Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Obama is striking out
The President's performance on Fox News, happening now, is atrocious. He's interrupting, imperious and evasive. This is really going to hurt him. The right is going to have a field day with the clips. He seems to have believed his own propaganda about Fox and is way too combative. His answer on Medicare cuts is close to incomprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Only the MSM (and his retinue) asserted that Obama had unlimited intellectual gifts.
Some pretty thin gruel tonight, Rick. When haven't the right wing blogs been up-in-arms about something Obama did? So they're about the same as usual tonight, great to hear.
And, as Newsweek is reporting it: "I can imagine the interview was frustrating for both parties. Obama has a tendency to be long winded, especially when talking about health care. But anyone who has tried to talk seriously about the subject knows that is nigh impossible to do so in the space of a soundbite without being inaccurate. (Just ask my editors, who no doubt tired long ago of my monologues about pooling and selling insurance across state lines.) Baier refused to indulge Obama's verbosity. Most reporters would similiarly push for answers in a combative interview with somebody a bit less important. But they'd normally do it over policy stances, actions or statements, not over their views on a procedural tactic that both parties use. It was certainly out of the ordinary for a Presidential interview, and after a while, watching him badger Obama over process questions became irritating."
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/17/obama-on-fox-the-interrupt-a-thon.aspx
A little more sober, a lot less memorable.
The President is interrupting? Baier interrupted the Prez about thirty times. What a boor. At least he had the decency to apologize. Obama's trying to give a thoughtful answer and Baier wants to know about procedural trivia.
All I could think was, he doesn't even understand the implications of his program for Medicare. And people complained that the last president wasn't smart. Yikes.
But, of course, sound bites were all the President wanted to offer. Baier wanted to know whether some things would be in the bill. "You'll find out." He wanted to know how you can use Medicare cuts to pay for new spending without cutting Medicare or contributing to its looming insolvency. His answer seemed to be that some of the new spending will be on seniors and we'll fix Medicare later. But the problem is that his plan is either not "paid for" by Medicare reductions or hastens Medicare's problems or cuts some other benefits currently provided to seniors. He was asked why they don't include the doc fix and he said, essentially, that its not our "fault" so why do we have to include it in "our" health care proposal? Well, the reason is that the benefits that he wants to provide and that are supposedly "paid for" are not if everyone knows that we are not going to cut reimbursements to doctors under Medicare by 21%.
He doesn't care about the process? He better because there, notwithstanding whether Republicans have used it, there are serious constitutional problems with "deem" and "fix." He better because if some 3000 page monstrosity is passed after seventy two hours and then is found, as it will be, to contain all sorts of unintended problems and unacknowledged pork and undisclosed provisions that prove to be unpopular (it really is inevitable), he's going to get raked over the coals.
Obama and the Dems are banking on the fact that Americans never give up a new entitlement. But this is not an entitlement for most people. It is a tinkering with something that 85% or more of the public already has to provive an entitlement to the 15% or so that do not have it. For those 85%, the problem is, for the most part, cost and the bill either does nothing about it or will do it in ways that transfers anger about "managed care" from insurance companies to the government.
Yeah, of course, soundbites, which is why Baier consistently felt the need to interrupt the president's answers.
And your clinging to the doc fix is a non sequitur. Sure, it would be nice if the legislation addressed the problem, but the fact is it doesn't create that problem, it exists regardless. The point is that the legislation pays for the new benefits it creates. To say a piece of legislation doesn't pay for itself until it covers all pre-existing obligations in addition to the ones it actually creates is ridiculous.
And I'm sure your attempt to save the Dems from themselves is heartfelt and pure.
An even better way of explaining the doc fix fallacy from Ezra Klein, via David Leonhardt:
"To put this slightly differently, imagine you’re buying a new house. But your old house needs $20,000 in roof repairs. You will have to pay for those repairs whether you move or whether you stay, because you can’t have your roof caving in come the next heavy rain. Are your roof repairs part of the cost of the new house? If you think so, then you agree with Ryan. If not, then you don’t. The [doc-fix] problem predates health-care reform and exists irrespective of health-care reform’s fate. Attempts to lash the two together are nonsensical."
Attempts to lash the two together are nonsensical.
Unless, like Obamamama, you claim that the proceeds of the sale of house one BOTH fix the roof for $20K AND add $20K to your downstroke on the new house.
I see we've moved from non sequitors to red herrings.
The president doesn't tell the CBO what accounting method to use when scoring legislation. Here's the CBO on the supposed double-counting controversy:
"The improvement in Medicare’s finances would not be matched by a corresponding improvement in the federal government’s overall finances. CBO and JCT estimated that the PPACA as originally proposed would add more than $300 billion ($246 billion + $69 billion + interest) to the balance of the HI trust fund by 2019, while reducing federal budget deficits by a total of $130 billion by 2019. Thus, the trust fund would be recording additional saving of more than $300 billion during the next 10 years, but the government as a whole would be doing much less additional saving."
So even factoring out any double-counting, the Senate bill saves the federal budget $130 million in the first ten years, and other CBO reports indicate even more in the next decade. Bottom line -- again -- the legislation more than pays for itself, according to CBO estimates.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-23-Trust_Fund_Accounting.pdf
LOL. As with the Summit, I'm pretty sure that whichever side you're on determines who you think "won" this exchange.
This won't damage him at all, except among those who already don't like him, if their opinion of him can even get any worse.
Regardless of the double-counting issue, which the CBO has addressed, you have to admit it's a big improvement over your party's history on issues like this, when they (including your hero Paul Ryan) "weren't in the habit of paying" for new entitlements, in the words of Orin Hatch.
And anyone who thinks the GOP hasn't, and wouldn't, use things like deem and pass either doesn't pay attention or drinks so much partisan kool-aid they literally piss red.
So even factoring out any double-counting, the Senate bill saves the federal budget $130 million in the first ten years
There are more qualifiers on that CBO "estimate" than on picks for the Final Four.
Disregarding them, the ACTUAL spending mandate begins at Year 5 of ObamaCare, and comes in at $2.5TRILLION or so--much of which is NOT recovered in revenue increases.
Spray your foofoodust elsewhere....
Giving up facts for lent, Dad29? Sorry, hadn't realized I stumbled in on right-wing purity hour.
But in case you want to nibble on some facts, here'sthe latest CBO findings: "We estimate that the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP)."
So, even greater deficit reductions in the second decade, well after spending and revenues have both fully kicked in.
Anon 9:51
"Are your roof repairs part of the cost of the new house?"
Would the roof cost be part of the new house basis (cost)?
No, they have nothing to do w/ the new house. They need to be covered regardless of the purchase of a new house.
Obama might have struck out in your opinion...but he hit a Grand Slam in November 2008 and another Grand Slam on Sunday March 22, 2010 with the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill. I guess hitting .666 isn't too bad. If he can bat .750 with a victory in Financial Regulation Reform the Republicants won't even be in the Wild Card race for the next 6 years :-)
Post a Comment