Barack Obama and the Democratic majority House in its last few days not only passed a substantial Tax break plan (that will dramatically increase not only economic growth, but perhaps more importantly the perception of impending economic growth), but also got through some other, very substantial legislation during one of the most athletic "lame duck" sessions in history. Among the other initiatives are:
•A repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, which Obama signed Wednesday. Military leaders will need months to implement it.
•A $4.2 billion measure that will benefit rescue workers who toiled at the World Trade Center in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks. It offers health assistance for those sickened by dust and debris. Congress passed the bill Wednesday after trimming its cost from $6.2 billion.
•A sweeping rewrite of the nation's food-safety laws that will give the Food and Drug Administration more power to inspect food production facilities and issue mandatory recalls of tainted products. After a phase-in period, high-risk food facilities will be inspected every three years.
•A $4.5 billion child nutrition plan that will expand the school lunch program and allow the government to set new standards for school meals, including in vending machines. The measure, championed by first lady Michelle Obama, would increase by 115,000 the number of low-income students who qualify for free or discounted meals.
It does make you wonder why all of this had to wait until after the mid-term elections especially when public opinion on these laws are very favorable. However, public impression of President Obama has seemed to improve and it would not be surprising for his public opinion ratings to move north of 50% and stay there for the remainder of his term. It is nearly impossible to defeat a sitting president with those ratings, so these legislative victories may have some additional long-term effects.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Tax Breaks and the Comeback Kid
The report of Barack Obama's demise is a bit premature. In fact, I think he just needed to lower everyone's expectations. Nothing does that in politics quite as well as getting trounced in midterm elections and losing the House.
Few expected the lame-duck session in this environment to provide compelling results, and yet if you scratched below the surface, this is exactly what you should have expected.
The Dems were in the final weeks of having control of the House and will lose several voting seats in the Senate. There were also several items on the Dems to-do list still in the hopper and the President felt strongly about several of them.
As I mentioned in my post Stand or Deliver, the President began the lame-duck session needing to pass some legislation that provided tax cuts for the Middle Class. He had to give in to Republican desires to also provide them for marginal taxable income above $250,000 for families, but was able to negotiate several other key Dem benefits that would have been impossible come January. In fact, they should have been impossible in December since the Repubs could have just kept saying no and then passed something in January when they had a strong majority in the House.
The Senate passed the Tax Cuts by a resounding 81-19 and after some chest-pumping by House Dems attempting to modify the new Estate tax rate (35%) and exemption level ($5 million), the same legislation passed the House 277-148 just before midnight.
If this were it, I would say Obama may have paved his path to re-election, but in the waning hours of this session of Congress, he stands a good chance to get his desired repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, get additional health coverage for 9/11 responders and to a lesser extent may also have a shot to get the START treaty passed. Not only is Obama getting more Dem-centric legislation passed in his first 2 years than almost any previous president, he is starting to get Republican votes and moderate voters love a president who can do that.
For the second time this month, I am posting a link to an article written by Charles Krauthammer, this one on Obama's Comeback. If Mr. Krauthammer and I can see eye-to-eye on things, perhaps this bipartisan stuff has a chance.
Few expected the lame-duck session in this environment to provide compelling results, and yet if you scratched below the surface, this is exactly what you should have expected.
The Dems were in the final weeks of having control of the House and will lose several voting seats in the Senate. There were also several items on the Dems to-do list still in the hopper and the President felt strongly about several of them.
As I mentioned in my post Stand or Deliver, the President began the lame-duck session needing to pass some legislation that provided tax cuts for the Middle Class. He had to give in to Republican desires to also provide them for marginal taxable income above $250,000 for families, but was able to negotiate several other key Dem benefits that would have been impossible come January. In fact, they should have been impossible in December since the Repubs could have just kept saying no and then passed something in January when they had a strong majority in the House.
The Senate passed the Tax Cuts by a resounding 81-19 and after some chest-pumping by House Dems attempting to modify the new Estate tax rate (35%) and exemption level ($5 million), the same legislation passed the House 277-148 just before midnight.
If this were it, I would say Obama may have paved his path to re-election, but in the waning hours of this session of Congress, he stands a good chance to get his desired repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, get additional health coverage for 9/11 responders and to a lesser extent may also have a shot to get the START treaty passed. Not only is Obama getting more Dem-centric legislation passed in his first 2 years than almost any previous president, he is starting to get Republican votes and moderate voters love a president who can do that.
For the second time this month, I am posting a link to an article written by Charles Krauthammer, this one on Obama's Comeback. If Mr. Krauthammer and I can see eye-to-eye on things, perhaps this bipartisan stuff has a chance.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Stand or Deliver
The situation behind today's post makes about as much sense as the 1980's song/video by Adam Ant, Stand and Deliver.
President Obama had a choice, STAND on his belief that the top 2% of wage earners should not have the decrease to their top marginal tax rates extended, or DELIVER a package of benefits to the low and middle class including a 2% payroll tax decrease in 2011, a 13 month extension of extended unemployment payments, the extension of college tuition tax credits and a business investment depreciation waiver that would highly incent businesses to spend money now. Obama chose the later.
For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama is hearing the combination of praise from the Right and outrage from the Left. Today, House Democrats passed a resolution saying they reject the deal brokered by Obama and House Republicans saying they will not bring it to the floor for a vote. I kind of doubt that. Maybe the House Dems will negotiate some small changes and bring that up for a vote, but one of the first things a good negotiator does is understand who has leverage and how much. In a few weeks, the 112th Congress will be seated and the Republicans, not the Dems, will be in the majority. They are most certainly going to bring the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for all up for a vote and it will pass. There is also no reason to believe they will be as generous in also providing the above-mentioned tax benefits for the middle class. That is called leverage. The Dems know it or at least should know it. Everything else has just been grandstanding for their constituents.
If Nancy Pelosi believes she can get a modified plan agreeable to the Republicans that doesn't include Bush Tax Cut extensions for taxable family incomes over $250,000, by all means have at it. If she thinks she can get the Republicans to agree to modifying the Estate Tax proposal from a $5Million waiver and 35% tax on amounts above that level, go for it. (I think the level should be somewhere between $3-$5Million, but feel strongly that that Estate Tax should not be higher than the highest marginal income tax rate, so I am good with 35% right now.)
Despite all the sturm and drang from Dems on the Obama Compromise/Capitulation on taxes, this is the very best deal the Dems could have dreamed to get in the last month of their majority in the House. In fact, Charles Krauthammer, who I so rarely agree with you would think one of us is intentionally choosing an opinion that is directly opposite that held by the other, is calling this Obama Tax Compromise the Swindle of the Year. I agree with him so much, that for what undoubtedly will be the only time in history, I will show the opening lines of his recent editorial in the Washington Post:
Krauthammer maintains and I certainly agree that "...the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012." I could quote more to reinforce my points, but please go to the article and read for yourself.
So the Republicans, led by Tea Party supporters, swept into the House and Senate with a big push for lowering the deficit. Of all the outrage I am hearing and reading about, strangely, very little is coming from the Right on the deficit increase. Democrats, long the sponsors of taking care of the middle class have before them perhaps the largest stimulus legislation ever affecting the middle class and they are complaining that high wage earners are getting to keep an additional 3-4% of their taxable wages above $250K for another 2 years.
It does appear that we are cursed to be living in interesting times.
President Obama had a choice, STAND on his belief that the top 2% of wage earners should not have the decrease to their top marginal tax rates extended, or DELIVER a package of benefits to the low and middle class including a 2% payroll tax decrease in 2011, a 13 month extension of extended unemployment payments, the extension of college tuition tax credits and a business investment depreciation waiver that would highly incent businesses to spend money now. Obama chose the later.
For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama is hearing the combination of praise from the Right and outrage from the Left. Today, House Democrats passed a resolution saying they reject the deal brokered by Obama and House Republicans saying they will not bring it to the floor for a vote. I kind of doubt that. Maybe the House Dems will negotiate some small changes and bring that up for a vote, but one of the first things a good negotiator does is understand who has leverage and how much. In a few weeks, the 112th Congress will be seated and the Republicans, not the Dems, will be in the majority. They are most certainly going to bring the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for all up for a vote and it will pass. There is also no reason to believe they will be as generous in also providing the above-mentioned tax benefits for the middle class. That is called leverage. The Dems know it or at least should know it. Everything else has just been grandstanding for their constituents.
If Nancy Pelosi believes she can get a modified plan agreeable to the Republicans that doesn't include Bush Tax Cut extensions for taxable family incomes over $250,000, by all means have at it. If she thinks she can get the Republicans to agree to modifying the Estate Tax proposal from a $5Million waiver and 35% tax on amounts above that level, go for it. (I think the level should be somewhere between $3-$5Million, but feel strongly that that Estate Tax should not be higher than the highest marginal income tax rate, so I am good with 35% right now.)
Despite all the sturm and drang from Dems on the Obama Compromise/Capitulation on taxes, this is the very best deal the Dems could have dreamed to get in the last month of their majority in the House. In fact, Charles Krauthammer, who I so rarely agree with you would think one of us is intentionally choosing an opinion that is directly opposite that held by the other, is calling this Obama Tax Compromise the Swindle of the Year. I agree with him so much, that for what undoubtedly will be the only time in history, I will show the opening lines of his recent editorial in the Washington Post:
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
Krauthammer maintains and I certainly agree that "...the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012." I could quote more to reinforce my points, but please go to the article and read for yourself.
So the Republicans, led by Tea Party supporters, swept into the House and Senate with a big push for lowering the deficit. Of all the outrage I am hearing and reading about, strangely, very little is coming from the Right on the deficit increase. Democrats, long the sponsors of taking care of the middle class have before them perhaps the largest stimulus legislation ever affecting the middle class and they are complaining that high wage earners are getting to keep an additional 3-4% of their taxable wages above $250K for another 2 years.
It does appear that we are cursed to be living in interesting times.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Dollars, Taxes
That is what the current debate in DC is all about really. No, not the city with a team that has a star on their heads, the conflict between dollars owed as part of the National Debt and the concept of maintaining tax cuts put into place 10 years ago that expire at the end of this year. These "Bush tax Cuts" were passed through Reconciliation (attached to the budget which can't be filibustered, only voted up or down) and therefore have a 10 year expiration date. At the time, there were no budget cuts made to offset the tax cuts so they have added a nice chunk to the current National Debt.
Which is one reason why we are where we are today.
Our National Debt is at an all-time high and projected to continue growing. However, Congress is battling over whether to maintain tax breaks just for taxable income levels up to $250,000 or to extend them for all levels of taxable income. That is right, the measure passed by the House (with no Republican support) does provide the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone. It just stops the benefits at a taxable income level of $250,000 for families ($200,000 for individuals). The plan passed in the house would increase the margin tax rate on dollars above the $250,000 level by 3-4%. So, 100% of all taxpayers get to keep a tax cut. For 98% of all taxpayers, they get the exact same amount of tax cuts as passed by the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. It is just the marginal taxable income above $250,000 for the highest earning 2% of the population that Congress is arguing about. It seems counter-intuitive that we can talk about suffocating debt throughout the Fall campaign season and then be willing to make it bigger just a month later, but that is where we are.
President Barack Obama campaigned on not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 (in some conversations he said 95% of the American public). In fact, he has lowered taxes already for a little over 95% though the Making Work Pay tax credits of $400 for an individual and $800 per family in 2009 and 2010.
In some Democratic circles, there is the desire to call the Republicans bluff and make them filibuster for this extra tax cut for the top 2% of earners while holding tax cuts for the lower and middle class hostage. People harken back to when preisdent Bill Clinton called the bluff of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress on the budget and shut down the government. People became outraged and called their local congressman. A budget had to be passed at some point and Clinton was able to draw a line in the sand and stay there until Congress was forced to come back to him and accept his budget. The same cannot be said about the current Tax Cut situation. The Republicans would be quite OK with letting the tax cuts subside because they know that more harm would be done to Obama than to them. So Obama and the Dems do not have a strong bargaining position. I think the Dems could have played chicken with the Repubs if they had brought this bill to the floor much earlier in the year, but that luxury is gone.
The National Debt will still be a problem 2 years from now regardless of what bill does or doesn't get passed now, but the tax cuts are a big deal now. Also on the table are the continuation of extended unemployment benefits.
The sign of a good negotiator is one who realizes what they can't get, and uses that to maximize how much they get. At this point it is very likely that President Obama realizes his only choices are the temporary extension of all Bush Tax Cuts or none of them. He doesn't want the lower and middle class to be worse off, so he will settle on the 2 more years of tax cuts for taxable income above $250,000. The mark of how good a job he does in negotiating is to see what he gets in return. I assume there will be a 1 year extension of extended unemployment benefits, but it would be interesting if he is able to slip in anything else as well. Stay tuned.
Which is one reason why we are where we are today.
Our National Debt is at an all-time high and projected to continue growing. However, Congress is battling over whether to maintain tax breaks just for taxable income levels up to $250,000 or to extend them for all levels of taxable income. That is right, the measure passed by the House (with no Republican support) does provide the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone. It just stops the benefits at a taxable income level of $250,000 for families ($200,000 for individuals). The plan passed in the house would increase the margin tax rate on dollars above the $250,000 level by 3-4%. So, 100% of all taxpayers get to keep a tax cut. For 98% of all taxpayers, they get the exact same amount of tax cuts as passed by the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. It is just the marginal taxable income above $250,000 for the highest earning 2% of the population that Congress is arguing about. It seems counter-intuitive that we can talk about suffocating debt throughout the Fall campaign season and then be willing to make it bigger just a month later, but that is where we are.
President Barack Obama campaigned on not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 (in some conversations he said 95% of the American public). In fact, he has lowered taxes already for a little over 95% though the Making Work Pay tax credits of $400 for an individual and $800 per family in 2009 and 2010.
In some Democratic circles, there is the desire to call the Republicans bluff and make them filibuster for this extra tax cut for the top 2% of earners while holding tax cuts for the lower and middle class hostage. People harken back to when preisdent Bill Clinton called the bluff of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress on the budget and shut down the government. People became outraged and called their local congressman. A budget had to be passed at some point and Clinton was able to draw a line in the sand and stay there until Congress was forced to come back to him and accept his budget. The same cannot be said about the current Tax Cut situation. The Republicans would be quite OK with letting the tax cuts subside because they know that more harm would be done to Obama than to them. So Obama and the Dems do not have a strong bargaining position. I think the Dems could have played chicken with the Repubs if they had brought this bill to the floor much earlier in the year, but that luxury is gone.
The National Debt will still be a problem 2 years from now regardless of what bill does or doesn't get passed now, but the tax cuts are a big deal now. Also on the table are the continuation of extended unemployment benefits.
The sign of a good negotiator is one who realizes what they can't get, and uses that to maximize how much they get. At this point it is very likely that President Obama realizes his only choices are the temporary extension of all Bush Tax Cuts or none of them. He doesn't want the lower and middle class to be worse off, so he will settle on the 2 more years of tax cuts for taxable income above $250,000. The mark of how good a job he does in negotiating is to see what he gets in return. I assume there will be a 1 year extension of extended unemployment benefits, but it would be interesting if he is able to slip in anything else as well. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Do Deficits Matter?
This is a classic question posed to Economics students for several decades. In fact, I can remember being asked that question in Econ 1 in 1978. Most of the students said yes, the professor answered "not really". A better, although less precise answer would have been, "it depends".
First some terminology so we are on the same page. A deficit is the amount of money spent in a year that is more than revenue. This amount gets added to the national debt, which is the accumulation of all annual debts and surpluses over the years. Sometimes, perhaps because they both begin with the same letter, they are used interchangeably. We will actually use both terms to help give some depth to the discussion.
The graph below measures the entire national debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or the amount of goods and services produced in the US in a year. I like this measure because it gives us a sense of how big the debt is compared with our economy and also effectively adjusts the amount for inflation.
(Numbers courtesy of presidentialdebt.org)
As you can see by looking at the graph for 1978, my professor was probably more correct than the students as that level of 34% is lower than the level for almost any year since. We would be very happy now to get our Debt/GDP ratio down to 34%. This ratio floated up from a low of 32.9% at the end of 1981 to 67.1% at the end of 1993. At that point it hovered and then dropped during the Clinton Administration. However, only the only surplus was in 2000 (drop of 2% in actual dollars). In the preceeding years, the debt just didn't rise as fast as GDP, and therefore became a smaller percentage.
While that might seem like it is obscuring debt increases (and to some extent it is), it is giving a better picture of the impact. To get a better look at it, imagine that we are running a deficit and adding to the debt every year for 10 years and that each year, our GDP grows by 3%. However, our annual deficit is only a single dollar. At the end of this 10 year period, our deficit will be $10 larger (insignificant on a $13 Trillion debt) but our GDP will be almost 35% larger. Our national debt as a percentage of GDP will have shrunk by about 25%.
So again, why is that important? Well, assuming that our Government Revenue (read taxes) as a percentage of GDP remains fairly constant, our ability to pay the interest on our national debt is relative to our GDP. If the debt becomes too large as a percentage of GDP, the interest payments begin to take on too large a percentage of our tax revenue, thereby squeezing out other expenditures and/or increasing the debt even further. In fact, the US has among the lowest ratio of tax revenue to GDP among developed countries. This chart also includes state and local taxes and shows that almost all of Europe is higher than the US with only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan lower.
So what is the correct level of debt/GDP? Well, assuming that there is no reasonable way we can make this 0% anytime within our lifetime, it appears that bringing it back to a level under 70% would be prudent. Once we are there, we should attempt to find non-draconian ways to bring it back into the 50% range which is the long-term post-WWII average.
So now that we have that question answered, how do we make that happen? Well that is a topic for at least a few future posts, but just a few comments and a nice toy for you to play with. I am happy the Republican Party with a large assist from the Tea Party has gotten religion about deficits. I won't slap them about that belief running in stark contrast to their last 30 years of leadership because I really hope they mean it this time. I think they will be in trouble in 2 years if they don't follow through on it this time, so, for their sake and the sake of the country, I hope they are good on their word. They will also have to face the fact that you can't reduce the deficit significantly without increasing taxes and making reductions in defense spending and Social Security and Medicare benefits.
However, you can make adjustments to Defense, Social Security and Medicare and make some tax adjustments that don't seem devastating. Want to play King of the World (or at least Chief Poo-bah of the US Economy? Try your hand at this nifty interactive toy from the New York Times that lets you figure out how to balance the budget. Let me know what percentage of tax increases and spending cuts you come up with by leaving a comment. Enjoy.
First some terminology so we are on the same page. A deficit is the amount of money spent in a year that is more than revenue. This amount gets added to the national debt, which is the accumulation of all annual debts and surpluses over the years. Sometimes, perhaps because they both begin with the same letter, they are used interchangeably. We will actually use both terms to help give some depth to the discussion.
The graph below measures the entire national debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or the amount of goods and services produced in the US in a year. I like this measure because it gives us a sense of how big the debt is compared with our economy and also effectively adjusts the amount for inflation.
As you can see by looking at the graph for 1978, my professor was probably more correct than the students as that level of 34% is lower than the level for almost any year since. We would be very happy now to get our Debt/GDP ratio down to 34%. This ratio floated up from a low of 32.9% at the end of 1981 to 67.1% at the end of 1993. At that point it hovered and then dropped during the Clinton Administration. However, only the only surplus was in 2000 (drop of 2% in actual dollars). In the preceeding years, the debt just didn't rise as fast as GDP, and therefore became a smaller percentage.
While that might seem like it is obscuring debt increases (and to some extent it is), it is giving a better picture of the impact. To get a better look at it, imagine that we are running a deficit and adding to the debt every year for 10 years and that each year, our GDP grows by 3%. However, our annual deficit is only a single dollar. At the end of this 10 year period, our deficit will be $10 larger (insignificant on a $13 Trillion debt) but our GDP will be almost 35% larger. Our national debt as a percentage of GDP will have shrunk by about 25%.
So again, why is that important? Well, assuming that our Government Revenue (read taxes) as a percentage of GDP remains fairly constant, our ability to pay the interest on our national debt is relative to our GDP. If the debt becomes too large as a percentage of GDP, the interest payments begin to take on too large a percentage of our tax revenue, thereby squeezing out other expenditures and/or increasing the debt even further. In fact, the US has among the lowest ratio of tax revenue to GDP among developed countries. This chart also includes state and local taxes and shows that almost all of Europe is higher than the US with only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan lower.
So what is the correct level of debt/GDP? Well, assuming that there is no reasonable way we can make this 0% anytime within our lifetime, it appears that bringing it back to a level under 70% would be prudent. Once we are there, we should attempt to find non-draconian ways to bring it back into the 50% range which is the long-term post-WWII average.
So now that we have that question answered, how do we make that happen? Well that is a topic for at least a few future posts, but just a few comments and a nice toy for you to play with. I am happy the Republican Party with a large assist from the Tea Party has gotten religion about deficits. I won't slap them about that belief running in stark contrast to their last 30 years of leadership because I really hope they mean it this time. I think they will be in trouble in 2 years if they don't follow through on it this time, so, for their sake and the sake of the country, I hope they are good on their word. They will also have to face the fact that you can't reduce the deficit significantly without increasing taxes and making reductions in defense spending and Social Security and Medicare benefits.
However, you can make adjustments to Defense, Social Security and Medicare and make some tax adjustments that don't seem devastating. Want to play King of the World (or at least Chief Poo-bah of the US Economy? Try your hand at this nifty interactive toy from the New York Times that lets you figure out how to balance the budget. Let me know what percentage of tax increases and spending cuts you come up with by leaving a comment. Enjoy.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
2010 Mid-Term Elections Review
Well, not too bad a prediction job by The Voting Booth.
We called the Senate final tally on the button 51(+2) - 47. We were a little bit low on the number of seats Republicans would take in the House. We said 55 and they have picked up 60 to date with a few more seats still being determined by recounts.
Definitely a wave election or at least a swinging of the pendulum back to somewhere around the levels prior to the 2006 & 2008 elections. The Senate is still a little more Democratic than prior to the 2008 elections, but is a little more Republican than prior to the 2006 elections. 2012 shapes up to be a very interesting election on all fronts.
First, a congratulations to the Republican Party. Just two years ago, it seemed more likely that the party would be disbanded than that they would take back the House and make major gains in the Senate. Republicans are just better at the political game than Democrats. Occasionally, in situations like 2008, the Dems can message and GOTV equal to or better than the Republicans they have a registration advantage over. However, 2010 proved to be a storm too big for a good GOTV hampered by horrible messaging.
As in most election years, if the economy is an issue, it will bury the party in power. Combined with a mid-term trend away from the party in power probably explains 50-75% of the outcome. Regardless of what they did, there was no way Democrats were going to lose less than 30-40 seats in the House or less than 3-4 seats in the Senate. The remaining difference was created by a brutal, ruthless and persistent messaging from Republicans starting from when they got their breathe back in early 2009. True, it was filled with fact stretches and outright lies (see Death Panels, "useless" Stimulus and Bailouts, etc.), but they were made believable at least to enough people who were motivated to vote and pull the "R" lever. It may not have much to do with statesmanship, but it was textbook politics.
A special mention goes to the Tea Party, who can reasonably claim to have put the lift back in the step of Republicans, generate anger and organize it. They can also be blamed for loosing the Senate as their primary wins in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada removed more mainstream candidates who would almost certainly have defeated their Democratic opponents. That would have made the Senate Dems 48(+2) Reps (50) and the chance for the Reps to pull Lieberman or one of the conservative Dem senators would have been pretty significant. Also a shout out to Lisa Murkowski for apparently winning the Alaska Senate seat as a write-in after she lost the Republican primary. By far the biggest slap in the face for Sarah Palin who despite some significant successes supporting Tea Party candidates during Republican primaries failed in the overwhelming majority of races on Nov 2nd against the Democratic candidates. The Tea Party giveth and the Tea Party taketh away.
We called the Senate final tally on the button 51(+2) - 47. We were a little bit low on the number of seats Republicans would take in the House. We said 55 and they have picked up 60 to date with a few more seats still being determined by recounts.
Definitely a wave election or at least a swinging of the pendulum back to somewhere around the levels prior to the 2006 & 2008 elections. The Senate is still a little more Democratic than prior to the 2008 elections, but is a little more Republican than prior to the 2006 elections. 2012 shapes up to be a very interesting election on all fronts.
First, a congratulations to the Republican Party. Just two years ago, it seemed more likely that the party would be disbanded than that they would take back the House and make major gains in the Senate. Republicans are just better at the political game than Democrats. Occasionally, in situations like 2008, the Dems can message and GOTV equal to or better than the Republicans they have a registration advantage over. However, 2010 proved to be a storm too big for a good GOTV hampered by horrible messaging.
As in most election years, if the economy is an issue, it will bury the party in power. Combined with a mid-term trend away from the party in power probably explains 50-75% of the outcome. Regardless of what they did, there was no way Democrats were going to lose less than 30-40 seats in the House or less than 3-4 seats in the Senate. The remaining difference was created by a brutal, ruthless and persistent messaging from Republicans starting from when they got their breathe back in early 2009. True, it was filled with fact stretches and outright lies (see Death Panels, "useless" Stimulus and Bailouts, etc.), but they were made believable at least to enough people who were motivated to vote and pull the "R" lever. It may not have much to do with statesmanship, but it was textbook politics.
A special mention goes to the Tea Party, who can reasonably claim to have put the lift back in the step of Republicans, generate anger and organize it. They can also be blamed for loosing the Senate as their primary wins in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada removed more mainstream candidates who would almost certainly have defeated their Democratic opponents. That would have made the Senate Dems 48(+2) Reps (50) and the chance for the Reps to pull Lieberman or one of the conservative Dem senators would have been pretty significant. Also a shout out to Lisa Murkowski for apparently winning the Alaska Senate seat as a write-in after she lost the Republican primary. By far the biggest slap in the face for Sarah Palin who despite some significant successes supporting Tea Party candidates during Republican primaries failed in the overwhelming majority of races on Nov 2nd against the Democratic candidates. The Tea Party giveth and the Tea Party taketh away.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Calling the 2010 Election
The Pendulum is swinging back.
For good or bad, the last 2 elections have swung dramatically in the direction of the Democrats taking the House, Senate and White House from the Republicans. During the last 2 election cycles, Democrats have gained 52 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate, giving them significant majorities during the past 2 years, larger than most differentials since the landslide elections of 1964. Under almost any circumstances, especially being the party in the White House, the Democrats could have expected some significant losses in the 2010 elections as the pendulum swings back a bit. Add to that an economy that continues to be bad, marked by almost 10% unemployment and a great deal of underemployment and those who have just plain left the workforce and you will get substantial losses. On top of all that is the politically wonderful (but in many cases morally deplorable and dishonest) job the Republican Party has done over the last 2 years, fighting the President on almost every issue and winning the message wars on almost every action taken by the Obama Administration. All this despite the fact that Republican Party has lower favorables than the Democratic Party and far lower than President Obama.
The question is not whether Republicans will have a very good day nationally on November 2nd, the question is how large will it be? Predictions are all over the place, but here is my call:
Republicans take the House gaining 55 seats to take a 17 seat majority (226-209)
Democrats lose 6 seats, but hold onto the Senate 51-47 with the 2 independents caucusing with the Democrats for an effective 53-47 edge.
This brings the House pretty much back to the balance that existed just prior to the 2006 elections, but the Democrats still have a slightly larger majority in the Senate than they had entering the 2008 elections. There are a lot of Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in 2012, so unless Obama wins convincingly in 2012 and has some coattails, the Senate could turn Republican in 2 more years. even if it doesn't happen Nov 2.
For good or bad, the last 2 elections have swung dramatically in the direction of the Democrats taking the House, Senate and White House from the Republicans. During the last 2 election cycles, Democrats have gained 52 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate, giving them significant majorities during the past 2 years, larger than most differentials since the landslide elections of 1964. Under almost any circumstances, especially being the party in the White House, the Democrats could have expected some significant losses in the 2010 elections as the pendulum swings back a bit. Add to that an economy that continues to be bad, marked by almost 10% unemployment and a great deal of underemployment and those who have just plain left the workforce and you will get substantial losses. On top of all that is the politically wonderful (but in many cases morally deplorable and dishonest) job the Republican Party has done over the last 2 years, fighting the President on almost every issue and winning the message wars on almost every action taken by the Obama Administration. All this despite the fact that Republican Party has lower favorables than the Democratic Party and far lower than President Obama.
The question is not whether Republicans will have a very good day nationally on November 2nd, the question is how large will it be? Predictions are all over the place, but here is my call:
Republicans take the House gaining 55 seats to take a 17 seat majority (226-209)
Democrats lose 6 seats, but hold onto the Senate 51-47 with the 2 independents caucusing with the Democrats for an effective 53-47 edge.
This brings the House pretty much back to the balance that existed just prior to the 2006 elections, but the Democrats still have a slightly larger majority in the Senate than they had entering the 2008 elections. There are a lot of Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in 2012, so unless Obama wins convincingly in 2012 and has some coattails, the Senate could turn Republican in 2 more years. even if it doesn't happen Nov 2.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Price of Bad Communication
By most accounts, the Democrats can expect to loose a lot of seats in the House next Tuesday, almost certainly putting the Republicans in the majority. Control of the Senate is still up for grabs although it seems that the Dems may hold onto it thanks perhaps to the Tea Party in Delaware.
In most election years, over 90% of House members are safe, leaving only 40 or so to scurry around campaigning for their jobs. This election cycle that number has at least doubled. While there are probably individual cases of (unusually) poor performance by a sitting House member, most in danger are not the cause of their problems. The country, by and large, is fed up with those in charge and most specifically, the Obama Administration.
So, I ask why? Why all the disdain? Why all the concern over the deficit now and not 2 years ago (or 4 or 6 or 8...). Why all these complaints on rising taxes when federal taxes have actually dropped over the last 2 years and are at their lowest level in many years? With unemployment hovering just under 10%, many are concerned about losing their job and with it their health insurance. So why are so many people angry that Health Care Reform just guaranteed that even if they lose their job, they will still be able to get health insurance, and for many at discounted rates? For those on the Far Left, didn't you just get more legislation passed that met your hopes and desires than at any time since the Johnson administration? For everyone else, what were you expecting?
53% of those voting in the 2008 Presidential Election selected Barack Obama over John McCain to lead the country for the next 4 years. His policies and opinions were pretty clear at that time. Here is the shocker...Obama has done pretty much what he said he was going to do. So where is the surprise? Granted, he didn't get as much through in the health Care Reform bill as he advocated, but that was the political sausage making and frankly that should only potentially upset the far left. The Stimulus Package wasn't as big as he wanted it and although many economists have complained that is why we are still mired with unemployment at this level, the general public isn't complaining that it wasn't big enough.
So what gives? It turns out that although the Obama team was historic in getting out their message in the 2008 election, they are pretty miserable in selling their story once in power. A lot of really good things have happened in this Administration:
We were at the precipice of an economic disaster that could have made the Great Depression look like a bad hair day. I was trained as an Economist and for the first time in my life, I was actually scared about the financial future of this country. If 9.6% unemployment sounds bad, put a "1" in front of it, because that is about what we would have seen. The auto industry would have collapsed as well as every company supporting them, dealers, parts manufacturers, etc. As bad as Detroit is now, it would have been apocalyptic. But few people understand what 'could' have happened, only what they see. "You stopped me from running into the oncoming car, but I scraped my knee." But Christine Romer kept harping that unemployment would stay below 8%. Bad, bad, bad move. I understand not wanted fear to set in, but you never win by setting high expectations. If statements had been made that untouched, unemployment would reach 14%, but we believe we can take actions that will keep it under 10%, the Obama Administration might be considered heroes now, because that is exactly what they have done.
The Health Care Reform Bill provides health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, enables those under age 26 to stay on their parents plan, prevents discrimination against "pre-existing conditions", eliminates the annual and lifetime benefit cap and according to the CBO will actually SAVE $143 Billion over the next 10 years. It is tough to be against any of these things. Those opposed usually site the cost of $1 Trillion dollars, and don't acknowledge that the cost reductions exceed the cost creating a net savings. Several previous presidents have tried unsuccessfully to accomplish this and failed. By not harping over and over again on the benefits and the cost savings rather than the cost and explaining it in terms that people could understand and cling to, this monumental social change program will be vastly underappreciated for a very long time.
Tax Reduction - Not a term associated with the Obama Administration and yet, that is what they have done. The Making Work Pay provision provided almost half of the $240 Million in tax cuts created by the Obama Administration providing a $400 per year credit for individuals and $800 for married couples. This benefit accrued to individual filers with taxable income under $75,000 and couples filing jointly under $150,000. Don't think you got it? Pull out your 2009 return and look at line 63 or look here for the IRS information. The actual calculation was done on Schedule M.
Handling 2 Wars - All combat troops have been removed from Iraq with about 50,000 peacekeeping troops still there, that number declining over time. There was a large buildup in Afghanistan with a scheduled pullout next year in an attempt to stabilize that country. Obama came through on his promise on Iraq. He went against the wishes of many of his supporters on Afghanistan, but it may very well have been the right choice. A very difficult and unpopular one, but perhaps the best for long-term considerations.
There are a few other items covered quite well in this article in Rolling Stone. Not a place I normally recommend for even handed political coverage (and it does have its rah-rah moments), but overall a pretty decent characterization of where we are.
This recent poll by Bloomberg shows that "...by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered." All of which is wrong. Americans are generally not very educated in history, but these are current events. Granted there has been a concerted effort by the President's detractors to accentuate the problems and misdirect or outright lie about current issues, but the facts are on the side of the Democrats and yet they run away from them.
If the Obama Administration were as good at telling their story as the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, the Democrats might have still held on to the House and Senate. But split government isn't the worst thing. Everybody has their neck on the line. If nothing gets done, everyone is to blame, so they have to find a way to play nice at least long enough to have something to claim during the run-up to the 2012 election. If not, then Obama gets to run his 2012 campaign against a "Do Nothing" Republican-led House and history tells us that has worked pretty well.
In most election years, over 90% of House members are safe, leaving only 40 or so to scurry around campaigning for their jobs. This election cycle that number has at least doubled. While there are probably individual cases of (unusually) poor performance by a sitting House member, most in danger are not the cause of their problems. The country, by and large, is fed up with those in charge and most specifically, the Obama Administration.
So, I ask why? Why all the disdain? Why all the concern over the deficit now and not 2 years ago (or 4 or 6 or 8...). Why all these complaints on rising taxes when federal taxes have actually dropped over the last 2 years and are at their lowest level in many years? With unemployment hovering just under 10%, many are concerned about losing their job and with it their health insurance. So why are so many people angry that Health Care Reform just guaranteed that even if they lose their job, they will still be able to get health insurance, and for many at discounted rates? For those on the Far Left, didn't you just get more legislation passed that met your hopes and desires than at any time since the Johnson administration? For everyone else, what were you expecting?
53% of those voting in the 2008 Presidential Election selected Barack Obama over John McCain to lead the country for the next 4 years. His policies and opinions were pretty clear at that time. Here is the shocker...Obama has done pretty much what he said he was going to do. So where is the surprise? Granted, he didn't get as much through in the health Care Reform bill as he advocated, but that was the political sausage making and frankly that should only potentially upset the far left. The Stimulus Package wasn't as big as he wanted it and although many economists have complained that is why we are still mired with unemployment at this level, the general public isn't complaining that it wasn't big enough.
So what gives? It turns out that although the Obama team was historic in getting out their message in the 2008 election, they are pretty miserable in selling their story once in power. A lot of really good things have happened in this Administration:
We were at the precipice of an economic disaster that could have made the Great Depression look like a bad hair day. I was trained as an Economist and for the first time in my life, I was actually scared about the financial future of this country. If 9.6% unemployment sounds bad, put a "1" in front of it, because that is about what we would have seen. The auto industry would have collapsed as well as every company supporting them, dealers, parts manufacturers, etc. As bad as Detroit is now, it would have been apocalyptic. But few people understand what 'could' have happened, only what they see. "You stopped me from running into the oncoming car, but I scraped my knee." But Christine Romer kept harping that unemployment would stay below 8%. Bad, bad, bad move. I understand not wanted fear to set in, but you never win by setting high expectations. If statements had been made that untouched, unemployment would reach 14%, but we believe we can take actions that will keep it under 10%, the Obama Administration might be considered heroes now, because that is exactly what they have done.
The Health Care Reform Bill provides health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, enables those under age 26 to stay on their parents plan, prevents discrimination against "pre-existing conditions", eliminates the annual and lifetime benefit cap and according to the CBO will actually SAVE $143 Billion over the next 10 years. It is tough to be against any of these things. Those opposed usually site the cost of $1 Trillion dollars, and don't acknowledge that the cost reductions exceed the cost creating a net savings. Several previous presidents have tried unsuccessfully to accomplish this and failed. By not harping over and over again on the benefits and the cost savings rather than the cost and explaining it in terms that people could understand and cling to, this monumental social change program will be vastly underappreciated for a very long time.
Tax Reduction - Not a term associated with the Obama Administration and yet, that is what they have done. The Making Work Pay provision provided almost half of the $240 Million in tax cuts created by the Obama Administration providing a $400 per year credit for individuals and $800 for married couples. This benefit accrued to individual filers with taxable income under $75,000 and couples filing jointly under $150,000. Don't think you got it? Pull out your 2009 return and look at line 63 or look here for the IRS information. The actual calculation was done on Schedule M.
Handling 2 Wars - All combat troops have been removed from Iraq with about 50,000 peacekeeping troops still there, that number declining over time. There was a large buildup in Afghanistan with a scheduled pullout next year in an attempt to stabilize that country. Obama came through on his promise on Iraq. He went against the wishes of many of his supporters on Afghanistan, but it may very well have been the right choice. A very difficult and unpopular one, but perhaps the best for long-term considerations.
There are a few other items covered quite well in this article in Rolling Stone. Not a place I normally recommend for even handed political coverage (and it does have its rah-rah moments), but overall a pretty decent characterization of where we are.
This recent poll by Bloomberg shows that "...by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered." All of which is wrong. Americans are generally not very educated in history, but these are current events. Granted there has been a concerted effort by the President's detractors to accentuate the problems and misdirect or outright lie about current issues, but the facts are on the side of the Democrats and yet they run away from them.
If the Obama Administration were as good at telling their story as the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, the Democrats might have still held on to the House and Senate. But split government isn't the worst thing. Everybody has their neck on the line. If nothing gets done, everyone is to blame, so they have to find a way to play nice at least long enough to have something to claim during the run-up to the 2012 election. If not, then Obama gets to run his 2012 campaign against a "Do Nothing" Republican-led House and history tells us that has worked pretty well.
Friday, October 22, 2010
O'Donnell, SNL and Elvira
Although Christine O'Donnell is the train wreck gift that the Delaware Tea party gave to Democrats across the country this year, she really isn't as bad as she is being made up to be. That being said, she does make for some great political humor, which means she gets a blog post all to herself.
Here are 3 videos. First, the original O'Donnell "I Am Not a Witch" ad, followed by the SNL spoof and then a new take-off by our favorite Halloween mistress, Elvira. Enjoy.
Here are 3 videos. First, the original O'Donnell "I Am Not a Witch" ad, followed by the SNL spoof and then a new take-off by our favorite Halloween mistress, Elvira. Enjoy.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Economy, the Future and Communication
The title of this post is filled with the 3 biggest things that have shaped the looming 2010 midterm elections.
The war cry of the 1992 Clinton Presidential bid as blasted by James Carville was "It's the Economy, Stupid". Eighteen years later, the story is still the same. The economy is still is very bad shape. Slowly growing, far from where it was and where it could have fallen to, but still very bad. We as Americans are not very good at nuance. We rarely acknowledge that this bad reality is a whole lot better than the disaster of a few years ago. It stinks now, so everything else is irrelevant. We are impatient and there is no good reason why the economy can't be good now. We are tired of suffering. Relatively better is irrelevant.
The Obama Administration could certainly have taken different steps that would have made some improvements on the current state of the economy. However, I doubt it would have nudged the unemployment level far from its current level of 9.6%. This is an enormous structural problem, was a long time in the works and will not change quickly regardless of what measures are taken. However, I am pretty sure of one thing that will drop the mark another tick or two (more later).
A president has two possible roads they can travel...they can deal only with current issues and leave the big, hairy, long-term issues for a future president to deal with or while juggling the realities of the present they can take a stab at trying to resolve issues that will rear their head in the future. There is rarely any current popularity benefit to dealing with long-term issues. Solving them involves pain in the present and our country is not very good at giving up something now for a long-term benefit (or pain avoidance). The Obama Administration has tried to tackle a few long-term issues such as health care, energy, education, civil rights (Lily Ledbetter and DADT), etc. People can agree or disagree with the way they have tried to change things, but nobody will really know the outcomes for certain until years from now. It is impressive that they have tried to deal with them, rather than push them to the next administration as has been happening for quite some time. Again, very little public acclaim for any of this, only angst and hatred for money spent, perception of freedom lost, etc.
Which brings us to the third and most important part of this post. Communication, or rather the true failing point of this administration. By many accounts including those listed at Politifact.com, the Obama Administration has performed very well in doing pretty much exactly what they said they were going to do. You may not agree with it, but if so, you probably didn't agree with it in 2008 when Obama was campaigning on it. But a majority of Americans did support Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, so what gives? He has done most of the things he said he would do but public opinion has dropped from the 53% of 2008 voters to early job approval polls cresting over 60% to the current level of 44% (with a low in August of 41%) The long and short of it is that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. Obama and his team are really quite poor at making people aware of and feel good about the good things they have done. They have also let the Republican opposition hammer them time and time again both with legitimate claims as well as farcical ones. For example, time and time again, polls asking about people's opinion on the passed Health Care Reform bill show at best an even split. However, when asking about specific items in the HCR bill, overwhelming support is shown. That is messaging or rather a horrific lack of it.
The Mid-term election outcome on November 2nd will be much more determined by the Obama team's inability to get out their message than the public's actual opinion on the specifics of what they have done.
The war cry of the 1992 Clinton Presidential bid as blasted by James Carville was "It's the Economy, Stupid". Eighteen years later, the story is still the same. The economy is still is very bad shape. Slowly growing, far from where it was and where it could have fallen to, but still very bad. We as Americans are not very good at nuance. We rarely acknowledge that this bad reality is a whole lot better than the disaster of a few years ago. It stinks now, so everything else is irrelevant. We are impatient and there is no good reason why the economy can't be good now. We are tired of suffering. Relatively better is irrelevant.
The Obama Administration could certainly have taken different steps that would have made some improvements on the current state of the economy. However, I doubt it would have nudged the unemployment level far from its current level of 9.6%. This is an enormous structural problem, was a long time in the works and will not change quickly regardless of what measures are taken. However, I am pretty sure of one thing that will drop the mark another tick or two (more later).
A president has two possible roads they can travel...they can deal only with current issues and leave the big, hairy, long-term issues for a future president to deal with or while juggling the realities of the present they can take a stab at trying to resolve issues that will rear their head in the future. There is rarely any current popularity benefit to dealing with long-term issues. Solving them involves pain in the present and our country is not very good at giving up something now for a long-term benefit (or pain avoidance). The Obama Administration has tried to tackle a few long-term issues such as health care, energy, education, civil rights (Lily Ledbetter and DADT), etc. People can agree or disagree with the way they have tried to change things, but nobody will really know the outcomes for certain until years from now. It is impressive that they have tried to deal with them, rather than push them to the next administration as has been happening for quite some time. Again, very little public acclaim for any of this, only angst and hatred for money spent, perception of freedom lost, etc.
Which brings us to the third and most important part of this post. Communication, or rather the true failing point of this administration. By many accounts including those listed at Politifact.com, the Obama Administration has performed very well in doing pretty much exactly what they said they were going to do. You may not agree with it, but if so, you probably didn't agree with it in 2008 when Obama was campaigning on it. But a majority of Americans did support Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, so what gives? He has done most of the things he said he would do but public opinion has dropped from the 53% of 2008 voters to early job approval polls cresting over 60% to the current level of 44% (with a low in August of 41%) The long and short of it is that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. Obama and his team are really quite poor at making people aware of and feel good about the good things they have done. They have also let the Republican opposition hammer them time and time again both with legitimate claims as well as farcical ones. For example, time and time again, polls asking about people's opinion on the passed Health Care Reform bill show at best an even split. However, when asking about specific items in the HCR bill, overwhelming support is shown. That is messaging or rather a horrific lack of it.
The Mid-term election outcome on November 2nd will be much more determined by the Obama team's inability to get out their message than the public's actual opinion on the specifics of what they have done.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Reform Passes - A Moment to Relfect
Last night, the House of Representatives voted to approve the bill previously passed by the Senate on December 24th. A sidecar bill was also passed which effectively included some amendments to the Health Care Reform bill. After President Obama signs HCR into law (probably on Tuesday), the Senate will take up the sidecar bill. If all items pass muster as being directly related to financial issues, the Senate can pass it with a simple majority of votes as a filibuster is not allowed for bills presented under Reconciliation.
Although Presidents for decades have attempted to reform Health Care, it hasn't happened until now. That has changed this President and this Congress from being referred to (incorrectly) as 'Do Nothing' to having 'Done Something Never Done Before'.
The merits of the Health Care Reform bill can be debated with valid points on both side, however, there really should not be any debate about the following items which will go into effect immediately:
Over 32 Million current un-insured legal citizens of the US will now be able to obtain Health Care and not be refused for pre-existing conditions.
Children can be carried on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. This helps recent grads and those who find themselves in between jobs or working for companies that do not offer insurance.
Insurance companies can not put a cap on the maximum amount they will reimburse over the course of your lifetime. This impacts those with high-cost ailments like cancer.
The Medicare Part D 'donut hole' will be partially covered with a rebate of $250 for seniors who fell into the gap due to their income level.
This is not the end, it is rather the beginning. There are many issues still to resolve as well as some new ones that will probably be created by adding so many people to the rolls of the insured. A society that cares for all of its members is not without the pains to do so. Future blog posts will cover the remaining 500 pound elephant of insurance costs as well as how do we deal with people living longer now that they have access to better health care.
But for now, lets appreciate the good that has happened. The US has joined the ranks of all other developed nations and now provides health insurance coverage for all of its citizens. We are one step closer to being a Great Society.
Although Presidents for decades have attempted to reform Health Care, it hasn't happened until now. That has changed this President and this Congress from being referred to (incorrectly) as 'Do Nothing' to having 'Done Something Never Done Before'.
The merits of the Health Care Reform bill can be debated with valid points on both side, however, there really should not be any debate about the following items which will go into effect immediately:
Over 32 Million current un-insured legal citizens of the US will now be able to obtain Health Care and not be refused for pre-existing conditions.
Children can be carried on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. This helps recent grads and those who find themselves in between jobs or working for companies that do not offer insurance.
Insurance companies can not put a cap on the maximum amount they will reimburse over the course of your lifetime. This impacts those with high-cost ailments like cancer.
The Medicare Part D 'donut hole' will be partially covered with a rebate of $250 for seniors who fell into the gap due to their income level.
This is not the end, it is rather the beginning. There are many issues still to resolve as well as some new ones that will probably be created by adding so many people to the rolls of the insured. A society that cares for all of its members is not without the pains to do so. Future blog posts will cover the remaining 500 pound elephant of insurance costs as well as how do we deal with people living longer now that they have access to better health care.
But for now, lets appreciate the good that has happened. The US has joined the ranks of all other developed nations and now provides health insurance coverage for all of its citizens. We are one step closer to being a Great Society.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
On the Edge of Health Care Reform
I was initially going to title this post something along the lines of why I thought Health Care Reform would pass. Well, today, Congressman Dennis Kucinich changed his long-standing opposition to the bill from the Left and announced that he will vote for the Senate Health Care bill. That makes this article less of a call the outcome than state the impending obvious...that the House will approve the bill crafted and approved by the Senate. Kucinich is the first of several previously undecided or opposed Congressmen who will use press conferences in the next few days to say they have decided to vote in favor of HCR. The White House has put on a substantial full-court-press the past few days and the impact is being felt.
It will probably happen this weekend. As for procedural matters, it appears they will also subsequently pass a bill making changes to the bill (remove the Cornhusker kickback, etc.) and the Senate can pass that under reconciliation as all the items are budgetary in nature, and they would then need just a simple majority of 50 votes rather than a super-majority of 60 to prevent a filibuster. (I know 50 isn't a majority of the 100 member senate, but in the event of a tie, Vice-President Biden votes as well and that is the surest vote on HCR President Obama has ever had.)
I was also going to write that as the Democrats seemed about 50-50 to pass the bill, I gave the edge to Nancy Pelosi to find a way to twist enough arms to get the 216 votes needed to pass HCR at this time (due to a death and 3 resignations, the 50% plus 1 mark dropped from the standard 218 to 216). I am betting she gets 217-218, with 1 or 2 votes to spare, just in case there was a last minute defection.
Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but she will go down as one of the most successful and effective House Speakers in history. My money is on Nancy to bring in the herd at 216 or above.
We have been in the midst of this battle so long and have heard so much from both sides on the positives and negatives of HCR, that few have spent time thinking about the gravitas of the event if/when this bill passes. If/when this HCR bill passes, people will realize the historic nature of this social legislation. (No, it is not a socialist takeover of 16% of the economy - you may have heard or read that - but it is another building block in our society). Presidents for decades have tried and failed to pass health care reform...and Barack Obama will have accomplished it. The United States will join the ranks of every other developed nation in the world in providing health care coverage to ALL of its citizens. (No, HCR does not provide health insurance for illegal aliens, but yes as a member of a responsible society we should all feel it is appropriate to provide health care to illegals in need of medical attention)
Also in the news today is the Senate passing the Jobs Bill...with 11 Republicans on-board. The bill is ready to be signed by President Obama. That would be 2 significant accomplishments inside of a week. (The jobs bill pares in comparison to HCR in its impact, but it will have disproportionate good PR effects) We may very well be at the high point of projections for 2010 Republican gains in the House and Senate.
Also, HCR will not be static. Unfortunately, everyone wanted 'their stuff' in the first pass. There are still so many more things that can and will happen. Tort Reform, inter-state competition, end-of-life choice empowerment (previously referred to as 'Death Squads' by those opposed) and many other items that if handled individually, will probably garner some bi-partisan support. HCR will be a continuously evolving concept, but the ball had to start somewhere and the biggest hole was the uninsured and pre-existing condition exclusions.
The entire view of the Obama Presidency is about to change.
It will probably happen this weekend. As for procedural matters, it appears they will also subsequently pass a bill making changes to the bill (remove the Cornhusker kickback, etc.) and the Senate can pass that under reconciliation as all the items are budgetary in nature, and they would then need just a simple majority of 50 votes rather than a super-majority of 60 to prevent a filibuster. (I know 50 isn't a majority of the 100 member senate, but in the event of a tie, Vice-President Biden votes as well and that is the surest vote on HCR President Obama has ever had.)
I was also going to write that as the Democrats seemed about 50-50 to pass the bill, I gave the edge to Nancy Pelosi to find a way to twist enough arms to get the 216 votes needed to pass HCR at this time (due to a death and 3 resignations, the 50% plus 1 mark dropped from the standard 218 to 216). I am betting she gets 217-218, with 1 or 2 votes to spare, just in case there was a last minute defection.
Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but she will go down as one of the most successful and effective House Speakers in history. My money is on Nancy to bring in the herd at 216 or above.
We have been in the midst of this battle so long and have heard so much from both sides on the positives and negatives of HCR, that few have spent time thinking about the gravitas of the event if/when this bill passes. If/when this HCR bill passes, people will realize the historic nature of this social legislation. (No, it is not a socialist takeover of 16% of the economy - you may have heard or read that - but it is another building block in our society). Presidents for decades have tried and failed to pass health care reform...and Barack Obama will have accomplished it. The United States will join the ranks of every other developed nation in the world in providing health care coverage to ALL of its citizens. (No, HCR does not provide health insurance for illegal aliens, but yes as a member of a responsible society we should all feel it is appropriate to provide health care to illegals in need of medical attention)
Also in the news today is the Senate passing the Jobs Bill...with 11 Republicans on-board. The bill is ready to be signed by President Obama. That would be 2 significant accomplishments inside of a week. (The jobs bill pares in comparison to HCR in its impact, but it will have disproportionate good PR effects) We may very well be at the high point of projections for 2010 Republican gains in the House and Senate.
Also, HCR will not be static. Unfortunately, everyone wanted 'their stuff' in the first pass. There are still so many more things that can and will happen. Tort Reform, inter-state competition, end-of-life choice empowerment (previously referred to as 'Death Squads' by those opposed) and many other items that if handled individually, will probably garner some bi-partisan support. HCR will be a continuously evolving concept, but the ball had to start somewhere and the biggest hole was the uninsured and pre-existing condition exclusions.
The entire view of the Obama Presidency is about to change.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Is Scott Brown a Bridge Over a Troubled Senate?
When Scott Brown won the special election to take over the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by the late Ted Kennedy, it seemed like the beginning of the end for any highly contested bills to even get to a vote in the Senate.
However, Senator Brown has shown that he isn't a rank and file Republican. As highlighted in this CNN story, Brown has twice voted for cloture hence stopping a filibuster. Although opposed to both the $15billion jobs bill and the $150billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, Senator Brown decided to "keep the process moving".
It appears that Brown is more moderate than his Conservative and Tea Party supporters had originally believed/hoped. In fact, he is acting more like a true independent. One who wants the business of Congress to proceed rather than be blocked by a majority. He also is acting like a Republican who wants to be re-elected to office by the very liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Regardless of his motives, he ceases to be the 41st vote to allow a filibuster to proceed. His highly visible presence in the middle might make it safer ground for other Republican moderates to go against their party on a cloture vote, providing them with an oasis.
A bigger question is whether he will also vote for cloture if/when a vote comes in the Senate for a revised health care bill even if he is against it. My guess is he won't get the chance as anything in the Senate will go through reconciliation which is not subject to a filibuster.
In any event, things might get more interesting as Senator Brown decides he likes being a moderate Republican senator from a liberal state.
However, Senator Brown has shown that he isn't a rank and file Republican. As highlighted in this CNN story, Brown has twice voted for cloture hence stopping a filibuster. Although opposed to both the $15billion jobs bill and the $150billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, Senator Brown decided to "keep the process moving".
It appears that Brown is more moderate than his Conservative and Tea Party supporters had originally believed/hoped. In fact, he is acting more like a true independent. One who wants the business of Congress to proceed rather than be blocked by a majority. He also is acting like a Republican who wants to be re-elected to office by the very liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Regardless of his motives, he ceases to be the 41st vote to allow a filibuster to proceed. His highly visible presence in the middle might make it safer ground for other Republican moderates to go against their party on a cloture vote, providing them with an oasis.
A bigger question is whether he will also vote for cloture if/when a vote comes in the Senate for a revised health care bill even if he is against it. My guess is he won't get the chance as anything in the Senate will go through reconciliation which is not subject to a filibuster.
In any event, things might get more interesting as Senator Brown decides he likes being a moderate Republican senator from a liberal state.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Summary of the Health Care Summit
You mean you didn't have 7 hours last Thursday to dedicate to watching the Health Care Summit on TV or on your office computer? Well, here is all you need to know.
It was a noble effort. Unfortunately, the wrong people were invited. The members of the House and Senate.
Here is 7 hours of Senators and Congressmen rolled into 1 line:
Start Over...here's my patient story...Socialist Takeover...The Party of No...
Some have complained that President Obama spoke for roughly one-third of the 5 hours that were in session. Thank God. Any minute given over to almost any Democratic or Republican in the room would have made my eyes flip back inside my head.
There were a few notable exceptions. On the Republican side, hats off to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. He made cogent and meaty suggestions, if overselling the potential impact of tort reform on the total cost of Health Care. Expect to see some of the things he spoke of in the final bill put forward by President Obama. Being rational does have its benefits.
On the Democratic side, well, one member trumped pretty much everyone else in the room. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, spoke for a few minutes, but you only need to see this one minute clip to realize that almost everyone else in the room was out of their league.
With that, Senator Durbin boiled the entire health care debate down to a simple statement that wasn't even an attempt at a sound-bite (OK, well, the line about giving up your Govt Health Care if you think it is Socialist was a pretty good one). He stood out from everyone else and renewed my belief that there might indeed be intelligent life inside the Beltway.
We'll find out more tomorrow, but expect the following:
a few more snippets of Republican ideas added to the bill as well as existing Republican ideas already in the bill highlighted
The approach will be to get the House to approve the Senate bill as is and then have the changes/additions from the bill Obama presents produced as part of Reconcilliation Bill that will have just an up or down vote. No filibuster.
One final note - is it a requirement the senior leadership of both parties in the House and Senate sound and act ludicrous in the presence of everyone? I don't know who was worse. Yes I do, it was a tie. Nancy, you are a great leader of the House, which means you are totally despised by the opposition party, but when you have nothing to say, don't waste our time for 5 minutes.
John (Boehner), you remind me so much of the old Saturday Night Live skit when Steve Martin plays a contestant on the show Family Feud. He is the head of the Romaine Lettuce Growers Association of El Camino Del Rey Mar Vista California and the only answer he can think of to any question is "Romaine Lettuce".
I wonder if he ever feels awkward continuing to say we need to start over? I think even those who agree with him are tired of hearing him say it.
Now I understand how party leaders can get unseated. It seems that in order to fulfill your responsibilities in today's Congress, you have to sound like an idiot.
It was a noble effort. Unfortunately, the wrong people were invited. The members of the House and Senate.
Here is 7 hours of Senators and Congressmen rolled into 1 line:
Start Over...here's my patient story...Socialist Takeover...The Party of No...
Some have complained that President Obama spoke for roughly one-third of the 5 hours that were in session. Thank God. Any minute given over to almost any Democratic or Republican in the room would have made my eyes flip back inside my head.
There were a few notable exceptions. On the Republican side, hats off to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. He made cogent and meaty suggestions, if overselling the potential impact of tort reform on the total cost of Health Care. Expect to see some of the things he spoke of in the final bill put forward by President Obama. Being rational does have its benefits.
On the Democratic side, well, one member trumped pretty much everyone else in the room. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, spoke for a few minutes, but you only need to see this one minute clip to realize that almost everyone else in the room was out of their league.
With that, Senator Durbin boiled the entire health care debate down to a simple statement that wasn't even an attempt at a sound-bite (OK, well, the line about giving up your Govt Health Care if you think it is Socialist was a pretty good one). He stood out from everyone else and renewed my belief that there might indeed be intelligent life inside the Beltway.
We'll find out more tomorrow, but expect the following:
a few more snippets of Republican ideas added to the bill as well as existing Republican ideas already in the bill highlighted
The approach will be to get the House to approve the Senate bill as is and then have the changes/additions from the bill Obama presents produced as part of Reconcilliation Bill that will have just an up or down vote. No filibuster.
One final note - is it a requirement the senior leadership of both parties in the House and Senate sound and act ludicrous in the presence of everyone? I don't know who was worse. Yes I do, it was a tie. Nancy, you are a great leader of the House, which means you are totally despised by the opposition party, but when you have nothing to say, don't waste our time for 5 minutes.
John (Boehner), you remind me so much of the old Saturday Night Live skit when Steve Martin plays a contestant on the show Family Feud. He is the head of the Romaine Lettuce Growers Association of El Camino Del Rey Mar Vista California and the only answer he can think of to any question is "Romaine Lettuce".
I wonder if he ever feels awkward continuing to say we need to start over? I think even those who agree with him are tired of hearing him say it.
Now I understand how party leaders can get unseated. It seems that in order to fulfill your responsibilities in today's Congress, you have to sound like an idiot.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Enemy of Health Care Reform
We are the worst enemy of Health Care Reform. All of us.
Forget about the particulars that are (or we think are) in the House and/or Senate bills.
We like the Health Care we have and want to keep it. (fine enough)
We don't want any new legislation because we don't believe our health care will remain as is.
We have trouble distinguishing between Health CARE and Health INSURANCE.
We've got our own health insurance and everyone else should take care of themselves.
We think we will never lose our jobs or our job provided health care insurance.
We believe we will never have a 'pre-existing' condition because we don't have one now.
If we do want any changes, we want them now and exactly how we want them.
Any compromise is bad because we know what everyone needs.
If change hasn't happened yet, it is a failure.
We might be OK on some health care reform, but don't think it should cost us anything.
We say we don't want our children to be burdened, but don't think we should give up anything now to achieve that.
We don't think any law could be good if it is longer than we would want to read.
The majority of Americans DO want many of the things that are the cornerstones of almost every proposal on Health Care Reform: coverage for everyone, not being declined for coverage due to a pre-existing condition, the stoppage of runaway health insurance premiums, etc.
We DON'T as a group seem to like any plan that meets these goals, is financially responsible and has restrictions that prevent destructive repercussions because it costs too much and is too restrictive.
We want to get, but don't want to give. We don't want less now so we can guarantee more later.
We are children.
We need an adult to do what is right, not because we will like it now, but because we will be better off later and can't see that now. We will hate this adult because they made us do something that we can't stand and seems stupid. We will feel alienated from them, want to hurt them and would be happy associating with anyone but them.
At times like these, it sucks to be the only adult around. But some things have to get done.
I hope that President Obama and enough members of the House and Senate can be the responsible adults in the room and make the tough decisions that will help us in the future. We are not capable of making the necessary sacrifice on or own.
We will probably hate you for it and throw you out of office at our first chance and vow never to speak with you again.
Until, of course, after some time, we also become adults...and realize just how smart you had become, much like our parents and maybe, just maybe, in a moment of self-reflection and great humility quietly whisper, "thanks".
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama and the iPad
It is interesting that President Barack Obama's first official State of the Union address and the unveiling of the Apple iPad happened on the same day.
Both captured part of our imagination and give us a glimpse into the future.
They are also great examples of how American icons continue to redefine themselves. While Steve Jobs was showing how Apple is opening the next stage of its technical development, Barack Obama was closing the door on his first year in office and defining the tone for his second year.
Perhaps they should have collaborated on a presentation.
It certainly would have increased the audience for both. There are also some benefits that each would have received from the other. Here is a wonderfully spliced rendition of the 2 speeches from the folks at tv.gawker.com:
Click Here to View
And while we are on the topic of the iPad, we have to make sure everyone knows that term isn't new. In fact, the folks at Mad TV had a take on an iPad many years ago:
Both captured part of our imagination and give us a glimpse into the future.
They are also great examples of how American icons continue to redefine themselves. While Steve Jobs was showing how Apple is opening the next stage of its technical development, Barack Obama was closing the door on his first year in office and defining the tone for his second year.
Perhaps they should have collaborated on a presentation.
It certainly would have increased the audience for both. There are also some benefits that each would have received from the other. Here is a wonderfully spliced rendition of the 2 speeches from the folks at tv.gawker.com:
And while we are on the topic of the iPad, we have to make sure everyone knows that term isn't new. In fact, the folks at Mad TV had a take on an iPad many years ago:
Republicans Caught in "State of Confusion" Address
First, let me say that I think President Barack Obama must have taken my advice from Tuesday's blog post and watched the press conference speech near the end of "The American President".
He had a bit of swagger in his voice, calling out Republicans, Democrats and even the Supreme Court! Now that was pretty unprecedented and while a bold move that he could have made pretty legitimately, it appears he stretched the truth a bit by claiming the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance would also enable foreign corporations to contribute without limits to political campaigns. He didn't say that the bill was dead and that he would come back with a more liberal one, but he did make it pretty clear that he has no intention to abandon the project.
There are many great analyses on the internet about the State of the Union address, but I wanted to address something that visually caught my eye.
Let me start by reminding everyone that "The duty of an Opposition is to Oppose" (Lord Randolph Churchill). In few cases is the physical representation of opposition more distinctive and seen by more people than the annual State of the Union address. So it is not surprising that when a president sprinkles in accomplishments of his administration in the address, that the opposition party remains seated and seemingly bored while the President's party stands, applauds, hoots and howls.
While President Obama's speech was filled with verbal pats on the back as well as barbs at the Republicans, there were also several things mentioned that Republicans do support. Some were olive branch offerings. These tend to be telegraphed and the opposition party knows to stand up and applaud.
However, there were also several items that given the way they were worded, it is difficult to be opposed to them. In many cases, the Republicans continued to remain seated. Near the end, they seemed to realize that President Obama was giving his party several video opps for the Republicans showing that they are not supporting things that most Americans would want.
I can envision a junior Republican senator, seated in the back of the Republican Senate section, trying to take his or her ques from what the rest of their group was doing:
"...To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks..."
OK, we don't want to look like we are in favor of anything the President has done on the bailout, so I should remain seated. Wait, shouldn't I want to get money back from the banks? None of the other Republican senators is standing an applauding, so I guess I will stay seated.
"...We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families..."
Nope we don't believe that even if it winds up being true.
"...We cut taxes for small businesses..."
Oops, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Nobody's standing.
"...We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college..."
OK, yeah, oops, nobody is standing, better sit down again. We aren't in favor of helping Americans pay for college?
"...thought I'd get some applause on that one..."
Yeah, I think we missed standing on that one.
"...So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat..."
Ah, that sounds good to me, but we aren't standing.
"...I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages..."
Hey, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Not sure why none of us are standing, but I'm not going to be the only one. I'll just sit and wait.
(on health care) "...Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber..."
We don't applaud anything having to do with Obama's Health Care plan. Wait, he actually said we won't walk away from Americans in need. Umm, I think we actually agree with him. Wait, there, a few Republicans are starting to haltingly stand up. I think I should too, maybe, yeah, the row behind them stood up, OK, I guess we are standing up and applauding on this one.
Boy is it confusing to be a member of the opposing party during a State of the Union address.
He had a bit of swagger in his voice, calling out Republicans, Democrats and even the Supreme Court! Now that was pretty unprecedented and while a bold move that he could have made pretty legitimately, it appears he stretched the truth a bit by claiming the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance would also enable foreign corporations to contribute without limits to political campaigns. He didn't say that the bill was dead and that he would come back with a more liberal one, but he did make it pretty clear that he has no intention to abandon the project.
There are many great analyses on the internet about the State of the Union address, but I wanted to address something that visually caught my eye.
Let me start by reminding everyone that "The duty of an Opposition is to Oppose" (Lord Randolph Churchill). In few cases is the physical representation of opposition more distinctive and seen by more people than the annual State of the Union address. So it is not surprising that when a president sprinkles in accomplishments of his administration in the address, that the opposition party remains seated and seemingly bored while the President's party stands, applauds, hoots and howls.
While President Obama's speech was filled with verbal pats on the back as well as barbs at the Republicans, there were also several things mentioned that Republicans do support. Some were olive branch offerings. These tend to be telegraphed and the opposition party knows to stand up and applaud.
However, there were also several items that given the way they were worded, it is difficult to be opposed to them. In many cases, the Republicans continued to remain seated. Near the end, they seemed to realize that President Obama was giving his party several video opps for the Republicans showing that they are not supporting things that most Americans would want.
I can envision a junior Republican senator, seated in the back of the Republican Senate section, trying to take his or her ques from what the rest of their group was doing:
"...To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks..."
OK, we don't want to look like we are in favor of anything the President has done on the bailout, so I should remain seated. Wait, shouldn't I want to get money back from the banks? None of the other Republican senators is standing an applauding, so I guess I will stay seated.
"...We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families..."
Nope we don't believe that even if it winds up being true.
"...We cut taxes for small businesses..."
Oops, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Nobody's standing.
"...We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college..."
OK, yeah, oops, nobody is standing, better sit down again. We aren't in favor of helping Americans pay for college?
"...thought I'd get some applause on that one..."
Yeah, I think we missed standing on that one.
"...So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat..."
Ah, that sounds good to me, but we aren't standing.
"...I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages..."
Hey, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Not sure why none of us are standing, but I'm not going to be the only one. I'll just sit and wait.
(on health care) "...Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber..."
We don't applaud anything having to do with Obama's Health Care plan. Wait, he actually said we won't walk away from Americans in need. Umm, I think we actually agree with him. Wait, there, a few Republicans are starting to haltingly stand up. I think I should too, maybe, yeah, the row behind them stood up, OK, I guess we are standing up and applauding on this one.
Boy is it confusing to be a member of the opposing party during a State of the Union address.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Preview of what the President's State of the Union Address Should Look Like
The election of Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat has given the Republicans 41 members in the Senate and the likely ability to filibuster any bill, most notably A Health Care bill coming out of committee reconciliation.
The Democrats are stunned, demoralized, confused and even though they still claim large majorities in both the House and the Senate, acting more like the minority.
In his first year in office, President Barack Obama has attempted to be bipartisan, collaborative, considerate, compassionate and introspective. All good qualities in most cases, but apparently not good as the driving forces behind a presidency. He is at the same time being labeled as too conservative and too liberal, too aggressive and too accommodating, too cerebral and too clueless, taking on too much and not doing enough.
What Barack Obama needs is...to watch this speech given by Michael Douglas in his portrayal as President Andrew Shepard in "The American President".
Just replace the word "Republicans" every time he refers to Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss) and think of the Crime Bill as the Health Care bill.
Now, doesn't that make you feel better?
Note on other actors in "The American President" and future TV government roles - Martin Sheen would go on to play the well-loved character President Jed Bartlett in "The West Wing", and Michael J. Fox would go on to play Deputy Mayor Mike Flaherty in "Spin City"
The Democrats are stunned, demoralized, confused and even though they still claim large majorities in both the House and the Senate, acting more like the minority.
In his first year in office, President Barack Obama has attempted to be bipartisan, collaborative, considerate, compassionate and introspective. All good qualities in most cases, but apparently not good as the driving forces behind a presidency. He is at the same time being labeled as too conservative and too liberal, too aggressive and too accommodating, too cerebral and too clueless, taking on too much and not doing enough.
What Barack Obama needs is...to watch this speech given by Michael Douglas in his portrayal as President Andrew Shepard in "The American President".
Just replace the word "Republicans" every time he refers to Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss) and think of the Crime Bill as the Health Care bill.
Now, doesn't that make you feel better?
Note on other actors in "The American President" and future TV government roles - Martin Sheen would go on to play the well-loved character President Jed Bartlett in "The West Wing", and Michael J. Fox would go on to play Deputy Mayor Mike Flaherty in "Spin City"
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Will Massachusetts Special Election for Senator Derail Health Care Reform?
Today there will be an unusual event in more ways than one.
Massachusetts is conducting a special election to fill the remainder of the term held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts is perhaps the Bluest of all states and conventional wisdom would indicate that any Democrat with a pulse could win a statewide election. Well, Martha Coakley is showing that her beating heart is not enough as a "Perfect Storm" of events now has Republican candidate Scott Brown leading in most polls.
Special elections typically have low turnouts, especially if the state has a partisan electorate. The Republican election machine is back in full force and resources from around the nation have been focused on Massachusetts. Martha Coakley has run a spectacularly awful campaign, seemingly trying to outdo Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.
But, the key point that has gotten everyone hyped about this special election for the Senate is that a Republican win would give them 41 votes in the Senate and would enable them to filibuster any legislation, most especially the Health Care Reform bill that still needs to come back from House-Senate reconciliation.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com does a wonderful job again analyzing the polling available and gives Coakley only a 25% chance of winning today. I am inclined to agree with his analysis, but Nate does hedge a bit and I have a sense that may be a well placed hedge. It would not surprise me if Democratic voters who are totally unhappy with Coakley as a candidate are willing to go out and vote against the very real chance of a Republican senator in Massachusetts who winds up stopping the Health Care Reform bill that was the lifelong ambition of their dearly departed Senator Kennedy. So whereas these Democrats were unlikely to respond to any polls or put up any lawn signs for Coakley, they are fine with going into a booth and pulling a lever in the same column as usual.
There are also many thoughts on how the Democrats would pass Health Care Reform even without 60 votes in the Senate. The State of the Union address was just announced as being an earlier than expected January 27th. Don't think this timing is without great significance. If Brown wins, he would not be seated until a challenge is settled and the results of the election are signed by the Governor and State Secretary (both are Democrats). The full time-line of how this would proceed can be found in a good article at Talking Points Memo. It looks like if Brown wins, he would not be seated in the Senate until at least January 29th. Until Brown is seated, current interim Senator, Paul Kirk (D-MA) would still be representing Massachusetts and be able to vote in favor of Health Care Reform.
If Brown wins, expect the Democrats to push through a vote in the House and Senate to give approval to a reconciled Health Care Reform bill before he is seated.
As Betty Davis said in All About Eve, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"
Massachusetts is conducting a special election to fill the remainder of the term held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts is perhaps the Bluest of all states and conventional wisdom would indicate that any Democrat with a pulse could win a statewide election. Well, Martha Coakley is showing that her beating heart is not enough as a "Perfect Storm" of events now has Republican candidate Scott Brown leading in most polls.
Special elections typically have low turnouts, especially if the state has a partisan electorate. The Republican election machine is back in full force and resources from around the nation have been focused on Massachusetts. Martha Coakley has run a spectacularly awful campaign, seemingly trying to outdo Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.
But, the key point that has gotten everyone hyped about this special election for the Senate is that a Republican win would give them 41 votes in the Senate and would enable them to filibuster any legislation, most especially the Health Care Reform bill that still needs to come back from House-Senate reconciliation.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com does a wonderful job again analyzing the polling available and gives Coakley only a 25% chance of winning today. I am inclined to agree with his analysis, but Nate does hedge a bit and I have a sense that may be a well placed hedge. It would not surprise me if Democratic voters who are totally unhappy with Coakley as a candidate are willing to go out and vote against the very real chance of a Republican senator in Massachusetts who winds up stopping the Health Care Reform bill that was the lifelong ambition of their dearly departed Senator Kennedy. So whereas these Democrats were unlikely to respond to any polls or put up any lawn signs for Coakley, they are fine with going into a booth and pulling a lever in the same column as usual.
There are also many thoughts on how the Democrats would pass Health Care Reform even without 60 votes in the Senate. The State of the Union address was just announced as being an earlier than expected January 27th. Don't think this timing is without great significance. If Brown wins, he would not be seated until a challenge is settled and the results of the election are signed by the Governor and State Secretary (both are Democrats). The full time-line of how this would proceed can be found in a good article at Talking Points Memo. It looks like if Brown wins, he would not be seated in the Senate until at least January 29th. Until Brown is seated, current interim Senator, Paul Kirk (D-MA) would still be representing Massachusetts and be able to vote in favor of Health Care Reform.
If Brown wins, expect the Democrats to push through a vote in the House and Senate to give approval to a reconciled Health Care Reform bill before he is seated.
As Betty Davis said in All About Eve, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
