By Bryan Jones, UW professor of political science

Many (including me) have marveled at the support Obama draws from professed liberals, given his more conservative domestic policies in comparison to any of the other Democratic contenders, even those who have withdrawn.

One hypothesis is that they are generally better off and don’t feel the rising inequality that stalks America today. Another is that they applaud his staunch anti-Iraq record, but his stated position is more conservative than either Edwards or Richardson. Or perhaps they are not supporting on the issues.

In any case, Obama’s message of "one America" contrasts strongly with Edward’s "two Americas." It is of course possible that Obama is professing this notion for electoral reasons, but then that would make him a politician, wouldn’t it?

Katherine Sebelius, the governor of Kansas who just endorsed Obama, gave the Democrats' response to the State of the Union speech on Monday. Low key for sure, but far more confrontational in content than Obama, yet not in tone. While Obama touts the "one America'" Sebelius talked of a "new American majority"—clearly a progressive one, but one not based in the more confrontational rhetoric of Edwards.

Obama might study that speech in detail for a somewhat new direction in what I find a tired old reformist pitch in American politics.

Obama links his rhetoric to JFK, but I think that is the wrong link. The most successful insurgent campaign in the Democratic party in modern times was not John in 1960 (he was pure establishment) but Bobby in 1968. He excited the young, spoke eloquently of racial injustice, yet was enormously popular with working-class Americans. “Clean Gene” McCarthy was the classic reformer, but Bobby had working class appeal. Are there lessons for Barak here?

By Matt A. Barreto, UW assistant professor of political science
Gary Segura, UW professor of political science

An increasingly important narrative in the Democratic primary campaign has focused on the heavy preference for Hillary Clinton among Hispanics. This preference, the story goes, reflects a deep-seated and important social and political tension between Latinos and African-Americans. It's evidenced not just in Latino support for the Clinton candidacy but in a generalized aversion to African-American politicians among Latinos across the political landscape.

This narrative has been helped along by Clinton’s Hispanic pollster, echoed by progressive black authors angered by the increasingly racialized tone of the Democratic contest, and embraced whole-heartedly by conservative pundits in gleeful editorials commenting at length about a fractured Democratic coalition and new prospects for the GOP in November.

From a political science perspective, the principal problem with the central elements of this narrative is that there is little or no evidence for any of it. It is incorrect to equate Latino support for Hillary Clinton in 2008 with anti-Obama or anti-black voting patterns. In multiple national surveys in which we have participated, and in our own polling among Latinos in Nevada and California, we find that the Clinton advantage is driven primarily by her eight years as first lady and seven years as Senator from New York.

By contrast, in April of last year, a survey of 1,000 Latino voters nationwide found that 35% said they had no opinion of Senator Barack Obama in contrast to 8 percent of those asked their opinion of Clinton. So while Obama has become well known in a relatively short time among political observers, he did not rise to national prominence among Latinos until this campaign.

This name-recognition advantage for Clinton has been enhanced by a strong and aggressive advertising and outreach effort by her campaign and a string of high-profile endorsements. She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads.

In contrast, the Obama campaign’s outreach to Hispanics has been anemic and particularly ineffective. Even Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a prominent Latino supporter of Obama, has criticized him for failing to reach Latinos. In short, there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton enjoys a large advantage among Latino voters, none of which has anything to do with racism.

The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African-American candidates is wrong on its face, a point one of us made on CNN immediately after the Congressional Black Caucus Debate. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances. Harold Washington, David Dinkins, Wellington Webb, and Ron Kirk were all elected as mayors of major American cities with Latino vote shares from 70 to 80 percent. In the U.S. Congress, eight African American members of the U.S. House represent districts with more than 25% Latino population, including Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, whose districts are actually majority-Latino.

Even Obama himself has a strong record of Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for First Congressional district in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American ones. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama, or black candidates are clearly false.

This is not to say there aren’t moments of political rivalry between African-Americans and Latinos. They have much in common, including educational disparities and economic disadvantages. Though those commonalities should often result in political coalition, there will inevitably be moments, circumstances, and candidacies that pull the groups in different directions. This is the very definition of democracy and not at all surprising. The question is whether there is anything fundamentally preventing coalition of these two groups behind the eventual Democratic nominee. There is not.

In 1973, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he lost among Latinos, and the punditry then, as now, speculated that Latinos would not vote for a black candidate. But Bradley’s political skills and the inherent shared interests of Latino voters and the Bradley coalition reversed this trend. By 1982, when Bradley ran for governor of California, he won an estimated 70-80% of the Latino vote.

The election of 2008 looks to be a good year for Democrats among Latinos. The failure of immigration reform and the nativist grandstanding of the GOP and its primary candidates, including the once-moderate John McCain, seem certain to drive the Democratic share of the Latino vote back towards 70%. The wealth of empirical research, not speculation, suggests this will be true whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Dr. Matt A. Barreto and Dr. Gary M. Segura are professors of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. They are leading experts on Latino public opinion and voting patterns and have twice published their research in the American Political Science Review, the leading academic journal in political science.

by Walter Williams, UW emeritus professor of public affairs

However grim John Edwards’ chances may be in the race for the presidency, his message must be heard. As president or as a latter day Al Gore, Edwards must not stop shouting, “Corporate greed and political calculation have taken over our government and sold out the middle class.”

Edwards faces a Washington establishment that fears real change to the status quo. A Washington Post reporter wrote before the Iowa caucus that, “Edwards continued to veer closer into alarmist territory, warning of ‘the destruction of the middle class’ and 'the iron-fisted grip that corporations have on American democracy.'”

Is Edwards’ message alarmist? No, he’s on the mark. In our analysis of George W. Bush’s economic policies, The Politics of Bad Ideas, political scientist Bryan Jones and I found that the middle class is in dire straits, that a tiny super-rich elite reap most of the income gains, and corporate America controls the Washington government.

THE MIDDLE CLASS. Census data on income in 2006 (the latest available) showed that real median family income for working-aged households fell $1,336 from the 2001 level. The decline in 2001-2005 is by far the longest string of yearly decreases in the real median family income of working-aged families in the postwar era. Commerce Department data indicate that between 2001 and 2007, a smaller share of gains in income went to workers and a larger share to corporate profits than in any postwar economic recovery.

On average, the entire middle class experienced limited income gains and kept up its living standard by zero saving and massive borrowing. The middle class is hurting.

THE SUPER-RICH. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that in 2006, the 0.3 percent of families (3 in a thousand) receiving a yearly income of at least $1 million on average got $118,000 from George W. Bush’s tax cuts. That’s nearly 160 times more in tax benefits than the middle fifth of families that averaged $740 in benefits.

The New York Times’ David Cay Johnson wrote that 28 percent of the investment tax cut savings went to just 11,433 of the 134 million taxpayers, those who made $10 million or more [that year], saving them almost $1.9 million each….The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved $318 on average.

GOVERNMENT CONTROL. The immense disparities just discussed that enriched the relatively small number of families with at least a million dollars in yearly income at the expense of the rest of the American population came about solely because of the Bush tax cuts. Such largesse from the Bush tax cuts that funneled benefits to a super-rich elite is a perfect example of control over the government by the rich and powerful.

An excellent case in point is the House of Representatives’ effort to offset the cost of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), so that it would not hit an added 25 million mainly middle- class households in 2007.

The House chose to offset the lost revenue from the AMT fix by removing certain tax advantages for investment fund advisors and hedge fund managers, some of whom earn over $1 billion a year.

Washington Post reporter Jeffery Birnbaum described what happened: ”Dozens of lobbyists were hired to pressure lawmakers, and campaign donations were stepped up, especially from Wall Street executives.” Their 2007 campaign contributions in nine months exceeded the total for the previous two years. Hiring registered lobbyists cost $8 million in the first half of 2007, over twice as much as all of 2006.

Wall Street wealth won. Members of Congress were bought. A handful of super-rich people, who are big campaign contributors, escaped a hefty tax increase. The cost of the AMT fix was paid for by borrowing so future generations will bear the costs.

No wonder the number of Washington lobbyists has increased threefold since 1996 to 36,000. That’s over 60 lobbyists per Congress member.

The greater prosperity and economic equality of the early postwar era that made the American Dream realistic to a broad middle class has vanished. John Edward’s notion of two nations has come to pass. Plutocracy—government by the wealthy—is the order of the day in 21^st century Washington.

Others including the author have warned of the dangers of plutocratic governance. So too have people in the case global warming, without much impact until Al Gore brought his credibility to the cause.

It is a daunting a task to awaken the American people to corporations’ iron-fisted grip on democracy and the likely destruction of the middle class. John Edwards’ credibility and anger plus his honed-toughness as a trial lawyer make him the ideal choice, whether he is president or not, to stay in the bully pulpit and sound the warning.

By Bryan Jones, UW professor of political science

A few days ago, Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, announced bonuses for its top executives. During the year, the management team had managed to lose almost $2 billion and engineered a stock price drop that cost shareholders two-thirds of the value of the company. The bonuses were substantially less than the year before, but bonuses are bonuses—supposedly pay for exceptional work.

This happens all the time. There is a safety net for the paid managers of America’s companies—they benefit no matter how poorly they perform. Conservative economists are fond of saying that if you reward bad behavior, you’ll get more of it. So in effect, today’s crony capitalism in America is building in the guarantee that we will get more poor-quality capitalism.

I am really not sure why the issue of gross inequality has not come to the fore in the presidential campaign. All the Republican candidates save Huckabee think things are hunky-dory. Obama wants to avoid such talk because he fears making anyone mad, especially the independents and Republicans he courts. Hillary raises money from them. Only Edwards, who has found little traction, is courageous enough to talk about the class warfare that the rich have mounted against the rest of us.

By Bryan Jones, UW professor of political science

The Congressional Budget Office has just released its estimate of the Fiscal 2008 federal budget deficit—about $220 billion dollars. In August, the CBO estimated $155 billion, but the slowing economy has altered the equation. The Office of Management and Budget, based on slightly different assumptions, estimates a budget deficit of around $250 billion. Neither agency includes the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (almost $120 billion), nor the cost of the proposed stimulus package (estimated currently to be around $150 billion). This would yield an estimated budget deficit of around $500 billion.

These deficits add up to the national debt, what we as a nation owe. Along with explicit liabilities, such as military retirements, the government owed $10.4 billion in 2006, up 52% since Bush took office.

But wait! There’s more.

Comptroller General David Walker reports that the government’s fiscal balance sheet is in dire straits. In 2000, the government’s accumulated obligations were about $20 trillion; by 2006, that has ballooned to over $50 trillion—an increase of 150%. Much of this is due to the drug benefit that was added to Medicare; the rest is due to cost escalations in Medicare. Walker is so concerned that he has gone on tour to publicize the problem. A summary of Walker’s Fiscal Wake Up Tour may be found at: http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08353cg.pdf .

There are two components to the balance sheet. The first is the national debt --what we have borrowed and owe to specific individuals, organizations, or governments. The second consists of promises the government has made for future commitments, particularly Social Security and Medicare.

So Social Security is one major component of the dismal federal balance sheet, but the Medicare (including the new drug benefit provision, Part D) accrued obligations are more than five times the obligations under Social Security.

In 1983, the federal government made a bargain with working Americans—those who pay payroll taxes and rely on Social Security for their retirements. At the time, the Social Security system was bankrupt, not able to make payments in literally a few months. President Reagan and Congress in effect told working Americans that if they would pay higher taxes and tolerate delayed benefits, we will make Social Security solvent forever. They actually came close; the system is solvent until 2041.

The bargain worked like this: Workers would pay enough in taxes to allow the Social Security Administration to pay retirees and save a lot of money--basically by buying US savings bonds--for the future, especially when the huge Baby Boom generation retired. When they did, the Social Security Administration would sell its bonds, and continue to pay its obligations. That will happen in 2017, according to the Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees. [I have reproduced the two key charts from this report below. You can read the full report at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html].

If George W. Bush had run a responsible fiscal policy, this would be a non-event. Balanced budgets, continuing the fiscal policy established by Bill Clinton, would have provided the cushion when the Social Security Administration needed its money. Instead, he worked to undermine the bargain Government made with working Americans, basically blaming them for his fiscal irresponsibility.

President Bush preferred fiscal deception, claiming in 2005 that the Social Security System was somehow broken and would not be able to pay its obligations to future generations. Indeed, as Walt Williams and I have shown in our new book, The Politics of Bad Ideas, Republican economic policies in general have been built on a set of claims that, like the Social Security bankruptcy claim, are false. The Social Security claim is part of a pattern of deception on economic policies.

What has happened is that Bush borrowed the Social Security surpluses and spent it, mostly through his massive tax cuts. Then he blamed working Americans for simply acting responsibly… basically for contributing to their retirements through Social Security and planning to use it when they retire. Because of his irresponsibility, 2017 looms as a critical date.

What can we say about the Federal balance sheet? First, the Social Security system is sound. It has set aside enough money to pay retirees through 2041. It would be better if we made some modest adjustments to make the system solvent forever, but we have plenty of time for this.

Second, the debt the U.S. government owes the Social Security system is sound, unlike what some conservatives claim. The Social Security Administration simply holds U.S. government Bonds, as does the Chinese government, the Federal Reserve, your pension plan, and many British, Japanese, and American citizens. Why would the government pay the Chinese but not its own elderly? A debt is a debt.

Third, the Medicare system is not sound. It is in deep fiscal trouble. Two major reasons are the Bush prescription drug benefit and the Bush tax cuts.

Fourth, the federal government under Bush is out of control. It has shown an inability to control its balance sheet. It has promised grand new Medicare benefits, fought an incredibly expensive war, and passed out huge tax cuts, mostly to the well-off.

Blaming working Americans relying on Social Security was not only wrong factually, it was class warfare—with the working American as the target.

Social Security Trust Fund Balances

By Matt A. Barreto, UW assistant professor of political science

In 2008, the presidential nominating process could be over by February 5^th – a full eight months before the general election in November. Some pundits have argued that shortening the primary season is a disservice to voters, providing less time to get to know the candidates and become informed. However, the buzz among observers of Latino politics is that for the first time ever, Latino voters will have a meaningful say in nominating a presidential candidate.

Yet with such a short primary calendar, can voters – Latino or otherwise – make an informed decision on the leading presidential candidates? They are certainly no worse off than in the past. At the same time that parties have front-loaded the 2008 primaries, the campaign for president has started earlier, almost two full years before the actual presidential election. Indeed, candidates are busy hosting fundraisers and giving stump speeches from California to Iowa to New York.

The point that has been often overlooked in the recent debate about the 2008 primary schedule is the opportunity for more voters, and more diverse voters to weigh in on the potential candidates. In particular, many of the states that have moved their primary date up have sizable Latino populations.

In the 2004 presidential election Latino voters were among the most prized swing voters. More than $10 million was spent on Spanish language television commercials alone, a remarkable figure considering California, Texas and New York were out of play. Researchers have regularly noted that Latinos are not a monolithic group, holding both liberal and conservative viewpoints on important policy issues. When asked to report their political ideology, Latino voters tend to split into equal thirds among liberal, moderate, and conservative. What’s more, Latinos represent the fastest growing segment of the American electorate, growing from 5.9 million in 2000 to 7.6 million in 2004, an increase of 28%. In comparison the non-Latino electorate grew by 15% from 2000 to 2004.

Thus, it makes sense that both political parties could benefit by campaigning for the Latino vote in January and February. In all three of the traditional early primary states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Latino voters account for less than one percent of the electorate. In contrast, Latinos were 8% of the vote in Nevada in 2004; 11% in Florida; 13% in Arizona; 16% in California; 7% in New Jersey; 33% in New Mexico; and 8% in New York. For the first time ever, candidates in the primary election would have to campaign for Latino votes, hire Latino staff and consultants, and air Spanish language campaign commercials. By increasing the diversity of the electorate in the presidential primary, we increase the diversity of ideas and issues that are discussed, and perhaps the diversity of the candidates (as is the case in 2008).

Furthermore, while a majority of Latinos live in non-competitive states such as California, New York, Texas, and Illinois, Latino voters in the southwest could prove pivotal to the 2008 general election. A recent book by Tom Schaller, professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland, has suggested that the Southwest and Mountain West are growing in importance to the presidential election because they are becoming more politically diverse and ethnically diverse. New Mexico has twice been among the most competitive states in the presidential election; in Colorado, Democrat Ken Salazar won the U.S. Senate election by 4 points even as Kerry lost the presidential contest by 5 points; and Nevada was decided by just 20,000 votes in 2004 has seen 20,000 new Latino registered voters in the last two years. Although the 2008 primary schedule will be frenzied and compact, it will nonetheless provide Latino voters an opportunity to evaluate and vote on the leading contenders for president, as opposed to only the finalists.

Early States and Latino Voters in 2008

Professors on Politics blog, (c) 2008.  Professors on Politics is a service of UW News and Information, http://uwnews.org.