Reflections of 2011

It is safe to say that 2011 was a year of instability.  From Madison to New York and from Athens to Cairo, the streets of cities across the world have been flooded with angry mobs of protestors.  The protestors of Madison and Athens marched against the realities brought about by access in government and have stood as testimony to what President Reagan once warned about government never voluntarily reducing itself in size.  In New York, these mobs took to the streets in the form of protest allegedly aimed at the actions of the private sector, calling for greater redistribution of resources.  While in Egypt and Libya, protestors overthrew their nations' leaders, uprising into the so-called Arab Spring.  While US Marines successfully ended the existence of 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden, the recent passing of North Korean leader Kim Jung Il brought about a new type of uncertainty along the Pacific rim.

Time may have been correct to place "the protestor" on the cover of their magazine, but it is perhaps a farfetched notion that the wave of protests, across the globe, will result in greater stability and prosperity.  In fact, most signs suggest the exact opposite.  If the Tea Party was successful in bringing balance to Washington in 2010, the uprisings in state capitols like Madison and Columbus may have brought about the birth of the Occupy Movement.  While President Obama and the Republican House have been operating at near-stalemate, political movements have moved public dialogue.  The Tea Party, calling for limited government, made it difficult for politicians to cast votes without public scrutiny.  The Tea Party movement allowed for some of the newly elected leaders to enact bold reforms to rein in government; invoking a belief that "the people vs the powerful" constituted tension between taxpayers and government.  On the other end of the spectrum, the Occupiers take "the people vs the powerful" to mean something very different;  suggesting it was the "1% oppressing the 99%."  These two competing dynamics have become the basis of our national discourse in the past year.

These two competing schools of thought have driven American politics and policy-makers in a number of ways.  President Obama has adopted the rhetoric of the Occupiers, suggesting that our nations economic stagnation and debt can only be solved by raising tax rates on those not paying their "fair share."  The President has spent most of 2011 blaming everything but government for the nation's fiscal woes.  While in rhetoric he blames Wall Street and corporate greed for the financial crisis, in reality the President has shown favoritism toward his "fat cat" campaign contributors in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.  It is expected that our Candidate-in-Chief will raise upwards of a billion dollars for re-election.  On a national level, 2011 has been consumed by arguments between the President and the GOP Congress over the budget and taxes--with most major decisions being shelved (in the President's mind) for his second term.

In 2011, most of the major public policy reforms have taken place at the state level.  The Republican wave of 2010 filtered down into the gubernatorial and state legislative elections, particularly in the industrial midwest.  What began in 2010 in union-heavy New Jersey with Chris Christie, continued in 2011 with John Kasich in Ohio, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and others.  Whereas Christie fought diligently for modest reforms against labors wishes, Walker and Kasich went to the belly of beast, challenging the collective bargaining rights of state employees; inspired by the limited government populism of the Tea Party movement.  Such reforms were not met without resistance.  In Wisconsin, six GOP Senators faced recall elections, with two losing their seats.  In Ohio, a ballot petition to overturn Senate Bill 5 received overwhelming support.  In 2011, the messages have been mixed.  Americans rejected the Obama agenda in 2010 by voting in a GOP House. Governors and state legislatures.  Then, when some of the newly elected GOP leaders fulfilled their campaign promises, those reforms were rejected as well.

Michigan may be a microcosm of all these dynamics at work.  The election of a CEO-turned-Governor, a GOP Senate supermajority and a Republican House opened new possibilities.  In many regards, Michigan lawmakers have pursued an aggressive agenda to reform the state's tax structure and budget in a way that addresses both short-term and long-term problems.  This has not come without resistance from the state's powerful public sector unions, who have been able to run with the rhetoric that the pension tax, higher co-pays and emergency manager legislation, in conjunction with a simplified corporate tax structure favors the "1%" and are intended to destroy the middle class.  Ousting State Representative Paul Scott was the result of a concentrated effort by organized labor to drive home that message in a labor union-friendly state.  And in some regards, rather than the Governor selling the merits of his reform package to the people, he's been distracted with new endeavors such as a public Detroit-Windor bridge, a health insurance exchange, a state body-mass index and public transit initiatives; all unpopular with the GOP base.  Snyder has not made his case effectively for the limited government populism of the Tea Party movement (even if some of his policies reflect those ideals).  He has, in some circumstances, found himself strangely on the side of attacking the private sector (Matty Mouron) and defending some of the redistributionist policies of the Occupiers (Obamacare, public transit, etc).  These competing extremes taking place all within the state of Michigan, may best reflect the instability and uncertainty of the times.

The financial meltdown in Europe has made it necessary for countries like Greece to shed government debt, thus causing the violent outbreaks by disgruntled beneficiaries.  In the Middle East, the "Arab Spring" that has swept through the region has toppled old authorities, but their replacements have yet to be determined.  How these events relate to the inner turmoil in the United States remains to be seen.  Will American taxpayers be asked to bailout European banks?  Will greater instability in the Middle East create more friendly governments in the region or more hostile?  Will the debt problems being addressed in many state capitols eventually translate into addressing the debt crisis in Washington?  2011 may prove to be an historically significant year, a year of transition and transformation.  For now, it seems like a year of instability and uncertainty.