How Is America Looking in the Eyes of the World

 American “exceptionalism” was first trumpeted in 1831 by the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who lauded our emerging nation’s unique ideology based on limited government, liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and populism.   America became the destination of Europeans tired of being politically and religiously oppressed by theocratic despots and economically oppressed by the privileged ruling classes.  America offered the opportunity for economic progress based on effort rather than class standing.  It was the ‘golden door’ as immortalized on the base of the Statue of Liberty.

In European eyes, America’s promise continued well into the twentieth century.  In 1941 FDR articulated to the world America’s support for four fundamental freedoms– speech and expression, worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  Subsequent Administrations, with bipartisan support, endeavored to mitigate economic and political discrimination against minorities and to provide economic safety nets to the recently unemployed and to families with dependent children.  Steps were taken to ensure health coverage to the aged, the young and low income earners.

Over the last decade, however, government programs to secure ‘freedom from want’ have been increasingly called into question.  Many now feel that government economic guarantees serve as a disincentive to the personal industry and accountability they considered critical to America’s successes.  Concomitantly, the rapid increase in the share of income going to richest Americans has resulted in increased attention to ‘class warfare’.  Conflicts over the appropriate role for government currently now take center stage in the political arena.

West Europeans, in contrast, have remained widely supportive of a different social compact.  They are accepting of higher tax burdens and a relative leveling in incomes in order to assure economic well being and economic opportunity for all citizens.  Individual liberties are protected by institutionalizing the tolerance of differences. Governments are trusted to do the bidding of the people.

West European governments walk the talk when it comes to personal liberty and tolerance.  Throughout most of Western Europe, abortion is legal upon request, or exceptions are made for rape, health, mental illness, and fetal defects.  All West European countries have either legalized  gay marriage or same-sex civil unions.

West Europeans consider it essential to ensure that all of their fellow countrymen have access to a basic standard of living.   Access to health care is considered as a right not a privilege.    Minimum wages are set at levels that allow workers to stand on their own two feet.  West Europeans see an American income distribution heavily skewed in favor of the richest classes, an American middle class under siege, and lower classes unable to gain access to basic necessities.

 West Europeans understand the importance of education to upward mobility, which studies have shown is now greater than in the United States.  The quality of public education is relatively standardized throughout each nation, while college tuition is either free or heavily subsidized:  many American students, however, are disadvantaged by inadequate public schooling or find themselves priced out of a college education.
Europeans look to and trust government to provide a wide range of services on their behalf, and accept a heavy tax burden to get the job done.  They view the American political system as being rendered ineffective by partisanship, noting that American confidence in its Congress is at record lows.  West Europeans also see the increased influence of American moneyed interests in engineering legislation and influencing electoral outcomes.  They read about actions taken by states to potentially limit voter access to the ballot box.
Americans tend to be dismissive of European attitudes across the board, and are loath assess our nation’s strengths and weakness vis-à-vis other countries.

Most Americans feel government has become too costly: many Americans believe there are limits as to what behaviors should be tolerated in order to maintain the American way.    The prospect of increasing taxes on the majority of Americans in order to address current financial problems, broaden entitlement programs, or substantially improve educational quality seems beyond the pale, regardless of the political party in power.

We are truly a great country, capable of great deeds.  We remain the richest and most powerful nation on earth. We are a warm, welcoming, and engaging people.  We are ‘can do’.  Although a 21^st century de Tocqueville would be quick to acknowledge America’s accomplishments and its unique role on the world’s stage, one wonders whether he would continue to characterize America as exceptional vis-à-vis West European countries.   West Europeans clearly have problems of their own, but –unlike here - they have resolved the conflicts over the appropriate role for government in ensuring economic security, educational equality, and individual choice.

The Right Misses a Key Point on Taxes

A number of pundits, particularly on cable TV, talk about the power shifting to a nation of takers.  The unstated part of this premise is that the rich will be burdened to satisfy the 'demands' of those who cannot fend for themselves.  Framed in this way it is all out class war.

There is, however, another paradigm.  Progressives believe that the state should ensure some standard of support to all citizens and they are willing to pay for this support in the form of higher taxes.  Although President Obama is currently pushing for higher taxes only on the rich, I do believe the middle class will also accept higher tax burdens.  This is a multi- step process (a) higher taxes on rich and cuts on spending, (b) tax reform which will, at worst, be revenue neutral, (c) review of Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, education with a decision as to the appropriate end state.

Tuesday's Choice

 President Obama’s performance over the last four years has been bittersweet:

• He did not take advantage of Congressional majorities when he had them.  Invoking reconciliation rules would have allowed the curtailment of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. 
• Simply put, he does not like conflict and the Republicans, sensing this, gave him more than he could handle.   He did not use the Bully pulpit to push through the programs he said he would push through when running for office.  The American people believe he would not compromise with the right to get bills passed:  why did he not trumpet the right’s intransigence at the time so he could run against Congress and seek a Democratic congress this time around.  Where was Lyndon Johnson when you needed him?  Did Obama put his passion in a jar once elected?  
• He did not explain things to the American voter: it is criminal that Obama care was so misunderstood.  He allowed the right to define his signature program.
• He did little to effectively end the misery of those whose houses were under water making them unable to refinance their homes at reduced interest rates.  Laws were passed, to be sure, but they clearly didn’t do the trick.  He should have stayed on top of the situation.  It would have been nice if the Federal government directly lent people funds rather than ‘work’ through recalcitrant banks who had little interest in refinancing high interest loans.
• He did not fight for the unemployed when his jobs bill became hung up in Congress.  This was an important bill and he should have taken his case to the American people.  People suffered because of his capitulation.

On the flip side, President Obama demonstrated his ability to make sound decisions, and accept the risk of political failure should things not pan out.   

• The Detroit bail-out was done quickly and effectively.
• He said he would be tough on terrorists and he was.  While restoring US credibility as a team player on most international issues, he was ruthless when it came to terrorists.
• He is well reasoned and calm when things get tough: witness the response to Sandy.
• I envision a re-elected Obama as taking a different tack with Congress, but frankly do not look for any landmark legislation over the next four years.  In order to get things done you have to be willing to go to the mat.  I think he will remain too cautious.  On the other hand, I am comfortable that things will not get out of hand internationally.  Washington’s central role in maintaining economic safety nets will continue.

It is hard to discuss Mitt Romney because I have no idea what he will do as President based on the total inconsistency of his rhetoric.

• Based on his Massachusetts experience, I see him as a moderate leader.  However, I am nervous about his ‘pliability’ and wonder whether he will stand up neoconservatives and those who call for major cutbacks in government roles. 
• I worry that pushing responsibilities back on the states will lead to permanent damage to the safety nets which have evolved.  [For me it is important that citizens be able to get medical care when ill and that children receive the support they need to develop the potential to succeed as adults.]  
• Lastly, Mitt Romney has demonstrated, at a minimum, an inability to relate to the concerns and needs of most Americans: at best he holds callous and dismissive attitudes toward those that struggle to make it.  This I personally cannot abide in a President.

 There you have it… Obama is the choice but not without some reservations.

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.  

Electoral Score Card

This election is supposed to be about the economy but neither side has provided specifics on how they would improve economic performance if elected.  I was surprised that Obama did not bring up the major jobs bill that he sent to Congress; it provided a clear road map of his likely intentions.  The Democrats made a credible glass is half-full argument, but I wonder if anyone was listening.  If the Republicans have a plan, they are keeping it close.  I think Clinton’s ‘mathematics’ criteria comes into play here.  Also, since they are the party of ‘something new and different’ on this one, all they have to do is run against Obama’s record. 
  
The Democrats gain an edge on the ‘debt’ issue.  The idea of a tax cut, as proffered by the Republicans flies in the face of a need to balance the budget.  The Democrats make the case, unchallenged by Republicans, which any Republican ‘balancing’ will come through cuts in deductions that will fall heavily on the middle class.  The Democrats also pointed out that –with the military scheduled to get a major increased in Federal funding- the burden of the cuts will be borne by massive cuts to non-defense discretionary spending.  The Democratic answer, drawing on Simpson-Bowles, requires cuts in defense and non-defense spending along with tax increases, primarily on the rich.  To me the Democratic plan is more sensible and plausible.

The Democrats win the national security argument hands down.  T he Obama administration can point to one success after another in this area.  Romney’s talking points – we should not have left Iraq, we may need to invade Iran – raise the specter of a return to the neoconservative approach of President Bush.  Romney’s foreign trip yielded several vignettes of a naïve and simplistic approach.  The fact that he did not take the time and effort to become well briefed speaks volumes about where his interests lie and possible his arrogance that it didn’t matter.

The difference between Republican and Democratic approaches to economic safety nets is particularly stark.  Clearly Republicans will seek to cut spending and otherwise lower the burden on the well endowed to lend a hand to the less fortunate.  Clearly, the Democrats will continue to support, if not expand, medical coverage and aid to education.  If you share President Obama’s view of citizenship, than your choice is clear.  If you believe, instead, that government support to the less fortunate -by rewarding a lack of planning and personal industry- is counterproductive, than your choice is equally clear.

President Obama and the Democrats have not done well over the last four years dealing with Republic intractability: one of the traits of a successful President is the ability to marshal the political consensus required to get his programs passed and this has proven to be the President’s Achilles heel.  The Republicans have won the public relations war: most Americans think we are worse off than when Obama took office, and most Americans haven’t a clue about the full set of advantages offered by Obamacare.   It took President Clinton to make the case in a way they could understand. 

President Obama did not use his bully pulpit to punish the Republicans for their intransigence, despite the rampant evidence – including specific statements by Republican Congressional leadership- that denying him a legislative victory took precedence over solving America’s problems.   The fact that most American’s do not understand how they have benefited from Obama’s leadership is his problem and his alone.   It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a President to care about the welfare of the average American, it is necessary that the average American believe that they have benefited from the President’s stewardship.  Whether the President can make this case over the last several weeks of a four year term is problematical.

Limiting Federal Overreach

John Robert’s decision that Congress had the right to penalize individuals who choose not to obtain health insurance was viewed with dismay by many who felt the program to be a classic example of federal government overreach.    Overshadowed was the potentially profound impact of the second part of the Supreme Court’s ruling:  that Congress has no authority to order the states to regulate according to its instructions; that States must have a genuine choice whether to accept or reject any federal government offer.   Now that Washington could no longer threaten to cut off all Medicaid funding to states that did not go along with the increased coverage offered under Obamacare, some five states have announced their intention to say thanks but no thanks. Some 25 additional states are reportedly leaning in this direction.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision goes well beyond Obamacare.  The drafters of the Constitution took care to limit the federal government’s powers vis-à-vis the states: Washington was given the power to tax, borrow and spend, and control over interstate commerce.  All other powers were to reside with the states.  Beginning with Roosevelt’s New Deal and continuing with Johnson’s Great Society, Washington has used its taxing and spending powers to promote the ”general welfare” in road building, education, housing, unemployment benefits, and a wide range of social ‘safety net’ programs.   This has been true under both Republican and Democratic Administrations.  Constitutionally, states have the right to refuse these programs, but historically they have been enticed by Federal carrots  -the funding that comes with the program—and threatened by the stick -   loosing federal funds in other areas.

As the federal government’s footprint in state finances grew ever larger – some fifty percent of North Carolina’s revenues now come from Washington- Congress has become bolder in levying detailed instructions on how a state should or should not act.  In some cases these mandates were unfunded: states either accepted new intrusions and their costs or risk losing substantial Federal funds. 
The Bush Administration’s bipartisan legislation, No Child Left behind (NCLB), is the classic case:  without sufficient federal funding states were required to follow detailed instructions in school accountability and to implement parental choice to opt out of poor-performing schools.  Failure to do so would lead to a loss in all educational assistance from the Federal government, largely Title One funds to help the disadvantaged student populations.  If the recent Supreme Court ruling had been in effect in 2001, it seems clear that many states would have opted out of NCLB.   Even with all educational funding to their states at risk, some fifteen states reportedly were considering opting out of the program by 2005. 

The Supreme Court decision has effectively taken away the government’s stick when it comes to achieving state compliance to federal programs and policies enacted to promote the general welfare.  State acquiesce to environmental regulations has been achieved, in part, by the threatened loss of highway funding.  One wonders if states will now feel free to opt out of new, and tighter, clean air act standards. 

The long term effects of the Supreme Court ruling are problematical.  It will take some time, and probably additional Supreme Court cases, before the acceptable degree of Federal government coercion is determined.   In the interim one can expect state governments, emboldened by the ability to say ‘no’ to Obamacare, to decline to continue to participate in other federal ‘offerings’.  The federal government, for its part, will be far more attentive to state concerns when drafting legislation and far more likely to be forthcoming with the funding levels required to gain state acceptance.  One can expect to see significant differences among states in the acceptance and application of federal programs.  Such differences, I believe, are entirely consistent with the framers, which sought to limit the role of the federal government by giving all unspecified powers to state governments.

Although one may believe that a check on the federal government’s often abusive use of its spending powers is long overdue, one cannot help but wonder about the downside risks of greater state autonomy.   Will it matter if some states abide by federal educational guidelines while others do not?  If North Carolina agrees to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion while Virginia and South Carolina do not, will the state see a population gain from people seeking medical coverage?  If North Carolina continues to follow clean air act stipulations, while Virginia does not, will North Carolina see some of its industry leaving for less restrictive pastures?  This country began as nation of states that collectively decided to cede certain powers to a national authority.  It has evolved into a nation with increasingly centralized power.  In deciding on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court has opened the door for a significant reversal of this dynamic.  One can only stay tuned to see how it plays out.