Poll: Majority Of Americans, Independents Included, Want Congress To Suspend Reform
This, from Gallup, could not come at a worse time for those who are still hoping Dems won’t succumb to fear and drop, or dramatically scale down, the reform plan:
In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, the majority of Americans (55%) favor Congress’ putting the brakes on its current healthcare reform efforts and considering alternatives that can obtain more Republican support. Four in 10 Americans (39%) would rather have House and Senate Democrats continue to try to pass the bill currently being negotiated in conference committee…
The majority of political independents, whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.
This poll will lend ammo to those who are pushing Dem leaders to drop or dramatically pare back reform. But if Dems don’t pass reform, they will never have a chance to sell a completed package to the public — and to try to convince the public that they were right, and Republicans were wrong. People will never have a chance to decide that their fears about reform were unwarranted.
Not passing reform won’t stop Republicans from attacking Dems for trying to jam an unpopular bill down the public’s throat. And failure would give Republicans more ammo, not less. It would allow the GOP to take credit for blocking the proposal, to present itself as an effective and relevant opposition, and to paint Dems — accurately — as ineffective and unable to lead.
And look: It’s hardly surprising that passing reform would start to look insurmountably difficult with the finish line coming into view. Health care reform was never supposed to be easy, politically or substantively. Leadership is not easy. Simply put, we will soon know whether Dems are up to the challenge of leadership.
*********************************************
Update: Steve Benen boils it down:
What I’m suggesting is that they give success a chance. The polls are far more likely to recover if lawmakers do what they said they would do, pass the most important domestic policy legislation in generations, reap the rewards of a historic victory, and then get out there and sell their handiwork — making clear to the country that the scare tactics were wrong. Once the bill is signed, the media won’t just have a major signing ceremony to cover, but there will be plenty of reports about what the new law does and does not do, which would further help debunk the myths.
The choice for Dems: Either you get a thousand news articles about the new law, or a thousand news articles about how hapless and ineffective you are.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Results are all that matter.
That is what leaders are voted it to power for.
“Give me a break” is the eternal sob song of the excuse notes warbler.
I have no sympathy for Pelosi or the House Democrats. If giving them a 256 majority isn’t enough, how many seats would they need to get it done?
“If you look at the history of entitlement spending and the coming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare and you actually think this Trillion dollar monstrosity is going to lower spending and not increase the debt and deficit you are the one who is ignorant, not the overwhelming majority, as yet another poll shows, opposing this piece of sh*t bill.”
Exactly – if you look at entitlement legislation, you will see that Social Security looked nothing like it does now when it was passed. Medicare was fought over about as bitterly as this bill.
Do you think Americans think Social Security and Mediare are c*r*a*p? You think because these things cost money we should never do them? What about wars – they are damned expensive and I have never heard one complaint about that cost from the right.
edit:
in to power….
“Not passing reform won’t stop Republicans from attacking Dems for trying to jam an unpopular bill down the public’s throat. And failure would give Republicans more ammo, not less.”
And this is the “argument” that Congressman and women who represent moderate and conservative states and districts (hell, even liberal districts and states given the Massachusetts win) are supposed to use with their constituents? “I realize you don’t like the bill, so I voted for it twice.” Yeah, that is a real winner. Or “I realize that the American people don’t want the bill, but I decided to vote for it anyway, because I am a patronizing assh*le who knows what is best for you.” Or “Yes, we did use reconciliation to amend the bill for the SOLE reason of bypassing Scott Brown.” Which, of course, is effectively the same exact thing as ramming the bill through before he is sworn in.
It takes an absolute tone deaf and condescending d*ck idiot to argue that since the American people hate the bill now and they are electing officials to oppose it, we should pass it, via, to quote Earl Pomeroy “legislative trickery”, in order to save ourselves in the midterms.
“Does anyone have a clear simple picture of what changes would be popular?”
See page 5 of this pdf:
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8020.pdf
“If House Members are still skittish about voting for the Senate bill straight-up, even after securing a fix through reconciliation, they can use a little procedural trick called a “self-executing rule” (see this CRS report [PDF] for more)– or at least a self-executing provision in a rule — to take care of business. At the conclusion of the reconciliation process, when the House and Senate have both passed their bills and have agreed on a conference report settling any differences, the House may opt to include in the rule it adopts to govern debate on that conference report a provision deeming the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590 agreed to by the House. That way, when the House adopts the rule to allow the reconciliation bill conference report to come to the floor, it also agrees to the Senate bill it’s amending along the way, just moments before beginning debate on the fix, and without ever having a separate, stand-alone vote on the Senate bill they don’t like.”
People who complain about the costs of helping people, who never complained about the cost of blowing people to smithereens, are hardly credible on this subject.
No Republican is credible on the subject of cost of anything –
The entire point of the Grover Norquist/Bush revolution was exactly what is happening right now – destroy the Treasury and leave nothing there for social legislation.
This was their goal
“They could get the votes if they simultaneously used reconciliation to address some of the issues progressives and the general population object to in the Senate bill. Easy peasy.”
Yeah, so “easy peasy” that it is becoming more and more obvious that they aren’t going to do it. And there is one simple reason for that: they know no one wants the damn thing. And please, don’t conflate “progressives” and the “general public”.
Because the general public is not stupid enough to fall for the narrative coming from Granny McBotox that people voted against the bill in Massachusetts, surprise, surprise, because they, coincidentally, opposed the very same exact things that “progressives” just so happen to not like about the bill.
“People who complain about the costs of helping people, who never complained about the cost of blowing people to smithereens, are hardly credible on this subject.”
Since I assume that is a reference to me, I challenge you to find one statement I made, ever, concering the costs in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other war. You can’t fuc*ing do it.
And you know what happened to the Republicans when they spent uncontrollably? They got killed in the midterm elections. You know what they say about history repeating itself? Actually, you probably don’t, because you are an idiot.
sbj
None of your three issues are set in stone as even you are not certain of any of them. If the House can pull this off especially by adding back in a PO or medicare buy in, they’ll be heroes. Otherwise, a lot of them will be toast in 2010. If they go small, they’re toast. If they start over and cater to the special interests of the Liebermans, they’re toast. I know you would prefer toast to success so I’ll just leave it at that.
@sbj
The really amusing and sad thing about page 5 of that poll, is that the current plan does SEVERAL of the top ranked issues for everyone. Republican’s NUMBER 1 issue on HCR is that it doesn’t add to the deficit…yet the Senate Bill actually reduces it by tens of billions of dollars. It’s their NUMBER 1 issue, it’s not only met, it goes even further.
But the biggest problem is the fact that when you poll like that, it’s not clear to everyone that all those aspects are interconnected. You can’t change one thing without effecting the others. But people don’t realize that.
But still…even the Senate bill – the worse of the two – would be incredibly popular, if you used this poll as a guide.
“And you know what happened to the Republicans when they spent uncontrollably? They got killed in the midterm elections. You know what they say about history repeating itself? Actually, you probably don’t, because you are an idiot.”
And you are lying POS.
I would never have thought things would look worse today than they did on Weds. Sigh. Unpacking looking more and more appealing every minute. I will just quote Bennen: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
“destroy the Treasury and leave nothing there for social legislation.
This was their goal”
Yeah, because, like, trillions is really nothing.
You are lying because I don’t think you do think I’m an idiot at all – if you did you wouldn’t respond every time I post a comment to you and call me an idiot every damn time.
Which tells me you don’t think I am -
Oh please, a third of the voters in a small state turned out for a special election for an interim seat. Would you please stop pretending that election was a national mandate? Brown did not win the presidency.
Dems need to be worried about the voters in a very blue state who stayed home. That’s the answer they will get in 2010 and 2012 if they don’t pass HCR.
BBQ, here’s a good post about the very thing you mention, the parts are all interconnected. You can’t really pass it in chunks, but I’m worried some think it will work.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/democrats-mull-plan-c-for-health-care-experts-say-get-real.php?ref=fpb
“Debra”: “I have no sympathy for Pelosi or the House Democrats. If giving them a 256 majority isn’t enough, how many seats would they need to get it done?”
Seriously?
This coming from the same person that just told the entire House of Representatives that they are completely IRRELEVANT?
You want to JAM through the SENATE bill with ZERO input from the House and you wonder why House members are p|ssed?
I support any progressive who takes a principled stand and says ENOUGH.
And while you are blaming “the left” for not swallowing this right-wing Corporatist cr@p sandwich, maybe you should take your authoritarian right wing nonsense and go join the Republican Party where you are clearly more psychologically suited.
The right wing obsequiousness to Blue-Dog/”New-Dem”/”Third-Way”/DLC Corporatist nonsense just makes my blood boil.
# sbj | January 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
“Does anyone have a clear simple picture of what changes would be popular?”
See page 5 of this pdf:
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8020.pdf
………………….
Those figures appear to confirm what I had opined on. Medicare recipients, by a very wide margin, fear the bill will hurt their future coverage.
Until the Democrats change that perception, among a very important voting block, they are not going to turn the support level in the polls around.
QB, what did Grover Norquist mean when he said:
“I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Maybe you can explain that and how de-funding the government helps the middle class.
!
The current bill is the equivalent of STARTING WITH PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY.
How can any of you still fail to realize this?
NR,
We didn’t send Dems to Congress to be ideologues or territorial. We sent them there to get something done for the American families who are being crushed by the health care system in this country.
Why would Medicare recipients be concerned?
The CORPORATE approach is clearly being sold as the Real Solution.
Clearly Obama is ‘nudging’ the camel’s nose under the tent so that he can PRIVATIZE MEDICARE.*
After all, as you are all so excited about this Private Corporate solution for health care, the obvious next step is the privatization of Medicare.
*think I’m kidding? Even if that wasn’t his point it will be the Republican’s point when the Corporate-medical-insurance companies buy them some new Senators and Representatives that are more accommodating to their Corporate-bottom-line.
Think it won’t happen?
Either start with a Public Option or belatedly discover that Privatizing Medicare will be the eventual right-wing battle-cry in the very near future.
No one is asking the House to roll over, just accept reality. There are now 41 republicans in the Senate, and they will filibuster any further HCR bills. There is no point in negotiating further with the Senate, the bills will be come more conservative, not less. The current Senate bills is what the House can pass, and they damn well better.
“The entire point of the Grover Norquist/Bush revolution was exactly” to Privatize everything they could and it’s exactly what Emanuel/Obama are doing with this Corporate-welfare giveaway and Corporate-Drug-Co giveaway: PRIVATIZING HEALTHCARE.
Again, Obama needs to stop working for Grover Norquist’s EMPLOYERS before Obama’s supporters blindly use Grover Norquist as a boogeyman.
When reading all the diatribes that come across here you can come to various conclusions. I’ve concluded that Reefer sits at his computer with a bottle of something that, as he consumes it in the course of the day, turns him into one really mean drunk.
Classic:
“David”: “No one is asking the House to roll over,” … “The current Senate bills is what the House can pass, and they damn well better.”
The complete lack of self-awareness, the authoritarian demand, the complete contradiction, the vague threat…
Seriously, instant classic.
Mr. Sargent:
Truly, it is a wondrous thing watching you prompt the Moonbat Hive-mind into justifying doing EXACTLY the same things that have spelled defeat three times since last November.
It’s rather like the political equivalent of a self-sealing automobile tire.
Awesome, I tell you…and one really has to wonder where these moonbats went to have their skulls so armor-plated against reality.
Ethan,
I think Norquist made a badly phrased joke in response to a bad caricature. I think what he meant was, I don’t want to eliminate government — who does or could? — I want to shrink it back to its appropriate size where it is no longer harmful.
Maybe you can explain that and how de-funding the government helps the middle class.
Well, many books and articles have been written about how reducing the size and profligate spending of government would help the middle class and everyone else. Need I really explain it for the millionth time?
Can I just keep it at the micro level this time? If government at all levels were not consuming roughly half or more of my income, it would help out my middle class family and working class relatives a whole lot.
Hey, I finally learned how to bold.
Damn arrogant liberals. The author just doesn’t get it. The people have had time to understand the reform bills, and we just don’t want it. We’re not stupid, you don’t have to show us how we’re wrong. You’re stupid for not understanding that it’s the people that decide and not arrogant liberal politicians.
Health reform as the liberals want it is dead. For twenty years at least.
Go fix the economy and shut up about healthcare.
reducing the size and profligate spending of government would help the middle class and everyone else
How did that work for GWB/Cheney Administration?
We saw the most damage to the middle class in ages.
Here is a good article describing how Bush’s tax cuts shifted the tax burden TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.
Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
If government at all levels were not consuming roughly half or more of my income, it would help out my middle class family and working class relatives a whole lot.
In which U.S. states do you middle class and/or working class relatives live? Just curious.
Hey, I finally learned how to bold.
Welcome aboard. I’ve been doing this for 15 years
How did that work for GWB/Cheney Administration?
Not well, since they (and Congress) didn’t stop the spending binge but increased it and only marginally reduced taxes. I was just as critical of them for it as I am the Dems.
I won’t wade into another debate over relative tax burdens; there are plenty of articles and analyses that show just the opposite — “the rich” pay not only a greater proportion but an increased one. Whichever analysis one accepts, the bottom line for me is, reduce spending and everyone’s taxes (at least those that pay them).
In which U.S. states do you middle class and/or working class relatives live? Just curious.
Hmm, I don’t think I want to put that out there. It is a relatively high-tax state across the board. One of the worst for corporate and business taxes, which hit me hard, as well as personal and sales and endless other taxes. We’ve had a succession of bad Governors of both parties, some by ideology, some by fecklessness and lack of principle.
Welcome aboard. I’ve been doing this for 15 years
Well, I can’t be good at everything. Now, if I only had those emoticons. Btw, you are older than 15? ; )
Not well, since they (and Congress) didn’t stop the spending binge but increased it and only marginally reduced taxes. I was just as critical of them for it as I am the Dems.
How do you square the following:
1) Reducing government spending on programs that benefit the middle class (medicare, social security, unemployment insurance, consumer product safety, etc),
2) While also shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class (”fairness” in your lingo),
3) While also claiming to be supportive of the middle class?
I don’t “square” all of that. I deny your implicit and explicit premises, factual, economic, and normative.
You believe and assume that government spending — all government spending, it appears — benefits the middle class. I do not. Some on balance might, but much does not, in my opinion, and the middle class and everyone else would be better off if government massively cut spending, including all the transfer payments you applaud, and allow free enterprise to raise our prosperity level.
You believe that more of the tax burden has been or is being shifted to the middle class. I do not. Your view is, among other things, based on fallacious static analysis. Nor do I accept what I take to be your premise that “the rich” should be paying more and the middle class less.
Finally, I don’t accept the premise that government’s job is to support the middle class anyway, even though I am middle class. I don’t think the government’s appropriate role is to serve one “class” or another.
not a member: It takes an absolute tone deaf and condescending d*ck idiot to argue that since the American people hate the bill now and they are electing officials to oppose it, we should pass it
Well, if you took a poll, you’d probably find that a majority of the American people like tax cuts. And you’d probably find that a majority don’t want deficit spending, and want the present deficit reduced. And you’d probably find that a majority don’t want major reductions in entitlement spending, or defense spending, or anything else that would make tax cuts possible without increasing the deficit. Heck, we can’t balance the budget as it is, much less with more tax cuts, much less without doing something about Medicare spending and health care expenses in general.
So what’s an elected representative to do then? Cater to what the majority wants even if those desires are inconsistent and will inevitably lead to the downfall of the nation? Or be “an absolute tone deaf and condescending d*ck” and maybe do the right thing for the country at the possible expense of his or her seat?
Sometimes there are more important things than getting reelected.
That’s the ticket, suspend reform. That way, more time can elapse, and the Republicans can kill it completely. After all, that’s been their strategy. Why don’t we just order in pizza, and ask the Republicans to write a bill. In fact, pass a resolution in advance, guaranteeing passage of their bill. Let’s face it, what they are willing to do is say they are for reform, just because it’s still politically wrong to say otherwise, but as far as what they are for, it’s anything that has no cost or requirements for them.