The Lens of the 2012 Election
People have been asking me what I think of the Obama administration’s budget for 2012, as well as Republican plans to cut government spending. My thought in both cases is this: it’s all understandable – even predictable – if you recognize that both sides have one primary goal right now: to win the presidential election in 2012.
The Republicans: Excellent Students of Political Economy
Republicans in Washington, it is clear to me, have no interest in deficit reduction. (There may be an exception to this generalization, but I can’t think of any off hand, and would welcome suggestions.) Why do I assert this? Simply because none of them have proposed a serious plan to significantly and realistically reduce the budget deficit. No, not even Paul Ryan.
Furthermore, they have no discernable moral or ideological position on the size of the federal government. True, many Republicans have talked a lot about “out-of-control government” since Obama became president, echoing and amplifying the wild-eyed ways many of them talked about the federal government’s excessive reach (black helicopters and all) under the Clinton administration. But when a Republican is president they have no qualms about increasing the size or responsibilities of the federal government. (Think TSA and Medicare prescription drug benefit, for example.)
My conclusion is that Republicans in Washington right now are driven by one very simple and clear objective: to recapture the White House in 2012. Everything they say or do must be interpreted in that context, and then it all makes sense.
Next, we must recognize that they are also excellent students of political economics. In particular, they have taken to heart the lesson that the state of the economy is probably the single most important factor in determining which party wins the election for President. (Though there’s some debate about whether the “state of the economy” in this context is the level of income or its growth rate.)
Well, the equation is then pretty simple:
(Desire to beat Obama in 2012) + (Obama is more beatable if economy is bad) = Do what you can to make the state of the economy bad.
Yes, the cynicism and cold-heartedness embodied in this equation is truly breathtaking. But it explains a lot.
Why propose dramatic cuts in government spending? Because they will help make the state of the economy bad. Very effectively.
Why not worry about the unemployment effects of spending cuts? Because that’s an inevitable part of helping to make the state of the economy bad. (In other words, increased unemployment is exactly the point, silly!)
Why reduce aid to states facing their own budget crises? Because that is also an extremely efficient way to help make the state of the economy bad.
It’s a simple equation, and once you understand that the Republicans also understand this equation, and furthermore, that it is the one thing they deeply believe in, then Republican behavior in Washington becomes explicable and even predictable.
The Obama Administration: It’s All About the Middle 20%
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has just put out its budget for 2012. The cuts proposed by the administration have mystified many on the left. But they’re easy to explain if you believe that, given Republican control of Congress, the budget is purely a political document. As anything other than a political document the budget proposal is irrelevant.
And therefore the main usefulness of the 2012 budget proposal (from the Obama administration’s point of view) is if can somehow help Obama’s reelection chances.
For the Obama administration, the calculus works like this:
1. The chance of reelection depends mainly on the state of the economy. We need to do what we can to prevent the Republicans from actively making the economy worse over the next year, they think to themselves, but that’s probably the limit of what is possible regarding the economy. So let’s move on.
2. Given the state of the economy, the Obama administration reasons, the primary goal of purely political acts (such as the preparation of the 2012 budget proposal) must be to do whatever else can be done to persuade the “middle 20%” of Americans to vote for Obama. (40% of Americans will vote against him no matter what, and 40% will vote for him no matter what.) Note that this is the opposite of the Roveian strategy of firing up and turning out the base to win elections, but it is clearly what Obama’s political advisors believe.
3. The middle 20% will be more likely to vote for him if they think he’s in the middle himself – compromising, striking a balance between left and right, etc.
4. The 2012 budget proposal is a very good way for the Obama administration to persuade the middle 20% that Obama is in the middle himself. It offers some real cuts – including cuts that the left hates. It makes some gestures toward deficit reduction. But it is not as vicious as the Republican alternative, and leaves the entitlement programs that are loved by the middle 20% completely alone.
This calculus suggests to me that the 2012 budget proposed by the administration has exactly accomplished their goal: it has generated howls of protest from both left and right, thus helping to persuade the middle 20% that he’s in the middle, too.
Of course that middle 20% aren’t going to give a damn about Obama’s 2012 budget proposal when they vote in 18 months.
yeah, but whose “middle?” we are a fickle, and stupid, electorate.
The socialist Dwight Eisenhower would be appalled I bet.
Kash, I agree completely that this budget (both versions) must be viewed through the political prism. I also think your article is a little too simplistic and cynical in that it ignored the political impact of today’s (and 2010’s) greatest political issue, the budget deficit.
Republicans were able to harness that political energy better than Democrats, so much of the budget maneuvering is centered upon capturing or maintaining that energy. That is admittedly a purely political versus econo-political explanation.
Cynicism is evidenced with imputing purely presidential election politics into the explanation without mentioning the fundamental differences between the two party’s. Democrats believe Government solutions (bigger government/spending) are the better solution compared to Republicans who believe non-Government (smaller government/spending) is better. That fundamental difference (Republican core belief) explains why Republicans are able to capture the budget/deficit political energy, and why Obama’s budget is driven by politics.
As far as fighting the impression that Obama is moving to the middle: There’s an all out war there.
If the budget deficit was actually “today’s (and 2010’s) greatest political issue” wouldn’t it register in opinion polling? Or are greatest political issues dictated by billionaire tax dodgers rather than polling data?
AS, it actually does register. #1 with republicans and 5th overall. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/143579-poll-unemployment-is-biggest-problem-to-be-tackled
Admittedly I may have oversated slightly, but no where near where you understated it: “wouldn’t it register in opinion polling?” Implying not registering at all.
So somehow the issue cited 5th as the most important issue at 11% of respondents is somehow registered as a “Greater” issue than unemployment (35%), the economy (29%) or healthcare (12%).
Got it.
Do you have any polls of leading billionaires available? That might help.
“America’s deficit: For every american who says it’s our #1 issue there are 8-9 who say it’s something else!”
But hey from tiny acorns a mighty oak will grow right? Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, Santorum, Gingrich: Sprout those tiny leaves!!!!
Seems to me Obama played this game. The latest election. Enough of the 40% he’s counting on stayed home such that that 20% didn’t cut it.
Very dangerous game.
Personally, I think Obama is not so much trying to walk the fence rail of the “middle” as much as he’s walking the rail of money vs citizen.
I’m with Bruce Barlett on this one as well….
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/02/04/Voter-Ignorance-Threatens-Deficit-Reduction.aspx
and economix
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/
I think corev said ‘oops’ well enough…no need to pound the issue of an oops, but point us to alternative explanations.
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-does-boehner-not-care-about.html And zingers like from elected officials this keep us ignorant.
Neither party cares about the economy, jobs, sources of unemployment–and their contributors like it that way. ZIPR and deflation keep billionaires happy. Even at record low interest rates, 2% of a gazillion zillion bucks is elebenty zillion bucks. No worries there, mate.
But this state of affairs is disastrous for ordinary people. CoRev, I and others here have our pensions and SS already. Over time, their buying power will be eroded, but maybe we won’t live long enough to see them become worthless. Other people aren’t so lucky. If this situation had continued throughout CoRev and my federal careers, we’d still be working and in debt up to our eyeballs, no end in sight. I don’t want to see that for the majority of the population now and into the future.
Look, I don’t see any merit on either side of the political argument. Debt, schmedt! Look, if you want to have a government, you gotta pay for it. Can you wipe out the debt all at once? Not anymore than you can pay your mortgage off and still have a nickle left. Saying anything else is a waste of time. Taxes won’t kill us. A stagnant economy will. On the other hand, just wishing us into the future though “shared sacrifice”, “tough decisions” and “infrastructure investments” is flim-flammery. I made a hundred decisions a day in my career and not a single one was tough. But, I wasn’t there for entertainment or running for office. The administration will have to show me more than austerian code to get my vote. NancyO
Odd that CoRev is willing to accuse Kash of cynicism in the same comment that he credits the GOP with actaully caring about the size of government. As Kash had just pointed out, government expanded under Shrub. So did the deficit. At least Kash made clear that he was doing political analysis, without sugar coating. CoRev neglected to make clear that he was doing PR, sugar coating the GOP and trashing Democrats.
Then there was the assertion that the GOP will make best use of the budget issue (GOP WINS in a sugar-coated landslide) and asserted that the issue that 11% of poll respondents consider most important is “the most” important issue, over those favored by 35%, 29% and 12%. That kind of math does not bode well for an objective discussion of budget issues.
This Deficit will be probably be an impossible issue for the Republicans to win on. People will juxtapose real cuts in Government spending and real suffering with this totally conceptual “Deficit.” We also know which side the media is on.
I remember the last shutdown….the outrage over sleigh-ride operators in Yellowstone who had no customers. This time will be twice as bad…….old people starving, kids without lunch, etc. etc. Listening to OPB, they are already urging people to call their congressman over their life-and-death mission. Republicans will be the Grinch vs. the Whos.
Still, that’s no reason for them to compromise their hard earned (snicker) credentials on fiscal restraint! Green eye shaded trust fund babies to the barricades!
KH as far as Bush and the Republican administration, it was a disappointment for spending/government growth. Oh, and they paid for it. Now, that I brought that 2006 and 2008 sore point, we have 2010’s election history and the maneuvering for 2012 elections.
From ther on you are doing your normal body shot hatchet job. Nyah, nyah, nyah is a childish way to have discussion.
And then you get into some argument of what I was asserting re: “the GOP will make best use of the budget issue (GOP WINS in a sugar-coated landslide)” which appears more a fear of his, than anything I said.
If, as Kash says, Republicans are cynical aobut the budget, then Democrats are just as cynical in trying to protect the Obama presidency. Neither have presented anything meaningful for a short term solution.
Republican administrations since WW2 have far outspent Democratic ones. To suggest is was just Bush is simply wrong.
But you’re still ignoring the actual poll data and you’re neglecting or refusing to address the critcism that your assertion is not supported by the polling data. You’re always asking for the data yet when it is presented in its specifics you ignore the details. How does an 11% share and 5th position equate to, “I also think your article is a little too simplistic and cynical in that it ignored the political impact of today’s (and 2010’s) greatest political issue, the budget deficit.” ? Maybe you should have qualified that statement with “the greatest Republican political issue.”
“Overall, concern over federal budget deficits ranks fifth with 11 percent saying it’s the most important issue as House Republicans focus in on making deep cuts in federal spending.”
“Only 8 percent of Democrats rate the issue No. 1, 10 percent of independents and 16 percent of Republicans who were asked.”
In the political calculus simply successfully forcing the conversation to be about something that will not improve the economy is a success for those who don’t want to improve the economy yet.
Jack. you’re correct, my statement would have been more accurate if qualifed or limited to Republicans. Want me to rewrite it?.
I’m beginning to think Dana Milbank hit a home run yesterday with this phrase: “caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow,…”
Look again at kash’s assertions, and then do a seacrch just on that phrase.
Monday Obama released his budget. Tuesday Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning it was being panned on both sides. Tuesday afternoon Obama holds an unannouced/emergency news conference. By Wednesday Millbank’s comment is being repeated in mostly liberal circles.
I commend them. For the short term they may take the messaging high ground.
Weird similarities between Kash and Rush Limbaugh. I have read that Mr. Limbaugh thinks Mr. Obama is purposely trying to diminish the U.S’s economy. Now I see that Mr. Mansori is saying the exact same thing about the GOP. Now I am wondering if Kash and Ruch are in the same league in terms of critical thinking?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/a8eab617d8c3a3f5/f623e26161cbf94c?lnk=raot
There is no doubt that House Republicans like big numbers. The big number that got my attention yesterday and today is $1.7Billion USD to be cut from the Continuing Resolution for Social Security expenditures. This reduction applies to operations between now and 9-30-11, the last day of FY2011. It imposes a 20-day furlough on every SSA employee. Total FTE (employees) for SSA is about 67K. 20 work days is 160 hours times 67K FTE or 10, 720,000 work hours up in smoke. 2080 work hours are one FTE so if you divide the 10million plus hours by 2080 you get a cut of 5153 employees just through 9-30-11. Which effectively shuts SSA down.
Now, if it were me doing it, I’d post guards at the door of every SSA facility and shut down effective day one of the new CR should it include such cuts. But, it ain’t me and we’re gonna see a real show in 5….4….3….2….1….Show Time! NancyO
Nah, NO! they’ll just take it out of the unobligated contracts funds.
Wonder away….makes no sense.
Hey, CoRev. What unobligated funds? Hey, SSA ain’t got none of those. One of those DOD thangs, dood. But, there you go. Different world, different budget. NO
Just the facts, sir. Just the facts.
NO, don’t kid these guys, or yourself. There are always unobligated contract funds during the FYs. The contracting functions are so FUBARed that no Agency, even your favorite, can get those things awarded or in CR years renewed and revised. When the CR process is repetitive like this year it means they must go through that step for each resolution. So nearly all (that qualification thing again) contracts are unobligated at the start of the CR cycle.
If pointing out that you have tried to mislead your readers is childish of me, well let the childishness continue unabated.
Now, since you have decided to go with “childish”, how shall we characterize tour tendency to mislead your readers whenever it suits you. I’ll go with “dishonest”. Jack had to call you on letting every recent Republican administration but Bush off the hook for bad fiscal policy. You aren’t new to this issue, so, yeah, “dishonest” it is.
The fact that Republicans lost elections in no way makes them less to blame for their fiscal policies. Their record is what it is. The sloppy equivalence “just as cynical” may work for you, but I’m not aware of an objective metric of such things, and someone as childish as I am simply cannot trust someone as dishonest as you in these matters.
See this classic from Stirling Newberry, Three Polar Politics in Post Petroleum America if you want to move beyond the left, right, middle paradigm. Maybe the goal for 2012 should be to destroy that paradigm, since the election itself is kabuki, and likely to be stolen again anyhow, as in FL 2000, OH 2004, and TX D primary 2008.
See this classic from Stirling Newberry, Three Polar Politics in Post Petroleum America if you want to move beyond the left, right, middle paradigm. Maybe the goal for 2012 should be to destroy that paradigm, since the election itself is kabuki, and likely to be stolen again anyhow, as in FL 2000, OH 2004, and TX D primary 2008.
See this classic from Stirling Newberry, Three Polar Politics in Post Petroleum America if you want to move beyond the left, right, middle paradigm. Maybe the goal for 2012 should be to destroy that paradigm, since the election itself is kabuki, and likely to be stolen again anyhow, as in FL 2000, OH 2004, and TX D primary 2008.
The Democratic party is already doomed in 2012. Obama intensely alienated a small portion of his base through his turn to Regan-era ideas, opposition to open government and failure to shove popular proposals down the Republican’s throats. Unfortunately for him the same group that’s stuck in 20% unemployment with no way to afford health care is the group that was happy to knock on doors, raise money $50 at a time and man massive phone banks. It’s not like the far-right Republican anarchists who are currently popular are going to offer them an alternative, but chances are pretty good they are going to stay out of it entirely, probably while wearing ironic Palin t-shirts, too busy living in their parents houses and job hunting to be the supportive force they were last time.
The Democratic party is already doomed in 2012. Obama intensely alienated a small portion of his base through his turn to Regan-era ideas, opposition to open government and failure to shove popular proposals down the Republican’s throats. Unfortunately for him the same group that’s stuck in 20% unemployment with no way to afford health care is the group that was happy to knock on doors, raise money $50 at a time and man massive phone banks. It’s not like the far-right Republican anarchists who are currently popular are going to offer them an alternative, but chances are pretty good they are going to stay out of it entirely, probably while wearing ironic Palin t-shirts, too busy living in their parents houses and job hunting to be the supportive force they were last time.
The Democratic party is already doomed in 2012. Obama intensely alienated a small portion of his base through his turn to Regan-era ideas, opposition to open government and failure to shove popular proposals down the Republican’s throats. Unfortunately for him the same group that’s stuck in 20% unemployment with no way to afford health care is the group that was happy to knock on doors, raise money $50 at a time and man massive phone banks. It’s not like the far-right Republican anarchists who are currently popular are going to offer them an alternative, but chances are pretty good they are going to stay out of it entirely, probably while wearing ironic Palin t-shirts, too busy living in their parents houses and job hunting to be the supportive force they were last time.