We are seeing the two key governor positions (Virginia and New Jersey) heading down the home stretch. It appears that McDonnell, the Virginia Republican, has a consistent lead over his centrist Democrat adversary (Deeds). The Democrats have run off a series of statewide victories for governor and US Senate, not to mention Obama's win in Virginia last fall. However, I think the issue has more to do with picking the wrong candidates and campaign strategies, along with an unpopular President Bush. I think McDonnell will pick up key support from moderate and independent voter discontent with Obama and the Democratic-led Congress.
The New Jersey race is surprising to me because polls indicate that unpopular Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine is closing in on GOP candidate Christie, largely because a third independent candidate Daggett is grabbing votes from Christie where party registrations favor the Democrat. Under ordinary circumstances, Christie would be winning in a walk, given Corzine's approval rating at 40% or below according to realclearpolitics. Clearly Christie has to convince Daggett supporters that their vote for Daggett is effectively a vote for Corzine. Corzine, on the other hand, has resorted to trying to tie Christie to Bush's policies. (My God, why are we in yet another year of Bush bashing? He's been out of office since late January...) It's difficult to see how Corzine pulls this out, but then again, a highly unpopular Gray Davis won reelection in California.
On the national scene, Obama is down to 45% approval by Harris Interactive, and 61% believe that the country is on the wrong track. Whereas Obama's missteps on health care reform are a factor, I think bigger issues are concerns about the economic recovery (in particular, the jobs picture) and the deficit. I don't think that the people are convinced that the Democratic priorities are theirs, and Obama has failed to change the tone and bitterly partisan divide in DC as promised.
The best thing Obama and Democrats could do is to set aside their current health care and cap-and-trade initiatives and focus on policies promoting business growth: this includes reducing the level of uncertainty caused by undue government interference in the private market and threats of increased business taxes, fines or regulations, addressing the need for tort reform, lightening the onerous burden of government reporting (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley), particularly on small businesses, and providing more business-oriented incentives (e.g., more rapid depreciation write-offs and reducing upper tax bracket rates). Additional flexibility on the minimum wage (e.g., for teens and young adults) and business payroll tax relief would be helpful.
Democratic Spinning of "Bipartisan" Health Reform
There are multiple health care proposals under discussion (at least two Senate and one House), each with significant differences with the others, e.g., some with a public option and the Senate Finance one without one. But the Obama White House is attempting to portray these muddled, inconsistent Democratic proposals as "reform" and claiming "bipartisanship", principally by the Finance Committee vote by a singe liberal Republican, Senator Olivia Snowe, whom, by the way, also voted for the stimulus package and has subsequently indicated that her vote is not a lock, depending on the provisions in a finalized version. (I infer that to mean she would reject a final bill with the public option from the get-go.) They are also citing support by former legislators or non-federal Republicans, e.g., Dole, Frist, Tommy Thompson, Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg (whom is now an independent). Actually, this is disingenuous, because even these individuals are agreeing more with the concept of reform through a bipartisan approach, and none of the proposals being consider by the Congress is a legitimate bipartisan measure.
I have a number of posts identifying the outline of a legitimate bipartisan proposal: catastrophic health, assigned risk pools, malpractice tort reform, improved public access to provider availability and pricing information, equal protection tax advantages (including the right of small businesses to join together across states to self-insure), etc. Not this Democratic hubris of being able to micromanage health care; there hasn't even been a decent attempt to analyze why attempts to experiment at the state level (e.g., Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts) have failed, Democrats fail to acknowledge the role of the government in escalating health care costs and certain cost drivers beyond government control (e.g., an aging population), and it's not clear why attempting to insure the uninsured is a pressing national priority. The statistics I've seen show no significant difference in health between the insured and uninsured... And the Democrats refuse to acknowledge the importance of individual responsibility and participation in lowering health care costs; so long as participants see health care as "free", they have no incentive to keep costs down.
Will Senate Democrats Invoke the Nuclear Option on Health Care?
Last Friday Investors Business Daily posted a pessimistic prediction that the Democrats will attempt to deploy the "nuclear option"--try using the budget reconciliation, which operates by simple majority, to pass a major policy initiative. This virtually unprecedented gimmick would not only effectively be the end of any future bipartisanship in Washington under Obama, but will most likely redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory in politics, resulting in larger-than-expected midterm election losses for the Democrats and greatly reducing chances of success for Obama's post-election initiatives. If Obama and the Democrats have learned anything over the past few months of townhall meetings and polls is that public sentiment is solidly against the major Democratic proposals. This is still a center-right nation, with only one voter in 4 classifying himself as liberal or progressive. A number of progressives seem to be delusional, thinking that the American people will come to eventually accept their concept of reform, i.e., "act first, apologize later". This is like a Democratic Party death wish; if you think that the input of the American people, whom are fully engaged on this topic, is irrelevant, all these meetings, polls and committee hearings don't result in genuinely bipartisan legislation, and you are going to use hardball tactics to ram through partisan legislation down the throats of the objecting American public through a majoritarian abuse of power, "what goes around, comes around". Republicans will make the Democrats eat each dollar over budget and will make a play for every vote resenting an unnecessary mandate, undesired consequences of legislation on their own health care options (e.g., a business dumping its health care plan), increased costs, or related extension of the national deficit.
The best thing Obama and Democrats could do is to set aside their current health care and cap-and-trade initiatives and focus on policies promoting business growth: this includes reducing the level of uncertainty caused by undue government interference in the private market and threats of increased business taxes, fines or regulations, addressing the need for tort reform, lightening the onerous burden of government reporting (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley), particularly on small businesses, and providing more business-oriented incentives (e.g., more rapid depreciation write-offs and reducing upper tax bracket rates). Additional flexibility on the minimum wage (e.g., for teens and young adults) and business payroll tax relief would be helpful.
Democratic Spinning of "Bipartisan" Health Reform
There are multiple health care proposals under discussion (at least two Senate and one House), each with significant differences with the others, e.g., some with a public option and the Senate Finance one without one. But the Obama White House is attempting to portray these muddled, inconsistent Democratic proposals as "reform" and claiming "bipartisanship", principally by the Finance Committee vote by a singe liberal Republican, Senator Olivia Snowe, whom, by the way, also voted for the stimulus package and has subsequently indicated that her vote is not a lock, depending on the provisions in a finalized version. (I infer that to mean she would reject a final bill with the public option from the get-go.) They are also citing support by former legislators or non-federal Republicans, e.g., Dole, Frist, Tommy Thompson, Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg (whom is now an independent). Actually, this is disingenuous, because even these individuals are agreeing more with the concept of reform through a bipartisan approach, and none of the proposals being consider by the Congress is a legitimate bipartisan measure.
I have a number of posts identifying the outline of a legitimate bipartisan proposal: catastrophic health, assigned risk pools, malpractice tort reform, improved public access to provider availability and pricing information, equal protection tax advantages (including the right of small businesses to join together across states to self-insure), etc. Not this Democratic hubris of being able to micromanage health care; there hasn't even been a decent attempt to analyze why attempts to experiment at the state level (e.g., Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts) have failed, Democrats fail to acknowledge the role of the government in escalating health care costs and certain cost drivers beyond government control (e.g., an aging population), and it's not clear why attempting to insure the uninsured is a pressing national priority. The statistics I've seen show no significant difference in health between the insured and uninsured... And the Democrats refuse to acknowledge the importance of individual responsibility and participation in lowering health care costs; so long as participants see health care as "free", they have no incentive to keep costs down.
Will Senate Democrats Invoke the Nuclear Option on Health Care?
Last Friday Investors Business Daily posted a pessimistic prediction that the Democrats will attempt to deploy the "nuclear option"--try using the budget reconciliation, which operates by simple majority, to pass a major policy initiative. This virtually unprecedented gimmick would not only effectively be the end of any future bipartisanship in Washington under Obama, but will most likely redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory in politics, resulting in larger-than-expected midterm election losses for the Democrats and greatly reducing chances of success for Obama's post-election initiatives. If Obama and the Democrats have learned anything over the past few months of townhall meetings and polls is that public sentiment is solidly against the major Democratic proposals. This is still a center-right nation, with only one voter in 4 classifying himself as liberal or progressive. A number of progressives seem to be delusional, thinking that the American people will come to eventually accept their concept of reform, i.e., "act first, apologize later". This is like a Democratic Party death wish; if you think that the input of the American people, whom are fully engaged on this topic, is irrelevant, all these meetings, polls and committee hearings don't result in genuinely bipartisan legislation, and you are going to use hardball tactics to ram through partisan legislation down the throats of the objecting American public through a majoritarian abuse of power, "what goes around, comes around". Republicans will make the Democrats eat each dollar over budget and will make a play for every vote resenting an unnecessary mandate, undesired consequences of legislation on their own health care options (e.g., a business dumping its health care plan), increased costs, or related extension of the national deficit.
