Michael Barone casts a bit of cold water on the idea that the Democrats are coming into complete power with a mandate for all their policies.
Do Obama and the Democrats have a mandate? Obama got a larger percentage than any other Democrat since 1964, and Democrats have congressional majorities comparable to those in Bill Clinton's first two years. But their policies of protectionism and greater taxes on high earners seem ill-suited to a country facing a recession (see Hoover, Herbert). The public fisc does not appear to be overflowing enough to finance refundable tax credits, government health insurance or universal pre-kindergarten.
The half of the electorate that doesn't remember the 1970s may be more open to big government than those of us who do.
But "open to" does not equal "demand." The decisive shift of public opinion came when the financial crisis hit. McCain approached it like a fighter pilot, denouncing Wall Street, suspending his campaign, threatening to skip the first debate. Obama approached it like a law professor, cool and detached. Voters preferred law professor to fighter pilot. This was a triumph of temperament, not policy.
It seems taht the vote for Obama was much more a vote for him as a personality. He was much more appealing than John McCain. If
Charles Krauthammer and Barone are correct that McCain's hopes died during the fincancial crisis of September, then we should also remember that Obama put forth few policy recommendations for how to deal with the financial realities that will determine the course of his presidency. The young people who came out to help deliver the victory to Obama weren't voting for some of the policies that
Will Englund, Kirk Victor, and Brian Friel of the National Journal say that the Congressional Democrats hope to put through early next year.
Democrats will probably push through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which got significant Republican support in the current Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a bill ready to go authorizing federal financing for embryonic-stem-cell research, and another that would overturn a limited Supreme Court decision on women's ability to sue for wage discrimination. The administration could try to find a quick solution to Guantanamo, which would be freighted with symbolism and wouldn't cost much money. ("Easier said than done," Kerrey cautions. "That is the ultimate roach motel problem.")
All of this would make the Democrats feel good about getting something done. It wouldn't keep them all on the same page. The House, in particular, looks to be rowdy.
These might be easy to get through, but then what? If they pass SCHIP, how will they pay for that increase and all the other spending measures that they'll want to turn to next? Will the Blue Dog Democrats keep checking their fiscal conservativism at the door as they have so far and explode the whole pretense that they demand a "pay as you go" approach to funding?
12 comments:
"If they pass SCHIP, how will they pay for that increase and all the other spending measures that they'll want to turn to next?"
I don't know, off the top of my head, I'd suggest some combination of increasing taxes on those who have already achieved the American dream, and stopping the fraudulent and needless waste of money in Iraq.
Investing in the health of American children should be a priorityhigher than most. Those are two easy ways to pay for it.
Depending on which flip-flop or flop-flip he chooses, Obama will either stay in Iraq or send the troops now there to Afghanistan to invade Pakistan and, as he said, "get bin Laden." And since military experts have already warned Afghanistan will take much longer to extricate from than Iraq (longer = more billions), Obama will apparently need to decide which flip he wants to flop on this time - SCHIP or getting bin Laden.
Last time Progressives/Liberals/Democrats raised taxes on "those who have already achieved the American dream," anyone earning around $42,000 wound up paying more.
What was Bush's mandate in 2000? He pushed thru his policies with a Congress much less favorable to him than a Congress that Obama is going to have. Stop grasping at straws, stop your "American dreams" and start hoping that you can resign to the changes.
Since many Democrats voted for the initial war resolution in 2002 and then could have stopped the war easily in 2007, I assume that they too fall into the category of fraudulent and will be volunteering their salaries for the less fortunate? Or perhaps that one congressman wearing the hair shirt and practicing the mortification of his flesh out of guilt that America is not perfect?
It will be curious to see how the Congress defines "...those who achieved the American Dream." Will that be an American that owns a car worth $25,000 or merely someone who is making payments on a car worth $25,000? Is that encompassing someone who has five years to go of mortgage payments in San Bernardino or the guy who lives in a trailer park 1/2 mile from the beach in Santa Monica? Or is that going to be the guy who wants to purge America of all those he deems inferior because he sees the American Dream as befitting only his racial group?
"It will be curious to see how the Congress defines "...those who achieved the American Dream."
McCain already defined rich - it is those making over $5M a year. I think that is too high.
Obama defined it as people earning more than $250K year. That sounds about right to me. I think they could stand another 3 or 4% on their capital gains taxes.
For several of the past few years that tax would appply to me, though not recently, with the Bush economic meltdown, of course.
I'm assuming then that the guy who makes $45K a year will look at the guy claiming to make $250K and decide that the latter can afford to pay an extra 4-5% income taxes. Just as the guy on Social Security decides that the guy making $45K can afford that extra 4-5% in taxes.
Or just perhaps it shouldn't be the governments function to find out who "deserves" to be taxed more simply because they make more. Last time I checked the wealthy and the poor share only their common citizenship and the obligation to tax "fairly" is still not in the Constitution.
Pat -- all governments make decisions about who gets taxed and how much.
It's perfectly reasonable that those who benefit most from the vast investment in American infrastructure (courts, highways, education, rule of law, civilization, police, fire, etc) should pay the most to support that infrastructure.
If you don't like that, then you can get your equally arbitrary policy of funnelling more money to the super rich 1%... if you can find general support for that. Seems like recently, the American public has soured on that.
So you are arguing now that the poor, who are more reliant on public services, should pay more to use them compared to the rich who generally don't need as many of these services. Why should the wealthy, say in an area that has 1/2 the police and fireprotection as another area somehow have a moral obligation to pay for using that infrastructure less.
To claim that the wealthy use public services more is simply grade school rhetoric which ignore that the wealthy can afford to live in areas tht don't need police, fire and social services on every street corner. In California education spending is greater in urban areas than in suburban areas mainly because people that should know better find it reasonable to defund productive segments of the population to fund the less productive areas.
Plus how is lowering the taxes on income earned by the wealthy funneling money to them. It seems that they are simply keeping more of what they earn not in sneaking into urban areas and picking people's pockets as they sleep.
Pat - your most recent post is very confused. Can you delete it, and re-post with what you actually intended to say. I will try to reply once I understand the point you are trying to make.
"you are arguing now that the poor, who are more reliant on public services, should pay more to use them compared to the rich" Um, no. I am arguing the opposite.
Ok, then we seem to be in agreement that those who use and a more dependent on social services should pay more. But then that means the poor will pay more and the rich less. Again the wealthy do not use public or social services as much as the poor and it seems that you have argued that those who use the services should pay for them. Fine by me, no more emergency rooms, cut back on fire and police in urban areas, even out spending on education between suburban and urban, make the ratio for libraries to population the same and no more subsidized bus or train services for the poor.
Here's just one example of how the wealthier communities actually end up with less in the way of access to public services than poorer areas. The city of Huntington Beach in CA has a population of 202,250, a per capita GDP of $31,964 and a ratio of 854 to 1 of sworn police officers.
While the nearby city of Long Beach has a population 491,564, a per capita GDP of $21,288 and a raio of 508 to 1 of sworn police officers. Virtually the same ratio held true of fire and similar if smaller gaps between city workers and teachers. So t would appear that the wealthier the community is the less likely it is to need police, fire, city employees and teachers.
They will not get anything done, but higher spending, I promise you that. Everyone knows the elitist illuminati will spend more money, and raise our taxes to pay for it.
Post a Comment