Paul Krugman: Big Table Fantasies

Paul Krugman says that when it comes to understanding how bitter the political fights over issues like health care reform are likely to be, "Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve":

Big Table Fantasies, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals — the dispute over health care mandates notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the candidates in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a progressive agenda into reality.

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”

At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator ... suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn’t be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because “the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington.”

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a “big table” that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded... “We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.”

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries ... will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. ...

There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. ... And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. ...

So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?

He will probably win — but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let’s be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.

And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

I have always thought that those economists, who have questioned the rationality of voting, on the basis of the vanishing insignificance of a single vote, miss the really daunting problem: the existential uncertainty of the choice.

I understand Krugman's criticism here, but I am not certain about whether it is Krugman or Obama, who is being more naive. I have worked in the Federal government, regulating various business sectors in various ways.

The thing is, the business you regulate never goes away, and the regulator never knows as much about the business as the businessman. Government is, potentially, very powerful, but the power, even when circumstances permit using it in overwhelming ways, can not overcome the information deficit, or do away with the business.

When I say that power can not overcome the information deficit, I mean exactly that. The government is never so powerful that it can competently dictate the details, independent of guidance from the businesses concerned. The regulation, to some extent, is always a product of voluntary consensus.

At best, the government can use power to change the game, to reward enlightened behavior by business in arriving at that voluntary consensus. In that, government can use its overwhelming power and resources quite effectively. It can be as subtle as issuing a report or sponsoring a research conference, or as unsubtle as an FBI tail, but there are a lot of levers.

At worst, the government can do, as many agencies have done under Bush, reward the worst elements and turn voluntary consensus into wholesale corruption and neglect.

But, either way, to get anything done, the businesses have to cooperate. And, government has to be well-coordinated and cleverly managed to get results. The best regulators are guys, who, for lack of a better phrase, know the subtle levers of power, and can guess where the bodies are buried.

Health care reform is particularly tricky, because the health insurance companies have to die more than a little, one way or another. But, they probably won't die completely -- they will reorganize to use their considerable competence to manage some aspect of a reformed system.

This doesn't have to be a fatally bad thing. Everybody in health insurance or running Big Pharma is not evil.

The trick is to use power to bring the better angels of our nature to the fore, to make it easier for these industries to survive and prosper by productive cooperation than by obstruction.

Hillary demonstrated one way not to do it, and I expect Obama's "big table" is a shorthand for the root causes of her failure. And, I think Obama, the community organizer, cannot be all that naive about human nature. But, I bet his social skills are way better than Krugman's.

Frankly, I don't think we have any good reason to think any of the three leading Democratic candidates know much about wielding power. The guys with the resumes (Richardson, Biden & Dodd) are also-rans. But, even the guys with resumes say stupid things. Richardson touts a balanced budget amendment, for example -- Obama mentioning Social Security is pretty minor compared to a balanced budget amendment, in terms of opening a right-wing can of worms.

What candidates say in "debates" and stump speeches is probably less indicative than a roster of advisor and supporters. But, Krugman does look at a roster, though he probably know more than I about the "meaning" of some of the names.

If Hilary wins, I will vote for her, hoping all the time that she has been lying about being the plutocracy-friendly war-monger in the race. If Obama wins, I will hope he remembers where he came from.

Krugman wants to believe in the appeal of a populist campaign. I can read John Edwards' poll numbers.

I think we can elect a Democrat President, and solid Democratic majorities in Congress, and get out of Iraq and institute some form of national health care. That's as much existential confidence as I can muster in my vote.

Beyond that, I accept that both Clinton and Obama are practical politicians, who know perfectly well that they have more to fear from shadowy forces in Business and the corporate Media than they do from the idealism of Krugman. Each in her or his way is signalling a pragmatic friendliness to Business, and to the Plutocracy and to conservatives. And, they are right to do so. The Republican Party has been abandoned by a significant part of the corporate conservative business base -- an important source of funds and Media-friendly PR, if not votes directly, and a key to winning the general election is to not bait them.

And, when it comes to actually governing, I'm sure to be disappointed. My fondest wish would be to see Bush leave the Inauguration in handcuffs, bound to The Hague via an extended sojurn in Cuba. Not going to happen, unfortunately.

And, leaving Iraq will be a bloody mess. And, health care reform will more piecemeal and jerry-rigged and prolonged than I care for. But, hey, that's democracy.

More than their policy statements, what would persuade me to support one over another, might be the belief that one would have longer coattails than the others. A conventional analysis would suggest that Edwards, the white Southerner populist, would do the most to broaden Democratic gains in the South and in Red States, generally. I didn't see him win North Carolina in 2004, though.

Obama might surprise, because, although the black vote will be 90% Democratic, no matter who the Democrat is, if Obama is the nominee, I can well imagine that 90% of blacks might actually vote. That could be significant in a few places.

I don't see an argument for Hillary's coattails, and building the Party was not one of her husband's strengths. But, maybe that's unfair. I don't analyze the polls, but people, who do, say she has a lot of appeal with some key demographics.

[donna]

Edwards is right.

But most people won't realize that until 2012, after four more years of Republican bullshit.

[Meh]

From atrios:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#2065480794031988135

Shorter Candidates

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

And I think that is the core of Krugman's problem with Obama. If you don't believe in his ability to harness the politics of personality to transform the national conversation then Obama doesn't appear to have any "big stick" to force the health-industrial complex to the negotiating table.

And while Bruce is absolutely right about the subtle and consensus oriented ways you need to work at the negotiating table, if you're going to get powerful vested interests to that table in the first place you have to be able to threaten them, otherwise they will not come to the table at all.

Edwards might be wrong about the potential of a populist mandate to achieve this, but to suggest that Obama's "social skill" is enough to do it does seem to require a lot of faith in Obama's personality.

I like Obama, but I question the power of his brand when the VRWC get started on him.

[anne]

Notice carefully the subtle wording:

"The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator — Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because 'the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington.' "

What we have are moderators who repeatedly suggest they know how candidates should develop policy rather than ask quations about policy. I have never found John Edwards harsh on the wealthy or special interests, what I find is Edwards speaking to issues of critical general concern while the issues are often simply dismissed by reporters.

What has bothered me this entire year is an unwillingness by Barack Obama to significantly define policies whether from Social Security to health care that show an understanding of how much need there is for dramatic change from Republican positions.

[anne]

After 7 years of George Bush's Administration actively working against climate change initiatives, after weeks of subverting attempts at policy change at the environment conference in Bali, the Administration allowed an agreement to discuss climate change for the coming 2 years. Supposedly delegates to the conference cheered at the chance to talk. I found the chance to talk ludicrous when considered as a breakthrough.

We need a tough minded President, or the coming 4 years will be a continuation of Republicanism and Republican obstruction. There was no breakthrough in Bali, only continued Republican obstruction and deception.

[anne]

"Mr. Edwards replied, 'Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.' "

Precisely so, simply look at how first Congressional majority Republicans were successful in virtually every policy initiative, secod look to minority Congressional Republicans completely united and completely able to limit an prevent Democratic legislation.

When a simple Democratic bill to protect the health of 3.8 million needy children is easily defeated by Republicans, I suggest toughness is called for by the coming President.

[anne]

"EU says Bali conference secured roadmap for climate change talks...."

So, we have definitive satire, we have secured a roadmap for climate change talks after weks and months and years of climate change talks, but with a roadmap we will not be getting lost along the road to talks from here as we were getting lost before which is the reason talks have been so difficult.

Got me my roadmap, so I can travel light. Bali is at least a nice place to talk, now that we can find it on the roadmap, so let's go.

Thank you, EU.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce,

Well said. On many issues I believe Hillary Clinton is closer to being right than is Obama, but I'm not supporting Hillary. Here's the difference. If Obama or Edwards wins in Nov 08 the GOP knows that they might have to deal with him for 8 years and potentially lose more Senate seats in 2010 (a lot of GOP seats are up for re-election). So they have an incentive to at least play along for a year or two or else risk being totally shut out and irrelevant. So I think they will have some motivation to behave marginally responsible even if it's only for a year or two. Same with the healthcare industry. On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton wins, she has "one termer" written all over her. One and done. And given her husband's history there is every reason to believe the GOP might pick-up a few Senate seats in 2010. Hillary's problem is that half of the country will refuse to give her a chance to succeed. Where Krugman has it wrong is that he doesn't understand that Hillary will be regarded as a lame duck President the day after her inauguration. I don't care how good your ideas are, they won't get anywhere if the other side sees you as a lame duck.

[anne]

What we need now is a conference to secure a roadmap for talks about, well, Iraq. Not even talks about leaving Iraq, just a roadmap for talks about Iraq. There was a time when there were leaders from Franklin Roosevelt to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela. Now, we are afraid of the "harshness" of a John Edwards. Meanwhile, notice the shock and awe fierceness that is everywhere about and everywhere roadmapped.

[paine]

bw

nice fireside thoughts
...
as with most drinks poured
from a cracked pot of realism
yours tastes soothing

"the corporations are always with us ..."

"they can be reasoned with and admonished and
politely tutored and even........put in time out "

the gin is out of the bottle my frien
corporate amerika has drunk the elixir
its been hyde time in the board rooms of amerika
for at least 24 years

to hope for a deep left prog morph
coming out of the headquarters
of any of these pokes of the people
will require a civil society in tatters
and an economy so sour in the ass from getting
limited liability f ed ..

but it will come to pass
(and the reformer in the white chevy suburban
will surely wear jack ass ears )
and with that thought
the cocktail of change action
three parts human hope and one part class hate
can get a nice shake up

morning prayer
for us anti-ameliorators manque

(a prayer that will inevitably be answered ...
some day ....soon )
give us oh lady clio
a nation torn apart by the
double cross cutting blades
of za profit zyztem

[bakho]

The Swift Boats are out there biding their time. I like all the major Dem candidates. Is there a market on which one would be most susceptible to Swift Boating in the general election? The Clintons have dealt with SwiftBoating for 16 years. Did Edwards learn what not to do in 2004? Does Obama understand what is out there in the general election? There is no way the opposition would allow Obama to run as a uniter.

[bakho]

Why don't big businesses support health care reform? Why don't they throw the insurance companies under the bus and get behind health care reform?

Is it because the insurance companies manage the health care plans? Would insurance companies play hardball by jacking up rates on businesses that tried to buck them? Even government and their operating units often contract with insurance companies to provide health care. Other than Medicare, does any individual in the US have a health care payment system that does NOT involve filing a claim form with an insurance carrier? How disruptive would it be to hit health care providers with a totally new payment system? (Denver Airport) The possibility of making things far worse is a huge barrier to overcome.

So are businesses, health care providers and insurance companies so tightly interwoven that reform becomes nearly impossible? Was this the dynamic that stopped major reform in 1993?

[paine]

"if you're going to get powerful vested interests to that table in the first place you have to be able to threaten them, otherwise they will not come to the table at all."

the people enraged has to be the threat
pols love any opportunity to make
the possible appear to happen
out of great leadership on their part

and
any dembo in power will know
when the people have had enough
even the poll samplings
won't be necessary tell
that tale will show up nitely
on every flat screen in america

take the new fronteer paradigm
perfect for obama
"look good look vigorous but for heavens sake
do nothing ...
not till something sets the regular white folks a blaze"

they aren't ablaze yet

but
of course properly positioned ....

it was jfk taking
a nutball's bullets
in his head
that triggered
that last social
great prog leap forward
by the white unwashed majority
and its giddy over conscience

[Lafayette]

Article: John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

Article: Obama: We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.”

Both of these candidates are saying the same thing: We cannot get around the vested interests of the plutocrats. Edwards invokes Roosevelt, who was, himself, a plutocrat. I guess that makes Roosevelt a “change agent”?

The health care mess is a chancre on the body politic because we’ve left it for far too long to corporate interests and they (politicians, the AMA, pharmaceutical and insurance companies) have milked the cow dry.

Why is not the ultimate consequence of today’s “system” not seen for the monster it is? It is an indirect and highly unfair tax on all Americans, regardless of whether they have health care insurance or not. Corporations simply recuperate their costs by pricing them into their products/services. All Americans pay that indirect cost for one of the worlds most expensive and least equitable health care services on earth.

And, we want to enlarge that monster by, abracadabra, extending it to the have-nots with our “magic wand” of legislation?

Ya gotta be crazy … and we are.

PS: I posted on this forum a reference a few months ago as to how the cost of comp & ben amounted to a premium of $1700 per car of every automobile that came out of a Detroit factory. This has largely opened the door to foreign imports. Now, think about how the added indirect tax for Health Care is doing the same by pricing semi- and unskilled labor out of the American market for jobs.

[paine]

shift boats ??

surely you kid us

any
repub strateeegry-ists
suggesting that menu item
are headed for the rubber room

[paine]

shift boats
an earish typo
containing a better point

[save_the_rustbelt]

Why don't big businesses support health care reform? Why don't they throw the insurance companies under the bus and get behind health care reform?

Actually they do, but are hesitant to get into one more battle when they have so many at any one time; plus, offend the wrong politician and a business will suffer.

How would business dump private insurance until the politicians take the lead? Very difficult.

[jeff hoffman]

Bruce Wilder: Excellent. Save the Rustbelt: As far as politicians taking the lead, they will do so when directed to by big business. I must be naive, because I expected it to happen by now. A recession may be the tipping point.

[anne]

"Why don't big businesses support health care reform?"

Actually they don't, and actually thery haven't, and actually they haven't for decades. But, fiction is always important and actually the fiction that big businesses are terribly afraid of the wrong politician is important to use to actually mask the importance of the question. But, what social cause would big businesses have championed lately or earlier?

[anne]

Politicians have been taking the lead on making health care a civil right since Franklin Roosevelt, and as with other civil rights groups with express interests in opposing civil rights have fought every movement and have been successful so far in fighting a movement to universal health care. The idea that there has been no politicial leadership on a move to universal health care is absurd and insulting.

[ken melvin]

Why wouldn't that guy who 'made' $800 million running an HMO support national health care?

[2slugbaits]

bakho,

Of course the GOP will try to swiftboat whomever the Dems nominate. That's a given. The question is whether or not those swiftboating techniques will work. In the case of Hillary half the country is already ready to believe those ads, so they are likely to be very successful. I don't think they would be as successful with Edwards or Obama. But more importantly, Hillary does not have coat tails, and that's important. I'm pretty confident that Hillary would have a good chance of winning in November, my concern is that it is likely to be a hollow and short-lived victory. Besides, I think Big Pharm knows that when push comes to shove Hillary can always be bought with promises of big campaign contributions. As much as I liked Bill Clinton, even I would have to concede that Bill and Hillary can be bought at a fairly low price.

As to business not wanting to reform healthcare, I'm not so sure about that. It is true that Big Pharm doesn't want to reform healthcare, but what about GM and Ford and US Steel and millions of small businesses?

[Bob]

From the article -

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

[...]

And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

******************************************

Edwards is 100% correct.

And so is Krugman.

[Bob]

>> Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests

Yeah I'm real surprised to see the corpoprate whore main stream media say that.

Thats why i don't buy their newspapers or lend them my eyeballs.

[btgraff]

who was this moderator who said "“the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington.” - seems like a very biased question, since most people would have said "not getting things done" about such groups.

other than getting the Bushies to agree to pay for US Aids drugs to go to africa, which is in the drug companies interest as well as helping the people receiving the drugs, what exactly have these interest groups got done?

[anne]

"As to business not wanting to reform healthcare, I'm not "so sure about that."

Ah, yes, the comical idea of business marching boots and all through the halls of Congress all hot and bothered about poor sweet chillen, little chillen, lacking health protection. Yea; I am become a business revolutionary. Power to them peoples, and all that jazz.

[anne]

"Yeah I'm real surprised to see the corporate ----- main stream media say that."

Remember, always remember, what is most important is to be vilely sexist, because vile sexism shows the ideas we really have. I am so inspired by sexism.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

Clearly you know nothing about business costs structures and competition, but why should I be surprised?

Call the Chairman of GM and ask if he would like healthcare reform.

Call the Business Roundtable and ask why they have been talking about healthcare reform for a couple of decades.

Call the National Association of Manufacturers and ask about their position on healthcare reform.

Quit flaunting your ignorance.

[evagrius]

Edwards for Prez, Clinton for Secretary of State replacing Condi and Obama for Health/ Welfare.

That's the ticket that would win, with Edwards obtaining two strong allies, Clinton defining her foreign policy creds and Obama using his charm and abilities to push through real health care reform along with some social programs. Both allies would benefit also for the next elections.

That's the rational approach.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

I don't believe big business is all that concerned about "poor sweet chillen," but they sure as hell are concerned about their unit labor costs and right now healthcare costs are killing them. Business interests are not monolithic. There could be an opportunity to forge some alliances to get healthcare reform going, but the odds are much reduced if the President does not have a significant party advantage in Congress and is not seen as having a credible chance of being re-elected in 2012. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton will have long coat tails? Do you really believe that she would have a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected in 2012? I don't and I think most Republicans would feel the same way. Hillary being elected in 2008 is probably the only chance that the GOP has of becoming relevant in 2010 and 2012. That perception is what will doom her chances of passing meaningful healthcare reform.

[anne]

"Call the Chairman of GM and ask if he would like healthcare reform."

Power to them peoples, and all that jazz. Of course, there is evidence here, like, well, sort of, like well, the speeches of Martin Luther King are, like, evidence of what Martin Luther King liked. Me, I am ready to march with them GM-ers to healthcare for all them chillen.

Yeah, GM. Show me, all them frustrated GM marchers ever marchin' for our chillen. Remind me to buy another Prius. Power!

[Lafayette]

BW: I accept that both Clinton and Obama are practical politicians, who know perfectly well that they have more to fear from shadowy forces in Business and the corporate Media than they do from the idealism of Krugman.

Not at all

That comment IS a sad truth.

That vested interests can sway public opinion by manipulating the media, which in turns manipulates the vote.

Some call it "The dumbing down of America". And, politicians play it that way as well. Telling the voters what a spin-master's polling strategy says that they want to hear. (Aka pandering for votes.)

Ya pays for what ya gets. Insufficient investments in education inevitably come back to haunt in just the manner we observe today. One might expect an electorate to be intelligent, to vote according to the merits of a platform, the logic of a debate .... and yet that is not the way democracy works.

Not at all.

[Dickeylee]

Anne, health care "reform" to a capitalist such as GM or hell, even Toyota is to make their workers pay for their own health care completely, period. Bush is on TV this morning talking (if you call what he does talking) and gesturing about how consumers need to choose their own health care and leave poor 'ol big biznis alone. Give 'em a tax break! Tax breaks for all--at least all that itemize and file schedule C's anyway!

[Wowsas]

Bruce Wilder,

What poll numbers are you referring to? The ones showing that Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who consistently beats all of the top GOP contenders?

As for Edwards not winning North Carolina, you could try to be thoughtful and chalk that up to the fact that the Bush GOP had really consolidated the South with their revision of Nixon's Southern strategy, and also note that Kerry was leading the ticket. You could also mention the fact that none of the Democrats were projected to win NC. Or you could go one level deeper and talk about how exurban voters in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio are one key constituency in play this election cycle, and think about how an Edwards "populist" campaign might play into that, even while potentially losing states like NC and SC to the GOP.

Or you could stick with the same playbook we've been using for the last 4 presidential elections: maximize urban minority turnout, play to the "middle" by taking a position just to the left of GOP positions (poll tested!) on issues like social security, trade, and health care, and watch again as the Dems get creamed as the party of the "elites" despite consistently advocating policies more to the benefit of the masses.

[barry payne - economist]

Bruce's comments about regulators not able to regulate for lack of information and power could have been a page right out of the libertarian handbook ... therefore, don't regulate at all because it's worse than having any government participation at all.

It brings to mind why the concept of "creative destruction" is never applied politically to politicians the way it is to private industry, and the resounding answer is no, the Ralph Naders will never win because the entrenched corporations will always be with us to determine our political choices.

Social Security has been replaced by Wealth as the third rail of politics in a masterful transformation of "blame avoidance" to "credit claiming" by the Rubs and adopted by the Dims.

An interesting contrast appears for illustration in the industry response to climate change versus medical care.

A tipping point occurred recently in the acknowledgement of climate change when the industry came on board after realizing perception control was no longer possible.

Now it's reached the point to where some large companies advocate regulation. It makes sense - cooperation is perceived more costly, so let the government do it as long as private industry can still pull the levers behind the scene.

No such tipping point has occurred in the medical industry. No CEO has stepped forward to deliver the "overwhelming evidence" speech of a common threat which requires serious solutions by the government, in part because government is already heavily involved (... here come the libbys again, you idiot ... that's why there's a problem ...)

Instead, political issues of medical care still play well in the "decisions between you and your doctor, or perhaps your emergency room - but not government" dimension (except for abortion of course).

Wealth remains intact in both cases, i.e., either effective competition or regulation is kept at bay, regardless of what stage a "problem" is recognized because the problem is never wealth itself, or if it is, such claims are quickly tossed onto the trashheap of political irrelevance.

[donna]

The problem is Krugman is called "idealistic" when he is in fact the realist.

The idealism is in the belief that the free market solves everything and that supporting the interests of big business is what is best for the country.

Reality is that the government must support the people of the country, who can no longer afford to spend on the products of big business since their inflated assets are now crashing.

National healthcare and reducing the cost of care to the individual is about the only thing left to refloat the boats. Otherwise everyone's inheritances, retirement funds, and what remains of their salaries after paying for inflated food and energy costs that are not considered inflation by the government is going to be spent on just trying to stay healthy.

This is about keeping the consumer alive and off life support.

We're the only industrial nation that doesn't have some kind of national health care program. Why are we living in the last century while the rest of the world advances?

[Wowsas]

Also, to address the general point of this column, I think a lot of folks commenting would be surprised by how strongly "Big Business" would like to see change.

I'd actually say that in many cases, Obama is right: you do need to sit down with the businesses you're planning to regulate to come up with efficient regulations; you just need to make sure you do it with the clear purpose of the regulations you want as a non-negotiable factor (e.g., if reducing pollution is a goal, why not talk with industry experts about ways to efficiently reduce pollution, so long as the reduction of pollution does not get watered down?) But this should really be the case with incremental changes, which is not the case with health care, where sweeping changes are desired.

Obama seems clueless on this point. Basically, you have the large bulk of American business pushing for huge health care reform, and they'd be in favor of single payer, so long as the onus gets off of them. It's well recognized among any business that has US employees that the US system is onerous, bureaucratic, has poor coverage, and is prohibitively costly. On the other side, you have the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies who are making out like bandits. Their "expertise" here is anathema to the fundamental changes desired not only by the American people but to most of big business. The insurance cos and Big Pharma don't want to see anything but incremental changes.

[Joe]

Krugman has been relentless in his efforts to discredit Obama. Himself an anti-war commentator why would Krugman not mention (to my knowledge) anything about Hillary's Bush-like acts (from supporting Iraq war to supporting sanctions on Iran). Krugman's naivety seems to be spreading to the political arena, from the economic (recall his much-hyped, yet wrong, diagnosis of East Asian growth or his flip-flopping on the issue of free trade).

[Cynthia]

What Krugman is saying here sharply reminds me of what Texas populist Jim Hightower said not too long ago: "there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

Hate to say it, but Obama is looking more nad more like a dead armadillo with a yellow stripe running down his back...

Just hope (and pray) Krugman's message becomes a part of reality, not just mere fantasy!

Then maybe, just maybe there'll be real progress made towards ending what's been plaguing the US for far too long: "big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."

[Lafayette]

donna: Reality is that the government must support the people of the country

The reality is that the government, in a democracy, is a reflection of the electorate. If we've got a political class of nerds, it is because they were elected by nerds.

You may not like it, but complaining about the political system in a blog WILL NOT change its condition one iota. It's just blowing of steam when, in fact, the boiler needs a thorough overhaul.

As a concrete example: You don't like the way Income Inequality is ravaging America's social fabric? Then stop electing millionaires to the Senate ... there are 40 multimillionaires sitting there.

[calmo]

Thanks for this bakho:The Swift Boats are out there biding their time. as I see my 'torpedo' comment, even though "final stepped" (Imagine me! impersonating a robot, people!)" an all was itself torpedoed.
Dang...do I need to work in Notepad to keep a supply of ammunition like cm says?

[J]

I read in Jonathan Chait's book The Big Con that business initially supported the Clinton health plan in the early 90s but then withdrew that support because, if I remember correctly, of pressure from other parts of the Republican coalition. Not having looked into the matter further, I can't vouch for the truth of this claim.

[Holly W.]

How would business dump private insurance until the politicians take the lead? Very difficult.

Seems to me, business is waiting for Washington to take the lead, and Washington is waiting to be begged by business to do it. So it's a stalemate of sorts, and nothing happens. How do we get them to join hands and skip down the healthcare reform path side-by-side?

[anne]

Enough rubbish; we are told to visit the National Association of Manufacturers to find all the friendly chummy lovey-dovey health care for all marching and the first, the very first visit to the NAM is a typical horror story of the threat of Canadian health care. all Canadians are dying, dying dead, because they lack American health care.

This idea of business leadership to universal health care is rubbish. Enough.

http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc2.asp?CID=201545&DID=230037

[anne]

The idea that business leaders at General Motors are planning to throw themselves naked (yuch) from the balconies of the chambers of Congress because 47 million americans lack health care insurance is rubbish. This Republican Administration and the last Republican Congresses could not do enough for business, so enough lying about business leaders becoming the Martin Luther King's of health care rights.

[ilsm]

We need someone to inspire the nation, including the suffering top 1 percenters who according to Tax Foundation pay more taxes than the entire bottom 4 quintiles (80%), to 'bear any burden etc' to assure this nation survives as a democracy and is good for its citizens not solely its corporations.

Inspiration does not come from a compromiser.

Obama is no John Kennedy, I am not sure Edwards is.

Hillary is left in the dust in inspiring.

Some candidate must articulate that the government exists for the governed that is the lower 99%, different than the corporation, already run by the 1%, which exists for the owners.

The republicans think the government is a property based on money and the divine right of property wins out.......

[anne]

There will be a fierce political battle to gain universal health care, let alone to support other middle class social programs, and I am not interested in playing lovey-dovey with Republicans who can only about destroying middle class programs. The idea that John Edwards is scary to sweetie pie Republicans is comical. Time for Franklin Roosevelt, and so decent toughness.

[James Killus]

Rusty has a point about health care reform being good for business generally (albeit bad for the health care industry profits), and his other comments hint at the reasons why this is not a potent factor in the dispute.

But "offend the wrong politician and a business will suffer" is camoflage. At the decision making level in business, there is no difference between CEO and "politician." There are revolving doors in the regulatory agencies and within the class of political operatives that are now a plague upon the land, and they are all bound together by the ideology of Movement Conservativism. Anyone who speaks out of turn in this group will feel the consequences and no one wants to leave the shelter of the herd, lest the predators turn their sights on them.

I've heard it said that in 2008 the Democratic Party could run a garage door for President and win, and I suspect that the sentiment is true. So, first, remember that Obama passes the most important test: he's better than a garage door. More to the point, no Democrat would veto a bill pulling troops from Iraq, nor any bills reforming health care. So then it becomes a Congressional matter.

The second thing to remember is that Obama may well have simply decided that playing naive is the winning strategy this year. That would mean that his real policy objectives are not on display, and we do not know how he would react to the Right Wing Attack Machine if he were President. Perhaps he would simply send them to Guantanamo. I know that to be unlikely, but I'm a simple man with simple dreams.

[anne]

Nonsense; show us all the big business support for universal health care. Where is the support? We are waiting. Barack Obama has been threatening Social Security and threatening even modest health care reform, and I am not interested in wehter the threats are a pretense to show love for Republicans who have no love save for themselves, if even for themselves.

[Wowsas]

anne, i largely agree with you, but I think you're wrong here.

NAM is an easy one: their leadership is made up of wingnuts, a relic of the Republican Congress. I guarantee you that within one or two election cycles, they'll have new, slightly less reactionary (but still strongly Republican) leadership.

GM and Ford and Boeing and Microsoft's CEOs don't give a crap about the universality of health care. However, they do care immensely about the fact that under our current employer-based health care system, they're on the hook, and that this system is incredibly expensive.

And the reason that single payer is most preferable for them is that it takes health care off their books, not only for existing employees but for past employees that were promised lifetime health care.

If GM and Ford go bankrupt, a major contributing factor will be their health care obligations.

[anne]

Thank you, Wowsas, but we have completely forgotten the contracts that GM and Ford have just negotiated with the United Auto Workers which essentially sheds company responsibility for health care. What concern the automakers may have had for universal health care insurance is now gone, and I am told by labor specialists that the UAW administered health care pool will give a financial incentive to the union not to push for universal health care.

What I will do is ask expressly about business concerns, but all I find are rumors and never evidence of concern. Notice I agree business would gain significantly, so the lack of push puzzles me.

I promise to discuss the issue.

[T-Bone]

I think people are taking Obama's messages the wrong way.

People say Obama wants to be a uniter, and they seem to believe this means compromising and taking the middle ground on issues. But that's not the message I see.

Obama talks about ending devisive politics. To me, he's talking about being civil. He's talking about not attacking or mudslinging, but just being open, honest, and transparent. He just wants to be pragmatic. That means finding the best solutions through careful consideration, without having to play politics.

When he says he wants to bring everyone to the table, it doesn't mean he's inviting the lobbyists to write legislation to screw everyone else. I think it means that he wants to lay things out on the table, open for everyone to see and comment on, rather than having backroom private deals and political jockeying and backscratching.

If the lobbyists don't want to cooperate, and instead insist on something that is clearly only good for them and not the public, Obama wants to inform the nation through television. Krugman sarcasticly questions whether that would leave the lobbyists fearful. Well I think informing the public of the policy issue in question, clearly and honestly, and why he disagrees with the lobbyists would certainly help sway public opinion to his favor.

Look, right now, most people only hear one side of an issue without hearing any mention of downsides and caveats, and usually it's full of hyperbole, rhetoric, grandstanding, and demogogary. People who know anything about the subject are aware that they haven't heard all the facts. Even if they don't know anything, they are likely to be skeptical hearing such a fantastic tale of sounds-flawless policy.

I think Obama wants to educate the public on the issues, let them take the same path as he does to come to the same conclusion. This is different than what is normally done, which is to act over the heads of the public, and then only give them the talking points and dumbed-down rhetoric.

We need the public to be educated on the issues. But the lobbyists need us to be uninformed, finnicky, and swayed by the nice-sounding soundbites. They need the truth to be unclear so that politicians are forced to compromise good policy away into the policy that has been pushed by various groups into being politically popular policy.

So be careful to not misconstrue what Obama is doing.

[Devang]

Medicare/Medicaid does need to be fully funded first before it's even remotely offered to a wider population. If containing defense spending, stopping the war and rolling back the Bush tax cuts doesn't fully balance the budget and there is a sizable Republican minority as united as the one elected now, little is going to get done. Not by Edwards, Clinton or Obama. Significant reform is going to take good majorities in both houses, but hey, at least they're all for public financing.

I can't fathom public opinion somehow shifting towards the health care industry, so it comes down to congress as it did last time. Voting for Iraq does disqualify you, unless you could magically build 2/3's congressional majorities for your current plan.

[anne]

"Medicare/Medicaid does need to be fully funded first before it's even remotely offered to a wider population."

Medicare/Medicaid can be fully funded in a moment and for a pittance, truly a pittance, compared with the fully funded $700 billion we are this year spending on the military or the $200 billion on the forever occupatio of and war in Iraq. Heck, simply stop the needless subsidizing of private insurance plans for Medicare and allow for Medicare drug price negotiation, and add to Medicaid accounting-monitoring staffs, and there is no problem for years to come.

[James Killus]

I'll believe that Obama can manage to make the debate "civil" when I stop hearing radio talk shows call him "Barack Osama."

It's said that it takes two to make a fight, which is very true. If one of them doesn't fight, it's just a beating.

[calmo]

So clobbersome today is James Killus.
..and if that ain't the truth: we's taken such a beatin from our paid help, the press.
Again, you don't suppose it's half deliberate --those participatory rates?
Will the $5 contributions continue to swell Obama's campaign financing...or wazat enlistment of those advisors something of a cap on the enthusiasm from that quarter? [Can we have the breakdown of that non-participatory segment by income?] (Among the press, would you be flabbergasted by over or under representation in this non-participatory group?)
How much beatin on the still voting public will it take before it is announced that democracy is so yesterday? [Why would they ever announce it?]

[Bruce Wilder]

Matthew Yglesias sums up the dilemma of Obama interpretation very well, and provides links to pro-Obama positions.

The comments on young Yglesias' note are also fun.

[calmo]

From Mathew (following Bruce's link...looking for fun, you?), the student of philosophy people...and maybe more, [of BDL (who hangs onto Yglesias as if he were bakho, you know?)] ...maybe less) I'll admit that I liked Obama from before I ever heard a word from him about politics or policy,.. so it was the pre-sentient period when the sound "Obama" was equivalent to "Hope" and maybe the sound of heavenly bells.
The marketeers know all about this period...dang.

[Farrar Richardson]

Anne -

"The idea that business leaders at General Motors are planning to throw themselves naked (yuch) from the balconies"

That's about enough of those sexist comments!

[DJM]

T-Bone said; "I think Obama wants to educate the public on the issues...."
I believe it is a good idea too, but easier said than done, just ask any teacher.

[anne]

Farrar:

"That's about enough of those sexist comments!"

Yes; I agree, when I wrote the line I can assure you I had no naked balcony jumping women in mind.

[DJM]

One of the problems with educating the public on anything (even if someone could manage to do so in a way everyone could accept as unbiased)...it is very time consuming and giving both the pros and cons each step of the way will often be considered weak and indecisive instead of intelligent and thorough(by certain personality types). Another problem is the way people "hear" a debate... they remember things very differently according to what they already believe. Try discussing politics with someone you know and love, who has a completely different opinion on something and see how quickly you get frustrated (or even disgusted)....now imagine a room full of people you don't even respect or like....

[DJM]

Perhaps to be politically correct, I should have said a room full of people you don't ALREADY have a reason to like and respect. Maybe even people who are rude, argumentative and deliberately misunderstand every thing you say. You need more than HOPE to make progress with a bunch like that.

[anne]

Again, we find this very day, George Bush and Senate Republicans have gained every item sought in the budget, and surpressed all they wished to surpress. So, we have a $700 billion military budget, with $200 billion for the endless tragic insanity of Iraq and Afghanistan and nothing for the health care of needy children.

I am just not interested in compromise with Republicans, since compromise means Republicans gain precisely what they want over an over and over. I am interested in political battling, and not in getting along.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

If you want to battle Republicans, then you better hope Hillary is not the Democratic nominee because you won't be armed with the key political weapons; viz., a large congressional majority and fear. Polls show Hillary has no coat tails and with her at the top of the ticket the Dems probably won't pick-up as many Senate seats as they should. That would leave the door open for the GOP to retake effective control of the Senate in 2010. And the polls also show that she is the only Dem who barely beats the Republicans...yesterday's Gallup poll showed her tied with Rudy. That's not a good omen for 2012 and the GOP knows it. The GOP will not fear Hillary and will treat her as a lame duck from day one. Any other conclusion strkes me as hopelessly naive.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/interesting-obama-history/

December 19, 2007

Interesting Obama History
By Paul Krugman

I’ve been alerted to an interesting Boston Globe article * about Barack Obama’s role, when he was in the Illinois legislature, in the attempt to get the state committed to universal health care. It turns out that the story very much prefigures the debates we’re having right now.

"Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.

"During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had 'worked diligently with the insurance industry,' as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation’s reach and noted that the bill had undergone a 'complete restructuring' after industry representatives “legitimately” raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.

“ 'The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry,' Obama said, according to the session transcript."

To be fair, the piece also says this:

"During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of “fear-mongering” by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover."

This story gives a lot of context to the debate over health reform now. Obama clearly sees himself playing the same role as president that he did as a state legislator — as a broker among groups, including the insurance industry, as someone who can find a compromise solution that’s acceptable to a wide range of opinion.

My thoughts: being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren’t like the national Republican party, 2009 won’t be 2003, and the insurance industry’s opposition to national health reform — which must, if it is to mean anything, strike deep at the industry’s fundamental business — will be much harsher than its opposition to a basically quite mild state-level reform effort.

The point is that if national health reform is going to happen, it will be as the result of a no-holds-barred fight of an entirely different order from what Obama saw in Illinois. The president’s role will have to be far more confrontational, involve far more twisting of arms and rallying of the public against the special interests, than Obama’s role as a state legislator in the Illinois case. And it will take place against a backdrop of fierce attacks not just from the industry but from Republicans who fear, rightly, that any kind of reform will move the country in a more liberal direction.

My worries about Obama are that he doesn’t seem to understand this — that he thinks that in 2009, as president, he can broker a national health care reform the same way that as a state legislator, in 2003, he brokered a deal that mollified the insurance industry. That’s a recipe for getting nowhere.

* http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=full

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/interesting-obama-history/

December 19, 2007

Interesting Obama History
By Paul Krugman

I've been alerted to an interesting Boston Globe article * about Barack Obama's role, when he was in the Illinois legislature, in the attempt to get the state committed to universal health care. It turns out that the story very much prefigures the debates we're having right now.

"Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.

"During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had 'worked diligently with the insurance industry,' as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation's reach and noted that the bill had undergone a 'complete restructuring' after industry representatives "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.

" 'The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry,' Obama said, according to the session transcript."

To be fair, the piece also says this:

"During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of 'fear-mongering' by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover."

This story gives a lot of context to the debate over health reform now. Obama clearly sees himself playing the same role as president that he did as a state legislator — as a broker among groups, including the insurance industry, as someone who can find a compromise solution that's acceptable to a wide range of opinion.

My thoughts: being president isn't at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren't like the national Republican party, 2009 won't be 2003, and the insurance industry's opposition to national health reform — which must, if it is to mean anything, strike deep at the industry's fundamental business — will be much harsher than its opposition to a basically quite mild state-level reform effort.

The point is that if national health reform is going to happen, it will be as the result of a no-holds-barred fight of an entirely different order from what Obama saw in Illinois. The president's role will have to be far more confrontational, involve far more twisting of arms and rallying of the public against the special interests, than Obama's role as a state legislator in the Illinois case. And it will take place against a backdrop of fierce attacks not just from the industry but from Republicans who fear, rightly, that any kind of reform will move the country in a more liberal direction.

My worries about Obama are that he doesn't seem to understand this — that he thinks that in 2009, as president, he can broker a national health care reform the same way that as a state legislator, in 2003, he brokered a deal that mollified the insurance industry. That's a recipe for getting nowhere.

* http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=full