Editorials and Opinions

David Post • December 14, 2012

Suppose you owed $15,000 and earned $15,000. (Multiply those figures by a billion, and that’s almost what the US economy looks like.) In two weeks, your loan payments are going to increase, and your salary is going down.
That’s a personal fiscal cliff – less income, more expenses.

In federal government budget speak, the fiscal cliff is about taxes going up and spending going down at the same time. Unless something is done to stop it, this will happen in the U.S. on New Year’s Day.

How did this happen?

Twelve years ago, the U.S. economy was generating surpluses – more revenue than spending – for “as far as the eye could see.” In 2001, President George W. Bush pushed a tax cut through Congress that was set to expire in ten years. Why expire? Because a ten year tax cut “costs” less than a permanent tax cut. The ten-year cost was $4 trillion. A permanent tax cut would have cost a lot more. It was the largest tax cut ever. Government revenues decreased. Not until 2006 did income tax revenues catch up to what they were in 2000.

Then, the world changed. The country entered two wars that have cost $1.5 trillion. Congress also expanded Medicare to pay for medications for seniors, another $1 trillion.

The Great Recession that began in 2008 was costly. The Bush bank bailouts cost $800 billion, the Obama stimulus mostly to state and local governments facing massive tax decreases cost another $800 billion, and recession driven unemployment and other safety net costs increased $500. Revenues also declined. Tax receipts declined more than $1 trillion compared to 2007. In fact, in 2012 tax revenues were still lower than they were in 2007.

In 2010, because of the fragile economic recovery, the Bush tax cuts were extended for along with a new payroll tax cut. Price tag for two years: $1 trillion.

The total: $6.5 trillion. A lot of money to be repaid when income tax revenues are only $1.1 trillion per year.

In 2011, Congress imposed a “sequester” automatically cutting $1.2 trillion in spending over the next ten years beginning Jan. 1, 2013. Congress thought it would replace that with a better plan within a year, but it couldn’t.

When New Years 2013 arrives, the Bush tax cuts expire taxes and the sequester spending cuts kick in. $500 billion more revenue. $100 billion less spending. That’s the cliff.

That was the plan, but, now, no one wants it.

Economists say that raising taxes and reducing spending – the ways to resolve the deficit and the debt – that much in one year may cause a recession because 70% of the economy is consumer spending, and people will have less to spend.

Democrats and Republicans agree that the deficit must be reduced by $4 trillion over the next ten years. They don’t agree how to do that. Since doing some now and more later hurts less, that’s what will happen. Taxes will increase a little on the rich and spending cuts will be reduced.

Like pulling off a band-aid slowly, this is going to be painful for a long time.

Georgetowner • December 6, 2012

Christmas. . .in Georgetown. . .in Washington. The town is beginning to look a lot like that.

Georgetown’s business street lamps are decked out in greens and gold trees with the centerpiece of the Georgetown Business Improvement District’s effort to brighten up at the center of Wisconsin Avenue and M Street, an ornament with bows floating above the traffic. The silver trees shine at the eastern and western edges of our town.

The new ice skating rink at Washington Harbour is attracting large crowds to the waterfront, a place not normally filled with visitors in wintertime. Everyone there, restaurants and management company, worked together to make a complex beset by a flood more than a year ago into a greeting, meeting and eating space where people want to go. The restaurants are offering seasonal specials. Order a dish you’ve never eaten before.

The stores are becoming busy with customers checking their lists or looking for something unexpected or unique. Managers of new shops and old favorites hope they linger here and buy. Shop at a place you’ve not stopped at before. Buy an impractical gift.

The churches of Georgetown have begun the advent season and are filled with musical programs to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Temples are ready to light the menorahs to celebrate freedom from oppression and the grace of the Lord. It is the reason for the season in the first place.

The homes of this old town are receiving their Christmas trees, many bought from local non-profits and church sales.

Residents are gearing up for parties, whether with friends, business colleagues, charities or just fun. The Christmas tree lightings at the Capitol and the Ellipse are happening. Families have a few weeks before their winter break trips, just as the first family is set for Hawaii.

Take time to take it all in. We live in a special place. Walk through your town and your city, and see the world refreshed by the joys and wishes of this season.

Georgetowner •

How long has it been since the 2012 Election? Two weeks, a month, a year, an eternity?

It feels as if the election isn’t really over. Remember all those debates, including the one that President Barack Obama snoozed through? Remember—try, try real hard—to remember what was actually discussed or settled?

Neither do we. At least, not so much.

In foreign affairs, it’s not so much that there’s nothing happening. Israel almost invad- ed Gaza before the President of Egypt helped negotiate a very tentative truce between Israel and Hamas, the warring factions which were hurling missiles at each other for days. Over a hundred Palestinians lost their lives and only a few Israelis. Hamas and its allies fired guns into the air as if it was TGIF day on their strip. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi used the occasion of getting some international accolades to make a bold sort of I-am-king power grab, over-riding judicial authorities. Thousand of opponents rushed into the streets. Morsi insisted the powers were temporary, which is dictator-speak for “Once I get the power, I’m not giving it back.”

In Syria, the government at one point shut down the Internet. Hundreds more have died as the conflict continued, with rumors that President Assad might be contemplating using chemical weapons.

In Afghanistan, the war continued apace.

Israel announced plans for further settle- ments in the West Bank, in the aftermath of a United Nations vote that gave nominal, non- voting and symbolic recognition and status to a so-called Palestinian state. As of press time, the truce is still holding.

Meanwhile, our president has taken a look around and seems to think he can get a permanent tax cut for the middle class as well as a tax increase on the wealthy without giving up too much. The Republicans are still peddling tax reform, closing loopholes and the like, as a way of actual revenue increases. While rumor has it that that some progress has occurred this week, if those are the talking points it’s going to be a bleak Christmas in Washington.

We are not economic or national budgetary experts, but we can stick our thumb into the air with everyone else. Here’s the deal: we think that the election results, while not conclusive, did suggest that Americans want to see taxes raised on the wealthy, and they’re in agreement with the president on that. What citizens are not in agreement with is both sides still playing political games with the going-over-the-cliff issue. Most Americans think that the cliff option is not an option. It would bring disaster not only to the economy as a whole—that big picture thing—but immediate and dramatic impacts on individual American wallets in the form of $2,000 plus for the folks who can least afford it, that fabled middle class or below, we the American people. Some of the folks on Capitol Hill are talking almost casually about letting the cliff option happen which should require some remedial tarring and feathering. Tea partiers are standing steadfast shoulder-to-shoulder with Grover “No New Taxes Unto Death” Norquist. Two of them managed to get kicked off the House budget meeting because they failed to vote for Paul Ryan’s budget plan as they believed it wasn’t conservative enough.

Television stations here have taken to running a clock ticking—x amount of weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds—to cliff time. This lets them run constant cliff stories, how much “average” American would pay in more taxes and so on, all of it dreadfully depressing to hear. None of them—anchors, reporters and pundits—ever say how much they would have to pay and what loopholes would close for them, something we’d love to know before they start once again to fulminate about the fairness of this plan or that plan.

There is no way to make the two parties—the president and Congress—to actually sit down and negotiate non-stop until they’ve got a deal or lose control of their bowels. But we are guessing most of us are tired of this dilly dallying, this refusal to back down. There is nothing to win here except our good will of which there is precious little left. We the people, we suspect, are running on fumes. We’re close to out of patience. We’re close to out of money. So, forget that silly phrase consumer confidence. We’re close to out of hope.

If these guys—Democrats and Republicans, alike—go home for Christmas they will have abdicated their responsibilities for political gain, for ideological fanaticism masquerading as principles, or just plain stubborn idiocy.

If that happens, if we go over the cliff, we have a two-party system, the party of the lemmings and the party of the lemons, impossible to tell apart. They should be forced to show evidence that having embarked on a journey over the cliff that they can fly, as least as well as pigs.

If they can’t, then we should lock all the doors to all the congressional buildings and government offices and never let them return.?

Georgetowner • November 28, 2012

Monday morning quarterbacks are saying that President Obama’s re-election realigned the Democratic Party and that the Republicans are facing a permanent declining base of support. Not so.

This election was about Facebook against Super PACs.

If you gave President Obama $3 and had a Facebook account, he knew all your friends. (Of course, most of my friends didn’t vote the same way I did.) But, he didn’t realign the White House.

Super PACs, however, did realign the Congress. Millions of dollars of Super PAC spending on negative ads didn’t work on a national level, but it did work at the local level. Apparently, a billion dollars isn’t enough to destroy a candidate at the national level, but few hundred thousand dollars can win a local election where only a few thou- sand votes are at stake.

In the years ahead, Super PAC spending will have a bigger impact than friending. Congress is more likely to remain in Republican hands than the White House is likely to stay in Democratic hands.

The Obama administration has been com- pared to Roosevelt’s and Reagan’s. It’s not. Even though Roosevelt’s coalition was cen- tered on the notion that government was the solution, and Reagan’s coalition ushered in the idea that government was the problem, both administrations made Americans feel that tomorrow would be better than today. Both made Americans feel better in tough times. Today, Americans do not feel so good and this election did not make them feel better.

Though President Obama cemented his legacy as a truly historic figure, his coali- tion of women and minorities will not last three or four decades as did Roosevelt’s and Reagan’s. Reagan and Roosevelt did not rise like a Phoenix out of their coalitions while President Obama is a member of his coalition. Millions of Obama voters – 93% of African Americans and 75% of Hispanics and Asians – felt an affinity to him. He was the first. The next minority nominee will not enjoy the same aura.

Republicans aren’t rethinking who they are, and don’t need to. They can’t even agree on whether their platform was too conserva- tive or whether Romney became too moderate.

Both Roosevelt and Reagan received about 20% more votes – 5 million and 11 million respectively – when they were re- elected. Romney almost the same number of votes as John McCain did four years ago. President Obama got 8 million votes less, the only time in U.S. history when a re-elected president received fewer votes than he did in his original election. That’s not a permanent coalition.

The lesson of this election is that we got exactly what we already had – a divided country, a divided government, and same problems. And we don’t feel much better

Georgetowner •

So, now what do we do for fun?

It’s been almost a month since the election that gave President Barack Obama another four years and snuffed out Rep. Allen West, R-Fla.

To be fair, neither Mitt Romney nor Rep. West went out without a fight. Unfortunately, the fights occurred AFTER the election. West got a recount and to the wonderment of him and his, he still lost. While Romney’s support- ers clung to the early call on Ohio longer than necessary, their candidate did manage to con- cede, tweaking his victory speech a little. The rest is not much history—Romney reminded those of us who had not voted for him why we didn’t as he blamed the takers, unnamed but sinister forces in the Republican Party and other sundry people and things not named Mitt Romney for his defeat. The Republicans then commenced to throw Romney under the bus into a manhole marked political oblivion.

So, what’s making the president’s iPhone ring these day?

President Obama: “Hello?”

“Mr. President, this is John.”

“John . . . John, John, John. Oh, hello, senator. What can I do for you?”

“No, Mr. President. Congratulations, by the way, on winning the election. It’s John Boehner, the Speaker of the House.”

“I knew it was you. I’m just pulling your leg. Have you given any thought to raising taxes on the rich as I mentioned?”

It’s been almost a month since the of us wants to go over the cliff. Everybody election that gave President Barack hates that phrase. It’s like being thrown under the bus. It’s going to hurt everybody. Except the rich, of course, who can afford it. I realize that. That’s why we’re going to fiddle with the tax code, and, assuming everybody doesn’t find new ways not to pay taxes, why it will literally save billions. Honest. Of course, if they do find new ways it will be more like hundreds.”

“Fiddle all you want. We need tax reform, I agree. But we need to get the people that make the most to pay a little more. It’s good for the country. And, if we can come together on entitlements, why this could be the start of something good and lasting. Why, if we can fix this thing together, Mitch . . . I mean John . . . why this could be the start of a beautiful friendship. I’d be Bogey and you’d be Claude Rains in ‘Casablanca.’ ”

“Why can’t I be Bogey?”

“Because Bogey doesn’t cry . . . ever.” “Oh, well Mr. President, about that Susan Rice thing. I . . .”

“Can’t talk now. I’m going out to find me some middle class folks who are struggling and maybe have a beer with them. See you John.

Ring.

“Hello?”

“Hello, Mr. President, this is John.” “What, again. Come on, Mr. Speaker, I told you that I . . .”

“It’s Senator John McCain, sir.”

“Oh. Well, what can I do for you?”

“I don’t know about that Susan Rice. We are very disturbed after talking to her. I don’t think I can vote for her. I just don’t know.”

“What don’t you know?”

“What happened in Benghazi, Libya. Who she is . . . the store hours for Walmart.”

“Well, if you don’t know, who does? By the way, that was sweet, the way you guys are starting to stand up to good old Grover. I mean no disrespect, but it’s about time. Who is that guy, anyway? Didn’t he used to write for the Georgetowner? Is there a bus in his future?”

“But . . . Mr. President.”

“Catch you later, John. Loved you in “Argo.”

Ring.

“Hello.”

“Grover Norquist here. What have you What have you done to these people? Lindsay, McCain, Corker– they don’t want to keep the no-tax pledge?”

“Is your name John?

Click.

Ring.

“Mr. President. My name is Gary. I write for a living. I think that qualifies me as a strug- gling member of the middle class. Wanna buy me a beer?”

“John? Is this John?’

Click.

Georgetowner • November 2, 2012

Many of us watched with a certain amount of elation four years ago as America elected Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States and then stood in the bitter January cold to watch his inauguration. We felt then that—while the election spoke to the best in the American spirit—Obama was also the best person to inspire Americans to overcome the disastrous repercussions from an ongoing recession still sliding toward an economic cliff, the remaining sour after-effects of terrorism directed against us by al-Qaeda and the debilitating costs of two ongoing wars.

So, how do we feel now, today, this very minute, as President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are locked and apparently deadlocked, according to the latest polls, in a bitter campaign that will come to a climax next week?

Are we—as the challenger likes to ask—better off today than we were four years ago? It is a question that is as much about the state of the economy, about morale and about perception of what the future holds and what must be done about it—as it is about party and philosophical loyalty and personal preference, as well as how we are doing. It involves a choice: Democrat or Republican, liberal-moderate or conservative-pragmatic, Obama-Biden or Romney-Ryan, struggling or doing just fine, better or worse.

To answer those questions properly, clearly and unhesitatingly, without reservations or nuance is impossible. Only a fool or a fanatic, after enduring a campaign like this, could embrace one side without objection or pause. But let us say this: when all is said and done, the president’s effort to stem the tide of recession into full-blown depression did work and his interventionist policy on the auto industry did work and saved this U.S. industry. Romney, in spite of his business credentials, has been unconvincing in his efforts to prove he could have done better. It’s no exaggeration to suggest that the president stopped the deluge and prevented this country from going into a depression. Since then, the economy has been at best slow in recovering, but it is recovering, as opposed to sliding backward.

President Obama did lead the effort to kill Osama bin Laden, although it’s true that “You can’t kill your way to a Middle East policy,” as Romney has indicated. The president ended the war in Iraq, as promised, and he is ending the war in Afghanistan, efforts that a majority of Americans support.

Lots of things still bother us about Obama: his education approach leaves a lot to be desired and penalized older teachers by too often blaming them. Obamacare, is an imperfect work, which, politically, has hurt him, but we suspect the timing was one of now or never. His economic and jobs plans seem to look to the future, not to mention addressing environmental issues. For Romney, the first seems mainly about drilling, the second is nonexistent, in spite of the daily—Hurricane Sandy being the latest example—evidence of climate change and its disastrous effects.

We would have liked to have seen Obama deploy his inspirational, visionary and rhetorical skills more consistently and more often, especially during the course of this campaign, which has consisted of a barrage of negative ads on both sides. We remain mystified by his first debate performance, which changed the campaign dramatically in its ebb and flow

It seems to us that, unlike his opponent, the president sees the country as a whole, not divided by a 47 percentile, and revels in its diversity—and not just because he is the most visible manifestation of the strength of America’s diversity. When Obama talks about the unemployed, the underemployed, the poor, the middle class, the struggling, he seems to know (from experience), the rich, sometimes anguished, triumphant, hard-working, ambitious and energetic mosaic of the country, its coat of many colors.

Romney was born rich, and this has never changed in the course of his life. This is not a criticism or some sort of sin of class and privilege—many consequential, patriotic, compassionate, caring, inventive and visionary men and women have worn and lived their wealthy status well. Yet, it was Romney who appeared to dismiss nearly half the population of this country in cavalier terms in the company of friends, where persons feel comfortable enough to be bluntly honest. He has shown throughout this campaign—and we should consider its totality, not just the debates—that he is tone deaf when it comes to the life experiences of others. He seems to lack, not necessarily compassion, but imagination and curiosity.

Romney is fond of touting his experience as a manager of a company—which he thinks of as a small business—of running the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts, where he actually created the prototype for Obamacare, which he plans to end the minute he takes office. He is, in the end, not the dreaded right-wing conservative that some people see. If he is anything, it is as the apostle of corporate divinity, as business embodying all the requisite American virtues and wisdom to solve all our future economic and international problems. He is a firm believer that big businesses are not only people, but patriots, which may explain why General Electric found a way not to pay taxes of any sort in hard times because it was legal.

The other problem with Mr. Romney is that we actually don’t know what he stands for on numerous issues about which he has changed his mind. We wonder not what his principles are but sometimes, if he has any that he’s not willing to discard in order to get elected, given his sudden discovery of American women voters whom he’s now courting with all the ardor of a swain afraid of being left at the altar.

The question is not, “Are we better off?” but, “Will we better off over the course of the next four years, and who can lead us in that direction of eventual triumph and destiny?” Which candidate will not only stand up against our foes, but stand out among world leaders and work with them? Which one can offer the kind of inspiration to move us forward in what is a new and changing world of both great peril and great opportunity?

In the end, it is not business experience which will move us forward, but human experience in as many manifestations as possible. That requires strength in the crunch, curiosity, empathy and imagination. For those qualities, we look to and enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term.

District Council: Evans, Orange, Grosso and Mendelson
The Georgetowner also endorses Jack Evans for the Ward 2 seat on the District Council, for which he is running unopposed. Evans is the longest serving councilman we have and has served with honor, high effectiveness and expertise, without which the council would be at a serious loss.

The District Council’s At-Large race features a number of challengers and will result in the election of two candidates, at least one of whom has to be a non-Democrat, per council rules. Among the newcomers and challengers, David Grosso, a Brookland resident and attorney and one-time staffer for former Ward 6 Councilwoman Sharon Ambrose and counsel for D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, strikes us as the best qualified with ideas, pushing for workforce help in the poorer parts of the district, open to new ideas and lots of fight and energy to take on what is often seen as a beginning-to-ossify council. At a recent at-large candidate forum in Georgetown, we were also impressed by Republican Mary Brooks Beatty (Yes, we were), who was a hands-on advisory neighborhood commissioner in a changing H Street, NE, neighborhood and was part of the successful efforts to revive that neighborhood.

In the end, the two incumbents—Democrat Vincent Orange and Independent Michael Brown are one too much. Brown has had just one too many iffy clouds hanging over him—including donations from developer Jeffrey Thompson, a connection he shared with Orange. Last week, the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance asserted that Orange’s special election campaign finances were in order, a position the councilman had maintained since the first questions about donations. Both Orange and Brown are long-time veterans of the D.C. and the council political scene—both ran unsuccessfully for mayor, for instance.

We very much like Orange’s ability to play and work well with others on the council and his ability to get things done in ways that are not divisive. While he is surely a good friend of Georgetown, the energetic Orange also sees all of D.C. as one city and tends to it accordingly.

The Georgetowner endorses incumbent Councilman-at-Large Vincent Orange and independent newcomer David Grosso for the two at-large seats on the District Council.

The Georgetowner also endorses Phil Mendelson for a full term as Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. In a council plagued by ethical concerns and troubles, not to mention a city government burdened with the same concerns, Mendelson stands out as not only an ethical leader and legislator but as a leader who leads by example and around whom the council has rallied all but unanimously. ?

Georgetowner • November 1, 2012

Pollsters—who have proliferated with every
presidential election—are funny people. It
turns people just don’t understand them, or
rather what they do.

We hadn’t talked with Pollster John Zogby,
then of John Zogby International, since the last
presidential election campaign in 2008, right
after the New Hampshire primary which produced
some interesting results then.

Back then we caught up with him on his cell
phone. He was enroute—we forget to where—
and he was on a train.

Four years later, after some digging around
on the net, we found him again last Wednesday—
heading toward an airport. We finally talked last
Friday—and indicative of what’s been going
on the polling arena, things had changed in the
interim.

“Yes, last night (Thursday, October 26), I
thought I detected a little bit of a surge towards
Obama, but by the time I got back, we saw a
dead heat in Virginia—48/48.”

That was an indication of how tight this election
has become—depending on the pollster and
polls you look at, there are national deadlocks
among likely and/or general voters, and many
but not all of the battleground states are heading
towards: you guessed, it deadlocks, depending
on what polls you read, study or believe.

Of course, for Zogby, since we talked to him
last in 2008, there have been a lot of changes,
too. Back then, he was (and continues to be) one
of the most respect pollsters in the country. He
had gained some fame back in the 1990s, after
founding his firm Zogby International in 1984,
after one of his polls showed that New York
State Governor Mario Cuomo would lose to then
president George. H.W. Bush in his home state.
Later, in an astonishing feat giving the outcome,
he polled ahead of the result the final numbers
of the 2000 presidential election within a tenth
of the actual result.

In 2008, just to show the vitality of things
even then, Hilary Clinton—after showing
what was detected to be some teary emotion—
had won the New Hampshire Primary stalling
Barack Obama’s impending victory parade.
Zogby’s rolling polling had apparently missed
that development. Back then, he said “Look,
we got everything else right—we got McCain,
we had Obama’s almost exact numbers, but we
had stopped before the effects of the “moment”.”

Since then, after years of heading Zogby
International, he sold his controlling shares to
the Brazilian company IBOPE. “That was a
big thing, sure,” he said. But Zogby is still a
major force in polling—the recent Virginia tie
for instance was part of polling he is doing for
and in conjunction with the Washington Times.
In addition, he polls with Forbes Magazine and
others, and most important of all, he’s joined
JZ Analytics, a Polling Firm run by his son,
Jonathan, in the role of Senior Adviser.

“Nope, I haven’t retired,” Zogby, 63, said.
“But working with my son, that’s very, very nice,
sure, that’s very special, of course it is. It’s a
very major thing.”

Other things have changed, too, not so much
for him, as in the world of polls and pollsters.
“Sure, sure, there’s more of them, the tools have
changed, and the techniques have changed—the
robo calls, for instance are still there, but that’s a very difficult thing to bring off in depth when
you have so many people using cell phones, it’s
harder to get the numbers.”

Zogby did not agree, and he did not agree
then that voters are heavily influenced by polls.
“I honestly can’t say that I have ever met anybody
that voted because of a poll.

“What I do believe is the media makes more
use of polls now than they did four years ago,”
he said. “And they create story lines from polls,
they look at certain things and emphasize them,
sometimes even if they’re not important, or just
to frame their stories And now, today, in the
debates for instance. There is no question that
Obama’s debate performance in the first one was
a big deal, it changed things altogether. I had
him running ahead by as much as eight points in
Ohio before that debate. That changed things,
no doubt. But all those subsequent polls, that’s a
little different. The media continues to compare
current polls in terms of Obama to where he was
before that debate. That makes things look much
more dramatic than they are.”

Zogby remains unafraid to say three words
that many pollsters would rather avoid. He’s
been often asked this time around as he was back
then to predict the outcome of the election. We
gave it a try just in case he’d changed. “Who’s
going to win?” we asked him. “I don’t know. I
just don’t know” he said.

And right now, he says, there’s no way of
knowing. “Look, every sign is heading towards
a deadlock, like the Virginia thing,” he said. “It’s
volatile. I can’t say that if some big deal happens
that it couldn’t change everything. It might.

“Here’s the thing about this election as things
stand right now,” he said. (This was October 26).
“Anything can happen. That talk about Obama
winning the electoral vote and losing the popular
vote? That could happen. But it could happen
for Romney too. Can Romney win without
Ohio? Maybe, but he’d have to sweep just about
everything else. You could have one of them
win all the key states by less than a percentage
point and create an electoral rout, and still lose
the popular vote.”

“What’s worth looking are the things you
find when you dig deeper in your polling,” he
said. “That gender gap. Well, it was there, but
you’ll find that married women are more concerned
about jobs and the economy than single
women. That youth vote—it might not show up
for Obama or some of it might go the other way
again because of jobs. Or ask if Romney is making
a dent in the Latino vote? See how the turnout
might be in the Evangelic vote—six months
ago, a long time ago, understandably, it was still
iffy . Will they show up? Turnout is key. The
early voting, that’s a thing to watch out for.”

“Anything can happen.”

“I’ve been doing this a long time, I can
remember making calls and a woman would answer and say, I’ll have to check and see what
my husband thinks,” he said. “The tools have
changed. The social media has been become
very important, or at least more important. This
instant feedback on the debates for instance. But
the instant polling, trying to gauge the immediate
effect, sometimes that’s not worth much because
you don’t know how deep the polling has gone,
who they’ve talked with.”

Zogby’s mantra is worth remembering in
terms of polling. “A poll is a snapshot in time.
It’s not a prediction. It says here is where we are,
right now, not yesterday, not tomorrow. That’s
real information, but it can change.”

Zogby and talked before the beginning of
a different sort of storm—Sandy, the so-called
perfect storm. It’s already caused candidates to
cancel appearance, to re-direct their efforts, and
its effects are still not known. For Obama, he
has to more president than candidate.

Like Zogby said: “Anyting can happen.” ?

Georgetowner •

It seems like not a week goes by
without another news story about an
irregularity in the office of our Chief
Financial Officer. The latest revelation
was last Tuesday morning, in which news
outlets reported a criminal indictment of a
CFO employee accused of assisting with
more than $300,000 in fraudulent District
tax refunds (and more than $3 million in
federal taxes). I remain very concerned
that we don’t have the types of controls
that prevent fraud before it takes place.
I believe the District stands a chance of
receiving restitution for these amounts and
will follow up to ensure it is done.

Then, later the same day, I was told
that the CFO received a letter from the
Securities and Exchange Commission
asking for copies of audits, document
retention policies and other information
that were the subject of my hearing earlier
this month. I am a former Securities and
Exchange Commission Enforcement
Division lawyer, myself, and I believe
that the goal of the inquiry is to determine
whether the city’s bond offering documents
contained any material omissions about the
state of our tax office that should have
been disclosed to investors prior to selling
our bonds.

As a practical matter, the number of
recent news stories on the audits prior to
the bond sale most likely ensures that all
potential bond purchasers were aware of
the information prior to purchase. The
interest of the SEC, even in the form of
an informal inquiry rather than a formal
investigation and subpoena, is of great
concern to me. I have asked for regular
briefings from the CFO on these matters
and will continue to conduct regular
oversight over Gandhi’s office. I have
been a consistent defender of Gandhi, but
the constant drum beat of negative news
from that office is a problem that must be
addressed.

On a lighter note, I wanted to write at
least one more article about the Washington
Nationals this year – is it too soon? I made
a point of purchasing tickets to all the
playoff games to support our team and
our city, and while I am so proud of our
historic season, I am also disappointed that
our playoff run got cut short. Anyone who
was at the game for the Thursday night
win, though, will tell you that there was an
electric feeling in the stadium and a real
sense of community.

When I last wrote about our team, in
August, the Washington Nationals had the
best record in Major League Baseball. It
was then widely reported that you have to
look back to 1945 to find the last time our
team was 20 games above .500. This whole
season has been an experience in uncharted
territory. Not only did the team perform so
well, but the area around the ballpark is
now beginning to develop rapidly. I cannot
begin to tell you the number of articles I
read about the failure of this concept. With
a little patience, I knew the investment
would pay off.

As we move squarely into fall, I hope
everyone has a safe Halloween. Please
keep in touch with my office, and let me
know what issues are of interest to you. ?