"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

The current mess in our Federal Government is filling the Blogosphere and mainstream media these days.  Most of what we see and hear is presented as fact or news.  Well, most of it isn't fact or news.  It's opinion, slanted by the political ideology of the presenter.  Some of it is so egregious as to be laughable.

Let's be clear about a couple of things.  Not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on our sovereign debt are two very different things.  I'm not sure if the media doesn't get that or has simply decided it's better theater to present it that way.

Default means not paying our bills and not honoring (paying interest and principal) on Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds.  That would not be good.  It would damage further the US credit rating and could force interest rates higher throughout the US economy.

Not raising the debt ceiling would simply restrict the Federal Government's ability to borrow more money and further increase our already staggering debt. It would NOT mean default.

Fiscal conservatives don't want the US to default on its sovereign debt.  They want to stop, or at least slow, the uncontrolled and unsustainable growth of that debt.

Fiscal liberals want to keep borrowing and taxing and spending like there's no tomorrow.  As Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons used to say, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."  To fiscal liberals, Tuesday will never come.

Are the preceding two paragraphs my opinions presented as if they were facts.  No, they are demonstrated fact based upon verifiable evidence interpreted with a bias toward fiscal responsibility.

As is usually the case in disputes such as this, neither side of the argument is in the right.  We can't and shouldn't keep spending at present rates but we don't have to balance the budget overnight.

The answer lies in pulling back Federal spending to realistic, sustainable levels. The smart way to accomplish this is to use a scalpel, rather than a meat cleaver.

Nobody is holding the economy hostage.  In case you hadn't noticed, the world is still spinning and the sun will still come up tomorrow.  It will eventually come up on Tuesday.

Back In The Saddle, Again

No, in spite of the title, this blog post is not about riding, although I've been spending a lot of time at the barn, lately.  Thanks at least in part to my time there, I haven't been writing and sharing the opinions I have on almost everything.

I've still had the opinions.  I just wasn't writing about them.  So, this post is a return to action prompted by all the campaign fervor and rhetoric being thrown around in the media by candidates, campaigns and other supporters, hangers-on or reporters claiming to be unbiased journalists.  (Here's a tip.  They aren't unbiased.)

Today a new billboard/photo plaque began floating around the internet via FaceBook and e-mail messages.

This proclaims itself as Social Security Facts and directs us where to look on the internet for more facts.  The only problem is that they aren't facts.  I don't know who these people are but the facts they offer are either half truths or outright incorrect.  Imagine that.

Social Security and Medicare are not part of the Federal budget because they have their own funding from Social Security and Medicare taxes.  That is absolutely correct.  Further, today, they are not broke and they are in fact still running a surplus.  That, too, is absolutely correct.  So far, so good.

However, neither program will remain solvent through this century as claimed.  That is absolutely incorrect.  According to the following article offered in the Los Angeles Times, a liberal publication, Social Security is projected to go into the red in 2033 and Medicare will hit the red even sooner in 2024, only 12 years from now.  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/24/nation/la-na-medicare-report-20120424

When these two programs begin running deficits in 2024 and 2033, respectively, the Federal Government will have limited choices:  Raise Social Security and Medicare taxes even higher; reduce benefits; make payments from general Treasury funds, which will increase the deficit and require borrowing even more money.

The bottom line is the Federal Government issues Social Security checks and Medicare payments from the U.S. Treasury.  If the government can't get the money from Social Security and Medicare tax receipts, they have to get it from somewhere and the somewhere will be from general funds.

So, the claim that Social Security and Medicare will remain solvent throughout the century are outright incorrect and the claim that these payments cannot add to the deficit are disingenuous.  So far, not so good.

Another claim is that Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements--that every dime has been earned, rather than given by government.  In truth, every dime of Social Security and Medicare payments are part of entitlement programs.  We, as current or former taxpayers, are not paying into retirement or medical accounts for our own use at a future time.  We make transfer payments, a form of tax in which today's payers support today's recipients.  We do so with the hope and belief that we'll be supported in turn by future taxpayers when we're entitled to receive benefits.  Hence the name, Entitlement Programs.  If you don't like it, call it something else but entitlement is what it is.

The last item claimed to be fact is about privatization of Social Security.  If Social Security had been privatized during the Bush Administration, would people within 15 years of retirement have lost 50% of their retirement accounts?  Yes and no.

If Social Security had been privatized (not something I advocate) and if participants had 100% of their retirement assets invested in S&P 500 stocks or mutual funds (not something I recommend) on October 10, 2007, they would have lost 57% of those retirement assets by March 9, 2009.  The facts are actually worse than the claim, although it wouldn't have mattered at all how close a participant was to retirement.  Unfortunately, the statement about eight years is not so accurate.

Looking specifically at the eight-year period claimed in the statement, investors in the S&P 500 would actually have had a positive return of 27%.  That's relatively modest for eight years but it is a gain and not the claimed loss.  Between September 2002 and September 2012, even counting the crash years of 2007-2009, the value of the S&P 500 is up 77%.  That's an annual average return of 7.7%, which is not a bad return by most standards.

These are the facts.  If there is anything to be gained, here, besides knowledge and truth, it's that none of us should accept these politically motivated claims without checking them.  Since your vote counts as much as mine, I hope you will.

All Good Things

According to a 1993 Jackson Browne song, "All good things got to come to an end."  Over the years, I've come to accept that it's so.

I had wanted a Porsche 911 Carrera since I saw a brand new 1967 Arctic Silver 911S when I was a freshman at College of the Sequoias.  Most of us were into muscle cars, such as Mustangs and Camaros and GTOs but I got the sports car bug right then and there.

Of course, there was no way a college kid from a modest background could afford a Porsche 911, even a used one.  The solution was my first sports car--a 1961 Triumph TR3.  By the time I graduated from college and had a real paycheck, I realized the paycheck wasn't big enough to buy a 911.

In the ensuing years my paychecks grew but never as fast or as high as the window sticker on a 911 Carrera grew.  Bummer.  The solution, then, was a string of pretty good sports and GT cars, including a Porsche 914, two Nissan (Datsun) Z cars, a Mazda RX-7, a BMW M3 and another Porsche, the 968.  They were all good cars--all good things.

Then, in 1995, Porsche introduced the new 911 Carrera (model designation 993) and I fell in love all over again.  Lo and behold, a quick check of the window sticker and a comparison with my paychecks of the time proved I could buy one of them if I wanted.  Finally!  I found the one I wanted, negotiated the deal and had the pen in my hand, ready to sign.  I couldn't do it.  No way.  I could not force my hand to sign a paper buying a $55,000 car.

Fast forward to the late fall of 2008.  The economy was in the tank, investment markets were in free-fall and I was losing almost as much money per day in the stock market as the cost of a used '95 Carrera.  This is really dumb, I thought.  So, I started looking and by January 2009, I'd found my dream 911 on eBay in Chicago.  It not only looked right, it had all of the right after-market performance goodies already installed.  All I had to do was turn the key and drive.  Awesome.  It was, too--awesome, I mean.  It still is.

Things are different, now.  I'm semi-retired and self-employed.  My son, Alex, just turned sixteen, will be getting his driver's license very soon and his sister, Julia, will follow that act in two years.  My life has moved on, too.  I found I was driving the Porsche less and less.  Instead, I was driving my big Ford Expedition more and more, going to the barn and hauling horse stuff or guitar and amplifier stuff.

When I was a kid in the Fifties and Sixties I wanted to be a pilot.  I'm not sure why but the idea of flight and the freedom of it really appealed to me.  Later, during the Viet Nam era, I had the chance to join the Air Force but declined, even though I still wanted to fly.  During the Eighties I fulfilled that dream by getting my private pilot's license and doing some recreational flying for a few years.  It was great while it lasted but my life moved on to new homes and jobs in new towns and it's been about twenty-five years since I've flown as pilot in command.  I think about it every once in a while but with no regrets.

It's with mixed emotions that I'm selling my Guards Red Porsche 911 Carrera--the car I'd wanted since I was a college freshman in 1967.  I fulfilled that dream and living it--driving it--was every bit as great as I'd hoped it would be.  I'm sure I'll think about it every once in a while but with no regrets.

"All good things got to come to an end
The thrills have to fade
Before they come 'round again
The bills will be paid
And the pleasure will mend
All good things got to come to an end


All good times, all good friends
All good things got to come to an end."


Jackson Browne

The Trouble With Congress

There are a lot of problems with Congress and our elected representatives.  I won't try to list all of them but  recent events have dragged one of those problems to the forefront:  Our U.S. Senators and Representatives are doing lousy jobs.  Some would say they aren't doing their jobs at all.

Our U.S. Senators and Representatives repeatedly fail to make correct but difficult decisions to control spending, reform taxes and drastically reduce the soaring deficit because, among other things, voting for unpopular but necessary changes in government will cost them their jobs.  Congress, especially the House of Representatives where elections for all seats occur every two years, has become more about RE-elections than about governing our nation.

A lot of people have realized the problem and the governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue,(D) has offered a solution.  Unfortunately, her proposed solution is as incorrect as her identification of the problem was correct.

According to the Raleigh News & Observer, Governor Perdue stated at a recent Rotary Club gathering, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover.  I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. You want people who don't worry about the next election."

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdue_suggests_suspending_congressional_elections_for_two_years_was_she_serious

She's half right.  Fear of being thrown from office is paralyzing Congress on key issues.  However, guaranteeing these folks get to keep their jobs through an election cycle isn't the answer.  The answer is TERM LIMITS.

In 1951 the 22nd Amendment, which limited the term of the Presidency to two elections and no more than ten years,was enacted.  Congress and the States correctly recognized that staying in government for too long was not a good thing.

There have been several term limit Amendments proposed  for Congressmen and Senators.  As recently as November 2009, Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, introduced S.J. Res. 21, which would limit office to two terms for a total of 12 years for Senators and three terms for a total of six years for Representatives.

This is the correct solution to the problem but S.J. Res. 21 was sent into a black hole.  The last action on it was a referral to a Senate committee where it will lay for eternity.  Why?

At the same time that resolutions proposing term limit amendments are offered by Senators such as Jim DeMint, Senator Harry Reid, top dog in the Senate, and Congressman Barney Frank, former top dog in the House, are among a group of legislators who have sponsored a resolution to repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting the time a president can serve.

Are Reid and Frank nuts?  I'm not a psychologist but I know they've taken a backwards position on this key issue.  I'll leave the overall evaluation to you.


In my opinion, Jim DeMint should be applauded for recognizing the severity of the problem, recognizing the correct solution and actually trying to fix the problem.  That takes smarts and guts.  Way to go, Jim.

As for Governor Perdue, she was intelligent enough to recognize a serious problem, even if her solution was misguided.  To her, I can only say, "What were you thinking?"

The Beat Goes On

What beat?  The beat of political drums is pounding across America.  Cut spending!  Raise taxes!  Create jobs!  Help the sick and the poor!  Defend our country and our way of life!

As political debate rages around us, spending, taxes and the federal budget deficit remain high on the list of topics.  If people thought the deficit issue or the problem would go away with the recent passage of an increase in the federal debt ceiling, they were sadly mistaken.  Our government faced the enemy and it was staring back at them in the mirror.  They had a chance to do the correct thing for the good of our nation but, instead, they blinked.

At the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute they agreed on a not-at-all-sufficient deficit reduction program offset by a too-small debt ceiling increase.  They kicked the can down the road until another day in the not-too-distant future:  2012.

What was the hang-up?  The answer is easy but sad.  They—both sides—worried more about getting re-elected than doing the correct thing for America.

What should they have done?  Although complicated and not at all popular, this answer is easy, too.  They should have raised the debt ceiling in conjunction with significant spending cuts and an increase in taxes on the very rich.  Now that I've said it, I may not be very popular, either.

Warren Buffett, a very smart and really rich guy whom many of us respect, wrote recently, "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.  It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."  [Excerpted from an opinion article in The New York Times.]

I agree with Buffett.  The “very rich” should pay higher taxes.  The problem is where one draws the line.  President Obama says he wants millionaires and billionaires to stop getting a free ride and pay their fair share.  He talks about taxing the super-rich, flying around in their personal jets but his proposals call for tax rate increases on incomes of $200,000 or more.  Does anyone recognize the term, “disingenuous?”  

Who, exactly, are the very rich?  According to Warren Buffett, he made $40 million dollars last year.  That’s very rich.  It’s also a long way from the $200,000 annual income figure that the Democrats use in their tax proposals.

So, what’s the correct income number on which to pay higher taxes?  If it were up to me, the magic number would be two additional tax rate brackets at $500,000 and $1,000,000, respectively.  The top tax rate, now, is 35% on income above $380,000.  I’d keep that rate and the lower brackets where they are but add a 37.5% rate at $500,000 and a 40% rate on income above $1,000,000.

So, what’s that going to cost?  A couple filing a joint return with taxable income of $500,000 would pay taxes in the future equal exactly to what they pay, now.   No increase.  Let me repeat that—No increase for 99% of tax filers.

However, a family who earned $1,000,000 would pay $12,500 more in federal income tax than before.  They can afford it.

Someone who had a very big income of $2,000,000 would pay $37,500 more under this new tax plan than they would under the current structure.  Again, they can afford it.

Incidentally, if Warren Buffett's income was ordinary earned income, he would have to pay a little over $1.5 million more in federal income taxes but, in case you’d forgotten, he’s not complaining and, you guessed it, he can afford it.  In reality, he wouldn't have to pay it because most of his reported income is from long-term capital gains, which I have not suggested changing.

Further, these proposed new income brackets and tax-rate increases would not destroy jobs, deter investment or prevent jobs from being created.  On the contrary, the financial stability that a realistic deficit reduction program would bring to the economy would encourage new investment and encourage corporations to begin spending some of the cash they’ve been hoarding.

To quote Warren Buffett, again, "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone--not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77--shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.  People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."  I can buy that.  The statement isn't true because Buffett said it, rather he recognized the truth of it in our economy.

How much new tax revenue are we talking about?  According to the most recent complete IRS information I could find (2008), returns with $500,000 or more of taxable income represented 19.2% of total taxable income from all returns.  These proposed tax rate increases would generate a little over $50 billion in additional tax revenue annually.  That’s $500 billion over a decade but it alone won’t fix the problem—and it shouldn’t. 

Actually, $50 billion of new tax revenue is only a drop in the bucket.  The deficit in 2010 was $1.3 trillion, which was more than 37% of total outlays of $3.5 trillion.  I’ll come back to these numbers later, so please remember them:  $1.3 trillion deficit; 37% of total outlays.

Is there a lot of waste in government spending?  Yes but it alone can’t save enough money to fix our problem.  Real cuts need to be made.

Where should we cut?  Isn’t everything on which the federal government spends money critically important?  No, it isn’t.  That should be the easiest to cut but some of the really important stuff will need to be reduced, also.

First, we, the people—represented by our federal government—spend approximately 20% of our annual budget on Social Security payments.  Current spending and current beneficiaries should not be touched.  Social Security is a future problem that must be fixed in the long term but not today.  We should adjust the start-point for future benefits of people who are under 55, today, so that the program will be sustainable in the future but current recipients should not be negatively impacted by any changes.

We also spend approximately 20% of our budget on defense, in one way or another.  That includes the costs of two wars that have cost many precious American lives and burned trillions of American dollars, many of which will never be accounted for.  We cannot afford to weaken our defense but we cannot afford these two wars of dubious value and accomplishment.  We surely cannot afford the waste and outright fraud that has accompanied them.  We should pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and focus on the real defense of our nation.

We spend a whopping 21% of our budget on Medicare and Medicaid.  Are they sustainable?  Not in any calculation you can make.  Recent legislation has done nothing to reduce the runaway increase in healthcare costs.  Rather, it is an insurance program designed to decide who receives medical treatment and who pays for it.  Further, the cost of what is most often called Obamacare is enormous, does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare and will most likely be judged unconstitutional.  We must find a way to cut these two huge programs—Medicare and Medicaid—now. 

We spend about 6% of our budget on interest payments on Treasury debt.  The bad news is, because of runaway deficit spending over the last decade, we’re borrowing way too much.  The good news is rates are cheap.  The yields on all bonds, including US Treasury bonds, are at historic lows.  The ten-year T-note is currently at a yield slightly below 2%.  If interest rates double over time, our debt service cost could double.  We cannot reduce this cost immediately because our sovereign debt must be honored but we must reduce the rate at which we’re adding to our national debt.  Then we have to find a way to reduce the debt itself.  Nothing less should be tolerated.

The remaining 33% of our expenditures should not be safe from reduction or elimination but there are no really big single programs to attack.  Instead, there are a bunch of little ones.  With these programs, the job of finding reductions will be different but we must reduce or eliminate many of them.

So, here we are at another critical crossroads.  If our government could reduce the cost of Medicare and Medicaid by one-third (7% of budget), defense by one-third (6.67% of budget), and the cost of other catch-all of programs by one-half (16.5% of budget), we’d still have a deficit of around 7% of expenditures.  The tax increases proposed above on incomes greater than $500,000 would further reduce the deficit to about 5.5% of total expenditures.  That sounds pretty good compared to the 37% of outlays in 2010 but it’s still too high.

The solution to a balanced budget in the future lies beyond this correction phase in a little thing called growth.  With renewed confidence in the stability of our government and our finances, people and businesses will invest.  They’ll put people to work and pay them salaries and those workers will pay taxes.

With our newfound responsible approach to expenditures, we also will need to hold the growth of spending to around 4% annually, compared with a historic average since 1950 of about 7.5%.  By itself, that won’t be enough.  We’ll need a steady increase of revenue, not from more tax increases but from economic growth.  Between 1990 and 2000, government receipts doubled, reflecting a 7% compound annual growth rate.  Between 2000 and 2010, gross receipts increased only 7%, reflecting the effects that two serious recessions had on economic activity.  The solution to this problem is clear:  Actively pursue government policies that promote economic growth with a targeted GDP growth rate of 4-5%.

This is what Congress and the White House should have been brave enough and strong enough to do for the good of the country, irrespective of political affiliation or the outcome of the next election.  Unfortunately, their priorities lie elsewhere.

Decision Time?

After taking the summer off from all of the hard work of blog writing, I decided it was time to put my brain back in gear and restart this blog.  There certainly is no shortage of things about which I have a strong opinion.

I saw this article on-line this morning on "Politico" called Decision Time for GOP Elite.   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62633.html

To summarize quickly, the point of the article was that big-time Republican donors needed to decide which horse to back in the race.  The authors further stated it had become a two-horse race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Decision time?  Maybe but I think of it more as "wake up time."

It's time for Republicans to wake up and realize that any nominee they select from the hard-core, right wing conservative ranks of the Party will ensure an Obama re-election.  As was the case in 2008, the 2012 election will be decided by the middle of the electorate.  It is these swing voters from the ranks of independents, moderate Republicans and conservative (Blue Dog) Democrats that must be won in order to win the general election.

About one-third of voters will vote for President Obama, irrespective of whom the Republicans run against him.  These voters represent the extreme left of the political spectrum in America.  They have a sitting president representing the left and they will support him actively.

Another third of voters will vote for anyone the Republicans nominate and the farther to the right the candidate, the more energized these voters will be.  These voters also are the ones who will select the next Republican candidate for president.

In 2008, Obama carried the remaining one-third in the middle.  Result?  Place a win in the column on the left.

If Republicans are serious about winning the White House in 2012, they must nominate a candidate who can take the middle away from President Obama.  Nominating a hard-core, right wing candidate who is more ideologue that rational won't do it.  Candidates such as Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul cannot capture the swing voters.  If Sarah Palin enters the primary race and wins the nomination, she'd face that same fate as the others:  Energize the right for her; energize the left against her; lose the middle to President Obama.

Result?  Another four years of an Obama Administration in the White House.

Like it or not, and too many Republicans don't get it, the only Republican candidates who can capture the middle and win the general election in 2012 are Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.  Will Republicans nominate either of them?  Probably not.

Republican voters today are too wrapped up in Tea Party ideology to look beyond it to reality.  To these voters, I say, leave the tea in the cupboard.  It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The Purple Gang

Using red and blue colors on a big television map has been around for a while but it was during the Presidential election of 2000 that the terminology became part of the established American lexicon.  Red was Bush and blue was Gore.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-one-state-two-state-red-state-blue-state.html)   Over time, the Red State / Blue State jargon was accepted to mean red for conservative states and blue for more liberal states.

I suppose these colors are as appropriate as any to describe the extreme ends of our political spectrum, even though the traditional color for socialist parties and countries has always been red.  Remember Red China or Pinko Commies?  "I'd rather be dead than red?"  Maybe it was a mix-up or maybe it was political correctness not to label the left-leaning, liberal Democrats red and assigning that color instead to the conservative Republicans.

I've believed for as long as I can remember that the biggest thing wrong with government is politics.  That is nowhere more evident than in a national presidential election.  You see, winning the right to run in the general election representing a specific national political party is all about politics in the extreme, as the extremes of both major political parties dominate the process.

To be a Blue Candidate, the person will have to appeal to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party.  To be a Red Candidate, the person will need to appeal to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.  Anyone with moderate views on any issue need not apply.  The Republicans are probably the worst offenders, as they even have a derisive name they give to pretenders who aren't worthy of being called True Republicans:  RINOs.

We see this syndrome now, as all of the Republican contenders are scrambling to move their statements and claimed beliefs as far to the right as possible.  John McCain did it during the last presidential primary season, even though he had always been a moderate.  Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner, and Tim Pawlenty are doing it now.  They are both changing positions on key issues in order to prove they "are Real Conservatives."  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCwy8zBneOYklYsCPP1GbpA2vaDg?docId=6936af934fbc4f3d86b4ece0a98732be

This is really faulty logic on the part of the Reds and Blues because the candidate with the best chance of success in the general election is almost always the more moderate of the two.  You doubt it?

About one-third of the electorate is hard-core Democrat Blue and another third is hard-core Republican Red.  So long as each candidate passes their party's various litmus tests, these voters are in the bag.  No doubt, no risk.  The only question is about the remaining one-third of the voters?

According to a recent AP article, "The latest Pew Research study suggests that independents, who 'played a determinative role in the last three national elections,' will have even more clout in 2012.  They comprised 30 percent of the national electorate in 2005, Pew found. They now make up 37 percent."  Any way you stack it, that's a big number.  Whoever wins this group will win the general election.

So, what's it all about for me?  Will it be Red or Blue?  If I had my choice, it would be neither.  What we need in this country and in our political lexicon is a strong dose of Purple.  You read it correctly:  PURPLE!

Many of the positions taken by the Republican Reds on fiscal and governance issues are absolutely correct.  We desperately need less government and, more importantly, a less costly government.  As Ronald Reagan said, once upon a time, "Government isn't the solution.  It's the problem."

We need to reduce spending dramatically and we need to reduce the intrusion by government into the daily lives of Americans.  We need to live within our means and balance the budget without raising taxes on ordinary citizens or businesses.

During the 1992 election campaign, Bill Clinton got it right.  His campaign mantra was, "It's the economy, stupid."  This slogan kept the campaign focused on the one key issue that would eventually put Clinton in the White House for eight years.  Whatever you think of the man or his politics, during the campaign his job was to get elected and he did--twice.

If the Republicans could stay focused on the economy, jobs, spending and taxes, the Reds would actually have a chance to win.  The reality is they'll drift away from these critical issues, just as the leading candidates are doing now, to embrace and push the far right's social agenda.  In the process, they'll alienate much of the middle third of the national electorate they need in order to win the general election.

On the other side of the great divide, the Democrat Blues are not any better.  The big difference in this presidential election cycle is that the Blue candidate is a known quantity.  The chance of someone other than President Obama running for the Blues is something less than zero.

In the previous election, President Obama was able to capture the one-third of voters in the middle of the political spectrum--The Purple Gang.  In this election, he can afford to move his positions to the center, because he doesn't have to convince his Blue Crew that he's liberal enough to be called a True Democrat.

Red candidate, blue candidate?  What America really needs is more purple.