>Oh, happy optimism, as evidenced by Nevada GOP chair Mark Amodei: “Harry Reid’s record as Senate majority leader is comprised of support for a failed $787 billion stimulus package, an extremely unpopular health care bill that includes massive tax increases and an expansion of the federal government’s role in personal medical decisions, and broken promises on issues from the housing crisis to immigration reform,” said Nevada Republican Party Chairman Mark Amodei.”
Return with us now to that portion of the planet wherein facts are given priority over unsupported allegations and pithy assertions.
Assertion Number One: support for a failed $787 billion stimulus package and the other side of the story can be summarized by “not…so…fast,” because there are some formidable supporters of the ARRA (stimulus) programs, which are not encumbered by having to recite talking points.
First, we ought to note the number of members of Congress who are only too pleased to recite the talking point, often just prior to a ribbon cutting ceremony or other public event celebrating the initiation or completion of a project supported by the ARRA. Almost every single GOP member of Congress voted against the ARRA, but then about 90 of them gleefully participated in various ARRA project related ceremonies back home. [HuffPo] This list would include Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) who was pleased to attend a Culpeper Job Fair where some 30 organizational participants received stimulus funding, and the list goes on. [TProg]
Secondly, merely reciting the talking point doesn’t make the numbers disappear. The CEA reported, “The Act has also increased employment in each quarter relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the ARRA has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1½ and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies.” [CEA pdf] No, the ARRA did not bring instant employment to those who had lost jobs because of Wall Street malfeasance or incompetence, mismanagement, and outsourcing; and, unemployment levels are still too high. However, the results remain as summarized, “Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.” [MMA]
Third, when the talking point repetition won’t suffice, and the numbers won’t go away, one can always resort to establishing an impossible measure of success, and then announcing the unmitigated failure of any endeavor. For example, one such argument asserts: The ARRA created some jobs; It did not create enough jobs; Therefore, it was too expensive for the results obtained. Nice try. Notice that the syllogism changes propositions in the middle, as in “What Is Enough?” Now, the argument has been transformed into one discussing relative, not absolute, success. However, an argument about relative failure can just as easily be inverted to argue for relative success. Example: The ARRA created some jobs; It did not create enough jobs: Therefore, we didn’t spend enough on the component programs.
Assertion Number Two: extremely unpopular health care bill depending entirely on which polls are consulted and when the polling was done. Back in March 2010, 538 cited the Quinnipiac polling showing a small trend toward greater support for the health care reform bill, and less support for the efforts by some states’ attorneys general to litigate against it. A USA/Today poll in March found a 49% favorable-40% unfavorable response to the passage of the bill. Omitted from Mr. Amodei’s assertion is the discontent from those on the left who wanted a single payer or robust public option included in the legislation. Finally, while the totality of the bill tended to poll negatively during the debates over its passage, individual elements such as no abuse of the rescission clauses, and closing the Medicare prescription do-nut hole, and allowing older offspring to remain on parent’s insurance programs were quite popular.
But what of those “massive tax increases?” One Utah newspaper seeking to clarify the issues for its subscribers reported, “The bill includes several revenue streams, including $500 billion in savings from Medicare, tax revenue from Cadillac health insurance plans, indoor tanning salons, various sector taxes on pharmaceutical companies, a $2 per enrollee tax to fund research, increased tax revenue because of lower limits on FSAs and more. The key, which Matis said is more significant but less publicized than all the insurance reform, is that of payment reform, which will change how health care providers are paid. This should result in fewer costs and more efficient administration.” Hard to find anything “massive” in this summary.
One might have thought that the fact checkers would have completely reduced “an expansion of the federal government’s role in personal medical decisions ” to rubble by now. Nothing in the bill rations care (unless one subscribes to breathless extrapolations of worst case scenarios involving additional legislation at some unforeseen and unknowable future date,) and there are no “death panels,” nor will one find any “plugs being pulled on granny.”
Assertion Number Three: “and broken promises on issues from the housing crisis to immigration reform” And, just what promises might these be? Mr. Amodei provides no examples to support his contention that Senator Reid promised to “Solve The Housing Crisis?” Would that be the crisis of too few affordable housing units? Or, the crisis of too many foreclosed homes? Or, the crisis of unregulated and often unscrupulous mortgage marketing schemes perpetrated by unregulated and often unscrupulous mortgage wholesalers churning out paper at the behest of Wall St. trading firms seeking fodder for CDOs?
And, if we are to remember correctly, the last major push for comprehensive immigration policy reform legislation stalled in June, 2007, when Republicans in the Senate blocked debate on the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill. [Fox] Cloture motions on S. 1348 (2007: 110th Congress) failed 33-63 on June 7, 2007 on roll call vote #203, and again on a 34-61 vote during roll call #204.
Conclusion: Mr. Amodei has his talking points lined up nicely, although he and his party might be better served by offering more than, “NO,” or “Hell NO,” and by engaging in fact based argumentation rather than the repetitive assertion of soundbites and slogans.
Desert Beacon 