Bill Clinton's Transformative Change Vs. Barack Obama's Incremental Change

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:19:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Village Blogs have adopted Jacob Weisberg's clarion pom poms in arguing that President Obama is having the most transformative first year any Democrat has had since FDR. This strikes me as a ludicrous claim. Chris Bowers discusses Nathan Newman's much more reasonable claim that President Obama has achieved small progressive victories. Chris makes the salient point that Newman's list of achievements are largely a part of a temporary stimulus bill, not lasting, transformative change. I want to add a point I have made before - the biggest change in the first year of a Democratic Presidency since FDR was President Bill Clinton's revamping of the U.S. tax structure. Clinton has been labelled by these same pom pom wavers as an incrementalist, small bore President, but they always ignore, as they must, the most important progressive accomplishment of the past 40 years - the raising of taxes on the well off and the lowering of the tax burden on the less well off enacted by President Clinton. I'll repeat from my earlier post on the subject here:

[I]n 1993, Bill Clinton pushed through the most progressive legislation the US has had since the Johnson Administration. It was called, prosaically, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. What did it do?

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals. [up from 33% top rate]

It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations. [up from 28%]

The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed. [Making it less regressive.]
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
[Helpful for the environment.]
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.[Making wealthier seniors pay more in taxes.]

The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended. [Again, making wealthier Americans pay more in taxes.]

Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments [In essence eliminating taxes for the working poor.]

Clinton's initiative passed by the barest of margins - 218-216 in the House and with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Al Gore in the Senate.

What was the effect of Clinton's initiative? You know the usual litany - 8 years of economic expansion, the creation of 22 million jobs, etc.

But most importantly, Clinton lifted the poor out of poverty and improved the lives of the less well off. I find it ironic that many of Clinton's critics at the time, including Jared Bernstein, now an economic advisor for Vice President Biden, are so silent about the regressive character of BaucusCare.

If BaucusCare becomes the singular achievement of the Obama Administration, it will be damning indeed. And all of the Bill Clinton "triangulation" bashers who stand in support of BaucusCare will be exposed as hypocrites.

Speaking for me only

< Afghanistan Is Not Iraq | The Reconciliation Dance >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Bill Clinton's Transformative Change Vs. Barack Obama's Incremental Change | 69 comments (69 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Given that Clinton had less than 50% of the vote (5.00 / 10) (#1)
by Salo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:32:57 AM EST

in a three way split in 1992 it is entirely understandable that his presidency might have been frustrating for social democrats/liberals/progressives. He was operating in the wake of Reagan and facing a GOP congress (He didn't cause the Gingrich thing either).

SO it's a miracle he got anything done for the most part.

Obama OTOH had a landslide and a freindly congress and still there are excuses.

Spitting Mad (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:59:53 AM EST

I generally try to avoid burdening my wife with tales of why I'm so intensely frustrated and annoyed with this administration and Dems in general. BTD and Salo pushed the button, so forgive me please, but here goes.

At the beginning of the year I was one of the very few folks I work with openly supporting McCain and openly hostile to this president. I happily conceded that the one area Obama couldn't possibly screw-up was the economy. Jobs created or saved? I could live with that bit of spin, but a stimulus package that gives cash to Wall street, misses regular folks and still ends up producing 10.2 and rising un-employment? I never dreamed that Dems could mess-up this bad.

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won in two or three years and certainly not with the resources the west is committing. Most of the Dem base opposes the increase in troops and Obama doesn't look even a little bit enthusiastic about the endeavor. He radiates failure.

There's a lot not to like about the Clintons. But Bill and HRC never promised to be more than effective, nothing transformational, just results oriented. Did health care blow up in their faces? Damn right, but there were many other successes.

I avoid press pics for the most part, but came across a snap of the Obama team seated around a table. HRC looked far and away the most presidential. She has the gravitas, the will, the intelligence, and the determination for the job. The other guy looked a lot less presidential than the former occupant of the Oval office.

As bad as things look now there's a better than 50% chance Iran and continually rising un-employment are going to make things materially much worse, and perhaps soon. Iran reacted to the mild censure of China and Russia with announcements to build ten new nuclear facilities. The jobs seminar is a joke and the Afghan speech and announcement that not enough troops are being sent to Afghanistan will provide more ammunition to Republicans that Dems aren't willing to commit to the war; while splitting Dems in two.

I feel like throwing-up.


I'm beginning to think (none / 0) (#19)
by Salo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:46:36 AM EST

that some sort of world war is in the offing. If the US is actually in this much trouble, China will bid for hegemony (perhaps only economically) and the US will lash out militarily by proxy or by itself. Other players will start to allign themselves around the two players.


: I doubt (none / 0) (#58)
by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:22:50 PM EST

we're there, yet. But I've read in Ha'aretz that if open war begins between Israel and Iran, Israel expects it to last for a long time.
I realize that advocating for a McCain presidency in lieu of an HRC administration places me beyond the pale. Didn't happen.
Dems opposed to an Afghan adventure, however, would be fighting President McRogue right now for jobs, for fiscal responsibility, and against sending anymore troops to Central Asia, rather than bending over.
Can you imagine Dems allowing President McCain to pay Blackwater to operated as a CIA proxy in Pakistan?
Well, actually...
Anyway, I agree very much with your initial post. I'm not at all convinced we're at world war time or incipient fascism. We need neither for things to be extremely messed-up.

In the first year (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:08:21 PM EST

Cinton had a Dem congress, IIRC.


Yes, and it appeared that (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by KeysDan on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:33:06 PM EST

those Democrats had become quite comfortable with a Republican in the White House---each sharing the power and spoils. President Clinton's appearance on the scene was not entirely welcomed. In his early months some Democrats just brought grief, from raising the bar on appointments to, for example, Senator Sam Nunn's successful efforts to undermine his proposed executive order to permit gay men and women to serve in the military, resulting in the DADT travesty---with, in my view, a humbling announcement before a military audience.


: The current congress has the same disease. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 03:05:02 PM EST

It's easy to complain that you can't get stuff done because there in a Republican in the white house.

Yes. But no filibuster majority (none / 0) (#59)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:58:58 PM EST

in the Senate, no mandate empowering the president, little to no Democratic support. Obama, otoh, quite a different story.


: I am not making excuses (none / 0) (#60)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:31:41 PM EST

not at all. Dems need to get it together

And I heard (none / 0) (#61)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:02:19 PM EST

on think on Fareed Zakaria, but not sure, that unemployment among African-American males is now 35%!!!


How 'transformative' are tax changes when (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by steviez314 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:43:48 AM EST

the next president undoes them without even breaking a sweat?

Sure, they are progressive, and probably the most progressive thing in the past 40 years, but that just speaks to the lack of anything else we can point to while we were in the wilderness.

I'll reserve "transformative" for things truly long lasting--the New Deal, Social Security, The Civil Rights Act. The things that make us change how we view government and each other.

In that sense, universal coverage is transformative, in that it expands the government/people compact to health care, even if the money raised for the subsidies are done so in a not very progessive way.

In theory (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:48:51 AM EST

Anything can be undone.

Of course it was transformative.

without them, talk of "letting the Bush tax cuts lapse" would have been impossible.


Let's also consider (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:49:54 AM EST

what you think of Reagan and whether he was transformative.

I would argue he clearly was. By your measure, he was not.

You and Obama need to discuss that.


: Reagan was transformative in the sense that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by steviez314 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:02:08 AM EST

he transformed voter into idiots who thinkthat unlimited tax cuts, Laffer curves and trickle down make sense. Large portions of the populace still believe that to this day.
When you see how much opposition there still is just to getting tax rates BACK to Clinton levels, despite the economic prosperity they produced, I'd say that lesson didn't stick as well as Reagan's.

I think it's only (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:43:25 AM EST

transformative if there is a public option.

Regulations, mandates, and subsidies can all be adjusted or even repealed. I have a harder time seeing a public option being destroyed in the future.


I agree a P.O. would be transformative. I also (none / 0) (#21)
by steviez314 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:54:04 AM EST

think just the government guaranteeing universal coverage through subsidies would be too.

I don't think Republicans would ever remove those subsidies--they'd just pay for them by cutting capital gains taxes.


: Universal coverage would be real (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by MO Blue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:49:00 PM EST

nice. Only problem is that universal coverage is off the table.

: But is it a real guarantee or not? (none / 0) (#27)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:13:20 PM EST

Depending on what the subsidy is, some people are going to choose to just pay the fine for not buying insurance. You know...the Bad Max Tax.

Real transformation for me (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by hairspray on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:09:54 PM EST

would have been to recind the tax breaks for the wealthy that GWB enacted, instead of letting them sputter out quietly. Another transformational thing would have been to have enacted some strong reforms on the banking industry already. Another would have been to enact HOLC legislation to help the people who have lost their homes. Another would have been to have pumped a marshall plan into alternative energy research and development along with legislation demanding efficiency of all of our energy usage. JOB, JOBS that is what the American citizen needs and is only getting same ole' same ole.


Ron brownstein, no FOB (5.00 / 7) (#8)
by hairspray on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:48:17 AM EST

From the LA times (it is now archived in the Carpetbagger's report, July 01, 2004). In it he writes that the "Clinton years produced the most extraordinary gains in the communities that needed it most....because Clinton encouraged and rewarded work for those on the economy's bottom rungs....the MEDIAN incomes for American families increased by 15% (adj/inflation) and especially for African Americans (33%) Latinos (24%). Families in the bottom 5th of the range saw their incomes rise twenty percent faster than the top 5%. Poverty fell (25%) faster than at any time since 1960's particularly in communities of color. Under the Reagan 8 years poverty of children fell by 50,000 and under Clnton by 4.1 million." He did this by increasing EIT, minimum wages and creating SCHIP among other system wide strategies. So ending welfare might have infuriated many people, but other factors helped to change the paradign for poor families and more than compensated. I lived in Oakland for years and it is no accident that the residents of this city loved Clinton. Welfare was not a good long term strategy for people. The changes put in place by Clinton produced the kind of long term results that everyone wants. Unfortunately, the Republicans took power and the rest is history.
Yep according to the village he was an also ran.

I still contend (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by NYShooter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:22:58 AM EST

That the deregulation of the markets during Clinton's Presidency made sense at the time. The idea that he was brilliant at first, then suddenly became stupid just doesn't cut it. While I may be accused of wishful thinking ( or being a Clinton-o-Bot ) I kind of think that because of the size and scope of the changes he implemented, some tweaking would naturally have to be done as time wore on, and here-to-fore, unforeseen glitches reared their heads. I also assume that the guy who rammed through those changes (without a single Republican vote, by the way) would've been smart enough the make those tweaks......had he remained in office.

Big Dawg (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by jedimom on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:53:34 AM EST

that is exactly what the Big Dawg said about it, he said do you really think if I were still POTUS I wouldnt have addressed derivatives again and just let it grow like that?


That's a good point (none / 0) (#36)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:25:00 PM EST

but at the time we practically worshiped Greenspan...who is a devout Ayn Randian economist.


Greenspan was worshiped (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:36:37 PM EST

not for his philosophy but for his deft management of monetary policy to keep inflation at bay.


: there is really no difference (none / 0) (#53)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:57:03 PM EST

between the two.

: his monetary policy (none / 0) (#55)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 03:02:50 PM EST

made it way too cheap to borrow money, and people leveraged everything.

Derivatives (none / 0) (#62)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:09:30 PM EST

were legalized by Congress on Dec 21 or 22 -- last day Congress was in session on the last day of Clinton's 2nd term. The legalization passed the Senate unanimously and by very high, veto-proof majority in the House. So this part of the Clinton contribution to the financial crisis cannot truly be attributed to him.

In addition, those regulations of the financial markets at the time were actually being enforced. Once Clinton left office & Bush came in, you know what happened. And, from what I understand, the current administration has not replaced a substantial portion of the US Attorneys, so many Bush appointees remain in place. But let's keep blaming Clinton...
I think the longer political leaders stick to this meme, the more ridiculous they sound. The public knows how good things were financially under Clinton as compared to now, so the Clinton bashing on the economy rings hollow.


Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Addison on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:29:36 AM EST

...so as it turns out 50% + 1 is better after all. Because it beats 50% - 1. Oops! Lesson learned on that one.

But, like I've said before, I thought the unity schtick was ditchable! I thought it would be allowed to die if it failed! What is this business? Why is it hooked up to all these machines, its chart being tsk-tsk'd over by Doctors Noonan and Broder, fed grudgingly through a tube by Nurse Snowe?!?

Sigh. I think you understate the stimulus package's effect -- on state education jobs, for instance -- and there are "under-the-radar" things that have been accomplished in varying degrees. But I don't see a credible argument to be made that the Barack Obama's leadership has accomplished what it promised to accomplish, which was something extraordinary.

He's got time. But I haven't seen a shift in his style or message that might presage a bold leadership era yet. We'll see.

: I think the Unity schtick is good politics (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:23:32 PM EST

unfortunately, Obama seems to actually believe it.

Everything's in a middle chapter. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Addison on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST

Viewing 9/11 or the 2008 meltdown as am "end" or "culmination" of something is a critical error in mindset.

Either could have been avoided... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Salo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:59:06 AM EST

...by the contemporary authorities.

The nearest you could get to 'blaming' Clinton for 9/11 was the continued pressure on Iraq during the 1990s and the bases in Saudi that were needed to keep bombing them.


I could blame Clinton... (none / 0) (#30)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:17:46 PM EST

...by blaming him for Bush defeating Clinton in 2000. I think if it weren't for Lewinsky, Gore would have beaten Bush and the continuity of executive administrations (under a Gore presidency) would have provided an advantage that would have prevented 911. It's speculation, but a lot was lost because of Clinton's screw-up with Lewinsky. I think it's fair to include 911 as partly Clinton's fault for damaging Gore's prospects in 2000.


Hardly (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 01:29:04 PM EST

the supreme court handed the presidency to Bush so IMO it's not really the fault of either Gore or Clinton.


Gore damaged his own prospects in 2000 (none / 0) (#63)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:14:11 PM EST

with Donna's help. Gore ran far away from Clinton, wrongly thinking that the public would associate Gore with the Lewinsky affair if Gore actually ran on the excellent economic record of the Clinton-Gore Admins.


: Gore's self defeat (none / 0) (#64)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:22 PM EST

the public was able to distinguish between disapproval of Clinton's escapades with Lewinsky and Clinton's presidency -- throughout the impeachment proceedings, Clinton's approval rating remained high. Gore & Co. did not see this.
The speech Clinton gave at the 2000 nominating convention brilliantly laid out the case for Gore and continuing the Clinton-Gore trajectory of financial prosperity, etc. I seem to recall that the speech got little play.

They were pretty big events (none / 0) (#28)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:13:28 PM EST

A hundred years from now (a long view), I think they'll be reported as history-changing.


Oh, I think Gore lost that all on his own (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by esmense on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:42:42 PM EST

and with the help of the Supreme Court, of course. Lewinsky didn't negatively affect Clinton's approval with the general public -- why would it have affected Gore's? No. Gore's decision to run away from Clinton and his achievements was much more of a factor in the too-close outcome of that race.


Gore wouldn't have run away... (none / 0) (#45)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 01:27:50 PM EST

...from Clinton if it weren't for Lewinsky. I doubt he'd have taken on the (dead weight of) Lieberman either, except for Lewinsky. Gore would have won big, trumpeting the successes of Clinton, if it weren't for Lewinsky. In short, Gore would have run a very different campaign.


Gore (5.00 / 9) (#47)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 01:30:33 PM EST

listened to Versailles just like Obama is and it was a huge mistake. Versailles said that Lewinsky was a big deal. Your average person on the street didnt think so. They were happy, had jobs low unemployment etc.


Gore (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:17:49 PM EST

had Donna Brazile as his campaign manager. She advised him on his strategy, and he lost because he should never have ended up in a race that was so close Florida could decide it.

Brazile served as deputy field director of the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. On October 20, 1988, she made headlines by telling a group of reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to "'fess up" about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair.

Said Brazile, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House."[2] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and, at the suggestion of campaign manager Susan Estrich, Brazile resigned the same day.
Four years later, the same issue, the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, who had his own extramarital affair rumors.

Clearly this category of scandal is a DB special :)


: Oops....didn't get the whole quote in the box (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 02:23:40 PM EST

Gore had Donna Brazile as his campaign manager. She advised him on his strategy, and he lost because her leadership got him to a point where the race was so close Florida could decide it. He should have won handily despite Nader, but his campaign tanked under lousy management.

Brazile served as deputy field director of the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. On October 20, 1988, she made headlines by telling a group of reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to "'fess up" about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair.
Said Brazile, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House."[2] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and, at the suggestion of campaign manager Susan Estrich, Brazile resigned the same day.
Four years later, the same issue, the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, who had his own extramarital affair rumors.
Clearly this category of scandal is a DB special :)
[emphasis added]

But not the end of culmination of anything... (none / 0) (#69)
by Addison on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:45:32 AM EST

...they'll be viewed as having led to something else. Like I said, a middle chapter. Everything is.


Thanks for posting this. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:07:06 PM EST

It's a good reminder about Bill's first year successes.

Greenspan admitted (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:17:55 PM EST

he was at fault here. And he was lionized by everyone in the 1990s.

The Clinton economic team supported him against Born's wish to regulate derivatives.

All past is prelude, and Larry Summers is back in power.

This is what messed up Wall Street. The Crazy Bush tax cuts messed up the govt finances.

It was a big one-two punch.

And Obama is continuing the legacy.

What??? You are nuts (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:20:03 PM EST

if you think Clinton was part of the arc that allowed Sept 11 to happen. He was extremely dedicated to fighting Al Qaida, and his anti-terrorism team was top notch. They were all ignored by the Bushies.

I'd be nuts excuse Clinton for his failures (none / 0) (#39)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:34:05 PM EST

I blame 911 directly on whatever was directly responsible for the death and destruction. Just by historic proximity as CIC in the years leading up to 911, Clinton shares some of the indirect blame for defense failures, chiefly Bush getting elected in 2000.


Sorry, but that is just wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:45:35 PM EST

This is an example of a little info being dangerous.
Clinton had an amazing team in place studying Al Quaida.

The Bush team, esp Rice, completely shut them out. If that hadn;t happened who knows if 9/11 would have happened.

We do know that Y2K passed with little problem.

You can thank Clinton's anti-terrorists for that.


I agree with you. (none / 0) (#48)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 01:32:35 PM EST

Lots of folks don't. Their disingenuousness is perhaps proved, I think, by the fact that they're the same ones who cheered Starr on while he tried to ruin Clinton. But if Clinton was so great at national security, why did he get caught and blamed for Lewinsky? Doesn't make sense that it's the only thing he missed.


: I don't understand that logic (5.00 / 4) (#54)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 03:01:52 PM EST

Linda Tripp recorded her conversations with Lewinsky.
This was the result of a conspiracy to find dirt on Clinton that was spearheaded years earlier by the Arkansas Project.

In fact (none / 0) (#65)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:23:09 PM EST

during the transition, Richard Clarke & others on the Clinton national security team told their incoming counterparts to watch for Al-Q, Al-Q, Al-Q; their advice fell on palpably deaf ears (possible?). Bush was hell bent on doing the exact opposite of everything Clinton did. The Nat'l Security Team under Clinton met EVERY DAY, and when any member said they hadn't found anything, they were told to look harder. These daily meetings to go through what everyone on the team knew about terrorist activities ceased to take place under Bush.


Yes! (none / 0) (#67)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:15:04 PM EST

Thanks for supplying the detail that I couldn't remember.


: When many (none / 0) (#71)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:51:29 PM EST

were blaming the credit crisis on Clinton some months ago, I researched the issue online; it took a while to find some actual facts, but there they are.

I blame the GOP (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:21:24 PM EST

ENTIRELY for the Lewinsky scandal. And Al Gore won.

Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:26:38 PM EST

and somewhat related, from Ezra:

The strength of Barack Obama's young presidency has been its depressing realism about the limits of legislative achievement in the age of the filibuster and unrelenting partisan polarization. Health care might pass -- and might is an important word there -- because Obama didn't try to do too much. Big as people think this bill is, it really only affects the insurance situations of 30 or 40 million Americans, most of whom would be otherwise uninsured. Helping 30 or 40 million people is a big step forward, but it is not reform of the health-care system. It is an expansion of it. [emphasis supplied]

Well, really, it is an odd admission from him. But progressives have been so all over the map on what the health care reform before us actually is. The best thing since LBJ, the best thing since FDR?

I mean ...I can give you a zillion citations (1, 2 for starters) that this is the greatest attempt at reform ever. And now it's not even reform? What's changed to lead Ezra to be so pessimistic? Nothing in the actual bills.

: Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by dk on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:34:29 PM EST

I actually agree with the bolded sentence. Though, probably not for the reason that Ezra, BTD and you do.
The current health-care system is a disaster. We might witness an expansion of the disaster, but an expanded disaster is not an improvement on anything.

The economy (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:38:47 PM EST

is the main area where I think the Obama admin has really screwed up. I am still waiting for that promised regulation of financial markets...

With regards to taxes, at least the bush cuts will expire next year - I have more confidence that this will happen than other things, since it's passive.

Ignoring Brooksley Born... (none / 0) (#2)
by Dadler on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:41:49 AM EST

...will be the real legacy of the Clinton presidency, unfortunately. Love Bill's tax fight, hate the criminal incompetence of his economic team. That is was followed by Dubya only made things worse, obviously, but it was Clinton's trusted team who decided to marginalize and discredit the only person in any position of "power" (though she really had none) screaming for regulation of derivatives. Raise taxes on the rich, lowering them on the poor -- good. Deciding that unregulated, and unprecedented, gambling with the nation's financial future is alright -- horrible.

A very bad mark on Clinton's two terms. As bad as you can get, in the reality we face today.

his economic team championed (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:44:47 AM EST

the tax policy you state you admire.

On regulation, certainly your point is well taken.

That said, the deregulation of the bush Administration was much more severe and the direct cause of the financial meltdown.


It's the Obamabot Amendment to blaming Clinton (none / 0) (#7)
by Salo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:47:50 AM EST

for 9/11.


I guess FRONTLINE (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:12:49 PM EST

are Obamabots then. They are the ones who recently brought the Brooksley Born story to the forefront.

Of course, Larry Summers was a big part of that mess up in the 1990's, and is now in the Obama admin, and apparently making the same mistakes.

So....this is not an Obama v Clinton, as they are both making the same mistake wrt wall street.


Obama has strong (none / 0) (#66)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:25:05 PM EST

opposing voices among his economic policy advisers, he is just electing to ignore them.


who? (none / 0) (#68)
by coigue on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:09:22 AM EST

: Volker (none / 0) (#70)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:56 PM EST

for one

Brooksley Born warns (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:13:59 PM EST

that the Obama team is making the same mistakes now, so there is no one-upsmanship to be had here.


No profanity (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:47:50 AM EST

Out of curiosity, (none / 0) (#11)
by Farmboy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:50:02 AM EST

from where this image come of Weisberg and others waving bits of clothing? Or are you perhaps referring to pom-pons, the balls of fluff waved by cheerleaders?

Inquiring minds want to know. :-)

history isn't an arc. (none / 0) (#22)
by Salo on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:56:17 AM EST

that's a movie term for narratives.

: "...the arc of history is long...." (none / 0) (#35)
by NealB on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:23:37 PM EST

: actually it's from a MLK speech (none / 0) (#38)
by coigue on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:28:11 PM EST

but if you want to dismiss it, that's on you.