The New Republic

Obama's accomplishments are not very impressive. We need a new president. Romney's the one!

- Spengler47

August 31, 2012 at 9:33am

Cohn is right. Romney's was the opening argument in a debate that will continue through next week and into the presidential debates themselves. He could have inoculated himself against charges that Democrats will certainly make about giving tax breaks to millionaires and shredding the safety net, but he didn't even try. Indeed, this was a big failing of the RNC overall, especially as represented by Ryan and Romney's speeches. The convention did a great job arguing that Obama has been a disappointment. But they did a terrible job showing how Romney would make things better.

- polcereal

August 31, 2012 at 10:44am

Unless Obama comes up with a detailed plan plan for economic recovery and challenges the Republicans to come along with him (emphasizing that they have no plan whatsoever), he's history. I would suggest that he propose a national conference of business leaders working with government to produce jobs. Of course, Republicans would boycott that. To them, any business person who works with government is a traitor, even though corporate welfare is rampant in America. What Republicans really want is corporate socialism, where business people don't have to compete. They just take free money from the taxpayers and add it to their already-fat profits--without creating jobs in America. If Obama doesn't challenge business people to work with him to help Americans next week, he's gone. And he should be. Sixty-five million people are going to vote for Romney, with a religious feeling that he'll somehow pull off a miracle. Caller on C-Span this morning: Would you buy George Bush's used car from Mitt Romney? Sixty-five million people who pray, instead of think, would. Romney's only plan is to deregulate our economy and lower taxes, while cutting critical services, like local law enforcement. But that was tried for eight years under Bush, and look what happened. Off the cliff we go, kids! Whee!

- magboy47.

August 31, 2012 at 11:40am

magboy, it is always interesting how partisan conversations are so incredibly disingenuous. The truth is that Bush inherited the .com bubble burst recession from Clinton. Under Bush the economy recovered and grew reasonably for many years until the next inevitable downturn in 2008. Bush never really implemented the principles of small government. Under his watch, government size, scope, and debt all increased significantly. Obama carried on more or less the same policies - borrow & spend, manipulate interest rates, state controls on private enterprise, and eloquent speeches full of platitudes on American ideals. Neither Bush nor Obama have any real control over the economy. Furthermore, their efforts to interfere cause harm. Obama, Romney, Bush are basically equivalent.. I don't understand what all of the fuss is about.

- Nicomachus

August 31, 2012 at 12:03pm

I don't see how it can be said Obama, Romney and Bush are basically equivalent. One example: would the latter two have intervened the way Obama did with the auto industry? Romney was strongly against it, but then like a weasle tried to take credit when after Obama did it his way, the industry, and millions of jobs, were saved. Ditto health care--whatever it's flaws, we now have have the ACA, courtesy of Obama. Bush never did anything of the sort; Rommey, after passing Romneycare, now wants to repeal the ACA. What about Osama Bin Laden? After huffing and puffing after 9/11, Bush decides to go to Iraq and later, incredibly, says that he doesn't even think about OBL anymore. Obama by contrast sends in the troops to actually bag the bastard. Jesus, the list is almost endless.

- ballston

August 31, 2012 at 12:29pm

From the article: "I don’t agree with that line of argument. Saving the country from economic catastrophe, laying the groundwork for a clean energy future, and making health care affordable for nearly all Americans represent a huge set of accomplishments" But this assumes an alternate president would NOT have followed similar advice from Bernanke et al. Do you think McCain would have ignored all that Bernanke was pleading and done something that would have hurt things even further? Very likely not. The assertion that the groundwork for a clean energy future is laid means nothing. Anyone can assert this. A clean energy future will come when clean energy costs less. Nothing Obama has done has made clean energy cost less. In fact, it could be argued that his "forcing" the technology before it was ready has caused a lot of people to sour on deals like Solyndra, and thus getting funding for solar in 2013 will be even harder. And the jury is out on making health care more affordable. There isn't a clear market mechanism to reduce the cost of health care. Instead, the reductions come primarily from forcing people to accept less. Doctors will accept less per service. Yes, if they demonstrate better outcomes they will earn more. But outcomes, as the UK has learned with QALY, mean that a lot of people will die that could have had their lives extended even for a few months. Not so important to a bean counter, but very important to someone that hopes a grandparent can see a first grand child. From the article: "Romney doesn’t have one of those." Yes, he does. See his webpage. It is at a similar state that Obama's plan was at in 2008. Obama sold you on a platform in 2008. You feel he has demonstrated solid execution against that plan? He has not. From Gitmo to the middle class, he delivered a small fraction of what the sobbing masses thought they were getting. How will the next 4 years be any different? They will not. Obama cannot make a credible case that they will be any different.

- seattleeng

August 31, 2012 at 12:37pm

ballston writes: "would the latter two have intervened the way Obama did with the auto industry? Romney was strongly against it, but then like a weasle tried to take credit when after Obama did it his way, the industry, and millions of jobs, were saved." But these jobs weren't saved. They were put on life support courtesy of the US taxpayer. Is it reasonable for the US to spend $50K per job to extend a $75K/year job for 5 years? Yes, absolutely. But the taxpayer is losing almost $50B on GM. And for what? So that 50K employees (25% of their workforce) could work for 3 more years on cars that arent' selling? That is $1M per job the taxpayer is paying to save that job. And that job pays $75K per year. Not a good return for the taxpayer, is it? It would have been much better for GM to re-organize, trim the workforce by 25 to 50%, work on building cars that people really want, dump the cars that people don't. Right now, GM is (again) paying people not work. The Chevy Volt has just halted production for 4 weeks. They are running at 50% of their sales target. While production is halted, the US taxpayer is paying for the Volt worker to sit home and watch TV. You think this is sustainable? It is not. Romney's company excelled at teaching companies how to get rid of the unprofitable parts, get lean, and make the core profitable. We need more that here.

- seattleeng

August 31, 2012 at 12:48pm

"A clean energy future will come when clean energy costs less. Nothing Obama has done has made clean energy cost less." This is a bit rich. By this logic, our cities would have air like Beijing's, because cars and fuel that pollute and lead to massive smog are cheaper than those that don't. We actually have reasonably breathable air because the nation collectively decided to pay more for its love affair with the automobile in order to have both cars AND breathable air. The undeniable truth is that each and every one of us who drives pays more than we would have to for our cars and gas for this reason. Why is that? Because regulation mandates that we do so. Clean energy is no different - we'll pay for clean energy, even it is more expensive than dirty energy, when the nation gets its collective head together and realizes that just as with leaded gasoline and pollution-control-free cars, we're shitting in our own nest. In the end, the cheap-dirty energy and expensive-clean energy dichotomy is mostly about energy in which the knock-on costs are poorly internalized in the price vs energy in which this is not the case. We just have to be mature enough as a country to force all forms of energy to internalize their external costs. That said, it is equally untrue that "nothing Obama has done has made clean energy cost less." Credits for solar and wind, by giving critical mass to the industries that produce them, clearly do drive economy of scale and innovation. The so-called stimulus had a fair bit of these incentives, and as all you Republican friends like to point out, the stimulus was an Obama thing.

- IowaBeauty

August 31, 2012 at 12:58pm

Iowa writes: "This is a bit rich. By this logic, our cities would have air like Beijing's, because cars and fuel that pollute and lead to massive smog are cheaper than those that don't" Wrong. Your assumption is that the market has no incentive to keep things clean unless mandated by government. That is wrong. Most industries pollute at levels far below government requirements, simply because it is good business. Many vehicles today are producing less than 1/5th--20%--of the government requirement for emissions. if the government doesn't require these ultra-low emissions, why are they doing it? Because it makes business sense. People will pay a modest premium to get this. Beijing is polluted largely due to ancient 2 cycle scooters with massive particulate emissions. These scooters still work, and the people are poor, and thus they have no choice but to keep using them. Wealth is what delivers environmental wins. Not government standards. Wealthy people and nations don't want to live near dirty things. And manufacturers respond by serving them products that meet those demands.

- seattleeng

August 31, 2012 at 2:15pm

Obama's opening? Is this a gay reference?

- raygun

August 31, 2012 at 2:31pm

Jeez.

- Sophia

August 31, 2012 at 4:50pm

Anyway why am I not surprised to see the if only McCain had won apologists, the outright bs (all this is Clinton's fault, poor Dubya and his tax cuts and his wars had nothing to do with it) green energy is too expensive so we should be more like Beijing, blah blah blah blah blah. And not a word about Republican vows to take Obama down, ASAP, about Tea Party crazies, about the far right GOP platform, about the debt ceiling brinksmanship, about the lies and threats - threats to the American economy by raising taxes on the poor and working people and lowering them for the rich, destroying our safety nets in the name of Giving People More Choices, How Obama Closed The Janesville Plant.

- Sophia

August 31, 2012 at 4:54pm

Sophia, the crazies are on both sides. Who is your ideological equivalent? I hate to tell you, but most readers of TNR (wrt social issues) ARE the equivalent of the tea party types (wrt tax issues). Nobody said Obama closed the Janesville plant. Obama said "If the government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years" Hate to tell you, but GM has been closing plants steadily since their bailout, proving Obama's statement wrong. And they are talking now about closing plants in Europe. And they just sent the Volt workers home for a month because they don't have any work for them to do because orders are so bad. What Obama said was wrong and impossible. The only thing that can keep plants open is lots of people buying GM cars. And 50% of that requires that GM makes good cars, the other 50% rquires a good economy. But shoveling gov money to keep workers employed while they do nothing, I hope you'll agree, is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. And that was Ryan's point: Obama promised this would all be good. It isn't. Bailouts are not the tool to make everything good. Bailouts are a tool to solve a very specific problem. Not a tool to address decades of bad decisions.

- seattleeng

August 31, 2012 at 5:52pm

Whatever. Magboy has an allowable moment of pessimism and the usual libertarian cranks make the scene with their usual garbage. This duscussion thread is a dud. I disagree with magboy; I don't think Obama has to do much to win this election other than maintain his current line of attack and hope there isn't a financial crisis in the next two months.

- AaronW

August 31, 2012 at 8:24pm

Nicomachus, Bush inherited a record surplus, and there were zero net jobs created under his administration. And then came the crash. You're right that presidents have little control over the economy. That's why Obama can't pull us out of the recession and Romney's claim that he will create 12 million new jobs is laughable. Romney's only hope to bring us back economically as president is with another bubble. Capitalism cannot deal with a planet bulging with people. And it certainly can't regulate itself. Population growth increases competition, which increases out-of-control, fearful greed, which produces bubbles, and then...pop! Another recession or depression. Capitalism did fine in an America with unlimited resources and a limited population. But now that the reverse is true (we're part of a world population now), only bubbles can bring us short periods of prosperity. Ayn Rand's economic formula applies to 19th Century America at the latest. It's useless in today's grossly overpopulated world. BUT, if different countries and businesses and governments cooperated more with the greater good of the planet in mind, we could have a more sustainable prosperity. However, such an idea is anathema to Objectivists.

- magboy47.

August 31, 2012 at 8:57pm

"I disagree with magboy; I don't think Obama has to do much to win this election other than maintain his current line of attack and hope there isn't a financial crisis in the next two months." AaronW, I hope you're right. But I don't trust the American electorate as far as I could throw the lot of them (including Democrats). In 2004 I bet $20 that not only would Kerry beat the clown in the White House, but that he would win by at least 6 points. I was shocked when Bozo Bush won easily. But I learned my lesson. Politically, we Americans are becoming less sophisticated, simply because we are less educated than we used to be. I saw on C-Span this morning that a solid majority of Undecideds have a high school education or less. This bodes ill. I hope you're right in your confidence that Obama will get re-elected somewhat easily. If he is, I'll give you a shout-out and a happy hip-hip-hooray! But I sure as hell ain't gonna bet any money on him. That was a double blow to the solar plexus in 2004--losing the election (to a buffoon) and $20 to boot. I will never trust the political intelligence of the American electorate again.

- magboy47.

August 31, 2012 at 9:12pm

Right on, except I missed the part where Obama paved the way for a clean energy future or for environmental conservation in general. Let's hope the Prez doesn't blow this opportunity to explain how he's going to do the things he promises, or long ago promised, to do, because to this point, for the most part, he hasn't. And please don't let him go back again and explain how this is all Bush's fault--now the Republicans' fault, that's a different matter--somewhat-- but he still needs to lose the whining and admit he has been leading from too far behind.

- mlottman

September 1, 2012 at 10:00am

Magboy writes: "Bush inherited a record surplus, and there were zero net jobs created under his administration. And then came the crash." Yes, he inherited a surplus and then then the dotcom bubble burst, and deficits went up. However, by 2007 they were back down to $162B again. Laughably small in this day and age. Today, Obama is averaging a $1300B (average) deficit each year. Without even breaking a sweat. Almost 10X Bush's final deficit. Labor force participation rate averages about 66.2% under Bush's 8 years, and 64.7% under Obama 4 years. Obama has a long way to go until the the labor force participation rate is anywhere near what it was under Bush. Labor force participation rate is the % of folks that are actually working. This lower labor participation rate is about 2.25M workers, however, that is 8 years that Bush kept 2.25M more workers employed! That is hugely significant.

- seattleeng

September 1, 2012 at 12:58pm

Magboy, your attack on capitalism is way off. I would argue that the free market, a key aspect of capitalism, is best at efficiently allocating scarce resources among a growing population. Furthermore, capitalism and competition increase productivity and create wealth. Bubbles are caused by distortions in the market by the state. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was caused by artificially suppressed interest rates, government mandates & incentives to boost home ownership, and the expectation among large institutions that they were de facto insured by the federal government, affirmed by Obama's bailout. In true laissez-faire capitalism, such bubbles are impossible. No matter how "greedy" people are, the free market only rewards productive behavior and penalizes bad judgement Obviously, these are vast topics which cannot be thoroughly explored in this forum. I would emphasize one point, that every national experiment that gave a wide berth to capitalism has failed disastrously (e.g. USSR, old China, Cuba, Easter Europe, etc). Even countries that have merely leaned too far away (e.g. today's Europe) have found themselves mired in debt, low productivity, and economic turmoil. Countries that have realized their folly and embraced capitalism (e.g. modern China) have prospered. Given these facts, it is difficult to imagine that people are still contemplating a departure from capitalism. Finally, I find most partisan arguments dishonest. If a Republican president was in office, I have no doubt that TNR would be decrying the abysmal state of the economy, publishing grandiloquent articles on the suffering endured by the unemployed, lamenting the lack of action in Syria to resolve the "humanitarian crisis", and a cataloging the litany of broken presidential promises.

- Nicomachus

September 1, 2012 at 9:32pm

"Even countries that have merely leaned too far away (e.g. today's Europe) have found themselves mired in debt, low productivity, and economic turmoil." Not, for example, Sweden. Not, for example, Germany. Not even (getting closer to home), for example, Canada. And if you seriously think that China has embraced a "free market" model, then I don't know what to say.

- ironyroad

September 2, 2012 at 1:47am

Irony, Lets look at each of your examples in turn. Germany is clearly one of the most conservative countries in Europe, but only relative to the other spindrift states. The German work ethic is renowned (or notorious depending on your milieu). Still, German public debt is 81% of GDP! They are the 23rd most indebted nation on the planet. That puts them ahead of #4 Greece, but well behind countries like the United States #35, Hungary #24, China #72, etc. In short, the primary difference between Germany and Greece is time. If they don't stop hemorrhaging money into unproductive programs, they will ultimately reach a reckoning point. Sweden is hardly a relevant example. It has a population that never reaches 10 million (less than the population of Illinois). Its population growth rate is 0.168%, one of the lowest in the world. Sweden's natural resources are vast in relation to population and the Swedes work hard to maintain that ratio (just try to immigrate to Sweden!). A large portion of Sweden's GDP is produced by foreign exports, lightly regulated banking, and high tech capitalism. It is basically a city-state that is fortunate to reside on a mountain of natural and financial resources. The Swedish model cannot be extended to large industrialized nations. Canada is #16 on the debt scale with debt approaching 88% of GDP. See Germany. Although, in many ways, Canada has more economic freedom than the US. Fortunately, I have plenty to say on China ;-) It has in fact moved towards capitalism. In the 1970s, the Chinese oligarchs realized that socialism was failing. Acting purely on self interested motives, the Chinese rulers began liberalizing (in the classic sense of the word) the economy. First, creating the so called "free economic zones", followed by privatization, deregulation, and open markets. The Chinese rulers, being intelligent and perceptive (although perhaps evil), realized that capitalism was the wealth creation engine. Consequently, millions of Chinese have benefited economically. On a personal note, I have traveled to mainland China extensively over the past decade. I can tell you that economic progress has been absolutely stunning. Arguably, China is the most capitalist country in the world. It is significantly easier to do business in China than in the US. Of course, the Chinese regime has granted few political freedoms, but I would argue that capitalism and free markets have a way of shaking those loose over time. t is also true that large parts of China have not been liberalized, but the process is ongoing. Ironically, while the Chinese move towards capitalism, the West, where capitalism reached its pinnacle, moves towards socialism. I wonder who will dominate this century.

- Nicomachus

September 2, 2012 at 11:27am

Nicomachus, I didn't attack capitalism. I like it. I wish it were working better. But the main reason it's not working better is not government interference, as Ayn Rand would say, but human nature. You've demonstrated consistently that Objectivists don't take human nature into account in their economic formulas in the slightest. To them the market is a Platonic Idea, a transcendent, shining pattern for all of human existence. The key word here is "human." The great majority of humans are neither transcendent nor shining. You should do some research on what led to the housing bubble. Some banking and mortgage-company CEO's were jumping up on their desks and yelling at their mortgage agents to get record production and profits every month, not every quarter or year. Here in Seattle some mortgage agents (Washington Mutual) were snorting lines of cocaine on the job to keep up with staggering production goals (10 closures a day per agent). Documents were forged by whiting out info and then scanning the document to make it look like an original. Millions of documents were robo-signed. Borrowers were lied to and intentionally cheated. Some mortgage rates were quadrupled after the borrower was told they would be lowered by refinancing, etc. It was an ocean of intentional criminality fueled by cowardly greed. The government did not force some of these sociopaths to offer $10,000 to real estate agents for each borrower they brought into the office. The fear in their human nature forced them to do that. As long as Objectivists leave human nature out of their economic formulas, their formulas are empty (kinda like Plato's Ideas). The market does not exist in outer space, devoid of human contact. It is, in fact, a human institution, designed and operated by people--imperfect, fearful people. And that's why sustained prosperity does not result from deregulation--often monopoly and price fixing do. And we sure have a lot of monopoly and price fixing in America now. I give you one example--the health care industry with its captive consumers. Yes, I know, that's supply and demand. We can barter in a health care emergency. What say I give you an arm and a leg, if you can fix my brain.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 2:47pm

"What say I give you an arm and a leg, if you can fix my brain." I know what you're thinking, Nicomachus. First, let's fix your brain, magboy, and then we'll talk some more.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 2:51pm

Magboy, on the contrary laissez-faire capitalism is all about harnessing human nature, otherwise known as rational self interest. Objectivism does not reject human nature, but embraces it fully and unapologetically. When it comes to understanding the 2008 financial crisis, we must not be preoccupied with irrelevant minutia and emotional narratives. The problem had three essential elements: (1) Demand for loanable funds was artificially induced by government suppression of interest rates. This resulted in disproportionately large numbers of people, many of whom were under qualified, to demand loans. (2) Various government programs, institutions, and regulations bolstered the demand for housing and increased accessibility to loans by unqualified persons. (3) Excessive risk taking occurred on an institutional level driven by profit motives related to high demand for loanable funds (#1 and #2 above) and, most importantly, a de facto government cap on losses. In short, the institutions calculated that if things worked out, they would make huge profits; and if things went south, the tax payer would come to the rescue (which is exactly what happened). All of the other alleged details you mentioned.. Aggressive production goals, robo singing, cocaine, abuse, etc are all superfluous to this fundamental equation. The institutions acted in rational self interest given the conditions created by the government. It is not capitalism (or Objectivism) that failed to understand human nature, but rather the central planners who had the hubris to believe that they could control elemental economic forces without unintended consequences.

- Nicomachus

September 4, 2012 at 3:49am

Sorry about your twenty bucks magboy, but your contempt for the average American voter is one of the most consistent features of Democrats for the last several decades--in my view it's their greatest handicap because it communicates quite clearly, and prevents the party from learning from its mistakes, Bill Clinton excepted. FWIW, I'm a reasonably well-educated voter who works at staying informed, and I voted for Bush in '04--it's the first and only time I've ever voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I did so because I was sure that Kerry would lose the war and send the Dems back into the wilderness for at least another generation. And as the crash was inevitable, it would have happened on his watch further compounding the disaster. I figured Bush had already made all the available mistakes and would probably moderate in a second term (fire Rummy, figure out an exit strategy, etc.), which turned out to be pretty much the case. I don't think I was alone in the calculation. I agree with Aaron that O will probably win pretty easily. People don't like to admit they were wrong, for one thing; power of the incumbency, and O's general popularity in addition. Besides, I see no reason for him to shy away from the "are you better off" question. I mean, is one better off in a stalled aircraft plunging towards the earth than in one that's been stabilized and is slowly gaining altitude? We'd like a faster rate of climb, but slow climbing is clearly preferable to augering into the landscape.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 8:47am