Roggio Solidifies His Chances For Nomination

Since last week, much has changed in the race to become the Democratic nominee in 6PA. Thursday night, the Montgomery County Democratic Committee voted convincingly to endorse the nomination of Bob Roggio. Saturday, Bob Rovner publicly announced his intention to withdraw from the race.

That leaves a two-man contest between Roggio and Mike Leibowitz.

Ideal Candidate will not go away. The site will continue to serve as a rallying point for ensuring that our eventual candidate is armed with the best ideas and program for defeating Gerlach in the fall.

Bob Roggio's Issues Statement: Good Start But Needs Some Upgrades

Bob Roggio's campaign website is now live. It looks nifty. I urge everyone to check it out.

It even has a tab containing an issues statement. Mr. Roggio should be commended for taking this step. Ideal Candidate wishes the other candidates had given activists a peak at this type of info as well, so it could be debated and discussed among those who are being asked for donations and early endorsements.

The trouble is that it is a bit thin (and safe). Particularly weak is the tab on the economy. The statement in its entirety is as follows:

We need to restore the principles of fiscal responsibility that the Bush Administration has ignored. By concentrating on fiscal discipline and reducing deficit spending, our country can focus on long-term economic prosperity. Our country needs to invest in infrastructure, early childhood education, programs for college bound students, and economic development. We need a new commitment to job creation. Above all else, we need responsible and accountable leaders who will curtail the spending spree in
Washington.

Basically a salad of feel good words that reveal nothing about how Roggio would vote on economic issues (other than, presumably, how the Democratic leadership would instruct that he vote). At its root, the statement betrays a careless adoption of the weakest form of 1990's Clinton nostalgia. Whatever Clinton's other achievements, his successful run on the economy had very little to do with his historic decision to listen to the "bond market" and balance the budget first. The fairy tail goes on to recount how the bond market reacted by lowering interest rates and ushering in a new era of prosperity.

As nobel prize winner and former Clinton economic advisor, Joseph Stiglitz, points out in his book, The Roaring Nineties, Clinton got lucky. As he passed his historic tax increase, banking regulators adopted new rules that made it cheaper for banks to lend. The expansion of credit then led to growing optimism which led to the tech boom and a rise (for the first time since the 1970's) in real incomes for average working families. Stiglitz proves, I think, that the tax increase and the decrease in deficits did not cause the boom. On the contrary, the boom caused the budget to come into balance.

So what? The 111th Congress will be under pressure to cut certain taxes (the Alternative Minimum Tax) and to keep certain tax benefits (the Earned Income Tax Credit) for working families. Even if you assume that the "Bush Tax Cuts" will be trimmed back and certain loopholes closed (like the "carried interest" loophole that benefits Pete Peterson and his ilk) the budget will face rising deficits in 2009. Also, the credit markets are so consumed with cleaning up after the burst of the "leverage bubble" that they are unlikely to be the source of a boom in lending for quite some time. Thus 2009 will not be 2003.

So, will Roggio side with the "Blue Dogs" and insist on a narrow version of "fiscal discipline?" Or will he follow his instincts towards making needed public investments in "infrastructure," education and "economic development" and back reform of the budgeting process or the revival of mechanisms like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that extend government credit directly to investments that will pay back the federal government over time?

Based on Roggio's campaign statement, your guess is as good as mine.

Demand more from our candidates. Demand that they venture beyond pat answers based on false nostalgia for the "golden nineties" and propose policies that can reverse 30 years of the "conservative"-led disinvestment in our economy and people.

Kuttner to Democrats: Be Bold on the Economy

Bob Kuttner is an economist and a founding editor of American Prospect magazine. His has been a consistent voice of sanity on the causes of our current economic mess. His latest article challenges Democrats to provide a real contrast with Republicans on the economy. Over time, Kuttner probably puts more emphasis on opposition to trade agreements than Ideal Candidate would favor. He is viewed primarily as a protectionist on trade. However, he recently has widened his diagnosis to include unwise deregulation-- especially of financial and energy markets--that Ideal Candidate believes to be spot on.

Kuttner's key point for our race is his advice to make not the last 8 years of Bush 43 the issue; but to make the last 30 years of so-called "Conservative" revolution the issue. The backers of the "Conservative revolution" of the post-1973 era are not real conservatives, but actually devious supporters of policies that amounted to the unprecedented overthrow of exactly those policies that built the US as a technology-based manufacturing nation. Nostalgia is not the point. But figuring out how the next 30 years can be better for the average American family than the last 30, is precisely the point.

Flash Poll Results: Rovner 52%; Roggio 29%

Ideal Candidate's admittedly unscientific poll has closed and the results are in. Rovner wins with a less than overwhelming 52%, despite the greater visibility of this site among Lower Merion -based activists. Rovner is a committeeman in Lower Merion and is well known in those parts. Interestingly, Leibowitz garnered no votes among the 17 cast.

Truth be told, this poll means very little as the information available on the candidates' biographies and platforms is still extremely thin. Perhaps the best approach for Party insiders is to withhold endorsements until the candidates have had a chance to engage with voters.

Two cheers for an open primary?

The Rights and Wrongs of "Fiscal Conservatism": What Our Congressional Candidates Need to Tell Us

To date, Ideal Candidate has had personal chats with two of the three candidates for 6PA. Mr. Rovner and Mr. Leibowitz both sought to define themselves as "fiscal conservatives", one (Leibowitz) expressly stating that he supports a balanced budget amendment. Bob Roggio's campaign website contains a short paragraph on the "Economy" that talks of little else than the need for (again) "fiscal responsibility." Clearly, the candidates perceive that there are many votes to be won in our district if you can position yourself successfully as a "fiscal conservative." Ideal Candidate does not disagree.

Nevertheless, Ideal Candidate believes that the actual candidates need to be clear. What do they mean by "fiscal conservative?" In what way are federal deficits wrong? Are they always wrong? Or only wrong in times of economic prosperity and OK when private markets are in turmoil? When thinking about the national debt, should we add to it for some things (investments) and not others (permanent wars)?

One of the three candidates, Mr. Leibowitz, clarified his meaning, after he read where Ideal Candidate was headed with questions. He said he favored capital budgeting and cited the Schuylkill Valley Metro (more on this later) as the kind of infrastructure project that "would pay for itself." That's encouraging. Ideal Candidate urges the other two candidates to make clear where they stand. Once they do, we will be able to judge better which is the Ideal Candidate to take on Gerlach on the economy, whose own confusion on the subject of federal deficits and taxes stems from a very different political disease (he never met a tax cut or privatization scheme he didn't like).

Dean Baker, one of Ideal Candidate's favorite economists, takes the (usually) saintly Bill Moyers to task in his blog Beat the Press for presenting distorted information about the federal budget deficit. Particularly important is Baker isolating for criticism Blackstone Group founder Pete Peterson's role over many years in building a "bipartisan movement" to "reform Social Security."

One of the generals in this army is Peter Peterson, an incredibly rich investment banker who has garnered tens of millions of dollars of tax breaks that allowed him to pay a lower tax rate on his earnings than school teachers and firefighters pay on their earnings. Peterson was most recently in the public eye for lobbying Congress to protect the "fund manager tax subsidy." However when he is not lobbying Congress to protect the tax break that has allowed him and other very wealthy people to evade billions of dollars of taxes, Mr. Peterson is lobbying Congress to cut Social Security. He has repeatedly told audiences that "I don't need my Social Security" (after getting hundreds of millions in tax breaks, who would?), which he then uses as a justification for cutting Social Security benefits for tens of millions of workers who have paid for them. Mr. Peterson started the Concord Coalition, which has cutting Social Security as a top agenda item. He is also starting a new foundation devoted to this purpose. His track record earned him a solo appearance on Bill Moyers Journal a few years back, in which he got the opportunity to go his tirade against Social Security and other government programs without any correction from experts who understood the issues. Moyers again opened his show tonight to deficit fear mongers, again without any rebuttals from experts with knowledge of the issues.

The Concord Coalition program is the wrong type of "fiscal conservatism." As a condition for winning our support for their nominations, our candidates for 6PA should be heard loudly to say the Concord Coalition is wrong.

Ideal candidate's ideal platform (Talking Points, below) states clearly that the federal budget process needs to be reformed so that we can distinguish better between annual appropriations that should be balanced against tax revenues on an annual basis (government worker salaries, paper clips etc.) and those investments which should be paid for over the longer useful life of the asset they financed (rail systems, schools, hospitals etc.). In short, the federal government needs some sort of capital budgeting. Every state and local governmental level has a system for accounting for capital outlays separately. Since the 1950's the federal government has not. That's a political choice, not a consitutional limitation. Its time this gap is closed.

Vote in Latest Ideal Candidate Poll

According to recent reports, Richard Phillips is no longer interested in running against Gerlach. That leaves three candidates who have announced interest and presumably are filing petitions today that meet the legal requirements for ballot access in the Pennsylvania primaries on April 22nd. They are Chester County real estate developer Michael Leibowitz, former state senator and lawyer Bob Rovner of Lower Merion and Robert Roggio, a retired businessman from Charlestown Chester County.

We will be hearing more about these candidates in the weeks ahead. Earlier Ideal Candidate posts have linked to what news reports exist about the race and the likely candidates. The Chester County Democratic Committee has endorsed Roggio. Next week the Montgomery County Democratic Committee meets and will decide whether and whom to endorse. Now that the choices appear to be in place, it is time for a quick poll. Take a moment to vote by selecting your choice in the box appearing to the left of this post. Polls close in a week.

Latest Poll Results: Iraq Still Key Issue to Respondents

The results of the latest Ideal Candidate Poll are in. Four out of five respondents to the poll cite the Iraq War as the most important issue that should be addressed by an Ideal Candidate. Ideal Candidate wants to know more. What position should Ideal Candidate take on withdrawl? Should it be total and immediate withdrawl of all troops? Or should our candidate campaign on a variant of Obama and Clinton's formula, withdrawl of most troops by a deadline with a residual presence to "maintain security?" Ideal candidate encourages you to post a comment.

Ideal candidate also believes that although local activists who are more likely to visit sites like this are less motivated on the economy, in an actual campaign drawing distinctions between the Bush-Gerlach record on the economy and an alternative philosphy (if not a policy wonk statement) from a challenger will play a big role in determining whether independents voting for Democratic candidates higher on the ballot will continue to use the 6th District race as an excuse to split their ticket and remain "true" to their "independent" self image.

Gerlach's Softball Challenge: Dems Should Hit It Out of the Park

Here's the latest from Gerlach. I guess he's trying to channel the Governator's "girly man" challenge:

I have this question for my potential opponents,” [Gerlach] said. “What will you do differently than Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ do-nothing Congress?”

This should be so easy for any candidate, not just the ideal candidate, to hit out of the park.

First of all, I would remind voters that the "do-nothing" Congress has done as much as is possible with the obstructionist Administration at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. But I would also say that I would move the budget agenda from "pay-go" rules (Pelosi's ill-conceived 2006 campaign pledge) to a full scale reform of federal budgeting. I would explain to the voters the importance of greater federal investment in infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals, water systems etc.) and the importance of accounting for it properly-- using capital budgeting. Then I would turn to Gerlach. Do you support the reforms necessary to make a dent in our multi-trillion-dollar deficit in infrastructure? If so, show me any evidence of your past or current leadership on the issue.

Congress Passes Stimulus: Great but Not Enough

In a major step, Congress yesterday passed a compromise stimulus package sending it to a President who is likely to sign it. For a moment, let's put aside our usual cynicism. This is a real achievement in this political environment. It's a defeat for the usual post-Reagan approach to economic problems (cut marginal tax rates) and a victory for Democratic ideas (put spending power in the hands of as many people as possible). What this campaign for the 6th District seat should be all about is creating a better political environment, one where we can expect even better things from our national government.

But is this "stimulus package" enough? Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect rightly argues that a "stimulus" is not enough. The reason? The US is experiencing economic headwinds that are much stronger than the usual business cycle. According to Kuttner:

In fact, the entire concept and language of "stimulus" misses the point—and misses a huge opportunity. A stimulus is a macro-economic concept. It is sensible medicine when the economy is in an ordinary business-cycle downturn. Government deficit spending or tax cuts can pump more money into the economy, as can lower interest rates mandated by the Fed.

But this is no ordinary cyclical recession. Rather, it is a sharp and needless economic contraction, caused by a serious blow to the financial system, which was in turn the result of deregulation. Banks' balance sheets have taken a huge hit from the spillover
of the sub-prime disaster, and credit remains scarce and expensive even after several rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. Worse, this downturn comes on top of three decades of stagnant or declining real living standards for about two thirds of Americans, and increasing insecurity of employment, health insurance, and retirement, as well as rising costs of housing, education, and energy.

In short, there are very good reasons for believing that much of the problem is structural; that 30 years of conservative "reforms" of the economy have made the US economy much weaker over time.

Ideal Candidate's proposals for infrastructure spending and capital budgeting and for reform of Wall Street are ideas for moving the debate beyond stimulus to structural reform.

This is the area where an Ideal Candidate can create contrast with Gerlach. Gerlach's economic ideas (such as they are) represent a popular distillation of the same post-1973 consensus (deregulation and tax cuts are panacea) as got us into this mess. The Ideal Candidate represents change.

Let the debate begin.

Finally, the Fog Clears and Candidates Emerge

Suddenly a flood of news..

Robert Roggio, a retired Chester County businessman, has reportedly received the endorsement of the Chester County Democratic Party.

As reported in the Inky, Bob Rovner was collecting signatures in Narberth this weekend. The Bulletin quotes Bob as saying that he is doing the Congress thing as a favor to Daylin Leach. As reported in that same article, Bob had originally expressed interest in running for Connie Williams' State Senate seat, but agreed to step aside in favor of Daylin.

Mike Leibowitz says he is not stepping aside and is the best man for the job. Richard Phillips was not at the Chester County endorsement shindig, but it is not clear that he has abondoned his run.

Ideal Candidate is pleased. This blog will be a good place to vet issues and personalities leading up to the February 21st endorsement convention for the Montgomery County Democratic Committee (see calendar of events on LMNDC Website). May the "Ideal" Candidate win!

Confusion Reigns

Locally, the picture is not any clearer regarding a challenger for our beloved 6th District U.S. House of Representatives. We have at least two potential candidates talking with local party leadership: Michael Leibowitz and Richard Phillips. And reportedly, some folks have not given up on Chris Casey, an attorney Bob Casey's brother. And Bob Rovner? Despite some communications from local supporters, Ideal Candidate's sources don't find any sign that Bob is actually running. All this is extremely confusing. Where is the debate among partisans? What do the Party activists, the ones who will do the work, think? Are they merely waiting for the white smoke to appear outside of the walls of Chairman Groen's Norristown vatican?


Nationally, politics is creeping into the debate over a stimulus package. The Senate Democrats added elements to the Pelosi/Bush compromise that are very much within the "targeted, temporary and timely" framework charted by Rubin & Co. Enhanced food stamp and unemployment benefits will be spent as soon as they are received by people who very much need them. If we had an ideal candidate, he or she would be challenging Gerlach to tell us where he stood on using temporary enhancements to these programs as ways of getting money in the hands of people quickly. But we don't... yet.

Model for Ideal Candidate: William D. Kelley

William D. Kelley is today largely forgotten. But this Pennsylvanian was a true political giant in his time. Kelley, who started out as a Jacksonian Democrat, became a Republican in the 1850's as he became convinced that slavery posed a direct threat to the type of democratic economic system he wanted to spread within the United States. Kelley was elected to Congress in 1860 representing the industrial district of Manayunk and Roxborough. He quickly became one of the leading spokesman for the key elements of Lincoln's economic plan: national banking, government support of the railroads and, finally, emancipation. In the post-War years, Kelley expanded his advocacy for emancipation to support for full citizenship and voting rights for freed slaves. There was no stronger defender of the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment than William D. Kelley.

Kelley also was a leader that Pennsylvania's manufacturers looked for ideas. While he was alive (he died in 1890 after 30 years of continuous service in Congress) he promoted the interests of productive enterprise, but justified his support, not with an ideology of private profit, but on the strength of his conviction that only by the development of a diverse industrial base would wealth be spread to all sectors of society. Kelley saw the spread of wealth in society as a key support for political democracy.

He was a vocal supporter of the rights of labor. He advocated in favor of a government-led credit system and denounced the gold standard and free trade as ideological shibboleths of entrenched power. At the same time, a large segment of business owners in Eastern PA looked to him as their advocate. The archives at the Library Company of Philadlephia contain ample testament to the support key business leaders gave to him and his seemingly "unorthodox" economic ideas over the years.

Now is the time to recast political alliances in our region the same way that Kelley did beginning in 1860. Kelley's ideas encouraged business owners to look beyond their parochial interests to the wonderful vistas that would open if their employees could enjoy the fruits of their own labor and the freed slaves were raised to the level (both in skill and income) of white workers. Before this realignment, the Philadlephia elite was largely pro-Southern and thought of their interests in terms of foreign trade and not home markets. In response, Kelley helped found the Union League as a center for pro-Lincoln businessmen and investors in our region, changing the region's political alignment until FDR rocked its foundations in 1932 and 1936.

Ideal candidate believes that a new alliance between the middle class, working class and skilled business managers and investors can be forged around a new program of investment in the US economy. This new program will not be led by Wall Street, which is too busy digging out of its current mortgage-backed mess. It could be led by a new alliance of manufacturers and investors not caught in the Wall Street vortex with citizens from all walks who realize that powerful ends can be achieved with the right kind of national government policy combined with the right type of private entrepreneurial energy.

Check out the talking points at the bottom of the posts on this site. Scroll down and post comments. Ideal candidate should be a collective effort of the best minds of our 6th district.

Poll Results: We Need A Stimulus Package

Ideal Candidate would have preferred higher participation. However, it's time to report the results of the poll. 60% of respondents chose either "imediate payroll tax rebate" or "rescind Bush tax cuts." 40% of the respondents also chose to increase federal aid to the states to make up for budget shortfalls. Both the tax rebate and aid to the states meet the criteria of "timely," "targeted" and "temporary" established by experts pushing a stimulus. Repealing Bush's tax cuts in 2010 (although perhaps worthy as a stand-alone policy) does nothing to stimulate the economy in the shortrun.

The key issue of the stimulus dbate for our 6th District race is as follows. Jim Gerlach would not know an effective stimulus package if he fell over it. Like many politicians, he sees every issue through the ideological lens of his peer group-- in his case, a supply-side orthodoxy that never saw an economic problem that could not be solved by lower marginal rates. But liberals and progressives will need lean to distinguish sensible policy from ideological preference. If liberal or progressive candidates are going to appeal to the educated opinion leaders in our district, they will have to know how to defend and how not to defend their political preferences. Resisting the Republican push to "make Bush's tax cuts permanent" must be defended on the right grounds (lower marginal rates do not, by themselves, make the economy grow faster and besides no one, even their proponents, believe they will stimulate growth in the near term) and not on the mistaken grounds that repealing them should be a feature of a short-term stimulus bill.

Ideal candidate should promote a stimulus plan having the broadest participation at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder (through payroll tax system) and not larded with largely ineffective tax incentives for private investment.

Gerlach Wrong on Stimulus Policy

An Ideal Candidate for the "Gerlach" seat would immediately begin putting heat on the "orange sweater guy" for statements like this:

Gerlach Statement on President Bush’s Economic Stimulus
Proposal
Washington
Congressman Jim Gerlach (PA-06) made the following statement today following President Bush’s proposal on how to stimulate the economy and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s comments to work in a bipartisan manner:
"I commend the President and Speaker of the House for recognizing that our leaders need to work together to continue the growth of our economy, and reinvigorate the American workforce. Federal and state treasuries may rise and fall, but history has consistently shown that a low tax rate for individuals and businesses provides a necessary stimulus to spur growth and revenue. Good ideas on how to generate more prosperity are found on both sides of the political aisle. It is my hope that Speaker Pelosi will keep her word and reach out to Republicans, keeping politics on the side, to help all Americans. Working together, Republicans and Democrats can continue to ensure that there is a brighter, more prosperous Pennsylvania for everyone as we move forward."

This is classic Gerlach. Phony tone of bi-partisanship, coupled with a veiled hint of classic conservative movement policy commitments. He sneaks in his observation that "history has shown that a low tax rate for individuals and businesses provides a necessary stimulus to spur growth and revenue." In context, this is a stupid statement, even if you believe the most credible version of the supply-side credo Gerlach is mouthing. It's stupid because a stimulus plan is a counter-cyclical temporary policy, not a policy of incenting entrepreneurship or business investment, or any of the other classic supply-side assertions about the effect of low tax rates. He is signalling to his base that he is still a true believer in making Bush's tax cuts permanent and in larding the stimulus with largely wasteful "incentives" for business investment, whose time lag and uncertainty fail the "targeted" and "temporary" tests of effective stimulus policy that are the basis for the current bi-partisan consensus. Remember, the Left is being asked not to push for classic public government-centered public works plans off the agenda. Republicans like Gerlach should be called out and told to keep their policy preferences in the closet in the name of getting something done to lessen the severity of the economic downturn.

Hey publicly mentioned candidates (Bob, Bob, Richard or Michael) any comment?

Pelosi's Offer of Compromise on Investment Credit is Probably OK

Evidently, Speaker Pelosi is willing to include investment tax incentives in her stimulus bill in exchange for the Republicans backing off the (ridiculous) demand that a permanent extention of Bush's tax cuts be included in a stimulus package. No economist believes that permanent extention is a stimulus measure. The extention of the cuts wouldn't take effect until 2010. Nevertheless, the supply side crowd was gunning for it.

Pelosi needs to do something. Although Bush will not be explicit about what he is talking about, on paper an investment credit is less damaging than across-the-board cuts (it will be temporary) and is worth buying off conservative opposition. A credit for private investment, however, is less targeted than a direct increase in federal expenditures, because it assumes that private investors have a list of projects that are ready for approval and the only thing holding them back is the after-tax impact of that decision (not necessarily true as financial accounting rules could require accruing taxes not paid next year due to the credit). Nevertheless, Ideal Candidate approves the concept of a deal.

Pelosi and Reid's "Pay-Go" is a "No-Go"

Ideal Candidate believes that it is important to tell Democratic voters when our Congressional leadership have been wrong. The so-called "Pay-go" rules that the Pelosi-Reid leadership imposed on itself at the beginning of the 110th Congress is a good place to start.

The idea was that the Democrats could win over so-called "fiscal conservatives" by criticizing Bush and the Republican leadership as "spend and spend" if not "tax and spend." The awkwardness was always that Democrats historically have been committed to the activist use of government for progressive ends. So the "fiscal conservative" t-shirt did not quite fit.

Once control of Congress returned to the Democrats, the problems increased. Every spending increase had to be paired with some sort of revenue increase, to "pay for it." The trouble is that no large institution other than the federal government accounts for its finances this way. When private or public entities want to build an asset, they borrow money (the bigger the institution the more likely they issue bonds rather than borrow from a bank) and count the spending as capital expenditure. Capital expenditures are depreciated over time, with only a small amount of the spending included as expenditure in any given year. Business corporations do it. Public entities, such as transit authorities and school boards do it. The federal government doesn't. Since the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was wound up in the 1950's the federal government has saddled itself with a budgeting system that accounts the money spent to build a road the same way as it does money spent in reimbursing hospital bills through Medicare. Both types of spending get counted towards the annual "budget deficit" that newspapers like the Washington Post teach us is "out of control."

Now that Pelosi and Reid are working with the White House to pass a "fiscal stimulus"bill, our leaders are in the embarrassing position of having to explain why this stimulus should not be "paid for" under "pay-go" rules. The truth is that the "pay-go" promise made no sense to begin with.

Ideal Candidate believes that receipts should balance expenditures for things that are in the nature of consumption-- here today gone tomorrow. But the fiscal balance should not include spending on infrastructure assets, which by their nature will make the economy perform better in future years. This spending needs to be accounted for differently. Also when the private credit markets are not working properly and bankers are not responding to lower interest rates by increasing lending, Congress needs to spend money and not concern itself with "paying for it." This is Econ 101.

Ideal Candidate is intrigued by ideas for going back to the model pioneered by FDR in the 1930's to build infrastructure and repair credit markets: the RFC. For a discussion of the RFC model please see this article in the Philadelphia Jewish Voice.

Hopefully any "real" candidates that emerge will want to join this discussion.

EPI Plan Adds Public Investment to Stimulus

The labor-affiliated Economic Policy Institute adds one more weapon to the stimulus arsenal that the Brookings approach ignored: increased public spending on investment. See article here.

When I attended the Hamilton Project program, Rubin wanted to keep public investment off the table because it risks sparking an ideological fight over private vs. public investment. Rubin wants to focus on boosting consumption and leaving investment until later. Overall, Ideal Candidate favors including public investment as a way of baiting Gerlach to oppose building roads, bridges and schools, but can see why Rubin wants to build the biggest tent in favor of a stimulus package based on the three "ts": timely, targeted and temporary.

Economic Stimulus: A primer

Ideal Candidate is glad that some visitors to the site are participating in the poll question about economic stimulus. Some of you may still be confused about what a "stimulus package" entails and why it is an important issue now, as opposed to when the 111th Congress convenes in 2009.

The type of economic stimulus package being debated right now (of the type endorsed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke) is not designed to right all the economic wrongs that have accumulated over the past 30 years. Rather, it is a narrowly tailored policy that is required today to slow or stop the economy's decent into a recession (defined as two or more quarters of negative growth). This should be distinguished from a policy of fixing long-term structural problems that may be needed to (1) reverse the growing gap between rich and poor (2) rebuild the nation's infrastructure or (3) save the US manufacturing sector.

A rough consensus among experts is emerging around the halmarks of an effective stimulus package. It needs to be "timely, targeted and temporary." These requirements were spelled out clearly at a recent forum sponsored by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's group at the Brookings Institution-- The Hamilton Project.

Although Rubin's approach is to build consensus among technocrats without regard to party or ideology, the ideological opponents are already lining up in the usual places, i.e. the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Ideal Candidate believes election campaigns are a great time to educate the voting public about economic issues and advocacy and debate around the design of an effective stimulus package is a good "teachable moment" about the uses and misuses of economic policy. In the 19th century election-year speeches and editorials rang with rhetorical appeals for and against protective tariffs, national banks and federal support for "internal improvements." As a consequence the average well-informed citizen felt a high degree of involvement in economic issues.

Maybe we've been spoiled by the 20th century. The US was the center of the economic universe and even since living standards stopped growing as fast since 1973, most Americans had faith enough in their pensions, in Wall Street, in the values of their homes or Alan Greenspan that they didn't need to worry. Those days may be gone.

That's while Ideal Candidate will be stressing economics in this election campaign.

Once Again: It's the Economy!

As the daily drumbeat on the business pages makes clear, the economy is again likely to become the key issue in the 2008 elections. Voters in the Republican primary in Michigan told exit pollsters that the economy was their lead issue. According to this morning's summary in the New York Times:

"Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 55 percent cited the economy as their biggest concern, and 42 percent of them cast their ballots for Mr. Romney compared with 29 percent for Mr. McCain. In Iowa, by contrast, only 26 percent of Republican caucusgoers cited the economy as the most important issue, behind immigration. In New Hampshire, the economy was cited as the top concern by 31 percent of Republican primary voters, followed closely by Iraq, at 24 percent and immigration, at 23 percent."

There is no reason to expect that voters in the 6th PA would rate the issues any differently than voters in the recent Michigan primary. Although conditions locally are not yet recessionary (as they are in Michigan, California and other parts of the country), the drumbeat of bad news and the presence of real economic anxiety in a Congressional district with a sprawling suburbs and old manufacturing towns will mean that voters in November will want to select a candidate prepared to address the economy.

Ideal Candidate has laid out talking points (see below) that focus on economic anxiety and provide concrete policy options for addressing short-term cyclical weakness and the roots of our long-term structural economic underperformance. Where do would-be candidates Mike Leibowitz or Bob Rovner stand? Which of these gentlemen (or someone else) will have the vision to become worthy of the title "Ideal candidate?"

Bob Rovner Is a Charming Guy but Not Yet Ideal Candidate

Ideal Candidate is not ready to pass the "ideal" baton just because Bob Rovner, former State Senator and host of a valuable local radio program, is a charming guy. Mr. Rovner (who has run for office in the past as a Republican and as a Democrat) needs to convince voters that he will be an advocate for game-changing politics if he is elected. Let's have his program, so it can be evaluated against the "ideal" standard.

How You Can Help Ideal Candidate

Ideal Candidate can only succeed in sharpening the Democratic challenge to Gerlach if he/she has help. You can help by:

- Commenting on posts
- Participating in the Poll
- Sharing the blog with friends, family and collegues.

In your comments, it would be helpful to Ideal Candidate for you to give candid reactions to the Ideal Candidate Talking Points. Ideal Candidate does not stay still. He/she listens to 6th District voters and is always open to constructive advice and/or criticism. Ideal Candidate's talking points are a work in progress and will be updated, supplemented and/or modified continually.

Ideal Candidate looks forward to your participation.

Leibowitz is Not Yet Ideal

This just in: Mike Leibowitz says he's running

KP Exclusive: A Challenger for Gerlach | Keystone Politics

Ideal Candidate plans to stay in the race. IC will wait to see how Leibowitz's campaign develops to see whether he can assume the title of "Ideal Candidate." Unknown insurgent candidates cannot run a "safe" campaign and beat a well-known and well-financed incumbent. Insurgents must look for "break-out" issues that can appeal broadly and make Gerlach have to fight to hold his own base. See Ideal Candidate's talking points below.

Ideal Candidate Speaks: Let's Not Forget Congress

In this Presidential election year, it is easy to forget that we will also be electing 1/3 of the Senate and all 435 members of the House of Representatives. Yes, in Pennsylvania there is no Senator up for election. And yes, we can expect a coat-tail effect: if we nominate a strong Presidential candidate that candidate will influence voting down the column to the so-called "minor" races.

But we need a candidate. We need a candidate for House of Representatives. Until someone else emerges, I am that Ideal Candidate.

The problem is that I am now but a cyberspace entity. Until someone circulates a petition and files for the office, my campaign as "Ideal Candidate" is not for the office, but to influence the formation of the policy ideas and broad themes that could define a successful campaign.

Let's be honest. Conventional wisdom says that this seat is a long-shot. Gerlach has survived two tough challenges since being elected in 2002. He has earned his incumbency by being a fighter, and by being smart enough to chart a course just independent enough to avoid being seen as a "nothing but(t)" --an echo of the Bush White House. But a "just independent enough" is not enough to represent our district in a new change-oriented Congress in January 2009.

Now that Connie Williams has announced her retirement and Daylin Leach has announced his intention to run for Connie's seat, two possible candidates for the "Ideal Candidate" with proven vote-getting ability in the eastern portion of the district are out of the picture. Ideal Candidate has heard rumours of folks interested, but, as of now, is not aware of anyone who is serious.

Ideal Candidate is not out to "draft" any particular individual. Ideal Candidate will continue to serve as the only "declared" candidate for the office until a flesh-and-blood person with the qualifications to serve emerges. At that point, Ideal Candidate plans to continue to offer critiques and advice: holding up the ideal against which these campaigns should be judged.

Let the campaign begin!