Posts Tagged ‘congress’

Replacing the Sequester: 3 Ways to Save $1+ Trillion Without Raising Taxes or Gutting Programs

Posted on: March 1st, 2013 by Kyle. | No Comments

Today, the horribly named “sequester” goes into effect, forcing $85 billion in spending cuts over the course of the rest of 2013 all because Congress failed to enact an alternative bill. The cuts are divided evenly between defense and non-defense items, including discretionary spending on everything from unemployment benefits to education funding. Medicare will also be targeted but not Social Security. The economic impact of these cuts is not yet clear but with anemic GDP growth and a stagnant job market, any cuts in government spending in the United States would put a dent in the economy.

So what could Congress do to replace the automatic spending cuts? Well, for one, they have the power to restore all funding without instituting any cuts or tax increases at all, but aside from that, there are a number of ways for the government to save money that would make a whole lot of sense, yet encounter political resistance for a variety of self-interested reasons.

1. Medicare Buy-in

One of the easiest ways for government to raise revenue without raising taxes is by instituting a Medicare buy-in program. An estimate by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office pegged the savings over ten years at a substantial $110 billion. By itself, it solves one-tenth of the sequester.

What does a Medicare buy-in plan mean, though, you ask? It means that the federal government would allow individuals on the open market to buy into Medicare. Currently, the program only accepts citizens over the age of 65, which is financed through payroll taxes that you pay over the course of your life. The problem with this is pretty obvious: senior citizens are an extremely high risk pool compared to someone who is, say, thirty years old.

Basically a Medicare buy-in program would work like this: anyone under the age of 65 could get a plan by paying for a premium based on a specific set of conditions (age, whether they’re a smoker, etc.). You would get all of the benefits of Medicare, the country’s most efficient health insurer in terms of cost, without breaking the bank. Since Medicare is not a for-profit venture, the plans would also be cheaper than private insurance.

So what’s preventing Medicare buy-in from taking effect? That one is pretty simple: private insurance companies killed it in the Senate in 2009 because the price efficiencies of a Medicare buy-in program threatened their profit margins. However, any discussion about deficit reduction should include it.

2. Closing military bases overseas and ending wasteful programs

Any serious deficit reduction has to start at the root of the problem: military spending. Between fiscal year 2001 and 2010, the military budget increased a staggering 81%. The United States spent $768 billion on defense spending in fiscal 2011. This is more than we spend on either Medicare or Social Security. When you add on top of that the $141 billion for veterans benefits, defense-related spending tops $900 billion a year. That does not even include the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which alone amounted to over a trillion dollars!

This is not to suggest that we should cut veterans benefits or the pay of our fine men and women in uniform, which account for only about a quarter of military spending. Our fighting forces are relatively lean compared to the top-heavy leadership. The ratio of officers and flag officers to uniformed personnel (per 10,000) is at a historically high 7. This is up from around 6 in 2001 and fewer than 2 during World War II.

As the New York Times put it in 2010, “there are now 963 generals and admirals leading the armed forces, about 100 more than on Sept. 11, 2001. Meanwhile, the overall number of active duty personnel has declined to some 1.5 million from 2.2 million in 1985, even though the Army and Marine Corps have grown since the Sept. 11 attacks, to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

However, the bulk of military spending is on expensive equipment that we do not even need or use, overseas military bases, and on research and design for future weapons. To give you an idea of how overstretched the U.S. military really is, consider the fact that we have active duty military personnel stationed in a ridiculous 148 countries. Let that sink in: 148 countries.

This includes nearly 55,000 stationed in Germany and 35,000 in Japan, over sixty years after World War II ended. Likewise, Korea has nearly 30,000 military personnel as well. The problem is that once we start a conflict, we never leave these countries. The same would have been true of Iraq (where there were plans for permanent bases) if the American people had not demanded an exit.

3. Financial transaction fee

An interesting proposal from Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa would raise $352 billion over ten years for the federal government without even touching income tax rates. The idea is pretty straightforward: charge a three penny fee for each $100 of a trade on stocks, bonds, derivative contracts, options, and other complex Wall Street instruments. Initial public offerings are exempt.

Importantly, the fee would target high-risk speed traders who threaten the financial system with their erratic behavior and short-term gain outlook. Those looking for long-term investments in solid companies, rather than speculative trading based on events, would be minimally impacted by such a fee. It would also have a decidedly small effect on the poor and middle class (for example, $50,000 worth of trades would come to a measly $15), whereas the sequester cuts target these groups almost exclusively.

Combined with the Medicare buy-in, a financial transaction fee would save the government the equivalent of roughly half of the sequester. The other half could easily come from reductions in military spending by closing unneeded bases, winding down the war in Afghanistan, eliminating wasteful weapons programs and counting the interest saved on the debt (which is substantial when you’re talking about over $900 billion in defense-related spending per year). The only thing stopping Congress from doing any of this is the political will to do what is right.

Abraham Lincoln: The Anti-War Congressman

Posted on: January 24th, 2013 by Kyle. | No Comments

I’ve been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s absolute must-read Team of Rivals, which is a political biography of Lincoln and his three main rivals for the presidency (Ohio Governor Salmon Chase, Missouri Attorney General Edward Chase, and New York Senator William Seward). She has a number of interesting anecdotes that I could share, but one that popped out most was a part of his history that I had never been aware: his opposition to the Mexican-American War.

Abraham Lincoln is perhaps best known for his role as president during the American Civil War, making him in a sense the ultimate “war president”. It was a war that he did not choose to fight but one that was forced upon him. More importantly, though, was his reluctance to use military force at all. In many ways, it can be reflective of recent American history when a not-so-distant president invaded a foreign country named Iraq.

Eighteen months prior to his election to the House of Representative from the state of Illinois, the United States declared war on Mexico. The country was eager to expand, a part of the “Manifest Destiny” which would see the nation extend from Atlantic to Pacific. The president of the time, James Polk, sent General Zachary Taylor into disputed territory – the United States claimed that its border with Mexico extended to the Rio Grande with its recent acceptance of Texas into the Union, while the Mexicans claimed that it extended to the Nueces River.

Many contemporaries of the time, predominantly Whigs, would argue that Polk hoped to provoke a response from the Mexican Army by sending Taylor into the disputed territory. Abraham Lincoln was one of those critics. Lincoln would say that, “It is a fact that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops.” Lincoln was not convinced that the war was legal, saying that it was both “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated by Polk.

As a freshman member of Congress, in the form of a resolution on the House floor, Lincoln challenged the sitting president of the United States to show the House of Representatives “whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was shed” belonged to Mexico or to the U.S. He believed that the onus of proof was on the president to show that “Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in hostile array.” Without so much as a response from Polk, Lincoln declared that since he “cannot, or will not do this,” the war was “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

The point is not to re-litigate a war that occurred over 150 years ago, but that we have checks and balances for a reason. As we saw then, and as we have seen in recent history, the rush to war and the justifications for them are often an overzealous means to an end. Lincoln wisely pointed to the deception of his time, even if it was unpopular at that moment, and still managed to capture the presidency a decade later. We need leaders like him in Washington to push back, ask the tough questions and take the political heat. Not because it is popular, but because it is right.

An Open Letter to Congress on Gun Violence and What to Do About It

Posted on: January 16th, 2013 by Kyle. | No Comments

Later today, President Obama is expected to unveil a series of steps that the country should take to combat the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. I would like to offer my two cents on the subject by sharing a letter that I wrote for my current representative in the House, Jackie Walorski, and Indiana’s two senators, Joe Donnelly and Dan Coats. I encourage you to do the same with your members of Congress. Feel free to re-use portions of this letter if you don’t have the time to write your own. The important thing is that we mobilize to combat the powerful interest groups that would rather have us do nothing. And now, the letter…

Dear Congresswoman Walorski:

Congratulations on your recent narrow victory and on being sworn in as the representative for the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana. As a 2nd District resident, as a voter and as a citizen of these great United States of America, I am writing on the important issue of gun violence.

Following the recent tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty children and six staff members were gunned down in cold blood, the nation has turned to our elected leaders to seek a solution to the carnage taking place on a stunningly frequent basis. Whether it is the mass shooting in Tucson, where Congresswoman Giffords miraculously survived a gunshot to the head, or the horrific mass shooting in Aurora, where a man armed with body armor and an assault rifle brutally murdered twelve and shot fifty-eight others, we are becoming all too accustomed to these tragedies. This nightmare must end.

Our country has a proud tradition of gun ownership dating back to before the America Revolution. However, just as we have adapted our laws to reflect the changing times on other issues, we also must modernize our gun laws to reflect the realities on the ground today, including the vast technological advancements that have taken place since the 1700s. Back then a one-shot musket was no guarantee of a kill even with a precise aim. It would take well over ten seconds to reload just one round even for a well-trained member of the Continental Army.

Today, we find ourselves with weapons that are truly awe-inspiring — and not in a good way. The Bushmaster assault rifle used at Sandy Hook Elementary is capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute. It is meant for the battlefields of Afghanistan, not for the hallways of an elementary school. Let us not pretend that military-style weapons should be in the hands of civilians. These are machines of death, not of play or self-defense. The only civilian who truly needs these weapons is someone who means to do a great deal of harm in a fast, efficient manner without regard for life.

Some powerful organizations, who have a vested financial interest in selling these weapons of mass murder, have attempted to sensationalize the issue by claiming that gun safety advocates support taking away all guns and abolishing the Second Amendment as we know it. Conspiracy theorists, with millions of views on YouTube, have even gone to the extent of claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax designed by the government to take away people’s guns. This could not be further from the truth. We can and should protect the Second Amendment while also coming to the realization that this is not the 1780s. The Founders never intended for us to unleash firepower onto our streets that frankly would be more lethal than even artillery of the time.

Assault weapons and the size of clips are not the only issues at hand. There were over 30,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2010 of which there were 11,078 murders. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to this fact when other industrialized nations, such as the UK, had fewer than 50. Responsible gun ownership should be a requisite for owning a gun. Why is proper gun training not mandatory? Likewise, one cannot expect a person with a felony to be a responsible gun owner. Felons, criminals and terrorists should never have access to any weapons whatsoever. And while we cannot completely dry up the black market of gun sales to these groups, we can certainly make it more difficult and expensive, saving countless lives in the process.

The only way that we can prevent such transactions from occurring is by instituting universal background checks. Under current law, a person even with a violent felony can purchase any gun of their choosing at a gun show or through a private sale. It is estimated that up to forty percent of gun sales occur through these means. This loophole is simply not acceptable. It puts the lives of our citizens at risk. Closing it should be a top priority of Congress.

Finally, the issue of mental illness has been given scant attention in recent years. I believe that Congress has an obligation to examine America’s mental health system in a serious, thoughtful and thorough fashion. Just walk the streets of some of our biggest cities and you will see how poorly we have neglected to treat mental illness. Many find themselves homeless, including tens of thousands of veterans. Not only will better funding for mental health prevent future gun violence, it will also help individuals with mental illness live more fulfilling lives.

All of the approaches that I have outlined are enormously popular with the American people. According to a Washington Post poll taken on January 10-13, which mirrors other recent polls taken on the subject, 88 percent of Americans support requiring background checks at gun shows; 76 percent support requiring a background check on anyone purchasing ammunition; 71 percent support creating a federal database to track the sale of all guns; 65 percent support banning high-capacity clips; and 58 percent support banning assault weapons. These are all measures that would enhance public safety with wide support from voters, not only protecting the lives of children, but also police officers, firefighters and others who put their lives on the line for us every day.

In conclusion, America needs a comprehensive approach to solving this critical issue. It is incomprehensible to think that we would allow violent criminals to purchase a gun thanks to a lack of universal background checks. It is equally appalling that weapons of mass murder, such as the Bushmaster assault rifle and others like it, are allowed on the streets of Newtown, South Bend or any other city in America. And of course the lack of mental health funding is not only a safety issue, but a moral one as well. To simply throw our hands up and pretend that we cannot solve this issue in a responsible way is ludicrous. We have the solutions right in front of us. I hope that you will support these common sense measures to bring an end to this violent chapter in our country’s history. Smart gun safety laws not only protect our most vulnerable, they protect our rights as responsible citizens.

Sincerely yours,
Kyle W. Bell

Another Self-Inflicted Economic Crisis

Posted on: January 2nd, 2013 by Kyle. | No Comments

Charles Blow is spot-on yet again with his latest column in which he bemoans the continuous nature of the self-inflicted economic crises that we have witnessed over the past couple years: first with the debt ceiling and then with the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of tax increases and cuts to defense spending and Medicare. While yesterday’s vote to stave off a tax increase on the middle class was a success, it was done by kicking the can down the road rather than resolving fights over the debt ceiling and spending cuts. Blow writes:

“Be clear: there is no reason to celebrate. This is a mournful moment. We — and by we I mean Congress, and by Congress I mean the Republicans in Congress — have again demonstrated just how broken and paralyzed our government has become, how beholden to hostage-takers, how vulnerable to extremism.

A fiscal cliff deal was cut at the last possible minute, covering a minimal number of issues. It was far from perfect and barely palatable. It was a compromise, and compromises are inherently imperfect. No one likes the whole of it, but they balance the bad parts against the good and see beyond dissension.

As the fiscal cliff votes came down to the wire, many repeated the aphorism: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But sadly, we are beyond even that. Now the perfunctory has become the victim of the grueling.

The American people suffered through another moment of manufactured suspense brought on by political malpractice. There was no grand bargain. There was only a begrudging acquiescence.”

Blow goes on to note that the Congress ending on Thursday will be the least productive one in modern history with only 173 public laws past by the end of 2012. Even the “Do Nothing” Congress, which Harry Truman bashed on his way to an electoral victory, enacted 906 laws in their two year period between January 1947 and December 1948. The one main function of Congress, to pass laws, is rendered ineffective by an intransigent group of extremists who are hell-bent on blowing up government itself.

Steps at the U.S. Capitol Building - Washington, D.C.

Now if your goal is to gum up the works of government, one would say that this Congress has done a pretty good job. Many conservatives would be gleeful to see the government shut down and the credit rating of the United States downgraded. But what exactly does that mean for the business community who so dutifully funds the Republican Party?

During the last debt ceiling crisis, in August of 2011, the stock market shaved off over 4 percent of its value, the steepest decline since the start of the recession in 2008. It eroded U.S. GDP growth and slowed the pace of job recovery. With no certainty over fiscal policy, thanks to ideologically rigid politicians, investors are left to seriously wonder whether the U.S. government (i.e. Congress) will make good on its debt obligations. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in a country where every few months there is a new self-inflicted economic crisis?

And let’s be clear on that: the debt ceiling and the so-called “fiscal cliff” are self-inflicted wounds that did not have to happen. In fact, the “fiscal cliff” was created in the aftermath of the debt ceiling debacle of 2011 when Republicans in Congress refused to extend the country’s debt ceiling – even though they had already committed the money in their budgets – unless cuts were made. Now they want to undo the cuts that they themselves had negotiated and extend tax cuts to millionaires. Thankfully, they lost on at least one of those issues but are positioned to yet again drag the country through another economic turmoil over the debt ceiling in roughly two months from now.

Unfortunately, there’s not a simple political solution, either. Many of the Republicans who would be willing to vote for an economically sane approach to governance fear a primary challenge from the right more than they do a general election from the left. This is due in large part thanks to gerrymandered districts, created by politicians in statehouses across the country for political gain to both ensure their party’s control and to protect incumbents. Unless the Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering is unconstitutional (it clearly is a violation of the First Amendment when politicians can silence voters through the lines that they draw) or voters pass state-by-state referendums to create independent map-drawing commissions, we are likely to continue to see a Congress that is inflexible and unresponsive to the demands of voters.

GOP House Schedules 108 Workdays in 2012

Posted on: October 27th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The GOP Congress is doing what no other employer in America would ever allow:

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have unveiled a plan that would allow the GOP Congress to have one week off for every two weeks of work. While relatively common to have fewer workdays during an election year, the 2012 schedule would only have the House convene for a miniscule 108 days. That’s down from 127 days during the last election year in 2010 when Democrats controlled the House. Democrats in the House quickly decried the light schedule as rancorous debates have led to few legislative results in the current session.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday press conference that “the American people deserve better… it really makes you wonder about the schedule, but particularly at this time, when the American people are feeling so much pain.” Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complained that “the House has struggled to get even its most basic work done.”

The schedule calls for only six work days in January, eight days in April and three days in August. After returning on September 10 from their August recess, the House will only be in session for 13 days before the elections in November 2012. To make sure that lawmakers do not have to wake up too early, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that he will schedule votes no earlier than 1 p.m. and that they will end before 7 p.m.

Voters of all political stripes should be outraged by this lack of respect for the public. Can you think of any other place than Congress where you get 7 days off for every 14 days of work? Working class Americans wouldn’t know what to do with all of that free time even if they had it. They wish that they could have a single vacation in a year. Of course the Congressional vacation time is just in-between fundraisers and campaigning.

I would recommend passing a bill that would require both chambers of Congress to remain in full session for at least 3/4 of the year instead of the 1/3 that is planned. That gives them plenty of time to do their campaigning without devoting their entire schedule to it. Just like everyone else that doesn’t show up for work, members that miss the mandatory sessions would be docked pay. Of course it would never pass the GOP Congress because it makes too much sense.

Stock Market Reacts Violently to a Bad Debt Deal

Posted on: August 4th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

It’s quite common to hear a Republican politician to use the phrase that “the market knows best”. They should be alarmed then to see the reaction that the market has had to their manufactured debt ceiling crisis and the deal that came out of it. We are coming off the worst day for the Dow since 2008, a drop of over 500 points. Only barely did the Dow manage to avoid a nine day losing streak, which would have been the worst performance since 1978. The stock market is now down 10 percent from its April highs.

For a party that loves to effusively talk about the wisdom of the market, the past month’s stock slide should be a wakeup call. The Hoover economics that Republicans in Washington have subscribed to, cutting spending at a time when job growth is at best anemic, is putting the country at risk of a double-dip recession. Don’t take my word for it though. I am only a Political Science major. Take the word of economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

He warned in July that the debt ceiling deal envisioned by Republicans would “damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.”

Krugman warns that focusing on reduced deficits during a period of slow economic growth is essentially like throwing water on a fire that’s barely burning anyway (the economy). He writes:

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

The bottom line is that the economy is in rough shape. Instead of treating the problem and attempting to stimulate growth, Republicans are the medieval doctors treating the sick by bleeding them. The stock market has reacted by contracting. At first stocks dove on fears that the United States might default due to Tea Party extremists holding the debt ceiling hostage. Now the stock market is tanking because of an uncertain economy that the debt ceiling deal did nothing to solve. In fact it only made matters worse.

Who’s Actually to Blame for America’s Debt?

Posted on: July 27th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Have you heard ads on TV blaming the country’s deficits on President Obama? You likely have if you’ve watched cable news in the past couple weeks. They are being blanketed nationwide in a $20 million effort by a conservative group known as Crossroads GPS. Working behind the scenes is Karl Rove, the former political mastermind for President Bush’s successful 2000 and 2004 campaigns. The organization is backed by corporate donations to undermine President Obama and Democratic candidates.

The latest ad specifically claims that “America’s economy is hanging by a thread” thanks to “reckless spending, a failed stimulus and a $14 trillion debt.” The ad goes on to say that it is time to stop giving President Obama a blank check. The message of the ad is clear: Obama is the reason that we have a beleaguered economy, a large (and rising) national debt, etc.

The only problem, of course, is that it is not true. President Bush and Republicans in Congress racked up $5.07 trillion of debt from tax cuts for the rich, wars, a Wall Street bailout, Medicare prescription drug bill, and other spending. During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the federal budget increased by an average of 3.81% per year.

The nation’s debt is not a product of President Obama. The 2010 budget passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama was an increase of only 1.4%. Emergency measures that he did take were only temporary. When he entered office the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a week and he took action by passing the Recovery Act, which created as many as 3.6 million jobs. This is his largest contributor to the debt to date.

The healthcare reform bill that passed in 2010 was paid for, despite repeated lies by Republicans that it added to the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the “Affordable Care Act”, which Republicans love to call “Obamacare”, will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the course of the next two decades. Again, that is a reduced deficit thanks to the actions of our president and a Democratic Congress.

Republicans might not like the numbers, but they don’t lie. The bulk of our country’s debt problems lie on the shoulders of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that went on a spending spree at the same time that they unloaded the Treasury Department with tax cuts for the wealthy. Now they hold our economy hostage, claiming that President Obama is spending too much money, when they themselves are the main reason that we have a deficit problem.

Dismantling an Entitlement, and a Majority

Posted on: May 31st, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

A political scientist would tell you that the first lesson to learn for a politician is to know their constituents. It seems basic, but it is a fundamental part of constructing a winning electoral strategy. If you don’t get this right, you have no chance of holding on to power, let alone passing meaningful reforms once you attain it. The Democrats saw this firsthand in 2010 when they lost control of the House after failing to motivate their winning coalition from 2006 and 2008 to go to the polls. Republicans risk repeating the same mistake with a push for radical legislation that independent voters will find hard to stomach.

The Democratic and Republican Party are comprised of many, sometimes conflicting, constituencies. Labor unions, minorities, and blue-collar workers are just some of the Democratic Party’s base. Big business, evangelical Christians, and white-collar workers largely comprise the Republican Party. While this is a bit of a simplification, it largely holds true from one election to the next. The people who do not rigidly identify with one party or the other, independents, will decide who wins Congress and the White House in 2012. They largely sit out midterm elections, which are low turnout elections driven more by partisans.

The independent vote, by all accounts, is up for grabs in 2012. There is no doubt that they were dissatisfied with the slow pace of the economic recovery and perceived overspending by Washington. The Republican Party did a great job of characterizing, vilifying even, the Democratic healthcare plan as “socialized medicine”, despite the fact that it essentially left the structural system unchanged. Near universal healthcare? Yes, but far from the single-payer systems of Europe and Canada.

Whatever the case may be, Republicans have gone in the opposite direction and pursued a far more radical agenda than the Democrats could ever imagine. The Republican plan to end Medicare, replacing it with vouchers for seniors that would result in over $6,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses, is just one example of their overreach. It has long been a wet dream of Republicans to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. George W. Bush attempted a similar approach in 2005 with his failed plan to privatize Social Security. Voters rejected that and they are going to reject this Republican Congress’s plan as well.

As far as building coalitions goes, though, the Republican Party is in a real bind. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich displays this quite well when he called the Republican plan “right-wing social engineering”, only to backtrack the next day when he was met by outrage on the right. A Republican presidential or Congressional candidate will find it difficult to win a primary without supporting the Republican plan to end Medicare, but at the same time, this makes them virtually untenable in a general election. It’s a catch-22 that could very likely end the Republican majority in 2012.

The bottom line of this is that the Republicans in Congress, with the exception of only four in the House and five in the Senate, voted for a plan that is toxic to a majority of their constituents. Even Republican voters have reservations about dismantling a program that they have invested in throughout their entire lives. Elections are won with coalitions and the Republicans just gave the middle finger to the two largest and most reliable voting groups in the country: Baby Boomers and seniors. Unless Republicans can distract voters away from their vote to dismantle Medicare, they can kiss their majority goodbye.

State of the Union Liveblogging

Posted on: January 25th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Final Thoughts: President Obama entered tonight’s speech with a new Republican Congress, but also an improving economy and approval ratings above 50%. The mood on Capitol Hill was somewhat sober with the recent events in Tucson looming over as a dark cloud. The president struck the right tone and set out priorities that have been long ignored by politicians.

By proposing a spending freeze over the next five years, the president is sure to upset Democrats and not please many Republicans that would rather see huge cuts in federal spending. His middle-of-the-road position makes him appear to be serious about tackling problems while others nitpick in a partisan fashion. He noted that if Republicans are serious about cutting the deficit, then they should support letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire and getting rid of subsidies to oil companies.

The president proposed getting 80% of the country’s energy from clean sources by 2030. Investments will have to be made and prioritized. Not only is it a matter of smart economics, it is a national security issue as well. This should be our Sputnik moment, where the country rallies behind a cause like we did during the Space Race over 50 years ago. President Obama made the case that we need a similar race towards energy innovation.

The president laid out an optimistic, yet realistic, plan for the future tonight. Smart investment in clean energy, reforming our education system and continuing the recovery in our economy through infrastructure upgrades and exports. It’s something that all Americans can stand behind.

10:13 p.m.: “The state of our Union is strong.”

10:12 p.m.: America was founded on being a nation of big dreams. “We do big things.”

10:06 p.m.: “Starting this year no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.” Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was passed during last year’s Congress.

10:03 p.m.: The people in South Sudan voted for independence with American assistance. The United States “supports the democratic aspirations of all people.”

10:02 p.m.: President will visit South America in March to build new alliances.

10:01 p.m.: The New START Treaty reduces nuclear arms between the United States and Russia. It also re-instates inspections.

10:00 p.m.: “American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

9:58 p.m.: “Nearly 100,000 brave young men and women” have left Iraq “with their heads held high.” Combat missions have ended, violence is down and a new government has formed. “America’s commitment has been kept. The Iraq War is coming to an end.”

9:57 p.m.: Promises to veto any bill with earmarks in it. That’s a pretty small and symbolic promise, Mr. President.

9:55 p.m.: “We need to think bigger.” Small, symbolic budget cuts will not solve any problems.

9:54 p.m.: “We shouldn’t just give our people a government that is more affordable, we should give them a government that is more competent.”

9:53 p.m.: Proposes simplified tax code.

9:51 p.m.: To tackle the deficit “we simply cannot afford a permanent expansion” of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

9:48 p.m.: President proposes freezing government spending for next five years. Already froze federal worker pay.

9:43 p.m.: President mentions passing health care with Democrats in the chamber standing up. Vows to protect the bill from Republican attempts at repeal, but is willing to work with Republicans to improve the bill. “Instead of fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.”

9:39 p.m.: President proposes investments in transportation and infrastructure. Goal is to have high-speed rail accessible to 80% of Americans. Projects are already under-way in California, Florida and the Midwest. High-speed rail is cheaper, better for the environment, and in some cases faster than flying on a plane.

9:36 p.m.: Children of undocumented parents go to our colleges, but “go back home and compete against us”. President argues that it is time to address the issue of immigration. “Let’s stop expelling talented young people… who could be further enriching this nation.”

9:34 p.m.: “Higher education must be within the reach of every American.”

9:32 p.m.: President argues it is time to treat teachers with respect. Reward good teachers and punish bad ones.

9:30 p.m.: “We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl that needs to be celebrated, but the winner of the Science Fair.”

9:28 p.m.: “By 2035, 80% of America’s energy will come from renewable sources”

9:27 p.m.: “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.” Proposes paying for new technology by eliminating tax cuts to big oil.

9:26 p.m.: “We can be the first nation to have a million electric vehicles by 2015.”

9:24 p.m.: Obama argues that Clean energy should be the next Space Race.

9:23 p.m.: President references Sputnik and how the U.S. surpassed the Soviet Union in the Space Race.

9:22 p.m.: “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

9:21 p.m.: “The future is ours to win. But to get there we can’t stand still”.

9:19 p.m.: Technology and automation has led to fewer jobs needed.

9:16 p.m.: Corporate profits and the stock market are up, but we measure progress by average citizen.

9:14 p.m.: “What comes of this moment” depends on not whether we “sit together tonight, but whether we work together tomorrow.”

9:12 p.m.: The President notes an empty chair in the Chamber reserved for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

9:11 p.m.: President Obama begins to speak with Vice President Joe Biden and new Speaker of the House John Boehner sitting behind him.

Tonight I will be liveblogging the State of the Union address by President Obama. Refresh frequently for live updates.

Democrats Gain Momentum Going into November

Posted on: October 3rd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

With a little under one month to go before Election Day 2010, the fight for Congress is far from over. While Republicans had gained a sizable lead during the summer months, polling in the last few weeks has shown a tightening of the race. Several polls have even shown a Democratic lead on the generic Congressional ballot. This is a major change from August when Republicans had a double digit lead in some polls.

The first thing that people should know about polls is that they are not a predictor of what will happen in the future. A poll taken in August is worthless (or certainly in May). Why is that? Most people do not begin to pay attention to races until after Labor Day, the unofficial kickoff to the election season. Another reason is that undecided voters tend to make up their minds relatively close to Election Day.

Let’s take a look at where we stand right now on the generic ballot for Congress:

Republicans peaked in late August/early September and have been coming down ever since. Their one point lead is relatively meaningless when undecided voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama in 2008, indicating that their preference leans towards the Democrats. Once you remove Rasmussen from the poll average (a polling firm that has skewed heavily towards the GOP this cycle) and Zogby (which conducts its polls online and has a poor track record), we find that Democrats have actually surged into a one point advantage over the Republicans:

This is a significant change from just a few weeks ago. The trend lines are clear no matter whether you choose to include Republican-leaning Rasmussen or not. Democrats are climbing fast and Republicans are diving. Several explanations can be made as to why this is happening, but certainly the intensification of a fall campaign has a lot to do with it. Democrats, who were largely unmotivated throughout most of this year, appear to be getting out of their funk. A lot of this undoubtedly has to do with alarming victories by far-right Tea Party candidates across the country.

Also, while some in the media have declared that President Obama is a liability for Democrats, his approval rating stands in the mid to high 40s. When Republicans lost control of the House and Senate in 2006, President Bush’s approval rating stood in the low 30s. Democrats will undoubtedly still lose some seats. History tells us that the president’s party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. Whether it will be a blowout or not appears to be leaning in favor of the Democrats holding both chambers of Congress – if current trends continue and Democratic voters show up to the polls.