Reply #11: Why don't they just say "austerity program" and call it what it is?

[rockymountaindem]

I also find it laughable that the administration that wanted to give billions in subsidies to private insurance companies so they can make a legally sacrosanct 15% profit on everything wants to slash deficits. One of those things clearly works against the other.

In addition, isn't it hilarious that they want to pay for things like this is with taxes on health care plans. First, they said it was such a high threshold that it wouldn't have an impact on middle class workers. Then they had to cut a deal with unions when they realized that was clearly not the case. Yet the only people who talk about raising taxes on the ultra-rich who have been riding high on the hog for the past 15 years is the Democratic House delegation.


As a Poli Sci grad student, I've been drawing on my comparative politics knowledge (and my days going to college in Canada) and thinking of what this last year would have looked like if the US had adopted the Westminster system at the revolution and just allowed more people to vote instead of the even more restrictive franchise the UK had at the same time (yes I know developing a new system of government was the whole point of the revolution - thank you Barrington Moore and others - but bear with me). So in this little counterfactual, Nancy Pelosi would be head of government and all legislation passed by the House this year would have become law. That means we would have had a bigger stimulus package, mortgage cramdown, and a health care bill with a public option way back in August. And that's just for starters. Not that I want to bring in UK style government, which I don't, but it's interesting to think about IMHO.