![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/2parse.com\/\/images\/snowSM0029.jpg?resize=580%2C385\" "\\"Times")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1. Ezra Klein on Rep. Paul Ryan, Health Care, and the Deficit<\/strong>. If you want a serious, policy-oriented daily take on health care and fiscal issues, turn to Ezra Klein. This week, he began the opinionosphere’s discussion of Rep. Paul Ryan’s serious attempt to balance the budget<\/a> (which has no chance of being embraced even by the Republicans or Democrats.) Later, he interviewed Rep. Ryan – though it read more like a discussion between two serious people about fiscal policy and health care reform<\/a>. Klein later attempted to see where along the political spectrum the Senate health care reform bill fell<\/a>:<\/p>\n Take Rep. Paul Ryan’s health-care plan…as the conservative pole on this issue. Then take single-payer and place it on the other side of the spectrum. Where does the Senate bill fall?<\/p>\n It’s closer to Ryan’s plan than to single-payer. A lot closer, in fact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet this basic fact – that Obama has taken a rather conservative approach to health care substantively similar to the 1994 plan Republicans counter-proposed to Bill Clinton<\/a> – has been obscured by a Republican Party intent on obstructing Obama’s agenda to gain partisan advantage<\/a>. As Klein explains, the problem is that the incentives for each party don’t line up<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]hat’s the underlying reality of health-care reform. Substantive compromise is easy. In fact, the bill\u00a0is<\/em> a substantive compromise. It’s a deficit-neutral, universal-coverage scheme that relies on the private insurance market and looks like one of the Republican alternatives from 1994. What’s hard is\u00a0political<\/em> compromise. Because there, the two positions are that Democrats are helped if a bill passes and Republicans make gains if a bill fails. There’s no way to split the difference between those positions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At the same time, however, Klein castigates Democrats as well as Republicans<\/a> for failing to put the national good over their own political situations:<\/p>\n The distinguishing feature of the budget conversation, however, is that it happens at a very abstract level. This red line needs to come down to meet this black line, and this huge number needs to eventually become this slightly-smaller number. That’s all fine for a floor speech, but when you start trying to muscle the red line into position or subtract from the very big number, things get real specific, real quick. Suddenly, you’re telling seniors that there are treatments they just can’t get and you’re telling workers that the insurance system is going to have to change. And just as Conrad doesn’t have much appetite for doing that to his constituents on the small things that most of them don’t notice, very few legislators have demonstrated much appetite for doing this to the country on the big things that pretty much everyone notices.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2. I do not accept second place for the United States of America<\/strong>. Edward Alden and E. J. Dionne comment on what is brewing to become the big issue of the 2010 elections<\/a>, not coincidentally countering the main narrative put forth by the right wing.<\/p>\n 3. A successful first yea<\/strong>r. Norm Ornstein and John P. Judis explain some of the significant accomplishments of Obama’s first year in office<\/a>.<\/p>\n 4. Virtual insanity. <\/strong>Andrew Sullivan’s main theme this week has been the virtual insanity of the Republican Party. He writes: “On every single major issue of the day, they are incoherent<\/a>.” He quotes Daniel Larison:<\/p>\n Republicans have been treating temporary, tactical political victories as if they were far more significant, strategic victories, when, in fact, they have no political strategy worth mentioning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then of course are the highlights from that Daily Kos poll<\/a> in which – for example – 59% of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached for something-or-other.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>Reid v. Abdulmutalla<\/strong>b.\u00a0Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly gets some hard hits in on\u00a0the ridiculousness of the Republican response to Obama’s handling of the panty-bomber<\/a>. And Benen doesn’t even get into the fact that Abdulmutallab is now cooperating<\/a>.<\/p>\n 6. Obstruction.<\/strong> I examined some of the theories of why the Republicans are so uniformly obstructionist<\/a>.<\/p>\n 7. Madden vs. Real Life. <\/strong>As a football-related article for this Super Bowl weekend, Chris Suellentrop for Wired<\/em> explored how the video game Madden is affecting the real game of football<\/a>.<\/p>\n