President Obama went up to Capitol Hill Wednesday to counsel congressional Democrats on how to save Obamacare. Or at least that’s how his visit was billed.

But to judge from the responses of some of the Democrats, his advice was typical of the approach he’s taken to legislation in his eight years as president. Which is to say, disengaged, above the fray, detached from any detailed discussion of how legislation actually works.

He was “very nostalgic,” said Louise Slaughter, ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. But, she added, he left it up to Hill Democrats to come up with a strategy to protect Obamacare.

This is in line with the standoffish relations Obama has had with members of Congress, even with Democrats who are inclined to be and capable of being helpful. Schmoozing with those he gives the impression of regarding as his inferiors has not been his style.

Nor has he ever seemed interested in the content of laws, even his trademark healthcare legislation. His February 2010 decision to move forward on Obamacare despite the election of Republican Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts meant accepting a bill with multiple flaws, many of them glaringly visible after passage.

But policy just wasn’t his thing. And isn’t now. At the Hill meeting Obama, according to Massachusetts Democrat Bill Keating, was “basically saying let’s not get down into policy language.” The key word there may be “down.”

The problem with this approach has been apparent since the 9 o’clock hour on the evening of election day when it became clear that Donald Trump was going to be elected president. In 2010 Obama assumed there would always would be a Democratic Congress to repair any glitches in Obamacare. In 2016 he assumed that there would be a President Hillary Clinton to keep his pen-and-phone regulations and “guidances” in place.

Now Obama is thrashing around trying to keep his policies in place. But more than in any of the other eight changes of parties in the last 80 years, they’re in danger of being overturned.

One reason is that they were never firmly established in the first place. And not just because the Democrats’ 60-vote Senate supermajority existed for only eight months, from July 2009 to February 2010. Rather, the Obama Democrats’ policies, passed through slapdash legislation or through questionably legal regulations, never really captured the hearts and minds of the American people.

Former Joint Chiefs boss thanks intel community for 'hard, thankless work'

Also from the Washington Examiner

“Fortunately, we have dedicated, patriotic, and courageous men and women on the job.”

01/06/17 12:28 AM

Obamacare was based on the shaky premise that mandating often expensive and limited-choice health insurance would be seen as guaranteeing good healthcare. As a result, as historian Walter Russell Mead writes, “it did not generate enough public support to protect itself from its opponents.”

Regulations imposed on coal and other fossil fuel production, imposed after Democrats even with supermajorities failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, failed to impress a population that did not share liberal elites’ faith that climate change was certain to produce catastrophe.

And regulations legalizing literally millions of illegal immigrants have failed to pass muster in federal courts, thanks to legal maneuverings as sloppy as the legislative legerdemain that shoved through Obamacare.

Public policies prove to be enduring when they address what people regard as genuine needs and thus create constituencies which politicians do not dare to defy. Social Security’s old age benefits are a prime example. You can jigger the taxes and benefits, as a bipartisan majority did in 1983, but voters who believe they paid for their benefits will insist they not be taken away.

Policies that induce long-term reliance also tend to endure, a prime example being the home mortgage interest deduction. There’s a good argument that this policy, like the Social Security benefit formula, unduly benefits the affluent. But that argument doesn’t move most voters.

John Fetterman is the kind of Democrat a Trump voter can love

Also from the Washington Examiner

A social liberal who doesn’t mind wielding a 20-guage shotgun when necessary.

01/06/17 12:16 AM

In my view, Obama owed his election and re-election to the feeling, widely shared by Americans including many who didn’t vote for him, that it would be a good thing for Americans to elect a black president.

What they didn’t expect, but got, was a president who governed according to the playbook of campus liberals, imposing — or attempting to impose — policies which he believed would be good for people: government by the faculty lounge.

This was governance that was both inattentive to detail and law and also out of touch with how policies affect people’s lives. Which is why so many of these policies seem headed for the ash heap of history.

GOP brass to House Republicans — Don't make us call dad!

Top Story

Ryan can get help corralling his fractious caucus from an unlikely source: Trump

01/06/17 12:01 AM

Source link

About the Author:

Leave a Reply