Obama: Still the Best President Ever

Back in December of 2009, before Obama had completed his first year in office, before he signed health care reform into law, I wrote a post proclaiming that Barack Obama the best President in my lifetime. I also predicted that he is likely to be a better President than any successor I will live to see.

Three tumultuous years later, I am pleased to see that President Obama has lived up to my expectations. I am proud to stand by my initial assessment. I will enthusiastically cast my vote for his re-election on November 6.

We have a tendency the mythologize our presidents. But the office of the presidency does not come with the powers to shape the nation in accordance to your will. There is no enchanted staff, bestowed on inauguration day, that can be wielded to shine the blessing of full employment upon us all. Even the Hollywood-tale of the spellbinding statesman able to unite us, cow the opposition, and win the day with unimpeachable logic and soaring rhetoric -  is largely a myth.

Ultimately, inevitably, the President of the United States is just a person. The office itself is a job. The chosen individual is either good at it, or not.

By this basic, honest, standard Barack Obama has been an exceptional President of the United States. Over the past four years, day after day, on issue after issue, he has demonstrated an uncommon combination of wisdom, patience, competence, compassion, and leadership. He is good at this.

There are number of areas where the actions of this President have had a positive impact. On education, the environment, financial reform, immigration, the war on terror, clean energy, killing Bin Laden, foreign policy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, marriage equality, equal pay for women, women's reproductive rights, disaster relief, student loans... the list of positive achievements is long and impressive.

And there are two issues in particular that have touched us directly.

I've spent my career working for technology start-up companies. It has often, and recently, been the case that these small and new companies do not offer health insurance coverage with the job. Shopping for insurance for my family has given me an all-too-close perspective on the dysfunction of the current system and the urgent need for reform. We've been denied coverage, had family members rejected due to pre-existing conditions, and seen huge premium increases year after year. Even for people with money and good jobs, the system is broken. It hasn't worked. It especially hasn't worked for small businesses. My experience has left me with zero sympathy for anyone who has opposed health care reform and immense gratitude for this administration for seeing this through.

Everyone should be able to afford health insurance for their family. Thanks to this President that is will soon be a reality. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would want to throw it all away and return to the costly, nightmare, unstable system we've been force to live with.

The second issue is the economy. Our family has been fortunate enough to have weathered the Great Recession with relatively little personal hardship. But it's not hard to remember what things were like four years ago, when the financial crisis hit. I remember walking by the empty storefronts on my way to work. I remember wondering who was going to close next, and how this business or that new restaurant was going to survive. I remember personally laying-off one new hire and putting off on others while we cut back to see what would happen.

Are we better off now than we were four year ago? We absolutely are. I've recently left my job and signed on with a new one, not because I had to, but because there were new opportunities to pursue. In my little corner of the world, new businesses are opening.  New companies are hiring. Existing companies are seeing new opportunities. Entrepreneurs are dreaming and scheming once again.

Part of the recovery comes from the natural rhythms of the business cycle. But no small amount of credit is due to President Obama and his administration. They pushed through the stimulus bill that invested in roads, bridges, clean energy companies, and saved million of jobs. They provided assistance to the states to close budget gaps and keep workers on the job. They cut our taxes and put more money in our pockets. They supported an aggressive monetary policy that saved our financial system and insured banks were there with the capital and credit that businesses need to survive and to grow.

The last four years have not been easy. We have been cursed to live in interesting times. But we have been blessed to have Barack Obama as our President for the last four years. I am proud to support him for another term.

All people, all politicians, all Presidents are imperfect. But this one is as good as they get. We are lucky to have him. He has earned our support, our respect, and our vote.

A Hollow Man Without a Plan

Mitt Romney is not a very charismatic leader. He is not an exciting, dynamic speaker. He doesn’t have a strong connection with the dreams and aspirations of ordinary Americans. He isn’t a terribly experienced politician. His career, working as a leveraged-buyout king, has not equipped him with stories or policies attuned to the plight of working Americans. Mitt Romney is not a man of firm principles or of great integrity.

Romney does have several advantages as a presidential candidate. He looks the part. He’s smooth and adaptable. He has an uncanny capacity to simultaneously adopt any and all positions that he finds advantageous and can do so with such calm confidence that the contradictions are all but obscured.

Romney is the ultimate business consultant - pliable and prepared. He has a unshakable smile on his face and a blizzard of numbers at his disposal. Mitt’s mr-fix-it appeal comes, in no small part, from the promise that he is prepared to deal with the twin demons of our age:

• Unemployment is high and has been for the last four years.
• Our budget deficits are vast and unsustainable.

On the unemployment question Romney is quite specific. His 5 point plan will create 12 million jobs in 4 years. On deficit reduction, he is less specific, but promises to “put an end to deficit spending”. Accomplishing these two tasks would be a great and worthy accomplishment. Unfortunately, the plans to do so do not exist, and these claims are largely fraudulent.

When asked for the reasoning behind their 12 million jobs number, the Romney campaign cited one study that said his tax policies would generate 7 million jobs, another that claimed his energy policies would create 3 million jobs, and a third that supported the idea that Romney’s China policy would save 2 million jobs.  

7 + 3 + 2 = 12 million jobs.

The problem with claiming that Romney’s tax plan will create 7 million jobs is that Romney doesn’t really have a tax plan. He has some vague principles that call for lowering rates and eliminating deductions. The study necessarily ignore the effect of eliminating the unspecified deductions. And it has a timeline of 10 years. Not 4.

The energy policy claims are even more slippery. The cited study looked at current energy policy over the next 8 years. Current energy policy is the Obama administration’s policies, not Romney’s. It’s good to hear that it’ll create millions of jobs. But claims that those jobs will be the result of Romney policies are groundless.

And the China policy numbers are pure fiction. The cited study there claims that Chinese copyright and piracy policies have cost American’s 2 million jobs. There is no chance that a Romney administration will cause a an immediate change in Chinese law or that it will have an immediate effect on US employment.


Romney’s job numbers are highly dubious. His deficit reduction plan is worse. Romney calls for full extension of the Bush tax cuts, then another 20% reduction in tax rates, two trillion dollars in additional military spending, and extra $716 billion in Medicare spending.

They promise to cut spending and reduce tax deductions to pay for it all. But Republicans will need to come up with 7 trillion dollars in tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their promises. Of course, they have specified almost nothing about where this $7 trillion is supposed to come from. And even if they find the money, that would just get us back to the astronomical deficits we have now. Any real deficit reduction would have to be on top of that. Somehow.


Romney doesn’t feel your pain. But he wants you to think he has a plan to ease it. He doesn’t.

Binder? I Hardly Know Her

Mitt Romney, as he never tires of telling us, is a business man. He spent his career buying and selling businesses, running them, squeezing them for cash, and getting to understand them from the inside and out. So, when he received a debate question about women in the workforce, that should have been an easy question.

Surely, Mitt Romney has worked with women. Someone who "knows business" like Mitt Romney must know something about the role of women in the workforce. Right?

Apparently not.

When asked about equality for women in the workforce, Romney replied with his born-famous "binders full of women" reply:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

 ...

I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

Romney didn't know any women he wanted to invite into his cabinet. He wasn't aware of any women who might be suitable to work in his administration. Fortunately, these women's groups were there with their "binders full of women".

Ok. How did you like working with women, Mitt?

Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was ... because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

Even when he gets to work with these exotic women, in his own cabinet(!), he still views them primarily as special cases who, unlike men apparently, require flexibility so they can spend time with their kids.

We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. 

But don't worry! If we elect Mitt Romney things will be going so great that employers will even be willing to hire these troublesome women!


Except, employers are already perfectly willing to hire women. Currently, women comprise 47%* of the workforce. And rising. The fact that, with all his great business experience, Mitt Romney has nothing to say about the reality of working women is surprising. And not encouraging.

What about his policies? Did Romney promote any of these great workplace flexibility rules at all the businesses he owned? How about equal pay? When Romney is the boss is that something he offers? Or not? Is the binder story really all he's got on women in the workforce?

Romney keeps telling us he knows business. But on topics from role of women, to job creation, to the macro-economics of the 21st century Romney always tells and never shows. We're supposed to trust him. But he never tells us why. We have scant evidence that he empathized, understood, learned from or even attempted to improve the lives of all the men and women that worked for him. We have plenty of evidence that he knows how sweep money into his own pocket and that those of his plutocrat partners. Where is the evidence, or even the anecdotes, that show he learned anything about improving the lives of actual working Americans?

If you've been running companies for 25 years you shouldn't need a bunch of Massachusetts women's groups to tell you where to find working women.



* Ol' Mitt sure does have his blind spots when it comes to 47% of Americans.

Romney's $716 Billion Medicare Ad Campaign

Romney and Ryan have a new ad up explaining that they won't keep the cost controls Obama added to Medicare:

The ad complains that changes made in the ACA cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare spending over the next 10 years. This is true. Most of the cost reductions come from two changes to Medicare:

• Medicare Advantage: Medicare Advantage is an option that allows Medicare recipients to purchase private plans instead. The program will continue, but previously we paid 14% for the private plans than we pay for traditional Medicare plans. Under the ACA the playing field is leveled. We pay the same amount for the private and public plans, and save many billions of dollars.

• IPAB: The Independent Payment Advisory board is a an independent body with the mandate of controlling Medicare costs. They are charged with insuring that Medicaid costs don't grow faster than GDP + 1%. Previously, Medicare didn't really have a budget and so health care costs have been growing out of control. The IPAB is there to find inefficiencies and set policies to insure Medicare stays within its budget.

These changes, along with anti-fraud initiatives and other pilot programs, are on track to reduce Medicare spending by $716 billion over the next decade without a reduction in benefits.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have pledged to get rid of these changes. They promise to spend an extra $716 billion on Medicare. 

The Romney and Ryan plans call for a similar mix of private and public plans competing on price. Cost growth is subject the same caps on rates. But their plan doesn't go into effect until 2023 at the earliest. That would mean pissing away the 716 billion dollars with another decade of runaway health care costs. And even then, they don't actually do anything to control health costs. The limited growth rate just applies to the voucher you'll get. The cost of the health plans can continue to rise, unconstrained. Patients will have to make up the difference with their own money.

They plan to convert Medicare to a voucher program. They waste a ton of money in the next decade. Over the long term, costs to taxpayers and consumers continue to rise. And even when it's fully implemented, their plan still costs the government and taxpayers more than the laws they seek to repeal.

Under Romney and Ryan that $716 billion doesn't get us a reformed Medicare system. It doesn't reduce the deficit. It doesn't provide affordable health care to all Americans.

It just allows them to run that ad.

Romney - Ryan

The more I think about it, the more I think Ryan was a smart pick for Romney.

The Ryan pick is not show of strength. Romney's plan seems to have been to to stay vague, complain about Obama and the economy, and coast to victory by keeping himself and his part out of the spotlight. The Ryan pick is an acknowledgement that the plan wasn't going so well.

Ryan brings a lot to the ticket. He's the movement conservatives hero and the favorite wonk of GOP elite. This helps Mitt with a still-suspicious base. Ryan is good looking, good-natured, is not a known culture-warrior, articulate, a loyal partisan, and has a particular talent for presenting radical policies with soothing manner and a straight-face.

Paul Ryan does bring substantial baggage in the form of his sweeping, transformative budget blueprints. There's concern that his extreme positions will scare off moderates and elderly. But, until yesterday, anyone who knew how Paul Ryan was also knew how they were going to vote. The low-information middle has never heard of this guy. This gives both parties to the chance to try and define him.

The big question is will the Ryan Budget become the Romney (or the Ryan-Romney) Budget? Democrats will push for it. They would love to run a choice campaign, know a big target when the see it, are sure to mention Ryan's-plan-to-end-Medicare at every opportunity. Republicans will push for it as well. They've already voted for it twice. Ryan's policy initiatives are what catapulted him to prominence and led the GOP powers that be push for him to be on the ticket.

The person least interested in seeing the Romney-Ryan ticket run on the Ryan plan is probably Mitt Romney. Ultimately, I expect him to (semi-successfully) move away from the Ryan plan. If Romney wanted to run on the details for the Ryan plan (such as they are), Ryan would be an obvious assent. But if Romney wants to run away from the plan, then neutralizing Ryan by drawing him close, is also a smart plan. Ryan won't be an independent voice calling the shots from Congress and nobody will push the plan without him.

The Romney campaign has been maddeningly vague up until now. Every policy issue has been answered with a mish-mash of contradictory talking points and devoid of substance. The Ryan pick might mark a move toward and honest policy discussion. But since both Ryan and Romney have reputations as policy wonks there's a serious risk that they will simply try to ride their repudiations and continue to avoid policy specifics. They can wave in the general direction of their various "plans" while declining to offer anything that could actually be evaluated.

Both liberals and conservatives are clamoring for battle over their policies and visions for the country. The Ryan pick offers the promise of a campaign with renewed focus on policy and legislative proposals. We should all hope, and strive to insure, the rest of the campaign lives up to that promise.

Taking Republicans Seriously: The Ryan Plan

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is the GOP’s favorite policy wonk. Ryan’s budget blueprint, The Path to Prosperity lays out a comprehensive vision of the future of the federal government.The wide-ranging document addresses everything from tax policy, defense and domestic spending, to entitlement reform.

Most politicians are known for their vacuous rhetoric. Ryan’s plan lays out the GOP agenda in stark numbers and explains how his party intends to govern, how they will balance the budget and their plan for the future. This plan has been put before US House of Representatives and approved, with near-unanimous acclaim, by the Republican majority.

Mitt Romney has joined the chorus of approval calling Ryan’s plan “marvelous”. And so this document represents, not just the guiding vision for the modern Republican Party, but a detailed plan of action.

The plan is not without its detractors. Commenters outside the GOP have suggested that the plan is a sham and that Ryan is a fraud. But given that is budget resolution has been put before and approved by the US Congress, it deserves serious consideration. Is it possible that all these pundits, politicians, and would-be presidents have heaped so much praise on this plan without considering its implications? Would the Republican majority vote to enact this plan into law if it didn’t reflect their values? Of course not.

So, it is worthwhile to examine this document and see what it says about the priorities and governing vision of the Republican party.


The GOP wants to raise your taxes. A lot.

Broaden the tax base to maintain revenue growth at a level consistent with current tax policy and at a share of the economy consistent with historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades.

Currently, federal revenue comes in at a little under 16% of GDP. Republicans want to increase that to 18% of within the next two years and to 19% over the next decade. These increases would generate an additional $13 trillion over the next decade.

The GOP does not plan to increase taxes across the board. The Ryan plan calls for the AMT to be eliminated and the top tax rate to be reduced to 25%. That means tax cuts for the rich. The increased revenue comes from the elimination of deductions. Regardless of the deductions eliminated, anyone currently paying more than 25% is going to get a substantial tax cut. In order to meet the revenue targets, a large number of Americans are going to be taxed at the 25% rate. Deductions are going to take a big hit. The home mortgage deduction, employer-sponsored health care, child care, earned income tax credits will all be on the block.

In order to meet aggressive revenue goals, and still offer generous tax cuts for the rich, the plan calls for steep tax increases for the poorest and middle-class Americans.

That means you get a big tax increase.


Republicans aren’t interested in controlling the cost of Medicare and Social Security.

the per capita cost of this reformed program for seniors reaching eligibility after 2023 could not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5 percent.

The initial version of the Ryan budget contained a controversial plan to end conventional Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. The 2012 version of the plan modifies that idea, leaving the private plans as an optional addition. It sets the cap in Medicare cost growth at GDP growth + 0.5%. This is the exact same rate of increase President Obama has proposed.

The Ryan plan would not save the government any money relative to the Democratic alternative. It does eliminate Medicare cost controls that are part of current law, raising the likelihood that medical costs for seniors will rise faster than the Medicare payments. This will result in worse coverage and increased cost to patients and seniors.

The plan calls for a study of Social Security, proposes no specific reforms.


The Ryan plan eventually eliminates the entire federal government.

Entitlement and domestic  programs outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would shrivel from the 12.5 percent of G.D.P. it reached in 2011 to 5.75 percent in 2030 to 3.75 percent in 2050, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The GOP budget cuts funds for Medicaid and turns it over to the states to do more with less. It increases spending on defense and doesn’t cut Medicare or Social Security. The tax increases in the plan are not sufficient to achieve major debt reduction. The debt reduction comes from unspecified cuts in non-entitlement government spending.

These cuts are quite severe. They are so severe that by 2050 the plan calls for non-entitlement spending to be only 3.75% of GDP. That number includes defense spending. Republicans have stated that defense spending must not fall below 4% of GDP. So, under this plan, there won’t be enough money for all the proposed defense spending. And there won’t be any money at all left for anything else. At all.

Implementing and sticking with this plan would turn the federal government into an insurance company with an army. Everything else (FBI, veterans benefits, border patrols, federal prisons, education funding, housing, R&D, every federal department and agency, food inspection, homeland security, parks, energy... etc..) would be rapidly squeezed and, ultimately, eliminated.



The Republicans have been very clear that the Ryan Plan is their plan. If they win the presidency and the majority, this is their agenda. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Big tax increases for everyone else. Medical costs continue to rise. Everything else gets slashed or eliminated.

Will they actually follow through with it? I don’t know.

But, that’s the plan.

2012 Political Predictions

Rick Perry wins easily in the Iowa caucus. Then he scores a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary. This effectively ends the GOP primary and Governor Perry is the GOP nominee.

Perry chooses Governor Nikki Haley as his running mate.

Obama wins the general election with 52% of the votes.

Democrats gain seats but Republicans remain the majority in the House.

Republicans gain a narrow majority in the Senate.