Love And Hate

The love is from Tim F. over at Balloon Juice, much appreciated. I still believe the Village is very, very unhappy with Obamacare and wants to kill it cold, and as I said yesterday, within 24 hours of the Newsweek piece on Saturday we saw how all of a sudden the Senate no longer expected to have Obamacare on time before the August recess, how they suddenly became busy from, say, Friday. That is not a coincedence.

The hate? Still the Village, specifically a double-barreled blast on Obamacare from Bill Kristol and Robert J. Samuelson. First, Kristol:

Obama’s economic program -- the stimulus package, health care, cap-and-trade -- offers a huge opportunity to Republicans: Oppose root-and-branch this attempt to impose on us more spending, more debt and higher taxes, accompanied by an ever heavier hand of government. Oppose these schemes that are informed by the unwarranted arrogance of the central planners and the barely hidden condescension of the best and the brightest.

Republicans can propose instead incentives for economic growth and job-creation consistent with free markets and limited government, accompanied by reasonable regulations that will avoid a repeat of the financial meltdown. With Obama going down the road to the nanny state, Republicans have a chance to articulate by contrast a sensible and compelling pro-growth agenda consistent with the history of American democratic capitalism and the principles of a free society.

The party of no rolls on into Samuelson's piece:

Obama would make matters worse. He talks about controlling "entitlement" spending (mainly Social Security and Medicare) but hasn't done so. He's proposing just the opposite. His health-care proposal would increase federal spending. He says he will "pay for" the added outlays with tax increases or other spending cuts, but what people forget is that every penny of this "payment" could be used (and should be) to close the long-term deficit -- not raise future spending and taxes.

The latest excuse for avoidance is the economic crisis. True, deep spending cuts or big tax increases would be undesirable now; they would further depress an already depressed economy. But that doesn't preclude action. Changes could be legislated now that would begin later and be phased in -- a gradual increase in eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare; gradual increases in energy taxes; gradual elimination of some programs. Such steps might improve confidence by reducing uncertainty about huge budget deficits.

Yes, because the only problem in a Republican world is budget deficits, the same idotic TAXEN CUTTEN UBER ALLES garbage from a group of people that have ignored deficit spending since Reagan (and of course, Samuelson says we can't possibly risk defense cuts in this risky world).

The GOP is running the 1993 playbook, smugly determined to see a Contract With America redux in 2010 that puts the GOP in charge. They still have yet to figure out that things are different, that Americans want a public option and want affordable health care. They want it now. Many of them recall 1993, and what that led to: 6 years of a neutered Clinton and then 8 years of Republican rule that resulted in an economic catastrophe that we're still being crushed by.

The GOP is still convinced we'll put them back in power because the Democrats haven't fixed the problem in six months.

If you believe that, then you deserve what's coming.