James Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

More on Obama’s reelection chances

Nov 10, 2010 17:53 UTC

Megan McArdle says I am being a tad too pessimistic about Obama’s reelection chances if unemployment is at 8.5 percent or higher two years from now:

I’m not quite as pessimistic as he is about Obama’s chances, but if unemployment really is at 8.5%, I have to think that he will at the very least face a really tough campaign battle–yea, even if Sarah Palin is his opponent.  Unemployment was 7.7% when he took office.  I think he’s going to have a hard sell if four years later, it’s almost a full percentage point higher.  If we put the car in D, how come it’s not going anywhere, Mr. President?

It will be particularly hard if it’s not changing fast.  Unemployment was much higher under Reagan, hitting almost 11% at its 1982 peak.  But the rise was short and sharp, the decline equally dramatic; by June 1984, unemployment was back down to 7.2%.  We’ve already spent as many months above the 9% unemployment line as Reagan did, and it doesn’t look ready to drop below that level in the next few months.  Reagan was dealing with a pure monetary recession:  Volcker raised interest rates dramatically in order to get inflation under control, and as soon as he loosened his iron fist, the economy bounced back.  This recession is vastly more complicated, with fiscal, regulatory, and other problems that still need to be worked out.  I would be very surprised if we saw any sort of dramatic bounce in the next eighteen months–and the next eighteen months is what matters, because most political analysts I’ve talked to think that after about June, an improving economy doesn’t help the incumbent.  George H.W. Bush had a fabulous third quarter, economically speaking, and still lost to Clinton.

That doesn’t mean that Obama can’t get re-elected if unemployment is 8.5%.  But I don’t think any president since Roosevelt ever has–and if unemployment hadn’t hit nearly 25% under Hoover, I doubt Roosevelt would have won re-election either.  If I were the Obama administration, I’d be praying like hell for something in the low sevens.

Megan is absolutely right that recessions after financial crises tend to be nasty beasts. That argues against a 2011-2012 boom like the one Reagan had in 1983-1984 when GDP growth averaged 6 percent and the unemployment dropped by more than three percentage points.  There have also been some polls showing Obama trailing possible GOP contenders like Romney and Huckabee. Then again, Intrade still gives Obama a near 60 percent chance of a second term. And I have yet to meet the GOP consultant whose best-case scenario is anything much better than an extremely close contest.

COMMENT

This is just my general opinion — general meaning there are so many factors who knows — opinion speaks for itself.

There are three basic scenarios for 2012.

Employment above 9% …
In this case, Obama is toast. The democrats are toast. And the higher it stays above 9% the broader the bloodbath will be.
Seriously, if unemployment is 9.6% and the republicans think they will benefit from this anger they are mistaken.
The bloodbath will be hard, vicious and all encompassing and you will probably see more than a few Independents running and winning.
Interesting thing is the higher the unemployment the better for Mitt Romney.
Of all candidates Dem or Rep, he is the only one with the business chops for turnarounds … and successfully pulled a turn around in MA.

The conversation will be all about the economy. And if it is all about the economy. Obama has lost. because truth is he failed.
It doesn’t matter who caused the economy, who stalled, who worked, who didn’t.
As CEO it is his job to fix it regardless of the circumstances. And if the dialogue is about how/why he wasn’t able to fix it, he is fired.

Employment above 8% …
Here Obama has a who knows chance. Part of the who knows is whether it is closer to 9 or 8. Part of it is whether it is Romney/Huckabee ( or Christie? ) or whether it is a Gingrich/Palin/TP choice.

Here the convo will be about the progressive agenda ( HCR ) as well as the economy.
But the economy will be “our methods would make it FASTER recover”.

Under 8% …
Economy will be off the block.

But I am not sure Obama is “safe”.
The republican candidate will run on the platform “Elect me and give me 3 more senators. And we will repeal HCR and every other progressive thing this man has shoved down our throats.”

Simple clean and clear.
This is why Obama can NOT pull a Clinton.

See in 1996, they couldn’t run against HCR. It failed.
HCR will be the gift that keeps on giving until the people actually speak in a way that can not be spun to claim “Oh they are just scared.”

I personally think the last is the best. Not just because millions more would be working.
But seriously … if unemployment drops down to a reasonable ( from here ) 7.6% and Obama loses the election anyways?
Then since the dialogue was … elect me and we will repeal the Obama agenda.
Then the progressive agenda is clearly repealed. And Progressives will need to regroup, think about how to convince voters to change their minds, etc.

Posted by Chromehawk | Report as abusive

Will 8.5 percent unemployment be enough to reelect Obama?

Nov 10, 2010 14:43 UTC

The Hill sets the economic bar awfully low:

Economists who study the labor market said this week that they expect unemployment in 2012 to average 8.5 percent, down more than a point from the 9.6 jobless rate of today. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, said every forecast she has studied predicts rapid job growth in 2012, even though the national number will still be a far cry from full employment. “It’s still going to be so high in 2012, but people are going to be feeling better,” Shierholz said.

Mark Zandi, the White House’s favorite economist to quote because of his advisory role with Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign, sees the same picture. Zandi said Obama’s stimulus plan has achieved its goal. The plan, Zandi said, prevented another Great Depression while giving the public sector time to kick in and start hiring, which will be in full effect when Obama is running for reelection.

“The trend is going to be in strong favor of incumbents in 2012,” said Shierholz.

I really don’t think so, though Ms. Shierholz from the liberal EPI would surely like that to be the case.  There is a huge lag between what the numbers say about the economy and what people perceive. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy (“it’s the economy, stupid”) even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was “fair” or “poor” in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was “getting worse.”

Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was “fair” or “poor” and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction. Hard to believe, but 3 1/2 years after the 1990-91 recession ended, the economy was still a big negative for voters and hurting the incumbent political party.

So let’s say the unemployment rate is 8.5 percent on Election Day 2012. That is twice as high as what Americans have grown accustomed to.  As recently as May 2007, it was 4.4 percent. It was also under 5.0  percent from July 1997 through August 2001.  And before this recession, Americans hadn’t seen 8.5 percent unemployment since 1983. In addition, housing will still be in the tank, and budget deficits will still be in the stratosphere.  Morning in America II? Good luck with that.

COMMENT

A better place to start is with the proposition that Obama’s mistake was to first bail out the “big people” and not bail out the “little people”.

Many of these little people had been hurting two or three years back into the W Bush years. A fair case can be made that Obama got elected when the trouble hit and the Republician candidate demonstrated that he did not understand the problems.

Both the big people and the little people did stupid, improvident things. How was the moral standing of the little people held to be so much lower that they got no bail-out (an unemployment check vs. a $3,000/mo. mortgage payment, was not considered a ‘bail-out’) yet the big people (the financial markets et al) got bailed out.

The same as what was done for the big people would have been something like a six month freeze on homestead mortgage payments and then the right, with court help if necessary, to reduce the principal to the fair market value of the home. The government given a lien on the back end to the extent of anything not paid in case property values went up some day.

Such a program would have had “Moral Hazard” flying on banners but didn’t the govenment in effect remove moral hazard for the big people?

The point is that if the little people are still facing foreclosures, 12% unemployment, and like fears are they doing to vote Republician in 2012? Stranger things have happened but I don’t think “feeling better” is going to cut it.

Obama is going to have to propose some sort of tough mortgage foregiveness, the only thing not yet tried*. If the Republicians shoot it down, which they probably will, let that be the debate subject in 2012.

* Obama’s HAMP and similar programs are so bad that they make him look even more like a handiman of the “finance” (i.e., the big people).

Posted by TRTerryJr | Report as abusive

Blaming the American public

Nov 8, 2010 17:43 UTC

If the Obama wants to be a one-termer, he should pay attention to people like Hendrik Hertzberg:

Part of the Democrats’ political problem is that their defense, confusingly, depends on counterfactuals (without the actions they took in the face of fierce Republican opposition, the great slump would have metastasized into a Great Depression), deferred gratification (the health-care law’s benefits do not kick in fully until 2014), and counterintuitive propositions (the same hard times that force ordinary citizens to spend less money oblige the government—whose income, like theirs, is falling—to spend more). Another part of the problem, it must be said, is public ignorance.

Me: And none of that is likely to change substantially over the next two years. There will be no second acts for The Stimulus, healthcare reform will still seems off-point as best, and Americans will still think Washington should mimic the austerity of U.S. households. Messaging and optics isn’t going to cut it.

Kevin Warsh, a pro-growth advocate at the Fed

Nov 8, 2010 16:24 UTC

Great, great stuff from Fed member Kevin Warsh in the WSJ. After giving his perfunctory agreement with QEII, he gets after it with a rousing piece of advocacy:

Pro-growth policies include reform of the tax code to make it simpler, more transparent and more conducive to long-term investment. These policies also include real regulatory reform so that firms—financial and otherwise—know the rules, and then succeed or fail. Regulators should be hostile to rent-seeking by the established, and hospitable to the companies whose names we do not know. Finally, the creep of trade protectionism is anathema to pro-growth policies. The U.S. should signal to the world that it is ready to resume leadership on trade.

The deleveraging by our households and businesses is not a pattern to be arrested, but good prudence to be celebrated. Larger, more liquid corporate balance sheets and higher personal saving rates are the reasonable and right responses to massive government dissaving and unpredictable government policies. The steep correction in housing markets, while painful, lays the foundation for recovery, far better than the countless programs that have sought to subsidize and temporize the inevitable repricing. It is these transitions in our market economy—and the adoption of pro-growth fiscal, regulatory and trade policies—that lay the essential groundwork for greater, more sustainable prosperity.

Me: I would say there is as much as a 39 percent chance Kevin Warsh is the next Treasury Secretary of the United States.  First, I think Tim Geithner is staying for Obama’s full term. Second, betting markets currently give  39 percent chance Republicans take the White House in 2012. Warsh is highly respected in GOP policymaking circles and has a gold-plated resume. I could see Warsh at Treasury and eventually Glenn Hubbard/John Taylor at the Fed in a GOP administration.

COMMENT

Someone needs to explain to Sarah Paling that taking a class in high school in home economic doesn’t really prepare one for discussing macroeconomics. Geithner’s plan is brilliant!!! Either way the US wins.
After failing to get accommodations from the Chinese, Geithner is putting the Chinese in a no win situation. He is forcing the hand of every country to compromise or else. After failing to make any real progress, Geithner has adopted a more Israeli style of hardline negotiating! Geithner has masterfully created a situation where he will win on the currency conversion front or inflation or both; regardless of how well or how poorly Geithner does at persuading the G-20 to support his plan.
Currency conversion is not complicated. A strong dollar raises the value of Chinese US holdings, while a weaker dollar decreases the value of those same holdings. The fear of the Chinese walking away from the dollar completely is crazy… they own too many. Overtime the Chinese will decrease their holdings, but this was inevitable with or without Q2. Chinese revenue from sales in the US is on the decline and that decline is not going to be reversed anytime soon. Lower sales in the US means the Chinese simply have few dollars to buy US debt.
LET ME REPEAT… fighting the Federal Reserve and the currency traders would require massive purchases of the same dollars that they fear will go down in value!
Don’t feel sorry for China… China was and still is Fannie Mae’s largest bondholders, so China effectively got almost a half-trillion dollar bailout when the Fed stepped in and rescued Fannie Mae bondholders! China has exploited US policy thru fear and intimidation for far too long!
If the Foreign Central Banks try to fight the US Fed it will require them to buy mountains of dollars. It is not hard to imagine how pissed-off the Russians and Venezuela are about this prospect given their very vocal campaign to reduce their dollar holdings.
It is true that Japan, other Asian economy and developing countries will need to take some protective measures to limit capital inflows, but that seems to be a small price to pay to keep the US from falling into a Japan deflation or worse.
The doomsday scenario that Geithner fears is one where the US employment stumbles further and where the developing nation’s recovery pushes commodity prices to extreme levels. It would be terribly destabilizing!
Screw Germany. The German unemployment rate is half the US because of very shrewd maneuvering and favorable trade agreements. Russia hates anything that helps the US!
Hats off to Geithner!!!

Posted by Radioceleb99 | Report as abusive

Why 2011 will be the Year of the Tax Cut

Nov 3, 2010 17:20 UTC

American presidents usually win second terms, even if their parties suffer midterm blowouts. But President Barack Obama better not rely on history for a 2012 victory. To lift his political fortunes after Tuesday’s absolute shellacking — and those of the economy — he needs to work with incoming Republicans to do two big things: cut spending and cut taxes.  Here’s why:

1. Unless Obama actually desires to be a one-termer, he really has no other choice. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both sailed to reelection despite suffering midterm setbacks, thanks to good growth and popular policies. When it’s one-and-done, as was the case with Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George Bush in 1992, it’s the economy that sends them packing. And that’s just the scary scenario emerging for Team Obama. The White House’s own forecasts don’t predict unemployment dipping below an average of 8 percent until 2013. Even worse, some of the hardest hit states — Florida, Michigan and Ohio – are big ones in the Electoral College that Obama needs to win again if he’s going to score another four years in the job. And all three just elected Republican governors.

2. Obama could stay the course. He could battle the GOP newcomers including their sizeable Tea Party contingent, pray for a boom and continue to push his agenda, such as capping carbon emissions, through regulatory agencies. But that’s a dead electoral end unless the economy perks up considerably (and immediately) and Republicans choose some incompetent, unelectable nominee. (As the midterms showed, candidate quality matters.) One of the clear midterm messages is that Americans have rejected the beyond-center-left, big government, redistributionist agenda. Exit polls said that some 60 percent of voters think government is doing too much. And voters in blue-state Washington rejected tax increases on the rich.

3. Voters say they want compromise. And there are deals Obama could potentially reach with Republicans that might generate jobs and reassure markets about America’s fiscal seriousness. Obama has already proposed letting businesses immediately deduct new capital investments. He could add cuts in corporate and payroll taxes and temporarily extend some or all of the expiring Bush tax cuts.  Both parties should also take a look at the Wyden-Gregg tax reform bill. In return, Obama could bargain for more infrastructure spending, especially if he agreed to suspend federal pay rules that raise the cost of government-funded construction projects.

4. But there might be even more opportunity on the spending side. In a bit of fiscal jujitsu, Obama could challenge the Tea Party folks to cut billions in corporate tax breaks and vote for any social insurance cuts recommended by his own deficit panel. And Obama must surely know that when advanced economies have reordered their fiscal houses by cutting spending, it’s often been under center-left governments able to pull a “Nixon to China” moment with interest groups.

It may not feel like it right now to the shell-shocked White House, but the Democratic election throttling might just help the president pivot to a second term.

COMMENT

I don’t understand, forgive me… Spending cuts reduce public treasure and public goods. Tax cuts also reduce public treasure and public goods. With all the negative momentum of global environmental crises on top of our own nation’s burst private-sector bubble, why is it that the republic now calls for reducing public treasure and public goods?

Posted by psuckow | Report as abusive

Will Obama triangulate?

Oct 29, 2010 16:50 UTC

National Journal’s Ron Brownstein’s chat with President Obama last week:

It was clear that Obama has started to think seriously about how he will navigate a Washington with many more Republicans in it. But nothing about him suggested that he viewed the impending arrival of those Republicans as evidence that he needed to radically rethink his presidency. Obama sounded neither shell-shocked nor defiant. He seemed entirely focused on the practical: where he might work with Republicans, and where he expects confrontation (education, infrastructure, and energy in the first group; taxes, health care, and Social Security in the second).

Will Obama triangulate like Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterm elections?  I dunno. My guess is that in the end, Team Obama will try to win ugly, betting that a recovering economy, massive fundraising and a weak GOP presidential field will allow a narrow 2012 victory

COMMENT

I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don’t know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already Cheers!

Shock poll: Americans think Bush doing a better job than Obama (and more)

Oct 28, 2010 15:53 UTC

Some fascinating numbers from longtime Democratic pollster Doug Schoen (via U.S. News & World Report). Among them: Voters prefer Bush over Obama, want the GOP to control congress, favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, don’t favor another term for Obama and would give Palin nearly 20 percent of the vote if she ran as a third-party presidential candidate.

His survey of 1,000 likely voters finds the following (bold is mine):

The 2010 midterms

– In the generic Congressional midterm election, the Republican Party has a nine-point lead over the Democratic Party, 48% to 39%. 13% are not sure.

– However, when given the choice between a Republican, a Democrat, and a Tea Party candidate for Congress, the Tea Party candidate gains more support (19%) than the Republican candidate (15%). Meanwhile, support for the Democratic Party consolidates (39%) and more voters become undecided (27%).

-- 53% prefer the outcome of this year’s Congressional elections to be a Republican-controlled Congress, while 36% prefer the Democrats to have control.

-- 66% say things in the country are headed on the wrong track, while 26% say they are headed in the right direction. 8% are not sure.

– 57% say the economy is headed on the wrong track, while 31% say it is headed in the right direction. 12% are not sure.

– Those who say they plan to vote for a Republican for Congress do so because they think the Democratic Party is doing a bad job running the country and to oppose Obama’s agenda (37%), and because they agree more with the Party’s position on social issues (17%).

– Those who plan to vote for a Democrat do so to support Obama’s agenda and have the Democrats continue to run the country (34%), and because they agree more with the Party’s position on social issues (30%).

– If the Republicans win one or both houses in Congress, over half (53%) think it is a reaction against the perceived failed policies of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, while 29% think it is because Republican Party special interest groups bought the election. 19% are not sure.

– 39% say the Democratic Party is closer to their views on major issues, while 48% say the Republican Party is closer to their views.

Barack Obama

– Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56% say he does not deserve to be reelected, while 38% say he does deserve to be reelected President.

–  43% say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48% say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

–  42% approve of the way Obama is performing his job as president, while 57% disapprove. Similarly, 43% approve of President Obama’s handling of the economy, while 55% disapprove

Tea Party movement

– The Tea Party movement has unprecedented, broad-based support. One-quarter now says that they are Tea Party supporters, while 27% say they are opponents. 44% say they are neutral. One-quarter of Tea Party supporters self-identify as members of the Tea Party movement.

– Almost half (49%) say they are looking for someone else to vote for in the next Congressional election, while just 36% say they are inclined to vote to re-elect their representative.

– Support for the Tea Party movement is bipartisan. Tea Party supporters say the movement is a protest against business as usual in Washington (43%) rather than a protest against President Obama (20%), Democrats in Congress (11%), or Republicans in Congress (0%).

– Over half (52%) of Tea Party supporters say they support the movement because it is committed to reducing the federal government’s size and spending and the national debt. 13% support it because it supports personal liberty of the individual.

– 39% have a favorable impression of Karl Rove, while one-third have an unfavorable impression. 28% are not sure.

– 45% have a favorable impression of the Chamber of Commerce, while 26% have an unfavorable impression. 29% are not sure

2012 election

– If a Tea Party candidate is on the 2012 ballot, 32% say they would vote for a Democrat, 19% say a Republican, and 16% say a Tea Party candidate. One-third are not sure.

– In thinking about the 2012 Presidential election, if the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Tea Party candidate Sarah Palin and the election were held today, 40% would vote for Obama. 32% would vote for Romney, and 17% would vote for Palin.

– If the candidates in the 2012 Presidential election were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Tea Party candidate Mike Huckabee, and the election were held today, 40% would vote for Obama. 24% would vote for Romney, and 24% would vote for Huckabee.

Tax cuts and healthcare

– Over three-quarters (77%) favor extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year, while just 15% oppose extending them.

– Half favor extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including those making $250,000 or more a year, while 40% oppose this.

– Over half (52%) favor repealing the new health care law that was passed earlier this year, while 38% oppose repealing it.

COMMENT

There is no way in hell that Bush evens hold a candle to Obama, There’s to much crap being said and I feel it’s the media that is destroying this country with all these lies. If Palin ever was voted in as our President then USA have alot of stupid people…

Posted by Mcq | Report as abusive

Could Obama’s re-election plan be to devalue the dollar?

Oct 28, 2010 15:02 UTC

Will President Obama get re-elected in 2012 if his party suffers a crushing midterm defeat? His political team likes to point to the example of Ronald Reagan. Congressional Republicans were crushed in the 1982 midterms, but the Gipper cruised to victory two years later.

Of course, the “Morning in America II” scenario depends on a fast economic recovery. Unemployment fell from 10.8 percent in November 1982 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. GDP growth was 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984.

But most economic forecasts don’t anticipate such a boom in America’s near future. More likely is trend growth — about 3 percent or so — with unemployment still over 8 percent by the end of 2012. At best, those numbers suggest a very close presidential contest. And current polls show the president will have a tough time again winning such electoral-vote rich states as Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Obama could try to emulate Reagan by proposing a massive tax cut, but that seems unlikely given the administration’s belief that America is under-taxed right now.

But there is another way, although it is amazingly risky. A Bloomberg story, using a simulation run by Macroeconomic Advisers predicts a 10 percent decline in the dollar in the first six months of next year would do the following:

1. Gross domestic product would rise 1.1 percentage points more than the St. Louis-based firm’s baseline forecast for next year, to 4.8 percent.

2. In 2012, growth of 5.7 percent would exceed the baseline forecast by 1.3 percentage points.

3. Unemployment would fall to 7 percent by the end of 2012, 1.4 points lower than the firm’s baseline forecast.

There you go, Morning in America II, thanks to the weak dollar — unless of course the dollar starts plunging out of control, boosting inflation and creating a panic.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says he supports a strong dollar — although he wants it to weaken vs. the yuan — but does the White House political team share that view? And what about Ben Bernanke? Here is an interesting bit from a recent Reuters story:

While U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner reiterated that the United States supports a strong dollar at the G20 meeting, there were few takers for that. “It is one thing for the Treasury to say that, but then the Fed holds all the ammunition and when it is set to print more money, the dollar will remain a weakened currency,” said Jane Foley, senior currency strategist at Rabobank.

COMMENT

Of corse Obama is trying to devalue the dollar, he said he wanted too before he was elected. He wants to bring us down to third world level, so that the world is more fair. It doesn’t matter to him, that we the people are paying for every cent he devalues the dollar by. It is the great hidden sales tax in the world, and Obama will try to ake credit for any phoney statistical improvements caused by what he and the fed are doing, while we all have and will suffer for it.

Posted by BaineSumpin | Report as abusive

Will GOP midterm win help reelect Obama in 2012? Maybe not

Oct 21, 2010 18:07 UTC

The Washington consensus is that if the GOP takes at least the House, it will give Obama a political foil and give his 2012 election hopes a big boost. And, the media tell us, the GOP presidential field is weak:

Sniping from the sidelines will be potential Republican challengers to Obama in 2012. The road to the presidential proving grounds of Iowa and New Hampshire is already well-trod by more than a dozen possible Republican candidates. The group ranges from Tea Party champion Sarah Palin to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Experts believe Obama would match up well against any in this group — if the economy is on the mend and the jobless rate is trending downward from its current 9.6 percent.

But political analyst John Ellis paints a different potential scenario:

What might be an alternative story line? One answer would be: increased volatility. A darker answer might be: political instability and unrest.

As a nation, we are struggling with overwhelming debt at every level of governance and across a vast swath of the electorate. There are at least (at the very least) 15 states and countless municipalities that are functionally bankrupt. The states that are bankrupt, by any real accounting, include New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Missouri, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. They can’t (literally can not) meet their pension obligations. They won’t be able to pay for their ever-rising health care costs. Education costs are eating up too much money (although this will abate somewhat as the echo boom generation matriculates) and virtually every state (and municipality) has huge bond obligations, the proceeds from which papered over previous shortfalls. Oh, and one other thing, the economies in all of those states are stagnant, at best.

Once the last infusions of stimulus money run dry, what remains is a vast desert of debt. The idea that an over-leveraged electorate can be called upon to make up the shortfall is a non-starter. They can’t pay down their own debt and municipal debt and state debt and federal debt. The math simply doesn’t work. They end up with no take home pay.

This is the real avalanche that is about to hit American democracy. The avalanche in two weeks results in Nancy Pelosi no longer being the Speaker of the House. The avalanche of debt that hits beginning in 2011 and keeps on coming will shake our political system to its foundation. That’s the avalanche that matters.

President Obama can either get ahead of this avalanche by proposing a vast restructuring of government debt and obligations while aggressively promoting a venture-based economic growth agenda or he can be consumed by the rubble. The same holds true for the next Republican presidential nominee. He or she needs to be ahead of the avalanche to survive its inevitable onslaught.

Me: Austerity won’t sell. Growth and prosperity will. Whoever gaffs that, wins.

COMMENT

The reason that state budgets are completely decimated? Because the lion’s share of their booty was from property taxes! The states that are listed above are the one’s where the housing market was hit hardest, upwards of 40-50% declines. Show me ANY place (govt or business) in the world where a 40-50% drop in the biggest source of revenue doesn’t lead to big trouble. But, of course, it’s Obama’s fault. You… just… don’t… get it! AT THE STATE LEVEL no less! Sigh…

If people are disenfranchised with the current president it’s not because the MSM has given him a free pass, it’s because they don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground and continually misinform the public (both sides of the MSM.) They completely obfuscate the real issues and turn it into something completely different. Then the public gets mad because they think that the President is either lying or oblivious because the media presents everything incorrectly. Political spin is what’s helping destroy America because the public is never properly informed – one has to look outside the America media sphere to find informed journalism that weighs facts.

And let’s also be frank in saying that the old normal of the last 25 years has been fueled almost exclusively by debt. Complaining that growth that is not supercharged by increasing the debt load is poor or bad and Obama’s fault is so ridiculous as to be laughable and should be ignored outright. I find it so deplorable that people can be so duplicitous as to say that we can achieve growth in the short term by cutting debt – NO! that is NOT true as the 70s proved. We’re in for a long ugly period of adjusting our balance sheets, govt, business and consumers.

I’m sure you’d blame the 70s on Carter, but Nixon/Ford set up the conditions that were met by Carter. And while Carter had his share of missteps, none were quite as badly received as the economy being in a low growth, high inflation environment. So he inherited a shite economy and didn’t improve it fast enough because he wasn’t willing to open the pandora’s box of rampant debt accumumlation and deregulation. Now, if you want to stand for cutting debt/deficits – sure, I’ll be on board, but you can’t expect that growth will suddenly double by spending less. It’s really simple math.

Posted by CDN_finance | Report as abusive
  •