Although I think that much of the analysis in this article at The Economist, on the president’s dwindling approval rating following the feeble debut of Healthcare.gov and the various NSA revelations, is quite correct, I think the slug, “Barack Obama’s supporters are worried that he is a terrible manager”. When you look at the evidence more closely, there’s very little to support the claim. Not that he’s a terrible manager. At this point that’s pretty obvious. I mean that his supporters are worried.
Consider this observation from Charlie Cook at The National Journal:
For the week of Oct. 21 to Oct. 27, Gallup polling found that Obama’s job approval was 80 percent among Democrats, just a touch above his September average of 79 percent; among Republicans, it was 10 percent, somewhat lower than the 12 percent in September. Among liberals, Obama’s approval rating was 74 percent, slightly above his 71 percent for September; among conservatives, it was 22 percent, just below the 23 percent last month. None of these numbers are particularly remarkable.
It’s always more interesting to watch the numbers among independents and moderates, because their views are much less anchored in partisanship or ideology. Among independents, Obama’s job-approval rating was 36 percent, about the same as the 37 percent for September; among moderates, it was 47 percent, a little bit below the 50 percent for September. While it would certainly be reasonable to expect Obama’s numbers to dip a little among partisans and ideologues in reaction to recent events, those numbers aren’t likely to move as much as those from the independents and moderates.
In other words the president’s supporters are holding firm but most of the country are either opponents (Republicans) or their approval is contingent upon performance. It’s among these latter two groups that the president’s approval is declining.
In comments over at OTB there was a remark to the effect that American politics isn’t à la carte but table d’hôte. You must take the policies of each party in their entirety. I think that’s almost completely wrong.
Some Americans are solid partisans. They’ll continue to support the elected officials of their own party regardless of what they say or do. However, for a plurality of Americans support is contingent on performance. They’ll support elected officials only within certain bounds. Execution matters. Policies matter.
Obama remains roughly where he’s been for me: a B. Sometimes it’s an A-, sometimes it’s a C+, but it’s still in that 3.0 area. He should be able to get into a good state school if his SAT scores are high enough.
I wonder how other Democrats see it, though. The binary support/oppose hides a lot. I think a lot of Dems thought they were getting some combination of FDR and Bill Clinton. I think some expected miracles to be performed. But character is character, and you rarely get something out of someone that wasn’t there to begin with.
I’d say I’m 10% disappointed. But I’m a cynical old man with a lot of presidents in my past. There haven’t been a lot of FDR’s in my personal experience.
However, for a plurality of Americans support is contingent on performance. They’ll support elected officials only within certain bounds. Execution matters. Policies matter.
Most of the above-mentioned plurality reside in the ever-growing Independents voter ID, too. This group is becoming increasingly restless and discouraged with both the extreme right and left sidedness of parties, because once in control, they tend to immediately power-wash it with their ideologies.
Consequently, towards the end of Obama’s presidency there will probably be another surge of re-registration into the Indy group — predominately from moderate/conservative democratic rolls — the catalyst not being the current flummoxed tech problems, either. Instead, it will relate more personally to the involuntary removal of existing HC policies people liked/loved. Adding insult-to injury, is the dems condescension, displayed in their arrogant claims that suddenly ‘deleted’ HC polices were ‘crappy,’ anyway — implying a sense of stupidity or ignorance on the part of an unsuspecting consumer, in being duped to select such underrated coverage. Furthermore, the liberal operatives punctuate these asinine, piously reflexive comments with even greater umbrage, indicating that people, holding HC policy cancellations in their hands, should indeed be grateful for Obamacare’s intervention in setting their HC world on the right track!
…..Barf bag, please!
“…..Barf bag, please!”
Stop reading your own prose.
Adding to the above comment: With higher percentages of Independents, the remnants of the old D and R parties will become smaller, more highly concentrated in their opposing sentiments, leading to an even greater polarized environment in DC. Maybe, such toxicity will then yield to a viable 3rd party formation — one that will become a greater force over the fading two, who will have become too partisan-hardened, and lopsidedly crystallized to be seen as a fair governing body of power anymore.
“For every one person getting their health care policy canceled, that could influence maybe three to four other voters”
There is much to be considered, other than one-liner quips by some posters, as to the negativity the PPACA could impose upon the party pushing it:
These stories, as implied in this piece, could magnify, in their importance, as they are passed on from one person to another.
It’s kind of like hearing statistics about a flu epidemic. The closer and more personal it becomes, the more fearful one becomes, whether or not they are actually infected, themselves, by the virus.
Frankly, I doubt it. Winner-take-all systems like ours don’t lend themselves to third parties.
Performance matters a lot. Most people have been happy with his performance, or are still worried about the past and current performance of the GOP. Hence, the 2012 elections. Going forward, the performance of the ACA will matter a lot.If it performs well, the opening month or two will not matter much. 97% of people will not lose their insurance. What will matter for them is how much their insurance costs and what it covers. For those who lose their insurance, if the replacement is better and cheaper, they will forget also.
Steve
Could you substantiate that please? I think that just over 40% of the people are satisfied with his performance. That’s certainly not most.
If I were polled I’d say I’m not happy with his performance. But ask me if I’m glad that Obama is in the WH and say I am. Ask me if I think he’s better than the alternatives we were offered? Yes, I do.
Like I said, the yes/no hides as much as it reveals. He was just re-elected. If you ran him against Romney again, today, he’d be re-elected.
Like I said, the yes/no hides as much as it reveals. He was just re-elected. If you ran him against Romney again, today, he’d be re-elected.
I sincerely doubt that, Michael. As for Obama’s like/dislike quotient — it revolves less around what either you or I think of him, but more what the public at large perceive as his accomplishments, kept promises, and failures. Right now he has a larger negative than positive approval rating, and with that he would not be winning elections anytime soon!
Steve,
You keep looking at some kind of silver lining that just isn’t visible to most of us. Like mentioned above, you’ve quoted 97% of people as keeping their medical coverage. Where did you derive that number from, as the Obama administration earlier projected that upwards to 90 million people would eventually lose their policies, once both the individual and big business mandates were implemented? How does that compute with your mathematics of such a number only being 3% of the insured population? Also, as mentioned above, Obama’s approval rating has bounced around, from the high 30’s to the low and mid-40’s. That’s not a high performance approval rating.
Certainly, Obama is liked/loved for being a democrat, for his cool personality, for being the first AA U.S. president. But, when it comes to all the other metrics that matter — diplomatic skills both here and abroad, foreign/domestic policy-making, trustworthiness, job creation/economic growth — it’s been all above his pay-grade and competence level.
I really think that partisan democrats are in some kind of rabbit hole, immersed in the D talking points, rather than reading/listening to a fuller scale appraisal of how the PPACA is going over with people in the real world.
It’s psychological: the sort of people for whom performance does not matter derive their identities from without, from the group the tribe, the ideology. Any suggestion the thing in which they have invested themselves may not be nearly perfect is viewed as an attack upon themselves personally and so will be rejected. They exist in all political parties and professions and they always stand in the way of needed change.
Any suggestion the thing in which they have invested themselves may not be nearly perfect is viewed as an attack upon themselves personally and so will be rejected
This. And even those tribal members who are disappointed or uncomfortable with performance can very easily be persuaded that the other guys would have been worse- hence the Obama administration’s main tactic from day one.
I will honestly say that I recognized this trait in myself sometime during GWB’s second term. I began forcing myself to read more left leaning blogs and while it hasn’t changed my conservative tendencies, I can perceive criticism of the GOP a lot more clearly. Unfortunately that has left me without any good options, though on the plus side I feel more independent and intellectually honest.
If in a fantasy USA where we only voted according to competence and performance, for whom would we vote?
Dave- I said “hence the 2012 elections.” We just had a referendum on his performance. It was called the 2012 election. I did put in the caveat that people may actually have been more worried about the GOP than were approving his performance.
Steve
Steve:
That was then and this is now and I’m writing about now. Not 2012. Not 2008.
The president’s approval rating has fallen by more than a half dozen points since Nov. 2. 2012. In a narrow victory, as was the case in 2012, that could mean the difference between success and failure.
Presented without comment:
Consider Rob Reiner, aka Meathead in the famed sitcom All in the Family, saying on HBO’s Real Time Friday, “If she (Hillary Clinton) decides to run, you will have the single most qualified person ever to run for President of the United Statesâ€
Dave:
Again, I don’t think you understand politics the way you understand policy.
Policy is about finding the best means of dealing with a problem or issue. Politics is about choosing between A and B where neither A nor B is the best answer to anything. The two things are not the same.
If you re-ran the 2012 election today, Romney would not lose by 5 million votes. He would lose by 6 million.
That’s a mischaracterization both of politics and policy. Politics is the art of getting elected. If you think anything else you know nothing about politics. Policy is the art of choosing among alternatives based on pragmatics but taking politics into account.
Increasingly, my gripe against the Obama Administration is that politics is the only thing. Unfortunately, political shrewdness will never make a bad policy work.
jan- The current changes are within the individual market. Work based insurance is not affected. This makes up about 5% of the private insurance market. If you have the same insurance now that you had when the ACA was passed, you can keep it. If you have changed plans, but gone to one that is compliant, you can keep it. If you changed to one that is not, you cannot. That latter group makes up about 3% of the market. Of course Medicare, Medicaid and VA insureds are not affected at all.
Steve
Dave- GOP ratings have also dropped. The leading GOP candidate is Cruz. No one is looking good. Also, I will confess that I am not overly interested in ratings of the moment, but more interested in the long term. Anyone can look really good or bad for a short while.
Steve
That’s all semantics. But it’s interesting that you take “politics” away from the voter and hand it to the politician solely. Politics is not just the art of getting elected. Your definition removes the thing you very often remove, Dave: human emotion as experienced by actual people. Politics is not just the politician getting elected, it’s also the people getting what they want, or need. You have it as a game played entirely by the seducer and not by the seduced, one player active and the other 100 million players passive. I think that’s wrong.
Let me translate politics into a different sphere: On November 1st, let’s say I’m really, really happy with my wife and there’s zero chance I’d trade her in for the lady who lives next door.
On November 2d I’m really, really mad at my wife. And there’s zero chance I’d trade her in for the woman next door.
Why is that the case? Because my relationship with my wife is an emotional one, and emotions are emotions, they are not mere self-interest, nor are they problem solving. Way, way back, long before the primaries even began, I said Mitt Romney wasn’t going to be president because he made people’s flesh creep. Even his supporters didn’t like him, they just hated Obama. But the Democrats and nominal independents who are mad at Obama now are not remotely interested in replacing him with the lady next door, Mitt Romney. They’re just mad at or disappointed in, Obama.
Not precisely, Michael. Politics is the interplay between the politician and the people. As you put it, the relationship.
The difference between marriage and politics (or, sadly, the similarity these days) is that the greater number of people aren’t committed to politicians as marriage partners are committed to one another. The politicians must perform.
But how can you say the politicians must perform when they manifestly don’t? I’ve never seen less actual performance from politicians in my life. Nothing is getting done in Congress except the expression of emotions on the right – fear, mostly, and its traveling companion, hatred. And most of those non-performing politicians will be back in office two years from now. They’ll be rewarded for having done nothing but stoke emotions.
I should make clear in case it isn’t already clear that this is not a situation I like. I’d far rather have people weighing plusses and minuses rationally. I’m prepared to vote for you, Dave, any day, any office — and I would never vote for myself. (I know me.)
Nevertheless, I’d be likely to beat you in an election because I’m glib, believable and can speak the language of feeling. You would talk to the voter’s brain, I’d talk to their hearts. (Also I’m tall.) The more qualified candidate? You. The more likely to win? Me. That’s why we don’t get anything done.
Funny anyone would say Romney made their flesh crawl. Personally, I liked him and President Obama always made me think of Michael Corleone in Godfather part two. I wonder why the disparity? Of course you can always say you’re right and I’m wrong but that doesn’t explain the perceptual disparity.
Gray Shambler
Jan- The current changes are within the individual market. Work based insurance is not affected.
Yes, Steve, you are technically correct.
However, the individual and big business mandate were originally slated to go into effect together. Had the 2009 timeline of the PPACA been unaltered, the figure calculated by the president’s men in 2010, and the one being used today as the real number of people eventually experiencing HC policy cancellations, is 90 million. Already, large corporations have shown their disinterest in Obamacare, saying they will opt out, effecting not only current employer HC plans, but also some retiree’s HC plans — Boeing, Trader Joe’s, Walgreens, Xerox, UPS, Home Depot, Merck, are only a few submitting such intentions.
The republicans, though, immediately acknowledged this grim statistic, and tried to interject legislation to remedy it, ahead of it’s implementation — three years ago! The dems, though, fervently denied the reasons for their concerns, calling it fear-based, unanimously voting the bill down. Then, in 2013, Obama suddenly graced business with a year’s delay — putting into a holding pattern the bigger portions of impending cancellations — while showing no such leniency for the smaller number (11-16 million) of ‘little’ people, involuntarily caught up in the abrupt cancellation of their HC plans. Again, the republicans came to the aid of the individual market, attempting to delay the individual mandate during recent budget negotiations. But, they were again jeered and labeled by the dems as being “extremists” in trying to interfere with a “settled, passed law” — deceptively ignoring the fact that Obama had already made numerous changes to the PPACA, himself!
Now, the circle has closed, HC is in troubled waters, and dems who voted down the R-sponsored remedies in 2010, as well as proposals to delay the individual mandate, a little over a month ago, are putting together their own bill to delay the individual mandate, extending, what might be seen by some, superficial and belated arms of concern around those who liberals and Obama publicly advocate for — middle class individuals. Of course that’s politics talking, not policy indulgence, as most of these dems are looking ahead to the 2014 midterms, and doing a CYA aimed at benefiting themselves, not the people they are supposed to represent.
IMO, it’s all a sham, shell game, ponzi scheme having little to do with health care costs or quality, and everything to do with restructuring insurance and subsidy eligibility. In the end, it doesn’t seem too unrealistic to posit that more people will be on medicaid, insurance premiums will skyrocket for those having no subsidies available to them, fewer doctors (unless forced to do so) will take medicaid/medicare patients, impacting care, raising wait times for appointments, and yes, rationing services as the government sees fit.
Is that really what the public signed up for, in supposedly reelecting Obama? Or, were most people clueless as to what was really in the PPACA, as Nancy Polosi cavalierly declared?
I agree with you that I’m unlikely to win any elections. Around here my name has no ballot appeal, I’m too short, and my life experience isn’t particularly compelling. It might surprise you but I do, however, have charisma. When I want to win elections, I can. I like people. I have insight and skills. And I’m plenty glib, believe me. My years on stage have not been forgotten.
The point I’m making is that for a plurality of people there is a level of performance which is not acceptable and that approval rating is an adequate gauge of that. Most of the Congressional approval ratings aren’t particularly meaningful because we don’t elect members of Congress at large. The polls that should be taken seriously are those of presidential approval and those that find that a majority (or more) of people think their own Congressmen should be replaced. Remarkable as it seems that’s truer of Democrats than Republicans right now.
“human emotion as experienced by actual people. Politics is not just the politician getting elected, it’s also the people getting what they want, or need. You have it as a game played entirely by the seducer and not by the seduced, one player active and the other 100 million players passive. I think that’s wrong.”
Democrats trump policy by stirring the emotions of people — sometimes in a very insidious and fact-free fashion. When an electorate is an informed one, such ploys don’t work as well. But, in our current day populace, people listen to comedy central to get their POV, and not the dreary statistical content surrounding our tepid economy, let alone considering the pragmatic outcomes that will prevail when you add so many under-funded or unfunded freebies to society.
As for Romney, he was a proven doer, an ethical leader in business, a religious family man, but not a charismatic speaker. There was no “coolness’ about his image. He had ideas, he had an experienced team ready to go to address our current problems. However, none of this was flamboyant or edgy enough for the vapid population that now votes. Hence, Obama was elected for his groomed smiles, jaunty swagger, glib attitude, not for an proven ability to manage the ills of this country. Consequently, 51% of the population deserves Obama. The rest of us don’t!
Gray:
Well, the polls show I was right about Romney. Obama’s likability number was always higher. People didn’t like Romney.
Dave:
You are absolutely right: I had completely forgotten your stage experience. My mistake. I guess we’ll never know who would win the election in which neither you nor I has any interest in running. (I refuse to belong to any party that would have me as its representative.)
I’m not surprised Democrats are more open to changing Congresspeople. Liberals are by definition more open to change.
However, on a side note, I happened to be at an event with some other writers recently. (I’m going to be discreet and not give out the name – which is pretty well-known, especially around Chicago. I’ll just say this person writes for adults, not kids.) And this particular writer reminded me of everything people cannot stand about a certain type of liberal: smug, self-righteous, condescending. The gist of this writer’s talk was actually an attack on change. Nostalgia and elitism were on full display. So obviously not all liberals like change, we just like it more often.
“As for Romney, he was a proven doer, an ethical leader in business, a religious family man, but not a charismatic speaker. There was no “coolness’ about his image. He had ideas, he had an experienced team ready to go to address our current problems. However, none of this was flamboyant or edgy enough for the vapid population that now votes. Hence, Obama was elected for his groomed smiles, jaunty swagger, glib attitude, not for an proven ability to manage the ills of this country.”
And one in the oven. Hence, meathead.
But I have heard that Obama is very proud of the newly formed Obama Center for Project Management Studies, for which, unfortunately, only 11 people have applied. Seems the word got out that despite the $20K tuition they forgot to construct a curriculum, hired no teaching staff and the text is due to arrive in 2016.
Oh, snap.
Image what happens in the future when more than 50% of voters are automatic Democratic Party voters and those voters will excuse any failures of the Democrats.
One of “Dr Steve’s” frequent comments, in backing the PPACA, is that the GOP never took up the HC calling, so they shouldn’t be knocking the only bill that was democratically-created addressing these issues.
However, when I really think back, the R’s were not a majority power in the House, for around 40 years, until the Gingrich Contract with America came into prominence during the Clinton years. During this time they tackled Welfare Reform, which Obama is in the process of dismantling with EOs, and balanced one of the few budgets in current-day history. HC mandates were floated by < 2 republicans in Congress and Hillary Clinton, with nothing coming of it.
GWB entrance into office was met with a hailstorm of monumental problems in the first year of his first term in office. His initial focus was riveted on the aftermath of 911, and planning military engagements in the ME. It was hardly the time to stress HC reform. Nonetheless, he did attempt to get a Patient's Bill of Rights through Congress in 2001, which failed. In the 2004 Bush/Kerry debates both candidates had proposals for expanding HC coverage — Bush's was considered more modest than Kerry's and less costly. In 2006/2007 more reform proposals were made via an evolving organization called American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Then in 2009, House republicans had a series of smaller HC proposals, prior to the passage of the PPACA, all of which were ignored.
Consequently, when you really assess the historical timeline of HC reform, it was an issue that was on the back burner of every recent administration. The GOP did pursue HC reform, only in a more cost-effective, free market piecemeal fashion, while the dems preferred the greater, more expensive comprehensive plans having a centralized government component. As I've said, many times, it was primarily Obama's Congressional majorities, though, that gave him the lynch pin to finally push a plan through, albeit at the cost of giving less attention to creating more jobs and growing the economy after the '08 financial crash — something many have concluded contributed to a post-recession, lack-luster, sluggish recovery.
Interestingly, tonight a panel of 3 women physicians, when asked how HC reform could be fixed, their ideas were the following: 1) have a slower implementation of HC reform, focusing and perfecting piecemeal measures, rather than the large bulky comprehensive plan which is difficult to manage 2) tort reform 3) maintain doctor-patient relationships, instead of severing them like the current plan is doing. All these ideas seem to conform more with what the R's slowly were trying to do, versus the unwieldiness of the PPACA which appears to be turning a multitude of people's existing HC plans, medical services, and doctor contacts asunder.
How’s Obama Doing?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/snl-spoofs-obama-support-black-voters_n_4208431.html
superdestroyer: Image what happens in the future when more than 50% of voters are automatic Democratic Party voters and those voters will excuse any failures of the Democrats.
In the U.S. system, when a party gains a majority, especially a strong majority or long-standing one, they tend to overreach, and then to become detached from the concerns of ordinary voters. Meanwhile, the minority party can propose ideologically pure solutions regardless of any confounding factors, and can attack the majority with impunity. This tends to result in a see-saw between the two political poles as the middle of the electorate swings from one side to the other.
The political bases, though, realize that politics is a team sport, so it is not unusual to root for your team, while criticizing your quarterback.
Zachriel,
Good points in your second post.
Overreach by any majority party, acting powerfully invincible, is indeed a compensatory factor that can recalibrate governmental power, sending it quickly into the opposing direction.
However, when a country goes over the tipping point of entitlement and social programs, a greater immunity develops for the recipients of these benefits, in becoming aware of the crippling side effects of overdone government benevolence. Usually, such mindfulness kicks in after a country crashes under the load of it’s financial burdens — then the see-saw effect of public outrage comes into play, capable of changing the seat of power…. for the time being.
jan
Well, there you go again, what with facts and sech. Don’t tell sam, you will get admonished to stop reading your prose and disrupting his fantasy world.
I’d also like to say greetings to everyone from Sea Island. This ought to be fun, although they tell me a noreaster is blowing through tonight and Tuesday. (Must be global warming……no other possible explanation. Either that, or Michael knew I was going to be here and he dialed up the Big Man…..) Will need a lot of knock down shots.
In any event, seriously, the health care thing is just a freaking disaster, and we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. Its a shame, because certain things need to be addressed. Portability, insurance competition, price incidence and a sensible bridge for the past malformations of the pre-existing condition and free rider problems to reasonable insurability are my top four/five. ObamaCare fails on all fronts. Because he’s an empty suit and has other ideological objectives. Wrong man for the job (some of us knew that); opportunity wasted; another fine mess.
Here are some polling data: http://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/repeal-or-replace.png
The summary: Of all Americans, 37% want Obamacare either repealed without replacement, or repealed to be replaced by a GOP plan. (Nonexistent at the moment.)
47% either want Obamacare as is, or an expanded version.
Among independents the numbers are 42% and 40% respectively, a tie.
So, despite the horrible roll-out, the American voter is not with the GOP on this. Only the GOP is with the GOP on this.
Predictions: A year from now the numbers will go from the current 37 con 47 pro Obamacare, to 35 con 52 pro.
If the GOP put an actual plan on the table, it’d cut the support for repeal since it’s easy to beat X with vapor, and harder to beat X with Y. Especially since X is already the GOP plan, ie: O’RomneyCare.
Acceptance of Obamacare will grow, but so will the attraction to single-payer. In other words, despite everything – Obama’s lousy sales job, the screwed-up roll-out, incessant GOP attacks, we’ll win.
Drew,
Sea island — never heard of it! But, anything coastal is all right with me.
Sam seems like a bright guy, who suffers from a hyperpartisan disability, causing him difficulty to have scorn-free conversations with those who disagree with him. Drive-by cheap shots, though, do little to bring opposing sides closer to at least understanding why people take the positions they do.
Then, when non-partisan ‘facts’ add further corrosion to Sam’s POV, his conversations crumble even more into personal attacks.
Facts? The GOP did their good stuff when there was a Democratic President. Given them power over everything and they dont do much. The budget was balanced because Marjorie Margolies voted for the budget that cut the debt and was willing to lose office to do so. The GOP House members actually made fun of her for doing so. Clinton gets some of the credit for Welfare reform too.
So I repeat, ad nauseum, there has not been, there will not be, health care reform when the GOP holds office. They cant do it.
Steve
Latest poll showing, again, that Republicans are not interested in health care reform. Also shows that people favor keeping or expanding the ACA over repeal. ( A significant part of its unfavorable ratings has always been people who want to expand.)
Steve
@jam
“Sam seems like a bright guy, who suffers from a hyperpartisan disability, causing him difficulty to have scorn-free conversations with those who disagree with him.”
I have no difficulty engaging people in argument. However,
“Drive-by cheap shots”
What I object to are your constant assaults on the English language. Evidently a simple declarative sentence is beyond your ken. Somehow you’ve gotten the idea into your brain that larding your posts with tortured constructions and “big words” (more often than not misused ) gives them the mark of sophistication. Truth be told, most of the words in what you write scurry around like bugs suddenly exposed when a rock is overturned, higgledy-piggledy with little sense or direction. Reading you is painful.
sam
Read “Private Equity Tax Issues for Dummies” yet??
Sam,
This blog is not an English class. I’m merely expressing my ‘humble’ opinion — not attempting to achieve a Pulitzer prize. So, ask me if I care about your pinpointed criticism.
Simple fix for your pain — don’t read me.
Steve,
My reading of history is that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he caved to GOP pressure, signing the bill in 1996, something his wife, Hillary, was vehemently opposed to. The results of this reform was a drop from 12.3 million to 4.5 million being on welfare rolls — all accomplished between 1996 through 2000. This in turn decreased entitlement expenditures while increasing revenue from the 1.5 million entering the work force in that same 4 year period.
As for the balanced budget, it was then Congressman Kasich, his committee, and Senate allies who led on creating a balanced budget. Bill Clinton did little on the spending side to balance the budget except sign the related bills, and sign-on to the capital gains tax cut in ’97 — something that was said to be “strenuously” opposed by democrats, but turned out to be very lucrative regarding the generation of revenue.
The budget was balanced because Marjorie Margolies voted for the budget that cut the debt and was willing to lose office to do so
Huh?
First Margolies barely won her election in ’92, writing a concession speech first, before she changed it to a victory one, as the margin of defeat/winning was that close. The budget proposal you hail her for casting a ‘yes’ vote, was a reluctant one — one she didn’t believe in. Prior to that she cast 3 preliminary ‘no’ votes, and would have done the same on the final vote too, as she thought it should have contained more spending cuts and less taxes. Imagine that! But, at the last minute, Clinton called her and said her vote would be the deciding one, basically asking her to be a sacrificial lamb for his economic plan. As it turned out 41 senators voted against Clinton’s economic plan, and it only passed by Margolies changing her vote, which everyone knew would cost her office, thus the chants of “Bye, bye Margie” from the floor. Rude? Of course. But, this mocking is done all the time, particularly by some on this blog. When Nov ’94 rolled around she lost to a republican by a much larger margin than she had won by in ’92.
Yes, facts do matter, and make a big difference when put into context with the events they are associated with.
jan: My reading of history is that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he caved to GOP pressure, signing the bill in 1996
Clinton campaigned on welfare reform. He insisted any final bill provide support for moving people into the workforce (training, child care, transitional health coverage, and most important, jobs) rather than just dumping people on the street.
jan: As for the balanced budget, it was then Congressman Kasich, his committee, and Senate allies who led on creating a balanced budget.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 passed without a single Republican vote. Gore, as President of the Senate, cast the deciding vote in that chamber. Republicans insisted it would crash the economy. In fact, it was a pillar of the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern U.S. history, and led to structural cash surpluses.
http://crywolfproject.org/taxonomy/term/42/quotes
jan: As it turned out 41 senators voted against Clinton’s economic plan, and it only passed by Margolies changing her vote, which everyone knew would cost her office, thus the chants of “Bye, bye Margie†from the floor.
Marjorie Margolies was in the House, which passed the final bill 218 to 216. The Senate vote was 51-50. Every0ne knew she had likely sacrificed her seat to pass the bill.
The GOP cuts capital gains during a boom, then claims it increases revenues. 🙂 Yet, those same cuts still exist. They existed in 2008 when the economy was crashing. They exist now. Why did they stop “working”? Because they just dont matter that much. Look at the history of rates and try to find correlation. Good luck.
As to the rest, Zach beat me to it. Margolies voted for the bill that raised the revenues that lead to surpluses. True, the GOP declared it would destroy the economy, but they were wrong. Also, you seem to forget that the EITC was also increased. This probably accounted for about as many people leaving welfare as welfare reform.
Added link I forgot to list before on GOP attitudes towards reform.
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-october-2013/
Steve
Steve:
Republicans can’t offer a health reform plan because they know full well they have nothing better to offer than Obamacare. The better solutions are all further left. There’s nothing to the right. So we get nothing from the GOP.
Nothing on health care, nothing on immigration, nothing on entitlement reform that they claim is a high priority, nothing on tax reform. And their only foreign policy position involves licking Netanyahu’s loafers.
My reading of history
Jan’s funniest line ever.
Michael- I think it has a lot to do with needing the votes of older people. They cant seriously advocate any reform that would hurt their core voter group. They can propose stuff when they know it cant pass, but not when they are in office and had to carry it out. There are some plans from some on the right that are actually ok, but I suspect they were mostly for show.
Steve
Oh, wait, it turns out there are GOP plans for health care reform:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republican-alternatives-to-obamacare,34445/
Here is the Margolies link detailing her part in the Clinton budget vote. She cast a yes vote, due to a direct request from Clinton. Later she described her vote as being a “pressured” one. In other words she put being a loyal team player over what she believed was the right thing to do. There is nothing principled about political coercion.
Regarding the creation of the Welfare Reform Act, Brookings Institute gives a fair amount of credit to the republicans, especially regarding their active follow-though in getting the bill done.
While Clinton did use welfare reform as a campaign issue, he dropped it after his election. It was the republicans who picked it up and aggressively pursued it until it’s passage.
Clintons legacy, IMO, is that he was a receptive leader, who chose to work directly with the opposing party, compromise, and not always heed the hard core attitudes of his base. His participation in welfare reform illustrated this trait, as many in his party, including his wife, were stridently opposed to it.
Also, while you’re pre-disposed to dismiss the higher revenue yielded by lowering capital gain taxes, as nothing more than reflecting a booming economy, the same could be said about the entire Clinton Presidency — he held office during the dot com boom, which was the major reason he presided over such a robust economy. When he left office, a bust was replacing the boom, and a recession was getting underway as Bush took over. However, I don’t recall Bush repeating over and over again how he was inheriting a slowing economy, only that he was the recipient of a healthy treasury.
Nothing on health care, nothing on immigration, nothing on entitlement reform that they claim is a high priority, nothing on tax reform. And their only foreign policy position involves licking Netanyahu’s loafers.
I would change that to be ‘nothing’ that Michael wants or approves of, which is similar to how the government powers view the PPACA . Their definition of a ‘good’ and approved HC plan is what they deem it to be, regardless of those policies people may have had for dozens of years, servicing their own individual needs and concerns with excellent care. You know Michael, liberalism has gotten to be very dictatorial — and you love it!
Jan:
Show me the GOP plans. And they don’t count if they’ve been repudiated by their original sponsors, like Rubio has done with immigration.
Your side controls the House. Show me the bills the GOP House has passed.
Zachriel
Places like Chicago and the District of Columbia do not support your theory. If government weds more than 50% to the current party and administration, there will be no place for the out of party groups to go. Any proposal will mean taking something away from the groups that are in power.
The Democrats have learned that big spending, high entitlement party benefits them. Do you really think that any form of conservative party can exist in a counry where less than 50% of Americans do not pay taxes and more than 50% of the children in public schools are on free lunch?
superdestroyer: Places like Chicago and the District of Columbia do not support your theory.
Or urban areas generally for Democrats, or rural areas for Republicans. Regional pockets of partisanship can persist because regions compete on the state and national level. The dynamic drives the suburbs in one direction or the other, as independents. Another dichotomy would be the North, South, and border states in antebellum America.
This doesn’t apply when one party gains control of the electoral process, which happens in many newly formed democracies. Nor do we propose it as a perfect model.