Show Me the Votes
Unlike some, I’m not per se outraged by the idea of dropping a family planning provision from the stimulus bill in response to conservative objections. I’m all for the provision, but it’s genuinely tangential to the point of the bill, so if this is really what’s standing between us and a universe in which a substantial number of conservative get on the stimulus train so be it.
But as with a lot of Democratic concessions on the bill thus far, what seems to be missing is the “pro quo.” Where are the members of the House saying “yesterday I was inclined to vote ‘no’ on this, but thanks to this change I’m voting ‘yes.’” Bargaining is smart. I even think magnanimity on the part of a new majority is smart. But when you bargain, you get something. And I don’t see what Obama’s gotten for his business tax cuts nor do I see what he’s getting for selling out low-income women’s access to contraceptives.
50 Responses to “Show Me the Votes”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 27th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Oh he’s trying to sail the bill through Congress without using up too much of his political capital. To this end he will take out all the rough edges in the bill. The pro quo? Preservation of his political capital. You can’t really bargain about something that is being ridiculed in media and still hope to keep your political capital unvarnished.
Part of it is Obama doesn’t really want to test if the Republicans have a spine; I suspect they don’t really have a collective spine, maybe Sen. DeMint does, but it doesn’t do Obama any good to gamble with his political capital that way. It wouldn’t be the first time liberals have provoked conservatives into having a spine.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:30 am
low-income women’s access to contraceptives
Did condoms get a whole lot more expensive when nobody was looking?
January 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I thought that for Democrats the definition of “bargaining” was “yielding to Republicans”. Seems to fit a lot of the past 30 years, so why would now be any different?
January 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Maybe the contraception provision was a decoy, put in the bill so Republicans could have something to complain about, and Obama could have some ground to give without materially weakening the bill. If so, it was a masterful stroke.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Votes????
January 27th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I like David Yaseen’s theory. Personally, I don’t know how hard it is for low-income women to get contraceptives (that’s what she…), but it seems like even the most hardcore pro-life person should support this idea. Who am I kidding? Until the majority of teenage girls turn atheist or satanist, no way will the Religious Right stop their crusade against abortion.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:12 am
over the years, i’ve heard many complaints from conservatives about the fact that they have to support so many “welfare babies”. why is it that their representatives are opposed to easing this burden?
January 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Obama’s making the mistake of trying to please the Washington Post editorial board. Sure it won’t give him votes but maybe David Broder will pen a column that says Obama is bipartisan!
January 27th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I would like to point out to P Snowden and America that contraceptives are widely available in large cities and areas with more open-minded communities. I don’t know whether that translates into more expensive, or simply unavailable contraceptives in more conservative communities. I share their skepticism that condoms would be difficult to obtain.
But supposing that such a premise is accurate (struggling women need support to get contraceptives), I think there might actually be an economic argument as to why it would be helpful to help women purchase contraceptives.
I was just listening to a book-on-CD of Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, and he discusses the advantages that people born in 1930-1936 gained by being in a demographic trough–the onset of the Depression helped that. There might be an argument that such a demographic trough was economically beneficial at the worst part of the Depression, matched by the boom in children after World War Two (when the economy was ready to handle it).
I’m not an economist, so I’m just speculating. And I doubt it would have more than incidental effect on the economy, especially in the short term. It would be nice if everything that wasn’t short term thinking wasn’t getting struck out of this bill.
In the short term, having less children would allow struggling families to spend less on their children.
Still, it doesn’t seem central to the stimulus, and (as above noted) I’m skeptical that contraceptives are hard to get.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
right, you’ve gotten exactly to the center of the issue right at the end there. just giving away points to the other side, without getting anything in return, well anyone can tell you that won’t work out well. and especially with this crowd, who’s terrible, non-workable ideas were voted out of power. people in huge numbers voted specifically to keep Republicans from having major input on these issues anymore. its not just ‘who won and who didn’t’ in the election. people have realized that republican management of government is just plain dangerous.
yet dems keep just giving in to their demands, over and over, even though the ‘pugs have no leverage, no credibility, and no public demand for their demands! what I wanted to see was Harry Reid starting to show a little spine and take after Obama a bit. instead what we’re seeing is Obama starting to take after Reid. not good.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I would just like to state that when Obama does something stupid or wrong, it’s possible that he’s just being stupid or is wrong. He might not be making a brilliant tactical move that will leave the Republicans in the dust. Among some of his supporters, Obama seems to have become the reverse-Karl Rove, in that some liberals think that everything he does is really part of some very clever and indiscernible secret plan.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Why not push this as a separate bill. I don’t know what the poll numbers say, but I do know that most people distinguish between abortion and contraceptives. If you say that by increasing the availability of contraceptives abortion can be reduced then you have most people on your side. If Republicans want to be insane anti-contraceptive monsters, then put them on record in a stand alone bill. And ditto for high speed rail.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Also some of this is about setting the tone. I know Bush has made this seem impossible, but maybe politics in Washington doesn’t have to be all out war. There may be some Republicans who will work in good faith with Obama. Also if Obama can appear like he is a bipartisan guy without making huge concessions that will sustain his popularity. This will be important if he wants to reform health care, tackle Climate Change or make unpopular choices on foreign policy. An imperfect stimulus bill is a small price to pay for permanent changes like universal health care or a cap and trade system.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The idea that Obama hasn’t the slightest inkling of sound negotiation tactics strikes me as hugely implausible. I’m not saying that everything he does is perfect zen judo, but we’re talking about someone who has thus far shown himself a skilled politician, not a babe in the woods.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am
My guess is Obama would like to strip the Republican talking points down to: (1) a “principled” objection to massive government spending and (2) the bill doesn’t have enough tax cuts. He either gets the votes, or the Republican end up looking ideologically inflexible in the face of a crisis.
On the less Machiavellian side, I agree with Craig, that this is a relatively cheap way for Obama to signal that he won’t let culture war issues stand in the way of getting stuff done.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Uh, maybe Obama thinks tax cuts are a good idea for the stimulus bill. He sure seems to think tax cuts were a great idea during the campaign. I’m not sure how supporting something he’s always supported qualifies as caving in to the GOP.
And I find it hard to believe that Obama personally inserted the contraception funding into the stimulus bill because he’s absolutely convinced of its vital important to economic recovery. It smells more like one of those things that somebody at some point inserts into a bill, hoping no one will notice.
Mike
January 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
The contraceptives piece will move later as part of some other, more appropriate bill. And Obama either gets more R votes, in which case, “yay, bipartisanship!”, or he gets no more R votes, in which case it’s the other side that comes off looking inflexible and he (with sorrow at the petty partisanship of the other side) passes what he really wants anyway.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The Dems just need to ram a bunch of shit through on party-line votes until the GOP learns that they damn well better negotiate in good faith if they don’t want to get crapped on.
As long as the Dems pre-concede, and there are no consequences for GOP always asking for more, the GOP will keep asking for more.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am
We tend to jump on every little thing as an indication of impending doom or failure. Obama can’t be ignorant of what is going on. If he isn’t getting any votes in return for concessions, just watch what happens next…
January 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
The “pro quo?” No congressman gets to immediately say “this wasn’t a vote against economic recovery, this was a vote for life!” Followed six months later by touting his fiscal conservative credentials. The fiscal excuses are pretty much held up for ridicule right now, why hand them a tidy excuse that doesn’t require convoluted explanations to justify it.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Reasons this family planning money is useful: (a) contraceptive pills are extremely expensive (even with insurance we’re talking 20-40 dollars/month co-pay), (b) many many people are losing their insurance along with their jobs (c) women, who work more frequently in the service industries, are losing their jobs at a more rapid rate, (d) condoms are not as effective as contraceptive pills, (e) proper condom use requires the willing and active participation of another person, (f) abortions are equally prohibitively expensive (and often are not covered under insurance), (g) pregnancy counts under many HMOs as a ‘previously existing condition’ and so pregnant, or recently pregnant women have trouble getting coverage, (h) childbirth (and appropriate pre-natal care) are even more expensive than abortion and contraceptive pills when there are no complications, and (i) poverty/stress lead to pregnancy complications… all of which are to say that a woman with little or no insurance coverage relying on her partner(s) being willing and able to correctly use a condom 100% of the time no matter what is likely to have a high risk, high expense pregnancy thus incurring more debt for herself and requiring more help from the government. All of this could be avoided if:
(j) from an ideological perspective, women should have sexual and physical autonomy no matter their class, income, race or current employment situation.
Our society is an epic failure as long as women’s autonomy over their own bodies is considered a ‘culture war’ issue by [upper-middle class] men and thus dismissed as negotiable instead of being treated as rational and pragmatic part of upholding equality and equal citizenship.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
When did tax cuts in the bill become nothing but sops to Republican opposition? Given some delays in getting stimulus dollars out the door and some possibility that not every stimulus dollar will go for high priority projects, is there no principled reason to include tax cuts. And it so then the issue pf how much are pragmatig, not partisan.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Obama campaigns for a year on “Tax Cuts for the Middle Class” and tax cuts in the stimulus plan become a sop to Republicans. Come on, you can do better than that Matt! Unless, of course, you buy the framing that only Republicans support tax cuts, and Dems support government spending, period. In which case, you need to look outside the progressive sandbox.
Also, this is a good way to defang something that actually appeared to be gaining steam, something Obama did well during the campaign. This is a side issue someone stuffed in the bill that was easy to attack. Pull it and the Republicans must make their real argument clear. They are already proving unserious about actual compromise by coming out against the stimulus before Obama even comes to the Hill.
I want to see how he handles this with the public. The Dems need to get on TV and start hitting home some serious talking points, followed by a major Obama address relatively soon.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
EU Expat,
While I support the promotion of contraceptive pills, and think that having reliable means of chemical contraception is an important tool for allowing people to regulate their family size and for avoiding the societal and environmental dangers of overpopulation, I would be very leery of talk about ‘reproductive autonomy’ as some sort or absolute right, for men or women, because of what it carries in its train. Women, and men, are certainly entitled to do their best to avoid and/or space pregnancy (although a healthy married couple does, I think, have a moral obligation to have at least one child). But once a pregnancy has started, the child needs to be protected, and the right to life is assuredly more important than any idea of “autonomy”- be it political, social or sexual.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Obama’s making the mistake of trying to please the Washington Post editorial board. Sure it won’t give him votes but maybe David Broder will pen a column that says Obama is bipartisan!
Yes.
I totally get that we don’t want to govern like the other guys. But there has to be a lot of room to maneuver between balls-to-the-walls partisanship a la Tom DeLay and caving after one snark from John Boehner about rubbers.
You’d think that the funding was for 33rd week abortions or something.
this is a relatively cheap way for Obama to signal that he won’t let culture war issues stand in the way of getting stuff done.
Argh. Just because culture war issues are controversial and divisive doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or don’t involve real-life stakes. The gays and poor women always get sold down the friggin’ river so that everyone can get a pen from a Rose Garden signing ceremony. EU’s long comment is worth re-reading.
I can’t help but think he could’ve swatted away this nonsense, still passed the stimulus handily with little help from the other side, and then John Boehner’s out there talking about Trojans while people are getting laid off.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
…a healthy married couple does, I think, have a moral obligation to have at least one child
Really? I’d like to hear more.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@ Hector
once a pregnancy has started, the child needs to be protected, and the right to life is assuredly more important than any idea of “autonomy”
I totally and whole-heartedly disagree. You are living on planet cave-man.
In privileging the viability of a ball of cells (which arguably has no volition or free will of its own) over the viability of a real live woman, you are quite explicitly devaluing not only the physical woman (who, in your view, is subsumed into the function of her womb) but also her own free-will into the will of your (presumably male) idea of what she should do with her body. By all means have a baby if you want one, but don’t ever tell me that I am worth no more than what my ovaries can pop out.
You will presumably want argue with me. We will not have any productive discourse, so don’t bother. I have heard these arguments before. No matter what you say, believing a zygote deserves more legal and medical protection than a woman is an inherently vile and backwards perspective.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Really? I’d like to hear more.
Oh, let’s have another chapter of Sir Hector the Virgin’s deep insights into parenthood.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“this is a relatively cheap way for Obama to signal that he won’t let culture war issues stand in the way of getting stuff done.”
Oh, I think he’s made that clear. Like with Rick Warren. And Donnie McClurkin. And opposing gay marriage.
It’s funny how all of this “signaling” and “refusing to be dogmatic” and whatnot always looks remarkably like pandering and capitulation.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
- the provision…[is] genuinely tangential to the point of the bill
- take out all the rough edges in the bill
- it doesn’t seem central to the stimulus
- a side issue someone stuffed in the bill
Right! Quick, what’s the number of reproductive age women (15-44) in this country? [61.6 million]
Of these, how many use just family planning and related medical services/yr? [47.5 million] Private doctors visits vs. visits to publicly-funded clinics? [34 million vs. 13.5 million]
What’s the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancies/yr? [$5 billion]
Bottom line: By definition, anything to do with tens of millions of people and billions of dollars in cost is 1) a tangent/trivial/side issue, and 2) doesn’t merit consideration for inclusion in an economic stimulus bill if it’s in any way related to, you know, reproductive healthcare.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Many of you are missing the point.
Some of this funding is putting back Medicare funding which used to go to contraceptives. Bush required states to jump through hoops to get funding for contraceptives as part of Medicare.
The last thing any family or individual needs during an economic downturn is an unplanned pregnancy, for all of the many reasons that EU Expat set forth.
And if you are poor, and have sex with any kind of frequency, yes, condoms are expensive compared to what you spend on the necessities.
Women who are served by Medicare shouldn’t have a class of prescription drugs denied to them (or have the price jacked up) and I’m pretty surprised that my fellow liberals aren’t all over this issue.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I wish Obama and other male liberals weren’t as ignorant or dismissive of women’s reproductive issues. I think many people explained very well why this is a significant financial issue. As a future ob/gyn, I sure as hell know I will be able to hire more employees if I am paid by Medicaid to supply contraceptives to low income women. Not to mention the obvious logic that less unplanned pregnancies = less Medicaid funding, less WIC funding, and more state money to spend elsewhere. Like, you know, on jobs.
The people who think this is about condoms are stupid at best and offensive at worst. Oh, and all male.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
For the people who are protesting the inclusion of contraception in the bill, I have to ask… what is your relationship to the pill? How often do you purchase ocntraception?
It’s not cheap. With insurance, as mentioned, it’s 20-40 bucks copay. Without, it’s common to pay 40-100 every month. Saying ‘just use condoms’ quite frankly isn’t enough. I can’t describe the importance of women having control over their own reproductive life. The pill is far more reliable, and it’s in my hands. I don’t have to rely on my partner’s willing participation in condom use, or the condom not breaking. I don’t have to worry about pregnancy if I get raped.
Also, BC is used for other purposes. It’s common for women to be on BC to treat unusual bleeding, severe cramps, etc that can be a detriment to daily life. It’s also used as part of treatment for endometriosis, PCOS, and other dehibilitating conditions — yet many insurance companies refuse to pay for it even when required to treat medical conditions because it’s also a contraceptive.
Contraceptive IS difficult to get for many lower-income women, yet it is vital for their financial futures. Unexpected pregnancies are expensive. Kids are expensive. Abortions are expensive. We’re half of this country, and with more and more people losing jobs every day, this is a HUGE issue. Except, apparently, to male liberals who purport to be on the side of social justice. An unexpected pregnancy can make a bad economic situation for a family into a crisis.
Under the Bush administration, access to contraception, to abortion, to care for women became more and more difficult. This provision just attempted to reassert the right of the states to be free of red tape. That’s all.
But why should we care about helping millions of women and families in a very real way when it’s all about Obama’s political currency, right?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:51 am
There is no way to say this without marking yourself as an undersexed loser. Condoms are not cheap. When I was single and had to buy some, I nearly fainted (due to cheapness) at the cost—it’s like $20 for a pack of 24. Again, if you’re an undersexed loser, that’s like, “Oh yeah, $20 for a year.” But if you’ve got a dating life and a libido at all, that’s $20 for half a month. Which isn’t a lot if you’re middle class, but if you’re poor, that’s ridiculously expensive.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Since the general opinion is that condoms are not that hard to get for poor women and girls, perhaps the emphasis should be on Family Planning (for poor men and boys). Supply them with condoms, education and teach them about responsibility.
Seems a better way to accomplish hitting the Republicans with a reality check.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“Did condoms get a whole lot more expensive when nobody was looking?”
Spoken like someone who truly has no clue about the consequences of contraceptive failure.
Feh.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Nice topic there, please feel free to email me when you update more , and i will check back on your post. Thanks mate.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:16 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aieopxy.com/osoxrqv/4.html
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Very nice site! cheap viagra
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Very nice site! [url=http://aieopxy.com/osoxrqv/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Very nice site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:46 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:58 am
7XYnKQ avarmoqupjrt, [url=http://mvocfupswdsr.com/]mvocfupswdsr[/url], [link=http://jcouwzsiksip.com/]jcouwzsiksip[/link], http://hchzctvminst.com/