Friday, August 21, 2009

Kroog Versus Obama

Paul Krugman reminds the universe that progressives elected Obama (specifically they won him the primary over Hillary) and that they are expecting him to actually go through on those campaign promises he made.
A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

The idea of letting individuals buy insurance from a government-run plan was introduced in 2007 by Jacob Hacker of Yale, was picked up by John Edwards during the Democratic primary, and became part of the original Obama health care plan.

One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.

And let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.
Of course the trial balloon on the public option was going to get shot all to hell. But there are plenty of other issues on which Obama needs to be paying more attention other than health care:

Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

And then there’s the matter of the banks.

I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I’ve had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they’re really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus — but that’s a distinction lost on most voters.

So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.
I've rung up Obama on both civil liberties and his craptastic financial team since December. I personally believe that both issues are still massive, massive problems for the country right now. But folks like me aren't going to just vanish now that Obama has won. There's real work to be done and tough choices to be made. I may be just one voice, but I'm not the only one by far.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Two Words

Rahm Emanuel

Fear Grows Like A Weed In the Middle of Rahm Emanuel’s Message Void

You can't implement the biggest economic change program since the New Deal without public trust. The White House tried to sell trust in a man -- Obama -- at a time when that trust was breaking down in the wake of the banking debacle, which as Krugman says created tremendous populist discontent across the board. Remember that this was where the teabaggers got their start, where their messaging took root, and it was the result of the same Rahm Emanuel calculus: buy off big business with taxpayer dollars and keep them from funding the Republicans.

It's an unbelievably cynical message that underscores everything coming out of the White House and it's at complete odds with what Obama stood for in the election. It fundamentally violates what people think they voted for. And those internal contradictions teed up Betsy McCaughey perfectly.

One more time, with feeling: Thanks, Rahm.

Related Posts with Thumbnails