F for Effort
A year into the Obama era, the left claims triumph (but they admit the policies stink).
DECEMBER 21, 2009.
By JAMES TARANTO
(Note: We are off on vacation. Our next column will appear Jan. 4.)
Well, they did it. Through a combination of intimidation and bribery (using our money, of course), the Democrats who run the Senate achieved cloture on their version of ObamaCare. The 60-40 vote was strictly along party lines, and it took place at 1:08 a.m. Monday, a time when any decent person is either home in bed or out at a bar.
So, a big triumph for the left, right? More than 64 years after President Truman proposed it, "universal health care" is finally on the verge, or at least the precipice, of becoming reality.
Only there's one problem: Many on the left admit that by their own lights, ObamaCare is bad policy. Here's a fascinating exchange from PBS's "Bill Moyers Journal" Friday. Moyers is interviewing the liberal-left economist Robert Kuttner and the liberal-left journalist Matt Taibbi. Both agree that the bill is very bad, but Kuttner wants Congress to enact it anyway:
Kuttner: Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I don't think it's a it's a good bill. But I think if it goes down, just because of the optics of the situation and the way the Republicans have framed this as a make-or-break moment for President Obama, it will make it easier for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 2010. It will make Obama even more gun-shy about promoting reform. It will create even more political paralysis. It will embolden the Republicans to block what this president is trying to do, some of which is good, at every turn. So I would hold my nose and vote for it. . . .
Moyers: Aren't you saying that in order to save the Democratic president and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012 you have to have a really rotten health insurance bill?
Kuttner: Well, when you come down to one pivotal moment where a bill is before Congress and the administration has staked the entire presidency on this bill and you're a progressive Democrat are you going to vote for it or not? Let me put it this way, if I were literally in the position that Joe Lieberman is in and it was up to me to determine whether this bill live or die, I would hold my nose and vote for it even though I have been a fierce critic of the path this administration has taken. . . .
The Democrats are really between a rock and a hard place here, because if it loses, there's one set of ways the Republicans gain. If it wins, there could be another set of ways that the Republicans gain. And this is all because of the deal that our friend, Rahm Emanuel struck back in the spring of passing a bill that's a pro-industry bill that doesn't really get at the structural problems. . . .
But now we're down to a moment of final passage. And maybe my views are very ambivalent. But I would still vote for it because I think the defeat would be absolutely crushing in terms of the way the press played it, in terms of the way it would give encouragement to the far right in this country that we can block this guy if we just fight hard enough, if we just demagogue it.
Taibbi: But couldn't that defeat turn into--that crushing defeat, couldn't that be good for the Democrats? Couldn't it teach them a lesson that, you know, maybe they have to pursue a different course in the future?
Kuttner: Well, you're younger than I am.
There is little doubt that the attitude Kuttner expresses is shared by some senators who voted "yes" at 1:08 a.m. Sunday--all of whom, by the way, also are older than Taibbi. The cynicism is breathtaking: The Kuttner caucus is willing to subject a sixth of the nation's economy, and the lives of millions, to an admittedly awful legislative scheme, on the basis of the dubious assumption that it will help their party politically in the short term, and also to spite "the far right in this country."
Change you can believe in, folks!
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports from Copenhagen that "the United Nations summit on climate change ended Saturday with a fractious all-night debate over an agreement brokered by China and the U.S. that has no legal force, and is vague on crucial details." All those jets and limos carrying dignitaries to Denmark, and all for naught:
The statement said countries would "enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change," but it didn't obligate any country to meet a specific emission-reduction target. . . .
Negotiators sought to put the best face possible on what they dubbed the Copenhagen Accord, calling it a first step that they hoped to follow up with a more-detailed, and more-enforceable, international climate pact sometime over the next year. But given that negotiators left Copenhagen as divided as ever over how a tougher agreement might affect each of their countries' economic competitiveness, they said they couldn't predict how the process might unfold.
Copenhagen's messy process and vague outcome led many to question whether a U.N. process will ever produce an agreement to seriously slash greenhouse-gas emissions. . . . The U.N. climate process will tumble now into a series of future meetings.
As far as this column is concerned, the Copenhagen outcome is fine. Absent credible evidence to support the theory of man-made global warming, it wouldn't make sense to impose any burden to combat the putative threat. But if you assume the threat is real--as the Obama administration and others at least claim they do--then the vaporous Copenhagen statement ought to be wholly unsatisfactory.
The New York Times explains the administration's approach to both health care and climate change:
President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, likes to say that the only thing that is not negotiable is success. The last 48 hours offered a case study in how the president applies that maxim to governing.
After weeks of frustrating delays and falling poll numbers, Mr. Obama decided to take what he could get, declare victory and claim momentum on some of the administration's biggest priorities, even if the details did not always match the lofty vision that underlined them.
From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the president determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, at least for now. . . .
Neither deal represented a final victory, and in fact some on the left in his own party argued that both of them amounted to sellouts on principle in favor of expediency. But both agreements served the purpose of keeping the process moving forward, inching ever closer toward Mr. Obama's goals and providing a jolt of adrenaline for a White House eager to validate its first year in office.
So we've gone from "Yes, we can" to "enough, at least for now." Health care will be worse and more expensive, but at least the White House gets a jolt of adrenaline! We'll be saved from global warming only if it turns out the threat is fictitious, but Obama gets to validate his first year in office!
Obama and his party hope to get an E for effort, but they deserve an F.
Bush League
If you thought the Democrats were likely to face political trouble in 2010, think again. TalkingPointsMemo.com quotes Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
"This is not going to be 1994 all over again," Van Hollen told reporters at a briefing at the DNC. "The fundamentals are very different today."
The Los Angeles Times reports that at the briefing, Van Hollen "told reporters last week that Democrats have a plan: Remind voters of George W. Bush."
The fundamentals are totally different in 2010 than in 1994. Unlike back then, George Bush will have been out of the White House less than two years!
online.wsj.com |
