The Cheery Journal
Sometimes I wonder how much of the “change we need” an Obama administration would really be able to deliver. But whenever one’s feeling pessimistic about such matters, there’s The Wall Street Journal editorial page which has been “warning” lately that an Obama administration would do all kinds of stuff.
Grist’s Kate Shepard reads on editorial:
The Wall Street Journal spazzes out about Obama adviser Jason Grumet’s assertion that a President Obama would fight climate change under the Clean Air Act if Congress doesn’t move to address the issue within 18 months. Obama, the paper fears, would wield the EPA’s “so-called ‘endangerment finding’ on carbon … as a political bludgeon” and allow the EPA to move forward with a “unilateral carbon crackdown.” “That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress,” writes the editorial board.
John Quiggin reads another editorial:
However, there’s a case for a much more optimistic view. Given a supermajority in the Senate, or even a win that’s near enough, with some RINO support to override Republican filibusters, some widely respected analysts are predicting marvellous things from Obama including:
- Medicare for all
- Serious financial reregulation
- Union rights
- Ending tax cuts for the rich
- A green ‘revolution’
- Voting rights for all, including DC
In the light of the lame record of the last congress, and of the Democratic Congresses in the 90s, this might seem unlikely. But an article I’ve just read points to a string of quite radical measures passed by the House in the last Congress and blocked only by the filibuster. Furthermore, as the writer observes the conversion of Southern Democrats into Republicans since the 90s means that most Democrats will hold the line on issues like health care.
All in all, it’s given me more cause for optimism than anything I’ve read for a while.
The catch is, of course, that it’s an editorial in the Wall Street Journal aimed at scaring Republican readers into going to the polls.
I think we can be fairly certain that no “Medicare for all” bill will be forthcoming. But as for the rest . . . I suppose it’s possible.
23 Responses to “The Cheery Journal”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hell, what about Puerto Rican statehood?
October 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hell, what about Puerto Rican statehood?
If the Democrats break 60 and take the White House, PR and DC should be the very first item of business. The only thing better than having 60 seats is 62, and the only thing better than 62 is 64.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
While Obamabots are at it, they might as well outlaw goatfucking. I want to see the boys at the Corner drown in a sea of self-immolating rage.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Yes, with Radio Tirana — always a good lift when I was down as a kid — gone we’re just left with the WSJ editorial page.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Until Puerto Rico asks for statehood, it’d be more premature than progressive. Unless we want to revoke their commonwealth status and force them to choose between independence and statehood, they don’t seem interested. This is the trouble with making taxation and representation a package deal.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“I know it is hard to believe, it’s hard to fathom — but this is ‘mission accomplished’ for them,” she asserts. “They want Americans to continue to have no choice other than to drive everywhere and move out to far-flung exurbia. They want Americans to pay jumbo mortgates for homes in valueless, futureless exurban neighborhoods, to live in gigantic McMansions, [and] drive gas guzzlers to their low-wage, non-unionized service sector jobs. That’s the conservative vision for America.”
October 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’m probably being too cynical, but my first reaction to “…a string of quite radical measures passed by the House in the last Congress and blocked only by the filibuster” was to wonder if the Dem leadership had been counting on those filibusters to make them look good to their base while maintaining their fealty to their financial overlords.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This reminds me of an old joke…
Two Israeli Jewish men are chatting. The first says, “I’ve stopped reading Ha’aretz, the Israeli newspaper. Now I only read the Palestinian dailies.”
The second men says, “Why? Those newspapers are full of anti-Israeli propaganda!”
The first man says, “Well, it’s like this. I read Ha’aretz, and I find that Hamas is gaining power and the Palestinians are growing violent. It’s depressing. But I read the Palestinian papers, and they go on and on about how we Jews are in charge of everything, we own all the land, we’re winning all the wars. It’s a much more pleasant read!”
October 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
If Obama’s health plan in enacted as he has proposed it would mean a voluntary “Medicare for all” although the public plan would be separate from Medicare and be called something different.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
If Obama’s health plan in enacted as he has proposed it would mean a voluntary “Medicare for all” although the public plan would be separate from Medicare and be called something different.
“Voluntary Medicare for all” is an oxymoron. It is highly unlikely that Obama’s health plan will be enacted as he has proposed it (or anything remotely like he has proposed it.) “Medicare for all” is a complete fantasy.
One of the silver linings of the financial crisis is that it will make it even harder for liberals to get funding for their Adventures in Big Government like “universal health care.”
October 21st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Re: “Voluntary Medicare for all” is an oxymoron. It is highly unlikely that Obama’s health plan will be enacted as he has proposed it
I agree with your second statement, but I am having a hard time seeing any inherent logical contradiction in the idea of a public health program that one can freely chose to join or not.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
You said “Medicare,” not “a public health program that one can freely chose to join or not.” You have no choice about “joining” Medicare. You pay for Medicare benefits through involuntary payroll taxes whether you want them or not.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:48 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra