Quick Thoughts: Perry Drops Out of the Race, Endorses Newt Gingrich

And then there were four. The Republican Primary field has gotten much smaller now that John Huntsman and Rick Perry have decided to dropout of the race. Huntsman followed his campaign exit with a full endorsement of Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry did the same for Newt Gingrich. Despite these endorsements both Romney and Gingrich have been fending of attacks. Romney has had to deal with the notion that the reason he has not yet released previous tax returns is because he has something to hide. Gingrich has had to respond to his ex-wife’s claim that he presented her with the proposition of becoming a part of an “open marriage” prior to their divorce. Although these issues may seem apolitical on the surface, I think that are certainly relevant. The personal characteristics of presidential candidates such as how they treat their loved ones and how they make their money is simply fair game; they speak to the person that the eventual nominee would be should the actually defeat President Obama in November. As the field gets smaller, we are getting closer and closer to that point where one candidate will be able to go toe-to-toe with Romney in this nominating contest. Gingrich called for Santorum to dropout; however, in last night’s debate Santorum pointed out that he has placed higher than Gingrich in the last two contests, and that Gingrich’s contention was foolish. It’s a four-man race. Ron Paul is doing pretty well; although no one really expects him to be the nominee. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Romney.

Is Obama Really a Job-Losing President

[reposted from Facebook Status] 4.4 million jobs were lost during Bush's final year in office. During the first four months of Obama's presidency the nation lost an additional 2.5 million jobs [do we blame Obama's policies for this job loss?]. We lost 800,000 jobs in November of 2008, more than 600,000 jobs in December of 2008, and an additional 800,000 jobs in January of 2009 [Obama assumed office January 20th?]. Since Obama took office we have seen consistent reductions in monthly job loss. Since November of 2009 [25 month-period] we have consistently netted jobs or experienced job loss at a much smaller rate than at the end of 2008. 7 months of job loss, and 18 months of job creation. 15-consecutive months of job creation. 200 thousand jobs created last month. sn# if a team is down by 20 and a bench player comes in for the final minutes and the team loses by 25, we don't blame the bench player; conversely if because of that players actions, a shooters touch perhaps, the team loses by 8, then one might suggest that the player made a horrible situation better. Still not good, but better! That's what Obama has done.

Quick Thought: Gingrich Ad Hits Romney Hard

This is a nice, hard-hitting ad. I'm kinda hoping that it resonates with the conservative voters in South Carolina. The longer this primary fight draws out, the less work Obama will have to do to weaken the eventual nominee. "Massachusetts Moderate" "Vulture Capitalist" "Will Say Anything to Get Elected" "Corporate Raider" and the list goes on.

Quick Thoughts: Romney Edges Santorum By 8 Votes!

Months ago, no one would have imagined that Rick Santorum would be the GOP candidate that finished amongst the top in the Iowa Caucus. For the past few months we have seen several of the GOP candidates rise and fall as the main alternative to the former Governor from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney; however, it was not until the last week of December that Santorum began to surge in the polls and pundits began to believe that he had a chance to win. Santorum was definitely helped in Iowa by his decision to visit each county in Iowa, and his decision to send surrogates to each precinct on caucus night. One must never underestimate the power of retail politics, connecting with the voters on a more personal level than nationally televised debates and local media ads. Santorum also benefited from Romney’s initial decision to downplay Iowa; Romney did not make many substantive visits into Iowa until late polls showed that he had a legitimate shot at winning the caucus. It is clear that yesterday night there were two victories. The first was for Romney and the GOP establishment that supports his candidacy. The second was for the conservative-wing of the Republican Party; Santorum came in a close second, and Ron Paul came in third. It is possible that Santorum may be able to leverage his victory in Iowa in such a way that he becomes the lone, conservative alternative to Romney. However, there is no indication that Gingrich or Perry will drop out of the race. As of now, Romney is still the front-runner, however, many Republican voters cannot support his candidacy. If the field winnows down early enough, there may be enough time for a candidate to give Romney a run for his money for the nomination; as of now, it looks like that candidate may be Rick Santorum. Romney won the first battle, but the war for the GOP’s nomination goes on.

The Iowa Caucus: Who is Going to Win and Does it Even Matter?

The results of the 2008 Iowa Caucus had a distinct set of implications for the two major parties in the American political system. For the Democratic Party, President Obama’s victory in a predominantly white state was indicative of his national electoral viability. For the Republican Party, however, Governor Huckabee’s victory in the 2008 Iowa Caucus was indicative of the conservative and evangelical leanings of the Republican Party’s Iowa Caucus voters; his victory did not propel him to his party’s nomination, which was eventually won by the moderate Senator from Arizona. I predict that Rick Santorum will win the Iowa Caucus tonight. Mitt Romney will probably come in a close second with Ron Paul finishing in third place; I do not think that there will be significant differences, percentage wise, between the top three winners. However, you never know with 41% of prospective caucus goers suggesting that they are open to switching their preferences in this caucus.

[Posted above] is a map of the results from the 2008 Republican Party’s Iowa Caucus. What the map shows is that during the 2008 race, Romney had a stronghold in Eastern Iowa, especially around the Cedar Rapids and Davenport areas. Also, Romney did well in some of the Western areas of the state of Iowa. I think that what is particularly interesting about the map and the results from 2008 is the extent to which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee was able to singularly command the support of the electorate within the counties of Central Iowa; the region in the state where Republican voters tend to be most conservative.

There are a lot of conservative candidates in the field, so I believe that Romney is taking solace in the fact that the more conservative candidates may potentially split the vote in Central Iowa, where Huckabee was able to dominate four years ago. I think that the vote in Central Iowa is going to be divided amongst Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum; however, I think that Rick Santorum is surging at just the right time that he may be able to gain the support of a disproportionate amount of social and cultural conservatives in the central region of the state. In 2008, Huckabee defeated Romney amongst very conservative voters [who were 45% of the electorate] 35% to 23%, while Romney defeated Huckabee amongst moderates by only 1 percentage point, 30% to 29%. If the turnout amongst very conservative voters increases this time around, and it turns out that Rick Santorum has managed to get them to back his candidacy, he should definitely do well tonight. It is also important to note than in 2008, 60% of all Iowa Caucus voters considered themselves to be evangelical Christians. Huckabee defeated Romney 46% to 19% amongst evangelicals. If Romney has failed to make inroads with conservative Christians in the state, it is going to be hard to imagine him acquiring the 30% or so of the vote that is necessary for him to come in first pace, and it is going to put Paul and Santorum in a position where either one of them can win in Iowa.

In 2008 Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus with 34.4% of the vote, a little over 9-percentage points higher than Romney [25.2%]. The latest Des Moines Register Poll, has Romney polling at 24%, Paul at 22%, and Santorum at 15%; however, it is just a poll. Gingrich, who has decline greatly in the polls, has been hitting Romney hard, claiming that he is a “Massachusetts Moderate” masquerading as a conservative Republican. If the conservatives in Iowa do not buy Romney’s message, are turned of by the Romney-aligned Super Pac’s negative ads, and somewhat coalesce behind Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, Romney could lose in Iowa tonight. The race should be close. There are only a few hours until Iowans start caucusing; the results should be intriguing. I think that we must be cognizant of the fact that Iowa is only one of dozens of states that are going to have a meaningful impact in choosing the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee. Although its degree of influence should be great in that it can give a candidate momentum going into the subsequent early nominating contests in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, Iowa is going to award a relatively small amount of the delegates necessary to win the GOP’s nominating contest. If Rick Santorum wins in Iowa, where does he go from there? Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus in 1988, doubling George H.W Bush’s vote total [40,804 versus 20,237], but Bush Sr. went on to win the nomination, and then defeated Michael Dukakis in the general election held late that year. Twenty years later, Huckabee won with 40,954 votes [34%]; McCain came in fourth with 13%. However, McCain bounced back by winning New Hampshire with 37% of the vote and eventually received the Republican nomination. So Iowa does not necessarily have a track record in picking the Republican nominee; it is simply the first in the nation caucus with a lot of media hype. Kingmaker? Not so much.

Countdown to Iowa: Latest Polling Data Has Romney, Gingrich, and Paul in Front

Iowa: Iowa is the first in the nation caucus; the caucus, which will kick off the Republican Party’s nominating contest. On January 3rd thousands of Iowa residents will show up at caucus stations across the state of Iowa to demonstrate their support for one of the many political contenders for the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination. Although several of the candidates remaining in the GOP’s primary field have found themselves ranked amongst the top tier of candidates in Iowa, the latest trend shows Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul as the three frontrunners in the Iowa caucus. Real Clear Politics’ average of five recent polls has Romney and Paul in a statistical tie [21.6 versus 21.2] for first, with Santorum and Gingrich in a distant statistical tie [14.0 each] for third place. Paul’s and Santorum’s recent surges have come at the heel of a concerted effort to turn down the momentum that the Gingrich campaign has been enjoying since Herman Cain’s exit from the race in early December. We are just days away from the Iowa Caucus, and it will be interesting to see if the latest polling numbers hold for the actual election. If Mitt Romney can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he may be well on his way to securing the Republican Party’s nomination before the President issues his “State of the Union Address” at the end of January. However, if Gingrich or some other “anyone but Romney candidate” can make a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and if Newt wins big in South Carolina and Florida, the Republican Party nomination fight may live to see a “Super Tuesday.”

New Hampshire: New Hampshire has been the state that Mitt Romney and John Huntsman have been making an aggressive play for. A SuperPac ran by Huntsman’s father recently made a $650,000 ad buy in the state. New Hampshire has literally become the second home for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. The polls have Romney as the solid frontrunner in the New Hampshire primary contest. A CNN poll has Romney in first with 44%, Paul in second with 17%, and Gingrich with 16%. Huntsman’s ad buy was ineffective; he is polling fourth with 9%. Real Clear Politics’ average of four recent polls produces the same order, with the same magnitude of support; Romney wins big, Paul and Gingrich are competing for the second place finish, and Huntsman comes in at a distant fourth.

South Carolina and Florida: The South Carolina primary is going to be interesting for a number of reasons. First, it is the first state in the American South to hold a primary contest. Second, there appears to be an interesting dynamic this year in the state. The party establishment has thrown its support behind Mitt Romney, who was recently endorsed by the governor of the state, Nikki Haley. However, the Republican Primary voters have expressed their support for Newt Gingrich. The latest polling for the South Carolina Primary has Gingrich way ahead of the competition with support from 37% of prospective Republican Primary goers in South Carolina. Romney is polling second at 21%, and Paul is a distant third at 8.7%. Recent Florida polling produces a similar order of victory. Gingrich = 38.3%; Romney = 26.3%; and Paul = 5.7% (this is from an average of three polls)

Recent polling data for the first four contests in the Republican Party's nominating process indicates that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich may be in it for the long haul. However, impressive victories by Romney in the first two contests [Iowa and New Hampshire] may further consolidate the GOP establishment behind his candidacy, and may do so in a way that makes Romney more competitive in South Carolina and Florida. If Gingrich cannot win, and impressively so, in the South Carolina and Florida contests, Romney is going to secure the nomination early during the primary process.

Economic Visions: GOP Frontrunners versus the Obama Administration on the Economy

If you had to pick today, for whom would you cast your vote in the Republican campaign for the nomination for president of the United States?

I am not particularly impressed by any of the candidates that the Republican Party has to offer. It is kind of sad that after four years of profound opposition to the Obama Administration, the GOP has been unable to put forth a presidential nominee, who can offer up viable and sound alternatives to the policy preferences of the Obama Administration. It is OK to disagree with the President and to suggest that President Obama’s policies have not been the best ones for moving this nation forward; however, one must articulate a viable, alternative set of policies to the President. I think the more appropriate question(s) is not whom one will vote for, but why would one vote for the candidate that one has in mind? What types of policies are they advocating, and how will such policies improve the nation, especially the national economy?

Let’s take a quick look at the economic proposals of the frontrunners, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, since the 2012 race will be won on the economic front.

Newt Gingrich: One of the most pressing issues that the nation currently faces is its budget deficit. We are literally days away from passing the point at which this nation will have accumulated more than 15 trillion dollars in debt. The problem is that Newt Gingrich’s economic proposals are ones that impede the ability of this nation to generate the type of revenues necessary to prevent the further swelling of our national debt. First, Newt Gingrich supports a permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which non-partisan think tanks such as the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities have proven contributes significantly to the annual budget deficit, and would by 2019, be the single largest contributor to the nation’s public debt. Moreover, Newt Gingrich proposes an additional revenue slashing policy in the form of a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate; he would like to slash the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Gingrich also supports a flat tax of 15%, again another revenue decreasing policy proposal. In addition to Gingrich’s revenue-stripping policies, the presidential candidate has come out in favor of the repeal of Dodd-Frank, a financial regulatory bill that was crafted with the intentions of preventing another financial crisis. What’s wrong with a bill that restricts banks' activities, provides much tougher scrutiny than that which allowed the recent financial crisis, and establishes a consumer protection agency to prevent the American people from the type of predatory lending, which helped induce the economic crisis. On top of this, Gingrich has announced that he is in favor of a balanced-budget amendment. Can you imagine the implications of revenue slashing legislation coupled with the requirement of spending less than the amount of tax revenue collected? What essential programs will we cut? Newt’s economic proposals may sound good to conservatives, but the practical consequences of his economic proposals equal bad governance.

Mitt Romney: Romney’s tax policy has been reduced to a three-word slogan “fairer, flatter, and simpler.” Mitt Romney’s tax policy is more fiscally prudent, and revenue-neutral than Newt Gingrich’s policy proposal. Romney’s tax proposal consists of maintaining the current personal income tax rates and tax rates for interests, dividends, and capital gains. Romney also proposes an elimination of the death tax, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate, but only to 25%. The fundamental assumption made by candidate Romney regarding economic recovery and job creation in the United States is that reduced taxes, spending cuts, and the elimination of regulation and government programs can be more beneficial than harmful.

The 2012 Election is going to be one in which two individuals, presidential candidates, will put forth an economic agenda and plan for putting Americans back to work, and one will be the winner. While the two Republican Party frontrunners have pieced together a nice, conservative sounding policy platform, they must take a step back and consider the economic and budgetary implications of these policies. The current economic predicament demands strong countercyclical economic policy; a type of policy designed to mitigate the negative effects of this economic downturn. With unemployment high and a slow economic recovery, and with a government in possession of the tools necessary to prompt a more forceful economic recovery, one must wonder whether or not government should use the tools at its disposal to help lessen the burden that Americans are currently facing. According to Michael Feroli, the chief U.S economist for JP Morgan & Chase, “a reduction in government spending, the end of the payroll-tax holiday and an expiration of extended unemployment benefits would cut GDP by 1.7 percent in 2012.” What we need is prudent economic policy, not political economic policy. The GOP candidates are just not giving us what we need.

The GOP has failed to put forth “a presidential” presidential candidate for the nation’s highest office. With less than a week before the Iowa Caucus, the field is essentially locked. I could not vote for any of the candidates. However, I think that Mitt Romney has the best chance at defeating Obama in November. If Romney can secure the nomination, and puts the junior U.S Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, on the bottom of the ticket, this would put into play the Latino vote in a way that may prove favorable for the Republican Party’s electoral prospects. Remember, President Obama received the support of nearly two out of three Latino voters in 2008. The GOP is already expected to make significant gains amongst independent voters, and blue-collar white voters. Moreover, turnout amongst the youth-vote and the black vote, two primarily Democratic constituencies, may not be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008 because of dwindling enthusiasm for the President. So there are ways that the GOP can win some of the key battleground states such as PA, OH, FL, VA, NC, CO and secure the Presidency [fingers cross that it does not]; I think that the GOP chances decreases significantly if Republican Primary voters should nominate Newt Gingrich. The latest RealClearPolitics average of general election polls have President Obama defeating Romney, 47.1 to 44.6 and Gingrich by a much larger margin, 50.2 to 41.3.

Quick Thoughts: Partisan Advantage and the Voter Identification Bill in North Carolina

In 2010, the Republican Party assumed controlled of both chambers of the North Carolina state legislature for the first time in more than a century. Since assuming control of the state legislative body, the GOP has pursued a rather controversial and conservative agenda aimed at significantly scaling back education and social spending in the state. In addition, the GOP has decide to revise the state voting eligibility requirements, and would like to add a photo ID provision to the state’s list of prerequisites for voting.

When one considers the implications of the North Carolina’s GOP decision to pass into law a photo identification requirement for voting, it makes and does not make sense. How is this so? How can it be both? It makes sense when one considers that fact that 508,000 registered Democratic voters lack the proper photo identification necessary for voting, compared to only 277,000 registered Republican voters; such a bill would confer upon the state’s GOP a sizable electoral advantage. This type of electorate engineer would purge far more Democrats from the rolls than Republicans. Viewed from the perspective that politicians are self-interested, rational actors whose chief motivation is occupational preservation via reelection, the GOP’s desire to pass photo identification bill makes sense. However, viewed from the perspective that the United States is done a great disservice when its citizens are unfairly subjected to voting prerequisites that are crafted to increase the electoral advantage of a particular political party, the policy does not make much sense. Nearly 700,000 to 1,000,000 North Carolina residents, almost 16% of all registered voters will be at risk of being disenfranchised in the 2012 race if the GOP manages to overturn Governor Bev Purdue’s gubernatorial veto of their voter identification bill. The fact that a major political party supports a policy that has such negative implications is beyond me, but the politics of suffrage contraction has been a rather enduring aspect of politics in America since its inception. Politics is a dirty game; one that needs much cleaning.

What’s the Matter with Voter Identification Laws?

There has been a recent push by many Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where a Republican Party representative also controls the governorship to change voting eligibility requirements. In such states, many of those serving in the state legislative bodies have decided that voters should be required to show proper photo identification prior to casting a ballot. On the surface one may ask, what is the controversy? Everyone who legally operates a motor vehicle has the proper materials necessary for voting in such states. The problem is that not everyone drives, and every do not have the type of photo identification that many of these states require. In fact, some studies have shown that as much as 12% of the voting-age population may lack the government-issued photo identification required by many states with new photo identification. Estimates are higher for particular communities including (1) the elderly, (2) ethnic minorities, (3) low-income voters, and (4) high school and college students.

The state of Indiana was at the forefront of voter ID challenges. A 2006 publication, titled “Citizen Without Proof,” examined the implications of the state’s imposition of a photo ID requirement for voting. The findings are indicative of the disparate impact that such laws have on prospective voters in the state. Subsequent analyses have confirmed the findings in the initial report, that photo ID laws can have a suppressive effect on the voting levels of many demographic groups. One of such studies, a survey, found that 12% of residents lacked an Indiana driver’s license or an alternative state issued identification card. A 2009 survey found that while 81.4% of white voting-eligible adults contained a driver’s license, only 55.2% of black eligible adults had a driver’s license. A national survey found that 95% of the voting-aged population had a driver’s license, but that only 16% of those lacked one that was current and non-expired. Thus, the potential for photo identification requirements for voting to act as a mechanism for suffrage restriction is apparent. Regardless of the intentions of state lawmakers when they decided to enact such policies, one must be cognizant of the implications of the decisions to go forth with these laws. One must ask the question of whether or not the costs of voter ID laws outweigh the benefit. In a Democratic society individuals should not be unfairly denied ballot access simply because of an inability to produce a government-issued ID. There are other ways to prevent voter fraud, which although argued, is not a significant problem in American electoral politics.

Studies have demonstrated the suppressive nature of many of the voting identification laws recent passed by states. Moreover, such studies have illustrated the potentially partisan, and demographical impact that these laws have. The laws are most likely to exclude eligible voters from elderly, minority, and college communities; thus, such laws are most likely to influence traditionally democratic voters. The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, recently spoke out against these news laws, which are being passed in many states. According to Eric Holder:

“[Recent efforts to curtail voting rights] have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us, and has made the nation exceptional, as well as an example for all of the world. We must be true to the arc of America's history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise."

This is the United States of America, a pluralistic democracy. Voting is one of the most fundamental acts in democratic societies, and free and fair elections is a constituent feature of such societies. We must not allow partisan politics, and the desire for some type of electoral advantage to undermine the vitality of democracy in America. We must protect and defend the rights of our fellow citizens to have access to the ballot, or else we risk democratic regression.

Gingrich Opens Wide Lead in Race for the Republican Party Nomination

The latest Washington Post / NBC Poll [posted below] has Newt Gingrich ahead of the rest of the GOP field by a substantive margin. In this recently released poll, Newt Gingrich was polling at 40%, a percentage that was higher than his top two competitors combined. The poll had Mitt Romney, long considered to be the most viable frontrunner in the field, with support from 23% of prospective Republican Primary voters. Texas Congressmen, Ron Paul, came in third with support from 9% of Republican Primary voters. Gingrich is the latest of a string of candidates who have become the main challenger to Mitt Romney for the Republican Party nomination.

Party Polarization in American Politics: What Are the Core Causes of the Divisiveness?

Everyone is aware of the fact that politics in the United States has become increasingly divisive. The governing process has almost come to a complete standstill because of the inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together to resolve some of the more pressing issues that the nation faces. When the United States Congress passed Obama’s economic stimulus bill in February of 2009, not a single Republican in the United States House of Representatives voted for the piece of legislation; only three moderate Republicans in the United States Senate supported the measure. Nearly a year later the landmark “Patients Affordability and Care Act” passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber. The financial regulation bill, referred to as the “Dodd-Frank Act” also passed in a very partisan manner. Since the Republicans have taken over the United States House of Representatives, Congress has been unable to get much done. Battles over the federal budget and disagreements about how to reduce the deficit have pitted Democrats against Republicans in a way that has brought party polarization and the politics of brinksmanship in the United States to the forefront. What are the causes for the increasing levels of party polarization in the United States?

There seems to be a number of possible explanations for why politics in America has become more polarized. However, I think that the three most compelling explanations are (1) partisan redistricting, (2) constituency changes, and (3) institutional changes.

The first factor contributing to the rise of party polarization is partisan redistricting. Every decade the nation undergoes a national census in order to more fully understand the nature of population changes across the country, and to figure out which states gain or lose congressional seats during the apportionment process. Because states may either lose or gain seats, these states are often forced to redraw district lines during a process referred to as redistricting. In many states, redistricting is an entirely partisan process; regardless of whether or not one party or two parties partake in the redrawing of district lines. If one party controls the process, they will pack oppositional voters in as few districts as possible so that they will have an electoral advantage in the remaining districts. Whereas, when two parties engage in the act of redrawing district lines, they will negotiate and renegotiate in order to maximize party representation and the security of incumbent politicians. Following redistricting in the early 1990s, 63 members from new districts were 25% more polarizing than those elected in old districts; indicating the construction of heavily partisan districts during the redistricting phase. States that were redrawn in a more dramatic fashion than others underwent a polarization level that was 3x as much as those states where district lines underwent minor changes. In these redrawn districts constituents casted more partisan votes, indicated by a more substantial difference in the portion of votes allocated to the winner and loser in the election, and elected more partisan members.

The second factor contributing to the rise of polarizing politics in the United States is constituent change. Elections in the United States are geographical. They occur within clearly defined borders whether these borders are states, counties, cities, or districts within the three. Thus, the homogenization of such geographical spaces can contribute to the ideological sorting of voters in such a way that these voters contribute to the rise of polarization within the American political system. Demographic changes that result in a disproportionate number of African-Americans within an electoral space will result in the election of a more liberal or Democratic political candidate, while a district with a disproportionate number of wealthy residents may result in an electoral advantage for Republican candidates. The lack of heterogeneous electoral spaces, which is the product of a number of factors including but not limited to (1) personal residential preferences, (2) income-inequality, and (3) politically-motivated redistricting, tend to make electorates more ideological extreme and the result is more ideological extreme members in the federal legislative body. Moderate candidates just do not win elections in this type of polarizing electoral landscape.

The third factor contributing to party polarization in the United States is institutional change. There have been three institutional changes that have encouraged polarized politics in America. First, there has been a shift away from seniority towards party loyalty in the granting of committee chairmanships. Second, there has been a reduction in cross-pressured members in the United States Congress, mostly due to partisan gerrymandering. Third, the most polarized members of a particular political party seem to be acquiring an increasing amount of power [think Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi].

Partisan gerrymandering, constituent change, and institutional change have all led to increasing levels of polarization in American politics, which could be good or bad. In past cases divided government induced compromise between the two parties. However, in recent congressional sessions, divided government has resulted in revolving gridlock. Our politicians have been unable to make compromises in the name of sound governance, and with negative implications for the American people. The question that we current face is: how do we resolve polarization politics in such a way that members of both parties can reach agreements and undertake the necessary actions to push our nation forward in a number of policy domains?

Quick Thoughts: On Newt Gingrich’s Perceptions of Low-Income America

In a speech give at an Iowa townhall meeting, Republican Presidential contender, Newt Gingrich stated the following about low-income individuals:

"Start with the following two facts: Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal."

This statement is indicative of what Newt Gingrich believes about a large segment, of poor and working class individuals in the United States; he views this particular segment of American society as a jobless people, with little to no work ethic and whose only way of making money is through engagement in extra-legal activities. This type of sweeping generalization and factually inaccuracy have no place in a presidential campaign. The divisive rhetoric by Newt Ginrich was used as way to curry favor with the more conservative wing of the Republican Party, but is deeply insulting to the poor and working class, who live a personal, social and economic reality that is completely alien to Newt Gingrich's statement.

Robert L. Woodson, of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, argued that Gingrich’s statement “really do a disservice to the conservative movement” and that it was “insulting to generalize like that about a whole group of people, many of whom are working very hard.”

There is nothing wrong with promoting self-sufficiency and work ethic. However, Gingrich was not doing this in his remark. I have not seen Gingrich advocating for the establishment of jobs training programs and increased funding for higher education; the types of programs that can help individuals to become self-sufficient and harder workers. Instead he decided to make a blanket statement about a group of people with the hope of scoring political points with the conservative base in Iowa, weeks before the Iowa Caucus. This type of move is a political one at the core; however, it is not presidential.

Herman Cain is Out: Where Will His Support Go?

GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain decided to exit the primary race on Saturday. After months of captivating the more conservative members of the Republican Primary, Cain has decided to call it quits. Cain's decision was largely prompted by an increasing number of sexual harassment allegations from previous employees, and the latest accusation that he had a 13-year affair with a woman by the name of Ginger White. After having risen in the polls in early fall, Cain support levels amongst prospective Republican Primary voters have fallen significantly. Once the frontrunner in many polls, Cain has dropped down to third. In recent polls, Cain is averaging 14% support from Republican Primary voters, coming in at a distant third.

A Real Clear Politic's average of five recent polls shows that the Republican Primary field has a new frontrunner. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has been able to do the unexpected; he has emerged as the most likely candidate to receive the Republican Party nominee. Many are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich will likely fall off in a similar fashion as Bachmman, Perry, and Cain. It's a tough call. Newt Gingrich is rising with only a few short weeks before the primary race kicks off with the Iowa caucus, which is quickly followed by the New Hampshire Primary. Gingrich's high levels of support in other early primary states such as South Carolina and Florida may be exactly what he needs to propel him into "Super Tuesday," when many states are expected to hold their nominating primaries and caucuses. The Real Clear Politic's average of five polls has Newt Gingrich leading Romney amongst Republican Primary voters by a little over six points [26.6 to 20.4]. We will have to wait and see whether Mitt Romney can slow down Newt Gingrich's momentum in the 2012 GOP nomination process.

43% Approval Rating, 9% Unemployment: Can President Obama Win With These Numbers?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quick Thoughts: Deficit Committee Fails to Reach an Agreement

Last night the bipartisan deficit reduction committee announced that they have failed to reach an agreement that would cut $1.2 trillion dollars from the projected budget deficit. The inability of the committee to take decisive action by reducing the debt burden of the United States has triggered a series of automatic cuts, which will go into effect beginning in 2013. These cuts include a $600 billion reduction in military and security spending as well as an additional $600 billion dollars in domestic spending cuts.

Despite having failed to reach an agreement by tomorrow’s deadline, the President has informed congressional leadership that they have more than a year to present to him a serious deficit reduction plan if they wish to avoid the automatic spending cuts that were signed into law as a part of the debt deal that was struck in early August. The latest example of Washington gridlock highlights the persistent struggle that our elected officials face in terms of reaching across the aisle, making compromises, and implementing sound fiscal and economic policies. It's become increasingly difficult to foresee this session of Congress taking substantive action to address the national debt problem. Unless both sides of the debate agree to make concessions to their political opponents, we are going to continue to have inconsequential discussions and debates about our swelling budget deficit with little to no practical policy implications; we will continue to face an exacerbating debt crisis.

When the GOP goes POG: Politics over Governance and the American Jobs Act

It has been more than two months since President Barack Obama pitched the American Jobs Act to a joint session of Congress. With unemployment consistently above 9%, and with more than 14 million Americans out of work, the President figured it was a government imperative to take action to help solve the jobs crisis. The American Jobs Act is Obama’s plan for fostering job creation in the United States. The act is a $450 billion economic stimulus package design to tackle cyclical and structural unemployment in the United States by providing employers with fiscal incentives to hire workers and the unemployed with the jobs skills and training required to be competent and qualified job seekers.

The American Jobs Act is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation; it is one that consists of proposals that Democrats and Republicans have both supported in the past. Obama has noted this during his initial proposal to the United States Congress in early September and in several town hall meetings across the country afterwards. The American Job Act was crafted to assist unemployed Americans by:

1. Providing tax cuts to small businesses how hire additional works or increases the wages of their existing workforce
2. Investment on infrastructure projects [for laid of construction workers], subsidies to federal and local governments to maintain and re-hired laid off teachers, firefighters, and police officers
3. Reform the unemployment insurance system so that unemployed workers could receive the type of jobs skills and training that is necessary to be competitive in today’s workforce
4. Prohibiting employers from discriminating against the long-term unemployed
5. Provides summer employment and enrichment opportunities for low-income, disadvantaged youth

The Republicans in the United States Congress have rejected President Obama’s American Jobs Act. They have suggested that it is just another stimulus bill, which is doomed to fail. After successfully getting Congress to take up the bill in smaller steps, the GOP have vote down two measures. Republicans in the Senate filibustered the American Jobs Act as a $447 billion dollar package. The Democrats then proposed a bill that consisted of $35 billion in aid to states in order to prevent the layoff of additional teachers and first responders. Again, the party of no chose politics over governance. Weeks later the Senate rejected an infrastructure jobs bill, which could have put many unemployed Americans back to work on infrastructure projects across the country.

The employment figures that are released on the first Friday of every month continue to show that the nation is not creating the jobs that millions of Americans desperately need. In Washington, DC we have partisan gridlock and fighting that have completely stalled the practice of governing at the federal level. The President continues to propose plans to the United States Congress, but there is no evidence to suggest that the GOP is dedicated to solving the unemployment crisis in the United States. It seems as if they are preoccupied with doing whatever it takes to prevent the President from facilitating a more forceful economic recovery, which is consistent with their goal of making President Obama a one-term president. There is nothing wrong with politicians playing politics; that’s the game they choose to play. However, at some point they have to realize that the game of politics have negative consequences for the people that they represent and can undermine notions of a representative democracy. Who does that GOP represent? Why are they not supporting policies or proposing policies that will put Americans back to work? Why are they putting politics over governance?

More Gridlock as Debt Deadline Approaches

We are three and a half days before the bipartisan debt committee will have run out of time to complete a plan that reduces $1.2 trillion dollars from the projected budget deficit over the next 10 years. These cuts amount to nearly $120 billion dollars on an annual basis. Talks between the 12-member panel, composed of six Democrats and six Republicans, have largely failed during the two and half month since Congress passed legislation authorizing the commission of the committee. The central issue, which divides the parties, is their unique perspectives on how to resolve the long-term debt crisis that the United States is currently facing.

The GOP members of the debt panel have thrown their support behind a plan proposed by Senator Pat Toomey. The “Toomey Plan” will (1) limit tax breaks for people who itemize their deductions, (2) lower the overall tax rate across all income levels, (3) decrease the top income tax bracket from 35% to 28%, (4) and raise Medicare eligibility to 67. The problem with the “Toomey Plan” is that it alters that tax code in a way that disproportionately favors the rich. Also, the plan fails to generate the type of revenue that is necessary to help mitigate the national debt crisis. The “Toomey Plan” is expected to increase tax revenue by $300 billion over the next two years. This is only 25% of the $1.2 trillion dollars that the committee has to cut from the projected deficit in order to reach an agreement by Wednesday. Where is the other $900 billion going to come from?

While it appears as if the GOP has taken a partisan approach in the deficit-reduction battle that is being waged in the United States Congress, Democratic members and non-members of the debt committee have been proposing bipartisan solutions to handling the nations debt problem. Last month, Democrats proposed a bipartisan deficit-reduction plan to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. The plan called for the implementation of a bold, 10-year, $3 trillion dollar deficit reduction effort. In this plan the Democratic Party made a number of concessions. First, the Democrats agreed to cut nearly a half trillion dollars of transfer payments and social support in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care subsidies. Second, the plan called for an additional $1.2 trillion in spending cuts for domestic, social programs. The plan also called for a $1.3 trillion dollar increase in revenues. Boehner’s response was that the cuts did not go far enough, asserting “[he] thought there’s a lot more room there to help find common ground.” The Republicans responded with a $2 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan with nearly 35% of the cuts coming from reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion more in cuts than the $500 billion already put on the table by the Democrats.

What we are seeing in Washington today is gridlock politics at its worst. The increasing polarization of the United States Congress, as indicated by the DW-Nominate, a measure of the ideological leaning of congress members, has produced a form of partisan bickering and obstruction of governance that has had negative consequence for the individuals that this legislative body purports to represent. I’m not sure if the committee is going to be able to reach an agreement by Wednesday night. I think that the United States Congress may pass legislation that extends the deadline, which will guarantee that we will find ourselves in the same position that we are in today, again. It’s not sound governance, but it is contemporary American governance. Countdown to 2012!