Thursday, January 08, 2009

Is right-leaning policy easier to pass with a Democratic President?

This article in the New York Times entitled, "Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending" caught my attention this morning:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.....

Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.

Of course, the details of how Obama will change these entitlements is not clear, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they will be reasonable. Is it just me or is Obama taking a very moderate and almost right-leaning approach to the economy in some ways?

If so, I think it's easier for a Democrat to do this. Republicans are afraid of being seen as "mean" and hurting the old and poor and tend to take on Democratic policies. Obama, on the other hand, may have more freedom to change these entitlement programs just as Clinton did with welfare reform. The media is on their side and though it may grumble, will not denigrate them the way they would a Republican. This more favorable treatment, in turn, will help the electorate swallow a bitter pill more readily than they would if they were being told they were being screwed by "the man." Maybe the only way to get right-leaning policies through is to elect a Democrat.



Blogger flambeaux said...

I have been saying this for the better part of the last year. There is a definite "only Nixon could go to China" angle in play. The material reality demands that these programs be cut and no conservative could ever get the media cover to survive doing it.

9:22 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Rustmeister said...

Well, we did get some major welfare reform from Clinton.

I doubt it would have happened under either Bush administration.

10:00 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Ern said...

His panel of economic advisors is very impressive, and has been as acknowledged as such by commentators across the political spectrum. I'd expect that they would take a moderate, or, by the standards of many in the MSM (which doesn't include Dr. Helen), right-of-center approach to the economy.

10:37 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Cham said...

The future President Obama may be more successful in curtailing spending and getting the budget under control than the most recent President Bush because he may be a better politician, better manager and better leader.

10:52 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger jabrwok said...

I keep reading these stories about how Obama is tacking right in his appointments and policy proposals, but regardless of what he ultimately ends up trying, he still has to cope with a majority Democrat Congress (DemCong in Kim du Toit's inimitable phrase:-).

Somehow I don't see them being all that supportive.

11:19 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

I agree with Cham about our outgoing President not being a good leader.

Maybe the Republicans are not as trusted on cutting spending because of the oft repeated lies about them being racist etc. But then, if they did even a half assed job about being conservatives and presenting how conservative values and personal responsibility are completely favorable to minorities, that might not be the case.

You expect your opponents to slander you in politics, mounting an effective rebuttal or counter-attack is the response and the Republicans can't seem to muster even a tepid response these days.


11:26 AM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Der Hahn said...

The future President Obama may be more successful in curtailing spending and getting the budget under control...

The report from where the sky is colored 'rosey'.

Back here on Earth, Obama is proposing to spend somewhere north of 800 billion on a stimulus package, and projecting trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

11:51 AM, January 08, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President-elect Obama could turn out to be the long-overdue 'Reality-Check' the American People need running over extension other people who are inclined towards their (Americans) disposition.

12:42 PM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Roci said...

That sacred cow will get through the slaughter house with nothing more than a shave and a haircut.

they will dabble with rates for various income levels, raise the income cap and make the graduated scale more graduated. A tax increase will get sold as "the biggest most audacious change to the system in 30 years" and Saving this program from bankruptcy until the next Republican president screws it up.

12:49 PM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger mmaier2112 said...

Anyone that thinks fiscal responsibility or govt cutbacks are really in the works is loony. Obama is a socialist totalitarian. Just like Hillary, EVERY problem in the world is to be solved by the United States federal government.

These are folks that think FDR fixed the Depression. They are too stupid or too blind to realize the govt made the Great Depression worse at every turn.

Bill Clinton didn't leap forward into reforming welfare. He was dragged into it kicking and screaming the whole way.

5:37 PM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

When a Republican does something liberal, or a Democrat does something conservative, it is usually met with less resistance. Bush expanded entitlements, and the left went along with him because they are lefists and the right went along because it was Bush. Clinton signed welfare reform, and the right went along because it was conservative, and the left went alont because it was Clinton.

Mix in the media love of Obama, and he can push a conservative agenda pretty easily. The Dems will go along because he's a dem and the repubs will go along becuase it will be conservative.

If there is one thing Obama could do to win me over, it would be to move the country right. Other than political disagreements, Obama seems smart and decent.

Happy New Year

10:13 PM, January 08, 2009  
Blogger newton said...

If that's the case, then why have a Republican Party? Might as well close shop and go into the sunset.

But again, it may be that liberals need bogeymen: if you don't have one, you have to invent one.

6:37 PM, January 09, 2009  
Blogger Cham said...

Liberal Democrats have been the bogeyman for the Republicans for the last 8 years.

8:09 AM, January 10, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Cham said... "Liberal Democrats have been the bogeyman for the Republicans for the last 8 years."

Bogeyman? Try hatchet man.

Bogeyman would be an improvement as to way the adolescent-like left has treated our president the last 8 years.

4:46 PM, January 10, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Cham said... "The future President Obama may be more successful in curtailing spending and getting the budget under control than the most recent President Bush because he may be a better politician, better manager and better leader."

If Obama is able to curtain spending and get the budget under control, I'll be willing to give him credit, but not full credit.

Let me explain. You see, in the mid 90s, when the budget, for the most part was under control (unfortunately, we still incurred more future obligations than we could handle), a colleague of mine said "what can we do to stop Clinton from taking credit for Republican policies?" My answer was this: "if we want President Clinton's signature, we need to be willing to let him share in the credit." Keyword is share.

You see, the left has completely disregarded the disaster of the Clinton presidency the first two years. It took them 12 years to get Congress back. However, Clinton took full credit for everything that happened with a Republican Congress (things that never could have happened his first two years). And the press painted it as soley the president's success. Had he been a republican, however, the press would have portrayed his signing of fiscal and welfare reform differently.

Likewise, the press does the opposite for President Bush. He is blamed for things he didn't do and not credited with anything positive he does (he's appointed more blacks and minorities to higher positions than any president, and has doen more for Africa than any other leader ever, and to quote the liberal Juan Williams, "President Bush's record on blacks is very good."). Imagine how different things would be if he were a democrat doing the same? People would not have been scared by the media over him talking about necessary social security reform. They would be showing all the good being done in Iraq, from building schools to hospitals. In fact, when Clinton deposed of Slobadan Milosevic, a bloody tyrant who was less of a threat to the world the Saddam, killed a tenth the number of people Saddam killed, wasn't in a 12 year armed struggle with our nation, and without UN approval as well (today's buzzwords: unilateral and "cowboy", the press did not berate him (and no one compared him to Hitler).

My point is not to criticize Clinton (I let him have his share of the credit for welfare reform), defend Bush (he has been fiscally irresponsible), or undermine Obama (for the sake of the country I want him to succeed, and I will not treat him like the left has treated Bush). My point is that we should not underestimate the ability of the media to frame anything into a positive or a negative based on their own biases. Clinton would have been ravaged by the press over welfare reform had he been a democrat (the way Bush was over Social Security Reform), and Bush would not have been savaged over Iraq (the way Clinton was not ravaged over Milosevic).

Don't underestimate the ability of the press to sway public opinion based on that stupid little (D) or (R) by someone's name.

3:34 PM, January 11, 2009  
Blogger LPF said...

If Obama & the Dems make any effort to reel in these programs it will ONLY be by screwing those who saved for their own retirement: You were a good saver and built a nice 401k? Good for you! We won't need to pay you any social security or medicare, buh-bye...

11:12 AM, January 12, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@ LPF said... "If Obama & the Dems make any effort to reel in these programs it will ONLY be by screwing those who saved for their own retirement: You were a good saver and built a nice 401k? Good for you! We won't need to pay you any social security or medicare, buh-bye..."

Probably. Notice, I said "if Obama" does the right thing, I'll give him credit. That's not to say he'll actually do it. But, to be fair, I won't do to him what the left did to Bush and bash him if he's right just because he's Obama.

10:22 PM, January 12, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理網頁設計探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング治験

9:51 PM, April 25, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

6:40 AM, May 20, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊ggo0401 影音視訊美女聊天室gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo正妹牆視訊交友高雄網正妹牆辣妺視訊

4:28 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home