issue: Politics

Wingnut Watch: GOP Field Decided and Calendar Set

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A lot happened in the presidential campaign sector of Wingnut World this last week. The GOP field for 2012 probably became fixed. The calendar for the nominating process shifted and jelled. Rick Perry’s dive in the polls, and Herman Cain’s rise, accelerated, even as the Texan’s status as co-front-runner with Mitt Romney remained central to the conventional wisdom.

It’s not clear how many sincere wingnuts were part of the noisy posse that tried, unsuccessfully, to drag Chris Christie into the presidential race (a lot of the Draft Christie momentum came from northeastern donors associated during the last cycle with Rudy Giuliani). His ferocious YouTube videos and confrontational attitudes towards public sector unions were very popular in Tea Party circles. But his positions and record on immigration, guns, global climate change, and same-sex civil unions were sure to get him into serious trouble with ideological conservatives had he actually pulled the trigger.

With Christie definitively out, the only major pol who hasn’t fished or cut bait is Sarah Palin, who continues to insist she hasn’t made up her mind about whether or not to run in 2012. But recent polls show two-thirds to three-fourths of Republicans—including many who profess admiration for her—saying she should not run. So that development is unlikely, unless Palin simply decides it’s the best way to recapture the public attention she seems to have gradually lost.

If the 2012 field is “closed,” the calendar is also nearly finalized, though not without a revolt against the RNC’s rules led by Florida and followed by the privileged “early states” whose prerogatives Florida challenged. The original scheme to reduce “front-loading” of the nominating process involved a February “window” for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, with all other states pushed back to March or later, and states holding primaries or caucuses in April or later retaining the right to use winner-take-all procedures to increase their clout. Initially, the plan seemed to be working, with most states moving their contests as intended, and quite a few (e.g., California) choosing to coordinate later presidential primaries with regular primaries to save money. The mega-primary of “Super Tuesday” is going to be a shadow of its former self.

But Florida’s decision last week to hold its primary on January 31, in the face of sanctions that would forfeit half its 2012 delegates, messed up at least part of the scheme. The chain reaction of early states (SC has already moved to January 21) is almost certain to push the start-date in Iowa to the first week in January. But if the competition survives that early phase of states from Iowa through Florida, the pace of the schedule of events will be much slower, with a big gap in February and less of a logjam in March than in past years.

For the candidates, the implications of a early-beginning process with a more deliberate pace are two-fold: an early “knock-out” is possible, but unlikely given the high probability that the Iowa winner will lose New Hampshire to Mitt Romney. A longer slog to the nomination favors candidates with superior resources, like Romney and Perry, but not Herman Cain.

Speaking of the candidates, polling this last week emphatically showed Rick Perry in a virtual free-fall after his bad stretch of appearances in Florida, with Herman Cain—who trounced Perry in Florida’s “P5” Straw Poll on September 24—getting a significant share of Perry’s vote and Romney’s support barely moving at all. Perry dropped from 23 percent in mid-September to 12 percent in the latest CBS poll, and from 29 percent to 17 percent between early September to the present in a new ABC/Washington Post survey. Cain rose from 5 percent in the CBS poll and 3 percent in the ABC/WaPo poll to 17 percent in both today.

There are two quite different theories about Rick Perry’s fall from grace which have a significant impact of what might happen next. One is that his clumsy behavior in debates, and his overall good-ol-boy Aggie Yell Leader persona, just aren’t very presidential and make him less electable than, say, Mitt Romney. Polls do show Perry not running as well as Romney in trial heats against Obama, but presumably his problems could be fixed by a good debate performance or two or the expenditure of some of the $17 million he has raised since announcing his candidacy in August.

But the other theory is that Perry isn’t quite turning out to be the simon-pure Tea Party conservative he was advertised to be when he first announced his candidacy at a RedState gathering in South Carolina, and is in danger of forfeiting the treasured “conservative alternative to Mitt Romney” mantle. A lot of this was entirely predictable to anyone familiar with his record in Texas, but still, many conservatives seem to be shocked by his adamant defense of a wildly unpopular position favoring in-state college tuition for the kids of illegal immigrants (opposed by 86 percent of Republicans in the latest CBS poll). And accordingly, a total collapse in his levels of support among Tea Party supporters—from 45 percent a month ago to 10 percent today in the ABC/WaPo poll—is at the heart of his overall slide in the polls.

If ideology rather than “electability” is Perry’s main problem, and he doesn’t find a way to fix that, then irony or ironies, after driving the Republican Party decisively in their direction over the last three years, wingnuts could wind up without a viable presidential candidate they feel really good about. Perhaps Herman Cain can somehow turn his present popularity into a real, functioning presidential campaign, but his track record on campaign management is not great and GOP elites don’t take him seriously as a potential president. Michele Bachmann’s campaign seems to have run into a deep ditch in her best state, Iowa, and if Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are going anywhere, it’s not apparent by any objective measurements. Ron Paul, of course, is permanently unacceptable to a majority of serious wingnuts because of his foreign policy views.

Unless Rick Perry can repair his ideological reputation, it’s beginning to look like “movement conservatives” will once again have to make a choice between less-than-ideal candidates. Perhaps they can console themselves with the recognition that today’s “moderates” in the GOP are several degrees to the right of yesterday’s howl-at-the-moon hard-liners.

Photo Credit: mjecker

Taxing Rich is No Fiscal Panacea

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Class WarfarePresident Obama’s tax offensive may be aimed at energizing his despondent base, but it’s also touching a nerve with the broader public. A new Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly (66 percent) back the president’s call to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000.

Evidently, you don’t have to be a European-style social democrat to believe that the rich should chip in more to help get federal deficits under control. Grover Norquist take note: We are all class warriors now.

Official statistics on incomes explain why. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the top 10 percent of earners on average have seen their income grow a whopping 106 percent since 1979. Over the same period, those in the middle and lowest quintile have experienced meager income growth of just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

Moreover, IRS data show that the top 10 percent have received 42 percent of the total share of adjusted gross income earned between 1986 and 2008. Conservatives lament that high earners are also paying a higher share of their earnings in taxes. That’s true, but their income is growing faster than their tax burden. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent increased by 28 percent from 1986 to 2008. (IRS tables)

In short, income gains over the past generation have been dramatically concentrated at the top. Modest increases in the tax burden borne by the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans will still leave them very well off compared to the rest of us. As President Obama has said, this isn’t class warfare so much as math.

But the math doesn’t tell us the best way to raise more revenue from the most affluent Americans. In thinking about this, progressives should keep two imperatives in mind. One is the need to make the tax code more pro-growth as well as more fair. The other is to make sure that tax reform advances the cause of debt reduction.

President Obama proposed on Sept. 19 to raise $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of his plan to cut deficits by $3.3 trillion (not including the Iraq and Afghanistan draw down) over the next 10 years. His tax initiative has two main parts. First, it would cap the benefit from itemized deductions from 35 percent, the top marginal tax rate, to 28 percent for families with income of over $250,000 (200,000 for single-filers). This is not exactly a crushing new burden on the hapless rich. In fact, it would take us back to President Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, which dropped the top rate to 28 percent. The White House says limiting deductions in this way would raise $410 billion for closing federal deficits.

Second, the President’s plan would raise an additional $866 billion by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for high earners at the end of the year, while preserving them for middle class and low income families.

Both ideas are defensible on fairness grounds. But it’s not so clear that increasing income tax rates is the best place to look right now for more revenue. Politically, increases in marginal rates are probably a non-starter with most Congressional Republicans, who still genuflect to the supply side shrine. Even some Democrats, however, are leery about raising personal income tax rates in the midst of the current jobs crisis.

The alternative is the road taken by President Obama’s own Fiscal Commission. Its “modified zero plan” (analysed by Paul Weinstein and Marc Goldwein here) would raise $1.1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures. That’s a smaller number than the President’s. But most economists believe these backdoor spending programs introduce enormous complexity and distortions into the tax code. Curtailing them would promote economic efficiency and growth.

What’s more, the Commission’s plan uses the revenue to “buy down” both corporate and personal income tax rates, and to cut deficits. These rate cuts were crucial to attracting Republican support for a bipartisan compromise that combined tax reform and entitlement reform to reduce the debt by $4.2 trillion over 10 years.

This approach, also endorsed by the Senate’s Gang of Six, has one huge advantage over other tax reform schemes – it’s attracted bipartisan support. The President’s tax plan, on the other hand, seems calculated to embarrass Republicans rather than draw them toward a “grand bargain” on debt reduction.

In any case, the fiscal commission’s plan doesn’t just pinch the rich, although they benefit disproportionately from tax expenditures and loopholes. It also hits many middle class recipients of tax subsidies like the mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion for employer-paid health plans. As appealing as it is to insist that the rich pony up more to solve the debt crisis, there are practical limits from how much we can squeeze from high earners. In truth, our fiscal chasm is so deep that middle class taxpayers will have to up their contribution as well. Otherwise, we will have to make unacceptably deep cuts in domestic and entitlement spending to get the debt under control.

So by all means, let’s ask the wealthy to chip in more. But let’s also keep in mind that soaking the rich, by itself, won’t restore fiscal responsibility in Washington.

Photo credit: outtacontext

Wingnut Watch: Perry Struggles and Republicans Continue Searching for Savior

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s been a fairly introspective week in Wingnut World. Remarkably little right-wing blood was spilled over the continuing appropriations resolution fight and denouement; no thundering emanated from talk radio or the blogs about the necessity of fighting to the last ditch and shutting down government.

Instead, most of the gabbing has been over the demolition derby of “P5,” last week’s series of presidential candidate events in Orlando, Florida. As I predicted might happen in the last WW, Rick Perry had a terrible 48 hours (actually, a few less than that, since he abruptly left Orlando for Michigan on Saturday morning, letting a surrogate give his speech prior to the state party’s straw poll) in the Sunshine State. By all accounts, he performed poorly in the September 22 Fox/Google candidates’ debate, failing to add much to prior weak defenses of his positions on Social Security and immigration, and stumbling and mumbling his way through a botched attack on Mitt Romney’s record of flip-flops. He didn’t make much of a mark in the September 23 CPAC event, but more importantly, he got trounced in the September 24 straw poll after his campaign made a big deal out of its significance and apparently spent some serious money working the delegates before they assembled.

Since Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann conspicuously gave the straw poll a pass well in advance, and it wasn’t the kind of open event Ron Paul could pack with his supporters, Perry was expected to romp. But instead, the big winner was Herman Cain, who made a favorable impression with a smooth and upbeat performance in the candidate debate, and fiery versions of his well-worn stock speech both at CPAC and just prior to the straw poll.

Cain, you may remember, was written off by most observers after an initial splash among Tea Party supporters, mainly because he was not spending enough time in Iowa or New Hampshire to convince even his own staff that he was serious about competing. But in the intimate context of P5, where money and organization mattered less than the immediate impression made by the candidate, Cain’s charisma was enough, particularly among Floridians annoyed at Rick Perry for sleepwalking through the debate, insulting them as “heartless” for their misgivings about his stance on immigration, and then getting out of town as quickly as he could.

There’s only been one big national poll taken since last week’s events, by CNN, and it didn’t show much in the way of movement among the candidates, though both Cain and the perennial debate star Newt Gingrich did better, and Michele Bachmann continued her ignominious slide in national popularity. Measurements of Republican elite opinion, however, indicated a distinct shift from Perry to Mitt Romney, who didn’t do that much better than his rival in Florida, but had lower expectations to meet and didn’t make major mistakes.

But perhaps the most significant symptom of renewed Republican unhappiness with the party’s presidential field has been the intense pressure on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to make a late entry into the race, despite his constant disclaimers that he’s not interested and not ready for the presidency. In a Q&A session after a well-received speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library last night, Christie seemed to open the door to something like a draft to run. You can expect a period of intense speculation over Christie’s plans to ensue, along with a serious effort by his rivals to expose restless conservative voters to his record of heretical positions on immigration, guns, “Shariah Law,” and other topics.

But time is running short for Christie to get into the race, if that’s what he decides to do. As the actual candidates camped out in Florida last week, a commission set up by the legislature to choose a 2012 primary date by the national party’s October 1 deadline was beginning to meet. One of the pols that appointed the commission, House Speaker Dean Cannon, is now publicly predicting they will move the primary to January 31, which would all but destroy the RNC’s plans to prevent excessive “front-loading” of the calendar and likely set off a chain reaction among the “early states” that would push Iowa at least to early January and perhaps even back into 2011. If the initial blitz of events that so often determines the nomination is to begin in just over three months, it’s getting a little late for candidates to test the wind and ask to be begged to run.

U.S. Outs Pakistan

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Adm. Mike MullenTop U.S. officials this week accused Pakistan of abetting a terrorist group responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The bombshell here isn’t Pakistani duplicity—that’s old news—but the Obama administration’s decision to go public. It means Washington finally has run out of patience with our supposed “ally.”

The U.S. complaint centers on the Haqqani network, an Afghan terrorist group holed up in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that the network is “a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” He said the ISI helped Haqqani operatives carry out a truck bomb attack that wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO troops on Sept. 11, as well as a suicide assault on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

The ISI’s ties to Haqqani network date back to the anti-Soviet jihad and subsequent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Apparently, the ISI sees no reason to sever those ties just because the Haqqanis are now killing U.S. and NATO forces instead of Russians. As Mullen explained, the ISI sees the network as a valuable “proxy” that can give Pakistan leverage in Afghanistan, especially after U.S. forces have gone home. There’s another somewhat more sinister explanation: many in the ISI and army hierarchy share an ideological affinity with Islamic terror groups that target both Afghanistan and India.

So is Pakistan really an enemy masquerading as a friend? The situation is complicated because Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, even as its army rebuffs our pleas to expel the Haqqanis from North Waziristan.

The blunt testimony by Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signals the end of several years of “quiet diplomacy” aimed at getting Pakistan to make a clean break with jihadi terrorism. Outing the ISI may put more pressure on a weak civilian government. However, the Pakistani government is not only looking over its shoulder at the powerful security branches, but also at a public strongly opposed to U.S. infringements of Pakistani sovereignty.

On the other hand, Americans are entitled to ask what we have to show for the $20 billion in U.S. aid sent to Pakistan over the last decade. Last year, Congress approved $1.7 billion for economic aid for Pakistan, and $2.7 billion in security aid. At a minimum, we ought to stop trying to bribe a government that is playing us for fools.

With two wars on its hands, maybe the United States can’t afford a total rupture with Pakistan. But we can’t achieve any kind of lasting success in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan provides a safe refuge to the Haqqanis and other insurgents. That’s a genuine dilemma, but at least U.S. leaders have begun to grapple with it honestly.

Wingnut Watch: Texan troubles in the Sunshine State

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In February, the “invisible primary” for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination was kicked off in Washington by the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference. On Friday, a second CPAC event will be held in Orlando in deliberate proximity to tomorrow’s Fox/Google candidates’ debate and Saturday’s Florida GOP presidential straw poll (CPAC will not feature its own straw poll). As in Washington in February, the event will revolve around a cattle call of speeches by presidential candidates and conservative celebrities. The smell of red meat will hang heavy in the air, and speakers can and will be expected to forswear all ideological heresy and smite both Democrat Socialists and RINOs.

But it’s instructive to note how the presidential contest has changed in those seven months between CPAC-DC and CPAC-FL. In February, the intrepid conservative-watcher Dave Weigel of Slate ranked in order of general impressiveness the CPAC appearances of no less than twelve candidates, quasi-candidates, and possible candidates: (1) Ron Paul (who won, for the second straight year, the annual straw poll); (2) Gary Johnson; (3) Mitch Daniels; (4) Haley Barbour; (5) John Bolton; (6) Donald Trump; (7) Mitt Romney; (8) Newt Gingrich; (9) Herman Cain; (10) Tim Pawlenty; (11) Rick Santorum; (12) John Thune. You will note that five of these worthies wound up never running president. A sixth, T-Paw, has dropped out. A seventh, Gingrich, is no longer being taken seriously as a candidate, while an eighth (Cain) and ninth (Santorum) are barely clinging to relevance, and a tenth (Johnson) can’t get an invitation to a debate. Meanwhile, Weigel did not even mention Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, both of whom actually did speak at CPAC, or Jon Huntsman, who at this point was still Barack Obama’s ambassador to China. Interesting, eh?

With four or five months (depending on decisions pending in the states on the date of the starting gun in Iowa) still to go before actual voters begin to participate in the nomination process, how much more is likely to change? A lot could depend on what happens in Florida late this week, particularly to insta-front-runner Rick Perry.

The Texan’s somewhat shaky performance in the CNN-Tea Party Express debate on September 12 (also in Florida) may embolden his rivals to go after him again tomorrow night in Orlando. His areas of vulnerability could again include immigration policy (Cuban-Americans–the Hispanic voting group most active in Florida Republican politics–are not terribly sympathetic to undocumented workers from Mexico). It’s unlikely Michele Bachmann will again bring up Perry’s unsuccessful efforts to immunize Texas schoolgirls against the HPV virus, since her handling of the issue backfired on her in the intervening days. But if she wants to pursue the “crony capitalism” rap on Perry in a way that undermines his Tea Party support, there’s rich ground available in his futile and unpopular campaign to build a giant system of privately operated toll roads—the Trans-Texas Corridor—that might have enriched some of Perry’s friends and supporters at the expense of local landowners, and that reminded some hard-core conservatives of shadowy rumors about a “NAFTA Superhighway” designed to encourage illegal immigration and threaten U.S. sovereignty. The whole issue looks tailor-made for Bachmann.

Perry’s apparently dovish feelings about overseas troop deployments could be another target, given the very hawkish tendencies of Florida Republicans (and especially Cuban-Americans, who went heavily for John McCain, then campaigning mainly on the Iraq “surge,” in the 2008 Republican primary).

But without question, Romney, Bachmann, and perhaps others will keep up the pressure on Perry about Social Security in a state where about one-third of Republican primary participants are over the age of 65. The most recent polling in Florida, by Insider Advantage, showed Romney with a healthy lead over Perry among likely primary voters 65 and older, despite Perry’s overall nine-point lead. Since Social Security is also central to Team Romney’s “electability” argument against Perry, alarming Florida seniors generally about the Texan’s expressed disdain for the New Deal program as an unconstitutional “failure” will be a priority. Republicans have reason to be anxious about the Sunshine State: the last Republican to win the White House without winning Florida was Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

Regardless of exactly how he does in the debate, or in his CPAC-FL speech, Perry has long planned to cap the week with a smashing victory in the Saturday state party straw poll (which goes by the rather self-important name of “P5” to indicate that it is the fifth such event in Florida). But Romney and Bachmann have undermined the significance of the event by declining to appear in the pre-straw-poll cattle call, or actively compete in the straw poll. The pre-ordained nature of the Perry victory, and thus its relative lack of newsworthiness, is reinforced by this straw poll’s unusual nature: voting participants were selected months ago by county GOP organizations. So Ron Paul won’t be able to win this one by any last-minute packing of the room with his youthful supporters.

P5 might, on the other hand, draw attention to Perry’s support among Florida GOP power-brokers, including several key legislative leaders, and reportedly (though he remain officially neutral), the controversial right-wing Gov. Rick Scott. But the even bigger dogs in Florida Republican politics are another matter. Sen. Marco Rubio, who is the presumptive favorite for the second spot on the ticket no matter who wins the first spot, has little reason to endorse anybody. And his political patron, former Gov. Jeb Bush, is assumed to share his clan’s general antipathy towards Perry. If Romney can build doubts about Perry’s electability and specifically his appeal to seniors, and also secure open or covert backing from Jeb Bush, this difficult week in Florida could be just the beginning of the front-running Texan’s troubles in the Sunshine State.

Behind Abbas’s UN Gambit

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President of Palestinian National Authority Addresses General AssemblyPalestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations tomorrow to welcome Palestine as its 194th member and newest state. As Abbas well knows, that’s not going to happen. So why are Palestinians devoting their diplomatic energies to scoring purely symbolic points at Turtle Bay?

In essence, Palestinians are engaging in a kind of forum shopping. Historically, the U.N. has been sympathetic to their plight, and notoriously hostile to Israel. Abbas comes to New York seeking statehood on terms more favorable than the Palestinians have been able to get from nearly two decades of peace processing with Israel. It’s part of an all-too-familiar pattern in which Palestinian leaders expect the international community to spare them from making the unpopular concessions that peace with Israel demands.

Abbas claims his hand has been forced by Israeli intransigence. There’s something to that: The right-listing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been obdurate and prickly in its dealings with everyone, from the PA to Washington. It has failed to offer imaginative proposals for rekindling stalled peace talks, to confront a settler movement that threatens to hijack Israel’s domestic politics, and to counter effectively a spreading campaign to isolate and delegitimate the Jewish state.

Nonetheless, it was Abbas, not Netanyahu, who walked away from bilateral talks last year in a dispute over Israeli settlements. Now Abbas is pulling an end run around the peace process—and putting Washington on the spot—by asking the Security Council to grant Palestine full U.N. membership. The Obama administration has vowed to veto any such resolution, even though it supports a Palestinian state in principle. The White House rightly insists that the Palestinians can earn statehood only by making peace with Israel.

Abbas won’t return home to Ramallah with the grand prize of statehood. So why raise expectations that he knows will be dashed?

Here we wade into the multilayered subtleties of Middle East politics. One obvious motive is to dramatize Israel’s growing isolation in the region, as Turkey turns on its erstwhile ally and anti-Israel sentiment flares next door in post-Mubarak Egypt. Another is to split Europe and the United States and stoke anger at America in the Arab street, thereby racheting up pressure on Washington to extract concessions from Israel.

Many observers believe that Abbas is desperate to head off Arab spring-style demonstrations against the PA, which has been losing popularity in recent years to Hamas. If this reading is correct, then Abbas’s U.N. gambit has more to do with perpetuating the PA’s lease on power in the West Bank than winning recognition of a Palestinian state.

Finally, even if statehood is out of reach the Palestinians could win a booby prize if the U.N. General Assembly upgrades their status to that of a “non-member state.” This would allow Palestine to join various international bodies and possibly to press claims against Israel in the International Criminal Court.

Whatever his motives, Abbas’s U.N. caper carries immense risks. The PA has called for massive, non-violent demonstrations in the West Bank today to drum up support for the statehood bid. If these get out of hand, and provoke a violent confrontation with Israel, it will break a fragile peace and undo progress toward handing over security responsibilities in the West Bank to Palestinian forces.

Unilateral assertions of “sovereignty” could also prove costly for the Palestinians in other ways. Israel, for example, could withhold custom duties it collects that help to pay PA salaries. Both Houses of Congress likewise have passed resolutions threatening to cut off U.S. aid—$600 million a year—to the PA.

Such punitive measures, however, raise the specter that many observers fear most—the PA’s collapse. If as seems likely Abbas’s gambit fails to change conditions on the ground, it could engender massive disillusionment with the PA and Fatah. The winner would not be Israel but Hamas, which has no interest in a Palestinian state that does not include the whole of what is now the state of Israel. Barring another intifida and outbreak of terrorism, Israel and Washington ought to keep cool and keep funding the PA.

The United States nonetheless should stand firm against premature demands for Palestinian statehood. If it were created today, the new entity would lack two prerequisites for international recognition as an independent state: political unity and an unambiguous commitment to peaceful cooexistence with Israel.

In fact, it is the PA-Hamas split, not Israel, that poses the greatest obstacle to Palestinian aspirations to dignity, justice and independence. The blunt truth is, that until the Palestinians resolve their internal conflict—in favor of a negotiated peace and a two-state solution—they don’t deserve to have one of their own.

Photo credit: United Nations Photo

Policy Brief: Another Kick in the Teeth: Loan Limits and the Housing Market

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For weeks, August 2—the date on which the U.S. Treasury might have defaulted on its debts—was the deadline that drove policymakers toward a deal on raising the debt ceiling and lowering the nation’s spiraling debt and deficits.

Another pending deadline—October 1—has won far less attention. But it too could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy if Congress allows it to expire.

This date is when the maximum size of a mortgage loan (the “loan limit”) that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or bought by government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE’s) drops significantly. On October 1, these loan limits will fall in 669 counties in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with an average reduction of more than $50,000 and in some cases by more than $100,000. In these areas, many prospective homebuyers once eligible for an FHA loan would no longer qualify, while others may face the prospect of a higher-cost “jumbo” loan.

The result could be the potential sidelining of a key segment of homebuyers, which in turn would further weaken demand, depress home prices and drop another wet blanket on consumer confidence as Americans continue to watch their home equity evaporate. Needless to say, this is the last thing the housing market or the economy needs as it struggles toward recovery.

Without question, government should ultimately pare back its involvement in the housing market and let private capital play the leading role. But this should also happen when the markets are ready, not according to an arbitrary timetable. Unfortunately, the initial conditions that warranted the current loan limits in the first place have not improved substantially. Nor does it seem private sources are ready to jump in if government support were to end.

Read the entire brief.

The Most Important Sentence in Obama’s Speech

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The AtlanticIn the Atlantic, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel explains why President Obama needed to start in the middle of his speech and focus on the competitiveness and production narrative:

“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere.”

President Obama needs to give his jobs speech again. This time he should start in the middle.

To addressing the American people’s concerns and to win in 2012, the President needs a narrative–a story that explains how and why we got into this mess, what he has done to help so far, and how his latest proposals might help get the economy out of a ditch.

The good news: Thursday’s jobs speech contained the beginnings of a powerful story about the need to restore U.S. competitiveness. As Obama said:

“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, and out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth.”

The bad news: Obama buried this nascent narrative in the second half of the speech. What’s more, most of his proposals last night–including the payroll tax cut–did not directly attack the competitiveness problem he identified.

Obama must do better than that. He should be telling the story of how America got distracted–by 9/11, by political infighting, and by excessive confidence. He should be explaining how we allowed ourselves to emphasize consumption and the present, rather than production and the future. And he should link each of his policy proposals to the idea of rebuilding the production economy.

Read the entire article.

Six Reasons the Supercommittee Will Succeed

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein finds six reasons to believe the Congressional Supercommittee will succeed:

Whatever you think of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgradeAmerica’s credit, their justification was fairly plain. Political gridlock has managed to scuttle several successive efforts to get a handle on the federal debt. And few, if anyone, is sanguine that the new “supercommittee” in Congress will have any better luck.

But a closer look reveals that, despite the nation’s pessimism, there are several reasons to believe that the 12-member supercommittee may be able to implement a plan that sets the nation back on track. The setup has been rigged to force a deal. So, in an age where “shorting” the market has become a sort of dirty word, the smart money may be in betting that Washington will enact a responsible comprehensive budget framework by the end of the year.

First, the dynamics of the committee itself suggest that that building sufficient support in the room will be that much more palatable. Negotiators need only corral seven of the twelve members (50 percent plus one) to send any deal straight to the floor of both houses of Congress. By comparison, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission was required to receive a full 77 percent, and managed only 61. In essence, the fact that a decision by any single member could boost any proposal past the required threshold will compel every member of the commission to negotiate in a serious manner. That diminishes the likelihood that political shenanigans will scuttle this deal like they have undermined previous negotiations.

Read the other five over at Real Clear Politics.

Wingnut Watch: The Power of Wingnut World

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans and IdeologyIf you really want to understand the psychology and the power of Wingnut World, the Palmetto Freedom Forum event in South Carolina on Labor Day was a real eye-opener.

Set up by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Iowa Rep. Steve King, and social ultraconservative Robert George of Princeton University, the event was designed to remove the “soundbite” and horse-race mentality of conventional candidate debates, and present 2012 GOP presidentials with the opportunity and the challenge of making major statements of “first principles” before a murder board of ideological inquisitors.

The event was spoiled a bit by Rick Perry’s last-minute cancellation to go home to look over the shoulders of professional emergency managers and first responders dealing with the recent rash of Texas wildfires. Even if you give Perry full credit for doing the right thing, it’s clear he benefitted by avoiding a probable grilling from inquisitor Steve King over immigration policy (King asked other candidates not only about illegal immigration but about appropriate levels of legal immigration). And actually, it’s doubtful Perry would have done that well under questioning from Robert George about the constitutional issues involved in abortion policy, since the Texan has flip-flopped on the subject quite recently.

The other candidates (for a full video, go here) performed pretty much as demanded. They all bellied up to the bar of “constitutional conservatism,” the belief that right-wing policy prescriptions are the only way to remain faithful to the fundamental design of the Republic. Everyone vibrated at the idea of “American exceptionalism,” the notion that this country is not only exempt from any concept of universal norms of behavior and cooperation, but is divinely appointed to keep alive laissez-faire capitalism and conservative Christianity as models for the rest of the world.

Even though Perry was absent, Steve King dutifully quizzed the candidates not only on how they would deal with illegal immigrants, but whether they agreed with him that it was time to cut back on legal immigration as well (Herman Cain was the only—perhaps naïve—protester against that proposition).

The sheer zaniness of the event was probably best evidenced by Robert George’s extended interaction with several candidates over their willingness to engage in a constitutional confrontation with the U.S. Supreme Court in the event that Congress passed legislation seeking to outlaw or significantly restrict abortion. Bachmann and Gingrich eagerly agreed with George’s suggestion that a Republican president should fight to deny federal courts jurisdiction over abortion policy; Mitt Romney allowed as how he would not go quite that far.

But George also backed Michele Bachmann into a corner by getting her to admit she had no specific basis for her repeated argument that a state-imposed personal health care purchasing mandate—i.e., what Mitt Romney had helped create in Massachusetts—violated the U.S. Constitution.

For observers of the hyper-conservative mutation of the GOP over the last few years, the most startling development in Columbia was probably Mitt Romney’s agreement with his inquisitors that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be privatized and the Community Reinvestment Act repealed. This series of steps reflects the wingnut belief that federal efforts to increase homeownership by poor and minority families caused the housing and financial meltdowns of 2008. He didn’t start babbling about ACORN or William Ayers or the president’s birth certificate, or engage in a Santelli-style rant about “losers” and “parasites” stealing from virtuous rich people. But the fact that a sober character like Romney is buying into Tea Party conspiracy theories is not a good sign.

The presidential candidates will get together again Wednesday night in a more conventional setting and format: the Ronald Reagan presidential library in California. It appears Perry will show up this time, having pretty firmly established himself as the front-runner in the race (the latest token is a poll showing him leading among Republicans in Nevada, a state thought to be totally in the bag for Mitt Romney). The venue may discourage sharp elbows given the certainty that someone will invoke Reagan’s so-called “Eleventh Commandment” against personal attacks between Republicans. But Ron Paul has already taken the initiative to go negative on Perry with a broadcast TV ad, timed to coincide with (and perhaps air during) the debate, comparing Paul’s 1980 endorsement of Reagan with the Texan’s endorsement of Al Gore in 1988 (when he was still a Democrat and Gore was considered a moderate and defense hawk). It will be interesting to see if Michele Bachmann or one of the lesser candidates picks up the opportunity that Steve King missed in South Carolina to grill Perry on his immigration stance. The one certainty tonight is that everyone will kneel at the altar of St. Ronald, and it’s doubtful anyone will recall that he signed two tax increases as president, sought to negotiate nuclear disarmament with the Soviets, and cut a deal with Tip O’Neill to avoid cuts in Social Security—that RINO!

Photo credit: outtacontext

Why America Needs a New Deal for Labor and Business

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Just before Labor Day, PPI’s President Will Marshall had an opinion piece in The Atlantic, in which he proposed reorienting the relationship of organized labor. Rather than adversaries, they should be partners. Here’s an excerpt:

President Obama is cobbling together a new jobs package for September, but it won’t be enough to revive the economy. Instead of offering another grab-bag of micro-initiatives, the administration needs to embrace a different model for growth that stimulates production rather than consumption, saving rather than borrowing and exports rather than imports.

This strategy emphasizes investment in the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital–infrastructure, skilled workers and new technology. That’s a better way to raise U.S. wages and living standards than a new jolt of fiscal stimulus.

Getting consumers spending again will boost demand, but much of it will leak overseas via rising imports, stimulating foreign rather than U.S. production. In a world awash with cheap labor, where technology gaps are narrowing rapidly, a wealthy society like ours can thrive only by speeding the pace of economic innovation and capturing its value in jobs that stay in America.

The shift from a consumer-oriented to a producer-centered society won’t happen without a new partnership between labor and business–and a shift in outlook among workers themselves. Organized or not, U.S. workers should think of themselves first and foremost as producers rather than consumers. They have a compelling interest in keeping the companies they work for competitive, and in supporting a new economic policy framework that enables investment, entrepreneurship and domestic production. This reality points to new relations between workers and companies, and new political alliances.

A GRAND BARGAIN FOR LABOR

In the post-war compact of the 1950s and 1960s, workers offered loyalty and labor offered peace to companies in return for stable jobs with decent pay and benefits. But the deal between labor and capital changed as globalization took hold. Workers gave up job security; in return, they got low consumer prices and access to easy credit. Despite access to cheap foreign goods, however, real incomes fell for most households, as real wages dropped and job growth in most parts of the private sector virtually disappeared. Easy credit was used to fund consumption rather than investment in human capital.

Now, at a time when America’s economic preeminence cannot be taken for granted, the interests of workers are converging with those of companies, foreign and domestic, that want to invest in the U.S. economy. In a new compact for competitiveness, workers would pay more attention to innovation, workplace flexibility and productivity gains. Companies would invest more in upgrading workers’ skills, help them balance the pressures of work and family, and pay them middle class wages and benefits.

Two unions are pointing the way toward such a bargain: the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Read the rest by clicking here to find out how. Read Marshall’s full policy briefing on the subject by clicking here.

Managing Austerity’s Axe

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the wake of Hurricane Irene, there has been consternation over whether the GOP proposed cuts to the United States Geological Survey signifies that they were actively endangering the public. Political scoreboard aside, while it is true that America as a nation could survive without quality weather surveillance, not needing a program does not automatically justify severe budget cuts.

Imagine America as a frigate. Our ship might be weighed down by our blossoming debt, but that does not mean we should be indiscriminately throwing our guns overboard in an attempt to lighten our load. Furthermore our focus on the crisis of the moment is also distracting us from one of the lessons of Hurricane Irene: the need to defend valuable government programs that cannot defend themselves. The national discussion needs to be reoriented from its current state to one about reducing the deficit in a way that does not prioritize politically expedient cuts over the budgets of beneficial government programs lacking political clout.

The smallest instance of this concept is a recent Washington Post cause célèbre – defending the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Called “America’s databook” by Post Columnist Robert Samuleson and defended by other Post Columnists E.J Dionne and Ezra Klein, the abstract provides a single destination for various sorts of facts that one normally would have to spend hours trolling through government databases to discover. While not essential to existence of the United States, the abstract provides useful information and would be in a sense akin to losing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, making our country worse off by making us less knowledgeable. For $2.9 million – pocket change to the federal government, the abstract is an unnecessary sacrifice in a blanket effort to reduce the budget.

To think about it another way, in pure job creation terms, government spending on the abstract creates 24 jobs at $120,000 per job – less than the $200,000 per job cost Felix Salmon finds for infrastructure spending.

Another more tangible example of this debate is a $784 million cut to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency response grants. These grants fund first responders, paying for the training of local and state emergency personnel. The training prepares them to manage current crises like Vermont floods. Before immediately writing FEMA off as wasteful spending, it’s important to note the steps FEMA has taken to redeem its sullied reputation. FEMA received positive reviews from both sides of the aisle in its response to Hurricane Irene.

Yet due to a slimmed budget, FEMA disaster relief money is running out, pitting two disasters against each other for catastrophe aid. With funding not yet appropriated to help the Joplin, Missouri recovery efforts, Missouri Senators are already warning about diverting funding from rebuilding Joplin to recovering from Irene.

“Recovery from hurricane damage on the East Coast must not come at the expense of Missouri’s rebuilding efforts,” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Monday in a statement.

Competition should not exist between states for disaster relief. Not only is it immoral to declare one disaster more worthy of funding than another, but it also represents a basic betrayal of citizens who depend on the government for at least their very security.

Conservative economist, Doug Holtz-Eakin has a two-part test for creating government programs, “Does the economy fail to deliver something? And second, could the government do it better?” As Samuelson notes, there is no private market equivalent of the Statistical Abstract and I seriously doubt that a private corperation could provide disaster relief better than FEMA can. There is no denying that deficit reduction needs to occur, but legislators should think twice about government’s basic responsibilities before subjecting agencies without political clout to austerity’s axe.

Photo Credit: U.S Coast Guard

Wingnut Watch: Romney’s Perry Problem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the traditionally sluggish Dog Days of late August (interrupted, of course, on the East Coast by the occasional earthquake or hurricane), wingnuts, like other Americans, have been a bit distracted from politics. But those answering the phone calls of ever-vigilant pollsters are building a wave of buzz for new presidential candidate Rick Perry for which there is little recent precedent. Perhaps it is just a reflection of long-simmering unhappiness with the candidate field, but in survey after survey, national and local, Perry is quickly moving ahead of not only the Star of Ames Michele Bachmann, but also long-time front-runner Mitt Romney. Five national polls taken since August 15 show Perry up over Romney by margins ranging from six to thirteen points. Two polls of Iowa Republicans taken during the same period show Perry edging out Bachmann, even though the Texan skipped the Iowa GOP Straw Poll and has appeared in the state exactly once. Two new polls in South Carolina show Perry trouncing the field; one has Perry up 23 points over Romney and 29 points over Bachmann. Even in Mitt Romney’s stronghold of New Hampshire, Perry is rapidly moving into serious contention. Where available, poll internals typically show Perry racing past Bachmann among Tea Party conservatives, and holding his own against Romney with more conventional conservatives and moderates alike.

It’s unclear at this point whether the various controversies already surrounding Perry—from his published views on the New Deal and the Great Society to questions about his intelligence—are being brushed off by Republican voters or simply haven’t sunk in. But the reining question in the conservative chattering classes is whether his rivals—and particularly Mitt Romney—should be panicking or beginning to go negative on him, or at least reconsidering their strategies.

The thinking in RomneyLand, it is being reported, is that Perry’s surge in the polls is likely to abate somewhat on its own, and that MSM scrutiny of the Texan will also take a toll. Perry is also gaffe-prone, and doesn’t have a reputation as a particularly good debater (there will be three televised candidate debates in September alone). The main trouble for Team Romney, however, is strategic timing. One nightmare scenario is that Perry will trounce the field in Iowa, giving him enough of a bounce to run a strong second in New Hampshire and then build up an invincible head of steam going into South Carolina and then other southern states. Uncertainty over the primary calendar is a big issue as well. If a Romney-friendly state like Michigan manages to move up to the early stages of the contest as it did in 2008, he can perhaps stick to his original game-plan. But if, say, Georgia and Florida wind up holding primaries the week after South Carolina, then the risk of a Perry sweep would go up considerably. In theory, the Perry-Bachmann competition over the hard-core conservative vote in Iowa could create an opening for Romney in that state; a Romney victory upset there followed by a win in New Hampshire could leave him in a very good position. But this “quick kill” approach is obviously the strategy that blew up on Romney—and for that matter, Hillary Clinton—in 2008.

Romney has a number of more immediate trials to overcome during the Labor Day weekend. He’s the featured speaker at a Tea Party Express event in New Hampshire, a development that has spurred a formal protest by the rival tea party group FreedomWorks, which has long harbored an animus towards Romney.

The same weekend all the major candidates will face an early and potentially difficult test: a command-performance inquisition in South Carolina by a conservative group that has joined forces with ideological commissar Jim DeMint to quiz the hopefuls on various matters of conservative orthodoxy. Most of the media attention on the event has focused on Romney’s initial refusal to participate on specious-sounding scheduling grounds, followed by his sudden decision yesterday that he would, after all, come to Columbia to pay homage to DeMint. But there is another subplot to the story that could become important: one of DeMint’s co-inquisitors will be Iowa Rep. Steve King, who has yet to make a presidential endorsement despite his close relationship with Michele Bachmann. King rivals Tom Tancredo as a right-wing firebrand on the immigration issue, where Rick Perry’s record is significantly out of line with prevailing conservative views. It wouldn’t be that surprising to see King hold the Texan’s feet to the fire on this issue and then sadly decide he has to back someone else back home in Iowa.

Speaking of Labor Day weekend, and of Iowa, there’s all sorts of confusion surrounding the long-anticipated appearance of Sarah Palin at a big Tea Party gathering just outside of Des Moines on Saturday. This event was where a lot of Palin-watchers originally thought she might either launch or definitively foreswear a presidential campaign. Team Palin has thrown cold water on that assumption (saying the deadline for an announcement of her plans is the end of September, not Labor Day), and now, her appearance is “on hold” due to conflicts with local Tea Party planners. One report is that Palin and her staff are fed up with the vacillation of event organizers over a speaking role—offered, withdrawn, and then reoffered—for former Delaware Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell, who is fresh from one of the more disastrous book launch tours in recent memory. In any event, Palin will do at least one public event in Iowa this weekend, followed quickly by another in New Hampshire. But the ranks of those expecting her to run for president in 2012 are thinning rapidly.

Photo credit: Aaron Webb

Defense’s Careful Contribution to Deficit Reduction

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Will Marshall and Jim Arkedis have a piece in the Detroit News this morning on the defense budget. Here’s an excerpt:

Recently, Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress unveiled their choices to head the so-called “super committee” entrusted with forging a long-term agreement to reduce the nation’s deficit.

The stakes are high for the Department of Defense. Should the super committee fail to propose legislation, or a divided Congress fail to pass a compromise, the deal to avert national default would automatically trigger a $500 billion cut from the Pentagon’s budget. Added to the $350 billion already cut by the deal, the Pentagon’s budget could shrink by $850 trillion over 10 years.

If the Department of Defense is forced to make such a substantial contribution to deficit reduction, one point is clear: Our political leaders remain unwilling to tackle the national deficit’s two main cost drivers — entitlements and taxes.

Nothing is set in stone, but the congressional super committee now faces two crucial questions: Should defense contribute more toward deficit reduction? And, if so, how do we save?

Our answers are that defense can contribute, but carefully.

Continue reading in the Detroit News by clicking here.

Photo credit: Brave Heart.

Strategic diplomacy needed on Israel

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Josh Block writes in Politico:

Seven months ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed strong U.S. opposition to the Palestinians’ unilateral statehood bid at the United Nations. One month ago, Congress threatened to cut off U.S. aid for the Palestinian Authority if it carried on. Yet President Mahmoud Abbas is still moving full-speed ahead to September with his U.N. initiative.

The Obama administration and Congress have rightfully taken a firm stance against unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State. But with every sign indicating that the Palestinian leadership won’t be changing course, it’s time for the White House to assert a more active approach to blunt the potential impact of this collision.

The United States must begin a vigorous public effort to lobby other countries, large and small, to oppose the Palestinian effort and join President Barack Obama in pressuring the PA to call it off. Acting decisively now, we can persuade the Palestinians not to press ahead with this damaging course – which undermines our quest for peace and risks anti-Israel terrorism and violence on the Palestinian side, when carelessly raised hopes are dashed.

The good news is that the administration has plenty of opportunities to speak out. Last week, a delegation of 18 Washington-based ambassadors from four continents took part in a fact-finding mission to Israel and the West Bank. They were not from major international players but smaller countries like Albania and Macedonia in the Balkans and St. Lucia and Grenada in the Caribbean.

The administration should start by inviting these 18 ambassadors to the White House and directly appealing that their countries vote against the Palestinian bid. In this game by numbers, the smaller countries—which account for a sizable portion of the U.N. General Assembly—can make a meaningful difference.

This can underscore for the Palestinians and the international community the peace is the goal — not just statehood — and there are no short cuts to negotiation.

Read the rest at Politico here.

Wingnut Watch: Perry’s Tightrope

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Rick PerryWith the end of the brief, Weekly Standard-driven boomlet for a Paul Ryan presidential candidacy, it’s increasingly certain that the 2012 GOP presidential field is set. Yes, there are still some observers who believe (with hope or fear) that Sarah Palin is going to announce a 2012 bid in Iowa at a big Tea Party rally over the Labor Day weekend. But Team Palin’s abrasive push back against a Karl Rove prediction that this would happen is a pretty clear indicator that it won’t, unless St. Joan of the Tundra really enjoys misdirection.

So there are by most accounts three viable candidates—Perry, Romney and Bachmann—with Ron Paul formidable enough to wreak some occasional havoc, and perhaps someone else—most likely Rick Santorum, possibly Herman Cain—having enough juice in Iowa to affect other candidates’ performances at the margins. Perry is the “it” candidate of the moment, and fans of Bachmann are praying that her candidacy can survive his current surge in the national and early-state polls.

Meanwhile, Perry himself is negotiating a pretty interesting tightrope that shows both the power and perils of wingnuttery. On the one hand, it’s important that he provide a credible challenge to Bachmann for the support of serious Tea Party and Christian Right activists; perhaps his camp even thinks they can drive her from the race before voting begins by pushing down her poll numbers and drying up her money sources. This would explain the savagely carnivorous nature of his early speeches, and certain other maneuvers like his decision to sign onto the Susan B. Anthony List’s highly prescriptive anti-abortion pledge, which Mitt Romney declined to do. That pledge, it should be noted, would prohibit Perry from appointing his 2008 presidential favorite, Rudy Giuliani, to any cabinet post with an influence on abortion policy.

But at the same time, Perry is having some problems generated by wingnut-pleasing passages in his 2010 book, Fed Up, most notably an expression of interest in repealing the Sixteenth Amendment (which made possible the establishment of a federal income tax), and exceedingly hostile remarks about the constitutionality and morality of Social Security. Indeed, he’s already back-peddling pretty fast on Social Security, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said [last] Thursday that he had “never heard” the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but “Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.

Perry is also drawing unfriendly mainstream media attention for more conventional (among today’s conservatives, at least) sentiments denying man-made global climate change and treating evolution as a mere egghead theory. But one Perry controversy also shows how thoroughly previously unconventional views have become common among GOP elites. His attack on Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernancke made some Republican opinion-leaders nervous on grounds that a potential POTUS should not be assaulting the independence of the Fed. Hardly anyone questioned the underlying policy stance Perry embraced, suggesting a Ron-Paul-style deflationary monetary policy in the midst of a deep recession.

As Perry’s audition as a possible chief executive continues, the broader question is whether the specific views of Republicans matter a whole lot to anyone outside the hothouse atmosphere of conservative activists. A new Gallup survey testing the incumbent against Romney, Perry, Paul and Bachmann among registered voters showed remarkably little variation. Romney, predictably, did best, edging Obama 48-46. But Gallup also showed Perry tied with Obama at 47-47, with Paul only trailing by two points (47-45) and Bachmann only trailing by four (48-44).

Those who wonder why the Obama re-election team is reportedly planning a scorched-earth campaign criticizing the eventual Republican nominee should stare at those numbers a while. A “comparative” campaign is not simply essential in order to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on life in the Obama Era at a time when “wrong-track” sentiments are extraordinarily high. Perry, Paul and Bachmann, at least, offer a treasure trove of oppo research opportunities that any Democratic candidate would be foolish not to exploit.

But it’s equally interesting to wonder if findings like Gallup’s will convince conservative activists there is no electoral risk attached to their own choice of a candidate. If so—if, in other words, “electability” is not really a factor in so polarized an electorate–you can expect them to indulge themselves ideologically without much in the way of inhibition.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore