Winning the Battle, Losing the War: Part I

The current political dispute between Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the state’s public employee unions is the first battle in a struggle that will dominate the public policy arena at all levels of government in the next 10 years -- how to pay for public employee retirement benefits, what role public employee unions will play delivering government services and their role in the future of the Democratic Party.

I seek to explore these ideas in a series of forthcoming posts. My initial post will cover the cost of retirement benefits to state and local governments (SLGs). Future posts will cover what Walter Russell Mead calls the blue model, the problems of federal deficit spending and the how these disputes will change the political environment of America. Although I expect battles between Republican governors and public employee unions to energize the base of the Democratic Party in the 2012 elections, helping Obama secure his second term, the core public policies in dispute threatens to tear apart the Democratic Party – and will force a substantial political realignment.

Pensions & Unfunded Liabilities

Unlike the federal government, every state in the union (except for Vermont) has a legal requirement of a balanced budget. Although this can be offset in deficit years by relying on the bond market to cover shortfalls SLG’s don’t have the luxury of printing the world’s reserve currency to keep interest rates low, much less pay back the loans.

The wretched standing of SLG budgets has been a victim of the Great Recession. California alone saw revenues fall from $103 billion in 2007-08 to $83 billion in 2008-2009, and will only recover to an expected $94 billion in 2010-11. Revenue figures will improve as our nation’s economic recovery continues. Nevertheless, larger budget problems have been exposed during the crisis and loom ominously in the future.

Rather remarkably, the money discussed in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is just a mere fraction compared to the amount of money needed to right SLG pension obligations. Originally estimated to cost taxpayers $300 billion, recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures estimated TARP will end up costing taxpayers $25 billion. This does not include bailing out Fannie and Freddie Mac, which has cost $153 billion so far with the potential of an addition $68-$210 billion needed by 2013.

Estimates on the unfunded liabilities of the states vary. The Pew Center recently estimated the total to be $1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2008, yet this study used the accounting standards of state pension boards. Using standards required by the private sector the total could be as much as $3 trillion – and this doesn’t even include local governments! These unfunded liabilities has been recognized from figures across the political spectrum, from Reason to the Heritage Foundation to Washington Post progressive pundit Ezra Klein.

As the daunting dilemma has revealed itself investors and public officials have taken notice. Moody’s, the rating agency that rated junk housing derivates as AAA, recently announced they would factor in pension obligations into their credit ratings – even though these figures are not listed on their audited financial statements. This will certainly lower state credit ratings, increase interest rates on state issued debt and augment the strain placed on state budgets. An additional long term issue SLGs will have to confront is increasing health care costs for retired employees; not only will the number of retirees increase, so has the inflation rate for health care.

The same New York Times article linked above revealed states already have $2.8 trillion worth of outstanding bonds. This set of financial realities doesn’t paint an appealing picture for the future of state government budgets.

What in the World to Do?

Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: "We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance.” The states "should not expect loans from the Fed."

Felix Rohatyn, the longtime advisor to the Democratic Party and legendary financier who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, recently told the New York Times “it seems to me that crying wolf is probably a good thing to do at this point.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan: “throughout the country, 90 percent of cities and states are going to go bankrupt within the next five years, many of them sooner.”

SLGs are looking at financial armageddon in the next 10 years and the Fed won’t bail them out. What we are about to witness is best describe by astrophysicists as an “Impact Event.” The governance and political alliance structure of SLGs will never be the same after the dust settles.

Losing the 60th Seat

Imagine if the ghost of Election Future told Teddy the day after the '08 election that he would die soon and that the fate of health care reform depended on the results of the special election to replace him. I'm quite sure the lion of the Senate would've slammed down a scotch in celebration (or equivalent)!

It is absolutely remarkable how the Democrats have revived a completely disorganized, dysfunctional political party. It really comes down to the "economy stupid". Three major mistakes were made by the Obama administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party:

1. pushing health care ahead of economic reform, including financial regulation;
2. trusting that Keynesian economics work; and
3. realizing, because of the branding efforts by the Obama Presidential campaign, voters projected their own interpretations of him, and often times with radical different results.

Obama and his campaign made a very conscious effort to prevent the brand of Obama from becoming labeled by traditional political definitions. Although he had a perfect liberal rating as a U.S. Senator and was known for advocating rather liberal beliefs such as expanding the rights of Americans to health care and other social justice issues, he avoided being categorized as a traditional liberal through advocating for a "realist" foreign policy, a more efficient, results oriented approach to government services, charter schools and praising Ronald Reagan.

While this was a brilliant campaign strategy that was incredibly effective, it was extremely vulnerable once public policy was made and the vision of brand Obama was clarified by American voters. This vulnerability was further compounded by, frankly, the arrogance of the Obama administration. We saw this after Iowa, when team Obama was overly confident about New Hampshire. This overconfidence led to numerous mistakes and nearly cost him the nomination.

I would speculate team Obama became enamored of their poll numbers early on and sought to strengthen the depth of positive sentiments towards Obama by continually keeping Obama front and center of the media cycle. What ensued was overexposure. Press conference after press conference, announcement after announcement... it was soon all Obama all the time... even more that it would already naturally be as the first minority President that was the hope of saving the country from the previous administrations seemingly disastrous policies.

Furthermore, this overexposure was compounded by an apparent supreme confidence that his policies would turn around the economy and unemployment rate. This is where mistake #2 enters.

In many ways Obama is extremely fortunate to even be where he is at right now. Imagine if that jihad advocating cat from Nigeria had actually succeeded in blowing up that plane during the holidays. Obama's rating would be in the low 30's and next November would be a complete bloodbath at the polls.

At the end of the day I'm still quiet stunned how Obama managed to destroy so much of the good will he accumulated with the American people.

American Right Holds It's Own Hostage

Interesting article on CQpolitics online relayed to me yesterday by a friend.

Shortly after Arlen Specter and two other centrist Senate Republicans struck their deal with Democrats and the White House on the economic stimulus package, Specter was approached in the GOP cloakroom by one of his colleagues.

“ ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you,’ ” the second senator said. Specter declined to say who the lawmaker was, but he recounted the rest of their conversation this way: “‘Are you going to vote with me?’ I said. He said, ‘No, I might have a primary.’ And I said, ‘You know very well that I’m going to have a primary.’”

That brief encounter clearly illuminated the position moderates hold in the ranks of the Senate Republicans these days — weighing their ideological inclination to find common cause with President Obama against the political risks and rewards of such dealmaking, both for themselves and for their party.

My friend David Amerikaner narrowed the list down to ten names, all male, up for reelection in 2010: Bennett (UT), Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), Coburn (OK), Crapo (ID), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Isakson (GA), Shelby (AL), Vitter (LA).

Good place to start. I'm going to throw out Bunning (already facing primary challenge) and Coburn (known anti-government activist) off the top of my head. This leaving Bennett, Burr, Crapo, Grassley, Gregg, Isakson, Shelby and Vitter.

Bennett: While I know (from personal experience) politicians do not always believe their own rhetoric, I think this statement from Bennett in a Huffington Post article rules him out:

"We have a very, very clear model, because we passed a stimulus package in the last Congress -- bipartisan. Republicans voted for it. Democrats voted for it. It didn't work," said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who led financial-industry bailout negotiations for the GOP.

Bennett argued that the last plan "was based on economic analysis of past recessions and past problems and not the depth and seriousness of this one. We saw personal income spike up as a result of the stimulus we put into the economy, and the economy was stimulated not at all."

For Bennett, the plan failed because high debts and the dire economic outlook persuaded people that they should save their money or pay down loans rather than spend. "When you're having an economic crisis, whether you're a company like General Motors or a bank like Citi or an individual, you do what you can to pay down your debt. That's what was done with the last stimulus package. That's the rational thing to do."

Burr: Not only did Obama win his state, Burr just saw Liddy Dole lose reelection by 9 points. Furthermore, his favorables are under 50 points. However, Burr has not ventured against conservative orthodoxy in his time in the Senate often. I doubt the GOP would want to further weaken an already weak candidate (see Arlen Spector). Plausible candidate.

Crapo: Won 99 percent of the vote in his reelect in 2004. It has been rumored that he's a candidate for GOP leadership in the Senate. Popular back home, doubt anybody takes him on. I'll rule him out.

Grassley: Although he got the Obama Administration to move a $69 billion AMT patch into the stimulus bill, I doubt he is the one in question. A weekend hog farmer who visits all 99 counties in Iowa every year, a viable primary challenge is not in the cards here.

Gregg: Interesting candidate here. Gregg abstained for a cloture vote when deciding on whether to take the Commerce position. That aside, he is popular with conservatives in New Hampshire. Considering the changing dynamics of the state I doubt Gregg is worried about a primary challenge from the right in an open primary system. I'll rule him out.

Isakson: Isakson is fairly conservative but has taken some moderate steps here and there (ie. the bailout and immigration). His ridiculous amendment that would have done little else than put money in realtor's pockets showed he was at least willing to play ball. No primary challenger has announced, yet there have been rumors of it happening. Strong candidate.

Shelby: Originally elected as a Democrat from Alabama to the US Senate. Shelby is now questioning Obama's citizenship (seriously?!?!). Shelby has a $13.4 million war chest (the biggest of any incumbent on the board for 2010). Doubt he is concerned with a primary challenge.

Vitter: Extremely worried about a primary challenge (voted against HRC for State as a result). His track record is ridiculously conservative, so I doubt he would even contemplate voting for the stimulus bill.
------
My best guess: Isakson.

But if You Ask Really, Really Nicely They May Stop!

The federal American government has spent more than $1,500,000,000 in taxpayer dollars since 1996 in abstinence-only until marriage sex education.

On one side of the debate we have Derek Dye the Abstinence Clown (the video is absolutely unreal -- and paid for by your tax dollars!), Sarah Palin and the Pope; on the other side we have the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association. Hmm...

The hypothesis we can "educate" teenagers to go against their fundamental primordial drive is fairly ludicrous to begin with. No surprise then that the evidence reveals abstinence-only sex education fails to reduce teen pregnancy, STD or the proclivity of teenagers to explore their budding sexual desires.

From global warming to the Big Bang (seriously!) to this it is clear science played a back seat to ideology and political gain in the George W. Bush administration.

---
Thanks for e-mailing me the Derek Dye the Abstinence Clown story Kaner.

Political Tone Deaf Award (Bailout Nation)

This week's political tone deaf award goes to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly who, when asked why 11 Democrats did not vote for the "economic stimulus package" when it was on the House floor last week, stated:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that.

When relaying remarks to media outlets a press spokesperson must not only deliver a comment that advances the narrative of the article -- they must provide a quote that will be seen by listeners, readers and/or viewers as authentic while enhancing the long-term brand perception of the organization within targeted audiences.

Daly completely fails in this regard. Although he is being authentic he is damaging the political brand of the Democratic House leadership by being honest on the reality that "liberals" or "progressives" are simply not fiscally responsible. While this quote is not going to change any swing voters minds in the 2010 election cycle it is important to ALWAYS stay on message to ensure the strength of the political brand long-term.

If the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to expand the scope of government involvement in the economy they better get a grip on their PR flacks.

A better statement from Daly would have been:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. She respects the diverse views within the Democratic House caucus and will continue to work with the entire caucus to address the massive challenges that confront our nation.

I like this statement better for a number of reasons:

1. This statement does not damage the public's image of the Democratic Party or the rebranding campaign from the word "liberal" to "progressive."
2. Although she seems accepting of the votes against the "economic stimulus package," their is a subtle threat in the latter part of the statement that members shouldn't get too comfortable voting against her on legislation.
3. I included the line "diverse views within the Democratic Party" from a branding perspective... to contrast the ideological purity current being enforced within the GOP. It is important for swing voters (moderates and independents) to see the Democratic Party as open to diverse ideologies to find solutions to the problems of America.

Join Sarah 2012

It has begun. Sarah Palin has started a political action committee -- a significant step to running for national office. The thought of this woman running our country and the free world is truly a terrifying thought. If nothing else I hope the Democratic Party and "progressive" interest groups learned their lesson from the years of George W. Bush... namely do not dismiss a political rival as stupid and expect enough Americans to agree with you that the individual is clearly not competent enough to hold the office of POTUS. A 2004 election of Obama vs. Palin would be absolutely entertaining. Not only would Palin fill the national void left by Bush 43 of embarassing comments made by elected officials (although Biden is trying his damnest), a loss worse than McCain's would further damage the credibility of the religious right as a viable ideology for the GOP.

The Arrogance of the New Yorker

Some random thoughts for a beautiful Sunday in Los Angeles.

1. Just imagine the media cycle if the July 21 cover of the New Yorker was on the National Review, or Weekly Standard. Do you think the response would have been the same? Doubtful to say the least.

2. Oh the arrogance of New York liberals, thinking that this cover will help Obama's image versus reinforcing ridiculous stereotypes held by many in the country. I imagine many will cancel their subscriptions of the weekly after this debacle. So why would the outlet do it? To force Obama to the left... doubtful. Probably just complete sheer arrogance... at the cost of subscriptions and a lose of respect from media observers such as myself.

3. At least the New Yorker forced the McCain campaign to agree with the Obama camp on something. This has been a pattern of the McCain campaign, following the media cycle versus leading it.

It truly baffles me why McCain did not use the period between early February through June to define Obama in the terms that suited the GOP. Following in the footsteps of a President with less than a 30 percent approval rating, one would think McCain would realize he would have to run a near perfect campaign to claim the Oval Office. However, instead of setting the November election on terms favorable to the GOP, McCain had a completely disorganized campaign message and team... and even took off most weekends from the campaign.