The ACA bill was introduced in July 2009; Obama signed it March 23, 2010.
The GOP tax bill was introduced on Nov 2 and signed Dec 22.
This history may rhyme a bit, but it’s not a repeat.
1 Like
This is key - also @Basement_Gainz.
You can’t dictate policy, but policy is going to happen - sit on the sidelines and pout, or check into the game and try to get some things in your (minority) interest done?
2 Likes
Not surprised it is what it is. My post were more about you saying why should politicians work together if something goes against what they believe. For the most part neither side believes anything for real. They just know they don’t want anything to do with the other side.
It doesn’t have to be a tribal game we just let it be one.
No republicans were included in ACA, and it didn’t get a single Rep vote. They couldn’t even peel off an Olympia Snow or a McCain. Hell they had to bribe some dem senators with pork for their states to vote for it.
No Democrats were included in the tax overhaul, and it didn’t get a single Democrat vote.
I’m not sure what relevance the amount of time the bill was under consideration plays.
Not for lack of trying. Obama tried, arguably to a fault. That’s the point. From The Atlantic piece I posted upthread:
"The Obama White House took a number of lessons from the Clinton experience with healthcare policy. […] There was a fourth lesson: Try in the Senate to find Republican support at an early stage, instead of waiting until the political dynamic shifts toward implacable opposition. […]
But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.
What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader." [emphasis mine]
Because the GOP was racing to complete the legislation under reconciliation; ie, under rules by which they would not need Dem votes.
1 Like
What’s surprising, or rather what is sad, is that many voters are perfectly fine with this.
It’s not surprise. It’s outrage. (Edit: note here I’m currently referencing Dems refusing to get involved with the bill “on principle”) And it’ll happen from me at least every damn time until the end. Either that or I’ll have become Zeb. Then it might as well be the end.
Giving up on making things better is for the useless. I don’t plan on being useless.
3 Likes