Health Care Reform

[halplm]

And what is his invitation other than a political stunt? Does he think the rest of the house members don't know his position? Does he somehow think to educate them in how to do their job?

This isn't kindergarden. He can't summon the schoolchildren to an assembly where he tells them how things are.

But I'm sure it's hate keeping them away (racist hate of course).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hi hal ()

That's a reasonable question, but my answer is that it is always better to look someone in the eye and tell them what you think, than to do it through proxies. Do I think it is likely to lead to a solution? Probably not. But I don't think it can hurt.

[yovargas]

Obama didn't "summon the schoolchildren", he sent out an invitation. They can feel free to stay away if they think it'll be a waste of time (quite likely), the question is just why the Speaker can apparently order them to go or not go...and why he would try to prevent some from going. It's their choice, is it not?

[Erunáme]

And what is his invitation other than a political stunt? Does he think the rest of the house members don't know his position? Does he somehow think to educate them in how to do their job?

I thought Republicans have been screaming about wanting Obama to negotiate? He invites them all.. and now that's a political stunt?



I also thought you couldn't "handle" us idiots anymore...

[Primula Baggins]

It's customary to accept a president's invitation, hal, out of respect for the office if nothing else, even if you don't plan to listen to what he says or agree with him. Refusing to go is a snub. Socially, in fact, if the president invites you to dinner and you have other plans (short of your brother's funeral or something), you break those other plans or it's a snub—and if you're a public figure, it gets noticed.

Before you jump, this isn't a new thing with Obama; it's been the rule at least since the 19th century.

[elfshadow]

Yov, I imagine it's for the same reason that moderate Republicans are remaining mostly quiet on the shutdown, even though there are plenty that would vote on a clean budget. The GOP is fracturing; no one in the party wants to make it worse and risk alienating their more conservative campaign donors. Showing up to the White House to negotiate with Obama against the express instructions of Boehner would likey be seen as betraying the party. I still think they should, because it's the right thing to do, but that's why they won't.

WashPo has published some great editorials and blogs in the last weeks. Here is an excellent example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... is-failing

[tinwë]

The consequence of that acquired cynicism is desertion of the field of battle and lack of involvement, which means that the only ones left are those who enjoy the dirty play and foster the cynicism...and then we all have to live with it.

I have to agree with Cerin though that there is something else at work here beyond escalating cynicism on both sides of the divide. The idea that the only people left playing the game are the extremists is false, at least in my recent experience. The moderates themselves have become more extreme. Look, we used to have a moderate Republican mayor in the town where I lived (Charlotte). I voted for the man several times. He was extremely popular, serving a record seven terms in a predominately Democratic town, and he championed progressive causes including mass transit and a sales tax to fund it. He was a really good mayor.

That man was Pat McCrory, the current NC governor, the very same governor who gleefully signed into law all the draconian bills I mentioned above. I don’t know if he simply changed his colors when he went from local to state level politics as is so common in that transition, but the change is so drastic and stark that it is shocking. It’s as if he has been possessed by an entirely different person. And this is what seems to me to be happening to the Republican party nationwide. I know many of them are just career politicians who are afraid of being ousted by tea party challengers, but even that does not account for the dramatic shift to extremist policies.

[River]

The only people who can get summoned to the White House like schoolchildren are people employed by the Executive Branch. Everyone else gets an invite that they may do with as they will, though it is rather gauche to reject an invitation to the White House.

What's odd is that Boehner himself trimmed the guest list. Now, granted, one president talking to over 200 stroppy Members of the House might not be the most productive set-up, but it is a bit surprising that the Speaker can just say, "Yeah, I know you got an invite but you're not allowed to go." What can he do to enforce that order? It's not as if he can fire them or send them to HR for counseling or anything like that. Bringing just himself and some senior people is probably Boehner's best hope of a productive meeting. Unfortunately, it's the junior people that are loud and rowdy and I'm not sure Boehner et al would be able to implement a negotiated agreement.

[halplm]

And what is his invitation other than a political stunt? Does he think the rest of the house members don't know his position? Does he somehow think to educate them in how to do their job?

I thought Republicans have been screaming about wanting Obama to negotiate? He invites them all.. and now that's a political stunt?



I also thought you couldn't "handle" us idiots anymore...

Just to keep you informed, I've had about 5 or 6 posts this morning that I've deleted because I've decided it wasn't worth the effort, and now I'm late. That's me not "handling" you all anymore.

[Cerin]

Don't mistake me. I am not equate the actions of the two parties in the current crisis.

No, you equated two examples of citizen response, response to different actions of the two parties. You are suggesting that characterizing the requirement to purchase health insurance as the biggest threat to freedom ever is no different in kind or degree to the writer regarding the deliberate sabotage of the federal government as an attempt to overthrow the government. In equating the hyperbole of the two responses, you imply that an equal degree of ignorance and delusion is responsible for each, and/or that the things reacted to are alike in kind, neither of which is true. This is the attitude that gives the tea party cover.

[Primula Baggins]

From today's New York Times:

Business Groups See Loss of Sway Over House G.O.P.

An excerpt:

As the government shutdown grinds toward a potential debt default, some of the country’s most influential business executives have come to a conclusion all but unthinkable a few years ago: Their voices are carrying little weight with the House majority that their millions of dollars in campaign contributions helped build and sustain.

Their frustration has grown so intense in recent days that several trade association officials warned in interviews on Wednesday that they were considering helping wage primary campaigns against Republican lawmakers who had worked to engineer the political standoff in Washington.

They've lost Wall Street. They long ago lost all moderates and centrists. I think some at the far right of the GOP no longer care about campaign money; they care about ideological purity and doing as much damage to government as possible, whether or not there's any rational reason to do so. Some, such as Michelle Bachmann, believe it's their divinely intended role and that they are fulfilling Biblical prophecy because the End Times are at hand.

As long as John Boehner is too weak to stand up to these loons, they are running the asylum, and running the whole country toward the edge of the cliff.

And even the rational ones (and their voters) are being actively misinformed by the only media they trust. From Elsha's link above:

The problem with living in an age when you can choose your own media isn't just that it's easier to surround yourself with people who agree with you. It's that it's easier to surround yourself with people who, purposefully or not, mislead you.

Today, a lot of Republicans woke up and read RedState.org, where they learned that "Republicans are winning the shutdown fight, and Democrats know it." The first half of that is probably wrong, and the second half is definitely wrong. But if it's what you already wanted to believe, it sure sounds good.

A few weeks ago, they were reading people explain why Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint might be right that the Democrats would really trade away parts of Obamacare to keep the government open. Want to know how bad it gets? Some elected Republicans believe that breaching the debt ceiling would actually help the economy.

God help us.

[yovargas]

No, you equated two examples of citizen response, response to different actions of the two parties. You are suggesting that characterizing the requirement to purchase health insurance as the biggest threat to freedom ever is no different in kind or degree to the writer regarding the deliberate sabotage of the federal government as an attempt to overthrow the government.

I do think calling this a "deliberate sabotage of the federal government" is a similar kind of hysterical hyperbole. They just think weakening ACA is more important right now than the immediate funding of the gov. I think that's an awful, absurd POV, as do most people, I believe, but it is not "deliberate sabotage".

[Frelga]

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to what extent it is appropriate to vote and govern based on personal beliefs. Clearly, it is unavoidable to some extent. Even my own definition, that the government should limit itself to issues that have a demonstrable effect on life and property of many people, is a value judgment on many levels.

What we are seeing is government by the people, for the people, based on value judgments alone, without reference to the real world consequences to other people. IMO.

Standing up for your beliefs is a fine thing when it means personal sacrifice. Witness Malala. Sacrificing others to your beliefs is what the guy who shot her did.

[Primula Baggins]

That's an excellent point, Frelga. But how could the two be decoupled? If Speaker Boehner stood up and allowed a clean debt ceiling vote, thereby saving the country and acting against the beliefs of the Tea Party wing, it would almost certainly cost him the speakership.

yov, "deliberate sabotage" doesn't have to be the whole party's aim for their actions to damage the country. But some of them, and some of the ideologues who urge them on, certainly do believe we'd all be better off if the federal government were too damaged to function.

[Frelga]

Er, rereading my own post - I hope it didn't look like I meant to equate the Tea Party and Taliban. The line between using even such extremist but still somehow legal practices and actual violence is thick, bright and clear, and the TP has not approached it.

Prim, had Boehner been prepared to sacrifice his career as you describe, I would consider it a fine example of standing up for one's beliefs. Although I wonder if he will still have a career after this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But even if that is true (and I'm not saying that it isn't), that still is not treason. It may be misguided, wrongheaded and dangerous, but it isn't treason, no matter how many times some people assert that it is. And making statements like that only adds to the problem, not to the solution (if there even is a solution).

[Primula Baggins]

He probably doesn't if he ends this without even managing to sabotage the Affordable Care Act by removing the linchpin individual mandate, thereby making it the Unaffordable Care Act. Caving would be the right thing to do. I think he'll wait to do it until the last possible moment, not because he wants to maximize the damage (though that certainly will happen), but because he doesn't have the, er, body parts and will be hoping for a miracle.

I do think Obama bears some of the blame for this mess; he's caved so often before, pre-conceded so much in so many negotiations, that the people (including the Koch brothers) who planned this mess months ago probably assumed they would easily get what they wanted. If Obama had stood his ground in 2011, they might not even have tried this in 2013. But (a) Obama has gotten a stronger spine since then and (b) the ACA is something he will never surrender on.

ETA: Cross-posted with Voronwë.

[Passdagas the Brown]

It's not about spine, IMO. The President is not only responsible for negotiating with the opposition. He is also responsible for keeping the country healthy.

For example, in 2011, the economy was in a much more precarious position than it is now. Had he taken Harry Reid's advice, and not conceded on anything, and allowed the government to shut down, the economic and political consequences could have been significant.

Right now, the economy is improving, the President is safely re-elected, and a shutdown is not likely to have a lasting effect. He can therefore responsibly reject the GOP's extortionist demands.

A default on the debt is another matter. That simply cannot happen.

[tinwë]

I do believe that there is a faction within the tea party movement that believes the country is so broken* that the only way to "save it" is to destroy it, and those individuals may actually welcome the economic calamity that would come with default.

* this would be the Michele Bachman / Ted Nugent wing of the tea party, who may be certifiable whack-jobs, but still seem to represent the sentiments of a lot of voters.

[Cerin]

It's not about spine, IMO. The President is not only responsible for negotiating with the opposition. He is also responsible for keeping the country healthy.

For example, in 2011, the economy was in a much more precarious position than it is now. Had he taken Harry Reid's advice, and not conceded on anything, and allowed the government to shut down, the economic and political consequences could have been significant.

Right now, the economy is improving, the President is safely re-elected, and a shutdown is not likely to have a lasting effect. He can therefore responsibly reject the GOP's extortionist demands.

A default on the debt is another matter. That simply cannot happen.

But it is not healthy for the country when one party routinely obstructs legislation as the Republicans have done since Obama was elected. It is not healthy for the country when various vital programs are repeatedly held hostage for legislative concessions. You say that had the Pres. stood firm in 2011, the consequences could have been significant. We'll never know, because he didn't, and thus the Republicans predictably tried again what worked for them before.

No, we mustn't default on the debt, but we also mustn't give in to this kind of extortion and therefore abandon our democracy to the will of a group of lunatics and guarantee such tactics in perpetuity. That would not be healthy, either, and would be a terrible abdication of responsibility.