The Obama paradox
How transformational change and buck-passing make odd bedfellows
Despite a tough economy, weakening approval ratings, and a recalcitrant Republican opposition, President Obama has managed to chase down two longtime liberal white whales, and is hot on the heels of a third (or fourth).
Earlier this year he signed into law a health care reform bill that many regard as the biggest piece of social legislation since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s. Congress is about to approve the largest set of financial reforms since the Great Depression. Now Democrats are hard-charging for a new energy bill (which may include a climate-related component). Even immigration reform seems possible.
While many find it surprising the President has been able to pursue such a sweeping agenda, one little discussed key to his (and Democrats’) success has been the consistent practice of front-loading benefits and back-loading costs:
Health care reform cracks down on insurers right away but won’t force people to buy insurance until 2014. A new consumer financial protection agency kicks in almost immediately under the Wall Street reform bill, but banks won’t feel its full force for more than 10 years. And even Democrats’ nascent immigration reforms include at least an eight-year wait before illegal immigrants can apply for permanent residency – after Obama leaves office.
Some say this is good politics, but is it right?
Obama isn’t the first president to “serve voters dessert before making them eat their vegetables.” As Politico points out, the 1983 Social Security reforms that raised the retirement age affected those turning 65 in 2003; President’s Bush’s 2001 tax cuts gave priority to low-income and middle class Americans, gradually adding in cuts for wealthier Americans.
There are a least a couple of problems with this practice.
At some level, truth in advertising is an important part of good governance. In a representative Democracy, citizens have a right and responsibility to hold elected officials accountable for their decisions. By making legislative maneuvers imperceptible to most voters, officials paint a skewed picture of what a law does, rigging the game for incumbents.
This is true of health care. Over the summer, every American will see government take health insurers to the woodshed through tough new regulations. But not a single person will be laid off by an employer who pays a coverage penalty. That’s because the employer incentives won’t kick in for several years.
But both elements (insurance reforms and employer penalties) are a part of a bill that will likely figure prominently in voters’ minds come November.
The other, more troubling issue has to do with even more long-range reforms, such as the 1983 amendments to Social Security. Reforms that levy the largest impact on the next generation run into a representation problem: the biggest chunk of the pain will be felt by those who either aren’t old enough to vote, or may not even exist yet.
Although political theorists have split on what societies owe to successive generations, Americans have largely settled on the idea that we owe them something. Long-term environmental planning or anxiety about the national debt all express the basic sense that we can’t leave our children’s children in the crapper.
Legislative buck-passing will continue to be an inevitable part of lawmaking. But it may be worth considering reasonable limits to the practice. After all, it was the children of Hamelin who paid the ultimate price for their parents’ parsimony.
-Sam
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user tinyfroglet.
Related posts:
- More on healthcare and choice
- President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
- A tough climate
- But if the Dems lose in November, was it worth it?
- State skepticism
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
