Learning About Politics

2012 Election Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:29:00 +0000

Here are the 2012 election predictions from the Learning About Politics team:

President Popular Vote Winner

SB: Romney

MD: Obama

NN: Romney

KW: Obama

President Electoral College Vote Winner

SB: Obama, 286-252
Obama wins Colo, Iowa, Mich, Nev, Ohio, Penn, Wisc
Romney wins Fla, NC, NH, Va

MD: Obama, 294-244
Obama wins Iowa, Mich, NH, Nev, Ohio, Penn, Va, Wisc
Romney wins Colo, Fla, NC

NN: Tie, 269-269
Obama wins Colo, Iowa, Mich, Nev, Ohio, Va
Romney wins Fla, NC, NH, Penn, Wisc

KW: Obama, 290-248
Obama wins Colo, Iowa, Mich, Nev, NH, Ohio, Penn, Wisc
Romney wins Fla, NC, Va

Control of the Senate

SB: Democrats, no net change

MD: Democrats, no net change

NN: Democrats, Republicans net gain 1 seat

KW: Democrats, no net change

Control of the House

SB: Republicans, Republicans net gain 2 seats

MD: Republicans, Democrats net gain 2 seats

NN: Republicans, Democrats net gain 3 seats

KW: Republicans, Democrats net gain 4 seats

Will We Know the Results on Election Night?

Shannon, Matt and Kevin predict that we will know on election night who the next president will be, though we will likely not know the results in every single state. Napp predicts that the race will still be undecided on election night.

State of the Presidential Race, With 2 Weeks Left

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:47:00 +0000

With two weeks to go until election day, this is how I see the state of the race.

The popular vote is currently a tie. With only two weeks left, the advantage in a tie goes to whichever candidate has the momentum, which is clearly Romney. Looking at the recent RCP average of polls and the trend on Intrade, Romney is gaining.

But, while I expect him to win the popular vote, I'm less certain that he will be able to win the EC vote.

Much will hinge on what happens in Ohio. Obama is looking strong in Ohio, but it has also become a must-win state for him. If he loses Ohio, I expect him to lose the race.

If Romney, on the other hand, loses Ohio, he can still win but his path is narrow. He would have to pick up Wisconsin and Iowa.

I'm basing these calculations on the assumptions that Romney will win Fla., N.C., Va. and Colo., and Obama will win Penn., N.H., Mich., and Nev.

Will the Supreme Court Declare the Filibuster Unconstitutional?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:47:00 +0000

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein noted this week that lawyer Emmet Bondurant is working to get the Supreme Court to declare that the Senate's filibuster in unconstitutional. Klein's article does a good job of describing the history of the filibuster and why it was not the intent of the Founders.

I've argued before, on this blog and elsewhere (see below), that the Senate should abandon the filibuster. Whether or not the Supreme Court would actually strike it down, though, is difficult to say.

Filibuster supporters could point to the fact that the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to make it's own rules. Also, while it is true that the Founders intended majority rule in most cases, they could argue that the 60 vote requirement for cloture is not the vote on the bill -- it's the vote to end debate on the bill. The outcome of such a case would depend, in part, on whether the Supreme Court finds that to be a distinction with, or without, a difference.

For more info on the filibuster, see:

Why Don't U.S. Senators Filibuster Anymore?, Suite101

Guest Post: Where do Florida Senate Candidates Stand on Senate Filibusters?

Ending Filibuster Good for Both Parties, The Columbus Dispatch

Will Democrats Try to End the Filibuster?

VP Picks for Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:40:00 +0000

Even though Mitt Romney is not technically the nominee yet, I don't think it's too early to offer my suggestions for vice presidential nominee. I did the same in 2008 when I suggested picks for Obama and McCain.

The occasion also affords me the opportunity to express two of my frustrations. The first has to do with the way vice presidents are chosen. Too often they are picked to help the candidate win, and the most important consideration -- ready to be president -- is an afterthought. Out of this frustration, I have previously suggested that parties change how V.P. nominees are chosen.

Second, political experience is viewed as a negative, when it should be viewed as a positive. Like any professional job, experience matters, and business experience, though helpful, is not the same as political experience. This is why I prefer presidential and vice presidential nominees with some combination of executive and legislative experience, and experience at the national level.

Given that, here are 8 potential nominees, with a short summary of their political experience, that would meet those qualifications:

Sam Brownback: U.S. congressman, U.S. Senator, Kansas governor

Mitch Daniels: chief of staff for U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director, OMB director, Indiana governor

Nathan Deal: Georgia senator, U.S. congressman, Georgia governor

Mary Fallin: Oklahoma House member, U.S. congresswoman, Oklahoma lt. governor, Oklahoma governor

Bobby Jindal: U.S. congressman, asst. secretary of HHS for Planning and Evaluation, Louisiana governor

John Kasich: Ohio Senator, U.S. congressman, Ohio governor

Butch Otter: Idaho House member, U.S. congressman, Idaho lt. governor, Idaho governor

Rob Portman: U.S. congressman, U.S. trade representative, OMB director, U.S. senator

What I Like Most About Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:00:00 +0000

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Republican Ron Paul is an unconventional candidate in many ways. I would appreciate other politicians mimicking Paul in at least one of those ways.

As I have watched Paul in the Republican debates, I've noticed that he does something unlike the other candidates on the stage, or even most politicians in general. After he is asked a question, he pauses to think about the question, and then he answers the question. Strange, I know.

The other candidates have obviously prepared their answers ahead of time on all the topics that they know they'll be asked about. Then, regardless of the question, they will most likely deliver their prepared remarks on the topic of the question. Even Herman Cain, who prides himself on being a "non-politician" does this.

This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul (Learning About Politics does not endorse candidates). When politicians do something that we appreciate, though, we should let them know, and maybe other politicians will begin to copy them.

A Proposal to Keep the BCA Joint Committee Moderate

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 14:55:00 +0000

The success, or failure, of the Budget Control Act's Joint Committee, which will have the resposibility to craft a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package, will depend in large part on who is assigned to the committee.

Party leaders from both sides are facing pressure to pick party loyalists. Many Republicans don't want anyone appointed that will support revenue increases. Many Democrats don't want anyone appointed that will support reductions in the growth of entitlements. If party leaders appoint people who are unwilling to compromise, the committee will stalemate and no deal will be possible.

Here is a proposal that would help the party leaders, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell, avoid this situation: they could each agree to choose one person from the opposite party.

Each leader chooses three members. In this scenario, each would choose two from their own party and one person from the other party. So, Boehner and McConnell would each choose two Republicans and one Democrat, and Pelosi and Reid would each choose two Democrats and one Republican, for instance.

Since Boehner and McConnell would choose centrist Democrats, and Pelosi and Reid would choose centrist Republicans, at least four of the 12 member committee would be centrists and a compromise bill would most likely emerge from negotiations.

Congress would not have to do anything to make this happen. An agreement among all four leaders is all that would be needed to make this happen.

What do you think? Please let me know in the comments below.

Why Bills are Long: A Response to Herman Cain

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:34:00 +0000

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain recently remarked that he would not sign a bill over 3 pages long. He later said that the comment was hyperbolic, but would prefer simple, short bills, "that the American public can read and understand," over long, complicated bills. This position is, understandably, attractive to many voters. It reflects the mistrust that many have of Congress. Also, stories of earmarks and tax breaks that are “slipped” into bills are common. Short and simple bills, therefore, are seen as a solution to a crooked Congress.

Additionally, in a political campaign, candidates often attempt to find simple solutions to our nations complicated problems because they are easier to communicate to voters, and easier for voters to understand. This may also be the source of Cain's pledge to not sign a bill over 3 pages. Tim Pawlenty's “Google test” would be another example.

I can imagine scenarios where making a bill shorter would improve it. I am a long time advocate of a simpler tax code, for instance. Making bills shorter does not, however, improve them by default. In most cases it would make them worse—much worse. Here is why.

The implementation of legislation is the responsibility of government bureaucrats. Bureaucracies take laws written by Congress and put them into action. Sometimes this endeavor can be straightforward. Other times, however, there can be much gray area between the intent of Congress, as stated in a law, and its implementation by a bureaucrat. Congress cannot write a bill that accounts for every possible situation that the bill will encounter. The details of implementation, therefore, are left to the bureaucrats who are responsible for the implementation of a law.

Now, imagine you are a member of Congress. You know that you may have little control over the implementation of a bill after you have voted on it. How, then, are you going to do all that you can to make sure the law is implemented how you would like for it to be implemented? The answer, of course, is to provide lots of detail and use precise language. In other words, write a long, complicated bill.

When you see, therefore, legislation that is long, complicated and uses a bunch of legalese gobbledy-gook, you are seeing the results of congress members trying to have as much control as possible over the direction of that legislation. The next question you should ask is, who do you want to have the most control over the direction of that legislation? Unelected bureaucrats, or the members of Congress who can be held accountable by voters every election?

The Purple Health Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, has devised a bipartisan health care reform plan--The Purple Health Plan. (Red and blue make purple, get it?) The plan would do away Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax deduction for employer provided health care. In its place, everyone would get a voucher for basic insurance coverage. The plan counts five Nobel Prize winning economists among its signers.

Frequent readers of this blog may recall that I made the exact same proposal over year ago with my own Proposal for Bipartisan Health Care Reform. I still recall how I came up with the idea. I was preparing to teach about health care to my Public Policy class at Marietta College and our nation was in the midst of a debate on health care reform. As Republicans and Democrats were both offering ideas on reform, and I was doing research on our current health care system, the following thoughts occurred to me:

Three of the biggest drivers of our health care costs are Medicare, Medicaid, and employer subsidized health care.
We spend a lot of money on Medicare and Medicaid, which are grossly inefficient and contain a massive amount of fraud. And, a lot of revenue could be raised by doing away with the tax deduction for employer provided health care.
The US government does simple programs well, such as Social Security, which is basically sending people a check each month. The US government does complicated programs poorly, such as Medicaid, which is basically running an insurance company.
Democrats mostly want universal coverage. Republicans mostly want to bring costs down through market based reforms. Can both sides get what they want?

The obvious solution flowed from these basic points. It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that a bunch of big-time economists would, essentially, come up with the same idea.

The Purple Health Plan does contain some variations to my original plan. Take a look at it and tell me what you think in the comment section below.

Related posts:

Do We Need a Heath Care Mandate?

A Proposal for Bipartisan Health Care Reform

Liberal versus Conservative health care policies

Politifact: Could we have some consistency, please?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:59:00 +0000

I'm a big fan of Politifact and Factcheck.org. They provide an important public service. But sometimes I find some of their scoring decisions strange, especially with categories like "half-true", "mostly true", and "mostly false". Recently, for instance, Politifact rated Michele Bachmann "false" for stating that the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of federal taxes, and Obama "half-true" for stating that incomes rose for the top 1% of wage earners and dropped for everyone else. Both statements are false, but could be considered true if you make assumptions about what they really meant by their statements. In an email to Politifact, I wrote,

Regarding: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/14/barack-obama/obama-says-incomes-increased-more-250000-top-1-per/

You give Obama a "half-true", for a statement that you acknowledge is false. Apparently, the "half-true" comes after making a bunch of assumptions that he didn't say.

Now look at this one: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

Bachmann also made a false statement, and you label it as such. But, if you assume she meant federal income taxes, it would be true. So, why not "half-true"?

I suggest some consistency. Either they are both "half-true", or both "false". Otherwise, it appears you are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not Bachmann.

Democrats Who Favor the Wealthy

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:41:00 +0000

In my previous post, I noted that some Republicans claim to defend free-market capitalism while

supporting policies that harm it. In this post, I'll discuss an analogous hypocrisy that can be found in the Democratic party. Democrats often claim to be defenders of the poor and working classes and argue that the wealthy must pay more of the share of the tax burden, while supporting policies that harm the poor and benefit the wealthy.

Tax Deductions

One important point to keep in mind when you hear politicians debate tax policy is that the amount someone pays in federal income tax is not solely determined by the tax rates, it is also determined by deductions and credits. While Democrats often claim that the tax rate for the top income bracket needs to increase, or not decrease, few Democrats will criticize tax deductions that disproportionately favor the wealthy.

Employer provided health care and the interest paid on a home mortgage are both tax deductible, for example. Since the wealthy are more likely to have expensive health care plans and borrow money for an expensive home, these tax benefits disproportionally go to the wealthy. Tax deductions for solar panels and hybrid vehicles also disproportionately go to the wealthy. Yet, most Democratic politicians continue to support them, even as they argue that the wealthy need to pay a higher share of the tax burden.

So, in the end, these Democrats are performing a sleight of hand with voters. They can claim that they support making the wealthy pay a higher share of government revenue, but then give the wealthy some of that revenue back in the form of deductions and credits. The result of these deductions and credits is that the middle class will pay a higher proportion of government revenue.

Cash for Clunkers

“Cash for Clunkers” is another good example of a program, supported by many Democrats, that disproportionately favored the most well off in society, and, in this case, was actually harmful for the least well off. Under this program, enacted in 2009, the federal government would give you a rebate if you traded in an older vehicle for a newer one. The goal was to boost the economy, reduce pollution, and aid fledgling domestic auto makers.

This benefit, obviously, could only go to those who could afford new vehicles, which means the poor would get nothing. To make matters worse, however, by removing many used cars from the marketplace, the supply of used cars went down, thus driving up the cost of used vehicles. So, the poor, who mostly buy used vehicles, would be faced with higher prices when they purchase a “new to them” used vehicle.

Payroll Taxes

Payroll taxes are some of the most regressive taxes* at the federal level. Little support can be found among Democrats, however, for reducing these taxes. The programs that are supported by payroll taxes—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—were begun under Democratic administrations and continue to be strongly supported by Democrats.

Social Security and Medicare, in particular, are also strongly supported by the public, in part, because they are for everyone, not just the needy. They are funded by payroll taxes due to the notion that you pay into these systems while you work and the programs will be available to you when you retire. In actuality, most will get more in benefits than they pay in taxes, while the wealthy and those who die before they retire will pay more into these systems than they get in benefits. So, these programs do, in fact, transfer wealth from the most well off to the less well off.

Most of the public, however, do not see them as “welfare” programs, in part because they are tied to payroll taxes. Few Democrats support a decoupling of Social Security and Medicare from payroll taxes because they are worried that this illusion of fairness (you get out what you pay into it) would erode. And, without this illusion, support for these programs would disappear.

Eliminating payroll taxes would help poor workers and spur job growth. Payroll taxes are paid by employers as well as employees. This means businesses must pay more in taxes to hire new workers, or provide overtime to current employees. Eliminating this burden on businesses would reduce the cost of hiring new workers.

The Democratic Party's intractable position on payroll taxes can be seen in former House Republican Bob Inglis' effort to replace them with a carbon tax. Generally, Democrats would like to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon, as well as reduce the poor's tax burden. One way to reduce atmospheric carbon would be to tax the industries that create it. Inglis' proposal would seem to be a win-win, therefore, for Democrats. They could tax carbon emissions while eliminating a regressive tax. His proposal, however, got little support from a Democratically led Congress.

*A regressive tax is one for which the less wealthy you are the higher a proportion of your income goes towards paying that tax.

Anti-Free Market Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:24:00 +0000

Republicans often present themselves as the defenders of free-market capitalism. In defending tax breaks for businesses, for instance, Republicans might argue that a state that places too much burden upon the free flow of capital is a hindrance to free-markets. This would be true if those tax breaks applied to all businesses, but those Republicans who apply this argument to select benefits are actually behaving in opposition to some basic tenets of free-market capitalism.

In a free-market economy, the businesses that excel should be the ones that meet consumer needs by providing the best products at the best prices, not the ones that have the best lobbyists. The New York Times brought some attention to this issue when it reported that General Electric received more in tax refunds from the federal government than it paid in taxes. It turns out that, most likely, this is not true. What is true, however, is that General Electric lobbies for and receives select benefits in the tax code. General Electric is not unique in this way.

Many companies find it more cost effective to lobby Congress for benefits that directly help them, rather than for benefits for all companies in their industry, or all businesses. In the legislative process, it is much easier for a congressperson to add a rider or earmark to a bill that benefits a single company, than to pass a bill that cuts taxes for all companies, for instance.

The energy sector, for example, is awash in tax breaks and subsidies for different types of energy producers. Oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and nuclear energy producers find that they must compete to have the best lobbying campaign in order to compete in price with the other energy producers. Some industries do a better job at lobbying Congress than others. Coal industry lobbyists, for instance, have done quite well while natural gas lobbyists struggle to get noticed. So, by providing more benefits to coal producers, Congress distorts the energy sector markets in favor of coal over other types of energy production.

A solution, obviously, would be to get rid of all the corporate tax breaks and subsidies and lower the tax rates across the board for all corporations. Some groups, such as President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force, and the House Republican's 2012 Budget Proposal have all proposed doing exactly that. While many members of both parties have endorsed these plans, many others have not.

One important conservative critic is Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. Americans for Tax Reform has asked members of Congress to sign its “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to not raise taxes. Currently, 237 House members and 41 Senators have signed the pledge. Norquist has stated that any attempt to close tax loopholes would be considered a violation of the “Pledge”. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who has signed the pledge, has argued, on the other hand, that he would not consider it a violation because the overall corporate tax rate would be reduced along with the elimination of tax deductions. Norquist and his supporters, by opposing tax code simplification, are effectively saying that it is more important to keep government revenue low than to have a free-market system.

Interestingly, while the Tea-Party Republicans are often portrayed as the “far-right” of the Republican Party, on this issue, the tea-parties may find common cause with liberal Democrats. Last November, two separate letters, one from interest groups and another from US Senators, called for an end to ethanol subsidies. The former was signed by both the tea-party group FreedomWorks and the liberal group MoveOn.org. The latter was signed by tea-party supporter Tom Coburn and liberal Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

So, the next time you hear a Republican tell you they're supporting the free-market by giving select benefits to companies, remind them that they're actually distorting the marketplace.

Eight Ways to Fix Social Security

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:03:00 +0000

In my previous post, I explained why Social Security needs to be fixed. I said that I would offer seven ways to accomplish this in today's post. I've actually done one better than that. Here are eight ways to fix Social Security.

Raise the retirement age.

When Social Security was first implemented, there were not many Americans who lived to age 65 (now 67). Today, due to advances in health care, more of us reach retirement age and live long past retirement age. This means that Social Security will pay benefits to more people for a longer period of time. Raising the retirement age would mean Americans would work longer, thus paying into the system for a longer period, and take benefits for a shorter period.

Index benefits to inflation instead of wages.

Social Security benefits increase each year based upon an index tied to wage increases. As wages rise, so do Social Security benefits. Over time, however, wages rise faster than the cost-of-living. Tying Social Security benefit increases to cost-of-living, rather than wages would, therefore, slow the growth of the program. For an excellent discussion of this proposal, watch this video from Paul Solmon on The Newshour.

Raise the limit on the amount that is taxed.

Social Security is funded through a payroll tax on workers and employers. There is, though, a cap (currently $106,800) on the wages that are taxed. You do not pay any tax on the amount you make above that amount. The cap was put in place to gain support for the program from upper-class voters. If there were no cap, wealthy workers would end up putting a lot more into Social Security than they would take out when they retire. One way to pay for Social Security deficits, therefore, would be to increase, or eliminate, the cap. Wealthier workers would pay more into the system and help pay for its deficits.

Means test benefits.

Social Security is not a welfare program. It is for everyone. This means that wealthy individuals can receive benefits along with our most needy seniors. One way to reduce the cost of the program is to add a means test. It would only be for those who most need it. The wealthy would get nothing, the middle class would get less, and most of the benefits would go to poor seniors.

One important consideration when looking at this solution, and the previous one, is that Social Security would become a welfare type program. Its main purpose would be to transfer wealth from the upper class to the lower class. Social Security already transfers some wealth from the most well off to the least well off. These two proposals would dramatically increase that tendency. While this would help balance its budget shortfalls, it may also reduce support for the program.

Increase immigration.

Due to the Baby Boom generation reaching retirement age, fewer workers are paying into Social Security for an increasing number of retirees. One way to deal with Social Security's budget shortfalls, therefore, would be to increase the number of young workers. Since most immigrants are young, and eager to work, increasing the number immigrants would accomplish this goal.

We have many restrictions on immigration in the US. Many of these restrictions are on high wage jobs, such as doctors and computer programmers, which pay more in FICA taxes than low skilled jobs. So, lifting these restrictions would be particularly beneficial.

Undocumented workers are also particularly good at helping us pay for Social Security because they pay into the system without taking out. But, for reasons I won't go into here, I would advise against policies aimed at increasing the number of undocumented workers.

Make more babies.

Another way to increase the number of young workers is procreation. Government policies aimed at encouraging citizens to make more babies have a poor track record, however. (For more, read this guest post by Brian Hollar.)

Personal accounts.

All of the above solutions deal with Social Security's fiscal problem—revenue increases are not keeping pace with the cost of the program. None of them, however, deal with the structural problem—it is a “pay-as-you-go” system. When Social Security was first passed, in 1935, Congress and President Roosevelt wanted a program that could go into effect right away. To do this, they created a program in which current workers would pay for current retirees.

When you pay into Social Security, that money is not saved for you until your retirement. Instead, you pay for those who are already retired, and when you retire, those that are working will be paying into the system to pay for your retirement benefits. This, however, is the root cause of Social Security's current deficits. We have made promises that we could not keep because we did not plan for a situation where we would have fewer workers paying into the system for an abundance of retirees.

One way to deal with this structural problem would be to wean ourselves off of a pay-as-you-go system for future generations. We could let young workers today put some of their FICA taxes into a personal account. In exchange, they would agree to reduced or no Social Security benefits when they retire.

One of the difficulties of this proposal, however, is that while it helps with the structural problem, it would make the fiscal problem worse in the short term, because, less revenue would be generated for current retirees. This solution, therefore, should not be attempted without first addressing the fiscal problem.

Does Social Security Really Need Fixing?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:25:00 +0000

In a recent Op-ed for USA Today, Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew argued that “Social Security isn't the problem.” Social Security isn't running a deficit, according to Lew because the Social Security “trust fund” will make up the difference between the revenue generated by Social Security taxes (FICA) and the amount Social Security pays in benefits for the next 26 years.

Other Democrats have also made similar claims. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Richard Durbin have all recently claimed that Social Security does not add to the deficit (see FactCheck.org). Also, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently wrote, “Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.”

Until last year, Social Security had been running surpluses. The revenue generated by the FICA tax was more than enough to pay out to Social Security beneficiaries. The Social Security trust fund used this additional money to buy treasury bonds, or borrow money from the federal government. These Democrats are arguing, therefore, that since Social Security is now running deficits, it only has to cash in those bonds to pay the difference, and it has enough bonds on hand to pay the difference for another 26 years.

There is a major flaw, however, in this logic. Social Security is a federal government program. So, when one part of the federal government borrows money from another part of the federal government, it amounts to nothing more than paper shuffling. (There are actual papers that are “shuffled” in filing cabinets at the Social Security Administration office in Parkersburg, WV.)

When Social Security cashes in those bonds, the revenue has to come from the federal government. That means that, if the federal government is running deficits as it is now, it must borrow more money by selling more debt to someone besides itself to pay for it.

As the Concord Coalition points out, the Congressional Budget Office has made the same point when it wrote:

Trust funds have no particular economic significance. They do not hold separate cash balances; instead they function primarily as accounting mechanisms to track receipts and spending for programs that have specific taxes or other revenues earmarked for their use.

Social Security deficits, therefore, are contributing to our federal government deficits. The Social Security “trust fund” is a mirage. It is simply an “accounting mechanism” and contains nothing of real value.

Social Security is the single largest federal program and is a major contributor to our federal government deficits today and in the future. Unlike the deficits in Medicare and Medicaid, however, fixing Social Security's problems are easy and well known. In tomorrow's post, I'll describe seven ways to fix Social Security. Can you guess all seven before then? Let me know in the comment section below.

RIP: David Broder

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:37:00 +0000

The media suffered the loss of one of its best journalists yesterday. David Broder wrote opinion editorials for the Washington Post, was a frequent guest on political news programs such as Meet the Press, and won a Pulitzer Prize for his editorials during the Watergate Scandal.

Broder's writing was known for its clarity, and his ability to engage questions larger than the hot topic of the day. He was a consumer of political science research and brought some of what he gleaned from these studies to his writing.

Even though a liberal Democrat, Broder did not shy away from criticizing democratic leaders. For instance, in 2007 he criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for killing an effort to withdraw troops from Iraq because, by Reid's estimation, it would benefit Democrats in the next election to do so. And more recently, he criticized President Obama for missing an opportunity in his recent State of the Union Address to tackle tax reform.

Rest in peace, Mr. Broder. You will be missed.

Grading the Potential GOP Presidential Nominees

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:17:00 +0000

With no obvious front runner, it is difficult to predict who the GOP will nominate to run against President Obama. Here is Learning About Politics' grades among 7 characteristics that will be important for the eventual nominee. Primary election voters take into account viability (can they win the nomination), electability (can they win the election), likability (how much they like them), and experience (do they have a presidential-ready resume?). Also, voters are less likely to vote for someone if they don't recognize their name, so name recognition is necessary. We have also included likability and name recognition in the general election. The scores are an average of the scores from all four of us on a 1-5 scale, with a 5 representing the highest.

Overall, we gave Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty the best chance of winning the nomination. Romney and Pawlenty (along with Mitch Daniels) also scored the highest on their chances to win the general election. Our scores also suggest that Huntsman will be challenged by his lack of name recognition, and Donald Trump and John Bolton by their lack of likability. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty scored the highest for their experience to be president, with Haley Barbour, John Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, and Newt Gingrich tied for third in that category. The most discussed potential candidate, Sarah Palin, only scored well in one category--name recognition.

Overall, there is not a lot of variance in the scores, with a couple of exceptions. There is wide disagreement on Newt Gingrich's viability. This is symbolic, perhaps, of Gingrich's enigmatic personality. He sometimes appears to be a level-headed pragmatist, such as when he works with Al Sharpton on education reform, and others times he appears to be a partisan rabble-rouser such as when he claimed that the health-care bill included "death panels" or that Sonia Sotomayor is a "reverse-racist". Napp and Shannon tend to favor senators in the experience column, while Matt and Kevin gave governors slightly higher marks. And, while Napp is high on Huntsman's experience, Matt, Kevin, and Shannon rated him average.

You can see all of our individual scores here. How would you score the candidates? Which of our scores do you most disagree with? Leave your answers in our comment section below.

Obama vs the GOP on the Deficit

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:25:00 +0000

After President Obama introduced his budget to Congress last week (as he is required to do by law), he has been in a public debate with Republican leaders on federal spending. Obama's budget would freeze discretionary non-defense spending, makes cuts in some areas, raises spending in other areas. GOP leaders in Congress counter that Obama is not taking the deficit seriously enough because he wants to freeze spending at high levels (non-defense discretionary spending has increased over the last two years). Republicans are countering with their own budget cuts that would reduce overall non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. Some Republicans, mostly representing the Tea Party, want to make cuts in the current year's budget as well.

This pitched battle over non-defense discretionary is, however, a smoke screen. Both sides want the public to believe that they are taking our national debt seriously, but they are avoiding the root causes of our current debt crisis. Here is the key point that Americans need to recognize: any plan to reduce our deficit that does not address Social Security, health care, and military spending is not a serious plan.

Take a look at this chart of federal spending for FY 2010 provided by the Concord Coalition. Social Security, health care, and defense comprise 65% of spending, while non-defense discretionary spending (education, environment, international affairs, and other) are only 11% of the budget.

Critics from both the right and left of the political spectrum have pointed out these failures by Obama and congressional Republicans. Here are a few samples:

"The more charitable interpretation of the president's decision not to tackle entitlement spending or the tax code is that the administration decided that leadership, in this case, was not good strategy." --Ruth Marcus, Washington Post

"In this budget, in his [Obama's] refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road." --Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

"The classic test of whether politicians are serious about balancing the federal budget is whether they confine their suggestions to eliminating earmarks, foreign aid, and fraud, waste, and abuse. Politicians love to rail against these things because they're unpopular and therefore make attractive targets. But doing so is a dodge. All combined, they account for only a tiny fraction of federal spending, so doing away with them does little for the bottom line. Anyone who implies otherwise isn't being forthright about the problem or the possible solutions. But politicians have always gotten away with this because most voters don't know enough about the budget to realize they're being snowed." --Joshua Green, The Atlantic

"And now what this has become, I read, is a political strategy. The president is not talking about because he is waiting for the Republicans to talk about it. And our new, bold republicans we just sent to the House of Representatives aren't talking about it because they are waiting for him to talk about it. Let me suggest to you that my children's future and your children's future is more important than some political strategy. Let me suggest to you that what game is being played out here is irresponsible and it's dangerous. We need to say these things and we need to say them out loud- when we say we're cutting spending, when we say everything is on the table, when we say we mean entitlement programs we should be specific.

And let me tell you what the truth is. What's the truth that no one is talking about-here is the truth that no one is talking about: you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security. Oh I just said it and I'm still standing here! I did not vaporize into the carpeting and I said it! We have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going to bankrupt us. Once again lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it's not only bankrupting the federal government, it's bankrupting every state government. There you go. If we're not honest about these things, on the state level about pensions and benefits and on the federal level about social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are on the path to ruin." --Governor Chris Christie, speech at the American Enterprise Institute

"No one can reasonably claim that the budget crisis exists because America spends too much on bed nets and AIDS drugs. Our massive debt is mainly caused by a combination of entitlement commitments, an aging population and health cost inflation. Claiming courage or credit for irrelevant cuts in foreign assistance is a net subtraction from public seriousness on the deficit." --Michael Gerson, Washington Post

"Over the next few weeks, Republicans will try to cut discretionary spending to 2008 levels and tell their constituents they are boldly reducing the size of government. That is a mirage. Anybody who doesn’t take on entitlement spending is an enabler of big government. The supposedly rabid Republican freshmen are actually big government conservatives. They will cut programs that do measurable good while doing little to solve our long-range fiscal crisis." --David Brooks, The New York Times

Thoughts on the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission Report

The Difference Between the Deficit and the Debt

Will Democrats Still Try to End the Filibuster?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:37:00 +0000

In an opinion editorial for the Columbus Dispatch on May 22, 2010, I argued that Republicans should support changing Senate rules to disallow filibusters. When the new Senate convenes on Monday, Democrats will still be the majority party. With a much slimmer margin, however, will they still try to change the Senate rules?

During the health care debate, liberal columnists, bloggers, and interest groups advocated changing Senate rules to limit use of the filibuster. These politicos grew frustrated at Republican senators' ability to block, frustrate, and tame the agenda laid out by President Obama in his 2008 campaign. Reasonably, therefore, Democrats began to question the wisdom of Rule 22, the Senate rule that allows filibusters by requiring 60 votes to end debate on a bill.

Paul Krugman, in a February 7, 2010 editorial for the New York Times, argued that “the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government;” therefore, Senators should “recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster.” Ezra Klein, writing for Newsweek on March 27, 2010, decided that Rule 22 is “no longer appropriate given the polarizing realities of our politics.” Liberal blogs ProgressiveCongress.org, CredoAction.com, ActBlue.com, and DailyKos.com have all taken up the cause of filibuster reform. You can go to their websites and sign a petition calling for reform.

Tom Udall (D-NM) has led the charge for filibuster reform in the Senate with committee hearings on the topic. He also has Tom Harkin on his side, who last tried to change the filibuster rules, along with Joe Lieberman, in 1995 while Democrats were in the minority. Dick Durbin and Carl Levin are also rumored to support reform.

Harry Reid, who had opposed any changes to the filibuster when Republicans wanted to ban its use for judicial confirmations, said in a March 10, 2010 press conference, Democrats are “going to take a look at the filibuster,” and, “we are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that....” Would Reid still support changes to the filibuster if Democrats were in a position to abuse it?

In an strange twist, Jack Conway, the Democrat's US Senate nominee in Kentucky, had a campaign ad asking, “can you imagine adding Rand Paul to the 'party of no'? We need filibuster reform.” Did he want you to vote for him, or support filibuster reform because he expected his opponent to win? If Conway had won, would he still support reform, or would he think it unnecessary without Paul in the Senate?

Some liberals, such as Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, have suggested that the filibuster should remain to stop legislation that liberals would not like. This type of short-sighted thinking makes filibuster reform difficult. Senators should consider what is best for the Senate in the long term, not what is best for their party in the short term.

Democrats are correct to support changing Rule 22. By empowering every Senator with the ability to stall or halt legislation, Rule 22 has made the Senate dysfunctional. Hopefully, Democratic defeats in the 2010 elections will not dissuade them from pursuing reform.

Related Posts:

Guest Post: Where do Florida Senate Candidates Stand on Senate Filibusters?

Suite101.com: Why Don't US Senators Filibuster Anymore?

Who gets or loses what? Santa Census 2010 arrived in our stockings

noreply@blogger.com (Shannon Bow) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:55:00 +0000

The Census results are finally in! These results mean we can see how many U.S. House of Representatives members will be gained or lost by the states. It also tells us which states gain or lose Electoral College members.

Here are the states that lose or gain House seats by redistricting.

States that lost 2 each: New York, Ohio
States that lost 1 each: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

States that gained 1 each: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
State that gained 2: Florida
State that gained 4: Texas

One thing that is useful when guesstimating who is going to win and who is going to lose is to look at who controls the state legislature. If the Republicans control the state legislature, they will likely redistrict the state to maximize wins for their party as well as losses for the Democrats.

If I use the 2010 election results....

Which state legislatures that gain or lose are controlled by Democrats?

New York, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington

Which state legislatures that gain or lose are controlled by Republicans?

Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Florida, Texas

Which state legislature has split control?

Louisiana

It should not come as a surprise that most of the states that lost seats (MI, OH, NY, MA, PA, IL, MO, IA) are all North of the 36°30′ parallel. If you don’t know the line, think Kentucky/Tennessee borderline. If you look at a map of the USA, that parallel marks the lower border for VA, KY, KS, CO, UT, and mostly MO except for the dangling bit. It was also the Missouri Compromise borderline for westward expansion of slavery.

In a more colloquial way, here's the deal... the North is losing people, and the South and West are gaining people. Your major exception is Louisiana, but the lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina are likely the source of the population loss for Census 2010.

So… what do these results mean in terms of political parties?

States the Republicans Should be Happy about.

Ohio. Ohio has Republican Party control in the State legislature. The state went for Obama in 2008, but it was a close swing state with only a 4.6% difference between the two parties. The current U.S. House distribution for the state is 5 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Ohio is losing 2 seats, and with Republican dominated redistricting, I’ll guessing the Democratic Party will lose them leaving them with only 3 Democratic members of the U.S. House.
Massachusetts. Sure, Massachusetts is a solid Democratic Party state at the moment. They also have zero Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The seat the state loses is going to be Democratic Party seat. I predict there will be a lot of infighting among Democrats for which member is going to fall on their sword. The Republicans win one here without much work because the Democratic Party is going to lose a seat no matter what.
Missouri. It lost a seat, but this state was an extremely close swing state in 2008 with the presidential margin of victory less than 1%. They have a Republican controlled state legislature and the U.S. House seats are 3 Democratic and 6 Republican. One Democratic Party House member is probably going to get their seat taken away so this can be considered a potential win for the Republicans.
Michigan. The state legislature is under Republican Party control and the state voted for Obama in 2008. The current U.S. House seats in Michigan are 6 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Republicans are likely going to strip out a Democratic Party U.S. House seat when they redistrict to lose one seat.
Pennsylvania. See Michigan. Rinse. Repeat. (though they have 7 Democrats and 12 Republicans in the House)
Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina, Texas. The Republican Party gained seats in all these states. They also control the state legislatures and their states all voted for McCain in 2008. The 8 new electoral college seats they got (4 to Texas alone) will all probably be redistricted towards Republicans.
Predictions: These states get more interesting if they decide to dig in and strip out existing Democratic Party seats in favor of more Republican Party leaning ones. The current rumor for Austin, Texas is that it will be re-cracked again in an attempt to unseat Lloyd Doggett who survived a similar effort in 2003 by the state legislature. Arizona, Georgia and Texas are the most likely targets for redistricting to lose existing Democratic Party seats. Utah and South Carolina only have 1 Democratic Party member each per state in the U.S. House so they may be more difficult to remove, though not impossible.
Florida. Florida is gaining 2 House members. They narrowly went for Obama in 2008 and they have a Republican controlled state legislature. My guess is the Republicans are going to go for the jugular in Florida and attempt to remove as many Democratic Party seats as possible during redistricting. Currently, Florida has 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans in the U.S. House. With substantial, but different minority populations in both in the North and South (Jacksonville/Miami), it will be interesting to see how the lines are drawn.

States the Democrats Should be Happy about

Nevada and Washington. Both states pick up a seat and have Democratic Party controlled state legislatures. They should probably be redistricted in favor of Democrats.

Yeah. That’s probably about it.
Electoral College Changes
If we use the 2008 Electoral College results, what is the difference between votes then and now when we readjust the Electoral College numbers?

In 2008, Barack Obama had 365 Electoral College votes and John McCain had 173. If the election was held with the new Electoral College distribution, Barack Obama would receive 359 votes and John McCain 179. Obama still wins, but there was a 6 Electoral College vote shift.

Summary
Census 2010 results did not hold any shockers. All the states (win and lose) were pretty predictable. Sunbelt and Western States are gaining while more Northern and Eastern states are losing. This is not a surprise and the trends have been here for a while.
Redistricting is likely going to be kinder to Republicans than Democrats but not super dramatic. Watch the state legislatures. After the 1990 Census, Democrats controlled most the of state legislatures. They shored up seats for themselves, but did not strip out existing Republican ones. Republicans did not adhere to the same model after Census 2000. They redistricted the states the controlled to remove as many Democratic Party seats as possible. My guess is the next couple years will feel like 2001-2002 all over again (at least for redistricting).
Back in graduate school, I did some research (but didn't publish it) looking at the Florida state legislature redistricting plans following the 2000. Republicans were pretty creative and detailed with their new districts. I remember the plan that was implemented played with redistricting as far down as the precinct level. Democratic leaning precincts close to district lines in central Florida were moved into areas of strong Republican control. At the time, the goal was to help ensure the new seats were Republican leaning while playing on incumbency advantages to swamp the Democratic precincts. The technology to dig this deep has only gotten better in the last 10 years. In addition, most of the plans in state legislature controlled redistricting were submitted by state reps who were angling to carve out their own shiny new House seat custom built for themselves.
It's going to be fun. Buckle up and get comfortable.

U.S. House members in states that lost seats are going to start sucking up to their voters but probably broaden their nets across more of the state in preparation for new district lines. They will be desperate and at risk for carpal tunnel from all the hands they will shake in photo ops across their areas.
For the states that gained, the state legislatures are going to be the ones receiving the sucking up to get those new shiny seats.

Top 5: Political Phrases of 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:30:00 +0000

1. Shellacking: Obama's description of what Republicans did to Democrats in the 2010 elections.

2. Big F---ing Deal: Joe Biden's explains to Obama the significance of passing the health care reform bill.

3. Aqua Buddha: Jack Conway's version of "jumping the shark"; Voters were turned off by his desperate attempt to woo religious voters away from Rand Paul with this campaign ad.

4. Man Up: Female candidates questioning the masculinity of their male opponents was a popular tactic in 2010.

5. Small Business: In 2010, big businesses were the cause of all our nation's woes, while small businesses were going to be our saviors. Politicians of both parties seemed to agree on this. Yet, there is no common definition of "small business", and those medium businesses got left out of the discussion altogether.

Do We Need a Heath Care Mandate

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin M. Wagner) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:03:00 +0000

There is a great deal I don’t like about the health care bill. My primary concern is that it does far too little to control costs. As a result, it will end up creating yet another strain on our national budget and increase the already sizable budget deficit.

Ironically, despite a surplus of dubious provisions in the bill to question, the opposition is focused on the mandate that Americans buy health insurance. That was the provision struck down by a conservative federal judge this month. Ironically, the mandate is one of the more conservative and reasonable elements of an otherwise largely inaccessible piece of legislation. The fact that the GOP is opposed to the mandate suggests just how far the party has moved from conservative economic principles.

Consider the state of the current health care system. As it exists today, everyone with insurance pays to cover the uninsured. You don’t actually see that tax; it is applied in the costs of insurance and medical care. If a person without insurance is injured or sick, they go to an emergency room where they are treated, and the hospital covers the cost by increasing the charges to the insured population or from the taxpayers through a government program.

The current system is not only forcing the insured to pay for the uninsured, but it is remarkably expensive as it pays for health care at the emergency room, which is one of the most expensive points of delivery. Since we already have decided as a society that we will not allow people to be refused immediate medical treatment for lack of money, then we must figure out how to treat them in a way that is both evenhanded and efficient.

The preferred solution from more liberal quarters is a national health care system in which everyone is covered. This approach would be supported through a combination of premiums and taxes. A socialized approach to medicine like this is the favored method in much of Europe and Canada. As is evidenced by the debates in the last year, Americans have strong feelings both for and against this approach to health care.

The mandates are the conservative answer to the coverage problem based on private insurance purchased in a free market. It was proposed by Republican lawmakers in 1993 in response to then President Clinton’s healthcare plan. Mitt Romney used it as the centerpiece of his healthcare proposal naming it a personal responsibility principle while calling for the end of free riding on the government.

A mandate requires that everyone pay their own way by buying insurance. Those that fail to do so, pay a tax so that other taxpayers are not solely responsible for their care should they need it. To aid this, the bill creates a health care exchange for the purchase of private health policies. As the poor may not be able to pay the entire cost of insurance, the government helps subsidize their purchase. While not ideal, it does force people to be responsible for their own care and help redirect people from the expensive emergency rooms to doctors and clinics for primary care. Most importantly, it prevents those who could cover themselves from freeloading off of the taxpayers and the insured.

Conservatism is about doing for yourself, instead of having government do for you. It is about personal responsibility. A system that expects someone else to pay for another’s risky health choices is indefensible from either the left or the right. Yet, in striking down the mandate, we are returning to an extremely expensive, unsustainable system where the costs are almost entirely on the insured and hidden in high premiums. In rejecting the mandate to buy insurance, we are rejecting a private solution to the problem, and setting the groundwork for a large public one.

Public Opinion on Deficit Reduction

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:37:00 +0000

Americans want to reduce the deficit, but don't support policies that will reduce the deficit. This seems to be the case, at least, from a recent Washington Post poll.

A majority of respondents (56%) think we should start reducing the deficit now, rather than after the economy recovers. Yet, a majority (62%) also support the tax cut deal reached by Obama and Republican leaders, even after they were told it will add $900 billion to the deficit.

Also, other policies that would reduce the deficit got little support, such as increasing the gas tax (21%), reducing the rate of growth in Social Security benefits (36%), eliminating the tax deduction for children (34%), reducing defense spending (44%), reducing agriculture subsidies (44%), and raising capital gains taxes (43%). Only 3 proposals came close to receiving majority support: increasing the retirement age for Social Security (48%), eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction for homes worth more than $500k and second homes (49%), and reducing Social Security benefits for wealthy retirees (49%).

These results show the difficulty in reducing the deficit. The message members on Congress hear from the public is "reduce the deficit, just don't make any cuts that effect me." Congress members often take a lot of criticism for our current financial mess. This criticism is partly deserved, but in a democracy the legislative body is simply responding to popular will, as it should. Therefore, (as I pointed out in a previous post) the blame ultimately lies with us, the voters.

NPR and Juan Williams, Part 3: Or, Should NPR be Defunded?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:36:00 +0000

Previously, I wrote about NPR firing Juan Williams (here and here). Unsurprisingly, the controversy has come with calls for the withdrawal of government funds from NPR. When the issue of government funding was raised with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller after the Williams firing, she remarked that only 3% of NPRs budget comes from government grants, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). That is technically correct, but doesn't tell the whole story. Many of NPRs member stations also receive government support. So if government support were withdrawn from NPR and all the member stations, the impact on NPRs budget would be much larger than 3%--about 10% according to NPR.

Schiller is caught in a catch-22 on the funding issue. If the governments contribution to NPRs budget really were insignificant, as Schiller seems to want to claim, then why take any government money, especially if it will be accompanied by much public criticism, as has happened with the Williams incident? So, either the government's contribution is important or it is not, Schiller cannot have it both ways.

One of the arguments against NPR funding is its liberal bias. As you can imagine, conservatives are more likely to hold this view than liberals. I have been an avid listener of NPR programs for nearly two decades now, and to me NPRs liberal bias is as clear as the nose on my face. I'm often surprised, therefore, to hear others argue that NPR has no bias. Defenders point to the fact that NPR often has conservative voices on its programs and tries hard to explain different points of view when covering a news story. The problem with this argument is that it confuses a lack of bias with fairness. If one has no bias, it means they have no opinion either way on an issue. We all have biases. They are unavoidable. Fairness, however, is a more achievable goal. A news organization that is fair (and balanced?) will strive to provide differing viewpoints an opportunity to express themselves. NPR is better than most news organizations at being fair, but that does not make it unbiased. Clearly, from the news that NPR decides to report upon to its choice of language, NPR has a liberal bias. Additionally, none of its regular news analysts, or hosts of its afternoon programs, such as Fresh Air and The Diane Rehm Show, are conservative.

NPRs liberal bias, or its firing of Juan Williams, however, are not cause for cutting government funds. Since lacking a bias is an unachievable goal, it should not be the standard for receiving government funds. And, if fairness were the standard, NPR would get an A+, and thus should receive government funds.

The case against government funds, however, should not be about whether NPR is biased or unfair. Rather, it should be about the proper role of government in a free market economy. NPR, or any other media organization, should not receive government funds because the government should not show favoritism in the marketplace. A capitalist system needs a neutral arbiter to enforce the rules of capitalism. That neutral arbiter must be the government. No other entity can provide that role with the necessary authority. For the government to remain neutral, it must not favor some media organizations over others.

PBS's kids programming competes with that of other kids programing from Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family, and Cartoon Network. PBS's The Newshour competes with news programs from NBC, ABC, and CBS. And, NPR competes with other talk radio programs. When the government favors these programs by giving them money, it gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors. “But NPR and PBS are better than those other shows and programs,” one might argue. When you ask for tax support of the programs you prefer, however, you are asking those who don't share your preferences to provide financial support (through taxes) for your preferences. Also, it is not fair to the companies who compete with NPR and PBS, because they are not getting government grants. When you go to the grocery store, you might have a choice between buying diapers with Mickey Mouse (a Disney character) on them or diapers with Elmo (a character from PBS's Sesame Street) on them. PBS can promote its Elmo character with government support. Disney is forced to compete with PBS with no government support. The government distorts the marketplace, therefore, when it provides preferential treatment for certain media organizations over others. (Much of what the government does provides preferential treatment to certain groups, but I'll leave that issue for a another blog post).

Critics of NPR have reveled in the controversy surrounding the Williams firing. My own criticisms of NPR, however, are more from the view of a wounded lover than a critic. I want NPR to continue the great programming I've enjoyed over many years. My opposition to government funding is not based, therefore, on a dislike of NPR, but rather on a principled understanding of the proper role of government in the marketplace.

Thoughts on the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission Report

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:37:00 +0000

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the two chairman of President Obama's National Commission on Responsibility and Reform, released a report this week outlining what they thing should be done to get our governments finances in order. Here are some of the highlights of their suggestions:

Cut $200 billion in discretionary spending by 2015.
Half of which, $100 billion, will be from the Department of Defense's budget.
Raise the retirement age for Social Security.
Reduce the growth in Social Security payments. (It is currently indexed to wages.)
Simplify the tax code by doing away with many deductions, such as the home-mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health care.
Abolish many farm subsidies.
Cut Medicare spending.
Increase the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.

The rest of the commission will vote on the proposal next week and the full report is due December 1.

The report does a great service by showing what it would actually take to get our fiscal house in order. During the election campaign, many politicians paid lip service to fiscal responsibility, but few would provide details on how they would do that. When you read this report, you can see why. Most of us could find at least one thing in the report that we would find upsetting, and if you're running for office the last thing you want to do is upset voters.

Criticisms of the report have come from both the right and left of the political spectrum. Conservatives don't like the tax increases and cuts to the military; liberals don't like the cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Here are some things to keep in mind, however, as you follow this story:

The biggest parts of the federal budget are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. We can't make big cuts in spending without cuts in the areas where we spend the most. If we say that any one these are off the table, then we would have to make even more dramatic cuts in the other areas.

Everyone likes the idea of simplifying the tax code in principle, but not in practice. “Simplify the tax code, Congress, just don't touch the part that benefits me!” This is the message members of Congress get from their voters, and is the reason the tax code has not been simplified already.

Most of these deductions in the tax code simply distort the market and give preferences to certain people over others. Let us use the most popular deduction as an example—the home mortgage interest deduction. This deduction gives a preference to those who have a home mortgage over those who rent or own their home. Why should those with a mortgage be favored over those without? By including this deduction, home renters and those who owe nothing on their home have to pay higher taxes to make up for the $1 trillion per year in lost revenue. On top of that, the home mortgage interest deduction contributed to the housing bubble that was at the heart of our current economic crisis. It encouraged people to buy homes that they couldn't afford and led to inflated costs in housing. Any savings in taxes from the deduction were wiped out by the higher costs of the home itself.

Both conservatives and liberals have reason to oppose the home mortgage interest deduction. Conservatives should oppose it because they are in favor of a free-market capitalist system, and the deduction distorts the marketplace. Also, since most of the benefit of the home mortgage interest deduction goes to the wealthy, liberals should oppose it because they are in favor of progressive taxation (those who are most able to pay should pay the most in taxes). As it stands, however, the deduction would be difficult to do away with because many benefit from it.

The report is able to reduce the overall tax rates because it raises revenue by getting rid of deductions. This makes a lot more sense than raising tax rates and leaving the deductions in place. Most of those who pay income taxes (about 40% of wage earners pay nothing), do not itemize deductions. All of them would actually be paying less in taxes. Taxes would go up for those who currently take advantage of a lot of deductions.

We have dug ourselves into a big financial mess. To dig out, we will all need to make sacrifices. If all our politicians insist, however, on only supporting a plan that contains all of their priorities and none of the other party's priorities, we have no chance to address our growing debt problem. Ultimately, however, it would not be the politicians fault, it would be yours--the voters. Politicians respond to what the voters want, as they should in a democracy. So, if you look at this plan, or any similar plan, to deal with our debt crisis and reject it because of the sacrifices it demands of you, you have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

For more views on this topic, see:

David Broder, “Sober suggestions from Obama's debt commission,” Washington Post, November 11, 2010.

David Brooks, “National Greatness Agenda,” New York Times, November 11, 2010.

Jonathan Chait, “Liberals and the Debt Commission,” The New Republic, November 12, 2010.

Paul Krugman, “The Hijacked Commission,” New York Times, November 11, 2010.

Dana Milbank, “How Obama can get beyond the debt commission deadlock,” Washington Post, November 14, 2010.

Exit Polls: What are they good for?

noreply@blogger.com (Matthew DeSantis) — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:22:00 +0000

On election night last week we heard a great deal about the results from various exit polls that showed independents were breaking for the Republican Party and that people were frustrated with the lack of economic growth over the last two years. If you watched the election night coverage on any of the major cable news stations I’m sure you noticed the various people whose job it was simply to breakdown the exit poll results. Of course reporting the results of the exit polls isn’t exciting enough so many times there would be some enhanced 3D graphic or futuristic computer screen to jazz-up these results. However, many first-time or casual viewers of politics were probably left wondering what an exit poll even is.

At the most basic level, an exit poll is no different than any other poll except that it is taken immediately after voters leave their polling station. The intent of the exit poll is to determine who is turning out to vote on Election Day and whether the vote is breaking in favor of a particular candidate or political party. Just as in pre-election polls, researchers attempt to ensure they are getting a representative sample of voters, but no sample is ever perfect so there will always be a margin of error. Additionally, there has been a trend in recent years that many exit polls systematically “tilt” in one direction in which the polls will inaccurately favor either the Republican or Democratic candidate. The way in which the media utilizes the results from the exit polls often creates an even larger problem, which will be the topic of a future blog post.

Despite some of the issues with exit polls they are a fascinating source of data for those of us who try to figure out what happened on election night and why it happened. What I wanted to do for the remainder of this post is to breakdown a couple of interesting results from the national exit polls that were not covered too extensively in the media.

- White people like to vote: Much is made of the increasing political significance of racial and ethnic minorities in American politics. However, a quick glance of the exit polls confirmed that White-Caucasians consisted of 78% of the electorate on election night. That is an overwhelming percentage when you realize that White-Caucasians only consist of 64% of the overall population. Additionally, White-Caucasians voted at a 60-40 clip in favor of the Republican Party.

- Latinos continue to stay at home: On the opposite side of the spectrum Latinos had a very poor night in terms of voter turnout. According to the exit polls, Latinos consisted of 8% of the electorate on election night, despite consisting of around 16% of the overall population. Amongst the Latinos that did turn out to vote, they favored the Democratic Party at a nearly 2-to-1 rate. If Democrats seek to hold onto the presidency in 2012 they will have to do a better job at mobilizing Latinos since they are a substantial portion of the population in large Electoral College states such as Texas, California, New York, and Florida. Latinos are also a critical portion of the electorate in swing states such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.

- Catholics like to swing: In 2008, White Catholics split nearly 50-50 between Obama and McCain (with a slight edge to McCain), but in this election White Catholics came out hard in favor of Republican candidates at nearly a 60-40 rate. Catholics have proven to be consistent swing-voters from one election to another since they are often torn between the foreign affairs policies of the Democratic Party and the pro-life abortion policy of the Republican Party. Getting Catholics to swing back toward the Democratic Party is going to be critical in 2012 if Obama wants to keep states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the “blue” column.

- Gay people can be Republicans too: It is important to note that sexual orientation is a tricky subject in exit polls since there are many cases where people may not feel comfortable admitting their sexuality in a face-to-face setting. However, amongst those individuals who admitted to being GLB (gay, lesbian, bisexual), 30% of them voted Republican. This statistic surprised some people because of the very public anti-gay marriage stance that many Republican lawmakers have taken over the past decade, but it shouldn’t surprise us at all. When it comes to politics, Gay-Americans are not constantly thinking about their sexuality. They are subject to the same economic pressures as everyone else in society and believing in small government is not something that is influenced by sexual orientation. This statistic should remind us not to paint various groups with too broad of a brush stroke when it comes to electoral politics.

- Voting for your enemy: One of the themes that emerged on election night was the fact that the public did not have a very high opinion of either political party. Over 50% of the voting public had an unfavorable view toward both the Republican and Democratic parties. However, the Republican Party was able to emerge victorious on election night because of the number of people who still voted for them despite having an unfavorable view of their party. Of the 53% of the public who said they had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, nearly one-quarter of them still casted a ballot supporting the GOP.

These were just some of the interesting exit poll numbers that really stuck out to me. I hope you enjoyed taking a deeper look at the exit polls and I encourage you to share other results that may have jumped out at you.

Did Congress Really Become More Partisan?

noreply@blogger.com (Napp Nazworth) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:05:00 +0000

If you've been watching the post-election coverage, one of the main storylines you've heard is that Congress has become more partisan. Conservative Democrats lost their seats to more conservative Republicans, thus the remaining congressional Democrats are more liberal, while Republicans remained strongly conservative, or so the story goes. Let us take a closer look at this hypothesis.

First, in the Senate, Republicans picked up six seats-AR (Boozman), IL (Kirk), IN (Coats), ND (Hoeven), PA (Toomey), and WI (Johnson). In addition to these, there are seven new Republicans in the Senate—Ayotte (NH), Blunt (MO), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), and Rubio (FL). (Alaska is yet to be decided, but will either be Murkowski, the incumbent, or Miller, the Tea Party backed candidate. Both are Republican.)

A typical media story on the growing partisanship of Republicans in the Senate will usually start with Rand Paul. The story will point out that, though Paul is the son of longtime congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, he had never run for office before. Like his father, his ideology tends toward libertarianism. He favors a much smaller federal government and would prefer to do away with many social service programs. At one point in the campaign, he suggested that parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional. A position he later backed away from. Some are concerned that Paul will use his position in the Senate, where every senator has the power to obstruct Senate business, to prevent Congress from raising its debt ceiling.

Paul appears to fit well with the story line that Senate Republicans have become more partisan, and will seek more radical policies. After discussing Rand Paul, the typical media story will then discuss....uh...well...Rand Paul some more, because, out of the 13 new Senate Republicans, only one fits the story line! (Miller could be another, but Murkowski is currently favored to win that race.) The rest of the less experienced, and more partisan, Republican candidates all lost—Angle in Nevada, Buck in Colorado, and O'Donnell in Delaware. (Based upon the amount of news coverage, you may have thought that O'Donnell was in the lead in her race, but she was always behind by double-digits and lost by 16 points.)

The rest of the new Senate Republican line up are establishment Republicans. They have previous government experience and are aware of the necessity of compromise to democratic governance. Here are some examples. Toomey has served in the US House. Blunt has served as Majority Leader and Majority Whip in the US House. Portman served in the US House and was head of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush. Rubio was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. These swing state Republicans will make the Senate Repulican caucus more moderate, not less.

What about the Democratic caucus in the Senate. Have they become more liberal? Democrats gained their current majority status by winning races in 2006 and 2008. Some of these were won by conservative Democrats in red states. Since they have six year terms, none of these Democrats were even up for election this year so are still in the Senate. These conservative Democratic Senators include Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Tester (MT), Webb (VA), Baucus (MT), Begich (AK), Hagan (NC), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), and Warner (VA). So, conservative Democrats in the Senate remain a hearty bunch, while Senate Republicans have become more moderate. We have the recipe for a more moderate, not less moderate Senate. So, what about the House? Does it fit the story line?

With Republican gains in the House, we see a similar story as the Senate. Almost any time a party expands its numbers, it becomes more moderate simply by becoming more diverse. With more voices in the party it must seek positions that will temper the various coalitions in the party. Plus, even with all the talk of new Tea Party backed candidates, most of the new Republican House candidates came with political experience in state or local government.

The House Democratic caucus, on the other hand, does fit the story line well. House Democrats became more moderate with its gains in 2006 and 2008. As pointed out by Matthew DeSantis in a previous post, these gains came from Rahm Emanuel's conservative Democrat recruits running in Republican districts. Most of the GOP gains in 2010 came from retaking those districts. Thus, by losing many of its more conservative members, the House Democratic caucus has become more liberal.

Thus, of the four congressional party caucuses (House Republican, House Democrat, Senate Republican, Senate Democrat), only one, the House Democrats, has become more partisan. Whether this will make the next House more or less partisan, we should wait and see. My best guess is that there won't be much difference between the two. This is a period where the parties are more united and the gap between them is large compared to other periods in US history. One election will not do much to change that fact.

So, why does the media perpetuate the storyline of a more partisan Congress? Talking about characters like Paul, O'Donnell, and Angle, is certainly more interesting than talking about someone like the relatively boring Senator-elect John Boozman, and interesting stories sell more ad space. There also seems to be a herd mentality with the media. When a particular storyline gains steam, most of the media tend to follow what everyone else is saying and the storyline becomes self perpetuating. The truth, however, isn't best determined by the loudest or most frequent voices.