So Chuck Schumer is saying Democrats were foolish to blow all their political capital on the Affordable Care Act:
After the ACA passed in 2010, essentially the Presidency ended, in terms of passing good laws. It took all the remaining capital the President had on the Hill, and killed all other initiatives. Yes, the administration of President Obama continued, but he's had no major legislative wins since the end of 2010.
The other thing, right or wrong, is that we're now buried in legislative minorities, not just in Washington, but nationally. Is it worth giving up potentially years of achievements for one big one? Is the fact that no climate change legislation passed, because of the ACA basically, okay? I mean, climate change doesn't just effect millions of people, it effects everyone. Is the fact that the GOP looks poised to dominate Congress for a generation worth it? Schumer is saying no.
I think Schumer is arguing a moot point in the sense that a.) we did pass the ACA, and b.) by the time it was clear the law was going to kill Democrats at the ballot box in 2010, they were way too deep to pull out. I think the premise that health care was the most important issue, no matter what, from day one, was the mistake. You can't go back and change partisan priorities four years later.
Of course, former Obama aides went ape-$hit over this on the internet criticizing Schumer. I mean, how could the good Senator propose that Democrats not do health care? To be totally fair, I support the ACA and think it's the best law we've passed in my lifetime- but it's increasingly isolated among three major legislative achievements- Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus- in six full years in office. Sure, there were others, but none quite measure up all the way. George W. Bush certainly had a more consequential presidency, legislatively speaking.Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) remarks Tuesday that Democrats erred by passing Obamacare in 2010 before the economy was fixed did not sit well with Obamaworld."Unfortunately, Democrats lost the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform," the No. 3 Senate Democrat said at the National Press Club, arguing that his party should have focused on middle class woes at the time instead. He added: "It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote."
After the ACA passed in 2010, essentially the Presidency ended, in terms of passing good laws. It took all the remaining capital the President had on the Hill, and killed all other initiatives. Yes, the administration of President Obama continued, but he's had no major legislative wins since the end of 2010.
The other thing, right or wrong, is that we're now buried in legislative minorities, not just in Washington, but nationally. Is it worth giving up potentially years of achievements for one big one? Is the fact that no climate change legislation passed, because of the ACA basically, okay? I mean, climate change doesn't just effect millions of people, it effects everyone. Is the fact that the GOP looks poised to dominate Congress for a generation worth it? Schumer is saying no.
I think Schumer is arguing a moot point in the sense that a.) we did pass the ACA, and b.) by the time it was clear the law was going to kill Democrats at the ballot box in 2010, they were way too deep to pull out. I think the premise that health care was the most important issue, no matter what, from day one, was the mistake. You can't go back and change partisan priorities four years later.
0 comments:
Post a Comment