JONATHAN COHN APRIL 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There is no Red America and there is no Blue America. Remember the first time you heard Barack Obama say that? I do. It was July, 2004, during the Democratic National Convention, when the young, skinny state senator from Illinois propelled himself into national politics.
The speech was a harbinger. Finding common ground was a recurring theme of Obama’s 2008 campaign and, arguably, of his first two years in office, although it rarely turned out as the new president hoped. Over and over again, he tried to compromise with Republicans—on the stimulus, on health care reform, and on deficit reduction—only to have Republicans walk away. (My colleague Noam Scheiber's book, The Escape Artists, has plenty more on that, if you haven't read it already.)
I thought about that 2004 speech twice this week, first when Obama criticized the Supreme Court and later when he criticized the proposed budget of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. The swipe at the Court, during a press conference, was mild. The attack on Ryan’s budget, which presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has embraced, was not. Particularly with the comments about the Ryan budget, delivered as a speech to a convention of newspaper editors, it was if Obama had given up on the idea of political comity. Maybe the citizens of Red America and Blue America still have a lot in common, he seemed to be saying, but the officials they are electing do not.
If that’s what Obama now believes, I think he is correct. Postwar America enjoyed a broad consensus about the role of government and expanse of the welfare state. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans—they pulled in different directions, with the left hoping to expand the state, the right looking to shrink it. But the idea of eliminating vast swaths of the federal government and gutting entitlements beyond recognition was simply not an element of respectable political conversation.
Still, some conservatives were working to undermine this consensus all along—intellectually and, when they had power, politically. Now these efforts have come to define the mainstream position of the Republican Party and threaten, credibly, to change public policy.
We saw that last week, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act. Nobody knows how the Court will rule and many experts believe, still, the most likely outcome is a validation of the law. But the majority of five conservative justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, seemed extremely sympathetic to the law's challengers—just over their claims that the law’s individual mandate intruded upon liberty but also over their claims that the entire structure of Medicaid amounted to unconstitutional coercion of the states.
It’s conceivable that the Court could throw out the entire law. Quite apart from yanking insurance from 30 million people now in line to get it, such a ruling could establish legal grounds for challenging the existing Medicaid program—on which 58 million Americans, including a quarter of all children and millions of elderly nursing home residents, rely.
Such a ruling is among the least likely ways the justices will rule. But the idea of ending Medicaid as we know it has a lot of currency across the street, in the Capitol Building, as Ryan made clear with his most recent budget proposal.
The terms of the Ryan budget are no less startling because, by now, they have started to become familiar. The budget calls for dramatically reducing what the federal governments spends on Medicaid, then turning it over to the states. According to a joint analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, between 14 million and 27 million people would lose health insurance as a result. (This doesn’t include 17 million who, by that estimate, would lose Medicaid via repeal of the Affordable Care Act.) At the same time, it would reduce discretionary spending so radically that according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “most of the federal government aside from Social Security, health care, and defense would cease to exist” by 2050.
The budget would also transform Medicare into a voucher program, eliminating the program’s present guarantee of benefits. The funding cut isn’t as dramatic as the one in the last Ryan budget. But if Republicans got their way and realized that eliminating the federal government meant, among other things, eliminating the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Medicare would likely emerge as a candidate for deeper cuts. The cuts would be necessary, in part, because the Republicans remain committed to reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans—and to the proposition, contrary to available evidence, that such cuts will strengthen the economy.
The chances of a Republican Congress passing, and a Republican president signing, such draconian plans may seem far-fetched. But plenty of people thought the same thing about a crazy libertarian critique of health insurance mandates—an idea that conservative intellectuals developed and that elected Republican officials championed. Romney's praise for the budget may not be heartfelt, but having promised the right wing he'd take it up he'd have little option but to do so. Besides, Republicans control one house of Congress right now. That house approved a mostly similar budget just one year ago. Who's to say they won't do it again?
Someday the political consensus may return. Even now, Red and Blue America still have much in common, starting with a reliance on Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs Ryan, Romney, and the Roberts Court eye skeptically. But in the face of this assault on government, a pincer movement by Republican judges and Republican officials, Obama has a duty to respond in kind.
Update: I originally wrote that the justices listened "intently" to the challengers' arguments but, of course, I would hope they always listen intently. My point was that they seemed very sympathetic to the arguments, although, again, it's impossible to know what they are really thinking.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
20 comments
Explain that to Galston why don't you.
- roidubouloi
April 5, 2012 at 12:29am
Spending under Ryan's budget, will, for each of the next ten years, be a higher percentage of gdp than in any of the years of the Clinton administration. How can it be criticized for not spending enough?
- horsefly
April 5, 2012 at 12:40am
The Big Fat GOP Budget Lie http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/ "Going forward, President Obama has already committed the federal government to significant cuts in discretionary programs. For example, the total cost of the stimulus bill is more than offset by the Obama-ordered freeze in non-defense discretionary spending over the next ten years, which will reduce spending in that budget category from 3.4 percent of GDP to less than 2 percent. In fact, taking these savings into account, the big GOP spending lie gets even more outlandish. Even if you take into account all spending relative to GDP, including Defense and Social Security/Medicare, total federal spending on these programs as a percent of GDP is projected to actually come down over the next ten years — from 25.3 percent of GDP in 2011 to 19.7 percent in 2021. Of course, these are projections and they depend, in part, on the economy growing as expected and Congress adopting Obama’s spending priorities. But, even if it’s half that reduction, the United States would still be well within the recent historical range on federal spending as a percent of GDP. It’s a Revenue Problem, Stupid There is no question that if you look at this year’s federal spending of 25.3 percent of GDP, it looks high, relative to recent American history. But, given today’s struggling economy and the projections for federal spending to stabilize and come down — assuming the economy recovers — it should be clear the United States doesn’t face an immediate spending crisis. The nation does, however, face a revenue crisis. Largely because of George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which he justified by noting that the government was running a surplus in 2000, federal revenues have dropped from 20.35 percent of GDP in the last year of the Clinton administration to 14.41 percent today. So, no matter what spending programs get cut – even if spending were rolled back to around 21 percent of GDP, in line with the levels of spending under recent Republican administrations – the United States won’t stanch the flood of red ink without getting revenue up to about the same share of GDP."
- roidubouloi
April 5, 2012 at 1:06am
JC writes: "Over and over again, he tried to compromise with Republicans—on the stimulus, on health care reform, and on deficit reduction—only to have Republicans walk away." Utter BS. Obama walked on the budget after reaching an agreement with Boehner. Both sides reached agreement on $800B in revenue, only to have Obama demand another $400B, at which point the right walked. Justly so. There has been no compromising from this president.
- seattleeng
April 5, 2012 at 7:04am
Seattleeng "There has been no compromising from this president." That, everyone knows, is an untrue statement. Just waiting for a sustained truthful argument from the right. Obvious lies are -- obvious -- and childish.
- gwhitaker
April 5, 2012 at 7:12am
seattleeng "There has been no compromising from this president." The president campaigned (and was elected) on a platform of raising the top rates on incomes over $250,000.00. The Republicans told him that their members had run on a platform of not raising taxes. Who compromised?
- Nusholtz
April 5, 2012 at 7:51am
The ACA is riddled with compromises with the Republicans, hundreds of them. Unfortunately, Obama, in his naïveté about Republican perfidy, forgot to insist on Republican votes as the condition for including any of them. Then came the extension of the Bush tax cuts, as nusholtz points out. Then of course we have the deal -- signed, sealed, delivered -- that resolved the debt ceiling hostage crisis which saw the Republicans holding a gun to the head of the US economy to extract concessions. The ink isn't even dry on that one and the House Republicans have already walked away from their end, and at the very first opportunity. So much for compromise with Republicans. All bullshit, seattle, all the time.
- roidubouloi
April 5, 2012 at 9:42am
What Cohn omits is that today's America is very different from yesterday's: (1) we are ethnically, economically, religiously, and every otherly way a much more diverse nation, so my tribe is much less likely to be your tribe, making me less willing to pay taxes to support public benefits that most likely will go to members of another tribe, and (2) we are in an economic decline rather than an economic ascent, making me less inclined to be charitable to the less fortunate, who are likely to be members of another tribe anyway. Republicans understand this change, and they use it to their advantage. Democrats better find another strategy, because waiting for the post-war American consensus to return may be a very long wait.
- rayward
April 5, 2012 at 10:13am
We are not in an economic decline. It only feels that way because (1) growth has slowed since Reagan came to office and we adopted wacko supply-side voodoo economic policies and (2) overwhelmingly the gains have gone to the wealthiest. Maybe getting the middle class to understand that it is being preyed upon by the wealthy is a hopeless task, but I don't think so. Someone has to make the case, however, clearly and constantly that the rich are waging incessant class warfare on the rest of society.
- roidubouloi
April 5, 2012 at 10:19am
roi: "The ACA is riddled with compromises with the Republicans, hundreds of them." Indeed, the ACA proposal started out with the mandate which was a conservative/Republican idea. Single payer wasn't even on the table as a bargaining position. The public option was dropped despite majority public support. And yet not a single Republican vote in the Senate (and only one in the House). When the Republican presidential field was asked about a deficit reduction package that was 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases, they all raised their hands to reject the deal. Playing to that kind of constituency shows where the problem is in reaching compromise.
- dsimon
April 5, 2012 at 1:42pm
I don't think compromise with them is remotely possible. We simply have to beat them.
- roidubouloi
April 5, 2012 at 1:49pm
Oh dear. He we go down the rabbit hole with Seattle. Seattle please go and look at the excellent reporting about that 800 billion of revenues from Boehner. You will find it didn't really exist. You will also find that Cantor was in a position and wanted to torepdo everything. What reality do you live in where a party committed to a pact with Sir Grover is somehow the party of compromise?
- MikeB.
April 5, 2012 at 2:06pm
Parasites have a structural weakness. They rely on their host for sustenance Liberals have a structure weakness. They rely on private sector republicans to pay for Gov/their sustenance. Assault on big Gov has been long overdue. Freedom for all
- mr_rationale
April 5, 2012 at 3:19pm
You are right Rat. Time to stop the gravy train of big government being sucked up the GOP base. The cranky old white folks brigades better start taking cuts now!!! Instead of saving them for Gen. X and Y. Oh yeah and all those Red States really ought to stop taking so much tax money from the hard working Blue States. FREEDOM!!!
- MikeB.
April 5, 2012 at 3:52pm
Wisconsin may not be a blue state, but it's hardly a red state. Has Paul Ryan ever worked a day in his life?
- miceelf
April 5, 2012 at 4:02pm
Great minds think alike Jonathan. Fintan O'Toole was making the very same point at Kilkenomics last year. He argued the post war consensus started unravelling when the growth ceiling was reached. And we now have a very sustained war by the Right/Neo Liberalism/The Rich, whatever you want to brand it, on social democracy. He argued that the consensus only lasted because there was enough growth to go around but now that the God awful propaganda slang - "hard choices" have to be made...it will be the middle class and the poor that bear the burden. Not sure if you read O'Toole, he writes very well and is very good making broad analysis seem pertinent and immediate. I think you'd like his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fintan_O%27Toole
- IggyPop
April 5, 2012 at 4:38pm
Let's stay calm here, people. Republicans don't really plan to dismantle the federal government, despite what they say. They're just going to run up the deficit, same as they always have.
The people who manage my retirement savings don't seem to regard it as a weakness.- kpidcoc
April 5, 2012 at 9:36pm
Mr. Rat About liberals and conservatives and who are parasites. Blue states - red states. Which pays more and receives less? A married couple with $85,000 of cap gains and dividends pays zero tax. A married couple who works pays taxes. Who's the parasite?
- Nusholtz
April 6, 2012 at 9:03am
Seattle, I think you've received sufficient smack-down for your tripe, so I just have one question. Are you blissful most of the time?
Mr Rationale, obviously you need to reacquaint yourself with the documents detailing which states suck from the federal teat and which states support this country. It is quite well established that, with the exception of Texas, Red states pay negative or nearly negative taxes and Blue and Purple states like Illinois, New York, California, Ohio, and Florida basically carry this country economically. I'd provide links and references, but you can't be bothered so neither can it. But go look, and you'll see. I realize the inundation of facts into your little kingdom of make-believe may well cause your death, but if you are half the decent person you think you are I'm sure you'll go to heaven and I hear heaven is pretty nice.
- GSpinks
April 7, 2012 at 10:43pm
GSpinks, excellent comment. Not only that, you are polite. You did not engage in the widespread habit of calling Mr. R "Rat" (which is tacky, and impolite) and your sarcasm is almost under control (better than I usually do). Besides, if there were no Mr. Rationale, the editors of TNR would have to invent him just to keep every one's blood pressure high enough.
- skahn
April 11, 2012 at 11:50pm