Joe Klein is in a panic. "I am really growing concerned about the sloppiness of this Administration," he frets in a Time.com post today. It follows up on a post Tuesday in which he bemoans what the headline calls the "incompetence" of the ObamaCare implementation effort:
Let me try to understand this: the key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care superstores--called exchanges. The Administration has had three years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so.This is a really bad sign. There will be those who argue that it's not the Administration's fault. It's the fault of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. Nonsense. Where was the contingency planning?At this point we had planned a glorious I-told-you-so--a merciless mockery of Klein for having been a cheerleader for ObamaCare and only now having come to see what was obvious to the rest of us at the time. If you want to read such a column, we recommend the one from Sept.�10, 2010, on Klein's colleague Mark Halperin. For it turns out that unlike Halperin, Klein told you so too.
Enlarge Image
Close Associated PressJoe Klein: Be afraid.
Klein did, like Halperin, get the short-term politics of ObamaCare wrong, writing on March�4, 2010, that "if it passes--contrary to the conventional wisdom--it will work to the Democrats' advantage." He also made the obligatory denunciations of Republicans, whose "position on health care has been outrageous. The party's real goal has been to stop any and all legislation for political reasons--to deny Obama a major victory."
That's a perverse complaint. Politicians are supposed to be motivated by politics. Journalists are not. It is perverse for Klein to have rooted for an admittedly bad bill to become law in order to see the president triumph over the opposition.
On the merits, though, Klein was a strong critic of ObamaCare, which he faulted for its "cataclysmic inelegance .�.�. caused in large part by the President's promise that the current, hopelessly complicated system would remain the same for the 80% of the public that's satisfied with the insurance it has." (He did not point out, as other ObamaCare critics did, that that promise would be impossible to fulfill.)
On May�6, 2010, Klein made a more general critique of the Democratic Party, one that his current pieces echo. "Democrats tend to be more interested in legislating than in managing," he wrote:
They come to office filled with irrational exuberance, pass giant fur balls of legislation--stuff that often sounds fabulous, in principle--and expect a stultified bureaucracy, bereft of the incentives and punishments of the private sector, to manage it all with the efficiency of a bounty hunter. This has always been the strongest conservative argument against government activism. Traditionally, Republicans were more concerned with good management than Democrats--until the Reagan era, when the "government is the problem" mantra took hold. If you don't believe in government, you don't bother much with governing efficiently.The claim that Republicans "don't believe in government" is a straw man, one we wish were closer to the truth than it is. The lone example Klein cited is the appointment of an allegedly incompetent man to head a federal agency during the Bush administration. But Republicans during the Bush administration certainly did not govern as if they didn't "believe in government," or even as if they believed government should be smaller. Spending went up and up, and 2003 saw the creation of a massive new entitlement, Medicare Part D.
There's also something odd about the way Klein framed the problem. Democrats and Republicans, he suggested, give short shrift to managerial effectiveness for opposite reasons: Democrats because they're more concerned about increasing the size of government, Republicans because they're (supposedly) more interested in reducing it.
But actually that's the same reason: Both parties are more interested in what government should do than in how it should do it. Even if Republicans on the whole haven't actually been determined to shrink government--and we should note that isn't as true as it used to be, thanks to the Tea Party movement--they at least differ with Democrats over how fast and how big it should grow. Whereas every Republican voted against ObamaCare because it was too big, most Democrats voted against Medicare Part D because it was too small.
What Klein wishes for is a division of labor in which the two parties would cooperate to make government bigger. He'd like the Republicans to reinvent themselves as a nonideological party devoted to effective management, which would allow the Democrats to focus on expanding government. In such a world, Democrats would face no serious resistance to their legislative efforts, and there would be less risk of ObamaCare-style failures because the elephants' job would be to clean up after the donkeys.
On this part of the argument, however, Klein's thinking seems to be changing without his being completely aware of it. This is the conclusion of his "ObamaCare's incompetence" post yesterday:
One thing is clear: Obamacare will fail if [the president] doesn't start paying more attention to the details of implementation, if he doesn't start demanding action. And, in a larger sense, the notion of activist government will be in peril--despite the demographics flowing the Democrats' way--if institutions like the VA and Obamacare don't deliver the goods. Sooner or later, the Republican Party may come to understand that its best argument isn't about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.Sooner or later, the Democrats may come to understand that making it run efficiently is the prerequisite for maintaining power.Klein is experiencing some cognitive dissonance, isn't he? "The notion of activist government will be in peril," he says in one breath. Well, no wonder he's panicked! But in the next breath he reassures himself that the Republicans will eventually come to their senses, embrace managerialism, and who knows, maybe even save ObamaCare.
Assuming that by "activist government" Klein means government of large and growing size and scope--we can imagine a government that is at once limited and "activist," but we doubt Klein can--it seems to us that it is indeed likely to be increasingly imperiled. Klein should be filled with dread, not just panic, because the peril comes from a much more formidable source than the Republican Party: reality itself. And it's not only ObamaCare that's in danger but the entire post-New Deal welfare state.
The New York Times's Jackie Calmes, surprisingly enough, shines a flashlight at the problem in a story titled "Misperceptions of Benefits Make Trimming Them Harder":
President Obama had Senate Republicans nodding in agreement during a recent ice-breaking dinner as he described a basic problem for the nation's fiscal future: For each dollar that Americans pay for Medicare, they ultimately draw about $3 in benefits. What's more, he added, most people do not understand that.By his point that evening, the president was referring to the widespread and incorrect view, especially among older Americans, that Medicare recipients get only what they have paid for through taxes, premiums and medical co-payments. Now that misperception is making it all the harder for politicians to consider trimming those benefits or raising out-of-pocket expenses as they seek to restrain Medicare spending that is rising unsustainably while baby boomers age and medical prices increase.This problem didn't begin with Obama, and you can't even blame George W. Bush: "The idea among Americans that they get back what they paid for, with some rate of return, dates to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's legislative marketing of Social Security nearly 80 years ago."
As future Enron adviser Paul Krugman noted in 1996, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. Politicians have conned workers into thinking of their payroll taxes as an investment and their future benefits as an asset that belongs to them. In reality, the government pays out benefits by taxing current workers and borrowing money--effectively a tax on future workers.
Like any Ponzi scheme, such a system is sustainable only as long as the number of suckers--sorry, workers--continues to grow and the number of beneficiaries doesn't grow too quickly.
In that sense, the demographic trends of the middle third of the 20th century were quite lucky. The baby boom provided a massive number of new workers, starting around the mid-1960s, to support generations of retirees whose numbers had been diminished by two world wars. The effect of the baby boom was magnified by the rise of feminism, as women's participation in the labor force exploded, rising, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, from 37.7% in 1960 to 60.2% in 2000. (During the same period, the male rate declined from 83.3% to 74.7%.)
The abundance of workers paying payroll taxes made it possible to keep the pyramid going and to provide ever more generous benefits to the baby boomers' progenitors. But the blessing of the baby boom is in the process of becoming a curse. Yesterday's army of workers is tomorrow's army of beneficiaries. Baby boomers were far less fertile than their parents, in part because women were focusing on commercial work at the expense of home and hearth. That compounds both problems: those women are now among the retirees due benefits in their own right, and the children they forwent are not among the workers paying taxes to support them.
How this all turns out is anyone's guess, and it's possible to imagine a scenario in which it ends well. Perhaps, for instance, robotics will provide a (literal) deus ex machina, increasing productivity so much that the needs of the elderly can be provided for by a relatively small workforce. But to be honest, you'd have to give us pretty long odds to get us to take that bet.
Barring such a miracle, it seems clear that both the current entitlement state and the current ideological division between the parties are unsustainable over the long term. The best-case outcome would seem to involve the emergence of some sort of consensus for smaller government, exactly the prospect that has Klein panicked. But while the Republicans have moved in this direction, so far the Democrats seem convinced that their short-term political interests are best served by a resolute defense of the status quo.
They have good reason to be convinced of that. Voters who've been promised government benefits are going to be furious when the government is unable to deliver, and it's rational for each party to attempt to direct that blame at the other one. But this leaves the possibility that the nation's finances will collapse in a convulsive crisis. Regardless of your views about the ideal size and scope of government, that prospect is cause for dread.
Two Political 'Strategists' in One!
- "We [baby boomers] took to the streets, chanting 'Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,' and won that right for generations to come. Eighteen was a magic number back then--draft, drink and vote. You've got that vote. Treasure it. Use it. We didn't know it back then, but you are the hope 'we were looking forward to' and 'you are the hope of our most treasured future.' The next step--the next vote--has to be yours."--Donna Brazile (addressing young voters), CNN.com, Oct.�29, 2010
- "Choosing a life partner requires a maturity and self-awareness that I can't imagine more than a small fraction of college students have."--Brazile, CNN.com, April�2, 2013
Fox Butterfield, Is That You? "[Gov. Pat] Quinn's office argues that the business tax breaks are outdated and should be repealed to bring in much-needed revenue for the state, which continues to face budget struggles despite a major income tax increase put in place two years ago."--Monique Garcia, Chicago Tribune, April�4
We Blame George W. Bush "Cancer Clinics Are Turning Away Thousands of Medicare Patients. Blame the Sequester."--headline, Washington Post website, April�3
'You're Likable Enough, Hillary' "New Research Shows Success Doesn't Make Women Less Likable"--headline, Harvard Business Review website, April�4
Is That Anything Like Jenjis Khan? "Kerry Reiterates US Apology Over Tubbataha"--headline, Philippine Star, April�4
'These Tunes Will Blow Your Mind, Man' "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Warns of Deep Cuts"--headline, Omaha World-Herald, April�3
It's a Cookbook "Meghan McCain Wants You to Stop 'Cannibalizing' Her 'Out of the Party'�"--headline, DailyCaller.com, April�4
Somebody Alert Accounts Payable "Bills Receiver Wants North Korea to Bomb Foxborough"--headline, Boston magazine website, April�4
You Can't Read a Bullet "Anti-Gun Democrat Can't Tell a Bullet from a Magazine"--headline, GOPUSA.com, April�4
His 69 Years, 364 Days, 23 Hours and 45 Minutes Are Up "William H. Ginsburg, Lawyer for Monica Lewinsky During Clinton Sex Scandal, Dies in LA at 70"--headline, Associated Press, April�3
If So, Get Ready for Some Hot Affirmative Action "Is the Porn Industry Racist?"--headline, TheRoot.com, April�3
Let's Hope It's a Snickers, Not a Milky Way "Hungry Black Hole Wakes Up for Planet-Sized Snack"--headline, Agence France-Presse, April�2
They're Switching to Appletinis "Scientists Find Hint of Dark Matter From Cosmos"--headline, Associated Press, April�3
Sauce for the Gander "Ryan Gosling Stands Up for Cows to Milk Producers"--headline, Associated Press, April�3
Why Did the Pig Cross the Road? Mistaken Identity.
- "Pig Mistaken for Dead Body, Officials Say"--headline, Austin American-Statesman website, April�2
- "Pig Found in Southeast Austin Turns Out to Be a Dog"--headline, Austin American-Statesman website, April�3
Hey, Kids! What Time Is It? "Time to Dry Out!"--headline, KDFW-TV website, April�4
Questions Nobody Is Asking
- "For Whom Does the Colbert Bump, Bump?"--headline, NationalJournal.com, April�4
- "Chris Matthews: Is 'Wife Beating' Something 'Women Really Worry About?' (VIDEO)"--headline, Puffington Host, April�4
Man Has Baby--That Alone Would Be News "2 New York Brothers Have Babies 82 Minutes Apart"--headline, Associated Press, April�4
Too Much Information "$423,500 Stimulus Program on 'Correct Condom Use' Yields Zero Jobs"--headline, TheWeeklyStandard.com, April�4
All Mimsy Were the Borogoves "In Wake of Bitcoin Spike, Instawallet Halts Service and Mt. Gox 'Eats' DDOS"--headline, ArsTechnica.com, April�3
News You Can Use
- "At 6 Months, Babies Are as Good at Telling Apart Monkeys as You Are at Telling Apart People"--headline, Slate.com, April�3
- "It's a Crime for 12-Year-Olds to Read the New York Times Online"--headline, TheAtlanticWire.com, April�3
Thank You for Smoking National Journal's Ron Fournier, the inventor of "accountability journalism," bravely speaks truth to power in a profile of Rep. Scott Rigell, a Virginia Republican:
I didn't know it at the time but I had happened to catch Rigell at his career's most important hour, precisely as he sought to extricate himself from a political vise. On the federal budget and guns, Rigell stayed true to his conservative roots but had the uncommon audacity to insist upon facts, reason, and common sense.And for that, he was punished.This column is not just about Rigell. This one House member's tale is sadly emblematic of what ails Washington today: hyper-partisanship in politics and new media; powerful and unaccountable interest groups; vast amounts of undocumented money; and a Congress corrupted by the system.�.�.�.Rigell holds a quaint view that, until the recent past, was universally accepted in Washington. "He is," Rigell said, "my president."�.�.�."I cannot serve nor can I lead by fear," Rigell told me this week. "At some point, I will be making my last ride home from Washington. I don't know when that will be, but I have got to know that I've done all I could to get this country on the right path." This is the modest goal of a modest man stuck in a system that punishes common sense.We just hope Fournier was outdoors when he wrote this article. Otherwise, it's such a puff piece it surely would have violated the District of Columbia's smoking ban.
Follow us on Twitter.
Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.
Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Reggie Thorn, Brooks Mick, Eric Jensen, Ed Lasky, Mark Hendershot, Edward Kohler, Tim Downey, Michele Schiesser, Miguel Rakiewicz, Richard Davis, Jeryl Bier, John Bobek, Dave Mason, Sean Kelly, Michael Driscoll, Irene DeBlasio, Wesley Hartine, Zack Russ, Kyle Kyllan, John Walley, John Williamson, Albert Stern, Bob Schaffner, Abraham Oseroff, Kevin McNally, Richard Belzer and Joe Tobin. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
No comments:
Post a Comment