Charlie Cook says the Dems "have made a colossal miscalculation" by spending so much time on health care and climate change, and not doing more for the economy. Not only do I disagree, but I'm really just left shaking my head.
Here's Cook:
Honorable and intelligent people can disagree over the substance and details of what President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to do on health care reform and climate change. But nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, judging by where the Democrats stand today, it's clear that they have made a colossal miscalculation.
First thing is, what more could Obama have done about the economy if he'd focused on it like a laser? Cook doesn't say, and that's a big omission: if there's nothing more that Obama could have done, no matter when he shifted focus, then it hardly matters that Obama's spent most of his time on other issues. And since Cook's a pretty sharp guy, I'm sure he's not assuming that Obama can get stuff like this through Congress if he really tries to make it happen, because we know that's bullshit.
Last winter, the stimulus Obama got was pretty much all he would have been able to get. And that would have been the case for some time afterwards. Only when it became clear that, even with the stimulus, unemployment was going to be around 10%, did centrist Dems (who hold all the cards here) finally start evidencing any appetite for a jobs bill. And that's just been in the past couple of months, max.
Now, Obama seems to be ready to pivot to doing something about jobs. And while, yes, it's about freakin' time, it's not like he could have gotten anything at all through Congress even a few months ago.
So maybe he's lost a couple of months, but maybe the added urgency of the evidence piling up will enable him to get a bigger bill through Congress. Hardly a colossal miscalculation.
Numero two-o (as Joe Bob Briggs used to say), Cook says, "if Obama and Hill Democrats had taken a more modest approach to health care reform, they could have pivoted back to jobs and the economy sooner." Aside from the fact that an earlier pivot really wouldn't have accomplished much, it's hard to imagine a more modest approach to health care reform that would have worked. As Ezra and others pointed out when Peggy Noonan said Obama should have just passed a ban on discriminating on the grounds of pre-existing conditions, it's all tied together. No pre-existing conditions would mean we could all wait until we got sick to buy health insurance. To keep that from happening, you need the individual mandate. And the mandate makes the subsidies necessary.
There's other stuff in the bill, but that's the core of it. So what's your 'more modest approach,' Charlie? He doesn't say.
Third, Cook lists climate change among the timewasters. Sorry, Charlie, but nothing's more urgent than dealing with climate change: let's pray that we're not already in 'too little, too late' territory on this issue. If we endure a 'lost decade' but manage to keep global warming under 2°C. between now and 2050, I'll consider it a huge win for America and humanity in general.
Finally, there's the point that so many people have made lately: the point of a big majority like this is to use it, because it won't last forever. We have to pass legislation now that we may not be able to pass at any other time. While the economy will eventually get better even if we do nothing more for it now, we may or may not eventually pass universal health care, and 'eventually' would be sometime around 2025, if we're lucky. And waiting until the next time the Dems have a 60-40 Senate majority to deal with climate change - if there IS a next time - is an invitation to let the world fry.
The 'colossal miscalculation' would be to put these things off.
