No one cares about election fraud in Afghanistan because we all understand that it was basically a farce anyway. A farce which hopefully would've gone the "right" way without fraud, but which was inevitably going to go that right way.
We basically installed Karzai, and he'll be in charge as long as he wants to be. That's usually how these things work.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
If They Designed Social Security Today
Well, they probably wouldn't. They might have a slightly more generous SSI program, which would be income and asset tested. Same for public education...
The point is we've moved away from "there are just certain things government does well and should do" and over to "maybe government should do some stuff for the poor but that's about it." It's a problem, both from a policy perspective, as there are certain things the government should do, and from a political perspective, as benefits-for-other-people never gets wide support.
Imagine what the centrists would say if universal government-run mail delivery was proposed today.
The point is we've moved away from "there are just certain things government does well and should do" and over to "maybe government should do some stuff for the poor but that's about it." It's a problem, both from a policy perspective, as there are certain things the government should do, and from a political perspective, as benefits-for-other-people never gets wide support.
Imagine what the centrists would say if universal government-run mail delivery was proposed today.
Not Quite
Amanda says:
I think it's slightly more rational than this. I think such voters are paranoid that "their money" is going to be taken from them and given to someone else, most likely someone "undeserving," and that they will personally get nothing. If they vote for Democrats there's a chance they'll get some goodies, but also a chance the goodies will go to someone else. If they vote for Republicans, they think (rightly or wrongly) that at least their taxes won't go up.
It's why the general pain caucus approach of decreasing government benefits for the middle class has been so bad for Democrats. It's made people perceive all government benefits as stuff for the poor, as welfare.
Apparently, the American swing voter tends to think, “If I’m going to get screwed over, I want it to be by someone who is aggressive as possible about it.”
I think it's slightly more rational than this. I think such voters are paranoid that "their money" is going to be taken from them and given to someone else, most likely someone "undeserving," and that they will personally get nothing. If they vote for Democrats there's a chance they'll get some goodies, but also a chance the goodies will go to someone else. If they vote for Republicans, they think (rightly or wrongly) that at least their taxes won't go up.
It's why the general pain caucus approach of decreasing government benefits for the middle class has been so bad for Democrats. It's made people perceive all government benefits as stuff for the poor, as welfare.
Positive Car Control
I don't know enough to have real opinions about the specifics, but I do think it's a bit absurd that one obvious human error caused rail crash necessitates $200 million in safety expenditures. Such expenditures may be good idea, but compared to the daily carnage on roads rail accidents just aren't that frequent.
Green Shoots
I don't like being the grumpy bear, but thus far the data is with me. There really are no signs of an employment turnaround, and no inflection points don't count.
Perverse
Obama and his campaign team accomplished something extraordinary in 2008. They inspired, and turned out, a huge number of young people who had not voted before. These new voters, new Democrats, were moved by his commitment to Change of a system driven by lobbyists and not voters.
I cannot think of a more effective way of alienating those voters than forcing them to buy shitty health insurance they can't afford even if subsidized (13% of income?!?).
And, of course, Obama will be throwing away really remarkable emotional commitments (via digby) on the part of his most fervent supporters.
I guess, in the end, it is all about the Daschle/Tauzin retirement plan.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Stupid Liberals
There already is a public option.
ROBERTS: Welcome back to the most news in the morning. How far would you go to get good health insurance? One man who lost his job and medical benefits reenlisted in the Army just to get his family covered and then he paid the ultimate price. This is a story that you'll see only here on CNN.
While You Were Having Fun
In case you missed them while partying, Bobblespeaking of Meet The Press with Fluffy and Axelrod and This Week with George Stephanolopous with Robert Gibbs and others.
Getting Around
Most people using Phoenix's new light rail system are using it to get around, not simply for commuting.
Too much thinking on transportation policy in recent decades has been based on premises that "everyone" has a car, highways are crowded at commuting times, and getting people to drive 10 minutes to a train station is a way of relieving highway congestion. In this, even the purpose of mass transit is to aid highway drivers.
Not enough though has been given to improving transit in denser areas where car ownership is optional and people use mass transit for getting around generally. So, non-peak service tends to be reduced, emphasis is placed on bringing people into the central business district, etc.
Too much thinking on transportation policy in recent decades has been based on premises that "everyone" has a car, highways are crowded at commuting times, and getting people to drive 10 minutes to a train station is a way of relieving highway congestion. In this, even the purpose of mass transit is to aid highway drivers.
Not enough though has been given to improving transit in denser areas where car ownership is optional and people use mass transit for getting around generally. So, non-peak service tends to be reduced, emphasis is placed on bringing people into the central business district, etc.
Unpopular
As Josh says, this is, at the moment, headed in a bad direction. The seem to have lost track of the fact - a fact Republicans understand and have been quite open about for decades - that passing a popular health care bill will make voters love Democrats and passing an unpopular one, or perhaps none at all, will make voters hate them. The Republicans were always going to oppose whatever the Democrats came up with, I just didn't know the Dems would let them do that while also letting them work to make sure anything they came up with is really unpopular.
Baucus Plan
Digby has the right take, it's not nothing but it is a crap sandwich which people won't like, Republicans won't support it, voters will hate it, and even insurance companies will squeal even though it preserves their role as skimmers of trillions of dollars for no discernible benefit.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Veal Pen
As Jane says, if the Obama administration, and "liberal institutions," want lousy liberal base turnout in 2010, they're sure doing everything they possibly can to get lousy liberal base turnout in 2010.
Democrats were elected to fight for the kind of healthcare enjoyed by the rest of the developed world, to stop climate change disaster, to make sure the fools and greedheads who wrecked the economy don't get to do so again, and to end stupid wars. Oh, and to punch back at wingnuts.
Fight for these things: win. Don't: FAIL.
And there you go.
Democrats were elected to fight for the kind of healthcare enjoyed by the rest of the developed world, to stop climate change disaster, to make sure the fools and greedheads who wrecked the economy don't get to do so again, and to end stupid wars. Oh, and to punch back at wingnuts.
Fight for these things: win. Don't: FAIL.
And there you go.
It's The Economy, Stupid
I think that was not quite as true as sometimes claimed in the 1992 election, but if the Republicans ever get marginally coherent enough to strike a fake populist that has the slimmest non-crackpot veneer then all bets are off, at least in the House, in '10. Our "side" needs to make the case that doing more of what they're doing is the right idea, even as they've generally taken the position that less is better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)