Barack Obama for President

Perhaps one-day years from now President Barack Obama’s greatest legacy will be his prevention of an economic depression in the face of a financial crisis that was even more severe than the one that occurred in 1929. As Obama took office, the U.S. economy was shedding approximately 800,000 jobs per month. Home foreclosures were skyrocketing while stock markets plummeted. I wrote a more lengthy post regarding the recession and current economic recovery, but suffice to say, the circumstances in which President Obama took office were the worst any president has faced since Franklin Roosevelt. From the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the Recovery Act, to the emergency bailout of General Motors and Chrysler and quantitative easing, policies pursued by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve helped to put a floor on the recession and return the U.S. economy to sustained growth. The GDP growth rate turned around from negative 5.3 percent during the first quarter of 2009 to positive growth by the third quarter. The unemployment rate today is lower than it has been at any point during Obama’s term in office and we’ve had 31 consecutive months of private sector job growth. The stock market indices have more than doubled from their low point, observed just six weeks after Obama took office. Corporate profits of the Fortune 500 reached an all-time high in 2011 and consumer confidence is now higher than it has been at any point since 2007. The housing market is making a noticeable recovery, with home prices, sales, and construction rates rising significantly in 2012. The Obama administration’s handling of the economy has not been flawless. Nonetheless, their accomplishments have been impressive given the unprecedented Congressional Republican obstructionism of the past four years.

An Economy on the Rebound

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the U.S. economy was in free fall. During the preceding year and half, some of the nation’s largest and most important financial institutions went bankrupt, including Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and Lehman Brothers, as risky loans and other investments failed. Many other large banks were on the verge of collapse. The downfall of the financial sector had been preceded by a spectacular end to a massive speculative housing bubble that almost instantly wiped out trillions of dollars of Americans’ net worth. When Lehman Brothers and AIG went into bankruptcy during the same weekend in September 2008, panic ensued all across the economy. It felt like 1929 all over again. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and was implemented by President Obama, stopped the bleeding in the financial sector, but the damage to the broader economy had already been done as other sectors of the economy continued to rapidly deteriorate. The stock markets plummeted, losing more than half of their peak market capitalization just six weeks after Obama took office. Many retirees and workers nearing retirement saw their investment portfolio lose much of its value. Millions of people lost their jobs due to no fault of their own after the U.S. entered a recession in December 2007. Over 1.2 million Americans were laid off between the election and Obama’s inauguration. All told, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 8.7 million jobs were lost due to the Great Recession. No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has begun their tenure in the White House under such dire circumstances. An evaluation of each segment of the economy around the time Obama took office compared to now shows that we are definitely better off four years later.

The Case Against Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s nomination as the 2012 Republican candidate for President is an important and historical moment for me and many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints across the U.S. and the world. A thick glass ceiling was shattered when Romney, a prominent member of my faith, overcame anti-Mormon bigotry prevalent in parts of the Republican primary electorate to clinch the GOP nomination. During the past twelve years we have been witnesses to a triumph over a wide array of social prejudices in American politics with the nomination of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, as the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s historic run as the first serious female contender for the White House in 2008, and Barack Obama’s election as the county’s first African-American president. We may very well have a Mormon as our President starting next January. While I admire Romney’s dedicated unpaid service in my church as a bishop and stake president, believe that he is a good family man who also cares deeply about our country, and am thrilled by Romney’s ascension to the GOP nomination in this Mormon moment, I am confident that he is the wrong person for the job of President of the United States.

Does Romney Believe Laziness Causing High Unemployment?

Remarks that Mitt Romney made to wealthy donors back in May 2012, have put Romney in an awkward position. Romney denigrated nearly half of the population of the U.S. and erroneously claimed that Obama supporters were all dependent on government assistance. After receiving a question about how Romney would be able to win the election, Romney remarked:

The Problem with Citizens United

Does Spending in Elections Influence Outcomes?

You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes that money isn't absolutely crucial to running an effective campaign for political office. It costs money to rent campaign offices, travel, run phone banks, rent speaking venues, print leaflets, film commercials and purchase television ad time, and otherwise publicize a candidate's message or attack his or her opponent. Additionally, spending by outside groups, most commonly in the form of super political action committees (or super PACs) have had a significant effect in elections. There is an abundance of reporting documenting the influence of these super PACs in our recent elections, most notably in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary. Examples can be found here, here, here, and here.

Church Leader Speaks of Reason

I came across the following great quote on reason by Elder James E. Talmage from the January 1920 Improvement Era magazine. I think this statement is needed now more than ever in an era of unprecedented partisanship.

The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one-sided but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending.

How I Benefited from the Obama Housing Policy

I am someone who has personally benefited from some of President Obama's economic policies. In addition to getting the temporary payroll (Social Security) tax break, I am now refinancing my underwater home through President Obama's Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). My home is now worth about $25K less than I owe due to the collapse of the housing bubble, and in three years I would be facing a significantly increased interest rate from the already high rate I have now if I were not able to refinance. I acquired my home in 2005 with a 10-year fixed rate, which would change to an adjustable rate mortgage at the 10-year maturity, because I did not plan on living there for over 10 years. But the housing crash put me in a difficult situation, as it has done for millions of Americans, and made refinancing pretty much impossible. Of course, selling the home at such a huge loss was not a viable option for me either. As I researched my refinance options, I found that no lender would have granted me a refinance loan for my underwater property on their own volition, even though I have never made a late payment. It's only through HARP that I am now able to refinance and take advantage of some of the lowest interest rates in about half a century, and it didn't cost the American taxpayers a nickel for me to do so. So thank you Mr. Obama, for helping me and millions of other Americans keep our homes with even lower monthly payments.

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

President Obama's recent announcement of his support for gay marriage sparked a firestorm of debate across the country. For Mormon Democrats such as myself, it has put us at odds with Obama on an important social issue.

Teaming Up with Other Mormon Democrats

I have recently teamed up with a few other Mormon Democrats to write about issues we care about on one website, MormonDems.com. The other writers include a soon-to-be professor at Brigham Young University and a business executive. The content on the site so far has been great and I highly recommend checking it out. I will continue to post on Latter-Day Common Sense, but the same articles will appear on MormonDems.com.

Affordable Care Act Focuses on Workers, Removes Perverse Incentives

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) was not directed at the poorest Americans, who already have Medicaid, but at the working poor. This includes those who work full-time, but cannot afford their own health insurance policy. In addition, low-wage jobs are far less likely to provide health insurance benefits. Thus, typical low-wage earners are left on their own to purchase prohibitively expensive private health care plans. In 2010, the average cost for a private family insurance plan was $7,102. In many locales throughout the U.S., it is mathematically impossible for a low-wage breadwinner to pay for a $7K private insurance plan while paying for all other essential family expenses. What’s worse, before ACA, if one became seriously ill and required extensive treatment and thus could not work for a long period, they would often lose their job, and with it, their health insurance. Some conservatives counter-argue that only those who work hard deserve health insurance and good health care. But this argument is a non-sequitur. Health insurance is generally unaffordable for the working poor and even parts of the working middle class, who as I pointed out in one of my last posts, work more hours on average than the wealthy.

Universal Health Care Benefits Everyone, Eliminates Free Riders

Positive rights should not just be viewed through the lens of entitlement. Positive rights are similar to public goods in that they provide positive benefits to society as a whole (in economics, this phenomenon is called a positive externality). This is especially true with health care. If everyone has access to good health care, the chance of serious epidemic outbreaks declines. More people are thus eligible to work. American productivity increases because workers require fewer sick days. Healthier people spend more money on other things aside from health care, stimulating the economy. (For good explanations on health care as a public good, click here and here.)

A Minimum Living Standard in the World’s Wealthiest Country

In the last post, I illustrated how the positive right to an education is essential to a modern economy. Most Americans do not question the right to a public education, perhaps because it has been a fact of American life for over a century. Other positive rights adopted to some extent by American society, which are unfortunately more controversial, include the right of the disabled to a dignified existence, the right to food and shelter, and the right to life-saving emergency care. Most recently, through the 2010 Affordable Care Act, we adopted in principle the right to adequate comprehensive health care.

The Right to a Public Education

In my last post, I mentioned certain “positive rights” that Americans have come to assume are part of the social contract. Public education is perhaps the least controversial example of a positive right in America. As a society, we generally believe that every child has a right to a high school education, regardless of his or her parents’ income level. However, with the recent upswing of right-wing extremism, some (generally Ron Paul supporters) question the right to a public education because it requires redistribution of wealth throughout a community. Many extreme libertarians view government taxation for any kind of social program, including public education, as theft, and advocate a system of government where any redistributive program do not exist.

Defending a Century of American Progress

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, in an oft-seen video clip, describes how a thriving industrialized economy is dependent on government taxation and redistribution for the creation of key institutions, infrastructure, and social programs: She notes, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”

She mentions factory owners who “move [their] goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for,” and “hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” She adds that police and fire services, that “the rest of us paid for” kept them safe and prevented them from having to hire their own security and fire defense forces. She ends by saying, “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Destroying Conservative-Style Reform: GOP Turns on Insurance Mandate at Its Own Peril

In January 2009, Mitt Romney penned some advice to incoming President Barack Obama regarding health care reform in a USA Today op-ed piece. Romney suggested Obama look to “the lessons we learned in Massachusetts,” in contemplating federal-level reform, noting specifically:

First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98 percent of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

In a January 2008 GOP Presidential Primary debate, Romney underscored his belief that the insurance mandate should be applied at a national level. When the moderator noted, “Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis,” Romney interjected, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”

Gingrich: Fox News Analysts Don't Know What They Are Talking About

Now and then politicians let their tongues slip and tell the public what they really think about certain things. Last November, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shared what most astute observers of Fox News already know about the right-wing news network, but what no conservative will ever admit – that much of what is said on the network is not factual and is often complete rubbish. When a woman asked Gingrich a complicated question about the Obama Administration’s AIDS policy at a gathering in South Carolina, Newt indicated that the information presented in the question was new to him and that he did not know enough to give a response. (Gingrich should be given credit for being honest about that and not trying to make up an answer from thin air on something he didn’t know about - or something for which he didn’t have a pre-rehearsed, memorized talking point.) Then Gingrich said, “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President -- as opposed to being an analyst on Fox -- is I have to actually know what I'm talking about.”

Around the time of Gingrich’s comment, a poll from the Fairleigh Dickinson University revealed that Fox News viewers are less informed about current events than people who don’t watch any news! A political science professor at the university explained the poll results: "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

Thank Romney for Underscoring Need for "Buffet Rule"

After losing the South Carolina Primary to Newt Gingrich, possibly in part due to his waffling at the pre-Primary debates about releasing his tax returns, Mitt Romney released his tax returns for the past two years, which show that he paid about 14% in federal taxes on income of nearly $43 million. The timing of Romney's tax return release was impeccable- for Democrats. For months, President Obama and Democrats have been attacking Republicans for wanting to maintain tax breaks and loopholes for the super-wealthy. Last August, Warren Buffet pointed out in an op-ed that he paid a lower federal tax rate than his secretary in 2010. He paid about 17.4%, whereas his office staff paid an average of 36%. Buffet rightly pointed out that this simply isn't fair. He added, "it’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Last October, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report that indicated 25% of all households earning at least $1 million annually are paying a smaller share of their income than a large segment of the middle class. The report adds that 94,500 millionaires pay a lower tax rate than most of the middle class and that 7,000 millionaires pay no income taxes at all.

The reason for this is because of the payroll tax (Social Security tax), which doesn't tax income above $107,000, and the capital gains tax rate, which is 15%. Investment income is usually taxed at this rate, which is much lower than earned income tax rates. Many of the super-wealthy make their money via investment income rather than earned income.

President Obama has talked about "the Buffet rule" as a way to help fight the budget deficit by implementing a higher minimum tax rate for people in the highest income bracket, to ensure they don't pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the middle class. As he has stated, millionaires shouldn't be paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Mitt Romney's revelation that he paid an effective federal tax rate of 14% underscores the notion that it is completely unfair for the super wealthy to pay less in overall taxes than the middle class. And it adds to the powerful narrative that was created by the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose underlying theme deals with the challenges posed by the incredible gap between the top 1% of earners in the U.S. and the rest of the country, and the disproportionate amount of power that the top 1% hold. Romney's tax returns show that we are in dire need of tax reforms that will create a fairer revenue system. If Romney becomes the GOP nominee, which seems pretty likely at this point, you can count on Romney's ridiculously low tax rate as becoming a major campaign issue. It will help show that the GOP's insistence in preserving Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and Romney's advocacy for even more tax cuts for top earners are entirely out of touch with our federal budget deficit reality and lack any sense of fairness. So I thank Mitt Romney for serving as a poster-child for all that is wrong with the fiscal policies he and his party tirelessly support.

The Anti-Life Pro-Lifers

Have you ever come across someone who vehemently supports the criminalization of most or all forms of abortion? Chances are that person opposed with equal fervor President Obama's health care reform bill and most, if not all forms of public assistance to those in need. It is also quite likely that that person supported the Iraq War, which we waged on a nation that had never attacked us and was not a significant threat to us. That person probably also whole-heartedly embraces the death penalty the way it is applied today in our criminal justice system. I find it incredibly disturbing when so many conservatives claim that they value the sanctity of life, yet show no concern for the living.

I'm not trying to criticize the "pro-life" position that advocates restrictions or complete prohibition of abortion. I wrote two posts (here and here) where I articulated my views about abortion and the role of government in regulating it. I do, however, have a problem with people who claim to value the sanctity of life, yet do not care for the most vulnerable living among us.