After the Vote: Nothing and Everything Has Changed

“We went through all that, and nothing has changed.”

That view keeps popping up among the myriad analyses of the interesting, and frequently annoying, election campaign just completed. The Geezer, months ago, predicted four more years of Washington gridlock should President Obama be reelected. I’ve changed my mind.

Yes, the arithmetic in the political landscape changed only slightly. Republicans lost some seats in the House (they may well regain them in mid-term elections, as often happens) but retained a majority. Democrats gained only a couple of seats in the Senate, keeping a majority, but falling well short of the 60 needed to be able to easily push legislation through that chamber.

However, the legislative power positions changed dramatically. There are reasons for confidence that some useful things will get done in the months ahead

Perhaps most important, the Republicans took a real shellacking in areas that bode ill for the future of the party. President Obama won handily among young women, and barring major changes in Republican approaches those voters are likely to be Democrats in the future. Hispanics turned out in large numbers. Just a few years back, 44 percent of them voted for George W. Bush. This time, 70 percent backed President Obama. The Democrat even was favored by Cuban-Americans, who previously were pretty solidly in the conservative camp.

Why the big shift in the Hispanic vote?  I became acquainted with many Hispanics in contacts with workers and contractors in 11 years of serving as a homeowner association accountant. We also had several Hispanic neighbors. With few exceptions, these folks were hard-working, religious, family-oriented, and quite conservative on social issues. They were as likely to vote for Republicans as Democrats, and some did in the recent election.

My Hispanic contacts also were proud people with a low tolerance for insults. Governor Romney should have realized that when he talked about “self-deportation.” Republicans should have been aware of it when they opposed the “Dream Act.” Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the American population. If the Republicans don’t clean up their act in relations with them, the party is doomed. Republican leaders know that.

So we will not see gridlock blocking reform of our antiquated immigration policies, something President Obama promised before his first term and was unable to deliver. Now it will happen, either in one big package or in pieces of new legislation.

There will be some form of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, although the Republicans will call it something else. It would not be surprising if Republicans introduce all or several reform bills. They need to claim credit for positive actions that might help them get back into the good graces of Hispanics.

Women gained representation in Congress. This development coupled with the clear message from female voters that they want to halt attempts to roll back women’s rights should put a stop to right-wing proposals on abortion and contraception, issues thought to have been settled long ago. Those issues have diverted Congress from tackling current problems.

Tea Party arch-conservatives lost ground and influence in this election. The most extreme of them (think Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock) failed to win seats Republicans normally would win.

President Obama gained power well beyond what the arithmetic shows. After his first election he decided to use Democratic Party majorities in Congress to win passage of the Affordable Care Act. He spent a lot of political capital. That almost cost him reelection, as the adverse reaction obviously was greater than he expected. All that is behind him now.

Now the candidate who vowed to dismantle Obamacare “on my first day in office” has been soundly defeated. Romney and other Republicans admitted along the way that Obamacare includes provisions they support. It also has some problems that need fixing. We can expect compromise here. Obamacare will stay, and the parties will work together to repair flaws in it.

Of course, the crisis of the moment is the possibility the nation will “fall over the fiscal cliff” at the end of next month as Congress and the President refuse to work out a new compromise to curtail the federal deficit. That is very unlikely to happen. President Obama phoned House Speaker John Boehner soon after the election ended. They are said to have agreed to be cautious about public pronouncements that would make fiscal negotiations very difficult. The rhetoric has been rather mild.

One action may simply be a postponement of legislation until the new Congress convenes in January. Worry warts might find that frightening.  It would be a positive act. The longer we wait for financial actions that reduce government spending the more time the economy has to continue recovering. The federal budget is not like a household budget. Governments should cut spending when times are good, not when they’re tough.

Pre- and post-election polls showed who has the power. The American public gives Congress a scant 10 percent approval rating. President Obama won about 53 percent of the popular vote and a landslide in the electoral count that really matters. If the Republican-controlled House fails to propose or approve a way to step back from the “cliff,” the blame will fall squarely on them.

Another reason for optimism about dealing with the deficit is that the heavy work has been done. President Obama and Congressman Boehner were close to a deal 18 months ago. It was said to have been killed because of Tea Party opposition that Boehner could not overcome.  Now the Tea Party types are much less likely to block constructive action.

Considerable analysis of alternatives preceded the Obama-Boehner deal that almost became reality. Many ideas came from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a nonpartisan group whose leaders offered many sound proposals, including tax increases as well as spending cuts. Lots of data are already assembled to guide budget and deficit decisions.

He now has the power to move ahead

In his first term, President Obama had to move with caution after his party lost big in the mid-term elections. The economy, which is well on the way to righting itself as economies do when they emerge from down cycles, was very slow to gain ground. Mr. Obama could ill-afford any rash actions that would end his days in office.

Some say the President now must take some sort of heroic action to “create his legacy” or “become a significant president.”  Nonsense. Mr. Obama already is assured of an important place in the annals of history.

Firsts are the stuff of historic presidencies. Mr. Obama, of course, is the first African-American president. He will be credited with being the first president to end two wars. And, he succeeded in moving the nation forward on the path to universal health care, something Democratic Party leaders have tried and failed to do for more than 80 years.

President Obama by nature seeks compromise with his political opponents, but he now can be very selective about making concessions to the Republicans in Congress. All he really has to do is say “Yes” or “No.” He’s in the catbird seat.

My Election Forecast--Right and Wrong

Early this year (see Jan. 11 post, “A Fearless Forecast”) the Geezer went out on the proverbial election forecasting limb. The limb remains intact, but it’s a little shaky.

I said after Mitt Romney’s early primary win in New Hampshire he would be the Republican candidate for president. Right.

I said President Barack Obama would win a close election. Right, but it wasn’t as close as I thought it would be.

I said Democrats would hold a majority in the Senate and fail to win enough seats to wrest House control from the Republicans. Right.

Because Libertarian Ron Paul finished second in New Hampshire with a hefty 22.8 percent of the Republican vote, I predicted he would run a strong race as a third party candidate. I said the Libertarian presence would take enough votes away from Governor Romney to reelect President Obama. Wrong.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson picked up the Libertarian banner when Paul declined to run. Although Johnson became the first Libertarian to get more than a million votes in a presidential election, they were fairly well spread out across the country and did not hand President Obama any states. Florida, where Libertarian views are strong in a few counties, may prove the exception when all votes are counted there. However, Florida became a nonfactor when President Obama clearly won a return to office well before Sunshine State votes mattered.

I made a major miscalculation thinking the election would be closer. I erred in assuming that Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory quite possibly was a one-time event motivated by strong demands for change from large segments of the public disenchanted with President George W. Bush and his policies. Results in 2012 show 2008 was no fluke. They proved that the white male establishment no longer will be dominant in American politics.

The 2008 election signaled a trend; it was not an outlier in the world of political statistics.

(I also said in January, “We will be in for another four years of frustrating stalemate in Washington.” That remains a popular viewpoint following this week’s election. However, I’ve come to believe we self-appointed seers are dead wrong about that. A post on the topic will be coming soon.)

A Worthwhile Tradition

Back in the late 1950s when the geezer edited the De Pere Journal-Democrat, a weekly paper in a small city near Green Bay, patriotism ran rampant at election time. De Pere billed itself as “The All-American City.”  The self-conferred title resulted from the amazing rate of voting by citizens.

In the election year I lived in De Pere, 98 percent of the eligible voters in the population of about 9,000 cast a ballot.

I don’t recall getting an “I voted” sticker at the polling place, but they weren’t needed. People, some perfect strangers, asked me throughout the day whether I had voted.  A standard comment was, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.” Voting simply was something everyone did in De Pere. There was no tolerance for those who skipped their civic duty.

At Journal Publishing, the owner toured the printing plant early in the day and told every employee to make sure to take the time off needed to go and cast a vote. Other business owners throughout the city were known to do that.

I don’t know if De Pere has maintained the “All-American City” tradition. I hope so. I do know only about half of the eligible voters in the U.S. are going to bother to cast a vote in our current very important presidential election.

Perhaps some friendly competition among cities to see which one can claim the voting title might do all of us a favor.

Time to Make the Wise Choice

Haven't decided yet?

If you haven't been persuaded by logic or common sense that Barack Obama is the best person to lead us forward out of the mess he inherited, it's time for you to follow the ancient wisdom:

 

A Mitt Money Mystery

Issues in the November election are well-defined.  Differences in approaches to solving our problems between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are large. Voters have a clear choice in this election. I understand the choice. Just one thing about the campaign has me baffled.

Why won’t Romney release his last ten, or even five, years of federal income tax returns?

Why the secrecy?

His father started the practice when he ran for president 45 years ago, and every candidate since has released many years of tax records and been quite willing to discuss them.  We already know Romney is a multimillionaire, so that’s not the issue, and it should not be an election issue in any case.  He did release his 2010 return and has promised to release 2011, so why not just go back a few more years as previous candidates have done?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speculated that Romney might have paid no taxes in one or more of the years in question.  He based that on an anonymous “someone” telling him so.  That’s pretty flimsy, and Romney flatly denies it. I don’t buy what Reid is selling in this case.

Neither Reid’s assertion nor any other reasons for Romney’s reluctance made sense to me until just a few days ago when a friend proposed one in a letter to the Detroit Free Press.

Romney may have been among hundreds of Americans who took advantage of a tax amnesty offer, officially the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative, made to those who evaded taxes by not reporting income from foreign bank accounts. In return for disclosing the income and paying some pretty hefty IRS penalties, those who were granted amnesty had their records cleansed and became exempt from criminal prosecution.

Admitting criminal conduct to evade taxes would, of course, be a serious negative for a presidential candidate, whether or not he was granted amnesty.

It’s public knowledge that Romney had a Swiss bank account, which he closed in 2010. He also is known to have had accounts in the Cayman Islands. If his earlier tax records would reveal an amnesty settlement that would be a plausible reason for his refusal to release them.

It also is strange that Romney still has not released his 2011 return, although he said some time ago he would.  It’s possible, although not likely because the penalties were lighter for those who declared earlier, that he waited until 2011 to seek amnesty. This could explain the failure to release the 2011 tax report in a timely manner.

The plan might be to delay releasing the return until just before Election Day. Then news of forgiveness for a criminal act probably would be too late to affect the election in a major way. Romney must have a filing extension to have held off this long. The extension deadline is October 15, just three weeks before the election.

One way or another, could the amnesty situation be the reason for Romney’s tax secrecy?  If not, what logical explanation is there? Can you think of one?