Wait, I Thought It Was Over; AP Blurb Says Recession ‘Will Likely Take Years to Abate’
Laurie Kellman, call your office, check your e-mail, and tap in to your Twitter.
The Associated Press reporter didn’t get the memo that recession is supposedly over, and that at a minimum you shouldn’t be writing as if it will be with us for a while. She also erred in citing the weak economy as a bad thing for Democrats. The New York Times told us about a week ago that a bad economy is a good thing for Democrats who want to pass state-controlled health care and other freedome-restricting agenda items, because a bad economy increases personal insecurity. They’re such pals of the little guy, you see.
Both busts against the conventional media wisdom are in Kellman’s brief item from late this morning (bolds are mine):
Health care issues: Hold off for a better economy?
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Why can’t President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats wait until after the recession is over to try to reform health care?
THE POLITICS: The recession is likely to take years to abate, but the 2010 midterm elections aren’t far off. Obama and the Democrats who control Congress campaigned last year on a promise to extend health insurance to all and to curb the cost of care. By the next Election Day, the party in control wants a hefty list of accomplishments to point to, topped by having passed the most sweeping social change in a generation. There is no pocketbook issue more compelling than health care reform. It is intensely personal because it affects the health and financial welfare of voters and their families. Democrats are counting on the passage of health care overhaul to fuel optimism and persuade voters to keep them in power. Republicans are working hard to raise doubts about the emerging legislation — how it might add to an already huge federal budget deficit, increase insurance premiums or increase taxes.
Go to the link to see what Kellman believes it all means to next year’s congressional elections.
Points to ponder:
- If, as Kellman writes, ObamaCare is “the most sweeping social change in a generation,” why is it being sold as a “no big deal, you can keep your doc, keep your plan, keep it all, no big deal” item?
- What was the “sweeping social change” that was enacted a generation ago? Dictionary.com says that a generation is about 30 years. I’m figuring that Kellman must be referring to the election of Ronald Reagan and the simultaneous thumping of Jimmy Carter that occurred 29 year ago, almost to the day.
- Alternatively, perhaps Kellman follows business and the economy on the side. The Community Reinvestment Act become law in the late 1970s, and has, with its subsequent beef-ups, certainly caused a lot of social change — not for the good — in the form of high foreclosures and distorted real estate markets.
- Somehow, the idea that Congress will stay largely intact because of voter gratitude over passing a 1900-plus page monstrosity that STILL has death panels, has abortions, and takes away medical choice any time a private plan is tweaked in any way seem a bit far-fetched.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
Hello, Tom, did you find out anything about the supposed Rush Limbaugh attacking a NYT reporter story? Also, are you following the elections tonight or going to post updates and such? Thanks.
Comment by zf — November 3, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
The sweeping social change from one generation ago: The drinking age became 21, due to the National Minimum Drinking Age act of 1984, 25 years ago.
A new generation of adults could now vote, sign contracts, join the military, pay taxes, get married, be tried in Court as an adult, et al, et cetera…
But learn to use fake IDs, creating a lifelong harm to their respect for govt/police authority. Perhaps creating a lifelong awareness of how liberty can be infringed by broad laws created by elites?
Enough time has passed to start assessing whether the 21-drinking-law was effective or harmful to its objectives.
In the narrow goal of drinking, the law may actually be harmful since drinking occurs at binge private parties, instead of at public bars and other venues where social norms could discourage excess and encourage responsible fun.
The related issue of “drinking and driving” was a motivator for the 21 age, but that social issue could possibly be sufficiently addressed by DUI policies, the social norm of a “designated driver” that has emerged, et al.
Google “drinking age 21″ for various sites beginning to discuss whether 21 drinking age.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, thanks for the excuse to expound on a pet peeve, while waiting for election results.
Actually, I suspect that AP’s Kellman used the phrase “the most sweeping change in a generation” casually. I doubt she had a particular social change in mind.
Another good candidate is the Fall of Communism (Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago).
The switch from pensions to 401(k) type retirement plans is another generational change candidate, but I think that’s too new to be a generation ago.
And, of course, Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. That’s 36 years ago. And the birth control pill became in common use, significantly changing family compositions and population levels.
For more, Google “Generation X”, Millenials or “Baby Busters”. Read from e.g. the authors Strauss & Howe, who seemed to have started this generational analysis, such as with “Generations: The History of American’s Future”, (c) 1992.
Comment by Cornfed — November 3, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
#1, responding late, but no, didn’t do a live watch, but did a short post around midnight.
#2, totally agree on the drinking age. As long as the age to join the military is 18, there is no good reason why the drinking age is 21. Absolutely none. It is a classic example of federal intimidation of the states with money. This is a disgraceful legacy of Liddy Dole.
Comment by TBlumer — November 4, 2009 @ 7:40 am
I am not sure if I’m still believing in Obama’s strategy. I guess there are still a lot of circumstances that has not been resolved just like providing more stable jobs for jobless people.
Comment by Mike @ bigjobsboard — November 4, 2009 @ 12:03 pm