No Mega-Deal on the Debt
President Bill Clinton's Democratic Party was dealt a complete spanking in the 1994 mid-terms after public backlash against his proposed health care reform sparked the now famous Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Clinton deftly adapted to the new political reality and negotiated with Gingrich to reform welfare and restrain government spending, which led to budget surpluses, a resounding re-election in 1996 and a lasting legacy for both Clinton and Gingrich.
President Barack Obama's Democratic Party was dealt a complete spanking in the 2010 mid-terms after public backlash against his adopted health care reform sparked a Republican takeover of the House and significant gains in the Senate. Some of us (myself included) hoped that this would lead to a grand deal on the deficit, built on the basis of the bi-partisan debt commissions recommendations.
It appears it is not to be, at least for now. The President and House Speaker John Boehner had been quietly attempting to negotiate a 10-year, $4 trillion deal that would have reportedly included not only tax changes but reforms to all three major entitlement programs. Such a deal would've been course-altering for the country and a major feather for both.
But, as is often the case, political reality got in the way. The House GOP wasn't going to bite on even the smallest of tax increases. Liberal Democrats in the House and Senate weren't going to go for entitlement reform. No compromise, no deal.
So, it appears we will likely get a deal half that size, that consists entirely of spending reductions. $2 trillion over 10 years really isn't as draconian as it sounds. It frankly wouldn't even get government back to the size of 5 years ago. But it's better than nothing. And based on the stated GOP principle that they will only vote to extend the debt ceiling only by the amount of spending that is reduced, $2 trillion would still be sufficient to get the country through the 2012 elections, all of which would set up a huge set of decisions for the population in 2012.
Just remember:
(1) The Bush Tax Cuts, extended by Obama, are slated to expire on January 1, 2013.
(2) Also on January 1, 2013, major tax changes take place as part of the Health Care reform act. These include a 0.9% Medicare tax increase on wages over $200K and a 3.9% tax on investment income for those making over $200K.
(3) Assuming a $2T increase, the new debt ceiling will be breached, likely in late 2013.
(4) The individual mandate tax for health care takes effect on Jan 1, 2014.
So, We, The People will likely have a lot to decide next November about the future of the country.
It's All About Spending, Baby
The 111th Congress, over the course of 2 years, passed 383 bills which became law. Granted, some of these were to name post offices and the like, but some very meaty legislation became law in 2009 and 2010, including:
* SCHIP Expansion
* The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
* The Stimulus Package
* Healthcare Reform
* Two major financial reform bills (the CARD Act and the Dodd-Frank Act)
* 9/11 First Responders Act
* Start Treaty
* Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal
In it's first 6 months, the 111th Congress has passed only 23 bills which have become law, or to put it another way, is only on pace to produce 24% as much legislation.
And this is just the way the GOP wants it. Their desire, coming out of the 2010 mid-terms, was to make the discussion all about reducing government spending. And they have succeeded, in spades. First, it was the Fiscal 2011 budget, in which they extracted over $80 million of spending reductions, albeit less than what they had hoped. Now, it is the debt ceiling increase, which will allow them to extract a large number of spending cuts and will consume all of the political air time until at least early August.
Then, lest we forget, Fiscal 2012 begins in October, and save for the House passing a Defense bill, virtually no work has been done on this opportunity for the GOP to extract more cuts.
When was the last time that you heard anyone talk about Immigration Reform, Environmental Policy or anything other than the budget?
John Boehner: Policy, Not Just Politics
House Speaker John Boehner is good for the GOP. Will Boehner and I disagree on a whole host of policy issues, I greatly respect the fact that he is about getting things done, not simply political grandstanding. It was Eric Cantor and whining wing of the GOP that caused the debt talks to break down (along with the liberal whining wing of the Democratic party), not Boehner. Boehner was willing to put everything on the table.
He also masterfully worked through deals with the White House to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and cut the deal that passed on the 2011 budget.
The more Republicans out there actually trying to make policy and strike deals versus simply scoring political points against the White House, the better off the nation and the GOP are.
Romney Is The Only One Who Can Win
Okay, maybe that's a little too bold a statement. If people actually knew Tim Pawlenty or Jon Huntsman, either would be a viable choice against President Obama, in what could wind up being a very close election in 2012. But that isn't going to happen. It's Romney vs. Bachmann unless someone else breaks out very quickly. And Bachmann can't win. I grant you that polling at this stage of the race is still very tenuous, but look at the average numbers this month:
Obama vs. Romney: Obama +5.5%
Obama vs. Gingrich: Obama +11.5%
Obama vs. Huntsman: Obama +14.0%
Obama vs. Pawlenty: Obama +14.2%
Obama vs. Bachmann: Obama +14.3%
Obama vs. Paul: Obama +18.0%
No polls yet on Obama vs. Thaddeus McCotter (go look it up, if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
It's actually quite amazing given how bad the economy is that President Obama still leads the field. Romney is within striking distance, no one else is even close. I expect things to tighten, particularly if we keep having jobs report like June's.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Obama vs. Cain: Obama +19.0%
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Time to Gerrymander, The Path to Success on the Debt Ceiling, Looking at the Party Factions, Reasons to Celebrate American Independence
43 States Full of Gerrymandering
In the early 1800s, Democratic-Republican Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, working with allies in the state legislature, crafted a map of State Senate districts that was designed to thwart the Federalists by building as many majority Democratic-Republican districts as possible. The 12th District, designed in the Boston area, closely resembled a salamander. Hence, the terry Gerrymander was born as a symbol of designing districts not on the basis of any rational grouping of towns and neighborhoods, but with the specific intent of benefit the party in power.
And it has been thus for the past two centuries. It is a time-honored tradition, used by both Democrats and Republicans alike, to shape Congressional districts to benefit ones own party.
The 2012 Congressional elections will be the first with newly drawn districts based on the 2010 Census. All 50 states will have to redraw, including not only the ones that are gaining or losing seats, but also the ones where the seats are staying the same, as population shifts have still made current districts uneven.
Seven states have laws on the books to protect against Gerrymandering. These states use a bi-partisan commission to draw districts in logical ways to avoid this effect. Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, California, Minnesota and Washington all fall into this category. For a 7 other states, Gerrymandering is irrelevant as they hold a single at-large seat. Delaware, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska fall into this category.
In the remaining 36 states, however, it is open season. Of the largest of these redistricting prizes: Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, only 1 (Illinois) is a Democratically-controlled legislature and only 2 others (New York and Virginia) have divided legislatures; 7 of these 10 states are firmly controlled by Republicans.
Whatever your personal views on Gerrymandering (I support the bi-partisan commissions, most partisans seem to favor those when they are out of power and oppose them when they are in power), the dynamics of this year show the huge intrinsic advantage that Republicans have in the House in the 2012 elections. Not only are Republican states by and large picking up seats: Democratic-leaning states are losing 7 seats, GOP-leaning states are gaining 6 (Nevada, a swing state, is gaining the 7th seat), but they will largely control the redistricting process, which could swing as many as a dozen seats to the advantage of the GOP.
So, any hope the Democrats had that higher turnout in 2012 will help them overcome 2010 GOP gains has to be blunted by a intrinsic GOP advantage of almost 20 seats going in.
How About This Compromise?
The impasse on raising the debt ceiling and the associated deficit reduction package that the Congressional GOP have demanded has come down to one basic issue: taxes.
At issue: Democrats want tax changes to be part of the deficit reduction package, namely the elimination or reduction of tax credits and exemptions for rich corporations and individuals. Republicans with a few exceptions (Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) being the most notable) have stated opposition to any proposal that increases total tax revenues, even if they do not increase marginal rates. Democrats are loathe to support massive spending cuts without something on the tax side.
In the spirit of Grover Norquist (who I detest, but that's another discussion), how about this compromise? Put through the spending cuts (on discretionary spending, nothing significant is going to happen with entitlements, unfortunately), incorporate reductions of tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, but offset those with reductions to taxes for middle-income Americans. This holds to the GOP pledge of not increasing net taxes, but throws the Democrats a bone on income equality.
What do you say, Eric Cantor and Harry Reid?
Who Unites the Factions Best?
Ronald Reagan famously swept into office over incumbent Jimmy Carter by winning over moderates who came to be known as "Reagan Democrats". In every election, there is a core of support for each party which is complemented by how well the unite the factions that can go either way. In recent years, it seems party loyalties have become even more complex, so I thought it might make sense to take stock of the membership factions of each party to understand how each party might to try to build a winning coalition next November. I'll also assess the risk of each group dumping their home party in a given election.
1. The Democrats
Democrats rely on a number of different factions:
a. Social Justice Liberals
This group includes those whose primary issues are civil rights-related, including gay rights. This group has been around since at least the 60s and tend to be passionate voters with a strong moral bent to their voting.
Risk Level: Low
b. Socialists
Those seeking economic justice, they tend to have core issues such as universal health care, social assistance, education spending and income equality. These are not all full-blown socialists, but are generally people that admire the social safety net of large European countries.
Risk Level: Low
c. Feminists
This group tends to overlap heavily with the Social Justice Liberals, but they tend to have a single voting issue that overrides everything else: abortion-rights.
Risk Level: Low
d. Doves
This group is the anti-war gang. They strongly opposed Iraq and now want out quickly of Afghanistan and oppose involvement in the conflict in Libya. They turned out big for Obama in 2008
Risk Level: Medium (but only because the GOP isn't likely to run as the party of peace against President Obama)
e. Populist Hispanics
Hispanics in general, and Mexican-Americans specifically favored the Democrats heavily in the past on the basis of their economically liberal views and support for immigration reform. But Democrats part ways with this heavily Catholic group on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.
Risk Level: Medium (the economy hasn't improved and the President has largely ignored this Hispanic base, although he did nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court)
f. Social Libertarians
Those that favor not only abortion-rights but hate the Patriot Act, Gitmo, want to legalize Marijuana and prostitution and generally want the government completely out of social issues.
Risk Level: High (the President hasn't closed Gitmo, has extended the Patriot Act and the Tea Party seems to have co-opted the social libertarian message)
Republicans
a. The Corporatists
The Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil wing of the GOP isn't as concerned with true free markets as they are with making the government business-friendly. They favor tax breaks and subsidies and limited government regulation.
Risk: Low (this group hates the President)
b. Christian Conservatives
The social-issue focused group opposes gay marriage, abortion rights and affirmative action and is far more interested in traditional values than economics.
Risk: Low
c. The Tea Party / Economic Libertarians
This group generally opposes government involvement in the economy and favors far lower government spending, lower taxes and less regulation.
Risk: Low-to-Medium (they won't support Obama, but they could stay home if a more Corporatist Republican takes office)
d. The Neo-Cons
Remember when the Neo-Cons were the big new thing? The first Republicans in ages to support such concepts of nation-building, this new way of Republican thinkers was prominent during the Bush Administration. They are a lot quieter these days after a decade of war, but they are still around.
Risk: Low
e. Northeastern Republicans
This socially liberal but economically conservative bunch, wants less government but things the Tea Party and the Christian Conservatives are a little out there. There are a lot less of these pragmatists than the used to be, but they are still around.
Risk: Medium-to-High
f. Establishment Republicans
This group likes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but opposes Universal Healthcare. A nuanced, but large group, they are resistant to change in general, they are the classic Reagan Democrats. They want our existing social programs maintained, but don't want new ones, and sure don't want their taxes going up.
Risk: Medium
There are many other groups (true Libertarians and all shades of moderates) out there, but each party is going to have to shore up a complex base to win.
Why America is Great
As we celebrate 235 years of the Untied States of America on July 4th, here are a few of the reasons why America is great:
1. The Best Capital Markets
Why are the most innovative companies in the world based in the US? Our innovative spirit, to be sure. But also, we have the best capital markets in the world. Venture Capital, Angel Investing and strong property rights all make the US one the best place in history to turn an idea into a business.
2. The Most Diverse, Integrated Population Ever
We are a truly diverse nation. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, gay, straight, bisexual, and on and on. Sure, other countries have elements of diversity -- there is a sizable Muslim population in France and lots of people from Fiji in Australia. But can you name anywhere else that has existed in history where the population is so well economically and socially integrated? Sure, we still have our problems, but can you imagine the election of a guy like Barack Obama in Europe?
3. The Bill of Rights
Nothing before or since anywhere in the world has established the rights of the citizenry so uniquely. Free speech? Good luck with that in Germany. Bearing arms? Have fun in Great Britain. We have the strongest spirit of individual rights of anywhere in the world and it leads to the most open dialogue about social and political issues of anywhere on Earth.
4. The University System
Sure, it's too expensive. Sure, the tenure system is broken. And yes, the funding system is unfair to middle-class savers. But there is a reason that people from all over the world come to our colleges and universities. Because they are the best.
5. Class Mobility
Maybe its less than it was for some a generation ago, but it isn't gone. But take a look at the stories of Chris Gardner (the subject of the book and film "The Pursuit of Happyness" who went from homeless to running an investment management group), Oprah Winfrey (who grew up poor in Chicago to build a media empire), Bill Clinton (born poor to a single-mother in rural Arkansas to become President of the United States) and David Geffen (who grew up in poverty in Brooklyn and rose to be the biggest name in the music business), rags-to-riches stories simply don't happen with the prevalence that they do in the United States anywhere else.
Happy Independence Day, everyone. I hope you get a long weekend.
In the early 1800s, Democratic-Republican Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, working with allies in the state legislature, crafted a map of State Senate districts that was designed to thwart the Federalists by building as many majority Democratic-Republican districts as possible. The 12th District, designed in the Boston area, closely resembled a salamander. Hence, the terry Gerrymander was born as a symbol of designing districts not on the basis of any rational grouping of towns and neighborhoods, but with the specific intent of benefit the party in power.
And it has been thus for the past two centuries. It is a time-honored tradition, used by both Democrats and Republicans alike, to shape Congressional districts to benefit ones own party.
The 2012 Congressional elections will be the first with newly drawn districts based on the 2010 Census. All 50 states will have to redraw, including not only the ones that are gaining or losing seats, but also the ones where the seats are staying the same, as population shifts have still made current districts uneven.
Seven states have laws on the books to protect against Gerrymandering. These states use a bi-partisan commission to draw districts in logical ways to avoid this effect. Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, California, Minnesota and Washington all fall into this category. For a 7 other states, Gerrymandering is irrelevant as they hold a single at-large seat. Delaware, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska fall into this category.
In the remaining 36 states, however, it is open season. Of the largest of these redistricting prizes: Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, only 1 (Illinois) is a Democratically-controlled legislature and only 2 others (New York and Virginia) have divided legislatures; 7 of these 10 states are firmly controlled by Republicans.
Whatever your personal views on Gerrymandering (I support the bi-partisan commissions, most partisans seem to favor those when they are out of power and oppose them when they are in power), the dynamics of this year show the huge intrinsic advantage that Republicans have in the House in the 2012 elections. Not only are Republican states by and large picking up seats: Democratic-leaning states are losing 7 seats, GOP-leaning states are gaining 6 (Nevada, a swing state, is gaining the 7th seat), but they will largely control the redistricting process, which could swing as many as a dozen seats to the advantage of the GOP.
So, any hope the Democrats had that higher turnout in 2012 will help them overcome 2010 GOP gains has to be blunted by a intrinsic GOP advantage of almost 20 seats going in.
How About This Compromise?
The impasse on raising the debt ceiling and the associated deficit reduction package that the Congressional GOP have demanded has come down to one basic issue: taxes.
At issue: Democrats want tax changes to be part of the deficit reduction package, namely the elimination or reduction of tax credits and exemptions for rich corporations and individuals. Republicans with a few exceptions (Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) being the most notable) have stated opposition to any proposal that increases total tax revenues, even if they do not increase marginal rates. Democrats are loathe to support massive spending cuts without something on the tax side.
In the spirit of Grover Norquist (who I detest, but that's another discussion), how about this compromise? Put through the spending cuts (on discretionary spending, nothing significant is going to happen with entitlements, unfortunately), incorporate reductions of tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, but offset those with reductions to taxes for middle-income Americans. This holds to the GOP pledge of not increasing net taxes, but throws the Democrats a bone on income equality.
What do you say, Eric Cantor and Harry Reid?
Who Unites the Factions Best?
Ronald Reagan famously swept into office over incumbent Jimmy Carter by winning over moderates who came to be known as "Reagan Democrats". In every election, there is a core of support for each party which is complemented by how well the unite the factions that can go either way. In recent years, it seems party loyalties have become even more complex, so I thought it might make sense to take stock of the membership factions of each party to understand how each party might to try to build a winning coalition next November. I'll also assess the risk of each group dumping their home party in a given election.
1. The Democrats
Democrats rely on a number of different factions:
a. Social Justice Liberals
This group includes those whose primary issues are civil rights-related, including gay rights. This group has been around since at least the 60s and tend to be passionate voters with a strong moral bent to their voting.
Risk Level: Low
b. Socialists
Those seeking economic justice, they tend to have core issues such as universal health care, social assistance, education spending and income equality. These are not all full-blown socialists, but are generally people that admire the social safety net of large European countries.
Risk Level: Low
c. Feminists
This group tends to overlap heavily with the Social Justice Liberals, but they tend to have a single voting issue that overrides everything else: abortion-rights.
Risk Level: Low
d. Doves
This group is the anti-war gang. They strongly opposed Iraq and now want out quickly of Afghanistan and oppose involvement in the conflict in Libya. They turned out big for Obama in 2008
Risk Level: Medium (but only because the GOP isn't likely to run as the party of peace against President Obama)
e. Populist Hispanics
Hispanics in general, and Mexican-Americans specifically favored the Democrats heavily in the past on the basis of their economically liberal views and support for immigration reform. But Democrats part ways with this heavily Catholic group on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.
Risk Level: Medium (the economy hasn't improved and the President has largely ignored this Hispanic base, although he did nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court)
f. Social Libertarians
Those that favor not only abortion-rights but hate the Patriot Act, Gitmo, want to legalize Marijuana and prostitution and generally want the government completely out of social issues.
Risk Level: High (the President hasn't closed Gitmo, has extended the Patriot Act and the Tea Party seems to have co-opted the social libertarian message)
Republicans
a. The Corporatists
The Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil wing of the GOP isn't as concerned with true free markets as they are with making the government business-friendly. They favor tax breaks and subsidies and limited government regulation.
Risk: Low (this group hates the President)
b. Christian Conservatives
The social-issue focused group opposes gay marriage, abortion rights and affirmative action and is far more interested in traditional values than economics.
Risk: Low
c. The Tea Party / Economic Libertarians
This group generally opposes government involvement in the economy and favors far lower government spending, lower taxes and less regulation.
Risk: Low-to-Medium (they won't support Obama, but they could stay home if a more Corporatist Republican takes office)
d. The Neo-Cons
Remember when the Neo-Cons were the big new thing? The first Republicans in ages to support such concepts of nation-building, this new way of Republican thinkers was prominent during the Bush Administration. They are a lot quieter these days after a decade of war, but they are still around.
Risk: Low
e. Northeastern Republicans
This socially liberal but economically conservative bunch, wants less government but things the Tea Party and the Christian Conservatives are a little out there. There are a lot less of these pragmatists than the used to be, but they are still around.
Risk: Medium-to-High
f. Establishment Republicans
This group likes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but opposes Universal Healthcare. A nuanced, but large group, they are resistant to change in general, they are the classic Reagan Democrats. They want our existing social programs maintained, but don't want new ones, and sure don't want their taxes going up.
Risk: Medium
There are many other groups (true Libertarians and all shades of moderates) out there, but each party is going to have to shore up a complex base to win.
Why America is Great
As we celebrate 235 years of the Untied States of America on July 4th, here are a few of the reasons why America is great:
1. The Best Capital Markets
Why are the most innovative companies in the world based in the US? Our innovative spirit, to be sure. But also, we have the best capital markets in the world. Venture Capital, Angel Investing and strong property rights all make the US one the best place in history to turn an idea into a business.
2. The Most Diverse, Integrated Population Ever
We are a truly diverse nation. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, gay, straight, bisexual, and on and on. Sure, other countries have elements of diversity -- there is a sizable Muslim population in France and lots of people from Fiji in Australia. But can you name anywhere else that has existed in history where the population is so well economically and socially integrated? Sure, we still have our problems, but can you imagine the election of a guy like Barack Obama in Europe?
3. The Bill of Rights
Nothing before or since anywhere in the world has established the rights of the citizenry so uniquely. Free speech? Good luck with that in Germany. Bearing arms? Have fun in Great Britain. We have the strongest spirit of individual rights of anywhere in the world and it leads to the most open dialogue about social and political issues of anywhere on Earth.
4. The University System
Sure, it's too expensive. Sure, the tenure system is broken. And yes, the funding system is unfair to middle-class savers. But there is a reason that people from all over the world come to our colleges and universities. Because they are the best.
5. Class Mobility
Maybe its less than it was for some a generation ago, but it isn't gone. But take a look at the stories of Chris Gardner (the subject of the book and film "The Pursuit of Happyness" who went from homeless to running an investment management group), Oprah Winfrey (who grew up poor in Chicago to build a media empire), Bill Clinton (born poor to a single-mother in rural Arkansas to become President of the United States) and David Geffen (who grew up in poverty in Brooklyn and rose to be the biggest name in the music business), rags-to-riches stories simply don't happen with the prevalence that they do in the United States anywhere else.
Happy Independence Day, everyone. I hope you get a long weekend.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
A Civil Rights Victory in New York, Huntsman Gets in the Game, Miserable Money Malaise
New York Makes it Six
Despite weak national leadership on the subject by President Obama, a courageous New York State Senate voted Friday night to legalize gay marriage in the State of New York. The bill had previously cleared the Democratically controlled state House and passed on a final vote through the GOP-controlled body 33-29, which included the votes of 29 of the 30 Democrats in the body and 4 Republicans who were bold enough to buck their party base and their leadership to do the right thing. An enthusiastic Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the bill and it is now law.
It is worth appreciating just how far we have come on this issue in a short period of time. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, but did so through a state court order. This court order set off a fire-storm which, along with some clever politicking by Karl Rove, led to a slew of ballot initiatives in 2004 and beyond which explicitly banned same-sex marriage in 28 states. It wasn't until 2009 that the first legislative legalization of same-sex marriage occurred, with most of New England acting the same year - Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all legalized through the legislative process although Maine's legalization was overturned by a 53%-47% ballot vote on a proposition to repeal in 2009. Iowa and Connecticut also legalized same-sex marriage by court order. The District of Columbia has also legalized same-sex marriage by city ordinance.
The New York law is significant in several ways. First of all, it is the largest state that currently allows same-sex marriage (California allowed same-sex marriage for a brief period before the now-infamous Prop 8 passed by a narrow 52-48% vote in 2008.) Secondly, it is the first time ever that a Republican-controlled state body has passed a gay marriage bill. The 4 Republicans who crossed over deserve all the credit in the world for their courage, credit I withhold from President Obama, who has been decidedly weak on this issue.
So, here is where things stand as of the New York change:
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal and Performed: Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, District of Columbia -- 35.1 million people live in these states or 11.4% of the population
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal But Not Performed (out-of-state gay marriages recognized): Maryland, New Mexico -- 7.8 million people live in these states or 2.5% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Equivalent Rights: New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii -- 74.4 million people live in these states or 24.1% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Limited Rights: Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine -- 12.0 million people live in these states or 3.9% of the population
So, cumulatively,
11.4% of the population can get a gay marriage in their home state
13.9% of the population can get a gay marriage and have it recognized in their home state
38.0% of the population has access to either gay marriage or equivalent rights through a civil union
41.9% of the population has access to at least some form of civil union rights
So, we've made a lot of progress but still have a lot to do.
So where are the next fronts in this debate?
(1) The Potential Gay Marriage States
California - a Prop 8 repeal seems likely eventually. The vote was very close in 2008, attitudes have shifted to be somewhat more pro-gay marriage since then and the 2008 vote was ironically hampered by a very high African-American turnout in 2008 (African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage but tend to break liberal other than that.) 2012 wouldn't be the ideal time to try, but 2014 might be.
Maine - the last vote in 2009 was only 53%-47%, a new vote might yield a victory for gay rights advocates at the ballot box.
Rhode Island - recent polling indicates strong support (60%+) among the voting population there, although the actual avenue would likely be by legislation through the state house.
Illinois, Washington, Oregon - all states with full civil unions where there is public support for gay marriage (I exclude New Jersey from this list as gay marriage likely has no chance as long as Chris Christie is Governor)
(2) Next Frontiers for Civil Unions
States where civil unions would likely have public support but are probably not ready for gay marriage include a lot of traditional swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan
(3) The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
This act, cowardly signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 permitted states not to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. I've been amazed that this issue has not made it to the Supreme Court, as it seems, on face, to be flagrantly unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 1 of the constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The so called "Full Faith and Credit" clause is crystal-clear to the average person. States must honor contracts, legal proceedings and public acts performed in all the other states. It is the basis of our system of rights and property laws. And gay marriage is clearly all three (a contract, a legal proceeding and a public act.)
The Defense of Marriage Act itself quotes the Full Faith and Credit clause and claims constitutionality on the basis that the constitution provides congress the right to the Congress to make determinations about what qualifies under Article 4, Section 1. The constitution contains no such language. I've quoted Article 4, Section 1 in its entirety above.
Conservative support for this highly dubious constitutional argument flies in the face of alleged "strict constructionism". The truth is, conservatives seem fine with judicial activism as long as it supports their agenda.
Much more to come on this key civil rights fight.
Jon Huntsman, The Moderate Long Shot
Speaking of gay rights supporters, former Utah Governor and former Obama Administration Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got in the race this week. Huntsman is a long shot, for several reason. The first is that his pragmatic, moderate politics don't play well to Republican primary crowds. Huntsman favors civil unions (the same position, as best I can tell, as President Obama), recognizes man-made global warming and has a history of working across the aisle, great general election qualities but poison pills to the tea party. He also suffers from very low name recognition and crowded space among mainstream establishment Republicans (he looks and sounds a lot like both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.) I don't expect Huntsman to win, but he is going to be an interesting voice in the debate.
The Rotten Economy
Unemployment still stands at 9.1%. US Economic growth for the first quarter was only 1.9% and expected to be only modestly better in the second quarter (to give you a feel, 3% growth is generally required just to maintain the unemployment rate, 4 or 5% to significantly dent it.)
President Obama is stuck. New stimulus is a non-starter in the GOP House. Tax cuts only pile on to an already untenable deficit and debt load. He's stuck riding this one out. And as we've often discussed, economics are the single most important factor in Presidential elections.
The approximately 3-year stimulus plan that was already passed continues but is almost out of juice. As of now:
Tax Cut Paid Out: $259.9 billion out of $288 billion (90.2% complete)
Spending: $395.0 billion of $499 billion (79.2% complete)
Overall: $654.9 billion out of $787 billion (83.2% complete)
Of course, the GOP and President Obama agreed to a stimulus bill of sorts at the end of 2010 as part of the deal to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for all. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for many measures intended to stimulate the economy:
* Extension of Bush-era income and capital gains tax reductions through 2012 as well as a compromise on the estate tax rate
* A "fix" to the alternative minimum tax, which raised exemptions to prevent middle-class families from falling under the tax
* Extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit
* Job Creation Tax Credits, Ethanol Tax Credits and Accelerated Depreciation Tax Credits for businesses
* A 13-month extension in unemployment benefits
* A brand-new, 1 year payroll tax reduction
This was clearly a much more Republican bill than the original stimulus. The original stimulus was 62% spending and 38% tax cuts and totaled $787B in cost.
The 2010 bill was almost as large, costing approximately $671B, but was only 8% taxing and 92% tax cuts. Spending in the bill broke down as follows:
* Provisions extending Bush-era tax cuts -- 46%
* New Middle Class and Working Class tax cuts -- 37%
* New spending provisions - 8%
* Provisions extending Obama stimulus tax cuts -- 6%
* Other business tax cuts - 3%
Arguably, for all the talk of President Obama being a socialist, he has been the most tax-cutting President in US history. The problem is, he also likes to spend. There is some argument for this as a short-term measure to jump-start the economy. But we are way past short-term. We need to solve the structural deficit, not pass another set of tax gimmicks. Any ideas on how to get to a compromise on that one?
Despite weak national leadership on the subject by President Obama, a courageous New York State Senate voted Friday night to legalize gay marriage in the State of New York. The bill had previously cleared the Democratically controlled state House and passed on a final vote through the GOP-controlled body 33-29, which included the votes of 29 of the 30 Democrats in the body and 4 Republicans who were bold enough to buck their party base and their leadership to do the right thing. An enthusiastic Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the bill and it is now law.
It is worth appreciating just how far we have come on this issue in a short period of time. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, but did so through a state court order. This court order set off a fire-storm which, along with some clever politicking by Karl Rove, led to a slew of ballot initiatives in 2004 and beyond which explicitly banned same-sex marriage in 28 states. It wasn't until 2009 that the first legislative legalization of same-sex marriage occurred, with most of New England acting the same year - Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all legalized through the legislative process although Maine's legalization was overturned by a 53%-47% ballot vote on a proposition to repeal in 2009. Iowa and Connecticut also legalized same-sex marriage by court order. The District of Columbia has also legalized same-sex marriage by city ordinance.
The New York law is significant in several ways. First of all, it is the largest state that currently allows same-sex marriage (California allowed same-sex marriage for a brief period before the now-infamous Prop 8 passed by a narrow 52-48% vote in 2008.) Secondly, it is the first time ever that a Republican-controlled state body has passed a gay marriage bill. The 4 Republicans who crossed over deserve all the credit in the world for their courage, credit I withhold from President Obama, who has been decidedly weak on this issue.
So, here is where things stand as of the New York change:
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal and Performed: Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, District of Columbia -- 35.1 million people live in these states or 11.4% of the population
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal But Not Performed (out-of-state gay marriages recognized): Maryland, New Mexico -- 7.8 million people live in these states or 2.5% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Equivalent Rights: New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii -- 74.4 million people live in these states or 24.1% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Limited Rights: Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine -- 12.0 million people live in these states or 3.9% of the population
So, cumulatively,
11.4% of the population can get a gay marriage in their home state
13.9% of the population can get a gay marriage and have it recognized in their home state
38.0% of the population has access to either gay marriage or equivalent rights through a civil union
41.9% of the population has access to at least some form of civil union rights
So, we've made a lot of progress but still have a lot to do.
So where are the next fronts in this debate?
(1) The Potential Gay Marriage States
California - a Prop 8 repeal seems likely eventually. The vote was very close in 2008, attitudes have shifted to be somewhat more pro-gay marriage since then and the 2008 vote was ironically hampered by a very high African-American turnout in 2008 (African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage but tend to break liberal other than that.) 2012 wouldn't be the ideal time to try, but 2014 might be.
Maine - the last vote in 2009 was only 53%-47%, a new vote might yield a victory for gay rights advocates at the ballot box.
Rhode Island - recent polling indicates strong support (60%+) among the voting population there, although the actual avenue would likely be by legislation through the state house.
Illinois, Washington, Oregon - all states with full civil unions where there is public support for gay marriage (I exclude New Jersey from this list as gay marriage likely has no chance as long as Chris Christie is Governor)
(2) Next Frontiers for Civil Unions
States where civil unions would likely have public support but are probably not ready for gay marriage include a lot of traditional swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan
(3) The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
This act, cowardly signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 permitted states not to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. I've been amazed that this issue has not made it to the Supreme Court, as it seems, on face, to be flagrantly unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 1 of the constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The so called "Full Faith and Credit" clause is crystal-clear to the average person. States must honor contracts, legal proceedings and public acts performed in all the other states. It is the basis of our system of rights and property laws. And gay marriage is clearly all three (a contract, a legal proceeding and a public act.)
The Defense of Marriage Act itself quotes the Full Faith and Credit clause and claims constitutionality on the basis that the constitution provides congress the right to the Congress to make determinations about what qualifies under Article 4, Section 1. The constitution contains no such language. I've quoted Article 4, Section 1 in its entirety above.
Conservative support for this highly dubious constitutional argument flies in the face of alleged "strict constructionism". The truth is, conservatives seem fine with judicial activism as long as it supports their agenda.
Much more to come on this key civil rights fight.
Jon Huntsman, The Moderate Long Shot
Speaking of gay rights supporters, former Utah Governor and former Obama Administration Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got in the race this week. Huntsman is a long shot, for several reason. The first is that his pragmatic, moderate politics don't play well to Republican primary crowds. Huntsman favors civil unions (the same position, as best I can tell, as President Obama), recognizes man-made global warming and has a history of working across the aisle, great general election qualities but poison pills to the tea party. He also suffers from very low name recognition and crowded space among mainstream establishment Republicans (he looks and sounds a lot like both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.) I don't expect Huntsman to win, but he is going to be an interesting voice in the debate.
The Rotten Economy
Unemployment still stands at 9.1%. US Economic growth for the first quarter was only 1.9% and expected to be only modestly better in the second quarter (to give you a feel, 3% growth is generally required just to maintain the unemployment rate, 4 or 5% to significantly dent it.)
President Obama is stuck. New stimulus is a non-starter in the GOP House. Tax cuts only pile on to an already untenable deficit and debt load. He's stuck riding this one out. And as we've often discussed, economics are the single most important factor in Presidential elections.
The approximately 3-year stimulus plan that was already passed continues but is almost out of juice. As of now:
Tax Cut Paid Out: $259.9 billion out of $288 billion (90.2% complete)
Spending: $395.0 billion of $499 billion (79.2% complete)
Overall: $654.9 billion out of $787 billion (83.2% complete)
Of course, the GOP and President Obama agreed to a stimulus bill of sorts at the end of 2010 as part of the deal to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for all. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for many measures intended to stimulate the economy:
* Extension of Bush-era income and capital gains tax reductions through 2012 as well as a compromise on the estate tax rate
* A "fix" to the alternative minimum tax, which raised exemptions to prevent middle-class families from falling under the tax
* Extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit
* Job Creation Tax Credits, Ethanol Tax Credits and Accelerated Depreciation Tax Credits for businesses
* A 13-month extension in unemployment benefits
* A brand-new, 1 year payroll tax reduction
This was clearly a much more Republican bill than the original stimulus. The original stimulus was 62% spending and 38% tax cuts and totaled $787B in cost.
The 2010 bill was almost as large, costing approximately $671B, but was only 8% taxing and 92% tax cuts. Spending in the bill broke down as follows:
* Provisions extending Bush-era tax cuts -- 46%
* New Middle Class and Working Class tax cuts -- 37%
* New spending provisions - 8%
* Provisions extending Obama stimulus tax cuts -- 6%
* Other business tax cuts - 3%
Arguably, for all the talk of President Obama being a socialist, he has been the most tax-cutting President in US history. The problem is, he also likes to spend. There is some argument for this as a short-term measure to jump-start the economy. But we are way past short-term. We need to solve the structural deficit, not pass another set of tax gimmicks. Any ideas on how to get to a compromise on that one?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Trouble with An Innovation Economy, The Entitlement Drag
Innovations Are Great, But the Jobs are in China
I was reading a magazine article the other day on Chinese manufacturing giant Foxconn. You may know Foxconn as the company that manufactures the iPhone, as well as many other high tech electronic devices. You may also know Foxconn as a place that famously had a rash of worker suicides last year, that prompted reforms in pay and work practices. Or you may never have heard of them. I don't have a view on Foxconn as a company one way or another, but the article struck a cord with me for a different reason. It mentioned, in passing, that number of people that Foxconn employs.
Think about this - Apple and Foxconn are approximately the same size as measured by revenues or profits. Apple develops unbelievable innovations - iPods and iPads, smart phones, computers, etc. It is a crown jewel that politicians talk about when the mention American ingenuity and the innovation economy. Foxconn is nobody's idea of an innovator, it's simply a manufacturing firm that leverages cheap labor in China at a lower cost than competitors in other countries can.
Here is the problem...Apple employs 30,000 people, Foxconn employs 1,000,000. Granted, the 30,000 people at Apple by and large do very well. Senior management has made themselves very rich. Even middle management and the programmers that build the innovation make excellent livings and get great benefits. It's a heck of a lot better to work at Apple than Foxconn, no doubt. But only 30,000 people get to live an Apple-sponsored lifestyle.
It's hard to build a middle class economy this way. Apple is a giant technology company. At 30,000 per company, you'd 493 new Apples to employ all the unemployed in this country. Never mind the fact that most of the unemployed would be vastly unqualified for a job at Apple.
My point is that we need to be more than an "innovation economy" to be sustainable. Innovation is great, but if we export the manufacturing to China and the customer service to India, then a small group of people in the US will get rich on the innovation, but the rest of the country won't benefit.
We would be wise to steal a page from Germany's playbook and invest in some real industrial policy. Germany has done an outstanding job growing high-dollar manufacturing jobs by investing in its industry and its trade education. Alas, I fear in the current Washington gridlock, that ideas like this are a complete non-starter.
Would you like fries with that?
The Entitlement Drag
If we spend all our money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Benefits, how will we ever invest in the infrastructure and the education needed to build a full employment economy?
Our mass transit systems are far inferior to Europe and much of Asia. Our air traffic control system is from the 1950s. Our power grid is still largely powered by coal plants built 100 years ago. Funding for education at all levels is being cut.
We used to find ways to invest in big things - the Apollo missions, the Eisenhower Interstate system, the precursor to the internet. Now, I fear, we are spending too much money just on social programs which have no long term payback. No, I don't favor slashing and burning the social safety net - it's part of the values of a modern society. I'm just saying we need some balance. And probably some higher taxes to pay for it. Another non-starter these days.
I was reading a magazine article the other day on Chinese manufacturing giant Foxconn. You may know Foxconn as the company that manufactures the iPhone, as well as many other high tech electronic devices. You may also know Foxconn as a place that famously had a rash of worker suicides last year, that prompted reforms in pay and work practices. Or you may never have heard of them. I don't have a view on Foxconn as a company one way or another, but the article struck a cord with me for a different reason. It mentioned, in passing, that number of people that Foxconn employs.
Think about this - Apple and Foxconn are approximately the same size as measured by revenues or profits. Apple develops unbelievable innovations - iPods and iPads, smart phones, computers, etc. It is a crown jewel that politicians talk about when the mention American ingenuity and the innovation economy. Foxconn is nobody's idea of an innovator, it's simply a manufacturing firm that leverages cheap labor in China at a lower cost than competitors in other countries can.
Here is the problem...Apple employs 30,000 people, Foxconn employs 1,000,000. Granted, the 30,000 people at Apple by and large do very well. Senior management has made themselves very rich. Even middle management and the programmers that build the innovation make excellent livings and get great benefits. It's a heck of a lot better to work at Apple than Foxconn, no doubt. But only 30,000 people get to live an Apple-sponsored lifestyle.
It's hard to build a middle class economy this way. Apple is a giant technology company. At 30,000 per company, you'd 493 new Apples to employ all the unemployed in this country. Never mind the fact that most of the unemployed would be vastly unqualified for a job at Apple.
My point is that we need to be more than an "innovation economy" to be sustainable. Innovation is great, but if we export the manufacturing to China and the customer service to India, then a small group of people in the US will get rich on the innovation, but the rest of the country won't benefit.
We would be wise to steal a page from Germany's playbook and invest in some real industrial policy. Germany has done an outstanding job growing high-dollar manufacturing jobs by investing in its industry and its trade education. Alas, I fear in the current Washington gridlock, that ideas like this are a complete non-starter.
Would you like fries with that?
The Entitlement Drag
If we spend all our money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Benefits, how will we ever invest in the infrastructure and the education needed to build a full employment economy?
Our mass transit systems are far inferior to Europe and much of Asia. Our air traffic control system is from the 1950s. Our power grid is still largely powered by coal plants built 100 years ago. Funding for education at all levels is being cut.
We used to find ways to invest in big things - the Apollo missions, the Eisenhower Interstate system, the precursor to the internet. Now, I fear, we are spending too much money just on social programs which have no long term payback. No, I don't favor slashing and burning the social safety net - it's part of the values of a modern society. I'm just saying we need some balance. And probably some higher taxes to pay for it. Another non-starter these days.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Romney Owns
Short reaction to the first GOP debate (yes I know, it's technically the second one, but the first one where the field showed up): I don't see a credible threat to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. He was funny, engaging, well-spoken and gave smart, concise answers even when dealing with thorny issues, such as Romneycare and his flip-flop on abortion. He looked and sounded Presidential. No one else on the stage was even close.
Jon Huntsman? Rick Perry? The field is wide open. You just have to beat the Mitt.
Jon Huntsman? Rick Perry? The field is wide open. You just have to beat the Mitt.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Gingrich Falls, Weiner Tweets, The Economy Sputters
Just to Reiterate, Newt Doesn't Have a Chance
Last week, I had him third in a very weak field of declared candidates, a distant third to the close-to-insurmountable Mitt Romney and the far behind but highly credible Tim Pawlenty. Apparently his closest advisers agree that things are not going particularly well for the one-time Speaker of the House in his bid to become the GOP nominee as 7 of his top guys all resigned on the same day this week. A few are presumed to be going to work for Tim Pawlenty, a few others are rumored to be in talks with Rick Perry if he decides to mount a run. Either way, those closest to the Gingrich campaign appear to want nothing to do with it. And why should they? In national polls, Gingrich is not only getting trounced by declared-candidate Romney, he's getting trounced by unannounced candidates Palin and Guliani, and even getting beat by sideshows Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Gingrich will likely not win a single nominating contest and should be gone after South Carolina, if he doesn't pitch in the towel sooner.
Anthony Weiner, The Sad Clown
Call it the curse of technology. Call it the oldest fault in men since time began. Either way, once well-respected Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is now a sideshow. His sexting with at least 6 women over the past 3 years, including sending explicit photos has everybody and their brother calling for his resignation, including virtually all high profile Republicans and high profile Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-NY.)
What Weiner did was incredibly stupid. I always say that the internet is written in ink and you'd best not do anything on there that you wouldn't want your mother to see. Pictures of your erection certainly qualify there. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm on board with the Weiner resignation brigade.
It is not clear to me that Weiner has done anything even remotely illegal. It does not appear that he used government resources in his sexcapades. So at the end of the day, if all he did was send dirty photos, are his actions really so much worse than what the likes of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of other politicians did, who actually had sex with women while in office and stuck around? And how exactly does this effect if Weiner is a good congressman?
I guess we still have a strong puritan streak in this country.
Unemployment and Slow Growth - Not a Good Recipe for Obama
The President has to be fearful about the economic news of late. 1.8% GDP growth last quarter. Unemployment at a virtual flatline for the last several months right around the 9% line (9.1% last month, according to the BLS), nearly 2x what a healthy economy would be. Even the stock market, which had been the bright spot, has started to sputter with all the bad news.
If the election is going to come down to the economy, as I firmly believe it will, President Obama is going to need for things to be better a year from now than they are today, or he may find himself designing a Presidential library in Chicago.
Last week, I had him third in a very weak field of declared candidates, a distant third to the close-to-insurmountable Mitt Romney and the far behind but highly credible Tim Pawlenty. Apparently his closest advisers agree that things are not going particularly well for the one-time Speaker of the House in his bid to become the GOP nominee as 7 of his top guys all resigned on the same day this week. A few are presumed to be going to work for Tim Pawlenty, a few others are rumored to be in talks with Rick Perry if he decides to mount a run. Either way, those closest to the Gingrich campaign appear to want nothing to do with it. And why should they? In national polls, Gingrich is not only getting trounced by declared-candidate Romney, he's getting trounced by unannounced candidates Palin and Guliani, and even getting beat by sideshows Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Gingrich will likely not win a single nominating contest and should be gone after South Carolina, if he doesn't pitch in the towel sooner.
Anthony Weiner, The Sad Clown
Call it the curse of technology. Call it the oldest fault in men since time began. Either way, once well-respected Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is now a sideshow. His sexting with at least 6 women over the past 3 years, including sending explicit photos has everybody and their brother calling for his resignation, including virtually all high profile Republicans and high profile Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-NY.)
What Weiner did was incredibly stupid. I always say that the internet is written in ink and you'd best not do anything on there that you wouldn't want your mother to see. Pictures of your erection certainly qualify there. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm on board with the Weiner resignation brigade.
It is not clear to me that Weiner has done anything even remotely illegal. It does not appear that he used government resources in his sexcapades. So at the end of the day, if all he did was send dirty photos, are his actions really so much worse than what the likes of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of other politicians did, who actually had sex with women while in office and stuck around? And how exactly does this effect if Weiner is a good congressman?
I guess we still have a strong puritan streak in this country.
Unemployment and Slow Growth - Not a Good Recipe for Obama
The President has to be fearful about the economic news of late. 1.8% GDP growth last quarter. Unemployment at a virtual flatline for the last several months right around the 9% line (9.1% last month, according to the BLS), nearly 2x what a healthy economy would be. Even the stock market, which had been the bright spot, has started to sputter with all the bad news.
If the election is going to come down to the economy, as I firmly believe it will, President Obama is going to need for things to be better a year from now than they are today, or he may find himself designing a Presidential library in Chicago.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Meet Your GOP Field, Debt Ceiling Chicken, Some Easy Predictions
The GOP Field is Set, Sort Of, Maybe
We have gained a lot of clarity over the course of the past few weeks about who is in and who is out in the race for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination. The Huck isn't running. Neither is Trump (read back to my earlier posts when he first started making noise if you don't already understand why.) Daniels is sitting this one out. It's actually a pretty thin field as it stands. There are five meaningful players who have not made decisions yet. Accordingly, here are my power rankings of the "in" and the "maybe" candidates.
The "in" candidates:
1. Mitt Romney - the clear and undisputed front-runner. Yes, he used to be a pro-universal health care, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Massachusetts moderate. But, let's face it - an attractive face with business experience and a strong governing record is a pretty good place to start for a party that actually wants to win.
2. Tim Pawlenty - if Romney stumbles or health care becomes too much of an issue, Pawlenty is the other "legit" candidate. He has gubernatorial experience, he is liked both within the party and popular in his home state. Pawlenty's biggest problems are a. that he backed cap-and-trade at one point, b. that few outside the mid-west and the party loyalists know him and c. he isn't particularly charismatic. He's going to have to count on a Romney slip-up to get seriously in the game.
3. Newt Gingrich - the highly intelligent but deeply flawed Gingrich is clearly qualified as former Speaker of the House. He is also a pretty famous jerk, both personally and professionally. His personal life will dog him in the GOP primaries including his two failed marriages, his cheating and his overall lack of personal morals. He is also not very inspirational and highly confrontational. I can't seem him winning, but outside of Romney and Pawlenty, he's pretty much the only other credible candidate.
4. Ron Paul - the ever-entertaining libertarian is running again. He will make some noise, raise some money and even get some votes (heck, he could finish 2nd in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire!), but he can't get the nod - he would be a disaster for the GOP if he did.
5. Herman Cain - Cain is a great speaker and lit up the first debate, but he's hard to take seriously as a candidate. No experience governing and if you peel back the brilliant surface rhetoric, he's not particularly insightful. He'll be fun to watch, like Paul, but will be a sideshow.
6. Gary Johnson - if you took Ron Paul and subtracted the wit and charisma, you'd have Gary Johnson. Another devoted libertarian, Johnson will create havoc for some of the front-runners, but will get few votes, thanks to the much better known and far more entertaining Ron Paul.
The "maybe" candidates:
1. Rudy Guliani - shockingly, the 2008 electoral disaster hasn't kept Guliani from polling near the front of the 2012 field. He could be a real player, but I'm left with the following question: if the GOP didn't like him in 2008 and he hasn't done much since, why will they like him now?
2. Michelle Bachman - the darling of the tea-party could make some noise. The tea-party has shown its muscle over and over again in GOP primaries. Bachman winning the nomination would be a disaster for the GOP, however, as she would likely get absolutely torched in the general.
3. Jon Huntsman - the erstwhile Obama Administration Ambassador to China is actually just the sort of general election candidate the GOP should want. He's a center-right candidate who works extremely well across the aisle and has a proven ability to govern. But can you imagine the GOP nominating a former Obama Administration official who is a social moderate? Me neither.
4. Rick Perry - the conservative Texas Governor is one candidate I've had my eyes on for a while. He's the perfect intersection for the GOP of a candidate with conservative enough chops to be appealing to the tea party while being mainstream enough to not freak out the general public. Still - nobody knows Perry and it isn't totally clear he is even interested.
5. Sarah Palin - her star has faded fast. I admit to being wrong about her - I warned not to underestimate her in 2008, but she has been a paper tiger with frequent gaffes and no depth. Besides, she's making too much money at Fox to run.
6. Rick Santorum - he's a complete afterthought. His far-right social views may appeal to some on the fringe, but other candidates will have that space well covered and Santorum couldn't even run competitively for re-election in Pennsylvania. He shouldn't waste his time. And don't Google his name unless you have strong intestinal fortitude.
The GOP is Playing Chicken - And It May Work
The US Government has hit its debt ceiling, but Congress seems in no hurry to act. Tim Geithner has given an approximate "real" deadline of August 2nd, which the government can get to by stopping payments to pension funds and deferring other short-term payments. The bottom line is that the debt limit will have to be raised as no one has proposed anything approaching a budget that is balanced for this year -- even the most conservative proposal for the Fiscal 2011 budget called for about a $1.4T deficit and the one enacted was slightly more moderate than that. But Republicans are staging grand theater, holding symbolic no votes on a ceiling increase with no spending decreases attached and demand major reform to everything except taxes.
So what do we make of all of this? The GOP isn't trying to destroy the country, I don't think and will therefore make sure that the debt ceiling is increased prior to August 2nd. A compromise that allows all sides to save face will likely occur, which will likely involve big planned defense reductions, big reductions in domestic discretionary spending, token changes to Medicare and no change in tax policy. This is the middle ground that both sides can probably live with, although it will likely leave the two biggest problems with the budget - taxes and entitlements, mostly unchanged.
Be prepared for action to come at the very last minute, so expect at least another month and a half of wrangling before we throw together a short-term fix.
Some Easy Predictions
Allow me to stick my neck out. Write me later when I'm proven to be an idiot:
(1) Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination -- why? There is nobody credible enough to beat him. Besides, he's the "next guy in line" (read my posts from 2008 to understand how important this is to GOP nominations.)
(2) The debt ceiling will be raised prior to August 2nd. See above.
(3) The Democrats will not retake the House and will lose the Senate in 2012. Read my prior posts - the map is just awful for them.
(4) The Presidential race will be within 5% and the key states will be Virginia, Colorado and Ohio, not Florida and Pennsylvania.
(5) Sarah Palin won't run for President.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
We have gained a lot of clarity over the course of the past few weeks about who is in and who is out in the race for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination. The Huck isn't running. Neither is Trump (read back to my earlier posts when he first started making noise if you don't already understand why.) Daniels is sitting this one out. It's actually a pretty thin field as it stands. There are five meaningful players who have not made decisions yet. Accordingly, here are my power rankings of the "in" and the "maybe" candidates.
The "in" candidates:
1. Mitt Romney - the clear and undisputed front-runner. Yes, he used to be a pro-universal health care, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Massachusetts moderate. But, let's face it - an attractive face with business experience and a strong governing record is a pretty good place to start for a party that actually wants to win.
2. Tim Pawlenty - if Romney stumbles or health care becomes too much of an issue, Pawlenty is the other "legit" candidate. He has gubernatorial experience, he is liked both within the party and popular in his home state. Pawlenty's biggest problems are a. that he backed cap-and-trade at one point, b. that few outside the mid-west and the party loyalists know him and c. he isn't particularly charismatic. He's going to have to count on a Romney slip-up to get seriously in the game.
3. Newt Gingrich - the highly intelligent but deeply flawed Gingrich is clearly qualified as former Speaker of the House. He is also a pretty famous jerk, both personally and professionally. His personal life will dog him in the GOP primaries including his two failed marriages, his cheating and his overall lack of personal morals. He is also not very inspirational and highly confrontational. I can't seem him winning, but outside of Romney and Pawlenty, he's pretty much the only other credible candidate.
4. Ron Paul - the ever-entertaining libertarian is running again. He will make some noise, raise some money and even get some votes (heck, he could finish 2nd in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire!), but he can't get the nod - he would be a disaster for the GOP if he did.
5. Herman Cain - Cain is a great speaker and lit up the first debate, but he's hard to take seriously as a candidate. No experience governing and if you peel back the brilliant surface rhetoric, he's not particularly insightful. He'll be fun to watch, like Paul, but will be a sideshow.
6. Gary Johnson - if you took Ron Paul and subtracted the wit and charisma, you'd have Gary Johnson. Another devoted libertarian, Johnson will create havoc for some of the front-runners, but will get few votes, thanks to the much better known and far more entertaining Ron Paul.
The "maybe" candidates:
1. Rudy Guliani - shockingly, the 2008 electoral disaster hasn't kept Guliani from polling near the front of the 2012 field. He could be a real player, but I'm left with the following question: if the GOP didn't like him in 2008 and he hasn't done much since, why will they like him now?
2. Michelle Bachman - the darling of the tea-party could make some noise. The tea-party has shown its muscle over and over again in GOP primaries. Bachman winning the nomination would be a disaster for the GOP, however, as she would likely get absolutely torched in the general.
3. Jon Huntsman - the erstwhile Obama Administration Ambassador to China is actually just the sort of general election candidate the GOP should want. He's a center-right candidate who works extremely well across the aisle and has a proven ability to govern. But can you imagine the GOP nominating a former Obama Administration official who is a social moderate? Me neither.
4. Rick Perry - the conservative Texas Governor is one candidate I've had my eyes on for a while. He's the perfect intersection for the GOP of a candidate with conservative enough chops to be appealing to the tea party while being mainstream enough to not freak out the general public. Still - nobody knows Perry and it isn't totally clear he is even interested.
5. Sarah Palin - her star has faded fast. I admit to being wrong about her - I warned not to underestimate her in 2008, but she has been a paper tiger with frequent gaffes and no depth. Besides, she's making too much money at Fox to run.
6. Rick Santorum - he's a complete afterthought. His far-right social views may appeal to some on the fringe, but other candidates will have that space well covered and Santorum couldn't even run competitively for re-election in Pennsylvania. He shouldn't waste his time. And don't Google his name unless you have strong intestinal fortitude.
The GOP is Playing Chicken - And It May Work
The US Government has hit its debt ceiling, but Congress seems in no hurry to act. Tim Geithner has given an approximate "real" deadline of August 2nd, which the government can get to by stopping payments to pension funds and deferring other short-term payments. The bottom line is that the debt limit will have to be raised as no one has proposed anything approaching a budget that is balanced for this year -- even the most conservative proposal for the Fiscal 2011 budget called for about a $1.4T deficit and the one enacted was slightly more moderate than that. But Republicans are staging grand theater, holding symbolic no votes on a ceiling increase with no spending decreases attached and demand major reform to everything except taxes.
So what do we make of all of this? The GOP isn't trying to destroy the country, I don't think and will therefore make sure that the debt ceiling is increased prior to August 2nd. A compromise that allows all sides to save face will likely occur, which will likely involve big planned defense reductions, big reductions in domestic discretionary spending, token changes to Medicare and no change in tax policy. This is the middle ground that both sides can probably live with, although it will likely leave the two biggest problems with the budget - taxes and entitlements, mostly unchanged.
Be prepared for action to come at the very last minute, so expect at least another month and a half of wrangling before we throw together a short-term fix.
Some Easy Predictions
Allow me to stick my neck out. Write me later when I'm proven to be an idiot:
(1) Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination -- why? There is nobody credible enough to beat him. Besides, he's the "next guy in line" (read my posts from 2008 to understand how important this is to GOP nominations.)
(2) The debt ceiling will be raised prior to August 2nd. See above.
(3) The Democrats will not retake the House and will lose the Senate in 2012. Read my prior posts - the map is just awful for them.
(4) The Presidential race will be within 5% and the key states will be Virginia, Colorado and Ohio, not Florida and Pennsylvania.
(5) Sarah Palin won't run for President.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
