As we all know, the Tea Party is nothing new; it is simply the most recent manifestation of the rightwing extremism that has been an integral part of the Republican Party for over three decades. What is new is that what used to occupy the fringe has morphed into the mainstream of the GOP. Fortunately, increasing numbers of people in the media are coming to realize that the Republican Party is being dominated by its most reactionary and radical elements—and they’re hell-bent on moving America back to the 19th Century, both economically and socially.

Just this week, I witnessed the deleterious effects of the rightwing wave that swept the nation in 2010 and allowed Republicans to take over many statehouses as well as the House of Representatives. I work in marine policy; in 2000, the government embarked on an initiative to incorporate marine spatial planning (MSP) and ecosystem-based management (EBM) into our ocean policy. It was an attempt to overcome the huge disparity between the relative sophistication with which we manage our terrestrial habitats and the minimal steps we’ve taken to improve the management of our coastal systems.

When President Obama came into office in 2008, he established new priorities for our National Ocean Policy (NOP). These included building MSP and EBM into a new national framework to create a more rational and efficient coastal management system. Combining data on human uses of ocean and coastal resources with the best available natural science promised a new era of ocean conservation and improved management.

But the industry groups who profit from exploiting the nation’s coastal resources always viewed MSP and EMB with trepidation, as these will likely restrict their activities. When the Tea Party swept into power in 2010, the industry groups finally had their allies in Congress (most of whom were bought and paid for through lobbying and campaign contributions). They began their campaign by deriding MSP and EBM as “ocean zoning”, which in their view was simply a burdensome regulation allowing the government to restrict access to what should be purely open resources, i.e., open to unbridled exploitation. Republicans proceeded to pack the House Natural Resource Committee with industry hacks, and held hearings in which industry representatives greatly outnumbered environmental groups. MSP and EMB were fallaciously attacked as “job killing” regulations promulgated by “big government”.

The bad-mouthing plan worked.

This past month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which oversees U.S. ocean policy, cancelled its MSP and EMB initiatives and began closing the Marine Protected Areas Center in Monterey, CA. The reason: the GOP-controlled House simply reduced the budgets for these initiatives to zero. Even though the initiatives formerly had bipartisan support, and were based on more than a decade of scientific input, they were scrapped at the behest of the interests that now control the Republican Party.

Most Americans have never, and will never, hear of the Marine Protected Areas Center, nor will they know how the nation’s coastal environments will suffer now that these policies have been sidelined. And that’s the way the Republicans like it. They seduce low-information voters with platitudes, and stoke people’s anger with faux-patriotic vitriol; once in power, they use that power to undermine any trust the public might have in government action. This creates a pernicious cycle in which corporate interests are continually placed ahead of the public interest.

November will give the nation a chance to turn the tide and vote the GOP extremists out of office. Here’s hoping voters are up to the challenge. If they aren’t, you can rest assured that the rightwing extremists will find a way to undermine all kinds of public institutions in communities all across America.

Jason Scorse

As I’ve noted in many previous pieces, rising healthcare costs are the primary driver of America’s long-term deficit. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the deficit issue has to present a realistic and serious plan for “bending” the cost curve. Healthcare costs have been rising much faster than inflation for decades; with the retirement of the baby boomers, getting those costs under control is the key to our fiscal health.

Unlike the Republicans—who would simply shift health costs from the government to individuals, impoverishing many of them and doing nothing to tackle costs—the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) enacted policies aimed specifically at diminishing the healthcare system’s inefficiency and waste. Dozens of policy innovations are included in the ACA (which is one reason it’s so long), including making medical records electronic, paying physicians for outcomes instead of treatments, reducing the extremely high incidence of medical error, creating more competition via healthcare exchanges, providing free preventative care, and providing free end of life counseling so those who choose can receive palliative care instead of expensive, invasive procedures that rarely prolong life and account for a disproportionate share of total healthcare spending.

The good news is that some of these programs seem to be working. For the first time in decades, the pace of healthcare spending has slowed dramatically. And while some of the slowdown is due to the recession, and it is still too early to determine all the causal factors, early indications are that hospitals and physicians are in fact making the system more efficient.

No one ever claimed that the reforms in the ACA could solve all of the system’s myriad deficiencies; all the same, a foundation has been laid and the early evidence is encouraging. In a second Obama term we could see the reintroduction of a public option, further investments in preventative care, and an expansion of the policies already in place that appear to be working. A Romney presidency, on the other hand, would take us backward—causing needless suffering and hardship for another generation of Americans (another reason to do everything we can to support the President’s reelection campaign).

Another promising healthcare development is under the radar right now, but watch for it to break through and get everyone’s attention. Researchers are starting to connect the dots like never before between environmental quality and health outcomes. Combined with the ability to track people’s movements (with smart phones), and monitor many of their vital signs, we are on the cusp of understanding more clearly the links between exposure to pollution and health outcomes. This revolution in awareness will help create public policy that better targets the worst polluters; in addition, it has the potential to reinvigorate the environmental movement. It is one thing to think about pollution in the abstract, and another to monitor in real time its effects on individuals’ bodies and minds.

The goal of providing high-quality healthcare to everyone in America is still far from realized. On many fronts, though, we’re definitely moving in the right direction. We need to support the politicians who want to keep us moving forward, and oppose those who would take us backward.

Jason Scorse

By most reasonable metrics, the world’s wealthiest nations have been doing a terrible job these past few years exercising their power and leadership. Regulators in Europe and the U.S. failed to recognize the housing bubble and impending financial collapse, and the countries have essentially failed to repair the damage.

Thanks to the leadership of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, the U.S. was able to pass a stimulus package that prevented a depression—but given the magnitude of the crisis, it was well short of sufficient. With an obstructionist Republican Party bent of destroying President Obama at any cost, and an overly cautious Federal Reserve, the U.S. has muddled through years of economic under-performance that have permanently, and needlessly, damaged the life prospects for tens of millions of Americans.

But it could be a lot worse.

The leaders in the EU have enacted extreme austerity measures that every intelligent economist knew would only deepen the recession and worsen the fiscal picture, creating a downward spiral with no end in sight. The result is a Continent once again in recession or close to it, with many countries that only a few years ago were in good fiscal shape now facing huge increases in unemployment and Depression-era misery.

These failures aside, the leaders of the developed world have also failed to come together to forge a new international treaty on climate change to mitigate the truly civilization-threatening impacts that are becoming increasingly likely. Every day that passes without an agreement, the chances of avoiding catastrophe decrease and the costs of future action increase.

It’s become obvious that we as a species are failing at the highest levels (although to be fair not on every metric: overall violence and conflict are down, life-expectancy continues to improve, and the world’s richest nations continue to do much good.) At the same time as our largest institutions seem to be at their weakest and most ineffective, the power of the individual has never been greater. Empowered by continually evolving information and digital technologies, individuals almost everywhere now have the capability to innovate in radical ways.

Chinese farmers can develop solar and wind powered cars; committed groups of activists can topple dictators; 3-D printing is opening up an entire new world of manufacturing, and information technology is allowing people to take charge of their health like never before. It’s all coming together to create a paradigm shift in what is possible at the individual level; never before have individuals had so much potential in the palms of their hands, in their garages, and on their desks.

As a professor in public policy, I wonder whether the newfound power of the individual, which is destined to unleash tremendous creativity and innovation, will be sufficient to offset the paralysis (and often the backsliding) that we are witnessing on the national and international levels. Will new energy technologies created in someone’s basement be the solution to climate change? Will a new app hold the key to better health outcomes? Will the democratization of the digital era help to close the inequality gap that politicians have been unable to stop?

It would be a better world if we could overcome our collective action problems in addition to empowering the individual; this is why I’m working hard to reelect President Obama and increase Democratic numbers in Congress.

But if we continue to fail at the big issues that face the international community, I’m hoping that individuals and human ingenuity can pick up the slack and make the necessary difference. Without something to be optimistic about, life would be too hard.

Jason Scorse

During the oral arguments for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before the Supreme Court, the rightwing Justices kept pressing the Administration to explain the “limiting principles” for the powers of the federal government with respect to the Commerce Clause. They wanted to know at what point the government would be going too far in mandating individual activity; Justice Scalia asked specifically whether the government could force people to buy broccoli.

The issue of limiting principles is one that has been debated throughout much of U.S. history, and the established precedent makes it clear that the government can only mandate activity in special cases in order to protect public health and safety. In the case of healthcare, the individual mandate only exists because everybody will one day need healthcare, and the mandate serves the function of ensuring that there are no free-riders in the system. The notion that the logic of the healthcare mandate could be extended to other more mundane actions is not supported by any precedent, nor are there any serious legal scholars who think that limiting principle arguments represent a substantive challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA.

While the Court may ultimately use a bizarre reading of the limiting principle argument to strike down the healthcare law, the very next week it applied no limiting principle whatever in the use of police power against American citizens. In a stunning display of disregard for individual liberty and dignity, the Court voted 5-4 in Florence v. Burlington County to allow police officers to conduct full body cavity and strip searches on people arrested for any offense, no matter how minor. The person who brought the case had been strip-searched twice over the course of six days for a traffic violation that he had actually paid, and the case was mistakenly still in the system. In recent years people have been strip-searched for offenses as minor as not using a turn signal; a 90-year old nun was strip-searched after she was arrested during a protest.

The Court in the Florence case ruled that officers have unlimited authority to conduct strip searches no matter how minor the offense, no matter whether there is reasonable suspicion that an individual may be hiding something. Tom Ashbrook of OnPoint radio on NPR dedicated an entire program to the ruling, and could barely contain his indignation and shock; Ashbrook is one of the most balanced and fair-minded reporters in the nation, but even he was outraged.

The Court has turned reason on its head. The rightwing members of the Court attacked the ACA for the individual mandate—a conservative idea hatched by the Heritage Foundation—because of a supposed fear that elected legislators might overreach; yet the next week they gave virtually unlimited power to police officers to humiliate and degrade ordinary citizens for even the most minor reason.

No further proof is necessary that the Supreme Court is dominated by rightwing ideologues who consistently put corporate and police power above the rights of ordinary citizens. For all their talk about freedom and liberty, the Tea Party and other elements of the radical right were completely silent as the Court struck another blow against citizen rights.

This should surprise no one. Despite their patriotic posturing, the American rightwing is little more than a front for corporate power and, effectively, a police state. Unfortunately, the rightwing has friends in the highest places—a Supreme Court that will stop at nothing to subvert the public interest.

Jason Scorse

The "economy vs. the environment" debate is as old as the environmental movement. Despite holding little explanatory power, the debate survives because the leaders in certain highly-polluting industries do not want to see their profits diminished by stricter regulation. They lack the creativity to think beyond 20th century technologies, and oppose environmental regulation with every means at their disposal.

The anti-regulatory forces pour millions of dollars into misinformation and propaganda campaigns, and finance politicians and political groups that fan the flames of fear and paranoia to defeat common-sense environmental goals. These groups find their fullest expression in the modern Republican Party, which has taken a radical anti-environmental and anti-science bent, but they also target key Democrats in fossil-fuel dependent regions.

Industries that pollute have the right to oppose regulations they deem antithetical to their economic interests (though not to lie about them). Unfortunately, their anti-regulatory fervor has crowded out reasonable debate about the proper role of government in environmental protection.

The bottom line is that government has a strong role to play in regulating pollution, the worst forms of which occur because of persistent market failures. There are legitimate arguments for severely restricting the government's role in given markets (e.g., housing). At the same time, top economists the world over have come to recognize that most markets cannot provide adequate environmental protection. Markets can do some things extremely well, but optimizing pollution levels is not one of them.

At this time of great environmental challenges, it is imperative that responsible business leaders play a more constructive role in the discussions over environmental policy. They can begin by acknowledging that government has an active role to play, and help steer government policy in the most efficient, transparent, and equitable directions.

We hear a lot these days about how uncertainty is bad for business. This is true, but it's no reason for business leaders to allow the anti-regulatory forces to dominate the debate. When this happens, everyone loses: society gets higher levels of pollution and environmental degradation, and businesses remain unclear about the regulatory future. And without fail, in the absence of Congressional action on large issues such as climate change, more command and control style regulations (which are often less efficient because they do not allow for maximum flexibility) become the default position as regulations are left to the EPA.

Make no mistake, the jobs of tomorrow will increasingly come in the green technology arena. When the coal, oil, and gas industries celebrated the death of climate change legislation in the U.S., the loudest laughter came from China and Germany. China alone plans to invest more than $750 billion in clean energy technology in the coming decade, and Germany continues to move ahead with significant incentives for its alternative power sector.

It's true that emerging economies are willing to tolerate higher levels of pollution in exchange for higher rates of economic growth, as all the advanced economies once did. All the same, given their populations and the pace of their development, their leaders know there is no way they can mimic the history of Europe and America without turning their nations into unlivable wastelands. They realize they will have to leap-frog technology—just as they did with cell phones over land lines—with respect to energy and other natural resource industries.

The companies that develop the world's first low-cost solar panels, low-cost wind turbines, low-cost electric cars, low-cost water purification plants, and most energy-efficient infrastructure will enjoy almost unlimited market potential. America could become that leader, but we are already falling behind. The profit motive is sufficient to keep Silicon Valley and many creative leaders pouring billions into new green-tech projects, but this must be complemented by sound environmental policy at the state and national levels. Ideally, this policy would place a consistent and increasing cost on polluting behavior. It would also channel government resources (which could be supported by the fees on pollution) into basic R&D in a variety of technologies, in order to remain unbiased against nascent technologies.

It will take courageous business leaders to stand up and buck the anti-regulatory trends sweeping the nation, and call for a serious and sustained commitment to environmental regulation that is in the nation's interests. It will take courage to look beyond the short-term bottom line and envision a different way of doing business that leaves a smaller ecological footprint, and produces value through efficiency, service, and niche markets instead of mass consumption dependent on natural resource extraction. But this is what we need if we are to move beyond the stale debates that plague our politics, our boardrooms, and our chattering classes.

Jason Scorse

A clear majority of Americans support a whole host of “left” positions: tougher gun laws, higher taxes on the rich, full rights for gays, access to contraception and abortion services, the decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs, increased access to higher education for the children of illegal immigrants, tougher penalties for Wall Street crony capitalism, an end to oil subsidies, a public option in the new healthcare law, stricter environmental regulations, just about every issue that comprises the center-left spectrum in America.

The question naturally arises as to why these policies have not been enacted under a Democratic President, and in fact are currently being rolled back in many parts of the country.

The answer is frustratingly simple: America’s governing institutions are (small “c”) conservative by design, which in this day and age means that center-right institutions are governing a center-left nation.

The Senate is the poster child of conservative institutions. Ironically, though it was designed to protect small states from the tyranny of the majority, today’s it’s become the vehicle for the minority to tyrannize the majority. The Senate routinely prevents popular bills with widespread public support from becoming law. Extreme rightwing members from small rural states can band together and easily block the will of the majority. In fact, 40 Senators who represent as little as 10% of the population can block the will of the majority—and with six-year terms, these same Senators can remain in power across different Administrations without even having to face reelection.

An example of this power occurred just last week when Republicans filibustered a bill to remove a small fraction of the tens of billion in tax breaks received by the oil industry (Chris Hayes had a great segment on this topic). Oil companies are almost universally loathed in America, and there is not an economist or policy expert of note who believes these tax breaks are good policy; even right-leaning institutions such as Cato and The Heritage Foundation oppose the breaks, and yet they continue. If the Senate were ruled by majority vote, like the House, the measure would have passed. Instead, the subsidies persist.

It is instructive to recognize how much would be law today if the Senate operated by majority rule: a cap and trade bill for greenhouse gas emissions, the DREAM act, a public option for the Affordable Care Act, increased infrastructure spending, higher taxes on the rich, significantly stronger financial regulation than what’s in the Dodd-Frank bill. More than 50 votes exist for all of these policies, with some even in the high 50s. (Remember, too, that even a Senate operating on majority rule would still be giving low-population states far more say, per-capita, than large population states.)

Can anything be done?

While many on the left are too risk-averse to recommend abolishing the Senate filibuster, this is in fact what’s needed. The fear, of course, is that if Republicans got a Senate majority, they could then vote to undo many of the left’s most popular policies—but this isn’t sufficient reason to oppose the filibuster’s elimination.

Allowing the majority to govern and enact its priorities is what elections are for. Democrats should relish the day that Republicans attempt to end Medicare, privatize Social Security, or roll back gay rights; they would face an electoral backlash like nothing ever witnessed. Democracy may be messy, but that’s how democracy should operate. We’re stuck right now in the worst of all worlds—the party in power can’t enact its agenda, and a large portion of the public blames that same party for not getting more done.

The filibuster can be abolished with a simple majority vote on the first day of a new Congress. Nothing in the Constitution requires the filibuster rules that currently operate in the Senate. In my estimation, the Democrats made a grave error when they failed to take this step in 2011 (because they feared a GOP majority in 2013). I have news for the Democrats: the next time a Republican wins the presidency and the Congress, the GOP will vote to end the Senate filibuster anyway, so nothing has been gain by forestalling the inevitable.

Changing the Constitution to make American institutions more democratic is a long-term project worth pursuing, but in the short term getting the Senate to vote by majority rule must be a priority.

The tensions and contradictions of a center-left country being governed by center-right institutions have always been problematic. Right now, these tensions and contradictions are threatening America’s prosperity and its trajectory. American voters have the frustrating feeling that their voices don’t matter, and to a large extent they’re right.

Running the Senate run by majority rule wouldn’t completely change things, but it would make a huge difference. Just look back at that list above of all of the things that could’ve been passed in the last few years if 51 votes were enough (or even 50, since Vice-President Biden would have cast the tie-breaking vote).

Jason Scorse

The oral arguments against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at the Supreme Court this week were historic. They were also depressing, with the right wing Justices displaying an amazing degree of ignorance on how healthcare markets function throughout the developed world. Even more disconcerting was the way Fox News talking points about the individual mandate (e.g., that it is no different than forcing someone to buy broccoli) were uttered multiple times by the Court’s extreme members.

Before I explain why I think in the end the Court’s ruling—whichever way it goes—will benefit the Democrats this election cycle, and not be the final word on healthcare reform, it is worth recognizing how poorly the Obama Administration framed the individual mandate for public consumption.

Even those who support the goal of universal coverage can understand why many find it objectionable for the government to coerce people into purchasing a product from a private company. There is something on an emotional level that rebels against this idea. If backers of the healthcare law had described the mandate as a “personal responsibility requirement” or an “anti-free rider” provision, my guess is that the need for everyone to participate in the healthcare market would’ve been a much easier sell.

Putting the framing issue aside, the Democrats benefit by being on the right side of this issue from just about every substantive angle. Except for the mandate, virtually all the individual, major provisions of the bill are widely popular among Americans, and there was always widespread discontent with the previous status quo. More importantly perhaps, the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner in fundamental ways. Opponents of the ACA, along with most of the far right Supreme Court Justices, acknowledge that Medicare and Social Security are constitutional; therefore, by extension, single-payer healthcare would also be constitutional.

It’s no surprise, then, that some on the left are not-so-silently rooting for the Court to strike down the ACA, and reinvigorate the push for a single payer system. While single-payer is possible down the road, pushing for it at this moment (if of course ACA is overturned) could result in needlessly depriving millions of Americans of insurance coverage. It would be much more likely for single payer to become a reality through the reintroduction of the public option, and the persistent ability of that option to outperform private insurance—as is currently the case with Medicare compared to the numerous Medicare Advantage plans, and compared to private insurance plans in general. While the gradual evolution of ACA to a single-payer system is hardly guaranteed, it’s not at all unlikely (especially if states that experiment with single-payer, such as Vermont, succeed).

To summarize, if the Court upholds the ACA, a major critique by the right of President Obama’s signature achievement will have been dashed, and the incremental march towards universal coverage and a more rational healthcare system will prevail. If the Court instead strikes down the law, it will likely be viewed as a judicial decision that reeks of politics—a la Bush v. Gore—and re-energize the President’s base. It could also help usher in a push for single-payer under the simple, powerful message of Medicare for all.

This would likely be a potent political weapon. Despite the fear of Medicare’s costs, it remains extremely popular. In addition, expanding Medicare would also improve our healthcare system by severing health insurance from employment. (As a side note, if the Court strikes down the ACA it would also inferentially render Social Security privatization, a Republican goal for decades, unconstitutional).

Whatever the ruling in June, there will be huge consequences either way. The fact that the constitutionality of the mandate is even being seriously debated shows how unprincipled the GOP has become. The notion of a health insurance mandate originated with the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, and it was championed by individual Republicans as recently as 2009.

The ruling will also provide another key contrast in this election cycle, which is rapidly shaping up as pitting two sharply divergent views of America against each other: Obama and the Democrats for the 99%, and Romney (the presumptive nominee) and the Republicans for the 1%.

I’m confident this is a battle that the President and the Democrats can win now and well into the future.

Jason Scorse

Almost immediately after President Obama was sworn into office, the backlash by the far right became intense. In 2010 this backlash would cost the Democrats control of the House, key Senate seats, and many state legislatures and governorships. By and large, this wave of Republican “Tea Party” members has pursued a “scorched earth” policy of blocking virtually everything the President supports. They’ve tried dismantling social safety nets, rolling back women’s rights, union rights, and voting rights in ways that Americans haven’t experienced in decades.

Republicans may have come into power pledging to focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs,” but in fact they have done next to nothing to support job growth—and have in fact, blocked many common sense measures to increase employment. By any independent measure, today’s improving economy could have been even better were it not for the obstructionism practiced by the extremist class of 2010 Republicans.

As the election of 2012 approaches, the American electorate is showing increasing signs of “buyer’s remorse”. Women and Latinos, in particular, are showing their disgust at a Republican agenda that can accurately be described as both misogynist and racist. Unions have been fired up by the actions taken by GOP governors and legislatures, especially in Wisconsin and Ohio but in other locales well. Even though most voters don’t pay close attention to policy details, solid reporting by some journalists—combined with the new power of social media—has brought national attention to issues and put the GOP on the defensive (e.g., women bombarding the Facebook pages of prominent Republican governors).

It is clear that the pendulum has swung away from the GOP and back in favor of Democrats and more progressive policies. This is welcome news. The question is whether the economy can improve enough, and the Democrats can put forth a strong-enough campaign message, to enable Obama to hold the White House and the Democrats to retain the Senate and perhaps regain the House. This was considered very unlikely only months ago, but the overreach of the GOP has now made it much more likely, even if still difficult. That Paul Ryan has once again put forth a draconian budget that showers tax cuts on the rich and decimates social safety nets and essential government services can only help the Democrats; as one Democratic operative put it, “it’s like Christmas in March”.

I’ve long been arguing that the Democrats need to deliver a knockout blow to the far right so that the Republican Party can begin to purge itself of its extremist elements. Nancy Pelosi regaining her position as Speaker of the House under a second term for President Obama would likely be sufficient to make this happen, and it can’t come a moment too soon. There are no doubt many reasonable and sane Republicans in the country, but they are not the ones currently in charge; instead, a virulent far-right strand best characterized by the ravings of Rush Limbaugh is at the controls, and doing immense damage to the country. When the history of this time is written, people will be amazed at how low the Republican Party sank during these early years of the 21st century.

I urge all reasonable and rational people to do everything in their power to send the far right into the dustbin of history where it belongs. Too much time has already been wasted, and too many people have needlessly suffered, because so much of our political oxygen has been consumed by fringe issues, obstructionism, and the priorities of the 1%.

It’s time to focus on the things that really matter: adapting to the economic needs of the 21st century, extending quality and affordable healthcare to all Americans, addressing climate change, and responsibly reducing our long-term deficit.

Jason Scorse

Rarely on Voices of Reason do I spend much time on political tactics. It is my firm belief that too much media coverage is devoted to the various horse races and “he said-she said” journalism that have contributed to diminishing our political discourse.

But as we approach the general election in November, the two sides are beginning to test their narratives and sharpen their messages. While Mitt Romney is spending much more of his time than he would like trying to beat back his Republican primary opponents, it’s clear that his campaign will try to paint President Obama as a far left socialist who has deepened the recession, and hold him responsible for the record U.S. federal deficit (even though both of these positions are false; truth is not something Romney seems to care very much about).

A few days ago, in a nearly 17-minute video, we got a good glimpse of how the Obama Administration is going to counter Romney’s attacks. The video is a masterpiece. It’s narrated by none other than Tom Hanks, one of America’s most beloved actors. I highly recommend that you watch it and send it around to your family and friends. This is one Youtube video that deserves to go viral. Its greatest strength is its lack of hyperbole, and its no-nonsense sticking to the facts.

I base my praise on the following:

1. The video begins by contrasting the amazing sense of euphoria many of us felt in November 2008, when Obama was elected, with the reality of what was happening to the country at the time. Americans have short memories, so reminding us of the days when the economy was in free fall, and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and the stock market was diving, is the appropriate baseline against which Obama should be judged.

2. Quickly the video pivots to the tough decisions that Obama needed to make to get things back on track. The video emphasizes the auto industry bailouts, which were unpopular at the time but have turned out to be great successes. It then switches to the healthcare debate and shows that it was Obama’s determination to get something big done (even if not big enough to satisfy many on the Left) that prevented the collapse of the entire process.

3. After a moving scene that describes how Obama’s mother died of cancer while fighting insurance companies, the video shifts away from healthcare reform to national security without discussing any of the healthcare law’s benefits. I was initially frustrated by this, and wondered why—but stay tuned.

4. The segment on national security highlights the end of the Iraq War and has an awesome segment on the killing of bin Laden. It puts Obama front and center as the decision-maker who risked his presidency on this fateful decision. Reminding Americans of this fact can only pay big dividends come Election Day; remember, national security is typically the Democrats’ biggest weakness. And at a time when all eyes are on the economy, being so aggressive on the national security front is a gutsy move. I think it is exactly the right one.

5. Then the video pivots back to healthcare and lays out the many benefits already being enjoyed by millions of Americans. This comes at a time when the Administration also has a new website showing exactly how people are benefiting from the law. Doing this right after the details of the bin Laden raid is a master stroke.

6. The video continues to pick up steam, outlining the benefits to students of the student loan reform legislation, the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the two female Supreme Court nominees, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While the ingredients for the video were likely chosen months ago, there is little doubt that Obama’s advisors decided to end on women’s issues as a way to contrast the President’s support for women with the war on women’s rights currently being waged by Republicans. It’s a home run.

7. Beyond the specific issues the video addresses, its tone is optimistic and there are multiple points where Obama calls out GOP obstructionism and extremism. This is not the Obama of bipartisanship, but Obama the fighter—the one who makes hard decisions with Americans’ best interests at heart. Overall, it is very powerful. My only critique is that there is no attempt to appeal directly to Hispanic voters, very possibly because immigration reform and the DREAM Act both failed during Obama’s first term. (Given Hispanics’ incredible distaste for the current GOP this may not be a huge oversight). One final note: the choice of Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton to be prominent in multiple parts of the video seems like a direct appeal to more liberal Democrats; it also raises Warren’s profile during her tough Senate fight and hints at a greater future role for Bill Clinton in the run-up to the election.

I am confident that this video will be studied by political campaigns for decades to come. It sets a very high bar for its professionalism and tone, as well as its content. As an avid Obama supporter perhaps I’m a little biased. What do you think?

Jason Scorse

Nobody outdoes the Wall Street Journal at decrying the federal deficit, berating President Obama for it, and predicting economic disaster if it isn’t fixed.

So it was amusing to see the Journal weeping over a lapsed tax break that added to the deficit, and begging Congress to bring it back—a tax break that slapped Uncle Sam in the face, welshing on the contract that underlies trillions of dollars in retirement savings.

In its own special way, let the Journal give you the background. Here are the opening paragraphs from a late January piece: “Sixty federal tax provisions expired in 2011, but one stands out for causing older taxpayers trouble: the individual-retirement-account donation rule.

“This popular provision allows IRA owners 70½ and older to contribute up to $100,000 of IRA assets directly to a tax-free charity. Such donations aren’t tax deductible, but neither do they count as income that might trigger higher taxes on Social Security payments or higher Medicare premiums. Now this benefit is gone, at least until Congress restores it.”

That’s how the Journal spun the story. Here’s the real reality:

The IRA charitable contribution allowed affluent taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on mandatory required distributions from retirement accounts. The tax payback on those accounts is the implicit contract that Uncle Sam struck long ago to encourage retirement savings—tax-free contributions, tax-deferred gains, taxes due and payable when the funds are withdrawn.

The IRA charitable contribution was a siphoning away of public monies to private charities. The money was diverted not only from the federal Treasury, but from hard-hit state and city coffers as well. To put it bluntly, the IRA charitable contribution was thievery—enabled by lawmakers always ready to repay their donors by twisting the tax code in their favor.

The Journal is clearly rooting for an encore. As the paper put it, “No fix is in sight, although many experts think lawmakers will act eventually. In 2010, the law also expired, and Congress didn’t re-enact it until mid-December of that year.”

There was never any genuine reason for the IRA charitable contribution. It gave a tax break (in fact a multiple tax break; see paragraph five above) to people in no need of a tax break. As for the charities that benefitted, contributions to charities have long been tax-deductible. The IRA charitable contribution was just another example of benefitting the few at the expense of the many, and the deficit be damned.

Even more galling is the fact that the affluent—those who are running away from the tax payback—are precisely the ones who always benefit most from the retirement account tax break. Between IRAs and 401(k)s, the government foregoes $65 billion in tax revenues a year. It’s the third-largest of all tax breaks, trailing only employer-provided health insurance and the mortgage interest deduction. Overwhelmingly, it’s upper-income households who reap the biggest rewards.

The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of itself to encourage this sort of tax avoidance (but may be too tone-deaf to even know why). Congress should also be ashamed if it even thinks about bringing IRA charitable contributions back.

Jason Scorse