News & Comment

What Barack Obama tried to tell America in the hour of his remarkable victory is that the nation’s future won on Election Day. Seeking to inspire and to heal, the reelected president offered an open hand to partisan opponents in the style that has always defined him. “Tonight,” he said, “despite all the hardship we’ve been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I’ve never been more hopeful about our future.” In the days ahead, there will be time to absorb the magnitude of this moment—achieved under the cloud of persistent unemployment and a multibillion-dollar campaign of calumny—but the president clearly knows that he returns to the White House with a renewed mandate. Against great odds, he won nearly all the same states that elected him in 2008 and won the popular vote despite an enormous, angry backlash in the old Confederacy. read more »

When it comes to politics, it ain’t over ’til its’ over. And even then it may not be over. With the presidential election just days away, the contest remains close enough to ensure some jangled nerves and nail-biting among Republicans and Democrats. Still, the latest news and numbers should give President President Barack Obama a boost as he delivers his closing argument to voters.  Should Obama emerge the victor when the dust settles after Tuesday, his closing argument will become the winning message. And voters convinced to reward Obama with a second term on the strength of that message will — and should — expect him to live up to its vision and promise.  read more »

As Hurricane Sandy bore down hard on the East Coast, the federal government began to take steps to deal with any fall out the super-storm might bring. President Barack Obama signed a number of federal emergency declarations for states like Connecticut and New York, which allows states to qualify for immediate aid for the costs of evacuation and other services. But this system of federal involvement to mitigate the damage from natural disasters would be threatened under a Mitt Romney presidency. Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, have promised to fundamentally transform how federal disaster aid would work. If Hurricane Sandy was bearing down under a Romney-Ryan presidency, the scale of federal help would be radically different. read more »

Mitt Romney was ridiculed by the liberal media when he complained to wealthy donors, “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” To Romney, these voters are united by a dependency on government and a belief that “they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” Seething with contempt for half of America, Romney is a caricature of an out-of-touch elite. He’s also, in a twisted way, right. A movement to expand the welfare state has the potential to foster a new majoritarian Left coalition. Republicans know this—that’s why they manipulate the way welfare is perceived at every turn. read more »

The Left should fight for programs that provide health services, educate children, bolster the income of the less-well-off and subsidize housing. The reasons are obvious. The first is a simple moral imperative: A good society strives to meet the basic needs of all its people. The second is that government programs that protect people from the exigencies of labor markets, or of old age, or orphanhood, or disability, make people more secure. A sense of security, the reduction of fear, is a good thing in itself. But it also empowers people, and for that reason is essential to a more democratic society. Workers are far more likely to stand up to their bosses when they know they can fall back on decent unemployment benefits, just as women are more likely to stand up to abusive husbands when they know that they and their children can rely on government income supports. read more »

“Government, keep your hands off my Medicare!” Commentators and comedians alike had fun with the cognitive dissonance represented by the statement above, found on more than one hand-scrawled sign at Tea Party rallies. But while opposition to government is more at home on the political right, ignorance about the role of government is a bipartisan malady. Liberals may shake their heads at the “ignorance” of the Right, but we’ve seen focus groups in San Francisco comprised of liberal Democrats argue about whether or not the Bay Area Rapid Transit system is public transportation. Years of research and polling have shown that there is a broad lack of understanding about the role of government in our everyday lives. Many Americans are unaware of just what’s public and what’s private. Why is that? Government programs may be victims of their own success. When a public system works well, it becomes less visible. read more »

In 1818, the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, New York’s first anti-poverty organization, issued a report advocating the need to relieve “the community from the pecuniary exactions, the multiplied exactions, and threatening dangers” associated with paupers. These middle-class worthies were alarmed at the cost of heating the almshouse in winter, the appearance of women and children scavenging for coal and food scraps along city streets, and the able-bodied men left idle by a serious economic downturn. The report listed the causes of urban poverty: intemperance in drinking, idleness, “want of economy,” gambling, pawnbrokers and “imprudent and hasty marriages.” Nowhere in the 20-page document did the authors mention the twin burdens of urban laboring people: low wages and few jobs. The Society’s report brings to mind Mitt Romney’s comment about the 47 percent. Yet unlike Romney, many Americans are indeed worried about poverty. read more »

Mitt Romney has taken to lambasting President Obama for record levels of food stamp enrollment, wielding the figures on the safety-net program to attack Obama’s economic policies. “How about food stamps?” Romney said at last night’s debate. “When [Obama] took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps.” Indeed, Romney’s numbers are right. As a result of the recession, the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, added nearly 15 million new people to its rolls since Obama took office. While Romney’s point is that his economic plan will foster growth and therefore lift all boats—“We don’t have to settle” for that, he said—when it comes to food stamps, Romney has plans for shrinking enrollment that have little to do with economic growth. Mainly, he’d just shrink the food stamp rolls, whether people need the program or not. read more »

Elections are important. They represent the pinnacle of democracy. But what comes after this election might be even more important. Beginning with the lame-duck Congress that will return to Washington the week after the election, our leaders will start making the most fundamental and consequential decisions about budgets, taxes, and the role of government in our society that they have made in generations. Some call it the "fiscal cliff." Others call it "taxmageddon." Whatever the label, Congress and the president will decide many things: the future of the Bush tax cuts, whether to extend the payroll tax holiday for millions of Americans, and whether to avoid scheduled cuts in spending that would radically pare all sorts of domestic programs. Key things are at stake, such as protecting our water and air, and food assistance for hungry Americans. As these deliberations unfold, we must adhere to three priorities. read more »

Here’s what I hope is a simple and straightforward way to think about what’s at stake in this election and the differences between the tickets. We face not one, but four deficits: budget deficit, jobs deficit investment deficit, and security deficit. Without jobs, public investment, and an amply funded government, we will be unable to provide a secure safety net under retirees, create and retain the near term jobs to bring us closer to full employment, invest in productive infrastructure and industries of the future, or provide disadvantage kids the educational opportunities they need to realize the intellectual and economic potential. From now until election day, I’ll be everywhere I can be stressing these four deficits, their impacts on the economy, on our livings standards, and on our kids’ opportunities. And, of course, most importantly, I’ll be stressing the gaping differences between the parties’ approaches to closing them. read more »