Who Wins and Who Loses in Debt Battle

Nate Silver published an informative article recently entitled "Surveying the Electoral Damage of the Debt Debate" that should be required reading for anyone who is interested in about the political landscape following the debt "crisis."

While I understand that a lot of people are more worried about whether their social security and Medicare will be cut than about who wins and who loses in the end, there are a large amount of politicos out there who eat, sleep, and breathe polling data and statistical analysis.

The most notable analysis was in regards to the 2012 election cycle.

FiveThirtyEight

Since Congress’s approval rating is now extremely low, 2012 could be another high-volatility cycle. There are 93 first-term members of the current House (78 of whom are Republicans). Next year could match or exceed that threshold, especially given redistricting, which could be responsible for another 20 or so incumbents either losing or retiring above and beyond the impact of the overall political climate.

What’s less clear is how the losses might be distributed between the parties. An anti-Republican wave is plausible, but so is an anti-incumbent one. The election of 2012 could resemble that of another redistricting year, 1992, in which there were a remarkable 110 first-term members of Congress elected, but in which the losses were split fairly evenly between the parties. (Democrats lost a net of 9 seats in the House despite winning the presidency.)

One thing that is for sure? Congressional Republicans are in trouble:

In other words, I think we’re seeing a lot of caution lights for the Republicans — but not yet any red flags. The nearest thing to an exception is probably this: the recent CNN poll that finds that 58 percent of voters think the policies proposed by Republicans in Congress would take the country in the wrong direction. Not only is that figure up significantly from where it was when CNN last polled it in January (when it stood at 50 percent). It’s also by some margin the worst rating that CNN has found for either party since they began polling on the question in 1994.

Read the whole article here.

Weekday Rant: Handling of Debt Ceiling Has Become Incomprehensible

 

Google Images

Today really got to me. It may have been the lack of sleep, the lack of my morning coffee, or the hour commute that I make to work, but for some reason, I found myself utterly disgusted with the entire political system for the first time in recent memory. I won't bore you with a long drawn-out analysis but I just felt like I needed to rant and let a couple of things out quickly.

The more that this debt ceiling debate continues, the more frustrated that I become. With the markets selling off today (and most likely until we get some type of deal), how can politicians not possibly realize that what they are doing, the brinkmanship that they are directly committing too, is negatively affecting the constituents that they were sent to Washington to represent?

Furthermore, why does America so badly desire for "fresh faces" in Washington? There's a reason why we have career politicians in Congress. Sure, the longer you're in Congress, the more of a chance you have to be exposed to things that may be ethically questionable and the greater sense of entitlement you may feel. But there are so many positives to having experienced politicians in Washington: They get it, period. They understand that compromise is necessary, that both sides will have to suffer some if you're really serious about fixing the deficit. They try to beat back partisanship and don't play politics with issues that could have horrible consequences. 

But freshman in Congress just don't get it. Sure, they're a fresh face. Sure, they were swept into office because they were able to convince the American public that the nation was broke (even though, in the short term it really is not). Can a new voice in Washington help push things in the right direction? Sure it can. But freshman in Congress are not using their voices to start a dialogue, to compromise on the issues that were most important to them when they were campaigning. No, instead, they are using their voices to whine, complain, and spew talking points, doing all that they can to avoid compromise at all costs. This is not the way that Washington works. 

Google Images: Mo Brooks, a freshman congressman from Alabama, said that he did not understand why the United States credit might be downgraded. In fact, Brooks argued that our credit should actually be upgraded since Tea Party Republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling (I wish I were kidding).

Experienced congressman understand that there is a time and a place for every issue. If you want to talk about eliminating waste in government, reforming entitlements, or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, great -- I agree, and I think that's a debate that absolutely needs to be had. But why now? Why, when the economy is just starting to recover, when unemployment is still around 9%, when the debt ceiling needs to be raised to avoid a default and a credit downgrade, are members of Congress holding the economy hostage to their demands? Plain and simple, freshman in Congress are putting their own demands before their constituents and before the fate of the nation. 

I follow politics night and day. When I wake up, I immediately read Politico Playbook. When I get to work, I leave Politico and The Hill open so I can constantly check back for updates. I created a twitter for the purpose of getting up-to-the-minute breaking news. In my four years of real understanding and interest for politics, I have never once grown tired of it. I love the analysis, love the discussions, love the horse race. But for the first time, I'm starting to grow tired. I simply do not understand what is happening with our government anymore.

How can such a basic, procedural vote essentially stop the entire United States government from talking about anything else for months? How can one party hold the entire economy hostage, risking the fate of our credit and our nation for years, over one vote? It is simply incomprehensible to me. The partisan bickering, the despicable brinkmanship, has finally gotten out of hand. President Obama said that "America voted for divided government, but they did not vote for dysfunctional government." 

We are a centrist nation. Freshman Republicans say they have a mandate from the American people, that they speak for the American people, when they say that the debt ceiling should not be raised. They're not telling the truth. Every major poll shows that Americans are desperate for compromise. 

Americans are generally a centrist group of people. In most cases, voting Americans look for some form of divided government, and rightfully so. With divided government, both parties are forced to compromise, sacrificing a few points to the other party while gaining a few as well. But this is not what happened. Instead, freshman, tea-party supported members of Congress have put the fate of this country at risk in their attempts to discredit every single thing that President Obama has done in office. They came to Washington saying that they would end the partisan rancor once and for all and what did they end up doing but widening the ideological divide and standing directly in the way of any and all compromise. 

I want to leave you with a quote. Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said something that, to me, has never rang more true: 

"The Republican Party is trying to repeal the 20th century."

Weekday Rant: Handling of Debt Ceiling Has Become Incomprehensible

Google Images

Today really got to me. It may have been the lack of sleep, the lack of my morning coffee, or the hour commute that I make to work, but for some reason, I found myself utterly disgusted with the entire political system for the first time in recent memory. I won't bore you with a long drawn-out analysis but I just felt like I needed to rant and let a couple of things out quickly.

The more that this debt ceiling debate continues, the more frustrated that I become. With the markets selling off today (and most likely until we get some type of deal), how can politicians not possibly realize that what they are doing, the brinkmanship that they are directly committing too, is negatively affecting the constituents that they were sent to Washington to represent?

Furthermore, why does America so badly desire for "fresh faces" in Washington? There's a reason why we have career politicians in Congress. Sure, the longer you're in Congress, the more of a chance you have to be exposed to things that may be ethically questionable and the greater sense of entitlement you may feel. But there are so many positives to having experienced politicians in Washington: They get it, period. They understand that compromise is necessary, that both sides will have to suffer some if you're really serious about fixing the deficit. They try to beat back partisanship and don't play politics with issues that could have horrible consequences. 

But freshman in Congress just don't get it. Sure, they're a fresh face. Sure, they were swept into office because they were able to convince the American public that the nation was broke (even though, in the short term it really is not). Can a new voice in Washington help push things in the right direction? Sure it can. But freshman in Congress are not using their voices to start a dialogue, to compromise on the issues that were most important to them when they were campaigning. No, instead, they are using their voices to whine, complain, and spew talking points, doing all that they can to avoid compromise at all costs. This is not the way that Washington works. 

Google Images: Mo Brooks, a freshman congressman from Alabama, said that he did not understand why the United States credit might be downgraded. In fact, Brooks argued that our credit should actually be upgraded since Tea Party Republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling (I wish I were kidding).

Experienced congressman understand that there is a time and a place for every issue. If you want to talk about eliminating waste in government, reforming entitlements, or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, great -- I agree, and I think that's a debate that absolutely needs to be had. But why now? Why, when the economy is just starting to recover, when unemployment is still around 9%, when the debt ceiling needs to be raised to avoid a default and a credit downgrade, are members of Congress holding the economy hostage to their demands? Plain and simple, freshman in Congress are putting their own demands before their constituents and before the fate of the nation. 

I follow politics night and day. When I wake up, I immediately read Politico Playbook. When I get to work, I leave Politico and The Hill open so I can constantly check back for updates. I created a twitter for the purpose of getting up-to-the-minute breaking news. In my four years of real understanding and interest for politics, I have never once grown tired of it. I love the analysis, love the discussions, love the horse race. But for the first time, I'm starting to grow tired. I simply do not understand what is happening with our government anymore.

How can such a basic, procedural vote essentially stop the entire United States government from talking about anything else for months? How can one party hold the entire economy hostage, risking the fate of our credit and our nation for years, over one vote? It is simply incomprehensible to me. The partisan bickering, the despicable brinkmanship, has finally gotten out of hand. President Obama said that "America voted for divided government, but they did not vote for dysfunctional government." 

We are a centrist nation. Freshman Republicans say they have a mandate from the American people, that they speak for the American people, when they say that the debt ceiling should not be raised. They're not telling the truth. Every major poll shows that Americans are desperate for compromise. 

Americans are generally a centrist group of people. In most cases, voting Americans look for some form of divided government, and rightfully so. With divided government, both parties are forced to compromise, sacrificing a few points to the other party while gaining a few as well. But this is not what happened. Instead, freshman, tea-party supported members of Congress have put the fate of this country at risk in their attempts to discredit every single thing that President Obama has done in office. They came to Washington saying that they would end the partisan rancor once and for all and what did they end up doing but widening the ideological divide and standing directly in the way of any and all compromise. 

I want to leave you with a quote. Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said something that, to me, has never rang more true: 

"The Republican Party is trying to repeal the 20th century."

Looking For A Viable Third Party? Look No Further

Let's face facts: The two-party system is a failure. Both sides become deeply entrenched in their rhetoric and no compromise is ever made because none is ever necessary. Democrats can run back to their base saying that they did not cut entitlements that are (rightly) important to their voters and Republicans can energize their base by sticking to their "no new taxes" pledge. Other than a few special circumstances (like the debt ceiling), neither side needs to compromise because they don't have to. There are currently no viable third parties in the United States that could challenge the Republicans or the Democrats, so the two parties can focus on the issues they want and not worry about anything else.

Now I'm not arguing that a multiparty system is always better. Having a proportional representation system of voting, where a political party is awarded the same percentage of seats as they received votes (3% of the vote means that the party would receive 3% of the seats in the legislature), at least forces compromise. It is not enough for a political system to "encourage" compromise. As we see with major issues like the debt ceiling now, compromise is a vital part of the functioning on any country, and if it is not forced, it often does not happen and can have disastrous repercussions. 

As I just said, the two party system is broken. But for those who are discontent with both parties, who are completely turned off to the idea of partisan, ideological governance and want leadership that is willing to openly discuss and compromise, what do you do? Not since Ross Perot received almost 19% of the vote in the 1992 election has a third-party candidate had an actual shot at breaking the top two, let along garnering more than 1% of the vote. But there may be a new solution: Americans Elect. 

Americans Elect

Americans Elect
A new third party political startup is quickly emerging -- and their doing so utilizing the internet and the millions of discontent members of both parties. Sure, it sounds a little bit cheesy, but over 1.6 million people have signed their petition, and the group has accrued an impressive number of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Not only do they have a massive following, but they also have a well thought-out strategy for 2012.

In just a few days, Americans elect will formally submit 1.6 million signatures in order to be put on the presidential ballot in California. This is just one part of their unfolding national effort to get on the ballot of all 50 states in 2012. 

According to Thomas Friedman,

The goal of Americans Elect is to take a presidential nominating process now monopolized by the Republican and Democratic parties, which are beholden to their special interests, and blow it wide open — guaranteeing that a credible third choice, nominated independently, will not only be on the ballot in every state but be able to take part in every presidential debate and challenge both parties from the middle with the best ideas on how deal with the debt, education and jobs.

The goal of the movement, according to Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, is to

open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties.

But how can they possibly pull something like this off? First off, the organization is surprisingly well-funded, with state of the art offices financed by a number of hedge-fund managers just a stone's throw from the White House. But more than that, the organization will hope to tap into two important markets, the first being the millions of frustrated Americans disgruntled by the Washington political machine, and the second is the millions of people who use the internet on a regular basis. The way that they will achieve success is brilliantly simple. Let the people decide:

Americans Elect is the first-ever open nominating process. We’re using the Internet to give every single voter — Democrat, Republican or independent — the power to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012. The people will choose the issues. The people will choose the candidates. And in a secure, online convention next June, the people will make history by putting their choice on the ballot in every state.

Here's how it will work:

1. First, all those who are at all interested in becoming a delegate for Americans Elect goes to the website (http://www.americanselect.org/) and registers. As part of this short process, you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire pertaining to your views on a number of key issues and the priority they hold in your mind. Topics include the economy, foreign policy, education, etc. By providing Americans Elect with this information, you allow them to put you in contact with other people of similar views who you can discuss and organize with.
2. Following the registration process, you will be invited to "draft" a new candidate or support one who has already been drafted. You will also be allowed to contribute to the list of questions that all those who are running on the Americans Elect platform must answer before receiving the nomination.
3. Every candidate will have to post his or her answers either in writing or through video so that delegates have the opportunity to educate themselves on the different candidate's beliefs
4. Next, in April 2012, the candidate pool will be reduced to six following three separate rounds of elimination voting. The six, assuming they all want to run, will then have to name their running mates. The catch? A Democrat must run with a Republican or an independent and vice versa.
5. Finally, in June of 2012, the online nominating convention will narrow down the six to just one - and if all goes to plan, that person and his/her running mate will be put automatically onto the ballot in all 50 states. 

Google Images

Will the movement ultimately be successful? If their goal is to win the White House in 2012, then most would say that they have very little chance. But, if their goal is prove that a third party group has the power to organize and assert power in Washington and to push issues that would most likely otherwise not be discussed, then it will most likely be a glowing success.

Third parties have been great at doing one thing: Shedding light on an issue that the two party system neglects, if not completely ignores. Many third party groups, like the Green Party and its face Ralph Nader (who receives less than 1% of the vote in election years), has brought light to a number of different issues through the years, despite never coming close to being elected. Can you imagine how much of a stir a third party group could cause if it was not only well-financed and well-conceived, but also strongly supported by more than 1 million Americans? While its too early to deem the project a total success, I tip my hat to Americans Elect for creating such an incredible buzz around such a strong idea and I encourage all those who are not content with the current system to at least take a look. 

Check out the website: http://www.americanselect.org/

Are Democrats on the Side of Ronald Reagan in Debt Negotiations?

PoliticsUSA

Let's play a little game. Who said the following quotes?

1. “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility...This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

2. "This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world...The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

Give up? It was, amazingly, Ronald Reagan, way back in the 80s. Which begs the question, has the Democratic Party become the new party of Ronald Reagan (at least in terms of deficits)?
 

A Comparison

Let's take a quick look at a comparison between Tea Party Republicans and their supposed idol Ronald Reagan:

1. While Reagan presided over 18 increases in the federal debt ceiling during his eight years in office, Tea Party Republicans say that a vote to raise the debt ceiling is a threat to their most personal of values.
2. According to Dana Milbank who writes for the Washington Post, Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times while in office. Tea Party Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to support any increase in taxes and are even against the closing of tax loopholes for big oil companies and millionaires who can afford corporate jets. Many in the Tea Party seem to believe that they would rather see us default than to raise taxes one penny.
3. In "Cut, cap, and Balance", Tea Party Republicans promised and voted to cut government spending permanently to a level that was below 18% of our gross domestic product; under President Reagan, spending got up to as high as 23.5% and never fell below 21.3% of GDP
4. Influential Tea Party freshman have also been looking for drastic cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare; Reagan, on the other hand, signed a major expansion of the program. 

Plus, the theories of trickle down economics largely rely on deficit spending to be able to both cut taxes and increase spending.

And it's not as if President Reagan's views on raising the debt ceiling were a one time thing. Throughout his entire career, Reagan made sure to remind those in positions of power, who had the opportunity to play politics with the debt ceiling, that any political chicken with such an explosive issue could have absolutely terrifying effects on this nation's credit. And if the United States loses its full faith and credit, what do we have left?

In 1983, Ronald Reagan wrote the following message to Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker:

PolitcsUSA

Analysis and Conclusion

Let all of the above information sink in for just a minute. It really is amazing how far right the Tea Party has taken the mainstream GOP. Candidates like Mitt Romney, who in a perfect world would run as a very moderate Republican, are being forced to apologize for their support of perfectly legitimate things, like taxing polluters and supporting a health care system in which access to quality medical care is a right and not a privilege. Truth to be told, if Ronald Reagan ran for office today, I don't think he'd stand a chance among the religious zealots and tea party supporters. Back when he was in office, Reagan was considered a far-right conservative ideologue. Nowadays, Reagan, a man so revered by the right and despised by the left, would be considered a very moderate Republican, if not even a very conservative Blue Dog Democrat. 

Were he alive today, Reagan would almost certainly agree with President Obama on the need to raise the debt ceiling and the need to include revenue raises as part of a possible deal. The American people sure understand, with a new Gallup poll out recently showing that 66% of Americans believe that any deficit deal should include a equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

If you really think about it, the fact that so many Americans believe tax increases should be a part of a deal and the concept that Reagan would today be an extremely moderate Republican, it makes you realize how out of touch the Tea Party and the House of Representatives must be if they really believe that they are speaking for the American people.

Opinion: Tax Junk Food, Subsidize Vegetables

New York Times Image

After sitting on a bus for five hours tonight, reading story after story about the debt ceiling, learning absolutely no new information, both sides completely dug in, I decided that I really needed to free myself from the horrible constraints of rehashing the same old points about the debt ceiling. So, for tonight's post, I want to talk about an issue that is extremely important to me and to the fate of this country: the problem of nutrition in the United States.

As a disclaimer, this post was inspired by a recent article in the New York Times, which I will cite throughout.

Introduction
What would happen if we were able to change our eating habits? Americans have been stuck in a rut of horrible food at dirt cheap prices for at least a decade, and the situation is getting worse. And, to be honest, I cannot blame the working class families who feed their children fast food day in and day out. When you are working paycheck to paycheck and trying to support a family while working three jobs, the calorie-dense, cheap fast food meal options can be a blessing. But there is of course another side to the coin: Americans are becoming the fattest people on earth, and fast food is absolutely the reason. 

And the nutrition problem in this country is not only a personal issue, it's also an economic one. Think about it: Economists say that the number one way to reduce the deficit and right the economy long-term is to find some way to slow the quickly rising cost of health care in this country. The way to do it? One word: Prevention. If you can find a way to offset the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables for working class families who generally eat fast food at higher rates and have more health problems down the line, you could easily slow the massive amounts of money that we spend every year on health care costs. You're looking at tens, even hundreds, of billions in savings. 

Google Images: In many cases, in the current nutritional climate we are in, a burger and fries can be much cheaper and easier than a home-cooked, healthier meal option

The Current Situation
While junk foods (like chips, sodas, "fruit" drinks, etc.) have been shown to lead to diseases like diabetes and heart disease, the food industry, more specifically the highly-processed food industry, has proven incapable of marketing healthier food options. Why do they refuse to market healthier foods? Simple, because while they tout their care for health and growth, the only thing these major companies are after is profit, and while unhealthy foods continue to drive profit margins higher, they will continue to push these products onto our society. 

In my opinion, it should be the federal government's job to stop outrages like this. The government needs to fulfill its main role as a protector of the public good. Currently, the federal government actually subsidizes these unhealthy products by, among other things, lowering the price of corn to an unbelievable extreme. This allows junk food designers to add things like high fructose corn syrup for pennies, charge low prices, and still make inordinately high profits. Rather than subsidize the junk food, we should be doing the opposite: taxing the foods that are most unhealthy for us. The income that we gain from doing so could be used to create a program that encourages Americans to eat healthy and warns them of the potential problems that eating poorly can cause long-term. 

And the need for a solution is absolutely dire. Attempting to educate our youths on the value of fresh vegetables over the sugary sweet taste of cocoa pebbles is difficult enough. Moreover, nutritional education is no match for the $4 billion that the fast food industry pushed into marketing in 2009. Here are a few facts:

1. The percentage of obesity among American adults has doubles over the last 30 years
2. The percentage of obese children has tripled in that same period
3. We not consume more than 10% more animal products than we did a generation ago, and while low fat meats like chicken are not necessarily a bad thing (despite the oftentimes inhuman conditions), I think that Americans would perhaps be better off without the quadruple baconator offered at Wendy's. 

The situation will only get worse, unless we act. Soon. 

Google Images: The subsidization of corn has long been considered detrimental to the well-being of that nation

Taxes
The way to solve the nutrition problem is an easy one: Tax the junk food and subsidize the fresh food. Easier said than done. 

According to Mark Bittman, who wrote an op-ed for the NYTimes, 

The average American consumes 44.7 gallons of soft drinks annually. (Although that includes diet sodas, it does not include noncarbonated sweetened beverages, which add up to at least 17 gallons a person per year.) Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now. An equivalent tax on fries might be 50 cents per serving; a quarter extra for a doughnut. (We have experts who can figure out how “bad” a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be; right now they’re busy calculating ethanol subsidies. Diet sodas would not be taxed.)

Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

This would, in essence, drive up the cost of junk food (although not exponentially if we are only discussing a cent, maybe two tops, per ounce) and keep the price of fresh fruits and vegetables extremely low, encouraging all types of people to buy more healthy foods. The tax would not only raise money for state and federal governments in a time where the economic recovery is slow at best, but it would also act as a preventative measure and save the country billions on health care costs long term. Think if you could go to the grocery store, the drug store, the supermarket, and find fresh fruit for 50 cents a pound instead of the 2 to 4 dollars we pay now. Think about the health opportunities if we could put vending machines filled with fresh fruits and vegetables in schools and charge less than a dollar, an idea that has already been implemented in both Japan and Ohio. 

For many Americans, they have a much more difficult time purchasing fresh fruit than fruit loops. And with diabetes and other diseases attributed to bad eating habits on the rise, this issue is absolutely urgent for the economy sanctity and national well-being of this nation. 

The problem with most state taxes on junk food right now is that they're a sales tax, meaning that the tax is charged at the register. As anyone who buys their own groceries knows, most people only consider the price they see in the aisles, not really caring about the tax they have to pay on the good. Therefore, the added sales tax to junk food is a mostly failed policy, as it has not demonstrated an impact in the goods that people commonly buy. This means that excise taxes are needed if we really want to impact the way consumers purchase. An excise tax would be incorporated into the shelf life of a product, which would mean that it would directly impact the way decisions that consumers would have to make. 

According to Bittman, 

Much of the research on beverage taxes comes from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Its projections indicate that taxes become significant at the equivalent of about a penny an ounce, a level at which three very good things should begin to happen: the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages should decrease, as should the incidence of disease and therefore public health costs; and money could be raised for other uses.

Google Images: Obesity is on the rise, having more than tripled among children in the last thirty years. We can stop the flow of childhood and adult obesity by making junk foods more expensive and subsidizing the cost of healthy and delicious fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Potential Pitfalls
Bittman points out two major problems, one being that it would upset the extremely powerful food lobby and the other being that some would ague that the government is infringing on their right to eat what they want:

This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.

Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them.

Conclusion 
Acceptance of new taxes in a nation that is electing such anti-tax zealots will not go down easy. According to Bittman, 

First off, we’ll have to listen to nanny-state arguments, which can be countered by the acceptance of the anti-tobacco movement as well as a dozen other successful public health measures. Then there are the predictions of  job loss at soda distributorships, but the same predictions were made about the tobacco industry, and those were wrong. (For that matter, the same predictions were made around the nickel deposit on bottles, which most shoppers don’t even notice.) Ultimately, however, both consumers and government will be more than reimbursed in the form of cheaper healthy staples, lowered health care costs and better health. And that’s a big deal.

As you can see, all of these arguments against the taxation of junk foods can be easily rebuked through reason.

In order to hammer home the point, I want to leave you with some numbers:

1. According to a professor at Columbia University, a one-cent per ounce tax on sugar-laced beverages in the state of New York could save up to $3 billion in health care costs over ten years and could bring in $1 billion annually to the state
2. A two-cent tax per ounce in the state of Illinois could reduce obesity by 18%, save $350 million and bring in over $800 million in tax revenue every year
3. If implemented nationally, the United States could see revenues of $13 billion a year while cutting consumption up to 24%
4. A 20% increase in the price of sugary drinks could result in a 20% decrease in consumption, which could prevent up to 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 from being diagnosed with diabetes, which could save $30 billion

The federal government is embattled in a tedious fight over what areas to cut, whether it be education, medicare, social security. Significant issues like the nutritional well-being of our nation are being blatantly overlooked. But if the government had any idea the economic value of the issue, both the savings and the revenues that could be made from a simple change in the system, they may be less likely to neglect and more likely to listen. 

Sunday Opinion: Romney Could Take Down Obama in 2012

Google Images: Mitt Romney could make a splash among voters in 2012

For my Sunday opinion piece, I'd like to quickly expand on a point that I made yesterday, which was that Washington's toxic climate could make presidential re-election very difficult in 2012. 

With debt ceiling talks imploding, and both parties taking significant hits in the polls as Americans go more and more frustrated with the way in which Washington works and the posturing that both sides go through before anything is accomplished, this creates the perfect opportunity for a well-funded republican challenger to step into the spotlight. With Rick Perry not yet declaring (and if he does decide to throw his hat in the ring, declaring extremely late), all indications point to Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president in 2012. And a mix of different polls shows that Romney actually has fairly good odds at, at a minimum, taking President Obama down to the wire on election night.

Let's take a look at the polls and see what we can conclude. 

The Polls
Poll #1: Obama vs. GOP General Election Results

fivethiryeight.blogs.nytimes.com

Nate Silver recently released a poll with some rather shocking results.  While Giuliani appears to beat Obama by 1.3 points, the possibility of him getting the nomination is tremendously small. The scarier number for Democrats is against Mitt Romney, where the president only leads by around 2 percentage points. 

Many people say that polling data this far away from 2012 seems hardly useful. And for the most part, I would agree with them, especially in regards to head-to-head polling like the one above. But times are changing, and with Washington spending multiple months, up to a year, on one single issue (like health care or like the debt ceiling currently), those poll numbers are less likely to change significantly. Let me put it another way: It used to be that an incumbent president this far away from the election had plenty of time to discuss new issues and reassure discontent voters by proposing and encouraging the passage of legislation that was important to them. But 2012 could be radically different. After spending more than eight months on health care and six months (and counting) on debt ceiling negotiations, the United States Congress and subsequently, the president of the United States, has very little room to maneuver when it comes to other important issues that could assist in bolstering their election prospects. This could play to the strength of the GOP nominee, who will not be handicapped by what's driving Washington and the the large chunks of time that the president will be using to deal with his presidential duties rather than hitting the campaign trail, fundraising with donors and pushing his message. 

Poll #2: Presidential Approval Ratings

The second piece of polling data that is important to look at when discussing the election in 2012 is the president's approval ratings. While day-to-day polling is important to see, it is also important to look at the general trajectory and try to imply where it is headed. Of course, President Obama began his tenure with huge support and gigantic hopes for a new Washington. Unfortunately, a number of those hopes and promises have gone unfulfilled and Washington remains gridlocked. While President Obama is not fully to blame for the gridlock (especially on the debt ceiling, where congressional republicans continue to hold the economy hostage), voters really only care about one thing: "I voted for Obama because I wanted change, and change did not happen." And the president's approval rating has reflected that discontent, hovering in the mid 40's for months. While in other election cycles, I would argue that the president has plenty of time to raise his numbers, campaigning and promoting his message enough to get a majority of voters, I'm not so sure about it this time. As I previously said, if Obama is stuck in Washington arguing with congressional leaders on the Hill about how to raise the debt ceiling again in eight months, the republican nominee has a huge opportunity to outwork and out-campaign the president.

Poll #3: Debt Ceiling Polling

When asked to whom they would assign responsibility should the limit not be raised, 48 percent of respondents chose the congressional Republicans; 34 percent said they would blame the Obama administration.

These results echo a Pew Research Center poll conducted from June 16-19 which asked the same question as the Quinnipiac poll. According to that survey, 42 percent of respondents said they would blame Republicans in Congress if the debt ceiling were not raised; 33 percent chose the Obama Administration.

Source: Quinnipac Polling

The above poll (and other polls like it) seem to spell good news for President Obama. A large plurality of Americans (48%) would blame congressional republicans if the United States defaulted. Short term, Obama may win the battle. But dig deeper, think long term, and the above polling might not be so cheery for Democratic strategists. If the country does surpass the August 2nd deadline and the US begins the process of defaulting on our debt, this country will see an anti-incumbent sentiment so strong that 2012 could be the largest wave election (i.e. incumbents losing in droves) that we have ever seen. And even though it is the republicans who have largely been holding the economy hostage with these debt ceiling talks, Obama cannot win. Even if he comes out with a short-term victory, voters will view the president as "bad" and congressional republicans as "horrible." Either way, they are likely to start looking for someone new.

Conclusion

Of course, there is clearly the chance that Republicans nominate someone who is too conservative to maximize their opportunity with swing voters. The republican base is becoming more and more ideologically driven and presidential candidates will have to move sharply right in order to attain the party's nomination and quiet and reassure the tea party.  On the other hand, while incumbent presidents are very difficult to defeat, someone like Romney would probably compel a very close election unless the economic recovery picks up its pace next year.

Debt Ceiling Could Prove to Be Major Victory for Republican Presidential Candidate

Google Images: Mitt Romney, the GOP front runner

I feel bad for Republican presidential candidates. They've been trying so hard to get attention recently, with a number of televised debates, campaign stops, and television appearances. But the GOP field just can't seem to catch a break. And Mitt Romney is taking it the hardest.

Romney's problems stem largely from the issues I've addressed with the mass media and the way in which it functions. Why report on Romney's serious economic proposals when Herman Cain is saying that he would outlaw any legislation over three pages, or Michelle Bachmann is reportedly having migraine headaches? The average viewer watches the news for short and interesting tidbits of information, not full-scale political analysis of major issues. This is why PBS, with its lack of flair and dramatics, is so unpopular among mainstream Americans. 

But Romney, who many consider to be the front runner of the GOP presidential race, may have caught a major break with the ongoing debt ceiling crisis happening in Washington. And he did not have to do a single thing.

Analysis: GOP Presidential Candidate Could Profit From Debt Talks
With the debt crisis consuming every single part of Washington, Romney and the other serious presidential contenders (I'm looking at you Rick Perry) have two major things going for them:

• Being outside of Washington, away from negotiations, and away from the possibility of having to vote to increase the debt ceiling, is a major advantage right now. While polls show that the American people are starting to understand the seriousness of the situation if we were default on our debts, they are still fairly evenly split on whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling. While everyone in Washington (I would hope) and those who consider themselves politically active know, it is an impossibility to not raise the debt ceiling. It will be raised, it is just a matter of how long it will take to hammer out some kind of compromise between the two parties. But reality does not matter in politics. Politics is solely driven by perception. President Obama is not only directly tied to an increase in the debt ceiling, but he also has to sign the bill into law and waste plenty of resources explaining why the ceiling needs to be raised to a relatively uninformed general populous. Nominees like Romney and Perry, on the other hand, have no such problem. In fact, knowing that their base is strongly opposed to any raising of the debt ceiling under any circumstances, I would be shocked if you don't soon see Romney railing against raising the debt ceiling, saying that if he was in Congress he would have opposed it. Is this the truth? Of course not. For all the flack that Romney takes, I'm the first to admit that he possesses a very high level of intellect, especially for things related to business. And as a businessman, Romney knows that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States could face an economic catastrophe. But that doesn't matter, because he will never have to vote on it in Congress or sign legislation that would raise it (at least through the campaign). 

Google Images: President Obama in the White House Briefing Room

• But that's not the only thing that Republican candidates have going for them. While Republicans like Romney are hitting the campaign trail hard, spending hours a day stumping and fundraising with major donors, Obama is stuck in Washington, dealing with anger from both sides, from Republicans who are vehemently against raising taxes and from Democrats who refuse to accept any entitlement cuts. Romney raised $18.4 million last quarter, far surpassing the amount that all other candidates took in combined. However, Romney still loses out to the incumbent president, who took in a record shattering $87 million dollars. But comparing the two numbers ignores the bigger issue. Romney is out campaigning every day, getting his policy positions out there, crusading against the President and his policies. While Obama's grassroots machine has begun to ratchet up, Obama himself has not had the opportunity to really hit the ground running in a number of key battleground states he needs to take to win in 2012. For all those who say that it's too early to even think about the President campaigning, consider this. According to the latest Gallup poll, the president's approval rating sits at 43%, far from the 52.9% that he took in the general election. These poll numbers are worrisome because his approval is down among his own base. If the President wants to rally his base and reassure independents by making sure that they don't just sit out on election day, he needs as early of a start as possible. With the fragile state of the economic recovery, and Republicans doing all they can to make sure that he does not pass a single piece of landmark legislation (or, for that matter, any legislation that would help the president in righting the economy), Obama has some major work to do if he wants to see electoral success again in 2012. 

Google Images: Voter anger with any all incumbents will certainly flair up after the extended and extremely frustrating weeks of debt ceiling negotiations. This is likely to help boost the Republican nominee, who will be able to paint him/herself as an outsider, much like Senator Obama in the run-up to the 2008 election. 

• Furthermore, while Obama may win the battle, he's growing more and more likely by the day to lose the war. Think about it this way: Polls show that if a potential default were to happen, Republicans in Congress would be blamed by 50% of Americans whereas the president would only be blamed by 33%. According to one commentator, the public would view Obama as bad and congressional republicans as even. Obama cannot win and republicans know it. And GOP presidential candidates should be licking their chops at the opportunity to hit Obama hard on the debt ceiling. With Speaker Boehner walking out of a potential bipartisan deal earlier today, this now leave the McConnell compromise as the last real bill on the table. McConnell's plan would essentially grant the president with 100% of the responsibility to raise the debt ceiling, allowing members of Congress to vote no and shifting all the blame for the unpopular action of raising the ceiling squarely on Obama's shoulders. The way in which the debt ceiling negotiations have been handled is likely to cause a rabid anti-incumbent sentiment for Washington politicians. Like it or not, even acting as the most mature man in the room (assuming an almost father like role over his "congressional" children), President Obama is the leader of the "typical, Washington politicians." President Obama will ultimately find it difficult to stave off a well-funded republican candidate who runs as an outsider, just as Senator Obama did in 2008.  

Conclusion

If you ask me, Republican leadership knows exactly what they're doing. By handicapping the President's ability to fund raise, forcing him to engage in seriously unpopular talks, and potentially giving him the sole approval to increase the debt ceiling (allowing Congress to vote no and putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of the President), they are doing all they can to set the president up for failure in 2012. The most telling of quotes comes from Senate  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Forget compromise, forget the possibility of defaulting on our debts, forget that American voters elect officials to represent them and act and vote in a responsible and grown-up manner. Washington has slowly but surely become a political  circus, a place where the minority party will do anything and everything to ensure that the incumbent does not get re-elected. Republicans have recently mastered this strategy, reaffirming the beliefs of millions of discontent Americans. If the possibility of a market meltdown and rapidly increasing interest rates (among dozens of other things) does not spur this Congress to quickly find compromise, I have absolutely no idea what will. 

Debt Ceiling Drama: Tea Party Republicans vs. Everyone Else

Google Images

Just weeks after the Republican caucus wholly rejected any form of "grand deal" to raise the debt ceiling, rumors are swirling around the Capitol that the possibility for a larger package has been put back on the table, and that progress is being made.

A Quick Update
For those who have not been paying much attention lately, here are the most recent updates:

• House Republicans debated and passed the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act," with 9 republicans opposing and 5 Democrats supporting the bill. According to the language of the bill, the legislation would cut discretionary spending by around $380 billion in 2012 (although where the cuts come from has not yet been specified), enforce a cap on spending that would make it impossible to spend any more than 18% of GDP, and put a balanced budget amendment on the table which would force all tax increases to be passed by a 2/3 vote instead of a simple majority. Republicans have said that this bill will help to right America's fiscal house and spur job growth by creating certainty in the marketplace. Critics have pounced on the bill for not specifying what cuts would be made. They have also asserted that if the bill became law, the legislation would severely handicap the President in times of economic downturn (as he would be unable to access any type of money that would be intended for stimulus). Either way, the bill is said to be dead in the water in the Senate, as the Senate Democratic Majority would be wholly unlikely to pass such a bill seeing as a balanced budget amendment has very limited support among progressives.

• The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has floated a bill that would cut around $1.5 trillion in spending over 10 years while also giving the President the authority to suggest (but not implement) even more future spending cuts as one of the conditions to raising the debt ceiling. But House Republicans have thrown up major roadblocks to this idea, saying that it does not cut enough over the ten year period and that it gives the President too much discretion and too many opportunities to back out of those cuts in the future. Additionally, the President and his administration have been desperately pushing for a bigger deficit-reduction package, which has led many lawmakers to consider the McConnell deal as being too small and possibly unnecessary. Because of this, the bill is looking less and less likely to be the ultimate solution that is agreed upon by the President and Congress. 

Google Images: Mitch McConnell is working frantically to  create a plan that would cut $1.5 trillion dollars from the budget over 10 years and give the President the authorization to raise the debt ceiling. But commentators say it has very little chance of passing the House with enough Tea-Party Republican support. 

Where Does This Leave Us?

With the two most high-profile bills all but ruled out, where does this leave us? Remember a few weeks ago when Boehner drew major flack from House Majority Leader Cantor and the rest of the Republican caucus for offering them a "grand deal" that he had assisted in conceiving with the President? Well, it appears that that plan is back with a vengeance. Commentators and officials close to the White House are saying that a long-term, large-scale deficit plan is now seeming to be more and more likely of an option. 

According to a number of different sources, the President is still looking for a large-scale deficit deal that would likely save more than $4 trillion dollars over ten years, through discretionary cuts, entitlement reforms, tax increases on wealthy Americans, and the elimination of tax subsidies for big oil companies and a number of other corporations. And with Republicans taking major flack for their no-compromise policy, they may at this point be willing to oblige him. 

What would this possible deal look like? According to the Huffington Post,

It would involve steep reductions in health care spending -- both in Medicare and Medicaid. In previous debt ceiling negotiations, the administration has supported further means-testing elements of Medicare as well as raising the eligibility age of the program. Cuts to Medicare suppliers would also be part of a larger package, as would adjusting the payment structure of Social Security so that a lower level of benefits was paid out over time.

Even if these controversial cuts to medicare were approved by both Democrats and Republicans, the problem of tax revenue is still an issue that seems dishearteningly difficult to find common ground on. Said simply, Democrats want the Bush era tax cuts curtailed and rates to go back up to Clinton era levels, which, it should be noted, was a period in which the government was running surpluses (however, whether or not that had to do with tax rates is disputed). Republicans, on the other hand, do not want any form of tax increase involved in a deal.

But the most outspoken congressional Republicans, the freshman, tea-party backed conservatives, may have to swallow the medicine. While Speaker Boehner has publicly stated that Republicans are solely focused on getting cut, cap, and balance signed into law, according to unconfirmed yet widely circulated reports, Speaker Boehner spoke openly to the Republican caucus in a private meeting and said that some form of a grand deal is still on the table. It has also been reported that he has expressed interest in a large-scale deal with the potential for raises in revenue and has been working on some form of a deal directly with President Obama.

Knowing that Republicans will do all they can to avoid tax increases, the President has offered them an alternative path:

The White House has laid out an alternative suggestion during past negotiations: Lawmakers would be required to find $800 billion in additional revenues over the next decade. If they could not find an agreement, then the Bush-era tax cuts for the high-end earners will expire.

What's more, Grover Norquist, the man behind the "no-new-tax-pledge" which all congressman (with a handful of exceptions) have signed, said explicitly that not continuing the Bush tax cuts would not theoretically be considered a tax increase, and therefore would not violate the pledge that Republicans in Congress signed. According to the Washington Post,

According to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

Republicans are critical of this alternative path, saying that all Democrats would have to do was simply "run out the clock" -- meaning that they would oppose any and all deals knowing that the Bush tax rates on the rich would go up no matter what. Because of this, Democratic officials say they are floating a new, slightly different idea:

In order to try and find agreement on this front, a slight reversal to the administration's original plan has been floated, according to a Democratic official. Rather than write the decoupling of the Bush tax cuts into the debt ceiling legislation, negotiators will simply leave the rates as is.

Lawmakers would still be tasked with finding $800 billion or so in revenues to supplement a deficit-reduction deal. But if that $800 billion didn't materialize, they would no longer have the fallback option of seeing the high-end rates go back to pre-Bush levels when they are set to expire at the end of 2012. Instead, they would have to relive the dramatic legislative showdown that happened in late 2010, when the president and Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to decouple the top-rates from the middle and lower income rates.  

Google Images: Grover Norquist, The Head of Americans for Tax Reform

 Analysis: Tea Party vs. All 
As demonstrated above, there are a number of different options floating around. But the worry is that none of them are politically viable, by which I mean none of them would be able to get enough support from House Republicans. Even with President Obama compromising on trillions of cuts, including deeply unpopular cuts to medicare and medicaid, and offering an olive branch to Republicans on taxes, Tea Party backed Republicans still refuse to even entertain the idea of increasing taxes a single penny. Instead, House Republicans have taken to the airwaves and the television screens, arguing with political commentators and hosts that cut, cap, and balance has a great chance of passing the Senate. Case and point, Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh got into a heated (and extremely juvenile) argument with Chris Matthews about the plan that Tea Party Republicans have trumpeted:




Through all the bickering (which I have argued is a huge problem with the mass media), Walsh repeatedly asserts that cut, cap, and balance has a good chance of passing the Senate. This is pure posturing. Cut, cap, and balance has absolutely no chance of passing the Senate. It would need a total of 60 Senators to vote in favor and with the chamber being composed of a Democratic majority vehemently opposed to such ideologically driven legislation, it is dead on arrival. Joe Walsh (and more broadly members of the Tea Party Republican caucus) have said that they are in no way posturing, that they want to see a deal done more than anyone else. In fact, they argue that President Obama is the one lying in an attempt to turn the people against the Republican party.

If Tea Party Republicans are not posturing, if they really believe in compromise, why did they push so hard for cut, cap, and balance, legislation that is purely ideologically driven (with a requirement that all tax increases can only be put into law with a 2/3rds majority) and had absolutely no chance of ever becoming law? If they believe in compromise, with less than two weeks before the government begins the process of defaulting on its debts, shouldn't they be working with the President, working with their leadership to try to hammer out a deal in which no one is happy, but everyone is equally unhappy?

A new CNN poll came out today that showed that 64% of Americans believe that any debt ceiling deal should include a mix of both spending cuts and tax increases:

In those discussions, several budget plans have been proposed that would reduce the amount the government owes by trillions of dollars over the next ten years.  If you had to choose, would you rather see Congress and President Obama agree to a budget plan that only includes cuts in government spending, or a budget plan that includes a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on higher-income Americans and some businesses? 

Only spending cuts 34%  

Spending cuts and tax increases 64%

The Republican Party is in trouble on the debt ceiling, and they are being given a huge chance to potentially avoid political catastrophe. President Obama is giving up at least $2.4 trillion in spending cuts, and what does he want in return? For Bush era tax cuts to expire. Just to hammer the point home (I know I just provided the quote), even Grover Norquist, the biggest anti-tax crusader in Washington, is saying that allowing tax cuts to simply expire is not equal to a tax hike and therefore would not draw the ire of Norquist's powerful group, Americans for Tax Reform. But tea party candidates are still clinging on to the wildly imaginative idea that cut, cap, and balance has a chance to pass the Senate.

This should be most troubling for Republicans like John Boehner and Senate Republicans who believe that compromise is necessary to making a deal. Why? Because when the American voter thinks about who they would blame if the government defaults, their opinions are not nuanced. The vast majority do not say "Republicans in the House" or "Tea Party Republicans." No, they say simply Republicans. This is the same phenomenon that happens almost every midterm election after a new president has been elected. Take, for instance, 2008, when President Obama was swept into office with a huge margin of victory and dozens of congressman rode in on his coattails. Then, in 2010, voters got upset with President Obama because they had voted for change and not a whole lot happened. What did the voters do? They did not get upset at just President Obama, no, they blamed the entire Democratic Party, voting out a huge number of House Democrats and hammering away at the Democratic Senate Majority.

A similar situation appears to be manifesting with the debt ceiling talks. While Senate Republicans have showed openness to compromise, the powerful group of freshman tea-party backed republican congressman have maintained their fierce fight against taxes. In fact, many Senate Republicans have showed interest in the so-called "Gang of Six" proposal that was created by 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The plan would essentially raise $1.7 trillion of revenue over the next ten years. But the plan drew near-immediate criticism from House Republicans.

Paul Ryan, the head of the House Budget Committee, expressed his dismay with the plan that would raise revenues:

Unfortunately, it [the plan] increases revenues while failing to seriously address exploding federal spending on health care, which is the primary driver of our debt. There are also serious concerns that the proposal’s substance on spending falls far short of what is needed to achieve the savings it claims.

And Tea-party freshman have also been chiming in against the plan, frustrated with the proposed tax increases. What House Republicans fail to realize is this: The President has expressed a willingness to compromise on trillions of cuts in discretionary and entitlement spending, a willingness that most Democrats are visibly frustrated with. Cuts to Medicare are angering for any Democrat.

But if President Obama's final deal with Speaker Boehner includes cuts to medicare, I would be outright shocked if Democrats did not swallow the bitter pill and vote for the plan anyways, despite their public outcries. This is the main difference between congressional Democrats and Republicans. Putting all the rhetoric aside, Democrats in Congress have shown a willingness to take politics out of the equation and put the country first. Will Democrats take major flack for increasing the debt limit and agreeing to cuts to medicare? Absolutely. They may even lose some wealthy fundraisers. But they understand that if the debt limit is not raised, this country is in grave danger of an even more calamitous economic collapse than 2008.

Tea-party Republicans (this does not include Senate Republicans or Speaker Boehner) say they want to move the nation forward, get our fiscal house in order, and create jobs. But the legislation they're supporting (like cut, cap, and balance) and the roadblocks that they are constantly throwing at the President and at Speaker Boehner suggest the opposite.

Google Images: Tea Party Republicans are sticking to their guns on cut, cap, and balance

And the voters have had enough of it. A recent CNN poll indicated that that 51% of Americans would blame the Republican Congress if the deal is not reached, whereas only 30% would blame Obama. President Obama has positioned himself and the Democratic Party as compromisers, centrists whose main goal is to fix the economy without harming the middle class. Republicans have no response. Worse, Tea Party Republicans have unsuccessfully attempted to paint Obama as a liar and a radical and have worked as hard as possible to derail a possible compromise.

Tea Party House Representatives were elected to Washington in 2010 to cut spending and restore America's fiscal responsibility. But if they don't quickly realize the implications of their actions, and understand that a vast majority of Americans are demanding compromise, come 2012, those "newly elected representatives" will be voted out just as swiftly as they were voted in.