Matthew Yglesias » Public Opinion Strongly Favors Public Plan

Jun 21st, 2009 at 12:58 pm

Public Opinion Strongly Favors Public Plan

New NYT poll confirms earlier polling that indicated overwhelming public support for a government-run insurance option:

Happily for politicians contemplating the inclusion of such a plan, a robust public option is also the best way available to control costs and minimize the need for new taxes. So just keep in mind that when people talk about political obstacles to a robust public plan, they’re not talking about mass public opinion as an obstacle—they’re talking about the wealth and power of relatively narrow interests.

Comments
60

Filed under: Health Care, Public Opinion,

60 Responses to “Public Opinion Strongly Favors Public Plan”

Zaid Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
” So just keep in mind that when people talk about political obstacles to a robust public plan, they’re not talking about mass public opinion as an obstacle—they’re talking about the wealth and power of relatively narrow interests.”

That applies, too, to single payer, which they’ve gone to even further lengths to marginalize despite its popularity and cost effectiveness.
Petey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Happily for politicians contemplating the inclusion of such a plan, a robust public option is also the best way available to control costs and minimize the need for new taxes.”

Look, the mechanics of this are all pretty simple. A cabal of Pelosi, Rahm, Orzag, and Hacker need to sit down in a room and write a good bill that works. Then you get it passed in the House, toss it back to the Senate after conference, and get 50 votes there.

Then you sign it into law, reap a fuckload of short-term political benefits, significantly improve American society and governance, and free up the rest of the administration for solving other problems.

Unlike the majority of situations, in this one, if you do the policy right, the electoral politics will take care of themselves.

There are interesting times.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
But 70% of Sunday talk shows guests oppose a public plan, as well as 100% of Democratic “moderate” Congressmen. Even Obama doesn’t seem to care for it.

“Public opinion” needs to reflect better the views of DC lobbyists, or it risks looking out of touch.
Petey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“But 70% of Sunday talk shows guests oppose a public plan, as well as 100% of Democratic “moderate” Congressmen. Even Obama doesn’t seem to care for it.”

Obama’s recent public utterances on the topic have actually been quite consistent and quite forceful in their support for a robust public plan.
zed Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I’ve called this the “fuck it” moment. After all, if you just sent the money you pay on health care premiums to the government in taxes instead of your insurance company, but got to see a doctor even if you lost your job, well, fuck it, that’d be worth it.
joe from Lowell Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Conservatives: Public health care will be a nightmare! Soulless bureaucrats will deny coverage just to save a few pennies. You won’t get to choose your doctor. Going to the doctor will be like going to the DMV. Waiting lists for necessary procedures will be months longs, I tell you. Months!

There’s no way the private sector can ever compete with THAT!
Davis X. Machina Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Mass opinion is both an obstacle and an opportunity. Once the advertisers and public-opinion apparat in print, on the television, and especially on the radio get going, there’ll be no real reform. The economics of it don’t matter.

A moderately competent media operation should be able to move those numbers, since they’d be operating with, not against, the old, enduring gradients in American politics. They can get us to buy things — like wars in Iraq — that we don’t want, and want things we don’t need — policies aren’t any different.

Economic self-interest doesn’t deliver. We think we have an economy, but what we really want, and have, is a morality play. It’s burnt into the pseudo-Calvininst American mythos. And our thirst for entertainment is limitless — it may be our single largest industry — so you win when you can turn the issue into an entertainment with a clear moral arc.

If people are presented with a choice between a satisfying narrative arc, in which the good guys win and the bad guys get punished, and an actual, functioning social provision, they’ll take the coherent story-with-a-moral over the boring social provision.

Add to the theater-critic-cum-theologians the true-believer marketolaters, the racists — Social Security originally got through Congress by the expedient of excluding domestics and agricultural workers — and the elderly*, and there’s a coalition big enough to keep anything from happening, ever, given rudimentary marketing skills. We know the the opponents of a public option, or God forbid, single payer, possesses those.

At that point, the venality of the the average Congresscritter, while remarkable, and reliable, isn’t even necessary.

*Since the elderly in this country vote in disproportionately large numbers, and their care-delivery system is already in place, there is no disincentive for them to not vote their prejudices, or their theories about capitalism, or their memories of how medical care was delivered when Eisenhower was in the White House. They can message-send to their hearts’ content and their ox won’t be gored.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’ve called this the “fuck it” moment.

Agreed. Private health insurers basically make Dick Cheney look good. There are people paid to study this who argue that if the Senate fucks over this reform effort, it might pave the way for single-payer.

I can honestly imagine the beginnings of a movement to withhold premiums. And direct pressure on Senators — many of whom have been subject to the most comfortable insurance situation their entire adult lives — to give up their federal health benefits. But I also think it’s politically smart to start squeezing the Senate weenies now — not because they’ll change their minds, but to make their whining after conference look petty.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I’m at least 75% convinced the “moderate” Democrats know all this, and are just playing out a game where they create the appearance of trying to “compromise” with the Republicans (or placate their corporate paymasters, if you want to be cynical about it), when in the end they know the process is likely to provide a hugely popular public plan that they can retroactively claim credit for as generic Democrats.
Mattyoung Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Follow the link and read:

“Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.”

If we assume 150 million workers at $500 in taxes per year, we get $75 billion. Or $750 billion over ten years. Remember the expected cost of 1.6 trillion over ten years for the proposed plan, whatever that was.

So, the real message is cut the cost of the public option by half.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Obama’s recent public utterances on the topic have actually been quite consistent and quite forceful in their support for a robust public plan.

I don’t know, what-he-firmy-believes seems to depend on the audience he’s facing. He has also forcefully supported this “co-op” scheme that so pleases the insurance industry.

It just doesn’t seem that a really universal coverage is Obama’s #1 priority, that’s why I was for Clinton. Let’s hope you’re right and that in the end Obama will work hard for a public plan.

But since he has already failed on the getting-out-of-Iraq campaign promise (his #1 priority, it seemed at the time), I’m not optimistic.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Obama’s recent public utterances on the topic have actually been quite consistent and quite forceful in their support for a robust public plan.

Yep. As I have noted before, I can understand the tactical debate over whether Obama is dealing with Congress in the optimal way, but I really don’t see any basis for the claim that Obama secretly opposes a policy he has consistently supported.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
He has also forcefully supported this “co-op” scheme that so pleases the insurance industry.

What exactly do you have in mind?
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
But since he has already failed on the getting-out-of-Iraq campaign promise . . .

For that matter, exactly what do you have in mind here?

Obama promised that on his first day in office, he would direct the military to plan a withdrawal from Iraq. He did that.

Obama also laid out a general plan to gradually withdraw all our combat troops, minus some residual force, in 16 months. He eventually stretched out the timeline by a few months, but otherwise is carrying out this plan.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
DTM,

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98QSLCG0

Co-op compromise gives White House a health option

By PHILIP ELLIOTT – 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Republicans fighting the idea of a government-run health insurance plan, members of President Barack Obama’s team said Sunday that they are open to a compromise: a cooperative program that would expand coverage with taxpayer money but without direct governmental control.

Congress begins work this week on putting Obama’s goal of universal health coverage into law. Some lawmakers are expected to introduce specific plans that run counter to Obama’s political promises.

The concessions could be the smoothest way to deliver the bipartisan health care legislation the administration seeks by its self-imposed August deadline, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

Now Obama himself has said he wanted a “public option”, but we still don’t know what it means exactly, and how hard he will fight lobbyists. So, wait and see.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Obama also laid out a general plan to gradually withdraw all our combat troops, minus some residual force, in 16 months.

Those “residual forces” will total 50,000 US soldiers, and even more contractors working for American firms. That’s as far as get-out-of-Iraq-now as you can imagine. In fact, it is pretty much what McCain had in mind when he said we may stay in Iraq for 20, 50, perhaps 100 years.

The plan was to transform Iraq into a kind of post-WWII West Germany, and although the results have been disastrous so far it seems Obama is keeping the course.
Brandon Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This seems like the perfect opportunity for the White House and the Democratic Party to score a huge political win.

Put the public option in the bill and force the Senate Republicans to filibuster it. The Repubs will get eaten alive for stopping it…and if the Dems can’t break it, pass it through reconciliation.

It would be better policy and a huge political victory.

Am I missing something?
El Cid Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Well, given that 50% of Republicans polled supported the public option (as presented), you could argue that a strong public option is the bipartisan option, unless you restrict ‘bipartisan’ to mean ‘doing whatever seems to please elected Republican leaders and conservative Democrats’. Which is the typical use of the term.
Petey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
And FWIW, we have more political flexibility in terms of price tag than I think is commonly realized.

You could throw a final bill out there that the CBO scores at $1.8T and have the same political impact as a bill that scores at $1.0T.

There’s a reason things are priced at $19.95. If you bring the thing in under $2T, the optics will be OK. The political impact of the difference between $1.0T and $1.8T will not be meaningful.

The only thing that really matters politically is passing a bill that works.
Petey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“unless you restrict ‘bipartisan’ to mean ‘doing whatever seems to please elected Republican leaders and conservative Democrats’. Which is the typical use of the term.”

The commonly accepted meaning of “bipartisan” seems to be “able to attract 60 votes in the Senate”.

Thankfully, we don’t have to play healthcare reform by those rules.
abb1 Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I remember it was exactly like that in 1993: 75% wanted universal healthcare. A few months of mass-advertising – and it fell to around 50%, and that was the end of that. And that’s how lousy ‘liberal democracies’ operate: moneyed interests get what they want, whatever it is.
Zaid Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“Obama’s recent public utterances on the topic have actually been quite consistent and quite forceful in their support for a robust public plan.”

There’s a reason he stays vague about exactly what it is. We could just call it “Medicare” — you know, our existing single payer system — and we could get this done, but they all stay very vague, don’t they.

Obama has also told GOP Senators he’d be willing to trade it away for bipartisanship, whatever that means.
superdestroyer Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I wonder how many would have said yes if they were ask if they were willing to pay a national sales tax to fund a public option that will include illegal aliens.

People will always say yes to a free pony until they are told what the long term costs of the pony are.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I wonder how many would have said yes if they were ask if they were willing to pay a national sales tax to fund a public option that will include illegal aliens.

I’m sure Rasmussen or FOX News is working on such a poll.

Q: Would you be in favor of a public plan for health insurance, if it meant illegal aliens having priority over US citizens in the 6-months waiting list for critical surgeries, and replacing the dollar by the yuan?

The results of this poll will of course be reported on page 1 of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
Davis X. Machina Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I wonder how many would have said yes if they were ask if they were willing to pay a national sales tax to fund a public option that will include illegal aliens.

The salient fact in American politics is that there are always enough people who would volunteer to move with their family into a cardboard box under a railroad bridge, and toast sparrows on an old curtain rod over an open fire, but only if you can guarantee them that the people in the next box over — black, gay, foreign, liberal, different — don’t even get the sparrow.
b9n10nt Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
brainstorming here:

Perhaps Congress-critters really don’t want to distinguish themselves as being good at their job (writing and passing legislation). The goal here is for legislators in Washington to train the populace to have low-expectations that government can solve problems.

As Petey argues, getting health care reform is eminently do-able. But Congress (and here I have “non-ideological”/”moderate” Democrats in mind) dare not appear to expediently serve the interests of the citizenry.

I mean, there’s the obvious class incentive to make collective problem-solving appear like herding cats. And the inefficiency of the legislative and representative process is institutionalized into workings of the republic.

But I wonder if there isn’t also a sort of herd-mentality in-group political logic to Congressional behavior: 1) don’t show that you can actually do your job and represent your constituencies’ collective interests less people start to really find your job performance relevant and 2) don’t tie your job performance to any policy regime that will distinguish you and make you vulnerable to voters should the policy regime appear to fail.
b9n10nt Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
If my brainstorming is correct healthcare reform will include:

-unecessary complexity and tinkering

and

-unnecessary compromise/bipartisaship.

This will deflect accountability from the mass of legislators who ultimately will vote on health care.
Terry C - Castrating B*tch Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Conservatives: Public health care will be a nightmare! Soulless bureaucrats will deny coverage just to save a few pennies”

Conservatives know all about being “soulless.”
PaminBB Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“If we assume 150 million workers at $500 in taxes per year, we get $75 billion. Or $750 billion over ten years. Remember the expected cost of 1.6 trillion over ten years for the proposed plan, whatever that was.

So, the real message is cut the cost of the public option by half.”

No. The employers are saving a bundle, they need to pony up as well. However, there are not 150 million workers.

I agree with your point that it is not an insurmountable problem, financially speaking.
StevenAttewell Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Petey: that’s sort of what happened with the House bill, it’s more or less the Hacker plan.

Why oh why: being open to a co-op is not the same thing as forcefully supporting it. Given that Obama pitched the public plan to the *AMA* of all places, I think we can say he’s been out there on the public plan.
Petey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Petey: that’s sort of what happened with the House bill, it’s more or less the Hacker plan.”

Sure.

Now the trick is for the players to all recognize that the proper way to play the endgame will consist of shoving the House bill through the system.

The players need to understand that contorting to please Senators 52 through 65 is not the proper way to play this one.

The political upside on this one comes from passing a good bill. A good bill will be popular going forward when people run for re-election.
Midland Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Those “residual forces” will total 50,000 US soldiers, and even more contractors working for American firms.

That’s probably a combat element of one good brigade and supporting elements, just enough to claim a “security” presence without actually having anyone in the line of fire. Hopefully it includes air force fighters, to keep Israel from doing something stupid like bombing Iran. I haven’t the stats available, but this is probably a lot fewer people we had on guard duty around Iraq while we were quarantining Saddam. Even this residual force will disappear quickly if the Iraqis ask us to leave. If Maliki gives Obama, Clinton, and Gates an out like that, watch for a lot of regretful mutters about “the will of the people,” followed by strings of dust puffs as our people “beep-beep” and make like road runners heading for Kuwait and Turkey.

The plan was to transform Iraq into a kind of post-WWII West Germany, and although the results have been disastrous so far it seems Obama is keeping the course.

The West German and Japanese rebuilds were executed by vast conquering armies with unlimited resources, executed by people with intellect, integrity, and humility. In other words, the opposite of the Bush-Cheney administration. The plan you describe was Bush and Cheney’s plan, fantasy when they thought of it and even more so now. Obama is paying lip service to it while pointedly pushing off the responsibility on the Iraqis to make their own peace.

There’s a lot of suffering still in store for Iraq. After eight years of bungled policy and the moral and intellectual rot in our political system, there is next to nothing we can do to prevent it. The Iraqis, like the Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, are on their own. Perhaps, like the Vietnamese, they’ll forgive us some day.
pluege Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
because the public wants the option of a government run heathcare system, we are certain to not get one. Congress is in the grips of the Healthcare Avoidance Industry (by choice) so anything that is good for the people and that the people want, which is to say anything that changes the status quo, is the enemy.

Congress and Obama will be working extra hard to make sure we don’t get the healthcare reform we need, that we don’t anything like the coverage other industrialized nations have, or that in anyway solves the horrendous system of corruption and giveaways to the Healthcare Avoidance Industry, but that we do get something instead that sounds like reform, but isn’t at all – THAT is the wont of our political system: protecting the power of the powerful, keeping the disadvantaged, disadvantaged.
Magic Dog Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
This is a come to Jesus time for the Democratic Party. They’ve been talking a good game on health insurance for 60 years. Now they’ve got the presidency, soon a 60-40 majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the House.

It is now on the Democrats to follow through. We are going to find out just who is on the take, and who isn’t.
superdestroyer Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Why oh Why

As long as the pulbic option is being sold as free healthcare paid by others, most Americans will say yes to it. However, if people are asked if they are willing to pay a national sales tax to fund healthcare, fewer people will say yes. If people are sak to pay higher taxes so that illegal aliens can have free healthcare, even fewer will say yes.

Most people will say yes to a free lunch. How many will say yes to a very expensive meal where the government gets to pick what you will have have, not that many people will say yes.

It seems that the people most excited are those who believe it will be a free lunch or those who believe that they will be in charge.
Aatos Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
If you assume Baucus, Nelson et al are just craven opportunists, then the task at hand is just to convince them that the path of craven opportunity lies with the public option.

If thats the case it will take more than this poll; it will take a credible primary challenge by some other opportunist, who is perhaps inspired by this poll.

At this point, it’s at least equally likely that the Baucus caucus sincerely dont believe in a public option, in spite of the polls. In that case, the primary challenge will have to be successful.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
we can do to prevent it. The Iraqis, like the Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, are on their own. Perhaps, like the Vietnamese, they’ll forgive us some day.

Huh, how are Iraqis “on their own” if we leave over 100,000 Americans there (if you include the ever-growing number of contractors/mercenaries)? Not to mention that any war involving Iraq – including a civil war – would immediately become our own. Maybe Obama really means to leave Iraq at some point, but so far his actions don’t show it.

I could go on about his broken promises. On civil liberties, the consitutional scholar is keeping many of Bush-Cheney’s policies and refusing to prosecute war criminals. Or his hollow executive orders: he is closing Guantanamo… maybe, but trying to relocate the innocent detainees to tropical islands and not taking a single one of them in the US. And Bagram stays open – a worse place than Gitmo.

The point is, judge Obama by his actions, not his speeches. Now if he delivers on health care, that will go a long way in comforting those of us on the left who feel more and more disappointed by his administration. True, it is Congress that makes the law, not the President, but Obama still has an important role to play.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
It seems that the people most excited are those who believe it will be a free lunch or those who believe that they will be in charge.

In general, the free lunch works this way: the rich pay for the poor. For example, in many universities you can go to an Economics lecture where you hear “there is no such thing as a free lunch”, then get a free pizza in the next hall. The rich alumni are paying for the poor students’ lunch.

However in health care, there really is a free lunch. The US spend twice as much as other developed countries for worse results. Why? Our unique and uniquely inefficient private insurance system.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
So, the real message is cut the cost of the public option by half.

No, the real message is to: (a) make people aware of what they are already paying for health insurance, including through their employer; and (b) don’t provide funding through a flat per capita tax.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Why oh Why,

On the co-op plan: unnamed members of Obama’s “team” saying they would be open to a co-op plan isn’t the same thing as Obama “forcefully supporting” such a plan.

On the residual force: regardless of what you think of it, it doesn’t break his campaign promises because it was always part of his withdrawal plan. That is an example of an all-too-common problem: people accusing Obama of breaking promises he never actually made.
SN Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“And that’s how lousy ‘liberal democracies’ operate: moneyed interests get what they want, whatever it is.”

Well, this one. The right party in Sweden is to the left of the Democrats. Then again, Swedes have a strong sense of the importance of doing what’s best for society, and you simply don’t have that in the US (in spite of all the flag waving and Dixie-chick bashing).
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
On the residual force: regardless of what you think of it, it doesn’t break his campaign promises because it was always part of his withdrawal plan. That is an example of an all-too-common problem: people accusing Obama of breaking promises he never actually made.

Really? Excuse me if I was under the mistaken assumption that Obama promised a clean break from Bush-Cheney-McCain’s policies and would pull out the troops as fast as possible.

Statements like this must have confused me:

Speaking one day after the controversial Iraq progress report was delivered to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, Obama said, “The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1355380.php/Obama_outlines_Iraq_troop_withdrawal_strategy

And did he mention that those “residual forces” will amount to 50,000 troops (+contractors) — half of the pre-surge level — and that they could stay there… forever? At least, not before he won the election, otherwise he could have praised McCain’s strategy. And certainly he repeated that he would get-out-faster as often as possible in the primaries. If some voters got the impression that Obama actually wanted to get the troops out of Iraq, they can easily be forgiven.

Note that I don’t blame him for his surge in Afghanistan and the increasing number of Afghan and Pakistani civilians killed, because that is exactly what he promised.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
To put it differently: would US policy in Iraq be any different now had Clinton or McCain won?
ron Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Ezekial Emanuel, Rahm”s brother and an official in the Obama administration, made some amazing statements to the Commonwealth Cub of California.
He said that a single payer system requires a fee-for-service structure – an outright lie.
He said that Medicare and Medicaid should be eliminated.
He is another example of the rotten apples in the Obama administration.
JonF Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Re: At this point, it’s at least equally likely that the Baucus caucus sincerely don’t believe in a public option, in spite of the polls.

It’s not as if Senators and Congressmen don’t occasionally vote for things they don’t necessarily believe in. Many of them will admit in private that the War on Drugs is a expensive failure– but they still vote to fund it. And that’s just one example out of many.

Re: right party in Sweden is to the left of the Democrats.

On some issues yes. But on others maybe not. I’m not up on all the minutiae of Swedish politics, but European rightwing parties do tend to be far more overtly racist and nativist than even many Republicans would dare be in this country.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Statements like this must have confused me . . .

You do realize that statement just supports the claim that you were confused, right? Obama said at that time it would be a good idea to start bringing home troops. It in no way addresses the residual force issue, and you are indeed confused if you think it does.

The odd thing about this discussion is that residual forces specifically became an issue during the campaign, thanks to Richardson. Obama was saying things like this:

[My] plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

Richardson then tried to distinguish himself by favoring a “complete withdrawal”. See, for example, this Op-Ed:

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

So yes, if after all this back-and-forth this came as a surprise to you, you were just confused.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
DTM, I think you missed that part:

“Not in six months or one year — now.”

As far as I know the decision “to immediately begin to remove our combat troops” has been postponed by at least 6 months from the moment Obama took office, and at least 100,000 troops will be there in early 2010.

And calling 50,000+ troops “residual forces” is a simple lie. Again, it’s half of the pre-surge levels. And it is not much less than the most warmongering President possible would have done, given the strains on the military and the build-up in Afghanistan.

Now, the clearest promise Obama has made recently is that all troops would be gone by the end of 2011, so let’s agree to wait until then. Although if the country blows up again and there are still tens of thousands of American soldiers in 2012, I’m sure many Obama supporters will say he didn’t have any other choice – keeping troops in Iraq for 4 more years was necessary.
joe from Lowell Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Why oh Why,

Why, oh why, are you pretending never to have heard of the SOFA, which mandates the withdrawal of the residual force by the end of 2013? Or of Obama’s statement that all American troops would be out of Iraq by that date, given in the very same speech in which he announced the timeline for the withdrawal of combat troops?
joe from Lowell Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Now, the clearest promise Obama has made recently is that all troops would be gone by the end of 2011

He has never stated this. He announced that all COMBAT BRIGADES would be yout by the end of 2011, but that there will be a residual force there for some period of time, no longer than the end of 2013.
DTM Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
As far as I know the decision “to immediately begin to remove our combat troops” has been postponed by at least 6 months from the moment Obama took office, and at least 100,000 troops will be there in early 2010.

OK, I think that is a fair point. During the campaign, Obama’s withdrawal plan involved a slow and steady reduction in force starting very quickly and ending in 16 months. After consulting with military leaders as President (as he also promised to do), he changed that to a slightly longer schedule that was more back-loaded. So, his plan has certainly changed a bit in some details.

And calling 50,000+ troops “residual forces” is a simple lie.

This is simply nonsensical. In fact, Obama’s critics pointed out at the time that by definition, a “residual force” just means whatever is left at the end of the process, and they noted that Obama refused to specify exactly how many troops that would end up being. The only thing he promised was that the size of the residual force would be tied to the more limited mission he had laid out.

Again, this was really hashed out during the campaign, including lots of anti-war people complaining about this residual force of unspecified size. But I guess you missed it.
joe from Lowell Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
“We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.”

Ring a bell?

Barack Obama never ran as Dennis Kucinich. Next, you’ll be telling us that he’s a big fat liar liar pants on fire for sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
joe, you are mistaken.

Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal timetable; 50,000 troops to stay

WASHINGTON — Amid complaints from his own party that he’s moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.
(…)
Under Obama’s plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They’d remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62930.html

Also, this gem:

A key factor in the pace of the U.S. drawdown will be making sure that there are sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to assure that national elections scheduled for December are peaceful, officials said.

Which means: not much withdrawal period until January 2010, eleven months after Obama took office. Compare to “now“. And let’s be honest, the distinction between COMBAT BRIGADES and “residual forces” (doing “training” and “counterterrorism”) is just Orwellian.

What is most amazing is seeing a Obama supporter already accepting the possibility of 50,000 US troops staying in Iraq until the end of 2013 – even before the goal of end 2011 is postponed, as it probably will be. I guess Code Pink can already start camping in front of the White House: bring home the troops!
Why oh why Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.”

Ring a bell?

Yes, it is painfully carved into my brain along with “the change we need” and “it is just more of the same”. But campaign slogans don’t mean much; note that Obama repeated this to defend himself against McCain’s attacks, with the emphasis on “getting out of Iraq”, as opposed to McCain who wanted to leave thousands of troops there – that warmonger!

Next, you’ll be telling us that he’s a big fat liar liar pants on fire for sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

No, I mentioned it above. Waging an endless war in Afghanistan (and bombing villages in Pakistan) was very much part of his program, and that’s why I never was very enthusiastic about him.

To conclude on Iraq: if at the end of 2011 there are just a few thousands troops left, to defend the embassy for example, I’ll give credit to Obama for keeping his main campaign promise.

Now we could talk about Obama’s promises regarding transparency, civil liberties and the rule of law, but that’s for another day. Ironically on health care he promised very little compared to some other Democrats; delivering universal coverage would make up for a lot of disappointment in other areas.
curious sampler Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The Democrats need to run FULL PAGE ADS in USA Today, Washington Post, LA Times and other major old school outlets showing this poll that shows that the VAST MAJORITY of American want a public plan option !!!! — with Senator Lindsey’s “it needs to go away” quote highlighted in the small minded print of a small mind.
lambert strether Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“… the best way available …”

I love that. Why would that be, I wonder?
Yellow Pages South Carolina Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 am
Oh Pat, you’ve got friends! Don’t give me that. Your blog looks great and has good info. You can be friends with me. Please visit my site South Carolina address directory when you got time. Thanks.
South Dakota address directory Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 am
Me and my friend were arguing about an issue similar to this! Now I know that I was right. lol! Thanks for the information you post. I would love some feedback on my site Yellow Pages South Dakota when you got time.
Matthew Yglesias » Schumer: Co-Ops are No Substitute for Public Option Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
[...] News reports that some Democrats are feeling emboldened by recent polls showing overwhelming public support for providing people with a public-sector alternative to [...]
joe from Lowell Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Why oh why,

I am not mistaken. Read your own quote: as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.

Under Obama’s plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They’d remain until Dec. 31, 2011,

You have just scored an own goal, old bean. You have thoroughly refuted your claim: and that they could stay there… forever?
Killing Change Softly | Nye - Gateway to Nevada's Rurals Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias wrote, “So just keep in mind that when people talk about political obstacles to a robust public plan, they’re not talking about mass public opinion as an obstacle—they’re talking about the wealth and power of relatively narrow interests.” [...]

Matt Yglesias

Public Opinion Strongly Favors Public Plan

60 Responses to “Public Opinion Strongly Favors Public Plan”

Blogroll