The GOP Clash Demonstrates One Thing: There Are Very Few Serious Candidates
The saying in political circles these days is that Herman Cain peaked one hour before the start of the CNN Republican debate this past weekend. Clearly, Cain did not give a great account of himself. He managed to make, what is ostensibly a very simple tax plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% national sales tax) into a very confusing topic for the viewer and drew fire from all sides at the start of the debate. Some of the criticism was, frankly, odd for a Republican forum. Michele Bachmann criticized the plan as being to regressive: she is right, but this is the first time that I've heard the Tea Party advocate argue the virtues of a progressive tax system. Romney criticized it as double taxation, pointing out that Nevada residents would have to pay their own state sales tax in addition to the national tax. He is also right, but his point is sort of beside the point. We pay multiple taxes at almost every level now. Income is taxed with SSI taxes and income taxes at both the federal and state level. We already have federal taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and firearms that are in addition to state-level sales taxes.
I was on one level very surprised to see the GOP candidates so roundly dismiss what is a pretty GOP idea -- a flatter tax code and a shift away from income-based taxes to consumption-based taxes. I guess everyone shoots for the front-runner of the week.
Cain did himself absolutely no favors in the debate, mumbling on about Apples and Oranges, rather than focusing the debate on the simplicity of his plan and the complexity of the existing plan. He also was completely backed into a corner, trying to continue to argue that this plan won't make taxes go up on lower-income Americans, when it is obvious on face that it will (a point Rick Santorum and Rick Perry made at great length.) Of course, Rick Perry is now turning around and promotion a flat income tax designed to "broaden the tax base", which is exactly the same thing, but never we mind that.
Just when it looked like Cain was going to be completely cooked and roasted, Romney and Perry turned on each other in a series of exchanges that, in a less civil day, might have ended in a fist fight. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal immigrants (he hired a landscaping company which employed illegals, hardly a first) and Romney fumbled completely by stating that of course he asked the lawn company to fire them since he was running for public office, seemingly implying that he wouldn't have cared otherwise. Perry kept pointing his finger at Romney. Romney kept chiding Perry for interrupting him, even begging moderator Anderson Cooper to intervene at one point.
In total, it was the worst showing for the GOP field as they looked like a bunch of bickering school children. Romney clearly had his worst performance, losing his cool in a way I had not seen in previous debates. Cain looked like an utterly unserious front-runner. Perry looked like a guy who has lost all momentum and is just trying to gin up controversy to keep himself relevant. If there was a winner, it was Newt Gingrich, whose professorial, intelligent responses played a lot better against this backdrop than they had in previous debates.
In spite of Romney's poor performance, it is abundantly clear to me that he is the only credible candidate in the field.
Cain? If the anchor to your campaign is a tax plan and you can't explain it, you are in big trouble. People might forgive some of the downright ignorant things Cain has said on foreign policy, his utterly confusing responses to questions about social issues and his borderline racist comments about Muslims if he was rock solid on economic policy. But Cain would be a train wreck in a general election campaign.
Perry? The more that even Republican hear him speak, the less they like him. Does anyone really think this is the guy to bring down Barack Obama?
Gingrich? He WOULD be credible -- if he didn't carry so much baggage. He's a smart guy and a great debater. He explains his positions in a clear, well thought out manner. But if he ever became a serious threat in the polls, his sketchy personal past and long history in Washington would be a club over the head of his poll numbers.
Bachmann? Please. Crazy doesn't win general elections.
Santorum? If the lynchpin of your campaign is that you've won in a swing state and the reason you aren't in office is that you lost re-election in that swing state by 18%, you aren't starting in a great place. Besides, he comes off horribly bitter. Nobody takes him seriously.
Paul? His loyalists love him, but the day the GOP nominates an anti-war, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, pro-gay marriage (sort of) libertarian, I'm investing in snow plow dealerships in hell.
Huntsman? Is he still running? Regrettably, Jon Huntsman is a very serious and well qualified candidate. He just can't get the GOP to pay attention to him.
All of which leaves Romney as the guy with the most credibility.
The key question is whether that will matter to the GOP in this nomination cycle. It didn't matter when they nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharon Angle in Nevada in 2010. Do they want to win or do they want a Tea Party loyalist? We shall see.
Qaddafi Dead
The death of Libyan Dictator Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi if you like that spelling) is good news to the world. Qaddafi was an awful dictator, hated by his people and well known for making crazy and offensive UN speeches that delegates would walk out of.
You can criticize President Obama at great length on many domestic topics, but to the surprise of many, he has been a rock-solid leader on foreign policy.
The GOP can say all they want that he bows too much or isn't strong enough, but the facts tell a different story.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. So are scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead.
The Iraq War is essentially over with the last US troops leaving in the next couple of months.
Our position in Afghanistan is strengthened (albeit we still need an exit strategy.)
We have a new, comprehensive, nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
We have new free trade deals spanning the globe.
Did President Bush have 1/10th this amount of accomplishment in 8 years?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The Obama Doctrine, Any Chance for Real Entitlement Reform?, Energy Policy Twisting in the Wind
Is There an Obama Doctrine?
Every President has a philosophy behind how they involve the military in foreign affairs. The notion of a Presidential "doctrine" dates back to President James Monroe, whose "Monroe Doctrine" stated that the US would view further colonization in North America by European nations as an act of aggression but that the US would not interfere with existing colonies or with the internal affairs of European nations.
More recently, the "Bush Doctrine" of former President George W. Bush moved US foreign policy to a more activist position, parting ways with other Post-World War 2 Presidents in supporting the notion of pre-emptive war to protect US security interests, justifying intervention in Iraq, a country which had not attacked the US on the potential for a future threat.
So, more than 2 years into his Presidency, with airstrikes in Libya taking place in the past two weeks, it is worth asking, is there an "Obama Doctrine" and what is it?
The President has stepped up presence in the Afghanistan, wound down operations in Iraq, stayed out of tribal conflicts in Africa, but supported rebels in Libya.
Afghanistan is arguably a "shoot second" war, since the Taliban was clearly the driving force behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Taliban controlled the former government in Afghanistan. Iraq was clearly a pre-emptive war, as there was no overt act of aggression taken by Iraq.
Taking just these two examples, one would assume that the "Obama Doctrine" is more of a return to the philosophies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, of US intervention only where there is a national security interest and we are struck first, or where there is a clear act of aggression against a US ally, such as in the case of the first Gulf War.
But then there is Libya. We were not attacked. Libya did not attack a US ally. This is clearly a case of involving the US in a civil war in Libya. And therein lies the distinction. It is not quite a war of pre-emption (no one considers Libya a credible threat to US security compared to Iran or North Korea), nor is it a "shoot second" war. The mission in supporting the rebels is clearly to support regime change and protect humanitarian interests, even if the former is not explicitly stated by the administration.
There is an intellectual argument for supporting humanitarian missions by the US military, but it is a slippery slope. If Libya, then why not Darfur? Or Somalia? The list of civil wars causing human strife in the world is long. But clearly Libya involvement is low impact at this point. We aren't committing ground troops. We have the backing of NATO. US Casualties will be extremely low and the cost low compared to Iraq or Afghanistan.
So, as best I can tell, the nascent "Obama Doctrine" advocates use of force when:
(1) There is an imminent threat to US security
(2) As a proportional response to an attack on the US
(3) For limited humanitarian reasons, with the support of the international community
We'll see how this philosophy evolves over time.
Will Paul Ryan's Bold Proposal Spark Real Reform?
Rep. Paul Ryan, who is the point man for the 2012 GOP budget, is set to reveal a bold plan for reform Medicare and Medicaid, two of the four albatrosses around the neck of the US budget (the other two being defense spending and social security.) Ryan's plan is reportedly very bold, including:
(1) Changing Medicare as we know it for those 55 and under. Eliminating government coverage for those who retire after 2021 and replacing it with a federal grant to purchase private insurance.
(2) Dramatically reducing Medicaid funding over time and replacing the traditional program with block grants to the states, who would have the freedom to experiment with different systems for the funds in their own states.
This is a radical change. The Medicare plan essentially contains costs by reducing the rate at which government expenditures on Medicare go up. To explain it simply, if costs under Medicare are rising 10% per year, Ryan's plan might increase the insurance grant by only 3% per year, meaning that private insurers would have to figure out ways to provide coverage at a lower cost than the government would. This means that either private insurers will find a way to get vastly more efficient or the level of coverage will go down to something more affordable.
This is basically rationing by another name - a charge sure to be leveled by the left, but actually a good thing, if you have read my prior writings. The ONLY way to significantly "bend the cost curve" is to be more selective about what is covered. You simply can't reduce costs AND provide every form of care to every person at every stage of their life. That is how socialized systems contain cost - they restrict the availability of some treatments. And it's a path we'll have to go down to fix Medicare, even if Ryan won't want to admit that that's what his proposal does.
The Medicaid proposal is basically more of the same...less money and let the states try to figure out how to manage that more limited funding.
Ryan's proposal is a long way from perfect. There are some elements of health care that should be non-negotiable from a cost standpoint - vaccinations and preventative care that are both necessary and economically effective at reducing long-term costs for one and emergency care for another. Executed poorly, his proposal could simply lead to more cost-dumping on emergency rooms and do further damage to the system. And his proposal obviously doesn't address how but foists that choice on individuals and states.
But it's a great starting point to have the debate. I'm sure the Democrats will declare the proposal dead on arrival in the Senate. That's fine. But how about they come forward with an alternative that has a similar level of cost containment and let's have a debate.
Fixing the structural deficit is going to require some hard choices about entitlements. Kudos to Ryan for bravely taking the first step to provoke that debate.
Budget Deal? No Budget Deal? Can We Move On?
The fiscal year is half over for the government. Six times Congress has in some form or another kicked the can down the road. The GOP wanted $61B in domestic discretionary cuts. They've achieved $10B so far with the last two continuing resolutions. The debate now is how much of the remaining $51B they wanted will happen.
Can we please settle this debate quickly and move on to discussing entitlements. We will never even get to the debate on Ryan's proposal if we just keep debating continuing resolutions.
With a $1.5T deficit, does it really matter if we cut $20B more or $40B more? How about we finish this quickly and focus on the $1.5T problem.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Every President has a philosophy behind how they involve the military in foreign affairs. The notion of a Presidential "doctrine" dates back to President James Monroe, whose "Monroe Doctrine" stated that the US would view further colonization in North America by European nations as an act of aggression but that the US would not interfere with existing colonies or with the internal affairs of European nations.
More recently, the "Bush Doctrine" of former President George W. Bush moved US foreign policy to a more activist position, parting ways with other Post-World War 2 Presidents in supporting the notion of pre-emptive war to protect US security interests, justifying intervention in Iraq, a country which had not attacked the US on the potential for a future threat.
So, more than 2 years into his Presidency, with airstrikes in Libya taking place in the past two weeks, it is worth asking, is there an "Obama Doctrine" and what is it?
The President has stepped up presence in the Afghanistan, wound down operations in Iraq, stayed out of tribal conflicts in Africa, but supported rebels in Libya.
Afghanistan is arguably a "shoot second" war, since the Taliban was clearly the driving force behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Taliban controlled the former government in Afghanistan. Iraq was clearly a pre-emptive war, as there was no overt act of aggression taken by Iraq.
Taking just these two examples, one would assume that the "Obama Doctrine" is more of a return to the philosophies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, of US intervention only where there is a national security interest and we are struck first, or where there is a clear act of aggression against a US ally, such as in the case of the first Gulf War.
But then there is Libya. We were not attacked. Libya did not attack a US ally. This is clearly a case of involving the US in a civil war in Libya. And therein lies the distinction. It is not quite a war of pre-emption (no one considers Libya a credible threat to US security compared to Iran or North Korea), nor is it a "shoot second" war. The mission in supporting the rebels is clearly to support regime change and protect humanitarian interests, even if the former is not explicitly stated by the administration.
There is an intellectual argument for supporting humanitarian missions by the US military, but it is a slippery slope. If Libya, then why not Darfur? Or Somalia? The list of civil wars causing human strife in the world is long. But clearly Libya involvement is low impact at this point. We aren't committing ground troops. We have the backing of NATO. US Casualties will be extremely low and the cost low compared to Iraq or Afghanistan.
So, as best I can tell, the nascent "Obama Doctrine" advocates use of force when:
(1) There is an imminent threat to US security
(2) As a proportional response to an attack on the US
(3) For limited humanitarian reasons, with the support of the international community
We'll see how this philosophy evolves over time.
Will Paul Ryan's Bold Proposal Spark Real Reform?
Rep. Paul Ryan, who is the point man for the 2012 GOP budget, is set to reveal a bold plan for reform Medicare and Medicaid, two of the four albatrosses around the neck of the US budget (the other two being defense spending and social security.) Ryan's plan is reportedly very bold, including:
(1) Changing Medicare as we know it for those 55 and under. Eliminating government coverage for those who retire after 2021 and replacing it with a federal grant to purchase private insurance.
(2) Dramatically reducing Medicaid funding over time and replacing the traditional program with block grants to the states, who would have the freedom to experiment with different systems for the funds in their own states.
This is a radical change. The Medicare plan essentially contains costs by reducing the rate at which government expenditures on Medicare go up. To explain it simply, if costs under Medicare are rising 10% per year, Ryan's plan might increase the insurance grant by only 3% per year, meaning that private insurers would have to figure out ways to provide coverage at a lower cost than the government would. This means that either private insurers will find a way to get vastly more efficient or the level of coverage will go down to something more affordable.
This is basically rationing by another name - a charge sure to be leveled by the left, but actually a good thing, if you have read my prior writings. The ONLY way to significantly "bend the cost curve" is to be more selective about what is covered. You simply can't reduce costs AND provide every form of care to every person at every stage of their life. That is how socialized systems contain cost - they restrict the availability of some treatments. And it's a path we'll have to go down to fix Medicare, even if Ryan won't want to admit that that's what his proposal does.
The Medicaid proposal is basically more of the same...less money and let the states try to figure out how to manage that more limited funding.
Ryan's proposal is a long way from perfect. There are some elements of health care that should be non-negotiable from a cost standpoint - vaccinations and preventative care that are both necessary and economically effective at reducing long-term costs for one and emergency care for another. Executed poorly, his proposal could simply lead to more cost-dumping on emergency rooms and do further damage to the system. And his proposal obviously doesn't address how but foists that choice on individuals and states.
But it's a great starting point to have the debate. I'm sure the Democrats will declare the proposal dead on arrival in the Senate. That's fine. But how about they come forward with an alternative that has a similar level of cost containment and let's have a debate.
Fixing the structural deficit is going to require some hard choices about entitlements. Kudos to Ryan for bravely taking the first step to provoke that debate.
Budget Deal? No Budget Deal? Can We Move On?
The fiscal year is half over for the government. Six times Congress has in some form or another kicked the can down the road. The GOP wanted $61B in domestic discretionary cuts. They've achieved $10B so far with the last two continuing resolutions. The debate now is how much of the remaining $51B they wanted will happen.
Can we please settle this debate quickly and move on to discussing entitlements. We will never even get to the debate on Ryan's proposal if we just keep debating continuing resolutions.
With a $1.5T deficit, does it really matter if we cut $20B more or $40B more? How about we finish this quickly and focus on the $1.5T problem.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Catching Up with the President's Numbers, Budget Malaise Continues, The Stimulus Winds Down, A US War in Libya?
The President's Numbers and the 2012 Race
As I've often said, the single most determining factor in a Presidential re-election is the incumbent President's approval. Therefore, while it's fun to watch the slow-motion race to the Republican nomination, it's probably far more relevant to look and see how the American public is judging President Obama's term in office.
Of course, that good old American public is fickle. Famously, President George Herbert-Walker Bush had a 91% approval (that was actually just in one poll, his average was something close to 80%, but you get the point) a year before one of the worst re-election showings in history, receiving a mere 38% of the popular vote. The thing that turns these numbers on a dime is the economy, and more specifically the 1.5% income growth rule...that is that President's that have the good fortune to see 1.5% income growth in the election year are generally re-elected, while those that see less are not.
Still, you have to know where you are before you can project where you are going.
So, let's look at the last 2 months of poll data. There is some noise along the way, but here is how I would generally explain the trend:
(1) The President CLEARLY got a real bump from his end of year legislative victories, including the ratification of the START treaty, the passage of the 9/11 first responders bill and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (a policy change still mired in the pentagon maze, but that's another story for another day.) At the beginning of January (before the range on the chart), the President was average around -4%. By the end of January he was at around +7%, an 11% upswing - huge in the world of electoral politics.
(2) The bounce didn't last at those levels. As is often the case with big bumps like that, memories fade as time goes by. By the end of February, the President's averages were down to about +2.5%, still 6.5% better than where he was at the end of the year, but a 4.5% downgrade from his end of January numbers.
(3) He settled in at this higher level so far in March. So while the President has not maintained all of his bounce, he has certainly maintained at a higher level than he ended last year. This, in my opinion, is in large measure due to improving economic conditions.
Looking at his monthly numbers over his Presidency, we can February was the President's best numbers month since the first year of his Presidency, when there was a halo effect over his historic victory. The last 3 months have marked 3 months in a row in the black, following 6 straight months in the red.
So, what does all this mean for 2012? The President is back at an approval level where he could win, but it is far from a slam dunk. At number of +2.5%, he's right in the range where we could be in for a very competitive 2012 race. Of course, this could all change in either direction in a hurry.
Is This the Last CR?
It's amazing that the new Congress has been in session for nearly 3 months and with the exception of a few symbolic votes (the House voting to repeal Obamacare, for instance) and some non-controversial business, basically all it has done is to pass short-term extensions to the budget - 2 of them so far, but the 5th and 6th ones of a budget year that began October 1st and is almost half over. The latest, which extends government funding for 3 weeks, with $6B in domestic discretionary cuts, passed fairly easily with bi-partisan support, with opposition mostly coming from liberals who felt it went too far with the cuts and conservatives who felt it didn't go far enough with the cuts.
Both sides are saying this is the last one and the bi-partisan "gang of 6" is working towards a compromise, but it is very unclear still how exactly what the compromise they are driving towards will look like. Basically, with the 2 continuing resolutions passed so far, $10B of the $64B that the GOP sought to cut from the discretionary budget has already been passed. So the debate comes down to how much of the remaining $54B will be agreed to. I imagine that the final figure will be somewhere in the $30B range of additional cuts, but again, we are dealing with chump change, relative to the other aspects of the budget.
I continue to hold out hope that congress and the President will dispose of the domestic discretionary question relatively soon and have a real adult debate about entitlement spending, taxes and defense spending, the three levers that really matter when it comes to deficit reduction.
The Winding Down of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Remember the stimulus? That $787B package of tax cuts, infrastructure investments and short-term entitlement enhancements that was more or less the first order of business when the President took office?
As I said at the time, it was really more a 3-year package of economic policy than a short-term shot in the arm to the economy. And, after over 2 years, it is reaching the end of its implementation. And while the GOP has talked tough about repealing its elements, it has more or less run according to its original plan. The latest numbers show the following dispersement of stimulus funds:
Tax Cuts: $260B out of $288B spent (90% spent)
Spending: $368B out of $499B spent (74% spent)
Overall: $628B out of $787B spent (80% spent)
The stimulus was really one of several pieces of key economic policy over the past 2+ years. Let's review all of them and their effectiveness:
(1) The Troubled Asset Relief Program
The $700B package of funding that was used to recapitalize banks, fund the transformation and bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, bail out AIG and manage the massive losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was originally passed in the final days of the George W. Bush administration, but largely implemented during the Obama administration. Despite lots of, frankly very fair, criticism at the time, about the lack of limits on executive pay and the lack of help for the borrowers while lenders were being bailed out, the program has, in essence, been a pretty unqualified success.
The bank bailouts will turn a healthy profit and the auto bailout will likely yield only a small loss. With more substantial losses surrounding AIG and Fannie and Freddie, the total net tab for TARP is now estimated at $25B...a pittance to save our financial system.
Of course, neither TARP nor the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that followed truly addressed the problem of banks getting too big to fail so the systematic risk still exists, but as a stabilization program, TARP worked exactly excellently.
(2) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
As discussed above, the stimulus dealt both a series of tax breaks and credits (think Cash for Clunkers and Energy Efficient Home Tax Credits), short-term expansions to unemployment and social welfare programs and infrastructure investments.
The success of the program is obviously the subject of a lot of debate and it is very hard to parse apart the impact of this program relative to other things happening in the macro-economy.
What I will say is that aspects of the program definitely contributed to the recovery. Cash for Clunkers provided a spike in auto sales that stabilized the auto industry and made the non-bankruptcy survival of Ford and the successful emergence from bankruptcy of GM possible. The energy efficient home tax credits have led to a boom in investments in windows, doors and insulation -- if you don't believe me, ask a contractor.
The bill was sold as preventing unemployment from exceeding 8%. It clearly did not do that. But, on balance, the country is better off with it than without it, in my opinion.
(3) The Obama Tax Cuts
Lost in all the debate over extending the Bush Tax Cuts (which I think we can now safely drop the Bush moniker from) was the fact that it's cost, over the next two years, actually exceeds the cost of the stimulus. The economic impact of extending the rate reductions passed during the Bush administration, along with the newly minted short-term reductions in Social Security taxes is yet to be determined. The deficit impact is obvious.
(4) The Federal Reserve
The role of the Federal Reserve in fiscal policy cannot be understated. In many ways, it's policy decisions have more significant impacts on the economy than any stimulus or tax package passed by our elected officials. The fed's policy over the past several years has been to maintain short-term interest rates near zero, indeed the short-term rate has been in the range of 0 to 0.25% since December of 2008.
The Federal Reserve has also embarked upon two rounds of what it has termed "Quantitative Easing". The program works pretty simply, the Federal Reserve buys US Treasuries, effectively printing money and using Treasuries as a mechanism to inject liquidity into the monetary system. The effect of these buys is to artificially suppress interest rates on treasuries and put more money into the system.
Both moves are basically designed with the same purpose...increase economic activity by making money cheap. It also has the side-effect of amping up inflation and reducing the relative value of the US Dollar.
Up to this point, overall inflation has been very tame during the recession, with the economy showing tons of available capacity in the labor market that might help to avert big inflation. But the dollar has been dropping and core commodities such as oil and grains have been spiking, yielding a concern that inflation may soon rise. The short-term impact of the Fed's actions have been positive to the economy - the long-term is a lot more questionable. I would hope the Fed will back off any further QE and consider raising rates in the not-to-distant future.
Airstrikes in Libya
Backed by French support and a UN resolution, the US is participating in Tomahawk launches and air patrols to enforce a no fly zone over Libya and offer support to rebel fighters. This action is in stark contrast to our actions in Iraq, where we went in alone and sent ground forces. This intervention is more akin to our actions in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, where we were able to support political and human rights interests with no American casualties by using our superior technology and air strength.
This is exactly the sort of military intervention that we should be leading - one where the free world is united and where our involvement can yield a large reward at a relatively lower cost.
Meanwhile, we are still trying to wind down Iraq and Afghanistan remains a massive cost both in financial and human terms, with no clear long term strategy in the region.
If you like this site tell your friends.
As I've often said, the single most determining factor in a Presidential re-election is the incumbent President's approval. Therefore, while it's fun to watch the slow-motion race to the Republican nomination, it's probably far more relevant to look and see how the American public is judging President Obama's term in office.
Of course, that good old American public is fickle. Famously, President George Herbert-Walker Bush had a 91% approval (that was actually just in one poll, his average was something close to 80%, but you get the point) a year before one of the worst re-election showings in history, receiving a mere 38% of the popular vote. The thing that turns these numbers on a dime is the economy, and more specifically the 1.5% income growth rule...that is that President's that have the good fortune to see 1.5% income growth in the election year are generally re-elected, while those that see less are not.
Still, you have to know where you are before you can project where you are going.
So, let's look at the last 2 months of poll data. There is some noise along the way, but here is how I would generally explain the trend:
(1) The President CLEARLY got a real bump from his end of year legislative victories, including the ratification of the START treaty, the passage of the 9/11 first responders bill and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (a policy change still mired in the pentagon maze, but that's another story for another day.) At the beginning of January (before the range on the chart), the President was average around -4%. By the end of January he was at around +7%, an 11% upswing - huge in the world of electoral politics.
(2) The bounce didn't last at those levels. As is often the case with big bumps like that, memories fade as time goes by. By the end of February, the President's averages were down to about +2.5%, still 6.5% better than where he was at the end of the year, but a 4.5% downgrade from his end of January numbers.
(3) He settled in at this higher level so far in March. So while the President has not maintained all of his bounce, he has certainly maintained at a higher level than he ended last year. This, in my opinion, is in large measure due to improving economic conditions.
Looking at his monthly numbers over his Presidency, we can February was the President's best numbers month since the first year of his Presidency, when there was a halo effect over his historic victory. The last 3 months have marked 3 months in a row in the black, following 6 straight months in the red.
So, what does all this mean for 2012? The President is back at an approval level where he could win, but it is far from a slam dunk. At number of +2.5%, he's right in the range where we could be in for a very competitive 2012 race. Of course, this could all change in either direction in a hurry.
Is This the Last CR?
It's amazing that the new Congress has been in session for nearly 3 months and with the exception of a few symbolic votes (the House voting to repeal Obamacare, for instance) and some non-controversial business, basically all it has done is to pass short-term extensions to the budget - 2 of them so far, but the 5th and 6th ones of a budget year that began October 1st and is almost half over. The latest, which extends government funding for 3 weeks, with $6B in domestic discretionary cuts, passed fairly easily with bi-partisan support, with opposition mostly coming from liberals who felt it went too far with the cuts and conservatives who felt it didn't go far enough with the cuts.
Both sides are saying this is the last one and the bi-partisan "gang of 6" is working towards a compromise, but it is very unclear still how exactly what the compromise they are driving towards will look like. Basically, with the 2 continuing resolutions passed so far, $10B of the $64B that the GOP sought to cut from the discretionary budget has already been passed. So the debate comes down to how much of the remaining $54B will be agreed to. I imagine that the final figure will be somewhere in the $30B range of additional cuts, but again, we are dealing with chump change, relative to the other aspects of the budget.
I continue to hold out hope that congress and the President will dispose of the domestic discretionary question relatively soon and have a real adult debate about entitlement spending, taxes and defense spending, the three levers that really matter when it comes to deficit reduction.
The Winding Down of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Remember the stimulus? That $787B package of tax cuts, infrastructure investments and short-term entitlement enhancements that was more or less the first order of business when the President took office?
As I said at the time, it was really more a 3-year package of economic policy than a short-term shot in the arm to the economy. And, after over 2 years, it is reaching the end of its implementation. And while the GOP has talked tough about repealing its elements, it has more or less run according to its original plan. The latest numbers show the following dispersement of stimulus funds:
Tax Cuts: $260B out of $288B spent (90% spent)
Spending: $368B out of $499B spent (74% spent)
Overall: $628B out of $787B spent (80% spent)
The stimulus was really one of several pieces of key economic policy over the past 2+ years. Let's review all of them and their effectiveness:
(1) The Troubled Asset Relief Program
The $700B package of funding that was used to recapitalize banks, fund the transformation and bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, bail out AIG and manage the massive losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was originally passed in the final days of the George W. Bush administration, but largely implemented during the Obama administration. Despite lots of, frankly very fair, criticism at the time, about the lack of limits on executive pay and the lack of help for the borrowers while lenders were being bailed out, the program has, in essence, been a pretty unqualified success.
The bank bailouts will turn a healthy profit and the auto bailout will likely yield only a small loss. With more substantial losses surrounding AIG and Fannie and Freddie, the total net tab for TARP is now estimated at $25B...a pittance to save our financial system.
Of course, neither TARP nor the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that followed truly addressed the problem of banks getting too big to fail so the systematic risk still exists, but as a stabilization program, TARP worked exactly excellently.
(2) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
As discussed above, the stimulus dealt both a series of tax breaks and credits (think Cash for Clunkers and Energy Efficient Home Tax Credits), short-term expansions to unemployment and social welfare programs and infrastructure investments.
The success of the program is obviously the subject of a lot of debate and it is very hard to parse apart the impact of this program relative to other things happening in the macro-economy.
What I will say is that aspects of the program definitely contributed to the recovery. Cash for Clunkers provided a spike in auto sales that stabilized the auto industry and made the non-bankruptcy survival of Ford and the successful emergence from bankruptcy of GM possible. The energy efficient home tax credits have led to a boom in investments in windows, doors and insulation -- if you don't believe me, ask a contractor.
The bill was sold as preventing unemployment from exceeding 8%. It clearly did not do that. But, on balance, the country is better off with it than without it, in my opinion.
(3) The Obama Tax Cuts
Lost in all the debate over extending the Bush Tax Cuts (which I think we can now safely drop the Bush moniker from) was the fact that it's cost, over the next two years, actually exceeds the cost of the stimulus. The economic impact of extending the rate reductions passed during the Bush administration, along with the newly minted short-term reductions in Social Security taxes is yet to be determined. The deficit impact is obvious.
(4) The Federal Reserve
The role of the Federal Reserve in fiscal policy cannot be understated. In many ways, it's policy decisions have more significant impacts on the economy than any stimulus or tax package passed by our elected officials. The fed's policy over the past several years has been to maintain short-term interest rates near zero, indeed the short-term rate has been in the range of 0 to 0.25% since December of 2008.
The Federal Reserve has also embarked upon two rounds of what it has termed "Quantitative Easing". The program works pretty simply, the Federal Reserve buys US Treasuries, effectively printing money and using Treasuries as a mechanism to inject liquidity into the monetary system. The effect of these buys is to artificially suppress interest rates on treasuries and put more money into the system.
Both moves are basically designed with the same purpose...increase economic activity by making money cheap. It also has the side-effect of amping up inflation and reducing the relative value of the US Dollar.
Up to this point, overall inflation has been very tame during the recession, with the economy showing tons of available capacity in the labor market that might help to avert big inflation. But the dollar has been dropping and core commodities such as oil and grains have been spiking, yielding a concern that inflation may soon rise. The short-term impact of the Fed's actions have been positive to the economy - the long-term is a lot more questionable. I would hope the Fed will back off any further QE and consider raising rates in the not-to-distant future.
Airstrikes in Libya
Backed by French support and a UN resolution, the US is participating in Tomahawk launches and air patrols to enforce a no fly zone over Libya and offer support to rebel fighters. This action is in stark contrast to our actions in Iraq, where we went in alone and sent ground forces. This intervention is more akin to our actions in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, where we were able to support political and human rights interests with no American casualties by using our superior technology and air strength.
This is exactly the sort of military intervention that we should be leading - one where the free world is united and where our involvement can yield a large reward at a relatively lower cost.
Meanwhile, we are still trying to wind down Iraq and Afghanistan remains a massive cost both in financial and human terms, with no clear long term strategy in the region.
If you like this site tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
