NY-26 and the Great American Consensus
So we wake up this morning, still in the shadow of the Republican Tsunami of 2010, to find that a Democrat has won a staunchly conservative district in western New York.
Democrat Kathy Hochul beat her Republican rival, Jane Corwin, by a resounding 4% points and she did so in large part by defending Medicare, one of America’s massive entitlement programs.
I know there were other factors in the race — Corwin was a clumsy campaigner and the GOP faced an irksome third-party challenge — but all sides agree that Medicare was a big factor.
So what does this tell us about the state of the country?
A little over a year ago, tea party activists engineered what looked to be a huge swing in the country’s political culture, demanding smaller government and smaller deficits.
But now, when the GOP actually offers up an aggressive plan to curtail the size of government, phasing out one of those “socialistic” entitlements, they suffer a stinging backlash in heavily Republican territory.
What gives?
Confusing as all this is, I think it gives a pretty clear picture of where the American people stand on the major issues of the day, and provides a fairly clear — if painful — policy road map.
First and foremost, despite a lot of noisy and passionate activism on the far-right, Americans don’t hate government.
In fact, they adore the big programs that improve their lives and keep them safe, from Social Security to Medicare to the US military and public education.
It happens that these are the most expensive and far-reaching programs in the budget.
So there’s simply no way to argue that you can shrink government services substantially without curtailing services that people generally agree that they want.
If I’m right, then there really is no fundamental American debate over the size of government, no culture war, no red states vs. blue states. Call it the Great American Consensus.
Yes, there will always be big dust-ups over new and expensive policy proposals. (Should we spend trillions of dollars fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Should we move toward truly universal healthcare for Americans?)
But the essentially libertarian vision espoused by many on the far right — and by a growing number of Republican leaders — just isn’t playing in Main Street America.
Basic assumptions about the role the Federal government will play in our lives, established by every president from Franklin Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter, remains the “baseline normal” for the vast majority of citizens.
If that sounds like a clear victory for Democrats and liberals, it’s not. The thorny fact remains that no one is quite sure how to pay for all those big programs.
Even if you closed every corporate loophole and eliminated the Bush-era tax cuts that primarily favored the wealthy, terrifying budget deficits would remain.
Polls show that Americans care deeply about eliminating those deficits — almost as much as they care about preserving their favorite entitlements.
The solution to this mess will almost certainly be non-ideological, unpopular and painful.
It will include significant curtailment of many of those beloved social programs. Military spending will also have to shrink substantially. We will also face sizable tax increases that reach well beyond the wealthy.
(Does anyone really think it’s sustainable that half of American wage earners pay no Federal income taxes?)
Doing all that without derailing the wobbly economic recovery will require a lot of patience, care and caution.
But in the end, isn’t this what shared sacrifice would look like? When everyone feels a little of the pain and anxiety, and shares some of the grumbles, won’t that be a fairly sure sign that we’re getting back on track?
As always, your thoughts welcome.
Tags: politics
.jpg)
Yes, we love those government programs. We just don’t like paying for them.
This victory, in a conservative district, is further support for POTUS’ agenda.
The irony is that the Republican health care solution – slash medicare – is probably even less popular than the death panels they claimed were part of Obamacare.
“But in the end, isn’t this what shared sacrifice would look like? When everyone feels a little of the pain and anxiety, and shares some of the grumbles, won’t that be a fairly sure sign that we’re getting back on track?”
no doubt that a little pain felt by everyone is inevitable and fair, but for some this concept is more akin to additional pain ontop of existing pains, while for others it may be only their first small taste. we do not all start out with an equal position.
in my houshold we make sacrifices and decisions to stay afloat, while for others the choice is more like a decision between london broil or porter house.
those who have had advantages from political policies have to catch up on the sacrifices that others have been making all along.
we have not been all in it together for some time, so no i don’t feel the spirit, or the love.
I would no more take one election as a harbinger of the future (they said the same thing about Brown in Mass) than I would take the lack of the Rapture occurring when that guy said it would as proof that there is no God. All it does is show that there’s a lot more to all this than simple left-right stances.
Bret,
I agree that this isn’t a predictor of future elections per se, but it definitely is a response by the voters to Ryan’s medicare plan.
Brian,
You say that Americans almost care more about the deficit than their favorite entitlements. That ‘almost’ is key. Ryan’s plan was sold as a deficit-reducer at the expense of quality. The voters rejection of this plan shows that even for Republicans, federal program entitlements are MORE important than deficits.
Now let’s find a way to pay for all of this.
Politicians, like used care salesmen, like to offer choices. Do you want the red or the green one?
The choice between Medicare and deficits is a false choice. The choice should be both and then find a way to do it.
I don’t think you can use NY 26 as an example that goes national. There is no such thing as a staunchly conservative district in NYS. The only amazing thing is that we have the number of Republican representatives that we do happen to have in this state.
What has been happening over the past 5-10years in upstate NY is simply a recognition of the reality of who the populace really is, and who they are is conservative to moderate Democrats. The trend is pretty clear, from Obama’s victory in upstate to Owens and on and on. Republicans will continue to shrink to non-existence in NYS.
I don’t think this is a referendum on much of anything.
However Brian’s post makes very good sense to me on the issues he is speaking about. What most people fear is that shared sacrifice won’t happen at all, there will be sacrifice all right but it will be capricious and political. Also the elephant in the room is the health care reform act we can’t afford current programs how could we ever afford their massive expansion?
On these major programs that essentially have a technological problem not a political problem I don’t think politicians should be left to decide how they should be re-vamped in order to actually pay for them.
We are still in “the other guy should sacrifice” phase. Hopefully we get beyond it.
What I find maddening is that the individual sacrifices would not be that great at all IF they were uniformly applied, but we have people going nuts for any reduction they demand Zero reductions.
I don’t think we will get beyond it Peter. I don’t think we should “slash” medicare, however look at the reaction to ANY tinkering with medicare, it is simply not going to happen politically. So you take medicare off the table you take social security off the table what do you have left?
Personally I would be in favor of shrinking our military to the relative size of of the UK, France, Italy, Canada and Germany combined. If we did that we would have the savings, we would be fine on the other programs and the debt and our yearly deficit.
Peter, good point. All we ever hear is how “the other guy” should pay for what ever “we” want. Usually the other guy is “the rich”, corporations, or anyone even faintly right wing. The problem is to pay for everything everyone wants…we just can’t do it. We owe too much, our dollar isn’t worth enough and we just want too much. Until we can convince people that only by giving up some “things”, by lowering Gov’t spending by about half to start with, by paying off our debt and bringing our dollars worth back up where it should be, by making the US a place people want to do business and employ other people…until then we’re stuck.
Bret, Mervel’s right– cut military spending, and raise taxes to something more like pre-Reagan levels: problem solved.
i’m a carpenter, severely underemployed, do not recieve welfare, food stamps, gov. cheese, healthcare, or hand outs from any government instutution,agency or program. graduated honors from high school, 4.0 grade point avg, yet could not get a scholarship due to my family’s income at the time was over the margin-just barely- and was unable to recieve any assistance from any scholastic agency. mother died when i was in grammer school, father died when i was twenty, i have one sister who has been like a mother to me and whose garage i renovated illegally so i have a place to live. i help her however i can, she’s a widow whose husband was killed in vietnam, i’m white, intelligent, poor and bitter. besides the chip on my shoulder what do you think i should sacrifice so someone else may have it easier than me? someone else may prosper more.
I still don’t understand how Ryan figured that would help cure the deficit. Because it would apply only to those 55 and younger it postponed any reduction of federal spending until the “baby boomers”, the generation that is said to BE the problem, is all enrolled in the existing program with no changes. By the time that the 55 and under folks hit the ‘wave’ is over. In any case Ryan included further tax cuts for the wealthy that offset almost all the “savings” his spending cuts achieved. It was a case of reverse Robin Hood.
Brian, you’re drinking more Politico Kool-Aid, and it’s resulted in a dishonest post. Shrinking government sounds like it will solve all debt problems, but when people are out of work, they stop spending, which lowers tax revenues, which results in bigger deficits and more debt. See Britain and Greece and Ireland for the success of austerity in shrinking the debt. They shrunk and debt is growing, because the economy shrunk and produced no tax revenue.
In fact the GOP’s Medicare-privatization budget won’t ease debt, and in fact, the GOP doesn’t care about debt, or it never would have been in love with Ronald Reagan and GW Bush. It does, however, love turning over public services to favored private companies, like insurance companies with the voucher program. Not all that different from the Russians selling off state oil assets to a select few.
Also, this election result isn’t a repudiation of 2010. The GOP in 2010 won not because of the deficit rhetoric, but because it scared older voters into believing that Obamacare was going to take away their Medicare. That’s what the Death Panels were about.
Once the GOP won, it turned around and proposed taking away Medicare. Got thumped for it yesterday. Live by sword, die by sword.
Finally, “Even if you closed every corporate loophole and eliminated the Bush-era tax cuts that primarily favored the wealthy, terrifying budget deficits would remain.”
Not really. Take a look at this graph for the causes of the debt
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/chart-bush-policies-dominant-cause-of-debt.php?ref=fpblg
Brian, you’re a great reporter, but your punditry, especially on economics, is too often tainted by Beltway conventional wisdom.
But OA the chart showed that those impacts hit after Bush was out of office. They are no longer his policies they are President Obama’s and the Democratically controlled Congress’s policies as of 2010.
The blame Bush stuff is only good for a couple of years. Fiscal policy is decided on every year it is not some sort of bible or constitution that cannot be changed. The tax cuts the spending the wars they are all Obama’s. This is his deal now.
That “presidents commission on the deficit” went through the exercise of what it would take to get the deficit down. Its pretty draconian, but any solution will be similar – raise tax revenues by eliminating popular loopholes (home-ownership tax deduction) etc. Reduce the rate of increase of medicare and social security COLAs. Reduce the military. etc etc
Pete G, I’m assuming your post was directed at my 7:01 post. What do you need to give up? Apparently being a carpenter living where you are to start with. If you can’t support yourself in your trade you have no choice but to either go on the dole or change trades/jobs/location. Sorry, but you’re stuck with those choices until work picks up. Work won’t pick up until the economy improves in your location. When will that happen?
On the larger stage, what I meant was that, IMO, we have to learn to do without so much gov’t spending. I’ve gone through all this before. Long term plans for shrinking gov’t, not overnight layoffs and firings, gradual shrinking of the gov workforce through retirements/attrition and not replacing those workers, consolidation of redundant/ineffective agencies, rooting out fraud and waste, cutting the Congressional perks, bringing an end to our wars, sealing our borders, running our gov’ts in a more efficient manner. It won’t happen over night. If we really started today I figure it’d take 20+ years to accomplish. The problem is every 2-4 years all the plans change. That’s not a good way to carry out long term goals.
I’m sorry for the position you’re in. I”m currently supporting 2.5 families off one paycheck. It sux. You do what you have to. I hope things get better for you soon.
The basic problem with a voucher system in place of Medicare is the basic problem with health insurance.
The larger the health insurance pool, the lower the cost of health insurance. If you were to replace Medicare with a voucher system and thereby expect individuals to shop for health insurance, you put them into a health insurance pool of one and the cost goes way up.
Bret – I hate to break it to you, but every president I can remember has claimed to take the approach you recommend.
Mervel, you’re misreading the chart if you think I’m advocating Obama policies. The chart shows most of the debt arises from two things: The Bush tax cuts (which have been going on for 10 years, and which Obama extended for two more, so far) and the wars. Bush started both policies. Do I think Obama should have immediately rescinded the Bush tax cuts and more quickly drawn down troops? Certainly. That won’t change the fact that the principal cause of our debt picture is still two really dumb policies initiated by Bush and defended by the GOP. Sorry, but he owns them. Unfortunately, Obama has not sufficiently disowned them.
Peter- but they NEVER do it! That’s doens’t mean it wouldn’t work.
Under that logic oa Kennedy owns Vietnam not Johnson and Nixon.
Mervel, I’m sorry, but that’s absolutely ridiculous. 2009-2001=8 years.
2011-2009=2 years. Not to mention the fact that Obama hasn’t expanded war spending every year the way Bush did. You’re better ‘n that.
He has opened up a new war though.
Each President has to take responsibility for the policies that are in force when they are in office. He has another one and half to two years to change HIS policies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and hopefully not start any new wars. The interesting thing is that according to that chart just doing those things should radically reduce the debt.
Thanks, Mervel. I think we’re closer to the same page. The point is not about who is to blame for the debt, which gets into stuff about personalities and parties, it’s about what caused the debt and what can be done to fix it. And that point is that Medicare isn’t the major cause of the current debt, and that cutting Medicare won’t fix it. No matter who’s in charge.
I hope that chart is correct. Because it is actually very good news. Those wars are all discretionary, they are not something that we do not have control over and could not end in the next 12-18 months. Taking taxes back to the year 2000 is harder politically however it is also totally in our control and not some sort of radical change. But even just stopping our perpetual state of war would make a pretty big dent in the deficit.
The bottom line on health care for me is not really the debt it is the fact that our whole system is far far too expensive for everyone not just the elderly through medicare. Sure we could fix medicare; just give old people less and make them pay more; big deal that is not an exciting option.