Vladimir Putin's Unflagging Popularity

Updated May 2017

While Washington seems to be doing its very best to promote its anti-Russian agenda, there is one thing that America's current political leadership fails to grasp; the domestic popularity of Vladimir Putin among Russians.

Let's start by looking at Barack Obama's approval rating over his entire term from Real Clear Politics' Poll Average:

In a last minute reflection by Americans, the final average approval ratings show that 57.2 percent of Americans approved of his performance compared to 39.3 percent who disapproved.  This is far better than his approval rating which dropped to 40.1 percent in December 2013.  As late as March 2016, his approval rating spread was negative meaning that more Americans disapproved of his performance than those who approved.  When it comes to President Obama's approval rating on foreign policies, his spread drops to +1.5 with 46.3 percent approving of his performance compared to 44.8 percent who disapprove.

Now, let's look at Donald Trump's approval rating from Real Clear Politics' Poll Average:

While the trend is not particularly encouraging, it's still early in the Trump Administration.

Now, let's look at recent polling for Russia's President, Vladimir Putin.  According to the Levada Center, a Russian non-governmental research organization, here is a graphic showing a more comparable measure of Vladimir Putin's approval and disapproval numbers:

Putin's approval rating of over 80 percent is obviously the envy of leaders around the world.  

Now, let's look at another measure of Putin's public approval, the trust that Russians have for his leadership.  According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, the oldest opinion research organization in post-Soviet Russia, here is what Vladimir Putin's trust rating has looked like between February and March 2017:

Mr. Putin leads the pack with between a 50 and 53 percent trust level, down somewhat from 57 percent in late 2016.

Here is a table showing which Russian politicians Russians distrust the most:

In November, only 2 to 3 percent of Russians distrusted Mr. Putin the most among all politicians.  Interestingly, this compares to 12 to 13 percent of respondents who distrusted Russia's current Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, the most.  A full 24 to 27 percent of respondents distrusted Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Vice Chairman of the State Duma and right-leaning leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

Just in case you were curious, here is how Russians feel about the state of Russian democracy from a poll taken by Levada:

A rather overwhelming portion of Russians feel that they do not want Russia's democracy to be a copy of the democracies in Europe and the United States.  With the last American presidential election in mind, no one should question this attitude!

While we might attribute these high levels of support to a skewed Russian survey, in fact, a December 2014 poll of the Russian public by the Associated Press - NORC Center for Public Affairs, in which 2008 Russian adults were surveyed, found that 81 percent of Russians backed Vladimir Putin as the nation's leader even though the Russian economy was in crisis thanks to international sanctions, an approval rating that is backed by the Levada data shown above.  Apparently, at that time, Russians felt that President Putin was the solution to the nation's problem, not the cause.  By way of comparison, in December 2014, the politician who spearheaded the sanctions, Barack Obama, found that his approval rating was around 42 percent with a disapproval rating of around 53 percent for a spread of -11 as shown here:

While we hear all manner of evil things about Russia's President from the western media, there is one thing we can be certain of; America's political leaders would love/kill to have the level of approval from Americans that Mr. Putin currently has among Russians.

     

Barack Obama's Fiscal Legacy

Updated July 2017

With the Trump Administration now making its mark on Washington's fiscal future, I thought that it was a good time to revisit a subject that I haven't posted on for nearly two years, a look at the debt associated with each administration since the beginning of the Kennedy Administration in January 1961.  This posting will look at which administration was responsible for the greatest nominal increase in debt as well the percentage growth in debt and the compounded annual growth rate of the debt by administration.

The data used in this posting is sourced from the TreasuryDirect website which provides a daily debt update to the penny.  Since the daily data is not complete going back five decades, I have used the debt figures for the end of the month of January for each inauguration year.  In the cases of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations where their presidency ended or started abruptly in mid-month in mid-term, I have used the debt data from the end of their last/first month of service.  As well, it is important to note that I have used the total debt which includes both external market debt and intergovernmental debt in my calculations.

It is also important to look at the formula used to calculate the compound annual growth rate or CAGR of the debt during each presidency since this measure shows us the compounded average annual growth rate of the debt over the entire term of each president, reducing the effect of inflation on the debt.  Here is the formula used to calculate the compound annual growth rate:

Let's start with a table showing the data and calculations that are used for the graphs in this posting, noting that I have used the debt accrued up to the last full day of Barack Obama's presidency:

Now, let's look at a line graph showing what has happened to the debt over each administration:

As you can see, the growth in the federal debt nearly doubled from the Clinton to Bush II Administrations (growth of 86 percent) and again from the Bush II to Obama Administrations (growth of 87.6 percent).  Over that eight year period from 2008 to 2016, the cumulative rate of inflation was 11.5 percent meaning that only a tiny fraction of the growth in the debt can be attributed to a drop in the real value of money.  As well, perhaps it's just me but as the decades have passed, the growth in the debt looks to be increasingly resembling an exponential function where the value starts to parallel the "y" axis like this example which shows population growth versus time:

Here is a graph showing the nominal increase in the federal debt for each presidency:

Clearly, the Obama Administration is the "winner" in this category.

Here is a graph showing the percent increase in the federal debt for each presidency:

Obviously, two-term presidents are going to look worse; that said, we can easily see that the Reagan Administration was responsible for the largest percent increase in debt over its two terms, more than double the growth rate see by either the Bush II or Obama Administrations.

Here is a graph showing the compound annual growth rate of the federal debt for each presidency:

Once again, the Reagan Administration wins this category, followed by the Ford and Bush I Administrations.  Interestingly, although the debt grew by the most in nominal terms during the Obama Administration, it comes in at the midpoint of all administrations when it comes to the compound annual growth rate of the federal debt.

While the Obama Administration is responsible for nearly half of the $20 trillion debt, the situation would be far worse if the Federal Reserve had not stubbornly maintained its near-zero interest rate policies.  Given that the debt has nearly doubled since 2008, interest owing on the debt on an annual basis has barely budged; hitting $432.65 million in fiscal 2016 compared to $451.15 million in fiscal 2008.  For example, in December 2016, the average interest rate on marketable debt was 1.986 percent and on non-marketable debt was 2.798 percent.  This compares to 3.207 percent and 4.634 percent respectively in December 2008.  This tells us that the Federal Reserve is currently the best friend of the U.S. Treasury.

It is an interesting exercise to look at a history of the American federal debt and see how each administration has led us closer to the debt crisis point.  Should interest rates rise even to the levels seen in 2008 when the Great Recession was barely entrenched, the fiscal situation in Washington could reach the critical point and American taxpayers could find themselves spending more on debt interest payments than they currently are on entitlement programs  In any case, it looks like the Trump Administration may well have inherited a ticking debt time bomb.

Let's close this posting with a look back at a much younger presidential candidate, Barack Obama, from July 2008: 

By his own logic, does this make Barack Obama an even less responsible and less patriotic American than his predecessor?

A Young Barack Obama and His Ironic Global Vision

Now that we're seeing the end of the Obama Administration, I wanted to take a look back in time, all the way back to 1983 when Barack Obama was a student at Columbia University, graduating with a Bachelor's Degree in political science.  While there, he contributed an essay entitled "Breaking the War Mentality" to the "Sundial", a weekly newsmagazine.  Here are some excerpts.

Barack Obama opens with the following:

"Most students at Columbia do not have first hand knowledge of war.  Military violence has been a vicarious experience, channeled into our minds through television, film and print...but the case of war - the sounds and chill, the idea bodies are far removed.  We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experience down into our hearts, and taking continual tangible steps to prevent a war, becomes a difficult task."  (my bold)   

He then goes on to discus two on-campus anti-war groups, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM) which took actions to get the American government off its "war track" because they "visualized the possibilities of destruction and grasped the tendencies of distorted national priorities..."

He then comments on the "Freeze" movement, the street and Reagan Administration movements to see the expansion of nuclear weapons stockpiles frozen:

"Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suite the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.  When Peter Tosh sings that "everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice,", one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself....the New York City Council may pass a resolution calling for greater social as opposed to military spending.  Things like this may dispel the idea that disarmament is a white issue, because how the government spends its revenue affects everyone." (my bold)

A discussion of the Solomon Amendment which was an amendment that conditioned eligibility for federal student financial educational aid with registration with the Selective Service System.  It also allowed military recruiters access to address, biographical and academic program information on students aged 17 and older.  Here are Barack Obama's comments:

"At this time, the current major issue is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration.  The law requires that all male students applying for federal financial aid submit proof of registration, or else the government coffers will close...By organizing and educating the Columbia community, such activities (i.e. promoting non-registration) lay the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country."  

He closes his missive with this:

"Indeed the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy.  What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson,and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part.  By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience - that of war.  But then, there are some things we shouldn't have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience." (my bold)

While I realize that we were all idealists when we were younger, the irony of this essay is stunning, particularly given that Barack Obama has the "honor" of being the only United States president in history to be in a state of war for his entire eight year term, having military operations in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and dropping a total of 26,172 bombs in 2016 alone.  Talk about "suiting the military-industrial complex"!

In closing, as "inconvenient truths" seem to have a habit of disappearing from the internet (i.e the Orwellian rewriting of history), here are screen captures from the Columbia University website showing the article in its entirety: