411 Politics Fact or Fiction 9.24.07: Week 61

Posted by Brandon Crow on 09.24.2007

Is it finally time for socialized health care in America? Was Michael Mukasey the right nominee for Attorney General? Are the Democrats stalling on Iraq legislation? Is a recession looming on the horizon?

Happy Monday and welcome to Week 61 of Fact or Fiction in the politics zone. We have two more interested, intriguing and intelligent readers participating this week. Brett Leggett was heavily involved in college politics in his younger years and is currently a pediatrician at Children's Hospital. Tom Head is the "civil liberties" writer for About.com. This should be another stellar week for Fact or Fiction.

Ding, Ding!

1. Though her plan may not be the best, Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct in that it is time for the United States of America to socialize health care and make sure every citizen has coverage.

Brett Leggett: FACT. It is time to socialize health care, but that's not quite what Hillary is proposing. Rather than revamping the system with meaningful changes like a single-payer system, the Clinton plan is a compromise that keeps the status quo, but fills in the gaps with subsidies to help people meet a mandatory coverage requirement... basically a large "band-aid" on the health insurance crisis. After Clinton Plan " 1.0" got the crap kicked out of it in 1994, there was no way she was going to propose anything bold. Still, this is a step in the right direction.

Taking an often-used trick from their playbook, the GOP has stigmatized the label "socialized medicine" and equated it with something frightening (e.g. like waking up in the morning and finding yourself lying next to Barbara Bush).

The fact of the matter is government-run universal health care works. Despite what both health insurance and drug companies would have us believe, no one in Europe or north of the border is suffering. They're not waiting in long lines for doctors or being denied needed procedures. Doctors aren't panhandling for their dinner, and drugs from Canada aren't culled from the cauldron of some leprous witch.

The irony is we've long had effective socialized services in this country: the fire department, the 911 operator, the post office and our public schools just to name a few. Do we really need to review the track record of de-regulation and privatization? Bottom line, the time for socialized health care is long overdue as Americans continue to be held hostage by the insurance industry. Yet, whether we will be able to overcome our fear of the "S" word remains to be seen.

Tom Head: FICTION. Sort of. First, I agree with Brett: We need universal health care, but what Hillary Clinton is proposing is not socialized medicine per se. And Hillary Clinton is right: Our first universal health care plan should not exclude the private sector any more than it has to. Maybe our second one should, but our first one should represent an incremental step. Why? Because we don't know what the economic effects of all of this will be. To quote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped may prove unstable." We need to begin with a part-public, part-private proposal, and then if it turns out we need to socialize the industry from there to guarantee equal access to health care, so be it.

By the way, I agree that we need to do something to change public perception of what "socialized" really means. People don't seem to understand that we already have a socialized public school and socialized public university system, a socialized public library system, a socialized public health system, a socialized retirement income system, socialized investment accounts, and a socialized postal system.

Everything under government control is technically "socialized," and that includes many services that we rely on every day. People need to realize that when we talk about "socializing" health insurance, all we're really talking about is something akin to having books at a public library instead of a private university library. The function is, we hope, not going to change; all that's going to change is (a) administration and (b) availability.

0 for 1. Although this should really be 1 for 1. I think Brett and Tom actually agree, but the way the question was framed caused a bit of ambiguity as to what was really being asked, and therefore created multiple angles with which to approach.

2. Retired judge Michael Mukasey has been nominated to be the next Attorney General after Alberto Gonzales' resignation. In truth, it doesn't matter who the next AG is; the main qualification is that he/she has a brain, and his/her memory is still in tact so that they can actually "recall" something.

Brett Leggett: FACT. Dems like Senator Chuck Schumer have given Bush rare praise in selecting the seemingly competent and qualified Mukasey (Schumer picked the guy). But Bush could nominate "Gumby" and he'd look like a genius after the mockery Gonzales has made of himself and the justice department. With about 15 months to go, it's hard to imagine a lame duck AG doing much worse (then again, we've all said that about this administration before). The damage will take a long time to be undone (if ever) and certainly won't be accomplished in just over a year regardless of who's sitting in the AG's office.

Bush knows that Mukasey is unlikely to do anything to really secure or detract from his legacy. And given his lack of political capital these days, Bush has other things to be stubborn about, and this isn't one of them. This is an easy "bone" he can throw the Dems' way while appearing bipartisan--a rare role for him.
So Dems, don't get carried away by praising Bush for nominating someone who's actually qualified for the job ("woo-hoo, you didn't f**k up this time, Mr. President"). Bottom line, anyone who hasn't suffered traumatic brain injury will do. I'd ask for someone with integrity and a respect for the Constitution too, but let's not get too greedy!

Tom Head: FICTION. Mukasey is such a great candidate that I have trouble believing the president actually nominated him, and the fact that he's nominated sends the message, if nothing else, that the wishes of the American people do sometimes influence the decisions of this administration. Will he be independent of the president, and any bad decisions that the president may order him to make? No. But the attorney general has a certain degree of influence within any administration--probably more so than most in this administration, given Bush's Reagan-style approach to his cabinet--and having an intellectually honest guy like Mukasey in that role won't hurt.

Part of the problem with Gonzales, I think, is that Bush essentially made his career and had the power to determine where he'd go next, be it the Supreme Court or a private practice somewhere. This was also a problem with Ashcroft, who had been defeated in a contentious U.S. Senate race and faced an uncertain political future. But Mukasey has never shown any interest in being elected to any office, and he's pushing 70; he knows that this is probably going to be his last high-profile gig before retirement (in fact, he had already retired as a judge last year). There's not really anything Bush can do to influence him outside of the normal chain of command, and his record is that of someone who's not easily influenced anyway.

I'm stunned that Bush selected him, to be honest, and I'm still waiting for the catch. There has to be a catch.

0 for 2. I think the catch that Tom is waiting for, is that Bush knows he's totally unpopular and doesn't have the political capital to fight on this issue. He needs all remaining capital for Iraq.

3. The Democrats are currently stalling on a funding bill for Iraq. They hope to wait till November because the two months in between will give them more time to see what develops on the Republican side of the aisle. Their belief that enough Republicans will soften and join the call to start bringing some troops home is utter, wishful thinking.

Tom Head: FICTION. It's not even wishful thinking. Surely congressional Democratic leaders are too aware of the Republican Party structure to expect to get the two-thirds majority they'd need, in both houses, to override a Bush veto. The wait accomplishes two objectives: (a) it allows Democrats in Congress to pass other legislation designed to increase the congressional majority's abysmally low approval rating, and (b) it brings us closer to presidential primary season and changes the venue for the antiwar debate, taking some of the heat off of congressional Democrats. If all eyes are on Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, antiwar voters will be less likely to blame Congress for not getting our troops out of Iraq.

Brett Leggett: FICTION. Congressional Democrats aren't sitting around "crossing their fingers" and hoping for Republicans to budge. They already know they won't, which works just fine for the Democrats. The longer Dems can postpone things, the longer they can point across the aisle at the GOP and tell Americans, "it's their fault." It's the politically-safe move and one that gives them a chance at picking up more seats in Congress and perhaps the White House down the road.

If Dems were serious about bringing the troops home, they would have done so already. But their political calculus has deemed this an unnecessary risk. If they were to completely de-fund the war, they'd fear being accused of the cruel irony of not supplying our troops. So rather than educating the public that pulling funding doesn't mean "Johnny" will be ordered into battle without bullets, they've chosen to play political roulette with the lives of our troops. Two months is a lifetime for the men and women who will die between now and then. So, no. It's not wishful thinking. It's political thinking, and that's cowardly and unforgivable.

1 for 3. Damn, are these guys good or what? I'm grinning from ear to ear!

4. A recession is definitely looming for the US and it is likely to hit starting around the early parts of 2008.

Tom Head: FICTION. A recession is possible, but "definitely looming" seems a little strong. I'm no economist, but Alan Greenspan, who knows a thing or two about recessions, thinks there's a less than 1-in-3 chance. Make no mistake, though: the housing issue is going to be very big next year. Get used to hearing about foreclosures and subprime lending, because housing will play the same sort of role in the 2008 policy debates that Medicare reform played in the 2000 policy debates. And, much like Medicare reform, it'll be off the political radar a year later.

Brett Leggett: FICTION. First off, a recession favors the Democrats, so Rupert Murdoch and friends are only going to use the word "recession" if they have to. Everyone likes to throw it around, but no one is ever sure exactly what it means. Sure, the official definition is something like no economic growth for two consecutive quarters, but you could have unprecedented corporate profits in the face of rising foreclosures and layoffs and still not be in a recession. Sound familiar?

Whenever the powers-that-be decide we're in a recession and our beloved media repeats the word over and over, then we're in a recession. It's basically our cue to feel bad about the economy, which has the effect of decreasing our "consumer confidence," which in turn causes us to spend less. Then presto, self-fulfilling prophecy.

Whether a recession is coming or not is irrelevant. When jobs are exported overseas, the rights of laborers gradually eroded, and the middle class sentenced to extinction, the time to worry is now... not if ExxonMobil's profits "dwindle" from $40 to $30 billion.

2 for 4.

Brett and Tom wrap up Week 61 for us with a 2 for 4 score. Normally, I'd lament that 50% is failure, but this week has been far from failure. These two guys kicked ass and took names. All I know is, whoever comes on board next week will have their work cut out for them.

Now, having said that, if you'd like to take up the challenge of surpassing Brett and Tom in knowledge and wit, please email me and I will be thrilled to add you to the list of participants.