Disappointing Jobs Figures

It was slightly bemusing to witness the American media's rather complacent assumption over recent months that the economy was on a path to permanent recovery.  Over the last several years, the jobs market has warmed noticeably during the Christmas season only to weaken again in the following months.

Unfortunately, the most recent jobs report suggests that history may be about to repeat.  Only 115,000 net jobs were created last month, continuing a downward trend that began in March.  That is an awful number.

The official U-3 unemployment rate has dropped to 8.1% - because 342,000 more people dropped out of the labour force.  The participation rate now stands at 63.6%, down from the 65.7% figure that President Obama inherited.  If those who have simply given up on finding work are counted, the actual unemployment rate reaches a diabolical 11.1%.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney recently claimed that the American economy should be adding 500,000 jobs per month, a number that seems rather outlandish when juxtaposed with the current recovery.  Historically however, his claim is justifiable.  In April of 1984, the corresponding month of the Reagan presidency, 480,000 jobs were created.

The current numbers are simply not good enough, and there is little hope of a renewed policy response emerging prior to election day.  The end of the year, regardless of November's victor, will see the implementation of a series of tax increases that could even threaten to push the economy back into recession.

It matters not what Republicans pass in the Congress.  Democrats still paralyse the Senate, and Mr. Obama will remain in the White House until at least January of next year, with the power to veto any conservative proposals.

America needs a decisive change of course, and the President is the only man who can deliver it. The status quo is not working.

Stale Tactics

Barack Obama, during his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Colorado:

"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.  If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

You can expect to see this quote again during the general election campaign, and not without good reason. President Obama's own words could become a potent weapon against him.

Opposition Leader Obama

"We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonise their opponents instead of coming together.  It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with.  That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country."

Candidate Barack Obama said a lot of sensible things.  His rhetoric stressed the importance of a unified America - not red states and blue states, but united states.  His speeches decried the hyper-partisanship that had come to typify American politics.

Four years, it would seem, can make all the difference in the world.

President Barack Obama will soon seek re-election, and the most striking aspect of his second term agenda thus far is that it does not exist.

Mr. Obama, a sitting executive with a full term of experience, is not travelling the length and breadth of the nation spruiking the successes of his tenure thus far.  Nor is he providing an uplifting vision for the future.

No, the President seems to think that his time would be better spent savaging his political opponents.

Most recently, Mr. Obama launched a blistering attack on the House Republican budget, which was crafted in an effort to address the nation's snowballing debt crisis.

The national debt, which has expanded at an unprecedented rate under the current President, is driven in large part by an increasingly steep growth in entitlement spending.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that by the middle of the century entitlements will consume all tax revenue, leaving aside no funds to provide other essential government services.

Mr. Obama has offered no comprehensive plan to address the national debt.  He has made no contribution to the debate over entitlement spending, beyond excoriating any plan put forward by Republicans.

This is not leadership.  It is not even 'leading from behind'.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, they have at least displayed enough political courage to address the looming debt crisis in a meaningful way.  They are prepared to take potentially unpopular proposals to the American people and argue their case.

Meanwhile, the man who was elected in 2008 to lead the nation through the most troubled of times seems content merely to stand back and criticise.  To engage in the very hyper-partisan attacks that, not so long ago, he decried.

"Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we would not be able to afford to launch new satellites.  That means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane."

Is this really what we want from the President?  For him to travel across the country, spreading the generationally important message that his political opponents threaten the accuracy of weather forecasts?

No, Mr. Obama was elected to lead.  If the President truly believes that Republicans will take America down a path of 'social Darwinism', then he should present us with an alternative vision. Tell us how he will address the national debt without reforming entitlements.  How he will drive economic growth while raising the tax burden on business.

For President Obama to prove that he deserves a second term, he must cast aside the invective of recent weeks and meet Republican policies with his own, better ideas.

He can either claim the mantle of leadership, or he can shrink into a sad caricature of the partisanship he promised to sweep away four years ago.

A Lecture from the Constitutional Law Professor

President Obama, discussing the fate of his trademark health care legislation (currently before the Supreme Court), made these statements several days ago:

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

"That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law." 

It is difficult to believe that the man who uttered those words actually taught constitutional law at a widely respected university.

First of all, it matters not one jot whether the law was passed by a strong majority.  Though, for the record, the President was dead wrong about that as well.  The law scraped through the house by just seven votes, even though the Democrats held a majority of nearly a hundred in that chamber, and it only earned the Senate's approval after weeks of back room dealing.

Aside from such quibbles however, for Mr. Obama to suggest that it would be 'unprecedented' and 'extraordinary' for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress is so remarkable as to make one's jaw drop.

I remember learning in middle school, let alone university, that the Supreme Court's role in the American system of checks and balances is to vet laws for constitutionality.  The Court is there for the express purpose of overturning unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. Obama's statements, which he has since tried valiantly to step back from, were nothing short of ridiculous.

The President's remarks have been notably strident and partisan of late.  He should be careful, lest he shed some of his characteristic gravitas.

Obama's Mandate

President Barack Obama has two major domestic policy initiatives to his name after his first three years in office:  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Neither of these policies are particularly popular, and this presents a significant obstacle to Mr. Obama's re-election.  Polls have consistently shown lukewarm support at best for the stimulus package, with a clear minority of Americans believing that Mr. Obama's policies have actually helped the job situation.

Similarly, Americans have consistently favoured the repeal of Obamacare by a significant majority. The individual mandate in particular is dangerously unpopular from a political perspective:

Americans overwhelmingly believe the "individual mandate", as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.

Even a majority of Democrats, and a majority of those who think the healthcare law is a good thing, believe that provision is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the health care law, with a decision to be handed down by the nine justices prior to the presidential election in November.

Day two of arguments was concerned solely with the individual mandate, and by all accounts proceedings went horribly wrong for the law's defenders.  Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was peppered with questions by the justices, and he often lacked satisfactory answers.

Importantly, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the so called 'swing voter' of the court, seemed to be disposed against the government's arguments.

It is almost certain that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan will rule that the mandate is constitutional.

Meanwhile, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts are equally likely to side with the challengers.  This leaves Justice Kennedy with the deciding vote.

Thus there does seem to be a tangible risk that the individual mandate, if not the entire law, will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  What would this mean for the President and his chances of re-election?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan captures what the sentiments of the American people would likely be, given a hostile decision by the court:

The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centrepiece of his agenda was not constitutional?  How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks:  We were in crisis in 2009 - we still are - and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time.

With Americans largely believing that his stimulus package was ineffective, President Obama needs his healthcare law to be upheld, even if it remains unpopular.  Otherwise he will be left broken, embarrassed, and without any record of significance after a full term in office.

The Shackles of Re-election

The President of the United States participates in many international meetings, and chances are that throughout a term in office he will be caught out by an open mic at least once or twice.  President Obama was in open mic strife once again several days ago, during a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

In comments that were not intended to be broadcast publicly, Mr. Obama candidly assures the Russian President (and by proxy his successor, Vladimir Putin) that he will be able to negotiate over the issue of missile defense with more flexibility following his 'last election' in November.

The President's assurances are certainly correct.  But they are also problematic from a political perspective, because the implications set forth in that statement are unlikely to be well received back in the United States.

Mr. Obama is essentially saying this:  'After the November elections, I will never have to face the American people again.  It will no longer matter whether or not my decisions have popular support. So I will be able to make a deal with you then.'

These implications are clear because the President explicitly mentions that November is his last election.  George W. Bush was phenomenally unpopular throughout much of his second term - but it mattered very little, because he was not anchored by the political accountability that comes with the spectre of re-election.

Republicans will argue that the same applies for President Obama.  They will assert that unfettered by any accountability to the American public, Mr. Obama will be free to do as he likes, no matter how radical or unpopular his policies may be.

You can expect this argument to be completely overblown by Mr. Obama's political opposition, but there is an incontrovertible truth at its heart.

Of course, this would be the case for any two term President - one could argue that it is a glaring flaw in the case for term limits.  But Mr. Obama needs to be more discreet in front of microphones from now on - because that 'flexibility' of which he spoke will apply to much more than missile defence, and Republicans will make sure that every single voter knows it.