15 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/03/17 2:45am)
Debate, disagreement, criticism and controversy. These define the American experiment and our experience as citizens. We think, argue and act because we have always cared deeply about the state of our country and the future of the American project. This clash of ideas has shaped our history, and is as important now as ever. The bipartisan American Enterprise Institute Club invited Dr. Charles Murray to speak today, not to push an agenda or even to try and convince you of his theories, but rather to start a conversation. We believe that what Dr. Murray has to say on the current divisions in our country is worth hearing and engaging with, regardless of one’s political beliefs. It would be useful for all to better understand why there is such a great divide between the working class and the elite, to understand how these divisions contributed to the election of Donald Trump, and how they are reshaping American society. Dr. Murray is trying to understand the causes of the “coming apart election,” and it is essential that we try to as well.
This is why our voices, in articles, demonstrations and discussion, are of vital importance. Although many people may not agree with Dr. Murray we would like to invite everyone to participate this Thursday in Wilson Hall. Your attendance and participation will serve to enable true debate and growth.
The event will begin with a few words from President Patton on the importance of discussion and debate for the liberal arts. Following Dr. Murray’s talk on his 2012 work Coming Apart, there will be a lengthy Q and A moderated by Prof. Allison Stanger. We structured the event this way so that everyone will have the opportunity to ask questions, and challenge each other’s, and our own, convictions.
This discussion is incredibly valuable. We will not all agree. We are not operating under the false pretenses that Dr. Murray will radically change anybody’s mind. We hope that this event will allow for us to engage in a conversation that facilitates a better understanding. Without this desire to understand one another, especially people we disagree with, we cannot move forward. Instead, we will only continue to come apart.
(02/24/17 3:30am)
Dear Middlebury Students, Faculty, and Staff,
The goal of the American Enterprise Institute Club is to promote open and academic debate and discussion of a wide range of issues. In the past we have brought several speakers to campus and via Skype. To further the debate, we hold regular discussion meetings often centered on current events or the research and scholarship of Middlebury faculty.
On Thursday, March 2nd we are cosponsoring, along with Political Science department, a lecture and discussion with distinguished public intellectual Dr. Charles Murray at 4:30pm in Dana Auditorium. Dr. Murray, a political scientist by training and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, will be discussing his 2012 work Coming Apart. This critically-acclaimed book explores class divisions in the United States, placing particular emphasis on the White working class. This work is particularly prescient given the recent political change in America. Moreover, examining and engaging with a wide variety of thoughts and ideas is an essential part of what it means to pursue a liberal arts education. In this pursuit, we must as an institution encourage robust discussion and expose the Middlebury Community to diverse thoughts, opinions and understandings on the important topics of today.
This lecture represents our answer to the challenge that President Patton put forth to the Middlebury Community in her inaugural address. It will allow “us to have more and better arguments, with greater respect, stronger resilience and deeper wisdom.” We believe that this is an argument worth having that will enable us to work towards the common good. Intellectual diversity has a rich tradition at Middlebury College. In his 2007 Baccalaureate address, former President Ronald D. Liebowitz discussed the essence of a liberal arts education. “Liberal education,” he said, “must be first and foremost about ensuring a broad range of views and opinions in the classroom and across campus so that our students can question routinely both their preconceived and newly developed positions on important matters. Such deliberation will serve as the best foundation for enabling our graduates to contribute to the betterment of society.” It is important that the Middlebury Community have the opportunity to hear, consider and respond to important ideas.
In that regard, we would like to extend an open invitation to you, the Middlebury Community, to participate in this event. Your presence will help to ensure that this is a thoughtful and academic discussion of ideas. In addition, it will demonstrate Middlebury’s commitment to diversity of all kinds. We truly hope that you will accept this invitation.
Respectfully,
Alexander Khan
Phil Hoxie
Hayden Dublois
Ivan Valladares
Members of The American Enterprise Institute Club, Middlebury College
(03/10/16 4:20am)
The United States spends, on average, $12,379 per pupil for each year of public K-12 education. Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the U.S. ranks second in dollars spent per pupil. This is what we have to show for it. Only 33 percent of 8th graders are at, or above, proficiency level in math; similarly, only 34 percent of 8th graders are at, or above, proficiency in reading. For 12th graders, only 26 percent were at or above proficiency in math and only 38 percent were in reading. We could go on, but the numbers just get worse.
One of the biggest problems with our schools is the way that we fund them. Currently, a large portion of school funding is done at the local level through property taxes. This leads to great levels of inequality among public schools because higher income areas are able to raise more revenue. If you are in a low income school district, more often than not, the only way to send your child to a better school is to move. We do not think this is right. We support a system in which equal funding follows each student, and it is not conditional on where you live. Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs) could make this possible. An ESA is a fund of money provided by the state to each family for their child’s entire K-12 education. The money can only be spent at accredited educational institutions. Additionally, ESAs encourage cost savings on the part of both the parent and the school. Because the money rolls over, and any money not spent on K-12 education can be spent on college, parents are incentivized to be frugal and schools are incentivized to provide higher quality services at a lower price-point.
We need a system that encourages schools to compete to provide high quality services at a lower price. If students had more choices as to where they went to school, schools would work more like businesses competing for market share. With ESAs, the schools that provide the best possible education at the most affordable rates would flourish. This would allow everyone to have the opportunity to receive an education that they want and deserve. It would also allow for parents to have greater influence over the educational programs offered at their children’s schools, and would encourage a greater diversity of educational opportunities. We believe that children should have the opportunity to pursue their passions and study subjects that many schools are cutting today, such as music, theater, machine shop and advanced sciences. These programs are vitally important to our nation’s future, and through ESAs we believe that they would be supported and expanded.
Another important component of our nation’s educational system that has been regrettably neglected are trade schools. Trade schools provide opportunities for students to learn valuable skills and provide steady jobs for a stronger future. We believe that these programs need to be a larger part of our educational system. Students should have the opportunity to gain valuable job skills if they so choose. Once students meet standardized graduation requirements, we believe they should have the choice to spend their education money at trade schools or other job training programs. If the goal of our education system is to increase opportunity and reduce poverty, then trade schools must be part of that system.
One of the most tragic parts of our current education system is that our nation’s teachers are undervalued. However, when money follows students, skilled teachers become more valuable. Schools will be incentivized to attract and retain better teachers in order to attract more students. This will link teacher pay to the quality of education that they provide, just like any other service. Many people have had a teacher in their lives that has made a significant difference, and under this system, those teachers would be the most rewarded.
No plan, ultimately, is perfect. There will be many challenges to overcome as we move from our current system to one for which we are advocating. The fact of the matter is that some schools will weather the transition better than others. Those schools that can meet the new educational standards necessitated by this system will thrive; those schools that cannot provide an adequate education for our nation’s students will be forced to reform or shut down. New schools, that can better serve those students, will take their place. ESAs will put money back into the hands of parents, rather than administrators, and will incentivize new schools to open in order to better meet the needs of some of our nation’s most disadvantaged students.
We want to see a future in which all students, no matter their race, background or socioeconomic status, have the opportunity to receive an education that will serve them for the future. As inequality of opportunity continues to widen, we have a choice to make. Any plan or system that we choose to support must put the students first.
(02/24/16 9:06pm)
Politics today seems to be more about shouting insults than offering solutions. Fox, MSNBC, Donald Trump, all seem to be more interested in ratings than the issues faced by every day Americans. At this point, we are all numb to it. For years we have looked at politics in terms of red and blue and have failed to consider the motivations of our counterparts. We have refused to listen to any opposing ideas, and arguments now occur more frequently than discussions. As students at Middlebury College, we see this occurring on a daily basis. This has led us to a point where progress no longer seems possible. We believe that progress can be made with thoughtful political discourse. To us it seems that the solution to our current problem lies in better understanding the values and principles that guide us. In this spirit, we would like to introduce our values and principles.
We believe that every person has the right to work towards achieving his or her dreams.
We believe that every American is a unique individual and not simply a member of a group. We believe that each individual knows how best to achieve his or her own happiness. We are conservatives.
With Donald Trump and Ted Cruz both throwing around the word conservative so much, it is often forgotten what the word really means. When defining conservatism, it is important to remember what is being conserved. Fundamental to conservatism is the preservation of our founding principles, the right to life, liberty, property and the federal structure of our nation. These principles guide our understanding of policy, the role of government and how we solve the many issues facing our nation today. It is clear from this that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are more concerned with promoting populism and the values of the religious right than in conserving these principles.
Conservatives care about the first generation college student who could not find a job. Conservatives care about the little girl who grew up in a poor neighborhood who was forced to go to a failing school when there was a successful one a district over. Conservatives care about the skilled immigrant who wants to start an auto shop, but does not have the money nor the English skills to comply with the licensing requirements. Conservatives care about the single mother who has to work multiple part-time jobs because she cannot find full time employment. Conservatives care about the average American.
We need to change the way that we go about our political discourse, and we want this article to start the discussion. We hope that we can focus our conversation on policy solutions rather than political attacks, and we hope that we can go beyond the talking points and delve deeper into the substance of the issues. Only through thoughtful debate and discussion can we truly achieve a more perfect union.
(04/22/15 6:12pm)
As an economics major, I think I have the concept of monetary incentives down pretty well. So why am I even still here writing this column? Why am I asking my parents to pay tuition when I am most likely going to come out of college making about $30,000 as a congressional staffer? It really doesn’t make sense to me from a monetary perspective when I look and see that a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station agent makes around $135,000 a year (Contra Costa Times). (It’s worth keeping in mind that a good public school teacher is lucky to make $70,000 in California). A few reasonable questions to ask would be: how is this possible, and where do I sign up?
(04/15/15 5:53pm)
The Sacramento Bee reports that the State of California is the world’s eighth largest economy, valued at about $2 trillion (USD); it is tied with Italy and the Russian Federation. Agriculture in California accounts for around $21.4 billion in revenue, which leads all other states (Iowa is second with around $6.8 billion.) California produces a sizable majority of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables; the state produces 90 percent of all the nation’s broccoli, 99 percent of walnuts, and 97 percent of plums, to name a few crops (Western Farm Press). However, the state is in the fourth year of a crippling drought and water is scarce. Citing figures from the Wall Street Journal, agriculture requires almost 40 percent of California’s water, with environmental conservation taking about 50 percent, and millions of urban users getting the rest. With a huge agricultural economy and substantial population growth, the California drought is making it clear that the Democrats in Sacramento and Washington put rare fish before people.
First, it is important to understand how much water is being flushed in the name of environmental protection each year. About 4.4 million acre-feet of water per year (that is enough water to sustain about 4.4 million families for an entire year); thousands of acre-feet of water are released into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta each day in order to protect the endangered delta smelt, even during the drought. This is water that farmers need badly. Surface water storage is getting dangerously low, which is forcing farmers to rely heavily on pumping ground water to maintain their crops. Moreover, due to the Federal Central Valley Improvement Act, (spearheaded by my former Congressman, George Miller), farmers have been facing surface water regulations for years, and have been making up for the difference by pumping ground water. This is expensive, and often the smaller farms cannot incur the costs. This has also caused hundreds of thousands of acres of land to be left fallow since the law’s passage in 1992.
In addition to the 4.4 million acre-feet of water that the state has set aside, over 2 million acre-feet have been released into the San Francisco Bay because reservoirs were too full. Yes, too full. In fact, California’s population growth has been outpacing its water storage capabilities for years, but Democrats have been too busy thinking of the “common good” to address the issue, even though funds have been set aside by ballot propositions to do so. The last significant expansion of California’s water storage facilities was in the 1970s, when the population was only 19 million (it is now almost 38 million.) Even if localities want to expand their water storage capacities, it is not unusual for a sizable amount of the project cost to be derived from “environmental mitigation.”
Governor Brown, and Democrats who control a healthy majority in both the California Assembly and Senate, will not act on either the issue of water storage or allowing valuable water to escape into the sea. It is much easier for them politically to regulate consumption and point fingers.
So while the Democrats are busy legislating for the “common good,” Speaker Boehner (R-OH), former Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) and former Majority Whip McCarthy (R-CA) passed emergency water legislation through the U.S. House in 2012 and 2013 in order to secure water to grow our food. The primary contents of these two bills, which were struck down in the Senate by former Majority Leader Reid (D-NV), Sen. Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Feinstein (D-CA). involved simply enforcing the longstanding water agreements that have been on the books, in some cases, for a hundred years. This would have allowed farmers to receive all of their contractually allocated water, instead of the meager 45 percent they received in 2010.
Now the issue of individual consumption needs to be addressed, which takes up only ten percent of all of California’s water. As Erin mentioned last week, there have been disparities in water usage between counties. The more inland and agricultural counties use much more water than the other regions of the state, for reasons already stated. As Erin mentioned, it is often the more well-off counties that need to cut back consumption. Marin County, for example, uses 154.8 gallons of water per capita; San Francisco County uses almost half of that. Yes, lawns will need to die, and prices will need to be raised, but Gov. Brown should also invest in water infrastructure and stop putting the burden of the drought almost exclusively on farmers.
Erin made another good point last week—“the wealthy need to stop and remove their blinders.” Out of the top ten richest counties in the state, only two swung Republican in 2014—Orange County and Placer County (six and seven on the list, respectively), and by narrow margins. Marin topped the list and went 78.2% for Gov. Brown (Politico and City-Data.com). In California, the richer Bay Area and Los Angeles Area swing towards the Democrats, and the more agricultural center of the state trends more Republican, contrary to Erin’s assertions last week. I hope the state abandons its “Democratic mentality” of overprotecting the environmental interests while waiting to act until the situation is critical, and instead starts addressing the drought in a way that will help all honest, hardworking Californians make it through this drought.
(03/11/15 11:15pm)
What if I told you that there was a solution to a major policy issue facing our nation today that President Obama (D) and Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) agreed on? Would you believe me? Well, there is. Both President Obama and Congressman Ryan agree that expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could lift millions of Americans out of poverty.
The EITC is a form of wage subsidy that takes into account a family’s income and number of dependents in order to calculate the amount of support the family will receive from the government. This is similar to a negative income tax (an idea proposed by President Nixon). The difference is that the EITC has a certain threshold for work to be eligible for the subsidy. Many economists credit the EITC for a substantial portion of the falling poverty rates and increased employment numbers of the 1990s.
The basic philosophical idea behind the EITC is that work should pay. Economically, the EITC is designed to impact a worker’s (or potential worker’s) choice between labor and leisure. It does this by raising the relative cost of leisure (wages lost by not working), which will in turn cause workers to demand less leisure. In economics, this is described as the “substitution effect”; one commodity, leisure, is being substituted for another, labor, due to a change in prices.
Some who are reading this might say, “But wasn’t this guy against the minimum wage, which also acts as a wage increase and could have the same effect?”
There are several key differences between the minimum wage and the EITC. As I have explained in previous columns, the minimum wage acts as a price floor, and comes with a conservatively estimated 500,000 plus lost jobs (Congressional Budget Office). Moreover, of the aggregate increase in earnings taken home from the minimum wage hike, Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that only 19% of those earnings would go to households below the poverty line. The EITC is much more targeted, and despite IRS flukes, the vast majority of increased earnings from the EITC have gone to the families that need them the most. The IRS in 2009 estimated that the EITC lifted seven million Americans out of poverty. Even so, it is not perfect. The program gives additional help to families with dependents, which is a good thing. However, the program needs to be expanded to give more benefits to all workers.
Another interesting idea that should be looked at came from the UK Conservative Party, and has been adapted by Congressman Ryan. The idea is to combine some of the almost one hundred anti-poverty programs into one “universal credit”. The idea is rather simple – remove some of the hoops to jump through so people get the entitlements they are, well, entitled to. This idea would provide the same benefits at a lower price tag, mainly by decreasing administration costs. Rep. Ryan goes on to argue that the program could also cut down on entitlement fraud by making the process more streamlined.
Unlike the EITC, the universal credit program is rather untested. Recently in England, it has experienced a bumpy rollout. The UK government tried to set up a website, on which people could register for their benefits, but the site has been plagued by glitches and other difficulties (maybe they used the same contractor as Healthcare.gov?). If those hurdles could be cleared, I think that the universal credit could really save the taxpayers some money while providing the same benefits to those who need them.
In any case, I think that expanding the EITC as well as creating the universal credit are issues that are politically feasible with the 114th Congress and President Obama. I have said it before, and I will say it again; Republicans need to legislate in a way that materially improves people’s lives. There is nothing that would be more devastating to the GOP in 2016 than two years of Republican control with nothing to show for it.
That means they will need to support legislation that can garnish 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, and will be signed by President Obama. However, the fight may not be over the merits of these two programs, but rather over how to make them deficit neutral. The universal credit, if scored favorably, could pick up some of that slack for expanding the EITC; however the rest of the offsetting revenue or spending decreases will need to come from somewhere. I hope that the two parties will work to reconcile these differences and pass an EITC expansion, because the bottom line is those Americans who would benefit can’t wait.
(03/05/15 3:25am)
Last week Erin defined feminism more or less as a movement towards equality, as it should be. I think everybody agrees, whether or not a person identifies him/herself as a “feminist,” that women should be equal to men in the eyes of the law. That having been said, I find Erin’s classification of one of the most tenured and respected members of the United States Senate, John McCain of Arizona, as “evil” to be disappointing and out of character for her. To address this claim re quires an in depth look at the common rallying cry of “equal pay for equal work.”
The commonly cited claim by Democrats, male and female, is that women earn only 77 percent of what men earn. If this statistic was factual, and based on discrimination, then a sufficiently-buttressed version of the Fair Pay Act would be “must-pass legislation.” However, the Fair Pay Act, as proposed by President Obama, addresses no such issue of discrimination and actually could harm women and their interests. The fatal flaw in the 77 percent statistic is in the way that it is calculated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) simply took the average earnings of full time female and male workers and held them up next to each other. This methodology fails to take into account several relevant factors, most egregiously of which was hours worked. The BLS defines full time as 35 hours a week. However, as noted by Bloomberg news, there is a growing culture of “over-work,” defined as working more than 50 hours a week.
Moreover, men are much more likely to “over-work” than women, which is a large factor in the “wage gap”. The American Enterprise Institute, in 2012, found that when you control for variables like level of education, amount of work experience, number of hours worked, so you actually compare men and women with similar backgrounds working in the same position, the gap almost disappears. The pay gap is more likely to be a result of factors other than discrimination. Moreover, passing the Fair Pay Act could increase the risk put on employers for employing women. If women are seen by employers as more likely to sue the company on the basis of perceived discrimination, then employers will simply hire more men.
A second often cited claim is that the pay-gap is created by a disparity between the market value of jobs mostly held by men and those mostly held by women. This argument has a little bit more standing than the pay gap argument, due to the fact that men are more likely to hold certain types of jobs than women, be it software coding, finance, etc. The remedy to this “market value” problem, according to the proposal’s supporters, would be to regulate pay between jobs held by men and jobs held by women of similar “comparable worth.” The problem with this is that there is no good way to evaluate “comparable worth” in a way that would make pay exactly equal. It would involve a disruption of market forces on wages, which would lead to unintended consequences. The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals struck down a Washington State law equalizing pay based on worth in 1985. The now Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that “neither law nor logic deems the free market system a suspect enterprise.”
A third claim from the left is that women often do not hold a proportional number of leadership positions in business and politics. This is a real problem, but to propel to the top women who may not be best suited for the job simply based on their gender does not do their cause much justice and could prove dangerous if that office is one of great public interest.
Think about the issue like this, most business and political leaders of great rank most likely graduated from college in the 1960s or 1970s. In that time period, women in general received far fewer advanced degrees than men did. I would argue that this trend, regardless of whether it is just or unjust, is reflected in our upper class of business and political leaders. This trend has since rapidly reversed. The American Enterprise Institute notes that women earned 52 percent of all doctoral degrees, 58 percent of all master’s degrees, and 62 percent of associate’s degrees in 2013, and dominated in certain fields, including health sciences. I would say that this trend pretty clearly demonstrates that women are on the rise, and that there is a large pool of qualified and capable female leaders who will take center stage in the years ahead. As much as this set of statistics demonstrates how far women have come, it also denotes a growing problem of male underachievement.
Christina Hoff Sommers has published a book entitled The War Against Boys, and she brings up a lot of important points, mainly that our education system is failing young boys. Ms. Sommers asserts that the lack of competition and “boy-friendly activities”, like tug-of-war and other more “masculine” games in lower education, are causing boys to become disinterested in school and that these tendencies are interfering with young boy’s development. Ms. Sommers does not go as far as to say that these new policies, if reversed, would fix the underachievement of boys; however, they are certainly not helping. The Russell Sage Foundation notes that mean high school GPA differs greatly between boys and girls, with girls consistently scoring higher. Moreover, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution agree, that as the jobs shift away from physical labor and more towards knowledge based jobs, men may not be able to keep up if trends like these persist. Ms. Sommers argues that we may need to follow in the footsteps of the British and Australians, admitting that boys have different needs than girls in education, and that there may be a need to have gender separated and tailored curriculums.
(02/11/15 11:27pm)
When most people think about early February they probably think of the Super Bowl. Believe me, I love the Super Bowl; and I am happy the Seahawks lost. However, something much more important happened the day after the Super Bowl. On the first Monday in February, the president submits to Congress his budget proposal. This kicks off the long process of crafting a budget. I know that the budget process often goes unnoticed by many, despite its importance. The budget is not only the fiscal blueprint for the federal government, but in recent years it has even been used for seemingly unrelated policy change (Obamacare and the Bush Tax Cuts are prime examples).
I won’t dive into the nuts and bolts, but the process has often resulted as of late with a grand bargain between the Democrats and the Republicans. More importantly, for the first time in his presidency, Mr. Obama will not have supportive majorities in either chamber. This is not stopping Mr. Obama from proposing an ambitious budget for the next fiscal year.
However ambitious the president’s budget may be, William Galston, a former adviser to President Clinton, points out that Mr. Obama’s budget fails to curb any of the looming fiscal catastrophes that lay ahead. Most notable is the rapid increase in mandatory spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Obama also proposes significant tax increases, especially for those who make over $250,000. In addition, Mr. Obama proposes ending sequestration, the automatic budget cuts that have caused the deficit reduction that he loves to brag so much about. And finally, the president also has included a scheme to pay for his not-so-free “free” community college plan.
On the issue of entitlements, the fault does not completely rest with the president. Entitlement spending is a massive problem that will get very bad in the near future as more and more baby-boomers claim the benefits that were promised to them. The fact of the matter is that there are quickly going to be drastically fewer people paying into the system than taking out of the system, which will cause huge fiscal problems if not addressed. Politically speaking, however, it is very unpopular to address those issues, and very few members of Congress or the President are willing to do it. However, that doesn’t stop Mr. Obama from trying to claim some credit as a “cost-cutter”. His brilliant scheme, as part of the Affordable Care Act, (a.k.a Obamacare,) is to simply pay doctors less for seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients, as well as increasing taxes $1 trillion over ten years. In addition, Mr. Obama has in place the meat cleaver approach of mandatory cost reductions on all medical services, a tactic which actuaries and other experts have called “unsustainable”. Even these cuts are a “drop in the bucket” as far as solving the problem of entitlement reform. Not to mention the unintended consequences of incentivizing doctors to not serve Medicaid and Medicare patients.
Mr. Obama’s tax increases on the “one percent” is pure politics. In a just world, the one percent, who have about 20 percent of the total income, would pay closer to 20 percent of total taxes. Well, in reality they pay almost 40 percent of income taxes under President Obama. In addition, revenues from income taxes under Mr. Obama’s proposed budget would exceed historical highs, reaching 19.9% of GDP in revenues according to the CBO. Mr. Obama can’t honestly think that these proposed increases on just the rich can ward off the fiscal calamity we face down the road. That is why I think these tax increases are pure politics. They may rally the base, but they won’t win him any support on the Hill.
The final point of the President’s plan that I want to touch on is his not-so-free community college scheme. On its face, it sounds intriguing. Free community college for everybody. Period. Well, Mr. President, I hate to tell you, but any economics student can tell you that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the way Mr. Obama prepares this lunch will make you sick. Mr. Obama proposes to end the tax free status on 529 college savings accounts. This has been a major financial tool for families to plan ahead and pay for college. Taking away this provision will make four-year college less accessible to many middle class families and force them into a broken community college system. I would tell the waiter to send that free lunch back to the kitchen.
The bottom line is that Republicans in Congress will not let this budget go unaltered. In fact, much like the tax increases, this budget’s main purpose is to save face with the progressives who are gaining more and more say in Democratic politics. Republicans in Congress should muster up their own version of “middle class economics” and fight this budget — starting with increasing deficit reduction, with a long-term goal of a surplus in 20 years.
On a more bipartisan front, Mr. Galston notes that Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the president may have some common ground on revenue neutral corporate tax reform as well as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). I would hope that these two issues could serve as quasi-olive branches in a larger compromise focused on deficit reduction. The bottom line is that Mr. Obama has drastically outspent his predecessors, and it’s getting to the point where it is time to make a decision; as Reagan said over 50 years ago, “this is a time for choosing.” We, the younger generations, must address these issues, especially out of control spending. That choice starts by opposing President Obama’s harmful budget.
(01/22/15 1:17am)
Tuesday night, Barak Obama gave his penultimate state of the union address. The Obama administration is almost over, and the 2016 elections are coming up. That may seem far off, but the shuffling and sorting is well underway for both parties.
Before I get into who I think is in and who I think is out, I would like to touch on a few important things. I hope that some of you had the chance to see Stewart Stevens when he was here at Midd last fall. For those of you who don’t know who he is, he ran Romney’s 2012 presidential bid, and he had a few really important points to make. The presidential campaign system has forever been changed by campaign finance reform as well as some important Supreme Court decisions. This is a very complicated subject, but what you need to know is that Super PACs, sometimes funded by one mega-donor can keep otherwise hopeless candidates in the race. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are prime examples of that. In his discussion, Mr. Stevens referenced the old saying “there are only three tickets out of Iowa.” Meaning, that after the Iowa caucus, the three frontrunners would soak up most of the donations, leaving the others behind in the dust. This is no longer the case. We saw in 2012 that there were many more than “three tickets out of Iowa”, as long as you have a Super PAC. This new development has allowed for fringe groups to gain more attention, whereas in other years they would have likely fizzled out.
Another key development is that each campaign has two accounts, one for the general and one for the primary. In 2012, the Republicans had the disadvantage of having a primary, whereas Obama was able to fundraise for the general election, and ended up crushing Romney in spending the summer of 2012. This was because Romney had won the primary, but the convention hadn’t happened yet so his general election account was frozen. The playing field will be much more even in 2016.
But wait, there’s more. To make things more interesting in 2016, a large block of southern states are moving their primary elections all onto one day. These seven states, including Texas and Florida, plan to use this as a means of increasing southern influence over the nominees for each party. I predict this will have a large effect on the Republican Primary and to a lesser extent the Democratic one.
The Democratic primary, many people feel, will be a victory lap for Hillary Clinton. However, I disagree. Hillary Clinton’s book tour was an abysmal disaster. That was her testing the waters, and I think she may be unsure about what to do. On the flip side, this is her last shot, so she may very well throw caution to the wind and take the plunge. A second key point, and the Democrats don’t like to admit this, is that they have a rather healthy progressive-populist branch that will not give in to a second Clinton in the White House. Hillary is no populist, she is a fairly well connected business Democrat. I know that Hillary is the favorite, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Sen. Warren tried to feed off the populist, anti-Wall Street fervor of late; or if Hillary didn’t run at all. Also, Joe Biden should not be discarded. In fact, I really hope Joe runs. It would make the Democratic field the circus I hope it will be. Imagine the gaffs, and the late night sketches to follow. I get excited just thinking about it. I have one final detail on the Democrats before I slash through the Republican field; Democratic super-donor Tom Steyer may be eyeing a 2016 run for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat. This could pose a problem for some democratic candidates because in 2014, he funneled money to PACs, Super PACs, and other environmental candidates. If he runs for office in 2016, that money will be spent on his own race, rather than be dispersed to a presidential candidate and/or PAC.
The Republican primary will be a more of a wild card, especially with the southern, super Tuesday. I just recently saw a straw poll in which Dr. Ben Carson was at the top. This is absolutely preposterous. Dr. Carson has no experience holding public office, and the last thing this country needs is a president with no executive experience. The one benefit for the GOP is that by nature of holding 31 governor’s mansions, we have a good crop of governors and former governors to choose from. I firmly believe that governors make the best presidents and Senators the best Vice Presidents (with a few exceptions), simply by the nature of the work. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie. Subtract Huckabee, and I could see any one of these candidates as potential frontrunners and/or the party nominee. Stepping into an area of wishful thinking, and I would like to see Condoleezza Rice gain some traction. But she would never run. I’m sure she has been approached, and repelled all attempts to get her in the race.
Back in reality, a second straw poll I saw this week showed Mitt Romney in first place with 20 percent of the vote. Yet, the Wall Street Journal wrote a blistering editorial equating Romney as damaged goods. I disagree. If Romney can mount a successful “opportunity for all” style PR campaign, I believe he could be a formidable candidate that could take down a Hillary Clinton. However, I fear Romney will get smashed on Southern Tuesday, which I think will be bad for the party. I feel like Romney could win the general, but there are few scenarios in which I see him escaping a blistering primary. Call me crazy, but I want the most capable person in the White House, and in my eyes that person is Mitt.
Jeb Bush is another favorite of mine. A good, level-headed proactive executive. Exactly the type of person I would want in the situation room. He did a very good job as governor of Florida, but that may all turn out to be null and void because his last name is Bush. However, he could help Republicans reach out to Latino Voters in a serious way, considering that his wife is Mexican. The test will be if Florida, and other Southern States reward Bush on Southern Tuesday, which very well could happen.
Bush and Romney are the obvious heavy weights, but rather than discuss the rest of the field, I would like to discuss a dark-horse candidate I would like to see. I would really like to see South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley enter the race. A strong, pro-business, Republican, she has fought very hard to bring jobs to South Carolina and could be a strong, sensible, and inspiring candidate. I doubt she would run, but the RNC does have her as an option in the straw poll.
Finally, I would like to recognize what a smart move Paul Ryan (R-WI) made in not running for President, and making that very clear. As Ezra Klein (whom I have never really agreed with on anything until now) noted in his VOX piece, Ryan wields a lot more influence over policy in Congress as Ways and Means Chair. Candidates will be seeking his support and adopting his ideas, rather than distancing themselves from him as a contender for the nomination. I think that is very good for the party moving forward, as I believe Paul Ryan is a crucial policy maker for the GOP moving forward. All said and done, 2015 is sure to be an eventful year of shuffling and straw polls. Then on to 2016.
(12/03/14 11:19pm)
I know that there are plenty of issues floating around just in time for holiday conversations with your politically extreme family members. So in anticipation of this inevitable reality, I have chosen to revive an old topic that has recently lost some of its steam: the minimum wage.
For those of you who don’t remember, there were two serious proposals put forth by the Democrats with regards to the minimum wage. The first idea was to raise the wage to $10.10 an hour, or by about 40 percent. The second was to more than double the wage to $15 dollars an hour. The idea behind this was to help minimum wage workers make it through a rough economy by increasing their take home pay. Well, that all sounds great. However, raising the minimum wage is harmful to both workers and, more often than not, to the small businesses and franchises that employ them. Economically speaking, there are a few similar yet slightly different ways of viewing this issue from both the business’s and the worker’s point of view.
Let’s start with the business’s point of view. There is one assumption I am going to make here that shouldn’t really surprise anybody: businesses want to maximize their profits. So, the minimum wage is raised. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cheers as business owners and CFOs scramble to figure out what they are going to do. The basic concept that needs to be grasped is that the value of the marginal product of a worker’s labor (VMPL) will equal the wage rate at the point of optimal employment (when profit is maximized). Also, due to the concept of diminishing marginal returns, VMPL is decreasing as more workers are hired. Therefore, if the wage increases, the new level of optimal employment will reflect a decrease in workers. To put it more simply, workers will get fired. That’s a very microeconomic way of thinking about the minimum wage.
The more macroeconomic description utilizes the tried and true concepts of supply and demand. The minimum wage is what economists call a “price floor.” In other words, it is a legally set lower limit on wages. This lower limit is put in place to stop markets from adjusting to the true equilibrium price, which is almost always below the price-floor. This causes there to be more labor supplied than labor demanded, and therefore there is a surplus of labor.
Yet a third way that businesses could view a raise in the wage is simply as an additional cost of production, which will most likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. So businesses face a choice: whether to fire workers, increase prices, or take lower profits. Duke University wondered how the business community would react, and in 2014 conducted a poll of CFOs, asking them how they would react to a higher minimum wage. Over 80 percent said they would lay off workers. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a raise in the minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs. So instead of “giving America a raise,” #raisethewage would give many Americans an effective income of $0. Pair that with our abysmal job market, with labor force participation at a 35-year low and the increased costs to business due to the new healthcare law, and the outlook isn’t stellar.
The drawbacks don’t stop there. A higher minimum wage would disproportionately harm young workers (16-25), especially young minority workers. This is because by raising the minimum wage, the risk towards the business of hiring a younger worker has increased. After the last minimum wage hike in 2007, the Cato Institute found that unemployment in young workers jumped from 15 percent to 25 percent. So for those of you hoping to find a summer job flipping burgers, a wage hike could set those plans on the back burner.
A minimum wage hike would have very different effects in different parts of the country. This is due to differences between regional costs of living. A $10.10 minimum wage would disproportionally hurt workers in areas with lower costs of living, because the VMPL there is less than in areas like New York City. Moreover, if one area — let’s say Seattle — decides to raise their minimum wage to not $10.10 but instead $15 (and the areas around the city don’t), then Seattle is going to see increased unemployment. This is increasingly unfortunate because the workers who got laid off probably can’t afford to commute to the suburbs each day for work. So, how are they better off? They are not. With the macroeconomic climate as uncertain as it is, “giving America a raise” could be detrimental for many businesses that already operate on thin profit margins.
Finally, I know everybody reading this has been thinking, “Well, what about big business?” It’s important to note that according to the Small Business Administration over 99.7 percent of employers are small businesses, and over 64 percent of private-sector job growth comes from small businesses. Even so, the remaining 0.3 percent of employers who allegedly are exploiting their workers need to be addressed. The American Enterprise Institute has done some work on this very subject of CEO-employee pay gap. They decided to use the parent company of Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut as an example, and found that even if all executives took a 100% pay cut, wages for their 400,000+ workers would only increase by five cents an hour. So would it be better for the board of directors to give all workers a nominal pay raise, or secure the best possible executives to run the company? I’ll let you ponder that one.
(11/19/14 11:49pm)
Erin has selected for this week one of the most complex and nuanced problems America has grappled with over the past fifty years: abortion. However, she also previously discussed another complex issue in Voter ID laws. I feel the need to address both, at least in part.
I’ll start with Voter ID laws. I am conditionally in support of voter ID laws. Most states have some form of Voter ID laws. In California you need to provide your drivers’ license number in order to register. In Hawaii you need to show a valid ID, with a signature, and sign a polling place book in order to vote. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Washington all have forms of Voter ID laws. Even Vermont requires first time voters to show ID. So to say voter ID laws are a GOP plot to disenfranchise Americans is absurd.
Canada, along with many European and Latin American countries require identification as well, often going as far as requiring specific Voter ID’s. In Mexico you need to apply for, and pick up, your ID in person. In the U.S. it is much easier to obtain an ID for voting than in other countries that require it. In Georgia, if you cannot leave your home, a government worker will come to you. In many states IDs are subsidized or provided and/or you can use your social security number. If the state provides subsidized or free ID’s for low income individuals, and like Georgia makes the process accessible to the elderly who cannot leave their homes, then I am okay with these laws. Moreover, in the 21st century you need an ID to do everything from driving to opening a bank account. I realize there is much more to be said about these laws as they stand today, but I feel like California is actually doing a good job on this complex issue.
Now to gracefully transition to abortion. Erin made one claim that really bothered me in her last column, which I will not let slide. She claimed that it is hypocritical of Republicans to oppose abortions and still claim to be champions of small government. The fact is that those two are not mutually exclusive. Most individuals who oppose abortion oppose it because they believe that abortion is equitable with murder of an innocent human being. Defending the innocent and defenseless is a primary function of just government no matter how big or how small.
The real question lies in how you define an unborn fetus. That question gets into the definition of when life begins. If you believe, like many Christians do, that life begins at conception, then it makes sense that you would be opposed to abortion in total. The Supreme Court has deliberated on this issue in several famous and consequential decisions, mainly Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I will not bore you with the details, but I will share with you the key things to take from these cases. First is the notion of a “compelling state interest.” The court recognized the state interest in both the health of the mother and the potential human life in the fetus. The second major portion of understanding the decisions is the notion of “viability,” which was preceded by the trimester system. The commonly thrown around statement of “a women’s right to choose” I find to be an oversimplification of a very complex issue.
For me, the bottom line is that late term abortions (in the third trimester or after the point of “viability”) are barbaric and no matter how you slice it, they should not be allowed in a civil society. However, the personal decision argument has more weight in the period before “viability,” in my opinion. Keep in mind I was not raised as a Christian, so naturally comprehension of this complex issue is not particularly a question of faith. I feel that Senator Elect Cory Gardner (R-CO) has actually found an important issue to tackle, making the pill more readily available by allowing it to be sold over-the-counter. I feel that Gardner is striking a more healthy balance of opinion amongst my own party. Moreover, Gardner’s position doesn’t upset the establishment clause as Obamacare’s requirements do.
However, Erin’s column last week did not stop at abortion, I take offense to the accusation of the Republican Party as being a merger of religion and politics, as Erin claimed it to be. For the sake of discussion, let’s take that accusation to hold true and try to correct it. Should all religious individuals be barred from politics, simply because they vote in a way that reflects their (and more often than not their constituent’s) religious convictions? The answer is no. Should religious members of Congress abstain from voting on issues on which their vote may be issued by their religious convictions? The answer is no again. Religion being reflected in congressional voting patterns of member is okay; and if it wasn’t, it would be the voters who would need to determine that.
Finally to claim that Republicans are somehow in the wrong for being composed of a majority of practicing Christians is not only wrong but to an extent hypocritical. Democrats time and time again claim to be courting Hispanic voters, whom are overwhelmingly Catholic (about 80% according to Pew Research) and may have dissenting opinions within the Democratic Party on social issues. According to Alexander de Tocqueville, the unique way in which religion in the United States occupies its own sphere of influence outside of government, but instead in society and politics is one of America’s greatest strengths; and I agree. Religion and religious groups (Tocqueville praises the Catholics) help foster civic participation and engagement that are critical to a democratic society.
(10/29/14 5:56pm)
President Obama claims to not be on the ballot this November; however, in a few days, we will see if voters agree with that or not. Republicans need to gain six seats in order to “Fire Reid,” the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. The field is not good for Democrats. They are mostly on defense, defending their gains from 2008. Many vulnerable incumbents and open seats fall in states that Romney won in 2012. Moreover, the GOP has recruited many strong candidates with previous experience in office. I know that there are more races going on besides the Senate races, but the House will most likely stay Republican and few gubernatorial races are as national as the those in the Senate this cycle. I refer to the Real Clear Politics Average Polls (RCP Poll Average) as of Oct. 26. The 2012 Presidential Results are from Politico.
Alaska: Begich (i) v. Sullivan
RCP Poll Average: Sullivan +4.2
2012 Presidential: Romney 55%
Prediction: Alaska has been an interesting race from the onset of this election cycle. Begich (D) is relatively popular in Alaska and overall shows great political aptitude. However, he slipped up in recent weeks after refusing to take down a recent advertisement that has been deemed offensive. This, as well as the Affordable Care Act’s unpopularity, have created a unique opportunity for former State Attorney General Dan Sullivan (R), who fought his way through a crowded GOP primary. I think Sullivan pulls this one out, but it will be close.
Arkansas: Pryor (i) v. Cotton
RCP Poll Average: Cotton +5
2012 Presidential: Romney 60.5%
Prediction: Mark Pryor (D), knew he was in trouble early on in this race. In fact, he was behind in the polls as early as March and then rallied over the summer, but has since slipped again. Arkansas has not had a good experience with Obamacare and the President has a disapproval rating of about 60.3 percent, according to the Huffington Post. Moreover, Tom Cotton (R) is no fire breather. In fact, Cotton graduated from Harvard undergrad and Law School and has served in the Army, completing two tours of duty overseas. I’m chalking this one up as a GOP victory as well.
Colorado: M. Udall (i) v. Gardner
RCP Poll Average: Gardner +2.8
2012 Presidential: Obama 51.2%
Prediction: Colorado is one of the many states Democrats didn’t think would really be in play this cycle that turned out to be tougher for them than they originally thought. Cory Gardner (R) is risking a sure congressional seat to challenge Mark Udall (D). Gardner is a more moderate GOP candidate challenging a strong liberal incumbent. However, Colorado in recent years has shifted much more to the left, supporting marijuana legalization and voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012. The state legislature even felt safe enough to challenge the Second Amendment, and that was the final straw. Two Democratic legislators were successfully recalled in 2013, which may signal that the GOP is motivated and ready to take back the Rocky Mountain State. It is important to note that Colorado’s other Senator, Michael Bennett (D), chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he will put up a fight for fellow Coloradan Udall. This race is too close to call, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is only one Udall in the Senate next year.
Georgia: Nunn v. Perdue (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Nunn +0.3
2012 Presidential: Romney 53.4%
Prediction: This is a race to watch this November. Georgia has arisen as the Democrats biggest chance at a seat pickup this November, and even one could derail a GOP majority. Michelle Nunn (D) has a slight advantage in that her father served as a U.S. Senator from Georgia. David Perdue (R) is a businessman who is fighting attacks on his record as a business leader and CEO of Dollar General. This race will most likely go to a runoff (no candidate will receive 50 percent of the vote in November, I think). This race will then be the focus of national attention and may determine Senate control. In my mind, there are two things to consider: who will have enough resources to win and how will the runoff effect turnout? Georgia is experiencing a slight demographic shift that may benefit Nunn, and national attention may drive up turnout which could benefit her as well. This race is too close to call. I will nominally give it to Perdue, because midterm voters tend to be more skewed towards the GOP.
Iowa: Braley v. Ernst (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Ernst +2.2
2012 Presidential: Obama 52.1%
Prediction: Joni Ernst (R) has stormed onto the scene and become a frontrunner in this critical Iowa Senate race. She started was a dark horse in the GOP primary, but her “Let’s Make ‘Em Squeal” ad made her a GOP rock star. She has many presidential hopefuls come campaign with her (remember: Iowa is a critical presidential primary state). Moreover, Brue Braley (D) has lost some steam. I mean, even Michelle Obama doesn’t know his name, famously telling voters to vote for “Bruce Baily.” That’s not good. Also, Ernst is a State Senator and an officer in the Iowa National Guard who has had success pitching herself to voters. Congressman Braley, on the other hand, has often come across as cold and unlikable. He has managed to insult farmers, complain about the lack of towel service in the Congressional gym during the shutdown and is generally portrayed as callous. I think Lt. Col. Ernst will defeat Congressman Bruce “Baily” Braley.
Kansas: Orman v. Roberts (i)
RCP Poll Average: Orman +0.6
2012 Presidential: Obama 52.1%
Prediction: Kansas is probably the most frustrating and confusing race of the cycle. Pat Roberts (R) could have easily walked to victory had he squashed rumors of his lack of a home in Kansas. Moreover, Greg Orman (I) may just convince voters that he isn’t a Democrat and march to victory. Orman is quite possibly the most confusing candidate out there and has been a member of both major political parties, most recently the Democrats’. He has also contributed to many Democratic campaigns, including Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s, but also to Scott Brown (R-NH) in 2010 and the famous Todd Aiken (R-MO) campaign of 2012. I have no idea where this guy stands on anything. However, Roberts is in trouble, and Gov. Brownback isn’t helping him very much heading the GOP ticket. However, the other Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (R) is the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and won’t lose Kansas without a fight. Overall, I think this race is a pure tossup. I’ll give it to Roberts, but only because he is an incumbent (and for the sake of a nice looking map).
Kentucky: Grimes v. McConnell (i)
RCP Poll Average: McConnell +4.4
2012 Presidential: Romney 60.5%
Prediction: If the Democrats win Kentucky, it would be a major victory for them because Mitch McConnell (R) is the current Minority Leader for the Republican Caucus. After fighting off a Tea Party challenger, McConnell has gained on Alison Grimes (D) and surpassed her in recent polls. It is interesting to note that in Kentucky, the state’s Obamacare Exchange has been relatively successful and may hurt McConnell, or at least take Obamacare out of the race. The big issue of this race is jobs, specifically those from the coal industry. Obama’s EPA regulations threaten Kentucky’s coal industry, and McConnell has accused the Democrats of waging a “War on Coal.” Grimes claims to support coal as well; however, she also campaigns with “coal makes us sick” Harry Reid, so it will be interesting to see who Kentuckians decide has their best interests at heart. I think Leader McConnell holds onto his seat.
Louisiana: Landrieu (i) v. Cassidy
RCP Poll Average: Cassidy +4.4
2012 Presidential: Romney 57.8%
Prediction: This is in close second for the most perplexing race of the cycle. Mary Landrieu (D) has a major name advantage in Louisiana. Most importantly, her brother is the Mayor of New Orleans. She also wields a lot of power as Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. She has taken favorable stances for her constituents on the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Export-Import Bank, and the oil export ban. Also, Louisiana, like Georgia, can go into a runoff if neither candidate reaches 50 percent. Congressman Bill Cassidy (R) leads in the polls, but if he doesn’t break 50 percent in the first election, I think he could lose the second. Landrieu has more resources at her disposal to play a massive turnout game in New Orleans, and, if turnout is high, she could hold on by her fingernails. This is another tossup, but Cassidy could win and avoid a runoff, so I will tentatively predict Cassidy.
Maine: Bellows v. Collins (i)
RCP Poll Average: Collins +29.7
2012 Presidential: Obama 56%
Prediction: Everybody in Maine likes Susan Collins (R). She is an example of moderate and thoughtful leadership in a partisan Senate. Shennah Bellows (D) is a former leader of the Maine ACLU and also a Middlebury alumna, class of ’97. However, she doesn’t stand a chance against Senator Collins. She would have a better shot at Angus King (I) the next time he is in cycle.
Michigan: Peters v. Land (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Peters +10.1
2012 Presidential: Obama 54.3%
Prediction: I really was hoping Terri Lynn Land (R) would pull out a win for the GOP. She was a successful Secretary of State, but her Senate bid has lost steam heading into the last ninety days. Congressman Garry Peters (D) will win Carl Levin’s vacated seat.
Minnesota: Franken (i) v. McFadden
RCP Poll Average: Franken +10.5
2012 Presidential: Obama 54.3%
Prediction: The funniest Senator is going to win his first reelection contest by more than 500 votes. Al Franken (D) was a writer for SNL before moving back home to run for office, but has since convinced voters that he is a dedicated and serious U.S. Senator. Mike McFadden (R) fought through a GOP primary, and the football coach may not even put up a fight at the polls. Some have called McFadden a dark horse, but I think Franken wins by double digits, no joke.
Montana: Curtis v. Daines (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Daines +18 (yes, 18)
2012 Presidential: Romney 55.3%
Prediction: The Democrats pulled out all the stops to hold on to Max Baucus’ seat. Yes, they shipped the sponsor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act all the way to China so they could appoint Sen. John Walsh (D) to fill his spot. This was in hopes of giving him an “incumbency advantage,” but the Democrats put their eggs in the wrong basket. Walsh recently had his master’s degree revoked due to severe plagiarism. This sent the Democratic hopes of holding onto Montana out the window. Steve Daines (R) is going to easily win.
New Hampshire: Shaheen (i) v. Scott Brown
RCP Poll Average: Shaheen +2.2
2012 Presidential: Obama 52.2%
Prediction: This is an interesting race and, like Colorado, is another example of the GOP “expanding the map” and increasing the number of competitive races. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is a longtime political figure in New Hampshire and has previously served as the state’s governor. Scott Brown (R), on the other hand, grew up in New Hampshire, but served as a Senator from Massachusetts. Shaheen has a few problems to confront, and that may just tip the scales for Brown. Obamacare is very unpopular in New Hampshire due to drastic medical network restrictions associated with Obamacare insurance plans. Shaheen’s races have historically tightened at the finish, but she often pulls them out. I predict Shaheen will hold onto her seat.
New Jersey: Booker (i) v. Bell
RCP Poll Average: Booker +15.6
2012 Presidential: Obama 58%
Prediction: Cory Booker (D) defeated Steve Lonegan (R) in the 2013 Special Election, and that may have been his only real contest. The 2013 election produced one of the most entertaining debates I have ever watched though. So, if you don’t want to do homework, look it up on Youtube. Lots of one-liners. Previously, Booker was a controversial mayor of Newark. He faces a weak challenger and should retain his seat.
North Carolina: Hagan (i) v. Tillis
RCP Average: Hagan +1.6
2012 Presidential: Romney 50.6%
Prediction: Kay Hagan (D) has done her best to distance herself from an unpopular president, and it just may have been enough. The polls are close, but most people are saying Hagan will win, and I agree. Sean Haugh (L) may just take away enough of Thom Tillis’ (R) vote share to put Hagan over the top. Also, Tillis is the speaker of the unpopular State House. So that isn’t helping him much. I think Hagan wins.
Oregon: Merkley (i) v. Wehby
RCP Average: Merkley +13.5
2012 Presidential: Obama 54.5%
Prediction: Dr. Monica Wehby (R) is an interesting candidate; she’s a neurosurgeon and more libertarian, supporting many middle of the road social stances. However, that will not be enough to overtake Jeff Merkley (D), who should easily win.
South Dakota: Weiland v. Rounds (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Rounds +10.2
2012 Presidential: Romney 57.9%
Prediction: Mike Rounds (R) is going to win, this race really was never that close. There are four Candidates in the race, two of whom will detract from making Rick Weiland (D) a true threat to Rounds’ healthy lead.
Virginia: Warner (i) v. Gillespie
RCP Poll Average: Warner +10.6
2012 Presidential: Obama 50.8%
Prediction: Mark Warner (D) is a relatively moderate Senator and former business exec. He has done a lot of bipartisan work, most notably in the “Gang of Eight” who often are the source of major compromises. He faces former RNC Chair and Bush White House Staffer Ed Gillespie (R). Warner is going to win with ease.
West Virginia: Tennant v. Capito (Open Seat)
RCP Poll Average: Capito +16.6
2012 Presidential: Romney 62.3%
Prediction: Both of these candidates initially seamed very strong, but Congresswomen Shelly Moore Capito (R) has pulled ahead. She faces Secretary of State, and former UWV mascot, Natalie Tennant (D). Tennant, however, made the mistake of bringing Sen. Warren (D-MA) to West Virginia, where she probably was less than helpful. On the other hand, Paul Ryan (R-WI) was better received. Capito will win handily.
(10/08/14 6:19pm)
A few weeks ago Erin proposed that the environment and global warming would — or rather should — be a major issue this election cycle. That is simply not going to be the case. To quote President Clinton, “it’s the economy, stupid.” More importantly, that hurts Democrats and their overall standing with midterm voters. Unfortunately for Erin and Harry Reid (D-NV), in a ranking of issues and their importance to voters, a 2014 Gallup poll found that voters consistently rank economic issues and healthcare as top priorities. Gallup also found voters consistently placed social issues and global warming in second to last and last, respectively. To make matters worse for Democrats, Gallup also finds that most Americans trust Republicans more with the economy.
To make matters even worse, the Obama recovery from the 2008 recessions has been dismal. Sure, unemployment went down, but, as William Galston aptly points out, the labor force participation rate is still as bad as it was in 2009, with very little change over Obama’s tenure in office. Some of that is due to an aging workforce, but most of it is due to discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force. Median household income has also dropped for the average American under Obama’s watch. So the voters are in need of some change this November.
Take a minute to let that all soak in.
The likelihood that Obama will use the word “shellacking” this November is slim, but that doesn’t mean that he will be happy. Most polls show Republicans will gain control of the Senate and hold their majority in the House. On its face, this looks really bad for Democrats. However, if the GOP drops the ball and wastes this opportunity by grandstanding and partying (pun very much intended), the Democrats will gain it all back and more in 2016.
The goal of my columns, when I am not responding to Erin, will be to propose ways in which I feel the GOP needs to move forward to prove to Americans that we are more than simply the loyal opposition. We need to prove to everyday Americans that the GOP is the party of reform and economic growth. This entails that when the GOP controls both houses of Congress, they sponsor and pass bipartisan legislation that the President would be hard pressed to veto. The good news is that these don’t need to be new bills. The “Shaheen-Portman Energy Bill” that got tabled because of last October’s fiasco would be a great start. More good news is that there are plenty of bills (that would need to be resubmitted next Congress) that the House has passed and that Harry Reid (D-NV) has refused to put to a vote in the Senate. The GOP simply cannot afford to allow for there to be two more years of stalled government. Republicans need to do some re-branding before the Presidential race gets underway, or else we will get crushed.
This lofty goal will not be easy, and righting the economic ship going into 2016 is a must. As much as I would like to replace Obamacare (happy birthday by the way, you’re still awful; but that will be a topic for another week), the solution is putting Americans back to work and reforming our education system. Jobs and education are the best ways to combat inequality and right the ship. In my home state of California, Neel Kashkari is providing a model for what I hope the GOP will become.
Mr. Kashkari is taking up the noble task of unseating Gov. Jerry Brown on a platform of “Jobs. Education. That’s it.” This is exactly the direction the GOP needs to be going. Although I like that California is more fiscally sound than it once was, Brown and the Democratic supermajority have still managed to make the Golden State finish 46th in jobs and 46th in education. But wait, we also have the highest poverty levels in the union as well. It’s a difficult task screwing up one of the world’s largest economies (if California were its own country), but the Democrats aren’t doing it any favors. California gets low marks in business friendliness as well, says a 2014 Thumbtack report, scoring an “F.” Texas, by contrast, received the highest marks. It should also be no secret as to why Texas has been almost recession proof. Just ask Toyota and Tesla, both of which are fleeing California. Toyota is moving its US headquarters to Texas and Tesla is building its new factory in Nevada. Elon Musk (Tesla’s owner) is also moving his space company to Texas. This trend is not contained to California, it’s a pandemic among “Blue States” across the country.
With all this said, between now and 2016, Republicans have a choice to make. They can either simply oppose Obama the next two years as Americans suffer through an ailing economy, or they can put bills on the President’s desk, daring him to veto them. The GOP needs to action on the major economic issues facing our country in 2015, or we may be looking at eight more years of economic turmoil.
Artwork by VAASU TANEJA
(10/01/14 6:13pm)
Last week Erin, in support of the “People’s Climate March,” argued for policies called “cap-and-trade” which essentially set emission caps on companies and then allow them to buy and sell these emission permits with each other. However good or bad this program may be, it is not the only “pro-climate” program being proposed and implemented. When evaluating climate and energy policy, the most important component is a simple cost-benefit analysis. I will admit, all this information so far was covered last week; however what was never discussed were the costs and the benefits themselves.
I’m a fan of good news first, so let’s start with the benefits of cap-and-trade, renewable energy mandates, and other “green” initiatives. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the goal of these programs is to actually combat climate change. Well, unfortunately that is hard to assess, but the inconvenient truth for the eco-liberals (cue Thomas Steyer) is that the science at best is inconclusive (I’m sure I will get an earful about this). I will be the first to admit that climate science is not my expertise, so let us consult the experts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 produced a global report on this very issue. The IPCC estimates that by 2100 we will see a three degree Celsius increase in temperature. Obama, being a man with many strategies, has a plan to reduce emission to 17 percent less than 2005 levels. The American Enterprise Institute (a well-respected think tank in Washington, DC) has used the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s climate simulator to estimate that even if the entire world adopted Obama’s plan, it would only reduce warming by 0.15 degrees Celsius. Those are the long-term benefits. It is worth noting that the IPCC also mentions in their report that we have reached a “pause” in climate change, which contradicts original projections and trajectories cited by the aforementioned eco-liberals. The IPCC also failed to find any significant increase in extreme weather or evidence that would suggest sea-level increases in years to come.
The other side of the coin are the costs. Most environmental-protection plans, like cap-and-trade, seek to shift the “costs” to the firms themselves. This is essentially done by putting a price tag on pollution and the like. These new taxes and regulations can cause businesses to cut jobs, close altogether, or move. This is a simple explanation for the costs of measures like cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, but policies like the renewable energy mandates are harder to grasp.
Renewable energy mandates are programs in which states decide how much of their energy supply must come from renewable areas like wind, solar, and water. Sounds great, right? Well, renewable energy sources pose some issues. First and foremost they are reliant on the weather, which is unpredictable. In addition, wind and solar farms take up massive tracts of land.
In 2010, California generated 20 percent of its power from renewable sources, but California’s energy prices were double that of other states without such a mandate, according to the Institute for Energy Research. The biggest problem with these mandates is that they distort the markets and hamper competition. These mandates harm cleaner, but not renewable energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas.
Nuclear plants produce electricity with zero carbon emissions. We also have an abundance of natural gas, which burns much cleaner than other energy alternatives, like coal. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a big supporter of natural gas. The Democrat from San Francisco famously said: “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels”. The now minority leader is half right. These mandates, even though they promote certain sectors of our energy production, actually hurt our energy diversity, which is key to keeping prices down and insuring our energy security for the future. The increased energy prices, as an effect of energy mandates, result in an increased cost to households and businesses in California, which already face their fair share of economic hurdles.
Now that it has been established that heavy-handed governmental programs like cap-and-trade and renewable energy mandates are costly and won’t even come close to solving our possible climate problems, I feel it is important to discuss the direction we should be headed. I feel the goal of environmental policies should be to reduce local pollution, in order to keep our cities and neighborhoods clean. This task is best solved on the demand-side. In other words, because energy is a necessity, it is sounder to try to reduce consumption, and I think this is best done at the individual consumer level, through incentives. There are many things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprint that the markets and the government should, and often are incentivizing. First and foremost, fuel efficient and electric cars. One thing the state of California does that is very good is it allows fuel efficient cars to drive in the carpool lane and avoid paying tolls in rush-hour. This law has incentivized my family to own a 2003 Prius (which is covered in stickers, including one for Romney), a 2012 Prius plug-in, and a Tesla Model S. On top of that, everybody likes saving money at the pump. The second is solar panels. A tax credit on solar panels for households could be an effective way to reduce carbon use as well as help families with their electric bills (given that will take time and depends on the upfront costs and value of the tax credit). I believe there are many things each individual can do as a form of environmental stewardship, which is very important in the battle to conserve our nation’s valuable resources. Many of these initiatives save individuals money on electric bills and at the pump, without harming our economy as a whole.
So far I have touched on a lot of issues, all of which are important. However, none of these issues will be deciding factors in any major 2014 race. Many Democrats in key states are backing away from climate issues all together. This list includes Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Natalie Tennant (D-WV), and Mark Begich (D-AK). And then there is Alison Grimes of Kentucky, who thinks she can campaign with coal-makes-us-sick Harry Reid (D-NV) and then claim to be pro-coal. Nevertheless, most Americans will make a decision in 2014 based on the state of the economy and other issues that affect their pocketbooks, not climate change.
Artwork by JENA RITCHEY