Coming off the heels of the final Democratic presidential debate,
economist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman has weighed in on Senator Bernie Sanders
single-payer healthcare proposal. Leaving off from one of the most contentious
debates, preceded by a week of attacks by the Hillary Clinton campaign, Krugman
believes Sanders’ proposal is essentially a nonstarter in the current political
atmosphere. Of course the question for Krugman is: which policies, if any,
would be viable to the Do-Nothing Congress?
Krugman’s first argument is that
with a Republican-led Congress, there is very little chance for Sanders’
proposals to pass either chamber. While this may have some truth to it, overall
it forgets that this will be the same scenario for any incoming Democratic
president. Whether Sanders or Clinton wins the nomination and general election,
they will be dealing with a Congress far more content on repealing Obamacare
for the thousandth time than passing any meaningful legislation.
This certainly held true when Obama
was campaigning for his second term in 2012; he (barely) still had the Senate
in his pocket but John Boehner and the Tea Party had already taken over the
House in the 2010 midterm elections. Therefore any policy Obama proposed would
meet head-on with Krugman’s logic, “How can you pass a bill without a Democrat
majority in either legislative chamber?” But that didn’t siphon off supporters
or stop enough voters from electing Obama to office, because they aren’t voting
for the candidate that could work with congress the best, they are voting for
the person with the best ideas.
Still, it is a fair argument for
Krugman to suggest that with this intransigent Congress, it would be an uphill
battle to pass progressive policies. Except the timing of the article implies
that Clinton will somehow fair better. Whether it’s because her proposals are
more modest or because she wouldn’t even attempt to tackle the issues still plaguing
the American healthcare system, for now he remains mum on that point.
The reason is certainly not because
Clinton will have a better chance at implementing policies than Sanders or
Obama. If anything, Clinton would have a tougher time passing legislation
through a congress that ultimately distrusts and despises her, to say the
least. With Sanders long track record of working across the aisle, being good
friends with those in that aisle, and even garnering the support of Republican
Tom Cotton, he arguably has a much better chance passing valuable legislation
while Clinton will encounter government shutdowns over budget deals.
Perhaps to Krugman, it’s far better
to do nothing and say “I tried but, you know, Congress,” than to actually
attempt at passing legislation, whether it succeeds or fails.
