Grading methodology: I used the following grading scale:
A+ 99
A 96
A- 93
B+ 87
B 84
B+ 87
B 84
B- 81
C+ 78
C 75
C+ 78
C 75
C- 72
D+ 69
D+ 69
D 66
D - 63
F+ 57
F 54
F- 51
Obama's economic policy (or issue) is a combination of great expectations and cold hard realities.
The great expectation was that the Obama omnibus stimulus was supposed to have a domino effect that would encourage consumerism. As such, consumerism is a state of mind. In addition, the thawing of credit markets should have led to an economic boom. The underemployment and employment rate was supposed to drop by 50%.
Unfortunately, those rosy dreams were a result of the American cultural propensity of always wanting instant gratification.
The truth is that private debt is too high for robust consumerism (the average debt to income ratio in the United States was still over 110% in 2011), businesses are scared of government instability and lack of policy direction (surrounding the tax code), the American system of efficiency through greater production out of fewer people is in full swing, and finally the American transformation from a blue-collar, manufacturing economy to a service and information oriented economy created increased labor competition as companies globalized and a lot people not possessing the skills that are currently in demand.
However, the stimulus and the automotive bailout worked: economists credit the measures with 3 million jobs; the American automobile industry was saved, saving millions of jobs in regards to manufacturing and supply. At the same time though, economic stimuli packages are merely stabilization packages -- as much as the government wants to tout otherwise, it is actually the private sector that is going to be responsible for job growth. More on that in a minute.
The Obama administration is wanting to make moves with a new education initiative with increased funding for community colleges towards the education and the training of new workers. This is critical and something I overwhelmingly support. While I have nothing against the existence for-profit post-secondary education, they are indeed overwhelmingly expensive in regards to the level of education and training that they provide.
As for private sector growth, it is actually a mixed bag. Companies are either too scared to hire, not interested in hiring because they don't see the need for it, or are focusing all of their efforts on emerging markets. As much political fodder that the Obama administration may try, if employers aren't going to see a need to hire or companies are not going to see the need in not taking advantage of emerging markets -- a reality of globalization -- then companies aren't going to hire in a robust fashion domestically. People expect the executive office to do something about it; in truth, there's little the executive office can do about it.
The only reason why I'm going to give the Obama administration a fair grade is because of what the stimulus and the automotive bailout packages did; however, the Obama administration has done a bad job at raising people's expectations way too high and playing into instant gratification syndrome.
Bottom line: Love it or hate it, the bailouts were necessary and they worked -- just not to the degree people thought it would.
Grade: C+
Obama's economic views are mainstream, Romney is more Chicago school, and Paul is more Austrian school. It's a wash between all three -- Obama raised expectations too high in regards to the new economic reality, Romney would go on a deregulation spree that would produce no payoff, and Paul would enact policies that honestly only work in theory and prove why a completely lassiez-faire country has never existed.
Social Justice and Civil Rights:
There's not much to write about in terms of the social justice and civil rights arena, aside from the federal intervention of states such as Texas from blocking Planned Parenthood funding and immigration reform (of which there has been none). Illegal immigrants spent 2010 and 2011 being deported at a pace faster than the Bush administration. A weak growing economy, combined with the Mexican Drug War, has more or less stifled illegal immigration.
Probably the biggest social justice move by the Obama administration was the ending of "don't ask, don't tell", which finally allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving in the military without repercussion. It was about damn time that came to an end. However, while that was a major step in gay civil rights, he's largely mum on the other major issue concerns of same-sex rights activists (i.e., it begins with an "m").
Bottom line: He ended "don't ask, don't tell". If it wasn't for that, his grade would be much lower.
Grade: B-
Obama and Romney are both center-right, with Romney leaning a little bit more right. Romney has conspicuously stayed away (for the most part) from the conservative family values rhetoric and for the most part, tries his best to avoid religion. Paul generally focuses more on civil liberties than civil rights. As such, advantage, Obama.
Civil Liberties:
The irony of Obama's civil liberties agenda is that it even gives the ACLU nightmares.
The Obama administration passed NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). This is very regrettable. Not to mention, he has spared anyone in the Bush administration being tried for torture. In addition, he has continued quite a few of the Bush administration's controversial security policies such as continuing to operate Guantanamo Bay's detention center and permitted wireless surveillance. Not to mention, numerous public interest lawsuits have been blocked by the administration, which accuses the administration, amongst other things, privacy violations.
However, the Obama administration has came out strongly against the three major bills that have been a threat to internet privacy -- PIPA (Protect IP Act), SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), and CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). PIPA and SOPA are postponed; CISPA actually passed the House with the White House threatening twice to veto it, the second time just being a few days ago. However, the White House never, for any of those three bills, guaranteed to veto them under any and all circumstances. It's not too surprising -- while most tech companies were against PIPA and SOPA, it's quieter on the technological front (save Mozilla) when it comes to CISPA, as CISPA provides a provision that pretty much frees any company that flips over any private information about you to the federal government from a civil liberties lawsuit.
Bottom line: The Obama administration's civil liberties record is indefensible.
Grade: F-
Paul torches Obama and Romney. No question about it.
Bottom line: Obama has turned out to be a lot more pragmatic than people expected him to be, and I think that is because Obama has more or less became assimilated with the realities of Washington. Believe it or not, Obama is one of the few Democrats that is center-right. The last five Democratic presidents -- Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman -- ranged from center-left to left-wing.
Overall grade: C
What happens in November: I forecast a 60% chance he gets re-elected, only because of a united Democratic Party. Whether or not I'd vote for him again remains to be seen.
F+ 57
F 54
F- 51
Foreign Policy:
The Obama administration has, in the eyes of many journalists and pundits, an extremely successful foreign policy. The administration has managed to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, kill Osama Bin Laden (yes, yes, I know about the claims of him being dead a lot longer than reported), get involved-but-not-involved in Libya's revolt, getting Putin's Russia to cooperate (somewhat), still managing to avoid war with Iran, and improved the reputation of the States' globally. Moreover, the Obama Doctrine makes for a major shift in American foreign policy -- one that favors the American unilateralism that dominated foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, to one that makes note of and is accepting of new rising foreign policy powers.
However, I'm very weary about drone bombings in Pakistan. There's something about bombing another country, a supposed ally, killing innocent civilians and refusing to apologize for it is nothing short of disturbing.
Bottom line: A quote that's often attributed to John F. Kennedy is "domestic policy may hurt us; foreign policy can kill us."
Grade: B+
Huge advantage over Romney. While I like Paul's non-interventionist stance, it's just completely unrealistic.
However, I'm very weary about drone bombings in Pakistan. There's something about bombing another country, a supposed ally, killing innocent civilians and refusing to apologize for it is nothing short of disturbing.
Bottom line: A quote that's often attributed to John F. Kennedy is "domestic policy may hurt us; foreign policy can kill us."
Grade: B+
Huge advantage over Romney. While I like Paul's non-interventionist stance, it's just completely unrealistic.
Fiscal Policy:
While the Obama administration's fiscal policy is heavily criticized (partially with merit), I think it should be recognized what is actually bloating federal spending. Note two things -- government spending outside of transfer payments (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) has actually dropped since 2009. In fact, government spending as a share of GDP has dropped since 2009, granted, it is a combination of decreased federal spending, moderate GDP recovery, and finally the fact that GDP calculations in regards to government ignore transfer payments. The transfer payments, however, has ballooned, especially in the wake of the financial sector collapse, the increases in Medicare enrollment stemming from the baby boomer generation retiring, and finally increases in the cost of health care. It is these transfer payments that represent the real source of the federal deficit. In addition, the Social Security Trust Fund is actually intragovernmental debt. This would be a reality no matter who is President.
The Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare, was passed in 2010, which represents the biggest legislative victory of the Democratic Party in years, however, it's cost has been met with increasing derision from the American public. The real idea of it, which is almost never mentioned and is really a personal hypothesis, is that if risk is spread out over a greater population then it would become cheaper to pay for that risk (i.e., insurance premiums), hence the individual mandate along with insurance companies being forced to more or less cover more people and the fact that Medicare Advantage funding is expected to decrease throughout the implementation of the provisions. A corollary of that, in my opinion, is the furthered idea that health care services will become much more efficient to provide with technological and medical advances and if more people can actually pay for it. The real failure of the legislation, aside from obvious constitutional questions, is that it focuses too much on point of use and continues to help the debate evade questions as to why the costs of administering health care services are so high in the first place.
The Obama administration has put in place numerous economic stimuli, from the omnibus stimulus package from 2009, to certain tax credits, cuts, and increases which only further complicated the American tax code. While the Keynesian-based plans have shown to somewhat work -- the United States economy is still expected to expand, albeit it slowly -- the relatively small tax paying base (only comprising really half of all taxed units in the United States), creates fiscal peril. Not to mention, the stagnating of wages in general in relation to the ballooning government expenditures in transfers and entitlements only exacerbates the issues in regards to revenue. The United States has a spending issue, yet that's rooted inefficiency, and complications in revenue.
Bottom line: Economic stimuli are expensive, even more so when the tax paying pool is too small to effectively pay for it.
The Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare, was passed in 2010, which represents the biggest legislative victory of the Democratic Party in years, however, it's cost has been met with increasing derision from the American public. The real idea of it, which is almost never mentioned and is really a personal hypothesis, is that if risk is spread out over a greater population then it would become cheaper to pay for that risk (i.e., insurance premiums), hence the individual mandate along with insurance companies being forced to more or less cover more people and the fact that Medicare Advantage funding is expected to decrease throughout the implementation of the provisions. A corollary of that, in my opinion, is the furthered idea that health care services will become much more efficient to provide with technological and medical advances and if more people can actually pay for it. The real failure of the legislation, aside from obvious constitutional questions, is that it focuses too much on point of use and continues to help the debate evade questions as to why the costs of administering health care services are so high in the first place.
The Obama administration has put in place numerous economic stimuli, from the omnibus stimulus package from 2009, to certain tax credits, cuts, and increases which only further complicated the American tax code. While the Keynesian-based plans have shown to somewhat work -- the United States economy is still expected to expand, albeit it slowly -- the relatively small tax paying base (only comprising really half of all taxed units in the United States), creates fiscal peril. Not to mention, the stagnating of wages in general in relation to the ballooning government expenditures in transfers and entitlements only exacerbates the issues in regards to revenue. The United States has a spending issue, yet that's rooted inefficiency, and complications in revenue.
Bottom line: Economic stimuli are expensive, even more so when the tax paying pool is too small to effectively pay for it.
Grade: C+
It's a wash between Obama, Romney, and Paul. Romney wants to make cuts, Paul wants to make draconian cuts, and neither Romney nor Paul stand a chance against an uncooperative Congress, especially the Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, if Obama won, would come around to having cooperate with Obama, considering the GOP would have to if they want to make any legislative progress in 2014.
The Economy:
It's a wash between Obama, Romney, and Paul. Romney wants to make cuts, Paul wants to make draconian cuts, and neither Romney nor Paul stand a chance against an uncooperative Congress, especially the Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, if Obama won, would come around to having cooperate with Obama, considering the GOP would have to if they want to make any legislative progress in 2014.
The Economy:
Obama's economic policy (or issue) is a combination of great expectations and cold hard realities.
The great expectation was that the Obama omnibus stimulus was supposed to have a domino effect that would encourage consumerism. As such, consumerism is a state of mind. In addition, the thawing of credit markets should have led to an economic boom. The underemployment and employment rate was supposed to drop by 50%.
Unfortunately, those rosy dreams were a result of the American cultural propensity of always wanting instant gratification.
The truth is that private debt is too high for robust consumerism (the average debt to income ratio in the United States was still over 110% in 2011), businesses are scared of government instability and lack of policy direction (surrounding the tax code), the American system of efficiency through greater production out of fewer people is in full swing, and finally the American transformation from a blue-collar, manufacturing economy to a service and information oriented economy created increased labor competition as companies globalized and a lot people not possessing the skills that are currently in demand.
However, the stimulus and the automotive bailout worked: economists credit the measures with 3 million jobs; the American automobile industry was saved, saving millions of jobs in regards to manufacturing and supply. At the same time though, economic stimuli packages are merely stabilization packages -- as much as the government wants to tout otherwise, it is actually the private sector that is going to be responsible for job growth. More on that in a minute.
The Obama administration is wanting to make moves with a new education initiative with increased funding for community colleges towards the education and the training of new workers. This is critical and something I overwhelmingly support. While I have nothing against the existence for-profit post-secondary education, they are indeed overwhelmingly expensive in regards to the level of education and training that they provide.
As for private sector growth, it is actually a mixed bag. Companies are either too scared to hire, not interested in hiring because they don't see the need for it, or are focusing all of their efforts on emerging markets. As much political fodder that the Obama administration may try, if employers aren't going to see a need to hire or companies are not going to see the need in not taking advantage of emerging markets -- a reality of globalization -- then companies aren't going to hire in a robust fashion domestically. People expect the executive office to do something about it; in truth, there's little the executive office can do about it.
The only reason why I'm going to give the Obama administration a fair grade is because of what the stimulus and the automotive bailout packages did; however, the Obama administration has done a bad job at raising people's expectations way too high and playing into instant gratification syndrome.
Bottom line: Love it or hate it, the bailouts were necessary and they worked -- just not to the degree people thought it would.
Grade: C+
Obama's economic views are mainstream, Romney is more Chicago school, and Paul is more Austrian school. It's a wash between all three -- Obama raised expectations too high in regards to the new economic reality, Romney would go on a deregulation spree that would produce no payoff, and Paul would enact policies that honestly only work in theory and prove why a completely lassiez-faire country has never existed.
Social Justice and Civil Rights:
There's not much to write about in terms of the social justice and civil rights arena, aside from the federal intervention of states such as Texas from blocking Planned Parenthood funding and immigration reform (of which there has been none). Illegal immigrants spent 2010 and 2011 being deported at a pace faster than the Bush administration. A weak growing economy, combined with the Mexican Drug War, has more or less stifled illegal immigration.
Probably the biggest social justice move by the Obama administration was the ending of "don't ask, don't tell", which finally allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving in the military without repercussion. It was about damn time that came to an end. However, while that was a major step in gay civil rights, he's largely mum on the other major issue concerns of same-sex rights activists (i.e., it begins with an "m").
Bottom line: He ended "don't ask, don't tell". If it wasn't for that, his grade would be much lower.
Grade: B-
Obama and Romney are both center-right, with Romney leaning a little bit more right. Romney has conspicuously stayed away (for the most part) from the conservative family values rhetoric and for the most part, tries his best to avoid religion. Paul generally focuses more on civil liberties than civil rights. As such, advantage, Obama.
Civil Liberties:
The irony of Obama's civil liberties agenda is that it even gives the ACLU nightmares.
The Obama administration passed NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). This is very regrettable. Not to mention, he has spared anyone in the Bush administration being tried for torture. In addition, he has continued quite a few of the Bush administration's controversial security policies such as continuing to operate Guantanamo Bay's detention center and permitted wireless surveillance. Not to mention, numerous public interest lawsuits have been blocked by the administration, which accuses the administration, amongst other things, privacy violations.
However, the Obama administration has came out strongly against the three major bills that have been a threat to internet privacy -- PIPA (Protect IP Act), SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), and CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). PIPA and SOPA are postponed; CISPA actually passed the House with the White House threatening twice to veto it, the second time just being a few days ago. However, the White House never, for any of those three bills, guaranteed to veto them under any and all circumstances. It's not too surprising -- while most tech companies were against PIPA and SOPA, it's quieter on the technological front (save Mozilla) when it comes to CISPA, as CISPA provides a provision that pretty much frees any company that flips over any private information about you to the federal government from a civil liberties lawsuit.
Bottom line: The Obama administration's civil liberties record is indefensible.
Grade: F-
Paul torches Obama and Romney. No question about it.
Bottom line: Obama has turned out to be a lot more pragmatic than people expected him to be, and I think that is because Obama has more or less became assimilated with the realities of Washington. Believe it or not, Obama is one of the few Democrats that is center-right. The last five Democratic presidents -- Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman -- ranged from center-left to left-wing.
Overall grade: C
What happens in November: I forecast a 60% chance he gets re-elected, only because of a united Democratic Party. Whether or not I'd vote for him again remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment