God bless Tiny Tim, the spiritual triumph of Ted Kennedy's pragmatism, and President Obama's promised "hard pivot" to a progressive jobs bill in the new year.
Which can't come soon enough, politically speaking.
Heaven forfend that I take in vain the Big Guy's name, especially in this holiday season, but Lord, what a god-awful year. Republicans converted dementia into a comeback-party platform; progressives, now at the peak (pique) of their unfinest hour, are at each others' throats; and independents, while increasingly unemployed and financially uncertain -- not to mention electorally determinative -- stopped caring about the Beltway's oxygen-burning issue of the year six months ago.
Although Washington's prolonged ideological battle does seem to have guaranteed that Tiny Tim's pre-existing condition will now be covered immediately, rather than waiting for 2014, the Senate bill that is finally passing this winter essentially reflects the summer's doings.
Republicans played their characteristically malevolent game, pretending early cooperation but signaling nothing but obstructionism, while Congressional progressives pretended obstructionism but signaled nothing but cooperation. All along, if a deal was to be made, we all -- well, most of us -- knew what it would look like.
Yet there was Grand Posturing to be done! -- thereby delaying for months the only possible inevitability and really, really pissing off that increasingly unemployed electorate.
Nonetheless the health-care bill seems to have got done, thank God, notwithstanding its primal flaws. Is it what I would call a "good" bill? Not really. But then again, I wouldn't have called the Medicare bill of 1965 a good bill, in that true legislative goodness within the nation's health-care arena, it seems to me, means a government-sponsored, government-run health-care system for all, utterly void of the profit motive.
Still, like Medicare, this bill is a (another) start -- a sort of successful stumbling, if you will; an unpalatial foundation, as Sen. Tom Harkin's metaphor went; and, as Ted Kennedy's widow so sensibly put it in a Washington Post op-ed, legislation that the Lion of the Senate is smiling upon, since he came to believe "that it was better to get half a loaf than no loaf at all, especially with so many lives at stake. That's why, even as he never stopped fighting for comprehensive health-care reform, he also championed incremental but effective reforms such as a Patients' Bill of Rights, the Children's Health Insurance Program and COBRA continuation of health coverage" -- and, "while imperfect," something very much like this.
And in that, we see the saving grace of progressive pragmatism -- the Obama-revived FDR-style of enlightened pragmatism still championed by Old-School Liberalism.
Championed, additionally, by old-school liberals such as E.J. Dionne, who has inveighed that "Of course what has happened on the health-care bill is enraging." Nevertheless "the notion that letting the current health-care bill perish would produce a more progressive bill later is preposterous."
Dionne's was a barely muted, interior assault on those who would destroy progress in pursuit of the perfect. As are old-schooler Paul Krugman's recent columns, which have underscored a seething incredulity from within: "With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare.... Beyond [those flaws], we need to take on the way the Senate works.... But that’s for later. Right now, let’s pass the bill that’s on the table."
Or, championed by old-school liberals-qua-social democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, who, a few days ago, on "The Ed Show" -- incidentally, Mr. Schultz's latest emotionally ignited, intellectually untethered objection to the health bill was that it's "socialist," and I kid you not -- said:
"If anyone wants to tell me this is not a particularly strong piece of legislation, you know what? I agree with them.... But the reality is ..."
(Interruption -- reality always gets interrupted ...)
"... [W]hat is the alternative? The alternative is to defeat health care legislation, all of the community health centers, 31 million more people with insurance, insurance reform, and many other important factors, and do what? For five years, 10 years, we don‘t revisit this issue?"
Finally, Sanders' rather conspicuous conclusion: "The day after this bill is passed we improve it."
First, however, it must be passed, so that this Democratic Congress can get on with Obama's "hard pivot" to jobs and the economy -- or there won't be many Congressional Democrats around in 2011 to improve anything.
That's the politically correct thing to do, and if it's not too politically incorrect, I shall finish this piece by sincerely wishing you the very merriest Christmas.
Had Enough Of Being Sold-Out
With our government delivering everlasting bailouts instead of bank restructuring, increased military spending & permanent wars rather than troops out now and demilitarization, renewal of Patriot I & II instead of restoring our right to privacy, and now this insurance company giveaway that's going to waste the first chance in fifteen years for universal health care. Waste it because this faux health reform will go belly-up within a couple of years on account of insurance company greed along with these yearly increases in military spending which invariably put a squeeze on what's available in the budget for health care & education. And look for all hell to break loose when the word gets out to the 65 yrs & older crowd that (on account of the 480 billion Medicare reduction) they're to be means-tested, something that will add a new dimension to the divide & conquer by pitting the young against the old for whatever chump change is left in the budget pie after the military takes its huge slice out of it. So what's the answer (what's not the answer is our sticking with a broken system that, given time restraints, is unfixable)? That we rise up en masse and change the world, that's what. A pipe dream? Perhaps, but there is no alternative, what with time running out & perpetual war + global warming + economic meltdown = doomsday. And if we don't rise up who's child or grandchild is it going to be that ends up having to answer the call "Will the last one out please turn off the light? Could be yours, could be mine, let's not allow it to happen.
THE SYSTEM SUCKS, so what else is new?
the present course OBAMA has chosen is to work within the compromise-laden, centrist-seeking system we have: A 60-vote majority insures that.
so, what are the other choices? become a dictator, or go down in defeat but remain ideologically pure.
what else could he do? serioulsy, what else can he do?
Let me try to answer this
First of all, any understanding of this health care debacle has to begin with the understanding that Obama doesn't want a public option. He met with health care executives barely a month into his presidency and began to barter it away in what I call the "democratic incumbant protection racket of 2010." In the agreement for "Big Healthcare" to not fight Obama on the bill and fund democratic candidates in the next election, Obama agreed to drop the public option.
This has been reported by Ryan Grim at Huff Post and it has been reported extensively at Firedoglake for months. Do your research.
Yet Obama told liberals in town halls this fall that he "favored" a public option.
He lied. Pure and simple.
He also repeatedly insisted as a core tenant that he would not sign a bill without competition for insurance companies.
Where is it?
So this really isn't about the system. This is about a president who cut a deal with industry insiders early on and has been lying to the base about it ever since.
We don't need a dictator. All we need is a president who will defend the 80-90% of the democratic caucus that supports a public option by exerting the power of his office against those who would obstruct. But we haven't had that. In fact, we've had far less.
Obama, however, is a smart cookie, and he knows few people read anymore, and he has gambled that the people on the left who know about this "corrupt bargain" will not reach critical mass and will not win the day. He is gambling that most people are not well-versed and have only a rudimentary understanding at best over what went down and that he can manage the problem politically.
So read up. See what really happened. Joe LIEberman only did what Obama wanted him to do.
And if you like this deal, check out the new Obama-enabled slush fund at Freddy Mac. Not only is Obama a liar, it now appears he is on board for some Rahm-inspired corruption as well.
Charge!
Barry and the Possibles in 2010 will be like popinjay officers shouting 'Follow Me!' to demoralized troops ......... and nobody will.
He has got to be the most disappointing politician ever for the Democratic base, so lettece spray someone with principles challenges the Hopeless One in the 2012 primaries.
"The bah-humbugging may soon be over..."
...so that the hum-buggering may begin - and the insurance companies are stocking up on taxpayer-funded Viagra.
You can use Sarah Palin's Pitbull brand lipstick in her most garish Mooseblood color, and you still can't make this pig of a health care "reform" bill look hot.
I don't know your personal economics, PM, but I sure hope you don't get affected like I will: both a reduction in coverage AND the Cadillac tax!
Thanks so much, Obama and Democrats!
the way it is from
the way it is from KRUGMAN:
Finally, there has been opposition from some progressives who are unhappy with the bill’s limitations. Some would settle for nothing less than a full, Medicare-type, single-payer system. Others had their hearts set on the creation of a public option to compete with private insurers. And there are complaints that the subsidies are inadequate, that many families will still have trouble paying for medical care.
Unlike the tea partiers and the humbuggers, disappointed progressives have valid complaints. But those complaints don’t add up to a reason to reject the bill. Yes, it’s a hackneyed phrase, but politics is the art of the possible.
The truth is that there isn’t a Congressional majority in favor of anything like single-payer. There is a narrow majority in favor of a plan with a moderately strong public option. The House has passed such a plan. But given the way the Senate rules work, it takes 60 votes to do almost anything. And that fact, combined with total Republican opposition, has placed sharp limits on what can be enacted.
If progressives want more, they’ll have to make changing those Senate rules a priority. They’ll also have to work long term on electing a more progressive Congress. But, meanwhile, the bill the Senate has just passed, with a few tweaks — I’d especially like to move the start date up from 2014, if that’s at all possible — is more or less what the Democratic leadership can get.
Paul's wishful thinking
If this lousy attempt at giving America a health care system far inferior to what most other nations have had for years becomes law, then neither this Congress nor Obama will do anything else about this matter; bet the farm on that.
Only if it is in crisis, which is now the case, will health care be addressed at all ......... and for that PRAGMATIC reason, kill the bill and keep it in crisis until we really fix things right.
who says democrats aren't as stupid as republicans
The last 2 letters made me sick.Gee,the bill isn't great but considering the climate we can't expect anything but manure disquised as chicken noodle soup.We can keep rationalizing the fact big business controls this country until PM Carpernter and the phony liberals goose step us down the streets.Go ahead Obama and Pm throw some more dirt in the faces of decent people everywhere.i think I am starting to enjoy it.how about a population control bill where we kill all old people,can you get behind that,Oh we already have by cutting $480 million from medicare.How about another effective climate control bill where people promise not to breath for 5 minutes a day,can you give us a big whoopee PM.
I am TIRED of this fu*king straw man
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is not one clear-thinking liberal who expected a PERFECT bill so will you please lay off that tripe, Carp? It's a lazy argument and I see it everywhere.
Now...what we DID expect was a bill that doesn't resemble a steaming pile of Yak poo on a Siberian winter morning.
What this bill will do for sure is stregthen the insurance companies to the point where, absent a populist revolt, they can never be challenged again. Their power will be geometrically enhanced as compared to today, and there is no starter home (I.E. public option) to build on that I can see that would force competition and control prices in the future.
And I would remind you that these newly-enriched behemoths may be cozying up to the Obama dems now, but they are the natural allies of republicans, and that will surely come back to bite us in the ass at some point.
Plus, we will also need increased subsidies to pay for the poor as these insurance rate hikes increase in frequency, and where will that be felt the most? The middle class. It sets up a class resentment and an ill will to the party responsible for it.
And as far as the loophole-ridden regulations, they are only as good as the enforcement mechanism. I can't wait to see how that works when republicans take the White House and then staff the regulatory agencies with insurance company lobbyists.
Does the bill do some good things? Sure, as long as everything goes according to plan. But after watching the dems "regulate" the credit card companies and the big banks I'm sure they'll do the same thing here, which is to say, very little. And that's a best-case scenario.
But this is the type of reform which Carp and Obama and all their corporate ilk have shoved down the progressives' throats and called "reform" and expect us to like it or lump it.
So be it. It better work, Carp 'ol boy, or it won't matter what the "left of the left" thinks about this bill--the independents and middle class will take care of the dems far beyond our poor ability to add or detract. And your precious "progressive pragmatism"--a corporate red herring in progressive guise--will be responsible for setting the progressive movement back a generation.
And once again, as with Iraq, real progressives will be left with nothing but "I told you sos."
Merry Christmas, Carp, and to all a good night.
Your daily goading does seem
Your daily goading does seem to reveal which self-styled ‘liberals’ you wouldn’t want on your jury. My own very rough definition of a liberal (I just decided) is something like ‘a person you would want on your jury’.
Hohoho
I cant wait to see the faux progressive presidents "hard pivot", on a "progressive jobs bill". I wonder if carp will admit hes a fool when fauxbama "hard pivots", sharply to the right, and pushes a "progressive jobs bill", that is loaded with tax cuts for the rich, and "incentives"(read more handouts), to big business. Nah. He wont admit it. Im sure there will be many brilliant observations from the carp, about how the president is brilliantly fooling the robber barons, by making sure they have soooo much money, they will have to hire regular people just to get rid of some. The evidence that BO is a right winger in Liberals clothing, is becoming overwhelming. You need look no further than BuzzFlash, for proof:Obama names conservatives to Legal Services board. It really is a shame so many fell for this bait & switch in 08. This will probably mean the end of the democratic party, which at this point, dosnt seem like such a bad thing.
Carpy's bah-humbugging may soon be over
Today, Carpy was nominated for Buzzflash's Media Putz of the Decade. Scroll down to the comment section.
Of course, in today's 'Carpy Carps from Down the Rabbit Hole', he once again parrots the fascist propaganda:
'And in that, we see the saving grace of progressive pragmatism -- the Obama-revived FDR-style of enlightened pragmatism still championed by Old-School Liberalism.'
First of all, "progressive pragmatism" is the public option compromised from medicare for all, not the corporate give a way bill passed by the mutinous Senate.
Second, by giving away TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to unaccountable Wall Street but just a bone with strings attached to Main Street, Obama is reviving Hooverism, not a "FDR-style of enlightened pragmatism".
And just what is still championed by "Old-School Liberalism"? It certainly is NOT selling out to the upper 1% plutocratic fascists!
Dennis Kucinich is "Old-School Liberalism". Obama and the Senate sell-outs are Blue Dog DINO-Fascists.
They have passed a bill that is not only unconstitutional, but also forces WE THE PEOPLE into serfdom:
David Sirota speaks on the Senate imposed corporate-serf mandate. '...corporations - those are dictatorships. And when those dictatorships exist in monopoly situations, as it does in the health insurance market, the customer-company relationship is a king-serf relationship. Forcing individuals to give those dictatorships and kings money without even a choice of a public institution the individual partially owns is immoral.'
The way to do it
There is a way to do it. If the Dems are smart enough. And if the Dems have the balls.
In fact they have to do it, and they have to do it immediately, or they're screwed in the mid-terms.
As soon as the current bill is signed, Congress must use reconcilation to expand Medicare coverage as a buy-in. Maybe only the 55-64 age range this year, with a promise of more to come.
That would give them aspects of legislation in the current bill that could not have been obtained through reconciliation plus an expanded Medicare (which Lieberman killed in the current bill). Obama could even claim he planned it that way all along.
Of course, the blue-dogs are going to feel betrayed and might become even more obstructionist than they currently are, but a decent health care system would gain a lot of votes for progressives come election time.
Of course, it's never going to happen. Which means Republicans will control congress after the mid-terms.
Its Dec 24th...
I'll bet you that by Jan. 15th, the top political story will be "Democrats Caught Off-Guard (AGAIN) by the Ferocity of the GOP's Campaign Against Reform." Schumer's airy dismissal of Mitch McConnell's warning on CNN this morning worried me..Again the Dems will fall into this Pollyanaish mode in hoping that the argument is settled an the fight is nearly won...The Dems will never, ever ever EVER learn that opposition will not stop, will never stop.
Show Me! (And I Ain't From Missouri)
"Finally, Sanders' rather conspicuous conclusion: "The day after this bill is passed we improve it."
Ummmm. How?
I think folks who maintain that the Senate "HCR" bill is a "start" have the responsibility to point to ANY piece of thoroughly fucked-up SOCIAL legislation in THE LAST 30 YEARS--i.e., since the Bidness Coup engineered by the Raygunauts--to which the Congress has actually returned, and which the Congress actually "fixed."
I'm not talking Medicare or Social Security. They're products of another 'generation' of legislators, before 'gaming' the system became a popular and lucrative practice by the GOPukes (mostly)...
Just show me a piece of really shitty SOCIAL legislation --such as the Senate HCR-- that Congress returned to to make it more just, or fairer, or more inclusionary?
Btw: "Progressive pragmatism" sound a LOT like--and very likely is rhetorically identical with-- "Compassionate Conservativism."
"Ummmm. How?"
I agree.
Safe prediction: If the Senate version of this is the final bill Hopeless Barry signs, then that will be the only meaningful attempt at reforming America's unique health care mess during his presidency.
Republican-lite Democrats have no desire to bring up the subject again, nor will Obama ......... and the remaining few real Democrats will be shut off, as usual.
well, the difference is that
well, the difference is that PROGRESSIVES deliver, while conservatives don't.
the ALL or nothing mentality by the ideologically pure on the LEFT ( and i 've been a liberal since the '60s, BTW) would not get anything done under the system we got.
the anger should be aimed at that rather than at OBAMA.
here's the crux of the matter. i wrote this column for our local paper:
"In Are We Rome? The Fall of Empire and the Fate of America, Cullen Murphy claims that the Founding Fathers sought in preimperial Rome a way for the young nation to govern itself.
"He then notes that Ben Franklin's famous quip, when asked as he exited Independence Hall what kind of government the US now had–'A republic, if you can keep it'–represented a cautionary reference to the fact that Rome itself could not, eventually spiraling itself into a tyrannical empire.
"Murphy cites how checks and balances had been taken to such an extreme by Rome that 'if both consuls were leading troops into battle, each took charge on alternate days,' a procedure that not only led to defeats in battles but also paralyzed the government.
"Robert Pike concurs: 'The constitution of the Roman Republic failed to change from its archaic formula of layered structures of elected institutions. These paralyzed each other with vetoes, all of which impeded state business.' "
...
that's OUR problem, C & B doing to us what they did in ROME.
PROGRESSIVE PRAGMATISM
once again, a lucid assessment, PM.
BTW i like your term PROGRESSIVE PRAGMATISM, perhaps you can dedicate one your columns to expand upon it:
it speaks to me of a focus on what WORKS for the common-good, rather than to hold out for the ideologically PURE yet lose an incremental victory towards the GOOD!