Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, who is up for a tough re-election fight next year, really doesn't have any good choices when it comes to the Democrats' health care reform bill. On the one hand, the measure has become unpopular in her state, and Arkansas -- which was not so long ago considered a swing state, has since become deeply red: one of just a handful of states where Republicans actually gained ground between 2004 and 2008. On the other hand, opposing the measure would depress her base, virtually ensure a primary challenge, perhaps cost her plum committee assignments in the Democratic caucus, and create a toxic environment for the Democrats nationally. It really is a no-win situation.
And yet, by inserting herself at the center of the health care debate, Lincoln may be making matters even worse for himself.
Take a look, for instance, at some evidence from Montana, where we have a bit of a controlled experiment. In Montana, a purplish-red state, there are two Democratic senators -- Max Baucus and Jon Tester -- each of whom have ultimately decided to support the Democrats' health care reform plans. But whereas Tester has staked out his position very quietly, Baucus seemed to relish the attention he received as the head of the Senate Finance Committee, virtually taking it upon himself to strike a deal with the Senate's centrists, and frequently appearing in television and print media.
And what's happened? According to the Montana State University - Billings poll, Tester's approval ratings are virtually unchanged from two years earlier (although his disapproval rating has increased slightly). But Baucus has seen his fall precipitously, from 64 percent to 44 percent.
To repeat: Same state, same party, same position -- more or less -- on health care reform. But vastly different approaches: one senator seeking the spotlight, and the other shunning it. And vastly different trajectories of public opinion.
Baucus, indeed, is not alone in this department: virtually everyone who has tried to play a dealmaker role in health care has seen their approval ratings decline, from Chuck Grassley to Olympia Snowe to Harry Reid to President Obama.
If I were Blanche's Lincoln's Chief of Staff, my advice to her would be as follows:
1. Vote for cloture.
2. Vote against the bill itself.
3. Articulate this position clearly.
4. And then Shut The Hell Up.
Of course, it's probably not possible for Lincoln to avoid the spotlight entirely: she occupies a somewhat unique position as the only Democratic Senator under serious re-election threat in a McCain state. I'm sure that Lincoln would rather that this whole health care thing had never come up for vote in the first place. But given that it has, and that it is much too late for the Democrats to adopt any sort of exit strategy, I would tend to want to minimize my role in the process. Part of that means staking out a clear position, because an undecided vote attracts unwanted attention. And the path of least resistance would seem to be committing to voting for cloture, so that the Democratic base, your colleagues in the Senate, and the national media don't go nuclear on you -- but against the underlying bill, which is unpopular in your state. Dithering, on the other hand, gives pretty much everyone the opportunity to be unhappy with you. And the polling evidence shows that if you give your voters an opportunity to be unhappy with you on health care reform, they probably will be.
11.22.2009
Advice To Blanche Lincoln: Speak Softly, But Carry Firm Position on Health Care Reform
by Nate Silver @ 5:01 PM...see also arkansas, health care, montana
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

115 comments
"Somewhat unique"? Ah, me, for the days when words meant something . . . .
If that were her chief of staff's advice, there's a point you left out:
5. Reserve a U-Haul to take us back to Little Rock next year.
Obama got less than 39% of the vote in Arkansas (8% less than in Montana). The Democratic base isn't her problem if she's busy repelling Arkansas' median voters. As elsewhere, most politically active Arkansans know that the cloture vote is the vote for passage (and if by some accident they don't, the GOP will be glad to educate them).
I'm confused: Is Blanche a man or a woman? The article provides evidence of both conclusions! ;-)
I am distressed that those Senators who have fought to bring reform are now seeing their popularity sink. What is needed is for Obama and Company to hold a series of HC primers. The evidence is on the side of action, not inaction.
Lincoln may be making matters even worse for himself.
She must be a man.
*
Lefty and Teabagger Unite!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
KILL THE BILL!
"Lincoln may be making matters even worse for himself.
Lincoln has two options -- party change or sex change? Can either be accomplished by 2010?
Good point, Nate
great analysis.
maybe, if she takes a leading role in killing the public option (which I personally hope doesn't happen), she could benefit from media coverage? Assuming that health care reform is going to be popular after it passes (I don't think that's a far out assumption, looking at the history of controversial laws), she can please the "anti-Big Gov't" independents by having killed the public option?
also, as long as she beats any left-wing primary challenger, that kind of Democrat in-fighting might possibly help her in an anti-Democrat Party state.
and, as a note to Jenny, I'm a "Lefty" and I'd rather see a less-than wonderful reform bill pass than help you "Kill the bill"
Interesting Nate. I would think camera face time is always a plus.
It was fun watching Lincoln in the Finance Commitee--I felt like she wanted to crawl under her desk. She seemed out of the room for half the meeting
And the path of least resistance would seem to be committing to voting for cloture, so that the Democratic base, your colleagues in the Senate, and the national media don't go nuclear on you -- but against the underlying bill, which is unpopular in your state.
Everyone who is paying attention, including a sizeable percentage of the AR moderates and independents who will either give her the seat back or take it away, knows that a vote for cloture is effectively the same as a vote for the bill - there are 56 yes votes standing by and everyone knows it. Voting for cloture and against the bill would, IMHO, be the worst thing she could do politically - she'll get skewered for triangulating (a la John Kerry being first for and then against) and second for allowing a bill unpopular in AR to proceed to a known outcome (pass) when she has the power to stop it.
Lastly, it's far too late for Blanche Lincoln to disappear into the shadows in this debate. She's one of the 'focal four' on whom the bill will ultimately turn - shutting the hell up is simply not an option.
Can Lincoln win at all, at this point? I think the backlash if she kills the bill (or even just if she kills the public option) is enough to actively sink her-- it seems quite plausible that left-wing groups, who are already running commercials against her position, would actually campaign against her election in this instance-- but it's not like turning around and supporting or defending the bill all of a sudden would save her. Her approval ratings are extremely low, I don't see how any of the enemies she's made (on either side of the political divide) during the health care debate are going to forgive her no matter what she does, and as we saw in New Jersey and Virginia this year, "institutional support" is not enough to save a fundamentally crappy candidate.
On the one hand, the measure has become unpopular in her state, and Arkansas -- which was not so long ago considered a swing state, has since become deeply red
Let's see, in Arkansas, the Democrats control:
- The Governorship
- Both Senate seats
- Three out of four house seats
- 72% of the Arkansas House of Representatives
- 79% of the Arkansas Senate
But the state is "deeply red" because they vote R solely in Presidential elections?
Outside of Presidential races, Arkansas is one of the bluest states in the country.
Nate, this analysis seems to be predicated very strongly on the idea that Baucus' approval went down simply because he was associated with "health care reform" in a red state. But, is it possible that the reason Baucus' approval went down is because he was seen as a tool of Big Business, and the main guy watering down the bill? (Simply breaking down his approval rating by D/R/I should give us at least a good deal of insight into that. Presumably, if the latter was in fact the objection, you'd have an unusually high proportion of Ds jumping ship on him.)
The answer to that question makes a huge difference, because if Baucus' approval went down because he was seen an obstacle to reform, that certainly implies Lincoln should not want to campaign as The Vote That Killed Health Care Reform.
I don't believe your assertion that the HCR is "...the underlying bill, which is unpopular in your [Lincoln's] state."
Really? Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/yet-another-public-option_n_339709.html) reports "Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%."
How is that "unpopular" in her state?
I agree she should stake out a position, but she's lacking that much integrity. By holding onto the knive edge, she raises more money from lobbyists, which she going to need to beat FDL's fund (and candidate) raising.
--Carol Anne
shma-
Arkansas is obviously a Red state, after all, Bill and Hillary Clinton are wildly popular in Arkansas, which is the mark of every Teabagger.
I think Lincoln may be in one of those "damn, we're in a tight spot" bits from Brother, where art thou?
That said, a vote against cloture will guarantee the bill goes down, and will guarantee a GOP slaughter in 2010 so we can go back to the fantastic economic and health care and climate status quo we had under W. It also guarantees a Lincoln loss, as the left will run a candidate against her from what passes for the left in Arkansas, and the clubbers will have a field day. Btw, not that facts matter in this through the looking glass world, but Lincoln's constituents strongly favor a public option.
PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION: If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 35% of Independents would be less likely to vote for her, 10% more likely. (Over 3 to 1). Among Democrats, 49% to 7% (7 to 1). Lincoln is only 2% ahead of Republican Gilbert Baker (41% to 39%), a net drop of 5% since last month's Research 2000 poll.
2010 PRIMARY: 57% of Democrats say they are not sure if Lincoln should be the Democratic nominee again, or want someone new. If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 48% of Democrats would be even less likely to support her in a primary.
Only if the bill passes will the Dems have a fighting chance in 2010, which means it is the only way Lincoln has a fighting chance in 2010. She will be eaten on the left and right if she votes against cloture and only from the right if she does the excellent strategy suggested by Nate. People love a winner, and if the GOP and white wingnuts cannot defeat this, despite a whole bucketful of feces, Obama will be spun by the MSM as Reagan was in 1983-4 - invincible.
Btw, to source my poll just now -R2000, 600 arkansans, 10/30...
On another note
Let's see, in Arkansas, the Democrats control:
- The Governorship
- Both Senate seats
- Three out of four house seats
- 72% of the Arkansas House of Representatives
- 79% of the Arkansas Senate
But the state is "deeply red" because they vote R solely in Presidential elections?
Nice point, except it means something very different to be a democrat at the state level in arkansas than at the federal level. The analogy is somewhat akin to the Southern Democrats of the 1960s. Georgia, Alabama, etc...were "deep blue" states in the 1960s, and had positions far to the right of national party politics. Used to be the same with the GOP, as NY GOP was as liberal as most any dem state until Rocky was slayed by Goldwater. Now, at any level, rational, centrist GOP are an endangered species.
She needs to get something out of this bill. Something to show to her voters. She should follow Mary Landrieu's example.
@michael
Agreed, but
- Both Senate seats
- Three out of four house seats
says something about how they do at the federal level as well.
I've also seen those poll numbers on the public option, and I think they show that most opposition to health care is due to fear mongering, rather than specifics. When it has passed and little has changed for AR citizens, you'll see Lincoln's poll numbers improved.
In any case, I happen to agree with Silver's overall strategy for Lincoln: vote for cloture and against the bill and justify it by saying that the bill deserves an up or down vote (and that she isn't an obstructionist). The first vote will give her back support among liberals and the second among conservative democrats.
Only the most hard-line conservatives in the Democratic party would say filibustering is a deal breaker.
Herself, Nate. Herself*
This may be naive, but whatever happened to just staking out a position because you believe it's in the best interest of your constituents, and then defending yourself? Arkansas must have a huge issue with uninsured citizens Can't Lincoln say that her conscience dictates that she vote to help them get health insurance even if it means her job? It's hard to believe that she can't find a way to phrase this so that it sounds like a profile in courage.
Sure, she can do what the Republicans want, and lose anyway because none of them will ever vote for her. What's the point of being a Senator if you can't take and defend the hard decisions?
If Blanche Lincoln is so afraid of the Teabaggers, she should legal change her name to Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is a golden name in electoral politics.
And face it -- the Teabaggers are a force to be reckoned with. Look how they elected Doug Hoffman in NY-23. And yes he was elected, unfortunately ACORN, unions, and the Liberal media stole the election and forced him to concede.
I don't know, if I were her chief of staff, I would tell her:
- The dynamics of the situation almost certainly spell electoral defeat for her,
- That she should vote her conscience on the bill and do what she can to convince the electorate that she did so, and
- That managing one's votes on just a huge topic solely with an eye towards winning re-election would be incredibly unethical and that I'd quit and talk to the media if that's what I saw her doing.
The past two decades have proven one thing convincingly in politics. The easiest way to guarantee political trouble is to take a leadership role on a tough issue that has to be solve (or a leadership role period).
For folks with short memories, in that extremely red state of Kentucky, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell only got 53% of the vote against a relatively weak Democratic candidate. Bill Frist opted not to run for re-election in 2006. Tom Daschle went down to defeat in 2004. Harry Reid seems to be in trouble in 2010.
When there are no good solutions and a lot of major problems, it is much safer to be a silent back bencher than the person with the perceived power to decide what passes and what goes down to defeat.
Blanche Lincoln's action on the HCR bill seem to mirror her tenure. As a result, the reason she will probably lose next year is because she hasn't a clue on how to be a senator. Being both ineffective AND controversial at the same time HIGHLIGHTS the ineffective. Arkansans are smart enough to see that. Hopefully the DEMS can put forth a good candidate to challenge her in the primaries.
http://wizardofpolitics.blogspot.com/
she occupies a somewhat unique position as the only Democratic Senator under serious re-election threat in a McCain state.
While that might be true, Nate also knows that had Hillary been the nominee, she would have smoked Cranky McSame by as much as he beat Obama.
I live in Arkansas. Yes we have a lot of uninsured(25%). Healthcare reform would be great for this state.It is interesting that most of the state level representatives are Democrats. They are the worst kind of Blue Dogs. Obama is not popular here, for reasons of his race, IMO.
PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
True. Though as we all already know, public support for some kind of 'public option' does NOT mean support for this individual bill as a whole.
I'm curious how more/less popular an alternative bill would be with all the extras cast off. And instead streamlined with just a focus on strong consumer protections (coverage guarantees by law), competition opened nationally (breakup of state monopolies), TORT Reform, group insurance exchange, and even a national individual opt-in to a strong publicly run health insurance program that competes side-by-side with the private industry (and within the same rules). Available to ALL income brackets, ALL citizens...and funded ENTIRELY by voluntary personal/employer insurance premiums (zero taxes or forced purchase).
Would the left be disgusted by this? Would the right filibuster this? Would America support this?
Nate, I disagree with your conclusion that there's no exit strategy for the Dems. It would be very simple; pivot onto a jobs bill and suspend the health care debate until that's done. You risk temporary heat from the base but the independents would come flocking back if it was a good bill.
If I were Blanche's Lincoln's Chief of Staff, my advice to her would be as follows:
1. Vote for cloture.
2. Vote against the bill itself.
3. Articulate this position clearly.
4. And then Shut The Hell Up.
I voted for the bill before I voted against it?
Explaining the niceties of Senate hair splitting never makes for a good campaign.
It's pretty comical when Nate, writers on the Kos frontpage, and regular partians try to explain and quip about Arkansas.
First, Lincoln is from HELENA which is basically a suburb of Memphis in relation to Little Rock. So, to the poster talking about a UHaul back to Little Rock... LOL @ that. She has nothing to do with Little Rock and never has.
Next, and this is the key point: There is NO "liberal base" in Arkansas outside The Arkansas Times Ed Board, Hillcrest in Little Rock, Gene Lyons, & the universities in Conway. That adds up to 1% of the Arkansas electorate. Lincoln knows this and completely explains why she will never double-down like Nate & everyone else advising. If Lincoln is such an important figure that warrants this much analysis, I suggest you study Arkansas politics enough to figure out a couple basic facts like this.
Unless she simply decides principle is more important than re-election (and maybe she will... nothing wrong with that), she will continue exactly as she has. People who keep talking about getting primaried by BILL HALTER (lol) or losing the election because she depressed her liberal base (even more LOL) are engaging in wish-fulfillment more than they are characterizing anything close to real within Arkansas politics.
Lincoln's base are the blacks in South-east Arkansas (where she is from) & red-state minded white voters who simply have a latent historical aversion to one or both of the following things: (1) voting for a Republican and/or (2) voting for a Black person. They have shown they will do #1 if they have to (cf. Mike Huckabee, Win Rockefeller, Tim Hutchinson, Bush, and McCain) but as another poster aptly pointed out... Arkansas is totally dominated by Democrats. The Republican party here is a mess and their candidates only win when issues are compeltely nationalized.
In closing, this will tell you everything you need to know about Arkansas and it's politics. Blanche is only a senator today because she had twins which was all over the local news back in the 90s. She also has giga-weak candidates & Huckabee never wanted the seat. Everyone was sympathetic for her back in the 90s. But, as everyone knows, twins are only good for two senate terms... you gotta earn your third!
Nate, I think you left out 4 factors that are very very important:
1. People like Baucus pissed off both the right and left; the left because his bill was trying to give lots of things to the GOP (not that they cared). The right because it was an attempt at reform at all.
2. A lot matters how well a politician articulates their position and why. Most voters are easily swayed by what they read or hear (e.g. on Fox). But, a politician can explain themselves and change the views of their voters; many win elections despite the predictions of you and the pundits, purely for this reason.
3. If she brings home the bacon one way or the other, much will be forgiven.
4. It really depends on how quickly this is finished and what the economy and jobs situation looks like in Sep-Nov 2010. If you and the rest of the predictors were held to account for your 1 year out predictions, you would stop in a heartbeat. Much will depend on the jobs situation near the election - as it almost always does.
And yet, by inserting herself at the center of the health care debate, Lincoln may be making matters even worse for himself.
What?
Nate, just a really weird post. Democrats should kill health insurance reform??? I guess this is where crunching the numbers and being, like, an American citizen diverge.
Blogger EmonOkari said...
"...And instead streamlined with just a focus on strong consumer protections (coverage guarantees by law), competition opened nationally (breakup of state monopolies), TORT Reform, group insurance exchange, and even a national individual opt-in to a strong publicly run health insurance program that competes side-by-side with the private industry..."
Umm, that would be the current bill plus a robust public option (minus the corporate murder protection element and with a tax on union workers).
On Lincoln though, it's her own fault that she ever wavered on HCR. Her colleague Mark Pryor quietly assented to the original Democratic proposals on HCR and has not been much of a target for the GOP. Had Lincoln been just another supporter of HCR, like Pryor, Begich (from one of Obama's weakest states), or Dorgan (also up for reelection in a McCain state), her position would be little noticed, while the debate would have focused on the likes of Landrieu, Nelson, and good ol' Lieberboy, who by all accounts prefers the spotlight to a chance at reelection.
Come to think of it, Landrieu also would have been wise to fall into the "silent majority" on this bill. Maybe Nelson too, but he's always been a staunch conservative.
Lincoln might have been in trouble politically anyway, and may indeed benefit from the pork Reid will pay Arkansas for her cloture vote. But it seems like she would have been better off not making herself into a key figure in this debate. It sure hasn't hurt Mark Pryor after all.
Neither unprincipled opposition nor principled acquiescence will be beneficial for Lincoln at this point.
I voted for the bill before I voted against it?
Explaining the niceties of Senate hair splitting never makes for a good campaign.
Bart,
If you were a thinking person you would know that voting for cloture, but against the bill happens every cloture vote.
You would also know that voting for Cloture does not mean the Senator supports it.
It just means they want a vote or debate to happen, so they can move on to other business.
If a cloture vote and a vote on a bill were the same, nothing(except meaningless resolutions perhaps) would ever come to a vote.
If Lincoln would push for a strong public option and get that passed, her re-election would be assured absent a scandal. Even in Arkansas.
@Bart
You have it totally backwards. If Lincoln votes for cloture but against the bill, she can just say "I voted against the bill!" It will be up to her opponent to explain the "voted for before she voted against" thing.
I wish Dems could ever get a whole lot smarter about one of the most important aspects of politics, which is what you CALL stuff.
Republicans are so damned good at this. All it takes is a gift for chicanery. When they want to introduce something that curtails everybody's civil liberties, they call it the "Patriot Act." When they want, say, to increase the level of toxic waste that can be dumped into waterways, they call it something like the "Sparkling Water and Happy Fishes Act."
I wonder how much further down the road this effort would be... and how much less of a headache for poor ol' Blanche... if it had been dubbed practically anything in the world but "Health Care Reform."
"I voted for the bill before I voted against it?"
How about, "I voted against it." That would pretty much sum it up. If her opponent is dumb enough to use this hackneyed line, she could add: "I believe that bills should get an up or down vote on the Senate floor" and maybe "I voted to move on with America's business in the Senate rather than obstruct democracy and brought $(insert Reid's bribe here) back to Arkansas families who need it."
Here is bow you get Lincoln's vote....It not pretty. You promise her that you will run another democrat against her. You make it crystal clear that she will lose. You offer her a great position / job in the administration in exchange for a vote supporting an opt-out Public Option.
Blanche Lincoln has a liberal blogger problem. A bad one, the type that sent Joe Lieberman scurrying to become an Independent. It doesn't help her to state as much from the Senate floor either, as she did on Saturday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bLdStfzCME
Nate's advice to "Shut The Hell Up" isn't going to be heeded while the campaign against her continues, as it will. And Lincoln will only fan the flames.
I voted for the bill before I voted against it?
Explaining the niceties of Senate hair splitting never makes for a good campaign.
I agree, except that in this case it's the GOP that has an issue; they can go out and say publicly that 'she was the key vote to pass health care!!!! vote her out!', but all she has to do is say 'look, here's the vote roll call on XX date that clearly shows I voted against the bill; I thought it was important to have an open debate on the floor of the Senate, but ultimately I couldn't support the bill as it was written', and it's suddenly back on the GOP to describe how cloture is more important than the vote on the bill itself.
Going back to the more general argument of leadership vs quietly following - I think it's just the nature of someone that goes into politics (at least at this point in time), that you're more likely to take the high risk / high reward path than the soft spoken thoughtful one. They're not thinking 'if I quietly take this position, I can let Reid take the blame if the bill fails / doesn't work', they're thinking 'if this works really really well, I want it to have been my legacy to be an important part of it'
Aw dammit. Look, am I the only one annoyed by Dick Cheney's use of the archaic word 'dithering'? Apparently so since it's reentered the lexicon after his use regarding president Obama's inability to rush in and bomb the shit out of everyone who either doesn't look like us or hold an ideology like the US.
Now Nate has used the word. Crap.
C'mon, people. This douchbag (Cheney) needs to be relegated to the trash heap of history. Stop giving him web time.
Dick Cheney, douchebag
Who is not a ditherer
Says ready, fire, aim!
@Jenny
Look, sister. If you're going to post here you need to abandon that old way of blogging you were used to. I'll be glad to play the Professor Higgins to your Eliza Dolittle but you have got to stop using prepubescent posting behaviour.
No more ALL CAPS, ALL BOLD. It is akin to shouting like a teabagger rally in August. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, don't resort to such juvenile tactics. You only make your self look foolish and you discredit the argument that the rest of us are trying to establish.
Just trying to help you articulate your emotions.
Let's remember that "I voted for it before I voted against it" was really more about Kerry and his gaffes. It was made worse by his not being able to explain what he meant. Yes, the arcane procedural rules in the Senate are something most Americans do not understand (or remember, if they learned it in school). But, Kerry could have explained it in two words vs. his long winded 20 minute explanation that only made matters worse.
So, Blanche Lincoln has nothing to fear on that front.
Thanks for the poetry filistro. Please stick around.
Nate ~
Your analysis is excellent, and your contrast between Baucus and Tester brings your point home very well.
However, your advice for Lincoln won't save her. Voting for cloture (i.e. voting to allow the Senate to proceed to an up-or-down vote after debate), followed by her voting against the bill itself, articulating this position clearly, and shutting the hell up, won't be enough to save her from facing a primary challenger and probably from losing.
She knows that her position is beyond such a simple fix, though she probably has created the fix she's now in all by herself.
Right about now, she's probably kicking herself for not getting a sweet deal like the one landed by Landrieu, who can now say back home that $100 million is marked for Louisiana, which she got in exchange for nothing more than voting to allow the health care debate to begin in the Senate. Not bad.
For anyone not familiar with the deal Landrieu got from Senate Democrats, see Ezra Klein's Mary Landrieu gets $100 million from health-care reform bill she doesn't yet support.
As Klein put it: "It's nice to be an undecided senator in a 60-vote Senate."
True, but Lincoln wasn't smart enough to pull off a similar deal in exchange for her vote, was she?
Mr U,
I think you misunderstand Jenny. She's just playing around. If she bothers you that much, use the troll blocker.
I use it all the time when I run across a given troll that keeps telling the same joke over and over again till it's no longer funny.
O.K., so you're Reid and Obama on October 1, and you really, really, REALLY want a health care bill. You know that whatever the bill has in it, the Reps are going to go after, trying to hurt public opinion (and yes, the Reps have always been better at shaping public opinion). So look at your options for the end game:
A) Go nuclear (YIKES)
B) Reconcilliation (see Nates previous posts)
C) Put out a bill with a public option in it. Get the house to vote for a PO. Let a few Dems who want HCR but not PO in on the game and have them say "well, if it's really gotta have a PO, I'll support it because I really want HCR (Remember, you only really have about 47 strong votes for PO). Make the Reps believe that a bill with the public option has a chance. The Reps will go after it, of course. Now all the debate is on the PO, not HCR (and throw in a little Stupak just for good measure, which really doesn't change the intent of Hyde, no public fund for abortion). Allow Libermann, Lincoln, and everyone else who wants to draw a line in the sand, saying "I'll vote against cloture if it has a public option!!!"
Now comes the tricky part. Let the Reps vote the public option out of the bill! Maybe trade a couple of votes for the ammendment with Rep support on final passage. Let those Dems who really don't want a PO help the Repubs, as well as others who will vote against it for the "grand compromise".
The Reps have wasted 2 months attacking the public option (instead of HCR), Lincoln looks like a hero to her constituants who did not like the public option, and you might pick up 2 or 3 Rep votes to pass the bill (making it bipartisan), or at least get a few Rep votes for cloture.
But you get your bill. AND, you can later attack the Reps for forcing out the PO, causing the deficit to go up. Now the deficit is more thier fault, so it's harder to use as an issue in 2010 or 2012.
Just a possibility.
People respect someone who speaks with and has conviction, even if they don't agree with those convictions. What you are really saying is that Lincoln should quit sounding like a politician. I know that's hard, because she, after all, is a politician.
George,
Politically it makes sense, but let's face it-- without a P.O. there really isn't reform. Some small measures like they can't drop your coverage when you are sick (which is really saying they've become so sleazy that they demand regulation on things that they should have had the decency to not force regulation on anyway)
Without a P.O. though, what we really have is a vacuous set of promises to keep the cost down, but nothing firm or any concrete way to keep them down.
I'd personally rather keep the public option and be willing to trade, say, tort reform or some other Republican idea if you need to pick up votes.
Also note that Nelson and Lieberman's reasons for opposing the bill are different than Lincoln and Landrieu's. Lieberman's state includes Hartford (traditionally the home of the insurance industry) and one of the largest employers and political forces in Nelson's state is Mutual of Omaha. In the case of Landrieu and Lincoln they both come from poor states with a lot of conservatives who will vote against their own interests, and consider anything like this to be 'big government liberalism.' So Ried essentially has two different groups of two Democrats he has to satisfy.
Further if you are unhappy with Lincoln:
Support Drew Pritt, the only Senate candidate in Arkansas who is firmly committed to supporting the Obama agenda on health care and other issues.
ELI:
There still is a lot of reform.
Rolling back medicare advantage, which was a very big gift to the HMOs (my parents are going to kill me if they read this, they love it)
Over $50 B in prescription drug cuts (15% of the healthcare bill). I would have liked to see them go farther with more changes here, but its a good start.
$20+ B in medical implants (almost as large a health care bill as prescription drugs, and nobody really knows about it). These guys are real thieves too. Again, should go further.
Oh, did I forget to mention: 30 B more people with insurance. A typical family with health insurance now pays about $1000 in premiums to cover the uninsured.
My personal preference would be to have a PO, but like I said, I don't think it could get through. Actually, I would prefer a nationalized health care system, but I know there's no chance for that. So shift the discussion to something you can't get, and then give it back to get what you can.
Did you see the link from Scarce @ 9:23?
Lincoln's position is yes, yes on health care, and no, no on PO.
In the scenario I described, see doesn't become the one vote that caused health care to pass, nor the one vote that caused health care to fail, so she can't be vilified (too badly) from either side.
But she does get support from those that don't want PO, and she does get support from those that want HCR.
Rick said:
"Everyone who is paying attention, including a sizeable percentage of the AR moderates and independents who will either give her the seat back or take it away, knows that a vote for cloture is effectively the same as a vote for the bill - there are 56 yes votes standing by and everyone knows it."
I think you're fooling yourself. Maybe everyone that you see on 538 and other blogs cares that much about a cloture vote. But I really doubt that the many voters who are not so politically active as to read blogs, but will still decide the elections next year, care that much.
I'm not so sure you'll even get 56 votes for PO. Cloture, yes. HCR, probably. But for PO, you'll probably get 52-54. Some of those will be like the house vote, "I'll vote for it if I really have to, but I would prefer you get your 51 somewhere else. Once you get to 51, I'm voting no."
*
Sarah Palin takes on Congress!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFMD6ybP2E&
y2roby: So the thing is that if someone is not paying attention then they're actually probably more likely to care only about the cloture vote, because the mass media routinely does not distinguish between a cloture vote and a vote for passage. They just report the cloture vote as if it were the actual vote (often with technically misleading language like "60 votes were required to pass the bill" attached). If a congressperson wants to vote for cloture and then claim they didn't vote for the bill, this is something they will have to actively explain to their constituents.
MCC:
Actually, you might see a headline about 60 votes to pass bill, but when the actual vote is taken, it will probably be something like "Lincoln votes to end debate" since the actual passage of the bill would not be in that news cycle, but probably 4 days later.
The person who isn't paying attention will not understand the significance of that vote.
I don't think Arkansas has become deeply red, it is just that their racist roots are showing and their education system is so poor they think Glenn is right...
Bradford, your ignorance, hatred, and intolerance for people who are different than you is astounding. You should try to join us here in the 21st century.
Arkansas is incredibly racist, that is why Obama did so poorly, they have no problem voting for southern democrats in their state but you give them one of those eastern liberals or heaven forbid a black harvard educated liberal forget it.
If lincoln is smart, she will go with the bill get a lot of support from the party maybe get Bill and Hillary to campaign for her and get obama to promise to stay away.
There is really no upside for voting against HCR. The democrats in the state will turn on her and the republicans were never going to vote for her anyway.
The democratic party is pretty hopeless when it comes to governing, to many factions at least the GOP is monolithic, we want America to fail so we cabn get back in power and screw the people again.
It amazes me the teabaggers who support conservative are the ones who need the most help when it comes to healthcare.
In the annals of Nate's understatements, "the health care bill is becoming unpopular in Arkansas" is a gold star. New polling out today has the health bill at 35-51 nationally. 16 point underwater! I wonder if there is a state outside of the very bluest that supports it? The Dems can't seriously be planning to pass this dog of a bill can they? You simply cannot pass a change to government this big with polling support that meager. It's suicide.
Jeff --
That's the difference between leading and bumbling. The bills haven't changed much since they were favored by the polls; what's changed is that another couple of months have gone by with the Repub lie machine in full force, abetted by the MSM's inability to put those lies in context.
If the Dems bale on heath care now, they may be a minority party for years to come. And frankly, they'd deserve it.
It always amazes me when people tell me the South isn't racist anymore. Look, the KKK just held a rally in front of Ole Miss a few days ago. Neo-Confederates like the SCV hold rallies telling us Black people were happier under slavery. And yeah, this is in the 21st Century.
I understand the tortured history of the South as much as anybody-hell, you can't go much further south from where I am now without running into the Gulf of Mexico. I feel the same acute embarrassment you do when I hear people remind me of how little has changed down here. To say, "No, you're wrong, that kinda thing never happens here anymore!" is a combination of wishful thinking and fear that things are as bad as they say it is.
Jena, Louisiana isn't that far from Arkansas.
joel,
Putting aside all of your prejudice and lewd comments about people on the right side of the aisle, what makes you think the people need help from the government???
When you put the government in charge of something like YOUR HEALTH, and THEY then decide against covering you for something, what then is your recourse? I'm waiting for that answer.
Stop stutter --
What is your recourse now?
Nate, I don’t know what you’re drinking. The decline in Baucus’s support didn’t come about because he is for the bill, but because he has been seen throughout the process of trying to get a real bill as having consistently knuckled under to the insurance lobbies in adamantly opposing any sort of public option. His fig-leaf rejoinder to criticism, namely that a public option could never get through the Senate, holds about as much water as an actual fig leaf.
A bill without a public option would be utterly useless as “reform”.
To assert that the disparity between Baucus’s approval numbers and Tester’s ascribes a level of idiocy to Montanans even a Teabagger rally would be hard pressed to match.
Mean Dean and PaulK above have it correct.
stop-the-stutter…
Please stop the stutter. If you think a profit-driven insurance company drone is the ideal mediator between your doctor and your health care, instead of some imaginary “government bureaucrat” (no such thing—I have been on Medicare for years without once having to deal with the government) then you are playing with a deck that has all the high cards missing.
Has anybody in recent months (including Nate) published a table of actual numbers showing the correlation between what individual lawmakers have received from the insurance companies and where they stand on the public option?
Baucus would have to be near the top end of that feeding trough, I think.
GROG said...
Bradford, your ignorance, hatred, and intolerance for people who are different than you is astounding. You should try to join us here in the 21st century.
~~~~~~~~~~
Pot/Kettle
Why do people like GROG always accuse their opponents of “hatred” and “fear” just because they disagree with him? (He’s not the only one—Bart De Pointless practically invented the strategy.) Bradford made a perfectly sensible (and defensible IMO) remark about Arkansas which sent GROG into You-Are-All-Fearful-Haters fantasy land again.
Regarding getting with the century, perhaps GROG can start by getting with the 19th, then slowly work his way up to the present. Should take less than a year if he keeps his focus.
(That means turning off the Gilligan’s Island reruns, GROG.)
Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company. Or a lawsuit. If the government rules for no treatment in a single payer system....and lets not kid ourselves, that's what this is leading to, who is to overrule the government's decision on your health?
It would seem to me that allowing free competition between ALL nationwide insurance companies would be OODLES more competition than the poison pill that government run insurance could offer.
George,
That's perfect BS. The "death panel" stuff was over the top, but since then the GOP critique of this bill has been perfectly honest and often dead on. Its a budget busting disaster that won't bend the cost curve or even cover all Americans. It is widely expected to lead to HIGHER premiums for many, and to knock a lot of people out of plans that they like. It slashes Medicare, while raising Medicare taxes (not for the benefit of Medicare, mind you).
In any case, if these are all "lies", then why can Obama, Pelosi et al argue for the bill more effectively? They control all of the major branches of governemnt, and have plenty of friends in the media. They have successfully stigmatized the right and its media (Limbaugh, etc). What perfect storm of conditions would allow them to finally make an effective case? What level of political hegemony will they have to achieve before you stop making excuses.
Passing this with popularity numbers that bad will not be an act of leadership - it will be an act of contempt, and will be perceived that way. But while it lasts, this slow motion suicide is morbidly fascinating, that's for sure.
Has anybody in recent months (including Nate) published a table of actual numbers showing the correlation between what individual lawmakers have received from the insurance companies and where they stand on the public option?
Baucus would have to be near the top end of that feeding trough, I think.
I don't think he related it to the public option, but there was a list a few months back. Max Baucus receives more corporate PAC donations than any other senator, followed by Mitch McConnell, Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln, Richard Burr, and Harry Reid.
Now, that's on an absolute basis - the list is more fairly ordered by % of donations from corporate PACs. Interesting to note that the top two Republicans, Enzi and Crapo, and the top two Democrats, Lincoln and Carper, and five out of the top ten senators overall, are on the Finance subcommittee on health care.
Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company.
While it must be nice to not have employer-based health insurance, the majority of people do not have your same luxury.
Pragmatus writes:
Nate, I don’t know what you’re drinking. The decline in Baucus’s support didn’t come about because he is for the bill,
That's not what Nate argues. He argues that people who have made themselves major "players" in trying to broker compromise on the bill end up pissing off both sides in the debate and having their popularity suffer.
stop_the_stutter said...
"Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company. Or a lawsuit. If the government rules for no treatment in a single payer system....and lets not kid ourselves, that's what this is leading to, who is to overrule the government's decision on your health?"
Uh, stutterer? If you choose the PO and a procedure is denied for illegitimate reasons you could sue (unless the Republicans get national corporate murder protection in the bill), or switch to a different company. Right now no one can overrule your company's decision to ration coverage, and even if you're lucky enough to have a different insurer in your local market, the cost of switching may be prohibitive.
Just as in single payer systems the government makes no decisions about your health but about what procedures can be covered, so in a system with both public and private insurers, any insurer can make that decision but those that offer more coverage may win out. In a system of purely private monopolies, you find far less recourse to get coverage for legitimate procedures.
It would seem to me that allowing free competition between ALL nationwide insurance companies would be OODLES more competition than the poison pill that government run insurance could offer.
How do you see your "free competition between ALL nationwide insurance companies" as different from the national health insurance exchange which is essentially the main point of the health care bill?
@Persuter
Because stutterer--like most Americans--doesn't oppose the actual elements of the bill, just the death panels and bureaucracies that he imagines are in the bill.
Persuter,
How does having a JOB make me lucky?? Both my wife and I are working under just high school diplomas. I don't get that part of your arguement.
And the guy who posted after you left out my arguement about OPEN competition. If one insurance company gives you something you don't like, shop around to another. Hardly a monopoly.
GOVERNMENT would be the ULTIMATE monopoly. Please explain how that could POSSIBLY be wrong.
Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company.
It's unlikely that you're going to switch to another insurance company because they drop coverage for something you don't have yet. Indeed, you probably won't even notice.
Then, when you get sick and do need that coverage, guess what? You can't switch insurance companies because you have a pre-existing condition! Your "recourse" is not a "recourse" at all, it is a fantasy option.
That would, of course, be fixed in the health care reform bill.
How does having a JOB make me lucky?? Both my wife and I are working under just high school diplomas. I don't get that part of your arguement.
What the f**k are you talking about? I said you're lucky that you don't have employer-based health insurance, because people who do can only select from those plans their employer makes available to them.
If one insurance company gives you something you don't like, shop around to another. Hardly a monopoly.
Except that, as noted, if you have a pre-existing condition, you CAN'T change your insurer, or if you have employer-based health insurance with one insurer, you CAN'T change your insurer. You are describing an option that does not exist for most people.
GOVERNMENT would be the ULTIMATE monopoly. Please explain how that could POSSIBLY be wrong.
It's wrong because absolutely nothing in the health care bill suggests that the government will have a monopoly on providing health care!
I would note that even in countries with much more government-oriented health care systems than the United States, such as Canada and Britain, there are still thriving private health care systems. You see this in plenty of other fields as well - UPS and Harvard still seem to be doing pretty well for themselves despite government-funded alternatives. There is absolutely no evidence that private health care insurance would go away.
How do you see your "free competition between ALL nationwide insurance companies" as different from the national health insurance exchange which is essentially the main point of the health care bill?
Ok fine. If that's the main point of the bill, then let's drop the public option garbage.
Also, don't you find it rather unamerican to essentially FORCE somebody to spend their money in a way that they do not see fit? Smart, stupid, or risky, I should have the RIGHT not to purchase any kind of insurance if I choose not to. That part of the bill is very authoritarian IMO.
yoink…
You miss my premise! In no way, shape or form did Baucus try to “broken compromise” on health insurance reform. From the beginning he was adamantly opposed to the public option, fueled certainly by the fact that of all the Democrats in the Senate he has taken more in PAC money (read: laundered insurance lobby money—see Nate’s post on the topic) than any other Democrat. He obviously has no interest whatever in true reform; he wants that sugar-money to keep rolling in.
Voters in Montana are not losing faith in Baucus because he tried to achieve consensus but because he did the exact opposite. He caved in even before there was even the slightest pressure to do so.
You know, it is hard to figure out what you really represent in this debate. Yesterday you went to great lengths to argue that the explosion of health care costs are in no way connected to insurer venality. You also went out of your way to try and show that the public option isn’t important. (I won’t argue that point with you—these guys are much more eloquent than me.)
What the f**k are you talking about? I said you're lucky that you don't have employer-based health insurance, because people who do can only select from those plans their employer makes available to them.
My apologies. I did not anticipate you making the assumption that I do not have employer based healthcare. That is what I infact have. Me and my little $16/hr job, my wife and her little $18/hr job are doing just fine with employer based healthcare. I see little reason for us to be totally tearing down a system that needs little more than a tune up, not a new engine.
stop-the-stutter…
I asked you nicely once to stop the stutter.
Nothing in any version of the bill is forcing anyone to go on the public option. If you are happy with the rigmarole, exploding premiums and continually declining coverage offered by private insurers, not to mention their immunity from anti-trust laws which allows them thousands of different legal ways by which to gouge customers, you will be perfectly free to continue to toss your money at them forever. Hell, you can even make them the sole beneficiaries of your estate if you are so inclined.
So why do you oppose a public option if you’re not forced to enroll in it?
stop-the-stutter…
What will you do if your employer decides to drop health insurance coverage? If you make $16 an hour I am going to assume that your company is not one of the Fortune 500, and since all companies are being squeezed now, what assurance do you have that they will continue to cover their employees, or that next year’s plan they buy won’t shift the majority of costs onto you?
Pragmatus,
So why do you oppose a public option if you’re not forced to enroll in it?
Does the term "camel's nose" mean anything to you?
Also, I oppose forcing people to spend money on something if they choose not to do so. I thought the left was the party of "choice"?
I feel that much needs to be fixed, I just think that the Dems in Senate, and especially the House are doing it in an ideological fashion. Everything in this bill bemoans successful people and paints everyone else as victims. I don't feel that's fair, accurate, or in the best interest of our nation or it's morale.
Let's fix the way lawsuits are filed. Let's fix some of these "loopholes" you speak of. But let's keep the GOVERNMENT out of the insurance business and also let's allow people to purchase OR NOT PURCHASE what they choose free of penalty.
One has the choice of whether or not to drive a car, it's an earned priviledge to do so, therefore, insurance should be required to some extent. However, last I checked, you don't have a choice as to whether or not you LIVE. It's egregiously authoritarian to force anyone to buy something devoid of choice.
Pragmatus,
If my employer changes my coverage, increases premiums, or goes belly up. THAT'S LIFE! Nobody said life should be all rainbows and puppy dogs. I move on. I'll have to find another job, like people do. Like your parents probably did, and their parents. Why all of a sudden do we need big poppa government involved?
Gotta run...nice debate, really. Appreciate it.
stutter said:
"Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company."
And this is easy? Or cheap? Or even possible? Just try changing insurance companies if you've been denied coverage for something. Most (probably all) have a "pre-existing condition" exception and won't cover something like that.
So your recourse to change insurance companies is about as possible as changing planets. You don't like earth? Move to Mars.
don't you find it rather unamerican to essentially FORCE somebody to spend their money in a way that they do not see fit? Smart, stupid, or risky, I should have the RIGHT not to purchase any kind of insurance if I choose not to.
:rolleyes: When you buy a house you are forced to purchase homeowner's insurance. When you drive a car you are forced to purchase auto insurance.
Any time you can cause other people to incur expenses through no fault of yours or theirs, you are required to buy insurance, EXCEPT in the case of health care. If you don't have health insurance, you are simply making the "choice" to let other people pay for you if you get injured or sick, since you won't be able to pay the bills (unless you are extremely wealthy). Hospitals are legally required to take care of you whether you can pay or not. As such, it seems perfectly reasonable to legally require YOU to be able to pay it, and if you don't have enough money to pay for it, to provide free or subsidized insurance.
If hospitals could turn away people without the ability to pay, then you'd have a point. But then people would be dying in the streets outside of hospitals.
If my employer changes my coverage, increases premiums, or goes belly up. THAT'S LIFE! Nobody said life should be all rainbows and puppy dogs. I move on. I'll have to find another job, like people do.
Then your previous comment, "Duh... my recourse is a different insurance company," is clearly incorrect by your own admission. Your recourse is another employer.
And, of course, if you are currently sick, as already mentioned, you can't switch insurance, because of a pre-existing condition. Which means you can't switch jobs. You HAVE to stick with your existing employer no matter how little they pay you because otherwise you can't get new insurance. And you'd better hope to GOD that you don't get laid off.
Your only alternative is to quit your job and go on Medicaid. This is the fundamental problem with the insurance industry as it is structured - there are huge benefits to stop insuring poor sick people. They want to insure rich well people, because they're far more profitable. So they deliberately attempt to push the most expensive people onto the government programs while they take all the most profitable people for themselves.
For everyone who's been commenting and is interested, the Health and Human Services Dept has just posted analyses of the impact of the Senate's bill on the population of each state. The analysis for Arkansas is here:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/arkansas.html
I'm sure the Tea Baggers will be skeptical, because it wasn't published by Sarah P or vocalized by Glenn B, but the numbers are pretty graphic.
Part I:
Pragmatus writes:
You miss my premise! In no way, shape or form did Baucus try to “broken compromise” on health insurance reform. From the beginning he was adamantly opposed to the public option, fueled certainly by the fact that of all the Democrats in the Senate he has taken more in PAC money (read: laundered insurance lobby money—see Nate’s post on the topic) than any other Democrat. He obviously has no interest whatever in true reform; he wants that sugar-money to keep rolling in.
Voters in Montana are not losing faith in Baucus because he tried to achieve consensus but because he did the exact opposite. He caved in even before there was even the slightest pressure to do so.
Well, what you originally wrote (and about which I corrected you) was this:
Nate, I don’t know what you’re drinking. The decline in Baucus’s support didn’t come about because he is for the bill,
Nate didn't argue that Baucus was "for the bill," he argued that Baucus had thrust himself into the spotlight as a major player on the bill. Nate's point is that people who had exactly the same position in relation to the pros and cons of the bill (and what they would and wouldn't vote for) as Baucus have not suffered a popularity drop because they're not seen as major players. He's saying that it's not so much Baucus's position on the bill that has hurt him as his visibility on the issue. O.K?
Now, as to your new argument, that he didn't try to "broker compromise"--that's just pointless quibbling over words. You've decided, arbitrarily, that the word "compromise" can only be afforded to someone who wants to compromise between two positions of which you both approve. It's clear, however, that Baucus was willing to vote for a bill so long as certain provisions were not in it. To say he "brokered a compromise" is not to say he was in the right or that his position was a sound one, it is simply a neutral description of the role he clearly played.
You know, it is hard to figure out what you really represent in this debate.
Gosh, I'm an international many of mystery! A riddle wrapped in an enigma.
Yesterday you went to great lengths to argue that the explosion of health care costs are in no way connected to insurer venality.
No, I argued that insurer venality plays a relatively minor role, not that it plays no role. And I was and remain correct about that.
You also went out of your way to try and show that the public option isn’t important. (I won’t argue that point with you—these guys are much more eloquent than me.)
I clicked around that site for a bit but couldn't find an actual argument for their position. Perhaps you could link to the page that makes this devastatingly eloquent argument?
Part II:
In any event allow me to solve the terrible terrible riddle of my position which seems to puzzle you so greatly.
I think the present US health system is an immoral farce. I think Universal Health Care is rightly President Obama's #1 domestic priority. I think he is correct in assuming that single-payer government-run healthcare is a political impossibility in the current political climate, and for the foreseeable future. I think the plan the Democrats are pursuing is far from the perfect solution, but is also an enormous step forward and, if passed, will represent one of the greatest triumphs of the progressive agenda since the LBJ presidency (I can think of nothing from any subsequent Democratic presidency that would come close). I think the major benefit the proposed reforms provide are the subsidies to help the poor buy insurance, the guarantees of continuity of coverage, the banning of denial of coverage for preexisting conditions and the creation of the Insurance Exchange. I think the Public Option would be helpful, but will have, at best, a very minor effect; I certainly think that it would be better to pass the bill without the Public Option than not to pass it at all.
The Insurance Exchange creates a regulated and relatively open market for insurance which will force insurers into genuine competition for client dollars. That competition will be--in most states--sufficient to keep costs in check with or without the Public Option. The Public Option as envisaged in any of the bills under consideration was required to charge market rates to cover its operation; there is simply no reason to believe that it will be an overwhelmingly cheaper option in comparison to the private insurers' plans.
If I were King of America and whatever I said became law, I'd probably give the US a system like the French one. But America's a democracy. In a democracy a workable compromise is the best you can hope for. The current legislation--with or without the Public Option--is a workable compromise that will see millions of people insured who are currently uninsured. Those who would rather see those people continue to live lives of profound economic uncertainty (not to mention physical vulnerability) because they can't accept anything but a "perfect" bill strike me as blinded by ideological puritanism and as fundamentally ignorant of the nature of democratic politics.
stop-the-stutter…
Part of your job as an American citizen is to pay for things you don’t agree with, because this sort of society doesn’t run solely to cater to your selfish wishes, it costs money, from the police and fire departments to the school systems to the state governments to Medicare, Social Security and the costs associated with Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court.
Since you have proudly noted that your education never went beyond high school, I’ll bet you’re steamed that your tax money goes to support higher education in your state. (Let me guess—Mississippi? Arkansas? South Carolina?) You sure didn’t get anything out of any university, so, extending your logic, why should you have to pay for it? If it were up to you, e.g. everybody was allowed to pick and choose what programs they wish to contribute to, we would be ranked about where Albania is in just about every measure of civilization.
And by the way, this statement of yours—
“If my employer changes my coverage, increases premiums, or goes belly up. THAT’S LIFE! Nobody said life should be all rainbows and puppy dogs.”
—is pure bullshit. If you had no insurance and faced a health crisis you’d do what every other lazy clod with no education does, which is show up at the local emergency room and throw the costs on to the taxpayers, all the while bitching about “the government” making you wait in line.
In short, you’re a cheapass, dipwad teabagger. I’ll bet you and your wife (and kids if any) all wear your hair in one of those ’70s mullets.
Pragmatus,
Wow. You really ARE a douchebag. I was being honest and non-meanspirited and then you spew that hate-laced garbage at me.
It's not being selfish. It's called leaving me the HELL alone. I don't want government dictating everything to me. They are inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt. I don't want the government in my bedroom. I don't want them on my phone line. I don't want them in my medical records. I don't want them on my internet. LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE! There is NO need to uproot this system at all!
FUCK YOU for doubting my selflessness. You can stick your arrogant know-it-all BULLSHIT up your ass. Not everyone wants to be part of a BORG COLLECTIVE! And FUCK YOU for assuming that I wouldn't pay my fair share for any sickness I have. I don't expect ANYTHING to be given to me. Unlike YOU and your WELFARE promoting electorate base of DUMBASSES! You're pretty brave behind a computer, but I bet in real life you are wet flappin douchebag. GET A JOB and you will be ok in life. YOU know it, but would rather control everything.
No use conversing nicely with a dumbshit pussy simpleton like yourself.
And to answer your education question. I'm well-educated enough to know bullshit when I see it. I went to college for a couple years, but found it so insipid and out of touch that I couldn't stomach it anymore. So instead I built my own life. I got a job. My wife from the Bronx got a job. Made LOGICAL EASY DECISIONS ON OUR OWN in life and are ok. We live in CT, BTW. And I HATE public subsidies to universities because A, the schools don't do what I feel colleges should do (i.e. remain politically neutral) and B, public subsidies just end up skyrocketing tuition because it's VERY easy to spend OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.
Now, go out and play in an active volcano please
stop-the-stutter…
Wow—I sure struck a nerve there.
Let’s see—one ignoramus couldn’t hack college, so he declared it insipid and out of touch. I wonder how the millions of people who graduate every year feel knowing this? I suppose Stutter figures all doctors and other professionals would do better to have no education at all. Perhaps that’s because the slice of world he sees from his basement apartment is so limited, and the tiny windows get fogged up so quickly with his angry breathing.
Uh, teabagger—how is it that “public subsidies” result in “skyrocketing tuition”? If you subsidize education then the cost of tuition goes down, not up. I suppose that’s one of those things that will never make sense to someone who never got any further than high school. I suppose you don’t need any of that educashun shit to sweep floors for a living.
public subsidies make the cost of education skyrocket?
Here is what happened in California the other day:
The legislature, in the midst of the budget crisis, cut massive amounts of the budget from the University of California system.
The regents met in LA and hiked tuition and other student fees 32%, with a strong suggestion that there will be more such massive increases coming down the pike.
In this case, it was not the subsidy, but the withdrawal of the subsidy that is causing prices to skyrocket.
Score one for Pragmatus.
Hey, conservative math: it's all about proving their agenda, I guess the numbers can be clipped to match.
Irena commented earlier that a third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts. Not so. Much of that was rolling back of anticipated tax increases, particularly the AMT. Naturally, that would not be stimulative, except to the degree that it eliminates a destimulative.
The real problem with the stimulus is that it did almost nothing to help the private sector get moving, which is what real tax cuts do. Nearly all of the money went to government entities, and while that largely go toward paychecks, thus helping in the very short term, there's nothing for that money to build upon to strengthen the economy, and once it is withdrawn, we're back to square one.
Private sector stimulus is required so that economically-productive jobs may be created, not just jobs that suck money from the private sector. That is the value of marginal tax rate cuts, and history shows those have always worked when enacted, the late-70s-early-80s recession being the prime example.
The reason that public subsidy has increased the cost of college tuition is primarily becasue it has made the tuition market less price-elastic, enabling university costs to become more bloated and less responsive to the laws of economics.
Hopefully, over time, less subsidy will begat better value in college education. Those costs have risen far in excess of nominal inflation over the past 25 years, owing to the vast increase in government subsidy money over time, creating excess demand and bloated administrative costs.
The reduction of the California subsidy will reduce demand, consequetly forcing universities to better rationalize their cost structures. They are initially following the typical government-entity inclination to raise price to solve their revenue problem rather than cutting costs, which will further exacerbate the revenue problem over time. For universities that have excess demand, like UCLA and UC Berkeley, there won't be such an immediate revenue pinch, but that stress will fall mostly upon the universities that do not enjoy excess demand. Those will be hurtin' pups very soon. Getting off the government teat is always painful.
@Rudy
No, eliminating subsidies to public universities will force only noncompetitive institutions to better rationalize their cost structures. No matter how high tuition goes, UC Berkley, UCLA, UV, Mich, Texas, etc will have no trouble maintaining full enrollment--their acceptance decisions will just shift from merit-based to income-based.
The universities that have to do more with less will be the lower-tier schools, who will become even less able to reach the standards of better-endowed schools.
Wealth disparity at the best academic institutions is already a serious problem. You're only suggesting making it worse, regardless of meaningless rhetoric about the "government teat."
Agree Jacob, that the top-tier universities will still fill their classes becasue they have excess demand presently. I thought I was clear about that. Similarly, I agree that the lesser institutions will have the greater budgetary problem. However, all will have problems.
It is also true that the composition of the classes will change more toward those who can pay to get in, or require less financial subsidy.
I am familiar with the inner budget machinations of a top-tier UC institution, and they are in panic mode, as they can't bear the thought of having to cut staff or salaries. This institution's staff/student ratio is nearly double what it was 25 years ago, and it was a top-tier institution then.
The affirmative action cases will be hardest hit. Not all of these are necessarily merit cases, but they have displaced equally-or-better-deserving paying students because of the diversity objective. Yes, economics will again become a more important driver. Right or wrong, that's life in the real world. The government teat enabled such non-economics-based objectives, often to the disadvantage of those who were born smart and white. I wouldn't consider reversal to pure merit an undesirable side effect of the economic crunch.
Rudy said...
"I wouldn't consider reversal to pure merit an undesirable side effect of the economic crunch."
But remember, your idea doesn't shift the focus to pure merit, but further toward pure financial considerations.
Affirmative Action is not the engine driving budget crunches, and the absence of merit in AA decisions is highly overstated.
More importantly, being white, wealthy, and male brings enormous advantages. Whether or not AA effectively addresses this disparity is indeed debatable. But as someone born white, smart, and most importantly economically comfortable, I am happy to give others who don't have as much natural luck a chance at success, even if there's a small chance I sacrifice a place at my first choice of schools.
Well, Jacob, that's nice of you to be so altruistic, and I think many people would share that viewpoint, especially when starting in the catbird's seat economically. The tougher position is someone who may be white, smart, and not-so-economically advantaged. That person may be less inclined to give up their spot on the basis of skin color. They just want equal opportunity to get to the best place they can get on their own merit. They want fairness on the merits, not demographics.
@Rudy
You raise some good points. Where I disagree is largely the idea that "merit" is a fixed concept not adversely impacted by race, economic status, gender, and many many other factors.
As for the smart, white, not-economically-advantaged person, I would say that AA should account for economic disparities in the same manner it accounts for race, or that a new system be developed that more adequately accounts for all disadvantaging factors. Race and gender are important advantages/disadvantages to succeeding in American society but by no means the only ones that should be considered.
As a final note, I gotta say that it's great to be debating a left-right issue on this site without needless vitriol and specious reasoning. I think we probably agree on all but a few points where there are many legitimate arguments on either side, and these differences lead us to very different policy approaches, but all within the realm of legitimate disagreement.
I would really like to see this same kind of analysis done in North Dakota with Conrad and Dorgan.
Typo: "And yet, by inserting herself at the center of the health care debate, Lincoln may be making matters even worse for himself."
Sen. Lincoln is a woman. That should be "herself."
It's funny that Dorgan hasn't take much flak and Conrad only slightly more so, given that they represent a fairly red state (although eastern ND is pretty blue), and I think it points to the detriments of overexposure on this bill more than the detriments of supporting or opposing it.
Found some interesting advice here. Thanks
Post a Comment