The Modern Independent

Gauging the Political Potency of Sarah Palin

Over the weekend, John McCain compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan.  During an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley, McCain dismissed the accusation that Palin was too divisive to be President by asserting that the Gipper was also thought to be a highly divisive figure.

Watch:

McCain’s comments have ignited a firestorm of commentary in the blogosphere. Do the Media underestimate her as a potential candidate? Is Sarah Palin the New Reagan? Is she the savior of the Republican Party? And can she beat Obama in 2012?

It goes without saying that pundits and commentators are split on the virtues of Palinism and the potential potency of a presidential bid. Even within the GOP, lawmakers and political operatives are of two-minds of the former Alaska governor. They love her as a media icon, as a cheerleader for conservative causes and as a mobilizer of the grassroots, but many insiders cringe at the thought of giving her any real power.

10 Years After Bush v. Gore: The Rise of Conservative Judicial Activism

Former Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, was on 60 Minutes over the weekend.  In his interview, he called the high Court’s 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore—the highly partisan 5-4 decision that stopped the Florida recount and made George W. Bush President—one of the greatest blunders in Supreme Court history.

His comments have ripped the scabs off old partisan wounds just in time for the 10 year anniversary of the fateful decision.  In the new issue of The New Yorker, for example, Jeffrey Toobin explores the troubling legacy of Bush v. Gore.

He writes:

What made the decision in Bush v. Gore so startling was that it was the work of Justices who were considered, to greater or lesser extents, judicial conservatives. On many occasions, these Justices had said that they believed in the preëminence of states’ rights, in a narrow conception of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, above all, in judicial restraint. Bush v. Gore violated those principles. The Supreme Court stepped into the case even though the Florida Supreme Court had been interpreting Florida law; the majority found a violation of the rights of George W. Bush, a white man, to equal protection when these same Justices were becoming ever more stingy in finding violations of the rights of African-Americans; and the Court stopped the recount even before it was completed, and before the Florida courts had a chance to iron out any problems—a classic example of judicial activism, not judicial restraint, by the majority.

More telling, however, Toobin believes the case represents a “revealing prologue to what the Supreme Court has since become” and gives insight into how the conservative wing of the Court now operates.

Why the New START Treaty is Necessary

Joe Biden makes a strong case in The Wall Street Journal for ratification of the New START treaty:

European leaders understand that New Start advances their security as well as America's, and that is an important foundation for future negotiations on conventional forces and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. That is why all 27 of our NATO allies expressed their desire to see the treaty's early ratification.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for instance, cautioned that delay in ratification would be damaging to security in Europe. And leaders from nations that border Russia (including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania) spoke out strongly in support of the treaty.

New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress.

The Lisbon summit showed that American leadership in Europe remains essential. It also reminded us why the stakes of the New Start Treaty are so high. Our uniformed military supports it. Our European allies support it. Our national security interests are at stake. It is time for the Senate to approve New Start.

New Taxes, New Spending?

Stephen Moore and Richard Vetter recently argued in The Wall Street Journal that tax increases always lead to spending increases:

Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

This is actually an interesting analysis. However, I would be more inclined to believe it had any predictive power if Republicans still controlled all branches of government. I have long thought that Republicans don’t really care about the deficit or debt.

After all, they controlled Congress for 12 years and never tried to pay for any of their new spending programs—two foreign wars and a Medicare prescription drug benefit. They did manage to cut taxes several times, which was also done on borrowed money. That is also why the cry a foul about the debt now, yet they are actively pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts, which will add over 3 trillion dollars to the long-term debt.

By contrast, with the exception of the short-term deficit spending used to stimulate the economy, which won’t be added to the long-term debt, Democrats have held themselves to rigid pay-go rules. They have been very judicious in offsetting new spending ventures with cuts in other places.   

The Tim Caffrey Show: Analyzing Colorado’s 2010 Senate Race between Michael Bennet and Ken Buck

I really like being on TV and talking about what I love—Politics.

In this segment, Tim, Kevin and I discuss some of the state-wide federal elections in Colorado, namely the U.S. Senate race and Colorado Congressional District 7 between John Salazar and Scott Tipton.  Lively, albeit friendly, debate divided some of the panelists. 

Watch:

The Tim Caffrey Show: Post-Mortem on Betsy Markey’s Loss and An Analysis of Local Colorado Races

This is the final segment of the Tim Caffrey Show’s post-election analysis.  It was the longest segment and it had probably the most spirited disagreement of the entire program.  At issue was the question of whether there was anything Betsy Markey—and, by extension, Blue Dog Democrats across the country--could have done to save her seat in Republican leaning CD-4 in her contest against Cory Gardner:

CBS Interview with Cory Gardner: Is He Serious About Solving America’s Problems?

Cory Gardner certainly isn’t being bashful around the political spotlight. Is this a sign that he will be a show-horse in Congress rather than a work-horse?

I find this interview problematic for a number of reasons. First, there is a certain dissonance in how he views the Republican mandate in 2010. On the one hand, he argues that the voters feel betrayed because they were promised a change with the way Washington operates and yet didn’t see it. I think that sentiment is actually correct. I think the only message policymakers can take from the elections is that voters are tired of the way Washington operates.  That is why his second rationale—the idea that voters want smaller government and lower taxes—is just foolish. 

Voters are okay with big government when times are good.  That is why both political parties are responsible for the growth of government throughout the 20th century.  What voters want right now are jobs and economic security.

Contrary to Gardner’s assertion to the contrary, taxes have not been raised in the first two years of the Obama administration. They have actually gone down for 98% of the American public.  And second, even though voters say they want smaller government in principle, when it comes to actually making cuts, they demur. 

The reaction from the preliminary report from the bipartisan deficit commission is a case in point.  According to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week, NBC First Read reports:

While 66% of voters in the survey say cutting spending was a "major" reason in their support of a candidate in the midterms, a whopping 70% of adults say they are uncomfortable with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and defense programs -- which just happen to be the biggest sources of federal spending….And another 57% are uncomfortable about raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075 to reduce the deficit.

In other words, if the overwhelming majority of voters don’t want to touch the three largest parts of the federal budget, and the next largest—interest on the debt—is untouchable as well, then that means only about 15% of the federal budget is available to downsize.

What’s more, Gardner makes clear that the number one goal of the new freshman Republican class in Congress is to make sure that taxes do not go up.  Early test cases, of course, will be votes on the Bush tax cuts and on whether to abolish the Estate tax. As the Congressional Budget Office notes, however, a vote to extend these would add upwards of 3-4 trillion dollars to the long-term debt.

Given the realities presented above, however, it will become a near impossible task to “put this country on a path toward a balanced budget,” which Gardner states is another primary goal and an issue on which Republicans campaigned, without raising at least some taxes and making cuts to programs the American people overwhelmingly support.

In the end, good policy will likely be the first victim of Republican rhetoric in the next Congress because they have little recognition of America’s fiscal realities.  In fact, they will likely not show any interest in dealing with America’s fiscal problems; they only want to use them to score political points.

Here is another example that will likely arise in the near future: Republican posturing on raising the debt ceiling. Just as Republicans will unify to ensure an extension of the Bush tax cuts remain permanent, they will likely also stand in solidarity against the raising of the debt ceiling, an issue precipitated in part from extending their cherished tax cuts.

If they oppose the debt ceiling while pushing through massive tax cuts, that will be a sign for me that the Republicans are not serious about this country’s fiscal health.

What will Gardner actually do when he is to be held responsible by the voters for his actions? The answer to that question will go a long way in revealing whether he is a serious work-horse, dedicated to actually solving problems, or just a show-horse who likes to be a on TV. 

The Tim Caffrey Show: Analyzing Colorado’s 2010 Senate Race between Michael Bennet and Ken Buck

I really like being on TV and talking about what I love—Politics.

In this segment, Tim, Kevin and I discuss some of the state-wide federal elections in Colorado, namely the U.S. Senate race and Colorado Congressional District 7 between John Salazar and Scott Tipton.  Lively, albeit friendly, debate divided some of the panelists. 

Watch:

I Love Tina Fey!

I have had the biggest crush on this woman for years.  She is cute, smart AND funny.

Watch:

Watch the full episode. See more Mark Twain Prize.

The Tim Caffrey Show: The Impact of Citizens United on Campaign Financing in 2010

A lively debate ensued on the panel in this segment of the Tim Caffrey Show.  I found myself on the defensive in a discussion on the value of campaign finance reform.  My position, although poorly articulated during this segment, was two-fold. First, despite America’s best efforts to keep large amounts of money out of politics under McCain-Feingold, interest groups still found ways of circumventing the law, minimizing its efficacy. And second, at the end of the day, votes still matter. No matter how much money is thrown at a campaign issue or candidate, if the message pushed by the money doesn’t resonate with the electorate, the voters won’t buy it.

Watch: