Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

This is a peculiar expression. Why a shoe and why wait for it to drop? I invite you to log onto Google for the answers. The expression is often used in the political arena when waiting for a follow-up to an announcement or event. An example is when a presidential nominee keeps the nation waiting for his or her choice of vice-president.

About two weeks ago, three things were reported on in the national press, then the media went quiet on them. The events were President Obama’s 2015 budget proposals, the Republican Party’s announcement that it had been too focused on health-care law and the Supreme Court declining to hear gun law challenges, aiming to acquire even more freedom for under 21s to own guns. So much for the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. Each of these stories was worth following up but there seems to have been little or nothing in the newspapers. Unsurprisingly, the situation in the Ukraine and the missing Malaysia Airlines airplane has dominated the news cycle of late but couldn’t the fourth estate be writing something about these three stories? I read the Washington Post and Huffington Post and have seen nothing, nor has anything been mentioned in the UK broadsheets.

Let me examine the three stories in a little detail to establish why they are of particular interest. First, the Supreme Court. In 2008, the Supremes decided there was a right to gun ownership for self-defence within one’s home. Two years later, the Court ruled that this right applied to state and local gun-control efforts, not just those at the federal level. Subsequently, the Court has declined to review appeals that seek to challenge restrictions, such as tight controls on who may carry a firearm.

However, this month, two challenges were mounted concerning freedom to own firearms. The first was a Texas law, barring 18 to 20-year olds from obtaining permits to carry handguns. The second was a federal law prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21. I am pleased to see that the Supreme Court refused these challenges. Long may this trend continue. There have been more than one hundred shootings in schools since Newtown. The Court’s refusals are a small but worthwhile rebuff to Americans and their love affair with guns.

The second story relates to the Republican Party potentially seeing sense over their approach Affordable Healthcare Act. When I say “seeing sense,” I refer to the Party’s political stance. Trying to change ACA whilst negotiating budget and debt ceiling issues was seen as blackmail by many voters. I went on record to say the Republicans were entitled to criticise the Act but in a different setting, namely when contesting the 2014 midterms.

It seems congressional Republicans are looking at the Act as the golden ticket for this year’s midterms. However, their strategy seems to be “repeal the Act,” i.e. carpet bombing instead of drones. If so, surely this is a hopeless attitude for them to adopt. The Act may be unpopular but forty million more Americans are now entitled to healthcare. That’s a lot of votes for the Democrats, especially if those voters are told by the Republicans, “if we win, ACA goes.” I expect to see some Republican candidates change their position and offer detailed policy solutions to resolve the Act’s problems. If not, the broad challenge to ACA may come back to bite them.

The third story relates to the President’s 2015 budget request, seeking tens of billions of dollars of fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to reduce the national debt by trimming Social Security benefits. The previous strategy, the “grand bargain” to raise taxes on the rich and rein in retirement spending, has been abandoned. I’m not surprised. In furthering the policy, the President managed to upset his Party while gaining nothing from the Republicans.

So, the new Obama strategy is a call for the end to austerity without any details of how the budget changes will be funded. Of course, any government delights in broad, voter-friendly rhetoric without commitment to the fine print. Is this strategy a vote winner? Is the President hoping that a radical policy like this will win him enough votes in November to keep the Senate majority while winning the House? I really don’t know but it strikes me that either the way to finance budget changes has not been agreed or the administration is keeping ideas in reserve until later this year. Both courses carry risks.

For the past two weeks, I have waited to see how these three stories develop. Nothing much happened until the special House election in Florida last week. The Democrats lost heavily in a contest they expected to win easily. So, how will they change their strategy to make the November mid-terms a success? I see some heated discussions ahead between Democrat Congressional leaders and the White House. Where is that other shoe when you need it?