Victory 2012 and a cold shower

This past Tuesday, November 6th, the long and arduous road of the journey that is a presidential campaign came to an end. It was a nail-biter, to be sure. To be perfectly honest, after the polls closed, I was sitting at my desk at home, feeling extremely anxious and doing my best not to look at the results just yet, trying to work on my novel for National Novel Writing Month. (What? I’m not just a policy wonk…I’ve been doing creative writing since I could write.)

In the end, Barack Obama emerged the winner, gaining a second term for the presidency. Now America could go to the locker room for a cold shower. But the shower has done little to cool down hot tempers and emotions in the immediate aftermath.

The results surprised many. For me, personally, it was surprising that the race was not as close as it was purported it would be. Obama came out quite a bit ahead. I wouldn’t call it a landslide, but it was definitive; Obama got both the majority of Electoral College votes and popular votes. Click here to view the numbers for the presidential race as well as all of the House, Senate, and gubernatorial races.

For those of you who might not be very familiar with the way the U.S. president is elected (my international readers, mostly), here is a brief lesson. In the U.S., the president is not directly elected by the people. There is an intermediate body called the Electoral College. There are 538 “votes” in the electoral college; the number of votes for each state is determined by population (save for D.C., which may have no more than the smallest number of votes that another state has). A state’s votes goes towards the candidate who has the most popular votes in that state. For example, Obama got more popular votes in the state of Florida (my home state) than Romney, so Florida’s 29 Electoral College votes went to Obama. (Incidentally, Florida wasn’t decided until after Obama had already won.) In order to become president, a candidate needs to get a majority (270 votes, in this case). With this system, however, it is possible for a candidate to get the needed number of electoral votes but have fewer popular votes than another candidate. There have been disputes in the past because of this.

But in this case, there was no question. Obama won.

Obama was able to outraise Romney by the end of the campaign. Much of his funding came from everyday voters, many of them contributing $5 or $10. Romney was getting most of his money from super PACs (political action committees). PACs are committees that work to elect or defeat a particular political candidate. A super PAC is slightly different in that they can raise unlimited amounts of money.

Many people are not happy about this. Many people feel Romney or one of the third party candidates would have been a better option than Obama. I will admit that Obama has failings, some of them rather significant (the drone attacks in Pakistan among other places, for example). But I felt he was infinitely better than the other candidates on domestic policy; I wasn’t terribly impressed with any candidate’s foreign policy this time around.

Despite what people say, I do think that electing Obama was the right choice. I think it gives him a chance to improve and change from the first time around. In my mind, elections in which an incumbent is up for re-election subject the incumbent to accountability. Even if they win, their failings are exposed and gives them incentive to work on it. Of course, being politicians, there is always the risk that they will spout rhetoric on improvement but then once elected, do nothing to back up those words.

But I think this needed to happen. I think Obama’s victory this time around was necessary to heal the horrible divide between the Republicans and the Democrats and perhaps open the way for some other parties. Some are arguing that the status quo could be reaffirmed with this election, but I don’t agree.  Let me explain why.

I believe that this was a wake up call for both the GOP (a nickname for the Republican party that stands for “Grand Old Party”) and, to a smaller extent, the Democratic party, even if neither wants to admit it. After all of the controversial comments on rape and abortion, on the inconsistencies demonstrated by many in the Republican party, many voters got turned off and, I suspect, went with the man they know: Obama. In talking with some people, I’ve found that many who cast their vote for Obama were doing it to vote against Romney rather than actually vote for Obama.  On top of that, the GOP lost some seats in the Senate, where they already have a minority. The House is still dominated by the GOP, but

But here’s how I know that both parties have an awareness that things need to change and to ACTUALLY change, not just rhetoric. From my seat here in Washington, I’m already seeing some shifts. Speaker of the House Boehner and President Obama are already trying to work out compromises on issues like Obamacare and the budget. It looks promising.

Let me put in the obligatory disclaimer: Please don’t get me wrong. Healing the fissure is not going to happen right away. And I could be wrong. The status quo could be reaffirmed and things will only worsen.

The hate I am seeing on the internet from all sides is astounding and frankly disturbing. You think the rest of the world thinks us Americans foolish for who we elect? Not as much as they find us foolish for our squabbling over who we elect. I even saw hateful comments directed at people from other countries who tried to put in their two cents’ worth. In my mind, that is taking it way too far.

There are tons of theories and explanations and suggestions and studies about why Obama won and Romney lost. But it doesn’t have to be complicated. I believe Romney was too much for many people to stomach on an ideological basis. I was not impressed with his ignorance (i.e. Syria is NOT Iran’s route to the sea!), his policies (i.e. I agree Iran should not be building nuclear weapons–I think NO ONE should–but I’m not in support of going to war with them over it AT ALL), or his track record in business at Bain Capital.

For me, the confirmation of this choice was starkly clear when I read that Romney had his staff’s campaign-related credit cards cut off (now that they were unemployed) in the middle of the night after his loss as they returned to their homes all over the country. Someone tried to argue with me that it might have been Romney’s staff that called for the cutoff and that Obama would have done the same thing, but I don’t believe that for a second. Romney was so sure that he was going to win that he did not even prepare a speech in the event that he lost. I see very little chance that Romney would have told his staff to cut off the credit cards if he had lost, considering he was so sure of his victory. And Romney’s a businessman. I doubt he let his staff take ultimate charge of the campaign’s finances; I’m certain he was the one calling the shots there. Furthermore, I don’t believe Obama would have done the same thing. He grew up without having a lot of money; I cannot see him cutting off the people who helped him like that without notice.

And before you run off to tell me how biased I am against Republicans, I will tell you that I liked John McCain in the previous election cycle. I wasn’t impressed with his policies or with his pick of Sarah Palin as a running partner, but at least he was respectable. He fought for our country and was a POW for a long time. And I believe that he believed he was doing the right thing. The fact that Mitt Romney flip-flopped all the time told me he did not put much stock in his own policies; it seemed to me that he just stated what he thought people wanted to hear at the moment. And his track record at Bain disgusts me. I have no respect for him in the slightest.

I think that the initial cold shower wasn’t enough. I think that America needs to take another cold shower, immediately followed by a hike in the tundra of Siberia in the dead of winter. (I lived in Siberia, thank you very much, so I can tell you that it is COLD.) Because (pardon the pun) we need to chill out and cool down. Nothing gets done effectively when emotions are running hot and high.

I hope that this election signals a coming change. I really do. At this point, I think it depends on how much our federal elected officials consider the legacy they want to leave for their successors and the people they serve versus the gain they want for themselves. Will they remember? I don’t know, but to my fellow Americans I say this: Let’s be there to remind them, shall we?

Don’t sequester me, bro!

For my very first post, I will do something from U.S. politics—the upcoming sequestration, set to be enacted in January 2013.

There has been so little coverage of the upcoming sequester in the media that I wonder how many Americans are actually aware of how much of an impact it will have if it should occur.

Let me start with answering the question: what is sequestration?

This is a question that even people working on Capitol Hill are having a hard time answering, but it is one of the hot topics in political D.C. right now. As a fellow working at a lobbying firm that deals with public policy issues, I’ve been doing a lot of work on mitigating the effects of the impending sequestration, so it’s a concept I deal with everyday of late. I will give a simplified explanation.

At its essence, sequestration involves cutting the federal budget across the board, meaning that all programs being funded by federal money will take cuts. The total number in cuts: $1 trillion. That’s right: $1,000,000,000,000.

Sequestration is the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which was legislated in response to the debt ceiling crisis that occurred that year. At the time, U.S. government was on the verge of hitting its debt spending limit, known as the “debt ceiling”. However, under federal law, the government is prohibited from spending if there are insufficient funds in the treasury. Hence, the ensuing panic and crisis. After much headache and negotiation, both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, agreed to raise the debt ceiling coupled with spending cuts. The resulting agreement was the BCA.

Sequestration, in a way, was provisioned as a way to scare Congress into cooperating on drafting a balanced budget that would be acceptable to both major political parties. However, it is now mid-September 2012 and still no agreement has been reached. A Continuing Resolution has been passed by the House that will maintain current spending levels for certain budget items until March 2013, but will not stop sequestration itself. The Senate is taking up this issue this Wednesday (September 19th).

Just last week, the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) released a report projecting the cuts under sequestration. You can download a pdf copy of the report below:

http://democrats.budget.house.gov/publication/omb-report-pursuant-sequestration-transparency-act-2012

Unfortunately, it is very vague. The cuts shown here in general are rather large, sweeping budget items (now consider that the report is almost 400 pages long, you get a glimmer of an idea of just how much spending the government does!) However, the REAL effects of the sequester will be felt at what is called the PPA level (program, project, activity). Particular categories get the same percent in cuts en masse, so all programs and organizations falling under a particular category will get the same percent in budget cuts.

I can definitely give you a better idea of the kinds of effects it will have with a personal anecdote.

Last week (my first week on the job), I attended a town meeting here in D.C. that discussed the effects of sequestration on organizations and programs that fall under the category “non-defense discretionary” (NDD), which funds various executive departments and government agencies. This includes a broad range of entities, most particularly scientific/health support and research institutions (the NIH and NCI included), among many others; many of these do a lot of good work for the general public and for certain sectors of the public, such as those afflicted with cancer and other serious diseases. NDD is generally not only the first to take a hit when budget cuts occur but they also are subjected to the largest cuts. The current level of NDD spending is so low that spending like this hasn’t been seen since the days of President Eisenhower.

The town meeting was revealing in that I got a good idea of how lobbyists operate (often through coalition-building) and the efforts that are made to make voices heard and to get changes made. It was made very clear that all those who fall under NDD have to make a stand as one coalition. To have any one program or organization make a unilateral appeal to the government would not only be self-defeating but ultimately ineffective.

Many of the programs are going to be taking 8% or more in funding cuts, while their funding is very low already. Imagine how much progress in cancer research will be stifled due to lack of funding. What about environmental protection efforts? The arts? Public transportation?

The general consensus is that sequestration will result in economic disaster. My inner economist agrees. Sequestration is, in effect, indiscriminate budget cuts. If the goal is a more balanced budget, well, this is not the way to get it. You can’t neatly prune a tree blindfolded, hacking at whatever branches come in your way, and you might end up cutting off healthy branches rather than dead ones. It will harm the tree and it will look a mess.

The White House and Congress are well aware of this. They are well aware that this would be a disaster. And they are working towards eliminating the sequester altogether. But they are running out of time, with the upcoming election and Congress in session for a limited time before that.

In the short term, sequestration needs to be dealt with, plain and simple, and a more balanced agreement needs to replace it.

I worry about the long term, however. How should the government get a balanced budget?

My instinctive response is actually rather counter-intuitive. But follow my logic here, simplified though it may be. The government is in debt and needs more money. How do you get more money? You stimulate the economy. There are several ways of doing this, depending on the nature of the economic situation. At the moment, the economy is in a bad place (not as bad as in several points over the past few years, but still bad). Why? Is it a demand problem? A supply problem? Both?

I feel much of the poor state of the economy is due (in large part) to a demand problem, rather than a supply problem, for a very simple reason. With the economic recession, many people lost jobs and prices of many important commodities rose. With both a lowering of aggregate income and a rise in price level, people’s dollars have less reach and they therefore spend less because they can’t afford what they used to.

Let’s go back to basic macroeconomic theory. How does the government increase aggregate demand? With government spending.

I feel that in order for the government to ultimately attain a balanced budget in the long term, spending needs to happen. But like cuts, spending needs to occur judiciously, not indiscriminately. Spending that goes towards long-term investments in the public good have the most reach per dollar and the most positive impact.

Oh, if only it were that simple. Politics just loves to get in the way of itself, especially party politics.

We can’t forget that there are many special interest groups out there who will work to get their causes funded and that Democrats (who currently dominate the Senate) and Republicans (who currently dominate the House) disagree on what should serve as budgetary priorities. Without fiscal and financial accountability and responsibility, government spending will not be as effective in stimulating demand. That is where our duty as U.S. citizens kicks in: we must make our voices heard. It is our tax money being spent; we should have the final say in how it is used. This requires people to get involved and to make an effort. Not an easy thing to do, but if government leaders take charge and listen to the needs of the people, it can happen.

For some this is quixotic, but I hope it’s not. I don’t think it is. People are unaware they can be the impetus for change, but once they become aware, the wheels are more easily set in motion.