Health care reform and the 'the rotation of power'

Charles Krauthammer wrote a typically great op-ed today, but the lesson about the rotation of power is potentially ominous for Republicans (Washingtonpost.com):

The rotation of power is the finest political instrument ever invented for the consolidation of what were once radical and deeply divisive policies. The classic example is the New Deal. Republicans railed against it for 20 years. Then Dwight Eisenhower came to power, wisely left it intact, and no serious leader since has called for its repeal.


Similarly, Bill Clinton consolidated Reaganism, just as Tony Blair consolidated Thatcherism. In both cases, moderate leaders brought their center-left party to accept their predecessors' highly successful conservative reforms.

A similar consolidation has happened with many of the Bush anti-terror policies. In opposition, the Democrats decried warrantless wiretaps, rendition and detention without trial. But now that they are charged with protecting us from the bad guys, they've come to view these as indispensable national security measures.

If health care reform passes, there is a pretty good chance that Republicans will eventually be forced to accept it (as they have with Medicare, Social Security, etc.).  They know it and Obama knows it.  They might be able to overturn cap and trade if it passed (which doesn't look likely), because that would be designed to raise prices on energy, at least in the short term, to help heal the planet in the long run.  Deliberately raising people's electricity bills might create momentum to overturn that legislation, but health care is likely different. 
 
Health care reform is designed to be a social welfare program for the poor and the middle class.  If history is any guide (and it usually is), not only be this health care reform be difficult to overturn, it will be nearly impossible to cut once it gets going (or even slow the growth of).  That gives opponents a very small window to convince voters that it needs to be overturned, but Obama will be there until at least 2013 to veto any changes.
 
Elements of the new health care system could be changed (or made more 'efficient'), but the basic infrastructure would probably be left in place by Republicans, just as making major changes to national security programs is nearly impossible for a Democratic president.  Those are the stakes, and everyone involved knows it. 

Pete Hoekstra and Rick Snyder (the nerd) polling well in Michigan gubernatorial race

The odds of a Republican becoming the next Governor of Michigan are looking good, but it is still a crowded race.  Mike Cox has a lot of name recognition within the state, having been the Attorney General for the past 8 years, but he's not polling well right now.  Pete Hoekstra (above) is leading the pack, with the primary coming on August 3rd: (Mlive.com)

A new statewide public opinion survey released exclusively to Booth Newspapers on Wednesday showed Ann Arbor-based Snyder, with the support of 18 percent of Republican voters, is second to U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Holland, with 28 percent. State Attorney General Mike Cox dropped to third with 12 percent.


Voters were split on whether Snyder's status as a nerd would help his campaign.

On the Democratic side, state House Speaker Andy Dillon's 13 percent led Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero's 11 percent. It was a statistical draw, but both were dwarfed by the 56 percent who were undecided.

Other interesting tidbits (Mlive.com):
 

• 55 percent believed that a new governor would be able to turn around the state's economy, while 23 percent are doubtful.
• 61 percent oppose holding a constitutional convention to rewrite the state's Constitution. Lansing political observer Bill Ballenger, in his Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, noted the two most recent votes on the issue failed significantly. In 1978, 77 percent of voters turned it down. In 1994, 72 percent said no.
• Former Gov. John Engler ought to think about a comeback. If he returns to Michigan, and runs against U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2012, he has a decent shot at unseating her. He had 42 percent to her 41 percent.

That poll about the economy needs to be clarified.  Are these people thinking the new Governor can reduce unemployment from 15% to 12% or 15% to 5% with their great new policies?  The state relied too heavily on one industry for decades and that industry figured out it can make cars elsewhere.  The Governor can only do so much. 

Reforming government making the tax code more business friendly is necessary, but people are just asking to be disappointed if they think a turnaround will happen overnight, particularly because of a new Governor.

John Engler has the name recognition to win, but he hasn't been a candidate since he defeated Geoffrey Feiger for Governor in 1998, and hasn't had a tough race since the first time he ran for Governor in 1990.


Snyder

Filibuster changes?

I wrote a post about whether the Senate will change the filibuster rules next year on Gather.com.

Charlie Crist on Fiscal Conservatism

Charlie Crist must be having trouble coming up with legitimate lines of attack on Marco Rubio (Talking Points Memo):

On Monday night, Crist said during an appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox News: "And yet just in recent weeks, about two weeks ago it's come out in news accounts that he had a Republican Party of Florida credit card that he charged $130 haircut, or maybe it was a back wax -- we're not really sure what at all he got at that place."

Crist elaborated: "And to try to say that you're a fiscal conservative, yet you spend $130 for maybe a haircut and maybe other things. I don't know what you do at a salon when you're a guy. I get my haircut for 11 bucks from a guy named Carl the barber in St. Petersburg, Florida where I grew up. And to me, that's real fiscal conservatism."

Charlie is famous for avoiding debt before he became Governor by renting an apartment and not having a credit card, which is great, but this line of attack won't resonate.  Personal spending by a politician could become an issue if overly extravagent or if someone has spent themself into bankruptcy, but no one is going to care about this. 

The real point is probably to make Rubio out to be an overly vain politician like John Edwards, which is interesting but hopefully not the best he's got.  All Rubio has to do it show the video of Crist embracing Obama with the stimulus plan and all the fiscal conservatives will forget about Carl the barber's $11 haircut.

Chairman Steele's Blog: Did he have to go there?

At least he's not being over the top (GOP.org):

Standby. An impending Chernobyl-like disaster is on the way: Obama has decided to launch the nuclear option on health care – reconciliation.


With no hope of reaching the 60-vote threshold necessary for a Senate victory and the American public growing increasingly against the Obama’s government-run takeover of health care bill, the President has decided that reconciliation is the only way he can get ObamaCare across the finish line and onto his desk.

Is Chernobyl referenced just because it's the nuclear option or because of the devastation that health care reform would bring?  Oh, never mind.  By now, Steele can probably get away with stuff that other people couldn't just because everyone is tired of dealing with every little gaffe or inappropriate statement he makes. 

It's kind of like the "Manny being Manny" of the political world.  Unfortunately for Steele, he's not as talented in his world as Manny is in baseball, so people won't put up with it for as long as they have with Manny.

2012 Election: The Republican Party's California Problem

If Republicans are to defeat Obama in the 2012 election, which they probably think is increasingly possible, they are going to have to contend with a couple of historical issues. 

The first problem is that incumbent presidents do not generally lose close elections.  Yes, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush came very close to losing, but they still won.  William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were all walloped.  The last incumbent president to lose a close election was Grover Cleveland to Benjamin Harrison in 1888, who lost a relatively close election (233-168), and then came back in 1892 to defeat Harrison.  Even that was not nearly as close as either of the Bush victories.

Republicans would probably say, fine, we'll win a landslide.  Obama is the new Jimmy Carter, this is like 1980 and we'll just find our new Reagan.  There are many problems with that analysis, and one of the biggest is a simple electoral fact: California, and it's 55 electoral votes is a solidly Democratic state in presidential election.

1980 Reagan + 16%
1984 Reagan +15
1988 Bush + 4
1992 Clinton + 13
1996 Clinton + 13
2000 Gore +12
2004 Kerry + 10
2008 Obama + 24

Ok, if Obama loses California, he'll probably lose every state.  An argument can (and likely will) be made that Californians, with their budget mess, will see the error of huge government spending and vote for a fiscally responsible candidate.  Maybe, but even these days, money isn't the only reason people vote. 

Although California voters rejected a gay marriage amendment in 2008, it remains a socially liberal state.  California has had two Republican Governors over the last 20 years (Pete Wilson and Ah-nuld), and they have both been pro-choice.  The Republican nominee in 2012 (and their running mate) will not be pro-choice, and I think we can all agree on that.   

George W. Bush was the first Republican to win the White House without carrying California since James Garfield in 1880 (Democratic nominee Winfield Hancock carried it).  If Republicans acknowledge (privately, and then through lack of resources spent) that California is unwinnable for them in 2012, they will have to go the precarious 2004 Bush route (where, if Bush had lost Ohio, he could have lost the electoral vote despite winning the popular vote by over 3 million). 

The strategy will involve taking back Obama's 2008 pickups (Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina), which seems doable.  Then, in order to avoid Bush's too-close-for-comfort electoral win, they'll have to pick up the close Kerry states, like Wisconsin, New Hampshire or Pennsylvania.  

I wouldn't put too much stock in the special elections or mid-terms.  Just because Massachusetts rejected Martha Coakley doesn't mean they would vote for Tim Pawlenty or Mike Huckabee over Barack Obama (although Mitt Romney v. Obama in Mass. could be interesting).  Obama is also a much better campaigner than Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, and probably won't have to face any primary challenges. 

If the Republicans have a candidate of the caliber of an FDR, Reagan or Clinton, they haven't shown themselves yet.  If they win, it's probably going to be close, and that would fly in the face of electoral history dating back over a century.

Will Mark Kirk stop runaway spending?

I realize that specifics can be problematic in politics, but you can surely do better than this.  This is Rep. Mark Kirk's ideas for fiscal responsibility and curbing "runaway spending" if he is elected to the Senate (Kirk for Senate):

Stop Runaway Spending in Congress

Mark Kirk opposed Speaker Pelosi’s trillion-dollar stimulus plan. Congressman Kirk offered two amendments to the bill. The first Kirk Amendment successfully cut a $200 million set aside to re-sod the National Mall. The second Kirk Amendment, which would have created a bipartisan oversight panel, was rejected by the Democratic Leadership.

Mark Kirk opposed the $407 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill filled with 9,000 secret earmarks – including a dozen earmarks totaling $8.7 million secured by clients of Paul Magliochetti and Associates (PMA), a firm raided by the FBI and facing criminal prosecution by the Justice Department.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Mark Kirk remains the only member of the House Appropriations Committee to reject pork-barrel earmark spending. He cosponsored legislation to reform the appropriations process to stop wasteful, secret earmark projects.

Congressman Kirk led the effort to cancel House funding for the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Mark Kirk supports the line item veto and cosponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment.

He was the first member of Congress in history to visit the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt and has emerged as a leading voice against the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money to finance our own debt.

Well, I guess a Balanced Budget Amendment would force Congress to make significant cuts, especially without the possibility of tax increases.  It's very unlikely to happen, though, meaning that eventually there will have to be deep (and unpopular) spending cuts to balance the budget.  Does he endorse Paul Ryan's plan to significantly reduce spending on Social Security and Medicare? 

Does he support increases or cuts in defense spending?  That's where the money is, not earmarks.  Most of the other campaign websites aren't much better, which shows how tough it will be to actually make real spending cuts.

Should budget reconciliation be abolished?

E.J. Dionne pointed out something today that I hadn't realized: the 2003 Bush tax cuts passed through reconciliation and only got 50 votes in the Senate, with Cheney having to break the tie. Orrin Hatch had written in an op-ed that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless it has "significant bipartisan support."

I don't even completely disagree with Hatch's point, but the 2003 tax cuts were significant (at least $500 billion) and they only got 2 Democrats out of 48 to vote for it. If this is an assault on democracy, then so were the 2003 tax cuts. Hatch must have forgotten about that, because it was not mentioned in his article.

Democracy somehow survived, though, and Republicans never did condemn that piece of legislation. What would even be the point of reconciliation if it required huge bipartisan majorities? I thought the point was to make it easier to pass legislation, without requiring 60 votes.

Ideally, reconciliation would be done away with, because it invites all of this chicanery. Republicans claim to love the idea of a Senate that will slow down runaway pieces of legislation, but they're perfectly happy to use it as an end-run around the filibuster when it suits them, as with the 2003 tax cuts.

Democrats aren't any better: they all love the idea of majority rule in the Senate now, but they didn't when Bush was President and they'll love the filibuster again when the Republicans take back the White House. Let's go with majority rule or allow the filibuster to work it's magic. Reconciliation wasn't invented until 1974, and the Senate will function just fine without it.