Category Archives: Current Events

Live Blogging the President’s Speech

We are watching on NBC’s local affiliate.  As always, feel free to join in.

Interesting backdrop to the speech – apparently there is a “national security threat” that has attracted the president’s attention.  Cynics, of course, will find this more than coincidental, but given the proximity to 9-11 this can’t be a surprise and I think shouldn’t be underestimated. When one is in the election season, everything is viewed through a political lens.

7:07  The president enters, looking like he has aged 10 years during the last two years.   It’s hard to see how the speech can fulfill the hype surrounding it.  Chuck Todd has already stated that it is a make or break moment for the president.  It isn’t, of course, but why let the truth intrude?

The key point, for me, is whether Obama views this speech as an opportunity to present something Republicans can accept in terms of jobs-related policy proposals, or will instead serve as the opening salvo in the election season in which he tries to laid down a marker designed to portray Republicans as obstructionist.

7:10.  And he’s off.  And he begins with the obligatory effort to portray this speech as being above politics.  In truth,  of course, it is all about politics – but that’s how it’s supposed to be.

He looks particularly animated in this speech.  He knows what it is a stake.  And here’s the effort to portray his jobs bill as nonpartisan and deficit neutral.

Boehner doesn’t seem pleased with the payroll tax reduction.

Second times Obama has said Congress “should pass” this bill “right away”.   “Pass this jobs bill”.  And yet again….he’s got the rhythm of a preacher going here.

A, the China card.  But it’s not really rousing the troops yet, much as some Democrats in the audience are trying to jump to the cause.

So, part 1 is a payroll tax cut.  Part 2 is infrastructure spending on roads and schools.  Boehner still seems less than enthused. But he is tanned.

Again, the refrain.   Boehner is amused.  Obama is passionate.  This is much drama-Obama.   Reid politely applauds.

There’s an interesting tone to this speech – his enthusiasm almost seems out of place in a speech about the economy.  It’s almost over the top – or is this just me?

Quick quiz: Paul Ryan is a) looking at his blackberry b) doodling  c) doing a cross word puzzle.

Well, give the President credit: he’s going all out here.  This is fire and brimstone.

Here’s how he will pay for it.  Ah, Congress will devise a way!  What are the chances? So far he’s big on the big picture – fair share, fix entitlements, etc., but of course the devil is in the details.  If it was that easy we would have done it  long ago.   But I do think there’ s room for tax reform based on closing loopholes and lowering the corporate tax rate.  This is a plan that can get bipartisan support,  and which the supercommittee likely will pursue.

There’s is an element of class warfare in this speech that he will deny is classwarfare – oops, he just did!

This is a speech big on symbols, and on broad themes, but it is mostly exhorting everyone to pull together for the common good.  Noble sentiments, but how practical?

Ah, here’s the “cut the red tape” angle.   A perennial, if misguided favorite.

Mortgage help gets Democratic support.

patent reform – stop the presses!

Good lord – did you see Hillary’s expression?  Do you think she was telling herself, “I should be up there”?

He’s threatening to lose his audience by going to deep into the policy weeds here.  I know his intent, but FDR is the model here: less is more.

I see a Truman moment coming here where he lays down the gauntlet.

Has there been a president in the last century who didn’t promise to eliminate rules and regulations.

OK, this is red meat for the partisans.  This is the election portion of the speech.  In true Obama fashion, he’s tried to give a speech that is both nonpartisan policy proposals and partisan preaching.

It might be me, but he seems over the top here.  These exhortations are simply falling flat in the audience.  This is an odd speech in many respects.  I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to do here – he’s gone far beyond a jobs speech.  My fear is the public is tuning in to see how they are going to get jobs, and instead they are getting an earful about American exceptionalism.

I hate to say it, but the speech that comes to mind is Carter’s “malaise” speech, where he turned a jobs speech into a screed about American values.

Joe is up, John, alas, is still sitting.

Ah, here’s the Trumanesque threat – again, red meat for the partisans.  Write your Congressman!

Big crescendo!

Keep in mind that it’s late afternoon on the West Coast and in the Rocky Mountains – how many are watching this?

I thought this audience reaction within the chamber was relatively muted, given the emotion Obama was putting into this.

Pundits, of course, tend to overstate the impact of these types of speeches.  My guess is the longterm impact of this will depend on what comes out of it, in terms of legislation. But absent some type of legislative action, I can’t see this doing much to change the fundamental dynamics governing Washington politics today, but this is not necessarily a criticism of the speech so much as recognition of the limited power of these speeches more generally.  I think it will be more effective if it is understood to be the opening salvo in the President’s reelection campaign.  He now has a program he can tout on the campaign stump – even if most of it never makes it into law.  And that may be, in the end, the most significant part of the speech.

To summarize, the president’s plan has at least four parts: extension of a payroll tax cut, spending on infrastructure, extension of unemployment insurance, and a tax cut to small businesses that hire employees.  The cost?  A reported $447 billion. Note that most of the cost comes through a variety of tax reductions, rather than new spending.  Left unsaid is how to pay for this, given the promise that it won’t add to the deficit.  He has promised to unveil the revenue side of his plan later.  Also conspicuous in its absence was any mention of how many jobs this plan, if implemented, will create.  Evidently the Obama administration has learned their lesson regarding projecting job creation or unemployment levels.

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

The Real Winners And Losers In Last Night’s Debate

With the latest Gallup polling showing Obama’s support at its lowest among whites, Hispanics and blacks, last night’s Republican debate  took on added significance, particularly since it was the first to include purported front-runner Rick Perry.  Because the media has anointed itself as kingmaker, it is useful to see how the leading pundits scored last night’s debate, and compare that to how the candidates’ actually did (in my humble opinion).  Significant differences often indicate where the winnowing is likely to take place.  Keep in mind that these debates typically tell us more about media preferences than about how likely voters actually feel about the candidates.  But this is important, since media preferences shape coverage, particularly in determining candidate viability, and that is a major factor in winnowing the candidate pool during this period.

Of course, the major news focus was on the Romney-Perry clash.  Because scoring a debate is a highly subjective process, pundits tended to pick the winner of this clash to be the one who was closest to the media outlets’ general ideological leaning; conservatives (see here and here ) thought Perry came out ahead, while liberal/moderates outlets (see here) gave the nod to Mitt.  This says less about how these two actually did than it does about the preferences of these particular media outlets.  In truth, neither did much to damage their candidacy, which in the end is probably a slight victory for Perry, since he is now the de facto frontrunner, and this is his first time on the national stage.

To be sure there will be the usual tsk-tsk’ing among the chattering class about Perry’s description of Social Security as a “ponzi” scheme.  When he first made this claim, analysts chided him for this supposed gaffe.  To his credit, Perry ignored them and came right back with the same claim last night.  When Republican-leaning voters hear Perry’s claim, they know immediately what he is saying – that the program is underfunded.  Let others debate the finer points of what a ponzi scheme really is – as a short-hand reference to the sorry state of Social Security funding, the phrase works.

The biggest loser in last night’s debate?  If the media is to be believed, it was Michele Bachmann.  Never mind that her performance was almost identical, in terms of talking points, presentation, poise, and any other criteria you can think of, to her two earlier and highly praised debate performances in New Hampshire and Iowa.  With Perry’s entrance into the race, the media has decided she must be winnowed, and they are well on their way to doing that.  She has been hammered in the last week for her “stall” in the polls and the shakeup in her campaign team and despite another strong performance last night, the media reacted with a dismissive wave.

But Bachmann’s reviews were positively sterling compared to poor Newt Gingrich’s.  If debates were scored on the basis of a candidate’s substantive knowledge about important issues and proposed solutions, Newt Gingrich would be leading the polls.  It is easy to forget, with all the anti-Newt media caricatures floating around, just how much leadership experience on the national stage this guy has, how knowledgeable he is, and how he generally runs circles around his media interlocutors. Alas, if you read today’s news accounts, you wouldn’t know Gingrich even participated in last night’s debate.  The media has written him off, which says more about them than it does about his qualifications for the presidency.

Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, has been relegated to “best friend” status.  The pundits all included a paragraph that praised his likeability, his informed opinions and his moderate stances on the issues, and then proceeded to reiterate that he has no chance of winning.  In the end, Jon won’t get the girl, but he gets to pal around with the leading man.

Nor did much happen last night to brighten the electoral fortunes of Rick Santorum, Herman Cain or Ron Paul.   All acquitted themselves well – Paul in particular was his usual lucid self in justifying his libertarian stance on a number of issues – but there are simply too many candidates on the dais for the media to cover and they have already decided, by dint of scant news coverage, that these three must go.

There you have it.  These same Republicans – at least most of them – will square off again next week in Tampa, Florida, another key battleground state.  By then, of course, the President will have announced his latest jobs plan, which will undoubtedly provide fresh fodder for the debaters.  But what will the President say – and will it make any difference?  I’ll try to address that topic in my next post.

 

The 14th Amendment: Once More, With(Out) Passion

 As the nation approached the August 2 deadline for resolving the debt crisis, a chorus of voices arose, mostly on the Left, urging President Obama to end the budget impasse by unilaterally invoking the 14th amendment. That Civil War-era amendment contains a clause, Section 4, which reads: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, should not be questioned.”  According to proponents of this idea,  by invoking the 14th amendment, President Obama negated any need for Congress to vote on raising the debt limit, since under the Constitution the government is obligated to pay its debts, congressional approval or not.  Under this plan, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would be ordered by Obama continue borrowing money to pay the government’s debts.   House Republicans, went the argument, would be in no position to stop Obama, since he could say his action was necessary to prevent the nation from enduring the calamity that would occur if it defaulted on its debt.  If Republicans pursued the matter in court, the issue would take months to resolve – assuming the Court even took up the case.  Meanwhile, the debt crisis would be averted.

As I discussed in an earlier post,  this was an absolutely terrible idea.  And yet, as it appeared we were on the brink of default, more and more people sincerely believed Obama was preparing to take this drastic step.  Harvard professor Paul Peterson, in a guest post on this blog, made perhaps the most cogent case for why Obama might be preparing to do so.  I confess that when I read Paul’s post, I thought he was acting as provocateur – a role Paul has played very effectively in the past.  (Full disclosure: Paul was a former colleague of mine at Harvard and served on my dissertation committee there as well).  But if Paul was operating as intellectual gadfly, others quite sincerely thought Obama was preparing to end the crisis by invoking the 14th amendment.

Let’s be clear – and I said this before the debt deal was consummated – Obama was never going to invoke the 14th amendment. In my previous post, I laid out the reasons why this made no political sense, but let me briefly review the logic driving my argument.  The mistake proponents of the 14th amendment route made is to think the end goal was to solve the debt crisis on terms favorable to Obama.  If Obama could end the standoff without giving away the budget store in negotiations, he would be judged as having “won” the debt debate. But, from Obama’s perspective, this narrow focus on the debt negotiations missed the bigger picture.  Obama’s actions in the debt debate, by necessity, were driven by his electoral calculations looking ahead to 2012.  It was never simply about “winning” the debt clash – it was about solving it with the least political controversy in order to move it off the table. Invoking the 14th amendment would have had the opposite effect – it would have guaranteed that the issue remained simmering on the front burner for the next year, and it almost certainly would have become a Republican rallying cry – Obama as dictator! – in the coming presidential campaign. Partisans on the Left, as is their wont, became so focused on beating the Right in the debt game that they lost sight of Obama’s larger political interests.  And this is a problem for issue activists on both sides of the political aisle more generally – they tend to approach each battle with a scorched earth, take no prisoners, it’s us or them mentality.  Presidents, however, cannot afford this zero-sum approach to political conflict because, under our system of shared powers, they must actively collaborate with Congress to get most anything done.

But there was a second reason why Obama would not invoke the 14th amendment – it is not in his political nature. Longtime readers should not be surprised by my claim. In several previous posts dating to before Obama’s inauguration, I have pointed out that he is not a risk taker, and he is not one who makes decisions based on emotion.  In a December, 2008, blog post titled Obama the Centrist I noted that as early as his days as editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had a penchant for splitting differences, avoiding controversy and minimizing risk.  Caution, pragmatism and the politics of moderation are in his DNA, and nothing that has happened in his presidency to date has persuaded me otherwise.

Invoke the 14th amendment?  It was never going to happen.

Surprise (Not)! They Have A Deal (Probably)!

Wow, and in the nick of time!  Who could have predicted it! ;~)

If press accounts (see here and here)  can be believed, Boehner, McConnell and the  President are on the cusp of forging a budget agreement almost precisely along the lines I forecast a few days back: essentially, Obama agreeing to the substance of Republican debt reduction policies in order to get a debt extension that will take this issue off the table until after 2012.

The key negotiating point that bridged the differences was a the form of a  “trigger” that would be pulled if the joint congressional committee did not come back with the specific spending cuts needed to meet the deficit reduction target agreed to in the plan.  That trigger apparently will consist of two elements: first, if the joint committee’s recommendations are not adopted by the both congressional chambers, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification.  Second, automatic across-the-board spending cuts, including reductions in Medicare and defense, would kick in.

Otherwise, the plan includes essentially all the elements of the deal negotiated last week by Reid and Boehner from which Obama evidently initially pulled back. It includes:

  • A very short-term debt ceiling extension, attached to a military spending bill, to avoid default on Tuesday.
  • An overall cut of $2.8 trillion in spending, including $1 trillion that falls within spending caps over 10 years. Significantly this dollar amount should be enough to get agreement for a debt extension beyond the 2012 elections – but see the next point.
  • The creation of a joint congressional committee that will specify, by this Thanksgiving, how to achieve the additional $1.8 trillion in cuts.  If the recommendations are not adopted, the trigger is pulled,  leading to automatic cuts.
  • No new tax revenue.

Before everybody starts patting me on the back for my prognostic skills, however, keep in mind that this deal could still fall apart. There are both substantive and political risks.   Politically, this is going to be a tough deal for Senate Democrats on the Left to swallow. Essentially, the bill represents a concession to every Republican demand. Will Senate Democrats filibuster it?  If it passes, the Leftist Blogosphere (TPM, the Daily Kos, FDL) will go positively insane. Second, will the Tea Party-backed House Republican caucus accept the trigger mechanisms?  There is reason to be skeptical that Congress will ever allow across the board spending cuts to occur.  Remember, they tried this with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in the mid 1980’s and Congress proved amazingly adept at manipulating the budget figures to avoid invoking sequestration. Tea Party activists might not buy into the deal because of the risky trigger mechanism.  Finally, this does nothing – at this point – to address entitlement reform which, in the end, is the big budget driver.

But, at this point, this is a deal that avoids default – one driven by a political logic that almost guaranteed an end result along these lines.

I’ll be on later today with an update and more in-depth analysis.  I want in particular to address, once more, the 14th amendment issue that Obama’s fervent supporters (and critics too) were so sure  he would invoke.

Addendum (2 p.m.) Everyone (Boehner, Reid and McConnell) have publicly confirmed that a deal is in the works, and all three express guarded optimism that something will be worked out.  The sticking point seems still to be the form of the trigger mechanism that kicks in if  Congress doesn’t act on the recommendations by the joint congressional committee for specific cuts.  The idea is that both sides must agree to a trigger that threatens their interests – so, threats to cut Medicare payouts to healthcare providers will presumably not be acceptable to Democrats, and the threat of deep Defense cuts  will presumably force Republicans to act.   I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if the Obama administration is also trying to get a face-saving provision that says something about tax increases being considered after 2012, when the economy is in a better position to tolerate them.  This will be for show, but the Democrats can at least show this fig leaf to their party members.

Based on these comments, I remain optimistic that an agreement will be announced later today.

Addendum (4:30 p.m.).  As expected, Reid’s effort to invoke cloture in order to bring his measure to the Senate floor failed, 50-49 earlier today, although Reid can still try again if the agreement now being negotiated falls apart.   So far, I don’t see anything that appears to jeopardize that agreement.

Addendum (5:45 p.m.)  Reid has signed off on the deal.  Now the hard part begins – selling it to their respective caucuses!

The Debt Debate: Do Obama and Senate Democrats Want the Same Thing?

Ok, as of 9:45 p.m., here is what I think is going on in the debt negotiations, and why. Be forewarned – this is highly speculative, based almost entirely on a couple of emails from congressional aides (none of whom work for the main players), some media accounts and my own admittedly unconventional read of the logic driving Obama, Boehner, Reid and McConnell.

I think the outlines of a deal are in place, largely along the lines I suggested earlier: an extension of the debt ceiling by an amount that will take us past 2012, matched by budget cuts equal to or greater than the increase in the ceiling;  no tax increases; and a balanced budget vote in both chambers.  The sticking point appears to be the trigger mechanism that would force Congress to enact additional budget cuts down the road, based on the recommendations of a congressional commission or similar agency that both Boehner’s and Reid’s bill create.   The framework for passage of the debt bill triggering an increase in the ceiling would be the Boehner House bill, which has been tabled by the Senate, but not yet rejected.  That means Reid’s cloture vote in a few hours will fail, and his bill will be dead.

In short, Republicans will largely get what they want, with one key concession deeply coveted by Obama: taking the debt debate off the table prior to this reelection.  The key to forging the agreement is to understand that Obama’s political interests do not fully align with Senate Democrats’.  He will be running for reelection with economic numbers that have sunk previous incumbents, and no indication at this point that these numbers will improve soon.  Fairly or not, he – and not Senate Democrats – will be held accountable for this by the voters.  He will run with his popular approval likely hovering closer to 40% than 50%, and he has seen what a debt debate can do to those numbers.  In short, even in the best possible scenario – that the Republicans nominate Tim Pawlenty or Ron Paul – he will be locked into the race of his life.  Politically, he cannot afford to revisit this debt debate in 2012.  So he has a huge incentive to cut a deal on Republicans terms, even if it means offending Senate Democrats.

Will Reid and Senate Democrats go along with it?  What choice do they have?  If the Democratic President and the Republican congressional leadership say they have deal, but that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are holding it up, that doesn’t just hurt Obama – it potentially costs Democrats control of the Senate in 2012.  If I’m a Senate Democrat right now, I’m worried that my President’s political interests are not mine – and there’s not much I can do about it.

That’s my read – right now, but don’t be surprised if I turn out to be entirely wrong.  Always remember my Ted Kennedy election prediction!

10:22 – Breaking News: Reid is not even going to go through the motions of a cloture vote tonight, since he will lose.  He’s announced he’s postponing the Senate vote until 1 p.m. tomorrow.  I’ve got to believe that’s because the two sides are closer to an agreement based on the Boehner bill.

I’ll be on later if details leak.