Big Bird and the 47 Percent

Governor Romney’s statement that Big Bird would have to go, may turn out to have the same traction as his earlier discussion of the 47%.   There are a lot of government programs that may be of questionable value, but I don’t think Sesame Street sponsorship falls into this category.  Cancelling funding for PBS spotlights the depth of the Republican commitment to cutting government spending independent of any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.  

President Romney’s comments about trickle down government stem from the right’s view that the national government role should be limited to national security – where a significant spending boost is promised- and to a limited set of functions required to ensure the effective operation of the private economy.  If people wish greater government involvement-say universal health care- than they should be addressing their concerns to their respective state governments. 

This narrow reading of the Constitution’s mandate for the federal government to “promote the general welfare” may have a philosophical attraction for many, but we are not starting from scratch.  For better or worse, people have come to expect the support of their national government when they are hit by disasters, or are having trouble in feeding, clothing, housing their families as well as obtaining adequate health care.  Until now, Republican and Democratic administrations have adhered to the social contract that has evolved out of President Roosevelt’s response to the devastating effects of the Great Depression.  

Suggesting that States should shoulder the burdens is, at best, naive.   It ignores the potential that stage governments will not choose to pick up the role currently played by Washington.  Just look at the number of States who choose not to expand Medicaid support provided by Obamacare, even though the federal government was picking up 90% of the tab.   Moreover, states do not have and will not be granted the ability to run deficits.  In the worst of times, when government is most needed, States will be forced to cut spending due to reduced tax revenues.

If the states are, in fact, united than perhaps it would be best to have national solutions to national problems.  Do we really want a country where people are treated differently depending on the state they live in?  Do we really want a country where states are loath to establish programs out of fear that the disadvantaged will be encouraged to relocate within state borders?  When our country was founded, moving between states was a life changing event, often requiring weeks if not months of travel.  Today most states are reached within three days of driving.

Big Bird will be safe no matter what.  The fact of the matter is that donations can make up the difference. The same cannot be said for the social contract that has evolved over the last century.    As much as they would like to, the right cannot walk back the clock.  It makes for a good sound bite and has the support of many who do not require federal assistance.  In practice it is impractical and incredibly divisive: the attempt would most certainly lead to a push back led by a populist leader focused on restoring if not expanding the federal safety net at the expense of the 53%.

What I wanted Obama to Say

President Obama seemed off his game last night.  I don't think he really enjoys conflict one-on-one in the first place.  He also forgot he was in a debate... facts don't win debates, debaters do.  If I were there I would have focused on a couple of provocations.

• Firstly I would have pointed out that Governor Romney plans to cut the Federal Budget by moving programs to the states.  The implication is clear: do you trust your state government to pick up the slack or are you afraid that once States have to pick up the bill that Medicare and Medicaid will fall fall short of what people will need and have come to expect.  I would have used examples of State Medicaid actions that have deprived individuals of certain types of health care, for example providing an otherwise healthy thirty-year-old with a Kidney transplant.  States cut budgets when times get tough: God forbid you get sick during a recession.  Provide evidence as to what states have done during this recession: laying off people, cutting services.  There is a point to be made here.   Bottom Line: who do you trust folks.
• Secondly, I would point out that national problems require national solutions.    States that are more 'generous' with Medicaid will find people flowing to their borders, business will migrate to non-regulated regions and the like.  At the end of the day 'competition' will cause a 'race to the bottom'.  
• Thirdly, I would have come up with a zinger, and repeatedly used it, every time Romney provided a solution that didn't add up.  President Obama slipped in a couple, but did not have the heart for it.  "There you go, waving your manic wand again, promising lower taxes, reduced deficits, increased defense spending, and substantially higher employment without one iota of evidence as to how all of this can be done. "  I did like the line about why -if their plans are so good- the Republicans are keeping them secret.  "Where's the beef" would also work for me!
• Lastly, I would harp on the fact that Romney doesn't get it when it comes to the average person.  Push the 47% issue, point out that he has no idea how hard it is for people to make ends meet, to struggle on a daily basis.

President Obama has to remember that he has to stand up to Governor Romney on behalf of the people he represents.  He may be disappointed in his performance during the first four years, but he can't show it.