Now, the Brawler understands that rising unemployment will almost surely cut into Obama's still quite high popularity. So the notion of delaying, nay killing, health care reform and possibly weakening the Prez surely seems appealing for Republicans with an eye toward picking up seats in 2010.
But a real world implication of rising unemployment is that a growing number of people are going to be losing their job-connected health care. And even those who still are employed likely will be increasingly skittish about their own coverage and future prospects. Even as they grumble about paying more for what they have.
The last time the GOP tried to kill health care the economy was on the rebound, even if the recovery's effects had been less than far-reaching. That's not the case now -- and unemployment surely higherthan it was from Jan 1993 (7.3%) to October 1994 (5.8%) when the 2010 election season heats up.
The US savings rate is the highest its been in 16 years, and not because people suddenly became fiscally shrewd. It's because they're scared. It is not clear to the Brawler why you want to be seen as the party fostering health care insecurity (Bill Kristol opposed health care back in 1993 to deny the Dems the privilege of being seen as the party of health care security) at a time like this. Or offering up weak ass solutions like HSAs, which everyone hates.
Yes, all things being equal a bad economy is not good for incumbents or their policies. And the Brawler's not going to argue that that calculus is obsolete. But -- as the past two election cycles have demonstrated -- different variables are at play now.
All of which is to say, this seems like a smart move.
Comments