This Health Reform Bill Is Political Suicide

by: DaveJ

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40


Back in July I wrote here, in Democrats Had Better Find Hiding Places

I said it the other day, and I feel the need to repeat it: the public does not yet understand that the government is about to order people to buy health insurance, with their own money.  Yes, the government is about to order people to cough up hundreds of dollars a month each.

When the Republicans start using their toxic message-machine magic on this, and the public starts to understand that they are being ordered by the government to cough up a huge amount of money every month, Democrats had better have good hiding places, because things are going to get really bad out there.

This is the kind of policy that results when "centrist" Democrats give in to to the demands of Republicans and big corporations and the top 1% of the wealthy.  Instead of just taxing the wealthy and corporations at reasonable rates and using the money to provide We, the People with health care -- thereby vastly improving the economy for ... the wealthy and big corporations -- they instead come up with a scheme to order regular people to pay for health insurance because they don't already have it because they can't afford it.

Now it is December and the current health care reform bill orders everyone to buy very expensive insurance from the big corporations, with no public option and no Medicare buy-in.  Even if you are in the income range where you receive subsidies you have to pay "only" 9 or 10% of your income, at a time when people are runnng up credit cards just to get by as it is.  That is with the subsidies.  Above that level you pay more.

The public hasn't really tuned into this yet, but if this passes and Republicans start working their toxic magic (with of course little or no organized effort by Dems to counter their lies and sell it to the public) I expect this will be as unppular as Bush's bailout of the big financial firms, which the Republicans have largely engineered the public into thinking was Obama's, just as they did with the Bush deficits.

So I think that when all these factors come into play for the next election, passing this will turn out to be suicide for the Democrats who hold office.  They don't see that because at this point are in a mindset that the public wants them to just get it over with and pass anything.

But this is bad beyond just the next election.  

DaveJ :: This Health Reform Bill Is Political Suicide
Here is the larger problem: the public is going to judge US - progressives, liberals, Democrats, etc. - based on what these clucks pass.

This health "reform" bill plays right into decades of conservative/corporate propaganda about liberals and their policies - and government in general.  Republicans will sell it as "big government ordering you around and reaching into your pocket" and the corporate media will echo that until everyone sees it that way.  There won't be a word explaining that this money actually goes to big corporations, it will be about everyone losing the insurance they have and how people will soon be paying big money to  a "government insurance bureaucracy."  (Are we going to counter this by saying, "well, no, actually it goes to big corporations not government"?)

And, frankly, why should the public ever again listen to anyone left of John McCain after this, if this is what happens when Democrats get power?  It is just wrong to use that power to order everyone to shell out a huge amount of money - while Wall Street hands out billions of taxpayer dollars as bonuses. They will be portrayed as confirming what the right has been saying about "liberals" they use the power of the state to order people to follow elitist schemes - which is exactly what this is, a scheme where elite people with power decide what is good for the rest of us - mandates are important because you can't cover pre-existing without them, etc.  THIS is where a President is supposed to be a leader come in and insist on broader guidelines with a veto threat.

What I am most afraid of is what will happen when Republicans start making up shit about what passed, while people feel no immediate benefit.  It doesn't take effect right away so it will just be this looming, terrifying, expensive "big government" program coming at people in a few years that is going to cost everyone a lot of  money and ruin our health care system.  Without sufficient immediate benefits that people feel, on the  scale of free insurance for everyone, the Republicans will have lots of time to just make up shit about what is coming if they don't vote for Republicans so they can repeal it.  

Unless you're pretty sure that Repubilcans wouldn't do that, wouldn't just make shit up to scare people.  If you're like Senate Democrats who seem to think that, don't worry about this.

Here is what I am talking about.  Last night I was driving and heard on the radio that there will be a 15-year jail term if you don't buy this government insurance.  The announcer also said the bill bans things like Snickers bars, and that there is funding in the bill for government to come in and check your house for unhealthy food, as the liberals define it.

That is what I heard on the radio last night.  This is what's out there now -- just the beginning of the 2010 election mantra.  

And what are we going to do, explain that it isn't a 15-year jail term, only a big fine?

The bigger picture - the sellout.

Isn't this mandate to buy insurance really just another form of privatization of a pubilc service?  In this case it is maintaining a privatization-by-refusing-to-provide.  Most other countries provide health care as a right - a core function of government.  But here privateers have seized it for themselves for profit.  So to maintain this, to keep taxes low for the rich and keep the profits privatized we are ordered to buy it from companies instead of having it provided as a government service. This is the battle between democracy and plutocracy.

If this bill is passed and signed (progressives can filibuster, too) it means that Democrats as a party have abdicated their role as defenders of democracy against the forces of organized wealth.

Wrap it up

I hate to say this but money flowing out of big corporations has outmaneuvered the public good once again.  If we don't pass a health care bill the Democrats have done little to show the public the value of showing up and electing Democrats: there is very high unemployment, no one has been held accountable for the crimes and corruption of the Bush years and Wall Street got and kept their bonuses after crashing the economy - $140 billion just this year.  But if we do pass this, the way it is, it's even worse.  And the joke is that this fix we're in is being engineered by a bunch of lobbyists!

So I'm with Chris,

I don't intend to help this bill pass.  If progressives get backstabbed by Lieberman and then ordered to cave at the finish line, then as far as I am concerned the White House has made its own bed with this.  They can try and pass the bill, but they are going to have to do it on their own.  I'm not helping.  In fact, I kind of just want to hang out in the tall grass for a while and plot my revenge.
But I am also trying to sound a warning, to wake up Democratic leadership and try to head off this disaster.  Pass a good bill, not an insurance lobbyist's dream.

Tell me again, why was "Medicare-For-All" off the table?  All of this complicated, 2000-page jumble of backroom deals and mandates and confusing formulas is to avoid just giving the people what they want - health care.  And the reason it was off the table was to avoid being called "socialst."  


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is probably the best post I've seen on this... (4.00 / 3)
Barring some kind of conference/reconciliation miracle, I'm probably (very) lightly on the side of passing something.  In some ways I'd rather take the chances that Democrats can defend it with things like "No pre-existing conditions" etc than accept the sure-thing electoral-wipe out of destroying it now.  I'm also not sure which option actually keeps things more open to actually improving things down the line (even if this is unlikely)... My guess is that if this is shut down we're done for at least another 8 years, and probably longer.  If we can get something done, maybe we have a chance of improving things if we can keep it alive.

And as you've said, this has been engineered.  I don't care how many progressive join together to kill this thing, if it's killed it will be a GOP/corporate/insurance win (and win, and win, and win in 2010 and beyond).

And before people get started on Democrats not being "progressives" anyway so who cares what happens in 2010, well.. yeah, I get that.. but I'm sorry, electing more Republicans, especially in landslide proportions, will not benefit progressives.  A majority of Senate Democrats, even more than 50 of them, seemingly want to do the right thing.  This is a failure of leadership to give what a majority of Democrats, the Senate, House, and in the end, the American people, what they want.  Pelosi got it done in the House, Reid and ultimately Obama have not been able to pull it off in the Senate, despite there being several more options on the table that they have yet to employ (the simplest and strangely the most inconceivably unused to just actually threaten Lieberman with his chair and caucus).  


At this point (4.00 / 1)
At this point I don't know if passing it or not passing it is worse for the next election - if it is what the current senate bill appears to be.

But down the road, which failure will be punished more?  

Failing to pass it builds the "Democrats can't get organized to get much done" narrative.  That is actually a good narrative for arguing that we need progressives instead of centrist/corporatist Dems.

Passing it validates the right's "Democrats and government are bad for you" narrative and could cost us a generation or worse.  Progressives would have to make the case against corporatism/conservatism from scratch with a new party.  

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Except... (4.00 / 1)
Polls still show that people still think that Democrats are "too liberal".  So I fail to see how killing it actually gives us a better "narrative" for "we need more progressives/liberals".

I'm just not sure on the second one... I'm not convinced that this argument would be any different even if it weren't passed.  Actually, it'd probably be the exact same... "Democrats wanted to THROW YOU IN JAIL for not having insurance, but we just barely stopped them.  Elect us or they'll succeed."

Democrats are going to have to figure out a way to defend the "Health Care Reform" that they worked on for months, whether it passes or not.  I think I'd rather them have to defend it when it's actually done, so that they can actually point to the positives that did get done, rather than the negatives that didn't.


[ Parent ]
Here is how (4.00 / 2)
Killing it takes the fight inside the party over getting better Dems, while we build infrastructure capable of reaching the public to overcome this propaganda against progressives.

If the bill isn't "coming down the pike" at people the wingnuts can say anything they want but the fear factor isn't there.  No one cares about "Dems tried to pass this" but they care if it is something that has passed and is on its way.

As I said, do we defend the charge that it has a 15-year jail term bu saying "no, it's only big fines"?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Corporate sponsorship is for players only (0.00 / 0)
With corporate-sponsored buses, it's easy to get several thousands of people to Washington.  Without, protests weren't even of a noteworthy size.

I strongly suspect that if the D party ever gets any populist momentum that the D party leadership can't shut down (and do not forget the D party elite has an extreme aversion to populism) will the money that funds the party structure shift to more "compliant, agreeable" hands?


[ Parent ]
I think "liberal" does translates to spineless weaklings.. (0.00 / 0)
Let's face it, that's the party's permanent tag: spineless weaklings.  We thought we shook it off, didn't we?

We could have had a really great bill out of the Senate. But Obama sat back and let good intentions begin to rot in Reid's old conniving pro-business hands.  
Only when a few progressive Senators started to improve on it and got the party and public pumped up a bit, did Obama finally intervene to demand not that Lieberman submit to this better bill or be stripped if he didn't support it.  No, he took a bizarre reverse course and demanded that the rest of the Senate bow down and submit to Lieberman's demands that the bill be stripped of it's carrots, and leave the public with nothing but sticks.

What did Joe give up? What compromises did Joe make.  Nothing and none.  
Why should he when if Harry Reid didn't kiss his ass, the President of the United States would.

That bill is a slimy piece of legislation we should trash and burn.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
How does passing this corporate boondoggle equate (0.00 / 0)
to Democrats being able to get something done - besides more corporate boondoggles.  

Instead of raising taxes on the rich, this is a tax on the middle class to pay for someone else's healthcare.  Here come the health care queens now.  Yeah, voters are gonna like that and rush right out to vote for Democrats.  

This is all their own fault.  None of the Democrats had the guts or integrity to stand up to Obama or the corporations.  If the Democrats lose, I don't care.  It is just too bad that it also means the Republicans will win.  People need to find a way to hold both parties accountable and throw the bums out.  How long are we going to play this game?
 


[ Parent ]
Revenge needs to be served up cold (4.00 / 1)
if it's killed it will be a GOP/corporate/insurance win (and win, and win, and win in 2010 and beyond

If it's not killed, it will be ... etc., etc., etc.

Pelosi got it done in the House???  You mean that bill containing the Stupak amendment?

There is an alternative to lining up for the slaughter ... again, or throwing everything to the Republicans.  It entails running in ALL the Democratic Congressional primaries in 2012.  It's doable, it's what every good Democratic should be doing (representing the Democratic base in the primaries) and it will get their attention in ways that all the yelling and screaming won't.

Revenge needs to be served up cold.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
I suspect Stupak... (0.00 / 0)
Won't survive, but I guess anything is possible at this point.

[ Parent ]
As Chris Bowers said about the Lieberman-enablers ... (4.00 / 3)
We have to go after the Stupak-enablers as well.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
They lie like hell. (4.00 / 1)
Look at Grayson.  After all of his huffing and puffing and money bombs, he's kowtowing to the party line.  They can't be trusted.  How many times do they need to demostrate that before we believe it?

[ Parent ]
Don't forget the Supreme Court (0.00 / 0)
You can carry on about standing back and letting Demos lose in the next election (and, as a result, the 2012 Presidential election).  Don't ever forget that, within the 5-8 years, some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court will retire.  Do we want Republicans in power to appoint even more conservative and backward justices?  Or, do we want to be in a position to influence the composition of the court in a more people-centric direction?  Say what you will, it is the Court which has been greatly responsible for the problems we now face.

[ Parent ]
Amen! (4.00 / 7)
If I were a teabagger right now, I would be drooling at the target-rich environment that is now developing.  The tragedy is that SOME of the teabaggers are people just like me -- afraid of what the government is going to do to me with this bill.  I'm not a teabagger because this movement has fascist leadership, and a large fascist following.

But progressives have failed to contend for what should be a part of their base, angry, working-class, populist.  Instead, they did their back-room maneuverings which Lux and Bowers are now admitting has turned out rather poorly, and here we are, flat on our backs.

The Democrats are feeding us to the fascists.  We have to stop yelling at them, since that yelling has already been factored in as a cost of doing business, and start hurting them.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


I don't like to say "the Democrats" (0.00 / 0)
I don't like to use "the Democrats" because I am a Democrat and I certainly don't support what is happening.

We have elected plenty of great Dems - just not enough yet.  And Chris points out that the 2010 elections could cost a lot of "bad" Dems their seats, allowing progressives a greater voice in choosing leadership, etc.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
I support the Democrats (4.00 / 2)
because, under our Madisonian Constitution, they are they only way to electorally defeat fascism.

But the way they are flailing about in the midst of the greatest downturn since the Great Depression, they are definitely not lessening the chance of fascism in the next decade, and are possibly increasing it by helping reanneal libertarians to the GOP.

Like a bad surgeon, Obama et al. cannot be allowed anywhere near the OR, even when emergency surgery is indicated.

As it turns out, it wasn't 11 dimensional chess, it was 1 dimensional chess...


[ Parent ]
"They" (0.00 / 0)
Who is this monolithic "thay"?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
the Democrats (0.00 / 0)
and you're the one throwing in the word "monolithic."

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
the Democrats (0.00 / 0)
and you're the one throwing in the word "monolithic."

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
It's an important point to say "the Democrats" (4.00 / 1)
There is a collective entity called the Democratic Party.  There is.  There is.  I'm also a Democrat (says so on my registration card), but what you're saying plays into their methodology of making everything a collection of individuals, no aggregates.

I hate to be harsh, but no Democrat who voted for the Stupak-laden bill goes down in my book as "great."  If Weiner or Pelosi want to avoid my ire, then they have to do something about Stupak.  If Stupak were challenged by a pro-choicer in the primaries, would Pelosi and Weiner ACTIVELY support that effort?  I didn't think so.

There are collectives and aggregates in this world, and have to be dealt with as such.  That's what people have a hard time understanding about the Full Court Press -- it isn't about individuals.  That's why it has nothing about targeting the worst.  It sends a  message to the PARTY, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  And the bad AND ugly.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Is it not true that Harry Reid could single-handedly (4.00 / 2)
change this dynamic? That he could say, "this had gone too far, even Mike 'Evil Insider' Lux  thinks it's crap, and now these are the options. I'm calling a vote on a public-option plan. If I don't get an upperdown vote on that, I'm going to reconciliation with a robust fuck-you public option."

And is it not true that we're in a position to threaten Reid with real electoral harm if he doesn't do this ... if we demand it loud enough?

Frankly, I think that getting our shit together enough to just threaten Reid is asking too much, forget about running in every single primary.


[ Parent ]
Reid is kabuki: (0.00 / 0)
part of the one-party system that came of age in the 70s.

Only by a full frontal assault on that one-party system with any and all allies we can find, can we stop the slide into a Dark Age.


[ Parent ]
Because Reid doesn't care if he (0.00 / 0)
loses his seat?

[ Parent ]
Maybe not (0.00 / 0)
As long as he rides into the sunset with a $3 million a year "job" what does Reid care?

[ Parent ]
These people enjoy power more than money, (4.00 / 1)
or they would have quit already.

Yes, Reid doesn't want to be defeated.  Daschle didn't want to be defeated.  Daschle has a comfy life now, but he had more fun when he was Majority Leader and possible President than he does now.

Threatening their personal power does work.  These are A-list people who will always be comfortable, but that doesn't mean we can't hurt them.


[ Parent ]
43% of former Members of Congress register as lobbyists (0.00 / 0)
So yeah, what ARE we gonna do, fire them?

[ Parent ]
Safety nets are popular, government bureaucracies are not. (4.00 / 1)
Even as a kid, I knew that. Why is this distinction lost on the Democratic Party?

Nobody minds getting a check in the mail.

They mind when you start telling them what they have to do with that money (as well they should!).

Just give people free money and they will figure out how best to spend it.

A Left-Libertarian synthesis could

1) actually govern properly -- Imagine that! -- and

2) still be in tune with the electorate

In fact, it is the zeitgeist of the up-and-coming generation, and thus is the future... if we can make it that far...


Social Libertarianism (0.00 / 0)
Here is my (sort joking, sort of not) formula for a socialist, libertarian hybrid utopia:

1) 50% flat tax, no loopholes.  Proceeds are distributed evenly to all people in a monthly check.  That is the socialism.

2) All external costs (environmental, etc.) are taxed accordingly.  This pays for what government there is, with the leftover distributed equally.

3) The rest is libertarian paradise, with virtually no government interference in anything.


[ Parent ]
No loopholes? (0.00 / 0)
So I have a small grocery store, I order $85,000 in goods, sell them for $100,000, and you want me to pay a $50,000 tax on my income?

And if you think I should be able to deduct my cost of goods, we're back to arguing about what can or can't be deducted.

On 3, Government is We, the People.  Are you saying that the community shouldn't be able to decide things?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Not to argue over a stupid, joke idea... (0.00 / 0)
By income I mean net income, but include investments.  No need to tax corporations that way (or give them personhood), just tax the investors, so most of the slippery slope issues go away.  But yes, there may be a flaw or two.

On three, of course you are right.  But I'm curious how well libertarian ideas would work once the most obvious problems are resolved.  My guess is everyone would move into neighborhoods with strong collectives that would quickly grow into a real government.


[ Parent ]
100000 in sale minus 85000 in costs leaves only 15000 taxable income. (0.00 / 0)
So, where does your idea of having to pay 50k in taxes come from, Dave? That's probably a misunderstanding of the point about closing loopholes. Generally, deductible costs are no loopholes. Of course, there can be abuse in it, but hey, the IRS can deal with this.

[ Parent ]
A 50% flat tax is NOT socialism, but capitalism! (0.00 / 0)
That's a tax that hurts the low incomes more than the rich. That's not socialism, that's just crap. The right solution, of course, is a progressive tax.

And "virtually no government interference in anything" is just the kind of unregulated shit that brought us into this effing recession!

Shows that the whole idea about a unification of libertarianism and progressivism doen't work. Libertarians don't have anything useful to add to this union.


[ Parent ]
AND (4.00 / 2)
And while we're on taxes, let's reconcile current imbalances by putting a 90% (or higher) rate on high incomes.  This helps fight concentration of wealth, cuts deficits, lets the pubic share in the income generated by infrastructure the public built and removes the incentive for a lot of bad behavior by executives.

In other words, return to the radical policies of the Eisenhower administration.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
That may go a bit too far. (0.00 / 0)
Now, pls don't hit me, but I believe there's gtruth in the Laffr curve. The question only is, at what point the tax returns start to shrink. But it sure is lower than 90%, as can be learned from the economic history of the UK. So, going to extremes isn't really helpful. Imho a progressive tax with the maximum rate at 50% would be both fair and a good choice economically, and if it is enforced, leaving no tax loopholes, it would allow to solidly fund universal healthcare, education for all, and all job creation programs that may be necessary.

[ Parent ]
Our top tax rate (0.00 / 0)
was 90% and higher for decades.  Back when we didn't have deficits, wealth wasn't so concentrated, infrastructure was maintained, and corporations had a stake in long-term viable communities because it took a few years to make a fortune.  And we built a middle class.

There's plenty of solid history that this is what works.

And hedge fund manager would only bring home a hundred million or so per year.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Yeah, it works, but a bit less would work better. (0.00 / 0)
As far as I remember, tax returns increased when JFK lowered taxes.

[ Parent ]
Even if they did (4.00 / 1)
Correlation is not causation.

This "Laffer Curve" argument that cutting taxes increases revenues is just silly.  And the result of enough people being convinced it would work has been massive deficits in the country and the states.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Uh, no. It's simply a special form of the law of dimishing returns. (0.00 / 0)
Solidly based on well established, and countlessly proven, economic theory. Nothing wrong with the curve, only with those dumb right wingers who think cutting taxes will ALWAYS rsult in more money. Because, if you're on the wrong side of the curve, say, at 30%, reducing taxes will reduce the returns, too. Nobody knows where the "best" point is, it depends on the specifics of an economy, of course, but it has to be somewhere in the middle. Maybe at 50%, maybe at JFK's tax rat, who knows.

[ Parent ]
Oh please (4.00 / 1)
This theory is based on Ayn Rand stuff that assumes people won't work if they are taxed highly.  In fact others will say people will work harder to make up the difference, so even tax revenue more in produced as tax rates rise.

Since you claim the Laffer Curve is "Solidly based on well established, and countlessly proven, economic theory." it is up to you to provide something that shows this.


--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
"AynRand"? Excuse me pls, Dave, but what do you know about economics? (0.00 / 0)
Tomorrow I'll google for what Krugman wrote about the Laffer curve. Today it's too late, early morning here.

[ Parent ]
The premise of the Laffer Curve (4.00 / 1)
is that people will stop working if taxes are too high, therefore the revenue collected from taxes will drop.  That is Ayn Rand "going Galt" stuff, not the kind of economics that measures what actually happens.  

As I said, others will argue that people will work more, to make up the difference.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Sry, but that's nonsense. (0.00 / 0)
Afaik (never read Rand's crap) Galt and the other, uh, "performers" stop working altogther. That's quite idiotic, of course, and not at all what the consequences of the Laffer curve are.

The idea behind the Laffer curve is that progressive taxation with a too high maximum tax rate results in people stopping to work more once they reach a certain point. See, if any additional dollar is taxed at 90%, does it make sense to work for an additional ten cent, if you already have reached a comfortable income? Hmm, I would say, no, but if you disagree, repeat the thought with 99%. Going into sweat for one more cent? Nobody would do that. So, obviously, the Laffer curve is real, it's just the question where the point is beyond which the tax rate is starting to demotivate the economic actors.


[ Parent ]
People who make (0.00 / 0)
People who make incomes at that level don't make it from "working."  And you don't even add up your income until after the year ends.  It's just silly stuff to think people don't keep "working" when their income reaches a certain level.

But these assumptions are based on regular income, not other forms of income, which are more often what you see at very high levels.  This Laffer/Galt theory seems to say that someone will get a check for $4 million but will give $3 million BACK, because they are taxed on that last million, etc.

When someone is bringing in $100 million, they don't refuse it because they only get to keep $10 million.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
regarding "going Galt" (0.00 / 0)
The obvious flaw in this fairytail of right wing folklore is what happens when these imaginary supermen die? Like other accomplished exploiters of the past, will the world really stop when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet passes on? Pure fantasy! As Charles De Gaulle said "The graveyards are full of indespensable men."

If the top rate is high enough to stop some from their extravagant expolitation, others will take up the effort for themselves. Thereby spreading the opportunity around somewhat... Same as it ever was.

U.S. history sure supports John's position on the tax issue. The highest standard of living ever achieved in the world (for the general populas) was in the U.S. during times of 90%+ maximum tax rate


Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
forgot this (0.00 / 0)
Our debt is directly related to the wealthy not paying their fair share of the cost of the government they use to accumulate the wealth.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Did you read the second half? (0.00 / 0)
50% flat, with ALL the proceeds distributed equally.  Think about it.  There are no poor people with this model.

[ Parent ]
Take half of everyone's income? (4.00 / 2)
Then at the end of the year distribute it?  What do people eat in the meantime?

I like the idea of income redistribution and here is an application of it that I think we should do: a carbon tax.

Picture this, you highly tax carbon use, divide the revenue up equally and send a check every year to every adult.  (Keeping a bit for the government.)

Result: great reductions in carbon emissions, a dramatic increase in alternative energy development AND a demand from the public to tax it at ever higher rates.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
"proceeds distributed equally"? What does this mean? (0.00 / 0)
One standardized income for everybody? Or what?

[ Parent ]
I think this can also be used to drive a wedge in urban communities (0.00 / 0)
Great piece, DaveJ.

But I think the race card can be played on this one, in an underhanded way, to say liberals back-stabbed Obama and ruined his Presidency, if urban liberals vote to kill this bill.  It might sound a bit out of left field, but this is a wedge that Republicans want too bad to ignore.

I don't know how Democrats have managed to screw this pooch so completely...  But I think this is a lot worse looking down the road than conservadems are aware of.


Black people aren't stupid enough to vote for Republicans (4.00 / 1)
I'd expect to see black support for Democratic candidates remain at the high levels we've seen since 1964.  If black people don't turn out, it will be much as with liberals and Democrats, generally: Obama's DLC-neoliberal statecraft isn't the stuff that motivates people sympathetic to the left to get out and vote.  

Of course, you might agree with that and say that so-called "centrist" suburbanites who support the president will conflate urban liberal with black, only to blame Obama's troubles on black people who they believe to control the direction of the Democratic party.  But I tend to think it is this mentality which is afraid of having demand-sided central state welfare programs seen as pro-black, pro-union, pro-Democratic base that drives Democratic elites in their policymaking, which brings us back to this hamfisted attempt HCR and the inefficacy of the party in general.          


[ Parent ]
People are people (0.00 / 0)

Black people aren't stupid enough to vote for Republicans

They don't have to vote for Republicans, just against liberals.  If some do vote for Republicans, that would make them thrilled.

If the ambition is to raise liberal/progressive numbers in 2010, then driving that wedge will make it more difficult.    After watching the last election, I think we can expect creative methods for some very nasty politics.  If the right narrative is hit, I doubt it they could resist it.  


[ Parent ]
People may be people (4.00 / 2)
but collective voting patterns over long stretches of time are very resilient for reasons that go well beyond immediate policy debates, and GOP propaganda about Democrats will not attract black voters.

To be sure, the very wedge to which you refer already exists: since 1972, Dems must run away from demand sided, pro-minority, pro-urban, pro-working class policies in order to be credible to the corporate controlled MSM and white men in the suburbs, for example.  This is why we have this ineffectual platypus neoliberals are trying to sell as health care reform.    


[ Parent ]
Again, not Democrats, but liberals/progressives specifically (4.00 / 1)
First, thanks for response.
I think it's also important to distinguish that this is a Democrat against Democrat issue.  As I said, it's not just about getting Republican voters.  It's more about hitting the liberals/progressives, and causing damage to unity.  There are plenty of people who just LIKE being able to punch the left, and if it can actually erode the beaches of "Little Blue Islands," all the better.

To be sure, the very wedge to which you refer already exists: since 1972, Dems must run away from demand sided, pro-minority, pro-urban, pro-working class policies in order to be credible to the corporate controlled MSM and white men in the suburbs, for example.  

Yes, and I think it has begun to gain more traction than many want to believe.  There is a sense, where I live, that urban areas have been taken for granted (the term "Vote warehouse" comes to mind) because Dems have run away from just those things for so long.


[ Parent ]
Tell it too Michael Steele (4.00 / 1)
Black people aren't stupid enough to vote for Republicans



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Or Colin Powell (0.00 / 0)
You might also wonder if the Party of Lincoln once thought the same way.

[ Parent ]
Again, certain individuals (0.00 / 0)
do not make for significant demographic trends.

Funny, I seem to remember Powell endorsing the Democrat during the last election.  The wingnuts who are taking control of the GOP aren't the type of people who will care to even make an effort to pretend to attract significant black support.

Black turnout may well decrease, as with people on the left in general, but the blacks who do vote will continue to support Democratic candidates in the same numbers as over the past 45 years.  


[ Parent ]
Do you seriously think Michael Steele (4.00 / 1)
in any way represents the possibility of meaningful black electoral support for GOP candidates?

[ Parent ]
he might have an opinion as to the stupidity of folks voting GOP (0.00 / 0)
What does it say about him?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 1)
For one, people without insurance are more or less the same people who don't vote.  That is a horrible, heartless way to look at it, but if we are going to discuss the politics of the mandate is should be kept in mind.  Personally, I think the hundreds of millions of dollars going to these same people will help far more than hurt.  I agree the subsidies are still  too low, though.

But those that are saying we should kill the bill are missing the bigger picture, I think.  The advantage conservatives have in these fights is they can always walk away from the table happy.  For them, the yes vote is a compromise.  Liberals just don't have that advantage and can't really just wish for it to not be true.

However, liberals have one huge advantage the conservatives lack: the ratchet effect.  It is extremely rare for public programs and benefits to be removed or seriously weakened once in place.  Most every little thing we pass, stays.  It is like Fall in Minnesota; it might be a small snow fall, but each flake sticks around until May.  That adds up.

The good news is most of the components of the bill we want that cannot be done via reconciliation are still in the bill.  The parts that have been dropped can be added back in with only 50 votes.  I say pass the stupid bill and get right to work improving it before 2014.  Let's get those subsidies up and a Medicare buy-in.


That sounds good--but (0.00 / 0)
how? How do we start pushing for reconciliation after this bill is passed? Who do we pressure, who do we threaten?  

[ Parent ]
but just what constitutes a threat? (4.00 / 1)
Pardon my sounding like Johnny One-Note, but what threat?  That I won't love you anymore?  That I won't name my first-born Stupak-Pelosi after all?

You know I've got some ideas.  What are yours?  What would be a real threat?

I'm open to other ideas, really I am.  But those other ideas have got to have some sharp edges, they've got to draw political blood.  Otherwise, they aren't threats.  They're just more of the kabuki scoldings that Democrats know they have to put up with from their surly base from time to time.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
I'm all for the single noted! (0.00 / 0)
The threat is, 'We will raise money against you in your reelection contest--we would be happy to use you, Mr. Majority Leader, to show the new progressive willingness to lose a Senator who didn't meet our minimum standards. The progressive blogs and progressive organizations will rally support against you in your current campaign, we will undermine you from within and you will lose. Letters to the editor, radio ads, TV if we can afford, a constant stream of emails, a letter-writing campaign, all asking your Democratic constituents to sit out the next election--if, that is, you sit out on the effort to use reconciliation to fix this shit."

[ Parent ]
Yes, that's a threat! (4.00 / 1)
And a good one.  One of the traps we run into is that -- when we advocate for something -- we are supposed to phrase it in terms that "everybody should be doing this."  If we were pursuing a full array of tactics, then we could say, "apply pressure here."

But now, let me up the ante a little.  How are you planning to make your threat a reality?  The weakness of your statement (and I mean this with all due respect) is that you are calling on progressive blogs and organizations to "rally support against [bad Dems] in your current campaign, we ... undermine [bad Dems] from within and [bad Dems] will lose.

Problem is, "progressive blogs and organizations" WON'T.  Individuals may, but that abstract entity "progressive blogs and organizations" WON'T. Is there an organization or blog that is going to do what you suggest?  Then the move is to support the efforts of those organizations or blogs, BY NAME.  If there isn't, then are you willing to be part of creating such an organization, and call on people to support YOU?  And if you can't do that (for which I wouldn't cast any blame on you), then it's back to the drawing board.

Is there another [fill in the blank] which is going to [perhaps a lesser threat]?  Or that you could create?

Do you see where I'm going here?  I'm addressing a basic methodological point.  If you talk about what needs to be done, there has to be an "I" to it, as I am going to work with ...  And an individual "you" also.  You, you the guy or gal sitting over there, yeah, I'm pointing at you, DeNiro, you don't see me pointing at anyone else, do you?

I'm not arguing answers now.  I'm arguing method.  I'm arguing morality.  In the 60's for instance, for many, the process was something like, "My government is doing horrible things in Vietnam, that's intolerable.  AND I PERSONALLY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!"  Today, it's "progressives should," or "we should."  But it never gets nailed down.

There are terrible things going on in this country and I have to do something to make the Full Court Press happen.  Not everybody wants to do that, that's okay.  But then what are YOU and YOU and YOU and YOU and YOU going to do about it?

Asking that question might be a good start.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Ah, shit. I wrote a long response (0.00 / 0)
and then lost it. Basically, I agree completely. My own limitations are that I'm willing to try to get gatekeepers interested (I already fired off five emails today, and I'll double that tomorrow) but I'm not gonna start and maintain a campaign myself. I know my limitations. But yes, you're right. "Is there an organization or blog that is going to do what you suggest?" Maybe. I'll try to find them, in my half-assed way. I wish I were willing to commit to something like this full-time, but I'm not. All I'm willing to do, and I'm not claiming it's enough, is try to push this into the inbox of someone who does this shit better'n I do.

[ Parent ]
an honest response (0.00 / 0)
One-eigth-time would be good.  But the drive of the moral imperative does have an all-or-nothing character to it.  Even though any serious effort actually consists of thousands of very small contributions, of money or time or spirit.  Full Court Press isn't big enough that I can in good conscience say, "you must join!"

Hopefully I'l build that kind of credibility in the coming year.

Meanwhile, I know your heart's in the right place.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Why reconciliation after they fu health care? (0.00 / 0)
If you can't get them to stand up now, what makes you think they'll stand up for that later? Look at their history.  What have the people in this country gotten in the last 30 years from Democrats and Republicans alike? Absolutely nothing but perpetual war on their credit card, permanently unemployed, uninsured, their savings, pensions and home equity ripped off, and summarily dumped into bankruptcy and foreclosure.  Both parties suck.


[ Parent ]
Because we establish a dynamic wherein (0.00 / 0)
we threaten one of them personally, with political problems. They might not give a shit about 22,000 dead Americans, but they care about their own personal power.

[ Parent ]
My question is, why not do it with (4.00 / 1)
reconciliation on HCR instead of waiting until "after" the corporate welfare health care bill passes?  Or, hold the vote on HCR, kill the filibuster, and then bring HCR back?   The answer is they want this corporate welfare bill.  If they didn't, they'd go with 51 votes now.  

[ Parent ]
Because we haven't established that dynamic (0.00 / 0)
yet. And we probably won't, moving forward. But if we did (and my 'we' is subject to jeffroby's comment, above), then we might have some chance.

[ Parent ]
How will it get improved upon? .. (4.00 / 1)
However, liberals have one huge advantage the conservatives lack: the ratchet effect.  It is extremely rare for public programs and benefits to be removed or seriously weakened once in place.

Why do you have faith, given the current political environment, that's what will happen?


[ Parent ]
well, remember what the republicans did (4.00 / 1)
when they had all three branches of govt? They passed expansions on medicare coverage. sure, they did so in a manner that destabilized medicare, but still, these guys saw the political advantage of expanding - rather than shrinking - a program they all hate. There's something in that.

[ Parent ]
Faith? (0.00 / 0)
I don't have faith in anything.  I hostly think this bill is better than the status quo.  Realize that this is more a comment on the status quo then the bill.  So I personally don't need the rest to happen for this to be acceptable to me.  Your millage may vary on that point.  

If I really, honestly thought this made things worse I would not support voting for this bill.  But I don't think if the results of this bill were in place today and we had the option to vote in the current status quo that many, if any, people on this list would support that action.  In fact, if this bill passes we will soon see proof of that, as I doubt anyone on the left will be working to un-pass the bill.

Instead, the correct response is to take what is passed and improve it.  If each year we can tack on another 50 to 100 million to the subsidies, for instance, they will be all the most liberal wonks recommended from the beginning.

We need a few senators to keep up the pressure and efforts to keep on improving things.  


[ Parent ]
But (4.00 / 2)
But in the years before it takes effect Republicans will be convincing everyone that THEY have to pay under the mandates.  It doesn't have to make sense or be honest.  The real risk is a Republican takeover based on repealing the bill before it takes effect.

I didn't say kill the bill - I'm not there yet.

This bill prevents us from having any ratchet effect.  Medicare buy-in and limited public option was perfect for that, and that is why the lobbyists have gotten those killed.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Tricky (0.00 / 0)
I'm not so sure that one should focus on the lies the other side might say as a means of determining what laws should pass.  Better to just get the best bills you can.  I do agree that politics matter, though.  Getting a bill one can sell to your constituents is important.  But I'd focus on what one can sell, not on what lies the other side can bring up.  That kind of double think can lead one astray.

[ Parent ]
Well I agree (4.00 / 1)
I think we should never avoid doing the right thing out of this fear.  In fact I complain that Medicare-For-All was put "off the table" because they were afraid Rush Limbaugh might say bad things about them (as I say at my blog.)

But this is different because it isn't about not doing the right.  It's about how forcing people to pay big corporations is wrong, and Republicans can amplify on this wrong to kill the whole thing, good and bad parts, and end up in power.  And since the Republicans are pretty much all teabaggers now, we really don't want that.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
People who don't so far (4.00 / 1)
For one, people without insurance are more or less the same people who don't vote.  That is a horrible, heartless way to look at it, but if we are going to discuss the politics of the mandate is should be kept in mind.

If the uninsured non-voters found themselves getting medical care, they might become a loyal constituency. The New Deal turned a lot of people around. A lot of people don't vote because they don't see any benefit coming from it. If they see a benefit they change.


[ Parent ]
While I agree with most of this, (0.00 / 0)
I do think there is a larger number of uninsured or underinsured people than you realize that even the current bill would help - in other words, yes, there actually ARE people who would be happy to be told to shell out for a policy, because they can't get anyone to take their money for one right now.  I have acid reflux. I imagine (and I'm not kidding) that if I wasn't in a group plan right now, I'd have a hard time getting "real" health insurance. This is predicated on the elimination of that cap on benefits and a few other items which I believe will be in the final bill.

Having said that, a medicare buy-in or PO was necessary to give people a guarantee that at least one of the plans available would offer good coverage at an affordable price. Hey, maybe we'll all get lucky, and the other reforms actually will be enough - at least for a while - to provide a few plans that actually do work and don't cost 9%. But we'll need a lot of luck, and even then, we'd need to race the clock to get a PO or buy-in because it won't last long.


Missing my point (0.00 / 0)
" there actually ARE people who would be happy to be told to shell out for a policy, because they can't get anyone to take their money for one right now"

I agree completely with this.  And maybe this plan is workable if it actually did this - on passage.  

My argument here was political.  By holding off for several years before most of the good in this bill takes effect it is likely that none of it will ever take effect.  This is because the Republicans can crank up the lie machine to kill it.  Vote for us now to repeal this bill that is going to kill your mother.

If the bill was completely in effect and people could SEE that it wasn't killing their mother, that would be a different thing.  But since this is written to be a huge government program that takes effect LATER, they can say anything about it, scare people, get big corporate money behind them, and run the Dems out of town with it.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Franken had a big thing this morning (0.00 / 0)
about how lots of things DO take effect immediately...he went off on it for quite a bit on the senate floor. need to know more about that before I'm going to assume the conventional wisdom is true that nothing happens up front.

[ Parent ]
kill the mandate (4.00 / 4)
that's the main demand i wish i could hypnotize a sufficient number of leftish Senators into making.

no public alternative? no mandatory insurance. if the private system is so great, let them earn their customers.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Time to abandon the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
Time to put our own candidates forward. Time to seek out candidates that don't have an R or a D after their names. Time to vote for anyone but a Democrat or a Republican

I consider it my duty to show up and vote. If I don't like what the establishment parties offer, then it's my duty to show up and vote for an independent candidate or a candidate from another party. In short, it's time for me to break with the two-party system. For 35 years, I've held out hope that the Democratic Party would deliver on their promises to be the party of the public rather than corporations. For 35 years, they've failed.

So, I'm going to vote next year. And I'll vote in 2012. But I won't vote for a Democrat. Even Russ Feingold. More and more he looks like on of the many Democrats that have been able to have it both ways. Talking tough for his own political gain, but now voting to support the pro-corporate status quo. Jim Sensenbrenner has never tried to hide the fact that he's a corporate whore. It's impossible any more to tell the difference between those that have seemed to be "real Democrats," or Republicans.

Obama in less than twelve months, by his betrayals, has proved that Democratic and Republican politicians are all the same.

I'll vote next November, but I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Both parties have betrayed me.


Veto threat - yeah! (0.00 / 0)
I just had to post this even before I finished reading -

THIS is where a President is supposed to be a leader come in and insist on broader guidelines with a veto threat.

Now there's an original thought!


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox