The election is less than two months away, and with it, the weight of the country’s future presses down on the minds of people across not just our industry but every industry. What will become of the country depending on who wins the presidential election? Who has the best chances of winning? And most importantly for the greenhouse market, how will it impact your businesses?
Greenhouse Management conducted a research study in July to see what growers thought about this election, and here we present that data. We also talked to experts about what the election means and each candidate’s chances of winning.
With so much riding on this election, remember to cast your vote on Nov. 6.
2012 Election Outlook
What small business owners can expect over the next four years depending how the election goes
by Jason Stahl
There are some who might say that the U.S. government has launched an all-out assault on small businesses over the last few years. They might also go so far as to say that the entrepreneurial spirit that once was a hallmark of America has been squashed and discouraged.
Some small business owners blame the Obama administration for their woes, while others say their troubles are merely the result of one of the worst economic droughts in history.
Those in the “blame Obama” camp can look forward to a possible changing of the guard once the 2012 presidential election results are in. But then again, there might be no change at all. What can small businesses expect over the next four years if Obama stays in office or if Republican Mitt Romney takes over the office?
Bob Redding has a few predictions based on his long career as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He believes that Congress will stay Republican after the election (even though he believes the difference in the number of Republicans versus Democrats might get a little smaller), and if Romney is elected, he will support the pro-small-business tax agenda Congress will push. Redding feels this will have a better chance of becoming law. But there also could be a potential roadblock in the Senate.
“Even with a Republican Senate, you can’t move legislation without 60 Republican Senators,” he says. “It takes a full 60 votes to stop the debate. If you had closer to 60, you would have some Democrats flip over and support the Republican majority on the small business tax issue. But you would need the full 60 votes, and if you have that and the legislation gets to [Romney], I believe he would sign it.”
If Obama gets re-elected, Redding says it would depend on the tax reform package that the House and Senate would send him as to whether he would sign it.
“The barriers to date have prevented it from moving out of the House, let alone the House and Senate,” Redding says. “So I don’t see that coming together, even under another four years.”
|
My thoughts for this year’s election By Michael V. Geary; CEO, OFA It’s not just every four years we think about elections and how they impact our industry and individual businesses. I think about this daily because it’s this often that our elected national leaders in Washington, D.C., can support, improve business conditions, or damage our livelihoods. The president and his administration do not create legislation, but they have a tremendous impact on us through the regulatory process. Therefore, when I go to my polling place I’ll be considering the following about the two presidential candidates:
I would never advise anyone on for whom they should vote. But I do encourage everyone to consider the long-lasting impact a president can have on our industry and your business through his constitutional authority and leadership. |
Redding believes that under a Romney administration, people would see a less aggressive OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) on some of the issues that particular federal agency has been looking at. Under a second term with Obama, he believes people would see more worker safety initiatives and an agenda even more heightened than it has been in the last four years.
Most people feel that the majority of businesses favor a less aggressive EPA, and they would be right. But believe it or not, some industries favor a more aggressive EPA, especially if it means putting less qualified competitors out of business due to compliance issues. And those industries feel that, under the Obama administration to date, the EPA has not been as aggressive as it should be. Under Romney, Redding feels that non-aggressive EPA stance would continue.
Regarding the health care initiative that became law, Redding says that he feels most small business owners did not support it and would like to see some provisions repealed. But he said even if Romney is elected, repealing those provisions will be a difficult task.
“You’re still going to need 60 votes in the Senate to repeal significant portions of the health care law, and that likely won’t happen this next election even if the Republicans take the Senate,” says Redding. “The goal now is to get 51. If Obama wins and you have a Republican Senate, you don’t want it to be a 50-50 tie because the Democratic vice president would break the tie. Getting up to 58 to 59 will be hard to do.”
Redding feels that the thing that has caused the biggest hurt to the Obama administration is the little amount of tax reform that has been undertaken.
“We haven’t seen any help in that area to amount to anything,” he says.
Therefore, he feels a change in administrations could impact the economy in a positive way if that administration can move certain laws forward.
Molly Brogan, vice president of public affairs for the National Small Business Association (NSBA), sees things fairly similarly to the way Redding sees them as far as what might be in store for small businesses over the next four years if a new administration comes in. Like Redding, she sees taxes as a major issue in the next election.
“Taxes are a growing concern as far as the financial burden they carry and the complexity they add to running a small business,” says Brogan, citing a 2012 survey the NSBA conducted before tax day that indicated that the administrative burden of taxes is outpacing the financial burden. “I wouldn’t say either Republicans or Democrats have an overwhelming market share in terms of trying to ease the complexity of taxes. That said, Republicans typically are in favor of lower taxes.”
Expanding on the Republican business viewpoint, she said that this party typically has a “get out of the way” mentality, favoring lower taxes and fewer regulations.
“Regulations can be very burdensome, particularly on the smallest businesses,” Brogan says.
Democrats, on the other hand, are more in favor of “problematic-type help” for small businesses, she says, such as ensuring access to capital is readily available.
“That’s good, but it’s an altogether different perspective than the Republicans have,” Brogan says.
Examining both Obama and Romney’s agendas, Brogan feels both have been shortsighted on taxes on small businesses. Romney, she says, has talked about reducing marginal rates and corporate rates, but if he wins, he will also need to focus on cutting individual rates for small businesses. The reason is because the majority (83 percent) of small businesses pay their taxes as “pass-through entities,” meaning they pay them as their own personal income. Therefore, they pay the individual tax rate, not the corporate rate.
“The way [Romney’s] tax structure is set up would actually give small businesses a slightly higher tax bracket than what most large corporations have,” says Brogan. “Both [Romney and Obama] have talked about reforming the tax system and simplifying it, and we think that’s good, but you can’t do one without the other without putting small businesses at a significant disadvantage.”
Brogan concedes that Romney has been pretty good with taxes, and there are select areas where Obama has been good, too, particularly R&D credits and expanding and increasing some of the expensing provisions to try to enhance the cash-in-hand that small businesses get to keep.
Health care is another huge issue for small businesses, and the candidates have very different platforms on this subject.
“Our No. 1 goal is to keep health care costs down, something we don’t think the Affordable Care Act will do,” she says. “That’s what has to happen. And I don’t know if we’ve seen significantly aggressive plans from either camp on how to keep costs down.”
As far as regulations go, Brogan feels Obama has been relatively outspoken on calling on his agencies to sort out the regulations they feel they can get rid of or streamline, which the NSBA thinks is positive. Romney, too, has talked about the need to ease regulations on businesses, so Brogan feels both he and Obama can offer positive things in this arena.
When it comes to the environment, there appears to be a general understanding that Democrats favor more stringent rules than Republicans. Brogan says if Obama is re-elected, more oversight of environmental initiatives will continue.
Brogan says, “In terms of preventing exemptions, I think Democrats are certainly willing to do that, but there is less leeway under them in terms of getting any kind of small business exemption.”
Jason Stahl is a Cleveland-based freelance writer and frequent contributor to sister publication Snow magazine.
|
By Bob Dolibois; vice president, American Nursery and Landscape Association
With more than 35 years’ experience as a citizen-business advocate in Washington, D.C., I can confirm Mencken’s definition. And in no election cycle I can remember are the American people more confused about what they want and more likely to get it good and hard. As I travel around the country, I am hearing more and more complaints about Washington, D.C., and what “you people” (I guess I’m included?) are doing to the rest of the country. My standard rejoinder is, “If YOU people would send US better people to work with, then Washington would be closer to what you want it to be.” And then I duck. There was a time not too long ago, when citizens in this country could use their “busy-ness” and their lack of interest in politics as a reason not to be involved in campaigns and elections, or even to vote. Those were also times when the government we got with those elections was far less intrusive in our lives than is government today — at all levels, and in many forms, most particularly, in the form of taxes and regulations. It’s no longer that time. What to do? Start by learning the arguments on both sides of issues important to you. Knowing both sides will help you decode which candidates are speaking knowledgably and which are pandering. Knowing both sides also gives you a shot at influencing others who are uncertain or undecided, but might swing your way in the voting booth. Second, take some time — even just an hour away from watching Hannity or Maddow — and help a candidate you favor. There are dozens of ways to help — distribute material, man a booth, make some calls. If you want to really help, get in the money game. No elected official delays returning calls to a person who helped raise money, even modest amounts at a home party. Think politics is just a game? Tell that to the families of the tens of thousands of soldiers that have died defending that “game.” Learn and act. Soon. You have just until the evening of Nov. 6. Just. Do. Something.
By David Beaudreau Jr. Many political pundits assume President Barack Obama will be re-elected. History suggests that Obama is in a strong position given that 78 percent of incumbents have been re-elected. The only presidents in recent memory who have lost had strong primary challenges. President Gerald Ford (R-MI) was challenged by California Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1976, President Carter was challenged by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 1980 and President George H.W. Bush was challenged by former Nixon Aide Pat Buchanan in 1992. All three incumbents lost their re-election bid in part because the primary challenge weakened them. Wisdom suggests that an unchallenged incumbent is easily re-elected. In modern history, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are good examples. But there is a troublesome, contradicting fact for Obama. No president in modern times has won re-election unless his approval rating was at least 50 percent at the beginning of his re-election year. Obama’s has hovered in the 46 to 48 percent range. In other words, Obama is in slightly better shape than Carter but not quite as good as George W. Bush. This factor alone means we will likely have a close presidential contest. Romney must prove he is not Bush, that he does have an economic growth plan, and that he is not simply a big-business-oriented, blue-blooded American that is out of touch with working America. He also has to work harder on his likeability and accessibility. Obama is also seen as aloof and less accessible than his original candidacy suggested. Neither has the Clinton or Reagan touch. They are both intellectuals who don’t enjoy small-talk or endless campaigning. They both have strong families, a close group of loyal friends and strong wives that are liked better than they are. They both lack that back-slapping pol quality that produces greater likeability with the average voter. Obama has some advantages since the public respects him, basically trusts him and thinks he is on the side of the average person. Obama polls well on foreign policy, which helps him with independents and takes away a traditionally strong Republican issue. Obama also has a very powerful re-elect organization that understands how to use social media, how to mobilize voters, is well-funded and very well-organized. In 2008, Obama’s team was vastly superior to McCain’s when it came to money, organizational strength and the ability to get out the vote. Romney will be far better than McCain, but his long primary fight and the many attacks by members of his own party have wounded him and have him behind in fundraising. Many think that the advent of Super PACs (individuals who can put an unlimited amount of money into political advertising) will help him even the score. Republican fundraisers will ensure that Romney is not outspent, as McCain was by Obama in 2008. A weak economy, the failure by unions, a well-organized Democratic effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and tepid support after the mesmerizing “hope and change” campaign of 2008, will hurt Obama. Even his most ardent supporters think he over-promised on social issues and under-delivered on the economy. Obama’s best argument is that he wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, that he is working for middle class growth, and that Bush left him with two wars and the worst economy since the height of the Great Depression. Obama needs to say that it will take at least four more years to get rid of these wars and the economic damage done by the Republicans. His push for the so-called Buffett rule on wealthy Americans shows he supports the “99 percent versus the 1 percent.” He can also run against a Congress that has blocked him at every turn and actively opposed his style of tax and fiscal reform. Various reputable polls predict that this presidential race will be very close. Obama holds a small edge in each poll, but all are within the “margin of error,” meaning the president’s lead is very small. With just two months to go, many things can happen, but all indicators show seven swing states (Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia) will likely decide this race. Perhaps more importantly, about 8 percent of voters are truly undecided. This small, highly educated and influential group will likely pick the next president. This race will be a lot more like the 2000 Bush-Gore race than the 2008 Obama-McCain race. The last important part of this election involves Congress. In 2010, House Democrats lost 63 members (costing them the majority), the biggest loss since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency in 1938. Most pundits feel that Republicans will lose five to 10 seats but hold on to their majority. The Senate math favors the Republicans because Democrats hold 23 of the 33 seats up for re-election. Democrats lead 51 to 49. But so far, it appears that Democrats are doing better than expected and may hold the Senate by a small margin, about the same as it is now. This election will decide many issues. The more than $3 trillion a year Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, and it’s unclear if they will be partly or wholly extended, or simply allowed to expire, which would be a tremendous shock to our economy. Today, the U.S. government is borrowing 42 cents on every dollar it spends. If interest rates go up at all, and if the spending rate increases based on current law, the U.S. government will spend nearly $1 dollar in interest for every dollar it borrows. This spending rate could cripple our economy beyond repair. Both political parties fervently disagree on tax versus spend issues. This impasse cannot continue without dire consequences. Today, the election is almost a toss-up, but the stakes have not been this large since the Great Depression. If our government does not respond to this “fiscal cliff,” now, it may be too late by the 2016 election. David Beaudreau Jr., is senior vice president of D.C. Legislative and Regulatory Services Inc., Washington D.C., a bipartisan government relations firm representing a diverse group of clients before Congress and federal regulatory agencies. His firm represents RISE. |
Just do something
Explore the September 2012 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Latest from Greenhouse Management
- Meet the All-America Selections AAS winners for 2025
- AmericanHort accepting applications for HortScholars program at Cultivate'25
- BioWorks hires Curt Granger as business development manager for specialty agriculture
- 2025 Farwest Show booth applications now open
- Bug budget boom
- Don’t overlook the label
- Hurricane Helene: Florida agricultural production losses top $40M, UF economists estimate
- No shelter!
