Nov 5, 2010
Nov 3, 2010
Pennsylvania: The newest red state
Pennsylvania no longer has the blues. After trending Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Republicans stormed back in a big way on Election Day 2010.
The Republican tide that swept across the nation Tuesday included Pennsylvania, where Republicans made significant gains at all levels of government.
Let's take a look at how the political landscape changed overnight in Pennsylvania: A Republican replaces Ed Rendell as governor; a Republican replaces Democrat Arlen Specter in the U.S. Senate; Republicans ousted five Congressional Democrats and held all current Congressional seats; Republicans held control of the Pennsylvania Senate by a 30-20 margin and Republicans regained control of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives with a solid majority of at least 110 seats in the 203-seat body.
A Republican will move into governor's mansion with Attorney General Tom Corbett defeating Ed Rendell-clone Dan Onorato. Republican Pat Toomey defeated liberal Joe Sestak for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Arlen Specter.
Pennsylvania voters tossed out five incumbent Democratic members of Congress from Pennsylvania, helping the GOP retake control of the House in Washington, D.C. Republicans will hold 12 of Pennsylvania's 19 Congressional seats come January.
Among Election Night highlights from Pennsylvania: Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta defeated 26-year career politician Paul Kanjorski and Republican Pat Meehan beat Democrat Bryan Lentz in the race for the Congressional seat being vacated by Sestak.
All of this took place in Ed Rendell's back yard in a state where Obama and his minions campaigned heavily for incumbent Democrats.
The message sent by Pennsylvania voters Tuesday was loud and clear: The Democrats agenda of deficit spending and higher taxes has to stop.
Nov 2, 2010
Election Day Predictions: Nationally, GOP Trounces Democrats
After today's election Pennsylvania will no longer be considered a "Blue State" on the nation's political landscape. In all of my time covering politics, I have to say that the results of today's election are the easiest outcomes to predict in our nation's history. Yes folks today is going to be a monumentous GOP party landslide for sure.
This is contrary to various polling firms and national media personalities who seem to be desperately trying to convince the American People that various races around the country are tightening. There is no doubt that the American People are angry and this political reality will become apparent in today's elections results. Obviousley, President Obama and the Congressional Democrats overreached after taking control of Washington in 2008. Liberal Democrats pushed through their agenda from the perspective that only they know what is best for the American People instead of reaching out to republicans and listening to the concerns of their constituents. This by far was their fatal mistake and their group think/narcissistic approach to governing will cost them tremendously today.
I predict nationally that Republicans will gain close to 70 seats in the House of Representatives and come within 2 seats of taking over the majority in the Senate. I believe that there is a hidden 5% support for Republican candidates not being reported in various polls when you take in consideration the way specific voting demographics are breaking for republican candidates. Look at the number of independents in various polls who now identify themselves as conservative who have been influenced the most by the Tea Party movement. America's business calls made up of both democratic and republican voters and who have been negatively impacted the most by President Obama's failed economic policies are breaking hard for GOP candidates.
With these factors in play there is no doubt the GOP wave is coming. You also have to consider that democratic voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential Primary election are more likely to vote for the GOP candidate or simply stay home and sit out the election. So any race that shows a Republican down by five percentage points among likely voters has a high probability to be actually a win for republicans
Pennsylvania Election Predictions:
Pennsylvania Governor Race: Corbett 54, Onorato 46
Result: Corbett 54.5, Onorato 45.5
Pennsylvania Sentate Race: Toomey 53, Sestak 47
Result: Toomey 51, Sestak 49
Congressional District 3: Kathleen Dahlkemper (D) 48, Mike Kelly (R) 50
Result: Kathleen Dahlkemper (D) 44.6, Mike Kelly (R) 55.4
Congressional District 4: Jason Altmire (D) 49.6, Keith J. Rothfus (R) 50.4
Result: Jason Altmire (D) 50.9.6, Keith J. Rothfus (R) 49.1
Congressional District 6: Jim Gerlach (R) 55, Manan Trivedi (D) 45
Result: Jim Gerlach (R) 57, Manan Trivedi (D) 43
Congressional District 7: Patrick L. Meehan (R) 52, Bryan Lentz (D) 48
Result: Patrick L. Meehan (R) 55, Bryan Lentz (D) 43.9
Congressional District 8: Patrick J. Murphy (D) 49, Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R) 51
Result: Patrick J. Murphy (D) 46.3, Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R) 53.7
Congressional District 10: Chris Carney (D) 48.5, Tom Marino (R) 49.9
Result: Chris Carney (D) 44.9, Tom Marino (R) 55.1
Congressional District 11: Paul E. Kanjorski (D) 48.4, Louis J. Barletta (R) 51.6
Result: Paul E. Kanjorski (D) 45.5, Louis J. Barletta (R) 54.6
Congressional District 12: Mark Critz (D) 51, Tim Burns (R) 49
Result: Mark Critz (D) 50.8, Tim Burns (R) 49.2
Congressional District 13: Allyson Schwartz (D) 49, Dee Adcock (R) 51
Result: Allyson Schwartz (D) 56.4, Dee Adcock (R) 43.6
Congressional District 15: Charlie Dent (R) 53, John Callahan (D) 47
Result: Charlie Dent (R) 53.5, John Callahan (D) 39
Also Republicans will win back control of the state house by gaining 7 to 9 seats
Oct 29, 2010
Tough Times Down on the Farm: But PA agriculture has a positive outlook
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
Although Pennsylvania is often characterized as an "industrial state," agriculture is actually the state's number one business. A recent poll of farmers across Penn's Woods found that, although there are some problems unique to agriculture, many are suffering the same ill effects from the recession as are non-farm businesses.
The sheer size and scope of agri-business makes the health of the sector critical to Pennsylvania's economic recovery. Over one million Pennsylvanians are employed in farming operations and with 27% of the state's land mass dedicated to farming, the industry generates over $6 billion per year in sales.
Farming operations have been hit particularly hard by the economic recession. State Senator Michael Brubaker (R-Lancaster), chairman of the senate Agriculture Committee, says dairy producers in particular are in financial distress. He points out over half the farms in Pennsylvania produce dairy products, and they currently are unable to make a profit.
The fact dairy producers cannot even sell what they produce for enough money to cover costs has forced many farm families to seek outside employment in order to make ends meet. Brubaker said in some cases farms have been in a family for generations, so the current generation will do whatever is necessary to hold on to their farm business.
Effects of the economic recession on farming mirror those of the economy as a whole. The agri-business poll conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research found that, relative to the rest of the economy, 42% of the farmers responding rate the current business climate for agriculture in Pennsylvania as average. Fifteen percent gave the state's agricultural business climate above average or excellent marks, while 43% rated it as below average to poor.
The fair to negative assessment carried over to the perceived trends in the state's agri-business climate. Half of the respondents said the agri-business climate has remained about the same over the past six months, while 30% say it has gotten worse and 21% feel it has gotten better. Looking ahead six months, 60% think the commonwealth's agri-business climate will remain about the same, with 21% expecting it to get worse and 18% expecting it will improve.
Senator Brubaker feels that those numbers are actually rather optimistic given the current state of agriculture in Pennsylvania. "When you have fifty percent of our farm economy not making money," he said, "but yet farmers have some level of optimism about the future, that makes me believe that we are going to have agriculture in Pennsylvania going forward."
Driving the positive feelings farmers have about their economic future is a love for the quality of life the occupation provides. When asked what they consider to be the state's biggest agricultural asset 45% cited quality of life followed by confidence in the agricultural infrastructure of the state and growth potential.
On the down side, the regulatory environment was cited by 35% as Pennsylvania's biggest liability, closely followed by the costs of land, and taxes. Senator Brubaker said the animus toward regulations is fueled by the fact the state and federal governments often implement new regulations with little advance notice and that it is unpredictable what will come next.
As you might expect, land and land use regulations are a top concern of Pennsylvania's agri-business community. Farmers gave a vote of confidence to local municipalities with over half saying land use and zoning decisions should remain in the hands of local government. Twenty-nine percent would like to see such decisions made at the county level, while only 12% wants the state to make zoning and land use decisions.
In dealing with the economic recession, farmers have had to take many of the same steps as those in non-farm businesses including reducing work hours, raising prices, laying-off employees and closing or consolidating facilities. Still, as a testament to the resilience of the farming community, more expect to see their revenue increase over the coming six months than anticipate a decline.
Although agri-business seldom gets much media coverage, it is clear that for Penn's Woods to emerge from the current economic recession this sector of the economy must be restored to economic health. With regulation and taxes among the industry's top concerns it is clear government is a big part of the problem. Lower taxes and less, or at least more predictable regulation will be the keys to the sector's recovery.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Although Pennsylvania is often characterized as an "industrial state," agriculture is actually the state's number one business. A recent poll of farmers across Penn's Woods found that, although there are some problems unique to agriculture, many are suffering the same ill effects from the recession as are non-farm businesses.
The sheer size and scope of agri-business makes the health of the sector critical to Pennsylvania's economic recovery. Over one million Pennsylvanians are employed in farming operations and with 27% of the state's land mass dedicated to farming, the industry generates over $6 billion per year in sales.
Farming operations have been hit particularly hard by the economic recession. State Senator Michael Brubaker (R-Lancaster), chairman of the senate Agriculture Committee, says dairy producers in particular are in financial distress. He points out over half the farms in Pennsylvania produce dairy products, and they currently are unable to make a profit.
The fact dairy producers cannot even sell what they produce for enough money to cover costs has forced many farm families to seek outside employment in order to make ends meet. Brubaker said in some cases farms have been in a family for generations, so the current generation will do whatever is necessary to hold on to their farm business.
Effects of the economic recession on farming mirror those of the economy as a whole. The agri-business poll conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research found that, relative to the rest of the economy, 42% of the farmers responding rate the current business climate for agriculture in Pennsylvania as average. Fifteen percent gave the state's agricultural business climate above average or excellent marks, while 43% rated it as below average to poor.
The fair to negative assessment carried over to the perceived trends in the state's agri-business climate. Half of the respondents said the agri-business climate has remained about the same over the past six months, while 30% say it has gotten worse and 21% feel it has gotten better. Looking ahead six months, 60% think the commonwealth's agri-business climate will remain about the same, with 21% expecting it to get worse and 18% expecting it will improve.
Senator Brubaker feels that those numbers are actually rather optimistic given the current state of agriculture in Pennsylvania. "When you have fifty percent of our farm economy not making money," he said, "but yet farmers have some level of optimism about the future, that makes me believe that we are going to have agriculture in Pennsylvania going forward."
Driving the positive feelings farmers have about their economic future is a love for the quality of life the occupation provides. When asked what they consider to be the state's biggest agricultural asset 45% cited quality of life followed by confidence in the agricultural infrastructure of the state and growth potential.
On the down side, the regulatory environment was cited by 35% as Pennsylvania's biggest liability, closely followed by the costs of land, and taxes. Senator Brubaker said the animus toward regulations is fueled by the fact the state and federal governments often implement new regulations with little advance notice and that it is unpredictable what will come next.
As you might expect, land and land use regulations are a top concern of Pennsylvania's agri-business community. Farmers gave a vote of confidence to local municipalities with over half saying land use and zoning decisions should remain in the hands of local government. Twenty-nine percent would like to see such decisions made at the county level, while only 12% wants the state to make zoning and land use decisions.
In dealing with the economic recession, farmers have had to take many of the same steps as those in non-farm businesses including reducing work hours, raising prices, laying-off employees and closing or consolidating facilities. Still, as a testament to the resilience of the farming community, more expect to see their revenue increase over the coming six months than anticipate a decline.
Although agri-business seldom gets much media coverage, it is clear that for Penn's Woods to emerge from the current economic recession this sector of the economy must be restored to economic health. With regulation and taxes among the industry's top concerns it is clear government is a big part of the problem. Lower taxes and less, or at least more predictable regulation will be the keys to the sector's recovery.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Oct 22, 2010
All Politics Is Local--Except When It Isn't
G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young
All politics is local, the late Tip O’Neill famously remarked. To which must be appended a necessary caveat: except when it isn’t. And it definitely isn’t in 2010. Case in point: Pennsylvania’s ongoing contest for governor and U.S. senator.
The election is certainly being held in Pennsylvania. Any citizen with a TV and a slow mute button can attest to that as both campaigns wage a furious battle of dueling television spots across the state. But while the campaigning is all in the state, little of it is about the state. Instead both races have been thoroughly nationalized with issues, rhetoric, and anger focused laser-like on Washington and Obama.
The Toomey-Sestak U.S. Senate race illustrates vividly just how thoroughly state issues have become an inconvenient afterthought in 2010. Toomey has relentlessly focused his campaign on Obama, repeatedly raising the specter of dreaded liberals taking the country off the cliff, while consistently condemning profligate spending and debt expansion.
He has artfully made Sestak a leading villain in the drama, citing Sestak’s 100 percent support of the Obama agenda, charging that Sestak is “more an Obama Democrat” than Obama himself, and criticizing Sestak’s health care policies and frequent calls for more stimulus spending.
Sestak, swimming against the enormous national tide engulfing him, has tried to make some lemonade from the lemons bequeathed to him. Unable or unwilling to distance himself from the unpopular Obama, he nevertheless clearly understands how toxic Obama has become. Rather than change his politics, however, he has tried to change the subject, styling himself as a populist outsider, more the battle tested former admiral and less the two-term congressman he has been.
But even Sestak, despite the risk, has had to accept the nationalization of the race. Accordingly, he has aimed his guns at Toomey’s Wall Street connections and his onetime advocacy of derivatives. Toomey, according to Sestak, represents the interests of Wall Street, not Main Street. Sestak has also pounded Toomey with still another national issue, arguing that he would privatize social security.
The ideological battle lines formed by this fight are sharply polarized. According to the most recent Franklin & Marshall College Poll, released on September 29th, fully half of Toomey’s voters choose him because they oppose Obama and Democrats in Congress, while slightly more than half of Sestak’s voters support him for precisely the opposite reason—because they support Obama and Democrats in Congress.
To a remarkable extent then, the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate election has become a referendum on Obama and his agenda, with the respective candidates acting as surrogates. Obama is the text, while Toomey and Sestak are very much the subtext.
In the gubernatorial race the nationalizing effect is similar. Gubernatorial races traditionally focus exclusively on state issues and local concerns. Only rarely are they significantly influenced by national trends. Not so this year. Instead the 2010 Pennsylvania governor’s race is playing out in a parallel universe to the U.S. Senate race, with the same hostile environment to spending and deficits as well as to Democrats in general and Obama in particular.
Consequently, both Democrat Dan Onorato and Republican Tom Corbett have staked out de minimis positions on the expansion of state government. Neither supports a general tax hike and both have pledged economies in state government.
Normally gubernatorial elections feature ambitious competing agendas crafted by both Democratic and Republican candidates. But this year nothing even close to big-ticket items is on the table. Big is out and small is in, clearly reflecting national trends and national issues.
Neither candidate is misreading the voter. The Franklin & Marshall College Poll cited earlier showed that a large plurality of voters are most concerned about rising taxes, cutting spending, and reducing outstanding debt. Sensing this mood, both candidates have run as reformers that will oppose tax increases and cut spending.
In this environment the Democrat Onorato struggles. Like U.S. Senate candidate Sestak, he finds the lurking presence of an unloved incumbent dragging down his own support. The job performance of once-popular Rendell rivals that of Obama. It’s an anemic 35 percent positive, a consequence of the recession, compounded by consecutive large budget deficits and Rendell’s persistent call to raise taxes.
Not surprisingly, gubernatorial GOP candidate Corbett has ripped a page right out of Toomey’s campaign plan. He is running against Rendell as much as he is running against Onorato, just as Toomey is running against Obama as much as he is running against Sestak.
Both Republicans are hitching their candidacies to the powerful national trends sweeping the nation.
By early October these trends have become increasing clear. Not so clear, however, are the implications beyond November. Little but gloom and doom appear to await the Democrats. Still, history counsels caution in too quickly consigning Obama and the Democrats to political oblivion.
In 1994, Clinton and his party faced challenges equal to or greater than now. In fact, Democrats endured an electoral carnage in 1994 that saw both houses of Congress swing to the Republicans. But Clinton reacted to that disaster by moving to the political center, sponsoring popular legislation and instituting bipartisan government in Washington. The result: he was reelected overwhelmingly in 1996.
No one is predicting that Obama can do the same. Nevertheless, Americans are wise to be mindful how rare such totally nationalized elections really are and how unpredictable the consequences can be.
Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young. Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu.
Oct 12, 2010
In the mirror
Guest Column By Albert Paschall
What's the distinction between trial lawyers? Mine's a shark and yours is a blowfish waiting to get eaten.
Any discussion of the civil justice system automatically turns to the practices of trial lawyers, their tactics, motives and earnings.
Reviled by consumers, author John Grisham and of course, chambers of commerce, trial lawyers are painted as a bunch of bottom fishers out to gouge Americans down to their last dollars.
Until they want to sue somebody.
What is the value of the father of two young children who lost the use of his legs because some teenage moron was texting at 70 MPH when he hit him? How much compensation do you get when you are unconscious, electrocuted while picking out some green beans in a supermarket? If you are taken to the emergency room with a reaction to a medication that urges in its TV commercials to get there quick if it works for more than 4 hours and you undergo a painful operation, what is it worth?
In Pennsylvania it is whatever a jury gives you. Chances are your trial lawyer is going to get a big chunk of that settlement and if you choose the right one you might not have to put any front money.
But the bad rap goes to the 800-number attorneys. The ones on TV who exploit generational suffering trying to rack up the multi-million dollar settlements. The legends about their limos and Gulf Stream travels don't help. The pennies on the dollar settlements that their victims often get after fees, ancillary charges and travel expenses are sometimes disgraceful. While the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (formerly known as the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association) boasts about the size of its political action committee and that between 2000-2003 only 25 cases in this state resulted in awards of over a million dollars, it does not talk about the insurance companies that simply swam away from the sharks and settled out of court.
Nowhere is this truer in Pennsylvania than in the medical professions. Physicians have been tortured for years by the triple debacles of frivolous suits, potentially damaging publicity and outrageous costs for medical malpractice insurance. It's reached a point where physicians are moving practices out of the state and trying to recruit young ones is like trying to offer them a diving trip into a tank full of hungry sharks.
The cycle of confusion that is liability law in this state is not going away. There might be solutions out there but before we can get them someday we're all going to have to take a hard look: in the mirror.
Albert Paschall is Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, a non-profit educational foundation with offices in Harrisburg and King Of Prussia. Somedays is syndicated to leading newspapers and radio stations through out Pennsylvania. lincolnpa@aol.com
Oct 11, 2010
November 2? No, Liberty Needs You Today!
Guest Column By Matthew J. Brouillette
Many people I meet think November 2 is the be-all and end-all of their 2010 calendar. And don’t get me wrong; Election Day is critical. But I can think of two days that are just as important. The first, as I’ve said many times, is November 3—because that’s when we have to start making sure whoever gets elected the day before actually does what’s right.
The second, though, will probably surprise you: It’s this Friday. That’s why the Commonwealth Foundation is working hard at this very moment. And it’s why I want to tell you very clearly that liberty needs you today. You can’t take a vacation, you can’t leave the task to us, and you can’t wait until November 2.
The reason liberty needs you today is that tomorrow, our State Senate is coming back to town—and the rumor is that later in the week, the House of Representatives will follow suit. And they’re not coming back to play patty cake. Rather, we are hearing that the Senate is planning to resurrect a $27 billion so-called “pension reform” bill that was rightfully shelved this summer.
The Senate is also supposed to debate a new tax on the Marcellus Shale—the natural-gas reserve in Northern PA that’s the only place we are seeing job growth outside of government. This comes after the House passed the nation’s highest severance tax, a true job killer.
And amidst everything, on Wednesday a Senate committee is taking up the crucial issue of school choice. This comes just after former Democratic House Speaker Bob O’Donnell joined CF as a senior fellow working on school choice—and, sadly, after the state Auditor General launched an attack on cyber and charter schools, claiming funding disparities between them and “traditional” public schools. I will be testifying.
CF has been fighting these bad ideas—pension non-reform, a huge natural-gas tax designed to fund the overspending problem in Harrisburg, and picking on cyber and charter schools—for months and even years. Just recently, we’ve put out a video and a memo showing what real pension reform looks like, a video on the severance tax, and launched openPAgov.org, our new website that tracks school spending and achievement and shows that lack of funding is not the problem with any of the schools in the Commonwealth. And we’ll keep fighting this week. But you need to weigh in, too, because at the end of the day, your State Senator is responsible to you, not me.
So please: If you love liberty, don’t be tricked into thinking you can wait until November 2 to fight for it. The General Assembly is flirting with policies that constitute generational theft, killing jobs, and denying opportunities to kids this week. If you make your voice heard, this Friday will be a day to raise a toast. But if not, Friday will be payday for unions and a day for the rest of us to mourn yet more lost freedom. I’m looking forward to hearing you weigh in as we’re…
Fighting for Your Freedom,
Matthew J. Brouillette is the President & CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation
Oct 1, 2010
Fiscal folly. Proposed legislative budget office more useless bureaucracy
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
The compromise that resulted in the state budget agreement last summer included promised action on two major issues by October: enactment of a severance tax on gas in the Marcellus Shale Reserve, and creation of an independent legislative fiscal office. Amazingly, Republicans - particularly in the state senate - appear poised to both approve a job-crushing tax and to create yet another needless state bureaucracy.
The deal gives off the appearance that the GOP sold-out on the severance tax in exchange for getting a legislative fiscal office. It may or may not have been a quid pro quo, but in politics appearances are what matters. This appears to be a cave-in on piling additional taxes on the one industry in Pennsylvania that is actually growing so the legislature can expand its bureaucratic empire. Both actions are antithetical to the Republican Party's supposed free market, less government philosophy and serves to further alienate voters who are already distrustful of both political parties.
Lawmakers pushing for establishment of a legislative fiscal office claim that it is needed because the Budget Office, which is under the governor's control, has failed to accurately project state revenues over the past few years. The recession, of course, had a lot to do with the faulty revenue forecasts. But, Senate Republicans in particular were eager to accept the numbers last year in order to bring an end to the state's budget stalemate. Thus their claims of concern over inaccuracy ring hollow.
What is actually at play here is legislative ego. Since the governor has a fiscal office, so too must the General Assembly have such an office. And, to satisfy their egos, leaders of both political parties are willing to spend millions of our tax dollars. At a time when the state faces a budget deficit that could approach $5 billion, legislators are willing to spend more on indulging themselves. The proposed legislative fiscal office is projected to cost $4 million in start-up money, and then take a minimum annual appropriation of $3.6 million. You can bet the mortgage that the final costs will be significantly higher.
All of this will merely duplicate tasks that are already performed by multiple state agencies. First of all, there are already two legislative committees dealing with fiscal matters. Both the senate and the house have appropriations committees. Each committee is flush with staff, all paid for by our tax dollars. Then of course there is the state Budget Office in the executive branch. Add in the independently elected state fiscal offices: state treasurer and auditor general, and you have literally thousands of state employees paid millions to monitor the financial affairs of the commonwealth.
The real issue here is not one of getting accurate budget numbers, or even streamlining the legislative budget-making process. It is a matter of the legislature wanting to be on an "equal" footing with the governor. This is why the four legislative caucuses have escrowed hundreds of millions of dollars into operating reserve accounts rather than release the money to pay for essential state services. The legislature is empire building. And you can bet that if, and likely when, the legislative fiscal office is created it will quickly grow in size and scope.
Further, the creation of a legislative fiscal office will do nothing to address the core cause of Pennsylvania's fiscal woes. The core problem is that the legislature, prodded on by Governor Ed Rendell has spent well beyond our means. Senate Republicans caved into the spending last year, and this year leaders of all four caucuses backed a fiscally irresponsible budget. The problem is not a lack of information, the problem is a lack of political courage to stand up and make the tough decisions needed to get Pennsylvania's finances back on track.
The creation of a legislative fiscal office is a boondoggle of the highest order. It will be just another useless bureaucracy churning out more numbers for legislators to hide behind. Worse, millions that could be spent on fixing roads and bridges, funding education, or a wide range of other core government services will instead go to legislative ego feeding. And with elections looming voters should hold their legislators accountable.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
The compromise that resulted in the state budget agreement last summer included promised action on two major issues by October: enactment of a severance tax on gas in the Marcellus Shale Reserve, and creation of an independent legislative fiscal office. Amazingly, Republicans - particularly in the state senate - appear poised to both approve a job-crushing tax and to create yet another needless state bureaucracy.
The deal gives off the appearance that the GOP sold-out on the severance tax in exchange for getting a legislative fiscal office. It may or may not have been a quid pro quo, but in politics appearances are what matters. This appears to be a cave-in on piling additional taxes on the one industry in Pennsylvania that is actually growing so the legislature can expand its bureaucratic empire. Both actions are antithetical to the Republican Party's supposed free market, less government philosophy and serves to further alienate voters who are already distrustful of both political parties.
Lawmakers pushing for establishment of a legislative fiscal office claim that it is needed because the Budget Office, which is under the governor's control, has failed to accurately project state revenues over the past few years. The recession, of course, had a lot to do with the faulty revenue forecasts. But, Senate Republicans in particular were eager to accept the numbers last year in order to bring an end to the state's budget stalemate. Thus their claims of concern over inaccuracy ring hollow.
What is actually at play here is legislative ego. Since the governor has a fiscal office, so too must the General Assembly have such an office. And, to satisfy their egos, leaders of both political parties are willing to spend millions of our tax dollars. At a time when the state faces a budget deficit that could approach $5 billion, legislators are willing to spend more on indulging themselves. The proposed legislative fiscal office is projected to cost $4 million in start-up money, and then take a minimum annual appropriation of $3.6 million. You can bet the mortgage that the final costs will be significantly higher.
All of this will merely duplicate tasks that are already performed by multiple state agencies. First of all, there are already two legislative committees dealing with fiscal matters. Both the senate and the house have appropriations committees. Each committee is flush with staff, all paid for by our tax dollars. Then of course there is the state Budget Office in the executive branch. Add in the independently elected state fiscal offices: state treasurer and auditor general, and you have literally thousands of state employees paid millions to monitor the financial affairs of the commonwealth.
The real issue here is not one of getting accurate budget numbers, or even streamlining the legislative budget-making process. It is a matter of the legislature wanting to be on an "equal" footing with the governor. This is why the four legislative caucuses have escrowed hundreds of millions of dollars into operating reserve accounts rather than release the money to pay for essential state services. The legislature is empire building. And you can bet that if, and likely when, the legislative fiscal office is created it will quickly grow in size and scope.
Further, the creation of a legislative fiscal office will do nothing to address the core cause of Pennsylvania's fiscal woes. The core problem is that the legislature, prodded on by Governor Ed Rendell has spent well beyond our means. Senate Republicans caved into the spending last year, and this year leaders of all four caucuses backed a fiscally irresponsible budget. The problem is not a lack of information, the problem is a lack of political courage to stand up and make the tough decisions needed to get Pennsylvania's finances back on track.
The creation of a legislative fiscal office is a boondoggle of the highest order. It will be just another useless bureaucracy churning out more numbers for legislators to hide behind. Worse, millions that could be spent on fixing roads and bridges, funding education, or a wide range of other core government services will instead go to legislative ego feeding. And with elections looming voters should hold their legislators accountable.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Sep 26, 2010
Pennsylvania's Wacko Winners
Guest Column By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young
Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey, the GOP’s candidates for governor and U.S. senator this year, respectively, are undoubtedly emitting collective sighs of relief.
Earlier in the month, Governor Ed Rendell shocked many observers by opining that the Republican Party was being taken over by “wackos.”
But Rendell, always a paragon of restraint, clarified his statement a few days later, saying that “there are clearly elements of the Republican Party that are totally wacked out.” But “by no means are all Republican candidates wacked-out . . . fruit loops.” And Rendell added that he doesn’t consider either Corbett or Toomey to be in that “wacked-out fruit loop” category.
While Rendell’s belated benediction must relieve considerable angst for Corbett and Toomey, most voters seemed not to pay much attention to the governor’s latest verbal pyrotechnics. In fact, voters appear to consider neither Corbett nor Toomey to be wackos. If voters were to describe the GOP candidates this year, the word they would probably use is not wackos, but winners.
Certainly the polls thus far support that conclusion. The latest authoritative Real Clear Politics averages have Corbett up some 12 points over his Democrat opponent and Toomey up 9 points. These are impressive leads in a state where a 10-point win is considered a landslide.
Actually, Corbett’s lead only mildly surprises. With some exceptions, his candidacy and career have been well within the mainstream of the state’s centrist-moderate political tradition. Corbett hails back to a long line of Republican gubernatorial moderates, including Bill Scranton, Ray Shafer, Dick Thornburgh, and Tom Ridge. True, Corbett has moved to the right somewhat, but he is still well within what has been the ideological consensus prevailing in the state’s Republican Party.
Pat Toomey, however, is another story. To wit, four years ago, even two years ago, Toomey was generally considered too conservative to be a serious candidate. Indeed in some respects he was right of Rick Santorum, once the reigning enfant terrible of the far right.
That Toomey is very conservative is beyond debate. If he is elected, he will arguably be the most conservative U.S senator Pennsylvania has elected since before the New Deal days. Still, some of his opponents have unfairly tried to paint him as the next Jesse Helms. He is not that. Rather, he is a politician that has consistently taken a series of what could be called classically conservative “Burkean” positions on key public policy issues. Conservative he is. Kook he is not.
Toomey’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 97%; Santorum’s is just 88%. Pollster.com has ranked Toomey 98% more conservative during his three terms in Congress than all other members of Congress back to 1995. Santorum himself once called Toomey “too conservative” for Pennsylvania. Moreover, Toomey has been at the forefront of efforts to drive moderates out of the GOP.
Yet in today’s political environment, Toomey is perceived almost as a mainstream candidate, now comfortably ahead of his Democratic opponent in a state where Democrats out register Republicans by a whopping 1.2 million voters.
The obvious question: why is Toomey so well positioned some 45 days from the November election? And what does it reveal about American politics approaching Barack Obama’s first midterm election?
These are all easier questions to ask than to answer. Part of Toomey’s success lies in his opponent’s failure. Sestak, a party maverick who is often savagely critical of the Washington establishment, leads a Democratic party markedly less enthusiastic about his candidacy. Recent events suggest both the state and national parties are rallying resources to the Sestak candidacy, and the race may become closer. Toomey, however, has led a united and zealous GOP throughout the campaign, while Sestak has struggled for party support.
But Toomey’s ascendency owes more to the zeitgeist of the times, the temper of the country, and growing voter alienation from the president and his party. Conservative policies as well as conservative politicians are more in favor this year than at any time since 1994. Voters are very concerned about government spending, debt, and regulation. And they have turned sharply against much of the Obama agenda because of the administration’s perceived failure to improve the economy while spending massive amounts of money.
The electorate is out of patience, and Democrats seem increasingly to be out of time. This explains more than anything how a candidate as conservative as Pat Toomey, talented though he may be, is running so strongly in a state that historically has eschewed candidates of either right or left extremes. Toomey is such a candidate, and he does little to conceal it. And why should he? Voters seem not to care.
The shifting political tides are raising both Republican boats and conservative Republicans’ expectations. For generations Pennsylvania conservatives have been content to be the power behind the throne, influencing who gets to run and who wins.
Now conservatives want both the power and the throne. No longer content to play the wizard behind the curtain, they want to take that curtain down. Toomey is in the vanguard of that transformation. Whether he succeeds or fails will determine the trajectory of state and national politics for a long time after November 3rd.
Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young
Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey, the GOP’s candidates for governor and U.S. senator this year, respectively, are undoubtedly emitting collective sighs of relief.
Earlier in the month, Governor Ed Rendell shocked many observers by opining that the Republican Party was being taken over by “wackos.”
But Rendell, always a paragon of restraint, clarified his statement a few days later, saying that “there are clearly elements of the Republican Party that are totally wacked out.” But “by no means are all Republican candidates wacked-out . . . fruit loops.” And Rendell added that he doesn’t consider either Corbett or Toomey to be in that “wacked-out fruit loop” category.
While Rendell’s belated benediction must relieve considerable angst for Corbett and Toomey, most voters seemed not to pay much attention to the governor’s latest verbal pyrotechnics. In fact, voters appear to consider neither Corbett nor Toomey to be wackos. If voters were to describe the GOP candidates this year, the word they would probably use is not wackos, but winners.
Certainly the polls thus far support that conclusion. The latest authoritative Real Clear Politics averages have Corbett up some 12 points over his Democrat opponent and Toomey up 9 points. These are impressive leads in a state where a 10-point win is considered a landslide.
Actually, Corbett’s lead only mildly surprises. With some exceptions, his candidacy and career have been well within the mainstream of the state’s centrist-moderate political tradition. Corbett hails back to a long line of Republican gubernatorial moderates, including Bill Scranton, Ray Shafer, Dick Thornburgh, and Tom Ridge. True, Corbett has moved to the right somewhat, but he is still well within what has been the ideological consensus prevailing in the state’s Republican Party.
Pat Toomey, however, is another story. To wit, four years ago, even two years ago, Toomey was generally considered too conservative to be a serious candidate. Indeed in some respects he was right of Rick Santorum, once the reigning enfant terrible of the far right.
That Toomey is very conservative is beyond debate. If he is elected, he will arguably be the most conservative U.S senator Pennsylvania has elected since before the New Deal days. Still, some of his opponents have unfairly tried to paint him as the next Jesse Helms. He is not that. Rather, he is a politician that has consistently taken a series of what could be called classically conservative “Burkean” positions on key public policy issues. Conservative he is. Kook he is not.
Toomey’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 97%; Santorum’s is just 88%. Pollster.com has ranked Toomey 98% more conservative during his three terms in Congress than all other members of Congress back to 1995. Santorum himself once called Toomey “too conservative” for Pennsylvania. Moreover, Toomey has been at the forefront of efforts to drive moderates out of the GOP.
Yet in today’s political environment, Toomey is perceived almost as a mainstream candidate, now comfortably ahead of his Democratic opponent in a state where Democrats out register Republicans by a whopping 1.2 million voters.
The obvious question: why is Toomey so well positioned some 45 days from the November election? And what does it reveal about American politics approaching Barack Obama’s first midterm election?
These are all easier questions to ask than to answer. Part of Toomey’s success lies in his opponent’s failure. Sestak, a party maverick who is often savagely critical of the Washington establishment, leads a Democratic party markedly less enthusiastic about his candidacy. Recent events suggest both the state and national parties are rallying resources to the Sestak candidacy, and the race may become closer. Toomey, however, has led a united and zealous GOP throughout the campaign, while Sestak has struggled for party support.
But Toomey’s ascendency owes more to the zeitgeist of the times, the temper of the country, and growing voter alienation from the president and his party. Conservative policies as well as conservative politicians are more in favor this year than at any time since 1994. Voters are very concerned about government spending, debt, and regulation. And they have turned sharply against much of the Obama agenda because of the administration’s perceived failure to improve the economy while spending massive amounts of money.
The electorate is out of patience, and Democrats seem increasingly to be out of time. This explains more than anything how a candidate as conservative as Pat Toomey, talented though he may be, is running so strongly in a state that historically has eschewed candidates of either right or left extremes. Toomey is such a candidate, and he does little to conceal it. And why should he? Voters seem not to care.
The shifting political tides are raising both Republican boats and conservative Republicans’ expectations. For generations Pennsylvania conservatives have been content to be the power behind the throne, influencing who gets to run and who wins.
Now conservatives want both the power and the throne. No longer content to play the wizard behind the curtain, they want to take that curtain down. Toomey is in the vanguard of that transformation. Whether he succeeds or fails will determine the trajectory of state and national politics for a long time after November 3rd.
Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young
Sep 5, 2010
Transformational: November's elections could change the course of America
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
Although Labor Day is traditionally seen as the kick-off of the General Election campaign season, the long process of state primaries will continue well into September. The primaries held to date have validated the TEA Party as a political force and have set the stage for what could be a transformational election in November.
Few election cycles are truly transformational. Gerrymandering and a wide array of perks and staff services enjoyed by Congressional incumbents of both political parties mean few districts are competitive. That has yielded long periods of control for the party in power and few seismic shifts in policy.
But 2010 is different on both fronts. The general mood of the country was established last January with the election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. By winning the seat long held by liberal lion Ted Kennedy, Brown's victory signaled that the political climate had changed. The primaries which have been held since that special election have upended conventional wisdom within both political parties as the power of incumbency morphed into the curse of incumbency.
After having run a near flawless campaign for the White House, President Barack Obama and his team this year have profoundly misread the mood of the electorate. Enactment of health care reform may have been a major legislative victory for Obama, but it came at a political cost which he both misunderstood and underestimated. A significant majority of Americans opposed the president's "reforms," and they have neither forgotten nor forgiven the fact it was jammed down their throats. The White House banked on that fervor abating. It has not, and now dozens of congressional Democrats in marginal districts appear destined to pay the price.
November 2nd is shaping up as a blood bath for Democrats. Independent analysts, pollsters and academics virtually all agree Republicans will make major gains in both houses. It is likely the GOP will reclaim control of the House of Representatives. State-by-state polling shows that even in the Senate, where Republicans must gain 10 seats to return to power, a change in party control is possible.
A less visible, but equally dramatic power shift has occurred within the Republican Party. As the primary election season has progressed voters have signaled their dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment as well. This has resulted in an impressive string of victories for candidates supported by the TEA Party, or at least candidates who previously were considered outside the mainstream.
Here in Pennsylvania, former Congressman Pat Toomey's challenge of long-time incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter was so strong Specter actually bolted to the Democratic Party - only to lose in the primary to ultra-liberal Congressman Joe Sestak. Toomey, former head of the free market Club for Growth, was anathema to the state's GOP establishment. But now, sporting an average 9-point lead in the polls, Toomey enjoys the united support of Republican insiders as well as the conservative base that propelled his ascendancy.
The Toomey story is hardly unique this year. In state after state conservative Republicans - often with TEA Party backing - have upended establishment candidates. Like Toomey, Marco Rubio in Florida chased a formerly popular GOP powerhouse out of the U.S. Senate race. Governor Charlie Crist is now running as an independent in a three-way race. Sharron Angle in Nevada bested several better-known establishment candidates to claim her nomination to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. U.S. Senator Bob Bennett of Utah was considered a stalwart conservative, but he strayed on several key votes and was booted by Mike Lee who has a virtual lock on the November election. In Kentucky Rand Paul, son of Libertarian icon Ron Paul prevailed in a race to succeed retiring Senator Jim Bunning. Most recently in Alaska, TEA Party and Sarah Palin-backed Joe Miller squeaked by Lisa Murkowski in that state's primary.
Each of these candidates has a better than even chance of winning in November. They, and possibly several others, will form the core of an energized conservative caucus within the Senate GOP. Further, they are young, telegenic, and brimming with new ideas. This will become the policy incubator which will power the Republican Party's attempt to reclaim the White House in 2012.
And the nation is looking for new ideas. President Obama's "summer of recovery" has turned into the "summer of rebound recession." It is clear the soft European-style socialism he employed has - predictably -- failed. With unemployment stubbornly high, the markets stagnant and capital sitting on the sidelines, the country is looking for a new way forward. And the developing conservative core of the U.S. Senate will provide the free market solutions needed to get America moving again.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Although Labor Day is traditionally seen as the kick-off of the General Election campaign season, the long process of state primaries will continue well into September. The primaries held to date have validated the TEA Party as a political force and have set the stage for what could be a transformational election in November.
Few election cycles are truly transformational. Gerrymandering and a wide array of perks and staff services enjoyed by Congressional incumbents of both political parties mean few districts are competitive. That has yielded long periods of control for the party in power and few seismic shifts in policy.
But 2010 is different on both fronts. The general mood of the country was established last January with the election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. By winning the seat long held by liberal lion Ted Kennedy, Brown's victory signaled that the political climate had changed. The primaries which have been held since that special election have upended conventional wisdom within both political parties as the power of incumbency morphed into the curse of incumbency.
After having run a near flawless campaign for the White House, President Barack Obama and his team this year have profoundly misread the mood of the electorate. Enactment of health care reform may have been a major legislative victory for Obama, but it came at a political cost which he both misunderstood and underestimated. A significant majority of Americans opposed the president's "reforms," and they have neither forgotten nor forgiven the fact it was jammed down their throats. The White House banked on that fervor abating. It has not, and now dozens of congressional Democrats in marginal districts appear destined to pay the price.
November 2nd is shaping up as a blood bath for Democrats. Independent analysts, pollsters and academics virtually all agree Republicans will make major gains in both houses. It is likely the GOP will reclaim control of the House of Representatives. State-by-state polling shows that even in the Senate, where Republicans must gain 10 seats to return to power, a change in party control is possible.
A less visible, but equally dramatic power shift has occurred within the Republican Party. As the primary election season has progressed voters have signaled their dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment as well. This has resulted in an impressive string of victories for candidates supported by the TEA Party, or at least candidates who previously were considered outside the mainstream.
Here in Pennsylvania, former Congressman Pat Toomey's challenge of long-time incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter was so strong Specter actually bolted to the Democratic Party - only to lose in the primary to ultra-liberal Congressman Joe Sestak. Toomey, former head of the free market Club for Growth, was anathema to the state's GOP establishment. But now, sporting an average 9-point lead in the polls, Toomey enjoys the united support of Republican insiders as well as the conservative base that propelled his ascendancy.
The Toomey story is hardly unique this year. In state after state conservative Republicans - often with TEA Party backing - have upended establishment candidates. Like Toomey, Marco Rubio in Florida chased a formerly popular GOP powerhouse out of the U.S. Senate race. Governor Charlie Crist is now running as an independent in a three-way race. Sharron Angle in Nevada bested several better-known establishment candidates to claim her nomination to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. U.S. Senator Bob Bennett of Utah was considered a stalwart conservative, but he strayed on several key votes and was booted by Mike Lee who has a virtual lock on the November election. In Kentucky Rand Paul, son of Libertarian icon Ron Paul prevailed in a race to succeed retiring Senator Jim Bunning. Most recently in Alaska, TEA Party and Sarah Palin-backed Joe Miller squeaked by Lisa Murkowski in that state's primary.
Each of these candidates has a better than even chance of winning in November. They, and possibly several others, will form the core of an energized conservative caucus within the Senate GOP. Further, they are young, telegenic, and brimming with new ideas. This will become the policy incubator which will power the Republican Party's attempt to reclaim the White House in 2012.
And the nation is looking for new ideas. President Obama's "summer of recovery" has turned into the "summer of rebound recession." It is clear the soft European-style socialism he employed has - predictably -- failed. With unemployment stubbornly high, the markets stagnant and capital sitting on the sidelines, the country is looking for a new way forward. And the developing conservative core of the U.S. Senate will provide the free market solutions needed to get America moving again.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Sep 2, 2010
Obama's Best Bad Option
Guest Column By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young
One of Shakespeare’s most popular plays is “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” a comedy, focused on magic and distinguishing fantasy from reality. Right about now, President Obama is probably having his own midsummer night’s dream, anxious to get back his old magic and separating fantasy from reality as he contemplates the upcoming midterm elections. For Obama, however, dreams could easily become nightmares if he fails to solve the political challenges now confronting him and his party.
In late summer of a crucial midterm election, two political fundamentals are abundantly clear, while two others are almost equally unknown. All four bear enormously on the next presidential election and the fate of the nation over the next six years.
Abundantly clear is that:
1. National Democrats are facing electoral carnage, possibly of monumental proportions, that could cost them the House and even the Senate;
2. The Obama presidency seems increasingly imperiled in this second year of his presidency. Many believe he could not be re-elected if the next presidential election was this November rather than two years from now.
Abundantly ambiguous are two related political fundamentals:
1. How bad is it going to be for Democrats in the 2010 midterms?
2. What will Obama do to salvage his presidency in the aftermath of the inevitable reverses to be sustained in November?
The how bad will it be question seems to offer only a series of equally horrific scenarios for Democrats. Past midterms provide a guide, and that guide suggests that the president’s party almost always loses congressional seats in the first midterm, an average of 30 in the House and five in the Senate since 1938. Only one president in that interval (Bush in 2002) didn’t lose House seats in his first midterm.
Moreover, it has been worse for presidents running in bad economic times and during war. Obama carries both of these disadvantages in 2010. Since 1938, presidents running in such times have lost an average of 44 house seats in the midterm. The Democrats now control the House by just 39 seats.
But these dismal prospects are not the worst of it. To them is added Obama’s personal unpopularity. The president’s approval rating is in the dumpster at 47% and unlikely to move higher anytime soon.
Ominously for Obama, a president’s approval rating in the midterm year is highly correlated with electoral losses for his party in Congress. Obama’s unpopularity rivals Clinton in 1994 (46% approval), Carter in 1978 (49% approval), and Johnson in 1966 (44% approval).
In short, the carnage for Democrats in 2010 is likely to be broad and deep--affecting Democratic candidates at both state and national levels. So to the first unknown--how bad will it be--the answer is most probably very bad indeed. The losses could reach historic magnitudes.
The second unknown is by far the most interesting and the most difficult to forecast. What will Obama do about it? What he ultimately does will determine whether he has any chance for a second term.
For Obama, there are three recent options or strategies employed by comparably embattled Democratic presidencies. Call them the bad, worse, and worst strategies because Obama at this point probably has no really good options.
The “worst” strategy was employed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Faced with an unpopular war, hemorrhaging party support and voter unrest, he simply announced he would not run again. The political consequence of that strategy was Richard Nixon’s election, eight years of Republican rule, and, of course, Watergate.
The merely “worse” strategy was Jimmy Carter’s. After modest 1978 midterm losses, Carter entered his final two years facing an insurrection from liberals in his own party. Unlike Clinton 20 years later, he adjusted hardly at all to public opinion, changed few of his policies, and consequently steadily lost popularity for both his domestic and foreign agendas. He ended his term disastrously in the midst of a bungled hostage standoff with Iran.
The “bad” strategy and “best” was Bill Clinton’s in 1994. Voter anger that year over Clinton policies was widespread. Consequently, the GOP captured both houses of Congress. Many believed the Clinton presidency was over. It might have been, but Clinton shrewdly assessed the damage, saw his limited options, and moved to the center faster than you can say “triangulate.” The result two years later was another term and a revitalized party.
Which of these strategies might Obama employ? Maybe none! While each of these earlier presidencies provides a roadmap, they were all traveling different roads. Obama faces a set of conditions and circumstances unique in the modern presidency—a recession bordering on a depression, unprecedented peace-time debt, and an unpopular war. To get out of this one he might have to invent his own strategy.
Indeed, Obama has done just that throughout his life. During his career, he has faced challenges and overcome obstacles. His historic presidential campaign in 2008, becoming America’s first black president, eloquently showcased his immense capacity to overcome adversity and emerge a winner after all. All of those trials probably helped prepare him for this one. But none of them have tested him as he will be tested after November 2nd.
Dr. G. Terry Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Dr. Michael Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner at Michael Young Strategic Research.
One of Shakespeare’s most popular plays is “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” a comedy, focused on magic and distinguishing fantasy from reality. Right about now, President Obama is probably having his own midsummer night’s dream, anxious to get back his old magic and separating fantasy from reality as he contemplates the upcoming midterm elections. For Obama, however, dreams could easily become nightmares if he fails to solve the political challenges now confronting him and his party.
In late summer of a crucial midterm election, two political fundamentals are abundantly clear, while two others are almost equally unknown. All four bear enormously on the next presidential election and the fate of the nation over the next six years.
Abundantly clear is that:
1. National Democrats are facing electoral carnage, possibly of monumental proportions, that could cost them the House and even the Senate;
2. The Obama presidency seems increasingly imperiled in this second year of his presidency. Many believe he could not be re-elected if the next presidential election was this November rather than two years from now.
Abundantly ambiguous are two related political fundamentals:
1. How bad is it going to be for Democrats in the 2010 midterms?
2. What will Obama do to salvage his presidency in the aftermath of the inevitable reverses to be sustained in November?
The how bad will it be question seems to offer only a series of equally horrific scenarios for Democrats. Past midterms provide a guide, and that guide suggests that the president’s party almost always loses congressional seats in the first midterm, an average of 30 in the House and five in the Senate since 1938. Only one president in that interval (Bush in 2002) didn’t lose House seats in his first midterm.
Moreover, it has been worse for presidents running in bad economic times and during war. Obama carries both of these disadvantages in 2010. Since 1938, presidents running in such times have lost an average of 44 house seats in the midterm. The Democrats now control the House by just 39 seats.
But these dismal prospects are not the worst of it. To them is added Obama’s personal unpopularity. The president’s approval rating is in the dumpster at 47% and unlikely to move higher anytime soon.
Ominously for Obama, a president’s approval rating in the midterm year is highly correlated with electoral losses for his party in Congress. Obama’s unpopularity rivals Clinton in 1994 (46% approval), Carter in 1978 (49% approval), and Johnson in 1966 (44% approval).
In short, the carnage for Democrats in 2010 is likely to be broad and deep--affecting Democratic candidates at both state and national levels. So to the first unknown--how bad will it be--the answer is most probably very bad indeed. The losses could reach historic magnitudes.
The second unknown is by far the most interesting and the most difficult to forecast. What will Obama do about it? What he ultimately does will determine whether he has any chance for a second term.
For Obama, there are three recent options or strategies employed by comparably embattled Democratic presidencies. Call them the bad, worse, and worst strategies because Obama at this point probably has no really good options.
The “worst” strategy was employed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Faced with an unpopular war, hemorrhaging party support and voter unrest, he simply announced he would not run again. The political consequence of that strategy was Richard Nixon’s election, eight years of Republican rule, and, of course, Watergate.
The merely “worse” strategy was Jimmy Carter’s. After modest 1978 midterm losses, Carter entered his final two years facing an insurrection from liberals in his own party. Unlike Clinton 20 years later, he adjusted hardly at all to public opinion, changed few of his policies, and consequently steadily lost popularity for both his domestic and foreign agendas. He ended his term disastrously in the midst of a bungled hostage standoff with Iran.
The “bad” strategy and “best” was Bill Clinton’s in 1994. Voter anger that year over Clinton policies was widespread. Consequently, the GOP captured both houses of Congress. Many believed the Clinton presidency was over. It might have been, but Clinton shrewdly assessed the damage, saw his limited options, and moved to the center faster than you can say “triangulate.” The result two years later was another term and a revitalized party.
Which of these strategies might Obama employ? Maybe none! While each of these earlier presidencies provides a roadmap, they were all traveling different roads. Obama faces a set of conditions and circumstances unique in the modern presidency—a recession bordering on a depression, unprecedented peace-time debt, and an unpopular war. To get out of this one he might have to invent his own strategy.
Indeed, Obama has done just that throughout his life. During his career, he has faced challenges and overcome obstacles. His historic presidential campaign in 2008, becoming America’s first black president, eloquently showcased his immense capacity to overcome adversity and emerge a winner after all. All of those trials probably helped prepare him for this one. But none of them have tested him as he will be tested after November 2nd.
Dr. G. Terry Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Dr. Michael Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner at Michael Young Strategic Research.
Pennsylvania State Revenue Collections Higher Than Projected In The Month Of August
Jan Murphy from The Patriot-News:
“It’s the first time since August 2008 that we have exceeded estimates, and that’s a good sign,” Gov. Ed Rendell said. The growth in the sales tax revenue helped to offset the below-estimate collections from personal income and corporate taxes for the month.
PennPatriot's View Via Mobile Blogger: Governor Rendell seems very happy that state tax revenues were up in August. Yeah more wasted SEPTA and Port Authority funding!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)