http://mm.dev.xigentinc.com/index.php/site/index/ en matt.mackowiak@gmail.com Copyright 2009 2009-10-02T04:44:00+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_obamas_playing_his_cards_wrong_why_the_presidents_health_care_speech_/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_obamas_playing_his_cards_wrong_why_the_presidents_health_care_speech_/#When:03:44:00Z Obama’s Playing His Cards Wrong Why the President’s Health Care Speech Failed to Persuade By Matt Mackowiak September 11, 2009 New York Daily News In politics, unlike in spades, you can only play your trump card once. On Wednesday night, with all three networks and the cable channels offering free air time for an audience of millions, President Obama played the ace up his sleeve in an attempt to save his health care legislation, sway weak-kneed legislators and convince some of the many Americans that oppose his health care plan.Obama’s Playing His Cards Wrong Why the President’s Health Care Speech Failed to Persuade By Matt Mackowiak September 11, 2009 New York Daily News In politics, unlike in spades, you can only play your trump card once. On Wednesday night, with all three networks and the cable channels offering free air time for an audience of millions, President Obama played the ace up his sleeve in an attempt to save his health care legislation, sway weak-kneed legislators and convince some of the many Americans that oppose his health care plan. The speech was well-delivered and included several effective devices. The President made a pitch to centrists and Blue Dog Democrats by tying health care to the federal deficit. He offered some red meat to Republicans in advancing a pilot program to study the need for medical malpractice reform. He played to key Senate Republicans Orrin Hatch, John McCain and Charles Grassley by reminding them that they each had passed important legislation by working with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the past. And he tugged at the heartstrings of everyone when he read a letter from the posthumous senator, his voice echoing from the grave. However, while the speech may have excelled in English, it failed in math. The President’s health care plan faced two huge hurdles on Wednesday night. First, Americans simply do not believe you can cover everyone, improve care and decrease cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially not for 30 million to 47 million people. Americans do not believe that a plan that will cost $900 billion over the first decade will not end up costing more and will meet the requirement that it be deficit neutral. With record deficits and skyrocketing debt, the American people are not willing to bet that the federal government will keep its word when it comes to spending. The second hurdle is corralling the votes. On this issue, only two numbers matter: 218 and 60. Obama needs at least 218 votes in the House to pass his bill. However, 60 liberal Democrats have already said they will not vote for a bill without the public option in it. That’s enough, with the Republicans, to block legislation in the House. It will take 60 votes to pass the kind of sweeping health care bill Obama envisions in the Senate. While Democrats threaten to use a parliamentary procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a bill with only 51 votes, such a move would dramatically limit the reach of the bill to only include revenue raisers and spending cuts, not insurance reform provisions. To date, only 43 or 44 Senate Democrats support the public option, out of the 59 members of the caucus. It’s possible that a deal can be hammered out in a conference committee, but someone will have to blink and both sides are dug in. While the public option may be only a part of the health care reform proposal, it has come to symbolize the entire effort. Many Americans see it as the first step to a single payer system, amounting to a government takeover of health care. They believe that a government-backed public option, even if imposed through a trigger, could completely dismantle the private insurance system as we know it. It is clear that you cannot have fair competition in health care between a government plan and the private insurers when the government is both the referee and a participant. The central challenge facing the President was to use English to affect the math - and it’s unlikely that he achieved that end with this speech. After the speech, Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, “By the President’s own standards of not increasing the deficit, and based on the three points he laid out - reducing health care costs, covering the uninsured, and making insurance more stable for those who have it, not one of the bills currently being debated would meet the President’s own standards.” In the end, the strategic question, raised by Mara Liasson of NPR, is how many liberal Democrats will lose their seats if they vote for a bill without the public option? That number pales in comparison to the Blue Dogs who will pay a political price for voting for a bill with the public option in it. On both the public option and the plan more broadly, the question now becomes: Can Obama effectively sway key lawmakers in small, private discussions on the phone or in the White House? Through his speech making, the President has proven he can be like JFK. Now, through his arm-twisting, can he make like LBJ? Mackowiak is an Austin and Washington, D.C.-based GOP political and communications consultant and founder of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC, and was press secretary to two U.S. senators from 2005-2009.   2009-10-02T03:44:00+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_health_bills_grim_political_prognosis/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_health_bills_grim_political_prognosis/#When:18:16:39Z Health Bill’s Grim Political Prognosis By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer August 25, 2009 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090825_Health_bill_s_grim_political_prognosis.html  Given that the Obama administration’s communications team has been widely praised as skillful and effective, it’s surprising that Congress’ August recess has confirmed what many suspected: The White House is devoid of a coherent message on its signature issue, health-care reform. Let’s review where things stand. The legislation in Congress has failed to meet President Obama’s stated criteria - namely, that it be deficit-neutral, bend the cost curve down over time, and insure everyone.Health Bill’s Grim Political Prognosis By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer August 25, 2009 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090825_Health_bill_s_grim_political_prognosis.html  Given that the Obama administration’s communications team has been widely praised as skillful and effective, it’s surprising that Congress’ August recess has confirmed what many suspected: The White House is devoid of a coherent message on its signature issue, health-care reform. Let’s review where things stand. The legislation in Congress has failed to meet President Obama’s stated criteria - namely, that it be deficit-neutral, bend the cost curve down over time, and insure everyone. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that the House bill would add more than $230 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years. At a Senate Budget Committee hearing before the recess, CBO director Doug Elmendorf testified that the bill would not only fail to bend the cost curve down, but would “expand the federal responsibility for health-care costs,” bending the cost curve up. It’s also clear that the most far-reaching of the Democratic proposals would not achieve universal coverage.  In addition, public dissatisfaction with the Democratic plan is substantial. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 47 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, while only 41 percent approve. Forty percent worry about the bill not doing enough, while 54 percent worry about it going too far. Town-hall-style meetings across the country have underscored the dissatisfaction for members of Congress with direct, impassioned appeals. The administration recently compounded these problems by suggesting it could accept a reform bill without a public option. Liberal opposition to this suggestion was fierce and unrelenting. A letter signed by 60 liberal members of Congress said they would not support a bill without a public option. Meanwhile, Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), who has advocated private health cooperatives as an alternative, admitted there are not enough votes to pass a public option in the Senate, and that to continue to push for one would be “wasted effort.” The White House made two strategic errors with the public-option trial balloon. First, you never negotiate with yourself this early in the process. This bargaining chip would have had greater value if it were offered with Congress meeting in conference to reconcile different versions of the bill. Floating the idea did have the potential advantage of making Democrats seem conciliatory and reasonable. It could have put pressure on Republicans to justify their opposition to private cooperatives, lest they appear opposed to everything. But by changing course twice in two days last week and embracing the public option again, the White House lost this opportunity, too. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the administration was prepared to end bipartisan negotiations on health care and “go it alone,” quoting White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying, “The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.” However, the same day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs contradicted Emanuel by saying, “We are focused on a process that continues in the Senate with both parties” and denying that any plan to “go it alone” existed. The White House is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. The administration’s heavy reliance on the president to deliver its message has left it with no B team to push the agenda effectively. Outside voices will fill the void, as we’ve seen with former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean stating that a bill with no public option would be worse than no bill at all. Obama is in an unenviable position. His White House is under assault from all sides and constantly playing defense, with very few opportunities to shift the debate. The health-care legislation is unpopular and politically perilous, and it does not even meet the president’s criteria. The remaining choices are unattractive and fraught with risk.   Matt Mackowiak is the president of Potomac Strategy Group and has been a press secretary to two Republican senators. He can be contacted at matt@potomacstrategygroup.com.   2009-08-25T18:16:39+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_a_winning_strategy/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_a_winning_strategy/#When:18:06:21Z A Winning Strategy? By Matt Mackowiak Austin American-Statesman August 13, 2009 http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/2009/08/13/0813mackowiak_edit.html With just months until the GOP primary for governor, the next major decision to shape the race is if and when U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will resign to run full-time. State law does not require that Hutchison resign her Senate seat to run for governor, only that she not serve simultaneously in federal and state office. The decision to resign is complicated, fraught with potential risks and brings clear advantages and disadvantages.http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/2009/08/13/0813mackowiak_edit.html   A Winning Strategy? By Matt Mackowiak Austin American-Statesman August 13, 2009 With just months until the GOP primary for governor, the next major decision to shape the race is if and when U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will resign to run full-time. State law does not require that Hutchison resign her Senate seat to run for governor, only that she not serve simultaneously in federal and state office. The decision to resign is complicated, fraught with potential risks and brings clear advantages and disadvantages. If Hutchison decides to resign, the governor would have 37 to 90 days to announce a special election date. The timing of that decision would trigger a November 2009, May 2010 or November 2010 special election, unless the governor decides to use an “emergency” provision in state law to expedite the date. By choosing to resign, Hutchison would lose the significant staff and operational budget that she has for official activities. Hutchison has a staff of about 30 in her Senate office, as well as about 15 staff members through her position as the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. She also has six offices across Texas, with a total of about 20 staff members across the state serving constituents. She would also forfeit the power and influence of being a U.S. senator. Another consideration is that Hutchison would pass the power to appoint an interim successor to the current governor. If she won without resigning, that appointment power could be leverage in much the same way that a presidential nominee is courted by politicians who want to be vice president. However, there are considerable advantages to resigning from the Senate. Hutchison would be able to campaign full time across the vast area of Texas. With 20 media markets, campaigning in Texas requires infinite time and energy, making it nearly impossible to return to Washington for votes. Heavy in-state travel will be required to raise the $20 million to $25 million needed for the campaign, though she has $12.5 million through the first half of this year. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, Hutchison would not have to take politically difficult votes during a rough-and-tumble primary campaign. While risk-averse, she always attempts to create policy solutions where both sides compromise and both sides win. She will want to avoid votes on social issues and major legislation like health care reform and climate change, since they will be judged through the prism of a primary electorate and thus be easy for opponents to attack. If she resigns this fall, she will have completed appropriations work for the 2010 budget year and successfully secured hundreds of millions for worthy state projects. As someone who worked for her, I know that she values flexibility when making critical decisions so she can solicit opinions and information. In deciding to oppose the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, she was, I suspect, deeply concerned that such a vote would be viewed negatively among Texas Hispanics with whom she’s worked closely over the years.  But the needs of a primary and the Second Amendment required her to oppose. Politically, she will need to not anger conservatives while reaching out to moderates, independents, women, young voters and Hispanics to earn their support in the primary and drive up overall voter turnout. The momentous decision to end her 16-year Senate career will have wide ranging political, policy and strategic implications for her, her family, her staff, the state and the Republican Party. Balancing the differing needs of those constituencies will be tricky. It appears likely and strategically wise for Hutchison to resign from the Senate before the end of the year, no earlier than Oct. 1. Her decision will have an immediate and lasting impact on how the campaign for governor and her Senate seat play out. Mackowiak, founder and president of Potomac Strategy Group, was Hutchison’s press secretary from 2007 until April 2009. 2009-08-25T18:06:21+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_barbour_for_president_seriously/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_barbour_for_president_seriously/#When:04:07:49Z LINK Barbour for President? Seriously by Matt Mackowiak Congressional Quarterly Friday, July 31, 2009 Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has shown he knows how to maneuver his way through a bad storm. While leaders in neighboring Louisiana bickered about who loused up the recovery there from Hurricane Katrina, Barbour was taking bows for his work in Mississippi and cruising to re-election with a higher margin than four years earlier. The former national Republican Party chairman is leading the Republican Governors Association, having stepped in to take the wheel after its former chairman, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina flamed out in a scandal that left his career and family in tatters. Barbour takes over the RGA as 37 states prepare to hold gubernatorial elections next year. Thus, Barbour will be raising money and campaigning on behalf of many Republican candidates, increasing his national profile and getting himself up to date with key party officials, politicians and donors across the country. In June he visited the pivotal primary states of New Hampshire and Iowa to help raise money for their state GOP organizations. LINK Barbour for President? Seriously by Matt Mackowiak Congressional Quarterly Friday, July 31, 2009 Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has shown he knows how to maneuver his way through a bad storm. While leaders in neighboring Louisiana bickered about who loused up the recovery there from Hurricane Katrina, Barbour was taking bows for his work in Mississippi and cruising to re-election with a higher margin than four years earlier. The former national Republican Party chairman is leading the Republican Governors Association, having stepped in to take the wheel after its former chairman, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina flamed out in a scandal that left his career and family in tatters. Barbour takes over the RGA as 37 states prepare to hold gubernatorial elections next year. Thus, Barbour will be raising money and campaigning on behalf of many Republican candidates, increasing his national profile and getting himself up to date with key party officials, politicians and donors across the country. In June he visited the pivotal primary states of New Hampshire and Iowa to help raise money for their state GOP organizations. That combination of appearances is rarely a coincidence. Barbour’s life is a study in the art of politics. He skipped the first semester of his senior year in college to volunteer on Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Barbour then served as the Mississippi State Director for the U.S. Census Bureau in 1969. In 1982, he lost a challenger bid for the U.S. Senate. Three years later he was named White House political director for President Reagan and was elected Mississippi’s Republican national committeeman from 1984-1998. Following the election of Bill Clinton, Barbour was elected Chairman of the RNC. During his four-year tenure, he helped defeat “Hillarycare” and helped launch the “Contract with America”, resulting in the historic 1994 midterm elections that brought Republicans into power in Congress. Barbour has also had tremendous success in the private sector, launching one of the most successful lobbying firms in Washington, DC, which Fortune magazine has called one of the powerful lobbying firms in the country. Barbour is a native of Yazoo City, MS (population 14,550) and he maintains a home on Wolf Lake there. In 2003 Barbour left Washington and returned home to run for governor. Barbour decided to take on incumbent Democrat Ronnie Musgrove, who first won election in 1999 by a margin of 8,300 votes, requiring the state legislature to select the winner. In his campaign, Barbour attacked Musgrove’s poor economic record and his opposition to tort reform. Musgrove attacked Barbour’s lobbying background on behalf of tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. Aided by a $2 million fundraising advantage, Barbour defeated Musgrove 53 percent-46 percent, becoming the state’s second Republican governor since Reconstruction. He was reelected in 2007 with 58 percent of the vote. He inherited a $720 million budget gap and balanced the budget without across-the-board tax increases, which he has continued to do with a legislature controlled by Democrats. He has been particularly proud of a tort reform law, which he praised at a speech at a county fair in the summer of 2007: “In 2004, our legislature passed the most comprehensive tort reform law in the country, and it has worked. Toyota would not have located in Mississippi if we hadn’t passed tort reform. Four years ago Mississippi had lost more than 38,000 jobs. Our state had lost 22 percent of its manufacturing jobs during those four years — the worst in the nation. In this administration there has been a net increase of more than 41,000 jobs. Today more people are working in Mississippi than at any other time in our state’s history.” Republican State Senator Charlie Ross said, “We’ve gone from being the center of jackpot justice to a state that now has model legislation.” Barbour’s ultimate legacy will be his management of the state’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005. More than one million people Mississippians were affected and 60 percent of the state was declared a federal disaster area. In Mississippi alone, the storm wreaked $125 billion in estimated damage, devastating the state’s $2.7 billion-a-year casino industry. Where many politicians failed in their response to the Katrina devastation, Barbour excelled. In 2006, Governing magazine named Barbour Governor of the Year, saying he was a “strong leader who communicated calm to the public” while also serving as a “central decision-making point” when roadblocks slowed things down. Among the successes, the state provided temporary housing for more than 100,000 residents, helped thousands of businesses rebuild to erase a labor shortage and reopened all public schools within three months. Billy Hewes III, a Republican state senator from the Gulf Coast, said, “He is to Katrina what Rudy Giuliani was to 9/11.” As Barbour embarks on increased national travel and tests the waters for a possible presidential bid in 2012, many will question whether his southern roots and lobbying success will prohibit him from being a viable national candidate. But his demonstrated success as an executive will give him a platform to run if he wants to. And his years spent in Washington counting votes, raising money, and helping candidates will give him an advantage. If Barbour launches a presidential bid for 2012, he will have to counter the conventional wisdom by showing he can win outside the South and can do so by displaying strength in Iowa, New Hampshire, or another early primary state. A household name he’s not, but someone to watch in 2012 he is. Matt Mackowiak is the founder of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC and formerly was a Senate Press Secretary. 2009-08-01T04:07:49+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_obama_failing_to_make_plan_deficit-neutral/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_obama_failing_to_make_plan_deficit-neutral/#When:04:01:15Z LINK Obama Failing to Make Plan Deficit-Neutral By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday, July 26, 2009 There is an important thread that connects the failed stimulus bill and current efforts to reform health care: the federal deficit. And there is only one group on Capitol Hill with the commitment, credibility, and political mind-set to block the current health-care legislation. The Blue Dog Coalition is currently made up of 52 conservative and moderate Democratic members of Congress and has been in existence for 15 years. The organization exists, primarily, to join politically vulnerable Democrats and serve as a moderating influence on the larger and more liberal Democratic caucus. On the organization’s Web site, you’ll find the following figured prominently: “Currently, the U.S. Debt is estimated at: $11,226,807,380,955.11. Your share of today’s public debt is: $36,683.01.” The Blue Dogs have kept a laserlike focus on the federal deficit in recent years. LINK Obama Failing to Make Plan Deficit-Neutral By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday, July 26, 2009 There is an important thread that connects the failed stimulus bill and current efforts to reform health care: the federal deficit. And there is only one group on Capitol Hill with the commitment, credibility, and political mind-set to block the current health-care legislation. The Blue Dog Coalition is currently made up of 52 conservative and moderate Democratic members of Congress and has been in existence for 15 years. The organization exists, primarily, to join politically vulnerable Democrats and serve as a moderating influence on the larger and more liberal Democratic caucus.  On the organization’s Web site, you’ll find the following figured prominently: “Currently, the U.S. Debt is estimated at: $11,226,807,380,955.11. Your share of today’s public debt is: $36,683.01.” The Blue Dogs have kept a laserlike focus on the federal deficit in recent years. On July 13, the federal deficit reached $1 trillion for the first time in U.S. history, and there is now real concern about near-term inflation and necessary interest-rate increases. The federal deficit for the year is expected to be $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the last five years combined. Why does this matter? The $787 billion stimulus bill, the most expensive in U.S. history, was signed into law on Feb. 18. Since that time, the national unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent, a 26-year high. Unemployment seems likely headed into double digits this year and is higher than the Obama administration projected. Additionally, less than 10 percent of the stimulus funding has gone out the door since the bill was designed to spend more from 2011-2019 than it would this year, when the need is greatest. The Blue Dogs were willing to support the stimulus, and the significant increase in the deficit, with the hope and expectation that the bill would forestall an economic depression and lead to a rosier economic picture by the end of this year. That has not happened. The question is, do regular people really care about the deficit? The answer appears to be yes. A poll released on July 20 conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News showed that public approval with President Obama’s handling of the deficit is now at 43 percent, with more independents disapproving than approving (48 percent to 42). Interestingly, the public does not just disapprove of his handling of the deficit; they prefer deficit reduction to increased spending to revive the economy by 55 to 40 percent in the same poll. What does this all mean? The Obama administration has made major health-care reform its signature domestic policy goal this year and set a deadline of early August for both houses to pass legislation. The perceived failure of the stimulus bill made health-care reform even more complicated because Obama felt he had to promise that the bill would be deficit-neutral to attract Blue Dog support. With Republicans unanimously opposing the Democratic health-care bill, Obama must have the Blue Dogs to pass it. But in order for the bill to be deficit-neutral, Obama and the Democrats have had to include unpopular provisions: slashing reimbursement rates, increasing taxes on small businesses and the wealthy, mandating that employers provide coverage or pay not to, and including a public option. A poll released on July 20 by the USA Today and Gallup found that by a margin of 50 to 44 percent, Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care. This complicated health-care plan, which is still coming together on Capitol Hill, has left Obama playing defense on the issue. Recently, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported to House Democrats that the legislation would not be deficit-neutral and would, in fact, add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years. Of the three committees in the House with jurisdiction over health care, two have reported their bills out. However, the third, the Energy and Commerce Committee, according to the Wall Street Journal, includes “a large bloc of members of the Blue Dog Coalition [who] have been raising concerns about the cost of the House leadership plan.” The Blue Dogs have said that it takes seven votes to block the bill in committee and they have 10. The irony of this situation is that Obama and the Democratic Congress rushed through a terrible stimulus bill, wasting their one opportunity to add to the deficit without risking major Blue Dog defections. Because the economy has worsened and the stimulus bill has had no real positive effect, Democrats in vulnerable districts are requiring that health-care reform not add to the deficit, which in turn is imperiling the bill’s passage. Matt Mackowiak is president of Potomac Strategy Group and was press secretary to two Republican senators.  E-mail Matt Mackowiak at matt@potomacstrategygroup.com. 2009-08-01T04:01:15+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_six_things_obama_must_do_to_succeed/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_six_things_obama_must_do_to_succeed/#When:03:58:21Z LINK Six Things Obama Must Do to Succeed By Matt Mackowiak Politico Wednesday, July 22, 2009 With his approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time, President Barack Obama finds himself in a politically dangerous position and has called his fourth prime-time press conference for Wednesday to try to turn things around. The bully pulpit is an extremely effective advantage that only the White House commands.  To be successful, Obama must do the following six things: LINK Six Things Obama Must Do to Succeed By Matt Mackowiak Politico Wednesday, July 22, 2009 With his approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time, President Barack Obama finds himself in a politically dangerous position and has called his fourth prime-time press conference for Wednesday to try to turn things around. The bully pulpit is an extremely effective advantage that only the White House commands.  To be successful, Obama must do the following six things: 1. Turn the tide of opposition to the health reform bill A poll released on July 20 by USA Today and Gallup found that Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care, 50 percent to 44 percent. The administration is playing defense on health care, and right now it is losing. Two of the three House committees with jurisdiction over health care have reported their bills out. However, the third, the Energy and Commerce Committee, includes enough moderate Blue Dogs to block the bill’s passage. Obama should remind the public and the media that he has achieved the greatest momentum for health care reform in a generation, and while some are expressing legitimate concerns, both chambers are making good progress.  2. Directly answer Congressional Budget Office criticism that the health care bill adds to the deficit Last Friday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the health care reform bill in the House would not be deficit neutral, adding $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years and undercutting one of Obama’s primary objectives. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could not directly answer this criticism on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, and Obama must take it head-on. Obama should reiterate that he will not sign health care legislation that is not deficit neutral.  3. Be honest about whether a public option will prevent people from keeping their plan Obama has repeatedly said that anyone who wants to keep his or her current health insurance plan will be able to. This appears false, because if an employer elects to end the private insurance plan offered to employees to opt for the government plan, then employees cannot keep their current plans as Obama has promised. This is either true or false, and Obama must answer this question directly. 4. Admit unemployment projections were low and explain what is being done to fix the stimulus bill The White House admits the stimulus bill passed in February has not yet succeeded, as national unemployment has reached a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. White House unemployment estimates were sharply lower than reality, and unemployment is now higher than Obama’s administration said it would be without the stimulus bill. Obama should take responsibility, promise that the government is rushing stimulus spending and highlight the fact that only 7 percent of the money has been spent. Obama should state that the stimulus has not yet taken effect and it cannot be evaluated until it has. 5. Directly address growing concerns about the deficit The Washington Post-ABC News poll released July 20 showed public approval for Obama’s handling of the deficit at 43 percent, with more independents disapproving (48 percent) than approving (42 percent). Interestingly, the public prefers deficit reduction to increased spending to revive the economy, 55 percent to 40 percent. July 13, the federal deficit reached $1 trillion for the first time in U.S. history, sparking concern about inflation and interest-rate increases. The federal deficit for 2009 is expected to be $1.8 trillion — greater than the past five years combined. Obama should again emphasize his goal of cutting the deficit in half in his first term and remind the public that extraordinary circumstances required significant spending (stimulus, Troubled Asset Relief Program, bailouts). 6. Flip on Guantanamo Newsweek first reported late Monday that the Obama administration will miss the first deadline facing a task force created to develop a long-term plan for closing the base at Guantanamo. The report, which was due Tuesday, will be delayed six months as the administration addresses this vexing political problem. Public opinion on this issue is strikingly in opposition to Obama’s view. A Gallup Poll conducted May 29-31 found that 65 percent oppose closing Guantanamo and moving “some” of the prisoners to U.S. prisons, while only 32 percent support it. In April, Senate Democrats stripped $80 million from a spending bill for the base closure and overwhelmingly voted to block the transfer of the detainees to U.S. soil. The most responsible and politically salable course of action for Obama is to back off his executive order that would close Gitmo by the end of the year and promise that no foreign terror suspect currently housed there will be brought to U.S. soil. Matt Mackowiak is the president of Potomac Strategy Group and was press secretary for two Republican senators from 2005 to 2009. 2009-08-01T03:58:21+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_tester_isnt_matching_what_burns_delivered_for_montana/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_tester_isnt_matching_what_burns_delivered_for_montana/#When:03:51:50Z LINK Tester isn’t Matching What Burns Delivered for Montana By Matt Mackowiak Great Falls Tribune Friday, July 17, 2009 By only 3,562 votes state Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate instead of sitting Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont. In that campaign, Tester raised ethical questions about Burns in the Jack Abramoff investigation and questioned Burns’ Senate seniority. But after three years, the result of sending Tester to Washington is that Montanans made a costly mistake. LINK Tester isn’t Matching What Burns Delivered for Montana By Matt Mackowiak Great Falls Tribune Friday, July 17, 2009 By only 3,562 votes state Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate instead of sitting Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont. In that campaign, Tester raised ethical questions about Burns in the Jack Abramoff investigation and questioned Burns’ Senate seniority. But after three years, the result of sending Tester to Washington is that Montanans made a costly mistake. Burns highlighted his years of “delivering for Montana,” citing the $2.2 billion in federal funding that he had secured over 18 years. After earning a seat on the Appropriations Committee in 1994, he rose to become the chairman the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, giving him enormous power to direct federal funding to Montana projects. With Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., as the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, and U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., a member of the House’s Appropriations Committee, the state’s delegation could effectively authorize projects and appropriate federal funding on a massive scale. To measure their success, the Northeast-Midwest Institute reported that Montana had the 11th highest rate of return of tax dollars (143 percent) for fiscal year 2005 with more than $8.35 billion, the 16th best state per capita and more than Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, and California. Two years later, without Burns, Montana slipped to 31st in the same category. Tester undercut the value of his seniority by securing a unique promise. Two weeks before Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would “give Tester a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee” as soon as possible, according to the Helena Independent Record. Tester was the only candidate to receive such a promise in 2006. But all 13 Democrats were expected to return to the committee and freshman senators are never appointed to Appropriations. Additionally, Burns and Montana voters had no way of knowing whether the promise was real until it was too late. More than two years later, Tester was named the panel’s most junior member. For two years of federal appropriations, Montana was without representation on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, Tester has 11 years less seniority than Burns would have had. In 2006 Tester said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” Now he’s supporting earmarks, only at a greater disadvantage. Apart from appropriations, Tester relentlessly attacked Burns for his association with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, insinuating that Burns was a criminal under federal investigation. Tester ran campaign ads saying, “Conrad Burns, delivering for Jack Abramoff, not us.” Democratic spokesman Matt McKenna, who later served as communications director for Tester even cited concern about Burns “worrying about whether he’s going to jail over his friendship with Jack Abramoff.” There was only one problem. Conrad could never prove that he wasn’t under investigation. To this day the FBI has never interviewed him or requested documents. But the whisper campaign undercut the integrity that Conrad felt he had displayed throughout his life, enlisting in the U.S. Marines Corps, as Yellowstone County Commissioner, and as a three-term U.S. senator. Justice delayed is justice denied. On Jan. 3, 2008, almost 26 months after the election, Burns was finally notified that he was not under investigation. So the two most effective arguments that Tester made to narrowly win proved to be completely false at worst or highly questionable at best. Conrad still had every inch of his integrity. And the hollow promise of a seat on Appropriations Committee was eventually honored, but at what cost to Montana? The entire state of Montana should have buyer’s remorse in choosing Jon Tester over Conrad Burns. A slim majority of Montana voters got drunk on political rhetoric and the entire state woke up with a hangover. Matt Mackowiak is the founder of Potomac Strategy Group in Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas, and was press secretary to former U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns from 2005 to 2007. 2009-08-01T03:51:50+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_planning_palins_comeback/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_planning_palins_comeback/#When:03:45:10Z http://tr.im/shsh Planning Palin’s Comeback By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Tuesday, July 14, 2009 With her unpredictable decision to resign later this month after only 2½ years as Alaska’s governor, Sarah Palin shocked the Washington establishment. If she makes the right moves, she can surprise it again by having a shot at the presidency in 2012. http://tr.im/shsh Planning Palin’s Comeback By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Tuesday, July 14, 2009 With her unpredictable decision to resign later this month after only 2½ years as Alaska’s governor, Sarah Palin shocked the Washington establishment. If she makes the right moves, she can surprise it again by having a shot at the presidency in 2012. It’s easy to understand why Palin would want to give up the governorship. Try though she might, after two intense months on the campaign trail as a vice presidential nominee, Palin could not return to the world she knew before Aug. 29, 2008. Once a popular, effective governor who enjoyed productive relationships with legislators on both sides of the aisle, she was facing heavy pressure and constant second-guessing. The Legislature rejected Palin’s nominees for attorney general and a state Senate seat. She’s been the target of unyielding, costly ethics inquiries - 19 of them now, with the last two coming after her resignation announcement. (Fifteen of the complaints have been resolved with no finding of wrongdoing.) And even limited travel for political events in the Lower 48 has brought her harsh media and public criticism. Meanwhile, declining oil prices have resulted in a worsening budget climate in Alaska, which will require difficult, politically unpopular decisions in coming years. These challenges created an environment in which Palin couldn’t be effective and simply wasn’t having any fun. Add to that the tabloid-style coverage of her family, the unfunny and inappropriate joke David Letterman told about her daughter, and the sniping of anonymous McCain campaign alumni in a recent Vanity Fair article. The reality is that Palin doesn’t need Alaska, and her lieutenant governor may be able to do a better job without her baggage. Palin now has the freedom to forge a new path. But if she wants to be a player in national politics and positioned to run for president in 2012, she must do a few things: Hire competent aides. Palin needs to hire people for her political action committee, experienced political aides, a talented speechwriter, a patient scheduling staff, and a capable press person with national media contacts and crisis experience. Her Alaska team may have been effective back home, but national politics is a different sport played at a different speed. Her team has appeared unable to offer the most basic advice and counsel or even accept speaking invitations without controversy. Study national policy. Palin’s limited understanding of issues leads to continued attacks on her intelligence and her readiness for national office. She should huddle with experts, read policy studies, and take the time to comprehend major legislation being considered in Congress. Governors from remote states are often not well-versed in the intricacies of non-defense discretionary spending or international relations, but Palin needs to be. She should try to focus on one new issue a week, develop her own thoughts, and begin articulating them. She can easily pen one or two opinion columns each month, helping her slowly build credibility over time. After six months, she should mix in regular policy speeches. Campaign for other candidates. Palin can earn gratitude by being a team player and offering her time to the GOP’s national party and congressional campaigns. Most Republican candidates would be thrilled to have her help them raise money or campaign for them, and she would benefit from the experience and build a wide range of relationships that would help her in the future. Travel internationally. Private-sector organizations, charities, and think tanks will surely offer to underwrite trips for Palin. She needs to see the world - and be seen seeing the world. Conversations with world leaders will help her develop a worldview, which must be part of her platform if she runs. Palin will undoubtedly have a lot of opportunities, and she will be a constant presence on television, radio, and the Internet. Over the next year, she will complete her book and enjoy the publicity and financial stability that will likely come from it. But Palin needs to give the national media something to cover besides controversy and scandal. Armed with valuable gifts that many politicians would die for, she will rise or fall based on the decisions she makes in the next few months. Depending on those choices, she will either have a stable, strong foundation for future success, or she will continue to seem unreliable as well as unpredictable. Matt Mackowiak is the founder of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC and served as Press Secretary to two Republican Senators from 2005-2009. 2009-08-01T03:45:10+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_the_medias_love_affair_with_president_obama/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/op_ed_the_medias_love_affair_with_president_obama/#When:19:58:19Z The Media’s Love Affair with President Obama By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday, June 28, 2009 Perhaps John McCain was right about Barack Obama being the “biggest celebrity in the world.” The news media, focused on profiting from the president’s celebrity, have been failing to report objectively on his policies. We have seen a number of outrageous examples of media bias in the five months since Obama’s inauguration. And in recent weeks, Obama completed a “triple crown” of extended interviews on the three major networks. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/49352822.html The Media’s Love Affair with President Obama By Matt Mackowiak Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday, June 28, 2009 Perhaps John McCain was right about Barack Obama being the “biggest celebrity in the world.” The news media, focused on profiting from the president’s celebrity, have been failing to report objectively on his policies. We have seen a number of outrageous examples of media bias in the five months since Obama’s inauguration. And in recent weeks, Obama completed a “triple crown” of extended interviews on the three major networks. Before Obama left for the Middle East, NBC News aired four hours of interviews in prime time over two nights to give viewers a portrait of a “day in the life” of the White House. CBS News weighed in last week with its “Two Sides of Barack Obama.” It aired the first part, “Barack Obama: An American Dad,” on Father’s Day, and the second, “Barack Obama: The American President,” the next day. And on Wednesday, ABC News aired “A Conversation with the President,” an hourlong prime-time special on health-care reform taped in the East Room of the White House - not exactly a neutral site. ABC rejected reasonable requests to include opposing voices during the infomercial, which was essentially a political contribution masquerading as news coverage. There are several troubling aspects to ABC’s relationship with the administration. Linda Douglass, a former ABC News journalist, is now communications director in the White House’s Office of Health Reform. The Washington Times recently reported that employees of ABC gave 80 times as much in contributions to Obama’s campaign ($124,421) as they did to his Republican opponent, McCain ($1,550). And a study released this month by the Business and Media Institute found that ABC News had aired stories with positive reviews of Obama’s health-care policy 55 times, while it featured just 18 negative stories on the subject. But the fawning coverage has not been limited to the broadcast networks. A recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs examined all the evaluative comments in New York Times stories during Obama’s first 50 days in office. It found that 73 percent of them were favorable. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism compared coverage of this president and his two immediate predecessors over their first 60 days in office by several major media outlets: the networks, the Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and PBS’ Newshour. It found that Obama was favorably covered 42 percent of the time, compared to 22 percent for Bush and 27 percent for Clinton. This bias was not limited to straight news. Unlike his predecessors, Obama received more favorable than skeptical treatment in newspaper opinion pages, too. Underscoring the celebrity factor, the study found that about twice as much of the coverage of Obama dealt with his “personal and leadership qualities” - not his policies. Media coverage of the trivial is crowding out coverage of important issues. How many hours and column inches were devoted to the Obamas’ recent dates on Broadway and in Paris? We’ve even been subjected to coverage of Obama’s quick reflexes in swatting a fly during an interview. A Google News search for “Barack Obama” returns 330 million results - more than 10 times the results for Pope Benedict XVI. Even teen star Miley Cyrus (also known as Hannah Montana) returns only 90 million results. Bill Maher, a liberal comedian with his own show on HBO, recently remarked, “I don’t want my president to be a TV star.” David Zurawik, a television critic for the Baltimore Sun, has called on the networks to question their Obama coverage.  Referring to a CNBC interview in which Obama complained that “one television station is entirely devoted to attacking” his administration, Zurawik wrote, “I hesitate to write these words, but good for Fox News,” he wrote. “It must be doing something right, if it has the president complaining about the tiny bit of scrutiny he gets on TV.” With the sweep of Obama’s policy ambitions - and growing public skepticism about his agenda - unbiased, fair, issue-based reporting is especially important. In a poll recently released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 56 percent of Americans said they lacked confidence in Obama’s economic policies, 56 percent opposed the bailout of General Motors, and 52 percent opposed the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Rather than covering date nights and personality, the media should further investigate these issues so they can better inform the public. They will probably have the airtime to do so once their Obama specials are over. Matt Mackowiak has worked as a press secretary for two Republican U.S. senators. He can be contacted at matt@potomacstrategygroup.com. 2009-07-09T19:58:19+00:00 http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/mackowiak_launches_potomac_strategy_group/ http://www.mattmackowiak.com/index.php/site/mackowiak_launches_potomac_strategy_group/#When:21:22:42Z Matt Mackowiak, a veteran political and communications professional, announced today the launch of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC (“PSG”), a Republican political consulting and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas. Matt Mackowiak, a veteran political and communications professional, announced today the launch of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC (“PSG”), a Republican political consulting and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas. PSG will offer political consulting to Congressional campaigns and provide corporations, trade associations, business coalitions and non-profits with media relations, crisis communications, and writing services. Mackowiak has provided on-air analysis for the Fox News Channel, MSNBC, ABC News, and for radio stations throughout the country. Matt’s political analysis has appeared in Politico, the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Examiner, and on ABCNews.com. His columns have been published in the Chicago Tribune, Austin American-Statesman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Roll Call, Congressional Quarterly and The Daily Beast. Matt has guest lectured at the University of Illinois, the University of Denver, and American University, and speaks across the country on political and communications strategies. Mackowiak was most recently Press Secretary to U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) from 2007-2009 and U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) from 2005-2007. Before moving to Capitol Hill, Mackowiak worked on the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign in Iowa, as a political appointee at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as an advance representative for the White House, and at the international public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller. Mackowiak is from Austin, Texas and graduated from the University of Texas (UT) with a B.S. in Communications Studies. He also owns and manages this blog, cited by the Washingtonian as one of the best political blogs on the internet. In the News 2009-06-16T21:22:42+00:00