Monday, January 24, 2011

Real-World Deficits...

Take off the rose-colored glasses. Stop listening to the cable-news shows. Stop believing you can have your cake and eat it too. Our deficits are real. Are they about to kill us? No, not really. It's time we accept reality though:
We have come to believe a story about the deficit that is largely not true.

It’s a comforting story, to be sure. It holds the promise of a painless solution, because it suggests that the country’s huge looming deficits are not really our fault. Instead, they seem to stem from weak-willed politicians, wasteful government programs that do not benefit us and tax avoidance by people we have never met.

In truth, the coming deficits are a result, above all, of the fact that most Americans are scheduled to receive far more in Medicare benefits than they have paid in Medicare taxes. Conservative and liberal economists agree on this point. After Medicare on the list of big, growing budget items come Social Security and the military.

The three programs are roughly as popular as tax increases are unpopular – which is precisely why solving the deficit problem will be so difficult.

And here in lies the problem. Nobody likes deficits. Everyone likes balanced budgets. Nobody likes government spending. Nobody likes taxes. Everybody loves spending cuts to other people. Everybody likes tax increases on other people. Just don't touch their lives.

This is what is all wrong here. You see, it's hard to maintain the best standard of living in the world, or even one of the top ones. It takes sacrifices. While everyone wants to check out and live their lives as free of outside meddling as possible, everyone also wants that "outside" to provide. Well, it can't. There are choices to be made. More revenue, less spending, or both? Neither isn't an option.

When given an actual choice, people do make decisions.
And if you really want to find reasons for optimism, you can do so in the public opinion data. When Americans are given a set of realistic choices, they are perfectly willing to prioritize.

The poll’s respondents, for example, said they would rather cut military spending than Medicare or Social Security (and several bipartisan groups have made specific suggestions for doing so). If Medicare and Social Security must be changed, people prefer increasing payroll taxes on high-income households or raising the Medicare eligibility age – not cutting back on Social Security paychecks or Medicare treatments. Within the tax code, a reduced tax break for mortgage interest looks more palatable than a reduced tax break for health insurance.
The GOP lead Congress is not speaking this way to America, and President Obama has not made this clear enough. Something has to give. President Obama has ineffectively explained how his programs will lower the deficit. To his credit, he convened a commission that brought back an unpopular report to him- but it's something to work with. The GOP has tried to sell us a batch of bad goods- that $100 billion in cuts from discretionary spending will somehow do anything to our problems. It won't. The problems aren't hard, but they have to be dealt with, within the framework of reality.
From a purely economic perspective, the deficit remains a manageable problem. Some smaller government programs truly are wasteful and could stand to be cut. Relatively modest changes to Social Security – like raising the eligibility age or starting to subject some income above $106,800 to the Social Security tax – would eliminate its shortfall. Military spending could be cut significantly and still be much greater than in the past or much greater than in any other country.

Even Medicare and Medicaid don’t look intractable. After all, every other country in the world, including some that get medical results as good as ours over all, spends far less on health care than we do. It is possible.
Funny- sounds a little like the Budget Commission report?

Keith Olbermann's Exit

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Colin Powell: Cut Defense

Let me just let the man's words sink in for a minute:
But the real money in the entitlements, it's Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And unless we do something about those, you can't balance the budget. You can't fix the deficit or the national debt by killing NPR or National Endowment for the Humanities or the Arts. Nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. And I'm very put off when people just say let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago.
Don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut, and nobody up there yet is being very, very candid about what they are going to cut to fix this problem.
oh wait, there's more:
"As we draw down from Iraq and as over the next several years as we draw down from Afghanistan, I see no reason why the military shouldn't be looked at," he said. "When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was chairman and Mr. Cheney was secretary of Defense, we cut the defense budget by 25 percent. And we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers, so it can be done. Now, how fast you can do it and what you have to cut out remains to be seen, but I don't think the defense budget can be made, you know, sacrosanct and it can't be touched."
Here, just watch him.


Let's be honest, this is just brutal honesty. The GOP members of Congress, talking about cutting discretionary spending, but not touching entitlement pay-outs, the military, and old debt, are really just signaling a dislike for the government doing anything, not bringing fiscal sanity. Cutting ALL of the discretionary spending in the country may get rid of government, but it won't fix the fiscal mess. Colin Powell, is simply stating the facts.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

On Olbermann, Comcast, and NBC

Let me start with the obvious- I was a regular (not religious) Keith Olbermann watcher, and an opponent of the Comcast-NBC merger when I woke up Friday morning- so this is not a conversion for me to say I'm gravely concerned about media consolidation now. To say Keith Olbermann's abrupt ending of his show is concerning is to not do it judgment. It opens a whole can of worms.

Olbermann was the top rated show on MSNBC's evening line-up, and the highest rated cable-news evening show not on FOX News. He literally is the "father of the brand" and MSNBC- Maddow, O'Donnell, and Schultz- all are on the air because Olbermann essentially built the audience for them. The contract Olbermann had was lucrative, if nothing else. This all makes these events even more stunning. MSNBC is paying their top act to stay home. It's remarkable.

Is this Comcast's fault? There's no doubt they are involved. Jeff Zucker, who ultimately had control of MSNBC, and was able to make editorial decisions. He left just before Olbermann's friday stealth move out. It's easy to simply throw around the charge of Olbermann being pushed out for political editorial reasons dictated by Comcast, and I don't want to say that's not true- it might be- but Olbermann may have been pushed out indirectly by Comcast too.

You see, the issue may been between MSNBC and NBC News. NBC News has new power over MSNBC, thanks to Comcast's new ownership of them, and Zucker's departure. NBC News has long been concerned with MSNBC's liberal-leaning, and is afraid of being accused of that "liberal media bias" that the GOP screams about. NBC News is much more David Broder-esque, Beltway consensus in their style. They've always been concerned about Olbermann's rhetoric. Perhaps, just perhaps, Comcast had a less direct impact on Olbermann's firing, and more of an indirect one by giving an opening to get him out.

As Olbermann's contract is ended, new issues need to be addressed. First, there is a question of why Olbermann is equated to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. Beck regularly calls Democrats Nazis. Limbaugh is a flat-out racist. Hannity attempts to re-define Patriotism as conservatism everyday. O'Reilly famously called the slain abortion doctor, Dr. Tiller, "Tiller the Baby Killer." Olbermann? Yeah sure, he called Scott Brown a tea-bagger- is that an equivalent? It seems that simply being an aggressive liberal is considered a media crime to the Beltway critics. Is Olbermann a bit over the top? Yes. His rhetoric is not conducive to a political climate where things get done. Is he the equivalent of Beck "on the left." No, not close. Not even the same league.

There's a larger issue than Keith Olbermann at work here. Comcast's acquisition of NBC only furthers the consolidation of the media. As that media is consolidated, inevitably, voices will be squeezed out. Conservatives will not be squeezed out, because they tend to tune in more to radio and TV, and FOX isn't going away. Can we survive and thrive as a nation with a consolidated media, where editorial decisions are made "for profit?" I think not. Olbermann will land somewhere after he's allowed out. We'll still have a consolidation problem.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind....


The refrain is familiar. A Democratic President, who spends two years governing with a Democratic Congress, loses control of Congress in the mid-term. He tacks to the middle, and the new conservative Congress goes over board. His own base in Congress reacts angrily, but ultimately the President wins, and they follow.

Is this 1995 all over again? No, it's 2010, but some are wondering if the GOP is heading the same way. Just months ahead of the March showdown over spending levels, the GOP-lead House is reaching far in it's actions. The President is moving towards the middle, reaching out to business and extending tax-cuts. It's premature, but certainly the similarities are there.

At the same time, the President is facing harsh rhetoric from his left. He's receiving letters from his own party's House caucus saying he should tell the GOP to "keep your hands off of our Social Security." Yes, they want him to take the popular program totally off the table at the outset of any budget discussions. The blanket-ness of the statement smacks nearly as tone deaf as the GOP's $2.5 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending (although far more defensible, as a policy statement). With fears stemming from the tax cut deal and the death of the Public Option, the left-wing of the Democratic Party appears to be drawing early battle lines.

So, on one side is an extremist party that is in charge of the House, and is going to go way out to the right. On the other hand, he has a party of his own that is going to stick tight to it's guns, and may not come along towards the middle. No one said being President is easy. Apparently though, triangulating is.

Meet the GOP Field: The Front-Runners?


Ok, so I only have two in this group, but they're kind of interesting cases. Is Rudy Giuliani a front-runner? He's known, but a favorite? Is Senator John Thune a beltway-beloved dark horse? They like him, but this much? Let's look at both.
  • Rudy Giuliani- the former Mayor of New York City. Well, he's famous. He'll get on TV. He might even raise some money. But can he win? The downsides are well known. He's a social liberal, lacks any actual national security credentials (despite living on the issue), he was a total failure candidate in 2008, he's basing his candidacy now on Palin running, and he has no natural place to win (Florida? New Hampshire?). If he runs, he'll get coverage, but I don't see him as a favorite.
  • John Thune- Senator from South Dakota. Is he a rising start in his second term? Thune has that label on him with some, and he has a major, major victory in his career (beating Daschle). Thune is from a neighboring state to Iowa, and seems like a solid candidate in South Carolina or Nevada. His problems? Does anyone know who he is? He's somewhat boring compared to the bomb throwers in the race. He's not from a state with deep fundraising pockets. He hasn't run a tough race in 7 years, so does he have the operatives around him.

Newt Gingrich To Base His Campaign In Georgia

TPM is citing an Atlanta Journal-Constitution report saying that former House Speaker Gingrich will base his campaign out of Georgia. From the report:
In the last 24 hours, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich has touched base with several prominent Republicans in his former home state, telling them that he intends to make a run for president in 2012 using Georgia as his base - and that he already has his eye on office space in Buckhead for a campaign headquarters.

Gingrich met on Thursday with [Governor] Nathan Deal, whom Gingrich endorsed during a critical phase of last year's Republican primary for governor.
Former? Last I checked, Gingrich is still from Georgia. Georgia is an interesting choice. Does this mean he's going to go hard after South Carolina? I'm not sure.

President Obama Leads the GOP Front-Runners In The Battlegrounds

While every poll puts President Obama rising, that really doesn't answer the questions of his re-election. Will he win in 2012? Well, the electoral college answers a lot of that. PPP Polling decided to test it out. They polled six swing states won by President Bush and President Obama, with the President facing the leading four Republicans for President. Their polls in Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia were revealing.
  • Florida- The President beats Gingrich by 5%, same for Huckabee. He beats Palin by 14%. He leads Romney by statistically unimportant 2%.
  • Iowa- The President beats Gingrich by 13%, Palin by 16%, Romney by 6%, and Huckabee by 4%. Only Huckabee looks competitive.
  • Nevada- The President crushes Gingrich by 11%, Huckabee by 10%, and Palin by 13%. Romney trails by only 1%.
  • North Carolina- The President kills Palin by 14%. Gingrich sits 6% back. Romney is just 2% back. Huckabee actually leads by 1%.
  • Ohio- Gingrich is 6% back, Palin is 7% back. Romney is 2% back, Huckabee 1% back.
  • Virginia- Both Gingrich and Palin sit 11% back, a bit surprising. Romney and Huckabee trail by 5%.
The bottom line? The GOP has a tough electoral road ahead to win the Presidency, particularly if the Tea Party backed candidates win primaries. 

Ryan To Give GOP Response

Call it a dress rehearsal. Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman, will give the official GOP response to the President's State of the Union. Ryan is probably the most articulate of the GOP's options in the House. He also comes off less arrogant than Eric Cantor. With that said, every Democrat should relish the opportunity for the President to take on "Dr. Cut." First off, signs point to the President moving on from Health Care Reform in this speech. Cantor will inevitably harp on the bill, and his repeal hopes, throughout his speech. Second off, this puts Ryan in a spot. Embrace his "Roadmap" on national TV, making it appear to be the official policy of the GOP? Or ignore it and look like he's abandoning his work. Sounds like lots of good possibilities.

Meet the GOP Field: The Beltway Loved Darkhorses






It's not a secret. There are a lot of Republicans inside the Beltway who don't think any of their front-runners for President are good candidates, let alone electable. For them, the search for a "white knight" has been on. Their belief that even an unprepared standard bearing candidate would be more helpful to Senatorial hopes than say, Sarah Palin, has driven this search on. Let's meet the people they are looking at, and weight out their pros and cons.

  • Tim Pawlenty- the now former Governor of Minnesota is in this race, whether he's filed or not. He's working Iowa hard, hoping that being the "neighboring son" will help. Pawlenty is not a moderate, but he will be cast as one in this primary field, and frankly may be one comparatively, if not in fact. Pawlenty has a chance to win this nomination because he has a chance to do well in Iowa. If he does that, he may be able to at least make the ticket. One would think of him as a possible challenger to Romney in New Hampshire. His problems? Not that many people know who he is, he has a hard time making an electability argument when Obama would beat him in his home state, and his rhetoric will need to get harsher without sounding fake.
  • Haley Barbour- the Governor of Mississippi. He's a former RNC Chairman, a candidate who should be able to curry favor with social conservatives, and should be very competitive in at least South Carolina, if not Iowa too. Barbour knows everyone in the party, and should be able to raise a nice sum of cash. His problems? Imagine the imagery of a white, southern Governor with a history of some gaffes speaking on civil rights, matched up against the first African-American President. He also wouldn't appear on the surface to be a great candidate with independents.
  • Scott Brown- the Senator from Massachusetts. He's the darling of the Beltway, the guy who won in New England. Brown would run strong in New Hampshire, and could sway independents. His negatives? He probably won't run, he has about a year of Senate time in, he probably can't appeal to the primary electorate, and again, he wouldn't have a good electability argument while losing his home state to the President. Of course, it gracefully gets him out of the U.S. Senate race he may lose.
  • Chris Christie- the Governor of New Jersey. He's a favorite with Beltway conservatives for his deep cuts to the New Jersey budget. As a former U.S. Attorney, he has some increased credibility as well. Again, he probably won't run. His negatives? He's not that popular at home right now, and he could see some losses in legislative races in 2011 there, which won't help him look strong. He also loses his home state. He has some gaffes that won't help him nationally. Again though, this would get him out of a tough re-election. 
  • Marco Rubio- the Senator from Florida. Can we just put him on the VP short-list now? He's Cuban-American, from Florida, won a swing state Senate race, and has a great story. His flaws? He probably won't run. He's probably too conservative for a Presidential year GENERAL electorate, and has a lot of legislative record to run against. He's also largely untested in a truly tough race (Crist wasn't tough).
  • Bobby Jindal- the Governor of Louisiana. Jindal is a Governor, Indian American, and articulate. He has problems though? He flubbed his State of the Union Response. In light of Romney's religious troubles running, can a non-white candidate win their nomination? Reaction of his handling to the BP spill splits completely partisanly. He also has an extensive Congressional record to run against.
  • Paul Ryan- Congressman from Wisconsin, and the Budget Committee Chairman. He's a darling of fiscal conservatives, a prodigy at fundraising, and from a key region of the nation. He's the most articulate of the field. His problem? Well for one, his "Roadmap" Budget would make him nearly unelectable. He's also the guy who has to make the cuts to the budget the GOP has promised. That will get some opposition.