Successful political candidates try to implement the proposals on which they ran. US President Barack Obama and the Democrats, controlling the US House of Representatives and (a filibuster-proof) US Senate, had the power to do virtually anything they wanted in 2009 — and so they did.
Obama and his congressional allies enacted an US$800 billion “stimulus” bill that was loaded with programs geared to key Democratic constituencies, such as environmentalists and public employees; adopted a sweeping and highly unpopular healthcare reform (whose constitutionality will be determined by the US Supreme Court this year); imposed vast new regulations on wide swaths of the economy; embraced an industrial policy that selects certain companies for special treatment; engaged in borrowing and spending at levels exceeded only in World War II; and centralized power in Washington (and, within the federal government, in the executive branch and -regulatory agencies).
The last election that was followed by such a sweeping change in policy direction occurred in 1980, when then-US president Ronald Reagan overhauled taxes, spending and regulation, and supported the US Federal Reserve’s course of disinflation.
While the 1988, 1992 and 2000 elections were also quite consequential, the policy shifts were not nearly as large as in 1980 and 2008.
The country rebelled against Obama and the Democrats’ lurch to the left with historic Congressional election victories for Republicans in 2010.
Since then, many Republicans have been deeply disappointed that the House of Representatives has been unable to roll back much of Obama’s agenda. However, the US political system is set up to make it much harder to accomplish something than to block it. It is not easy to do a lot while controlling only one-half of one-third of the federal government.
This year’s presidential election is shaping up as a -referendum on Obama’s policies and performance. The economy is improving slowly, but it remains in bad shape, with high unemployment and millions having left the labor force. Republicans are expected to retain control of the House and regain a majority in the Senate.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner to challenge Obama in November, and the party’s other leading candidates, including former US House speaker Newt Gingrich, want less spending, major reforms of government programs, lower taxes, trade expansion and less and more-targeted regulation than does Obama.
Romney, for example, has a detailed 59-point economic program, including a cap on federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, which would require reductions similar to those in the 1980s and 1990s. Gingrich and the other Republicans have an even more aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and reducing the size and scope of government. The eventual -nominee would be wise to incorporate his opponents’ best ideas and top people into his campaign.
A Republican presidential victory, together with Republican control of the House and Senate, would likely lead to substantial reduction, repeal and replacement of many Obama initiatives, attempts to reform taxes and entitlements, and measures to impose greater fiscal discipline.
High on Romney’s agenda is a reduction of the corporate-tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s average level (the other Republican candidates would lower it still more), which would redress a major competitive disadvantage for US multinational companies’ global business.
A Republican victory would also most likely lead to a major push to open up many more energy-exploration opportunities within the US, which Obama has stymied. Romney has promised tougher negotiations on trade and currency with China, but is generally far more likely to push new trade agreements than the labor-supported Obama administration. If, however, Democrats retain control of the Senate, this would be far more difficult to accomplish. A Republican president would also make appointments to many key policymaking positions, from the US Federal Reserve and the US Department of the Treasury to reegulatory agencies.
If Obama is re-elected, and Republicans control the House and Senate, his legislative agenda would essentially be a dead letter, and he would spend the next two years, at least, negotiating its reform and rollback. In this scenario, the policy center of gravity in the Republican Party would shift to House Speaker John Boehner, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other key Representatives, including David Camp, Kevin Brady and Kevin McCarthy, along with several senators.
In that case, Obama would be wise to move to the center (as former US president Bill Clinton did after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994) and work with congressional Republicans to shape sensible tax and entitlement reforms. However, that seems unlikely: Since the Democrats’ massive defeat in 2010, Obama has moved even further to the left, embracing a more populist agenda.
Regardless of the outcome of this year’s presidential and congressional elections, various Republican state governors are likely to gain a higher national profile. All of them — including Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bob McDonnell of Virginia and former Florida governor Jeb Bush — declined to seek the Republican presidential nomination, but would be on the short list for 2016 should Obama win in November.
Former US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously described the states as “laboratories.” They should be allowed to experiment and learn from each other which policies work. For example, Clinton and the Republican Congress based landmark 1996 welfare reform on policies originated by then-Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson and successfully emulated by then-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, both reformist Republicans. The current cohort of Republican governors offers similarly innovative state-level solutions — for example, on spending, debt, and unfunded pension and health liabilities — as models for the country.
Until November, divided government and contentious campaigning will most likely prevent significant policy moves. However, following the election, taxes and spending, trade policy, federalism, regulation and defense will take a different course — how different depends on who wins — with important implications for the US’ fiscal position, external balance and much else, including its relations with the rest of the world.
Michael Boskin, currently professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of former US president George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers