America is Not Ungovernable

[raider.adam]

I thought this was a good article from RCP's Horse Race Blog.

Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America's "political instability" was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem.

Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - America is Not Ungovernable

Whether you agree or not, it is well worth the read.

[Melrose]

The President should have recognized this, and governed with a view to building a broad coalition. But he has not.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

[Bulworth67]

Yes an interesting read. The problem with the argument is his central premise that these signature bills are liberal.
There is nothing liberal about the health care reform bill (crafted with the agreement of pharmaceutical companies and with support from the AARP and AMA)-lacking a public option or any form of a government plan-the bill was heavily favored toward insurance companies that their stock went UP after the Senate passed it's bill. Even Scott Brown-the GOP's new hero-voted for many elements of the bill when his state passed universal health care
With regard to cap-and-trade-it is actually legislation that incorporates market principles. It's a good concept-those who pollute our environment pay more-because we have to clean up after them. It's origins were actually bipartisan-many GOPers supported this concept in the early going before a democrat was in the White House. Companies can buy rights to pollute and sell them on the open market. It's a lot different than an across the board cap. Now that would be liberal legislation.
The elephant in the room is public interest money. Centrist democrats who held up the health care reform were leading receivers of health insurance lobbying money (Exhibit A Joe Lieberman). I'm sure there are similar statistics for cap and trade.

If the legislation were truly liberal he might have a point. But they're not. Liberal groups were so disappointed with the weakness of the health care legislation even they were rallying against it.

No the GOP is committed to delivering Obama his Waterloo. There is no interest in bipartisan compromise in the minority party.

[Melrose]

The only recourse the Republicans had was the First Amendment.

...and their absolutely unwavering "nay" votes on every initiative. Pffft to the "not obstructionist."

[seand]

Republican SC Senator James DeMint

"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he sai

Health reform foes plan Obama's 'Waterloo' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Sounds like the game plan. Say anything ethical or not, truthful or not to stop debate on just about anything. Sabotage the nation and economic recovery out of spite for a loss in the '08 election. Hope people are pissed off enough to not notice the blatant obstructionism in 2010. So far seems to be working.

Meanwhile consistency is not turning out to be a stong point for Republicans in the Senate.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

Acording to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:

- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.

- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal."

Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks | TPMDC

[thunda]

I thought this was a good article from RCP's Horse Race Blog.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - America is Not Ungovernable

Whether you agree or not, it is well worth the read.

Adam, this article was absolute trash. I'm disappointed you even bothered to post it.

[raider.adam]

Yes an interesting read. The problem with the argument is his central premise that these signature bills are liberal.
There is nothing liberal about the health care reform bill (crafted with the agreement of pharmaceutical companies and with support from the AARP and AMA)-lacking a public option or any form of a government plan-the bill was heavily favored toward insurance companies that their stock went UP after the Senate passed it's bill. Even Scott Brown-the GOP's new hero-voted for many elements of the bill when his state passed universal health care
With regard to cap-and-trade-it is actually legislation that incorporates market principles. It's a good concept-those who pollute our environment pay more-because we have to clean up after them. It's origins were actually bipartisan-many GOPers supported this concept in the early going before a democrat was in the White House. Companies can buy rights to pollute and sell them on the open market. It's a lot different than an across the board cap. Now that would be liberal legislation.
The elephant in the room is public interest money. Centrist democrats who held up the health care reform were leading receivers of health insurance lobbying money (Exhibit A Joe Lieberman). I'm sure there are similar statistics for cap and trade.

If the legislation were truly liberal he might have a point. But they're not. Liberal groups were so disappointed with the weakness of the health care legislation even they were rallying against it.

No the GOP is committed to delivering Obama his Waterloo. There is no interest in bipartisan compromise in the minority party.

So you are ultimately saying the problem is that the Democrats are failing because insurance companies bought off centrist democrats to vote no/hold up bills that you yourself said the insurance companies were benefiting from?

[raider.adam]

Republican SC Senator James DeMint

Health reform foes plan Obama's 'Waterloo' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Sounds like the game plan. Say anything ethical or not, truthful or not to stop debate on just about anything. Sabotage the nation and economic recovery out of spite for a loss in the '08 election. Hope people are pissed off enough to not notice the blatant obstructionism in 2010. So far seems to be working.

But again, as mentioned, no Republican votes are needed. The problem is the lack of support from Democrats.

Meanwhile consistency is not turning out to be a stong point for Republicans in the Senate.

Yeah it is dumb he is holding up nominations for earmarks. I think it is pathetic.

[StrangeTanks]

I have to agree whole heartedly with Bulworth here.

I think we're in a transitional time period here with the increasing availability of information and the ease of offering opinions in various formats.

The problem as I see it is public opinion running headlong into business as usual politics. In my opinion, the public is increasingly realizing that the policy makers don't have their best interests in mind.

The health care reform is a good example. Everyone agrees that we have a broken system in some fashion. The problem becomes, who can we trust to fix it? Time and time again the federal government has displayed gross mismanagement.

Cap and trade is a good example of an up and coming failure of the government. On the surface, great idea, who wouldn't want a plan in place to reduce emissions? But if you dig a little deeper...carbon credits suddenly become a new commodity. Is it a commodity that employs people? That creates a tangible asset or product? No, its basically a fictional device designed to shuffle money around. Trading carbon credits is predicted to become a 2 trillion dollar a year industry. Who's going to be in charge of buying and selling those credits? Goldman Sachs.

No wonder people don't trust government to do anything. We're praying for a solution, they are busy lining their own pockets. The overall loss of trust is the real problem not partisan politics.

[raider.adam]

I have to agree whole heartedly with Bulworth here.

I think we're in a transitional time period here with the increasing availability of information and the ease of offering opinions in various formats.

The problem as I see it is public opinion running headlong into business as usual politics. In my opinion, the public is increasingly realizing that the policy makers don't have their best interests in mind.

The health care reform is a good example. Everyone agrees that we have a broken system in some fashion. The problem becomes, who can we trust to fix it? Time and time again the federal government has displayed gross mismanagement.

Cap and trade is a good example of an up and coming failure of the government. On the surface, great idea, who wouldn't want a plan in place to reduce emissions? But if you dig a little deeper...carbon credits suddenly become a new commodity. Is it a commodity that employs people? That creates a tangible asset or product? No, its basically a fictional device designed to shuffle money around. Trading carbon credits is predicted to become a 2 trillion dollar a year industry. Who's going to be in charge of buying and selling those credits? Goldman Sachs.

No wonder people don't trust government to do anything. We're praying for a solution, they are busy lining their own pockets. The overall loss of trust is the real problem not partisan politics.

I am not sure how that agrees with Bullworth.

[Templeton]

But again, as mentioned, no Republican votes are needed. The problem is the lack of support from Democrats.



Yeah it is dumb he is holding up nominations for earmarks. I think it is pathetic.

Actually Adam, Republican votes are needed. Last I heard, they are still part of the legislative process. They were elected to do something. As anti-health care Republicans are quick to point out, no major piece of legislation has ever passed on a party line vote. I can't recall any bills passed under Bush that didn't get a few (conservative at least) Democrats to sign on to. If you force the other party to do it all on the party line, then those one or two last members can hold the entire bill hostage (see Nelson, Baucus, Landrieu). A few Republican moderates would have made their blackmail impossible.

Now, you can argue that you're happy it didn't pass, but to blame it all on the Democrats is to ignore the history of the Senate.

[Bulworth67]

So you are ultimately saying the problem is that the Democrats are failing because insurance companies bought off centrist democrats to vote no/hold up bills that you yourself said the insurance companies were benefiting from?

No-its way more complex than that. Big Pharma definitely did not lobby against as the cut a deal with Obama. Big Insurance definitely lobbied centrist democrats heavily to kill the public option in both chambers.

Insurance companies want the additional insureds-but not real reform. So the market responded when it found out they were getting more customers.

As far as the democrats failing-I need more time to type those reasons then I have right now. They are not blameless-as you know I have said this-but the main reason is GOP and other interests shameless demagoguery of the bills (townhall nonsense)-which was bought by an ill-informed public-and the Pres and the Dems failure to respond adequately and forcefully.

[sometimesilie]

"And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem."

I agree with Mr. Cohen in a broad, vastly oversimplified way.

I know one thing I'm sick of is the Us vs. Them mentality of the R's and D's.

When I used to still speak to people about politics it never ceased to (literally) astound me that in promulgating one opinion on one subject how often another person with a differing position on whatever we were talking about- Canadians, for example- would then extrapolate what my position was on any given subject and proceed to attempt to lecture me on why I was wrong and why all the representatives from "my" (perceived) political party were traitors to America.

[raider.adam]

"And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem."

I agree with Mr. Cohen in a broad, vastly oversimplified way.

I know one thing I'm sick of is the Us vs. Them mentality of the R's and D's.

When I used to still speak to people about politics it never ceased to (literally) astound me that in promulgating one opinion on one subject how often another person with a differing position on whatever we were talking about- Canadians, for example- would then extrapolate what my position was on any given subject and proceed to attempt to lecture me on why I was wrong and why all the representatives from "my" (perceived) political party were traitors to America.

You hit one of my biggest gripes on the head and that is something that happens here all the time.

[philly_kid]

I thought this was a good article from RCP's Horse Race Blog.



RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - America is Not Ungovernable

Whether you agree or not, it is well worth the read.

Jay Cost usually has some good points in his articles, but as he mentions in his Bio, he's a conservative Republican who has always believed that Obama would be a bad President.

I wouldn't say this article is great for a number of reasons. First, he states that there has to be broad consensus to do anything. Given the current political polarization, I don't see either side having broad consensus to do anything. Most of the GOP, for example, have taken pledges not to raise any kind of tax. So any package of budget cuts and tax increases cannot pass with broad consensus. Members and senators who supported creating a commission to develop a budget strategy, and even co-sponsored such a measure, have just voted against it. When the stated strategy is to bring down the President via stalling his initiatives, I don't see how you can get a broad consensus. I see the Democrats doing the same to the GOP, by the way, as when the GOP had to use reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. YOu just can't blame Obama for not being able to get broad consensus on these issues.

Next, he blames Obama for allowing Pelosi and Reid to run the bills in Congress. The last couple of Dem. Presidents who thought they could ram stuff through a Dem. congress were Clinton and Carter. Didn't work for them, wouldn't work for Obama. I can hear it now, "this guy is so vain, he thinks he knows everything...where is the humility?" Talking about liberal committee chairs - hello, liberal would have been single payer, and Max Baucus is a liberal? I don't get that argument either.

Obviously HC didn't work as intended and someone deserves blame. Obama deserves it. I'm not sure what he could have done differently, maybe not taken it on and done something else? Maybe not let the misinformation spread w/o rebuttal? Maybe rushed through faster so that votes would have been taken where there was more public support earlier in the term? Maybe never thinking he might be able to get GOP votes?

In any case, I disagree that any President will be able to get broad consensus on his/her policies anytime soon.

[raider.adam]

Jay Cost usually has some good points in his articles, but as he mentions in his Bio, he's a conservative Republican who has always believed that Obama would be a bad President.

I wouldn't say this article is great for a number of reasons. First, he states that there has to be broad consensus to do anything. Given the current political polarization, I don't see either side having broad consensus to do anything. Most of the GOP, for example, have taken pledges not to raise any kind of tax. So any package of budget cuts and tax increases cannot pass with broad consensus. Members and senators who supported creating a commission to develop a budget strategy, and even co-sponsored such a measure, have just voted against it. When the stated strategy is to bring down the President via stalling his initiatives, I don't see how you can get a broad consensus. I see the Democrats doing the same to the GOP, by the way, as when the GOP had to use reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. YOu just can't blame Obama for not being able to get broad consensus on these issues.

Next, he blames Obama for allowing Pelosi and Reid to run the bills in Congress. The last couple of Dem. Presidents who thought they could ram stuff through a Dem. congress where Clinton and Carter. Didn't work for them, wouldn't work for Obama. I can hear it now, "this guy is so vain, he thinks he knows everything...where is the humility?" Talking about liberal committee chairs - hello, liberal would have been single payer, and Max Baucus is a liberal? I don't get that argument either.

Obviously HC didn't work as intended and someone deserves blame. Obama deserves it. I'm not sure what he could have done differently, maybe not taken it on and done something else? Maybe not let the misinformation spread w/o rebuttal? Maybe rushed through faster so that votes would have been taken where there was more public support earlier in the term? Maybe never thinking he might be able to get GOP votes?

In any case, I disagree that any President will be able to get broad consensus on his/her policies anytime soon.

I agree all the blame doesn't go on Obama. Always plenty of people involved to make a mess of things.

I have noticed a relatively common thread in much of the discussion. It is almost assumed that the proposed HC bill should have passed if it wasn't just mishandled. It doesn't seem to be considered a possibility that it is just a bad bill and that the process is actually working as intended.

I think that is what the point of the article is - that large and encompassing legislative movements are hard to do unless there is clear support from most quarters.

So, on that point I think it may not be fair to blame Obama for not getting it passed because there is a possibility that no matter what he did it may not have passed. As mentioned, it was tried one way and another and didn't get done.

Isn't that the more telling data?

[philly_kid]

I agree all the blame doesn't go on Obama. Always plenty of people involved to make a mess of things.

I have noticed a relatively common thread in much of the discussion. It is almost assumed that the proposed HC bill should have passed if it wasn't just mishandled. It doesn't seem to be considered a possibility that it is just a bad bill and that the process is actually working as intended.

I think that is what the point of the article is - that large and encompassing legislative movements are hard to do unless there is clear support from most quarters.

So, on that point I think it may not be fair to blame Obama for not getting it passed because there is a possibility that no matter what he did it may not have passed. As mentioned, it was tried one way and another and didn't get done.

Isn't that the more telling data?

Well, we don't know what would have happened if a very basic bill was proposed. There may or may not have been GOP support. Also, Obama was elected on the basis of getting things done, meeting challenges without being ideological. I believe the Senate bill is a practical version of a large health care bill. The fact that you think it's extreme and to the left and the left thinks it's too far to the right, leads me to believe it's a barely left of center bill.

Also, I believe you would agree that a very simple bill is not so simple. Would you support a bill that only required portability and accepting pre-existing conditions? That would raise everyone's premiums cost's correct? Would that be popular?

Look at Sotomayor, a moderately liberal Supreme Court nominee who had support of prosecutors. This should have been a slam dunk. Instead, what did we get? 9 GOP votes. I think that's an indication that even with a good product, you can't get support.

[Illiniwek]

The White House and the congressional Democrats had -- until Scott Brown took his Senate seat -- the largest majorities in decades. They now have the second largest majorities in decades.

The Republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority when Bush got his key agenda items through. Other than the legislation that cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate, all of Clinton's legislative achievements came while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Reagan moved his agenda despite the active opposition of the House majority.

Obama has chosen the wrong priorities at the wrong time, stepped all over his message and appointed the wrong people (starting with Emanuel) to guide his legislation through Congress. Obama never put together a major piece of legislation -- in the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate -- from conception to enactment. That inexperience shows. He doesn't take advantage of Biden, who may be a gaffe machine, but he also knows how to get a bill through the Senate. (Speaking of stepping all over his message, note that a week after the "pivot" to jobs, the White House message is still all over the place.)

Obama has intervened unwisely in the NJ, VA and Mass elections without success, demonstrating that neither Republicans nor Democrats have anything to fear from him. A special election for Murtha's seat may further ratify that impotence in the minds of other politicians for whom he will be all carrot and no stick.

I'm generally not a fan of filibusters delaying appointments, and I think the Senate should do away with anonymous holds. But even without the filibuster, I suspect Obama's agenda would still be in bad shape. Obama's problem isn't a matter of procedure. It is bad timing, bad strategy and bad execution

[raider.adam]

Well, we don't know what would have happened if a very basic bill was proposed. There may or may not have been GOP support. Also, Obama was elected on the basis of getting things done, meeting challenges without being ideological. I believe the Senate bill is a practical version of a large health care bill. The fact that you think it's extreme and to the left and the left thinks it's too far to the right, leads me to believe it's a barely left of center bill.

Also, I believe you would agree that a very simple bill is not so simple. Would you support a bill that only required portability and accepting pre-existing conditions? That would raise everyone's premiums cost's correct? Would that be popular?

Look at Sotomayor, a moderately liberal Supreme Court nominee who had support of prosecutors. This should have been a slam dunk. Instead, what did we get? 9 GOP votes. I think that's an indication that even with a good product, you can't get support.

I never said the bill was extreme or "to the left". I have always discussed the policy itself and not pigeonholed it. In fact I am in favor of some "extreme" reform, just not what is proposed.

And yes I would support a bill that increased portability. I am also in favor of pre-existing condition acceptance as long as there are some requirements so as to close some loopholes that abuse the system. I am also more than happy to discuss these specific topics as well.

I also agree that doing holds on nominations is bad procedure (and I have been on the record repeatedly saying that).

As far as Obama being elected on "getting things done", then people didn't do their due diligence. He has no track record of that.

[philly_kid]

I never said the bill was extreme or "to the left". I have always discussed the policy itself and not pigeonholed it. In fact I am in favor of some "extreme" reform, just not what is proposed.

And yes I would support a bill that increased portability. I am also in favor of pre-existing condition acceptance as long as there are some requirements so as to close some loopholes that abuse the system. I am also more than happy to discuss these specific topics as well.

I also agree that doing holds on nominations is bad procedure (and I have been on the record repeatedly saying that).

As far as Obama being elected on "getting things done", then people didn't do their due diligence. He has no track record of that.

Adam, sorry if I mischaracterized any of your positions. I remember you talking about the HC policies with a lot more knowledge than I.

Let me try again. The article's main point, which I believe you echoed, is that it takes broad support to pass anything big. My point is that there is no such thing as broad support right now. My point about Sotomayor wasn't about holding up nominations per se, it's that it represents the fact that you can't get broad support on a no-brainer issue like Sotomayor. If you can't get (GOP) Senators to support their own bill (budget commission) when the Dems bring it to a vote, what can you get?

I believe it was Jay Cost who described the HC bill as built from the left by the liberal committee chairs. Perhaps this bill could never pass, but one reason why it hasn't is that it has been described, unfairly but with success, as crazy communist. My point is that bill has support of major sections of industry - AMA, drug companies, AARP, which leads me to believe that the bill targets a wide-ranging moderate chunk of the country. IMO the zero votes from the GOP says more about them that it does about the broad appeal of the legislation. I disagree that if only the bill was more moderate or broadly appealing it would get GOP votes.

Of course I could be wrong. If for example, all the bill contained was portability and allowed pre-existing conditions, the GOP might vote for it. I'm curious, because I don't know a lot about it, but wouldn't this increase premiums for most Americans? Would that be what people want out of a HC bill? Would that do anything to reduce the overall costs of healthcare?