The President's New 'Best Friends'

Obama's New 'Best Friends' - Page 1 - The Daily Beast

Fifty percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s health-care
efforts to date, compared to 44 percent who approve—echoing the 55 percent who
disapprove of Obama’s handling of the federal deficit

.......

This should be a wakeup call for both the Obama administration and
congressional Democrats. But the only people who seem to be listening
are the Blue Dog Democrats, and a small bipartisan group of Senate
centrists.
Attacked as villains by liberals and accused of slowing down the
legislation’s passage, they are the unsung heroes of health-care reform. They
are not trying to kill Obama’s initiative; they are trying to save
it.

........

They may be the only ones in Washington taking President Obama at his word
that any health-care plan must be deficit neutral. House Democrats took a hit
when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the liberal plan would add
billions of new annual costs to the current system. Congressman Charles Rangel’s
(D-NY) proposed surcharge tax on top earners likewise ran counter to desired
narratives when it became evident that it meant the top combined tax rate in
states like New York and California could approach 60 percent, feeding into
Republican campaign-era claims about Obama’s incipient socialism. Centrists helped kill the surcharge and expanded the number of small
businesses that would be exempted from providing compulsory coverage. And a
proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board would establish a bipartisan
framework to recommend "entitlement" overhaul savings that would be presented to
the president directly, helping achieve the promised deficit
reduction.+


But perhaps the most significant contribution of this centrist
coalition to the health-care debate might be the replacement of the
controversial “public option” with a nonprofit private cooperative plan, based
on American models that have existed at the community level for decades. This
simple switch would single-handedly defang conservative fear-mongering about the
national socialization of health
care. It would likewise achieve many of the practical goals
of the public option, without acquiescing to the larger ideological goal
advanced by liberals. This should be considered a clear win-win
proposition.

.......With a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate and a
256-seat majority in the House, it's no wonder that some liberal Democrats want
to flex their legislative muscle with a partisan bill that ignores the need to
reach out to the center. But they would be giving into the same hyper-partisan
temptations that led to the repudiation of Tom DeLay’s conservative Congress. It
might be emotionally satisfying, but it's bad long-term
politics.
They should also be chastened by a look at American
history. Every major entitlement expansion or overhaul in the past enjoyed broad
bipartisan support. FDR’s Social Security Act earned the support of 81 House
Republicans and 16 GOP senators. LBJ’s expansions in 1965 had the support of 70
House Republicans and 16 Senate Republicans. Even the Newt Gingrich-led 1996
Welfare reform enjoyed the support of 101 Democratic votes.
To have as
historically significant and difficult a piece of legislation as health-care
reform pass only along party lines would not only undercut Obama’s centrist
appeals, it would constitute a considerable long-term practical obstacle to the
legislation’s implementation. It would make health-care reform a lasting
political division.