The Amazing (status-quo) Race

The media dogs have been salivating for more than a week over the 'secret' videotape released by Mother Jones on September 17th showing Mitt Romney disparaging the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes as 'victims' who are 'dependent upon government' and will support President Obama's reelection effort.  Never mind that 40% of those freeloading moochers are Republicans, among them low income senior citizens, hard working, low wage workers, and valiant members of the U.S. military who put their lives on the line for all of each and every day.  Never mind that more than 7,000 of those 47% are millionaires.  No, none of that really matters.  The statements by Romney mean one of two things:  1)  Either it reflects his deeply held belief about people who vote for Democrats, in which case he's dead wrong, or; 2)  It reflects the thinking of the millionaires he was appealing to for money, in which case he was simply doing what politicians do, pandering for money by telling an audience what they want to hear.  In either case it is offensive but I'd like to think Gov. Romney was simply being a crass politician rather than an ideological idiot.

But, the bigger question is whether or not Romney's statement and subsequent scurrying to lessen the blow of the video will have any measurable effect on his share of the vote on November 6th.  At this stage of the race I estimate that it might cost him a few votes among swing voters in some states.  It is possible that the loss of those swing voters will be offset by Republicans and Republican leaners who are more likely to vote for him as a result, but that is far from certain.  There is no state level evidence of any shift yet but there is some evidence of this from a new Gallup Poll showing that 44% of Republicans say they are more likely to vote for Romney in the wake of his comments than before the comments.  Not that they were Obama supporters previously but more likely lukewarm towards Romney.  Meanwhile, 29% of independents say they're less likely to vote for Romney as a result while 15% say they're more likely to vote for him, a net change of 14%.  In a close election, that shift could be devastating.  However, unless Romney doubles down on the comment it is likely to be all but forgotten by Election Day, though don't be surprised when it reappears in the debates next month.

Presidential Polling Aggregate--Six Weeks Out

The chart below reflects the latest national polls from reputable polling organizations.  The polling data consistently shows the president with a lead in nearly every poll conducted since the Democratic National Convention.  Some of this is likely due to convention bounce, though that typically fades away 2-3 weeks after the conventions so the polls reflect the actual state of the race.  Yet, the presidency is not determined by the nationwide popular vote so these should be taken with a grain of salt.  For a deeper state by state analysis see Nate Silver's 538 blog.  As of today, the president is a 78% favorite to win a 2nd term according to Silver's model forecast.  That's a tad bit higher than Intrade, the internet trading site that allows the purchase or sale of 'shares' predicting the outcome of many events.  President Obama is currently a 72.7% favorite among the speculators there.

The truly amazing thing about this chart is that neither candidate has moved the polling numbers much since March.  The first poll in the dataset is an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama at 50% and Romney at 44%.  The last poll is an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released September 17th placing Obama at 50% and Romney at 45%.  Six months of campaigning, mudslinging, seizing on out of context statements, and two party conventions has left the race pretty much exactly where it was in March.  Will the next six weeks be any different?

RNC & DNC Wrapup

Now that the party conventions have ended its a good time to wrap-up what took place in Tampa and Charlotte over the past eleven days.  Since the Republicans went first we'll start with their convention.

The Republican National Convention

The Good: 

• Romney, human being: 
• The Republican Convention set out to portray the real Mitt Romney to his party.  The Romney who has a heart and cares for people, not the Romney image crafted by the Democrats all summer (and to some extent by the Republican primary challengers last spring).  In that sense, Republicans did a fairly good job and I have no doubt that Romney is a decent family man who loves his wife and children.  I have no doubt he loves his church and has done a lot of good for Mormons and non-Mormons alike.  Republicans successfully painted their candidate as a warm, funny guy.  That's a positive for the campaign.  Grade:  B+
• Marco Rubio: 
• Possibly the best speech of the convention hands down.  Rubio came across as smart, funny, and likable.  It's easy to see why he bested Charlie Crist in the Florida Senate contest in 2010 and why he is considered a rising star in the GOP.  Rubio represents a demographic in America that is rapidly expanding and that the GOP must embrace if it is to survive as a serious party beyond this decade. Rubio is eloquent and avoided the sharp partisan rhetoric that was present in several other speeches and may one day carry the GOP banner himself if he plays his cards right.  Grade: A+

The Bad:

• Paul Ryan:
• Ryan was ostensibly chosen to be Romney's running mate because of his policy knowledge and strict conservative credentials.  But his speech to the delegates was rife with factual errors, false accusations leveled against the president, and nothing resembling serious policy proposals.  Even Fox News reported that Ryan's speech was deceptive, if not downright untrue.  Grade:  C-
• Mitt Romney:
• Romney addressed the delegates and the nation with perhaps the most bland acceptance speech in recent history.  He repeated many of the same tired lines we've heard all summer and for the past four years.  He promised tax cuts and a balanced budget, increased defense spending, and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, all at the same time. He promised to create 12 million new jobs in four years, which works out to 250,000 a month.  That's about 100,000 more than the economy has averaged over the past 29 months.  Yet, Romney provided no details on how he would accomplish this.  Overall, it was a dull acceptance speech given by a candidate looking to avoid mistakes, not one given by a candidate looking to convince undecided Americans a reason to vote for him.  Grade:  C-

The Ugly: (You knew it was coming)

• Clint Eastwood:
• What else can I say about an old white man arguing with a chair supposedly holding an invisible black president?  I guess Jon Stewart said it best:  Apparently, there is a President Obama that only Republicans can see.  Wow, wow, and wow.  Grade:  D-
• George W. Bush:  
• Where was the last Republican president?  Parties who are proud of their accomplishments in office almost always bring back living ex-presidents to address their conventions.  It was almost as if the Republicans had disowned Bush while telling America we need to go back to his policies.  Bizarre.  Grade:  F

Overall, the Republicans had a decent, if less than memorable convention (apart from Eastwood).  In a tight race for the presidency it's not what they needed.  The Republicans needed to give Americans a reason to fire their president.  Americans might still do that but what happened in Tampa last week won't have anything to do with that if it happens.  

The Democratic National Convention

Highs:  

• Michelle Obama:
• Michelle had one job at the convention and she did it better than anyone else could have.  Her sole task was to provide an inside look at Barack Obama the father, husband, and man who is fighting for average Americans every day.  Contrast that with the Obama Republicans have tried to portray as an angry black man who wants to create a nation where every American is a ward of the state.  Grade:  A+
• Bill Clinton:
• Let's face it, nobody can deliver a speech that holds the audience's attention quite like the 'Big Dog' can.  Whether one agrees or disagrees, Bubba is an eloquent speaker who can break down difficult policy details into sweet, tasty morsels for an audience.  President Clinton assumed the role of defender of the Obama Presidency and attack dog.  He took a big bite out of the seat of Romney's pants and held on tight.  Even Republican strategist Alex Castellanos (creator of the Willie Horton ad for George H.W. Bush) commented after the speech that it was the 'moment that reelected Barack Obama'.  While I highly doubt that, it was a very good speech with no blatantly false statements, though a few that were designed to portray the Obama Presidency in the best possible light by cherry picking data, such as the arbitrary February 2010 date to start counting job creation.  Grade:  A
• Joe Biden:
• Biden's acceptance speech was perhaps the best speech of his life.  He not only defended the administration's record, he spoke of the Barack Obama he knows and loves.  He recapped the decision to take out Osama bin Laden and the support for GM and repeated the quip 'General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead!' with vigor.  Biden avoided making his typical gaffes and was well-received by the delegates.  Grade:  A-

Mediocre:

• Barack Obama:
• The president's address was more of the same thing we have heard for the past four years.  There was nothing new in it and it was just an appeal to Democratic supporters (and perhaps some swing voters) to stay the course and allow the foundation of a solid recovery that has been built over the past few years to take root and blossom.  It was an appeal not to return to the policies of the last decade.  The high point was the salute to the troops (notably missing from the RNC and Romney's speech) and taking ownership of foreign policy.  For the first time in my life the Democrats seem to be the stronger party on foreign affairs.  The best line:  'Feel a cold coming on?  Take two tax cuts and rollback a few regulations and call me in the morning.'  Was the speech enough to change any minds?  Probably not.  But it also did not work against the president.  Grade:  C+

Lows:

• Democrats booing the platform amendment inserting God
• It was ridiculous and pandering that they even had to take this vote.  God does not belong in party platforms and He certainly doesn't endorse partisan politics.  Nonsense like this detracts from serious discussions and dealing with real problems.  The delegates and the chair should be ashamed of this entire fiasco.  Grade:  F

Overall, the DNC will probably not change anybody's mind about who to vote for in November, though it may energize Democrats and lead to higher turnout.  In that sense, it is a win for the party.  In my final assessment I agree with Republican Joe Scarborough who wrote:

But while Obama said nothing new, he said it much better than when Gov. Romney said nothing in Tampa. And you could tell by the boisterous reaction of Democratic delegates who left the arena Thursday night looking fired up and ready to go. Maybe there seemed to be such a disparity between the two conventions because the Republican Party has never been the least bit excited about its nominee. Or maybe it’s because Democrats were simply blessed with a deeper bench of political athletes in 2012. But whatever the reason, Republicans were lapped by their rivals and may ultimately pay in November for botching Mitt Romney’s debut.

Will the conventions matter?  Perhaps more than we political scientists think but less than the politicians turned pundits think.  

Why Romney Should Win but May Not

By now it is pretty clear that Mitt Romney should be destroying President Barack Obama in the polls as America heads for the 2012 Presidential Election.  Yet, most polls show President Obama with a lead of a few points or the two candidates locked in a statistical deadheat.  The virtual tie in the polls can be attributed to the fact that most voters have already made up their minds and will not change them over the final three months of the campaign.  That means the 2012 Presidential Election will be won by whichever candidate does the best job of courting the 'undecideds.'  Note, I did not say 'independents.'  Why not?  First, because they are a very small group of voters like myself.  The majority of so-called independents are actually what scholars refer to as 'weak-partisans' or 'partisan-leaners.'  In the end, they almost always vote for the party they lean towards.  In 2008, fewer than 10% of voters reached a decision in the final week of the campaign.  We call these voters 'late deciders' and in 2008 their vote was split almost evenly between Barack Obama and John McCain even though economic conditions were very unfavorable for Senator McCain.  A very similar pattern occurred in the 2004 Presidential Election among late deciders.  There is no reason to believe the pattern will be much different in 2012.  The bottom line is that late deciders and independents are unlikely to decide the outcome of this election.  Rather, it will be turnout by the base of each party that will determine the ultimate victor.  Based upon this, President Obama has reason to be concerned about is chances for reelection as recent polls have indicated that Republicans are a little more enthusiastic about the election than Democrats are right now.  But that's not the president's biggest problem.

It's The Economy, Stupid!

Those four famous words written on a whiteboard in the war room of the Bill Clinton campaign in 1992 reverberate throughout American politics.  At least that's the conventional wisdom and what the Romney campaign is hoping rings true in 2012.  Like it or not, President Obama has to face the fact that nearly four years after being elected he is presiding over a tepid economy experiencing weak growth and high unemployment.  The most recent figures released by the government show economic growth occurred in the 2nd quarter at a meager 1.5% rate while unemployment ticked up from 8.2% to 8.3%.  As Political Scientist James Campbell argues, those numbers do not bode well for the president's reelection bid.  Further, a recent analysis on Political Math showed President Obama last among all presidents in job creation since 1969, based on reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Of course, as everyone with half a brain knows (which excludes most politicians of both parties as well as most ideologically driven individuals), presidents neither create nor destroy jobs.  They merely benefit from good economic cycles or suffer the consequences of bad ones.  Recessions result from natural fluctuations in the business cycle and government is virtually powerless to prevent them.  If you need evidence of this just look at 2007-09 and all the manipulations done by the Federal Reserve Bank and the tax cuts/economic stimulus packages enacted in 2008 and 2009.  The economy still plunged into the deepest recession since the 1930's.  At best, all the government efforts simply alleviated the suffering and made the bottom of the great recession slightly shallower than it would otherwise have been.  The CBO estimates that between 1.5 million and 3 million jobs were saved by government action in 2009.  Imagine what the president's record on job creation would look like without without those jobs!  Which brings me back to the point...job creation.  

As the author of the Political Math piece points out, President Obama is fond of pointing out the number of jobs created from a certain date, usually the low water mark of the recession.  That's both fair and unfair at the same time.  How so?  It's fair because a new president cannot and should not be held accountable for trends in job growth/loss early in their term(s).  He is inheriting the situation left behind by his predecessor, which in President Obama's case was an economy shedding 700,000 jobs a month. However, allowing the president to cherry pick a starting date for when he will take credit for job growth is unfair because he can then choose the dates most beneficial to himself.  In an effort to standardize the analysis of job growth by president I created a graph showing total job creation/loss using two metrics.  The first metric attributes job losses/gains during the first six months of a new administration to the previous administration, while the second metric excludes job growth/loss for the entire first year of a new administration.  The logical explanation is that a president should not receive credit (or blame) for the economic situation left behind by his predecessor.  Here's what the data looks like:

Using either of these metrics doesn't make the case for President Obama much better, although it shows larger net job growth than if we began counting the day he assumed the presidency, which is the way most partisan opponents of the president like to do.  My point here is not to make the case for President Obama but to draw attention to the fact that job growth in the United States has been anemic for more than a decade.  Also, when we look at the data, we see that job growth declined substantially on the heels of the two most recent economic expansions which took place from 1983-1989 and 1993-2000.  We also can see that by either metric President George W. Bush is the only president in the last 40 years to preside over a net loss of jobs, though he should not be held accountable for job losses that occurred as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the recession that followed.  Though the economy was already in recession by September of 2001 it is almost certain that the terrorist attacks prolonged the recession.  Excluding job losses from September 2001 to May 2002 boosts President George W. Bush to a net gain for his presidency of 38,000 jobs when the first six months are also excluded and reduces his net job loss when the first year is excluded to just over 1 million. 

The data also shows us that President Obama's tenure compares favorably with that of President George H.W. Bush, using either of the two metrics.  In fact, their numbers are remarkably similar, although Obama's only include seven months of data for 2012.  Barring another recession and continued mediocre job growth, President Obama will end his first, and perhaps only, term in office with net job growth of between 3.6 million and 5 million, depending upon which metric is chosen. Neither number is good when compared against the last one term Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, whose presidency is seen as mostly a failure by nearly everyone except Carter himself. 

Why Romney May Not Win Even Though He Should

Given the economic data, the election should be a cakewalk for Mitt Romney.  Yet, he is not moving the polls and his favorability ratings continue to decline.  That, in itself, shouldn't worry too many in the GOP because Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 with favorability ratings far lower than President Carter.  The bigger concern for the Romney campaign is the lukewarm support he has received from many staunch conservatives.  They're just not in love with the guy and many don't trust him, which is why some demanded he fire his Press Secretary when she said that if the gentleman in the latest Priorities USA SuperPAC ad had only lived in Massachusetts he would have had health insurance.  Erick Erikson (founder of the Red State blog) indicated the comment was like picking a scab and pouring salt on the wound.  To be sure, Romney is no hardcore conservative himself (so might he pick one to bolster his credibility with the party?) and governed as a moderate Rockefeller Republican in Massachusetts.  Could this lack of trust translate into lower turnout for the Republicans in November.  Time will tell.

The other major problem facing the Team Romney is that the Republican brand has been badly damaged over the last few years, particularly since the party regained control of the House.  Polls show that many voters have a negative perception of the party.  Some of that comes from the contentious Republican Presidential Primary season while some of it comes from what many see as Republican intransigence and refusal to work for the good of the country.  A prime example is the brinksmanship the party played in the summer of 2011 that led to the first ever downgrade in the nation's credit rating and a near default on the national debt.  Even Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, usually reliably pro-conservative, have blamed the GOP's anti-Obama stance for much of the dysfunction in Congress. Additionally, one has to consider the kook factor.  The GOP seems to have more than its usual share of crazies nowadays.  When one of the most caustic and crazy in her own right Republicans, Ann Coulter, says the party needs to reign in the nuts, it must be true.  

The question is whether or not any of these things will matter when voters go to the polls in November?  That, dear reader, is the $64,000 question.  If you have the answer you could make a fortune betting on the outcome of this year's presidential election.  

Deja Vu? 2004 or 2012?

As this long summer campaign continues it becomes more and more apparent that 2012 has a lot in common with 2004, at least from an electoral perspective.  Like 2004, 2012 is a presidential election year featuring an incumbent wrapping up his first term with middling approval ratings.  At a similar point in July 2004, an NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll found President George W. Bush with a 48% approval rating.  Eight years later the most recent NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll gives President Obama a 49% approval rating.

In 2004, the nation was experiencing tepid economic growth rates in what was called a 'jobless recovery' from the recession of 2003.  Today, economic growth is exceptionally slow following the depression of 2007-09.  The unemployment rate when George W. Bush became president was 4.2% and rising.  It rose 50% to peak at 6.3% in the summer of 2003 before declining to 5.6% by July 2004.  Unemployment when Barack Obama became president stood at 8.3% and rose another 20% to peak at 10% in October 2009 before slowly declining to its current 8.2% level.

The 2004 Presidential Election featured a likable president, with less than stellar approval ratings, facing off against privileged Vietnam War vet and multi-millionaire, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.  America was in the midst of two wars, one becoming very unpopular and a drag on the incumbent.  Senator Kerry's strength was his military experience so the incumbent strategy was to cast doubt upon the senator's fitness to be Commander in Chief.  The effort led to the Swift Boat attacks against Senator Kerry shortly before election day as well as attempts to cast doubt on President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.  The continued fear of terrorist attacks made Americans hesitant to change administrations in the midst of two wars.

Fast forward to 2012.  Both of the wars from 2004 are winding down and the economy is recovering slowly from the steep cliff it went over in 2008.  The Presidential Election features a blue blood challenger in former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with mediocre likability ratings and an incumbent president who is likable but struggling with his approval ratings.  Unlike in 2004, President Obama will not have the fear of terrorism to boost his campaign.  The focus is, and will remain, on the economy.  Thus, the president and his team will seek to cast doubt on Governor Romney's claims that he can fix the economy based on his business experience at Bain Capital.  The Romney team will argue that the president's policies have failed to turn things around.

The latest polls show the race in a virtual dead heat, not an enviable position for an incumbent to be in.  But it is a position remarkably similar to where President Bush found himself in 2004.  In 2004, the incumbent prevailed by 2.5 percentage points in the popular vote.  The race essentially came down to a single state, as it had four years earlier.  In 2000, as everybody knows, it was 'Florida, Florida, Florida' in the words of the late Tim Russert.  In 2004, it was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.  President Bush carried the state by 118,000 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast.  A swing of just 60,000 votes would have given Ohio's 20 electoral votes, and the presidency, to Senator Kerry.  President Bush was helped by a late October video released by Osama bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks, stirring up a fresh reminder to stay the course in the war against terrorism.  Will there be an 'October Surprise' for President Obama as he urges Americans to stay the course and have faith that his policies will eventually lead to the economic recovery Americans want and need?  Only time will tell.

POTUS Election 2012 Update

I haven't done one of these for awhile so I figure it is time to update the chart for the Presidential Election in light of all the new polls that have been conducted.  While I still do not think the polls tell us anything about who will win in November, they may reveal any trends taking shape.  So let's get to the numbers!

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

One thing that is pretty clear in the above chart is that the race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama has remained exceptionally close for the first two months of summer.  In spite of a barrage of negative ads run by both campaigns, the polls have failed to move much in either direction.  There are a few explanations for the lack of movement to date:

1. The preference stability of the American electorate.  Most voters, even those who claim to be independents, vote according to their partisan leanings.  Only a small percentage of voters actually change their minds over the course of a campaign and end up voting for the opposite candidate.
2. Americans are not paying much attention to the race yet apart from a cursory glance at who's ahead every now and then.  The very small contingent of ideologically driven voters are always paying attention but the mass public doesn't generally do so until well after labor day.  So it is not surprising that neither side is making inroads at this point.  
3. Much of the battle being waged between President Obama and Mitt Romney is taking place in six or seven 'battleground' states.  The likely electoral outcome is already known in more than 80% of the states.  Mississippi will support Mitt Romney in November, California will support Barack Obama.  The election will be settled in just a few states representing about 15% of the population.  As a result, most of the nation will see very little of the actual campaign or the ads.  Only those who actively seek information outside the 'battleground' will likely be exposed to the campaign.

General Election Polls

The other set of polls we have are from news and polling organizations such as Fox, CBS, and Pew Research.  As with the Gallup Daily tracking polls, there is a stability in these polls, although we can see a bit more movement in some than in others.  Fox and Pew Research have consistently had President Obama with a larger lead than most of the others.  CBS has had the race closer and is the only recent poll that shows Mitt Romney in the lead, albeit by a single point.  Most of the polls, except Pew and Fox, are within the margin of error.  What may be more important at this time are the state level polls in the 'battleground' states.  Nate Silver has an excellent recap of these on his blog.

The next few weeks will likely show more of the same as the start of the London Olympic games overshadows the presidential race until mid-August.  Romney will then likely announce his running mate, which will catapult him into the lead through the end of the Republican National Convention on August 30th.  The convention 'bounce' will likely dissipate the following week as the Democrats hold their convention in Charlotte, NC through September 6th.  President Obama will likely resume leadership in the polls by around 4-5 points.  Then the gloves will come off, the whips will be readied, and the horses will head down the backstretch toward the final turn.  For political junkies like me, it will be a fun ride!

The Bane Of It All

I'm sure everyone knows that Mitt Romney founded and directed Bain Capital for many years and reaped a personal fortune from his shrewd management, timely investments, and, yes, occasionally making deals that resulted in people losing their jobs, companies going bankrupt, and other forms of collateral damage.  So what?  That's what capitalism is and does.  For better or worse America has chosen to embrace a state-supported form of capitalism.  Now one of the barons of American capitalism is seeking to become the Chief Executive Officer of the free world.  Bain Capital has become the bane of Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations.  Why?

It's not that Romney's a wealthy guy or made a lot of money as a capitalist.  Americans, liberal and conservative alike, celebrate successful entrepreneurs (ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffett).  Most of us at one time dreamt that we could one day be like them, even though 99.99999999999 percent of us will never move beyond middle class no matter how hard we work.  Upward mobility in America is a myth perpetuated by politicians and the privileged class to mollify a population saddled with heavy debt and stagnant wages.  One recent study indicates that those wanting to climb the ladder of social mobility have a much better opportunity of doing so in most European countries than they do in the United States.   But I digress.

No, the reason Bain Capital is, or at least should be, an important issue in this election is because Mitt Romney has made it the central claim for why he should be elected president.  His argument is that he worked in the real economy, knows how to create (and destroy) jobs, knows what it takes to act as Chief Executive and be personally responsible for the people under him.  All these things are good things. But curiously, Romney now wants Bain to be off limits to scrutiny from the press, the public, and his opponent.  It is somehow an 'attack on success' to ask questions about exactly what did Mitt Romney do at Bain? How involved was he in decisions that exchanged equity for debt and led to companies filing for bankruptcy while Romney and his investors reaped tens of millions of dollars?  The man who wants to be America's CEO needs to provide Americans with a full accounting of his tenure at Bain Capital if he expects us to trust him with the most precious and powerful office in the world.

That's why it is imperative that Mitt Romney release his tax returns, not just for a year or two, but probably for 20 or 30 years.  How much did Mitt Romney profit while the employees at companies Bain invested in suffered as they lost their livelihoods and companies?  We have a right to know if we are going to invest this man with the power of the American Presidency.  Nobody cares, or should care, that Romney is part of the 1%...most of our political leaders are in that group...what we should care about is what he did to get there.  The name of the company Mitt Romney founded, Bain, is a homonym with the word bane.  Dictionary dot com defines the word bane as follows:

bane

  

noun

1.

a person or thing that ruins or spoils: Gambling was the bane ofhis existence.

2.

a deadly poison (often used in combination, as in the namesof poisonous plants): wolfsbane; henbane.

3.

death; destruction; ruin.

Ironically, what Mitt Romney did or did not do at Bain Capital may be the very thing that ruins his presidential ambitions.

Fighting the 'Submerged State:' Why Conservatives Really Fear Barack Obama

Conservatives are right to fear President Barack Obama and his agenda.  Of course, they spin deceitful lies about what the president is up to, where he was born, label him as a muslim, call him unpatriotic, and many other partisan political attacks in an effort to delegitimize him in the eyes of the American people.  All of these efforts are simply methods of obfuscation on the part of the GOP.  In other words, the Republicans want to confuse and confound the American people by calling things what they are not.  A few examples come to mind quickly, such as the nonexistent yet infamous 'death panels' in the Affordable Care Act and PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year', the government takeover of health care.  Neither of those things are a part of the law but the truth can be so limiting that Republicans feel they might as well make stuff up to scare the unwashed masses, who remain largely ignorant of public policy and who benefits from it.  Suzanne Mettler (The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy) makes a convincing argument that people are ignorant about government policies and their beneficiaries, especially social welfare policies, largely because they have been 'submerged' into the modern state.  In short, people who receive the benefits of these policies aren't even aware of the fact they are receiving government benefits.  Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2008 was largely about exposing the submerged state so that citizens would understand 'who gets what and how,' as Harold Lasswell famously stated.  That's what really scares conservatives about President Obama.

We've all heard the phrase uttered by the ignorant Tea Party conservative about keeping the government's hands off 'my' Medicare, right?  Perhaps you think that's an extreme example?  Consider the results of a survey of government issues conducted in 2008.  One of the questions asked respondents if they had ever received benefits from a government program.  Nearly 57% of respondents said they never had.  Later in the survey, 19 government programs were identified and it turned out that over 91% of respondents had used at least one government program at some time in their life, many without ever realizing it was, in fact, a government program.  For example, 60% of people claiming the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (HMID) said they had never benefitted from a government program.  Yet, the HMID is the 2nd largest tax expenditure in the IRS code, costing approximately $105 billion a year.  The vast majority of beneficiaries of this program apart from realtors, construction companies, and bankers?  American families with earnings of $60,000 a year or more.  In other words, it is a government program for the top 25% of income earners in the country.  Citizens with lower incomes typically don't have enough other deductions to itemize on their tax returns and thus are unable to claim this benefit.  A broader question that I won't answer here is why does the government subsidize economic activity that consumers are likely to engage in anyway?  It isn't as though wealthy Americans will stop buying homes and begin renting apartments if they are unable to deduct mortgage interest, is it?  Don't get me wrong, I've been able to claim this deduction for the last several years and I'm happy to do so.  A few more examples:  52% of people claiming the child and dependent care tax credit don't think they received a government benefit. Really?  My two favorites are the federal student loan program (53% of recipients don't think it is a government program) and Social Security (44% don't see it as a government program).  On the latter program people seem to believe they are only receiving back what they paid in.  Right.

Why do conservatives (and some Democrats) fear Barack Obama's attack on the submerged state?  Because many of their financial backers are dependent upon the subsidies they receive from submerged government programs.  Take the Republicans opposition to Obama's plan to end the more than $6 billion a year in federal subsidies to banks making student loans.  Student lenders spent on average about $80 million a year lobbying Congress in an (unsuccessful) effort to take student loan programs out of the hands of the private banks and create a direct lending system in which the government is the creditor, allowing more students access to federal loans at lower interest rates than ever before.  Guess what just disappeared?  Nearly $20 million a year in campaign contributions from student lending institutions to 'friendly' Republicans and Democrats.

This is just one example of Obama's war on the submerged state.  There are many others, including health care and the real estate industries (each contribute about $140 million to political parties, PACs, and campaigns annually), which spend about $60 million each per year on lobbying activities.  The benefits received by these industries each year is measured in billions of dollars.  And it's all under the radar of most Americans.  We see rallies and protests against government welfare programs designed to aid the poor and unfortunate, like providing health insurance to low income workers, but nary a word against the upward redistribution of wealth to bankers, realtors, and big pharmaceutical companies.  In the end, Mettler argues, the invisible nature of these programs disconnects citizens from their government.  Unearthing and making citizens aware of these issues may lead to a more activist base of citizens who get involved with their government.  This is why conservatives fear Barack Obama.  It is why they oppose full disclosure laws when it comes to political spending.  It is why they oppose 'Obamacare.'  It is why they support unlimited spending by wealthy corporate interests to sway the outcome of American elections in their favor.  A fully informed citizenry just might say enough is enough and put an end to the influence of big business in politics.  And that would have disastrous results for the party of big business, the GOP.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Every so often an issue comes along that involves all three branches of the federal government.  For the past three years that issue has been the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  President Obama made health care reform the central promise of his campaign in 2008 and followed through on that commitment in 2009 and 2010.  Congress considered and debated ways to provide health insurance to more Americans for the better part of a year beginning in March 2009 and culminating with the passage of the ACA in December of 2009 after an extremely contentious process in the Senate.  Things moved back to the House in March 2010 when the House agreed to the Senate bill, provided the Senate would adopt some 'fix' measures that House Democratic moderates insisted upon.  The President signed the ACA on March 23, 2010.  Using a process known as reconciliation both chambers then took up the 'fix' package and passed it in short order.  The president signed the changes into law on March 30, 2010.  Then the legal battles began.

For more than two years, observers waited for the ACA to make it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Arguments centered around two key provisions:  1)  Could Congress mandate that all Americans obtain a minimum standard of health insurance coverage or pay a fine and; 2) Could the government withhold all Medicaid funds from states if they did not expand their Medicaid rolls to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level?  On Thursday, the Court ruled yes and no to the first question and no to the second question.  Huh?

As Inigo Montoya said to the Man in Black (Princess Bride), "le' me sum up."  On the first question a majority of the Court said that Congress could not use its power to regulate commerce to require Americans to buy health insurance.  This was a big win for conservatives, even if they fail to see it because of their hatred of Barack Obama and his signature initiative.  The ruling places further restrictions upon Congress use of the commerce clause, continuing a pattern of Court decisions that have been issued since Lopez v. United States (1995).  In that case, the Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act, which banned the possession of a gun within certain distances of a school.  Further limitations on Congress' commerce clause power came in Printz v. United States (1997), and a series of other cases.  In that sense, the ruling in the ACA case was perfectly consistent with a conservative understanding of the constitution.  At the same time, however, a majority of the Court agreed that Congress could impose a tax on consumers who fail to acquire minimally acceptable health insurance, thus upholding the ACA.

On the second question, the Court by a 7-2 majority ruled that the federal government may not punish a state by withholding all Medicaid funds if it fails to increase Medicaid coverage to all citizens within 133% of FPL.  This is yet another win for the conservatives and federalism.  Ultimately, coercion is the only power the federal government has over states in areas not involving civil rights and/or equal protection.  The government has long used this power of coercion to bring states into line with federal mandates.  It may not be able to do so any longer.  Practically, it remains to be seen what the impact of the ruling will be but it is conceivable that states may be able to lower the drinking age if they wish without fear of losing federal highway funds, ignore the provisions of No Child Left Behind without jeopardizing federal education assistance, and a plethora of other issues.  If this reading of the ruling pans out, conservatives may get what they want:  50 states with 50 separate sets of laws and a much weaker federal government.

In what may have been one of the most politically calculated decisions in the history of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, in the mold of the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, awarded victory to both liberals and conservatives in one case while deferring to the elected branches on the question of policy wisdom, and maintained the independent integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court.  To be sure, opponents of 'Obamacare' won't see it this way due to their partisan and ideological blinders.  But from an institutionalist's view, it was by all accounts a brilliant political maneuver.

Watergate 40th Anniversary

Here's a video clip from the Columbus, MS CBS affiliate with a story about Watergate 40 years later.  The reporter and camera crew showed up in my office moments before class began.   The Watergate story begins at the 3:25 mark and my comments follow the introduction.  A couple of my students are also featured in the interviews.

WCBI News at 6, June 18, 2012

The Beat Goes On

You're probably wondering what this video has to do with a blog about the presidency and Congress, right?  Well, Sonny Bono was a congressman after his entertainment career ended...though some might say what Congress does IS entertainment for the political class.  And that, dear reader, is entirely the point.  The beat does indeed go on.  Partisans on both sides of the aisle seek ways to make the other side look bad so as to gain an advantage for their own party.  A new blog out this week makes the case that what we're seeing in Congress is not so much ideological polarization as it is hyper-partisanship.  In a polarized system, individuals disagree ideologically about pretty much everything that's important.  In a hyper-partisan system, individuals may agree with each other but oppose each other anyway so as to avoid allowing the 'other side' to get any credit for successful accomplishments.  That's largely where we are now as we watch Republicans voting against things they've always supported (and will support again if they unify control of government).  I speak of things like the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.  It was, after all, a Republican idea.  But because a Democratic President empaneled the commission it had to die a miserable death so Republicans could claim the president wasn't serious about deficit reduction.  Of course, the president hasn't helped his cause either.  He should be barnstorming the country demanding that the Republicans (and the Democratic Senate) get serious about the problem now instead of playing partisan games to make each other look bad.  Both parties are acting like spoiled school children trying to impress the teacher by smearing mud on the other kid's face.  And the beat goes on....

Another example is yesterday's vote in the House on a bill that would prohibit abortion based on gender selection by imposing criminal penalties on both women and doctors who performed such abortions, knowingly or unknowingly.  The House rules committee rigged the vote so the bill would fail by requiring a 2/3 majority (290 votes when all seats are filled) to pass...knowing full well the bill would fall well short of that number.  Predictably, it failed by a 246-168, mostly along partisan lines, though some Republicans opposed and a few more Democrats voted in favor of the bill.  It is this kind of nonsense legislation that tunes Americans out to politics.  Nobody in their right mind supports abortion  based on the gender of the fetus.  In fact, most abortions take place before it is even possible to discern gender.  But, as GOP operatives admitted, it forced many Democrats to go on the record opposing the bill, which will then be spun as supporting 'gender-selection' abortions.  And the beat goes on.....