As published for The Arena on politico.com on May 25th, 2010:

This move by President Obama seems to be a direct response to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s call for the Obama team to “do its job” on our border. Apparently, she got their attention.

During his time in office, President George W. Bush doubled the number of border patrol agents (from 9,000 to 18,000) and increased funding for border security and enforcement by more than 160 percent. Under President Bush’s leadership, the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement teams devoted to removing fugitive aliens from the U.S. grew from 15 to 75 in order to address the problem inside the United States. In addition, E-Verify, a system for verifying worker eligibility, was greatly expanded and states like Arizona began requiring local businesses to use it to further weaken the attraction for illegal immigration.

Even with all of those efforts to better secure the border, the violence between warring drug cartels in Mexico has caused understandable concern among Americans living in the border region. President Obama’s belated acknowledgement of the legitimate fear of violence spilling into our country is at least a step in the right direction.

Read the post here

As published for The Enterprise Blog on May 3rd, 2010:

It is still unclear who is responsible for the attempted car bombing in Times Square, but the attack raises an interesting question: Why has al Qaeda failed to carry out scores of car bombings, assassinations, and other smaller-scale attacks in the United States in the years since 9/11?

Such attacks are highly effective in terrorizing large populations. We saw a few years ago how a man and a teenage boy terrorized the entire Washington area with a series of sniper attacks. It would be easy for al Qaeda to carry out similar attacks in Washington, New York, and other cities in the United States—assassinating political leaders, or setting off IEDs and car bombs in major metropolitan areas. Yet thus far al Qaeda not taken this route. Why?

One possible explanation is that the severity of the 9/11 attacks has worked in our favor. In striking the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, al Qaeda set an extremely high bar for itself. If it were now to begin launching small-scale attacks, it would be seen in the jihadist world as a sign of weakness—a concession that they could not pull off spectacular attacks on the scale of 9/11. In this sense, resorting to car bombs could do more damage to al Qaeda’s reputation than the attacks themselves would do to America.

Read the full post here

As published for The Washington Post on April 12th, 2010:

Almost immediately after Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress, Republicans began promising to fight for its repeal. Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Steve King of Iowa introduced repeal legislation in the House and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and 15 co-sponsors followed suit with similar legislation in the Senate. House Minority Leader John Boehner declared: “This government takeover of health care is not what Americans asked for. . . .That is why Republicans are fighting to repeal it and start over with common-sense reforms.” The Club for Growth launched a repeal pledge that has so far been signed by 67 lawmakers and 288 candidates. And theWeekly Standard ran a cover that screamed in bright red letters “REPEAL” and vowed the “Overthrow of Obamacare.”

But today some Republicans are losing their nerve on repeal. Rep. Mark Kirk, who is running for the Senate in Illinois, signed the repeal pledge and even vowed to “lead the effort” for repeal, but has since backed off, declaring “I voted against it, but we lost.” Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina , who is running for reelection, has said that “total repeal” is unlikely. And Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is in charge of messaging for the Republican Senate leadership, says that instead of repeal, Republicans should promise “at least big changes” to the bill.

Not exactly a resounding battle cry.

Why are Republicans starting to cave? Speaking in Iowa City, President Obama taunted Republicans about the drive to repeal, daring them to “go for it.” Obama told a cheering audience: “If they want to have that fight, we can have it. Because I don’t believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat.” And the Democratic National Committee launched radio ads against Kirk and other Republicans, declaring they are “vowing to repeal reform and put the insurance industry back in charge of your health care.” Obama and the Democrats are betting that, while the bill may be unpopular, they can win in November by focusing on specific provisions. They will tell voters Republicans are working with the insurance industry to bring back discrimination for preexisting conditions, let insurers cancel your coverage retroactively if you get sick and restore lifetime limits that deny you care when you need it most.

Read the full article here

Interviewed by the Heritage Foundation. Published on March 16th, 2010:

Karl Rove: Repealing Obamacare Will Be Easier If Congress Skirts Normal Process

“Deeming” and “reconciliation” are hardly household words, but for the next week Americans will come to know them as key procedural maneuvers that could push Obamacare across the finish line. But while they might deliver a bill to President Obama’s desk, they will also make it easier to repeal the measure, says former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.

On the road for his “Courage and Consequence” book tour, Rove chatted with The Heritage Foundation about Obamacare, his defense of President George W. Bush’s conservatism, the growth of Tea Parties and anger toward government spending.

Listen to the full 30-minute interview.

Rove, who joined Heritage for the launch of our San Francisco Community Committee last September, recalled how even in the heart of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) district, conservatives were teeming with energy and enthusiasm. Rove will appear at a Heritage Foundation community committee event in Naples, FL, next week.

During the interview, he did not hold back his criticism of conservatives, particularly those who took issue with Bush’s support of No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and TARP. He also singled out conservatives, in addition to congressional Democrats, for the failure of Social Security reform in 2005.

Read the full post here

As published for The Roosevelt Room and CNBC.com:

Uncertainty over the direction of economic policymaking in Washington was a troubling storyline of 2009, and 2010 is shaping up to be a repeat performance.

If you talk to business leaders — all hopeful for a sustainable recovery — and ask them what their most significant worry is when they consider decisions to invest, expand, and hire, uncertainty over Washington policies remains foremost in their minds.

* Will there be changes to the health care system?

* Will Congress pass an energy or climate change bill?

* Will financial regulatory reform pass?

* When will the Fed begin to move on interest rates?

* Will Congress pass the Administration’s new spending plans?

* Will Congress agree to President Obama’s proposed tax increases?

* Was that just lip service in the State of the Union address, or is the President really committed to fighting for the languishing Free Trade Agreements?

* What will a fiscal deficit reduction commission recommend?

* What will be the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

* What will be the impact of the Fed’s decision to end its purchases of mortgage backed securities?

And then, maybe the three most critical questions:

* What will be the unintended consequences of these policies?

* Does the President have any more ‘Crazy Ivan’ moves up his sleeve like his recent punitive banking proposals, and the surprise foreign earnings tax?

* Can anything at all get done in an election year?

All of the policy decisions are taking place in a still fragile economic environment. The financial sector is still going through rehab. Housing remains a drag as the Administration’s foreclosure mitigation programs have done little to stem the pace of defaults. And households, with elevated unemployment and deleveraging, cannot be counted on to resume previous levels of spending.

We have seen a small burst of economic growth fueled by very accommodative monetary policy, some fiscal stimulus, and a natural bounce off the bottom from the depths of the recession. Some limited job growth is also very likely to follow soon.

But few business leaders are confident of sustained GDP growth — and sustained job creation — while Washington continues to tinker with the nation’s economic machinery.

As long as businesses are forced to keep their eyes focused on Washington, don’t expect them to race ahead with confidence.

Read the post at CNBC.com

As published for The Arena on politico.com on January 27th, 2010:

Tonight in a lengthy speech, President Obama gave lip service to market-based approaches to strengthening the economy (like trade and tax relief, which he and his party vehemently oppose in practice). He inappropriately condemned the justices of the Supreme Court sitting in front of him by criticizing their recent judgment reaffirming free speech. His remarks, while well-crafted, will be remembered for being forgettable. There were no bold proposals or signature lines. He may be a prisoner of his speaking prowess, as a well-delivered speech which lacks provocative thinking and doesn’t shatter high expectations is quickly discarded.

Read the post here

Now that the House and Senate have passed remarkably similar health care bills, what is the probability that the President signs health care reform this year?  75%?  95%?  99%?

It’s high.  Very high.  I am struggling with this question, and at the moment estimate 85%-90%.  This may be shaded low by wishful thinking, but I think there is more uncertainty than most in Washington might assume.

Everyone likes it when I pick a specific number, but I think it’s more useful for me to explain the forces that I think will drive success or failure.  Policymaking and legislating is always dynamic, and it’s far more useful if I share some tools that can allow you to make your own assessment.  At a minimum, you can be a well-informed observer of (or participant in) the process as things change over the next several weeks.

I oppose this bill.  I would prefer a very different kind of reform to current law, and, as flawed as it is, would prefer current law to the bills that have passed the House and Senate.  Nevertheless, I will here use “success” to mean the President signs a law, and “failure” to mean he does not.

Factors contributing to likely legislative success

I will list the most important factors first.  The ranking is important.

• The House and Senate have each passed remarkably similar bills.  Sure there are high-profile differences, but these bills are overwhelmingly similar.  The differences are small relative to the change either bill would make to current law.  These are huge bills, but substantively they’re not that far apart.
• 219 House Democrats (and one Republican) and 60 Senate Democrats have already voted aye on final passage of one of these bills.  For each of these Members, the easier path is probably to vote the same way they did last time.  Changing to a no vote means they have to explain their flip.  Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and their whips can think of their vote-counting exercise as “How many votes do we lose from 220/60 we have if we do X,” rather than “How do we build up to 218/60 votes.”  I assume the overwhelming majority of the House and Senate Democratic caucus can be taken for granted as an “aye” vote, assuming the substance ends up somewhere between the two bills.  (No member would ever admit that their vote is independent of substance, of course.)
• The President must have a signing ceremony, especially given a weak economy, exploding deficit, a new terrorism issue breaking against him, and three recent Democratic retirements or flips.  It’s fairly clear that the White House will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal.  They have a lot of resources and tools they can bring to bear.

Read the full post here

As published for The Wall Street Journal on December 17, 2009:

In fact, he’s got the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year.

Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.

Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.

Consider Mr. Obama’s comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in “a triumphant sense about war.”

This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt (“With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph”); Woodrow Wilson (“Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts”); and John F. Kennedy (“Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed”).

Read the full article here