On mandates:
In the primaries, Obama distinguished himself from Clinton on health care by opposing an individual mandate. In the general election, he distinguished himself from McCain by opposing taxes on health benefits. So now he is trying to pass bills with both an individual mandate and taxes on health benefits—and his supporters are saying that Congress should go along because he won the election.
“I won” is not a substitute for substantive policy discussion.
Man, now that I have time to follow the health-care “reform” garbage more closely, I can see what has tea-party sorts riled up. Just plain stupid.
Just another example of the difference between Democracy (what we see) and Egoarchy (what we get).
More seriously, campaign promise enforcement is a really hard issue. That’s why electing someone with a record as patchy as Obama’s is so dangerous – politicians don’t do “promises” they just go with their gut, so a long record of past gut reactions is necessary to judge what they’re going to do going forward.
Obama was against the mandate before he was for it.
More seriously, campaign promise enforcement is a really hard issue. That’s why electing someone with a record as patchy as Obama’s is so dangerous – politicians don’t do “promises” they just go with their gut, so a long record of past gut reactions is necessary to judge what they’re going to do going forward.
Wow, isn’t it amazing how something that was noticed here in October 2008 (actually much earlier after Obama won the Democrat primary) turns out to be a real problem? It’s almost like we have more foresight than a bowl of cooked cabbage.
I don’t like campaign promises anyway. They should be banned. That way lies the obscenity of the winning candidate being the one who promises the largest bribe to the Praetorian Guard. We’re already dangerously close to that already, with candidates vying to promise the most largesse dispensed to their followers once they get their hand on the public purse.
We should elect President’s based on what they’ve accomplished already, not what they promise to do in the future. We should be looking to preserve the greatness of the past, not rewrite our basic laws and structures every time the party in power switches, and the post of President should be considered in the way of a reward for being unsually able at your previous administrative posts.
JG,
what part is stupid? The protesters, or the changes? Your comment is confusing to say the least.
Campaign promises about legislation are always contingent (if not wishful thinking) in the U.S. In the UK, if the Conservatives says that they will pass such and such a law, and they win the election, you can be pretty sure the law will be passed. A U.S. president does not have equivalent power, even when his party wins both houses of Congress. The bills before Congress today aren’t purely Obama’s bills, they’re a joint effort between the White House and five Congressional committees, plus the Congressional leadership, with all the compromises that entails.
Obama is apparently happy to trade his opposition to an individual mandate, and taxes on some health benefits, for a bill that can become law. His willingness to make that trade is entirely in keeping with everything he said about health care in the campaign.
Obama is apparently happy to trade
his opposition to an individual mandate, and taxes on some health benefits,principles for a bill that can become law.His willingness to make that trade is entirely in keeping with
everything he said about health care in the campaign.his lifelong cyncism in pursuit of power for the sake of power.Just helping out, Jim!
Don’t forget Obama’s attempt to pack the courts with new-created seats filled by justices who will rubber-stamp this unconstitutional monstrosity. No aggressive power-grabbing there, no sir-e-bob, that’s just “making a trade.”
Carl, the point of campaign promises is that it is information that might indicate what the person will do in office. You can then examine the person’s record, if they have one, their demeanor, and associates to get some idea of the likelihood of the campaign promises becoming reality.
Obama is apparently happy to trade his opposition to an individual mandate, and taxes on some health benefits, for a bill that can become law. His willingness to make that trade is entirely in keeping with everything he said about health care in the campaign.
Jim, the excuses always sound good. The point of a campaign promise is that it is a guarantee of varying quality that the candidate does some action at a future point. If they can promise the Moon with sparkling ponies and then satisfy you with an excuse, then the fault lies in your gullibility. This was an important promise. And the Democrats control both branches of government. There’s no excuse that can rationalize why Obama can’t fulfill a major campaign promise.
This was an important promise.
What, specifically? That he’d veto any bill with an individual mandate? That he’d veto any bill that taxed health benefits? I don’t recall any such promises.
What, specifically? That he’d veto any bill with an individual mandate? That he’d veto any bill that taxed health benefits? I don’t recall any such promises.
What the hell is your problem? Did I say “veto”? Do you really believe Obama’s only choice for fulfilling a promise is a veto? Come back when you have a serious argument and aren’t merely trying to waste our time.
Der Schtumpy,
I was referring to the details of things like the individual mandate. The government giving itself the power to force people to buy a good or service. What could possibly go wrong?
~Jon
Only racists wingnuts believe in unintended consequences.
Karl, you said “This was an important promise,” but you never said what “this” referred to. What promise are you talking about?
Karl,
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Candidates make promises all the time, but some promises are indeed more important than others. This is not a case of “Waaa, Mom, you told me I could spend my allowance at the Galleria this week! And now you tell me we are staying home!”
Mr. Obama was contrasting his position with Ms. Clinton with a promise of “No individual mandates.” The individual mandates famously were a feature of Health Care Reform when Ms. Clinton tried her hand in it, and Mr. Obama was saying that he was not going down the same path that people didn’t want.
Mr. Obama was contrasting his position with Mr. McCain with a promise of “No taxes on employer health benefits.” That one was a biggy, not just because the candidate was saying it, but all manner of people were saying, “Oh no, I can’t vote for McCain, he is going to tax my health insurance!”
So here is my Health Care Campaign Promise Loyalty Oath. Place your left hand on the book of your choosing, raise your right hand, and swear, “I never told anyone that John McCain’s plan to equalize the tax treatment of employer-provided and self-employed consumer-purchased health insurance in any way was a a reason to vote against John McCain.”
If a person cannot swear that oath, that is evidence that Mr. Obama’s promise to not do what Mr. McCain promised was simply a sop to the rubes, with a wink and a nod to the people in the know.
Jim, I was referring to Obama’s supposed opposition to an individual mandate and taxing health care benefits. I see no signs that Obama even tried to defend those promises he made. Obama’s practice of making frivolous campaign promises and later going back on them when it becomes convenient is exactly why I voted for McCain.
McCain’s record isn’t all that great, but there are two things in his favor. First, he has some record of fulfilling campaign promises. Second, he was willing to make promises that would hurt his campaign by harming his appeal to the voters he was reaching to. Obama never did that. Sure he made statements and vows that to this day scare business and harm our economic recovery, but business owners and allied workers weren’t his target voters.
Jim, I was referring to Obama’s supposed opposition to an individual mandate and taxing health care benefits. I see no signs that Obama even tried to defend those promises he made.
There is a difference betwen a position and a promise. Obama said he preferred a plan without an individual mandate, and opposed McCain’s proposal to tax all health benefits. He’s stuck to those positions — e.g. in the big health care speech he specifically stated that he’d rather raise money by limiting deductions for high-income taxpayers than by taxing lavish health benefits. But he never promised that he wouldn’t sign a bill with an individual mandate, or a bill that taxes the most generous health benefits, and he can’t break a promise he never made.
What he did promise was a healthcare reform that would make coverage affordable for everyone, would not require that people change their current coverage, and would ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Either the House or Senate bill would, if passed, fulfill that promise.
McCain’s record isn’t all that great, but there are two things in his favor. First, he has some record of fulfilling campaign promises.
You can’t be serious. He is all over the place. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and then ran on extending them. He personally sponsored cap-and-trade legislation, and now disparages it as “cap-and-tax”.
[McCain] was willing to make promises that would hurt his campaign by harming his appeal to the voters he was reaching to. Obama never did that.
Obama promised to increase funding for teacher merit pay programs, and has done so; that wasn’t what his supporters in the NEA wanted to hear. His campaign positions also disappointed supporters who wanted single-payer health care, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, federal recognition of gay marriages, and plenty of other things.
So what’s the point of having a “position” when it doesn’t mean anything? My view is that it is another form of promise even if there’s a big rhetorical out. And given that there’s never been an indication aside from words that Obama held the “positions” he claims to have held, I really don’t see it as materially changing the duplicitous nature of Obama’s actions.
What he did promise was a healthcare reform that would make coverage affordable for everyone, would not require that people change their current coverage, and would ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Either the House or Senate bill would, if passed, fulfill that promise.
They don’t. Don’t even waste our time with that garbage.
So what’s the point of having a “position” when it doesn’t mean anything?
It does mean something — if Obama got to choose, we’d be looking at a health care bill without an individual mandate, and without any tax on Cadillac health plans. But him saying that he prefers not having those things is not the same as him saying he’d refuse to sign a bill with them. He has said that he’d refuse to sign a bill that increases the deficit over the next 10 years, and he’s stuck to that.
It does mean something — if Obama got to choose, we’d be looking at a health care bill without an individual mandate, and without any tax on Cadillac health plans.
Really? What do you base that statement on? The presence of a “position” that Obama isn’t willing to push through a friendly Congress means to me that this wasn’t Obama’s position all along.
He has said that he’d refuse to sign a bill that increases the deficit over the next 10 years, and he’s stuck to that.
He’s apparently intent to sign some health care bill with universal health care provisions and other cost increasing measures. That will increase deficits and not just over the next ten years.
So who had a gun to his head when he demanded that very thing before a joint session of Congress?
The presence of a “position” that Obama isn’t willing to push through a friendly Congress means to me that this wasn’t Obama’s position all along.
Even a “friendly” Congress isn’t going to roll over and do whatever the President asks. Is it so hard to get the concept that there’s wisdom in setting priorities and picking your battles? Having or not having an individual mandate is not as important as getting a bill that covers most of the uninsured (among other things).
That will increase deficits and not just over the next ten years.
Who are you going to believe, the CBO or your imagination? According to the CBO, the Senate bill cuts the deficit substantially over the first ten years, and even more over the following 10. The House bill cuts the deficit as well.
So who had a gun to his head when he demanded that very thing before a joint session of Congress?
The fact that every Congressional committee that had considered health care reform had agreed to have some sort of mandate, and that insisting they drop it at that point in the process would be a quick way to kill the chances of any bill passing.
Even a “friendly” Congress isn’t going to roll over and do whatever the President asks. Is it so hard to get the concept that there’s wisdom in setting priorities and picking your battles? Having or not having an individual mandate is not as important as getting a bill that covers most of the uninsured (among other things).
I don’t think we’re communicating here, Jim. That’s not my priorities. I value far more someone who is consistent and predictable over someone who says one thing and does another. In this case, I don’t believe your characterization of Obama’s actions are correct. He can’t be bothered to set as his priorities his “positions”. That tells me they weren’t positions in the first place, just some empty rhetoric for temporary advantage.
Who are you going to believe, the CBO or your imagination? According to the CBO, the Senate bill cuts the deficit substantially over the first ten years, and even more over the following 10. The House bill cuts the deficit as well.
Last I checked for the House bill, even the CBO claimed a $800 billion dollar increase in spending over ten years. They also claimed a fantasy drop in health care costs that would somehow make that up. They have to made bad assumptions like that. If Congress says the Moon is made of green cheese, CBO is legally required to agree. The first claim is far more likely to be true than the second since it probably is just a matter of adding straightforward estimates together (and it’s the bad news in the report). The second supposed budget reduction from lower health care costs is pure delusion untarnished by reality.
The fact that every Congressional committee that had considered health care reform had agreed to have some sort of mandate, and that insisting they drop it at that point in the process would be a quick way to kill the chances of any bill passing.
An excellent idea. We’d have integrity and public utility perfectly aligned. Win-win. Or you know, Congress could take another 15 minutes to drop the mandate. My view is that the mandates were there in all those bills precisely because Obama was pushing for them. Further, how do you explain Obama asking Congress for those things? Compromise doesn’t require Obama to do that.