How to deal with non-negotiable opposition

The Obama administration, based on hope and naivete, neither of which constitutes a plan, missed its chance to make the great recession milder and shorter. Ezra Klein tiptoes right up to the argument that missing the chance is politically inevitable:

The tendency thus far has been to look at these crises in terms of the identifiable economic factors that make them different from typical recessions. But perhaps the better approach is to look at the political factors that make them turn out the same, that stop governments from doing enough even when they have sworn to err on the side of doing too much.

These crises have a sort of immune system. It is never possible for the political system to do enough to stop them at the outset, as it is never quite clear how bad they are. Even if it were, the system is ill-equipped to take action at that scale. The actors comfort themselves with the thought that if they need to do more, they can do it later. And, for now, the fact that this is the largest rescue package anyone has ever seen has to be worth something.

Paul Krugman, commenting on Klein's insightful piece, wants President Obama to start even now to make the case for more stimulus, for his jobs bill, for muscular intervention in the economy:

[T]he White House was weak and confused in the face of a political and economic debacle, when it should have gone all out.

And you know what? It should still go all out.

I think the chance has been missed. Permanently. I think Klein is right:

With something extraordinary that is nevertheless not enough, the economy deteriorates, and the government sees its solutions discredited and its political standing weakened by the worsening economic storm. That keeps it from doing more.

Any use Obama can make of the bully pulpit now would be welcome but would be strictly political. The Republican plan - starting November 5, 2008 - was massive resistance.

There was only one way to deal with that, since the Democrat's nominal 60-vote majority in the Senate was a castle built on sand. That was for Obama to call up Harry Reid and to tell him to tell Joe Lieberman to fuck off, to kill the filibuster, and to ram his program through.

That's what Republicans would have done. No quarter.

Then the President would have needed to stay on the campaign trail to fulfill his ambition to be President of all Americans. He needed to appeal directly, not through the GOP, whose leadership only cared about destroying the Obama Presidency, like the Clinton Presidency before it.

The failure of the Obama administration was not inevitable. It was not doctrinal. They just weren't ruthless enough in the politics of governance. They thought governing would be about rational compromise with loyal but tractable opponents. It wasn't, as they should have been able to see from the start.

Which side are you on?

Tax cuts for the wealthy - that don't change their living standards - or Social Security to protect the much less well-off and still deserving elderly?  Take your pick.

Republicans choose Paris Hilton.  I choose Granny.  Still waiting to see which President Obama chooses.

Don't wait

Ezra Klein lays out the case for Senate rules reform - specifically, of course, a drastic weakening of the filibuster. Then he goes off the rails:

[A]ttract Republicans to the project by phasing the filibuster out six or eight years in the future, when we can't predict which party will initially benefit.

No, there's already too much delay. When the new Senate is seated on January 3, 2011, change the rules by majority vote.

Stop running away from partisanship. The Republicans don't. Smack 'em down and show America what you can accomplish, Democrats. They'd do it to you. They've prepared to do it in past Congresses. Beat them to the punch.

Fiscal conservative oxymoron

The Senate Finance Committee voted today against the only possible mechanism under consideration for reducing America's incredible lead in the inefficient delivery of health care. Never mind single-payer, which isn't on the table, if there's not at least a healthy public option, there is no possible way that the current reform could restrain insurance companies' thirst for profits. Those huge profits are the sole slice of the pie that's out of whack compared to our economic competitors in the developed world.

The upshot: The so-called fiscal conservatives on the committee voted against fiscal conservatism, voted to keep us on an unsustainable path of expense growth. If we were actually getting better health care, we might find a way to sustain the growth. But we aren't.

We're paying more for less. That's what the conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, voted for. Is that what any of their constituents would actually choose if they were well-informed?

These Senators voted for insurance company profits over any other interest or principle. Is there a more plausible explanation?

Update (9/30): This is everywhere in the blogosphere - Atrios, Ezra Klein, Kos, and Eschaton again. How many decades before the big media apologizes for failing again to deliver the facts front and center?

Responding to outrage

Sometimes representative government only responds to outrage. But at least it responds.

Even the Democrats are far too bedded down with moneyed elites, as they were with this. The Republicans, of course, are hopelessly and openly in favor of moneyed elites.

If you look around, the people who have been outraged from the beginning about anything beyond taxes have been liberal bloggers.

The truth is that we Americans need a top-to-bottom rework of power in our country. Tim Geithner could be the first to fall.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama's economic policies so far have been far to centrist and timid. We're beyond time to talk about bold action. It's time we had it.

One key item of bold action is acknowledgement in behavior that the finance "geniuses" who got us here need to find real jobs that have wages, not sweetheart salaries and bonuses.

Universal health care in Massachusetts

Ezra Klein:

Insofar as the plan's point was to cover the uninsured, covering more of the uninsured may be pricey, but it's not a failure. It's an expensive success. A more relevant measure of the plan's efficiency is costs per enrollee, which have been lower than expected. Cost per enrollee came in under budget in 2007, by about $2 a month. In other words, the program is operating a bit more efficiently then expected, but covering more people than anticipated.

There's trouble too. Go read.

Me or your lyin' eyes

A phrase I like:

Concluding that something science proves is wrong because it conflicts with the Bible is like looking at a mountain, looking at a map, and deciding the mountain is wrong because the map doesn't mention it.