Democratic President = Economic Growth

I don't know the explanation, or if there is a satisfying one given the variety of factors and the potential impact of Congress, and I am willing to concede the possibility that Democrats are occasionally reaping the benefits of Republican policies (though I highly doubt it), but the numbers are clear enough to raise important questions:

[Follow the link for more charts.]

* Even Carter outperforms every Republican except for Nixon's first term.

why we need bill...

richardson, that is...

There are 3 under-registered, under-voting groups for whom an identity politics can trigger massive increases in participation: youth, Afro-Americans and Latinos. It is true that the poor and lower middle-class constitute a fourth group, but they have been relatively difficult to reach and congeal to increase their electoral participation in part because they have a variety of different interests, and thus, since Robert Kennedy, have not had a single iconic figure around which to rally.

Barack Obama's persona and message have galvanized the first two, and legions are going out to increase their participation this fall.

The third group is Latinos.

Governor Richardson has been nominated 5 times for the Nobel Peace Prize, is loved by labor, is highly experienced in foreign policy having negotiated successfully with the worst regimes, has been an extremely successful Governor of a red-state growing jobs/improving education/raising teachers' salaries/raising wages and re-elected with 68% of the vote, is a former Energy Secretary -- one of the critical issues for at least 2 decades to come -- is pro-2nd Amendment, hails from the West... and, he also happens to be Latino.

Richardson fits beautifully Barack's theme of change, and unity.

My Opening Salvo

Curt's first post is both wide-ranging and limited enough that responding to it will be a good way for me to outline my views.

Curt, beginning with a quote from DJ Toluene:

The Democrats are actually the tax, borrow and spend party. The last Congress (they are the ones who pass budgets) to balance a budget were the Republicans. Now I understand that the Republicans haven't acted that way in a while and that's why they lost in 2006. Now I'm all for punishing them for being as corrupt as the Democrats when it comes to spending but at the same time I'm not going to reward the Democrats. The Republicans are the lesser of two evils. Although the best scenario would be for a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress. Nothing would get done. We saw what happened when the same party controlled both the Congress and the White House.

You can't punish them by electing them. I know the Democrats are your only other option, so if you see them as equally bad then I understand striking this category of voting criteria as a wash and choosing on other issues. You're right, we did see what happened when the same party controlled both branches. I think I'm far angrier and more deeply upset about the results of that than you. Even if I did not like Obama, I could still vote for a lump of dirt over a Republican candidate based on what's happened over the past 8 years unless the Republican candidate offered up a clear and strong repudiation of most of what the current administration has done and stands for, which of course will never happen.

I have no reason to believe that Democrats will spend less money than the Republicans, but I'm not sure that they can do worse. If spending stays the same, or continues rising, I can at least feel comfortable in two things: (1) the spending will benefit more ordinary Americans; and (2) the taxes will be raised to pay for it.

On the second point, I thnk it's a fallacy to say that Bush has cut taxes. If you don't have a balanced budget, it is impossible to cut taxes. We have to borrow to pay the difference. At least theoretically, the debt must eventually be paid back with interest. Even if we intend to stiff those people who lend us money, we must make regular payments toward the interest on the debt.

Also, I'm no economist, but I think that when Alan Greenspan says that budget deficits contribute to the weak dollar (see here and here), we ought to at least have an honest, in-depth national debate over the budget deficit. Who cares about a weak dollar? Perhaps everybody that is suffering from high gas prices. Yesterday, it was reported that oil futures are falling in part because of a strengthening dollar. Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading:

If the dollar continues to strengthen, it will continue to put downward pressure on the price of oil.

I admit that I have misgivings about universal health care. However, the status quo is not working and we have to do something. I am encouraged that Obama does not seek to take over the health care system, but merely work within the private system by providing an insurance alternative for those who are currently unable to get insurance. You could have a whole blog about the health care system, but I'll just say here that I think the current system is so flawed that we may be able to provide health care for all Americans while cutting costs in other areas (for example, universal health care provides access to physicians so that the poor don't show up at our emergency rooms instead). I also think Wyden's Republican-supported Healthy Americans Act is worth considering.

McCain's long-standing objection to earmarks is admirable, but that won't come close to addressing our spending problem. And I think his other promise to review all discretionary spending will be met with so much resistance that may end up accomplishing nothing. We need to cut entitlements, raise taxes, or both. There are no easy choices here.

Curt, again beginning with a quote from DJ:

Talking to your enemies without preconditions is stupid. And Iran, Syria and North Korea are our enemies. It annoys me that we haven't drilled more domestic oil, and started up more nuclear power plants, use our almost unlimited coal supplies and given more incentives for alternative fuels so we can bankrupt the Middle East.

Talking to your enemies without preconditions might not be the best of all foreign policies. However, it is far less stupid than invading them based on KNOWN FALSE conditions (and lying to the country about it). Dialog is good. The idea that we "embolden" (what a stupid word) our enemies by giving them the time of day is naive, isolationist, and in many ways has led our foreign policy where it is today.

I agree with you regarding domestic oil, nuclear power, etc.

Refusing to talk to our enemies strikes me as childish and contrary to a projection of strength. A superpower ought to be confident enough to look an opponent in the eye and challenge him directly. I have heard no good argument against talking to our enemies. Yes, I feel that way even after our foreign policy genius President compared Obama to the appeasers of the Nazis. Setting aside Godwin's Law, the mistake wasn't talking to Hitler, it was giving him Czechoslovakia.

I am as concerned about the impact of our energy policies on national security as I am about the environment. Therefore, I am open to more use of coal and nuclear power.

Illegal immigration is a problem. Immigration is not. Here's my proposal: Crack down on illegal immigration and increase legal immigration to current combined legal and illegal levels.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I understand the sentiment and some of the arguments against it. There'll be plenty of time for that issue later.

I see that DJ trotted out the accusation that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the first post. That's a bogus label.