New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may not be running for president in 2012, but he's articulated an economic vision that's well-positioned to gain momentum with whoever emerges as President Obama's Republican challenger in two years.
Christie's decision to slash spending, delay property tax cuts and take on the state's powerful teachers unions to control a bloated budget was initially seen as a fool's errand in a Democratic-friendly state where special interests reign and government waste has been seen as a byproduct of the state's political culture. His political career could well have been derailed before it began, at the hands of the sizable majorities Democrats hold in the state legislature and their allies.
But Christie not only passed an austerity agenda against influential opposition, his popularity has soared in the wake of his victory. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that, after implementing the cuts, he has become one of the more popular executives in the country. Christie's approval rating of 51 percent now exceeds Obama's in the traditionally Democratic state, and he holds a 61 percent rating among independents. The accomplishment is all the more impressive given that governors of both parties have seen their approval ratings collapse during economic recession.
"He's the Rex Ryan of the statehouse -- it's his management style," said a Christie strategist, referencing the blunt-spoken New York Jets coach. "Spending cuts are tough to swallow, but a lot of people relate to the fact there are times when you've got to cut your budget, tighten your belt. This is what we have to do to get our house in order, and people understand that."
The lesson: Leadership makes a difference; voters recognize when politicians are pandering to them and credit them when they make tough decisions, even if they don't poll favorably. (Compare Christie's approval with that of another governor, Florida's Charlie Crist, who avoided tough fiscal decisions and has seen his approval ratings plummet throughout the year.)
Indeed, voter sentiment is slowly but surely moving to the realization that entitlement cuts are necessary to prevent future economic stagnation. For the first time in years, cutting the deficit has registered near the top of voters' concerns, with 83 percent saying it is "extremely important" or "very important" in the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll. A Wall Street Journal focus group conducted this month in Virginia featured participants across the ideological spectrum willing to accept short-term pain -- entitlement cuts, higher Medicare copayments, tax hikes -- for long-term gain.
We're seeing this trend against government spending in election results this year, where voters have shown a newfound willingness to shun politicians who've campaigned on bringing home federal spending. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.) were all veteran appropriators who touted their pork-barrel clout on the trail -- and all failed to win their party's nomination. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) anticipated that chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture Committee would confer benefits in a farm-heavy state; she trails Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) by nearly 40 points in the latest Rasmussen survey.
Christie's success reducing spending levels, by contrast, is providing an opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate they're serious about tackling a $1.5 trillion deficit -- if only party leaders could muster the political courage to take a similar risk. Instead, Republicans are running away from any such talk before the midterms, shirking a leadership role on handling a ballooning debt out of fear that Democrats will exploit it for their political advantage.
When one of the Republicans' most authoritative economic voices, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, touched the third rail of politics by proposing a significant overhaul of Social Security and Medicare, few in his party followed suit. (Among his proposals: raising the eligibility age for Social Security recipients, allowing the affluent to opt out of the program and implementing a voucher system for Medicare.) Only 13 of his 178 House Republican colleagues have signed onto the legislation.
But even with Republicans distancing themselves from the proposal, Democrats already are in the process of making Ryan a poster boy in attack ads across the country against Republican candidates, tying them to the congressman's economic blueprint. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), presiding over a state with a 13 percent unemployment rate, previewed that tactic this week on "Meet the Press," when she framed Ryan's proposal as radical and raised the specter that some retirees would become homeless if cuts were made to Social Security and Medicare.
The sober reality is that once the midterms are over, one of the most pressing issues before the president's desk in 2011 is handling the nation's growing debt and entitlement crisis. With more baby boomers getting benefits out of Social Security and Medicare than younger workers paying into the system, changes will be unavoidable -- sooner rather than later.
That's going to be a central battle between the White House and Republicans in Congress next year, and one that's likely to dominate the political terrain in the presidential election. It will be difficult for Democrats, after criticizing the GOP relentlessly on Social Security, to come to the table and make a grand compromise involving benefit cuts. And it will be difficult to foresee Republicans entertaining tax hikes as part of a deal heading into a presidential election year. Gridlock could well be the name of the game heading into 2012.
That would give a GOP presidential contender an opportunity to run in the Christie mold -- the straight-talking, pox-on-both-your-houses candidate willing to take on a seemingly intractable issue.
There aren't too many obvious candidates for that role yet, with the exception of wonky Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Like Christie, he spent political capital on several reforms that were initially unpopular -- shrinking the state workforce, implementing a health plan with private accounts for the poor and proposing a tax hike to close the state's deficit. By the end of his first term, Indiana's $200 million deficit turned into a $1.3 billion surplus, his approval ratings soared -- and he's selling his record as he mulls a run for president.
Selling short-term pain for long-term gain is a risky political prescription, but with a struggling economy and predictions of economic recession continuing into 2012, it could be the ticket for political success.
If only the facts were in synch with the myth the Christie team has effectively put out there.
The Christie budget doesn't slash spending. It diverts over $2.5B in property tax releif to Trenton. In turn, welfare programs and entitlements were expanded. Food stamp eligibility from 135% to 185% of the poverty level. Increase in funding for nursery schools in the state's 31 special needs (Abbott) districts. Over $100M for NJ FamilyCare, a public option health insurance program.
Chrisite is soft on illegal immigration. he has acquiesced to Obamacare, agreeing to participate in the high risk pools and ignoring calls to join the healthcare lawsuits. He aligns himself with the radical leftist environmental movement by refusing any energy exploration off New Jersey's coast. And he is unquestionably FOR Cap & Trade -- using funds to plug the budget hole and perpetuating the RGGI program by using funds to put windmills offshore.
If Christie is the model playbook to follow, then I guess so is Lindsay Graham's.
This article is about leadership not conservatism and the programs that you criticize would have absolutely sunk his budget which he wound up passing. Christie picked the right battles. If New Jerseyeans wanted a cut and slash governor who would ruin the state they would have voted for Looney Lonegan. But obviously Republicans are smart enough to have picked a governor who understands that a smart political game will result in political gains short AND long term.
I see. So now he's a leader because he acquiesces in the face of NJ being a "blue" state.
All the things I cited above are in the Christie budget. He has done the state's economy no favors -- nor taxpayers of this state who are staring at massive property tax increases thanks to his pilfering of property tax relief.