It is a wise father that knows his own child.
William Shakespeare
Alan Combes and More Political Spin on Polls and the Health Care Law
I was watching an interview segment on daytime Fox News Channel today when Alan Combes, one of the cable channel's liberals and Sean Hannity's former co-host, came on and once again claimed that persistently negative ratings are only because progressives/liberals wanted a stronger bill, e.g., preferably a single-payer, government-run system or, at minimum, the much-vaunted "public option". In fact, Alan Combes is putting lipstick on a pig; about 40% of the country is conservative, and they overwhelmingly reject it. The 30% which are moderates and independents want some form of reform; there is a plurality, but not a majority of support for the current law.
The polls are a mixed bag with no clear consensus, but before proceeding, I think that the polls are poorly stated and misleading. The salient fact is that the American people are happy with their current private-sector health care solutions. I think there are concerns over costs, but I don't believe the people believe that government is effective at managing or controlling costs--and certainly don't buy the disingenuous claims that the government can reduce costs while expanding coverage and improving quality. (I have already pointed out that a major cost factor is the fact that the population is aging, which is beyond public policy unless we have a new baby boom or pursue a more aggressive immigration policy for younger people. Another short-term factor is many people in good health during tough economic times drop coverage, which means fewer people are available to subsidize the costs of more costly insured patients.)
What kind of reform do I think there was consensus for? Catastrophic health reform. I don't think people are worried about covering a deductible or smaller health care bills: they are more concerned about what happens if they can't handle the big health bills--say, major operations or serious illnesses like cancer. They are concerned what happens if they get dropped and can't find similarly priced coverage. But I believe this could have been done through alternative proposals, e.g., government as an insurer of last resort, more fully funding high risk pools.
What does seem to be clear from the sea of polls out there?
- most people realize there's no such thing as a free lunch. More government involvement means higher taxes, and it will have an adverse affect on the economy.
- they don't want anything to risk how they are currently insured (e.g., a large company junking its health care benefit, leaving workers to fend on their own)
- an unambiguous majority opposes the individual mandate.
- there are problems with the status quo. Many states have no or underfunded high risk pools. The small business owner does not have the economy of scale (or the ability to pool with other businesses) to attract the best rates or self-insure like large companies.
It's hard to argue that the health care bill was the biggest issue out there for the election, because many of the costs and benefits are still a few years off. Also, the public knows that as long as Obama is President, there's only so much the House Republicans can do other than starve the bureaucratic beast.
But Combes has to cease and desist spouting this nonsense that voters think the federal government which brought us the economic tsunami, a $13.8T national debt, Katrina, the BP oil spill, Iraq and Afghanistan has the ability to reinvent (or the credibility to deliver) one-sixth of the American economy.
If you ask me whether I like chocolate cake and ice cream, I'll say 'yes'; but if you point out I'm overweight and don't need the extra calories, I would agree I should take a pass. Even if I like certain benefits in a 2000-page bill, it doesn't mean I think the legislation is a good idea. And for Alan Combes to believe that the people support a bill nobody even understands (and we have seen already nasty consequences such as waivers for McDonald's and other companies for certain insurance benefits, not to mention accounting changes in retirement liabilities), really takes arrogance.
Quick Note: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Certified Yesterday for Senate Reelection
The first write-in election for a US Senate election since 1954 capped off a remarkable mid-term election after Joe Miller unexpectedly sniped her party renomination attempt.
Story of the Year: Health Care Reform Passage
The health care legislation was remarkable in a number of respects: its unlikely passage after Scott Brown's (R-MA) remarkable come-from-behind victory to succeed the late Ted Kennedy as a filibuster-sustaining Senate vote #41, its approval without a single Republican vote, the soap opera of exception requests and other revelations, and a flood of state lawsuits challenging the individual mandate and unilateral Medicare/Medicaid coverage extensions (the cost of which is split with states, already reeling from the effects of tax revenue drops).
Winner of the Year: The Independent Voter
There is no doubt that the Republican voter base was highly motivated, and the Tea Party Express sniped several prominent GOP Senate incumbents or heavily favored candidates: Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski, and Mike Castle in particular. The 63-seat conversion by the Republicans was made possible by independents and moderates, angry over massive, unsustainable federal deficits, a lack of checks and balances when the Congress and White House is headed by progressives (representative of only 20% of voters), and no effective handling of the core issue in the 2008 election: the economic free-fall. They wanted change, but on a centrist, not progressive agenda. Obama and the Congressional Democrats pulled a classic bait and switch, posturing as centrists and preaching a nonpartisan politics, but then cramming hundreds of bills down the nation's throat. They also lost credibility after the stimulus plan was sold on unrealistic expectations regarding unemployment. The fact that the victory was not accompanied with a more positive view of Republicans serves as a warning to the Republicans what the voters gave them could just as easily be taken away again and that voters don't vote in people just to see them kick the ball to the next Congress. Tea Party members suggest if the Republicans don't meet their expectations, they'll be out next election; actually, they are quite wrong: if the majority of voters feel that the GOP doesn't use their majority to tackle the economy and major issues like entitlement reform and the debt, it won't matter whom the Tea Party snipes in 2012.
The independent/moderate voters also showed that they weren't prepared to accept candidates whom weren't well-vetted and appeared to be too extreme or eccentric, e.g., Sharron Angle, Kent Buck, Joe Miller, and Christine O'Donnell.
Loser of the Year: Future American Taxpayers
The fact of the matter is the national debt stood at $10.62T when Bush left office and as of yesterday it was $13.87T. Despite all the rhetoric about TARP costs and the banks, the CBO earlier this month reduced its estimate of net costs to the taxpayer to $66B. Obama's austerity initiatives have been essentially trivial--token $17B and $100M initiative and a mostly symbolic freezing of pay for political appointees. After criticizing the Republicans for being hypocritical in failing to balance the budget or for not paying for up to $100B per year for the Middle East operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats not only met the Republicans' lack of fiscal discipline but exceeded them by a multiple.
Whereas I supported the tax cut extension compromise (mostly because I was concerned about increasing taxes on job creators in the middle of a tough economy), I was not happy about the huge spending increases conceded to Obama in return.
In a rapidly growing global economy, other countries will have investment alternatives, and it's vitally important that we adopt globally competitive tax structures and get our debt in check--otherwise, we are going to find us facing European-style austerity measures. It will likely require a combination of tax increases (I've recommended a national sales tax, dedicated strictly to debt reduction) and spending cuts across ALL federal spending--domestic or defense spending, entitlements, etc. Earmarks are a start but account for less than 1% of the budget. Speaker-elect Boehner is talking about rolling back budgets to 2008 spending numbers; I would like to see more serious cuts.
But I suspect that Obama, in a transparent bid for reelection, will keep trying to play the class warfare card and will play good cop to the GOP's bad cop. The true loser in that game? The American people.
Sound Bite of the Year
Political Humor
A few originals:
- Outgoing Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) decided not to pardon (long-deceased) Billy the Kid. In an unrelated story, President Obama has decided not to pardon John Wilkes Booth.
- President Obama said, "When I get back [from vacation], I really want to figure out a way where I can spend more time outside of Washington listening and learning and engaging with the American people." The New York Post just came out with a Presidential summary, which might help: He made 491 statements, went on 172 flights, took 6 vacations over 30 days, gave 107 interviews, met with 61 foreign leaders, played 29 rounds of golf and at least 20 basketball games. On the other hand, Obama did meet with the House Republicans at their retreat one day, interrupted Republicans only a handful of times during their one-day summit on health care, met with his own cabinet 6 times, went to 7 backyard chats, and attended 17 town hall meetings.
Bobby Darin, "Christmas Auld Lang Syne"
