It's More than Just the Facts, It's More than Just the Numbers

Sorry for the delay in posting, I know I have a lot to catch up on so let me dive right in with a rather lengthy piece which grew out of one particular sound bite:  

“I don’t know how they've been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up. And then they point and say, 'Look how irresponsible they are.' Look at facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job". -President Obama

The quote beginning my article today was spoken yesterday, Wednesday the 23rd, by the President in a campaign fundraising event in Denver.  If you have been reading my articles for some time, now, you know that I approach my field with an unbiased starting point.  Both parties are corrupt, both are wrong (in my opinion) on certain issues, both are correct on certain issues.  But the fact remains that this story and quote caught my eye, not only because it is not true, but it is an admonishment of one the President's key champion "successes" in his first term.  

To begin, the graph above is from the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan group who documents the extent to which Congress will spend in the coming and preceding years based on past spending and the President's current submitted budget.  Keep in mind, the group, although bipartisan, is headed by a representative who is the same party as the majority of Congress (in this case, Democrats).  The graph displays the curve at which it is estimated the country's budget will be a percentage of GDP all the way through 2035.  Of course, the main cause of this debt is the expenditure of the government on various initiatives.  Needless to say, the CBO predicts a large increase in this percentage in both scenarios it presents to the administration.  I am letting the numbers speak for themselves.  This is a CBO chart taken from a CBO report which also states the following:   

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over  the long run…

CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental  questions about economic sustainability… 

If spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. 

Both parties spend money.  And a lot of money.  All the time.  No party is more "fiscally responsible", they just have different ways in which they spend money.  In the case of the President, spending for various bailout initiatives, social programs, welfare, and other Democratic talking and acting points, which is AWESOME if you believe the government should be spending money on such things.  For the record, I do not, but that is an opinion and you are entitled to your own by all means.  The crisis in 2008-2009 was a failure on behalf of both parties:  the Democratic Clinton Congress in the early to mid 90s, and the Bush presidencies saw an increase in spending on the domestic and foreign fronts.  If anything is a bipartisan venture in Washington, it is spending the tax payer dime.  

They way in which I seek to approach this statement by the President is this:  it is not an issue of whether or not it is "true" that the Democrats are "more fiscally responsible" and must "clean up the mess" of the Republicans.  That is not the issue.  The President, in his calculations, did not include either the cost of the bailouts of the banking and housing industries, or General Motors (American Recovery or Investment Act), nor did he include the costs that would be incurred if the Affordable Healthcare Act is upheld by the Supreme Court in June.  In essence, he removed the spending amounts of the two signature moves of his first term in office.  That is where I must interject.  The following video was taken from a press conference in Denver a year after ARIA was passed:  

"We acted because failure to do so would have needed in catastrophe...to do what is right for the US economy and the American people.  One of the main reasons why the economy...growing...responsible for the jobs of 2 million Americans who would be unemployed".   

It was only a year after the ARIA was passed that the President credited it for saving the economy from slipping into a Depression, and stressing the importance of the "bipartisan...tough political decision" it was.  But:  "We had a responsibility to the US economy and the American people".  It would follow from this quote, that the President reasons that the decision was a tough one, but it was one he suffered political hardship for in order to better serve the American people.  An admirable statement and action, because it was designed to be.  Thats is not a shot at the President, it is good politics.  You want the people to believe you incurred a cost to do them some favor.  

I must then ask, why shun the responsibility for the ARIA now, 4 years later after its passage, by excluding it from the total number of expenditures the administration has incurred?  If you believed, politically, that the stimulus was a bad decision, one taken to avoid making a worse one, done for the greater good of the economy and people of the United States, why shy away from that viewpoint and ostracize the action entirely?  In my opinion , the administration should be less concerned with giving the stimulus up for adoption, but rather with hammering home the idea that the stimulus, although politically hurtful to the President, cause all the recovery we have experienced since the passage of the ARIA.  

Why then has the administration shoved its greatest accomplishment and show of bipartisanship under the rug?  Is it because they know the recovery has not been strong and, therefore, the stimulus must be distanced from their campaign, or are they merely citing the spending done before the stimulus was passed, and that the spending done which led us to pass the act was done (largely) by Republicans?  That is your decision based on your political beliefs.  

Like I said, both parties spend money and both are to blame for the crisis in 2008-2009. 

 And to suggest that one is more responsible is folly.  

Mister Obama and these Women

Monday, the President traveled to give his own commencement address to the Barnard College for women in New York City.  You can see the full address here (the President begins at 15:45).  Just as Mr. Romney used his own address to shed light on his more personal side, so, too, did the President use this opportunity to speak from a personal place.  Indeed, the President was a little more forceful in his rhetoric in support of homosexual marriage and the rights of women, but this is to be expected in such a setting.  Both men this week chose, obviously, "safe" political places to give these addresses:  Romney to a group of evangelicals, and Mr. Obama to a group of women (who, as the most recent Battleground poll suggests, he seeks to pursue heavily).  Ironically, both of these groups are also those, or a part of, groups each candidate knows he must conquer in order to be victorious in November.

Obama spoke well to this younger generation of women, calling to the forefront the political troubles of the country in their era and the lack of faith in our political institutions.  He spoke, however, about hope for the future, touching in the importance of a college level education for all, the investment in new technologies, the development of clean energy, the future control of "bad banks" and "insurance companies...charging women differently than men". In short, women need to be treated equally in all aspects of life, including "the health choices you choose to make".  Obviously, the roll of women and the empowerment of women was spoken about, and rightly so.  I do agree with the President in his statement that,

 "This is the century in which women shape not only their own destiny, but the destiny of the nation and  of this world".   

These few points, however, were the only policy issues he brought to the forefront, urging, instead, for women to "take a seat at the head of the table".  The speech, in short, played the same role of Romney's on Sunday: to strengthen an electorate base by hitting on key issues and the importance of that group and their views in this modern world.  A shrewd move by both politicians and their campaigns, whether or not you agree with them, is up to you.    

Mister Romney Gets Back to the Stump: 

Gov. Romney spoke in Iowa on Tuesday, the first time he spent time in the state (and its crucial electoral college votes) since the Republican caucus in January.  His topic: the national debt and spending.  Again, thanks to C-SPAN for broadcasting the address.   

"A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation, and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. That fire could care less if you have a donkey or an elephant in your front lawn, it’s still coming for your house".  

Gov. Romney told his constituents gathered that he would help them put out the fire of this "American nightmare".  He referenced Bill Clinton's statement to his Democratic party back at the end of his campaign in which he advised the party to no longer seek the answer to the country's problems in another program.  He offered, here, a few good jabs at both the Clintons and the Obamas, their administrations, and their policies.  Romney (on the heels of Obama's Barnard address) credited the President's policies with the nation's low number of college graduates able to find a job, and challenged the people of Iowa to vote such a way in November to "can and do better than that".  

Following those points, Romney hit again on the faithful points of the stimulus, its effectiveness, and the unreliability of Obamacare.  

'When you add up all of his policies, he has increased the national debt by 5 trillion dollars.  each household share of government debt has now reached $520,000".   

Romney called such a hike in the debt "morally wrong".  This harkens back to the 2004 quote of the President's in which he called the actions of the Bush administration's hiking of the debt "unpatriotic" and "morally irresponsible".  This was a deliberate quote by Romney and one, obviously, meant to show the hypocrisy of the current administration.  Easily, the Obama camp will counter stressing the enormity of the crisis they inherited in 2008 and the unprecedented nature of such a recession.  Who will you believe?  That us your decision.  

No doubt we will her these arguments from both camps well into the summer and fall, and Romney used his stop in Iowa as a warm up session for his biggest sound bite hits against the President.   

Extra Shots of Espresso:

The battle between the Republican House and the President on the defense budget continues, and may include an eventual veto 

Watch the Nebraska Senatorial race tonight, the trend of Tea Party Express candidates winning republican nominations may continue if AG Bruning can edge out Senator Fischer.   

Ron Paul... concedes?  

At the bar...: 

Coming this week:  

Feature: A look at Ron Paul and his impact on the Republican primary, Presidential race, and Independent movement.  

Your Sunday Constitutional: The Right of the Federal Government to Take Over the Creation of Business Corporations 

Your Sunday Constitutional

Welcome, dear reader... 

 to the first in a series of "regular" posts I hope to create entitled "Your Sunday Constitutional" in which I, by the guidance of the good people at Constitution Center, take an issue of recent debate or interest and see how it matches up against and in context of the Constitution.  For this first installment, we will look at President Obama's recent support of homosexual marriage and what Constitutional actions could be taken place by both the Congress and the President to enforce such an opinion.  The following is based on Lyle Dennison's article on the same topic.  Must give credit where it is due...but I will add a few embellishments and opinion of my own.

To begin, let's look at the actual statement issued by President Obama this last Wednesday during an interview with ABC News:

“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married….I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has…been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue….I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.” 

Now, we all know that there is no specifics in the Constitution regarding marriage of any kind, or the processes by which it is to be carried out.  The federal government (specifically, Congress) is not given any enumerated power to affect the action of marriage from a Federal government level (look to Article 1 Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution).  Of course, whether or not it should have that power was already brought to bear in the Courts during the interracial marriage disputes that were brought before the Supreme Court and, ultimately, placed under the purview of the federal government in Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).  

Obama's last clause in his statement can lead us to believe that he does not wish to take any federal action regarding homosexual marriage and, therefore, not treat this issue on the same level as interracial marriage was.  Now, given this context, that he wishes to leave such a decision up to the states and their legislatures, he has three options on the table that he could take-if he chose to do so: 

First:  The Constitutional Amendment - This seems the most obvious.  Pass an amendment to the Constitution specifically addressing the institution of marriage and the illegality of the banning of such an act based on race, creed, or gender.  Of course, the problem easily seen with this route is the passage and approval of such an amendment by the States.  We merely need to look to recent state legislative action, most recently my North Carolina, to see that the people of certain states and their legislatures would vote to oppose such an amendment.  Below is a map of states that allow some sort of version of homosexual marriage:  

It is unclear on which side of the fence the "undecided" states would fall, thus it would provide a risky move for the Obama administration to try and push an amendment as the champions of homosexual marriage, only to have it fail on the national level. 

Second: Use the Supreme Court - I will be the first to tell you that the Court has never and should never, ever base their opinions on ideological lines...because we all know that the Court is unbiased in all of its proceedings...because, simply, the justices are not human...yeah right.  The Court is political and ideological on certain issues, do not be fooled.  Therefore, Obama could find the ban on gay marriage in the majority of the States overturned by the Court ruling in favor of a case in which a petitioner claimed that their 14th Amendment rights were violated under the Equal Protections Clause.  When asked if he would consider using the Justice Department to enforce homosexual marriage, Obama did not answer directly (like any good politician), but rather pointed to the Department's argument against the 1966 DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  He alluded to the same conclusion:  that the DOMA violates the 14th Amendment. However, even if the highest Court in the land granted certiorari to hear such a case and declared such a violation to have taken place, the ruling would not necessary strike down specific state legislative acts that are given credibility under the 10th Amendment (such as California's Proposition 8).  To that end, the Court could rule the a constitutional right had been violated, but that would not automatically circumvent the actions of the States due to the arguments in favor of the 10th Amendment.  The Court would have to rule on the 10th Amendment viability of homosexual marriage in its ruling and, by doing so, would rob a lot of power from the legislatures of the States and set a very broad precedent, a decision, I think, they are not quite ready to issue yet, especially given the opinion due out in about a month concerning the viability of the Affordable Health Care Act...maybe you've heard of it...  

Third: Get the Congress to Cooperate - The first time I considered authority with which Congress could pass legislation on this issue, I knew that it would be a minefield of legality.  As I already stated, the Constitution offers no specific power enumerated to the Congress to pass such an act on this issue, nor does it specifically prohibit the passage of such an act (Article 1 Sections 8 and 9).  The first idea that popped into my head concerning how Congress could go about this concerns with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV which states:   

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the pubic acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.   

Quite simply, the legal process of marriage and the "state" of marriage that certain states granted to homosexual couples can, through an act of Congress, be required to be honored in the States which do not provide such a process.  Now, this does not necessarily grant homosexual marriages to get married in ALL the States in the Union, but it could prove to be a useful first step in the process and, at the same time, gives homosexual couples the freedom to move where they wish based upon job, income, etc.  A second act of Congress, which Mr. Dennison brought to my attention, was for it to declare that marriage is a "privilege and immunity" or national citizenship and, therefore, cannot be violated by any state law.  Based on the Supremacy Clause, both of these actions would take precedence before any state law, but, like the Supreme Court's opinion, encounter strong opposition from the 10th Amendment crowd.   

To Conclude - The President has 3 routes he could chose to federally mandate the legality of same sex marriage.  If anything, the ability of all three branches of our government to have the power to grant such an act is a very telling commentary about the viability and special nature of our national government.  However, I think that ultimately, the President has the correct and most reasonable approach to this issue:  he knows that to try and grant the right to marry to homosexual couples on a federal level would be very taxing, requiring both sides of the aisle in Congress to cooperate, stifling the arguments from the 10th Amendment right proponents, or hoping the Supreme Court issues a judgment in his favor without compromising the institution of the Court itself and its neutrality.  The President knows that each of these scenarios is unlikely, especially given the current divisive nature of our politics.  Therefore, the President merely voiced his opinion on the issue to strengthen his base in time for election season, while also hinting at the idea that he may be, in fact, a Federalist on this issue.  

However, this last point could deal as much with expediency than it does with his ideology.   

[edit]

Quite possibly the best, most awesomest poll in the history of everness

In the run up and hubbub hurtling us towards the inevitable national human sacrifice ceremony known as the Presidential election, it is important to keep track of the various degrees with which likely voters approach each candidate.  As I mentioned in my introductory post, the science with which I concern myself is, to me, the most interesting due to its ever evolving and changing nature.  The results from a month ago will mostly likely change due to some unforeseen policy gaffe or campaigning snafu.  This is what makes politics exciting and...dare I utter...fun!  But I digress, I could go on for hours about how much I ADORE this stuff (I mean, I am blogging about it on a Saturday night...during the summer...and I am in college...gosh I must be a bore...).  If you want to have access to what is, in my not so humble opinion, the BEST election season polling data and breakdown, look no further than the Battleground Polling Statistic Project put together by the good people of POLITICO in conjunction with George Washington University, The Terrance Group, and Lake Research Partners.

 Now, maybe I am a little biased due to the fact that I would give an arm, a leg, and two eyeballs to be lucky enough to attend George Washington's Graduate School of Political Management for my Graduate Studies, but even so, this poll and presentation of its statistics is very, very well done by the folks over at the POLITICO.  All the questions are detailed and mapped out very clearly AND (this is my geeky freak out nerd part): you can see how the numbers fluctuate for each past polling session held (usually every 2 months or so).  The poll began tracking data (President Obama's approval rating, issue agreement, etc.) back in the Summer of 2011 in the run up to the Republican primary last fall and into this year.

So, if you are equally politically nerdy (like yours truly), feel free to dig around the old polling results and see how the numbers fared during these times.

I mean, what else are you doing on a Saturday night?

 That's what I thought...

From Mister Romney's Chair

This morning, Gov. Romney gave a commencement speech at Liberty University, a private, Christian university in Virginia.  This was to be the (presumptive) Presidential candidate's first major public address since President Obama announced on Wednesday his official backing and support of homosexual marriage.  I watched the address on C-SPAN this morning, eager to see how Romney would address this very public move by Obama, but was not expecting much seeing as how he was addressing a Christian college.  Any earth shattering admission on his part would not take place in such company, but I was interested nonetheless in seeing how Romney would take this time to use this speech as a personal moment for himself.

You can watch the full address I provided in the link above, but as I expected, the speech was little on the policy side and more on the personal.  Romney has been widely criticized by those on the left of being a sort of wet blanket, an empty suit in all of his public appearances, unable to connect with the electorate at large.  The speech he gave this morning gave, in my opinion, a personal side to the candidate that I had not seen before, including a touching story about a certain chair he presented to Mark DeMoss, the Executive Committee Chairman of Liberty University upon which a plaque was placed, stating "You always have a seat at my table".  Despite whether or not you "buy" this side of Romney, you have to admit he needed some kind of positive public PR in the wake of Obama's recent public surge on the issues.

On the issue of homosexual marriage, Romney stuck to his guns, as he has since the campaign began, by stating:

“Culture, what you believe, what you value, how you live, matters.  As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate from time to time. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”.

Shocker.  

But what else can you expect from the Governor, given the location of his speech and his core supporting base on of "anti-Obama".  The time at the podium, however, gave the candidate the chance to reveal a personal side rarely seen on the cable networks.  In my humble opinion, the Romney campaign could do well to have such personal moments, and their effects, more widely broadcasted to the American people who are uncertain about Romney's gravitas.   

In other news....... 

The John Edward's campaign expenditure case will see its day in Court  

Democratic Senators may not heed the President's same sex marriage endorsement 

Senator Harry Reid speaks up for filibuster reform in the Senate

In the name of full disclosure

I was never too terribly good at introductions. 

I find myself being tongue tied, hands all sweaty and shaky, mouth dry as sandpaper.  It feels like I'm John Adams during his first journey to England as official ambassador of the newly formed United States of America, who, standing in the Royal Presence of King George III, found himself (no doubt) thinking "Yeah...about that, your Majesty...".  Nevertheless, one must muster up the courage in all facets of life to stand up, look someone in the eye, extend a hand and speak a firm greeting without making a fool of oneself.  

I hope this introductory post will serve this purpose.  

I do not know, for sure, why you are here.  I know I am here because I always just leap with joy at the prospect of typing informationally sound posts for an audience who may or may not exist.  I know I am also here for another reason:  A love-hate relationship with the actions of many within the Beltway.  For those who are unaware, the Beltway, and the matters that take place within it, is defined as: 

"an American idiom used to characterize matters that are, or seem to be, important primarily to officials of the U.S. federal government, to its contractors and lobbyists, and to the corporate media which cover them—as opposed to the interests and priorities of the general U.S. population".  

I do not have any shame in admitting that I lifted this definition from the always reliable WIkipedia, but that I also chose this specific definition for that last clause which I emboldened.  It is with this clause I wholeheartedly disagree.  In fact, I believe that such a position and opinion is this reason for the formation of, what I lovingly term, the United States of Apathy (see...USA...ah, well I thought it clever).  Indeed, it seems that the actions of all the duly elected heroes who make the arduous trip into the foray of politics are so, indeed, out of sync with the American population at large.  

However, I believe that no action within that great, big, loop of a highway are opposed to the interests of the American people.  Could they be opposed to the priorities of the people?  Of course, and that will depend on your own political leanings.  But, to say that the actions taken by our faithfully chosen few are out of the interested scope of the American people is a misguided notion.  Indeed, all actions taken on the Hill should always be on the minds of the people; never should the Apathy replace America.  

To that end, I come here, typing my heart out in order to bring to those of you who do not lurk the political blogs and happenings of The D.C all the information you need to know to continue to be informed about what is currently on the table.  

As the title of this post suggests, I agree to a level of disclosure.  I pride myself on being an aspiring political scientist and, like all scientists, am obliged to exercise a level of neutrality on the issues.  However, my profession is not like that of a doctor in which facts are facts and chemicals react this way and in that all of the time.  This science, unlike the natural sciences, deals with the human condition, they study of government, a man made entity, and thus subject to the scrutiny and commentary of others.  And, most importantly, this science is constantly changing and evolving making it even more exciting, challenging and, (in my opinion) beautiful.  (If you just read this last paragraph and have any doubt about the passion with which I approach these issues...well...I cannot help you...).  

To that end, I aim, here, to give a run down about what I personally believe and to make a commitment to you, faithful reader, that I will strive to separate my opinions from the crucial information about the issues with which you come here to read and research.  So, a few points.  

1.)  I am a Texan.  I love boots, hot nights, dirty jeans, trucks, dirt roads, pecan pie, southern women, the Alamo, bluebonnets, hound dogs, football, and Lone Star beer.  

2.)  I am a Constitutionalist.  I  will always, when in doubt, refer to our founding document.  Our Founding Fathers were smarter and more equipped with information about these issues than I could ever hope to be.  To think we could discard their experience and voice scares me to death.  

3.)  Finally, if I offer an opinion piece, I will be sure to notify you of such.  I, as always, welcome comments on such pieces and any discourse we could have together as if we were together discussing these issues...maybe over a cup of coffee...(my gosh its like its the title of the blog!...gee, ain't I clever).  

In closing, I hope to keep a few readers for how ever long I do this...I hope to garner a following, but if anything, I am doing this for the comfort of knowing that I am doing what I can to offer an unbiased source of issues and articles that could be of use to those of the citizenry who wish to be informed.  

I end as I began, with the quote of King George III as Ambassador Adams was leaving that first meeting between the two countries since the end of our Revolution, a quote which has become my favorite of such "profound" pieces of knowledge and wisdom.  He offers a warning, advice, prophecy, and an ideology all in 19 easy words that those in side the Beltway should all strive to remember when conducting their various tasks and duties:  

"I do hope, Mister Adams, that the American states do not suffer unjustly for their want of a monarchy".   

As do I, George, as do I.