected in a special election, but the motivation gap was certainly there since Boston’s turnout was lower than in its suburbs). This does speak to Washington Democrats’ unpopularity: It took them a year to squander voters’ good-will.
Democrats divided
There will be a lot of recriminations among Democrats as to what accounts for this. The party’s right-wing, starting with Claire McCaskill and Evan Bayh, have already made it clear they blame progressives. Bayh, for instance, stated that Coakley’s defeat is due to the party being taken over by “the furthest left elements;” McCaskill declared that Democrats were taking their agenda “too far, too fast.”
Yet, to the extent that this perception exists, it is in great part due to those Democrats who spend much of their time denouncing liberals’ control over the party when they are far more powerful themselves. Take health-care: A third of House Democrats are co-sponsors of a single-payer bill, which did not even factor in the discussion. In fact, after losing on almost every intraparty fight on which they engaged this fall, progressives were ready to pass a public option-less bill that instituted new restrictions on abortion funding - a bill that closely resembles the health-care plan Mitt Romney supported in Massachusetts. Bayh, McCaskill and their allies have long ago buried most of liberals’ other priorities, from cap-and-trade to EFCA. Looking back at 2009, I have trouble seeing what the left might have to celebrate.
The perception that “the furthest left elements” of the Democratic party have too much influence in Washington has a lot to do with Bayh and Lieberman saying it is so against much of the available evidence; the flawed perception that the health-care bill’s is a socialist’s dream has much to do with those Democrats who spent months denouncing it as radical legislation before voting for it. Of course, the Nelsons and Bayhs are only hurting themselves: As long as they were open to the possibility of supporting the bill, why spend months tearing it down first? That contributed to making the legislation so unpopular that Lincoln is more vulnerable than she would be otherwise, Bayh is potentially vulnerable to a GOP challenge and Nelson’s approval rating has dipped so low the GOP cannot wait for 2012.
Democrats’ greatest fault in 2009 was a fundamental lack of response to voters’ desire to see corporations, banks or executives punished for their responsibility in the economic crisis. Instead of rising up to the challenge of representing the working-class, the White House gave Larry Summers and his ideological allies the keys to the country’s economy, framed the health-care debate as a collaboration with insurance and drug companies and all but renounced any confrontation with the financial sector. (In October 2008, who would have thought that in January 2010 Wall Street firms would have this little to complain about?) In this context, is it surprising that the hard-right has been able to seize the populist mantle, convince independents and blue-collar voters that the Tea Party is capable to channel their anger?
In short, my view is not just that cautious governance is depressing the liberal base - that alone cannot explain the voting shifts we have been seeing - but rather that it has pushed working-class voters (who are not necessarily liberal) away and has allowed Tea Party populism to prosper.
Can health-care survive?
All of these debates will come to an immediate head over the question of what should be done with health-care reform. The loss of a 60-seat majority will affect Democrats all year, and Brown’s victory will surely be a source of frustration for the party in every roll call that will be taken until January 2013, but nowhere will it be more consequential than on the health-care bill. Congressional Democrats have spent much of the past 8 months focusing on this issue, and when the Senate finally passed its version of the legislation it looked all but certain that a bill would land on the president’s desk within 6 weeks. Brown’s victory single-handedly changes the equation. It is now an open question as to whether any health-care bill will pass Congress this year.
The problem isn’t so much that Republicans now have 41 votes. (Democrats still have majorities which which to pass a conference report since it is unlikely Brown can be seated until January 29th at the earliest, and since congressional leadership has already sent large parts of the final bill to the CBO for scoring, that might be enough of a window for the same 60 senators who passed the bill in December to push it through again. Legislation could also be adopted if the House, in which the Democratic majority is obviously not affected by Brown’s victory, simply passes the Senate bill unchanged.)
If health-care reform fails it will be due to Democrats backing away. Centrists want a bill that can win Republican support; House liberals are categorically refusing to pass the Senate bill as is, since many of the complaints they had about the exchange design, subsidy levels and funding mechanisms were supposed to be fixed in conference; and Democrats across the ideological spectrum are saying they are uncomfortable with pushing anything through the Senate before Brown is seated. While Virginia’s moderate Senator Jim Webb was the first to call for a suspension of any health-care vote, liberal leader Barney Frank also said that the bill could not be passed without taking into account Massachusetts voters.
(Update: Yes, Democrats weren’t even supposed to have 60 votes until Specter switched parties; yes, they were preparing to charge ahead with health-care reform even before MA Dems changed state law to allow Paul Kirk to replace Kennedy. As such, I agree with Ezra Klein’s many posts that argue that covering the loss of a 60th seat as if the Democrats have lost control of the Senate is silly - and revealing of the institution’s dysfunctions. Yet, the problem here is that they are losing a seat after completing the debate: At this point, they can hardly turn to Snowe or Collins in the hope they can be convinced to back the reform; and turning to reconciliation at this late point would waste them precious weeks. Had they known in September they would have to deal with 59 votes, they would have proceeded differently from the get go.)
One option is for the House to adopt the Senate bill while at the same time passing a reconciliation resolution implementing some of the changes that the conference committee was expected to implement, for instance a change to the subsidy levels and the establishment of national exchanges; all the Senate would then have to do is adopt the small reconciliation bill with only 50 votes. While unions seem to be endorsing this approach, House liberals are signaling they are not because they do not trust the Senate would actually follow through on the “fix”.
Scrapping the bill and starting everything over through reconciliation thus appears the only option left on the table, though it would face major obstacles. Congress would spend many more months focused on health-care, Pelosi would still not be certain of a majority and many of the bill’s most emblematic reforms (for instance a ban on pre-existing conditions) would have to be stripped since they do not affect the budget. Yet, health-care proponents got an unexpected bit of good news today: Budget Committee Chair Senator Kent Conrad, who I would have expected to side with Evan Bayh, signaled he was “cautiously” open to using reconciliation. [Update: Ben Nelson issues a statement strongly hinting that he'll back Democratic leadership's decision because "we should not give up."]
Democrats would be taking a big political risk if they push through health-care reform under the current circumstances, especially if they take the reconciliation route. But I firmly believe the electoral consequences would be even more disastrous if no legislation passes. As the 1994 midterms showed, that would only result to Democratic incumbents seeking re-election with nothing to actually run on; it would depress liberals while doing nothing to dampen conservative enthusiasm, quite the contrary; and it would confirm to voters that the health-care bill was a radical piece of legislation and that every congressman who voted for it should be punished.
Indeed, the bottom line is that all Democratic senators and the vast majority of Democratic House members have already voted in favor of health-care reform. Dropping the legislation now would do nothing to shield them from attacks, but it would deprive them of any means to fight back.
Emboldened Republicans could seek to expand the map further
If we can win in Massachusetts, Republicans are now telling themselves, we can win everywhere. That logic is no doubt limited (not all Democrats will take a one-month break before the election, for one; the GOP saved quite many endangered seats in 2008, second), but there is no doubt that Democrats are caught in a vicious cycle. The more Republicans grow confident that they will score huge gains in November, the better the landscape will look.
Indeed, Brown’s triumph could help the GOP pull off many more recruitment coups, as credible Republicans in districts that the GOP wouldn’t ordinarily think of contesting will now probably take a look at jumping in. More Democratic congressmen could call it quits (there is little doubt that Byron Dorgan and Vic Snyder were scared off by the prospect of unexpectedly tough re-election races); Democratic leaders were reportedly calling members last night to ensure there wouldn’t be a panic-induced wave of retirements following the Massachusetts results; and the more money will flow the GOP’s way.
While we have paid a lot of attention to the NRCC’s efforts to expand the House map, the NRSC could be emboldened by its Massachusetts pick-up. They have already mounted top-tier campaigns in 7 seats held by Democrats (NV, AR, ND, DE, IL, PA, CO); why not try to put 3 more in play in the hope of taking control of the Senate? The obvious candidates are New York and California, but let’s not forget about Connecticut: Not only is it not as blue as Massachussetts, but Richard Blumenthal’s position as an invincible Attorney General looks less firm since Coakley’s loss.
The icing on the cake could be Indiana: Rep. Mike Pence is reportedly meeting NRSC officials to talk about the possibility he might challenge Evan Bayh! That wouldn’t automatically become a top-tier race, but it would certainly be a race well-worth watching. The mere fact that we’re talking about the possibility that Bayh might have to worry about his re-election race is a testament to just how low Democrats have sunk.
A few silver linings for Democrats
If even the most pessimistic Democrats could not have imagined living through such a nightmare, there are a few silver linings worth mentioning. The first is that they lost Massachusetts’s Senate seat for only 3 years rather than the usual 6: Scott Brown is up for re-election in 2012, when he will surely be one of the most endangered incumbents nationwide. He has enough political talent that he could survive, of course, but it will not be easy considering he has little time to entrench himself and that he would have to deal with Obama’s coattails.
Second, the failures of Coakley’s campaign ensure that other Democrats do not take anything for granted. If Republicans are now crowning that they can win anywhere, Democrats are more aware than ever that they can lose anywhere. Sure, everyone already knew that 2010 would be tough for Democrats - but there is a difference between believing it to be true and receiving proof like yesterday’s. As such, the GOP shouldn’t expect Blumenthal to rest on his laurels as he might have been tempted to do had he not witnessed the collapse of his Massachusetts colleague; similarly, the NRCC cannot hope to take Democratic House members by surprise, as the DCCC had done to supposedly safe GOP incumbents in the final weeks of the 2006 campaign.
Unfortunately for liberals, the week could still get much worse: The Supreme Court just called a special session tomorrow and it is expected to decide Citizens United. That could mark the end of campaign finance regulations as we know it.
Obama does not deserve the caliber of people he has now in his party. But I always knew that it would be the members of his own party that would be the fall of him though I hoped it wouldn’t be so.
Taniel I strongly disagree that what happened in MA means that Blumethal will be in danger in CT. For one, Blumethal has been Attorny General for almost 20 years and has a good handle on the state. Coakely is in her first term as attorny general, on her fourth year now and doesn’t have a strong understanding of the state beyond her job. Blumenthal is extremely popular, equal or even exceding the popularity of GOP Gov. Jodi Rell. Yes CT is not Democratic as MA but when u have a popular GOP Gov, having another statewide offical with nearly equal approval is very helpful. Coakley generally barely touch 60% apprvoal at her height which shrank considerly, Blumethal has as much as upwards 70% approval in March 2008 and his approval is almost at 60% even in the times now and with even Jodi Rell’s approval rating faltering a bit.
In sum, Blumenthal is not like Coakley thanks to his longer experience and high approval rating. The fact that CT is more amenable to the GOP, with Jodi Rell being the proof, will be a main reason why I do NOT think that Blumenthal will become complacent. I will tell you right now, even if 2010 makes 1994 look like child’s play and the Republicans do so well they not only pick up the House but take back the Senate with a net 10 seat gain (not including Brown) Blumenthal will still win easily. Only if he makes a serious personal blunder can I see him also losing, the national enviroment isn’t going to touch him because he is not connected to Washington D.C.
Also, in terms of going beyond the obvious 7 seats the GOP has to pick up, mention the New York Special eletion, California, Conneticut and Indiana. I already explained why CT will be fine for Dems, but the other races could heat up if the GOP thinks they can go all out and take back the whole legislative branch. Fiorina is only a few points behind Boxer in Rasmussen’s latest poll, however no other poll has shown Boxer in single digits so I’m somewhat skeptical, altho California is the realisticly the easier seat to take. If Pataki decides to challange Gilibrand instead of his far fetched plans to become the 2012 GOP nominee, then NY would have an excellent chance. However he has said nothing, and the no name Republican in the race will have little impact, especially if Harold Ford runs as an indy and spits the right wing vote. Indiana is very interesting. If Pence indeed comes in, then he does have a chance of knocking of Bayh if Republicans are super energized and if liberal Indiana Democrats refuse to vote for Bayh because of his harsh attacks on progressive realities. The state senator who is in now (don’t know his name) could try to replicate Brown’s startegy against Bayh, but Bayh would be a much harder target than Caokely being an incumbent and being popular. Hostletter would have no chance.
Jaxx, I certainly did not mean to suggest that Blumenthal is “in danger” - I merely said that his “invincible” position “looks less firm”. I entirely agree with all the points you raised, but it would still be silly for Democrats to take any open seat for granted at this point (especially when the GOP nominees in CT are on paper stronger than Brown looked in Mass). That said, the last paragraph of my post points out that the GOP can now have hope of taking Blumenthal by surprise, which in itself is enough reason to think he is highly unlikely to find himself in trouble.
(I also apologize for writing such a long post… but there is just so much to say about what happened last night!)
I’m not going to critique this long post, I agree with some of it and not with other parts, but I do feel compelled to mention that NONE of this would have happened if the Democrats hadn’t, twice, changed the rules for filling Senate vacancies in Massachusetts.
If they hadn’t stripped Romney of the power to appoint a replacement because they thought Kerry was going to win, Patrick would have happily appointed Coakley or someone else who wouldn’t have even been challenged in ‘12.
If they hadn’t changed it to allow for the temporary appointment of Paul Kirk, after the fact, they either would have already have given up on health care or they would have had to attract Republican support, robbing Brown of the issue he used to win the campaign.
More then anything, honestly, I think the election was a repudiation of power politics for it’s own sake.
Cliff,
You’re right those are quite damaging unintended consequences for Dems. While I had chosen not to mention these unintended consequences for the post not to turn into a post, I hadn’t even thought about your point that, had Democrats not changed the law back in September, they would have had to found a way to deal with 59 back in the fall - either Snowe or reconciliation - and thus not been in the position they are in now. I added the following lines to my post: “The problem here is that Democrats are losing a vote after completing the debate: At this point, they can hardly turn to Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins in the hope they can be convinced to back the reform; and turning to reconciliation at this late point would waste them precious weeks. Had they known in September they would have to deal with 59 votes, they would have proceeded differently from the get go.”
Cliff, I agree with you that a big reason that Coakley lost should be attributed to the changing of the rules. I thought it was an abuse of power, and I’m a Democrat! I only hope that the Democrats have learned from this fiasco.
I agree with a good portion of this diary. I’m starting to believe that the divisions among the Democratic ranks are very significant. But at the same time I expected that this would happen due to the large majorities that the Democrats maintain, and as a result you have more of the Democratic caucus members positioning themselves on vital pieces of legislation. This is breeding distrust among the ranks of the Democratic party.
I still believe that the Democrats would be well served to communicate more with each other, with their constituents, and with the folks on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately partisanship is at its all time high, and both Democrats and Republicans should share the blame. The United States has some serious problems that should be post-partisanship.
Party identification is getting lower all the time, in other words, more and more people are registering as independents. Those that remain behind in either of the two main parties are more in the extremes in terms of viewpoints. In other words, most of those who are political moderates are becoming independents, leaving the liberals and conservatives in charge of their respective stores. We already see this in the Republican party, and now the Dems are going lower. Fewer and fewer people identify with either party than ever before and so with more and more independents voting, the voters look more at the candidates than at anything else. Brown was a harder working and more likeable candidate than Coakley, actually she didn’t work at all and wasn’t even likeable. (”why should I stand in front of Fenway Park and shake hands”, please, Martha, you’re no better than anyone else!) If the Dems don’t want to lose this Fall, they need to listen to their constituents. If the public is upset with a lack of jobs, high taxes, a hugely bloated federal budget, and no corporate accountability, then deal with these issues head on. Don’t pretend that they don’t exist. Last year, Obama told all of his agency heads to cut spending by 5%. They did. So, he should have said go back and cut another 5%. This is just one small example of how these people in Washington don’t get what is happening in the real world. We can’t sustain 1 trillion dollar budget deficits. It would actually be higher but Social Security is running a surplus. The public knows we have to change and would be able to deal with whatever cuts have to be made. What we can’t deal with is that Washington just wants to throw more money at our problems. It is unrealistic. They can’t just buy us off anymore. We know it is a fantasyland. Other countries with far fewer resources and wealth manage to live within their means, we can too! I truly believe we can be a more progressive nation without necessarily spending more money or creating more bureaucracies. Those public officials who are seen as problem solvers will do fine this fall, such as Blumenthal, and the dead wood will fall away, as it should, such as Reid.
…framed the health-care debate as a collaboration with insurance and drug companies…
Interesting post, and much that I agree with. So I hope it doesn’t seem too critical to snipe at one quote. But this sort of conflation is why I’ve grown so skeptical of the left’s attitude toward HCR. Insurance companies and drug companies have this in common: they’re big, rich, and involved in health care. That alone seems enough to earn liberals’ ire. But beyond the surface, these are very different sorts of companies, with different value to society.
Insurance companies provide a financial hedging service. They don’t perform or improve medical care, they just manage its distribution and provide capital. For this they are vastly overpaid, and I have no problem with it if HCR sticks it to them a bit. They’re leaching big profits without doing much to actually improve the quality of care.
Drug companies, on the other hand, invent and sell actual treatments and cures. For the last few decades, they have been almost miraculously successful at this incredibly valuable work, saving countless lives. They have earned their wealth, and continue to reinvest large sums in the next generation of R&D. If the Democrats want to curtail their profit margins, I have a very big problem with that indeed. Their accomplishments verge on the heroic. Treating them like the enemy would be insane.
Liberals often seem to assume that all large corporations are evil, just as conservatives assume all large government enterprises are evil. Actually, large corporations and government have a lot in common. Neither is automatically good or bad–you have to look closer to make a sound judgment.
But insurance companies /= drug companies. Also, big /= bad. Until liberals can distinguish these things, it’ll be hard to trust them with undivided control of the government.
Nathan, please snipe away - It’s good to see that people actually read through such a long post!
We can disagree on a substantive level (I think the fact that the White House’s deal with Pharma led to Democrats sabotaging Dorgan’s reimportation amendment suggests that the White House collaboration with both industries led to unfortunate policy-making), but perhaps we will agree that electorally Democrats’ coziness with Pharma is no less damaging than their coziness with insurance companies.
“More then anything, honestly, I think the election was a repudiation of power politics for it’s own sake.”
I can agree that the Dems should not have changed the rules. I am not sure how much it actually resonated with the average voter. After all Bush/Rove/DeLay played around with the rules (mid census TX redistricting etc) and didn’t pay a price until bigger issues (the war in Iraq, the deficit) hit them in 2006.
The people in MA has spoken, but will the Obama administration listen? Obama and his administration have been tone-deaf ever since this summer.
Obama needs to ‘fess up to the American people, apologize for a lack of meaningful healthcare legislation, and try to think about getting people back to work. With unemployment hitting double digits under the Obama administration, people are outraged. Why are they talking about health care and not job creation? Are we not in a crisis? Rhetorical questions, but meaningful questions nonetheless.
Cicero - you made a lot of assertions there. I believe they have talked about jobs and they would argue the stimulus package was designed to help. You may disagree but it isn`t fair to say they haven`t said anything about jobs.
Also it can be debated whether having healthcare reform would help the economy and therefore jobs. Quite a few economists believe that ever growing healthcare expenditure is crowding out other more productive spending. Small business and employees are paying ever more for healthcare, imagine what that extra money could be used for. So it can be argued that healthcare reform helps the economy.
It did hit double digits, barely. Is 10.2 really that much worse than 9.9? Net job losses have slowed and by the summer unemployment will probably be decreasing thereby lowering the rate.
I don`t think the Obama administration is the only one that could be accused of being tone deaf.
Cicero - the people of MA did speak (well a percentage of them) and I do not minimise the result. However MA is but one state. I don`t recall you saying the people of NY-23 spoken and a Democrat was elected then.
By the way what is Doug Hoffman doing now? Since he was the Conservatives favorite person for all of 2 weeks!
Cicero - the people of MA did speak (well a percentage of them) and I do not minimise the result. However MA is but one state. I don`t recall you saying the people of NY-23 spoken and a Democrat was elected then.
By the way what is Doug Hoffman doing now? Since he was the Conservatives favorite person for all of 2 weeks!
Guy,
Even on the theory that HCR results in job creation, it won’t do anything at all until 2013. It is no response to the present economic crisis.
You’re right that the the Democrats already passed the bill they said was urgently needed for near-term economic relief, the stimulus. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked. Despite the insistence that it had to be passed immediately, most of the money hasn’t yet wound its way through government to the private sector. The urgency with which that bill was passed doesn’t match the languid pace of its implementation. Makes you think the Dems were a little more interested in passing than in making it work–and no surprise there, since it was chalk full of handouts to Dem-leaning special interests. Crisis-wasting averted! No need to hurry now.
So anyway, the stimulus still hasn’t stimulated much, but we see national Dems firing away at another long-term goal of theirs that won’t help anyone in immediate need. Meanwhile, conservative-leaning voters think there’s something Congress could do to help us all right away: convert the still-unspent portion of the (oh-so urgently needed!) stimulus to tax cuts that will take immediate effect. If the government can’t find a way to spend money, well, I surely can. Businesses can. There’s one surefire way to reduce unemployment: payroll-tax cuts, and corporate tax cuts. In the present unemployment crisis, Congress should at least consider these options before devoting itself to solving long-term problems.
When Congress first tells everyone they have to hurry up and pass a solution, then doesn’t implement the solution for months, it makes us think they were lying about the need to hurry, and unserious about addressing the present need.
Just so you know, I am a small business owner and I want health care reform NOW. The amount that I pay for health insurance is ridiculous, especially in regards to how many benefits I’m entitled to. It is destroying my business and it is hurting me.
The long term economic health of the USA is tied to health care reform. If we don’t do it soon I believe our country will suffer and we will no longer be a super power. Our quality of life will deteriorate.
And yes I would pay higher taxes for everyone to be covered. I know that ultimately it would be cheaper that way. As opposed to all the uninsured that end up in emergency rooms now. I would much rather pay my government to provide me health care than pay some damned CEO, as I do now.
As much as I hate to sound defeatist, I think any sort of overarching health care reform is likely dead. At most, a few piecemeal things will be done. The leadership of course can’t just say they are giving up, as the political consequences of that would be a disaster. But frankly, this situation is a disaster already. Coakley is a convenient scapegoat in this drama, but as Taniel says we can’t put all the blame on her. A 1994 redux is looking more likely.
I would much rather pay my government to provide me health care than pay some damned CEO, as I do now.
Thankfully, the vast majority of America disagrees with you.
You can always switch companies. Switching Governments, that’s another story.
After all Bush/Rove/DeLay played around with the rules (mid census TX redistricting etc)
:sigh: you think you’d at least have SOME perspective or intellectual honesty about this issue.
The state legislature has the constitutional duty to redraw the districts every 10 years, and that hadn’t been done because the Democrats in the Texas legislature essentially filibustered. This is totally unlike Massachusetts, where they rewrote the rules for their own partisan gain, as opposed to trying to stop the rules from working for their own partisan gain in Texas.
Oh yah, and what do you mean by “etc.”?
Health Care reform is dead. Obama/Reid/Pelosi aren’t stupid. They know that if they pass this legislation, their party will be the minority party for years to come.
People really do like Barack Obama. I’d think he would be great to meet, very engaging, and genuinely an interesting people. He also reminds me of Jimmy Carter: a good man, an intelligent guy, but lacks the political savvy to turn dreams into legislation.
Nathan - I disagree that the stimulus package does not kick in until 2013. One third of the entire package was income tax cuts that started last April and run for two years. Thos have therefore kicked in and raised peoples incomes. They will spend most of this money, thereby increasing consumption. Some of the other money went on extended unemployment benefits which directly goes to consumption.
A further sixth of the money went to states and I know in North Carolina that this money was used to reduce the level of tax increases and prevented thousands of extra teachers, policemen and other public sector workers from being fired. Therefore the stimulus again has had an economic impact in 2009.
I agree that payroll tax cuts are effective, hence why they were included.
Of course it isn`t perfect and the stimulus was tailored to get GOP support, of course it didn`t get much but that isn`t all the Presidents fault.
Cliff - what I meant by etc is that DeLay changed the rules for counting votes in the House to ensure that the prescription drug benefit was passed. From I believe the customary 1 hour to over 3 hours. This was unprecedented. Of course I expect you to say it was within his right to do it therefore OK. In that case it was within the right of the MA house to change the rules.
Cliff - I agree that a majority of Americans as they currently understand it do not want Government run healthcare (although that was not actually in the bill). A disagree that a vast majority do, implies say 80% plus. Not supported by the polls.