Santorum Fading Fast in Arizona and Michigan
Rick Santorum missed a golden opportunity at this week's debate with probably his weakest performance to date. No candidate hit a home run at what could be the final GOP debate of the year (there are none scheduled as of this writing), but Mitt Romney did what he came to do - dislodge the narrative that Rick Santorum is a principled conservative versus the more opportune Romney.
Santorum's defense of earmarks, No Child Left Behind and other votes in the Senate that are less than appealing to an increasingly conservative GOP primary and caucus base was strained to say the least. I have often said that Senators in general make less appealing Presidential candidates than Governors for the simple reason that Senators cast votes for people to parse apart whereas Governors accomplish things. Santorum's voting record clearly compromised his voice as an economic conservative and he did a poor job preparing to defend that record.
Aside from the structural differences of being a Senator, the fact is, Rick Santorum is not a purist economic conservative. He has always voted and spoken of the need for government to intervene in things - he just wants the government to intervene in a different way than Democrats do.
And let's not forget Mitt Romney's flooding of the airwaves, the same tactic he used to wrestle the Florida primary away from Newt Gingrich. The money matters, especially in a race where the electorate is so fluid and especially in primary states where people outside of the hardcore base of the GOP votes - people who do not follow every position and twist and turn of the race.
So, a week after he was trailing in Michigan and basically breakeven in Arizona, Mitt Romney appears reasonably comfortably poised to win both. The latest polls have him up by 10% or more in the winner-take-all Arizona primary and up by an average of about 4% in the proportionally-awarded state of Michigan.
Neither of these losses will be utterly lethal to Santorum's campaign, as Super Tuesday, with a far more favorable map to him, is coming just a week behind. But momentum matters. It matters in terms of where the "Not Romney" voters go in places like Georgia and Oklahoma - do they all break for Santorum or do some go to Gingrich? Where does the money, so crucial to compete in that many contests on the same day, flow?
Romney is, just like every other writing, the favorite to win. A dual-win next Tuesday helps that case. The key number to watch is the percentage of delegates that Romney has after Super Tuesday. He will almost certainly be in the lead, but whether he crosses the 50% threshold of delegates awarded is the key to winning the nomination outright.
Of the likely delegates awarded in the 8 nominating contests to date, Mitt Romney has won 45% of the delegates - by far the most (Santorum and Gingrich each have 19% with Paul at 15% and the now-exited Perry and Huntsman carrying a combined 2%) but not an outright majority. Arizona's winner-take-all delegates will help that.
But we will have to take stock in 9 days of where things stand.
Rising Oil Prices is a Mixed Blessing and Curse
2011 saw the highest average gas prices at the pump in history, even in inflation-adjusted terms, just edging out the 1981 gas crisis price (which, on an inflation adjusted basis averaged $3.31/gal) at $3.51/gal. 2012 is on pace thus far to break that record.
Higher gas prices are bad for the economy in many ways. Petroleum represents 38% of all United States energy consumption and rises in gas prices permeate through costs to consumers in a number of ways including both the direct costs that they pay at the pump and in prices of all kinds of consumer goods, whose transportation is directly impacted by diesel prices.
Additionally, high gas prices (more specifically higher crude oil prices which drive gas prices) means more money going to exporters in unfriendly places like the Middle East and Venezuela which means a growing US trade imbalance and money flowing to governments that could use it to fund terrorism at worst and fund anti-American principles at best.
But high gas prices also drive economic incentives - mainly the economic incentive to reduce our dependency on oil altogether.
Virtually all of our other sources of energy are preferable to oil in most ways. Let's examine the 5 major sources of energy in this country.
Oil
As I said above, oil leads the way with 38% of our energy consumption. It has many problems. 60% of our oil need is sourced from foreign sources. Proven US oil reserves would cover less than 3 years of national energy needs if foreign supply where cut off. Oil is one of the highest carbon-producing forms of energy as well, second only to coal in greenhouse gas emissions. In virtually every way except one, oil is an unappealing energy source. That one reason is the reason it is still 38% of our energy consumption - it is very easy to build equipment that converts it to energy on a small scale.
70% of all oil consumption is used in transportation - primarily passenger automobiles and trucking. There has simply been no cheaper design for portable transportation than the internal combustion engine and no cheaper engine design than one that runs on gasoline.
Natural Gas
Natural Gas is now 24% of our nation's energy consumption and that number is growing. Natural gas is used in many ways - from home heating to industrial use (think big natural gas boilers and HVAC systems) to electrical generation. It's advantages are that it is very cheap, thanks to shale extraction and rising proven reserves in the US. It is easily burned to produce energy and natural gas power plants are far cheaper to build than any other kind. It is more environmentally friendly than oil, giving off less carbon emissions per BTU. And, as a net exporter of natural gas, it is an energy source that is entirely domestically sourced. And we have enough proven reserves of natural gas to cover 100 years of energy consumption.
Natural gas has some barriers as well though. While it is very cheap to supply and convert in stationary locations like homes, power plants and industrial uses, it is far more difficult to use as a fuel source in mobile vehicles like cars. While the technology exists on a fairly economical scale to compress natural gas, those engines and systems are still more expensive than gasoline engines and the infrastructure to refuel is limited at this point. In fact, natural gas only represents 2% of the energy for transportation and that is primarily where large municipalities have consciously put in the infrastructure, such as city buses or intra-airport transportation at hubs.
Finally, while the burning of natural gas is clearly less bad for the environment than gasoline, the extraction process that has enabled the natural gas boom - shale extraction - has questionable environmental consequences where it is extracted.
Coal
Coal now represents 22% of national energy use, a number that has been declining for a number of years. Coal is abundant and cheap (with over 250 years of proven reserves), but has a number of drawbacks. It is impractical for residential or transportation use (outside of trains) and poses environmental problems that not only including high carbon emissions per BTU but also lots of nasty particulate and sulfur emissions that lead to acid rain, lung cancer and a whole bunch of other unpleasant things.
Coal plants have been so heavily regulated since George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clear Air Act in 1991. Essentially, existing coal plants were "grandfathered" in and allowed to continue to operate, but new plants had to comply with emission controls so costly that no one has attempted to build a coal plant since.
Promise of "clean coal" technology has been out there for years, but no one has yet been able to figure out an economically viable way to convert coal into energy in a way that is environmentally friendly.
Nuclear
Nuclear power represents 8% of our national energy use. It has many advantages - since it requires only atoms as an input, we have an essentially infinite supply of nuclear power. But nuclear power is incredibly costly, which is one of the reasons that no new nuclear plants have been built in decades. A new nuclear plant costs upwards of $1 billion to build and will therefore never be built without significant government subsidy. Southern Company plans to build a new one, but only because of significant government loan guarantees.
Environmentally, nuclear produces zero carbon emissions, a welcome thing to those who dislike greenhouse gases. The main drawback is that radioactive waste, that we have yet to establish a national strategy for disposal of, leaving nuclear power plants to continually store more and more waste on site, with no place to send it.
Renewables
Renewables as a whole represent 7% of our national energy use and cover a broad range of technologies, from hydroelectric dams such as the Hoover Dam that convert water flow to electricity to wind turbines in the Northeast and rural California to solar panels across the sunny parts of the country.
Renewables possess all the advantages environmentally - zero emissions and unlimited supply. They also possess the same key drawback as nuclear, on a capital cost basis they are not economically viable without government subsidies. Costs, especially for wind and solar are coming down as scale builds, but at this stage, no one would invest on a large scale without tax credits or other subsidies.
So why are higher gas prices good for all of this? As you can see, oil is the one source of energy that we cannot source our needs domestically and higher prices push the economics in favor of alternate energy technologies, which can be sourced domestically and are largely cleaner environmentally. The free market is starting to take care of what the government has not solved.
So what could the government be doing? There are a surprising number of things that we could do from a national energy policy standpoint that wouldn't cost much. If you've read this space for a while, you've seen a number of these before:
(1) The Revenue-Neutral Gas Tax
An originally Republican idea, I simply can't understand why this great idea hasn't gained traction. The concept is simple - you raise per gallon taxes on gasoline and reduce payroll taxes by an offsetting amount. The net cost to the government is zero, but it creates an incentive that rewards consumers that reduce gas consumption and punishes ones who do not.
(2) Tax Imports, Seed Local Infrastructure
You could tax imported sources of energy and use the money to subsidize building the infrastructure to support alternatives - the building of natural gas filling stations, electrical plug-in stations for vehicles, etc. This could be done at a net zero impact on the deficit.
(3) Set Renewable Targets for Electricity
Require an ever-increasing percentage of electrical generation come from renewable sources. This leaves the market-place decisions about technology to the free market and forces power companies to examine the best strategy to push us to more renewable and ultimately builds scale that makes those technologies more economically viable. California is blazing that trail, but we need to get on board nationally.
Energy policy is important both environmentally and from a national security standpoint. You'd think that would be something that left-wing environmentalists and right-wing national security conservatives could find some common ground on. I mean, does anybody WANT to be importing oil from Libya?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label energy policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy policy. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Next Fronts in the Budgetary War, America's Energy Future
With Fiscal 2011 Behind Us, The Battle Turns to the Debt Ceiling and the Blueprint
I give John Boehner a lot of credit as a politician. When the GOP swept into control of the House last November, Republicans were quick to note that they still only controlled "one-half of one-third of government", that is, that they controlled half of the legislative branch but not any of the executive branch (certainly true) or the judiciary (not really true, but makes for a good one-liner.) But with control of the House came a very important power, one that I noted that we all should hold the GOP accountable for - control of the purse strings. And use that control the Republicans have done.
Think back to prior to November. The debates that took place in the last congress were about stimulus, health care, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, nuclear arms treaties. The President wanted to talk about comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade. The Republicans have focused the political debate in this country on one thing and one thing only: government spending. Boehner did a masterful job getting most of what he wanted in the fiscal 2011 budget. This time-consuming debate was just an initial salvo in the debate to come.
First up, the debt ceiling. By sometime in late May, the federal government will have reached the maximum amount that it is allowed to borrow by law and will need permission from congress to continue issuing bonds. As there is no viable path to budgetary balance this year, the impact of not getting that permission would be nothing short of catastrophic. Essentially, large swaths of the government would shut down and the US would fall into default on treasuries, which would destroy the value of the full faith and credit of the government and cause massive spikes in interest rates. I don't think most of the Republicans want to see this happen, but they are certainly looking to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. Boehner and company will attempt to use the debt ceiling legislation to extract even more significant cuts in spending. This is a fairly dangerous game of chicken, but from what I've seen, in games of chicken, the Democrats seem to be blinking first most of the time the past few years.
Then, there is the Ryan plan, the GOP blueprint for the next 10 years of government spending. All but 4 Republicans in the House supported the plan (no Democrats did), which called for abolishing Medicare and Medicaid as we know it, replacing Medicare with subsidized private plans and Medicaid with block grants to the states. It also called for extension of the Bush/Obama tax cuts at all income levels and major reductions in domestic discretionary spending (it left Social Security untouched, although some Republicans have been calling for the retirement age to be raised to 70 over time.)
If you would have told me a year ago that 98% of House Republicans would have supported a plan to dismantle Medicare, I wouldn't have believed you. But it just shows how far Boehner has been able to shift the debate. The Ryan plan is clearly DOA in the Democratically-controlled Senate and President Obama would veto it regardless, but it stakes out a striking opening position in the debate over balancing the federal budget.
Republicans seem highly likely to control both Houses in 2013 (see my previous post on the Senate map and how awful it is for the Dems in 2012), which means that the Presidential election will be very high stakes. If a Republican candidate wins, we could very well see something like the Ryan plan enacted.
President Obama, for his part, has called for more modest reductions in domestic discretionary spending, significant reductions in defense expenditures and allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to lapse for those making over $250K. It's a start, but doesn't go nearly far enough to fix the budget. Republicans are sure to strongly oppose the tax changes and a least a portion of the defense reductions.
Let the debate begin.
Why $4 Gas is a Good Thing
In the breakthrough economics book, Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt makes one point abundantly clear over and over again: people respond to incentives. From drug dealers, to parents with kids in day care to sumo wrestlers, the book chronicles how incentives drive behavior large and small. The same is true with energy policy.
When gas is sub-$2/gallon, whatever we may say about carbon emissions, national security, etc., not a lot will change with the behavior of individuals that drives our oil consumption. When it reaches $4/gallon, magical things happen. People buy hybrid and electric cars. Corporations start investing in alternative energy. We start to make real progress against our dependence on foreign fuels and evolve our economy.
$4/gas hurts, but let's hope it is here to stay. Our green energy economy depends on it.
I give John Boehner a lot of credit as a politician. When the GOP swept into control of the House last November, Republicans were quick to note that they still only controlled "one-half of one-third of government", that is, that they controlled half of the legislative branch but not any of the executive branch (certainly true) or the judiciary (not really true, but makes for a good one-liner.) But with control of the House came a very important power, one that I noted that we all should hold the GOP accountable for - control of the purse strings. And use that control the Republicans have done.
Think back to prior to November. The debates that took place in the last congress were about stimulus, health care, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, nuclear arms treaties. The President wanted to talk about comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade. The Republicans have focused the political debate in this country on one thing and one thing only: government spending. Boehner did a masterful job getting most of what he wanted in the fiscal 2011 budget. This time-consuming debate was just an initial salvo in the debate to come.
First up, the debt ceiling. By sometime in late May, the federal government will have reached the maximum amount that it is allowed to borrow by law and will need permission from congress to continue issuing bonds. As there is no viable path to budgetary balance this year, the impact of not getting that permission would be nothing short of catastrophic. Essentially, large swaths of the government would shut down and the US would fall into default on treasuries, which would destroy the value of the full faith and credit of the government and cause massive spikes in interest rates. I don't think most of the Republicans want to see this happen, but they are certainly looking to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. Boehner and company will attempt to use the debt ceiling legislation to extract even more significant cuts in spending. This is a fairly dangerous game of chicken, but from what I've seen, in games of chicken, the Democrats seem to be blinking first most of the time the past few years.
Then, there is the Ryan plan, the GOP blueprint for the next 10 years of government spending. All but 4 Republicans in the House supported the plan (no Democrats did), which called for abolishing Medicare and Medicaid as we know it, replacing Medicare with subsidized private plans and Medicaid with block grants to the states. It also called for extension of the Bush/Obama tax cuts at all income levels and major reductions in domestic discretionary spending (it left Social Security untouched, although some Republicans have been calling for the retirement age to be raised to 70 over time.)
If you would have told me a year ago that 98% of House Republicans would have supported a plan to dismantle Medicare, I wouldn't have believed you. But it just shows how far Boehner has been able to shift the debate. The Ryan plan is clearly DOA in the Democratically-controlled Senate and President Obama would veto it regardless, but it stakes out a striking opening position in the debate over balancing the federal budget.
Republicans seem highly likely to control both Houses in 2013 (see my previous post on the Senate map and how awful it is for the Dems in 2012), which means that the Presidential election will be very high stakes. If a Republican candidate wins, we could very well see something like the Ryan plan enacted.
President Obama, for his part, has called for more modest reductions in domestic discretionary spending, significant reductions in defense expenditures and allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to lapse for those making over $250K. It's a start, but doesn't go nearly far enough to fix the budget. Republicans are sure to strongly oppose the tax changes and a least a portion of the defense reductions.
Let the debate begin.
Why $4 Gas is a Good Thing
In the breakthrough economics book, Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt makes one point abundantly clear over and over again: people respond to incentives. From drug dealers, to parents with kids in day care to sumo wrestlers, the book chronicles how incentives drive behavior large and small. The same is true with energy policy.
When gas is sub-$2/gallon, whatever we may say about carbon emissions, national security, etc., not a lot will change with the behavior of individuals that drives our oil consumption. When it reaches $4/gallon, magical things happen. People buy hybrid and electric cars. Corporations start investing in alternative energy. We start to make real progress against our dependence on foreign fuels and evolve our economy.
$4/gas hurts, but let's hope it is here to stay. Our green energy economy depends on it.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Reflections from Down Under, President Obama -- Happy to See July End
Back from Australia
I made the long return trip from Australia last night (actually over about 30 hours prior to Friday night.) It was primarily a business trip, but I can't go two weeks without discussing politics, so I thought I'd share some observations:
* Australia is about the most pro-American country on the globe...they like us, but definitely like Obama better than Bush.
* Australia has a model private/public health insurance model -- a basic policy that is publicly funded and more generous private policies. Everyone there seems to love their model and can't understand why we can't do something similar.
* The Aussie economy is in great shape relative to the globe's. This appears to be in large measure to their lack of globalization -- your Aussie souvenir T-shirts are made in Australia as are the rental cars you drive.
* I need to go back when I can be a tourist -- the wildlife and culture are amazing there
President Obama's Awful Month of July
In my opinion, July has been by far the worst month of President Obama's term so far. His poll numbers show declines and with good reason. In July, we saw health care reform stall in both houses of congress, the June unemployment report show a 25-year high 9.5% unemployment and the stimulus bill coming under fire. Then, the normally buttoned-up and polished President stepped deep into the dog doo with the "acted stupidly" remark. All-in-all, not so good.
In the long view, it wasn't a total disaster. Sonia Sotomayor is still a lock for confirmation, with 7 GOP senators already announcing support and no Dems dissenting at this point, the stimulus is starting to get rolling at a faster pace and the prospects for economic improvement are getting better.
But lower poll numbers definitely mean less political capital and the President is going to need a lot of that to get health care and energy policy implemented. Prospects look tough, but not completely zero with control of both houses of congress still firmly in the hands of a Democratic party, although the Blue Dogs still don't appear aligned with the leadership on these issues.
The latest tracking of our composite of non-partisan polls is below:
At 15.5% overall approve-disapprove, President Obama is at the lowest mark of his Presidency, but still ahead of his 7.2% margin in last November's election. A breakdown by poll type is below:
Adult Americans: +19%
Registered Voters: +16%
Likely Voters: +7%
According to the likely voter polling, if an election were held today, it would look a lot like it did last November. For the first time in this administration, we have more than 1 likely voter poll. The Rasmussen Poll had been the only LV poll available and it had consistently shown far lower numbers than the others (it shows Obama at +1% today.) Now we have polls from GWU/Battleground and NPR that both show Obama at +11%, which indicates to me that there are either sample problems with the Rasmussen poll, or with everyone else. All the more reason to use aggregate numbers that average out the disparate methodologies.
President Obama's by-month numbers look as follows:
President Obama finished July with a +19.5% average, his lowest number yet (each successive month has been lower than the last so far.) July's drop, at 7.4%, is his second-largest drop, with an 8.4% decline in March being the largest. But March was while the "first 100 days" shine was still coming off. We are into a more steady-state now and losing 7.4% is a bad, bad month. A couple more like this and we will be talking about an unpopular President.
Policy Updates
(1) Economic Stimulus
As of this week's release:
Authorized: $191.9 billion (38.5%)
Spent: $70.2 billion (14.1%)
This puts average weekly spending since the stimulus bill was signed February 17th at just under $3 billion. At this pace, it would take over 3 years to exhaust the stimulus. Clearly, the pace needs to pick-up. I still believe the benchmark is 40% spent by year-end. We appear to be behind schedule to hit that mark. Benchmark Transportation spending has crossed $900 million (I'm sure you've seen some signs about projects funded by the act, as I have), but is still behind where it will need to be to create a number of jobs that will have a real impact.
The legislative part of this is done, this is about executive execution. Let's get moving, cabinet heads!
(2) Energy Policy / Cap and Trade
Still stalled in the Senate. No vote scheduled.
(3) Healthcare
Moved beyond the August recess. Just barely passed out of the House committee and both houses of congress appear poised to debate the issue in September. It appears that there is some hope for a fragile majority in both houses, which could provide for a narrow passage if Democrats employ reconciliation to stifle a fillibuster attempt in the Senate. Blue Dogs in the House and moderates like Ben Nelson (D-NE) hold the keys in the Senate.
Upcoming....Some Actual Election Predictions
Congress is headed to recess, so in my next blog, I'll take a look at the latest numbers for the 2010 mid-terms as well as the far-out hypotheticals in 2012.
Thanks for bearing with me during my long trip out of town and thanks as always for reading.
I made the long return trip from Australia last night (actually over about 30 hours prior to Friday night.) It was primarily a business trip, but I can't go two weeks without discussing politics, so I thought I'd share some observations:
* Australia is about the most pro-American country on the globe...they like us, but definitely like Obama better than Bush.
* Australia has a model private/public health insurance model -- a basic policy that is publicly funded and more generous private policies. Everyone there seems to love their model and can't understand why we can't do something similar.
* The Aussie economy is in great shape relative to the globe's. This appears to be in large measure to their lack of globalization -- your Aussie souvenir T-shirts are made in Australia as are the rental cars you drive.
* I need to go back when I can be a tourist -- the wildlife and culture are amazing there
President Obama's Awful Month of July
In my opinion, July has been by far the worst month of President Obama's term so far. His poll numbers show declines and with good reason. In July, we saw health care reform stall in both houses of congress, the June unemployment report show a 25-year high 9.5% unemployment and the stimulus bill coming under fire. Then, the normally buttoned-up and polished President stepped deep into the dog doo with the "acted stupidly" remark. All-in-all, not so good.
In the long view, it wasn't a total disaster. Sonia Sotomayor is still a lock for confirmation, with 7 GOP senators already announcing support and no Dems dissenting at this point, the stimulus is starting to get rolling at a faster pace and the prospects for economic improvement are getting better.
But lower poll numbers definitely mean less political capital and the President is going to need a lot of that to get health care and energy policy implemented. Prospects look tough, but not completely zero with control of both houses of congress still firmly in the hands of a Democratic party, although the Blue Dogs still don't appear aligned with the leadership on these issues.
The latest tracking of our composite of non-partisan polls is below:
At 15.5% overall approve-disapprove, President Obama is at the lowest mark of his Presidency, but still ahead of his 7.2% margin in last November's election. A breakdown by poll type is below:Adult Americans: +19%
Registered Voters: +16%
Likely Voters: +7%
According to the likely voter polling, if an election were held today, it would look a lot like it did last November. For the first time in this administration, we have more than 1 likely voter poll. The Rasmussen Poll had been the only LV poll available and it had consistently shown far lower numbers than the others (it shows Obama at +1% today.) Now we have polls from GWU/Battleground and NPR that both show Obama at +11%, which indicates to me that there are either sample problems with the Rasmussen poll, or with everyone else. All the more reason to use aggregate numbers that average out the disparate methodologies.
President Obama's by-month numbers look as follows:
President Obama finished July with a +19.5% average, his lowest number yet (each successive month has been lower than the last so far.) July's drop, at 7.4%, is his second-largest drop, with an 8.4% decline in March being the largest. But March was while the "first 100 days" shine was still coming off. We are into a more steady-state now and losing 7.4% is a bad, bad month. A couple more like this and we will be talking about an unpopular President.Policy Updates
(1) Economic Stimulus
As of this week's release:
Authorized: $191.9 billion (38.5%)
Spent: $70.2 billion (14.1%)
This puts average weekly spending since the stimulus bill was signed February 17th at just under $3 billion. At this pace, it would take over 3 years to exhaust the stimulus. Clearly, the pace needs to pick-up. I still believe the benchmark is 40% spent by year-end. We appear to be behind schedule to hit that mark. Benchmark Transportation spending has crossed $900 million (I'm sure you've seen some signs about projects funded by the act, as I have), but is still behind where it will need to be to create a number of jobs that will have a real impact.
The legislative part of this is done, this is about executive execution. Let's get moving, cabinet heads!
(2) Energy Policy / Cap and Trade
Still stalled in the Senate. No vote scheduled.
(3) Healthcare
Moved beyond the August recess. Just barely passed out of the House committee and both houses of congress appear poised to debate the issue in September. It appears that there is some hope for a fragile majority in both houses, which could provide for a narrow passage if Democrats employ reconciliation to stifle a fillibuster attempt in the Senate. Blue Dogs in the House and moderates like Ben Nelson (D-NE) hold the keys in the Senate.
Upcoming....Some Actual Election Predictions
Congress is headed to recess, so in my next blog, I'll take a look at the latest numbers for the 2010 mid-terms as well as the far-out hypotheticals in 2012.
Thanks for bearing with me during my long trip out of town and thanks as always for reading.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Barack Obama, A Presidency in Trouble?
Barack Obama has been President of the United States for 182 days or roughly one eighth of his elected term. In the past couple of weeks an increasing theme has emerged, first in the conservative blogosphere and more recently in the main stream media -- is the President on the ropes?
Boy, a lot changes quickly in politics. Six months ago, as the President was sworn into office before huge, adoring crowds it felt like he could do no wrong. Sure, Rush Limbaugh hoped he would fail, but we expect as much from Rush. As for the vast majority of us -- all the Democrats, most of the independents and at least half the Republicans, we all wanted him to do well. We believed he might really be that special, different kind of politican that could change to tone in Washington. What a long time ago that seems like.
So what is the health of the Presidency of Barack Obama? Let's do a run down.
I. The Agenda
Coming into office, President Obama made his policy priorities crystal clear. There were a lot of promises (more on that later) but only 3 clear priorities: Economic Stimulus, Energy Policy and Universal Healthcare.
Let's look at where he stands on each:
a. Economic Stimulus
What He Sought: A large ($700-$800 billion) stimulus package that would pass with a fair amount of Republican support (his stated goal was 80 votes in the Senate) that would stabilize the economy and hold the line on unemployment at 8%.
What He Got: A large ($787 billion) stimulus package, passed in a highly partisan manner (a highly partisan index score of 0.94) that has failed to stop unemployment from rising to 9.5%.
My Analysis:
That the President got such a large bill through congress so quickly was an impressive feat. The way the bill was designed (with the spending spread over 2+ years), the practical fact is that it is impossible to judge the effectiveness of the bill at this juncture. What the President does have is a PR nightmare, partly self-inflicted. Stating a concrete goal of holding unemployment to 8% while in a turbulent, unpredictable economic situation was a huge tactical error. The structure of the bill (funding primarily flows through state governments and private enterprise), while it may have made the bill politically palatable to some makes the PR all the harder. FDR could point to a concrete 4.5 million people who were being employed by the Feds on infrastructure programs. Obama has to rely on vague economic theory about how many jobs were created.
The Verdict: Too soon to tell. If unemployment begins falling, Republican arguments that the stimulus isn't helping will be academic -- people will consider it a success. If unemployment keeps rising, expect the drum beat to get louder and some vulnerable Democrats to start jumping ship from the Obamaonomics wagon.
b. Energy Policy
What He Sought: A broad-based reform of energy policy that includes increased fuel economy standards, higher standards for renewable energy, higher standards for building energy efficiency, and, most critically, a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions.
What He Got: Fuel efficiency standards -- done. The rest of his goals are addressed 100% by the climate change bill that very narrowly passed the house. Senate prospects remain very much in doubt.
My Analysis:
President Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda. A liberal bent to the House, some compromises on carbon credits to coal-users and some political strong-arming got the bill through the lower body of congress. The Senate is almost sure to weaken provisions in the bill and it may be a battle to get any sort of meaningful legislation fail.
The Verdict: Of Obama's 3 central agenda items, this is the one on which he can most afford to fail. He made it a central theme, but does anybody seriously think that if the economy recovers and people get universal healthcare that any significant number of swing voters will care that we didn't do cap and trade? Prospects are probably 50/50 that the President gets a meaningful law ot sign.
c. Universal Healthcare
What He Sought: A bill that creates universal access to affordable health care for all Americans.
What He Got: An expansion of the SCHIP program from 7 million to 11 million kids. Other than that, not a significant bill through either house of congress.
My Analysis:
Odds on this look long. Blue Dog Democrats are demanding serious changes to legislation in the House. The Senate looks even more divided. The ONLY way I can see a bill getting to the President's desk this year is by giving serious ground -- giving up on the "public option" in favor of subsidized exchanges. Limiting government aid to the more needy. Relaxing the rules on "play or pay" to exclude more small businesses. These are painful sacrifices for a guy who once supported single-payer health care. But it is this or no bill, in my opinion. And the President needs to get off the sidelines and start leading on this one.
The Verdict: As I've often noted, President Clinton survived failing on this issue. I'm not sure President Obama will. With Democrats firmly in control of both Houses of congress, if we can't get Health Care Reform done, we might as well have Republicans.
II. Public Approval
The President is not the PR dynamo that he once was, but all is not lost. The Gallup Approval numbers (the ones that I always use for comparability to previous Presidents due to the wealth of available data) peg him at 60% approval for today and an average of 59% for the past week of data. This puts him right about average for Post-World War II Presidents. Not exactly a home run, but not an overt failure either. It means he doesn't have the political capital to strong-arm things through a reluctant congress, but it also doesn't make his agenda poision, the way President Bush's was late in his second term.
III. The Promises
Politifact.com has documented 515 promises that President Obama made on the campaign trail. Of these, it rates that he has fulfilled 32 of them, compromised on 10 of them (partially fulfilled them) and broken 7 of them. This is a decent batting average on the one she has dealt with so far -- if we give 1 point for a kept promise, half a point for a compromise and zero points for a broken promise, the President is batting 76% on the promises he has dealt with.
But he has only dealt with 9.5% of them. Sure his term is only 12.5% in, but he is falling behind. A promise not acted on in his term equals a promise broken at the end of the day.
We didn't have politifact.com for past Presidents, so it's hard to set a benchmark, but I'd say that 50% kept is a pretty good standard from what I have seen of past Presidents. The President has a lot of ground to cover on a lot of issues to even meet that, relatively unambitious-sounding mark.
The good news? Politifact shows 78 promises as "in the works", meaning that the President is pushing for action on them. If fulfilled, these represent over 15% of his total promises.
Conclusions
So is the Obama Presidency in crisis? No. But he isn't the messiah either. The next 4 months will be fairly criticial to my assessment of the President's success. Two questions more than any will define his success or failure:
(1) Will he find a way to get a health care bill through?
(2) Will economic growth return and unemploymetn start to fall?
If the answer winds up being yes to both, the President may well be bulletproof for years to come. If the answer winds up no, watch out for a dramatic swing in power in 2010.
Stay tuned. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Boy, a lot changes quickly in politics. Six months ago, as the President was sworn into office before huge, adoring crowds it felt like he could do no wrong. Sure, Rush Limbaugh hoped he would fail, but we expect as much from Rush. As for the vast majority of us -- all the Democrats, most of the independents and at least half the Republicans, we all wanted him to do well. We believed he might really be that special, different kind of politican that could change to tone in Washington. What a long time ago that seems like.
So what is the health of the Presidency of Barack Obama? Let's do a run down.
I. The Agenda
Coming into office, President Obama made his policy priorities crystal clear. There were a lot of promises (more on that later) but only 3 clear priorities: Economic Stimulus, Energy Policy and Universal Healthcare.
Let's look at where he stands on each:
a. Economic Stimulus
What He Sought: A large ($700-$800 billion) stimulus package that would pass with a fair amount of Republican support (his stated goal was 80 votes in the Senate) that would stabilize the economy and hold the line on unemployment at 8%.
What He Got: A large ($787 billion) stimulus package, passed in a highly partisan manner (a highly partisan index score of 0.94) that has failed to stop unemployment from rising to 9.5%.
My Analysis:
That the President got such a large bill through congress so quickly was an impressive feat. The way the bill was designed (with the spending spread over 2+ years), the practical fact is that it is impossible to judge the effectiveness of the bill at this juncture. What the President does have is a PR nightmare, partly self-inflicted. Stating a concrete goal of holding unemployment to 8% while in a turbulent, unpredictable economic situation was a huge tactical error. The structure of the bill (funding primarily flows through state governments and private enterprise), while it may have made the bill politically palatable to some makes the PR all the harder. FDR could point to a concrete 4.5 million people who were being employed by the Feds on infrastructure programs. Obama has to rely on vague economic theory about how many jobs were created.
The Verdict: Too soon to tell. If unemployment begins falling, Republican arguments that the stimulus isn't helping will be academic -- people will consider it a success. If unemployment keeps rising, expect the drum beat to get louder and some vulnerable Democrats to start jumping ship from the Obamaonomics wagon.
b. Energy Policy
What He Sought: A broad-based reform of energy policy that includes increased fuel economy standards, higher standards for renewable energy, higher standards for building energy efficiency, and, most critically, a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions.
What He Got: Fuel efficiency standards -- done. The rest of his goals are addressed 100% by the climate change bill that very narrowly passed the house. Senate prospects remain very much in doubt.
My Analysis:
President Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda. A liberal bent to the House, some compromises on carbon credits to coal-users and some political strong-arming got the bill through the lower body of congress. The Senate is almost sure to weaken provisions in the bill and it may be a battle to get any sort of meaningful legislation fail.
The Verdict: Of Obama's 3 central agenda items, this is the one on which he can most afford to fail. He made it a central theme, but does anybody seriously think that if the economy recovers and people get universal healthcare that any significant number of swing voters will care that we didn't do cap and trade? Prospects are probably 50/50 that the President gets a meaningful law ot sign.
c. Universal Healthcare
What He Sought: A bill that creates universal access to affordable health care for all Americans.
What He Got: An expansion of the SCHIP program from 7 million to 11 million kids. Other than that, not a significant bill through either house of congress.
My Analysis:
Odds on this look long. Blue Dog Democrats are demanding serious changes to legislation in the House. The Senate looks even more divided. The ONLY way I can see a bill getting to the President's desk this year is by giving serious ground -- giving up on the "public option" in favor of subsidized exchanges. Limiting government aid to the more needy. Relaxing the rules on "play or pay" to exclude more small businesses. These are painful sacrifices for a guy who once supported single-payer health care. But it is this or no bill, in my opinion. And the President needs to get off the sidelines and start leading on this one.
The Verdict: As I've often noted, President Clinton survived failing on this issue. I'm not sure President Obama will. With Democrats firmly in control of both Houses of congress, if we can't get Health Care Reform done, we might as well have Republicans.
II. Public Approval
The President is not the PR dynamo that he once was, but all is not lost. The Gallup Approval numbers (the ones that I always use for comparability to previous Presidents due to the wealth of available data) peg him at 60% approval for today and an average of 59% for the past week of data. This puts him right about average for Post-World War II Presidents. Not exactly a home run, but not an overt failure either. It means he doesn't have the political capital to strong-arm things through a reluctant congress, but it also doesn't make his agenda poision, the way President Bush's was late in his second term.
III. The Promises
Politifact.com has documented 515 promises that President Obama made on the campaign trail. Of these, it rates that he has fulfilled 32 of them, compromised on 10 of them (partially fulfilled them) and broken 7 of them. This is a decent batting average on the one she has dealt with so far -- if we give 1 point for a kept promise, half a point for a compromise and zero points for a broken promise, the President is batting 76% on the promises he has dealt with.
But he has only dealt with 9.5% of them. Sure his term is only 12.5% in, but he is falling behind. A promise not acted on in his term equals a promise broken at the end of the day.
We didn't have politifact.com for past Presidents, so it's hard to set a benchmark, but I'd say that 50% kept is a pretty good standard from what I have seen of past Presidents. The President has a lot of ground to cover on a lot of issues to even meet that, relatively unambitious-sounding mark.
The good news? Politifact shows 78 promises as "in the works", meaning that the President is pushing for action on them. If fulfilled, these represent over 15% of his total promises.
Conclusions
So is the Obama Presidency in crisis? No. But he isn't the messiah either. The next 4 months will be fairly criticial to my assessment of the President's success. Two questions more than any will define his success or failure:
(1) Will he find a way to get a health care bill through?
(2) Will economic growth return and unemploymetn start to fall?
If the answer winds up being yes to both, the President may well be bulletproof for years to come. If the answer winds up no, watch out for a dramatic swing in power in 2010.
Stay tuned. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
