November’s US midterm elections were a sharp rebuke to the vast expansion of government spending, deficits and debt in the US. Elected in the midst of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, US President Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership of US Congress seemed surprised when the public rejected their stimulus, healthcare reform and energy policies by large margins.
Of course, some of the huge increase in expenditure and debt has been the result of the recession and of the defense and other spending legacies of former US President George W. Bush. However, instead of finding security and salvation from recession in a new era of dependence on government, most voters were repelled by such policies’ apparent failure to do much to improve the economy. Thus, the election results should not be viewed primarily as an endorsement of the Republicans, but as a rebuke to the Democrats’ agenda, which voters believed was out of touch with their concerns, interests and values.
The Republicans took control of the US House of Representatives, netting more than 60 seats — the most in more than 70 years — and six Senate seats. They gained in every part of the country, but especially in the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. They also won many governorships and took over many state legislatures; both will play a vital role in redrawing Congressional and legislative districts in the reapportionment next year following this year’s census.
With divided government, many expect partisan gridlock on major legislation. However, there is reason to be hopeful: The US economy, labor market and stock market have historically fared a bit better in years of divided government.
Moreover, the changed Congressional landscape will be better for trade-related legislation. The Republicans’ protectionist wing is smaller than the Democrats’, which may eventually help free-trade agreements between the US and countries such as South Korea and Colombia, as well as a revival of the moribund Doha round of global trade-liberalization talks.
Likewise, economic (but not other) tensions between China and the US should be a little easier to manage. “Global rebalancing” requires surplus countries, such as China, to boost consumption, while deficit countries, such as the US, save more (which requires sharply lower budget deficits and increased private saving). It will get a more sympathetic hearing from the new Congress than from Obama, who was soundly rebuked at the G20 summit for demanding more deficit-financed spending.
The new Congress will not support Obama’s additional stimulus plans, such as a national infrastructure bank. Republicans will want to reform US federal infrastructure spending — which is already substantial — rather than add to it. They are committed to rolling back spending to 2008 levels. In short, they want to ensure that the spending explosion is indeed temporary.
However, Obama’s veto power is a big obstacle to reversing his policies. While Republicans will be able to make some inroads on reducing spending and preventing tax hikes, making good on their vow to “repeal and replace” Obama’s signature healthcare reform would require a Republican to be elected as president in 2012.
A showdown also looms over tax policy. Obama’s temporary first-year expensing proposal for capital purchases (a good idea as part of a permanent corporate-tax overhaul) could get folded into broader tax legislation. However, the center of attention will be the expiring Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which reduced marginal tax rates on income, dividends and capital gains.
Obama wants to let the cuts expire at the end of this year, but only for those with incomes more than US$250,000. Republicans will mount substantial pressure to extend the tax cuts for all, as well as to prevent expansion of the so-called alternative minimum tax (which applies if it is larger than the regular tax) from hitting millions more taxpayers. Indeed, the lower marginal rate ought to be made permanent, but accompanied by spending control, with broader tax reform to come later.
Another important feature of the new Congress will be heightened polarization. The center of gravity of the remaining Democrats has moved to the left,because the vast majority of defeated Democrats were moderates from swing districts. Likewise, the Republicans elected several conservative senators and a sizable number of more conservative House members.
This will make compromise even more difficult, as will partisan positioning in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. Meanwhile, most political analysts do not expect Obama to make as large a move to the political center as former US President Bill Clinton did when the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 mid-term elections. Clinton then worked with Republicans to balance the budget and reform welfare, easily winning re-election.
However, Obama starts much further left than Clinton, making a move to the middle a longer trek if he decides to embark on it. That means that a period of legislative stalemate looms over many of the big issues. We are likely to see some spending consolidation, but less than in the UK and other European countries. Temporary extension of most or all of the Bush-era tax cuts is also likely, and trade liberalization may be an area where Obama and Congress can agree.
Inaction in other areas will be bad news for many. However, the US’ lurch toward a European-style social-welfare state in Obama’s first two years appears to have been halted, if not permanently ended or reversed, and that is good news for the US — and for the global economy.
Michael Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was Council of Economic Advisors chairman for former US president George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry