President Barack Obama: Agenda and Job Approval Ratings, Economy and Another Stimulus Plan

President Barack Obama’s job approval ratings have been falling for the last 3-4 weeks.  On average, the President’s approval rating no stands at about 57-58 percent compared to about 60-62 percent about a month back.

There have been many theories floated to explain this decline in preference measurement and job approval rating.  For example, some have argued that the President’s policy prescriptions are too liberal for the country.  Others have argued that the President’s agenda is too ambitious for the country to absorb in such a short time (Secretary Colin Powell was the most recent proponent of this possibility.)  Yet others have argued that the country is not supportive of President’s massive health care reform (though all the preference measurements suggest that a majority of Americans support and trust the President on the health care reform). Finally, some have even suggested that the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court may not have been well received (though all the polls suggest that the facts are to the contrary).

However, all these theories appear to be misplaced.  The President’s  job approval rating simply appears to be tracking the state of the U.S. economy.  The initial hope of quicker recovery of the economy has now faded.  Americans are beginning to realize that the weakness in the economy will persist for sometime.  The high unemployment rate is also likely to persist and even increase some.

So as the Americans come to grip with this new but disapponting reality.  And that sentiment is closely reflected on President’s job approval rating.  Given the realities about the economy, the President’s job approval rating is likely to stagnate and even decline further.

That’s the business of leadership.  But the President should not forsake his ambitious agenda be it health care or immigration or budgetary reform.  Further, the President and his advisers have to examine if additional stimulus for the economy is necessary for a more expedited recovery.

Pollster.com has the best analysis of the direct and simple relationship between the President’s job approval rating and the state of the economy. Pollster.com link: Perceptions of President Obama and Economy

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey), Treaty on Global Warming, and India’s Position

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) was recently approved (narrowly) by the U.S. House of Representatives.  The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

There are several provisions of the bill — some are bold and others modest, some progressive and others status quoist.    With respect to Global Warming and Carbon emission reduction, the Act mandates, “Starting in 2012, ACES establishes annual tonnage limits on emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. Under these limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. To achieve these limits, ACES establishes a system of tradable permits called “emission allowances” modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. This market-based approach provides economic incentives for industry to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy.”

So, per ACES Act, the United States is using 2005 as the benchmark, and hoping to reduce the carbon emissions by about 17 percent in 2020.

However, the benchmark for the world is the Kyoto Protocol which established legally binding commitment for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons).  Per Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. was required to reduce the emissions by about 20 percent in 2012 using 1990 as the benchmark.  Since the U.S. has abandoned the Kyoto Protocol for the last 8 years or so, the goals set by the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce the emissions (produced in the U.S.) only about 4 percent in 2012.

Europe has been more aggressive in the reduction of carbon emissions.

The Greenhouse effect is the result of carbon and other emissions accumulated in the atmosphere for the last 100-150 years (the stock of emissions), and the current additions (flow) to those emissions.  The industrialized nations have contributed most to the stock of the carbon emissions.  The rate of current flow is the greatest from China and India, though the per capita emissions (from China and India) are still relatively modest.

While China and India are still at aspirational levels, the United States and other developed countries already have achieved a very respectable quality of life.  Further, the developed countries have far more financial, technological and innovation resources to be defray the short-term cost of efforts to reduce the emissions.

Therefore, it is not surprising that China and India are insisting on a global treaty that recognizes the differential contributions by the developed countries, and China and India:  the stock of carbon emissions already set in the atmosphere is large, and the current rate of emissions by China and India add only marginally to that stock.

Further, the world will have to establish a corpus global fund (similar to the IMF Fund)  to facilitate research, innovation and policy implementation.  The contributions to the fund should be based on some equitable formula.  The current level of funding and mechanism is limited.   What is needed is a predictable, sufficient and stable fund.

Therefore, given these facts India seeks an agreement that is comprehensive, balanced and equitable.

One provision of the ACEA that is not conducive to cooperative and coordinated action on this matter is the mandate to impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not make cuts as envisioned in the Act.  This provision ignores the fact that United States has abandoned the Kyoto Protocol for the last 8-9 years, and is punitive on countries like China and India. President Barack Obama, rightly, opposes the tariff mandate in the Act.

India has made a sincere and self-interested effort to reduce the carbon emissions.  Over the last five years, even as India has been growing at about 7-8 percent annually, the energy consumption has been increasing only at about 4 percent annually.  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has repeatedly assured the world that  India’s per capita emission will be no larger than the per capita emission from the developed countries.  So far, India has lived up to its commitments.

The U.S. Senate Hearings of Sonia Sotomayor for confirmation of the U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice appointment

The U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for the appointment of Justice Sotomayor as the Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court begins on Monday, July 13th.    While the hearings are likely to be energetic and vigorous, Justice Sotomayor will get confirmed.  Justice Sotomayor may even get about 60-65 votes in the U.S. Senate for approval.  The reasons for this are simple –

(1)  While Ricci v. DeStefano decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of  Sotomayor and a majority of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a minor setback, one adverse case and ruling cannot and does not constitute evidence for commentary on Sotomayor’s intellect or integrity. There is not likely to be much traction for an argument based on the Ricci case alone

(2)  Besides Ricci case, there is no salient example of a decision/ruling by Judge Sotomayor that is discordant from the views held by majoirty of Americans on major social or political or economic issues.

(3)  That’s simply the point:  Justice Sotomayor appears to be in the middle of the American consensus.  Of course, the middle and the consensus is dynamic: they move over time.  For example, the views of Justice Robert Bork clearly struck a discordant note from the mjoirty of Americans in the late 1980s.  However, while U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito hold views similar to Justice Robert Bork on large number of issues they (both Roberts and Alito) were confirmed easily because Justice Bork’s views have now become America’s middling opinion on large number of issues.

Recognition of the signatories of The American Declaration of Independence, and July 4th

The American Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.  Thirteen Colonies formed the Union.  Together, the thirteen colonies (through their representatives) declared that they were independent states and thus were no longer a part of the British Empire.

The Declaration was signed by 56 representatives.  Each one of those 56 individuals risked the wrath of British Empire.  Each one of them had sacrificed monumentally.

But, unfortunately, most of the 56 representatives died without any recognition.  Some died of war-injuries, some died in debt, some were harassed by the British Empire and were driven away from their homes.  Of course, a few such as Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, and Benjamin Franklin rose to highest offices in Government and are remembered by all of us.

Each one of the 56 representatives deserve our remembrance and gratitude.  We should celebrate the lives of each one of them.  Here is the complete list of the 56 representatives –

New Hampshire:  Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:  John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Once again, experience and empirics tell us that fame and recognition are quite often product of  circumstances and happen-stance, and not always reflection of deeds, merits and contributions.  Life is unpredictable in too many ways.

Happy July 4th!  With gratitude and appreciation to each one of the 56 representatives.

Why is Sarah Palin resigning as the Governor of Alaska?

While nobody knows why Sarah Palin is resigning (so abruptly,  and literally in the midst of her first term) as the Governor of Alaska, there are only two possibilities.  Both are quite credible.

One possibility is that Governor Palin sincerely feels that electoral politics is constraining, and she wants to contribute to society and polity not necessarily through elected office.   May be she is weary of electoral politics.  Does this rule her out for an elected office in the future? No, not at all.  Let us say she is engaged in speaking and writing, social service, and may be even participation in Republican party politics for the next 8-12 years.  Even then she would be only about 53-57  years old, and she could easily contest for the Presidency of the United States and/or Senatorial leadership from Alaska.    At that point, Palin would be considered very experienced and credentialed.

The second possibility is that Palin is very seriously considering seeking Republican party’s nomination as its Presidential candidate in 2012.  If that is the case, the burdens, duties and constraints of governorship  have been all removed with this one decision.  Trying to reach and campaign in Iowa and/or New Hampshire from Alaska is a physical challenge if not an impossibility.  Further, these are very difficult times to be a governor.  The revenues have shrunk.  So the cuts in the budget have to be so deep that they would make Solomon look bad.  Alternatively, the governor may have to raise taxes.  Raising taxes for a conservative candidate like Sarah Palin could be kiss of political death.  So why not break the shackles of governorship?

Is there any downside to resigning so abruptly?  A little bit.  Some political analysts are likely to call her a ‘quitter.’  But that is unlikely to have much traction.  In any case, if she was not going to contest for any elected office for the next 8-12 years, this will be faded memory.  The charge of a ‘quitter’ may be faded memory even by 2012.

So, while it is completely surprising, it is easy enough to argue that Sarah Palin’s decision to resign as the Governor of Alaska is not as rash or imprudent as it may appear at the first blush.

Iraq, and Withdrawal of American troops from the Cities

The American troops are being withdrawn from the Iraqi cities today.  This time table is consistent with the recommendations of the generals including  Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the American commander in Iraq.  There is all round confidence that this will work.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has embraced the decision.  Al-Maliki has called the U.S. withdrawal from cities as a “great victory” and declared June 30 National Sovereignty Day.

This is good news for Iraq, the United States and the world at large.

President Barack Obama, his cabinet (including Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Hillary Clinton), and the U.S. Military have to be commended for establishment of thoughtful timetable and implementation of that timetable.

However, we should also give credit President George Bush.  After all, it is only about five months since President Bush left office.  The fact that Iraq’s cities are secure enough to withdraw American troops suggests that the leadership of President Bush did play a role.  Even if the initial purpose and rationale for placing American troops in Iraq was completely misplaced, the subsequent management is equally important for the welfare of all.  And in this President Bush provided strong, if sometimes stubborn, leadership.  We have to acknowledge that President Bush’s actions did make Iraq more stable — stable enough for withdrawal within six months of his departure.

Why is Judge Sonia Sotomayor well received by the public?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor who has been nominated by President Barack Obama as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice (to replace Justive David Souter) is being well received by the public.  Most preference measurements suggest that Judge Sotomayor enjoys the approval of majority of Americans — the most recently ABC News-Washington Post poll showing that almost 62 percent of Americans the Judge.

Why is this so?  There are many tactical reasons such as President Obama’s deft handling of the nomination and the follow-through, and Republican party’s lack of cohesive leadership for this.  But most important reasons is a more fundamental (and structural) reason.

The country has moved on several issues.  For example, the acceptance of rights and liberties of gay men and women has enlarged substantially.  Abortion issue has become more muted and less vocal.  After focus on terror and national security issues, the public’s attention is now more on domestic legal issues particularly given the serious breakown of regulatory mechanism in Wall Street.

There is also a sense of populism against the excesses in every branch of American society (Wall Street, Polity, Hollywood).  In this environment, there is confidence in the President and in Barack Obama as an individual.  Finally, the election of the first non-white President, and his approving and moderate performance in the office has inspired a greater innate confidence and acceptance of non-whites as Supreme Court Justice.

The life and death of Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

Michael Jackson was one of the greatest artists of his generation, and of all times.  His contributions to the art will last forever.

Michael Jackson was eclectic, renaissant and inspirational.  Michael birthed a new form of music which was a creative synthesis of rhythm and blues, pop music, soul music, broad way theatrics, and extra-ordinary visual image through video footage.

‘Thriller’ epitomizes the best of Michael’s contributions: for ever, that work will remain an innovative and pioneering work of art.

Michael Jackson, along with Beatles and Elvis Presley, has transformed the manner of music.

Michael Jackson’s voice had that unique ethereal quality which he employed with all manner of falsetto effects to create an innovative synthesis of various streams of music.

Michael Jackson’s music transcended geographic boundaries, race, ethnicity, age and cultures.  He was the first post-racial public persona in the United States, and in this he preceded Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods and Barack Obama.  (See: Michael Jackson transcended all boundaries)

Sure, Michael Jackson had many foibles — some of them at times disconcerting. Michael Jackson’s personal life was tragic and not a story to be emulated.  but none of us should be remembered by our worst moments because then life would be completely hopeless.

President Barack Obama celebrated and mourned thus: “Will “go down in history as one of our greatest entertainers. I grew up on his music.”  Had “a tragic and in many ways sad personal life.”  Earlier, the President  (through his spokesperson, Robert Gibbs) summarized accurately, “Michael Jackson was a spectacular performer and a music icon. I think everybody remembers hearing his songs, watching him moonwalk on television during Motown’s 25th anniversary. But the president also said, look, he had aspects of his life that were sad and tragic. And his condolences went out to the Jackson family and to the fans that mourned his loss.”

Michael Jackson’s death reminds us all of the fragility of life and the mystery of death.  The suddenness of Michael’s death reminds us that we have to ‘live in the moment’ even as we learn from the past and aspire for the future.

There is no greater sorrow than losing one’s child (poets and  philosophers have written about this).  Our prayers and thoughts go to Michael’s mom and dad: their grief is unfathomable.

President Obama’s response to Iranian Turmoil

Some have criticized President Barack Obama for what they consider to be slow and measured response to the turmoil in Iran rising out of concerns of misdeeds in the elections.

But the critics miss a few points –

(1)  Measured response does not equate to lack of decisiveness.  President Obama is given to calibrated response.  For example, he did not hurl angry invectives against Hillary or Bill Clinton during the primaries or rail against the evil  A.I.G executives and bonuses.

(2)  Calibrated response is good when decisiveness is not compromised.  President Obama has certainly shown decisiveness (in foreign policy) when the situation has warranted: increase in the level of troops in Afghanistan, and handling of the piracy situation are two good ilustrations.

(3)  Even the most decisive President cannot do much with Iran right now because the alleged improprieties in the elections do not appear clear and compelling fraud.  Sure, there have been serious improprieties to deplore in the elections but it is a bit of nuanced argument and analysis.

(4)  It is true that President Obama could have been more vociferous about the misuse of the power of state in intimidating and suppressing protesters in Iran.  A more robust stance by the President of United States may create more political space for the protesters.

But the critics also miss an important element of human and institutional psyche: a robust stance from the United States would give Iranian authorities an easy excuse (‘foreign intervention’) for suppression.

Why Iranian elections are proving to be so difficult?

Iran just concluded its national elections.   President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared winner.  He, purportedly, won with a margin of 11 million votes over Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Mir Hussein Moussavi and notably, Ali Akar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and tens of thousands of Iranian citizens are challenging the election.  They claim that the elections were fraudulent, and the real victor was Mir Hussein Moussavi.  Loosely, this group is being called ‘reformists’ though the reform credentials of Heshemi Rafsanjani (whose Presidential tenure was uninspiring) and even Hussein Moussavi are less than impressive.

The so-called reformists are asking for a revote.  The demand has taken a life of its own.  The pent-up aspirations of the Iranian people are spilling over to the street.  Demonstrations are becoming more vocal.  Violence has erupted.  While the exact number is not known, at least about 20 Iranian civilians have been killed by Government’s police operations.  Neda Agha-Soltan’s tragic death has triggered the angst and imagination of the Iranian people.

In the meantime, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Iran’s supreme leader), the other arms of the Iranian Government and the Legislative body (the Iran Guardian Council) have rejected the demand for annulment of the elections.

The world does not know what to make of this.  And for good reason.  Here is why this is not likely to be the 1979 revolution but an outpouring of a disaffected citizenry –

(1)  First and foremost, while there have been some modestly serious irregularities in the elections there is no obviously visible evidence of systematic fraud.

The detections of fraud has required careful statistical analysis.  Among the most cited analysis is the one by Professor Walter Mebane.  He finds dubious deviations from expectations — all these deviations being in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  There are also analysis produced by Chatham House, and Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews.

Finally, there is admission by Iranian authorities that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpassed the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

But here is the crux of the issue: do all these irregularities add up to 11 million votes?  That’s the argument of Iranian authorities, and it is a very difficult to penetrate that argument because the data is limited.

(2) There is no clear unifying principle and/or aspiration that forms the foundation for current unrest.   The hopes and fears are as disparate as the crowds themselves — reformers, conservatives, clerics, students, middle class and poor.  There is no clear spiritual or political leader.

That’s why it has been difficult to size up the current turmoil in Iran.  President Barack Obama’s calibrated response has been criticized but given the absence of evident and outrageous fraud it was difficult to respond sharply.  President Obama could respond more agressively to killing of the civilians and other acts of intimidation by the government forces, and he just done that.