Presidential Campaign

I am both blessed and grateful to be an immigrant to the greatest country in the world. As such, immigration is an issue close to my heart and it saddens me to know that for decades this country’s immigration system has been broken. And yet, the politicians in Washington have done little to fix it. Instead, immigration reform has become the quintessential political football, with both sides of the aisle using it as a bludgeon with which to attack the other. Too often, that has meant provoking fear among voters – and immigrants - in an effort to divide Americans.
 
We saw that again in these pages in an article entitled, “Romney must come clean on immigration policy” by Cesar Vargas. The article is brimming with mischaracterizations of Governor Romney’s positions on the issue of immigration, an approach that we see too often in this never-ending debate. But rather than focusing on what Mr. Vargas gets wrong, I would like to lay out Governor Romney’s real position on immigration.

The controversy swirling around Obama's debate performance completely misses the point. For better or worse, this is it. Stripped of all pretension. Devoid of the catch phrases and the swoons. Minus the Hollywood glam. This is he. Barack Obama. The man, unadorned. No longer do we see Obama through a glass dimly. Now we see him for who he is. This is neither to embellish nor dis-embellish the man. This is to see things for what they are and not what they ought -- or ought not -- to be.

This election season, one thing that Republican and Democratic candidates seem to agree on is the importance supporting and advancing strong family values. Headlining speeches by “Mom in Chief” Michelle Obama and Ann Romney highlighted the importance of mothering and family at both conventions.

The Obama campaign has worked over-time trying to convince voters that the president understands the challenges confronting the middle class, while Romney is out of touch. Yet deeds speak louder than words, and American families — already struggling with rising gasoline and grocery prices, under-water mortgages, and high unemployment — should note how this Administration has taken actions to increase the costs of cars, while simultaneously making them more dangerous. How is exactly does that help the middle class?

Since the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid 70’s, the government has set rules dictating a base level of fuel efficiency, which is known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, or CAFE standard. This month, the Administration doubled the requirements on the fuel efficiency of cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, and pickup trucks.

Several months ago, with gasoline topping $4 per gallon in most parts of the U.S., it looked like energy policy would be a front-burner issue in the Presidential election. But the recent drop in crude oil and gasoline prices — with the exception of California where refinery shutdowns and transmission problems have led to temporary price spikes — has derailed energy as a hot-button campaign topic. This is unfortunate because $4-plus gasoline was a reminder that America does not have a sound energy strategy and that we need one both for economic and national security objectives.

As we know, President Obama’s puzzling performance in the first presidential debate was roundly criticized. Depending on the news source, Obama was characterized as laconic, listless, tired, defeated, lazy or worse. As the handwringing continues, Obama supporters have rushed into the lurch with more advice than one can shake a stick at. All seem to coalesce around the rather basic idea that he must be more aggressive and spirited in the next two debates. Obama seems to have taken some of that advice to heart. On the stump the very next day after the debate, he contrasted the person sharing the stage with him with “the real Mitt Romney” who has been campaigning for over a year. 

For the president’s supporters, that might be a good sign. But the first debate revealed a much deeper set of problems and choices the Obama campaign faces as it retools for the next two debates. 

First, the problem. The fact is that during the first debate Obama simply forgot the basics of debate strategy. 

Last week, I discovered one of the most corrupt acts I have seen while serving in public office: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum, advising defense contractors that if they failed to comply with existing law, taxpayers would pay any resulting employee compensation costs and attorneys’ fees incurred. Instead of notifying defense contractors that they must abide by the laws set in place to protect American families, the administration has advised and encouraged these companies to break the law without penalty. Does that sound unbelievable to you? It sounded unbelievable to me when I first heard about it. Let me explain how it works:

On August 2, 2011, the president signed The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 into law, increasing our national debt ceiling and establishing at least $1.5 trillion in spending reduction over the next ten years. To achieve these cuts, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly referred to as the “super committee,” was created and tasked with reaching an agreement on spending cuts by November 23, 2011. Because the committee failed to reach an agreement, automatic across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion, also know as “sequestration”, are on schedule to occur beginning on January 2, 2013.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group that bills itself as the “world’s largest business organization.” Now, Corporate America has called on the Chamber to do some of its most important bidding — spending huge sums of money to influence the 2012 election.

A few days ago in Denver, Mitt Romney said he would honor Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for undocumented youth, or DREAMers, who have already been accepted and use the 2-year window to work on immigration reform. DACA is the program, which allows undocumented youth who were brought to the United States to remain without worry about deportation and obtain work permits.

Although this sounds like good news for DREAMers, his campaign also made it clear that he would not continue the program. While Mitt Romney continues to be vague on other issues like tax and healthcare, he is no longer fuzzy on immigration.

There was considerable discussion during last night’s debate about what Mitt Romney would or would not do on Day 1 of his presidency, and whether Day 1 would be Inauguration Day or the day after the election on November 6th. It remains a mystery why the President would cede this rhetorical possibility to his opponent (Obama: “Well, first of all, I think Governor Romney's going to have a busy first day,”) but it is in fact an important consideration to ponder. Presidential transitions are fraught with the complexity of changing the leadership of a massive federal government and the secrecy imposed by Washington superstitions. So what do we know about what occur on that Day 1?