Posts Tagged ‘ Barack Obama ’

« Older Entries

Afghanistan: Civilian and Military Casualties Aren’t a Zero-Sum Game

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Sarah Holewinski and Jim Morin–two of my friends through the Truman National Security Project –have an excellent op-ed in today’s Christian Science Monitor on a issue that may haunt and confuse many Americans. First, Holewinski and Morin restate something that may still be missed in the public debate–that our forces are primarily in Afghanistan to protect Afghan civilians from the Taliban, not to fight the Taliban directly. This then begs a question Holewinski and Morin ask–if our forces are primarily concerned with protecting Afghans from the Taliban, does that mean more of our guys will die as a consequence?  Here’s their take:

Military families back home want to know: Are troops walking into hell with one hand tied behind their backs? Are civilian lives being spared in exchange for military ones?

The answer to both questions is no.  [...]

Protecting the population isn’t political correctness; it’s a vital military objective and a distinct advantage over an enemy that uses civilians as shields. The drop in civilian casualties is a mark of success.

Allied troop fatalities have meanwhile increased, but efforts to spare civilians are not the cause. Rather, troops are fighting the insurgents where they live – as in Marjah. Taking on the Taliban requires taking that risk. American and allied forces may be walking into hell, but given the right strategy and purpose, they remain free to fight effectively. [...]

Combat is violent, frightening, and confusing, and troops on the ground have both the instinct – and the right – to protect themselves. The critical role for commanders is to convey the lesson taught by the US Army’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual, drafted under Gen. David Petraeus: “Sometimes the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.”

Military tactics are always balanced against strategic objectives, force protection, and humanitarian imperatives. In Afghanistan, international forces have had more than eight years to figure out what hasn’t worked and what will. The new emphasis on civilian protection is a welcome move toward striking the right balance.

In the Army there is a saying, “Mission First, Soldiers Always.” Safeguarding civilians and taking care of soldiers are not mutually exclusive. We owe our troops as much training, operational guidance, and moral certainty as modern war will allow.

This issue highlights how policy can be distorted and create bad political optics.  This is a nagging problem with the Afghanistan debate.  For example, the public discourse on President Obama’s decision on the war centered on two issues: how many troops, and the right’s false charge that he was “dithering” on what to do.  In that regard, the White House let the debate get away from it because, frankly, thousands of troop numbers grabs headlines in ways that strategy discussions don’t.

So, progressives should heed this op-ed and use it to push back when charges come–from either the left or right–that our troops are dying because we’re allegedly more concerned with Afghans.  There will be casualties, of course, but we have to understand that Afghan casualties vs. American casualties aren’t a zero-sum game.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »

A Wake Up Call on National Security

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Democracy Corps and Third Way continue to hit on a theme I’ve been pushing for the last few weeks. Despite the president’s solid poll numbers on security, the organizations’ research shows that the historic national security gap is reappearing. Just after the president’s inauguration, the gap had closed to well within the margin of error. In early 2009, Democrats trailed Republicans by just three points on the question of which party was better equipped to “keeping America safe.” But in a new survey, Republicans now trump Democrats by 17 points. Ouch.

The poll digs much deeper than most polls, which traditionally lump in questions of national security with a slew of other issues. But this one is a full psychoanalysis of the country’s mood on our safety, and the results are more of a mixed bag than a downright nightmare for progressives. The president maintains stronger national security numbers than his overall approval rating (47 percent), with 58 percent approving of his handling of Afghanistan, 57 percent positive on “leading the military,” and 55 percent liking that he’s “improved America’s standing in the world,” among other similarly positive numbers.

Furthermore — and this is great — the poll continues to confirm that the public rejects accusations by Dick Cheney that Obama’s policies have made the country less secure. Oh yeah, and five percent believe Obama is doing a better job than George Bush against terrorists.

To sum up, the public approves of the commander-in-chief, but they’ve again become skeptical of generic Democrats. Or as the authors put it:

While ratings for the president may be softening, his party is facing an even more troubling trend. When the questions move beyond the president to Democrats generally, we see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges.

How do we firm this up? Basically, grab the ol’ bull by the horns, just like I’ve been blabbering on about. Seriously — Dems have a good record, now they just have to relay it through effective story-telling that connects with voters’ emotions. Progressives have been sheepishly responding to conservative attacks with wonky facts. But conservatives don’t care about facts — they painted Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, as unpatriotic. Now that progressives have the facts behind them, they need to get aggressive about telling voters that we’re strong and smart on national security.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »

More On ObamaCare/RomneyCare

Monday, March 8th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Here’s something to tuck away in your files on both health care reform and 2012 presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, from Tim Noah at Slate (via Jon Chait). Looking at Romney’s new pre-campaign book, Noah observes:

Romney’s discussion of health reform is, from a partisan perspective, comically off-message. (How could he know what today’s GOP message would be? He probably finished writing the book months ago.) Remove a little anti-Obama boilerplate and Romney’s views become indistinguishable from the president’s. They even rely on the same MIT economist! At the Massachusetts bill’s signing ceremony, Romney relates in his book, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., quipped, “When Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy are celebrating the same piece of legislation, it means only one thing: One of us didn’t read it.”

Noah goes on to mix up some Obama and Romney quotes on health care reform, and challenges the reader to say which is which. Can’t be done.

Back in January, I predicted that Romney’s sponsorship of health care reform in Massachusetts might turn out to be a disabling handicap in a 2012 presidential race, given the shrillnesss of conservative rhetoric about features in Obama’s proposal that are also in Romney’s–most notably, the individual mandate.

Something happened since then, of course, which has been of great value to Romney in protecting his highly vulnerable flank on health reform: Scott Brown, another supporter of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, became the maximum national GOP hero and set off to Washington to try to wreck Obama’s plans. That meant that not one, but two major Republican pols would be promoting ludicrous distinctions between RomneyCare and ObamaCare as though they were actually vast and principled.

But I can’t see this illogical brush-off as working forever. If the Mittster does crank up another presidential campaign, fresh media attention will be devoted to his record and “philosophy” on health care. And more importantly, Romney’s rivals in a presidential race won’t for a moment give him a mulligan on the issue the GOP has defined as all-important. Mitt’s “socialism” in Massachusetts will eventually re-emerge as a big, big problem for him, and arguments that it was just state-level “socialism” won’t quite cut it in a Republican Party that’s moved well to the Right since the last time he ran for president. Before it’s over, they’ll make it sound like he’s the reincarnation of Nelson Rockefeller, money and all.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

On the Right Nuclear Weapons Track

Monday, March 8th, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The following is an excerpt from Will Marshall’s op-ed published today in AolNews.com:

President Barack Obama has resumed a vital post-Cold War chore interrupted by his predecessor — reducing America’s nuclear arsenal. The White House reportedly is putting the final touches on its Nuclear Posture Review, which aims to reinforce the world’s nonproliferation regime without undercutting deterrence.

The new strategy reverses the Strangelovian course pursued by George W. Bush during the heyday of conservative infatuation with unilateralism and pre-emptive strikes. For example, rather than build on the momentum of previous arms-reductions efforts, Bush funded research on a new line of nuclear weapons — “bunker-busters” — intended to take out underground nuclear facilities or command centers.

Under Obama’s strategy, America will develop no new nuclear arms. Instead, Obama is contemplating a new system, called “Prompt Global Strike,” that would enable the United States to hit targets anywhere with non-nuclear weapons. And where Bush rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty, Obama, who backs the treaty, will invest in efforts by U.S. weapons laboratories to ensure the reliability of a smaller stockpile.

Expect conservatives to attack these changes as fresh proof of Obama’s “naïve” quest for a world without nuclear weapons — a vision he offered in his first address to the United Nations in September. The right found an improbable ally in French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who reproved Obama for dreaming while rogue states like Iran and North Korea are bent on expanding the nuclear club.

But Obama’s critics don’t explain how the United States can stem the spread of nuclear arms by holding on to many more than we need. Russia also wants to get rid of its superfluous nukes, which is why it’s been pressing Washington for a new arms-reduction treaty. What’s more, under the 1965 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear powers are obliged to reduce their nuclear stockpiles in return for agreement by nuclear “have-nots” to forgo building nuclear weapons.

Read the full column at AolNews.com.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, PPI in the News | No Comments »

A Heavy Lift

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Elbert Ventura


Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

We always knew it would be a heavy lift. When Scott Brown swept away the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate – by taking Ted Kennedy’s seat no less – it seemed like a puckish and malevolent act by the legislative gods. Now, as the endgame draws near, the degree of difficulty only continues to go up.

The problem this time is not the Senate but the House. The plan is for the House to pass the bill that the Senate passed, and for both chambers to then pass a “fix” via reconciliation, which would require only a majority in the Senate.

But since the beginning of the year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has lost several “yes” votes on health care. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a liberal stalwart, resigned January 3; Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) passed away February 8; Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) stepped down on February 28. On top of that, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), the only Republican in either chamber to vote for reform, has come out and said he would not be voting for the bill this time around. Add on the Stupak bloc, the group of representatives led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) who reject the Senate bill on the grounds that its anti-abortion provisions are less strict than in the bill the House passed, and the bill’s prospects become even dimmer.

Just today, more bad news. Initially, with all the departures from the House, including that of Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), the magic number for Pelosi had at least shrunk to 216. But Deal today said he would stick around until the vote, raising the threshold to 217 again. But there’s more! There have been reports of other previous “yes” votes now wavering as the GOP ramps up its anti-health reform campaign to “spook” Dems: Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV), Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY), Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR).

But anyone expecting less than a full-on blitzkrieg from the right to sway quaking Dems has not been paying attention. The question is: Does that include the White House?

Too Much Inside Baseball

One of the ironies of health reform legislation has been its declining popularity with the public even as it progressed up the legislative chain. As it passed each new congressional hurdle, public opinion dipped. By the time 2010 rolled around (and before Scott Brown), health reform was on the brink of passing, but the victory seemed like it wouldn’t be quite the rout its supporters had hoped, with the bill so damaged in the public’s eyes.

I always thought that this was the result of an overcorrection on the White House’s part from the mistakes of the Clinton administration. The Clinton health care plan floundered because the administration was so ham-handed when it came to dealing with Congress. This White House adjusted accordingly, and played the beltway game to perfection.

But it never learned from another Clinton mistake, which is that it’s not all about the beltway – the ground game matters, too. With a highly mobilized right wing getting its message out to congressional districts, hardcore opponents – the town hall screamers of last summer – came out of the woodwork, inevitably coloring the impressions of the casual political observer. Phone calls started coming in to congressional offices opposing the bill.  Poll numbers dropped.

Meanwhile, the White House, with both eyes on Congress, failed to fire up its own base. Obama held events here and there, but nothing like a sustained campaign to mold public opinion. Without that leadership, the progressives and moderates who knocked on doors for Obama simply weren’t there this time around to match the other side’s intensity. By the time Scott Brown showed up, some lawmakers were all but ready to be done with health care.

And so here we are. President Obama has gone all in, even going so far as to set a date for when he wants the House to vote. He has also assiduously courted iffy Democrats, inviting them over to the White House and no doubt seeking to buck them up. And with news that he’s about to embark on a barnstorming tour to stump for health care, it’s clear that the White House sees the importance of aggressively shaping public opinion and the media narrative.

But will it be enough? Or is it too little too late? And will the progressive grassroots that helped Obama win the presidency be there to neutralize motivated right-wing foot soldiers and Astroturf groups? Or will those GOP robocalls and conservative vehemence ultimately topple unsteady Democrats? It’s a real test of leadership for the president. And as others have rightly pointed out, it’s a test of the progressive base, too.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Some Quick Thoughts on the Rockefeller Proposal

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Nathan Richardson


Nathan Richardson is a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future. The views expressed here are his own.

by Nathan Richardson

Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) today introduced a bill which, if passed, would become the “Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act.’’ This bill, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) proposal that I’ve written about before, would curtail the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). There are major differences between the proposals, however, and I think these are worth clearing up. I suspect media reports will group the two proposals together, even though the practical and political effects will be very different.

First, even though both proposals target EPA CAA authority over GHGs, they are mirror images of each other. The Murkowski proposal would kill the EPA’s endangerment finding for mobile sources (cars and trucks). In the short term, this would block all EPA efforts to regulate GHGs under the CAA, though in principle the EPA could make a new endangerment finding under a different section of the act and go after other kinds of sources. The Rockefeller proposal would leave the endangerment finding and mobile source regulation intact but, as its title indicates, would impose a two-year moratorium on EPA regulation of stationary-source (power plants, etc.) GHGs.

The Rockefeller bill makes much more sense, I think. This isn’t to say I personally support it, just that it addresses concerns over EPA regulation of GHGs much more effectively than the Murkowski proposal. Mobile-source regulation is the one piece of the CAA/GHG process that has broad support. The regulations the EPA plans to finalize this month were a product of compromise with the auto industry last year. All of the comprehensive climate bills I know of leave EPA authority over mobile sources intact. It’s EPA regulation of stationary sources, and in particular requirements for preconstruction GHG permits, that is causing the most controversy and putting the most pressure on Congress. If Congress wants to relieve this pressure then the Rockefeller path is the right one, not Murkowski.

Second, the political differences are obvious though I’m skeptical about whether the end result will be any different. Rockefeller is a Democrat, and while Murkowski has support from some moderate Dems, this new proposal seems pitched more directly at the center-left core of the Senate. Unlike Murkowski’s proposal, it will need 60 votes to pass, but it is probably more likely to get them. Similar bills are being proposed by House Dems.  This makes it much more likely, I think, that the bill will pass one or both houses—though I leave it to more adept vote-counters to make the call.

Even if the bill did pass both houses, it would still have to be signed by President Obama. I cannot imagine the president would sign the bill. It blocks action on GHGs that the president has publically stood behind. Also, and maybe more importantly, the bill would take an arrow out of the quiver of the executive branch. No president likes that. Until and unless that changes—or unless Congress somehow comes up with a veto-proof majority—the Rockefeller bill won’t become law.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/haglundc/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

This item is cross-posted at Weathervane.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Another Bite at the Apple

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The president held a press conference today to announce that yes, indeed, he will press Congress to act on health care reform this month. There’s was nothing immensely new about that development, but it’s interesting that Obama used the occasion to lay out, quite succinctly, the three key points he made in his health care summit with Republicans: why comprehensive reform is essential, why the time for “negotiations” is over, and why there’s nothing that unusual about the use of reconciliation (though he did not use the word, a very unfamiliar term to most people outside Washington) to get the job done. He essentially took another bite at the apple of responding to the most effective Republican lines of attack, and will apparently do so some more in appearances on the road this month.

On the other hand, the presidential press conference may get demoted on the nightly news if a possible scandal involving Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) continues to develop. Massa, a freshman from a highly marginal district, abruptly let it be known he was retiring. Some sources say he’s suffering from a recurrence of cancer, but Politico is reporting that he was about to come under investigation by the Ethics Committee for allegedly sexually harrassing a male staffer. If the latter story has a basis in reality, it will be big news tonight.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

President Obama’s Letter: Setting up the Final Push

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Elbert Ventura


Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

The White House today released a letter from President Obama pointing a way forward for passing health care reform. True to the course that he set at the Blair House summit last week, he stressed the areas of agreement between the two parties, even as he acknowledged some unbridgeable differences.

A considerable portion of the letter — and the part that has gotten everyone’s attention — goes into detail about four GOP ideas that the president said he would like to see in any final package. The president writes:

1. Although the proposal I released last week included a comprehensive set of initiatives to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, Senator Coburn had an interesting suggestion that we engage medical professionals to conduct random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs.

2. My proposal also included a provision from the Senate health reform bill that authorizes funding to states for demonstrations of alternatives to resolving medical malpractice disputes, including health courts. Last Thursday, we discussed the provision in the bills cosponsored by Senators Coburn and Burr and Representatives Ryan and Nunes (S. 1099) that provides a similar program of grants to states for demonstration projects. Senator Enzi offered a similar proposal in a health insurance reform bill he sponsored in the last Congress. As we discussed, my Administration is already moving forward in funding demonstration projects through the Department of Health and Human Services, and Secretary Sebelius will be awarding $23 million for these grants in the near future. However, in order to advance our shared interest in incentivizing states to explore what works in this arena, I am open to including an appropriation of $50 million in my proposal for additional grants. Currently there is only an authorization, which does not guarantee that the grants will be funded.

3. At the meeting, Senator Grassley raised a concern, shared by many Democrats, that Medicaid reimbursements to doctors are inadequate in many states, and that if Medicaid is expanded to cover more people, we should consider increasing doctor reimbursement. I’m open to exploring ways to address this issue in a fiscally responsible manner.

4. Senator Barrasso raised a suggestion that we expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). I know many Republicans believe that HSAs, when used in conjunction with high-deductible health plans, are a good vehicle to encourage more cost-consciousness in consumers’ use of health care services. I believe that high-deductible health plans could be offered in the exchange under my proposal, and I’m open to including language to ensure that is clear. This could help to encourage more people to take advantage of HSAs.

None of those suggestions should surprise anyone who saw the summit or has been paying attention to the president on health care the last few months. Three of the four touch on cost control, which is also not a surprise considering that’s the one area that both sides agree needs to be addressed (although only one party seems to be willing to actually pass legislation to do something about it). As TNR’s Jonathan Cohn rightly points out, the fraud and Medicaid payment proposals should win Democratic support, while the other two might have more trouble.

The key part of the letter, however, comes at the end:

I also believe that piecemeal reform is not the best way to effectively reduce premiums, end the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions or offer Americans the security of knowing that they will never lose coverage, even if they lose or change jobs.

The president, who is scheduled to speak tomorrow to chart his way forward for passing reform, here seems like he’s laying the groundwork for Congress to go down the path everyone has already discussed: passage by the House of the comprehensive bill that the Senate has passed, and a sidecar reconciliation bill to “fix” parts of the bill that House members find objectionable.

What’s important, too, is the language that he uses to justify the continued push. If cost control was the issue on which he could reach out to Republicans, coverage and affordability for ordinary families are the talking points as far as selling reform to the public and to the Democratic caucus. Ending exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, lowering out-of-pocket costs, keeping coverage even after losing your job: these are all hugely popular and marketable ideas. The Democrats have thus far done a poor job of explaining the kitchen-table benefits of reform. But those benefits are real, and they will redound to the benefit of the party who can make reform happen, something Obama seems to understand.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

A Pretty Wild Mainstream

Monday, March 1st, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

I don’t quite know exactly where this is coming from, but there’s clearly a media effort underway to show that the conservative movement and the Republican Party are reining in “the extremists” in their ranks, presumably in order to look all ready to govern.

Today’s Politico features a long piece by Kenneth Vogel detailing claims by various conservative and Tea Party spokesmen that the influence of “the fringe” has been grossly exaggerated by “the Left,” and that in fact unruly elements are being ignored or excluded by the Right’s grownups.

“Birthers,” Birchers and militia types, we are told, are being shown the door, and haven’t been that important to begin with, except in the propaganda of the Left.

The door-keepers in Vogel’s account, however, are not a group that would normally strike you as moderately-tempered unless the bar for political sanity is set very low. One is none other than Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, who told Vogel that activists needed “to control the message and to prevent the tea party movement from being hijacked.” That’s interesting, since Phillips’ recent National Tea Party Convention featured a race-baiting keynote address by Tom Tancredo, another speech by “birther” advocate Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, and a breakout panel headed by Christian Right extremist Roy Moore. Another is dirty-trickster and ACORN conspiracy theorist Andrew Breitbart, who is credited with disrepecting Farah at Phillips’ event. Still another is Erick Erickson of RedState, that ferocious advocate of strife against “squishes” and moderates of every variety.

If these folk want to keep “the Left” from talking about crazy people on the Right, they might want to make their policing a bit more rigorous than the occasional tip from the coach to stay on the political sidelines. “The Left” did not invent the cosponsorship of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference by the John Birch Society and the militia-friendly Oathkeepers. But more to the point, it’s a disturbing sign in intself that people like Phillips, Breitbart and Erickson are being treated as some sort of “mainstream,” where it’s perfectly normal to call President Obama a socialist, treat Democrats as presumptive traitors, and advocate an array of radical economic and social policies. All the “self-policing of the Right” narrative really shows is how far and fast conservatives have recently moved to what used to be thought of as “the fringe.” It’s cold comfort to learn there is ample frontier territory on the Right that’s well beyond that.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heroiclife/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

All in on Health Reform

Friday, February 26th, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

There’s something poignant about President Obama’s attempts to reason with congressional Republicans. He keeps hoping that facts, evidence, and logic somehow can penetrate the depleted-uranium armor of conservative ideology. As yesterday’s health summit showed, it hasn’t worked, but a public frustrated with Washington’s tribal politics will probably appreciate the effort anyway.

The summit nonetheless achieved its real purpose, which was not composing differences but illuminating the two parties’ starkly contrasting visions for health care reform so that the voters can make a real comparison. For the past year, Republicans have had the advantage of attacking (often dishonestly) Democrats’ plans without anyone paying much attention to what they have to offer.

The summit put them on the spot, and the clear answer was: not much. Here’s what we learned about what Republicans mean by reform:

First, they don’t much care about health care’s “have nots” – 45 million Americans without coverage. Sure, they favor a modest expansion of coverage to about three million people, but that only begs the question of why the lucky few and not everyone? The answer is that Republicans don’t really believe it’s government’s responsibility to make sure everyone can get access to affordable coverage.

Second, Republicans do care about restraining rising health care costs for those with coverage. But their preferred solutions — medical savings accounts, and allowing people to buy cheaper insurance policies out-of-state — are tilted toward the healthy. The former takes healthy people out of insurance pools, raising premiums for those who remain. The latter allows people to end-run state mandates on the medical services insurance companies must offer. That’s fine for healthy people who can get by with bare-bones coverage, but it doesn’t help the sick. In fact, Republicans generally oppose the insurance market reforms that would prevent companies from cherry-picking healthy customers or dropping people when they get sick.

Third, the GOP has no intention of helping Obama and the Democrats improve their plans, let alone pass them. They feel little pressure to do so, because they think they have the public on their side.

It’s true that polls show majorities are leery of the Democrats’ reform proposals, even if Americans still want Obama to “do something” about health care costs and coverage. Rather than crumble in the face of public skepticism, Obama adroitly used the summit to reframe the health care debate as a choice between action or inaction on one of the nation’s most vexing problems.

The spotlight now shifts to his party. Will liberals torpedo health reform because it doesn’t include the public option? Will moderates play it safe or take a risk for the larger good of their party and their country? Will health care reform be a casualty of that hardy perennial of the culture wars, abortion?

Can congressional Democrats, in short, summon the will and discipline to rise above their own centripetal forces and govern? It should be obvious that failure would reinforce the Republican narrative: the bill was misbegotten in the first place, an overly ambitious, big-government monster that couldn’t even pass muster with Democrats.

Obama has gone all in; now his party needs to follow.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | 2 Comments »

Summit Spectacle

Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Like many of you, I’ve been watching the health care summit, and can’t decide just yet if it’s a spectacle of complex drama, or just one of the longest congressional hearings to be broadcast in a long time. For those unfamiliar with congressional events, the preliminary throat-clearing and personal preening must be excrutiating.

The Republican strategy for this event is pretty clear already: act like the administration is doing something really outrageous by using reconciliation to finalize the health care legislation already passed by both Houses. As I mentioned yesterday, this is factually ludicrous, but repeating talking points does sometimes work.

It’s pretty interesting that tea partiers are protesting the very existence of the event outside Blair House. Appointing themselves representatives of the people, and making unconditional demands on their behalf, has been a hallmark of their movement all along.

Editor’s note: The summit is being webcast live on C-SPAN.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

Leaving Iraq

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Take a minute to soak in Tom Ricks’ column in NYT today. Here are a two key excerpts:

IRAQ’S March 7 national election, and the formation of a new government that will follow, carry huge implications for both Iraqis and American policy. It appears now that the results are unlikely to resolve key political struggles that could return the country to sectarianism and violence.  If so, President Obama may find himself later this year considering whether once again to break his campaign promises about ending the war, and to offer to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for several more years. Surprisingly, that probably is the best course for him, and for Iraqi leaders, to pursue.

[...]

The political situation is far less certain, and I think less stable, than most Americans believe. … All the existential questions that plagued Iraq before the surge remain unanswered. How will oil revenue be shared among the country’s major groups? What is to be the fundamental relationship between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Will Iraq have a strong central government or be a loose confederation? And what will be the role of Iran (for my money, the biggest winner in the Iraq war thus far)?

Ricks goes on to advocate slowing down the U.S. withdrawal, which can really only occur if the Iraqis offer to re-open negotiations on the status of forces agreement (SOFA). It was signed in the waning days of the Bush administration and establishes December 31, 2011, as the date when “all United States forces shall withdraw from Iraq.”

While the future in Iraq certainly continues to look murky and Ricks’ suggestion should be kept in mind, I don’t think we’re quite at the point of seriously debating a change to the SOFA just yet. Let’s wait until the March 7th elections have passed and the mood of the country and new government shake out until we think about it. After all, it’s not our call anyway — as the SOFA clearly states, “The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time,” and that’s a politically weighty sentence to revisit if you’re a brand new Iraqi government.

That’s why I don’t think the announcement of General Odierno’s contingency plan to delay withdrawal is much of a definite harbinger at this point. That’s what the military does — it plans for things. They’re the best Boy Scouts (motto: Be Prepared) in the world. And just because it plans, doesn’t mean the commander-in-chief is about to put those plans in motion. After all, we have a plan on the books to attack Iran. And I’ve got $20 that says we have a plan to attack Canada.

But then again, invading Canada would make winning the hockey gold medal a lot less fun.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries