Budget Cuts! The Sky Is Falling! Darn Those Republicans! Sequestration – What? – The Fear, The Drama, the News! – Does Anyone Really Care?

Who do you Trust? Either? - President Obama and Congress - Image: the Economist.com

From the local evening news to the daily paper, the cable news outlets to the network news shows, the urgency and fear in the individual reporter’s (or written piece) voice is apparent. President Obama says we are going to lose teachers, firefighters, and we’ll have a big problem funding education and oh, long lines at the airports!! Why? Those darn republicans are going to force budget cuts on the government! Therefore, the sky is falling. What about those budget cuts? The Bill, and it was a Bill, was first brought up in an agreement on the debt ceiling between the President and the Congress, the President signed the bill.

The OMB - (At whitehouse.gov in PDF) listed the consequences of these horrific cuts. In a report on the Budget Control Act of 2011, it is noted that the actual cuts are based on a requirement of eliminating if 1.2 trillion in federal spending. The Report released in 2012 suggests that he President felt that this method was not a smart way to cut the budget (yet he signed the Act).

The estimates and classifications in the report are preliminary. If the sequestration were to occur, the actual results would differ based on changes in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis. However, the report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government func­ tions. Under the assumptions required by the STA, the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs

The above appears to be a ton of cuts that might make it difficult for the government to run, of course, these cuts are explained in some detail as to departments and percentages in billions of dollars going further into the documents. It is also notable that these cuts are spread over a period of time, therefore, the first cuts to take place in 2013 are in billions of dollars – cut that are placed on departments that have already received an increase over the previous year’s budget – huh?!!

On Page 6, for example, it suggests that total defense spending must be cut by 54.8 billion dollars. Which, when one understands how budgets operate in Washington D.C., one can understand that taxpayers have been throwing cash at a cow that basically throws that money out of the nearest window. This is the way budgets are run in any department of the U.S. government: For example: If a small department receives a budget of 1 million dollars and during the course of the year, spending only $600,000 to run the department, the balance must be spent before the end of the fiscal year – on anything – in order for that department to receive sufficient funding for the following year – Thus one finds that government department buying Gold-plated hammers (that is sarcasm) at $25 a pop, or replacing the office furniture, and redecorating – all unnecessary – but necessary by the Government theory of budgeting.

The beyond inefficient budgeting method is part of the problem – reading further into this report and looking at what major services to the public are actually getting cut (less than the average American is cutting their grocery bill), Once one looks closely at the budget cuts to defense, one is reminded of President Eisenhower’s warning “Beware the Military Industrial Complex” – and Eisenhower, for those who are not aware, was a Republican.

Go to page 208 in this document to see the dire cuts to discretionary spending – It’s shocking. For example: The National endowment for the arts, may lose 2 Billion out of the 148 slated for the 2013 budget. Similar cuts are seen throughout the article, most of this is concentrated on salaries to those who oversee the programs.

Then there are the exceptions, which begins on page 225. Read it and weep. (Read entire document here at whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/lesitlative_reports/stareport.pdf

An article at Red State today addresses certain funding cuts where said agencies are no longer in existence – See Redstate.com/why are firemen always the first to be laid off?” Good Question, along with teachers and other local employees of the local governments, the budget and salaries are generally paid for by local taxes, and are the responsibility of the city or municipality. The fact that there were additional hires under the stimulus programs to “create jobs”, is sometimes lost, and that those “created jobs” were only going to last as long as the funds did. Once the funds ran out, those newly hired teachers, were now the problem of the State, City, etc. that hired them with the stimulus funds. The Cities, etc. were, consequently on the hook for the unemployment insurance that was sure to follow – since there was no effort to create non-government funded jobs in the private sector.

Therefore, with all the back to back drama coming out of the White House and the Congress with their budget concerns, sky is falling tactics, one can image that the nation wearies of listening to crisis after crisis – In fact, they are also tired of the news, no matter what form it takes. How many people sit up at night and worry about “sequestration” outside of Washington DC and the newsrooms? – Does the average person, after all the “crying wolf” done by the administration and the Congress with the subsequent results: – “Well, we dodged a bullet there!, no more crisis, we can increase the budget!” “We don’t’ ‘have to shut down the government” – really believe anymore that there are serious consequences to any action taken in Washington?

Does Politico believe it?

That’s questionable considering this morning’s article ”Is Obama telling the truth about sequestration?”

In truth that may be a bit of sour grapes, given that Politico may still be on the outs with the Obama administration over that whole Tiger Woods/Golf-Outing/Press not Allowed situation. However, there appears to be a general, and growing, disbelief in the Federal Government in a top down kind of way, along with their extensions, media outlets – from local to national.

Perhaps it’s a lack of trust in Government institutions or those perceived as an arm of the government: See the July 2012 Gallup survey on Trust in Institutions at www.gallup.com/poll/15258/Confidence-Public-Schools-New-Low.aspx: which suggests the following: The lowest approval went to Congress at 13%, in the 20% range: HMO’s, Big Business, Banks, Organized Labor, News (Televised), News (Print), the Criminal Justice System, and Public Schools. In the 30’s: the U.S. Supreme Court and the Presidency, the Most trusted: The Military, Small Business and the Police. (Read full article at Gallup.com)

Although a little less than a year old, the report may not have changed all that much given the circumstances of the governments daily dire straits, histrionics and prolific spending, stonewalling and basic B.S. by both political parties. One might suggest that the general public has had enough.

GOP 2012 Polling – Gingrich, Romney, Paul – Endorsements This Week - Obama No Idea Economy Was In Tough Shape When He Took Office - Commentary

Now there are three - Romney Paul and Gingrich - image cnn.com

Every pollster under the sun has been polling the GOP race, both nationally and in Early Voting and Swing States – the results depending upon the pollsters are fairly consistent both in GOP only and then national polls. The GOP only national polling shows both Gingrich and Romney in the same positions with slight changes over the past week: Gallup has Gingrich with a lead of 31% to Romney’s consistent 22% - also consistent are Ron Paul at 8%, Rick Perry at 7%, Michelle Bachmann at 6% with both Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman picking up 1 point respectively and those with No Opinion (or more likely those who will vote for whomever is the nominee) moving up 5 points.

Rasmussen, on nationwide “likeability” has Romney leading with 53% of the electorate having a favorable or somewhat favorable opinion, while Gingrich is seen as favorable or somewhat favorable by 43%, among Republican voters only However, Gingrich holds the edge on the “very favorable” category leading Romney by 31 to 22%, however, both men are tied at an overall “favorable opinion” at 80%, the balance of the field falls below 50% favorability, with candidates such as Huntsman holding low favorability due to lack of exposure nationwide (i.e. Never Head of/No Opinion). Although this poll is more of a “popularity” poll, rather than a “who would one cast their vote for poll”, it is of some import given the fact that those lesser known candidates nationwide may have some time to pick up points, taking away from one of the top tier candidates.

In a second poll on the strength of candidates Rasmussen shows both Gingrich and Romney as those seen as the “strongest GOP opponents for Obama – with Gingrich at 30% and Romney at 29%. This suggests that regardless of the poll or the pollster, the enthusiasm among Republican voters, and determination to nominate someone they see as being best able to unseat the incumbent, President Barack Obama with good cause – given other pollsters weighing in on the national contest.

Gallup shows Romney and Gingrich with a “slight” edge over Obama in twelve key swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These are the states where Obama held an 8 point lead in 2008 over McCain. That said, Gallup shows both Romney and Gingrich (with Romney faring better) losing ground to Obama in the national polling. With Obama at 47 to 46% (Romney) and 50% to 44% (Gingrich). Although the President’s Job Approval Rating according to Gallup shows an historical correlation between the incumbent and former one-term President Jimmy Carter’s.

President Obama's 43% average job approval rating last month ranks as one of the lowest for an elected president in November of his third year in office. Only Jimmy Carter had a lower rating, at 40%. But Carter's rating surged in late November 1979 because of a rally in support after the onset of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and he averaged above 50% in December. All recently elected presidents were at or above 50% in December of their third year in office. (Gallup Polling December 2, 2012)
Note: as of December 10th Obama held an approval rating of 45%/to 48% disapproval. (Gallup Polling Dec. 10th)

As much as one enjoys a poll, however, the polls most likely to be close in predictability are those that are taken three weeks or less out from an election, therefore, at this juncture, national polls, or polls in states with primaries beyond the 1st week of January are much less accurate. As of this point, two states are in the spotlight: Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, a caucus state, polling plays a smaller roll than in other states, due to the nature of the ground game (the candidate with the most time in on the ground and the largest group of supporters would upend a candidate that may have spent millions on advertising, but had less of a ground game. Ideology also plays a factor in this state where half of the electorate is Conservative Evangelical Voters, with the balance either leaning Moderate or Libertarian. Which would go a long way towards understanding the latest polling reported by The Daily Caller where Public Policy Polling shows Gingrich and Ron Paul within a point at 22 (Gingrich) to 21 (Paul) and Romney at 16%.

The Poll also indicates that Paul is gaining over the past week on Gingrich, while Romney remains the same, and Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman have all gained in the past week. The only candidates remaining stagnant are Perry, Romney and Johnson (The other Libertarian in the race). Again with Iowa, polls taken at the caucus could be wildly unpredictable, but, generally speaking, the candidate (s) three weeks out from the caucus will either place first or second if they lead by ten or more points. A side note on Public Policy Polling, although a decidedly Democrat leaning firm, the level of accuracy in polling close to the race has been extremely consistent.

Finally, the President is on the campaign trail as well with Politico reporting that Obama’s latest “tactic” for holding a second term is to tell the public he simply had no idea of what he was getting into as far as the economy was concerned. The actual quote: "I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle. "I think I could have prepared the American people for how bad this was going to be, had we had a sense of that." belies the fact that at the stage where an individual is the party’s nominee, they also should be well enough informed of what is taking place, not only with the economy (He did, as an acting Senator, rush to sign the TARP program), but on foreign and domestic policy as well.

One would hope, every single candidate, both GOP, the President representing the DNC, and a host of minor party candidates, all understand the extremely difficult task before them. It will come down to who the voters believe have the best understanding of the situation at hand, and who is most capable of leading the nation forward. In addition, that individual must have a record of working successfully with both sides of the aisle, and sometimes disappointing those members of their own party who would prefer a more “solid conservative” or in the President’s case, a “solid Progressive” that does not bend. Unfortunately, when the President panders to a Political Party, then gridlock ensues. That is a key sticking point for voters in this election – gridlock. Those who are the final nominees (one is a given) will have to not only prove merit to handle the job at hand, but also the record and ability to work with both sides of the aisle, without compromising principles. It is a job that, frankly, for those either crazy enough or brave enough or egotistical enough to apply and hope to get the job done.

Gallup: Most American’s Believe President & Congress Doing Poor Job: Includes 40% Dems and 79% Independents – Democrats Enthusiasm Lowest Since 2004 -

2012 the Year of the Un-Washington Candidate? image Baaiusa.org

From: Gallup Polling’s Headline: “Half Say President, Congress Doing Worse Than Predecessors” speaks to the second poll segment shown in the article, with 52% of respondents noting that the current makeup of the Congress and Administration is doing worse than those who governed in the past. The first question and the answers by party, however, are quite stunning: “In your view, how good a job are President Obama and the current congress doing in dealing with the United States’ Most Important Problems” draws an overwhelming negative of 67%, with 40% of Democrats, 78% of Independents and 89% of Republicans voting Poor or Very Poor.

The general mood, therefore, of the nation has grown to one of severe anti-incumbency, with the emphasis on the President (given the wording of the polls questions – and the natural placement of the President before the Congress, giving those who have a strong negative on the President’s job performance, with a lesser negative on Congress, the impulse to lump the two together. The outcome may also be viewed as anti-Washington establishment, which gives further acceptance to the Tea Party and the candidates that have risen from its ranks. This is especially true when one honestly assesses the makeup of “Tea Party” constituents as a blend of all political party affiliations, the emphasis being on an adherence to the U.S. Constitution and what is seen as an overwhelming tax burden, and little to no fiscal restraint shown by those in Washington.

Further, a poll released by Gallup on the 29th “Democrats Dispirited About Voting in 2012” indicates that over 44% of Democrats and Democrat leaning independents are unlikely to vote in 2012. Compared to 2004 and 2008, with 2008 being a year with high enthusiasm, the level of voter enthusiasm among Democrats and leaning Independents is in line with both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Among Republican and leaning Independents, the mood is quite different – enthusiasm is up over 2000 and 2004 election levels (given the chart included with the article (Link here) – 51% in 2000, 53% in 2004, and 58% going into 2012).


What 2012 elections forecasters may derive from these two poll series is the rise in political fortunes of those candidates who appear less “Washington” and have the ability to identify with the voters. This would include all candidates for both Houses of Congress as well as the White House and explains the rise in polls for those running for the Presidency that are considered “less experienced politically”, but having more “public sector” experience, and, in addition, a policy of strict fiscal conservatism and adherence to the U.S. Constitution. That general distaste for “Washington” would give Tea Party candidates, although dismissed by Pundits and the Major Party Elites, the proverbial “edge”, with the President as most vulnerable compared to those party affiliates in Congress and the Senate.
Although reading crystal balls is beyond anyone of those who live for the Beltway or those bloggers an and analysts on the sidelines (this blog defined as sidelines), it appears to be the general nature of the political ‘junkie’ in the beltway to either forecast in deference to one party or candidate over another, often based on partisan politics, contrasted with those blogs deferring to the poll results and the stark reality of a growing movement that is anti-Washington. Using this theory, logic follows, therefore that candidates such as Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Chris Christie (the later: Palin intentions not yet announced, Christie, announced intentions not to run incessantly), an immediate edge over more “polished” candidates who have extensive experience in government and appear more in sync with Washington and the Beltway.

Although money and the huge sums raised by candidates during election cycles (this one being no exception, even with the current economic crisis), is said to play a factor in outcomes, that is more to the general rather than the primary, and that is a risk that the Beltway pundits and Elites are now repeating. Cain and Bachmann may indeed pull out of Iowa, with the South and Midwest following suit: given the early voting schedule being imposed by key states in the process, it is no wonder that the Establishment GOP is concerned. It may be that Cain, Bachmann, or Palin should she decide to announce either before or after her return from the World Knowledge Conference in South Korea, would take the lead with states such as Iowa, South Carolina and Florida now in the mix, with more establishment candidates such as Romney or Perry taking New Hampshire; with Romney leading most likely in the same states as in the 2008 general. As it now stands, one would be foolish not to watch the “underdogs” (as described by “Washington”) due to the high probability that one will be the nominee, Republican’s less likely to use the nuclear option of “Super Delegates”, possibly understanding that their constituency would increase exponentially among those independents, democrats and Tea Party identifiers if this was taken off the table, ensuring a candidate who may not be to the liking of Washington but would bring out the vote in unprecedented numbers in a general.

At this point in the case of the President, one has to take a second look at pundit Dick Morris’ assertion that the President may pull out of the General, and give his resignation allowing Clinton to run in his stead” Although Morris, like any other pundit, should be taken with a grain of salt, (this blog included), Morris’ past affiliation with the Clinton administration, makes his ability to read Democrat “Tea leaves” a bit better than most. That said, although Clinton would be more preferable than Obama in a general, the brand would be of concern, and it is more probable that 2016 would be the year to challenge, depending upon how well the Generic Republican and Congress are faring.

At this point, it would not be going too far out on a limb to project that Republicans/Tea Party Conservatives will maintain the House of Representatives, take the Senate and also the White House, which is why, with a concern over establishment candidates, would place those who are more Tea Party, in the White House. As of now, polling by the conservative (in this respect conservative to mean careful) Gallup organization, gives the Generic Republican a 6 point lead over President Obama, this figure has continued to rise over the past several months. Which is why, those listening to candidate Michelle Bachmann at the debate, and her recent speech at Liberty University, noting “do not settle”, understand that with the generic ballot giving such an edge to Brand X versus Obama, those who vote, should be able to elect a candidate who shares principles based on Strong adherence to the Constitution, shows leadership qualities and an ability to understand the needs of the people. It is a rallying cry for all Conservative leaning voters (be they Democrat, Republican or Independent) to choose wisely, and “not settle” for a candidate until they have been fully vetted – one must agree that would be of import, regardless of experience and of party.

End Week Polling Shows Huckabee with Edge in General Republican Primary with Huge Lead over Obama in Key State of Texas

Mike Huckabee Leader of the Pack - image Politico

, Public Policy Polling, a decidedly left of center polling institute, has, since early January factored that Mike Huckabee, former Govenor of Arkansas, would be the best choice for the GOP Nomination. There analysis was based, not on his polling numbers at the time (which were lower, in some cases than other GOP “contenders”), but rather on how well he would fare against each of those considered competition. This particular Pollster is one to watch, as they have an unusual ability to forecast correctly, and have a fairly solid record. One need only look at the races and analysis for the 2010 election on their website Here publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.asp">, to get a sense of their overall methodology and accuracy.

The Huckabee Factor:
In a poll released on January 21, 2011 Huckabee, in a sample of 512 likely Republican Primary Participants, bested the front runners in double digits. (Republican candidates for President in 2012 used for this survey were Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and John Thune.) Huckabee leads Romney by a full 10 points, Palin by the same amount, with the balance most in single digits. Only 16% were, at this point, undecided this early in the game. Polling for second choice, (should a preferred candidate fail to run), Huckabee fairs equally well.

In reviewing the marginals, the poll was heavily weighted with those Republican’s who considered themselves conservative at 73%, with 25% moderates, and 3% who consider themselves liberal. Keep in mind these are individuals who historically vote in Republican primaries. This, however, does not indicate the poll was intentionally skewed to a more “conservative” share of voice, given the recent Gallup Polling that indicates Conservaitves ideology among the U.S. Populace, continues to increase, and leads both Moderates and Liberals. In addition, Gallup surveyed Republican’s in particular, and those results, 72 Connectives, 24 Moderate and 3 Liberal, are in concert with the Public Policy Polling methodology In other words, Public Policy Polling was “conservative” (meaning cautious) in their polling schematics.

The firm released as new poll as of the 22nd of January, focused on the State of Texas. Setting the stage – why Texas? Texas, which just increased its clout in the upcoming 2012 presidential race, due to increased population, will experience a gain in Electoral College votes. Texas, in this instance, has gained 4 seats (see 2012 Electoral College map on www.270towin up to 38, making Texas one of the richest in Electoral College votes, only bested by
California.

In the poll released January 22 and taken on the 20th, Huckabee leads President Obama in the Texas by 16 Points – the balance of potential candidates:

Mitt Romney has a respectable 49-42
advantage, and Newt Gingrich a 48-43 lead. But homegrown Perry only matches the
president at 45%, and Palin posts an insignificant 47-46 edge.,

(PPP)

In these polls, marginals reflect the makeup of the electorate in Texas perfectly. One can “follow” Public Policy Polling on either Facebook, Twitter or through a feed reader available on their blog publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com. Given the fact that none of the above mentioned potential candidates has actually “announced” an intention to run (with perhaps the exception of Mitt Romney, and that other potentials such as Mike Pence of Indiana are not included in the polling (Pence is still undecided as to which race to run in: Indiana Govenor or National Race). However, those political junkies will not have long to wait. Huckabee indicated in a recent interview that he will make a decision in June of 2011, which, incidentally, is the same time frame he choose for the 2007 run. Sources in Arkansas, however, do indicate the former 2-1/2 term Govenor from Hope Arkansas, will enter the fray.