JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Let me offer a ludicrously premature opinion: Barack Obama has sealed his reputation as a president of great historical import. We don't know what will follow in his presidency, and it's quite possible that some future event--a war, a scandal--will define his presidency. But we do know that he has put his imprint on the structure of American government in a way that no Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has.
The last two generations have no model for such a president. The only two other Democratic presidents of the last four decades are Jimmy Carter, a failure, and Bill Clinton, who enjoyed modest successes but failed in his most significant legislative fight. Obama, who helped pull the country out of a depression and reshaped the health care system, has already accomplished far more than Clinton. (This isn't necessarily Clinton's fault--he lacked the votes to break a Republican filibuster that Obama has--but the historical convention is to judge a president by what he and the Congress achieve together.) He will never be plausibly compared with Jimmy Carter.
Historians will see this health care bill as a masterfully crafted piece of legislation. Obama and the Democrats managed to bring together most of the stakeholders and every single Senator in their party. The new law untangles the dysfunctionalities of the individual insurance market while fulfilling the political imperative of leaving the employer-provided system in place. Through determined advocacy, and against special interest opposition, they put into place numerous reforms to force efficiency into a wasteful system. They found hundreds of billions of dollars in payment offsets, a monumental task in itself. And they will bring economic and physical security to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise risk seeing their lives torn apart. Health care experts for decades have bemoaned the impossibility of such reforms--the system is wasteful, but the very waste creates a powerful constituency for the status quo. Finally, the Democrats have begun to untangle the Gordian knot. It's a staggering political task and substantive achievement.
The template of a powerful, historically consequential Democratic president is unfamiliar to many of us. Certainly the Republicans have no real idea how to deal with it. Look at Bill Kristol's taunting editorial in the Weekly Standard:
After his 1851 coup d’état, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the real Napoleon, pronounced himself Napoleon III. It was the rise to power of this great-man-wannabe that prompted the famous opening of Karl Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis-Bonaparte: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
And presiding over this three-ring circus of liberal incompetence was President Barack Obama, who stands in relation to the towering and tragic figure of Lyndon Johnson as Napoleon III did to the real Napoleon. Have we had in modern times a president who was so out of his depth?
It occurs to me that Bill Kristol stands in relation to the towering and tragic figure of Irving Kristol as Napoleon III did to the real Napoleon. But I digress. The broader point is that the Republicans have spent a year chortling over the inevitable collapse of Obama, and they seem to cling even more tightly to that fantasy--"Incompetence"? "Out of his depth"?--as it slips further away.
Obama's accomplishments do not, and probably will not, meet those of Johnson, let alone Franklin Roosevelt. It's worth noting that he has smaller majorities, and governs in an era when the republican Party is far more ideologically radical and unified in opposition. A measure of that greater discipline and partisan unity can be seen in the fact that Social Security and Medicare both won significant Republican support, and both were far more liberal and government-centric in their design.
We can't know what the future holds in store for Obama. It's entirely possible that Republicans will gain control of the House in November and block any further domestic progress, unemployment will stay high, and Republicans will win the White House in 2012. Yet he's already left his imprint on history.
RELATED
John B. Judis on the real lesson of the health care victory.
61 comments
AMEN!!!!
- mn0308
March 21, 2010 at 11:02pm
Jonathan Chait, I think you played a small role in this victory. After Masspocalypse, there was a "don't be silly" attitude toward health reform that we saw in the press, among the pundits, and in congress. Yes, there were enough Democrats in congress, yes reconciliation was a viable option, but it just wasn't possible okay? Liberal Dems, Dems who just voted yes, talked about comprehensive health reform in the past tense. They talked about passing health reform "in pieces", as if they didn't know that any "piece" would be filibustered into oblivion. But health reform survived in part because you and a handful of other pundits believed it was possible, and refused to let conventional wisdom take hold. Pelosi and Obama probably deserve some credit too. If you were watching, when the number of votes for reached 216, Dems started chanting "Yes we did!"
- WillPastor
March 21, 2010 at 11:22pm
Whew. Now the hard work starts. I just hope the Democrats and the President figured out the GOP cannot be dealt with and just ignore them, plow ahead and confront other issues like *real* financial reform, jobs and climate legislation. The GOP jumped the shark and now deserves to be turned completely irrelevant.
- tnmats
March 21, 2010 at 11:27pm
GOP is party of No. With Obama at helm, Dems are not party of YES! Glory hallelujah!
- gmodell
March 21, 2010 at 11:30pm
Oops - Dems are NOW party of Yes!
- gmodell
March 21, 2010 at 11:32pm
To date, Obama has not matched George W. Bush's impressive record of delivering comprehensively on his promises. Much of the agenda Obama campaigned on remains undone, whereas at a similar point, the only major promises Bush had not yet passed into law were Social Security privatization and sweeping amnesty for outlaw migrants. But that owes as much to the smallness of Bush the Lesser's platform than to relative legislative acumen. Considering the ambition of Obama's agenda, he's beginning to look like a modern James K. Polk, a president with a few big ideas who is in sequence getting them done. And so far, doing so without ginning up any wars on false pretense, which gives Obama at least moral advantage over Bush and Polk. Just as Bush set a new standard for how bad a two-term president could be - we've never had a worse one serve eight years - Obama is plausibly on course to match Polk for success in a single term. And if he's reelected, the comparison to Lyndon Johnson will seem apt, or even understated, since most of Johnson's successes (which Chait overstates) came in his second term, and many were undermined or simply undone within just a few years by his Republican successor. If Obama wins reelection in 2012, it will be as if Johnson had won reelection in 1968; by 2017, it will be too late for Republicans to undo Obama's agenda as they undid the Great Society starting in 1969.
- rhubarbs
March 22, 2010 at 12:12am
Is it cheesy to say I feel slightly less cynical about our political process today? Thank you to everyone who made this happen, from Obama and Pelosi right down to Chait. Well done.
- ratnerstar
March 22, 2010 at 12:26am
Has anyone started to work on carving Half Dome into the likeness of Obama? I think it is about time.
- fwslusser
March 22, 2010 at 12:44am
Obama has gotten the country out of its economic nosedive, passed universal healthcare, and is going to get something on climate change. In foreign policy he has things on track for a withdrawal from Iraq, has made responsible choices on Afghanistan, Iran, and Israel/Palestine, and will close Gitmo. He has also ended torture by the US. He has faced major crises and handled them well, and his place in history as one of our best Presidents is assured. To cement it he will need to do real entitlement reform and bring the budget back into reasonable balance by 2016.
- nayyer_ali
March 22, 2010 at 12:46am
And you have been a valuable part of it. Thank you for your outstanding work, and Go Blue!
- serlin
March 22, 2010 at 12:53am
Obama picks fights with America's allies like Great Britain, Israel and Columbia and sucks up to its enemies. In domestic policy he seeks to turn the land of the free and the home of the brave into a third-rate socialist rat hole. He is legally a citizen, but he is not a loyal American. His operative ideology is a mixture of anti-Americanism and anti-white racism. He should be regarded with a mixture of fear, hatred and contempt by all freedom loving Americans. The grin on the face of that face-lifted whorehouse madam Nancy Pelosi is enough to make a buzzard puke. Today is a day that will live in infamy.
- bulbman1066
March 22, 2010 at 2:01am
I'm not a religious person, but we're coming up on the traditional Christian celebration of the Annunciation, March 25, when Gabriel told Mary that she was immaculately inseminated. (March 25, because, while a virgin can have a child, it still takes nine months.) One way that this story is rescued from its primitive origins and given a palatable, somewhat literary gloss, is to suggest the theme that, with God, or, as I might prefer, righteousness, anything is possible. In other words, yes we can. Of course, we can't always, but when something this good and this big happens, one's faith gets much-needed reinforcements. Medicare was signed into law 45 years ago. That means that a lot of us were either not alive or not paying attention the last time we saw a success of this dimension. A lot of us don't know what it's like to win a big one and maybe assumed that it wasn't possible. Thank you Barack Obama, and thank you Nancy Pelosi too. You've been underestimated, and you've patiently and steadfastly accomplished what the best of the past couldn't. This isn't just a huge "fuck you" to the party of "fuck you." Although that is satisfying, especially as they stumble around grasping at the dimwitted, incoherent talking points that characterized their dumb, dishonest opposition over the past year. Nor is it just an answer to skeptics who said things like "Where's the 'change' I voted for?" Well, here it is. Nor is it just a deafening response to Washington conventional wisdom -- the arms-folded, resistant stance that might have a hint of nobility if it weren't infected by misinformation, lazy judgment, and cynical self-fulfilling prophesy. Our government and our dysfunctional politics have actually accomplished something major and decent. Anything's possible.
- jhildner
March 22, 2010 at 2:33am
Beware of religious triumphalism without God, Jhildner. It is a very dangerous disposition... Besides that, congratulations on the bill.
- Ideaot
March 22, 2010 at 3:10am
It is important this bill passed. Sorry to rain on the party, but many above forget, ignore, or don't understand that this is modest, Nixonian insurance reform bill, not health reform -- and that it took a year to pass. And that Obama fought harder for Blue Dogs than for Progressives. Now comes the hard part with the loss of a Senate supermajority and minimal party discipline. To pass most any other legislation of significance will require breaking the Senate filibuster --- that can be done at any time, given the political will and courage not yet demonstrated by Obama or the Senate Democrats. It is no less important today than yesterday that Progressive candidates be found and funded to run against the Specters, B. Lincolns, and (yes) Stupaks. And a someone challenging Obama. Huey Long did wonders for FDR whose political philosophy and instincts needed a fraction of the goosing of Obama's.
- drofnats1
March 22, 2010 at 7:03am
If this reform works, its terrific leadership, because the Republicans were very effective in convincing the general public that it was a terrible idea and that it should have been scrapped. I think Pelosi's stock will go up more than Obama's.
- Nusholtz
March 22, 2010 at 8:13am
You called it, Chait! Early and often, with sound logic. Congratulations.
- adsprung
March 22, 2010 at 8:52am
Now is the Winter of our Discontent* Made glorious Spring by the suns of Honolulu, San Francisco and Las Vegas And all the clouds that lour'd upon our Houses In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised arms hung up for monuments; Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, Our dreadful marches to delightful measures. * and Fall, Summer, Spring, Winter - well, let's face it, we've been discontented for a helluva long time.
- Geoff G
March 22, 2010 at 9:21am
dtohmatsu, dtohmatsu, where are you? You who declared health care reform dead and buried and admonished Chait et al to starting mourning?
- roidubouloi
March 22, 2010 at 9:24am
- How can anyone argue with a guy who asked (in '07)? "In the entire history of American sports hype, has there ever been any fraud more grossly fraudulent than Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis?" I don't think I was the first person to chant "Do not bet against Barack Obama." but I am surprised how his own constituency was intimidated by the opposition. His success will require Democrats do more than savor this victory. The fragmented media will provide the right with an even louder voice and independents are quiet, last minute deciders. That leaves thirty to forty percent of the electorate who must realize the alternative to wagering with Obama is investing in his failure. He won't back down and neither will Republicans. I'm guessing the opposition knows what they're up against and we'll see if his side trusts him to place our bets for us. If we learned anything we should realize his place in history depends on whether his audacity will be matched by his supporters. He's an exciting leader but this isn't a spectator's sport.
- michael
March 22, 2010 at 10:18am
Bulbman, how ironic that you think that Columbia is an American ally. Isn't the entire faculty of that institution comprised of sad radicals with pictures of Che on the walls of their rent-controlled apartments? And didn't they ally themselves with Ahmadinejad when they invited him to speak on campus? And doesn't Wandreycr work there? Hillsdale College -- THAT's an American ally. But maybe you've been too busy eating arugula and traveling in France to notice.
- wildboy
March 22, 2010 at 10:47am
Great stuff, except this: Barack Obama has sealed his reputation as a president of great historical import. He did that simply by getting elected, the first black American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama. And I am tired of all this bullshit about bi-partisanship. Does anyone anywhere imagine if the parties were constituted then as they are today that Civil rights legislation would ever have passed? And if there had been 99 Democratic Senators, with 1 Republican, and the 1 Republican (with 1 Democrat) had voted no, Republicans would have screamed, and claimed the Democrat opposition was equal to the Republican one. Anyway, congrats to the Democratic party, and Congrats to America. Some things are an intrinsic good, like clean air, clean water, free public schooling, and health care for the unfortunate. Yes, though it causes buzzards like bulbman to want to puke, it is good for him as well.
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 10:50am
Only history will tell, of course. But if the first and most important thing you think about celebrating is a politician's place in history, rather than the assurance of dependable, affordable health care for the American people, something is either wrong with your priorities, or with this "reform," or both.
- esmense
March 22, 2010 at 10:52am
Amen. And let us not forget Nancy Pelosi. Does anyone remember the reaction when she was announced as the next Speaker of the House? I may be mistaken, but I remember a lot of people snickering. She too will now go down in history as one of the greats.
- ClumsyMohel
March 22, 2010 at 10:53am
DimBulb is now officially deranged. "third-rate socialist rat hole" - why is it that conservatives hate American so? Not even the most lunatic Truther or America-hating Jihadist would describe the US like this. The hate Republicans have for America is just amazing. "He should be regarded with a mixture of fear, hatred and contempt by all freedom loving Americans. ... that face-lifted whorehouse madam Nancy Pelosi ..." Or maybe it is hate for blacks and women and minorities and the poor and the middle class and environmentalists and students and young people and old people and lawyers and doctors and firefighters ... anyone, that is, other than Wall Street big shots? Whatever it is, it's ugly.
- icarusr
March 22, 2010 at 10:53am
Is anyone else amused that BULB actually pays money to say to all these things? Regardless, I watched this debate all day, all night. I bet there were a lot of Republicans who did too. I'm very proud today. Of course I also realize I now have to spend the next 3 years (7 hopefully), convincing my sister (attempting is more like it) that BHO is not Mao, that BHO is concerned about the deficit, about jobs, etc. I mean for Christ's sake the only President in my lifetime that I have memory of running a budget surplus is Slick. But forget the truth, I suppose. Two scenarios are now present: In the first, there a lot of people that are scared out of their minds that we are literally truly destroying our country. So, I suppose when BHO takes off his cloak, I will have some explaining to do. In the second, I now have a responsibility to be calm, to learn, to be better. And God knows as a liberal that this seems like too much ressponsibility to me ....
- jmarshall
March 22, 2010 at 11:10am
On further reflection, I think the comparison to LBJ is already an understatement. In terms of actual accomplishment, Obama has now surpassed Reagan's first term, and probably LBJ as well, depending on whether you compare Obama's first 14 months with the period starting in November 1963 or the period starting in January 1965. Before that, you get FDR, who still has Obama beat. TR didn't come out with such a bang; his administration was more of a long fuse to a loud crescendo. First Cleveland hit the ground running, but on a much narrower agenda. Lincoln is kind of a special case, and doesn't bear comparison to a normal presidency. Polk did more, but not as quickly, and Jackson was more a marathoner than a sprinter. Before Old Hickory, Jefferson and Washington both had highly consequential and accomplished first years in office. So to date, Obama is nicely in the ballpark of the top five or so most successful first years as president. I'd rank it: 1. FDR 2. Washington 3. Obama 4. LBJ 5. Jefferson 6. Polk 7. Cleveland Barring a catastrophic own-goal of some sort, even a one-term Obama will have to be ranked with the near-great presidents, alongside Truman and Eisenhower. If Obama wins reelection in a way that signals a more lasting political realignment, he will surpass Reagan as the most consequential president since WWII. Which means that LBJ is already slipping into the rear-view mirror.
- rhubarbs
March 22, 2010 at 11:18am
jmarshall: "Two scenarios are now present: In the first, there a lot of people that are scared out of their minds that we are literally truly destroying our country. " When the CBO says we are facing middle class tax rates of ~65% in 2040 based on entitlement spending trajectory (and that is before health care has been added)...that doesn't scare you? Currently they are 11%. Add an expanded state and local to that at it's realistic that 80% of everything a middle class worker makes in 2040 goes to the government. You are OK with this? Do you not believe it? Or do you think it will somehow fix itself?
- seattleeng
March 22, 2010 at 11:33am
Many of us are not OK with it, Seattle. That's why we want to go back to Clinton-era tax rates (or -- shudders -- even Reagan-era rates) that finally allow the US government to actually fund its own existing programs and gradually pay down its debt obligations. And why some of us even believe that Medicare will need to be put on a more solid financial footing by increasing the out-of-pocket share that its beneficiaries will need to pay for the benefits they receive from the program, and to rationalize the cost structure of the program. Frankly, we would have a better chance of achieving the latter when we have a healthier, more productive population whose health insurance is not tied to jobs that they hate and high-premium plans that routinely deny coverage for preventive care. By the by, where were you when the Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress passed giant tax cuts, eliminated Pay-Go and enacted an unfunded Medicare Plan D? I don't remember your concerned posts back then. The only honest answer, in my mind, is that you weren't a subscriber back then.
- wildboy
March 22, 2010 at 11:43am
Seattle: "You are OK with this? Do you not believe it? Or do you think it will somehow fix itself?" Two things: (1) Do I believe it? I don't believe numbers, polls, etc. I'm not an economist, but I've seen numbers from boths sides, which tells me that there is no one definite answer. Time will well. Show me a poll, I'll show you a poll. Also, you cannot say that the CBO is incorrect that this will reduce the deficit, and then also correct with these facts you list. It either is or isn't, and irrespective, this will all evolve. Or if you prefer, will magically right itself over a 7 day period. (2) Will it fix itself? I will tell you this - Liberals are aware of the fact that there is more work to do. Frankly, I don't care whether you believe this or not, but we (liberals) are heading in a certain direction with our eyes open. From where I stand, conservatives are remaining in place with their eyes closed.
- jmarshall
March 22, 2010 at 11:57am
- jmarshall wrote, "I now have a responsibility to be calm, to learn, to be better. And God knows as a liberal that this seems like too much ressponsibility to me ....". Or maybe we need to remain excited, teach and prove we're better. Remember, after the Fall of '08 our success incited a dark side and knowing we were correct proved to be a poor match for irrationality. Unless we grasp Obama's necessity to persist we may allow this victory to provide more motivation for them than us.
- michael
March 22, 2010 at 12:02pm
roidubouloi, I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, though, conservatives never admit blame, never apologize and they never, never feel embarrassed. That's they only way they could support the likes of Sarah Palin.
- Maxwell86
March 22, 2010 at 12:12pm
Mike: Agree for the most part. Though, as I mentioned, I want, I really, really, want conservatives to come along on this. It's their country too. If that means I have to take extra care and concern (an apparent anathema to me), then so be it. I'm tired of each side calling the other stupid. I think we're on the right side of this particular argument, but they have concerns (lke Seattle) that we must continually address. I don't like that this President, at this time, has elicited so much fear, but I can only speculate as to the reasons. It's their fear, not mine ...
- jmarshall
March 22, 2010 at 12:13pm
jmarshall, you have not seen a number from any side that tells you things are going to be OK if we continue business as usual. Let's assume for a moment that the CBO is correct and that the middle class will pay 65% federal tax rates and (I'll guess) 15% state and federal tax rates in 2040. 80% of the working person's paycheck will go to pay for entitlements in 2040. Do you think this is OK? Or is this a disaster? The CBO letter is here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9216/05-19-LongtermBudget_Letter-to-Ryan.pdf Now, since our federal spending is overwhelmingly going to be entitlements, if you think someone is going to fix this, then it means they must significantly reduce entitlements. If you claim to have your eyes open, then you get to pick one: 1) The middle class better get ready for 80% tax rates (which is impossible...people will just quit working) 2) We must significantly reduce entitlements. Which do you want?
- seattleeng
March 22, 2010 at 12:13pm
wildboy writes: "By the by, where were you when the Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress passed giant tax cuts, eliminated Pay-Go and enacted an unfunded Medicare Plan D? I don't remember your concerned posts back then." I was bothered at the time too. No, not a subscriber then. But a college roomate the 80's was an avid reader so it rubbed off there. I'm on a recent kick to fund the news + commentary organizations I like otherwise I worry they go away.
- seattleeng
March 22, 2010 at 12:19pm
Seattle: 30+ million Americans (for whatever reason) go without healthcare. Or we "begin" to cover all Americans. Which do you want? It's a first step. Is it perfect? Hell no. But, it's a step in the right direction. A step, I'll remind you that your party (I'm assuming here) has never had the guts to take, and I'd venture to guess, would never have had the guts to take. When the sky starts falling, I'll knock on your door and apologize. Until then, we have work to do. Stand on the side and throw eggs if you wish ...
- jmarshall
March 22, 2010 at 12:28pm
Or, (god forbid) provide solutions. Give me a hammer and I can destroy 'pert near anything.
- jmarshall
March 22, 2010 at 12:30pm
I'm really curious as to where bulbhead finds the "anti-white racism" in the Obama administration. It's also a fact that people project onto an opponent the feelings that they themselves have, but are uneasy about holding. Racism, for example.
- ironyroad
March 22, 2010 at 12:44pm
seattle, again with the gibberish. I guarantee you that you are completely wrong. The problem with long term projections is that you can simply have no way of knowing future technological breakthroughs. The middle class will not pay 65% tax rates (or if they did, they wouldn't care) since future technological breakthroughs will change the average persons quality of life dramatically. Go back to the CBO projections in 1980 and see how wrong they were. Hell, Reagan made his policies based on how dire the world would be now. Now I can be wrong, global warming, a new epidemic, nuclear terrorism, over population worldwide can render my optimism mute, but at least i acknowledge such long term predictions are gibberish, projections based on a static universe. The world is very, very different today than in 1980, and it will be even moreso in 2040.
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 12:45pm
I can live with that answer, Seattle. Now go ahead and push your local Republican elected officials (there are still a couple in Washington State, assuming that you live there) to get their heads out of their posteriors and return this country to Reagan-era tax rates and stop cowering in fear of half-educated nitwits with microphones whose principal interest is in their own radio and television ratings.
- wildboy
March 22, 2010 at 12:46pm
"middle class tax rates of ~65% in 2040 based on entitlement spending" ... What Blackie said. No projection made now will be accurate even within the next five years; to project thirty years into the future based on current entitlements, tax bases, etc., exemplified the Disraelian observation on lies. More to the point, to give up on policy-making, to be thrown into inaction or panic, because of tax rate projections thirty years into the future is the height of idiocy. Policies should make sense over time, of course; but you are trying to deal with an actual problem. To use future numbers to scare off action now, is morally objectionable and intellectually dishonest.
- icarusr
March 22, 2010 at 12:52pm
- ironyroad asks, "I'm really curious as to where bulbhead finds the "anti-white racism" in the Obama administration." FOX? The Internet? E-mail? Then again, you're really curious so your idea of 'find' may be different than bulbhead's.
- michael
March 22, 2010 at 1:00pm
Irony: you are, I think, not far off the mark. This is Boobman on another thread: "race hustlers who have never done an honest day's work in their lives." Welfare Queens all over again. The toxic sludge that Buchanan/Nixon brought into the polity and that Reagan used to win, is ever present. May neither soul rest in peace.
- icarusr
March 22, 2010 at 1:06pm
I'm a Republican. First, I will congratulate Nancy (working the House) and Barack (continuing to fight, working the interest groups and pushing at the right times) for their incredible success. Second, throughout these commentaries, I've acknowledged that more Americans should be covered by health insurance. However: Where's the evidence for "Obama, who helped pull the country out of a depression"? Most economists credit the Fed's work on lowering interest rates and purchasing mortgage securites as the key elements towards recovery. The Stimulus had a small role, at best, mostly saving public jobs, with the lions share of the money still not spent. What are the hundreds of billions in payment offsets? Both bills jettisoned the SGR fix-so-we'll need $250 billion over 10 years for this. Medicare Adv, at $10/12 billion yearly, is not an insurance boondogle-40/50% of retired hispanic and african-americans elect this coverage (it provides more coverage and lowers co-payments). Finally, the Medicare expenditures that were cut are not tied to improved care-no way to know if seniors will not suffer with these cuts. I agree-some on the right are acting like babies. You won, fair and square.
- lobosven
March 22, 2010 at 1:08pm
lobo, if candidate Obama had come out against the bank bailouts enough Democrats would have followed him so that we would have had a true meltdown, and Obama would have won by 20% points, so yes, he helped pull the country out of the Depression (as did Bush and McCain) the difference between Obama and Bush and McCain is that Bush and McCain had put us on the brink of depression. Obama's support of the Fed and Treasury were at a critical time, even the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson lauded Obama (and said McCain worried the hell out of him)
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 1:25pm
For all those Republican/conservative deficit hawks out there (and for the rest of us who are in possession of our sanity), not this: From its peak at the end of WWII, national debt as a percentage of GDP (then over 100%) declined in every postwar administration right through Carter, hitting a low of about 30%. It rose significantly under Reagan-Bush, back up to about 75%, fell under Clinton to 70%, and then rose under Bush the Idiot to 80%. That means that, until the inception of the Obama administration in the midst of the most severe recession since the Great Depression, all of the relative increases in national debt have been due to Reagan, Bush, and Bush. So, all of those right-wingnuts who are suddenly shocked, shocked at deficit spending she stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You are all ferocious hypocrites, every one of you. As to the projections that Seattle refers to, they are complete nonsense, for two entirely different reasons, either sufficient. The deeper one is that, regardless of Medicare, Social Security, entitlements, etc., the population in 2080 will pretty much be the population in 2080. The senior population in that year is going to eat. It is either going to receive the medical care that it needs or it will not receive the medical care that it needs. If it receives the medical care that it needs and, as the CBO projects under the particular rules of that study (not a real economic projection, an elaboration of certain stated assumptions), that senior health care, by itself, is going to absorb 16-17% of the economy (the cost of all healthcare today), then it will not matter whether that cost is paid privately or publicly. Everyone else, including the seniors themselves, will only have 83% of net output to live on. This is the thing that seattle is simply incapable of understanding -- the difference between real output and real output shares and the adjustment of shares through various financial means. So, if the cost of senior healthcare is actually that high (which involves projecting forward our currently unaffordable healthcare costs so of course they become even more unaffordable), then we will have exactly two alternatives as a society, regardless of the financial structure of Medicare, healthcare or taxes -- either pay that cost or pull the plug on grandma. In other words, the issue simply is not financial. Long before this occurs, we will have imposed cost controls on healthcare so that we can afford it, today, tomorrow, and in 2080. The other reason that this is nonsense is simply the demographics. Lets say that senior healthcare is half of total expenditure today on what is currently 14% of the population according to the Census Bureau. Senior dependents area expected to rise from about 21 per 100 of working population today to 42 in 2080. Our healthcare expenditures today are 17% of GDP per capita, compared to 11% in France, the highest in the rest of the industrialized world. That means that if we doubled our senior population overnight, we would spend about 17% on their care today, approximately what the CBO projects as Medicare costs as a percent of GDP in 2080. But, hold on. Are we going to have no growth in per capita output in the next 70 years? Even at 1%, consistent with but less than the trend of the last 100 years, our output doubles in that time. That knocks the share of GDP devoted to senior care back to 8-9% of GDP, assuming that our cost structure is the same absurdity it is today. If, on the other hand, we manage to get our costs in line with those of France and the rest of the industrialized world, a realistic assumption is that we will end up in 2080 with about the same 17% we are spending today, based on a doubling of the real cost for seniors. Can we afford that? Well, we are paying it today because of our bloated cost structure. Finally, even if 15% of GDP for Medicare alone in 2080 is correct, how can that possibly translate into 65% tax rates? It can't. The worst case is that output doubles, healthcare grows to 25% of that, which means that non-healthcare output (consumption and investment) goes from 83% of today's output to 150% of today's output. Doesn't seem tragic.
- roidubouloi
March 22, 2010 at 2:06pm
Ditto WillPastor - well done Jonathan Chait!
- pstorch
March 22, 2010 at 2:10pm
Whenever confronted by scaremongering projections that this or that budget item will consume the entirety of the national economic output by some far-future date, I always remind the speaker that shortly after the Soviet Union allowed the first McDonald's to open in Moscow, a Russian economist noted that, given Soviet laws preventing the Golden Arches from taking any profits out of the USSR, the restaurant's "current rate of growth" put McDonald's on a path to employ every man, woman, and child in the Soviet Union by 2002. If "current trends" project an impossible future, then the only thing the projection tells you is that "current trends" will not continue.
- rhubarbs
March 22, 2010 at 3:04pm
Seattle, did you actually read the CBO letter? I'm not sure where you're getting this 65% tax rate for the middle class in 2040. Assuming you're referring to the current 25% tax bracket, the CBO estimate for the taxes necessary to offset the projected rise in spending is 47% by 2050 and 63% by 2082. That's assuming that we do nothing to control spending do nothing but increase income tax rates proportionally across the board. Even leaving aside the problems of projecting anything 40 or 72 years in the future, that's pretty clearly not what the government would actually do, even under those circumstances. Also, if you read the conclusion, Orszag specifically notes that constraining health care costs is a key area for controlling deficits. That's one of the goals of the health care bill.
- AlanSP
March 22, 2010 at 3:05pm
B-man, can't follow your logic. In September of 2008 it was possible that the financial system would collapse. So, Mccain, Bush and Obama all supported TARP. As Obama voted for TARP, I suppose, you can say he helped. Don't see how Mccain and Bush (who wanted in 2005 to roll back Fmae and Fmack) pushed us to edge of depression: left has interesting stories on causes of meltdown, few if any can be laid at feet of those two men (remember Glass-Seagal was advanced by Rubin and Clinton and merely followed European regulatory changes). Most economists believe these factors played major roles: Fed induced low interest rates, governmental push for increased low-income lending and flight to high quality paper as market was melting. If Obama opposed TARP, and financial system melted down, how could he have won by 20%. Roid, nice juvenile attacks. However, was it Clinton who earned surpluses (remember, during Train Wreck negotiations, Clinton said it would take 8 to 10 years to earn a surplus) or the Republican Congress who controlled spending? Again, if you're like Bton, claiming that Clinton policies led to economic engine, then, yes, Dems could take credit for that. But, as far as I know, only Congress proposes and passes bills. All Clinton could do then was veto bills. I accept notion, that, GOP cuts taxes and Dems spend money. GOP would be more responsible if they cut spending first, then decreased taxes.
- lobosven
March 22, 2010 at 3:21pm
I generally think that judgments about this or that person's place in history can wait for some time to pass to see how things actually turn out. That said, this certainly looks like the single biggest legislative achievement or my lifetime. Perhaps that's not saying much, given my age, but it's still quite an accomplishment, and after years of health care reform seeming so elusive, it's great to see something actually get done.
- AlanSP
March 22, 2010 at 3:24pm
lobo, my 20% statement was said by a Republican and not made up by me, but yes, he could have. People wouldn't have blamed Obama since a large number of Republicans voted against the bailouts, so half the people would have blamed Bush for the meltdown, and a large segment of the rest would have blamed the Republicans who were against the bailout, some, a few would have blamed Obama. But he did the right thing. I agree Clinton deserves some of the blame but Bush was President, he should have seen it coming. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were but a small piece of that bubble, AIG, Lehman Brothers, BofA, Citigroup, were all big boys. And yes, Bush I deserves some credit for the surpluses, as did Clinton, those two budgets set the stage for the later rally by getting deficits under control. Republicans in Congress then do deserve some credit, for NAFTA, etc. but to state that they kept deficits under control is laughable considering how under Bush the same bozos blew the lid off.
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 4:07pm
lobo, You seem to have no understanding of how the United States is actually governed. Are you aware that the tax increases enacted during the Clinton administration were proposed by the Clinton administration? Are you aware that the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration were proposed by the Bush administration? Likewise for the Reagan administration? It seems that you would like to pretend that the fiscal policies followed during any particular administration are the work of the Congress. A literal reading of the Constitution with absolutely no knowledge of the intervening 230 years of American history might make you think so. However, in fact, in the United States as it actually exists, fiscal policy is the work of the current administration. Now, I can fully understand why you would want to deny that Republicans are responsible for their own policies and the outcomes of those policies. Any casual observer would see that they are nothing but disastrous. Since you want to cling to your conservative ideology even though reality perpetually proves it to be nonsense, you have to re-invent reality as fantasy so that your ideology can remain undisturbed -- the Repubicans are responsible for the successes of Clinton, the Democrats are responsible for the failures of Bush, etc., etc. Is that juvenile on your part? Not sure. Certainly, I know many children under the age of 12 with a firmer grasp of reality than you appear to have. So, i think referring to your nonsense as juvenile would be a disservice to children. Rather, you appear to suffer from a form of delusional mentation that pretty much defines the right-wing world. I believe blackton refers to as "batshit insane."
- roidubouloi
March 22, 2010 at 4:10pm
Is Chait delusional? Are liberals really this stupid? The words pyrrhic victory come to mind. By passing a bill only the moonbat fringe strongly supports, O has circumvented rationale of a representative democracy. You know -- the will of the people. This bill is a fraud on so many dimensions. Anyone who has ever prepared a real operating budget, with a basic understanding of micro-econ knows this to be true. As likely the only one on this board of pathetic losers and parasites who will be affected by the higher taxes -- I am thankful for one item. No taxation without representation now in full effect. That should be the Republicans strategy, refuse to pay your taxes. Slowly the parasites will wither and blow away into the abyss. My money (and yours) would be much better spent on increasing donations to Catholic Charities.
- mr_rationale
March 22, 2010 at 7:25pm
Mr. Rationale, the likelihood of you representing the will of the people is hilarious. Did you pay any attention to the election in 2006 and 2008? You know, the ones where Democrats won twice. This is how Representative Democracy works, you vote for the Representatives and they enact the laws and set policy. Your side lost due to incredible incompetence and rank stupidity. Deal with it. And please, refuse to pay taxes, do the Wesley Snipes route and see how that works out for you. You might get lucky like him and avoid jail, the fines otoh you will surely fork over. Or do us all a favor and go to some other country more amenable to your political philosophy, maybe Somalia (I hear they have zero income taxes, and no government health care system) I gotta say, you are amusing, you offer no argument, just assertion. Because you say it it must be true. At this point, you aren't even provoking, you are like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum. So all I can say is: there there....there there.
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 7:59pm
Again, I think our friend mr. rationale believes that "rationale" is the same word as "rational," but it's not. "Rationale" usually means a justification (often post hoc) for something, and often with the sense of a cobbling-together of flimsy arguments. Which in a way fits him like a glove, indeed.
- ironyroad
March 22, 2010 at 8:09pm
Roid-your acuity prevails again. My memory is quite simple, really: Dems in Senate did offer Clinton's FY1985/86 budget-it failed 99 to 0. Aside from the V-chip legislation, and the Family Leave Act-what else did Clinton submit? Certainly not welfare reform. It appears to me that, with Obama, and largely with Clinton, they were quite happy to have their colleagues submit the legislation (albeit, while shaping it). I saluted your achievement, acknowledged expanded coverage was necessary-I just have a different path in mind. I questioned 2 things in NR commentary-how Obama saved us from depression (at best, weird answer from you guys-Obama voted for TARP) and where the fat (evidence based reductions which won't harm seniors) in Medicare is being cut (no answer here). Your abuse doesn't bother me-living in Marin Country and having attended NYU law-a majority of my friends are liberal/progressives. We don't address each other the way you choose too. Would you train those 12 year olds to discuss issues that way? Later. Out.
- lobosven
March 22, 2010 at 8:22pm
hell lobo, you know that Obama also had the thing called the stimulus package, I just tried to take an unconventional tack with you (which you did not deny instead you call it weird) how can something you not deny be weird? The world was on the brink of a depression, Obama (as defacto leader of the Democrats) helped pass TARP. To deny that is weird itself, which you yourself do not do. Now I don't think the Stimulus saved us from Depression, TARP did, it did however bring us out of recession (unless 5.7% growth to you counts as recession). And of course Obama deserves Credit for this. He is the President. He could have tried to shape the legislation but backed off, great leaders know when to delegate as well as when to take control.
- blackton
March 22, 2010 at 8:56pm
Roid writes: "Finally, even if 15% of GDP for Medicare alone in 2080 is correct, how can that possibly translate into 65% tax rates? It can't. " You can read the report here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9216/05-19-LongtermBudget_Letter-to-Ryan.pdf They believe entitlement spending, which is 18.2% today grows to 24.2% in 2030, and 28.3% in 2050. The think our deficit grows from -1.2% today to -22.5% in 2050. The model two paths: The CBO baseline, and an alternative fiscal scenario. In the latter, they assume "normal" policy changes that occur that policy makers have done in the past. They note (to your point about Reagan and Bush): "Budget deficits that grow faster than the economy ultimately become unsustainable. As the government attempts to finance its interest payments by issuing more debt, the rise in deficits accelerates. That, in turn, leads to a vicious circle in which the government issues ever-larger amounts of debt in order to pay ever-higher interest charges. In the end, the costs of servicing the debt outstrip the economic resources available for financing those expenditures. At some point, then, policy has to change: Taxes must be raised, spending must be reduced, or both." Debt will ebb and flow as we deal with crisis. They add later "Despite the substantial economic costs generated by deficits under this model, such estimates greatly understate the potential loss to economic growth under this scenario." Then the point: "Nonetheless, tax rates would have to be raised by substantial amounts to finance the level of spending projected for 2082 under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario. With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent. Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Revenues would probably fall significantly short of the amount needed to finance the growth of spending; therefore, tax rates at such levels would probably not be economically feasible." So, there you have it. These are marginal rates, not effective rates, which I think I screwed up on page one. But the point remains that we either dramatically cut spending, or we dramatically raise taxes. But the current path isn't sustainable. This "reform" does not address spending. It adds to the problem. And this analysis was done assuming there wasn't reform. As I've said all along, get ready for the crush of taxes on the middle class. We will exceed Europe's tax level on the poor and middle class. It is inevitable. And the wealthy will just start retiring earlier to avoid working for $0.10 on the dollar.
- seattleeng
March 22, 2010 at 9:04pm
AlanSP writes: "so, if you read the conclusion, Orszag specifically notes that constraining health care costs is a key area for controlling deficits. That's one of the goals of the health care bill." And yet every analysis expects health care costs under this bill to rise, doesn't it? This health care plan will put is nearly $600B deeper in debt http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?ref=opinion Caterpillar is reporting this bill is raising their costs by $2500/employee. Families that buy their own insurnace are seeign premiums go up by 80 to 100% as they get "billed" for the non-exclusion clause. Where are teh costs coming down? This is spend spend spend.
- seattleeng
March 22, 2010 at 9:14pm
Gee lobo, you went to NYU law school? Blow me over. How nifty are you. But didn't you learn anything about American legal history there? The fact that you went to law school makes it all the more astonishing that you don't know anything about how our government actually functions. One would think that you were out on a savannah somewhere, reading the US Constitution on the internet, and inferring how things work without benefit of any practical knowledge. Let me assure you, the fiscal policies of the nation during the Clinton administration were those of Clinton. And the fiscal policies of the nation during the Bush administration were those of Bush. Just how this comes to pass would require more explanation than I have the time or energy for at the moment. But crack open any graduate text on US government. You will discover things you have apparently never dreamt of. In the alternative, try reading a good newspaper every day. After about a year, you should begin to get the hang of it, how our government works that is. Seattle, you just don't know how to read these CBO reports. They are not normal economic studies. The are obliged to follow particular rules projecting designated policies into the future. Thus, for example, this one just assumes that the debt grows without restraint until we are spending 40% of the Federal budget on interest. That is never going to happen. But, even if it did, that interest would become part of taxable income, above and beyond, the real output, and marginal rates would not have to rise to nearly the level the CBO hypothesizes. If we have output of 100 and real government spending of 30, one way or the other government is only directing the consumption of 30% of output. If interest is 40% of the budget, then the total budget is nominally 50% of output - except that the 20% of output that is interest adds to personal income. On the face of it, the average tax rate need only be 42%. But if, as is more than likely, most bonds are held by people in higher tax brackets, marginal tax rates would not have to rise that much. That said, what would actually happen is that we would get higher inflation, probably in the 5-6% range, that would erode the value of the bonds, effectively a wealth tax. Or we might even have an explicit wealth tax. The fact is that real output is real output, not nominal output. And if you want to understand what happens in the long term, you have to look at real output, not the ephemera of current tax and deficit policies. By the way, at the end of the CBO letter, that broadening the tax base by eliminating exclusions and deductions would minimize rate increases. Told ya.
- roidubouloi
March 22, 2010 at 10:47pm
Blackton, why don't you move to another country, stop paying US taxes, and spend most of your time as a moonbat cheerleader. Oh I forgot, you did
- mr_rationale
March 23, 2010 at 2:43pm