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.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Deeds Spanks All Comers in VA Primary, Chrysler Sale Cleared, Sotomayor Hearings Set, President Obama's Political Capital
Deeds Smokes McAullife
I'll grade myself on my call yesterday on the Virginia gubernatorial primary: right theory, right order of finish, WAY off on order of magnitude. I pride myself on calling races right and I do feel that this site got it a lot more right than any other major political website, but there is definitely room for improvement.
As of this writing, with 99%+ of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds pulled in a whopping 50% of the primary vote in the three-way race with Terry McAullife (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) a distant second and third. I believe all of the reasons why I projected a Deeds win held true (that Republican Open Primary voters overwhelmingly voted against McAullife), but in a much bigger way than I could have imagined. I envisioned maybe a 5 point Deeds win -- all of the polls showed the race more or less a dead heat. This just shows the difficulty in polling the result of an open primary, especially a very low turnout primary as this one was.
This sets up what I consider to be a true toss-up general election. Both Virginia and New Jersey appear to be very interesting races...stay tuned.
Chrysler Sale Moves Ahead Less than 24 hours after Justice Ginsberg granted a temporary stay of the Chrysler reorganization plan, the Supreme Court has reached the decision not to grant cert and take up the case. The reorganization will move ahead as planned with combined ownership by the UAW, the Federal Government and Fiat.
This is a good thing for what is left of Chrysler. It has a chance to remake itself. There is a lot of work to do. Chrysler lags badly in innovation, design and quality to its global competitors (Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and Ford are all miles ahead in all three categories) and it may yet fail, but it has a lifeline and the small-car technology from Fiat to lean into. This expedited bankruptcy also sets the precedent for the much-larger GM to follow a similar process.
Sotomayor Hearings to Begin July 13th
The Senate judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor will begin July 13th. This is earlier than many Senate Republicans had wanted, arguing for hearings no earlier than late August to allow a thorough review of Judge Sotomayor's record. As I previously discussed, this argument is nonesense as we are talking about a twice-Senate confirmed nominee whose record has already been thoroughly reviewed. But it is a normal tactic for the opposition party to play a waiting game and hope something blows up. I would still be very surprised if Sotomayor doesn't pick up 70 votes and sail through her nomination. But you never know.
That the hearings are set to begin smack-dab in the middle of when congressional Democrats had hoped to be debating health care reform will spread the President's capital awfully thin. Let's take a look at home much he still has.
Holding Strong But Still Trending Down
First, for our new readers, let me explain the methodology of the poll aggregation graphs below. Unlike many sites (such as the widely reported realclearpolitics), I do not treat all polls as equal. Polls have different sample sizes and are therefore given weight based on its overall sample size, to create one "super poll". Also, polls have different methodology for treatment of "no opinion". Gallup, for instance, reports "no opinion" responses (their latest poll shows 61% approve, 34% disapprove, 5% "no opinion") whereas Rasmussen does not (their latest poll 58% approve, 41% disapprove, does not add to 100% due to rounding.) Therefore looking at just the approval percentage is not meaningful. I therefore use what I call "approve minus disapprove", that is the percentage of those surveyed who approve minus the percentage that disapprove. This gives a consistent basis for comparing the results over time. If the number is positive, President Obama generally has public approval, if negative he does not. I also show for reference the 7.2% line, the percentage by which the President won the national popular vote in November. This methodology closely replicates the polling aggregation method that I used to correctly project within 0.1% the results of the November election.
The verdict so far this month? More of the same. President Obama continues to enjoy broad approval, but the margin continues to slowly tighten. He is more popular than he was in November -- that is there appear to be McCain voters who approve of the President. But you can see from the trend why the administration is intent on getting things done now -- in politics you either use political capital or lose it.
I also look at the poll breakdowns by polling methodology. As some polls survey all adult Americans, some restrict to registered voters and some attempt to target likely voters, the numbers naturally vary.
As of today, the numbers by polling type are:
Adult Americans: +30%
Registered Voters: +26%
Likely Voters: +17%
It is worth noting that Rasmussen is consistently the only poll tracking Likely Voters. This is worth noting as the Rasmussen results have been all over the map, bouncing between +6% and +17% over just the past 4 days. I find it hard to believe that President Obama's underlying popularity is shifting that much day to day, so I wonder somewhat if Rasmussen is tinkering with the methodology. The +17% number seems more realistic, given that it would be hard to believe that there is a 20%+ spread between registered and likely voters. The Gallup polling last year that looked at both generally showed a 3-5% spread between the two (registered voters tend to be somewhat more liberal than likely voters.)
Month to month, President Obama is still off about 4% in June versus his May numbers, but still over 18% above his November vote totals.
My conclusion: the President still has a lot of capital. People are wary of large deficits and continuing high unemployment but are generally feeling better about the direction of the country and the economy than they were a few months ago (consumer confidence is at its highest level since last September, and right track/wrong track polling has gone from -48% on election day to even today.) Republicans have yet to organize a coherent attack (Rush, Newt and Dick are not helping) or present clear policy alternatives. The honeymoon will end (Republicans will eventually rebuild their party and rally around a coherent message, people will continue to feel economic pain at least for the next several months and the country as a whole is definitely to the right of the President), but for now, the President can afford to press hard.
Whether all this capital translates into being able to do Health Care, Energy Reform AND Immigration Reform in a meaningful way remains to be seen. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush accomplished NONE of those three things in 8 years each in office. President Obama is attempting to do it in one. If he pulls it off, it will be the most significant first year of a President in U.S. history. It should be interesting to watch.
Welcome again if you are a new reader. Please bookmark, visit often and tell your friends.
I'll grade myself on my call yesterday on the Virginia gubernatorial primary: right theory, right order of finish, WAY off on order of magnitude. I pride myself on calling races right and I do feel that this site got it a lot more right than any other major political website, but there is definitely room for improvement.
As of this writing, with 99%+ of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds pulled in a whopping 50% of the primary vote in the three-way race with Terry McAullife (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) a distant second and third. I believe all of the reasons why I projected a Deeds win held true (that Republican Open Primary voters overwhelmingly voted against McAullife), but in a much bigger way than I could have imagined. I envisioned maybe a 5 point Deeds win -- all of the polls showed the race more or less a dead heat. This just shows the difficulty in polling the result of an open primary, especially a very low turnout primary as this one was.
This sets up what I consider to be a true toss-up general election. Both Virginia and New Jersey appear to be very interesting races...stay tuned.
Chrysler Sale Moves Ahead Less than 24 hours after Justice Ginsberg granted a temporary stay of the Chrysler reorganization plan, the Supreme Court has reached the decision not to grant cert and take up the case. The reorganization will move ahead as planned with combined ownership by the UAW, the Federal Government and Fiat.
This is a good thing for what is left of Chrysler. It has a chance to remake itself. There is a lot of work to do. Chrysler lags badly in innovation, design and quality to its global competitors (Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and Ford are all miles ahead in all three categories) and it may yet fail, but it has a lifeline and the small-car technology from Fiat to lean into. This expedited bankruptcy also sets the precedent for the much-larger GM to follow a similar process.
Sotomayor Hearings to Begin July 13th
The Senate judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court-Designee Sonia Sotomayor will begin July 13th. This is earlier than many Senate Republicans had wanted, arguing for hearings no earlier than late August to allow a thorough review of Judge Sotomayor's record. As I previously discussed, this argument is nonesense as we are talking about a twice-Senate confirmed nominee whose record has already been thoroughly reviewed. But it is a normal tactic for the opposition party to play a waiting game and hope something blows up. I would still be very surprised if Sotomayor doesn't pick up 70 votes and sail through her nomination. But you never know.
That the hearings are set to begin smack-dab in the middle of when congressional Democrats had hoped to be debating health care reform will spread the President's capital awfully thin. Let's take a look at home much he still has.
Holding Strong But Still Trending Down
First, for our new readers, let me explain the methodology of the poll aggregation graphs below. Unlike many sites (such as the widely reported realclearpolitics), I do not treat all polls as equal. Polls have different sample sizes and are therefore given weight based on its overall sample size, to create one "super poll". Also, polls have different methodology for treatment of "no opinion". Gallup, for instance, reports "no opinion" responses (their latest poll shows 61% approve, 34% disapprove, 5% "no opinion") whereas Rasmussen does not (their latest poll 58% approve, 41% disapprove, does not add to 100% due to rounding.) Therefore looking at just the approval percentage is not meaningful. I therefore use what I call "approve minus disapprove", that is the percentage of those surveyed who approve minus the percentage that disapprove. This gives a consistent basis for comparing the results over time. If the number is positive, President Obama generally has public approval, if negative he does not. I also show for reference the 7.2% line, the percentage by which the President won the national popular vote in November. This methodology closely replicates the polling aggregation method that I used to correctly project within 0.1% the results of the November election.
The verdict so far this month? More of the same. President Obama continues to enjoy broad approval, but the margin continues to slowly tighten. He is more popular than he was in November -- that is there appear to be McCain voters who approve of the President. But you can see from the trend why the administration is intent on getting things done now -- in politics you either use political capital or lose it.
I also look at the poll breakdowns by polling methodology. As some polls survey all adult Americans, some restrict to registered voters and some attempt to target likely voters, the numbers naturally vary.As of today, the numbers by polling type are:
Adult Americans: +30%
Registered Voters: +26%
Likely Voters: +17%
It is worth noting that Rasmussen is consistently the only poll tracking Likely Voters. This is worth noting as the Rasmussen results have been all over the map, bouncing between +6% and +17% over just the past 4 days. I find it hard to believe that President Obama's underlying popularity is shifting that much day to day, so I wonder somewhat if Rasmussen is tinkering with the methodology. The +17% number seems more realistic, given that it would be hard to believe that there is a 20%+ spread between registered and likely voters. The Gallup polling last year that looked at both generally showed a 3-5% spread between the two (registered voters tend to be somewhat more liberal than likely voters.)
Month to month, President Obama is still off about 4% in June versus his May numbers, but still over 18% above his November vote totals.My conclusion: the President still has a lot of capital. People are wary of large deficits and continuing high unemployment but are generally feeling better about the direction of the country and the economy than they were a few months ago (consumer confidence is at its highest level since last September, and right track/wrong track polling has gone from -48% on election day to even today.) Republicans have yet to organize a coherent attack (Rush, Newt and Dick are not helping) or present clear policy alternatives. The honeymoon will end (Republicans will eventually rebuild their party and rally around a coherent message, people will continue to feel economic pain at least for the next several months and the country as a whole is definitely to the right of the President), but for now, the President can afford to press hard.
Whether all this capital translates into being able to do Health Care, Energy Reform AND Immigration Reform in a meaningful way remains to be seen. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush accomplished NONE of those three things in 8 years each in office. President Obama is attempting to do it in one. If he pulls it off, it will be the most significant first year of a President in U.S. history. It should be interesting to watch.
Welcome again if you are a new reader. Please bookmark, visit often and tell your friends.
Monday, June 8, 2009
SCOTUS Stays Chrysler Sale, Sizing Up the VA & NJ Elections, Stimulus Under Fire
Chrysler Sale on Hold For Now
In a move that surprised many observers (including this one), the Supreme Court has temporarily halted the proposed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for Chrysler, which had called for ownership by the UAW Pension Fund, Fiat and the U.S. Government of a "new" Chrysler, which would be unsaddled from the burdens of its massive secured debt.
This issue is a thorny legal maze, but I'll attempt to make it as simple as possible. When a company enters Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, it is essentially admitting that it lacks the cash to meet its debt obligations. A chapter 11 filing seeks to dissolve the existing corporation and form a new corporation with the old corporation's assets. The process is designed with a pecking order of who gets what. So-called "secured" debt holders, those who hold debt guaranteed by the corporations assets are the first to get their money back. "Unsecured" debt holders, those who hold debt to the company that is NOT secured by the company's assets are next in line. Existing share holders are last in line and typically don't get anything (if the company had enough to cover its debt, it wouldn't need to file bankruptcy after all.) A reorganization is typically only approved by a court if it is believed to be preferable to debt holders to a liquidation (that is, it is believed they will get more of their money back by reorganizing the company.) Essentially the Chapter 11 process is about existing owner's getting bumped from a broke company and the debt holders taking ownership of the company in exchange for not getting their bonds repaid.
The legal issue at play in the Chrysler bankruptcy pertains to the pecking order that I just described above. The UAW Pension Fund is an unsecured debt holder (Chrysler owes payments to a pension fund, but they were not guaranteed by company assets), whereas a myriad of bond holders are secured debt holders. The proposed reorganization gives a large stake of the company to the UAW Pension Fund, while paying back secured debt holders only about 27 cents on the dollar.
This would ordinarily provoke a fight on the part of the major secured debt holders. The unique situation here, is that the Federal government brokered the deal and the major bond holders are financial institutions that owe billions in TARP money back to the government. They are clearly in no position to protest the deal.
The legal challenge came from a small group of minority bond holders, led by an Indiana State Workers pension fund. The challenge was rejected by the bankruptcy judge and rejected by a federal appeals court. The conventional wisdom was that the Supreme Court would leave the decision alone without comment. Apparently not so.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who is the justice with jurisdiction to handle emergency requests from the 2nd Circuit where the appeal is coming from) has granted a temporary injunction while the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the case. The temporary injunction does not have a time limit, although the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear the case or not. To hear the appeal, at least 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would have to vote to grant cert in this case.
This has the potential to be a real mess. Fiat has threatened to walk away from the deal if it is not closed by June 15th and it would be nearly impossible to get a Supreme Court decision prior to that if the court agrees to hear the case. As I've documented previously in this space, every day that Chrysler is essentially closed down is a day further that R&D is getting behind for 2010 model year cars and another day that paint is drying in production lines.
A delay is bad for everyone. The scary thing is that the plantiffs seems to have a legal case. The proposed reorganization clearly puts unsecured debt holders ahead of their legally entitled place in line. But 27 cents on the dollar may be the best deal the plantiffs are offered. If they win and delay the reorganization, Chrysler will likely face liquidation and their cut will be substantially less.
That the Supreme Court might take this up is a shocker. That it was one of the courts most liberal justices who granted the stay is a double-shocker. This is a case where the court may make the technically correct legal decision that may wind up being bad for all involved.
Let's hope GM fares better in its proposed reorganization.
VA and NJ Governor Races
In 48 states, 2009 is more or less an off year for elections. Not so in the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Virginians vote tomorrow in their Democratic gubanatorial primary. Former State Attorney General Bob McDonnell is running unopposed on the Republican side. Democrats face a fiercely contested 3-way contest between State Senator Creigh Deeds, former DNC Chairman Terry McAullife and former State Delegate Brian Moran. Polls are extremely close, although Moran appears to narrowly trail the other two. The polling data appears to show a pure toss-up between Deeds and McAullife.
Outside of Virginia, McAullife is the only figure that is well known, having been the face of the Democratic party for several years. Virginia primaries are extremely tough to call, especially in cases where one party is uncontested, as Virginia primaries are open. Republicans may vote for either the candidate that they find least offensive or the candidate that they think they can most easily beat. In either case, conventional wisdom would indicate that they would tend to oppose McAullife, who has been a thorn in the side of the GOP and possess an amazing fundraising rolodex.
The statistics tells us this one is a dead heat. My personal prediction, based on the intangibles mentioned above, is that Deeds edges out McAullife to win, but I wouldn't rule out any of the 3. If you live in Virginia, make sure you get out and vote tomorrow, as this one could be a nail-biter.
Looking ahead to the general, I would expect a very close race. Virginia is pretty much a pure swing-state at this point. Although it does have 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor and went for Obama this past November, it still has strong conservative support in rural areas. Its brand of Democrats tend to be the pro-gun, low tax variety and Obama won it much more narrowly than he did nationally. I look for a hard-fought general.
In New Jersey, it has already been decided that Chris Christie (R) will face incumbent Gov. John Corzine (D). 2009 is an awful year to be an incumbent governor with high unemployment and massive budget deficits that have led to either higher taxes, lower services or both. Corzine is unpopular and Cristie is ahead in the polls. Christie is a moderate and New Jersey, despite its strong blue-streak nationally of late, has a history of electing moderate Republicans. This will be a fun one to watch. Christie seems to have the edge at this point, but the GOP can sometimes fade late in New Jersey. I live in New Jersey and have not yet reached a decision, but will let you know when I do.
Stimulus Under Fire
Pressure is intensifying on the Obama administration to show results from the massive stimulus packaged passed this year. Conservatives and the media are calling into question the effectiveness of the program, given that unemployment has risen to 9.4% (up 1.5% since the package was signed.) As I've documented before, employment tends to be a lagging statistic in economics and I have always anticipated that it would reach around 10% by year end. The stimulus never could have immediately halted rising unemployment, but I believe was necessary to prevent utter collapse. Fair metrics to look at are how fast the money is being spent (as we will continue to document in this space) and whether the fundamental metrics of the economy are beginning to stabilize. I believe the improvements in housing and in leading employment indicators as well as the surge in consumer confidence indicate that the preliminary verdict is that the stimulus is having a positive effect. But that is a nuanced and difficult to explain position. 9.4% grabs headlines. The Obama Administration needs to work on its messaging.
Welcome, Newcomers
I placed an ad this week on one of my favorite political websites, electoral-vote.com and the site has certainly seen one of its highest traffic days ever today. If this is your first time visiting, welcome.
Please read through the commentary and analysis that I have been presenting since last election season. I hope you will be favorably impressed by the detail and accuracy of my election predictions this past year and the detailed analysis that I've presented on issues since then. I hope you visit often and join in the debate.
Please bookmark our site, tell your friends and come back soon. There is never a charge for this site and it is operated not for profit, so enjoy!
In a move that surprised many observers (including this one), the Supreme Court has temporarily halted the proposed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for Chrysler, which had called for ownership by the UAW Pension Fund, Fiat and the U.S. Government of a "new" Chrysler, which would be unsaddled from the burdens of its massive secured debt.
This issue is a thorny legal maze, but I'll attempt to make it as simple as possible. When a company enters Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, it is essentially admitting that it lacks the cash to meet its debt obligations. A chapter 11 filing seeks to dissolve the existing corporation and form a new corporation with the old corporation's assets. The process is designed with a pecking order of who gets what. So-called "secured" debt holders, those who hold debt guaranteed by the corporations assets are the first to get their money back. "Unsecured" debt holders, those who hold debt to the company that is NOT secured by the company's assets are next in line. Existing share holders are last in line and typically don't get anything (if the company had enough to cover its debt, it wouldn't need to file bankruptcy after all.) A reorganization is typically only approved by a court if it is believed to be preferable to debt holders to a liquidation (that is, it is believed they will get more of their money back by reorganizing the company.) Essentially the Chapter 11 process is about existing owner's getting bumped from a broke company and the debt holders taking ownership of the company in exchange for not getting their bonds repaid.
The legal issue at play in the Chrysler bankruptcy pertains to the pecking order that I just described above. The UAW Pension Fund is an unsecured debt holder (Chrysler owes payments to a pension fund, but they were not guaranteed by company assets), whereas a myriad of bond holders are secured debt holders. The proposed reorganization gives a large stake of the company to the UAW Pension Fund, while paying back secured debt holders only about 27 cents on the dollar.
This would ordinarily provoke a fight on the part of the major secured debt holders. The unique situation here, is that the Federal government brokered the deal and the major bond holders are financial institutions that owe billions in TARP money back to the government. They are clearly in no position to protest the deal.
The legal challenge came from a small group of minority bond holders, led by an Indiana State Workers pension fund. The challenge was rejected by the bankruptcy judge and rejected by a federal appeals court. The conventional wisdom was that the Supreme Court would leave the decision alone without comment. Apparently not so.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who is the justice with jurisdiction to handle emergency requests from the 2nd Circuit where the appeal is coming from) has granted a temporary injunction while the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the case. The temporary injunction does not have a time limit, although the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear the case or not. To hear the appeal, at least 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would have to vote to grant cert in this case.
This has the potential to be a real mess. Fiat has threatened to walk away from the deal if it is not closed by June 15th and it would be nearly impossible to get a Supreme Court decision prior to that if the court agrees to hear the case. As I've documented previously in this space, every day that Chrysler is essentially closed down is a day further that R&D is getting behind for 2010 model year cars and another day that paint is drying in production lines.
A delay is bad for everyone. The scary thing is that the plantiffs seems to have a legal case. The proposed reorganization clearly puts unsecured debt holders ahead of their legally entitled place in line. But 27 cents on the dollar may be the best deal the plantiffs are offered. If they win and delay the reorganization, Chrysler will likely face liquidation and their cut will be substantially less.
That the Supreme Court might take this up is a shocker. That it was one of the courts most liberal justices who granted the stay is a double-shocker. This is a case where the court may make the technically correct legal decision that may wind up being bad for all involved.
Let's hope GM fares better in its proposed reorganization.
VA and NJ Governor Races
In 48 states, 2009 is more or less an off year for elections. Not so in the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Virginians vote tomorrow in their Democratic gubanatorial primary. Former State Attorney General Bob McDonnell is running unopposed on the Republican side. Democrats face a fiercely contested 3-way contest between State Senator Creigh Deeds, former DNC Chairman Terry McAullife and former State Delegate Brian Moran. Polls are extremely close, although Moran appears to narrowly trail the other two. The polling data appears to show a pure toss-up between Deeds and McAullife.
Outside of Virginia, McAullife is the only figure that is well known, having been the face of the Democratic party for several years. Virginia primaries are extremely tough to call, especially in cases where one party is uncontested, as Virginia primaries are open. Republicans may vote for either the candidate that they find least offensive or the candidate that they think they can most easily beat. In either case, conventional wisdom would indicate that they would tend to oppose McAullife, who has been a thorn in the side of the GOP and possess an amazing fundraising rolodex.
The statistics tells us this one is a dead heat. My personal prediction, based on the intangibles mentioned above, is that Deeds edges out McAullife to win, but I wouldn't rule out any of the 3. If you live in Virginia, make sure you get out and vote tomorrow, as this one could be a nail-biter.
Looking ahead to the general, I would expect a very close race. Virginia is pretty much a pure swing-state at this point. Although it does have 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor and went for Obama this past November, it still has strong conservative support in rural areas. Its brand of Democrats tend to be the pro-gun, low tax variety and Obama won it much more narrowly than he did nationally. I look for a hard-fought general.
In New Jersey, it has already been decided that Chris Christie (R) will face incumbent Gov. John Corzine (D). 2009 is an awful year to be an incumbent governor with high unemployment and massive budget deficits that have led to either higher taxes, lower services or both. Corzine is unpopular and Cristie is ahead in the polls. Christie is a moderate and New Jersey, despite its strong blue-streak nationally of late, has a history of electing moderate Republicans. This will be a fun one to watch. Christie seems to have the edge at this point, but the GOP can sometimes fade late in New Jersey. I live in New Jersey and have not yet reached a decision, but will let you know when I do.
Stimulus Under Fire
Pressure is intensifying on the Obama administration to show results from the massive stimulus packaged passed this year. Conservatives and the media are calling into question the effectiveness of the program, given that unemployment has risen to 9.4% (up 1.5% since the package was signed.) As I've documented before, employment tends to be a lagging statistic in economics and I have always anticipated that it would reach around 10% by year end. The stimulus never could have immediately halted rising unemployment, but I believe was necessary to prevent utter collapse. Fair metrics to look at are how fast the money is being spent (as we will continue to document in this space) and whether the fundamental metrics of the economy are beginning to stabilize. I believe the improvements in housing and in leading employment indicators as well as the surge in consumer confidence indicate that the preliminary verdict is that the stimulus is having a positive effect. But that is a nuanced and difficult to explain position. 9.4% grabs headlines. The Obama Administration needs to work on its messaging.
Welcome, Newcomers
I placed an ad this week on one of my favorite political websites, electoral-vote.com and the site has certainly seen one of its highest traffic days ever today. If this is your first time visiting, welcome.
Please read through the commentary and analysis that I have been presenting since last election season. I hope you will be favorably impressed by the detail and accuracy of my election predictions this past year and the detailed analysis that I've presented on issues since then. I hope you visit often and join in the debate.
Please bookmark our site, tell your friends and come back soon. There is never a charge for this site and it is operated not for profit, so enjoy!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The President's Middle East Trip, Stimulus Spending Update, The Coming Health Care Battle, Abortion Revisited
Obama in the Middle East
Like many, I did not see the President's Middle East speech live, but I did watch the recording online and have read through the transcript several times to understand the key messaging. Here are my thoughts:
It is no great secret that President Obama is one of the great speech-givers of our time. Some would rate Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan up there with him, most honest observers, I suspect, would put him ahead of those two.
The President's speech was brilliant, as usual, attacking abuses of women's rights in the middle east, the specter of terrorism and expanded territorial occupations in Palestine in one fell swoop. There have been minor criticisms from the left and the right, as well as some charges that the President is naieve for seeking a new path forward, but the criticism has been relatively minor.
So, the President gets a good grade on the speech, but that isn't what really matters. The policies that follow are what matters. And so far, every President in the past 40 years at least has tried to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, and by and large, every one has failed. I'm not yet convinced that this time will be any different.
Stimulus Spending
The latest numbers:
Money Authorized: $135.4 billion (27.1%) up $9.1 billion from last week
Money Spent: $43.7 billion (8.7%) up $7.1 billion from last week
So, it was a good week, with the government exceeding the $5.3 billion per week that it will need to spend to meet 40% spend by the end of the year and authorizing more than it spent, keeping the hopper of future spending full.
There have been some murmurs over the past week or so from the left, looking for another stimulus package (this would technically be the third packages, since a small tax-incentive package was passed while President Bush was in office.) I am not in favor of another package at this point, although I leave open the possibility if conditions change. My reasons are: #1 the current bill seems to be working (see the impact on housing starts, reduced layoffs, etc. mentioned in my prior blogs) and #2 We still have 91.3% of the existing bill left to spend, what would more funding help at this point?
I realize that 9.4% unemployment (the lastest report out on Friday) is miserable and people want fixes now, but fixing these cycles take time. I continue my projection that economic growth will return in the third quarter, but unemployment will not start falling until 2010. I don't think authorizing more money would change this -- we are already spending as fast as we responsibly can.
Sen. Kennedy's Health Care Bill
The health care debate is coming in July and it looks like Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has written the bill that will be the starting point for debate. It requires employers to provide health coverage, prohibits exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, creates a government alternative to private health plans and provides both subsidies for the poor and the requirement that people carry health coverage, with exclusions for those who can't afford it.
This is a very moderate starting point. It appears a Canada-style single-payer system is completely off the table as is the concept of separating employment from insurance coverage. That's a shame as these ideas were worthy of debate.
Democrats have a tightrope to walk on this issue. While they need no Republican votes (using reconciliation means they simply need a pure majority in the Senate), Blue Dog Democrats are very wary of a massive expansion of federal involvement in health care. What will likely emerge will probably be an improvement over the current system, but will probably be a watered-down version of total reform.
And we still haven't tackled funding. As I've been saying for months, the Democrats are going to have to come clean -- you can't do universal coverage without tax increases, period. So, let's go ahead and have that debate.
An Alternative View on Abortion
As of to highlight what I already knew, posting my views on the abortion debate spawned a bevy of e-mails and the highest site readership that we'd seen over a 3-day period since immediately after the inauguration. I won't print the nasty e-mails from both sides, but in the interest of balance, a pro-life friend of mine asked for space to provide an alternative point of view. I'm always in favor of people having all the facts, so I was happy to oblige. Here are his thoughts:
"Let me start by saying that I am not a religious person. I appreciate the support of pro-lifers across the country who are religious, but my views are driven by a moral belief, not a biblical one. My belief is simple - abortion is morally wrong. Abortion involves the killing of a human life, often for no reason other than convenience. Scientific evidence has shown that human organs develop in a fetus within the first few weeks of pregnancy and a fetus develops a beating heart within the first trimester of pregnancy. There are many reasons that a woman may wish to end a pregnancy -- difficult economic circumstances, personal troubles, etc. These are all legitimate reasons not to want to be a parent, but they do not change the fact that a human life has already been created. Trying to parse what "level" of human life is present and what rights it is entitled is a cop out. We don't allow infanticide because the baby has not fully developed into an adult human, nor should we do so prior to birth. How can a baby be legal to kill one moment and a heinous crime to kill a moment later, when it is born? Ample options exist to prevent mothers from having unwanted babies -- birth control and adoption come to mind. We should focus our efforts on making these options more widely available and caring for mothers-to-be in need, not killing humans. This is not about being pro or anti women's rights, this is about protecting the rights of ALL people born and unborn."
While I don't share these views, I respect that they are born of true belief. You already know my views on this issue, but I respect the opposition enough to present the alternative. Read both and draw your own conclusions.
And if you have thoughts on this issue that you would like shared, let me know. With knowledge comes enlightenment.
If you like this site, please tell your friends and visit often.
And please make use of the search bar at the bottom of the blog. Bookmark us to use as your home web site. You can do all your searching right from here!
Like many, I did not see the President's Middle East speech live, but I did watch the recording online and have read through the transcript several times to understand the key messaging. Here are my thoughts:
It is no great secret that President Obama is one of the great speech-givers of our time. Some would rate Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan up there with him, most honest observers, I suspect, would put him ahead of those two.
The President's speech was brilliant, as usual, attacking abuses of women's rights in the middle east, the specter of terrorism and expanded territorial occupations in Palestine in one fell swoop. There have been minor criticisms from the left and the right, as well as some charges that the President is naieve for seeking a new path forward, but the criticism has been relatively minor.
So, the President gets a good grade on the speech, but that isn't what really matters. The policies that follow are what matters. And so far, every President in the past 40 years at least has tried to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, and by and large, every one has failed. I'm not yet convinced that this time will be any different.
Stimulus Spending
The latest numbers:
Money Authorized: $135.4 billion (27.1%) up $9.1 billion from last week
Money Spent: $43.7 billion (8.7%) up $7.1 billion from last week
So, it was a good week, with the government exceeding the $5.3 billion per week that it will need to spend to meet 40% spend by the end of the year and authorizing more than it spent, keeping the hopper of future spending full.
There have been some murmurs over the past week or so from the left, looking for another stimulus package (this would technically be the third packages, since a small tax-incentive package was passed while President Bush was in office.) I am not in favor of another package at this point, although I leave open the possibility if conditions change. My reasons are: #1 the current bill seems to be working (see the impact on housing starts, reduced layoffs, etc. mentioned in my prior blogs) and #2 We still have 91.3% of the existing bill left to spend, what would more funding help at this point?
I realize that 9.4% unemployment (the lastest report out on Friday) is miserable and people want fixes now, but fixing these cycles take time. I continue my projection that economic growth will return in the third quarter, but unemployment will not start falling until 2010. I don't think authorizing more money would change this -- we are already spending as fast as we responsibly can.
Sen. Kennedy's Health Care Bill
The health care debate is coming in July and it looks like Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has written the bill that will be the starting point for debate. It requires employers to provide health coverage, prohibits exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, creates a government alternative to private health plans and provides both subsidies for the poor and the requirement that people carry health coverage, with exclusions for those who can't afford it.
This is a very moderate starting point. It appears a Canada-style single-payer system is completely off the table as is the concept of separating employment from insurance coverage. That's a shame as these ideas were worthy of debate.
Democrats have a tightrope to walk on this issue. While they need no Republican votes (using reconciliation means they simply need a pure majority in the Senate), Blue Dog Democrats are very wary of a massive expansion of federal involvement in health care. What will likely emerge will probably be an improvement over the current system, but will probably be a watered-down version of total reform.
And we still haven't tackled funding. As I've been saying for months, the Democrats are going to have to come clean -- you can't do universal coverage without tax increases, period. So, let's go ahead and have that debate.
An Alternative View on Abortion
As of to highlight what I already knew, posting my views on the abortion debate spawned a bevy of e-mails and the highest site readership that we'd seen over a 3-day period since immediately after the inauguration. I won't print the nasty e-mails from both sides, but in the interest of balance, a pro-life friend of mine asked for space to provide an alternative point of view. I'm always in favor of people having all the facts, so I was happy to oblige. Here are his thoughts:
"Let me start by saying that I am not a religious person. I appreciate the support of pro-lifers across the country who are religious, but my views are driven by a moral belief, not a biblical one. My belief is simple - abortion is morally wrong. Abortion involves the killing of a human life, often for no reason other than convenience. Scientific evidence has shown that human organs develop in a fetus within the first few weeks of pregnancy and a fetus develops a beating heart within the first trimester of pregnancy. There are many reasons that a woman may wish to end a pregnancy -- difficult economic circumstances, personal troubles, etc. These are all legitimate reasons not to want to be a parent, but they do not change the fact that a human life has already been created. Trying to parse what "level" of human life is present and what rights it is entitled is a cop out. We don't allow infanticide because the baby has not fully developed into an adult human, nor should we do so prior to birth. How can a baby be legal to kill one moment and a heinous crime to kill a moment later, when it is born? Ample options exist to prevent mothers from having unwanted babies -- birth control and adoption come to mind. We should focus our efforts on making these options more widely available and caring for mothers-to-be in need, not killing humans. This is not about being pro or anti women's rights, this is about protecting the rights of ALL people born and unborn."
While I don't share these views, I respect that they are born of true belief. You already know my views on this issue, but I respect the opposition enough to present the alternative. Read both and draw your own conclusions.
And if you have thoughts on this issue that you would like shared, let me know. With knowledge comes enlightenment.
If you like this site, please tell your friends and visit often.
And please make use of the search bar at the bottom of the blog. Bookmark us to use as your home web site. You can do all your searching right from here!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Presidential Popularity Strong but Down Slightly, A Promise-Keeping Update, Gay Marriage in New Hampshire
Obama Approval -- Strong, But Weakest Yet
I don't want to oversell short-term trends, but I would be remiss if I didn't note that President Obama's aggregate approve-disapprove of 26.0% is the lowest of his Presidency to date. Now, as I've often noted, it is typical of new President's for their approval rating to decline somewhat over their first 100 days before it settles in at a more reasonable level. But in President Obama's case, there appears to be a slow erosion effect happening. We are in Day 136 of his Presidency, about a month past when the new President-euphoria typicall wears off and he is still declining, albeit slowly. His numbers are still very strong, so he may well yet stabilize at a good level of support, but it is worth watching.
Looking at the by month averages, we see that President Obama finished the month of May down from April (albeit just slightly) and early in June is tracking below May. His month-on-month declines are as follows:
Jan to Feb: -6.8%
Feb to Mar: -8.4%
Mar to Apr: -2.3%
Apr to May: -0.6%
May to Jun: -2.4%
* Month to date, only 3 days of data
In terms of polling methodology here is the current breakdown:
Adult Americans: +33%
Registered Voters: +28%
Likely Voters: +10%
At +10% with likely voters, the election would look a lot like 2008 as Obama would carry his 2008 states plus Montana.
Obama Promise-Keeping
The latest numbers from politifact.com show President Obama keeping 30 campaign promises, 8 compromises (promises partially kept) and 6 promises broken. Based on the rating system I set-up (where kept promises count as 1 point, partially kept promises half a point), Obama gets a 77% rating, far ahead of our 50% benchmark, and a grade of A-.
It is worth noting, however, that President Obama made 514 document promises, so we have only dealt with 8.6% of them. On the plus side, we are only 9.3% of the way through his first term, so we are more or less on pace.
New Hampshire Becomes the Sixth
New Hampshire this week became the sixth state in the country (following Maine, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Iowa and Vermont) to legalize gay marriage and the third to do so by legislative act. The formerly conservative stronghold is now a cutting-edge social policy trend-setter.
We'll see if a bill makes it through the State Senate in New York (it has passed the house and Gov. David Patterson (D) is a strong supporter) -- it appears at this point that the votes aren't there, but that it is relatively close.
We'll also keep tabs on the effort to put a ballot initiative on in Maine to reverse the law legalizing gay marriage there and the efforts to get a ballot initiative back on the ballot in California in 2010 to repeal Prop 8 and re-legalize gay marriage.
If you like this site, please tell your friends and visit often.
I don't want to oversell short-term trends, but I would be remiss if I didn't note that President Obama's aggregate approve-disapprove of 26.0% is the lowest of his Presidency to date. Now, as I've often noted, it is typical of new President's for their approval rating to decline somewhat over their first 100 days before it settles in at a more reasonable level. But in President Obama's case, there appears to be a slow erosion effect happening. We are in Day 136 of his Presidency, about a month past when the new President-euphoria typicall wears off and he is still declining, albeit slowly. His numbers are still very strong, so he may well yet stabilize at a good level of support, but it is worth watching.
Looking at the by month averages, we see that President Obama finished the month of May down from April (albeit just slightly) and early in June is tracking below May. His month-on-month declines are as follows:Jan to Feb: -6.8%
Feb to Mar: -8.4%
Mar to Apr: -2.3%
Apr to May: -0.6%
May to Jun: -2.4%
* Month to date, only 3 days of data
In terms of polling methodology here is the current breakdown:Adult Americans: +33%
Registered Voters: +28%
Likely Voters: +10%
At +10% with likely voters, the election would look a lot like 2008 as Obama would carry his 2008 states plus Montana.
Obama Promise-Keeping
The latest numbers from politifact.com show President Obama keeping 30 campaign promises, 8 compromises (promises partially kept) and 6 promises broken. Based on the rating system I set-up (where kept promises count as 1 point, partially kept promises half a point), Obama gets a 77% rating, far ahead of our 50% benchmark, and a grade of A-.
It is worth noting, however, that President Obama made 514 document promises, so we have only dealt with 8.6% of them. On the plus side, we are only 9.3% of the way through his first term, so we are more or less on pace.
New Hampshire Becomes the Sixth
New Hampshire this week became the sixth state in the country (following Maine, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Iowa and Vermont) to legalize gay marriage and the third to do so by legislative act. The formerly conservative stronghold is now a cutting-edge social policy trend-setter.
We'll see if a bill makes it through the State Senate in New York (it has passed the house and Gov. David Patterson (D) is a strong supporter) -- it appears at this point that the votes aren't there, but that it is relatively close.
We'll also keep tabs on the effort to put a ballot initiative on in Maine to reverse the law legalizing gay marriage there and the efforts to get a ballot initiative back on the ballot in California in 2010 to repeal Prop 8 and re-legalize gay marriage.
If you like this site, please tell your friends and visit often.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Assessing the 2012 GOP Field, Another NY Special Election, A Rational Abortion Discussion
The GOP 2012 Field
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has announced that he will not seek a third term in 2010. It is widely believed that this is a precursor to a 2012 Presidential run. Although Pawlenty certainly could have run for a third term and still run for President, the primary campaign would have effectively started on day 1 of his third term in office. Also, he was no shoe-in to win re-election and running and losing would have effecively knocked him out of the Presidential race.
So, let's add him to my list of Republican contenders who are "probably" running. Here is my list:
Declared Candidates -- None
Probably Running -- Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
Possible Running -- Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Rudy Guliani
Long Shots to Run -- Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Mitch Mcconnell, John Boehner
Doesn't Really Matter if they Run -- Tom Tancredo (the GOP Dennis Kucinich sans the hot wife)
Of the probable candidates, I think Pawlenty and Romney hold a huge advantage over Gingrich and Huckabee in terms of their electability. Gingrich is universally hated by the left and center and not particularly well-liked on the right, although he is fairly well respected across the political spectrum as a clever tactician and a guy with substantive ideas. Romney holds a moderate record on social issues (that he spent most of the 2008 primaries trying to talk away) and strong credibility on economic issues. Huckabee is the most charismatic of the four, but his appeal is limited by his fairly radical views on things like evolution.
Of the possible candidates, Palin and Jindal both hold some executive experience and strong appeal with the right wing, but both flopped fairly badly on the national stage. I predict that in the end, neither runs. Rudy Guliani already crashed and burned against Romney, McCain and Huckabee, I can't imagine him trying again or being more successful on a second run.
Of the long shots, McConnell and Boehner have absolutely zero positive name recognition with the general public. Conversely, Rice and Powell are both widely beloved. They would both present serious threats to Obama if they were nominated. But it doesn't appear either is particularly interested and both may be too moderate to win the nomination, even if they were (Powell, after all, endorsed Obama, supports abortion rights and affirmative action and Rice has virtually unknown social views.)
I hope Tom Tancredo runs again, not because it will matter, but just for the entertainment value.
Another Special Election
The selection of Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) as Secretary of the Army will create another New York special election in another swing district. NY-23 is extremely similar to NY-20 (NY-23 went for Obama but was 3% more Republican than the nation as a whole.) A date has not been set yet, but will likely be in Mid-July. Expect another nail-biting close race, unless one party fields an extremely strong or weak candidate. A decisive win by either side could be a bellweather of changes to come in the 2010 cycle.
Trying to Bring Logic to the Issue of Abortion
The murder of a late-term abortion doctor this past Sunday reopened the discussion of abortion across the news and talk circuit. As I've often said, this is probably the most divisive issue of our time and there are no easy answers.
Let me take a moment to share my logic and my views.
First, let me state that my views are not derived from religious sources. If you have a particular religious belief about this issue, there is nothing that I can say that would sway you. I don't have a response to "God said..." I can only approach this from a scientific and logical point of view.
My view is derived from trying to understand the arguments of the two extremes and formulate a view which is consistent with the moral judgements that we apply for people who are already born. Pro-life forces would want us to outlaw abortion from conception -- "life begins at conception" is a popular rallying cry. Their argument centers on the fact that there is a living, independent organism from the moment of conception, one that is "human" even if only a basic form for the first few months.
Pro-choice advocates (the most fervent ones) would have legalize abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. The principal moral argument they make pertains to the right of a woman to make determinations that impact her own body.
I find both constructs unsatisfying. Sure, "life" begins at conception. But a cockroach is life and we don't afford it legal protections (I'm not calling a fetus a cockraoch, just making a point about what "life" means, but go ahead with the hate mail.) Similarly, we don't allow a woman freedom over her body if her body is wielding a gun pointed at her husband's head.
To me, I come back to the old adage that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. So if abortion does kill a person that we consider worthy of legal protection, it should be illegal, if it does not, it should be legal.
So when is a fetus worthy of legal protection? I'm not willing to accept that it is totally unprotected for 9 months and then magically is a full person when it is born (nothing magical happens in that moment.) I also can't accept that a sperm and egg separate constitute nothing, but that the second they combine, you have a full-blown human, desrving of all the rights of any citizien.
To me, the moral standard should be sentientce. When is it that we are killing a thinking, feeling human being? For weeks 1 through 24 of a pregnancy, a fetus has no brain activity. It cannot think on any level, cannot feel pain and therefore should not be entitled to legal protection. Around week 25 of pregnancy (approximately the start of the third trimester), a fetus starts to gain brain activity. By week 30 or so, it has brain-function close to that of a normal infant. I could attempt to delve deeper into the level of brain-function to set a standard, but I believe in this case, we should err on the side of caution and consider a fetus worthy of basic human rights as of the start of the third trimester.
Third trimester abortion kills a thinking, feeling creature. It should be illegal (unless such a procedure is necessary to save the life of another thinking, feeling creature, the mother.) First and second trimester abortion kills cells that have no brain contained in them. They inflict no pain and cut off no thought. They should be legal and universally available.
As for the popular "rape and incest" exceptions, it does not matter to me, the law should be the same. HOW a woman got pregnant doesn't impact the morals of this issue to me. If a fetus is thinking and feeling, no reason WHY a woman is pregnant would justify abortion. If a fetus is not thinking and feeling, no reason why a woman is pregnant would make it immoral, in my view.
So what of this murder of a late-term abortion provider? I do not advocate violent action against a democratically elected government. I believe it is almost always wrong and counterproductive. I do however, understand the thought process that this killer followed. If you believe that abortion is murder and that by killing someone you would save the innocent, I can see where he convinced himself to "take matters into his own hands". I don't condone or advocate such a course of action, obviously, but I probably understand it more than most who possess a fairly pro-choice disposition. I just wish everyone would stop the violent rhetoric that incites this kind of violence and join a reasoned discussion.
Regrettably, I think far too few think through their position on this issue. There is too much emotion and not enough reasoned discussion.
I welcome your thoughts and comments on this thorny topic.
Thanks as always for reading, and if you like this site, please tell your friends.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has announced that he will not seek a third term in 2010. It is widely believed that this is a precursor to a 2012 Presidential run. Although Pawlenty certainly could have run for a third term and still run for President, the primary campaign would have effectively started on day 1 of his third term in office. Also, he was no shoe-in to win re-election and running and losing would have effecively knocked him out of the Presidential race.
So, let's add him to my list of Republican contenders who are "probably" running. Here is my list:
Declared Candidates -- None
Probably Running -- Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
Possible Running -- Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Rudy Guliani
Long Shots to Run -- Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Mitch Mcconnell, John Boehner
Doesn't Really Matter if they Run -- Tom Tancredo (the GOP Dennis Kucinich sans the hot wife)
Of the probable candidates, I think Pawlenty and Romney hold a huge advantage over Gingrich and Huckabee in terms of their electability. Gingrich is universally hated by the left and center and not particularly well-liked on the right, although he is fairly well respected across the political spectrum as a clever tactician and a guy with substantive ideas. Romney holds a moderate record on social issues (that he spent most of the 2008 primaries trying to talk away) and strong credibility on economic issues. Huckabee is the most charismatic of the four, but his appeal is limited by his fairly radical views on things like evolution.
Of the possible candidates, Palin and Jindal both hold some executive experience and strong appeal with the right wing, but both flopped fairly badly on the national stage. I predict that in the end, neither runs. Rudy Guliani already crashed and burned against Romney, McCain and Huckabee, I can't imagine him trying again or being more successful on a second run.
Of the long shots, McConnell and Boehner have absolutely zero positive name recognition with the general public. Conversely, Rice and Powell are both widely beloved. They would both present serious threats to Obama if they were nominated. But it doesn't appear either is particularly interested and both may be too moderate to win the nomination, even if they were (Powell, after all, endorsed Obama, supports abortion rights and affirmative action and Rice has virtually unknown social views.)
I hope Tom Tancredo runs again, not because it will matter, but just for the entertainment value.
Another Special Election
The selection of Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) as Secretary of the Army will create another New York special election in another swing district. NY-23 is extremely similar to NY-20 (NY-23 went for Obama but was 3% more Republican than the nation as a whole.) A date has not been set yet, but will likely be in Mid-July. Expect another nail-biting close race, unless one party fields an extremely strong or weak candidate. A decisive win by either side could be a bellweather of changes to come in the 2010 cycle.
Trying to Bring Logic to the Issue of Abortion
The murder of a late-term abortion doctor this past Sunday reopened the discussion of abortion across the news and talk circuit. As I've often said, this is probably the most divisive issue of our time and there are no easy answers.
Let me take a moment to share my logic and my views.
First, let me state that my views are not derived from religious sources. If you have a particular religious belief about this issue, there is nothing that I can say that would sway you. I don't have a response to "God said..." I can only approach this from a scientific and logical point of view.
My view is derived from trying to understand the arguments of the two extremes and formulate a view which is consistent with the moral judgements that we apply for people who are already born. Pro-life forces would want us to outlaw abortion from conception -- "life begins at conception" is a popular rallying cry. Their argument centers on the fact that there is a living, independent organism from the moment of conception, one that is "human" even if only a basic form for the first few months.
Pro-choice advocates (the most fervent ones) would have legalize abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. The principal moral argument they make pertains to the right of a woman to make determinations that impact her own body.
I find both constructs unsatisfying. Sure, "life" begins at conception. But a cockroach is life and we don't afford it legal protections (I'm not calling a fetus a cockraoch, just making a point about what "life" means, but go ahead with the hate mail.) Similarly, we don't allow a woman freedom over her body if her body is wielding a gun pointed at her husband's head.
To me, I come back to the old adage that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. So if abortion does kill a person that we consider worthy of legal protection, it should be illegal, if it does not, it should be legal.
So when is a fetus worthy of legal protection? I'm not willing to accept that it is totally unprotected for 9 months and then magically is a full person when it is born (nothing magical happens in that moment.) I also can't accept that a sperm and egg separate constitute nothing, but that the second they combine, you have a full-blown human, desrving of all the rights of any citizien.
To me, the moral standard should be sentientce. When is it that we are killing a thinking, feeling human being? For weeks 1 through 24 of a pregnancy, a fetus has no brain activity. It cannot think on any level, cannot feel pain and therefore should not be entitled to legal protection. Around week 25 of pregnancy (approximately the start of the third trimester), a fetus starts to gain brain activity. By week 30 or so, it has brain-function close to that of a normal infant. I could attempt to delve deeper into the level of brain-function to set a standard, but I believe in this case, we should err on the side of caution and consider a fetus worthy of basic human rights as of the start of the third trimester.
Third trimester abortion kills a thinking, feeling creature. It should be illegal (unless such a procedure is necessary to save the life of another thinking, feeling creature, the mother.) First and second trimester abortion kills cells that have no brain contained in them. They inflict no pain and cut off no thought. They should be legal and universally available.
As for the popular "rape and incest" exceptions, it does not matter to me, the law should be the same. HOW a woman got pregnant doesn't impact the morals of this issue to me. If a fetus is thinking and feeling, no reason WHY a woman is pregnant would justify abortion. If a fetus is not thinking and feeling, no reason why a woman is pregnant would make it immoral, in my view.
So what of this murder of a late-term abortion provider? I do not advocate violent action against a democratically elected government. I believe it is almost always wrong and counterproductive. I do however, understand the thought process that this killer followed. If you believe that abortion is murder and that by killing someone you would save the innocent, I can see where he convinced himself to "take matters into his own hands". I don't condone or advocate such a course of action, obviously, but I probably understand it more than most who possess a fairly pro-choice disposition. I just wish everyone would stop the violent rhetoric that incites this kind of violence and join a reasoned discussion.
Regrettably, I think far too few think through their position on this issue. There is too much emotion and not enough reasoned discussion.
I welcome your thoughts and comments on this thorny topic.
Thanks as always for reading, and if you like this site, please tell your friends.
Monday, June 1, 2009
GM Bankrupt, Why the Stimulus is Working, The Obama Date Night, Dick Cheney -- Gay Rights Advocate
GM Rolls into Chapter 11
In possibly the least shocking lead story of the year, General Motors today filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, marking the largest industrial bankruptcy in U.S. history and the fourth largest bankruptcy period (Lehman Brothers is #1, Enron is #5 for a little perspective.) In a widely telegraphed move, GM will receive at least $30 billion in additional government financing through the bankruptcy and emerge from bankruptcy, the US Government will be the majority shareholder with minority interests from the Canadian Government, the UAW Pension Fund and all of the bondholders whose claims will be exchanged for equity in the new company.
So, the bad news is that when all is said and done, the Feds will have sunk at least $70 billion into GM and Chrysler and they will have still gone bankrupt. The good news is that it appears Chrysler is close to emerging from bankruptcy in record time with a new debt and capital structure that may actually allow it to be successful as a much smaller company. We can hope for the same with GM. If these companies emerge successfully, the government will be able to sell its share and recoup some or all of the bailout money.
All of this (bankruptcy) should have happened months ago, as I have repeatedly advocated, but late is better than never. The Chrysler experience is proving that Chapter 11 was not the catastrophe that some claimed it would be, but rather the best, most orderly way for fixing fundamentally broken companies. In fact, had this action been undertakening back in December and January, I believe the new Chrysler and GM would be better positioned to compete in the economic recovery, as they would have emerged from bankruptcy already and be in a position for an effective 2010 model year launch.
It is scary how much of our former titans of industry the government now has a huge stake in: Citibank, Bank of America, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. I hope there is a plan at the end of this to disentangle the government from the free market. Many of these actions were probably necessary (even if I think the auto bailout was sorely mishandled by both President Bush and President Obama), but long-term involvement has chilling reprecussions. We need an exit strategy.
Okay, GOP, How About that Stock Market Now?
On the day that the sixth largest company in the United States (per the Fortune 500 list, with over $183 billion in sales last year) filed for bankruptcy, the S&P 500 was up 2.6%. So what gives?
First, as I mentioned, the GM move had been telegraphed for weeks, so the market had largely "priced in" the bankruptcy, although it is worth noting that GM stock was still trading for $0.75/share last Friday and those shares are now worth, in the words of Animal House, "0.0", so it was not fully "priced in".
The real motivation behind the move was some good underlying economic news which can, at least in part, be directly traced to the stimulus. Disposable incomes increased by 0.5% last month in spite of the fact that gross incomes were flat. The reason? The tax credits in the stimulus package. Additionally, construction spending rose in May, another product of stimulus spending.
Remember when Republicans were saying that the stock market was a gauge on President Obama's performance? The S&P 500 is now up almost 13% since the President took office. Is the President now doing a stellar job? Bear in mind, the stock market declined a total of 37% during President Bush's 8 years in office. Do I now contend that the stock market is a real time barometer of a President's economic performance? No. As I've said in the past, long-run stock market returns ARE a good barometer of overall economic policy performance, but short-term results don't mean much.
The Obama Date Night
Congressional Republicans have criticized the President for using government resources (namely Air Force One and a helicopter) to take his wife to a Broadway show. What a stupid statement. The President doesn't have the option to take the bus, because of security concerns. How exactly do you think that President Bush got to his ranch in Crawford the dozens of times he went? Going to a Broadway play once and maintaining some sense of family normalcy while working 100 hours a week is certainly something to which the President is entitled.
That's all the virtual ink I can stomache devoting to that.
The Pro-Gay Marriage Dick Cheney
Many were shocked when former Vice President Dick Cheney stated clear support for legalization of gay marriage. Mr. Cheney also stated that he believed it was an issue that should be individually decided by the states. I agree with him on both points (although I oppose strongly the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton that allowed states to disallow marriages from other states between gay couples, an exception that causes married people to become unmarried when they cross state lines that is not extended to teenage marriages, marriages between cousins or any of the other quirky marriage laws around the country.)
I was not among those shocked by Mr. Cheney's position. It has been well-publicized that has a gay daughter. In the 2000 Vice Presidential debate with Joe Lieberman, he expressed clear empathy for gay Americans and came out strongly for Civil Unions (although stopped short of endorsing gay marriage.) Dick Cheney was never a culture warrior. I've hated his foreign policy and civil liberties positions for 8 years, but we are in complete agreement on this one and I respect his courage in opposing the vast majority of his party and his defenders in coming out with this decisive stand. Good for him, for once.
Stimulus Update
Latest numbers from the government:
Money Authorized: $126.3 billion (25.3%), a $10.2 billion (2% of the package) increase from last week
Money Spent: $36.6 billion (7.3%), $5.5 billion or 1.1% of the package spent in the past week
The government will need to spend just over $5.3 billion per week, every week between now and the end of the year to meet the target of 40% of the package being spent by the end of this year.
Site Updates
This site finished the month of May with 210 visitors for the month, meaning that we have had more than 200 visitors every month since I put the counter up in January. Thanks for reading and referring your friends.
A few readers have noted as of late that I've had some incorrect spelling and grammar in my posts. I apologize for any gramatical and editing errors. I have been largely writing the blog from the road as my business travel schedule has been crazy and I don't always get a chance to fully edit my posts.
Note that I have added a search bar at the bottom of the site. Please feel free to use this for all your searching needs and consider bookmarking this site for your searches.
I appreciate your continued support, and please tell your friends about us!
In possibly the least shocking lead story of the year, General Motors today filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, marking the largest industrial bankruptcy in U.S. history and the fourth largest bankruptcy period (Lehman Brothers is #1, Enron is #5 for a little perspective.) In a widely telegraphed move, GM will receive at least $30 billion in additional government financing through the bankruptcy and emerge from bankruptcy, the US Government will be the majority shareholder with minority interests from the Canadian Government, the UAW Pension Fund and all of the bondholders whose claims will be exchanged for equity in the new company.
So, the bad news is that when all is said and done, the Feds will have sunk at least $70 billion into GM and Chrysler and they will have still gone bankrupt. The good news is that it appears Chrysler is close to emerging from bankruptcy in record time with a new debt and capital structure that may actually allow it to be successful as a much smaller company. We can hope for the same with GM. If these companies emerge successfully, the government will be able to sell its share and recoup some or all of the bailout money.
All of this (bankruptcy) should have happened months ago, as I have repeatedly advocated, but late is better than never. The Chrysler experience is proving that Chapter 11 was not the catastrophe that some claimed it would be, but rather the best, most orderly way for fixing fundamentally broken companies. In fact, had this action been undertakening back in December and January, I believe the new Chrysler and GM would be better positioned to compete in the economic recovery, as they would have emerged from bankruptcy already and be in a position for an effective 2010 model year launch.
It is scary how much of our former titans of industry the government now has a huge stake in: Citibank, Bank of America, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. I hope there is a plan at the end of this to disentangle the government from the free market. Many of these actions were probably necessary (even if I think the auto bailout was sorely mishandled by both President Bush and President Obama), but long-term involvement has chilling reprecussions. We need an exit strategy.
Okay, GOP, How About that Stock Market Now?
On the day that the sixth largest company in the United States (per the Fortune 500 list, with over $183 billion in sales last year) filed for bankruptcy, the S&P 500 was up 2.6%. So what gives?
First, as I mentioned, the GM move had been telegraphed for weeks, so the market had largely "priced in" the bankruptcy, although it is worth noting that GM stock was still trading for $0.75/share last Friday and those shares are now worth, in the words of Animal House, "0.0", so it was not fully "priced in".
The real motivation behind the move was some good underlying economic news which can, at least in part, be directly traced to the stimulus. Disposable incomes increased by 0.5% last month in spite of the fact that gross incomes were flat. The reason? The tax credits in the stimulus package. Additionally, construction spending rose in May, another product of stimulus spending.
Remember when Republicans were saying that the stock market was a gauge on President Obama's performance? The S&P 500 is now up almost 13% since the President took office. Is the President now doing a stellar job? Bear in mind, the stock market declined a total of 37% during President Bush's 8 years in office. Do I now contend that the stock market is a real time barometer of a President's economic performance? No. As I've said in the past, long-run stock market returns ARE a good barometer of overall economic policy performance, but short-term results don't mean much.
The Obama Date Night
Congressional Republicans have criticized the President for using government resources (namely Air Force One and a helicopter) to take his wife to a Broadway show. What a stupid statement. The President doesn't have the option to take the bus, because of security concerns. How exactly do you think that President Bush got to his ranch in Crawford the dozens of times he went? Going to a Broadway play once and maintaining some sense of family normalcy while working 100 hours a week is certainly something to which the President is entitled.
That's all the virtual ink I can stomache devoting to that.
The Pro-Gay Marriage Dick Cheney
Many were shocked when former Vice President Dick Cheney stated clear support for legalization of gay marriage. Mr. Cheney also stated that he believed it was an issue that should be individually decided by the states. I agree with him on both points (although I oppose strongly the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton that allowed states to disallow marriages from other states between gay couples, an exception that causes married people to become unmarried when they cross state lines that is not extended to teenage marriages, marriages between cousins or any of the other quirky marriage laws around the country.)
I was not among those shocked by Mr. Cheney's position. It has been well-publicized that has a gay daughter. In the 2000 Vice Presidential debate with Joe Lieberman, he expressed clear empathy for gay Americans and came out strongly for Civil Unions (although stopped short of endorsing gay marriage.) Dick Cheney was never a culture warrior. I've hated his foreign policy and civil liberties positions for 8 years, but we are in complete agreement on this one and I respect his courage in opposing the vast majority of his party and his defenders in coming out with this decisive stand. Good for him, for once.
Stimulus Update
Latest numbers from the government:
Money Authorized: $126.3 billion (25.3%), a $10.2 billion (2% of the package) increase from last week
Money Spent: $36.6 billion (7.3%), $5.5 billion or 1.1% of the package spent in the past week
The government will need to spend just over $5.3 billion per week, every week between now and the end of the year to meet the target of 40% of the package being spent by the end of this year.
Site Updates
This site finished the month of May with 210 visitors for the month, meaning that we have had more than 200 visitors every month since I put the counter up in January. Thanks for reading and referring your friends.
A few readers have noted as of late that I've had some incorrect spelling and grammar in my posts. I apologize for any gramatical and editing errors. I have been largely writing the blog from the road as my business travel schedule has been crazy and I don't always get a chance to fully edit my posts.
Note that I have added a search bar at the bottom of the site. Please feel free to use this for all your searching needs and consider bookmarking this site for your searches.
I appreciate your continued support, and please tell your friends about us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
