Focusing in on Internal Policy Debates

Thirty states now operate nuclear power plants, and some fifty more states have requested assistance from the IAEA in starting their own programs. Various forecasts predict a new “nuclear renaissance” driven by Asian economic development and concerns about climate change. A recent MIT study estimates that over one thousand reactors could be operational by mid-century, compared to the 366 reactors currently in service. At the same time, the nonproliferation regime faces a crisis of confidence, as Iranian ambitions and North Korean weapons have undermined the regime’s ability to prevent energy programs from becoming weapons stockpiles. Some nuclear experts warn of a nuclear tipping point that will trigger a cascade of new nuclear states.

Predictions of nuclear power growth were only this bullish and predictions for proliferation were only this dire as recently as the Carter administration. Carter’s nonproliferation policies have received scant scholarly attention since the early 1980s, owing in large part to a dearth of declassified documents. Only as recently as 2008 has the declassification process warranted a new historical look at Carter’s policy process.

My research focused on how the Carter administration’s policymakers grappled with the combined proliferation of energy and weapons technologies by focusing on two key policy reviews, first in 1977 and later in 1980. My research found that the reviews reveal a major split among policymakers about the direction of nonproliferation policy. After reviewing the documentary record, it became clear that the Carter administration’s policymakers were not only divided over what policies would be most tactically effective, but also over a set of core strategic questions about the nature of nuclear proliferation in the wake of India’s peaceful nuclear explosion in 1974.

H. Monsky

The Presidency and the Decline of Mass Movements

By the end of last semester I was completely burnt out. Having spent a large portion of the semester working on my thesis which was not at all related to the Presidency or American politics, it was initially very difficult to switch mindsets. Nonetheless, I hurriedly prepared a draft for my campus advisor and found myself confronting all the problems I should have dealt with sooner. These problems inspired me to completely scrap the 30 page draft I initially submitted to both advisors and start over…then start over again after that!

To a certain extent my first paper was based off of a dubious assumption. The assumption was that I could, in some way, attempt to track or attribute a certain level of ideological consistency to a group that, by its nature, decries the sort of institutionalization I was hoping to track. Although I thought I could get around that problem by separating members of the Tea Party in Congress, the Tea Party Organizations and the voting population, I could not.

I found myself reduced to delving into the history of the movement and outlining policy positions without delving into the sort of analysis I had wanted to do.

My solution to this problem was to reframe my question. Rather than focusing on the effect of the Tea Party on America foreign policy I would focus on the theory behind oppositional movements and use the Tea Party as a case study. Naturally, the issue here proved to be that the Tea Party does not focus on foreign affairs. While prominent self-identified Tea Partiers may choose to articulate positions, they are not representative of the “spirit of the movement” because foreign policy is simply not the primary concern.

In dealing with this dilemma, however, I may have found the answer to my problems.  In some ways the problems I have found are actually the answers to all my questions. The paper is now significantly more political. It looks at the role of the Presidency in contributing to the decline of political movements.

The benefit of looking at the decline of Congressional political movements is that I am able to use the cases I had initially wanted to use (Tea Party, Isolationist movement) and study foreign policy.

I look forward to seeing everyone again and updating you on how I managed to salvage my paper!

Analyzing the effects of stock market performance on congressional election performance

The answer to the question of whether or not there is a so-called “Wall Street effect” of equity market performance on the electoral chances of incumbent House candidates has substantively important repercussions on various levels. Existing research studies have identified statistically significant effects of macroeconomic indicators like unemployment, real GDP growth, and inflation on electoral incumbency rates. In particular, these models reveal a strong positive effect between out-party incumbency and recessionary indicators. What these models fail to take into account, I hypothesize, is that voters may use recent stock market performance as a proxy measure for current economic health, on average, even after controlling for state- and national-level macroeconomic and political conditions. If true, this could alter their voting behavior based on how well or poorly the stock market did during various periods during the current election cycle.

The reason this question is important is that if we assume that incumbents are self-interested with respect to their own reelections, being able to identify effects resulting from stock market performance could lead to perverse incentives by lawmakers to affect securities markets. Out-party members might be encouraged to promote policies that weaken markets at the expense of shareholders in order to damage in-party member electoral changes. Conversely, policies that favor short-term market gains such as preferential tax treatments for securities transactions or relaxed regulatory structures might be sought by in-party members to bolster their reelection changes. This could create bubbles and damage the structural long-term health of markets, which could have negative effects even beyond shareholders. In sum, this effect, if it exists, could institutionalize rent-seeking behavior for a small group of powerful politicians instead of the pursuit of policies beneficial to stockholders, companies, and voters.

There is evidence of such behaviors; political economists have asserted that macroeconomic policy behavior routinely changes in election years. From a political strategy perspective, it stands to reason that campaign advisors both on Capitol Hill and in the White House would want to know how to frame the debate with respect to markets in election years—if these effects are shown to exist, future congresses and presidents might reassess their own election tactics in light of available information.

The results of my econometric models have identified statistically significant effects of market performance on incumbent vote share. Specifically, positive shorter-term market performance appears to be beneficial to incumbent House candidates, whereas the effects of longer-term performance depend on whether the incumbent candidate is a Democrat or a Republican. I think a case can be made that as voters pay more attention in the months leading up to an election, at least some part of stock market performance creeps into their voting decisions in aggregate and incumbents appear to benefit from short-term positive market gains. Longer-term market performance effects seem to reinforce the idea that many voters buy the commonly held idea that Republicans are more equipped to handle the economy and financial markets than are Democrats. What is less clear is whether voters are using stock market performance as a proxy for current or predicted economic health or for some other combination of reasons. Without respondent-level data, it may be impossible to identify and isolate voter motivations in that way.

It is probably not likely that legislators will change any of their policy behaviors based on these results—effects of markets on voter preferences is relatively uncharted territory. As this research area develops, it will be interesting to see is whether policies affecting the securities markets change during election years and in what ways.

I look forward to presenting my data and results at the conference.

Executive Orders research

My paper originally started with the idea of examining executive orders that had been overturned in the court system and seeking to find some sort of pattern. I was also hoping that the courts would have created through their decisions, a system of boundaries for presidents to follow. However, as I started reading many of the court decisions, I found that several patterns do emerge. However, due to the fact that since 1789, Presidents have issued over 13,562 executive orders and very few have been challenged or examined by the judiciary. Glendon Schubert, in Presidency in the Courts, compiles a list that maintains that only 38 Presidential Orders, which includes Proclamations and regulations issued by Executive Branch Agencies, have been finally determined to be unconstitutional from 1804-1956. William Howell, in Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, can only find 83 instances of Executive Orders being challenged in Federal Court from 1943 to 1997 with only 14 being declared unconstitutional. The inherent difficulty I encountered was that that the subject of Executive orders is very broad and the cases I could examine were not very numerous.

However, I was able to hone my research into early and modern executive orders. First, I examined the 52 cases that Schubert and Howell listed in their books. I also read them chronologically, which assisted me into creating a “table” that tabulated the reasons for the unconstitutional decision. My research showed me that for the early executive orders, from Adams to before Lincoln, presidents simply took Congressional directives and expanded their authority unconstitutionally. For example, in the Supreme Court case Little v. Barreme, Congress had enacted an embargo in which the President was given the power to instruct the Navy to stop any American ships suspected to be en route to, and only, to a French port. Under this auspice, President Adams issued an executive order commanding the Navy to capture ships travelling both to and from any French port. Adams simply defended his actions by declaring that he was of the mindset that his order is what Congress intended and he simply made the embargo more effective. I found that Jefferson, Monroe and Quincy Adams had similar orders overturned.

On the subject of later executive orders, I found that a great deal of these orders related to the military or to specific executive department agencies. In these situations, the vast majority of challenges are dismissed. The modern courts are reluctant to challenge some of these orders because they give great deference to the president’s role of Commander in Chief and chief executive officer. For example, over 15 challenges to President Truman’s Executive Order 9981, which abolished segregation in the Armed Forces, were dismissed because courts upheld his authority to legislate over the armed forces as the Commander in Chief.

I was not expecting the entire nature of Executive Orders to change, from directives to military focused orders, but it does seem to lend well to searching for a pattern.

Does Social Media Have Limits?

Since my time discussing my topic at the Conference in November I have done a great deal of research analyzing the effectiveness of Social Media in our current society and throughout politics.  It goes without question that there has been a major shift in the way that campaigning has been handled and at this current time in our history, Social Media is the main catalyst for such methods of campaigning.

The problem that I faced throughout my research was deciphering whether or not Social Media can be coupled with effective governance at both a legislative and executive level.  It is evident that when it comes to campaigning that the ability to interact with constituents through social media outlets is an easier task than when governing.  The question that I continued to ponder throughout my study was whether or not Social Media is too instantaneous for the traditional views of our Government System?

With Social Media it is very difficult to sift through the uncivil discourse that is very common on networking sites to get to substantive information.  With such aggregate inputs, it is extremely difficult for constituents to truly have their voices heard and taken seriously.  I have yet to see a case where there is major deliberation over a tweet or blog post.  Maybe it will come soon.  If our government wants to continue to throw around the notion that we are a representative democracy through and through, it will be necessary to include Social Media in our realm of governance.

This topic is still very exciting and each week it seems as if there is something that strengthens or weakens arguments that I have made in my research project.  As I continue to share my thoughts on various Social Media sites I understand that I am tweeting and blogging my way through history.

Newt Gingrich, The Futuristic Historian

As I delved further into researching the Congressional Space Caucus of the 1980s, I found myself reading more and more about the early Congressional career of Newt Gingrich. This was to be expected as he was the primary founder of the caucus, yet I did not anticipate how relevant Gingrich’s historical interest in space would be during the current GOP Presidential race. I was intrigued at how consistent Gingrich remained over the last three decades in terms of calling for a big, bold, potentially impossible United States space program. His 1984 neo-Conservative manifesto of sorts entitled Window of Opportunity was an essential source in my understanding of his vision when forming the Space Caucus in November 1981. In the book, he argues that if the country had pursued space in the rigorous and progressive way that it should have following the conclusion of the Apollo program, we could have boasted a force of “eight to twelve space shuttles, two manned space stations, and a permanently operating lunar base.” Goals such as these seemed as outrageous in 1984 as they do today, yet Gingrich has remained dedicated to this vision. While speaking to supporters in Florida, he laid out his plan for a permanent lunar colony that would be constructed before the end of his first term as President.

I found that these “big ideas” were what the Space Caucus was built upon. Gingrich, fellow co-chair Daniel Akaka, and the other early Caucus members were convinced that in order to be a successful nation, we needed to move into space more rapidly and with more innovation than we had in the 1970s. Their goal was to inform members of Congress about the seemingly infinite possibilities that space as a frontier had to offer. This consciousness-raising effort was accomplished through working relationships with the House Science and Technology Committee as well as NASA. The Caucus became an important presence in the House of Representatives and they played an essential role in not only legislative landmarks in facilitating commercial space launches, but also the creation of what is today the International Space Station.

Only Obama Could Go To Afghanistan

The interesting thing about my paper is that the topic took a mind of its own and sort of unfolded itself as I was writing it. Originally, my plan was to write about misconceptions about the Eisenhower administration and his warning against the unwarranted influence of the “military-industrial complex” (the famous term he coined in his farewell address to the nation in January 1961. Then when it dawned on me, I realized that no other President in our history than a five-star general and former Supreme Allied Commander was better fit to warn the nation about the possible influence of the MIC.

What other presidents have used their reputation as one type of statesman to actually legitimize taking an opposing position? Later in the Cold War, Richard Nixon was credited with using this same strategy in achieving detente. A reporter commented, “Only Nixon Could Go to China,” because of his virulent anti-communist background. In this same vain, perhaps only Eisenhower could warn against the MIC.

In my studies of the decision-making processes of the Obama administration concerning actions in Afghanistanm we have seen a continuation – and then an expansion – of aggression from the Bush to Obama administrations. The Nobel Peace Prize winning President was actually able to leverage his reputation as an anti-war president to achieve tremendous gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan by expanding the scope of drone activity and U.S. Special Forces ground operations into Pakistan which led to the elimination of Osama bin Laden.

So we have three presidents, all using similar tactics. Only Ike could warn against a military-industrial complex, only Nixon could go to China, and only Obama could go to Afghanistan.

Healthcare Reform and Small Businesses

I thought I submitted this last Monday to CSPC; however, I made the mistake of submitting it to my recruiting blog for A&M. But, since healthcare reform is such an exciting topic, I thought I would share the thrill on the correct blog.

My paper originally started out with the intention of analyzing healthcare reforms impact on all sizes of businesses, evaluating the overall effect this act would have on the economy, markets, and unemployment as a whole. However, as I began to navigate the 906 page document, I began to focus more on small businesses and the new regulations and requirements that directly impacted this sector. After several days of research, I realized that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is by far one of the most convoluted documents known to mankind, but that is beside the point.

My research basically honed into two aspects of the law- the small business health options program (SHOP) and the minimum loss ratio. For a brief overview, SHOP sets up exchanges that small businesses (less than 100 e’ees) can pool together and, theoretically, receive lower rates since there is more participation in a health plan. Like I said, this requires participation in the plan. Throughout my research, I found several scenarios, including the Health Insurance Plan of California (HIPC) and the Commonwealth Care in Massachusetts, that exhibited the failure of cost containment  due to a lack of incentive for participation of businesses and a high enough penalty for non-participation. With even higher rates due to a lack of participation, tax credits for people who are deemed by the government to need “assistance”, and a penalty for non-participation, many experts in healthcare brokerages, companies, and research centers that I have interviewed are speculating anywhere from 15%-35% of small businesses will be forced to close their doors or be acquired by other firms. Since 7 out of 10 e’ees work for small businesses, this percentage is terrifying.

The other area (and one that I was most excited about) addressed the minimum loss ratio. In overview, this percentage mandates the amount of premiums the firm is required to spend on claims. This heavily affects the small business brokerages that receive commission from the insurance companies. While there are a slew of calculations that you can get into with this, in essence, when insurance companies are forced to spend more on claims, they must reduce costs in other areas, particularly general and administrative expenses. Sadly, the primary component of this budget line-item is commissions paid to brokerages. However, one of the greatest moments for me throughout this research was being able to apply my technical knowledge to forecast the financial statements of Aetna, Inc. to discover why commissions have been decreasing all across the industry. It was enlightening and refreshing to calculate and observe the mechanics behind corporate management’s decisions.

While the healthcare industry needs a great amount of reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides reform that comes at the expense of small businesses across America. If healthcare reform suffers the same fate as many other implementations throughout history, a significant sector of employment may cease to exist in the United States.

Previous Post

It’s been several months since I lasted posted! And unsurprisingly the deficit debate is still raging in Washington D.C., especially with the release of the new Ryan Plan. I thought I would take the time to present some of the data I collected during the course of my research.

I attempted to compile a list of all laws from 1979 to 2011 that resulted in a notable amount of legislative savings or deficit reduction. Some of the laws were not primarily motivated for the sake of deficit reduction alone, i.e. the large Reagan domestic spending cuts that occurred in 1981, nonetheless these laws did contribute to the eventual balancing of the budget that occurred in the late 90’s. The laws highlighted in red are generally considered the most significant deficit reduction measures.

It is interesting to note that at least in terms of frequency, the 1980’s were a real high point in deficit reduction efforts. After the passage of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act/Omnibus Reconciliation Act under the first President Bush and the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act under President Clinton, both of which were politically costly, the frequency dropped off sharply. Only a short part of this drop off can be explained by the four year long surplus from 1997 to 2000.

In the beginning of the 1980’s support for balanced deficit reduction was actually quite high among both parties, especially among Senate Republicans such as Bob Dole and Pete Domenici. Even though the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act was comprised mostly of tax hikes, it received widespread Republican support. Ironically Democrats were incredibly wary of the law, after being portrayed as tax and spend liberals in years prior. In a procedural oddity, House Democrats avoided the first vote and sent the Senate bill directly to conference. According to the CQ Almanac for 1982 the RNC committed $400,000 on political advertising to convince voters to call their Congressmen in support of the tax hike. President Reagan even issued letters to House Democrats worried about being painted as “tax and spend liberals,” thanking them for their support.

Budget Politics

My analysis of presidential attention to domestic drug control utilizes a historical framework; as such, I thought it would be useful in my consideration of Obama’s drug control budget to provide a comparison to previous administrations’ budgets, starting with the Nixon era. This easy gathering of data, I thought, would be one of the simpler aspects of my comparison between different presidents and their attention to the drug issue. However, it turned out to be one of the most difficult parts of my project, and made me think more largely about the politics of creating federal spending budgets, in terms of what is counted (and not counted) in certain areas.

What comprises the drug budget itself is highly politicized. Because the federal drug control budget is actually a compilation of drug control spending across federal agencies, how the budget is constructed can vary over time and can be adjusted with certain political objectives in mind. In 2004 for example, under the Bush administration, the ONDCP stopped counting several major federal drug control agencies in its budget. The 2006 reauthorization of the ONDCP ordered the organization to again include these agencies in its accounting (“Building the Capacity to Address the Nation’s Drug Problems” 2008, v). Although the Obama Administration has made some strides in readjusting these numbers in its proposed 2012 budget, increasing the total funds counted under federal drug control spending by 10 billion dollars, the 2012 budget projections still do not include all of the drug control agencies that existed in the budget until 2004. When considering these other agencies, only 26 percent of drug control funding went towards demand reduction efforts (compared to the current 40.7%), a vast difference that changes the budget’s emphasis significantly.  Comparing different Presidential drug budgets consequently becomes a herculean task, as the very nature of how the budget is constructed has changed over time to suit various political needs.

This snag in my research made me think more largely about how we can often assume numbers to be infallible; however, with any piece of data there is an agenda that must be taken into account in one’s analysis.