By Nick Davis

President Obama released his 2014 budget a few days before Tax Day, albeit about two months late from his required deadline. In an interesting role reversal, Democrats seem to be tearing into the budget more than their GOP counterparts.

Much of the commotion centers on Obama’s proposal to reduce the rate of growth of Social Security payments. He has suggested that payments be calculated using chained CPI, something Republicans have campaigned for in previous budget and fiscal cliff discussions. Chained CPI is a more accurate formula for calculating cost of living expenses and would initially reduce payments by about $2 a month for each person.

Another major point of contention in the President’s budget revolves around $400 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years. These cuts would come from pharmaceutical and hospital payments as well as trimming benefits and increasing out-of-pocket expenses for upper income seniors.

Republicans have mixed reactions to Obama’s modest entitlement reforms. Speaker John Boehner praised the reforms. “He does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget.” Others were less enthusiastic about the budget. As can be expected, Grover Norquist shot down the bill due to more than a trillion dollars in tax increases while Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon called it a “shocking attack on seniors.”

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the President’s budget is the sheer disgust shown by his own party. Democrats have long been the champion of social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so any reforms to reign in their impact will be unwelcome by the left.  Arshad Hasan, the executive director of the liberal group Democracy For America, seemed to sum up Democratic sentiment best. “You cannot be a good Democrat and cut Social Security.”

Some have expressed concern that if this legislation were to pass, it would leave Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 midterms elections.  Representative Bill Pascrell of New York was one of many Democrats to demonstrate those concerns. “Seniors vote in even heavier numbers, proportionately, in off-year elections,” he said. “So just looking at a political standpoint … I would think that this would be a damning blow to our chances of taking back the House next year.”

I disagree. I don’t think Pascrell’s concerns are rooted in any sort of fact or logic. If the people are upset about cuts to entitlement programs, what makes them think that Republicans would be any different on the issue? In fact, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the GOP would cut them even more.  At this point, unless the budget actually gets passed without any major overhauls, which seems unlikely, any dissatisfaction with the budget lands on the shoulders of Obama, not his base. Progressive congressman Keith Ellison expressed this same sentiment. “They cannot lay that dead cat at our door,” Ellison said Friday. “I don’t know how it’s going to affect the president’s brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it.”

Could we be witnessing a shifting strategy from the President towards negotiations with Republicans? Or, has he been liberated to legislate as he pleases since he can’t be reelected? No matter what his motivations are, one has to wonder what Obama hoped to accomplish by releasing this budget. The President released his two months late and the House and Senate already released their budgets. Depending on how much of Obama’s budget is enacted, the only real thing he has accomplished is alienating his base, something that could and should be avoided as the Republicans are looking to unify themselves for 2016.

By Nick Davis

Welcome to day 1 of sequestration. As President Barack Obama so eloquently put it the day after he signed Obamacare into law, “I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth… turned out to be a pretty nice day.” That’s right. Unless you’re a public school official, have a child in primary or secondary school, civilian defense personnel, or live in a military community, you’re unlikely to feel the direct effects of the sequester.

Let me be clear, in no way am I trying to minimize the hardship that these groups face. It’s rather unfortunate that our lawmakers have allowed our children and military to take the brunt of the spending cuts. But, let’s take a moment to really analyze the amount that is being cut here. Of our $3.5 trillion budget, only $85 billion is being cut for this fiscal year, approximately 2% savings according to my own rough math, just a drop in the bucket as I alluded to in my fiscal cliff blog last month.

According to the President and congressional Democrats, this relatively small cut would be catastrophic for the economy. Meanwhile, John Boehner and Republicans want Obama to stop his supposed ‘fear mongering’ and make a concerted effort to make substantive cuts. This political theatre shouldn’t surprise you in the least though. After last week’s weeklong recess, it should be crystal clear that neither side was ever serious about striking a deal.

Obama vacationed in Florida to play a round of golf with Tiger Woods. Other than the fake Vacationgate scandal about how transparent his Administration was being in not allowing the press corps to vacation with him, there was not much news from the Obamas. Congressional leaders took the same break to head back to their districts and visit with their constituents.

So, significant budget cuts are looming that threaten to plunge the United States back into recession and our lawmakers take a vacation? Nothing exemplifies their unattached attitude than congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. She went on MSNBC and repeatedly defended herself and her colleagues stating that the recess was planned months in advance and it just happened to fall the week before sequestration was supposed to take place. Competent and concerned leadership would have scrapped those plans in order to get a deal in place.

I suspect both sides of playing the ‘wait and see’ game this time around. Both parties have a lot to gain if events play out the way they expect. Obama will have concrete evidence that Republicans are responsible for another downturn in the economy. If these cuts turn out to be nothing more than a blip on the radar, they’ll point to the Senate and President’s budget incompetence.

The reality of the situation is that our representatives in Washington have almost no skin in the game. None of them will struggle to feed their families at night. When I think of their role in this situation, I imagine two stuck up, whiny children standing off to the side driving their remote control cars right at each other to see who will flinch first.  If the cars crash, it’s the other side’s fault and they live another day, business as usual.

By Nick Davis

It’s been about a couple weeks since President Obama and the Justice Department released their legal memo with regards to the drone program only because a leaked memo recovered by NBC forced its hand. In fact, the government still doesn’t even acknowledge its existence and speaks in hypotheticals.  The issue that first arose back in 2011 when American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son, were targeted and killed by two separate drone strikes, has taken a tumultuous turn after the release of a memo that suggests it is perfectly legal for the United States government to kill an American citizen.

It’s certainly a valid question. The United States government would need a judge’s approval to wiretap Anwar Awlaki’s telephone. However, the president can unilaterally order the assassination of Anwar Awlaki, under the stipulations set forth in the white paper. (What is a white paper anyways?)

After taking a step back, weighing the arguments flying back and forth and observing Attorney General Eric Holder handle questions from the press, there are a couple things that I think deserve our attention and should shape our view of this memo.

In an increasingly divisive political landscape, it’s not often that media outlets Fox News and MSNBC agree. Each network has featured the drone memo as front-page news on both their nightly news as well as on their talk shows. Pundits on both channels have in one way or another roundly criticized the perceived overreach of power.

The conservative outlet Fox News veered off the conventional path of a strong national defense. This time it has become a staunch leader of traditional conservative values, due process, and constitutionalism. It frequently featured contributors criticizing the federal government for violating due process clauses of the constitution, including Judge Andrew Napolitano.  The judge has made it clear that the constitution doesn’t grant authority to the government to kill anyone without due process.

While Napolitano questioned the constitutional legality of the memo, Rachel Maddow approached the subject from a practical standpoint. In one of her opening monologues, Maddow acknowledged that everybody is in favor killing  ‘bad guys.’ But, how do you determine who is a bad guy? The words ‘imminent,’  ‘activities,’ and ‘senior US officials’ as it pertains to who can order a strike, are not defined and leave themselves to be easily manipulated. Even if someone knew that they were a suspect (which they don’t), how would they go about proving their innocence if no formal charges are filed and the government skips the trial and assumes guilt?

So, what should we make of this bipartisan reaction to the drone memo? It’s not often that there is a federal policy that is roundly disliked by both parties. Despite legal questions, public outrage itself should tell us about how the American people feel about the ethical implications involved. Let’s be clear. This memo authorizes the killing of American citizens without trial. If that doesn’t upset you, it should.

Additionally, the answers provided to questions over the drone memo by Holder indicate a mix of corruption and secrecy. The day after the memo was released, Holder fielded questions about the legal definitions and justifications to the wording and intent of the document. When asked what the difference between an ongoing and imminent threat is, the Attorney General responded, “We’ll have to look into that.” So he’s saying that he doesn’t know what’s in his own memo? Doubtful. He knows the white paper is heavily dependent on loose vocabulary.

To add to the secrecy, the congressional judiciary committees are the only entities outside of the Obama administration allowed to view the memos. The lawmakers are not allowed to take notes, make copies, or show their staffs. Wow.

Jay Carney tells us that the President takes his role ‘very seriously.’ I should hope so. Has he or his administration taken into account how these legal justifications could be used or interpreted in the future? The concern among many is that this memo could justify the killing of any American, not just a known terrorist. And frankly, it already has, al-Awlaki’s son Samir, was 16 when he was killed. He had no reputation as a terrorist and was never even accused as being such. He just had the unfortunate opportunity to have one as a parent. Everybody enjoys safety and security. This time however, it has crossed a line

By Nick Davis

What do you hear most when you’re having a discussion about the political culture of America? I know, I am just one person but I frequently hear, “I wish Republicans and Democrats, the President and Congress, could just get along!” Amen! And honestly, who doesn’t support such sentiment? I find it extremely hard to believe that either party has all the right answers for solving America’s challenges moving forward. Based on this notion, compromise should be an obvious and inevitable solution.

A major theme of President Obama’s reelection campaign was to follow through with the promises made back in 2008. Among those promises includes tackling immigration reform, addressing climate change and pushing forward with a renewed energy policy that relies less on oil and more on renewable resources.

Obama addressed all of these issues in his 2^nd inaugural address. However, one thing that has been absent from this President’s mantra is the ‘Hope and Change’ that was proudly advocated in 2008. His image as the ‘great negotiator’ hasn’t materialized and according to his inaugural address, it doesn’t sound like we’ll see it this term either.

Now, I’m not completely blind to the fact that Republicans control the House, and at times, it seems the GOP appears more willing to block the President at every turn rather than find solutions and compromise. Mitch McConnell himself famously said that Republicans would make Obama a ‘one-term president.’ This type of attitude is shameful no doubt.

However, my esteemed counterpart Ian would have you believe the Republican Party is weak and vulnerable and without a strong leader and he would be correct to an extent. But, all this talk of the GOP being down is only temporary. They aren’t going anywhere and I haven’t heard a compelling argument yet as to why or how they will fade into a permanent minority.  America will never be a one party system and it serves both parties to work together.

Compromise is good for Americans, but the President should also see some individualized benefit from such actions.  At some point, Obama will have to take responsibility for the gridlock in Washington. After all, the buck does stop at his desk. You will see I do agree with Ian that Obama spent quite a bit of his political capital with various pieces of legislation including the landmark Affordable Care Act. That is the very reason he needs to compromise.

As much as people like to praise Obama’s potentially game changing inauguration speech, he still has to deal with a Republican House. The GOP can keep control through the 2014 midterm elections as long as they stay the course.  Unless, Obama plans on governing through executive order for the next four years, he must foster positive relationships with GOP leadership.

By Nick Davis

Barack Obama’s ceremonial second term inauguration went off without a hitch Monday as an estimated one million people filled the National Mall, exceeding initial predictions.

As usual, depending on whom you asked, the 19-minute speech was either one of two extremes. On the left, it was spot on; setting the stage for progressivism to come to the forefront of American politics while simultaneously bringing an end to Reaganism, which stands on the basic principle that you should run when you hear, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” On the other end of the spectrum, conservatives hailed it as misguided given our current economic situation. Just ask Bill O’Reilly.

It’s obvious this president wishes to be remembered as a pivotal figure in our country’s history. While it is a coincidence that the inauguration took place on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Obama did his best impression of the civil rights leader.

There is no question that Obama outlined a progressive, more socially-conscience agenda his second time around. In fact, Obama became the first President to discuss marriage equality for gays in an inauguration speech.

Civil rights groups weren’t the only ones pleased with what they heard. Environmentalists listened to the President speak to the importance of dealing with climate change and finding alternative sources of energy. The President made a strong appeal for social justice with education reform seemingly the only point of major contention left out.

Obama made little mention of the economy, and when he did, he followed it with a ‘but’ statement, choosing to continue to hammer away at his theme of inclusiveness and bridging the divide among all demographics. “We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.  But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

It remains to be seen whether this speech will be the birth of a new era of American politics. However, it can be debated that Obama has changed his tone from his first term to his second. In 2008, Obama ran on a platform that he would be a great negotiator, someone that was beyond partisan politics; someone who would change the status quo. That vision began to fade as congressional gridlock came to an all time high while approval ratings for the lawmaking body seemed to be lower than ever.

Obama’s theme of ‘change’ hasn’t diminished in this inaugural address. What is different is the atmosphere and nature of asserting this change.  While he did use the collective ‘we’ seventy-seven times in his speech, the Commander-In-Chief asserted his agenda in a more direct manner, appealing to minorities, the working class, gays, women, and the youth demographics. With a reeling Republican Party struggling to find it’s identity, Obama has a real shot at affecting his policies. If everything goes as planned for the second term president, he will be remembered for his social reformation and the beginning of a new progressive era in America.

By Hasan Ali

With President Obama’s second inauguration less than a week away, I figured now is as good a time as any to put together a laundry list of the things that I think the President should include in his address.. 

Much of the specific policy objectives of the 2nd term will be laid out in greater detail in the State of the Union Address slated for February 12. But it would be remiss if he did not take this opportunity with a million Americans assembled on the Mall to lay out a few key priorities for the next few years. How he weaves these wonky points into what will probably a speech of the soaring and inspirational variety of candidate Obama is up to his speech writers. 

1)    The President should advocate for tax reform

We need tax reform. The tax code is too complex, distorted and full of loopholes for those who have had the opportunity to poke many holes through it. This reform is especially popular with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party and provides the President with a bipartisan piece of legislation that will improve the nation’s fiscal health. 

Tax reform will accomplish three major things:

1. Bring down our individual tax rates
2. Limit deductions for those who don’t really need them given our fiscal crisis (read rich)
3. Lower the corporate tax rate to make American businesses competitive in this global world (yes, it is an oxymoron but truer than ever).

If the American tax code is overhauled, the government can expect to attain anywhere between $400 billion and $800 billion over the course of the next decade and will be part one of a two part series to put the nation’s fiscal health back in order.

2)    The President should press for a Big Budget Deal

Here is the reality of America’s entitlement programs. Americans pay a lot less into them in taxes than they get out of them in benefits. You wonder why? One major reason is this: when Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson put Social Security and Medicare on the fiscal books, the average American life expectancy was a lot lower than what it is today. That meant that Americans paid more into the entitlement programs than they received back in benefits. The current trajectory for entitlement spending is unsustainable.
Here is the unpopular but necessary solution

• The retirement (or eligibility) age will have to be raised, at a bare minimum, from 65 to 67 (and probably further increased during subsequent administrations)
• The benefits doled out to the well-off in society will have to be reduced
• Medicare will have to be tweaked to get rid of inefficiencies and, yes, some benefits will be reduced

The other major reason is the exponential rise in healthcare costs. Though, I do not think the President can propose a silver bullet to solve this extremely complex issue, he can take a stab at working with the fervorous cost-cutting opposition party to reduce future healthcare costs through his Affordable Care Act health law.

3)    The President…must propose immigration reform

This seems like a no-brainer. However, the same issues that hindered President Bush in 2007 are a thorn to President Obama’s ambitions today. The majority of the elected Republicans in the House of Representatives are opposed to granting amnesty to those who reached U.S. soil illegally. On the Democratic side, the labor unions fear that some of the biggest beneficiaries of immigration reform will compete for their jobs through a guest worker program.

However, here is why immigration reform is now doable. The country is on an inexorable march toward a majority minority country by the year 2050. The vast majorities of the U.S. Latino population has twice supported President Obama’s election efforts and are the biggest proponents of immigration reform. Additionally, the Republican Party cannot compete for the highest political offices without measurable Latino support. Hence, they are now willing to consider proposals that were intolerable just six years ago when proposed by a President of their party. 

Immigration reform will benefit the country in three major ways:

1. It will bring the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows, into lawful society and toward a path for citizenship
2. It will make it easier for U.S. companies to sponsor and hire more foreign skilled (and unskilled) workers for jobs that largely go unfilled.
3. It will allocate more resources and technology to protect the U.S. – Mexico border to prevent further undocumented migration and shore up the country’s security. 

Though there are many other issues that the president may discuss during the inaugural address or propose in the subsequent State of the Union address, it is imperative that he inform the nation of his desire and will to solve these imperative issues of our time. Should he be so fortunate to sign all three critical bills into law, a grateful nation will forever cherish his presidency and will remember him for achieving the change that he advocated for in 2008.

Both sides of the gun debate appeal to your emotions rather than the facts, despite the likelihood the legislation won’t reach the President’s desk.

By Nick Davis

Barack Obama and Joe Biden laid out their proposal for curbing gun violence in America yesterday.  As expected, the President suggested a renewed assault rifles ban, universal background checks on gun purchases, a limit to ten rounds on ammunition magazines, and various educational programs including a program called Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (AWARE) along with funding for 1000 new school resource officers. Alongside these proposals was the signing of 23 executive orders by the President.

Predictably, many Republicans as well as the NRA, expressed their dissatisfaction. The popular gun lobby continued to point to mental illness and unarmed schools as the primary cause of gun violence. “Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority. The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law.”

Democrats also had a lot to say including Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy. “Today the President took the critical first step toward answering that question [stemming gun violence in America]. The common sense measures he proposed today are something that we should all be able to agree on, and I want to commend him and the Vice President for their work on this issue.”

When was the last time that you heard that this proposal would reduce lives? Chances are you haven’t and if you have, the numbers were likely biased.  You see, both the NRA and the Obama administration both have chosen to engage in emotionally charged politics to appeal to your inner softy. Obama brought pre-teens on stage that had written letters to the White House hoping for solutions to gun violence. The President also invoked images of the horror that occurred in Blacksburg, Aurora, and Newtown. The NRA is equally guilty. Earlier this week they ran ads that shamelessly targeted the First Children, Sasha and Malia and sheriffs in various counties around the US have publicly said they will not support any gun measures enacted by the President.

With everything seeming to be leaning the Democrats way these last few months, it might seem that they would get their way in this legislative battle too. However, few are confident that this legislation will even make it to the President’s desk. Many believe the bill’s path will begin in the Democratic led Senate where they hold a slight majority. Even so, some within their own party don’t think they’ll get enough votes from fellow Democrats who live in conservative, southern states. The Republican led House will likely be reactive in this instance and wait to see what comes out of the Senate. If they aren’t forced to consider a Senate bill, chances are they won’t craft one of their own.

Along with the proposed legislation were 23 executive orders signed by the President giving him the ability to address these concerns immediately while bypassing Congress. The sheer volume of the executive orders leads me to believe that the President doesn’t believe that this proposed legislation will make it to his desk, much less completely intact.

As a neutral observer, this whole process of speculation of what the President might do and then what it turned into yesterday leaves me convinced that neither side of the debate has any intention of actually getting to the root of the problem.

One thing is clear. Gun dealers have to be pleased with the political culture surrounding firearms. They are seeing record profits as inventory flies off the shelves. It is obvious that this battle of emotions is having a significant effect. Count me as one that doubts we’ll see a clean end to this debate.

By Nick Davis

Happy New Year.

2012 has come and gone and not without it’s fair share of political turning points. We saw Barack Obama elected to his second term as president as well as ballot measures approving marijuana possession and gay marriage. Who would have thought four years ago that we would see the legalization of these two controversial issues, not to mention in the same year?

In addition, several individual events also shaped legislative policy in this country. Just recently, the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut sparked resurgence in calls for tighter gun control. The terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, including the assassination of the American ambassador and its subsequent handling by the Obama administration, left the country divided as to how well protected we are from terrorism.

Finally, the only thing the U.S. has been able to focus on since the election has been scheduled tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect the first of the year, also known as the fiscal cliff. Congress came together in the 11^th hour to strike a deal. While the majority of expected effect was avoided, most Americans will still see an increase in taxes, mostly due to an expiration in Social Security payroll tax cuts.

After a wild ride in 2012, what can we expect to see from our government in the New Year? Here are 6 things to keep your eyes on:

Gun Control

As I mentioned earlier, gun control will become a hot topic in 2013. We’ve already heard from Barack Obama and the NRA as to how to deal with this culture of violence. Democrats are pushing for a renewed assault weapons ban that was first introduced by Bill Clinton in 1994 as well as a national gun registry. Republicans have opposed these measures choosing to focus on a culture of violence stemming from TV and video games and citing the lack of care and treatment of mentally ill individuals.

Despite calls for tighter gun laws, does anyone actually think we’ll take meaningful steps toward reform? We already had an assault rifles ban and yet that didn’t stop shootings from happening. On top of that, if Congress takes into account the attitudes of the American people, they’ll see that support over time has decreased for stricter gun laws, with the usual spikes after major shootings like we’re seeing right now. We’ve been through this cycle again and again. Call me a pessimist, but I’ll believe in gun reform when I see it.

Immigration

After the 2012 election, Republicans were left reeling with questions about how to win non-white voters. Hispanic voters voted 69% in favor of the President leaving many to wonder whether the GOP needs to reevaluate its stance on immigration. Democrats also have immigration reform on their radar. Obama has said that it will be a priority in his new term but has kept his hand close to his chest.

Immigration is a place where Obama can score a relatively easy legislative victory as long as the proposal isn’t too radical. He has the GOP looking to revamp its stance given their loss in the last election and compromise here shouldn’t be too difficult. Republicans will be willing to work with the President on immigration in order to change their perception among minority groups, especially Latinos. At this point, all he needs to do is allocate the time, something he hasn’t done in the last four years.

Debt Ceiling

If you thought the fiscal cliff deal would be the end of economic bickering for a while, think again. The United States has already reached it’s debt ceiling despite voting to raise it this past summer which saw a credit downgrade from the three major credit bureaus. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner employed some accounting measures in order to avoid hitting the debt ceiling on New Year’s Eve, but he couldn’t say how long those measures would be needed before hitting it again.

Republicans are hoping to use this new fight to reform government spending, specifically entitlement programs. There is no doubt that every department has waste it can cut out of the budget, but Republicans better be careful. After six weeks of political chicken, Republicans are seen as the guilty party when it comes to negotiating - whether they deserve it or not. They can’t roll over but they can’t take the negotiations down to the wire. The US and the Republicans, cannot afford another credit downgrade. Expect another knockdown, drag-out fight.

Syria

Reports are coming out of Syria that the death toll has risen to approximately 60,000 since the fighting began last spring. Barack Obama has taken a hands-off approach to the fighting choosing instead to arm the rebels and put increasing pressure on President Bashar Al-Assad to relinquish power. However, for a war weary nation, Obama has threatened military action if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against its own people.  The country has proven the most volatile of the Arab Spring nations and there doesn’t seem to be an end in site.

With government debt at an all time high, it doesn’t make fiscal sense to start another war. Obama needs to take the same general approach he did with Libya, keeping troops off the ground by arming and training the rebels and strategically using our drones. Americans will not be keen to see more military personnel killed in yet another Middle East country.

Barack Obama

It’s no secret that he won a second term as president. Now what will he do with it? Obama has already proven he has a taste for landmark legislation with the Affordable Care Act.  Now that he doesn’t have to run for reelection, he could take a step to the left, however, that could be negated by the fact that 2^nd term presidents are usually most effective in their first two years until they become a lame duck.

I expect Obama to be more ambitious in his 2^nd term, not more progressive. His ideas on the environment, gun control, and the need for immigration and education reform are well known. It will be interesting to see what one of the most polarizing president in recent memory will do with his 2^nd term in 2013.

The Republican Party

It doesn’t seem the Republicans fully recovered from the ire they drew from the American people following George W. Bush’s presidency. They can’t even agree to be united among themselves as evidenced by their infighting over John Boehner’s Plan B. If they have any hope of taking back the White House in 2016, they will need to take a long, hard look at what they stand for and how they will interact with Democrats. The GOP would be better served if they dropped their hard line stances on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration and focus on how best to keep our economy and finances under control.

By Ian Rosoff

President Obama was a start up candidate; he had a great original pitch at the 2004 democratic national convention, and from there he quickly gained momentum toppling the Clinton candidacy and shutting down popular Senator John McCain to become the first African American President in history. The President’s victory in 2008 and again on Tuesday is partly due to the superior quality of his ground game and his ability to harness technology to strengthen his campaign and volunteer efforts.

As someone who knows firsthand the power of technology in our post-industrial economy, we can continue to expect aspects of his 2^nd term agenda to focus on the role technology plays in creating jobs, fostering energy security, and ensuring that America stays on the cutting edge of innovation.

The startup community can hope for a few things in particular:

The biggest specific policy initiative is the Startup 2.0 Act, which would increase the work visa availability for foreign science, tech, engineering, and math grads from American universities, as well as increase entrepreneurship visas for foreigners. Tech Crunch believes this reform is in the pipeline for next year. 

Todd Park, the Chief Technology Officer, a position created in Obama’s first term, has been rolling out the President’s open government policy, which is designed to help businesses that need or use government data. The Health Data Consortium is using the open government data to help draw crime maps and create apps like WeMakeItSafer.

The government will also play a role in regulatory matters regarding technology and the Internet. Two bills, SOPA and PIPA were already heavily contested in the president’s first term, and issues about copyright and Privacy on the Internet are, depending on how Congress addresses these issues again, possibly the defining tech issue of Obama’s second term. Regulation of the online marketplace is still in its infancy, and it is apparent that government has a lot of catching up to do on developing a strategy that balances the interests of startups and tech companies as well as established media corporations.

Another controversial government project is the government’s early stage innovation fund. The government has had its share of failures investing in individual companies, with the Solyndra scandal being the most notable. But the government has some successes as well, like the veterans start up incubator to help vets start new high growth businesses, or a company like Cabulous who credits the capital gains exclusion in president Obama’s 2011 budget for their growth. The innovation fund is also committed to investing in clean energy companies.

Green jobs are likely going to be an important part of this administration’s innovation agenda, but the administration should not be myopic in only looking to invest in green tech or the most cutting edge tech coming out of Silicon Valley. The innovation fund will focus on infusing capital into less conventional startup areas so small businesses from outside places like California will get more exposure.

The Startup America partnership, which we are big fans of, is another avenue for funding and mentorship for startups.  We are actually pitching today at the Reboot America summit, where former and first White House CTO Aneesh Chopra will be speaking. He talked about the goals of Startup America last year in an article he wrote while serving as Chief Technology Officer of the United States. Access to capital and mentorship for high growth startups are key aspects of the initiative and Startup America has partnerships with the NYSE and the Case Foundations as well as other influential institutions to help foster entrepreneurship education. 

It’s an exciting time for Startups and many college graduates who feel the traditional corporate path is not for them are taking their talents to startups. New programs at top universities are being created to cater to the startup culture and prepare students to start their own companies out of college.  

The President’s commitment to encouraging startups and expediting the growth process for new businesses in the tech industry could be critical to his economic legacy. 

By Nick Davis

It’s Election Day in America and arguably the most important state for either candidate’s campaign – Ohio - lies in the hands of the few undecided voters. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are making their final pushes all over the country, which undoubtedly includes the Buckeye State.  Obama holds a slight edge over Romney according to the latest RealClearPolitics poll of averages, leading by 2.9% of the vote. However, more recent polls including the final poll conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, indicate the race may be even closer with Obama just two points ahead and within the margin of error.

If you’ve been keeping up with the political commentary lately, it should come as no surprise that many pundits believe Ohio to be absolutely critical for both campaigns, especially Mitt Romney’s. No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio and it seems this election is no different. While there are other scenarios where Romney could conceivably win the White House, Ohio is important due to its large amount of electoral votes -eighteen.

In the last two elections, Ohio favored both parties choosing Obama in 2008 by a margin of 4.6% and 2.1% in favor of George Bush in 2004. Both candidates are hoping to ride the state’s prediction record and each is fighting to the very end. Each campaign brought in big name entertainers on the eve of the election.  Predictably, Bruce Springsteen was on tour with Obama like he has been for several weeks but he had an additional star at his side at the 11^th hour, hip-hop mogul, Jay-Z. Romney was joined on his stop by the Marshall Tucker Band.

Mitt Romney has tried to make the election in Ohio a referendum on Obama’s economic record. He has promoted his own economic and tax policies while criticizing the 7% unemployment report for the state in the month of September. Obama had a broader platform in Ohio. He touted his plan for the economy while criticizing Romney for his stance on abortion rights and energy policy.

After last night, there’s nothing either candidate can do now but sit and wait as voters across the country head to the polling booth. We’ll know as soon as tonight whether Ohio will continue its streak of winners.

Here’s to the next four years.