Commentary By Ron Beasley
The FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll has Obama at a new low - 54% job approval as compared with 62% in June. Let's be honest here, Obama's early high marks were not so much about who he was but who he wasn't - George W. Bush. And about that change he promised - the same Goldman Sachs alumni are still in charge of the economy and Afghanistan is looking a lot like Iraq. So he's looking a bit like a George W. Bush who can talk in complete sentences.
But the American people are not idiots:
By a wide margin, Americans think former President Bush is more responsible for the current state of the nation's economy (61 percent blame Bush and 16 percent Obama). And despite the trillions spent by the Obama administration to try to revive the economy, far more Americans blame Bush for the current size of the budget deficit: 53 percent think Bush is more responsible and 28 percent say Obama.
But even that will erode in short order. The American people demand instant gratification and the fact that Obama has no magic wand will eventually take it's toll. But what's Obama's real problem? Is it his ego? Writing at The Left Coaster Deacon Blues says yes.
It could have been different. In an alternate presidency, one that was led less by ego and more by hard-boiled political pragmatism, the incoming administration would have quickly accepted the pile of sh*t left behind by their negligent predecessors, and immediately recalibrated their agenda to account for the relative weakness of their caucuses, and leaders in Congress.
So what could he have done?
Because the truth is that it doesn�t matter if a health care reform package passes this year or the next; in any event, it won�t launch until 2011 at the earliest. The problem is that he went bold and said he wanted a deal this year, and now his opponents have all they need to take him down. He shifted the burden to himself instead of putting the targets on their backs, including the corporate-bought swine in his own party.
If he had been a little more focused and used that electoral mandate to tackle the economy and regulatory reform out of the gate, and then built upon those successes with a push for a real energy independence package in the fall, he would have still had his political capital for the big fight next year on health care. And if he had followed a tougher, more progressive, yes populist set of prescriptions in dealing with the economy and Wall Street to this point, his opponents would not have been able to paint him as the largest deficit-spender of all time, thereby nearly dooming his health care reform efforts.
Instead, he went along with his pro-Wall Street inner circle, and now his agenda will pay the ultimate price.
I'm sorry to say I think this is spot on. Those of us who voted for Barack Obama and cheered his victory thought we could see a potential greatness. That greatness required the change Obama talked about change but has yet to deliver. What I see is Obama's ego accepting a half ass health care plan so he can claim a victory. Politics as usual not change you can believe in.
Objection.
ReplyDeleteThe American People are idiots. They elected Shrub twice.
Ron, when you cite "politics as usual" I agree with the politics part but not the "as usual" part. He has put together a different kind of coalition with historic opponents of meaningful change to bring about other kinds of change, a kind of divide-and-conquer strategy. It makes me want to hold my nose when I look to closely, but I see the big picture.
ReplyDeleteI heard a perfectly disgusting story yesterday reporting that the reason that Big Pharma is all smiles about this thing, after putting some forty million dollars into three weeks of lobbying, is that there is nothing in the proposal about negotiating drug prices. Think of it. Uncle Sugar is their biggest customer (Medicare + Medicaid + New Public Plan) and all they see is a fat new revenue stream with no constraints on whatever they say will be the price of their products.
It brings to mind the original arrangement between doctors and Congress in the Thirties by which Blue Cross (and later the rest of the insurance industry) was only permitted to operate as long as there were no federal attempts to curb rates on professional services. That arrangement is central to today's health care inflation and still it has not been addressed.
I don't even want to know why the AMA is behind this thing. My guess it is something along the same lines.
But somehow the toxic, symbiotic alliance between these two medical groups (drugs and providers) and the insurance industry (which has nothing to do with providing care but everything to do with managing the revenue stream) has to be busted up. That's why now, at this late date, they are finally starting to call the plan by what it really is, "health INSURANCE reform."
I can't decide if this nomenclature change was part of the strategy or just an oversight. But as the shape of this thing emerges, it is clear that the insurance industry is the big target for change. And the famous "public option" is therefore NOT optional, because with such an animal in the formula, at least the non-medical player (and bigger, I think than the other two) will finally be at a disadvantage.
I am reminded, too, of that scene in King Kong in which two prehistoric monsters are fighting as Fay Wray watches helplessly from below.
I understand that a lot of people think Obama can make the changes that the American people want. Congress is the one that creates legislature.
ReplyDeleteCongress is the problem. Obama can talk to congress, but it is the American people who must take congress on. As of right now Congress is more representative of big corporations than the American People.
Until the American people start pushing back on Senators and House Representatives to actually deliver for them, Congress is going to continue to represent corporations rather than the people.
A little like bush?!
ReplyDeleteThe guy is alot like bush! Another bought and paid for polotico. It's not change when you hire a bunch of the same corrupt self-serving a$$e$ to fix what they helped break!
And what do you mean the American people are not Idiots? They are easily led around by the nose as the last 3 elections prove! Hell most of the liberals probably have a little wicker alter with Obama's smiling picture above it in their closets. The very same freaking type of zombie's that worshiped that Idiot bush for eight years! Very easily punk'd!! Even after being sh!t upon for decades by both these corrupt parties!!! Most of the American people will never learn!!
Both of these comments go to the nub of the challenge. It was said that the reason the Clinton proposal failed fourteen years ago was that Congress was left out. Central to Obama's approach was tossing Congress an assignment with broad outlines and few specifics. He assigned Congress to the heavy political lifting while he stands to the side cheering, coaching and occasionally complaining. After all, he was in the legislative branch and knows first-hand how sticky the politics can be.
ReplyDeleteIt is a clever strategy. With no specifics no one can point to anything specific to complain about. That's why all we hear by way of complaining is generic bitching. It's easy to blame the president but hard to attack a fellow Congressman, even from another party, because you never know when you might need a favor.
It's one of the weaknesses of our system. Anything sticky gets tossed to the states. Federal legislation only comes when a truly national political will has reached critical mass.
I read an insightful post by Matthew Holt at The Health Care Blog that argued, in effect, that we still may have to wait until the problem gets even worse for action to take place at the national level.
...universal coverage systems find that they can�t just let the health care system increase costs because there is no safety valve of the uninsured to dump out of the system. We�re all in it.
That�s actually been fine with the American health care system in aggregate�if you can increase prices (costs) and have relatively inelastic demand, you�ll find that enough people stay paying into the system that the total amount paid in goes up. That�s the story of the last 40 years as we�ve gone from 5% of GDP on health care to 16%.
Of course that price increase screws the people on the margins who get tossed out. And eventually that number becomes more and more people.
However, my guess is that not enough people are on the margins suffering to cause really serious sustainable insurance coverage reform. And I said as much more than two years ago when I said we should wait for it to get worse.
He then quotes from a prescient post he put up some time ago saying, in effect, matters must get worse for the political will to reach critical mass. When enough people are dropped from the system by circumstances or unaffordable costs their elected representatives will be more responsive.
The current economic crisis may work in favor of reform. By Labor Day enough additional people will have lost health insurance to be screaming in town hall meetings louder than the birthers and teabags set.