How is "shutting down the government" a winning strategy?

Politics & Elections
61

I agree that his being an M.D. is not conclusive proof of any particular insight. I just found the coincidence interesting.

Yes, i am sure you do. And because if that, you regard these efforts to derail it with a different eye than you would my example of parakeet research. No one would say that a party has any obligation to continue funding parakeet research in the example I gave.

What you miss is that to GOP eyes, Obamacare is as useless as parakeet research – more so, in fact, as it is ultimately damaging beyond the money it wastes.

62

I wanted to see national health care (not Obamacare) and have no faith in the Republicans to come up with anything better. That being said, Obamacare looks like one of those good enough for you but not for me programs the Democrats love. The unions don’t want it, government employees don’t want it, and people used to working one job at 40 hours a week will now get cut to 28. I hope the Republicans shut down the government.

63

I don’t miss that at all, Bricker. I acknowledge it openly. I didn’t spend all that time on the Hill not listening to people on both sides, after all. I simply happen to think that you’re wrong, and that the virulence with which the right is attacking Obamacare helps build the perception of unreason.

I believe that, given the ground as it lay back when Obamacare was passed, it was likely the best option available. But politics is, by and large, a system of half-loaves and near misses that get assembled into better policy products. This one, Obamacare, is one such. The emphasis on the right should not be on repeal or defunding, which have approximately zero chance of being enacted, but instead proposing changes that result in a compromise that makes it more palatable to the right.

However, we find ourselves with a political system in which a good man - which I believe Boehner to be - finds himself continually threatened with the loss of his leadership position should be attempt compromise on this subject. Hell, possibly on ANY subject with emotions running so high.

Now, I didn’t read the parakeet research hypothetical so I wasn’t entering that debate. I was instead commenting on the political positioning of Obamacare. But, in the end, a reasonable politician tends to be one who is happy with his half-loaf and continute to fight another day. Having a significant percentage of one party that wants whole loaves breaks the implicit agreement of compromise that has governed the American legislature for more than 200 years. Not only that, but a hardening of positions on one side forces the hardening of positions on the other and we get a positive feedback loop that leads to bitterness, recrimination and paralysis. Right now, regardless of who you credit/blame, Congress is not a healthy entity. And I have no reccommendation for how to get it there.

64

Perhaps it was this - H.R.3121?

Which includes:

[ul]
[li]Repeal of Obamacare train wreck [/li][li]More competition - Health insurace purchase across state lines[/li][li]Tax reform - deductible private insurance[/li][li]Less malpractice - Tort Reform[/li][li]Encourage use of HSA’s[/li][li]No pre-existing denial - Money to states for high risk pools[/li][li]Protection of the unborn - no federal money for abortions[/li][/ul]

65

Gotcha!

66

So, given the first and last of these, there’s not an actual proposal? This is why the right are being morons. Most of those things in the middle they could probably actually get passed as part of a compromise legislation–heck, they probably wouldn’t even get any argument about some of them, but they’re poisoning the well right at the outset.

67

No, you misunderstand my claim. What I am saying is that their unwillingness to engage in any sort of negotiation on the FY 2014 budget means an unwillingness to compromise on that budget generally, and any claim of their willingness to compromise on any of the particulars of that budget needs to be supported by evidence.

But this claim only applies to matters of the FY 2014 budget. I do not claim, for instance that this implies anything about their willingness to compromise on immigration reform, since that IS an “other subject” than the budget.

[QUOTE]

I was thinking that food stamps were part of the budget, but I was wrong. They’re part of the farm bill. The Senate has passed a farm bill, which cut food stamps by $4 billion, I believe. The House had a farm bill that cut the food stamp budget by $40 billion, IIRC, but it didn’t pass the House because enough Republicans figured that wasn’t drastic enough.

At any rate, they have shown no interest in compromising with the Dems on how much to cut food stamps.

68

Let’s see:

  1. Already there’s no Federal money for abortions. Hyde Amendment, 1978.

  2. You can’t have denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions without a mandate that everyone purchase health insurance.

Why? Because if you can’t be made to buy insurance, but you can’t be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, then you can wait to buy insurance until something bad happens to you and you need insurance. That will make insurance very expensive, since it will be a wash: you’re buying insurance when you’re sick, and not buying it when you’re well, instead of paying a doctor when you’re sick but not when you’re well. So it will cost as much as having your sickness treated, and it won’t be insurance.

  1. By ‘health insurance across state lines,’ they don’t mean that a company located in State A can sell insurance in State B, subject to State B’s rules. Companies can already do that, and that allows for competition - exactly the way it’s happening in the state exchanges, right now. Rather, they mean that insurers located in State A can sell insurance in State B, subject to State A’s rules. That means that whatever state has the least rules is where all the insurance companies will move to, and there will be little if any regulation of insurance. So people would have to buy insurance with all sorts of hidden exemptions, so that insurers got to collect premiums, but could almost always make a case that they didn’t have to pay out. And most people wouldn’t have the money to fight the insurers in court, so the insurers would get their way. It would be pretty sucky.

The rest of it is pretty dumb, too.

69

One of the reasons I don’t pay much attention here any more is that the same people discuss the same things, saying the predictable things, without ever managing to convince the “opposition” of the rightness of their positions. I think to myself: “Why bother?” I see not much changes in this regard.

I will, however, pose a question here:

For those who agree with the strategy of the House Republican conference regarding the Affordable Care Act and passage of a budget, do you truly equate the idea of eliminating funding for some portion of a law with the idea of repealing the law?

By this I mean the following: an argument has been raised that, just because something gets INTO the budget doesn’t mean it shouldn’t eventually come OUT of the budget. I do not disagree with this in theory at all; the parakeet example would be an apt one. But there is a difference between “defunding” (the new buzzword du jour) an item that has been added as part of a legislated program that is otherwise kept (for example, the underlying federal program of research grants that the parakeet funding was added to), and “defunding” a program that is the federal government’s implementation of a whole act? The act in question is more than just the actions of the federal government; defunding it is not the same as defunding the parakeet study at all.

It is my thought here that the danger of the actions of the Republican Party in the House comes from exactly what the President has outlined. That is, whether or not you are a fan of the Affordable Care Act, using the tactic of refusing to fund the already approved federal programs to effectively render one of those programs moot could have serious downstream consequences. When do you use this tactic? How “serious” must the threat of the program under the microscope be? The “Tea Party” has MANY federal programs and activities it deems suspect; should the Republican House members hold approval of the budget hostage for ALL such programs and activities? Where does this end?

I see a very unfortunate parallel to a funding mechanism I used to cringe about in Ohio. There, school districts are not allowed to rake in a specific percentage of property taxes in perpetuam. Instead, every four or five years, they must go back to the public and get the electorate to approve a replacement levy, even for normal continuing basic costs (monies from the state are relatively small in Ohio; contrast the way South Carolina funds public systems). This means that even such basic programs as book-buying, transportation, etc. are subject to potential hostage threats from dissatisfied members of the electorate. Sometimes, those threats have nothing to do with what the money will be spent on; they are simply a response to an unrelated issue, or to a general unhappiness with the amount of the property tax rates, etc. It is no surprise that, in such a funding method, there is a significant lack of certainty with regard to basic schooling needs. Indeed, the funding method played a significant role in my decision not to become a teacher in Ohio when I finished my licensing program at BGSU.

I would hate to see the federal government the focus of yearly hostage taking by those with an axe to grind in Congress.

70

That would depend on what funding we’re talking about. If we’re talking about defunding Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies, yeah, that’s not kosher because that funding has already been approved. Either repeal the law or don’t repeal the law, defunding is BS.

However, if we’re talking about funds NOT included in the original bill, that’s fair game.

71

So the federal government takes away the authority of a state to regulate what insurance is sold in that state? How is this a conservative position? I thought they were all about less federal regulation and respect for states rights?

72

Regulation of interstate commerce. What it was actually intended for: not to regulate the whole economy, but to prevent the erection of trade barriers between states.

73

But not by holding the continuing resolution hostage. If they want to pass a bill in the House, pass a bill in the Senate, and get it signed by the President, that is fair game. But this extortion is not just unfair, it is contradictory to the constitutional legislative process.

74

I agree, it’s a tactic that should only be used if the other side is in a politically untenable position and can’t oppose you.

that’s why i can’t condemn it entirely just yet. The red state Democratic Senators are in a really tough spot. It’s plausible that the Republicans could get a few votes, and if they don’t, they have the issue in those Senate races.

75

Good point, well explained.

I agree. The GOP is not acting appropriately (no pun intended) here.

I will miss my parakeets, whose inclusion I had hoped to use to continue brilliantly proving my point, but when you’re right, you’re right, and you were and I wasn’t.

76

So your opposition isn’t to the fact that it’ll destroy the country, but just to the fact that it might hurt your side politically? But if they were in a position where they could get away with it politically, that you wouldn’t mind at all?

Y’know, I really should stop being surprised when Republicans admit to this attitude.

EDIT: That was to adaher.

77

I wish he wasn’t so indecisive like a typical Canadian :stuck_out_tongue:

78

Are you sure about this? Cruz admitted that the ACA will be very popular. If it were a train wreck, all the GOP would have to do is wait for it to wreck, take over, and put in their plan. Painful, but it would make all liberal proposals suspect for years. It would seem an excellent strategy. If on the other hand they strongly suspect ACA will work, that destroys a major argument against the supposed ineffectiveness of government intervention. Having destroyed the moderate wing of the party, they’d be in big trouble.

And please don’t argue that they are doing it for the good of the country. Anyone threatening to default cares nothing for that.

79

I think you misinterpreted. The opposition to Obamacare is ideological, not political. HOW to oppose Obamacare is of course political. And I don’t see any reason why it’s unfair to make red state Democrats stand by this rather important law, and defend their standing by it when they are running for reelection. They’ve been allowed to waffle on it when back home by saying they don’t like it very much, but if they never vote against it, they support it fully in reality, and their voters should know that.

80

ACA won’t be popular, so much as if you get 20% of the population hooked on subsidies and expanded Medicaid, that’s a very motivated 20%, whereas right now it’s all theoretical. That 20% isn’t fighting hard to preserve ACA because they don’t lose anything yet. After next year, they lose something.