Democrats Are Unable To Effectively Govern (Ezra Klein)

Can Democrats Govern?



It's worth taking a step back from health-care reform for a second. What Democrats are doing isn't just abandoning a particular policy issue. They're proving themselves unable to govern.

Democrats spent most of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate and about 256 in the House. They had a popular new president who was following a disastrous Republican administration and a financial crisis. The opposition party was polling somewhere between foot fungus and spoiled meat. You don't get opportunities like this very often. The Senate majority, in fact, was larger than either party had enjoyed since the 1970s. And what have Democrats accomplished?

Well, not much. You can see a list here.

A stimulus that was too small. Ted Kennedy's Serve America Act. Credit card regulations that were largely an acceleration of rules the Federal Reserve was going to impose anyway. I guess they almost passed a compromised health-care bill, but you don't go down in history for almosts.

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

You could argue that it's not fair to brand "Democrats" as at fault here. There's something to that. The leadership and the president would happily pass and sign legislation. But a party is as a party does.

Democrats often run on the need to have enough votes to act. If they can't act even with those votes, then there's a real problem. Would Republicans be so terrorized if they were in a similar circumstance? The GOP forged ahead with its attempts to impeach Bill Clinton even after voters cut them down for it in the 1998 election. Those were some odd priorities, but at least the party was committed to the agenda it ran on. Democrats may not want to go quite that far in terms of party discipline, but they need to get a whole lot further than they are now.


About Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein writes an opinionated blog on economic policy, collapsing banks, cap and trade, health care reform and pretty much anything else you can attach a chart to. His blog points to the hottest policy ideas on the Web and provides his own up-to-the-minute take. Before coming to The Post, he was an associate editor at the American Prospect. Klein has appeared as a guest on CNN, MSNBC, NPR and C-SPAN and lots of online radio shows you've never heard of.

Klein, who makes a mean kung pao, will also be a regular contributor to The Post's Food section. He contributes to the group food blog the Internet Food Association.


Sources: Washington Post, Newsweek, Wikipedia

Congress Members Risking Political Careers On Health Care Legislation

Parties Risk It All On Health Care Reform


As Health Care legislation staggered erratically through Congress this year, something happened to the biggest domestic policy debate of a generation.

It turned small—shrouded in arcane arguments over a “robust Public Option” versus co-ops, whether government funds could indirectly subsidize abortions, and even the state share of Medicaid payments in Nebraska.

Now the debate is about to turn big again.

However scattered and improvisational the process, both parties in 2009 took clear and in many ways irrevocable stands that will certainly shadow the politics of 2010 and will very likely exert a gravitational pull on the decade to follow.

The real stakes of health care reform are ideological. They revolve around starkly different bets Democrats and Republicans placed on the success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the success or failure of a newly expanded role for government in the lives of Americans.

On the left, the bet is that health care reform, even a version most liberals see as flawed, will give the middle class and those clamoring to break into it a greater sense of personal security—enhancing the reputation of and popular support for a dynamic national government.

In this light, health care reform would become a latter-day equivalent of Social Security—a program that quickly evolves into a politically untouchable federal commitment and which fundamentally alters voters’ relationship to Washington in ways that benefit the party of activist government.

That may seem a lot to hang on the jerry-rigged compromise that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. But even most critics of the plan said they expect the House and Senate to reconcile their differences—most likely more in the Senate’s favor—and that some major health care legislation will be enacted this winter.

Obama himself this week seemed to be trying to move the debate beyond parliamentary gamesmanship and into historic perspective.

“These are not small reforms; these are big reforms,” Obama said Thursday as he hailed the Senate’s vote. “If passed, this will be the most important piece of social policy since the Social Security Act in the 1930s, and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is also billing the achievement as a momentous one. “We stand on the doorstep of history. We understand that,” Reid said Wednesday.

But there are some clear risks as well for the unruly coalition of liberal and moderate Democrats that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill have stitched together.

One danger is that Democrats have raised expectations far beyond what this reform can deliver. Another is that by doling out generous subsidies while ducking the most aggressive efforts to control health care costs, they are inviting massive deficits that will prove unsustainable in the long run. If that happens, it could discredit the cause of activist government in a lasting way.

Republicans have placed a different bet—one with its own set of potential rewards and penalties.

The hope is that their nearly blanket opposition to Obama’s and Democrats’ ideas will position the GOP as the party of sobriety and realism—ready to reap the benefits if people conclude this version of health care reform was a grand mistake.

But the risks are obvious. The GOP can’t afford for this measure—and by extension Obama’s presidency—to be perceived as even a partial success. If so, their own opposition would look more like a failed power play than a principled stand, leaving voters with a reminder of why they turned against Republicans in the first place in 2006 and 2008.

Even now—with weeks more haggling at a minimum before final passage, and failure still a possibility—these arguments are being rehearsed with an eye towards the elections in 2010 and 2012.

“This will define and polarize the country for a generation,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, whose role in thwarting President Clinton's1993 health care bid helped Republicans win control of the House in the 1994 elections. “I believe this bill will be repealed. I think repealing it will be a major campaign theme in ’10 and ’12.”

“If the majority refuses to listen to what Americans are telling them now – I’m sure they will have a rude wake-up call waiting for them later,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday. “To date, we have been rebuffed by an unfailing determination by a few to pursue a nearly socialist agenda.”

White House officials and other Democrats involved in the health care debate say they’re not concerned by a recent spate of polls suggesting that Americans oppose the current health care reform plans. They predict, or are hoping for, a mild political benefit from the measure in 2010 and more of a boost as more of the plan’s provisions come on line.

“I’m just convinced the numbers will come up a little bit [by next year], but it’s not going to be overwhelming,” one Democrat close to the White House said.

“If this is framed fundamentally as a series of very, very popular insurance reforms, it will benefit people who voted in favor of it and be a negative for those who didn’t. If this is framed as a great big explosion in government—the federal takeover of health care with a trillion dollar price tag, it’s more of a challenge for Democrats than Republicans,” Democratic consultant Steve McMahon said. “It’s a framing battle.”

“The stakes are very high and very real,” he added. “About 70% of this bill is very popular, 20% is less popular and 10% is not very popular. Whoever frames the issue better will probably win.”

Many Democratic operatives believe next fall’s election will turn on the economy and unemployment and that health care reform will be only a side issue for swing voters. But some Republicans say that, even if the economy rebounds, the health care legislation will feed voters’ concerns about surging spending and ballooning deficits.

While Democrats, the White House and the Congressional Budget Office assert that the plan will save $132 billion in projected spending over the next ten years, Republicans insist the program will cause the government to hemorrhage cash.

“The No. 1 issue next fall could well be government spending—for the first time since probably 1978,” GOP pollster Ed Goeas predicted.

While some Republicans warn about the creeping “Europeanization of America” and talk about repealing whatever Democrats pass, some conservatives concede that what they call “Obamacare” could become politically impossible to unwind.

“This is the most significant increase in federal government power and reach in generations, much more than Medicare. This is really taking control of a sixth of the economy,” columnist Charles Krauthammer said. “It's an amazing achievement for the left."

Krauthammer thinks Democrats will “suffer greatly” as the program’s taxes take effect in a few years. “The question is, will that lead to some repeal or will the Democrats survive long enough for the new entitlement to kick in, which is around 2013-14, in which case it becomes entrenched and it will not be reversed?” he said. "I do think this is really going against the grain [of most Americans' notions about the proper role of government] ….I think, in the long run, it fails, but it's very hard to say because once people get used to the benefits, even though they're higher-cost, it gets hard to undo.”

Former Clinton domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed said he expects the bill to be a major boon to Democrats over the long haul – but only if the cost-control provisions work or others can be fashioned.

“Twenty years from now, we will look back on this as a much bigger success if health care costs level off than if they don’t,” Reed said. “If Democrats get long-term deficits under control, then the country will embrace our approach to government. If long-term spending spirals out of control, then Republicans will benefit even though they have a lousy track record on that front.”

The political impact of the bill could be amplified by its geographic reach. Many of the bill’s long-term benefits in terms of insurance subsidies for the poor will go to states in the South where Republicans have held sway for decades. However, many of the beneficiaries will be minorities and the rural poor, who have traditionally had a low turnout in elections.

With Democratic House members itching to accelerate aspects of the bill so that some positive impact is felt before the 2010 elections, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) took to the floor Wednesday to stress ten aspects of the bill that will take effect in a matter of months.

Most politically consequential in the short term could be a promise to cut seniors’ drug costs in Medicare’s so-called doughnut hole. Small business owners may also cheer new tax credits for buying insurance. But because most health insurance contracts run from January to December, many of the new protections regarding pre-existing conditions and benefit caps won’t really kick in until 2011 at the earliest.

“These are important reforms, but the number of people who are actually going to be touched by them in the broader political narrative is really de minimis,” said Tim Murphy, an architect of Health Reform in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney. “The way the bill is structured, for the overwhelming majority of the 175 million people who get coverage through their employer, it ain’t going to change much….In the short run, the political narrative, the political story is a lot of the same.”

Murphy said some of Republicans’ dire warnings about a government takeover of health care will prove to be untrue, but the Democrats face some political risk in the long term for repeatedly suggesting the reform plan will end the spiral of health expenses.

“Certainly when the world doesn’t change, the Republicans are going to look silly for using apocalyptic rhetoric in the whole debate,” the former Mass. health secretary said. “The danger for the Democrats is they have raised expectations that this bill will rein in costs. This bill will do absolutely nothing to inflect costs…And where I’ve seen elections really go the wrong way is when people’s expectations are not met.”

All the sweeping rhetoric and self-congratulation of the past few days has clearly left some Democrats concerned that Americans will be disappointed when the ills of the current health care system aren’t cured overnight.

“Colleagues on my side of the aisle are also making statements that might come under the heading of ‘overselling,’ saying that for most people, premiums will go down,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “It is true that for many Americans the out-of-pocket cost for better, more-secure health insurance will go down. But it’s also true that most health care premiums will continue to go up – it’s just that they will go up at a slower rate than they would if this bill weren’t adopted.”

Franken also urged patience, conceding that some of the plan’s pain will be felt before most of the gains. “I wish we could do everything at once, but we’re making a complex set of reforms, and it will take time to implement them and generate the cost savings necessary to pay for the benefits you’ll receive,” he said.

Still, a leading scholar of President Lyndon Johnson’s drive to create Medicare said that over time Obama’s health care reform package has the potential to change the political landscape in favor of Democrats and to the detriment of Republicans—if it works.

“People should step back and consider the historic scope of this achievement,” said Jim Morone, a Political Science Professor at Brown University.

“The only thing [Democrats] ought to worry about is that this actually parses as a program—that it has costs…that aren’t apparent. If it proves to be successful, Republicans are screwed.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, Google Maps

"Ted Kennedy Would Be Disappointed Health Care Bill Isn't Bi-Partisan"...McCain

Exhausted and Divided, Senate Casts Holiday Vote


The last time the Senate voted on Christmas Eve, in 1895, it represented a moment of national reconciliation, as lawmakers agreed to lift a ban on federal officers who had joined the Confederacy from serving in the post-Civil War military.

“No Animosity Remaining,” proclaimed a celebratory front-page headline in The New York Times the next day.

The same could not be declared about Thursday’s vote approving a bitterly contested health care overhaul at the end of an exhausting 25-day legislative journey. It was the second-longest consecutive stretch in Senate annals and one that severely strained the traditions of collegiality that underpin the institution.

Beneath the bright red jackets, blouses and holiday ties donned to signify the exceedingly rare occasion of a sunrise session the day before Christmas, real tension remained over the merits of the proposal passed along hardened party lines as well as over how the debate unfolded, with its odd postmidnight and early morning votes.

Democrats and their allies rejoiced at realizing an achievement that had eluded them for decades, saying they were on the verge of enacting an expansion of health care coverage that would provide security for millions of Americans. But the excitement was tempered with the reality for some that they will now have to persuade skeptical voters that the measure, which has been subjected to a blizzard of partisan analysis, is in the public’s best interests.

“I know there are a lot of people who have an opposing point of view,” said Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who was the key 60th vote for the bill. “The use of information and misinformation has really confused the public. Don’t be surprised if you have people who are upset.”

In the minutes leading up to the 7:05 a.m. call of the Senate roll, Republicans sat glum and scowling at their desks as Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader and architect of the measure, chastised them for choosing “to stand on the sidelines rather than participate in great and greatly needed social change.” It was not a happy holiday moment for them.

“It is sad,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who has been willing to cross party lines to work with Democrats but remains firmly opposed to the bill. “I feel that we missed an opportunity.”

Senior Republicans pledged to continue to resist the measure as it heads for negotiations with the House.

“I guarantee you, the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “There is widespread opposition to this monstrosity.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For all the buildup, the final act was accomplished speedily as senators, ready to race to the region’s airports, assembled with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. presiding and zipped through the climactic vote in about 15 minutes. The outcome drew applause as weary Congressional staff members and administration negotiators looked on. A second vote to approve an increase in federal borrowing power was quickly disposed of, and in just over 30 minutes, lawmakers were heading for the doors with their travel bags.

At the White House, President Obama hung around long enough to congratulate his party, then headed to Hawaii for the holidays with his family.

On Capitol Hill, there was little griping about working right up to the holiday. “Those kids in Iraq are out there,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. “We have no basis to be whining around here about working.”

Among those in the gallery was Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who was credited by Democrats as inspiring them to push the measure through after his death last summer.

Senator Paul Kirk, who filled Mr. Kennedy’s seat after the Massachusetts legislature took extraordinary steps to provide a dependable vote for health care, said it was an emotional moment that left him elated.

“He is having a Merry Christmas up there in heaven, proud of the leadership and all the work that went into it,” Mr. Kirk said.

The scores of police officers and Senate staff required for a daily session arrived at the Capitol in the dark to prepare for the final vote. Some opponents of the bill did as well.

“I am here to watch my country get signed away,” said Sherri Cooper, who traveled from Georgia to witness the vote, as she searched for an open entrance to the Capitol.

With a final measure near approval, Democrats say they believe they can better sell the plan and focus on benefits intended to provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans and stop ever-rising insurance costs.

“When people learn what is in this bill, which is a lot of good stuff for them, I think we will be in good shape,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, said as he headed into the chamber to cast his vote.

The 25-day Senate run fell one day short of the record set in 1917, when antiwar lawmakers were stalling a measure allowing the arming of merchant ships during World War I.

President Woodrow Wilson, greatly frustrated at the power of a “little group of willful men,” pushed the Senate to create a process to cut off debate, and the Senate adopted its rule allowing senators to impose cloture and force final votes.

That power allowed present-day Democrats to use their 60-vote bloc to overcome Republican objections through a series of cloture votes and push their health care plan into talks with the House.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Zimbio, Google Maps