For Obama, parallels to Carter look grim
It has been a bad week for Democrats, and for prospects of significant action on the economy. But will Republicans pick a Reagan-like winner or go with a likely loser?
"You should pass this bill now." -- President Obama, in presenting his jobs bill to Congress Sept. 8.
Just over a week after President Barack Obama's jobs speech to the Congress, prospects look dim for passage of his related jobs bill and, on many fronts, things have taken a downward turn for Obama and the Democratic Party. A tough week.
The situation for Obama is not unlike that which President Jimmy Carter faced toward the end of 1979, before his one-sided defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. Will a Democratic challenger for the nomination emerge, as Sen. Ted Kennedy did in late 1979? Will Republicans nominate next year a prospective winner, a la Reagan in 1980, or loser, like Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964?
First, about the jobs bill: There, of course, was no jobs bill at the time Obama made his congressional speech. It has now been submitted but House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both have suggested that it be broken apart and offered in separate legislative pieces, some of which may never emerge from committee. Some of the package's proposals were offered in 2009 and defeated in what was then a Democratic Congress. Even adherents of Stimulus II do not argue for its job-creating potential.
Mainly, the supporters argue that it will stem further job loss in the public sector in particular. Republicans now have introduced their own version of Stimulus II. The whole enterprise has been threatened by the unfortunate disclosure that a major early recipient of Stimulus I's funds, solar-company Solyndra, now in bankruptcy, ate $535 million in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees without ever having a viable business plan. Obama had visited a Solyndra facility, Vice President Joe Biden had addressed the opening of a plant, and the business's principals had been generous donors to the Obama presidential campaign. The company is now the target of a federal criminal investigation; the FBI has seized its records. This, in turn, has brought attention to the whole "green jobs" component of Stimulus I and the reality that, even by the most optimistic estimates, jobs created in the program cost in excess of $640,000 taxpayer dollars per job.
Some parts of the Obama Stimulus II proposal may survive, notably the extension of payroll-tax relief and of unemployment benefits. Had it not been for the Solyndra and green-jobs revelations of recent days, the outloook would have been better.
There are a number of other factors in play.
On the overall economy: I've noted here before that no incumbent president except Franklin Roosevelt has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate exceeding 7.8 percent. The administration this past week conceded that the rate is likely to linger around 9 percent for most of 2012. The true rate, if you count those only partially employed or who have given up looking for work, is somewhere between 18-20 percent. Most economists now concede that the current economic downturn, which still has a way to run, will prove to be the longest and deepest since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Republicans will have ample economic ammunition to fire next year beyond the unemployment numbers. In the Obama years the U.S. has undergone the first sovereign-debt downgrade in U.S. history; federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at 25 percent, the highest since the end of World War II; federal budget deficits similarly are the highest since the end of World War II; job growth coming out of recession is the lowest since WWII; the home-ownership rate is the lowest since 1965; the percentage of taxpayers paying income tax (49 percent) is the lowest in the modern era; and the percentage of Americans receiving government benefit payments (47 percent) is the highest in modern history. Nothing in any of these categories will change importantly before election day, 2012.
Long-term debt reduction: Faced with falling public-approval numbers and two unexpectedly large congressional special-election losses, the Obama White House has backed away from its earlier expressed intention to propose significant entitlement-program (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid) reforms for the bipartisan congressional Gang of Twelve, co-chaired by Sen. Patty Murray, to consider in framing its proposals due on Thanksgiving. If the Gang's proposals are not submitted and passed by Christmas, automatic cuts will take place, which are sure to enrage key constituent groups. Meantime, after their first official meeting, several Democratic and Republican members emerged mouthing the usual partisan reservations about cutting entitlement spending (Democrats) or raising taxes (Republicans).
A week ago I was mildly optimistic regarding the framing and passage of bipartisan proposals from the Gang of Twelve — in substance, approximating the proposals of the Obama deficit commission's bipartisan proposals of a year ago. Now I fear an even nastier December replay of the partisan ordeal which surrounded the lifting of the federal debt limit earlier this year.
Congressional-election shock: Republicans won one-sided victories this past Tuesday in New York and Nevada congressional special elections which were expected to be close. Republican Bob Turner, a retired communications executive, won the New York race to replace resigned New York Rep. Anthony Weiner by a whopping margin. Obama had carried the Queens/Brooklyn district by 11 percentage points in 2008. Registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans in the district by 3-to-1.
In Nevada a former state Republican chairman, Mark Amodei, beat Democratic State Treasurer Kate Marshall by 28,000 votes in a congressional district Republicans had carried by only 800-odd votes in 2008. Marshall had been favored to win.
Events like this spook the herd. Even before that, congressional Democrats were running scared because of Democratic House losses in 2010 (63 seats giving Republicans control of the chamber) along with lesser losses in the Senate where Republicans could take control in 2012 (when more than twice as many Democratic as GOP incumbents will be on the ballot). Add the Tuesday results to the current dismal economic outlook — as well as Obama's falling approval numbers — and the incumbents will be looking for ways to separate themselves from the president and his policies. Nothing is more important to an incumbent than his or her own survival. Take it from there.
The question of a Democratic challenger to Obama: If an obvious alternative, such as Kennedy in 1979, presented him or herself, the race already would be getting underway. But the only obvious alternative at this point is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, narrowly defeated in the 2008 nomination race by Obama. She has foresworn any 2012 candidacy and, moreoever, already has expressed her intention to leave the Cabinet at the end of next year. No other Democrat at this point seems willing to mount a challenge.
The history of such intra-party challenges, in any case, is not promising for the incumbent party. In the end, for instance, Carter defeated Kennedy in 1980, although Kennedy entered the contest the favorite. But Carter was weakened sufficiently that his loss to Reagan was of landslide magnitude in November. Democrats may be restless or even angry with Obama, seeing Tuesday's congressional losses as referenda on his presidency, but in the end they will have no option but to rally behind his re-election and to sink or swim with him.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Sep 16, 4:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Where to begin? Carter not only had Teddy actively campaigning to his left, but John Anderson to his right. The most trusted man in America was signing off on his telecast every night with a running total of how long American hostages were being held in the most humiliating episode abroad since the founding of the Republic. A rescue attempt by a military he had strongly supported failed miserably. Inflation was not yet in check even if his chosen head of the Fed was instituting painful remedies that would fix what Nixon and Ford could not. And let's not leave out the gas lines, Americans love the their cars more than they love their guns. Obama has many problems of his own, and like Carter he's even-keeled to a fault, too friendly to conservatives who will never work with him under any circumstances, and seems to not understand the art and necessity of arm-twisting and favors to get things done. But the differences are huge- Afghanistan & Pakistan are not center stage and not conspicuously unsuccessful, and Obama hung the Bin-Ladin trophy on the wall. He gets to brag about saving GM. And if his record on Gitmo, wiretapping, bank regulation, among many issues is less than stellar, a nod at his opponent will stiffen many a democratic spine. Carter also didn't have to work against a monolithic disciplined opposition party, which might have given pause to the unsteady.Even with all those disadvantages for Carter, Reagan managed to win with less than 51% of the popular vote. And he didn't have to answer for anything like the legacy of George W. Bush like whichever nutcase gains the nomination for the GOP.
Romney might be handsome but he doesn't charm anyone, like St. Ronnie did, and his moderate record is at wide variance with his current rhetoric. His faith doesn't sit well with many of the most militant conservatives. If you're betting on him Ted, take odds. Perry, Bachmann, or Palin won't cut it with the mushy middle in November. Obama is fortunate in the quality of his opponents. Left or right, it's pretty thin pickings. If you still want to draw comparisons with Presidents in the 1980's, Obama has a lot of that Reagan charm. An overrated quality, but it's something.
Posted Fri, Sep 16, 11:01 a.m. Inappropriate
What brought Solyndra and Evergreen Solar down was the huge subsidies that China has poured into developing its Solar PV manufacturing capacity. The US subsidies to Solyndra and Evergreen Solar total about $1 billion, but China subsidized its solar PV manufacturing sector to the tune of about $16 billion in 2010 alone. That's why the price of PV has been dropping precipitously. This is good for end users, but bad for US manufacturers. And please, no blathering about the magic marketplace deciding that China can more efficiently manufacture PV cells and panels than the US. Market fundamentalism does not explain this at all. Its because China has a deliberate national economic policy re: energy that includes ramping up renewables as rapidly as possible. The US has a de facto policy of subsidizing the entrenched fossil fuel dinosaurs that don't need it and are killing us.
As fot Obama, we need a transformative president and Obama certainly is not it. His recent decision on the proposed EPA ozone standards sounded like it was written by Rick Perry. It echoed every single one of the Tea-Publican memes. Obama has now completely alienated his base. And those are the people who knocked on doors, made telephone calls, etc. in 2008. I won't vote for the Tea-Publcan crazies, but Obama will have to actually earn my vote - let alone help in the campaign - this time.
Posted Fri, Sep 16, 11:05 a.m. Inappropriate
I nominate NickBob to take over as Crosscut's chief national political analyst. BTW, is anyone discussing having Obama put Hillary on the ticket with him, and move Biden over to Secretary of State? That would be good politics and good government. It would give Obama's campaign a much-needed boost, and position Hillary well for 2016.
Posted Fri, Sep 16, 11:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Is there going to be a James Carville solution to Obama's woes by firing a bunch of hopey, changy hacks? Is Obama clinically depressed and the New York Times also too depressed to run their story? Are there countless more Solyndras out there? What is really going on with Obama, E-verify, and the Social Security Number 042-68-4425?? Maybe more bad weeks and months ahead?
Posted Fri, Sep 16, 12:57 p.m. Inappropriate
If Romney is the pick & wins, tis only becuz the moor stupider of republicon--servatives ---- THEM & there drinkin buddies once again paid enuf ta buy a win 4Richy boys (old enuf to NO better?) While the rest of us LOST 10years of their idiotos-bimbos men/women speaker-types what talk weird & all republicanny.
U FaiL so badly, Seattlers, yor Ngineers R nuts. Just ADMIT IT & replace thee worst Crunican leftover department chiefs, directors, managers, lead thinkers for years of project design questions on Mercer West & related street reconfigurations which worsen traffic hazard & air pollution.
Killing Mercer West kills the Malevolently Worse DBT.
It's always been for your good people, this noisy alarm of mine.
Gut instinct is all that's required to:
Build peer rejection based on 'displacement' of watery soils & flows beneath tower & historic building foundations.
Like I've always said & will keep saying, "Mike is right"
Figure it out, weirdos....
Posted Sun, Sep 18, 7:36 p.m. Inappropriate
Are we seriously trying to compare Obama to Carter? Carter was 30 years ago! The entire world has changed since then.
I hope people in the media can focus on more things than the jobs numbers. Our country is alot more complicated and sophisticated than just the unemployment numbers. Perhaps the media can be too.
As citizens, our lives depend SO much on the person who is the President since that office functions almost like a dictatorship in some ways since President Cheney expanded the powers of the President during his 8 year term. Maybe the press could focus on that. Maybe it could focus on the illegal detainment of U.S. citizens like Bradley Manning. Maybe it could focus on how many factories in the U.S. have been closed due to 'free-market' advocates.
Try watching the documentary, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" and you'll never vote for a Republican President ever again. Bush and Ken Lay , along with Dick Cheney and his secret energy task force, pushed Enron on the country and defrauded unknown numbers of people. Does anyone still remember the rolling blackouts in California due to the fraud of Enron traders? Does anyone remember the Aunt Millie recordings that Senator Cantwell got released? How about the billions that Washington State was defrauded for?
Here's a little refresher from the LA Times: http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/310.pdf
As far as Republicans picking a Reagan style winner, let's be serious. They have no one like that on their bench. Their top candidate, Rick Perry, believes Global Warming is nothing more than a global conspiracy of the top scientists to create a fake theory about weather change. And that they all agreed on what that fraud would be.
Perhaps if the media focused on the GOP's global warming story instead of the jobs numbers, people would be more fully informed.
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 7:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Even if the Chinese manufacturers are subsidized, from the purchaser's point of view they are the least expensive and therefore the most efficient, and so they draw the customers. And that's the "magic of the marketplace" in a nutshell. It's your own "blathering" that points this out.
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 2:38 p.m. Inappropriate
Drop the "poor Obama" line, Van Dyk. No matter how much you hope, no matter how much you whine, the Democratic Party will never be the party you dream they are. They are a pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street, pro-war party and always have been. The reason they continue to pass themselves off as the people's party is because hacks like you spend a great deal of time "selling" them to voters as the people's party. In the meantime, the Democrats are now pushing for the end of Social Security, Medicare, and every other social reform of the last 100 years.
You have the right to your own faith just as religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party do. But you do not have the right to your own facts.
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 7:59 p.m. Inappropriate
The reason the political parties are pro-corporate and pro-war is because that's where the money is. It's funny how lrlopez blames this on the Democrats rather than the corrupt corporations and war profiteering contractors. Dwight Eisenhower warned our country about this 50 years ago. Yet, all we get are articles that point fingers at the President and compare him to Jimmy Carter. As Major General Smedley Butler wrote:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Major General Smedley D. Butler, 1935
US Marines Corps
2 time winner - Congressional Medal of Honor
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 8:05 p.m. Inappropriate
As we speak, a 5 day long protest is happening in China at a Solar manufacturing plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/asia/chinese-protesters-accuse-solar-panel-plant-of-pollution.html?scp=1&sq;=china%20and%20solar&st;=cse
Even in Communist China, people are sick and tired of the government abusing them and they're fighting back.
From the article:
According to Chinese news reports, residents claimed runoff from solid waste laced with fluoride and improperly stored at the plant had been swept into the nearby river after heavy rainfall on Aug. 26. They said that a sea of dead fish rose to the surface, covering hundreds of square yards of water. Pigs whose sties had been washed with river water also were reported to have died.
Any brave believer of the 'free market' want to volunteer to locate this plant next to their home, or their school?
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 9:38 p.m. Inappropriate
One needs to be careful when making generalization concerning such a complex society as China, especially when the information is subject to the filters of ocean, language, and the US media.
In February, the Chinese premier reduced the country's target economic growth rates from 8% to 7% in order to address environmental issues.
From "The Guardian":
"In an online discussion on Sunday, the premier, Wen Jiabao, said China's 2011-15 economic plan would lower the target for annual GDP growth "to raise the quality and efficiency of economic growth"
He said: "We absolutely cannot again sacrifice the environment as the cost for high-speed growth, to have blind development, and in that way to create over-capacity and put greater pressure on the environment and resources. That economic development is unsustainable."
Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/28/china-gdp-emissions
Posted Mon, Sep 19, 10:35 p.m. Inappropriate
@ Richard's "Are we seriously trying to compare Obama to Carter?
NO, most of us are desperately trying NOT to compare Obama to Carter. Unfortunately their luck so far seems to be a dead match, but hopefully, this time too we have the time to find out or a leader will come out of the woodwork.
@ Pyth: Words are cheap and the proposed changes you note, minuscule.
Posted Tue, Sep 20, 7:52 p.m. Inappropriate
The reality in the case of Solyndra is that China is subsidizing their solar energy industry and the U.S. is not. Some of the comments above seem to say that the U.S. should cede this industry to a communist country rather than violate some nonexistent rules of the 'free market'. The free market is a myth. It may exist at a flea market but this is the global marketplace boys and girls.
Republicans seem to celebrate the failure of the American business community and U.S. government in the solar energy industry. It's almost like , 'Hurray, Obama failed.' Is this his Carter moment? Hurray, solar energy is going to communist China. It's a pathetic celebration of weakness and failure.
Posted Wed, Sep 21, 7:54 p.m. Inappropriate
"nonexistent rules of the 'free market'" That's a good one. As is labeling those assumed to be Republicans as trying to compare getting hung up on "nonexistent rules" to a Carter moment. Carter may have had the equivalent of a Chicago problem, but I don't recall them as so blatant, except maybe Billy, and even Clinton, a recognized leader, had one of those. Fish harder in that partisan tool box.
Posted Thu, Sep 22, 12:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Unfortunately for the country Obama is no Roosevelt, but he's no Jimmy Carter either. Carter had a hard time making any decisions, Obama has no such problem. That he makes ones that favor his corporate backers is a function of the destruction of our republic by the big money interests. However global capitalism is coming down, and sooner rather than later as the euro is on the brink of dissolving back into the murk from whence it came. As a currency without a government to control it is a monster that isn't controllable when times get bad. So Obama may yet have his Roosevelt moment in late 2011 early 2012.
As for the Republthugs, there isn't a sane candidate among the lot. While the Democrats appease the big money, the republthugs are the storm troopers of it seeking to dismantle everything that Roosevelt & Johnson put in place. If they were ever to succeed they would rue the day when the riots break out and the Hamptons goes up in flames.
As for China, the repression of information is leaking everywhere. As bad as we may think it is here, the idea that is America speaks loudly to those who are oppressed. The fear that the masses have had enough, poor pay, terrible working conditions, pollution, and soon no European markets leading to unbelievable numbers of unemployed without farms to go back to will cause a huge change. It's been the fear of every Chinese dynasty, the peasant revolt.
Posted Fri, Sep 23, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate
@afreeman. This isn't partisan. It's a matter of wanting our country to win the solar manufacturing war. By definition, a free market should be free of government or any other subsidies. Otherwise it's not free is it? When it comes to solar, China wants to win and they're pumping money in it to do so. They're providing tons of subsidies while the Republican party cedes this industry to a foreign country.
Personally I'm pretty sick and tired of the loser attitude of the Republican party. I'm not sure why people celebrate the loss of manufacturing jobs to a foreign country. I think it's only a matter of time before Boeing announces that they're moving they're manufacturing overseas to China. Moving their HQ to Chicago and some of their manufacturing to South Carolina is just a warmup. No doubt the Republicans will throw a big party when that happens. Instead of being called the Rust Belt, perhaps Puget Sound will just be called the Aluminum Belt.
Posted Fri, Sep 23, 8:10 p.m. Inappropriate
In recent history I'd rate Obama and Carter as the best. Next in line would be Clinton and Bush the father. Reagan and Bush/Cheney set back civilization.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.