The battle to repeal senate bill 5 could be a harbinger of the coming presidential election.
Update: Since this post was published, senate bill five was overwhelmingly repealed.
When John Kasich, Republican governor of Ohio, signed S.B. 5 into law earlier this year, it was a decided victory for the Tea Party. But, similar to Wisconsin, the outcry against the law, which eliminates most collective bargaining rights (including strikes) for public employees, met a loud and active response. But unlike Wisconsin, where the focus was on recalling those who voted for the offending bill, Ohioans took a different approach. They started a petition that resulted in getting issue 2 , the repeal of the union-attacking S.B. 5, on next Tuesday’s ballot.
Governor Kasich could see a referendum bid ending badly for his administration. As soon as it became clear the issue would make the ballot, he called for negotiations. But smelling political blood, the opposition rebuked him. The latest Quinnipiac polls show they were correct in doing so. The law is being crushed 57% to 32%.
The ramifications for next year’s general election are manifold. Big money has arrived, unions on one side and groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks on the other. Ohio is traditionally huge in deciding Presidential elections, and if these poll numbers hold, it appears the Republicans have work to do before next November. Issue 2 is also the first place where the Occupy Wall Street movement could have a political effect. Although reluctant to back any one candidate or piece of legislation, OWS (through Occupy Columbus) is backing repeal of the law. It is interesting that the group allows speakers at their events to have the podium, no matter whether they are for or against it.
Unions represent infrastructure for the political left. If they take a hit in Ohio, you can expect Republican governors across the country to follow suit. But if the polls are to be believed, such overreach could backfire and feed the flames of the OWS movement. Learn more here.
Are Obama’s policies failing, or are Republicans strangling the recovery?
Update: This post has been updated since the initial September 2nd posting to include a link to the statement by S&P and a more precise mark for the Dow on January 20th, 2009.
Even the most staunch Obama critics won’t deny, he was handed a crap sandwich in 2009. And no one thinks we have come back nearly far enough. But the narrative that Obama is making things worse simply does not align with the facts.
Now, I understand that producing charts and indexes isn’t going to pull the crowd in around you at the water cooler, so here is an easy tool for remembering where we were, economically, when the President was inaugurated. The number 7. GDP was in a free fall at an annual rate of negative 7%. We were hemorrhaging jobs at a rate of minus 770,000 a month. The Dow had crashed to 7949 (okay, a 949 snuck in there, but you get the picture). And unemployment was at 7.7%. To compare those numbers to where we are now, just peruse the business section of any local newspaper. Most of those indicators are referenced on a daily or weekly basis.
So, for instance, today’s big number, zero. Zero jobs added in August. A big fat goose egg. Sounds terrible, and it’s not great, but remember the 7’s. Zero jobs added is far better than 700,000 jobs lost. Next, look at the stock market. Remember 7949? Even after a rocky August following the debt ceiling hostage taking by House Republicans, it still closed over 11,000. That’s a nearly 50% increase in 30 months. Oh President, please stop with your horrible policies. You’re killing my 401k (???). Let’s look at GDP. It’s limping along at 1%. But it was dropping at negative 7% when Obama took office. Turning a train that big around that fast is no small task.
And last, the big number. A number so big, it gets its own paragraph. A number so big, it will make or break the President in the next election. Unemployment. It stood at 7.7% in January 2009. It now stands at 9.1%. Unemployment is a lag indicator. In fact, the unemployment rate peaked at over 10% in early 2009. And it was starting to come down, ever so slowly, but at least it was headed in the right direction.
Enter the tea party in January 2011. When the new Republican majority took office, they said the focus would be jobs. Instead, they read the constitution into the record, passed a budget that would end medicare but not deficits and brought us to the brink of default, causing a first-ever downgrading of the U.S. bond rating. The following are two excerpts from the S&P downgrade statement:
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,
But enough about the freshmens’ glorious job-creating, freedom imploring, liberty impregnating policies. Let’s look at those pesky little numbers since THEY took office. In January 2011, when the Tea Party was sworn in, we were gaining jobs at a rate of 200,000 a month. Today, as we said, zero. GDP was growing at 2.5%, now it’s at 1%. The Dow was at 11,700, now it has dropped to 11,400. Unemployment has gone from 9.0% to 9.1%. And they’re criticizing the President’s record?
It is obvious, they both have a great deal of work to do. But you don’t. It’s easy. Just remember the sevens and you can master any Obama basher. Of course, when they say, “No way, that’s not what Sarah and Michele say”, just refer them to those pesky numbers .
Live, in the Iowa debate, all the Republican presidential hopefuls took the “no tax increases” oath.
[Update: The day after the Iowa straw poll, Tim Pawlenty dropped out. Rick Perry jumped in, and yes, in the September 7th debate he joined his ultra-conservative counterparts by raising his hand and taking the oath. Ross Perot has yet to be sighted.]
The moderator repeated the question, upping the stakes, asking if they would take a ten-to-one deal. Not one of them would. For clarity, he even asked them to raise their hands if they would refuse such a deal. They all raised their hands like good little Grover Norquist marionettes.
To me, this was the most revealing part of the debate. It means even if a bill offering 5 trillion dollars in cuts linked to only 500 billion (about half of what would be raised by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire) in new revenues came to their desk, they wouldn’t sign it. Such rigid ideology is not what this country needs and it’s not what the public is looking for. A majority of Americans favor higher taxes on the upper crust as part of a balanced approach to deficit reduction. None of the candidates on stage wanted to acknowledge that, not even Romney, who used just such a balanced approach to help balance the budget in Massachusetts.
Last week’s Standard and Poors announcement specifically listed the Republicans’ unwillingness to budge on revenues as a major reason for the downgrade. It appears none of the candidates even read the report. Or they don’t understand it. They continue to push the policies, lower taxes for the richest Americans and de-regulation, which led us here in the first place. They seem more interested in keeping their pledges to the kingmakers on “K” Street than fixing the problems on main street.
Hopefully, when Rick Perry enters the fray this weekend, he’ll bring Ross Perot and some pie charts along with him.
The debt ceiling bill disappoints the far left and far right.
Like most major legislation passed by Congress, the debt ceiling bill has its critics on both the left and right. That’s because it was generated through weeks of negotiations and debate which ended in compromise. And that’s what democracy is all about.
The bill directs major cuts but doesn’t harm Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. There is a promised vote on a balanced budget amendment, but no guarantee of its passage. The debt ceiling was raised high enough to get us into 2013 and oh yeah, the country didn’t default. Bonus!
Many on the left are upset with President Obama. They think he gave away too much to the tea party radicals. But soon I think the tea party will be the group that starts complaining. By agreeing to the super committee and its triggers, the Republican leaders have opened the door to revenue hikes (mostly in the form of corporate loophole elimination) and cuts in defense spending, two sacred cows they were unwilling to approach during budget talks. If the super committee can’t agree on deficit reduction legislation and get it passed by the year’s end, deep cuts in defense will automatically be triggered. Medicare will also be cut, but not on the benefit side. Providers (doctors and hospitals) will take the hit. This will likely cause a further rift in the Republican party. These triggers are intended to press both parties into action, but it seems most of the pressure will be on the GOP because if the triggers are set off, Obama’s own OMB will decide where the cuts are made. Can you say, “Goodbye, red-state pork. So long, faith-based initiative. See you later, expensive weapons systems. Auf wiedersehen, intrusive TSA body scanners. Paychecks are going to be a little late Congress.” Okay, so the last item is a bit fantastical. I’m allowed to dream, aren’t I?
Some have likened the tea party tactics, threatening default and economic catastrophe, to political terrorism. But I guess it’s okay to negotiate with terrorists every once in a while, especially if the terrorists happen to be really poor negotiators.
Republicans offer nothing new at New Hampshire debate.
I was really hoping someone would step forward last night and offer an actual plan for creating jobs in this country. Instead it was just a seven-headed rhetoric monster. None of them had a solution.
Cutting taxes was the mantra. But no one explained how cutting taxes would create jobs. When the moderator specifically asked Pawlenty for proof that cutting taxes would create jobs, he dodged the question. When it was pointed out that Bush cut taxes and by the end of his second term we were losing 750, 000 jobs a month, there was again, no answer. But when asked how the former governor would create the 5% annual growth for ten years projected by his economic plan (a growth rate never seen by this country in its entire history, not even after WWII) his answer was, you guessed it, cut taxes.
Many other old standards were trotted out. Unleash regulation on oil, even though domestic oil production has gone up under Obama. Bailing out Chrysler and GM was wrong even though it saved American manufacturing jobs well beyond those two companies. Medicare won’t survive unless it’s changed, but repeal affordable health care because, among other things, it changes Medicare. Social Security is insolvent, even though it’s not. Restore the integrity of our armed forces by making its members lie about their sexuality. God and freedom are the best thing ever, unless you’re a muslim, then you better just watch your ass.
And the best one of all. Ronald Reagan. I worked with Ronald Reagan, I helped pass laws with Ronald Reagan, I delivered pizza to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan signed into law gun controls, abortion rights and funds to fight AIDS. Ronald Reagan created huge deficits and, you guessed it, raised taxes. If he were running today, he wouldn’t even make it past the security guards, let alone find himself on stage with the rest of these posers.
Even though I disagreed with most of what was said last night, the biggest disappointment was having nothing new to disagree with. SOP.
With no viable presidential candidate and their hands out to lobbyists, the tea party is starting to show its true colors.
So, it wasn’t about reform after all. Changing Washington, offering a choice beyond the corporatist Democrat vs. corporatist Republican paradigm … those were the promises made by the tea party. They have clearly failed to deliver.
After the joint press conference (debate?) given by the Republican candidates willing to show up last week, I don’t see tea party views being exclusively espoused by any one candidate, not one with a chance of winning, anyway. Ron Paul is probably the most notable of the names, but legalizing heroin is not a tea party priority and even less likely to be in the Republican platform come convention time. The tea party heavyweights, Bachmann and Palin, haven’t managed to announce yet. (That Fox money will have to end as soon as the official word is given. Kind of an ego-centric rationalization for someone wanting to change Washington for the good of America.)