Olympia Snowe – Making Hard Decisions
On Tuesday Senator Olympia Snowe made a hard decision – she went against her party and voted in favor of the Senate Finance Committee legislation on health care reform. In her comments prior to the vote Snowe said, “…the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.” I think I’ve read that sentence a dozen times and I am repeatedly impressed by the message. We DO have monumental issues facing this country, we DO need leaders who are willing to make those decisions regardless of the short-term political consequences, and we DO need them now.
Consider what we have facing us right now: pending legislation on massive health care reform that will fundamentally change the way we administer health care and provide insurance to all Americans; an eight year war in Afghanistan and a six year war in Iraq; a growing threat from a potentially nuclear Iran; a financial system still reeling from the effects of reckless derivatives trading, aggressive mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers, deficient ratings agencies with obvious conflicts of interest, etc all demanding massive restructuring of the regulatory apparatus; continuing job losses with unemployment nearing 10%; a massive and growing national debt even excluding unfunded long-term mandates; ongoing efforts to secure the nations borders and prevent terrorist incidents on US soil; 10 million illegal immigrants; an addiction to cheap energy that leaves us exposed to the whims of Middle East punks and contributes to climate control issues that most scientists agree have devastating long-term implications; and much, much more. These are massive problems and they all demand prompt, thoughtful, creative decisions that are absolutely certain to anger substantial portions of the population. That is, by very definition, the meaning of a “hard decision.”
As I thought about Snowe’s comment it seemed to me that this was the reason Barack Obama was elected. I certainly don’t agree with everything the man says or does but I think this is the essence of what he brought to the election – a conviction that he will make the hard decisions that have eluded the country for so long. Of course many readers will consider that he sold the country a bill of goods; but that determination is years if not decades down the road. Right now, today, he is the president and he is the one leading the fight to make MAJOR changes that will, hopefully, benefit this country in the long term. The thing is, he’s forcing the debate and major issues actually are getting addressed.
The Bush years were filled with “easy” decisions made without thoughtful analysis or long-term perspective. The Bush tax cut was an “easy” decision as tax cutting always is. Everybody loves seeing lower taxes and it sure does great things for your political popularity. Granting a new Medicare prescription drug benefit was an “easy” decision much loved by the enormous elderly population who are such reliable voters. But, if I have my facts right, each of those decisions, by itself, will add more to the country’s long-term budget deficit than anything Obama has done to date including the stimulus package and the financial system bailout (please correct me if I have that wrong). But in eight years I don’t recall any big, hard decisions from Bush. In eight years before that I don’t recall the big decisions from Clinton either. And today, I’m missing the Republican focus on the big issues.
I am an equal opportunity basher. In fact, I like the Republican Congressional
leadership quite a bit more than Reid and Pelosi; but that’s not very high praise for McConnell and Boehner either. Republicans are missing the boat when they are led down the road by angry conservatives. I think Jon Stewart got it right the other night when he said “conservatives hate Obama more than they love America.” That’s because the conservative focus is on finding fault and pinning blame. The object is to make Obama fail. Stewart’s comment came on the back of the outlandish, outrageous conservative joyous response to Chicago’s loss of the 2016 Olympics (Beck: “Oh, it’s so sweeeeet….savor this moment”). Well, I don’t agree with Obama on lots of things but here’s a man saying “we have problems and I’d like to try to fix them” while his opponents are saying “we’re going to do everything in our power to stop you.” That is a very screwed up way to run a party and cannot possibly be in the country’s best interest.
Is there any question that the Republican strategy is to deny Obama any victories so they can point to his ineffectiveness and take back control of the House in 2010? But hey, it’s working. Saturday Night Live lampooned Obama for having done “nothing” in office. Jay Leno joked after Obama received the Nobel Prize that the biggest thing Obama had done in his brief presidency was “well, win the Nobel Prize.” Jon Stewart skewered Obama by referring to his “full plate” of priorities and saying with great exasperation, “It’s [expletive] chow time, brother. That’s how you get things off your plate.” Terrific! Let’s all celebrate that in nine months our country has accomplished NOTHING. Unfortunately, I only see people on one side of the aisle who are trying to move this country forward while those on the other side are simply focused on obstruction for the sake of political expediency.
Now, there are certainly legitimate differences of opinion on legislation. But again, it seems to me that conservatives insist on winning every fight and throwing up roadblocks wherever a Democratic victory, or even a bipartisan victory, however minor, can be declared. The people of Washington DC had an opportunity to finally get a voice in Congress thanks to a bipartisan agreement to give an additional House seat to Utah; but even there a conservative Senator had to screw up the agreement because he thinks he has the right to decide what is best for the people of DC on gun control. We need leaders who care about this country enough to put their political lives at risk for the greater good. I really want to see John McCain take control of the Republican party and I find it extremely disappointing that he seems to be a respected senior Senator without portfolio. McConnell and Boehner are playing games as are Pelosi and Reid and the country is running on a mouse wheel going nowhere fast. It’s exhausting and it’s depressing.
And so I’ll go back once again and read Olympia Snowe’s comment and find hope that there is at least one politician (well, two) with an understanding of the magnitude of this moment in our history. I certainly hope we don’t continue this legislative stalemate into the 2010 election….what a hollow victory that would be for the Republicans. They win, we all lose.
Bush didn’t have tough decisions, Ha! Obama’s toughest decision is what path will he take on the road to socialism. Couldn’t disagree with your post more Mike, but then you do still have that right to express you views thanks to the founders and not to men like Obama and his close circle of friends that will take us in a totally different direction.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Holiday Inn del Norte
Thanks for the feedback Ron. I don’t expect I will find much support for this view from readers here but I thought it was a view worth expressing. As to Bush’s easy/hard decisions I actually think he had very little trouble with the big decisions of his presidency. The war decision re Afghanistan was a no-brainer with probably 90% of the country supporting the move at that time. The Iraq war decision was a fait accompli by the time the “go” was given — we had so much personnel and materiel in-country that a pullback was just not in the cards. So no, I don’t think these were tough decisions. But my point was not directed at the decisions that were forced upon him (or Clinton) but the ones he initiated (or didn’t) that would fundamentally reshape, protect, and preserve our country. Long term decision making without short term political benefits (in fact, short term political consequences!) — those are the tough ones and we’ve avoided them in this country for a very, very long time.
The move toward socialized medicine is certainly long term, but sadly one that once installed will be difficult if not impossible to undue—much harder than getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan. This has long be a goal of those on the left and rather than tackle such things as tort reform, pre-existing conditions,etc. Obama has decided to scrap the entire system and try some radically new, something that has many short comings in those countries where such a system exist. I do not see this as a move to better health care in this country , but an attempt to gain more and more power for the central government. Clinton and Bush did not want to fundamentally change this nation as does Obama and this is the difference. I do NOT want to see this country undergo fundamental changes. We have a system that has for the most part worked well and to toss the baby out with the bath water is a road I do not wish to travel. I believe the changes Obama wants would undermine the security and welfare of this nation and I for one will do what I can to prevent that. I see Obama as threat, a great threat to America and American values. He hates the America of our fathers and seeks to impose something totally alien. You write a good post and I do respect your viewpoint. This is what the 1st Amendment is about, but some would change this because they fear opposition and dissent —to me Obama falls into this group.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Holiday Inn del Norte
I think there are probably a couple of reasons Olympia Snowe made the decision to support the health care reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee. First of all, she does not lean as conservative as some may wish she would lean. Second, I suspect she believes she may have an opportunity to influence the shape of the final bill, if she supports it moving forward. I think it is important to note that she has not said she will support the final version, but feels the issue needs to move forward. I would agree with that.
Mike is correct when he says there have been far too many tough decisions that should have been made long ago. Our political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, have had a bad habit of putting these decisions just far enough into the future that they do not have to be the ones to deal with them. It makes for an easier reelection bid for them all, much easier than it would be if they actually made some of these tough decisions.
One thing I do want to address is the point about angry conservatives leading the Republican Party down the road. Yes, there are a lot of conservatives who have said some very extreme things about President Obama, but there were a lot of liberals who had a lot over very extreme things to say about George W. Bush as well. In my opinion, neither side of the political spectrum have learned to play nice with the other side.
There are some very fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals and there are some very fundamental reasons why we do not like some of the policies of President Obama. I can’t say for certain what the end result of those policies will be, but I am afraid he is leading our country down a road that is far removed from what our founding fathers intended. I can’t help but wonder where it will end up.
A couple of quick responses before a longer take: first, Larry not only are Dems equally to blame for raising the level of hysterical rhetoric but, in schoolyard parlance, “they started it.” No question about it! I just happen to think the conservative talking heads have taken it to new and unwelcome extremes; and second, Ron, I couldn’t agree more that we don’t need fundamental political, social, or economic change — I’m quite happy with the way things have gone these 250 years.
But, and it’s a big but, my basic premise is that the country’s underlying economy is the mother of all Ponzi schemes and in 30-50 years it will come crashing down on the heads of my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. One of the reasons we are all comfortable with the ways things are is that we’ve borrowed up to our eyeballs to keep the economic engine running. We should have taxed gasoline a dollar a gallon 30 years ago after the first energy crisis both to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to provide the funds necessary to maintain and build our infrastrcuture of roads, bridges, high speed rail, etc. Instead, we have bridges and roads collapsing around us and it will continue to get worse. We needs hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars just for infrastructure. We have massive unfunded mandates in social security, Medicare, and Medicaid created at a time when our life expectancy was much shorter….trillions of dollars of future payments that are supposed to be paid in by the next generation — but the next generation is a whole lot smaller and we’re going to go broke if we don’t address these issues now. There’s more and I should probably do a seperate post but these are the big decisions I’m talking about that absolutely demand to be addressed — and the answers will not be pretty because we’ve been living on Fantasy Island.
Mike,
I think you know how I feel about our current crop of conservative talking heads. I have no use for any of them, despite the fact that they may slip up and actually say something good once in a while. I apply that assessment to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and all the rest.
Your example of the first energy crisis 30 years ago is a good one. I can remember some of that myself, as I was 17 years old at the time and it was pretty bad. You would have thought that would have galvanized our government into making some decisions and getting things done, but it didn’t. You and I have discussed the gasoline tax before (I believe that was when you first started commenting on the blog) and we generally do not see eye to eye on that, but I can’t help but wonder how different it would have been had they did what had to be done and fixed the problem when it first became a problem.
Mike,
Good post. I happen to adore Olymipia Snowe, not for her Conservative or Liberal leanings (nor because she’s a fellow Greek
) but because she seems to be one politician who actually thinks about positions and their implications on both her constituency and the country as a whole. I also think she’s almost alone in understanding that steps 1 and 2 can be taken without guaranteeing steps 3 and 4. She’s a great thinker and rarely falls into the rhetorical panic of “slippery slope” that so often grips her party and prevents reasonable action. All that said and in the end, I think it just doesn’t matter what anybody but her constituency thinks of her actions, as they are the ones who elect her. She’s been reelected by landslides even when she has voted against her party.
As for the nasty tone of political debate…I think we all know that both the left and the right each have their salespeople who will grasp and broadcast the most extreme views. Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and Rhoades etc. are just as extreme “cheerleaders” for the left as Limbaugh and Co.are for the right. These people are entertainers, fighting for ratings-pure and simple. The larger problem, however, results when the polticians themselves start acting like these folks. An example, of course, were the ridiculous and erroneous “death panel” assertions by Grassley and other elected officials. We expect the Salespeople of the Apocolypse (right or left, your choice) to showcase entertaining, yet baseless “facts” as a way of garnering an audience. It is irresponsible and completely unproductive, though, for our politicians to follow suit.
Mike,
After the House passage of the HC bill and the Senate bucks it, I thought it a good time to revisit this post. It appears that Snowe is not only sticking to her guns but that she is also representing her constituents’ desires to the letter.
For her decision to let the bill come out of committee, she has been branded (again!) a RINO by nasty bloggers, Limbaugh, Beck and several others. Yet, a funny thing happened on the road to passage- she says NO (at the time of this writing) to the public option asit is written. The Democrats are annoyed, and their “screamers” point to Maine polls that say most support both the public option and government regulation on health care providers, and say she’s ignoring her voters.
I examined the polls, and came to the opposite conclusion. These polls say that the Maine voters would support a public option FOR ALL, similar to Medicare. You have smartly pointed out that the option on the table is anything but that. It appears that Snowe is not only sticking to her guns but that she is also representing her constituents’ desires to the letter.
I hope Olympia Snowe holds her ground. The House version of public option is just a bad idea and doesn’t address the crucial issues. I much prefer her “trigger” mechanism but my concern remains with costs. When are they going to realize that addressing health insurance needs does absolutely nothing to reduce health care costs? Getting insurance to 30 million uninsured is admirable but how does it bring down our health care bills? I remain very unconvinced by the current iteration of health care reform. I dislike Joe Lieberman quite a bit but he’s right on this one.