Obama’s lost year

Published Sunday, 20 December 2009 7:01PM CST by in Politics

0

Bailout FAILSo, a lot of us way out here on the left got caught up in the emotion of Obama’s oratory and sloganeering. He couldn’t have been clearer:

“Barack Obama will refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. He has a comprehensive strategy to succeed in Afghanistan with at least two more U.S. combat brigades, more resources and training for the Afghan Army, and a comprehensive development strategy.”

That’s one campaign promise he’s kept, and we should have been paying closer attention back then. Okay, we’ll accept responsibility for that one.

But how do you explain Obama’s failure to follow through on his other campaign promises:

The campaign promises Obama has kept are perhaps important, but took almost no effort and are rather miniscule. He asked business, government, and the citizenry to conserve electricity. And he asked that water be conserved in the West. Big deal. While he promised, and followed through on, a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, it can’t be called successful. Nor can his credit card bill of rights. Obama did reverse the Bush attempts to prevent presidential records from being released.

There are more of the relatively small, cheap things that he’s also failed at keeping faith with. Double federal support for after school programs, for example. And supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and failing to support medical marijuana.

I don’t think this is change we can believe in. And US presidents don’t get a lost year. Obama has a year to turn this around and I really hope he can do it.

But what’s worse is Obama is now flat-out lying about his policies, specifically healthcare reform. “Every healthcare economist out there” almost certainly doesn’t agree that the Senate bill uses “whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve.” The only way to contain healthcare costs in the current legislative climate was with a competitive public option and everyone either knows it or should know it. And mandatory private health insurance without a balancing robust public option is a clear gift to the insurance cartel, plain and simple.

Look closely at the latest CNN poll (.pdf; 213KB) canvassing 1,041 adult citizens between December 2-3, 2009. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percent. Here’s the public option question:

“Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”

Favor Oppose Not sure
All 59% 31% 10%
Men 54% 36% 10%
Women 64% 26% 10%
Democrats 88% 9% 3%
Republicans 24% 64% 12%
Independents 57% 29% 14%
Other 56% 31% 13%
White 54% 39% 7%
Black 77% 7% 16%
Latino 68% 13% 19%
Other 71% 12% 17%
18-29 72% 21% 7%
30-44 51% 37% 12%
45-59 67% 23% 10%
60+ 49% 42% 9%
Northeast 73% 17% 10%
South 45% 43% 12%
Midwest 62% 29% 9%
West 61% 31% 8%

Please, someone—anyone—tell me where I can get a deal like this: 30-40 million new customers, mandated by law, with no competition and no regulation. I don’t even have dreams that good. Remember, Obama campaigned against mandatory health insurance. Maybe the teabaggers are right: Keep your change.

0 responses. Comments closed for this article.