by Teh Nutroots | Krugman's op-ed is here. Among much else, he asks:
Stirling Newberry has an answer: "Memo to Paul: Because he is a Freepucking Uckpublican."
One of my colleagues, who has the same concern, has frequently pointed out that if Obama really wants to make a lasting change, there's no time like the present. Newberry -- much more trenchantly and (let us pray) possibly most unfairly -- argues that the Dems have picked their most
1. Middle class tax cut (check)
2. War in Afghanistan (escalating!)
3. Slash Social Security and Medicare (summit on "entitlement reform" coming soon!)
Obama is what the Village wanted Bush to be, a "compassionate conservative." He's a Republican who doesn't hate gay people any more than is absolutely necessary for political purposes. Thus he can give on things like torture, Gitmo, the global gag rule, that is: money for contraception in other countries, just not in the US. The little things buy liberal love: equal pay, some union gifts. These small things get liberal votes for continuing to dismantle the New Deal.
In fact, Obama has already taken his steps on health care: computerize records, SCHIPS, and preparing to slash Medicare. What does this amount to? First the compassionate part: "cover the kids." The party line is that universalization will happen in steps. We covered the old people, we cover the kids, and it will get to everyone. Now we covered the old people in 1965, we passed SCHIPS this year. At this rate America will have universal health coverage around the same time as Nepal or the Congo.
But the real result of this is to put everyone in the system, so that a mandate will be able to find them. Their kids will be covered, their records will be on file, and they won't be able to get medicaid and medicare without paying in.
That's The Plan Paul: force everyone to pay in, so that any damage to insurance company profits is completely impossible. (The Agonist)
Newberry argues that Obama is never going to give liberals what they want because he doesn't think like a liberal, but like the sort of "sensible liberal" who during the last eight years demonstrated repeatedly that Republicans aren't in the business of negotiating with liberals, sensible or not:
Obama is...not a progressive... [I]n terms of governing method, Obama is a top downer. That means a few guys make decisions, and then they figure out how to sell them. They want information from the bottom, but they don't change direction based on an interactive sense of the bottom. This top down style is all 20th century. Obama's world has no room for any center of power but Obama. It is about control. He's just willing to use new tools to get that control, and he spends more money on them.. (The Agonist)..
Newberry makes the same arguments I've heard from my colleague.
Obama is a one termer, because the Republican Party will never go along with sensible policies, and Obama is going to erode his own political base. Obama is like the invasion of Iraq: almost no one has the guts to defy him from his own side, and yet privately, many people are angry at how far to the right he has run. This hasn't shown up in polling yet, but it is waiting for his first major stumble. It comes out when he shafts some group on some small thing, like contraception for poor women in the stimulus bill.
The other reality is that while people want Obama to work out, they don't like his actual policies. The support for escalation in Afghanistan, is poor, and almost non-existent among the young. The support for his version of health care, ranks below other ideas. The support for his "middle class tax cut" is also thin and below more spending. Taken individually Obama is a 51% President at best - and that is where his approval number will reach at the cross roads some 3 years from now, because basically, that's what happens to almost every President.
At that point, the bad decisions he is making now, with the resurgence of TARP - that is the government taking on toxic assets - will haunt him. I remember you talking about the idiocy of the theory behind buying up toxic waste on the taxpayer dime. Or lack of theory more exactly. Well there it is.
The most important principle of Obama is "no rich people shall come to harm." Sure they have to give up some bonuses and private jets, but everyone who was in charge, will stay in charge. The people, get the responsibility and the sacrifice, and the loose change from the bankers as they stride boldly to their jobs. (The Agonist)
Is Newberry right? Krugman ends his piece with this:
One more thing. There’s a populist rage building in this country, as Americans see bankers getting huge bailouts while ordinary citizens suffer.
I agree with administration officials who argue that these financial bailouts are necessary (though I have problems with the specifics). But I also agree with Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who argues that — as a matter of political necessity as well as social justice — aid to bankers has to be linked to a strengthening of the social safety net, so that Americans can see that the government is ready to help everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
Memeorandum: more blogger talk.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
House Judiciary Subpoenas Rove, Kudos to Conyers for Staying Focused on Accountability
House Passes Stimulus Bill, No Republicans Voted for It, and Why That's No Surprise
Director of National Intelligence Resigns
Citigroup Caves to Pressure Over Luxury Jet but Should Cut Executive Pay to Save Company and Jobs
Obama Begins Chipping Away at Bush Administration's Environmental Policies
And the Walls of Mordor Come A-Tumbling Down: Vice President's Residence Reappears on Google Maps
Bush is Gone, But We'll Still Have Kristol to Kick Around: Kristol Moves On...to The Washington Post
Citigroup Execs Want to Buy Luxury Jet Instead of Saving Jobs
Krugman Refutes GOP's Specious Arguments for Bush-Style Corporate Tax Cuts
There are proposals to enhance COBRA being considered in Washington. One of the more interesting ones would allow workers who have been on a job at least ten years to continued their health insurance under COBRA until they reach the age of 65, however long that might take.
Posted by: jobseeker | February 01, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Is Obama chocking on his promises to the middle class? How can a Democratic President and Democratic Senate be stumped by a Republican house? I voted for Obama, but now I'm thinking that we needed a Bush-like democrat who takes charge and doesn't give in to the other side. I'm re-thinking my vote for Obama.
Posted by: FADillon | August 01, 2011 at 08:36 PM