Category: Uncategorized

Centrists of the World Unite

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s no secret that the relentless polarization of U.S. politics has left independent and moderate voters  politically homeless.  Today a bipartisan group of activists gathers in New York to launch an effort to organize this “radical center” and amplify its voice in Washington.

No Labels is the brainchild of Nancy Jacobson, a veteran Democratic activist and fundraiser.  Its organizers include veteran political players from both parties of a distinctly pragmatic, non-doctrinaire bent (including yours truly).  It aims to build an online network of Americans – imagine a MoveOn.Org for centrists  –  who are fed up with the nation’s dysfunctional political system and want to do something about it.

That won’t be easy, even with the Internet’s unprecedented power to connect virtual communities of like-minded people.  Unlike arch partisans and members of interest groups, independents and moderates are notoriously hard to mobilize.  They tend not to be impelled by passionate causes, and to pay fleeting attention to politics. “Liberals and conservatives have passion. Moderates and independents have lives,” observes political analyst Charlie Cook.

There’s little doubt, however, that voters across the broad middle of the spectrum have become more disenchanted with politics and government.  The midterm election was the third straight in which independents turned against the incumbent party.  This restiveness is grounded in what they see as the Obama administration’s failure to deliver, especially on the economy.  Independents don’t trust the Republicans either, and the last thing these voters want is an intensification of Washington’s zero-sum political game.

According to a new poll by Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor, only 10 percent of Independents welcome the GOP victory as a chance to roll back government.  Seventy percent said neither party’s agenda alone can solve the nation’s problems. This poll confirms other recent surveys in finding a strong preference for bipartisan cooperation over confrontation.  President Obama’s tax-cut deal shows he’s gotten the message.

So No Labels is tapping into something real.  On the other hand, it so far is defined more by what it’s against – incivility, partisan cant, rigid dogmas, special interest power and, above all, a paralysis in government’s ability to solve problems – than by what it’s for.  Can a movement organized by political insiders tap and channel grassroots anger in politically consequential ways?  Can it coalesce behind a positive agenda for governing?  We’ll see.

For now, it’s enough to say that the problems No Labels seeks to solve are real enough.  There’s no question we need a broad civic mobilization to bring intense pressure to bear on our political leaders to work together to solve the nation’s problems.  Independents and moderates may be an inchoate political force, but there are lots of them. If No Labels can get even a fraction of them mobilized for political action, Washington will take notice.

Tip-Toeing Around The Elephant: US Mitigation And The COP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The US was in an awkward position in Cancun. The administration clearly wanted to show leadership, but it was hamstrung by an inability to deliver legislation with any tangible commitments. Since that seemed unlikely to change in the new Congress, US negotiators were left playing defense on the key issue — mitigation.

This makes movement in other areas (such as finance and forests) difficult, though that is in part due to US insistence on parallel, rather than serial, treatment of issues.

The result was sometimes bizarre diplomatic displays by the US, such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s address — essentially a remedial crash course in climate science. Secretary Chu did not take questions, one suspects because it would have been difficult to answer the obvious one — how does the US plan to meet the President’s 17%-cuts-by-2020 goal articulated last year?

Difficult, but not impossible. The awkward position in which US officials find themselves and the effects it has on US credibility and capability make the administration’s continued avoidance of serious public discussion of EPA carbon regulations puzzling. Research at RFF and elsewhere indicates that EPA regulations, either on the books already or likely in the near future, could achieve emissions reductions in the range of the President’s goal.

I’ve studied these regulations over the past year or so, and I’ve been repeatedly surprised by their likely impact. Vehicle fuel economy standards, new power plant permitting rules, and whatever the agency decides to do for existing sources can each make a significant emissions impact. Perhaps more interestingly, coming EPA regulations ostensibly aimed at other pollutants could have a big impact on carbon by pushing a substantial portion of coal plants into retirement, and replacing them with cleaner technology.

It’s not clear why the US administration and negotiators didn’t trumpeting these regulations as evidence of a commitment to cut emissions. It’s possible it is felt that a regulatory approach won’t be understood or taken seriously by the international community, but EPA regulations are far from the only complex issue on the table (just ask your local climate finance expert for a quick summary if you suspect otherwise). And other countries are undoubtedly familiar with a regulatory approach — for many it is their preferred domestic environmental policy. One thing is certain, though — the best way to ensure that the international community (and the American public) fails to understand or appreciate the EPA’s capabilities is for the administration and its negotiators to refuse to explain them.

Another possibility is that the administration worries that hyping EPA’s powers is politically dangerous. The agency is more effective, this argument goes, if it can operate quietly and at its own pace. To put it more directly, to speak of regulation is to destroy it — perhaps because Congress would respond by seeking to cripple the agency.

But the President should not forget that his party still controls the Senate, and that he still wields the veto pen. Even if the President resigned himself to giving up EPA powers (or delaying them) as part of a compromise, it would surely be in his interest to say how strong these powers are, thus increasing their value in any bargain.

Moreover, the argument that regulatory emissions cuts are more effective if kept quiet contradicts what is arguably the central dogma of US foreign climate policy — that US action is valuable not for its small contribution to global goals, but as a tool for unlocking negotiations and prompting action elsewhere. If US negotiators can’t or won’t talk about the best policy tool the US currently has, they can’t do their jobs. This makes the long term likelihood of a meaningful international agreement much smaller.

EPA regulation is not the first, best option for US climate policy; it is above all likely to be more costly over the long run than a pricing mechanism. But neither this admission, nor the fact that EPA regulations are legally required, are good reasons not to forcefully and frequently articulate their emissions benefits. Perhaps we as a country should be embarrassed that we cannot adopt a national climate policy that more closely approaches the ideal in terms of both costs and benefits. But the administration should not let any embarrassment about what the country cannot currently do prevent them from talking about what it can.

As my colleague Dallas Burtraw pointed out in his talk here this week, US credibility on climate requires that the administration be a lot bolder — not by making new commitments that it lacks the domestic powers to back up, but simply by publicly, loudly, and clearly saying what it can and will do with the tools it already has.

This article is cross-posted at Weathervane

Labor Backs Trade (Yes you read that right)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last Friday the AFL-CIO and several big unions came out against the U.S.-Korea free trade deal.  As news, this was strictly “dog-bites-man” stuff.  The bigger story is the appearance of cracks in Labor’s usually monolithic opposition to trade pacts.

Several unions, namely the United Auto Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers, endorsed the agreement after President Obama wrung concessions from Seoul on cars and U.S. beef earlier this month. Ford Motor Company, which strongly opposed the original deal negotiated by the George W. Bush administration on the grounds that it didn’t do enough to pry open South Korea’s auto market, is also on board.

The unusual split in Labor’s ranks makes it easier for Congressional Democrats to back Obama.   Although voting treaties up or down is the exclusive prerogative of the Senate, it’s significant that the deal also has the support of Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich), a tireless defender of the U.S. auto industry and long the House’s leading skeptic of free trade agreements.

If the Senate approves the treaty next year, it will be a major boost for Obama’s pledge to double exports over the next five years. It may also signal a shift in trade politics within the Democratic Party. As a candidate, Obama played to his party’s anti-trade gallery, even pledging to re-negotiate the 1994 North America Free Trade Agreement. Now, as President, he recognizes that opening overseas markets is integral to economic recovery. With consumers still winding down their debts, and businesses hoarding cash, a good part of the economic demand we need to create jobs must come from abroad.

In fact, the Commerce Department reported Friday that U.S. exports rose to their highest levels in more than two years. The U.S. trade deficit (in goods and services) fell to $38.71 billion, a more than 13 percent drop over the previous month and considerably less than the $44 billion economists had predicted.  Best of all, U.S. exports to China grew nearly 30 percent to reach a record high of just over $9 billion. Along with a slight decrease in Chinese imports, that narrowed the monthly U.S. trade deficit by 8 percent, to $25.52 billion. This was the best economic news we’ve had for some time, and it sent stocks soaring.

South Korea has the world’s 12th largest economy. By lowering its high tariffs and dealing with non-tariff barriers to U.S. communications and financial services firms, the deal could boost U.S. exports to South Korea by $10 trillion annually, the administration says. Crucially, thanks to Obama’s success in getting South Korea to modify its auto provisions, it exempts up to 25,000 U.S. vehicles from Seoul’s environmental and fuel economy standards, and builds in safeguards against a surge of imported cars from South Korea.

That was enough to satisfy the UAW and Ford though not, it seems, the rest of organized labor. Intriguingly, the automakers’ union also parted company from the AFL-CIO in backing another controversial Obama deal: his tax-cut compromise with Republicans. It’s another sign that, even within the progressive camp, arguments for spurring job-creating growth are prevailing over class warfare themes.

South Korea is more than a major trading partner. It’s also a key U.S. ally. North Korea’s recent artillery attack on one of its islands – and China’s refusal to condemn it – seems to have made Seoul more tractable about negotiating changes in the treaty.  In any event, the free trade pact also offers the United States an opportunity to cement relations with an prosperous market democracy that increasingly shares our apprehensions about Beijing’s propensity for throwing its weight around in the Asia Pacific.

The U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement would be worth ratifying on foreign policy grounds alone. But unlike several previous bilateral trade pacts with small nations, this one will deliver real benefits to America’s struggling economy.

Will the Tax Compromise Stick?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s been one of those weeks in Washington.  Just a few days ago, it appeared the tax deal between the president and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had broken the lame-duck session logjam, resolving the stickiest problem and paving the way for late-session action on issues like DADT and START.

Now votes on the tax deal have been pushed into next week amidst a resolution of disapproval by House Democrats, and the DADT repeal has lost a key Senate floor vote once again.

It’s hard to say whether the President’s very early signals that he’d be willing to strike a deal to avoid the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts made the ultimate liberal backlash more understandable or puzzling.  The only surprises in the final deal were the inclusion of a payroll tax holiday, the one stimulative proposal with significant support in both parties; extension of the enhanced EITC and child tax credits created in the 2009 stimulus package, a total concession to Democrats; and revisions in the resurrected federal estate tax—which didn’t exist in this calendar year—to create lower rates and higher exclusions than was the case before the Bush tax cuts first took place.

Some progressives (though not many) profess to oppose the payroll tax holiday on grounds that it’s part of a collateral attack on Social Security.  Some also express moral outrage over the proposed estate tax concessions, pointing out (quite properly) that they will have zero positive impact on investment and growth.  But the main complaint is that Obama never really went to the mats to defend the consensus Democratic opposition to high-end Bush tax cuts and their extension, and the main beef seems to be retroactive as much as prospective.

The tax-deal rebellion reflects gradually building liberal anger towards the Obama administration on topics ranging from the public option in health care to the unwillingness to pursue prosecution of Bush administration figures over civil liberties violations and treatment of terrorism suspects; the expansion of the U.S. troop commitment in Afghanistan; and above all, the President’s continuing protestations of bipartisanship.  Furious injunctions to the president to “fight” for progressive principles, regardless of the legislative consequences, have spread far beyond the blogosphere to a wide array of congressional Democrats.

What’s unclear at the moment is whether the House Democratic action represented just a symbolic measure that won’t get in the way of House approval of the tax deal next week, or a more serious protest that will require some sort of modifications in the package that progressives can claim as a trophy.  The latter contingency, of course, will give conservative Republicans a new excuse to walk away from the package and try to impose their own tax policies in the next Congress with their enhanced numbers.

In any event, the intra-Democratic rhetoric has grown so strong that it’s revived the immediate-post-election chattering classes talk about a primary challenge to Obama in 2012, with journalist Robert Kuttner being the most outspoken about dumping Obama lest he become the “Democrats’ Hoover,” and with anyone who defends the tax deal getting a lot of heat as a sell-out.

The most certain thing about the tax deal is that it has obliterated the attention that was being given to the Bowles-Simpson commission report and a variety of other deficit reduction proposals, even as the two parties appeared poised to approve measures that would create added deficits in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars.   The lack of resistance (so far) by Tea Party Movement figures is as good a sign as any that its alleged total focus on debts and deficits is, like that of the Republican Party it dominates, a mirage that quickly fades once high-end tax cuts are on the table.

In other words, deficit-talk seems most useful in Washington as a way for partisans to excoriate their opponents’ priorities—i.e., the Democratic resistance to “entitlement reform” and the Republican resistance to progressive taxation and restrained defense spending.  Actual concern on the topic, however, is harder to find, even at the end of a year where it’s rarely out of the headlines.

What a Responsible Transition in Afghanistan Should Look Like

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Center for New American Security (CNAS) just released a new report on the way forward in Afghanistan. As the report’s title indicates, “Responsible Transition” calls for the United States to hand over responsibility for security to the Afghans over the next few years. The plan involves leaving 25-35,000 U.S. troops behind to defeat Afghanistan, with the rest withdrawn by 2014. “Responsible Transition” also calls for America to put more pressure on Pakistan to crack down on extremists.

CNAS’s plan to scale down the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is a wise one, recognizing as it does that “all options are likely to be suboptimal” but a long-term nation-building project is particularly suboptimal. But it seems wishful thinking that more pressure on Pakistan coming from the Obama administration will do what nine years of pressure haven’t already: convince Pakistan to expel the Taliban and any other troublemakers from its territory. As long as Pakistan knows we need it more than it needs us, it can take U.S. money while doing little.

Moreover, as Michael Cohen points out, CNAS’s report entirely sidesteps the thorny issue of talking with the Taliban. This is a key issue, since the Taliban have deep roots in the Pashtun community. Any long-term peace is going to have to include elements of the Taliban, as the administration sometimes seems to realize.

A more realistic plan would be something along the lines of what the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for American Progress have recommended. Encouraging political reconciliation must be at the forefront of U.S.’s strategy going forward, not simply an afterthought. Military operations will have to take a backseat to diplomacy and politics if long-term progress is going to be made. Deal-making will have to include bargains with the Taliban, unsavoury though that prospect is. There simply is no other way to bring a modicum of stability to the troubled region unless the Taliban are made a part of some power-sharing agreement.

It’s a positive sign that the gang at CNAS recognizes that a sizable U.S. footprint in Afghanistan is unsustainable. As the strongest boosters of large-scale counterinsurgency approaches, CNAS has an important role to play in forming a strategy that focuses primarily–and eventually, exclusively–on preventing terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland. That should always be the top priority. When the Obama administration releases its Afghanistan review next week, let’s hope it agrees.

Obama Doubles Down on High-Speed Rail Investments in California and Florida

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Obama administration yesterday called the bluff of two newly elected Republican governors and regained control of its high-speed rail program. Confronted by Governor-elects Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio, who vowed to kill the administration’s signature high-speed transportation initiative in their states when they take office next month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood preemptively yanked $1.195 billion not yet spent by the states.

This is good news and something we had urged. It shows resolve by the administration against politically motivated obstructionism. A backlash has been growing in Wisconsin against Walker’s anti-rail rhetoric. Now voters can mull over how he “saved” them money by destroying thousands of construction jobs that the proposed Milwaukee-Madison rail line would have created. Plus Wisconsin and Ohio may owe the federal government upwards of $25 million already spent on rail planning.

The administration said it would redirect the bulk of the freed funds to California and Florida, assuring that these truly transformative projects can move forward even if a Republican House blocks rail funds in the upcoming federal budget.

California will receive $624 million of the redirected funds, adding to the $3 billion previously awarded toward the construction of a 220-mph railway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Combined with matching state funds from a voter-approved bond referendum, California now has $7 billion committed to the project.

Both outgoing Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and incoming Democratic governor Jerry Brown are strong supporters of the rail project, despite California’s current budget woes. Last week, the California High Speed Rail Authority approved construction of the first leg of the line, a 65-mile stretch in the Central Valley running through Fresno. The redirected funds are likely to enable the authority to extend construction to Bakersfield.

Florida will get $342 million on top of the $2.05 billion previously allocated to build a high-speed train on a new right of way between Orlando and Tampa.

Incoming Republican governor Rick Scott initially opposed the line, but has softened his position, saying he is in favor of high-speed rail so long as Florida taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. Yesterday’s allocation basically closes the funding gap. It strengthens LaHood’s prediction that the Florida project will break ground next year.

Of the remaining $230 million redirected by LaHood, the state of Washington will receive $162 million to rebuild trackage and signaling on an existing Amtrak route between Portland and Seattle. The other major recipient ($42 million) was Illinois, whose re-elected Democratic Governor Pat Quinn is an ardent rail advocate.

Focusing federal funds on a few core projects is a smart strategy as the administration realizes that additional rail allocations in a Republican-controlled House are far from certain. The redirected rail funds give the administration breathing room to keep the program afloat at least through the 2112 election cycle.

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the likely chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in January, has been critical of rail projects – such as the now-rescinded Wisconsin and Ohio lines – where trains would only reach maximum speeds of 110 mph.

Mica has repeatedly said he favors speeds of over 150 mph and wants private partners to help fund the projects. Earlier this week, a consortium led by Central Japan Railway said it may offer $210 million in loans to help pay for the Tampa-Orlando line if its high-speed equipment was selected by the state.

Needed: A ‘Global-Compatible’ Tax System

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama is thinking about a broad overhaul of the income tax system, closing loopholes and lowering rates. (“Obama Weighs Tax Overhaul in Bid to Address Debt”).

But in today’s global economy, any attempt to ‘fix’ the U.S. income tax system is fundamentally doomed. Financial and product markets are so deeply globally integrated that multinationals and wealthy individuals can easily  recognize their income in lower-tax countries, if they choose.

One simple statistic: In 2009 40% of U.S. imports and exports was ‘related-party trade’ –”trade by U.S. companies with their subsidiaries abroad as well as trade by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies with their parent companies.” That means companies are effectively trading with themselves, so they can choose which side of the transaction books the profits.

To put it another way, the global economy is the biggest loophole of all, and it can’t be closed without layer after layer of intrusive rules and regulations.  In a global economy, you can’t have a simple income tax system.

What we need is a ‘global-compatible’ tax system: That is, a tax system which acknowledges the existence of a global economy, so it doesn’t continually need to be patched to close loopholes.

The best global-compatible tax system that I know of is the value-added tax. The value-added tax, as the name suggests, taxes the value added in a country, not the income. Equally important, A VAT  taxes imports but not exports.  As a result,  it offers far less chances for gaming the system.

Now, countries can still compete on their level of VAT. Moreover, there are a lot of controversial issues that can seriously affect competitiveness. These include: How to make the VAT progressive; whether medical care and housing should be exempt; how to treat capital investment and R&D spending; and so on. Big important questions, but ultimately solvable.

If you want tax simplicity and fairness, global-compatible is key.

This piece is cross-posted at Mandel on Innovation and Growth

In Praise of Comprehensive Tax Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The current debate over the tax-cut compromise hammered out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress raises the obvious question: If the bill passes (and that’s certainly not a sure bet at this point, as left and right harden their positions), what will happen in 2012?

Today’s New York Times offers an answer:

…Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.

The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020.

If this is indeed the plan that is forming, it’s good news. There has been a steady drumbeat of support in the Washington wonkosphere for comprehensive tax reform. It’s a no-brainer, really: simplifying the tax code by eliminating the thicket of deductions, exceptions, and loopholes that has come to overwhelm our system will allow government to lower rates even as revenues stay the same.

An Obama Administration push for tax reform also gives it a powerful political weapon approaching the 2012 elections. The message would be: “Forget the Bush tax cuts – they’re expiring. In their place is the Obama tax reform plan.” Though claiming reform is “the only way Obama can win in 2012” might be a little hyperbolic, William Galston is right to say that such a pivot “would enable him to move back on offense and to become the transformative leader he clearly wants to be.”

What should comprehensive tax reform look like? The administration and the Hill could do worse than start with the Wyden-Gregg tax reform plan, which would leave the tax code with three brackets (15, 25, and 35 percent), impose a flat corporate tax rate of 24 percent, and triple the standard deduction, while eliminating a whole host of loopholes and deductions. The plan is expected to cut the average taxpayer’s and corporation’s tax burden while keeping revenue steady.

Next year marks the 25th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a landmark achievement. The massive bill simplified the code and lowered rates, and won bipartisan support. (Here is yet another deflation of the Tea Party’s mythical Reagan: Wouldn’t you know it, Reagan worked with the other party and reached compromise.) The sprawling lawn that is the tax code has been left alone since then, and it is now overgrown. An Obama campaign to simplify the tax code is not the only good policy—it’s good politics.

What China’s Strong Arm Tactics Don’t Buy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Beijing has arm-twisted nineteen countries to not send representatives to tomorrow’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.  At issue is the honoree, Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese political prisoner whose views on human rights and democracy don’t jive particularly with the Chinese Communist Party’s.  Imagine that.

On the surface, Beijing’s deft deployment of “soft power” seems impressive: to keep nineteen countries from attending supporting democratic movements is impressive. “Soft power,” as Harvard professor Joe Nye explains in an October Washington Quarterly article, is an area where Beijing is just coming into its own.

But Nye also points out that Chinese soft power has limits:

It is not easy for governments to sell their country’s charm if their narrative is inconsistent with domestic realities. In that dimension, except for its economic success, China still has a long way to go.

Such is the case with the Nobel event.  Let’s examine the nineteen no-shows, and their political and press rankings from 2009 by Freedom House, the NGO that tracks these sorts of things:

Country Political Status Freedom of the press status
Afghanistan Not Free Not Free
China Not Free Not Free
Colombia Partly Free Partly Free
Cuba Not Free Not Free
Egypt Not Free Partly Free
Iran Not Free Not Free
Iraq Not Free Not Free
Morocco Partly Free Not Free
Pakistan Partly Free Not Free
Russia Not Free Not Free
Saudi Arabia Not Free Not Free
Serbia Free Partly Free
Sudan Not Free Not Free
The Philippines Partly Free Partly Free
Tunisia Not Free Not Free
Ukraine Free Partly Free
Venezuela Partly Free Not Free
Vietnam Not Free Not Free

Yikes.  Only two unfettered “free”’s in the lot. In other words, as Nye acutely observes: ‘[I]f the authoritarian growth model produces soft power for China in authoritarian countries, it does not produce attraction in democratic countries. In other words, what attracts in Caracas may repel in Paris.”  How spot-on.

And if you’re interested in hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth, come see Joseph Nye, Under Secretary Michele Flournoy, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and a host of others talk about these issues at a PPI panel discussion on China, next Tuesday, December 14th in DC.  Click here to see the invite and RSVP.

Photo credit: Adam

A New Approach for STEM Education

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Most Americans appreciate the fact that the world is a very competitive place.  Policy makers and parents have long known that our kids, from grade school through college, need to step up their skills and understanding of science, technology, engineering and math – know in education circles as STEM studies – if they are going to compete successfully with their counterparts in China, India, Korea, and many European countries.  For this reason, for nearly 40 years there has been a lot of interest in improving STEM education.  While it is laudable that we are focusing on STEM education, we are running the risk of tethering ourselves to assumptions that might be a little faulty and outdated.  We can’t be truly innovative as a nation if we are not innovative in our thinking about STEM education.

The current assumption driving STEM education is that all students should get at least some STEM education at every step of their educational journey.  Supply students with high standards, great teachers and get as many kids excited about STEM as possible.  Call this the “some STEM for all” approach.  It sounds appealing, right?  Universal tech literacy for the 21st century.

Well, one problem with this is that most of us are not destined to be scientists and engineers – maybe five percent.  Some of us simply don’t have the acumen and the economy only needs so many engineers and scientists and actuaries.  So why should state and local governments, many of which are in deep financial peril, lavish resources on the “Some STEM for all” approach?  The answer is that they shouldn’t.

Another problem with this approach is that it wants to push young people into studying what might not necessarily interest them and deny the real STEM stars the resources they need to excel.  This is destined to fail.  A successful education experience begins with motivated, excited students pursuing what truly interests them and going where their talents can shine.  Forcing all students to take on AP physics or chemistry is going to have disappointing results during high school and beyond since these fields aren’t necessarily where the jobs are going to be.  Ironically, over 80 percent of the STEM jobs are in engineering and information technology but there is a paucity of courses in these fields at the high school level.  Therefore, the kids with the inclination are not getting access to what excites them – nor acquiring skills that employers actually need.

The time has come to try a more efficient and effective approach.  Flip the paradigm around.   Call it “All STEM for Some.”  It is based on identifying the kids with the most promise and interest in STEM areas early on and giving them the challenging, exciting educational experience. This  will allow them to move into advanced studies and then into the working world ready to contribute to a more dynamic U.S. economy.  Not everyone is going to be Bill Gates.  We don’t need everyone to be Bill Gates.  But we have to make sure we have at least a few Bill Gateses in the years ahead.

Gates’s case actually provides a good example of the wisdom of this approach.  As many of us have learned in the popular book “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell, Gates is a product of brains and hard work.  But just as important, he had the luck to go to fine private high school where a parent with vision and resources provided a computer lab.  This was a time when most universities had not computer lab.  For a kid like Gates, it was heaven.  He spent hours there.  And the rest, as they say, is history.

ITIF fleshes out the idea of “All STEM for Some” and offers up ideas that should be embraced as part of a broader education reform effort in a new report Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Among the ideas in the report is placing a greater emphasis on making sure students can demonstrate skills rather than merely memorize content.  In addition, it would make sense to allow STEM-oriented students to spend more time in those courses and less time on other subjects.  Also, we need to make sure the resources are there beginning freshmen year so we don’t lose the kids who were STEM-inclined but instead nurture them with greater opportunities right away.

In addition, the report urges policy makers to get serious about creating entirely new institutions – STEM specialty schools – and develop the infrastructure to identify and recruit the most promising students to pursue their passions in exceptional world-class educational environments.

We should also revise how we incentivize schools to make their STEM programs more effective.  The report explains this could be done with a combination of federal grant money, as well as corporate or philanthropic efforts.  Bolstering STEM education should be part of needed national strategy to make our national labs, universities and private employers act in a more coherent fashion when it comes to preparing students and workers in critical new fields.

We are not going to be able to develop the game-changing advances in biotechnology, robotics, energy and other fields unless we nurture the talent of our students effectively.  Many of us will want to become artists, teach history, develop real estate, or run our own small business.  That is fine.  But we should get serious – immediately – about how we educate those students who show the keenest interest in the emerging growth fields of the future.  Giving a smattering of science and math to them along with the aspiring novelists is not going to work.  We only have about ten years to make changes in our STEM education so we will have the talent to create the STEM jobs so and therefore compete globally in the years ahead.  The time to get started is now.

This article is cross-posted at Innovation Policy Blog

Photo credit: Michael Surran

Paradoxes of Actually Governing 101: The Republican Earmark Backtrack

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I must admit, I take a certain delight in watching the Tea Party contingent realize that even they can’t quite stand 100 percent behind their extremist anti-government rhetoric.

Here is Michele Bachmann, backtracking in Politico on the great Republican idea of banning all earmarks: “But we have to address the issue of how are we going to fund transportation projects across the country?” Bachmann, it turns out, wants to make sure that the federal government pays for the Stillwater Bridge, which connects her Minnesota district to Wisconsin over the St. Croix River. Such is the theme of the entire Politico story: Even hard-core Republicans decide they want “member-directed spending” after all, and they are now figuring out how to get around their bold decision to kill earmarks.

The earmark ban was always more political theater than anything else. As I’ve written for Miller-McCune, earmarks only account for about two percent of all discretionary spending, and the money would wind up being spent anyway by normal funding mechanisms, just without the local intelligence of needs that Representatives tend to bring.

But the fun thing to watch now is how, despite all the impassioned railing against wasteful government spending, the Tea Partiers are realizing that their constituents actually like federal involvement in the local economy. And that in order to get re-elected, they are actually going to have to make sure that federal money keeps flowing in.

This should hardly come as a surprise. As I recently noted here at ProgressiveFix, polling shows that while Republican voters bash government in the abstract, they tend to approve of actual government programs in the specific, including spending on transportation. Political scientists have labeled this the symbolic conservatism/operational liberalism divide, since many voters like to say that they are conservative, but when it comes down to actual programs, they actually want government to do stuff.

Presumably, this will not be the last time that the Tea Party brigands find themselves caught up in the paradox of realizing the voting public is not so extreme is the cathartic Washington-bashing of campaign season made them out to be. I look forward to watching the twists and turns.

Why Obama’s Approval Numbers Are About to Creep Up

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the latest Gallup poll finds that 66 percent of Americans support both extending  tax cuts on all Americans for two years and an equal 66 percent support extending unemployment benefits for two years. This is very good news for Obama and a good sign this could be a turning point as he attempts to rebuild his popularity and the bargaining power that comes with it. It’s been a long time since two-thirds of voters approved of anything so high profile that Obama supported.

Moreover, as much as the liberal base may carp about the deal (as they should), the fact that Obama was able to broker a major compromise in and of itself should give him a bounce. As I wrote in a recent Politico op-ed, Americans, especially Democrats and those fickle independents, like leaders who are willing and able to compromise.

Another recent Gallup poll underscores this point. By a 47-27 percent margins, Americans say it is more important for political leaders to compromise to get things done than to stick to their beliefs, with Democrats and Independents much more inclined to prefer compromise. This Gallup poll also found that 36 percent of voters thought Obama was willing to compromise but Republicans were not, whereas 17 percent thought Republicans were the compromisers and Obama was the obstacle. (Another 25 percent thought both sides were willing, and 16 percent thought neither side was willing.)

The President is presumably most interested right now in rebuilding his popularity, which is hovering around 46 percent these days.  Presumably the calculus in the Oval Office is (I think correctly) that the frustrated swing voters who will decide the 2012 elections want a leader who is pragmatic and is not going to hold up their tax cuts or their neighbor’s unemployment benefits for that ubiquitous epithet of a justification, “political purposes.”

By playing the role of compromiser, he’s: a) playing to his political strength, since voters are much more likely to see Obama as the leader in brokering compromise than his Republican counterparts; and b) playing to the voters most likely to vote Democratic in November 2012, since Democrats and Independents genuinely prefer compromise to sticking to strong positions.

Meanwhile, the lefties have every right to complain and they should. To the extent that Obama can have a few public fights with his liberal base, this will probably help him to regain some popularity among swing independent voters, and with it, the political capital that will allow him to start future negotiations with Republicans in a stronger position. Which should ultimately lead to more progressive outcomes.

An Ugly But Necessary Deal on Taxes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The tax cut deal struck last night by President Obama and Congressional Republicans has only one thing going for it: urgent economic necessity. If unemployment weren’t stuck at just under 10 percent – possibly for years, warns Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – there would be no way any self-respecting progressive could support it.

How ugly is this deal? Let us count the ways. First, it forces progressives to swallow the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. President Obama’s undoubtedly painful decision to go back (for now) on his oft-repeated promise to repeal them reflects the post-midterm political realities of divided government.

Second, it’s hugely expensive. It could cost as much as $800 billion over the next two years, even as the federal government staggers under the weight of massive deficits. It’s an inauspicious start, to say the least, to the new era of fiscal discipline Republicans promised in the midterm elections. Let’s face it: they’d rather have tax cuts. In any case, the price tag makes you wonder if America can afford this kind of bipartisan compromise.

For all that, the deal was probably inevitable given the economy’s persistent weakness. To have failed to extend the middle class tax cuts would have withdrawn hundreds of billions of purchasing power from the economy at a time when demand is insufficient to trigger new business investment. To have not extended the cuts for upper-income taxpayers would have made it difficult if not impossible for Obama to get what he wanted from Republicans: namely, an extension of unemployment benefits, a payroll tax holiday workers next year, and a renewal of business tax breaks passed this year.

Waiving the payroll tax is an important creative addition, since by lowering labor costs it gives employers a direct incentive to hire workers. Also on the plus side, the deal keeps rates on capital gains and dividends low, and includes “direct expensing” of business investments.

President Obama clearly views his tax provisions as stimulus by the only political means available to him, given public – not just Republican antipathy – to more government spending. He raised the stakes yesterday, warning that America has arrived at another “Sputnik moment” and could be eclipsed by rivals if we can’t turn the economy around. The President also showed little patience with liberal purists who are loudly bewailing, for the umpteenth time, their “betrayal” by a Democratic President.

“Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do,” he said. “The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

It’s true that a majority of the public consistently has opposed tax breaks for the rich. But it’s also true that Americans, and especially the independents who propelled the Republicans’ midterm gains, have even less appetite for political brinkmanship designed to score partisan points. The U.S. left is always up for a bracing round of class warfare, but voters aren’t likely to reward tactics that could result in slowing down the recovery and raising their taxes at the worst possible moment.

The good news is that the extension is only for two years. That gives time for a reconsideration of the whole ungainly package in 2012, by which time the jobless rate presumably will have fallen back to earth. That allows room for a more constructive debate next year over a sweeping tax overhaul designed to promote growth, long-term fiscal stability, and fairness. It also puts the question of how to restore a progressive tax code smack in the middle of the next presidential elections, where it belongs.

Photo credit: David Reber

Explaining the Politics of the Tax Compromise

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The tax deal cut yesterday between the White House and congressional Republican leaders will have a complicated legacy that’s a bit difficult to anticipate at the moment.

That’s assuming it’s approved by Congress.  Bernie Sanders is already promising a Senate filibuster on the deal, whose very existence is offensive to many progressives, and RedState’s Erick Erickson is calling for opposition from conservatives.  But it will probably get through these obstacles, if only because about the only political force that actually supports the alternative—the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts along with a major lapse in unemployment insurance benefits—is the deficit-hawk Democrat contingent, who have limited clout in Congress at the moment.

The revolt against this deal on the left will likely generate more heat and noise than actual votes. Many progressives are already furious at Obama for telegraphing his willingness to cut a deal before it was necessary, and for his generally uncombative pubic stance, which they interpret as evidence the President didn’t learn much from his first two years in office.  Others simply want to register as strongly as is possible their rejection of the ideology supporting the Bush tax cuts, including the estate tax reductions that are incorporated into the compromise.

As scrutiny of the deal sharpens, however, the extension of increases in refundable tax credits aimed at the working poor in last year’s stimulus package may get some attention as well.  These are benefits that Republicans have been increasingly denouncing as “welfare,” so this is perhaps a victory-in-principle for progressives.

Ultimately, the political impact of the deal will probably be measured by its impact, if any, on the economy.  Will the payroll tax holiday provide some critically timed stimulus?  Will investors be impressed by the bipartisanship of it all?  And would the alternative of letting the tax cuts expire and work in Washington grind to a halt have guaranteed the much-feared “double-dip recession”?

Matt Yglesias stresses these short-term economic consequences in his own reaction to the deal:

[T]his has partially set my mind at ease about the prospects of a GOP strategy of economic sabotage. The tax policy the right wants, though in general bad for the country, is not bad for short-term economic performance. And the concessions they were willing to give Obama in exchange for boosting the incomes of rich people are expansionary in the short-term. So the terrain here exists well within the range of “normal” politics where conservatives want lower taxes on rich people. This is kind of nutty in my view, but it’s a deeply held article of faith on the right and not some ad hoc effort to sink the economy or anything.

Ezra Klein,  however, notes the limited stimulative effect the deal is likely to have:

Most of the money just keeps programs that are currently in effect from expiring, so in some ways, it would be more accurate to say that this money is anti-contractionary rather than stimulative. It’s important that the White House doesn’t repeat the mistake it made in the original stimulus and overpromise how much this will do for the economy. What you can say about this policy is that, for the moment, it doesn’t make things much worse, and it probably makes them a bit better. This is not the government making a major new commitment to the recovery. It’s the government not getting in the way, and maybe doing a bit to help, the horribly slow recovery that’s happening anyway.

A collateral benefit, of course, would be the enactment during the lame-duck session of the Defense Authorization bill, which includes an end to DADT, and Senate ratification of the START treaty.  The deal seems to have eliminated the most immediate obstacle to action on these measures; we’ll soon know if progress is now possible.

More generally, the deal guarantees another and perhaps truly definitive battle over tax principles in 2012, adding to the high-stakes nature of that year’s presidential election.

 

Why a Stable Korean Peninsula is in China’s Best Interests

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Taking its cues straight from Will Marshall’s keyboard, no doubt, the Obama administration  correctly labeled China as an “enabler” of North Korea over the weekend.  If Pyongyang is the crack addict in the alley behind my house, Beijing keeps it high.

Beijing’s unwillingness to curtail the Hermit Kingdom’s frustrating bellicosity falls within its national interest.  Well, in the short term, anyway: As North Korea continues to cause headaches in Washington, Beijing is probably quite content to let a distracted DC spend time and energy containing the North and placating the South. Further, China alone maintains significant diplomatic leverage over the Kim dynasty, and a mischievous Pyongyang reinforces Beijing’s position as regional powerbroker.

Consider the flip side: If North Korea starts to behave itself, China not only loses that pivotal position, but Washington can spend more time focusing the basket of issues it would prefers keeping front and center: currency valuation and debt, trade, improving military ties, freedom of international waterways, and India’s UN Security Council seat, amongst others.

But as the Korean situation continues to deteriorate, it should be dawning on the Chinese that an escalation isn’t in their interests, either.  With each Northern provocation–the Cheonan sinking, the Yeonpyeong Island shelling, and the consistent threat of another nuclear test launch–the South Korean public loses patience with diplomatic responses.  Should the day arrive when a military response is unavoidable, the egg will ultimately end up on Beijing’s face: it will be drawn into full-blown crisis-control mode if for no other reason than to manage the inevitable refugee catastrophe awaiting on its boarder.

In talks with the Chinese, the Obama administration must highlight these facts: allowing a rambunctious Kim to needle Washington’s eye is fine for today, but it serves no one’s interest to allow such behavior continue.  This is the choice China faces: regional broker or global stakeholder — it’s very difficult to be both over the long term.

If you want to learn more, you should check out PPI’s All-Star panel on US-China relationship next Tuesday, December 14th, featuring UnderSecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, new Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Harvard professor Joe Nye, writer James Fallows, and Naval War College professor Mike Chase.

Making Sense of Connecticut v. AEP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to hear an appeal to Connecticut v. AEP, a court of appeals granting eight states the right to sue American Electric Power (AEP) Co. and several other utilities for greenhouse gas emissions.  The states had argued that carbon dioxide emissions were a “public nuisance,” and hoped to force the companies to reduce their emissions through litigation.

In a recent PPI memo, Philip Goldberg argued that such litigation made little sense.

Progressives should … not reflexively support climate change litigation, no matter how passionately one might favor emission reductions. We should adhere to our principles and protect due process rights of defendants, even when those defendants are large corporations. The David and Goliath analogy may score political points, but it only works in litigation when Goliath does something objectively wrong. Otherwise, any group that fails to get its way in the political arena will turn to the courts. Such an act would be an affront to democratic proceduralism that has long defined our progressive philosophy.

You can read the entire memo here.