When Did the Other Side Stop Being Human?
The light-hearted news of the holiday weekend involved President Obama taking an elbow to the face from one Ray Decerega in a morning basketball game at the White House. This is the sort of light-hearted, humanizing story that ought to give us a break from the usual political wrangling. But the response in this hyper-partisan age is all too predictable. Just read the comment section below any major news story on the event.
"The President is playing basketball while we are on the brink of World War 3" writes one blogger
"Lucky guy, Ray Decerega, I'd like to punch all libs in the face" writes another
And on, and on...
On the left, of course, the defense is offense....President Bush took more days often than anybody on Earth, etc., etc.
It is all very petty, stupid and undignified.
In the interest of civility, can we agree on a few things?
No President ever worked on policy every single minute of every day. They all found time to shower, use the bathroom, eat breakfast and maybe even talked to their spouses every once in a while. Blowing off steam by playing basketball for an hour in a day isn't a bad thing. Ronald Reagan took naps in the afternoon. George H.W. Bush loved going up to New England. Bill Clinton liked escaping there as well. George W. Bush had Crawford.
You cannot be a 24/7 President. So let's cut the nonsense. All Presidents have unbelievably grueling schedules. They are in the public eye all the time. They are on call all the time. They work every weekend, every holiday. Most get but a few hours of sleep a night.
Can we have a dialogue that is about policy? Barack Obama is not evil. You might think he's wrong as hell politically, but by every credible accounts, he is a nice guy, a good family man and a patriotic American. So was George W. Bush, by the way. Clinton too, if you exclude the good husband part of being a good family man.
So let's those of us of reasonable intelligence agree to debate policy and just enjoy, rather than politicize the light-hearted, humanizing parts of the Presidency.
I Don't Think Sarah Palin Is Stupid Because of Her North Korea Gaffe
It all happened so innocently during a friendly interview from Fox News Commentator (is that the right description?) Glenn Beck. Sarah Palin, asked about the recent crisis in the Koreas, stated:
“This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously we’ve gotta stand with our North Korean allies.”
Glenn quickly corrected her, noting that she must have meant our South Korean allies.
Predictably, the left was all over this gaffe, offering it as further evidence that the Grizzly Mama is completely out to lunch when it comes to discussing any policy matters. Palin, in turn, published a response to the criticism via Facebook, which cited a number of verbal gaffes that President Obama had made over the past 3 years and noted that she quickly corrected herself (not quite accurate, as it was Beck who corrected her, but from the context of the conversation, it is reasonable to assume that it was a verbal gaffe and not a mental one as she had been talking about our allies in South Korea just prior to the statement above.)
Sarah has a point, sort of. Her point that her intelligence or knowledge of foreign policy should not be judged solely on the basis of one verbal gaffe is absolutely correct. Her point that the President, or heck, any politician who is on the camera a lot, makes gaffes is also correct.
I don't think Sarah is stupid because of this gaffe. Heck, I don't think she is stupid at all. I do think she is profoundly ignorant. But not because of her statement about Korea. I think so because of her statement that she had foreign policy experience because she could see Russia from her window...a statement she did not correct or clarify. I think so because she said that the Vice President controls what the Senate votes on, another statement she has never corrected or clarified. I think so because she repeatedly flubbed very basic questions of policy during the 2008 campaign and seems incapable of forming complete sentences with coherent policy thoughts in even the most friendly interviews now.
Sarah is ignorant and dangerous. But not stupid. Our comparative tax returns this year will prove that fact.
Gays In the Military -- Your Excuses Are Gone
I have long contended that gay rights is the defining civil rights battle of this generation. Whether you are talking about non-discrimination laws (did you know that employers can fire gay workers simply for being gay in 33 states still?) to gay marriage and civil unions, to gay adoption to military service, LGBT Americans are the last major demographic that are still routinely denied equal rights under our laws. This is not to say that discrimination doesn't exist in other areas; we certainly still have our share of racial and gender bias problems, just that discrimination against LGBT is the only kind that is sanctioned by the law.
I have long advocated for the right of gay Americans to serve openly in the armed services. In the past, however, I was reluctant to accuse my opponents of bigotry. While there are many intrinsic logical and moral problems that I have with the point of view that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve because it would harm morale, I tried hard to accept that those who espoused that view held it honestly. No rational person can take such a stand any longer.
Consider the facts:
(1) The Israeli Army, perhaps the most fearsome fighting force on the planet, has allowed gays to serve openly for some time. An army from a heavily religious country, surrounded by people trying to destroy it, has made this arrangement work. Do we really not have our act together as well as Israel? By the way, Gays are also allowed to serve openly in 34 other countries, if you are interested, including virtually every NATO ally.
(2) 75% of troops do not believe that allowing gays in the military would damage military readiness, says a very recent pentagon study. There goes the morale argument. Do you think 75% of the enlisted supported integrating the troops at the time it was done?
(3) Every major military leader is in favor of the change, include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. By the way, all 3 are Republican appointees. Sure you can locate a General or and Admiral who opposes the change, but the top leadership is pretty united.
(4) During every draft war in the 20th century, the military refused to discharge gay soldiers. This included both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. They were good enough then but not now? Remember Corporal Klinger from MASH? The joke was that he was behaving in an openly gay manner and couldn't get discharged.
All of this leaves me to a simple conclusion...all of the evidence points towards the right answer being allowing gays to serve openly in the military. If you oppose the opinion of the troops, the military leadership, the American people and the world, why are you doing it? You are either a bigot or you are pandering to bigots.
Shame on those who fall into either category. And shame on those who support a change but continue to shove this issue to the back burner.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, November 20, 2009
Senate Showdown Looms, On the Virtues and Vices of the Fillibuster, Is the GOP Tide Coming?, Annoying Things
The Vote to Get to a Vote to Start Debate on Whether to Vote
Well, we are finally going to get this thing moving in the Senate, sort of.
Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote for Saturday night. It's a vote to begin debate. Well, not even quite that. It's a vote to end a filibuster against starting debate.
Let me try to explain. In the Senate, any member who feels like it can try to filibuster anything, with 60 votes halting a filibuster. Opponents of Senate health care legislation have made it clear that they will use ever tactic available to them to stall the process, so they are going to filibuster the motion to START debate on the health care bill. This means that Harry Reid will need 60 votes to invoke cloture (stop debate) on the motion to START debate.
It appears reasonably likely that the Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent caucus of 60 will hold together to get the debate started. Democrats with misgivings about some of the provisions, such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln appear to be hinting that they will fall in line. Independent Joe Lieberman is on record saying he will vote to start debate but will oppose a final bill containing any sort of public option. It appears that there is a near zero chance of any GOP support to break the filibuster.
But, of course, this is just the start of the fun. Then, each amendment to the bill must be debated, again with the potential for a filibuster on each and every amendment. Then a filibuster will have to be broken to get to a final vote on the bill, a bill passed, the bill melded with the House bill that has already passed in conference committee and the whole elaborate dance of filibusters around starting and stopping debate will have to happen again after the final bill (presumably) passes the House.
Tired yet?
Truth is that this vote is not really all that crucial. Not breaking a filibuster doesn't kill the bill, it simply sends Reid and company back to the drawing board to try to find a new way to get 60 votes. And a win isn't that great for the DEMs either -- after all, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, etc. all still have to be satisfied with the final product all while holding the liberals together.
Expect many weeks of test votes, filibuster votes and confusion to come. If Harry Reid somehow actually pulls this off, I will take back everything I've said about how ineffective a leader he is. But that's still a big "if".
Is the Filibuster a Good Thing?
It comes up almost every time power changes hands in the Senate -- a debate about the benefits and problems with the current Senate filibuster law.
First, a history lesson. The filibuster is NOT, contrary to the belief of some, a part of our constitution. Our constitution is pretty lean on specifics around the U.S. Senate. Pretty much all it says is that there will be 2 senators from each state, that senate terms will be 6 years, that Senators have to be 7-year U.S. citizens who are at least 30 years old, that the Vice-President is President of the Senate and breaks tie votes, that the Senate has power of advice and consent over appointments and is one of the two bodies that pass laws. There are a few more specifics (specifically enumerated powers, appointment by the state legislature later changed to popular election, etc.), but those are the basics. Not a word about a filibuster or super-majority.
The filibuster DOES have a long history in the Senate, which has always structured its rules to be a more conservative (in the sense of change resistant) than the House. In olden times, a real filibuster required a filibustering Senator to actually stand on the Senate floor and speak for as long as he intended to keep the filibuster up (see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for some romanticized historical perspective.)
In 1919, in an effort to block a single rogue senator from derailing major legislation, the Senate adopted a new rule that two thirds of the Senate could vote to cut off debate from a filibustering few. In 1975, the number of votes required to kill a filibuster was reduced from two thirds to 60%, which is where it stands today.
In decades past, the filibuster was used selectively. Robert Bork was not filibustered as a nominee, nor was Clarence Thomas. Filibusters were reserved for special moments when the minority felt an imperative to obstruct.
This started to change in 1993, when the GOP staged a filibuster against President Clinton's small stimulus bill. But even the GOP of the early 90s was somewhat restrained -- they did not filibuster the Family Medical Leave Act, for instance.
When George W. Bush came to office in 2001, the filibuster became even more prevalent. Democrats started using it to block judicial nominees whose philosophy that they opposed, where the tradition had been to restrict such filibusters to judges deemed unqualified. This infuriated Republicans who threatened a "nuclear option" of completely doing away with the filibuster (although it was unclear if the vote to eliminate the filibuster, could itself be filibustered.) This talk died down after the "Gang of 7" moderate Senators, including then-moderate John McCain brokered a deal to let some nominations through and let other filibusters stand.
But 2009 has ushered in a new era for the filibuster. The GOP has used the filibuster more this year than in any previous congressional year, attempting filibusters on virtually every piece of legislation and every nomination that they oppose.
Clearly there is plenty of blame to go around between the parties for the rampant use of the filibuster as we see it today. But that is hardly the question. The question is -- is the filibuster today a good thing or a bad thing?
Predictably, the party in power (the Democrats) think it is not and the party out of power (the GOP) defends it vigorously. It should be noted that these are the exact opposite of the party positions eight years ago.
For my money, I think the presence of a filibuster is an important thing. Unchecked change with one party in power, although they are democratically elected, is dangerous. Besides, the DEMs have the votes, in theory to break a filibuster, they just need to hold together their own caucus. If they can't even do that, how sorry for them can I feel if their own members vote to filibuster their legislation?
The rampant use of the filibuster is out of control, to be sure. But even in the good old days, universal healthcare would be a filibuster-worthy subject.
So, here's what I would propose:
First, eliminate the filibuster on STARTING debate on a bill and on amendments but allow a filibuster on final passage. Surely, forbidding debate can't be in the interest of careful deliberation, but blocking a bad piece of legislation could be.
Second, how about Harry Reid requiring that if the GOP is going to filibuster that they actually occupy the floor and talk like old times? I think it would be worth bringing the Senate to a halt for a while to see what was really going on. Keep the Senate floor open 24/7. If they aren't going to play ball, don't just run and hide.
Regardless of what I think, the filibuster is almost surely here to stay. Let's see what happens tomorrow night.
GOP Tidal Wave in 2010?
As President Obama's approval numbers continue their gradual decline (new numbers again next blog), more Americans begin to blame the Democrats (as opposed to President Bush) for our economic woes and the right continues to get fired up, is it possible we will see a much more massive GOP sweep in 2010 than I have been projecting?
It's early to say, but I'm beginning to become a believer. As I've said, the most important metric to watch is not the polls, but the unemployment rate. If it starts dropping by early next year and dips down significantly by November, we could see a ho-hum mid-term with little change. If it is still double digits come November, prepare for a "throw out the bums" bloodbath. And the Democrats being in power, makes them the "bums", in case that wasn't clear.
Things Annoying Me This Week
Haven't done this in a while, so here are my awards for really annoying people and things:
(1) To the media for paying more attention to former Governor now sideshow freak Sarah Palin than to serious members of the GOP like Lindsey Graham and Tim Pawlenty.
(2) To the media again for paying more attention to a bow than to the fact that we are in hock to the Chinese for billions and getting worse. I mean, seriously, who on Earth cares about a bow?
(3) To Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for saying that any major piece of legislation must be terrible if it doesn't get 70 to 80 votes in the Senate. I guess he thinks the founding fathers were idiots for not requiring a 71 vote majority for passing, oh, say, the BUSH TAX CUTS....hmmm...maybe he has a point.
Oh well...if politicians and reporters weren't annoying than they wouldn't be politicians and reporters.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Well, we are finally going to get this thing moving in the Senate, sort of.
Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote for Saturday night. It's a vote to begin debate. Well, not even quite that. It's a vote to end a filibuster against starting debate.
Let me try to explain. In the Senate, any member who feels like it can try to filibuster anything, with 60 votes halting a filibuster. Opponents of Senate health care legislation have made it clear that they will use ever tactic available to them to stall the process, so they are going to filibuster the motion to START debate on the health care bill. This means that Harry Reid will need 60 votes to invoke cloture (stop debate) on the motion to START debate.
It appears reasonably likely that the Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent caucus of 60 will hold together to get the debate started. Democrats with misgivings about some of the provisions, such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln appear to be hinting that they will fall in line. Independent Joe Lieberman is on record saying he will vote to start debate but will oppose a final bill containing any sort of public option. It appears that there is a near zero chance of any GOP support to break the filibuster.
But, of course, this is just the start of the fun. Then, each amendment to the bill must be debated, again with the potential for a filibuster on each and every amendment. Then a filibuster will have to be broken to get to a final vote on the bill, a bill passed, the bill melded with the House bill that has already passed in conference committee and the whole elaborate dance of filibusters around starting and stopping debate will have to happen again after the final bill (presumably) passes the House.
Tired yet?
Truth is that this vote is not really all that crucial. Not breaking a filibuster doesn't kill the bill, it simply sends Reid and company back to the drawing board to try to find a new way to get 60 votes. And a win isn't that great for the DEMs either -- after all, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, etc. all still have to be satisfied with the final product all while holding the liberals together.
Expect many weeks of test votes, filibuster votes and confusion to come. If Harry Reid somehow actually pulls this off, I will take back everything I've said about how ineffective a leader he is. But that's still a big "if".
Is the Filibuster a Good Thing?
It comes up almost every time power changes hands in the Senate -- a debate about the benefits and problems with the current Senate filibuster law.
First, a history lesson. The filibuster is NOT, contrary to the belief of some, a part of our constitution. Our constitution is pretty lean on specifics around the U.S. Senate. Pretty much all it says is that there will be 2 senators from each state, that senate terms will be 6 years, that Senators have to be 7-year U.S. citizens who are at least 30 years old, that the Vice-President is President of the Senate and breaks tie votes, that the Senate has power of advice and consent over appointments and is one of the two bodies that pass laws. There are a few more specifics (specifically enumerated powers, appointment by the state legislature later changed to popular election, etc.), but those are the basics. Not a word about a filibuster or super-majority.
The filibuster DOES have a long history in the Senate, which has always structured its rules to be a more conservative (in the sense of change resistant) than the House. In olden times, a real filibuster required a filibustering Senator to actually stand on the Senate floor and speak for as long as he intended to keep the filibuster up (see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for some romanticized historical perspective.)
In 1919, in an effort to block a single rogue senator from derailing major legislation, the Senate adopted a new rule that two thirds of the Senate could vote to cut off debate from a filibustering few. In 1975, the number of votes required to kill a filibuster was reduced from two thirds to 60%, which is where it stands today.
In decades past, the filibuster was used selectively. Robert Bork was not filibustered as a nominee, nor was Clarence Thomas. Filibusters were reserved for special moments when the minority felt an imperative to obstruct.
This started to change in 1993, when the GOP staged a filibuster against President Clinton's small stimulus bill. But even the GOP of the early 90s was somewhat restrained -- they did not filibuster the Family Medical Leave Act, for instance.
When George W. Bush came to office in 2001, the filibuster became even more prevalent. Democrats started using it to block judicial nominees whose philosophy that they opposed, where the tradition had been to restrict such filibusters to judges deemed unqualified. This infuriated Republicans who threatened a "nuclear option" of completely doing away with the filibuster (although it was unclear if the vote to eliminate the filibuster, could itself be filibustered.) This talk died down after the "Gang of 7" moderate Senators, including then-moderate John McCain brokered a deal to let some nominations through and let other filibusters stand.
But 2009 has ushered in a new era for the filibuster. The GOP has used the filibuster more this year than in any previous congressional year, attempting filibusters on virtually every piece of legislation and every nomination that they oppose.
Clearly there is plenty of blame to go around between the parties for the rampant use of the filibuster as we see it today. But that is hardly the question. The question is -- is the filibuster today a good thing or a bad thing?
Predictably, the party in power (the Democrats) think it is not and the party out of power (the GOP) defends it vigorously. It should be noted that these are the exact opposite of the party positions eight years ago.
For my money, I think the presence of a filibuster is an important thing. Unchecked change with one party in power, although they are democratically elected, is dangerous. Besides, the DEMs have the votes, in theory to break a filibuster, they just need to hold together their own caucus. If they can't even do that, how sorry for them can I feel if their own members vote to filibuster their legislation?
The rampant use of the filibuster is out of control, to be sure. But even in the good old days, universal healthcare would be a filibuster-worthy subject.
So, here's what I would propose:
First, eliminate the filibuster on STARTING debate on a bill and on amendments but allow a filibuster on final passage. Surely, forbidding debate can't be in the interest of careful deliberation, but blocking a bad piece of legislation could be.
Second, how about Harry Reid requiring that if the GOP is going to filibuster that they actually occupy the floor and talk like old times? I think it would be worth bringing the Senate to a halt for a while to see what was really going on. Keep the Senate floor open 24/7. If they aren't going to play ball, don't just run and hide.
Regardless of what I think, the filibuster is almost surely here to stay. Let's see what happens tomorrow night.
GOP Tidal Wave in 2010?
As President Obama's approval numbers continue their gradual decline (new numbers again next blog), more Americans begin to blame the Democrats (as opposed to President Bush) for our economic woes and the right continues to get fired up, is it possible we will see a much more massive GOP sweep in 2010 than I have been projecting?
It's early to say, but I'm beginning to become a believer. As I've said, the most important metric to watch is not the polls, but the unemployment rate. If it starts dropping by early next year and dips down significantly by November, we could see a ho-hum mid-term with little change. If it is still double digits come November, prepare for a "throw out the bums" bloodbath. And the Democrats being in power, makes them the "bums", in case that wasn't clear.
Things Annoying Me This Week
Haven't done this in a while, so here are my awards for really annoying people and things:
(1) To the media for paying more attention to former Governor now sideshow freak Sarah Palin than to serious members of the GOP like Lindsey Graham and Tim Pawlenty.
(2) To the media again for paying more attention to a bow than to the fact that we are in hock to the Chinese for billions and getting worse. I mean, seriously, who on Earth cares about a bow?
(3) To Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for saying that any major piece of legislation must be terrible if it doesn't get 70 to 80 votes in the Senate. I guess he thinks the founding fathers were idiots for not requiring a 71 vote majority for passing, oh, say, the BUSH TAX CUTS....hmmm...maybe he has a point.
Oh well...if politicians and reporters weren't annoying than they wouldn't be politicians and reporters.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Sarah Palin -- Smart or Crazy?, Some Pause for the Prez, 2nd Stimulus?, Healthcare?
First and foremost, let me apologize for the length of time between recent posts. As I mentioned in my last post, I was out of town for a few days over the holiday and regrettably came down with some ugly flu symptoms. Fortunately, I'm back at least to about 70 or 80% of normal and ready to talk some politics. So let's get to it.
Ex-Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
The question around political circles since Sarah Palin's unexpected and seemingly odd resignation has come down to the classic one-word question: why? A cunning political move to free her up to run for President in 2012? An escape from ethics probes that would damn her? Caribou Barbie yielding under the pressure?
Probably more than one of the above. My assessment is that a combination of Presidential ambition and personal finances.
Let's examine the political implications first. Governor Palin could not have effectively run for re-election in 2010. Think about it -- she'd have to campaign hard in Alaska (and frankly, risk losing, with dropping popularity there) all the way through November, be resworn into office in January 2011 if she won and then immediately start campaigning for President. It would look horrible, not to mention the fact that having a home base in Alaska is absolute nomansland for waging a national campaign and would have created a logistical and public relations nightmare. So why she was out in 2010 is easy.
So why not serve out the term? First of all, because only bad things were going to happen in Alaska. Her popularity was diminishing, she was already receiving local scorn for national appearences and doing good things for Alaska doesn't really help you win a Republican Presidential nomination process. Secondly, money. As a sitting Governor, Palin cannot accept fees for public speaking appearences. Also, by Alaska law, she must pay the cost of fighting ethics complaints out of her own pocket. And there have been a ton of ethics complaints. Palin is calling dirty pool on the ethics complaints and she may well be right, but the law makes no stipulation for whether the complaints are fair -- she has to pay out of personal funds. Resign and those ethics complaints go away and she is free to accept $25K a pop speaking engagements.
Make no mistake about it, I absolutely believe Palin is running in 2012 and I don't count her out for a second. A couple of liberal friends of mine couldn't believe I held this point of view as they considered her a lightweight.
But consider this: she drew bigger crowds and more passion than John McCain in 2008 and she is a darling among social conservatives who are the biggest block that shows up to vote in Republican primaries and caucuses. There are few credible 2012 nominees left: Jindal crashed and burned in his first national appearence, Sanford and Ensign are embroiled in nasty affairs and there isn't a single viable candidate that I can see in congress. Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are the only top-tier candidates that I see. And Huckabee and Romney don't have real day jobs either, so it's no disadvantage against them for Palin to be out of office.
I'm not calling her a favorite yet, but I did take a bet from one of my friends who offered me 10:1 odds against her winning the nomination. I think she is better than a 10:1 shot. But a lot can happen in the 3 years between now and when the nomination will be decided. A white knight (or white elephant) could show up. Palin could be forgotten. Obama could be so popular that no A-listers decide to run. But as I've said many times, don't count the most charismatic, attractive and freshest face on the GOP scene out of this. Not by a long shot.
Presidential Approval -- Storm Clouds Forming?
President Obama continues to slowly slip in public opinion polls. The latest daily tracker is below.
As of today, his approve minus disapprove stands at 20.7%, his lowest score yet (although still 13.5% higher than his vote spread last November.) He has precious few upward ticks in the trend which seems to have been steadily but slowly downward.
Looking at the monthly averages, President Obama finished June down 2.9% from May and is on pace to shed about the same again in July, although he may lose more as the pace of decline has been more rapid in the past week.
The breakdown by poll-type is even more sobering:
Adult Americans: +26%
Registered Voters: +22%
Likely Voters: +5%
According to the one "likely voter" model poll -- the Rasmussen Poll, President Obama is actually slightly behind where he was in November. Now, I have questions about why the Rasmussen numbers are so far off the registered voter numbers from respected firms like Quinnepiac -- a 5 point spread wouuld be more typical than a 17 point spread, but in the absence of another likely voter model, we go with what we've got.
So what's causing this decline? As James Carville said in 1992, it's the economy, stupid. Independents are starting to fear that we are spending a ton of money to little effect. They know we passed a $787 billion stimulus package and that since then unemployment has continued to soar all the way up to 9.5%. The stock market is up from its lows but way off its highs and has a case of the jitters the past couple of weeks. There are whispers about a second stimulus and the Vice President out there saying the administration "misjudged" the economic crisis. Thanks for the brilliant spin, as usual, Joe. I need to amend my column on Obama's cabinet duds to include the Vice Presidency, because he is clearly Dud #1 amongst Obama's staff picks, way ahead of mini-Dud Tim Geithner.
Stimulus Update
The reality is that it is crazy to talk about a second stimulus at this point -- we've barely scratched the surface on the first one. Here's the latest spend updates.
So...we've authorized 35% of the bill's spending ($174.9 billion as of last week) and spent only 12% ($60.4 billion as of last week.) $60.4 billion in spending. The process has been slow, but not unexpectedly so. Leveraging public money to fund private job creation is a compliacted and long process if you want to do it right. This plan needs time to work. It does cause one to question whether the quicker tonic would have been to go the route FDR went -- simply hire people on the government payroll. While it is arguable whether FDR's massive public works programs ultimately helped pull the economy out of the depression, they absolutely did blunt the impact of unemployment. In fact, unemployment dropped every month of FDR's first year in office and never returned to its peak. Would that President Obama could say so now.
Bottom line is -- the President will be judged in both the 2010 mid-terms and his 2012 re-election campaign on two central themes: did he fix the economy? and did he keep his promises?
Economic conditions right now aren't his concern although they may cost him some political capital. We've already highlighted that Presidential approval at this stage is not particularly instructive to re-electability. But if unemployment is still approaching double digits in 2010, prepare for a donkey bloodbath. And if it's still that way in 2012, get comfortable with the idea of a President Palin or Romney.
Hope for Compromise on Health Care Reform?
It's getting dicey as we all knew it would. There is general alignment in the Democratic caucus and among Republican moderates that broadening access to health care is a worthy legislative goal. It's pricey (although not as pricey as it sounds, as covered in a previous post) and no one can agree how to pay for it.
The Democratic leadership would be wise to listen to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and take taxing employer-provided healthcare benefits off the table. It would be massively unpopular and make a liar out of President Obama, who has repeatedly claimed that "if you like your health care, you will be able to keep it". Taxing employer benefits would surely lead to large reductions in employer-provided benefits. The purist in me says that might be a good thing as the tax-incentive induced employer-provided system is part of the problem. But the pragmatist in me knows the country isn't ready to completely flip the current model on its head. Let's keep working on Medicare cost cuts, world-class perscription drug prices and look at sin taxes and exemption phase-outs to fill the gaps. But let's get the middle class comfortable with the notion that they will have to bear some of the burden. We simply can't fund this with just taxes on those making over $250K -- there isn't enough money there to get.
Appropriations Rolls On
The house is on a break-neck pace moving through appropriations bills and even the Senate is moving along. At this pace, Congress might actually get all the bills passed before the new fiscal year starts in October, a feat rarely accomplished in the past 12 years. I guess it helps to have one party in power in both the legislative and executive branches.
The House has already passed appropriations for: the Legislative Branch, the Commerce and Justice Departments, the Homeland Security Department, the Defense Department, the Interior Department and is actively debating the bill for the Department of Agriculture and FDA.
The Senate, which has to go second on all the bills and always moves more slowly has passed appropriations for the Legislative Branch and is debating the Homeland Security Department.
The Democrats are, of course, mostly carrying the day in the debates (when you have all the votes, you win most of the votes), but the GOP is winning some small victories, such as an ammendment introduced by Sen. Demint to appropriate money for building a larger border fence with Mexico, which pulled in enough Democratic moderates to pass.
Lots of roll call votes to keep up with -- I'll keep you posted.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, share it with your friends.
Ex-Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
The question around political circles since Sarah Palin's unexpected and seemingly odd resignation has come down to the classic one-word question: why? A cunning political move to free her up to run for President in 2012? An escape from ethics probes that would damn her? Caribou Barbie yielding under the pressure?
Probably more than one of the above. My assessment is that a combination of Presidential ambition and personal finances.
Let's examine the political implications first. Governor Palin could not have effectively run for re-election in 2010. Think about it -- she'd have to campaign hard in Alaska (and frankly, risk losing, with dropping popularity there) all the way through November, be resworn into office in January 2011 if she won and then immediately start campaigning for President. It would look horrible, not to mention the fact that having a home base in Alaska is absolute nomansland for waging a national campaign and would have created a logistical and public relations nightmare. So why she was out in 2010 is easy.
So why not serve out the term? First of all, because only bad things were going to happen in Alaska. Her popularity was diminishing, she was already receiving local scorn for national appearences and doing good things for Alaska doesn't really help you win a Republican Presidential nomination process. Secondly, money. As a sitting Governor, Palin cannot accept fees for public speaking appearences. Also, by Alaska law, she must pay the cost of fighting ethics complaints out of her own pocket. And there have been a ton of ethics complaints. Palin is calling dirty pool on the ethics complaints and she may well be right, but the law makes no stipulation for whether the complaints are fair -- she has to pay out of personal funds. Resign and those ethics complaints go away and she is free to accept $25K a pop speaking engagements.
Make no mistake about it, I absolutely believe Palin is running in 2012 and I don't count her out for a second. A couple of liberal friends of mine couldn't believe I held this point of view as they considered her a lightweight.
But consider this: she drew bigger crowds and more passion than John McCain in 2008 and she is a darling among social conservatives who are the biggest block that shows up to vote in Republican primaries and caucuses. There are few credible 2012 nominees left: Jindal crashed and burned in his first national appearence, Sanford and Ensign are embroiled in nasty affairs and there isn't a single viable candidate that I can see in congress. Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are the only top-tier candidates that I see. And Huckabee and Romney don't have real day jobs either, so it's no disadvantage against them for Palin to be out of office.
I'm not calling her a favorite yet, but I did take a bet from one of my friends who offered me 10:1 odds against her winning the nomination. I think she is better than a 10:1 shot. But a lot can happen in the 3 years between now and when the nomination will be decided. A white knight (or white elephant) could show up. Palin could be forgotten. Obama could be so popular that no A-listers decide to run. But as I've said many times, don't count the most charismatic, attractive and freshest face on the GOP scene out of this. Not by a long shot.
Presidential Approval -- Storm Clouds Forming?
President Obama continues to slowly slip in public opinion polls. The latest daily tracker is below.
As of today, his approve minus disapprove stands at 20.7%, his lowest score yet (although still 13.5% higher than his vote spread last November.) He has precious few upward ticks in the trend which seems to have been steadily but slowly downward.
Looking at the monthly averages, President Obama finished June down 2.9% from May and is on pace to shed about the same again in July, although he may lose more as the pace of decline has been more rapid in the past week.The breakdown by poll-type is even more sobering:
Adult Americans: +26%
Registered Voters: +22%
Likely Voters: +5%
According to the one "likely voter" model poll -- the Rasmussen Poll, President Obama is actually slightly behind where he was in November. Now, I have questions about why the Rasmussen numbers are so far off the registered voter numbers from respected firms like Quinnepiac -- a 5 point spread wouuld be more typical than a 17 point spread, but in the absence of another likely voter model, we go with what we've got.
So what's causing this decline? As James Carville said in 1992, it's the economy, stupid. Independents are starting to fear that we are spending a ton of money to little effect. They know we passed a $787 billion stimulus package and that since then unemployment has continued to soar all the way up to 9.5%. The stock market is up from its lows but way off its highs and has a case of the jitters the past couple of weeks. There are whispers about a second stimulus and the Vice President out there saying the administration "misjudged" the economic crisis. Thanks for the brilliant spin, as usual, Joe. I need to amend my column on Obama's cabinet duds to include the Vice Presidency, because he is clearly Dud #1 amongst Obama's staff picks, way ahead of mini-Dud Tim Geithner.
Stimulus Update
The reality is that it is crazy to talk about a second stimulus at this point -- we've barely scratched the surface on the first one. Here's the latest spend updates.
So...we've authorized 35% of the bill's spending ($174.9 billion as of last week) and spent only 12% ($60.4 billion as of last week.) $60.4 billion in spending. The process has been slow, but not unexpectedly so. Leveraging public money to fund private job creation is a compliacted and long process if you want to do it right. This plan needs time to work. It does cause one to question whether the quicker tonic would have been to go the route FDR went -- simply hire people on the government payroll. While it is arguable whether FDR's massive public works programs ultimately helped pull the economy out of the depression, they absolutely did blunt the impact of unemployment. In fact, unemployment dropped every month of FDR's first year in office and never returned to its peak. Would that President Obama could say so now.
Bottom line is -- the President will be judged in both the 2010 mid-terms and his 2012 re-election campaign on two central themes: did he fix the economy? and did he keep his promises?
Economic conditions right now aren't his concern although they may cost him some political capital. We've already highlighted that Presidential approval at this stage is not particularly instructive to re-electability. But if unemployment is still approaching double digits in 2010, prepare for a donkey bloodbath. And if it's still that way in 2012, get comfortable with the idea of a President Palin or Romney.
Hope for Compromise on Health Care Reform?
It's getting dicey as we all knew it would. There is general alignment in the Democratic caucus and among Republican moderates that broadening access to health care is a worthy legislative goal. It's pricey (although not as pricey as it sounds, as covered in a previous post) and no one can agree how to pay for it.
The Democratic leadership would be wise to listen to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and take taxing employer-provided healthcare benefits off the table. It would be massively unpopular and make a liar out of President Obama, who has repeatedly claimed that "if you like your health care, you will be able to keep it". Taxing employer benefits would surely lead to large reductions in employer-provided benefits. The purist in me says that might be a good thing as the tax-incentive induced employer-provided system is part of the problem. But the pragmatist in me knows the country isn't ready to completely flip the current model on its head. Let's keep working on Medicare cost cuts, world-class perscription drug prices and look at sin taxes and exemption phase-outs to fill the gaps. But let's get the middle class comfortable with the notion that they will have to bear some of the burden. We simply can't fund this with just taxes on those making over $250K -- there isn't enough money there to get.
Appropriations Rolls On
The house is on a break-neck pace moving through appropriations bills and even the Senate is moving along. At this pace, Congress might actually get all the bills passed before the new fiscal year starts in October, a feat rarely accomplished in the past 12 years. I guess it helps to have one party in power in both the legislative and executive branches.
The House has already passed appropriations for: the Legislative Branch, the Commerce and Justice Departments, the Homeland Security Department, the Defense Department, the Interior Department and is actively debating the bill for the Department of Agriculture and FDA.
The Senate, which has to go second on all the bills and always moves more slowly has passed appropriations for the Legislative Branch and is debating the Homeland Security Department.
The Democrats are, of course, mostly carrying the day in the debates (when you have all the votes, you win most of the votes), but the GOP is winning some small victories, such as an ammendment introduced by Sen. Demint to appropriate money for building a larger border fence with Mexico, which pulled in enough Democratic moderates to pass.
Lots of roll call votes to keep up with -- I'll keep you posted.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, share it with your friends.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Dips His Toes into Iran, Is This the New Economic Normal?, Things That Annoy Me
President Obama Wades Carefully into Iran Situation
In his press conference today, President Obama declared that he was "appalled and outraged" at violence against protesters in Iran. It was the most direct statement made by the administration to date calling to task the powers that be in Iran. President Obama continued to stop short of directly criticizing the election process or result.
This appears to be par for course for President Obama, whose tendencies on both foreign and domestic issues to date has been to take a measured approach and slowly ramp up rhetoric in response to conditions. We had a glimpse of this in the campaign -- think back to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
I doubt that his press conference today will appease conservatives who sought much more direct influence from the White House from the get-go. President Obama's measured approach is the polar opposite of former President Bush's. If you are a liberal, he is thoughtful, contemplative and intellectually geared. If you are a conservative, he is wishy-washy, indecisive and lacks courage. PoTAtoes, potTAHtoes.
It's Stopped Getting Worse, but Will it Get Better?
The gains in the stock market has stalled, unemployment is still at a record high and the World Bank just revised its global economic forecast down to a 2.9% contraction in the global economy this year.
It has many thinking -- you call this a recovery?
The problem the markets are experiencing right now is that while we no longer appear on the verge of a global economic meltdown, as we did to many in late Februrary and some of the economic statistics (home sales, retail sales, etc.) have stopped declining, all of the economic indicators have stabilized at a lower level.
It has led many to ask the question -- is this the new norm? Will we be living with 9-10% unemployment, zero growth and hard-to-get credit for generations to come?
I don't think so. The engine that drives long-term economic prospects is productivity growth - and productivity is still growing. The economy is performing under capacity right now -- too many people out of work, too many people working part time, too many people underemployed. But these are transitional, not structural issues. In fact, the history is that recessions often spawn productivity growth as businesses find creative ways to be more efficient out of survival instinct. We certainly saw this in the last 3 recessions. So, rest assured, things WILL get better again.
What may be fundamental changed is credit conditions. The S&P may take years to get back to 1,500 because corporations have realized the risk that massively debt-ridden balance sheets can cause (ask a few casino companies or maybe some banks.) Individuals are saving again because they realize that they can no longer rely on their home value and their 401K always going up. So thrift may be back in, at least for a while. But we grew the economy pretty well in the 1950s and people were relatively a lot more thrifty then. Innovation drives productivity, not spending.
Things That Annoy Me
A new feature -- suggested by my wife -- some short-takes on some things I find very annoying, in the political world and elsewhere. So, here it goes...things that annoy me:
(1) Glenn Beck. You can't like him unless you think Rush Limbaugh is too civil and liberal.
(2) Democrats who say they are feminists but defend David Letterman because the teenage girl he joked about isn't "on our team"
(3) Sarah Palin -- not over the Letterman controversy, but because she can't complete a sentence
(4) People who think that I care who won the U.S. Open
(5) People who call Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Oh, the poor opressed white guy. We just don't ever catch a break.
(6) Drivers who don't use turn signals
(7) Congressional Democrats, especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- for never being organized on anything, never being united on anything and never having any backbone on anything
And finally, my annoyance of the week:
(8) Righteous ex-smokers (yes, I'm talking to you, President Obama), who want to legislate that we do what they had a choice about doing.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
In his press conference today, President Obama declared that he was "appalled and outraged" at violence against protesters in Iran. It was the most direct statement made by the administration to date calling to task the powers that be in Iran. President Obama continued to stop short of directly criticizing the election process or result.
This appears to be par for course for President Obama, whose tendencies on both foreign and domestic issues to date has been to take a measured approach and slowly ramp up rhetoric in response to conditions. We had a glimpse of this in the campaign -- think back to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
I doubt that his press conference today will appease conservatives who sought much more direct influence from the White House from the get-go. President Obama's measured approach is the polar opposite of former President Bush's. If you are a liberal, he is thoughtful, contemplative and intellectually geared. If you are a conservative, he is wishy-washy, indecisive and lacks courage. PoTAtoes, potTAHtoes.
It's Stopped Getting Worse, but Will it Get Better?
The gains in the stock market has stalled, unemployment is still at a record high and the World Bank just revised its global economic forecast down to a 2.9% contraction in the global economy this year.
It has many thinking -- you call this a recovery?
The problem the markets are experiencing right now is that while we no longer appear on the verge of a global economic meltdown, as we did to many in late Februrary and some of the economic statistics (home sales, retail sales, etc.) have stopped declining, all of the economic indicators have stabilized at a lower level.
It has led many to ask the question -- is this the new norm? Will we be living with 9-10% unemployment, zero growth and hard-to-get credit for generations to come?
I don't think so. The engine that drives long-term economic prospects is productivity growth - and productivity is still growing. The economy is performing under capacity right now -- too many people out of work, too many people working part time, too many people underemployed. But these are transitional, not structural issues. In fact, the history is that recessions often spawn productivity growth as businesses find creative ways to be more efficient out of survival instinct. We certainly saw this in the last 3 recessions. So, rest assured, things WILL get better again.
What may be fundamental changed is credit conditions. The S&P may take years to get back to 1,500 because corporations have realized the risk that massively debt-ridden balance sheets can cause (ask a few casino companies or maybe some banks.) Individuals are saving again because they realize that they can no longer rely on their home value and their 401K always going up. So thrift may be back in, at least for a while. But we grew the economy pretty well in the 1950s and people were relatively a lot more thrifty then. Innovation drives productivity, not spending.
Things That Annoy Me
A new feature -- suggested by my wife -- some short-takes on some things I find very annoying, in the political world and elsewhere. So, here it goes...things that annoy me:
(1) Glenn Beck. You can't like him unless you think Rush Limbaugh is too civil and liberal.
(2) Democrats who say they are feminists but defend David Letterman because the teenage girl he joked about isn't "on our team"
(3) Sarah Palin -- not over the Letterman controversy, but because she can't complete a sentence
(4) People who think that I care who won the U.S. Open
(5) People who call Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Oh, the poor opressed white guy. We just don't ever catch a break.
(6) Drivers who don't use turn signals
(7) Congressional Democrats, especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- for never being organized on anything, never being united on anything and never having any backbone on anything
And finally, my annoyance of the week:
(8) Righteous ex-smokers (yes, I'm talking to you, President Obama), who want to legislate that we do what they had a choice about doing.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
FDA Regulation of Tobacco Closer to Reality, The Palin/Letterman Battle
Senate Votes for FDA Tobacco Regulation
By an overwhelming vote of 79-17, the Senate has approved a bill to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products. The house had already passed a version of the bill, but the Senate amendments will need to be reconciled before it can be signed into law. It does not appear that there are any Senate amendments that will be major roadblocks to prevent passage, so expect this one to be finalized in the next few weeks. Voting against the bill were 16 Republicans and Sen. Kay Hagan (D) from tobacco-rich North Carolina.
The bill stops short of allowing the FDA to ban cigarettes but allows them to regulate both nicotine contents and ingredients, including banning flavor enhancers that might make tobacco more appealing to teenagers. Phillip Morris had come out in support of the bill, while all of the other tobacco manufacturers had opposed it.
Palin/Letterman
I would only mention this because the news is slow today and because it has received much media coverage, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) at late-night host David Letterman are in a war of words. Letterman made some crude jokes a few nights ago about the sexual promiscuity of Palin's daughters, including saying that one got knocked up by Alex Rodriguez on a trip to New York City.
There isn't too much to this story. Dave's jokes were out of line, but the bigger story is that you have two people who want media coverage. Dave is battling Conan O'Brien in the ratings and Gov. Palin is trying to maintain national recognition. This story will likely quickly fade.
Horror at the Holocaust Museum
The killing of a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum is a huge shame and not a political issue. My heart goes out to the guard's family and for those at the museum at the time of the shooting.
It is worth noting that a major report, initiated by the Bush Administration and released by the Obama Administration on the risk of a rising tide of white supremicist terror was panned by some of the far right. Obviously, they were wrong and the report was right. Regrettably, I fear we may see more of the same from a fringe few over the coming months. We all should stay ever vigilant.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
By an overwhelming vote of 79-17, the Senate has approved a bill to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products. The house had already passed a version of the bill, but the Senate amendments will need to be reconciled before it can be signed into law. It does not appear that there are any Senate amendments that will be major roadblocks to prevent passage, so expect this one to be finalized in the next few weeks. Voting against the bill were 16 Republicans and Sen. Kay Hagan (D) from tobacco-rich North Carolina.
The bill stops short of allowing the FDA to ban cigarettes but allows them to regulate both nicotine contents and ingredients, including banning flavor enhancers that might make tobacco more appealing to teenagers. Phillip Morris had come out in support of the bill, while all of the other tobacco manufacturers had opposed it.
Palin/Letterman
I would only mention this because the news is slow today and because it has received much media coverage, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) at late-night host David Letterman are in a war of words. Letterman made some crude jokes a few nights ago about the sexual promiscuity of Palin's daughters, including saying that one got knocked up by Alex Rodriguez on a trip to New York City.
There isn't too much to this story. Dave's jokes were out of line, but the bigger story is that you have two people who want media coverage. Dave is battling Conan O'Brien in the ratings and Gov. Palin is trying to maintain national recognition. This story will likely quickly fade.
Horror at the Holocaust Museum
The killing of a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum is a huge shame and not a political issue. My heart goes out to the guard's family and for those at the museum at the time of the shooting.
It is worth noting that a major report, initiated by the Bush Administration and released by the Obama Administration on the risk of a rising tide of white supremicist terror was panned by some of the far right. Obviously, they were wrong and the report was right. Regrettably, I fear we may see more of the same from a fringe few over the coming months. We all should stay ever vigilant.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
