Month: February 2010

Jay Cost blames Obama for legislative impasses:

It's easy to blame the Senate for inactivity – but the problem is the House. It has consistently passed legislation that is too far to the left for the Senate and the country. Ultimate responsibility rests with the President, whose expressed indifference toward policy details has allowed the more vigorous House Democrats, led by an extraordinarily vigorous Speaker, to dominate. That the President consistently praised the House and blamed the Senate in his State of the Union address suggests that he remains unaware of this problem.

Has Jay Cost heard of the filibuster that doesn't even filibuster and a legislative strategy of zero cooperation from the GOP from the very first week? Without those, healthcare reform and climate change legislation would be passed by now. But I get the sense that Obama is adjusting fast.

Is Obama maneuvering to get a more conservative health reform bill passed – with his customary calm, bipartisan brand? Sargent wonders what it all means. Ezra notes how many Republican-backed ideas are already in the plan. Marcy Wheeler suspects:

For some time, the White House’s efforts to pass the excise tax barely hid their underlying objective to eliminate tax breaks for employer provided health insurance. So while this is entirely speculative, I do wonder whether Obama is trying to use Republicans to either justify a switch to a different plan, eliminating the tax break, or at the very least, to build pressure for the policy among Democrats.

That might encourage some who are fine with a more moderate bill. I find it all encouraging. I think it shows that Obama is going to keep revealing just how centrist and sensible much of the Senate bill is, move away from ideological histrionics toward specifics and use this process as a way to call Republicans' bluff and Democratic purism in the House as well as explain to the public what is actually in the bill (hint: not socialism).

I should repeat that this is not my ideal health bill; but I do believe that the injustices and cruelties of the current system must not be allowed to continue, that the cost-control measures within it are vital to finding a way to save our fiscal future, and – more importantly – that the blow failure would strike to the entire concept of a workable democratic system would be a boon to cynicism, which rewards the worst and not the best in ourselves.

I opposed the Clinton plan because it was far to the left of this one. I backed the Cooper plan all those years ago because of it. We will not get this chance again, and if we can do it by adding some more good Republican ideas – over and above the many that are already in the bill – that can only help. 

Politically, it seems to me that for independent voters, it's in the interests of the GOP to show they are not merely obstructionist and in the interests of the House Democrats that they are not mere purists. I know I may be being naive here. But if we cannot be naive from time to time in trying to improve the lives – and even save the lives – of our fellow citizens, what point is there in all of this?

(Image: Jake Lewis)

Yep: that really is illuminating. One might imagine that no one would be able to compete with Ron Paul's small government credentials, his resistance to almost any government spending, and his uniquely consistent fiscal conservatism. But the Dallas Morning News (hat tip: Weigel) reports he has three "Tea Party" primary challengers. Three. Paul, remember, was by some measures the first Tea Partier, raising a vast amount of money for his presidential campaign online on the 234th anniversary of the original Tea-Party.

But he doesn't measure up any more:

John Gay, Paul's third opponent, said he has attended several Tea Parties and related meetings. Both Wall, a machine supervisor, and Graney, a former small-business owner, have helped organize local rallies.

Tea Party associations aside, many of the challengers' criticisms echo concerns of Paul's past opponents: that he is too focused on his national ambitions; that his views are too extreme; that he doesn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; that he votes "no" on everything, including federal aid for his district after Hurricane Ike.

So these tea-partiers want more federal aid, and support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you believe for a second that they are real fiscal conservatives, you're hallucinating.

That is what Dan Ariely's research suggests:

We've recently gathered evidence suggesting that dangling exorbitant sums of money in front of workers doesn't improve performance. If anything, it negatively affects it. It could be true that the spectre of windfalls will increase activity. If I offered you a £1 million bonus for exceptional performance, you might work more hours and check Facebook less. But would your input be more thoughtful? More creative? Would you be more likely to tap your full-brain potential? Doing more doesn't equal doing better.

The Economist's Lexington highlights a bill:

[Maria Cantwell, the junior senator from Washington state] is pushing a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”. Under her bill, the government would impose a ceiling on carbon emissions each year. Producers and importers of fossil fuels will have to buy permits. The permits would be auctioned, raising vast sums of money. Most of that money would be divided evenly among all Americans. The bill would raise energy prices, of course, and therefore the price of everything that requires energy to make or distribute. But a family of four would receive perhaps $1000 a year, which would more than make up for it, reckons Ms Cantwell. Cap-and-dividend would set a price on carbon, thus giving Americans a powerful incentive to burn less dirty fuel. It would also raise the rewards for investing in clean energy. And it would leave all but the richest 20% of Americans—who use the most energy—materially better off, she says.

Lexington worries that "a simple bill that doesn't bribe every clamouring interest group is going to have a hard time getting through Congress." That's becoming a universal theme, isn't it, made more obvious rather than less by Obama's first year. Special interests run the Congress which runs the country. The notion of citizens voting for specific goals for the public good and having their representatives debate them in good faith and vote on them … well, it seems positively surreal, doesn't it?

 Via Economix, a pie chart on where Americans volunteer (click for full size).

Larison urges the GOP to stay sober:

The danger of overconfidence regarding the midterm results is not just that it can make the GOP complacent, arrogant and deaf to the real concerns of voters. It creates unduly high expectations that will make even an average or decent election result seem more like a defeat. The more the GOP hypes its chances of retaking one or both houses this year, the more devastating the failure to do so will be. After GOP-friendly analysts and pundits have been telling the tale of 1974 or 1994-style losses for the presidential party all year, modest gains will make it feel as if the election is a third straight repudiation of Republicans, because their leaders will have made the election a referendum on their readiness to be in the majority rather than a referendum on the administration.

Today on the Dish, Cohn and others reacted to the news of Obama's HCR summit (just as his support among Independents was slipping). Andrew countered the claim of fiscal conservatism among the tea-partiers, called out the crazy side of the Tea Party movement, and took another look at Palin's convention speech. He also highlighted another bit of odd evidence related to her pregnancy. Frum and DiA scrutinized her speech, NIAC confronted her Iran rhetoric, and Continetti still had starbursts. Samberg pwned Palin and the Dems. Weekend recap here.

In other coverage, Douthat examined Paul Ryan's sensible plan for fiscal reform, Andrew sounded off on the Hoyt-Keller spat over Ethan Bronner, and a reader challenged Totten over The Hurt Locker. Ana Marie Cox took on Rich Lowry over DADT while FNC displayed some admirable opposition to the policy. Jane Mayer, backed by Horton, put the spotlight on Rahm Emmanuel over torture policy. We highlighted the right way to interrogate. And there was a shocking report of an American soldier waterboarding his own daughter.

Green Movement update here. Recession update here. Images from the snowpocalypse here and here. Creepy ad here. Another children's masterpiece from Herzog here.

— C.B.