The $5 Trillion Dollar Cut?

Since the first presidential debate last Wednesday, Romney has been continually pressed and subsequently, continually evasive about his tax plan. His supposed plan to $5 trillion cut in taxes. He has still yet to delineate his specific plan on how the dollar cuts would balance out. "I want to make it simpler, fairer. I want to encourage the economy to grow again," he said in an interview on Tuesday. 

Many have questioned where Romney plans to find enough deductions to make up the money from a 20% cut in tax rate. Tax experts doubt the possibility of finding enough money to make up for a cut of that size. Tax experts believe that if he has enough limits on deductions the result would actually require a raise in taxes on the middle class and a decrease in the taxes on the wealthy. 

The Huffington post reports that when Romney was further questioned about his plan he stated, "Well, I'm not going to lay out a piece of legislation here, because I intend to work together with Republicans and Democrats in Congress, but there are a number of ways one could approach this. One would be to have a total cap number... Or, instead, you could take the posture that Bowles-Simpson did... There are a number of ways we can accomplish the principles which I have." 

Should Romney be forced into specifics before the election? Or is it good that he wants everyone to collaborate on a plan if he were to be elected?

A shift in Israeli policy

     Turning an eye to the world, Israel appears to be gearing up to explore another route in addressing the Iran question. As opposed to the militaristic stance previously expressed by means of the "red line," the NY Times reported that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had pushed for increased sanctions in collaboration with its European allies.

Playing with fire.
From the Onion

     With its characteristic snark, though, the Onion framed the issue in a slightly more lighthearted context. Does the phrase "laying the groundwork for a nuclear holocaust that will kill billions of people and eventually end the world as we know it" strike fear into your heart? However the status quo may resemble brinkmanship, the prime minister certainly doesn't seemed fazed. 

Unemployment down...with a political spin?

From Bureau of Labor Statistics

     According to a new report published yesterday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in September dropped to 7.8 percent from the 8.1 percent of August. During the Obama Administration, this was the first time unemployment had dropped below 8 percent. 
     The LBS report indicates that 114,000 non-farm jobs had been added, and yet as Forbes points out, this was "essentially in line, the big surprised was the drop in unemployment rate, which fell 30 basis points month over month and marks the lowest level in more than 40 months." Indeed, the Washington Exmainer's editorial analysis compared the lower unemployment rate to the inferior "McJobs" created under the Reagan administration, arguing that the 7.8 percent was "largely because of an increase in Americans settling for part-time work."
     The Obama campaign received a much-needed boost in the aftermath of a stagnant debate performance; the president benefiting from more political capital.
     In turn, Governor Romney dismissed the job growth, pointing out that "if not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent." As the Huffington Post reports, though, some skeptics have gone as far as to claim that the opportune drop in unemployment was backed by ulterior political motive.
     NY Times columnist Joe Nocera took a dim view of such claims, dismissing them as "ludicrous." However, in yesterday's column, he conceded that the numbers were irregular. While a survey of businesses gave rise to the number 114,000, "Extrapolating from [a survey of 55,000 households], the bureau concluded that an additional 873,000 people had found work in September. It is this number that brought the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent."
     Thus, the validity of this trend will ultimately be revealed when this month's unemployment statics are released shortly before the presidential elections. 

How much do the debates matter?

After the debate Wednesday night, there is a general question of how much the debates truly matter. A rasmussen article came out with effects of the firsts debates on the past election.

This chart conveys that the debates had an effect (some more drastic than others) on the past elections. However, the main indicator in this data is that the candidate that was ahead prior to the election, normally stayed ahead after the first debate. Furthermore, a CNN article mentioned how Obama's fundraising prior to the debates raised the largest amount of money during this campaign, which provided positive news after the not perfect debate. Yet another positive for Obama was the drop in unemployment rate to 7.8%. Are these positives going to keep Obama ahead in the race or do the debates have more weight than the polls say?

Divided Government Loosing Popularity

I came across an interesting poll today about Americans' preference for one party power in both the executive branch and congress. 

It is interesting how there has been such an increase in the past year for this preference of one party government. The 38% increase may be due to the upcoming election or stronger party preferences. Another possible reason for this one party trend could be the increase of polarization between the two parties. People may be realizing that with a divided government (between Congress and the President) it is difficult to get things done do to this polarization.

In contrast, preference for a "split bill" is at a record-low of 23%. A possible explanation for this large decrease in support for two party rule could be the frustration with the difficulty in receiving Republican support behind some of Obama's proposals (such as the Affordable Health Care Act).

Why do you believe there is this large increase in support for One Party Government? How will this effect the upcoming election?

In the aftermath, 'staircase wit' and 'a sick joke'

   In the aftermath of the Denver debate, one NPR blog cogently noted that President Obama's subsequent response was "staircase wit" - a juicy retort which comes to mind right before going to bed and long after the conflict is over.

From canada.com 

   Indeed, in his campaign rallies today, the president claimed that Romney's rhetoric was inconsistent with the policies on which he had previously campaigned, further declaring, "Governor Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth." 

   While the Romney campaign brushed off the president's aggressive stance as "damage control," NY Times columnist Paul Krugman blasted the governor's facetiousness in today's blog post. Referring to Romney's promise of medical insurance covering pre-existing conditions, Krugman wrote, "if you think he promised something real, you're the butt of a sick joke...we're talking about a lot of people left out in the cold - 89 million, to be precise."

   Inevitably, fact-checking revealed that both candidates were guilty of spin to some capacity. PolitiFact appeared to indicate a level spread of nontruths from both sides, and yet NPR headlined "Romney goes on offense, pays of it in first wave of fact checks."

   Ultimately, I am curious to see how Romney's "win" will even out in the polls, if it ever does, as we get a stronger grasp of the extent of Obama and Romney's disingenuity. 

Polls declare Romney debate winner, 'Obama looked tired'

   In spite of a poll published by Gallup indicating that President Obama would be the more successful debater, Governor Romney appeared to come out on top, with National Review noting that "Obama looked tired, in the Nixonian mode, and...sounded like a petualnt 1980 Jimmy Carter." 

No dice?
from humanevents.com

    Preliminary polls noted as much, with two-thirds of polled, registered voters saying that Romney had won, whereas only a quarter said the same of Obama.

    Remarkably, this debate came off as a relatively civil exchange, with few of the "zingers" allegedly prepared by Governor Romney coming to fruition. Towards the conclusion, however, the president's accusation jumped out: "[Romney] says that he's going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. That's how it's going to be paid for, but we don't know the details. He says that he's going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we don't know exactly which ones. He won't tell us. He now says he's going to replace Obamacare and ensure that all the good things that are in it are going to be in there and you don't have to worry. And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? Is it -- is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?"

    This demand for specifics yet again reflected criticism of the governor's vague rhetoric, as noted by Time here and here. Moreover, they corroborate the lead held by the president on most issues, as reflected by this Pew Research Center poll. Yet in light of Wednesday's results, Romney will undoubtedly enjoy a greater vote of confidence. 

    Mention of the 47 percent was incidentally absent from the debate, indicative of Obama's unaggressive performance. How the Obama's strategy evolves in the future debates should be interesting to note and may ultimately indicate if his initial passive engagement serves a more holistic purpose.

Off to the Races... Romney Gets in the Game

  Overall, Romney came out stronger in tonight's debate than Obama. Romney's overall presence left the impression of being more passionate than the President. However, both did great jobs of getting into specifics, something people wanted. This debate was full of details. However, there are a three main points I would like to focus on: job creation, healthcare, and the role of Federal Government. These were areas in which the candidates seemed to have the most divergent views.
    Beginning with job creation, Obama opened with an emphasis on improving education. He mentioned that using the "Race to the Top" plan while also employing more math and science teachers allows for growth in these educational areas to provide jobs. Obama also emphasized investing in clean energy and raising tax rates for larger corporations. Romney responded with his plan for job creation, which consists of making America energy independent, opening up trade with foreign countries, and balancing the budget, along with tax cuts for the middle class in order to "Champion small business." Obama challenged Romney's $5 trillion in tax cuts (which Obama stated would benefit the wealthy), however, Romney responded that these would be tax cuts for the middle class and not for higher income individuals. In summary on job creation, Romney emphasized lower tax rates on small business to increase job creation in the private sector and Obama emphasized providing jobs by employing more teachers to create a better trained workforce.
     Another highlighted topic was healthcare. Romney began by saying he would replace the Affordable Healthcare Act by giving this responsibility back to the states. He emphasized that Obama's healthcare plan hurts families and uses an appointed board to tell people what will be covered. He also stressed that free enterprise drives costs down, not government. Obama argued that the board Romney referred to can not make decisions about treatment plans, and that the program was similar to the one that Romney had implemented as Governor of Massachusetts.
Romney Responded to this by indicating that a healthcare plan on the national level was quite a different thing, and that his plan had not raised costs or put private insurance plans in jeopardy.
    The last area which I felt was fairly important was the role of the federal government.
Obama started off by saying the Federal Government's role was to keep people safe, give gateways to opportunity, and provide more teachers for a better trained work force. Romney emphasized protecting people by maintaining the military, religious tolerance and individuals' ability to pursue their dreams. Regarding Federal responsibility for education, Romney believes it is the state's jurisdiction, however the federal government can help. Obama talked about a stronger emphasis on federal government aiding education, and that he would implement programs to hire more math and science teachers, thereby bolstering areas where America is loosing its edge. Romney stated how making schools more competitive by "grading" them would improve education. The main difference between the two was that Romney felt the state government should have more power than the federal government (especially in education) and Obama felt that the federal government should play a larger role to create benefits for America.
    In my opinion, Romney shocked people tonight. He came off a lot more passionate than I think most people expected and responded very well to Obama's affronts. I feel this debate was definitely a benefit for Romney and revealed that he is still fighting to win this election. Do you think that this debate affected voter opinion? What needs to happen during the next debates for the two candidates to receive positive results?

Pennsylvania voter ID tabled, won't factor in 2012 election

Stuffing the ballot boxes.
From minnpost.com

This February report published by Pew Center of the States highlighted significant problems within the realm of voter registration. The more troubling realities include: 1.8 million deceased people still listed as voters; about 12.5 percent of voter registration are invalid or "significantly inaccurate"; 2.75 million individuals are registered in multiple states.

Various initiatives aimed at addressing this problem have been proposed over the past few years, with 30 states having enacted some form of legislation The most recent development was in Pennsylvania, where only yesterday a judge "blocked the key component of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month's election...Pennsylvanians will not have to present a state-approved ID to vote in November" (full article here).

Interestingly enough, Reuters points out that the Pennsylvania law has been criticized to be "designed to keep minority voters, who typically vote Democratic, away from the polls." Indeed, the poll data regarding Pennsylvanian public opinion of the initiative reflects a comparable sentiment.

Yet this concern is one reflected in voter identification laws in general. According to ProPublica, the opposition contends that voter ID laws disenfranchise those that tend to vote Democratic, including "elderly, minority and low-income groups," by effectively instituting "a new 'financial barrier to the ballot box.'" Cases of voter fraud appear to be relatively few and far between. And yet one in eight registration are screwy. Are then voter ID laws justified or even necessary?

How Will Blue Collar Workers Affect this Election?

In another article I found further information concerning the upcoming debates and how blue collar workers may affect the election. A question that has been asked is which groups will Romney gain support from. After his "47% comment" about the middle class, many people believe he lost support there. However, there is another group which he may be able to gain support from, unemployed blue collar workers. Unemployment is a huge issue amongst many blue collar workers, and thus they are willing to listen to Romney's plans. Since many of these blue collar workers have a lower income than Romney's "47%" his comment did not apply to them. They will vote for the candidate who they feel is most likely to address the high unemployment rates. Further enforcing this article, a Gallup Poll suggests that blue collar workers are in fact more likely to vote for Romney.

However, another Gallup Poll contradicts this idea and suggests that lower income Americans are more likely to vote for Obama. Yet this may be explained by the fact the not everyone who has a lower income is a blue collar worker. Do you think it is more likely for blue collar workers to vote for Obama, Romney, or neither, and what will each candidate have address during the debate in order to win blue collar support?

Warming up with 'a laughable comedy of tactical self-effacement'

Image from ocfamily

An article published today in Time dryly noted that, in a "brief political moment of mutual admiration," a senior adviser in the Romney campaign praised President Obama's oratory skills, whereas the incumbent said, "Governor Romney, he's a good debater. I'm just OK."

While such display of reciprocated good feelings may seem odd on the eve of a pivotal head-to-head clash, Politico inferred that the Republican nominee was lowering the bar "in hopes of scoring the he-did-better-than-we-thought crown Thursday morning." On the other hand, the same Time piece posited that the candidates had begun "working the refs now" in hopes of a favorable verdict from the media.

NY Times columnist Frank Bruni described the exchange as "a laughable comedy of tactical self-effacement," and in the context of the campaign thus far, his cynicism is not entirely uncalled for. In some capacity, the president's campaign has been marked by an emphasis on the opposition's shortcomings as opposed to the incumbent's accomplishments; a comparable argument could be made of Gov. Romney. 

In any case, this Economist/YouGov poll underscored the public's perception of this election: a little over a third of partisan respondents indicated that they were voting against a candidate. It will be curious to see how this reflects in the response of "the refs."

Who Has the Upper Hand?

As the presidential debates rapidly approach, there has been much discussion over who currently has the upper hand in the election. According to a CNN Article and a Gallup poll, the race is just as close as it was before the party conventions. However, when broken down into issues, Obama has the lead when it comes to domestic problems (Healthcare and Education) and Romney has the upper hand on unemployment and deficit matters. Obama has a higher overall popularity rating as well; in comparison to Romney's approval ratings have slightly decreased since the conventions.

One thing holds true, the upcoming debates should finally begin to give some perspective of who truly has the advantage going into the election. The question that remains is how will the candidates respond to the weak parts of their campaigns. Romney must address Medicare and Healthcare and Obama needs to address unemployment and deficit matters.








                                                                                                                        
                                                                              

One Step Closer to Equality

As of today, the Obama administration announced to immigration officials that "family relationships" include same-sex couples.  This means that in regards to deportation cases, one partner cannot be deported if the other is a citizen.  This is definitely a step forward in the national recognition of gay and lesbian couples (that I believe eventually, if not soon, will be a social norm across the country). This will hopefully prompt other states to follow suit in terms of providing more equality for LGBT citizens. 

Obama clearly seems to be campaigning hard for votes from the Latino and LGBT constituencies and this new act seems to encompass these groups quite conveniently.  I think this will greatly help his standings in the polls with the Latino group most notably.  Obama already has a large number of LGBT supporters, while the votes of Latinos are more on-the-margin and could go either way.  Despite my thought, Gallup had an interesting poll which reflects that Latino voters do not always consider immigration as the most important issue when they cast their votes.

 
Despite the data above, I do think that this inclusive act enacted by the Obama administration will push some on-the-bubble Latino voters over to the democratic party in the November election. 

Iran, Israel, and the US: A Complicated Triangle

   This Tuesday, a senior source in Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's entourage stated, "In his speech, the prime minister will set a clear red line, but not one that will conflict with Obama's speech," sending a message that the United States and Israel are attempting to come to an agreement over appropriate action in regard to Iran. Iran has a nuclear program that many countries, Israel and the US included, consider extremely dangerous. 
   I'm not sure how many of us were thinking that Netanyahu would set a literal red line. 

   Netanyahu made very clear that Israel doesn't intend to launch a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future, but he warned that a military strike could only be postponed for awhile. His 'red line' is essentially this: Iran should not be allowed to produce enough medium-enriched level for a bomb, if further refined to a 90 percent enrichment level. He made sure to emphasize that Israel will not allow Iran to get to this stage of nuclear development, and said he feared that in nine to six months Iran could perhaps reach this stage. 

   Shortly afterwards, Netanyahu had a lengthy conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and discussed Iran's regional developments and the peace process. This Thursday, President Barack Obama and Netanyahu talked on the phone, and the White House released a statement saying, "The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." 

   Presidential candidate Mitt Romney also had a telephone conversation with Netanyahu this afternoon. Romney said to reporters travelling with him that he will not take the military option off the table, as a nuclear-capable Iran is a serious threat, but he believes that force will not ultimately be needed. 

   While Netanyahu has softened his position in regard to a military strike on Iran, Obama has not issued an ultimatum to Tehran as Netanyahu has demanded. However, Netanyahu was very complimentary of Obama's actions to mobilize the world to impose sanctions on Iran. He noted that Israel and the United States are working together on the Iranian nuclear threat.

Poll Analysis: Do We Trust the Government?

I came across this poll today regarding how much Americans trust the federal government in regards to domestic issues. (click to enlarge)

Poll 1

Poll 2

Shockingly, what I expected to see was completely incorrect with the graphs.  I expected to see a large dip in 2008 from both parties (Poll 1 and 2), because of the economic downturn.  I also expected the current state of trust in government to be higher than 2008 as a whole (Poll 1), but the percentages look nearly the same.

Around the time the Obama administration began, there was a large spike downward in the trust of the republican party’s trust in the government, and at that same time, a large spike up in trust for the democrats.  This may be expected because the opinions of the democrats and republicans regarding governmental trust virtually switched places during the transition from the Bush to the Obama administration.  To me, this reflects the large influence that political parties have over how much one should trust the government, not so much the events actually going on in the country at that time (like the economic crash). In 2008, the graphs reflect that trust was lower than in years past, but certainly did not provoke as much of a shift in trust as when the political party of the president changed. 

Does one’s political party automatically mean that they cannot be trusted to handle domestic affairs? 31% or Republican leaning voters thought so (Poll 2), dropping their trust after Obama’s election.  There may certainly be other factors involved, and I am not denying that, nor am I simply bashing the republican party as a whole.  I think it is important to be aware of what really affects our trust in the government, and whether or not it is valid.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Arrested

    The man who may be behind the anti-Muslim video that has inflamed the Middle East was arrested this afternoon.
    Kinda cool, especially considering that we posted about it a few days ago.

Romney's New Ad Makes Its Debut

Romney has released a new campaign ad, and compared to other propaganda we have seen throughout this campaign process, I am pleasantly pleased with what I see.  This isn’t a high-budget ad, just the candidate sitting down in front of the camera talking a bit about his policies. With the absence of provocative graphics and spooky music, I feel like the message of the campaign is less muddled and ambiguous.  This connects back to what I posted about on Monday: that the message of the candidates’ campaigns is getting lost through the media’s priorities.  Although I may not agree with Romney’s policies (and his statement that he is committed to creating new jobs for those on welfare, deviating from his “47 percent” comments), I am one to appreciate this sort of ad.

Is there a reason we don’t see more advertisements like this?  It irritates me that many people are more convinced by misleading ads that include a plethora of “weasel words,” fear inducing graphics, or flat-out lies.  These sorts of ads can have the intended effect because they are memorable.  However, it is a bit disconcerting to me that an ad such as the new Romney ad actually had the effect of sticking in my mind because it lacked all of the extra frills and spin we tend to see in the media we are exposed to daily.

Do you think this may win back some constituents that were offended by Romney’s comments in the past week?

Voter ID Law in Pennsylvania May Be Blocked

   Voter ID laws have been extremely controversial with the upcoming presidential election, but it looks like one of them may be repealed. The voter ID law passed in Pennsylvania, which would have reportedly disenfranchised as many as 750,000 voters, is currently in consideration by the state court. The lower court released a statement, saying,
        "The court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the [voter ID] cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is returned to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The Commonwealth Court is to file its supplemental opinion on or before October 2, 2012."

   To translate, the court will prohibit the voter ID law from being enforced if conclusive evidence is not shown that no voters will be disenfranchised by it. 

The Power of Party Labels

The chart below is related to our data analysis work, the "party in the electorate", as well as the theme of emerging partisan polarization. Discuss. h/t dailyyonder via Sullivan. Also, fellow bloggers, this is what I consider the maximum one should borrow/quote from a source for republication. You should always provide a link to the original source as a courtesy to your readers and your source. -- Mr. Silton

Recovery in the Works: An Economic Update

According to some recently released data, housing prices have been on a notable upward trend between May and July 2012.  Across the country, prices of single-family homes (across 20 cities) have shown an annual gain of 1.2 percent in July.  In areas such as Massachusetts and Chicago, the housing prices have risen even more than the national average.

Surely, this is some good news that everyone has been waiting for, but will it last? How will it effect the presidential election? I would hypothesize that this data (although July is a couple of months ago) being released will surely give Obama an advantage in the weeks ahead because it is evidence that his economic policy is effective for the country as a whole. 

Americans are notorious for thinking about their own wallets when it comes time to cast their votes, and rightfully so.  The economy is one of the most important factors in presidential elections.  Think: “it’s the economy, stupid.”  Based on past events, I would think that the release of this data will be largely advantageous to the Obama campaign, especially as November is not so far away.