Chuck Schumer is in the news for saying that Democrats should not have passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and in doing so has handed more ammunition to the right wing noise machine. His argument is that Democrats should have done more to fix the economy instead of "squandering" the mandate given to them by the electorate. He believes that if Democrats had passed other laws instead, they wouldn't have been punished politically. He's wrong, and here's why.
On it's face, Schumer's point seems reasonable - we should have done more to fix the economy. Economists certainly agree that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act wasn't a large enough stimulus plan. Given our national infrastructure problems, a big WPA-style program almost certainly would have been an intelligent use of money, particularly given that it would have been financed through T-bills issued at a near 0% interest rate. Here's the problem, though - it never would have passed.
President Obama entered office hoping to find common ground with Republicans in order to deal with big problems. He did not anticipate the unprecedented degree to which the Republican party would be unified against him. They made the calculation that if they opposed the President and the economy did not improve quickly enough that they would be rewarded in the midterms, and they were right.
Take the ARRA. Many Republicans at the time argued that not only was no stimulus needed, but that unspent TARP funds should be cancelled (ignore the fact that many then lined up for stimulus funds for their districts). It's clear that not all Republicans felt that way, but almost all of them voted that way. When the bill finally passed, it received a total of two Republican votes - Arlen Specter (who would switch parties shortly thereafter) and Olympia Snowe. This was the last time that a part of the President's agenda would get a single Republican vote. As a result, the Democrats would only be able to pass legislation where they controlled 60 votes, which was only for the period between Al Franken's inauguration and Scott Brown's election: 134 days.
Given universal Republican intransigence and their ability to control the pace of legislation through procedural delays, there wasn't enough time for more than one big idea. What other big idea would have been rewarded by the electorate?
None. Tax Reform, Immigration, and additional Stimulus would have been met with the same furious reaction as healthcare reform. The Tea Party was in full swing and the networks were dutifully covering it as a centrist grassroots protest against government spending, instead of a right wing astroturfed protest against Democrats having any political power.
The ACA is not perfect, but it does work to address a major problem in the American economy - inequality. It gives millions of people the opportunity to access the economic security that comes with having insurance. The biggest political problem is that it's not sexy - It's a wonky solution which seeks to solve a complex problem with minimal disruption to existing structures. It can't be summarized on a bumper sticker.
So, Schumer tries to play the centrist. He tries to triangulate and pretend that the problem is that the Democrats failed to listen to the people. He buys into the "both sides are bad" narrative and there is no surer way to turn off voters. The real problem is that Republicans made a political calculation at the expense of the American people. They decided it was better to let millions suffer than allow a Democrat to pick up a win.