Alec MacGillis: Ohio Politics

Here's a thorough examination of the current state of politics in Ohio. As an important swing-state in the presidential election, many eyes will be focused here over the next 6 months of campaigning.

"Lodge 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police is housed, along with 446 jail cells, inside the Mahoning County Justice Center, a forbidding brick and steel hulk at the edge of the frayed downtown of Youngstown, Ohio. It’s a humble office, but its proprietors have embellished it with a number of rather pointed political decorations. There is a spoof of Shepard Fairey’s iconic Barack Obama poster, with the face of Ohio’s Republican governor, John Kasich, in place of the president’s and the word “DOUCHE” written across the bottom instead of “HOPE.” There is a newspaper clip describing protests by police officers last year in Columbus, the state capital. And there is a quotation from Martin Luther King decrying “right-to-work” laws, which limit the power of unions."

You can read the entire piece here.

Jonathan Cohn: Romneycare Offers Significant Clues to What Obamacare Would Do

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic has a great article up today focusing on some conclusions we can make about Obamacare's implementation, namely to use what has happened in Massachusetts since Mitt Romney passed Romneycare (the blueprint of Obamacare). You can read the entire article here.

"But we can imagine what the world would be like if the new law were already in place. One way is to go back through the data, and figure out what would have happened over the last decade if the Affordable Care Act, or something like it, had been in place. Steven Hill, a senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did just that. And he's published his findings in Health Affairs:"

If adults who had individual insurance during 2001–08 had instead had benefits similar to those under the Affordable Care Act, their average annual out-of-pocket spending on medical care and drugs might have been $280 less. The near-elderly and people with low incomes might have saved $589 and $535, respectively. An important improvement would have been the reduced probability of incurring very high out-of-pocket spending. The likelihood of having out-of-pocket expenditures on care exceeding $6,000 would have been reduced for all adults with individual insurance, and the likelihood of having expenditures exceeding $4,000 would have been reduced for many.

This part is also good: "The usual rap on the Massachusetts health reforms is that they haven’t controlled medical costs. And it’s true: Romneycare hasn’t slowed the growth in health care spending. But that was never its goal. The idea was to expand coverage and then, hopefully, address costs later. This is precisely what the state is doing right now: Lawmakers and stakeholders are hammering out a law that, they hope, will blaze a trail for cost containment just as the previous reforms blazed a trail for coverage expansion. (For more on these efforts, see this great primer from Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post.)"

Obama Pushes For Economic Stimulus Over Austerity at G8 Summit

This weekend, President Obama held an informal summit of the G8 leaders at Camp David, prior to the NATO summit being held in Chicago on Sunday and Monday. The talks of the this first-of-its-kind Camp David meeting focused primarily on the volatile economic woes plaguing much of Europe and its effects on the U.S.’s tepid economic recovery.

President Obama offered his take on the situation in Europe, addressing concerns of Spain’s worsening fiscal crisis and Greece’s possible exit from the European Union, and the disastrous effects a Greece default will have on the rest of Europe, which would surely send shockwaves throughout much of the world and certainly have an impact on the economy here at home. The President pushed for the G8 leaders to assure Greece’s stability and the rest of Europe’s commitment to keeping Greece in the Union, but more importantly spoke of the necessity for Europe to relinquish their intractable stance on austerity measures that have recoiled Europe back into recession. The good news for President Obama is that he will surely have a new ally in his calls for less austerity and more stimulus in France’s newly-elected President, Francois Hollande. Hollande is the first socialist president France has elected since the early 1990′s, and won the French election a few weeks ago on a populist wave amidst growing criticism of the austerity measures that has left Europe reeling with record unemployment.

Obama’s increased pressure on Europe to enact stimulus measures should come as no surprise to those familiar with the President’s leanings. The stimulus plan the President passed after taking office in 2009 was nearly a $1 trillion, but he wanted more. Republicans wouldn’t do it, and Obama compromised, partly because the severity of the recession was still unknown to many, and the administration reduced the amount from $1.2 trillion to about $800 billion. The stimulus, by most accounts, saved anywhere from 2-4 million people from losing their jobs during the worst of the recession. Since that time, Obama has spoken often of the need for more spending and stimulus, but a Republican-controlled Congress is absolutely unwilling to negotiate any new spending measures unless offset by cuts in other departments (excluding defense, of course…), and will do nothing at this point if it will add to the deficit, nothing except reduce taxes on the wealthy, which account for an immense portion of our current deficit.

I feel Obama’s posturing on the plight facing Europe will be viewed as strictly political. I’m anticipating pundits dismissing the President’s recommendations to his fellow G8 allies as a way to stave off critique should the economies in Europe continue to decline and those effects make their way across the Atlantic. If our economy should falter, unemployment rise, stocks dip, any of these things, Obama’s re-election chances become even slimmer.

But aren’t Mitt Romney’s attacks on the President’s handling of the economy after the recession also political? Aren’t the things pretty much any elected politician do political? Yes, they are. Obama’s hardened stance on Europe’s austerity failure should not be viewed as political, should not be construed as ‘saving his skin’ when it comes to criticism for the country’s economic woes. The President was elected to help the American people. A weakened economy in Europe will certainly be felt here before too long with our economic situation so anemic. The President is trying to prevent hardship on the people he was elected to protect. And, you know, he’s trying to lessen the burden so many Europeans are feeling because of the failed policies of austerity economics.

Cory Booker Doesn't Like Obama Bain Ad, Realizes Later He's Not Allowed to Think For Himself

On Sunday morning’s Meet the Press, Newark Mayor Cory Booker had some pointed criticism for President Barack Obama’s recent campaign ads attacking Mitt Romney’s record as a “job creator” with Bain Capital. Booker, comparing the Obama ads with Republican ads that were going to air (but now will not) drawing comparisons to Obama’s ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said these kinds of campaign tactics were “nauseating.”
“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough,” Booker said during the round-table discussion.

This was apparently ill-advised criticism of the President’s re-election campaign strategy as Sunday night Booker posted a video to YouTube clarifying his remarks and insisting it is “reasonable” for the Obama team to criticize Romney’s Bain Capital rhetoric.

In the video, Mayor Booker tries to clarify that it’s not the content of the ad that he found nauseating, per se, but the denegrating trend of campaign ads. Booker does not find the Obama campaign’s use of Romney’s Bain record as nauseating. In fact, since Romney himself has made his economic policies a forefront of his campaign, he believes the Obama campaign is “reasonable” to use Bain criticism against Romney, and Booker actually “encourages” it. What the Mayor finds “nauseating” is the use of Romney’s Bain Capital record in TV ads because Romney’s record at Bain Capital had so many negative outcomes! In other words: ‘It’s okay to attack Romney’s record for all the negative outcomes he had with Bain Capital, just don’t make a negative campaign ad.’ This makes no sense.

Towards the beginning of Booker’s Sunday night video, he says, “And now [Obama's] focus on other issues going forward to me provide the best hope for our nation moving forward.” [My emphasis added.] It’s funny that Mayor Booker should use the term “forward” since it’s essentially what the Obama campaign is boiling their campaign message down to be. Were there some phone calls made Sunday to Mayor Booker about what he should be saying when he’s on TV?

Since when did it become impossible to think for yourself in politics? Just because you align yourself with a particular political affiliation, this does not mean you have to agree with that party on every single thing!! I commend Cory Booker for taking a stand and saying what he thinks about Obama’s campaign focus so far.

Besides now taking both sides of the “What’s fair game in campaign ads?” debate, Booker did offer some important criticism for Team Obama towards the end of Sunday night’s YouTube video. We need to “focus on the issues that count,” Booker says. He’s right. As I’ve said before, the Obama campaign is far too focused on their past accomplishments and with simply painting Romney as a far-right, ‘back to the days of George Bush’ candidate. The Obama campaign is offering little to their supporters of what we can expect from him over the next 4 years if we vote for him in November. With less than 6 months before the election, it’s high-time Obama’s supporters are told exactly what he plans to do next.

Can North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban Awaken the Silent Majority?

It wasn’t a surprising outcome. With a week before the official vote, polls showed overwhelming support of the amendment. So, on Tuesday, when North Carolinians stepped out of the voting booths, it was pretty clear what the outcome would be. After today, marriage would only be recognized between one man and one woman. North Carolina became the 30^th State to ban gay marriage. It would be remiss to state this as unprecedented. Maybe, though, this was the wakeup call needed for the unexcited, disillusioned liberals.

I woke up this morning with my inbox flooded with PAC, nonprofit, and grassroots email blasts excoriating North Carolina for passing Amendment 1, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Facebook was replete with posts and links pertaining to the vote, but not from the usual suspects. People tending to shy away from political opinions on their feeds were up-in-arms over the vote, casting shame on the voters in North Carolina who supported the amendment. On Twitter and news sites, it was much of the same from liberals and Democrats. But something may have happened last night that’s bigger than North Carolina. With just six months prior to the election, a swath of young voters no longer “energized” behind President Obama and, by extension, Democrats across the country running for office, may now see one man cannot make all the difference. They must be active. Voters, you must be engaged.

The issue of gay marriage highlights perfectly the disheartened sect of democratic voters with the President. During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama proclaimed a sturdy acceptance of equal marriage rights and a promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But since his election, the President has softened on his strong support for marriage equality, his campaign staff defensively claiming his “evolution” on the matter of gay marriage. This is strictly a political move by the President, one that he hopes will pull some independents and maybe moderate conservatives his way before the election, though it’s caused a rift in the liberal base (despite his kept promise of repealing DODT). What has happened over 3 years is that the President made wide-sweeping promises during his campaign, aiming high, and only finding he can reach the middle unless congressional allies can help him. Liberals are disappointed that all the things he promised have yet to come true. But liberals have only themselves to blame.

They sat on the sidelines in Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy passed away and Republicans elected conservative Scott Brown into his Senate seat, effectively guaranteeing health-care reform’s failure. Then the midterm elections rolled through and liberal voters sat back as a Tea Party coalition of far-right candidates were swept into office, effectively jeopardizing much of Obama’s campaign priorities. Do you think government should be more proactive in regards to the economy by increasing spending? Not with conservative deficit-hawks and "austerity" Republicans in the House and Senate. You want strong Wall Street reform? Tough, you let Republicans water down Dodd-Frank. You want higher taxes on the rich? Sorry, Republicans have all signed (non-elected official) Grover Norquist’s tax pledge to never, never raise taxes on the wealthy. You want better funding for public education, health care, parks? Too bad! Republicans want to slash the budgets on all of those things to give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. You want equal protection under the law for women, gays, lesbians, transgender, hell, any minority (!!)? Sorry to break it to ya, none of that will happen with a Congress controlled by neo-cons who view their God’s law as more important than your rights.

“I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Tami Fitzgerald, head of the pro-Amendment 1 group Vote FOR Marriage NC. “The whole point is simply that you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design based on the demands of a group of adults.” In other words, the rights of the minority are at the whims of the (Christian) majority.

But, statistical trends show that Ms. Fitzgerald does not speak for the rest of the country, which for the first time in our history is on the side of equal marriage rights for LGBT individuals. I do agree with Ms. Fitzgerald: North Carolina very likely did send a message to the rest of the country, just not the message she was hoping for. Judging by the reaction, last night's outcome seems a plausible alarm for liberals to get excited about this election, or they can certainly expect more of the same after November.

“We have courage like we never had before,” said Jeremy Kennedy of Protect All NC Families, a group opposed to Amendment 1, “and we have strength to carry on.”

I think, I can only hope, the true “silent majority” is finally awake.

Robert Reich: "Who's an economy for?"

That's the question UC Berkeley Chancellor Professor of Public Policy asks to lead off this blog piece about Europe's weekend elections

"Voters in France and Greece have made it clear it’s not for the bond traders."

Reich looks at the wide-ranging effects this weekend's elections could have on other European countries and some possible affects here at home.

Krugman: "Revolting" Europeans

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today looks at the failure of Europe's leaders to address their unemployment and other economic woes, opting instead to rely on austerity measures to restore "confidence" in the markets.

"What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper."

Krugman has been harping on Europe's economic problems for some time now, and it seems the voters in many European countries are taking notice and "revolting." You can read the entire article here.