Category: Uncategorized

Is America Really #1 in Innovation?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last month the World Economic Forum released its 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Report.  Among the 131 countries analyzed, the United States ranks fourth overall for global competitiveness (down from ranking second in 2009 and first in 2008) but ranks number one for innovation. Such a finding should comfort policy analysts and policy makers who have long augured America is losing its innovation edge. It seems, while we could do better in overall global competiveness, when it comes to innovation the United States is the gold standard.  All is well.

But what are studies like the Global Competitiveness Report actually measuring?  According the methodology section of the report, over two-thirds of the indicators are derived from what the WEF calls the “Executive Opinion Study.”  The survey asks business leaders throughout the world questions such as, “How would you rate the protection of property rights, including financial assets, in your country? [1 = very weak; 7 = very strong].”  For the report’s innovation subsection only one of the indicators—utility patents per million population—is based on hard data.

The WEF argues surveys help form qualitative data for metrics that hard data are otherwise unavailable.  But because of limited knowledge, and likely respondent biases, surveys such as the WEF’s risk being a better reflection of a nation’s reputation than its actual position.  Fareed Zakaria summed up this issue well when he said in a 2009 Newsweek column:

I’d always viewed the rankings that routinely show America on top as authoritative. But they may be misleading. Most traditional competitiveness studies use polls—of CEOs, scientists, investors—as a key part of their measurements. The World Economic Forum report, for example, relies upon surveys for almost two thirds of its data.  Like a star that still looks bright in the farthest reaches of the universe but has burned out at the core, America’s reputation is stronger than the hard data warrant.

To illustrate the point, ITIF released a report gauging international competitiveness and innovation that only used hard data.  In that report the United States ranks fifth for venture capital, while in the WEF’s 2009 study the United States ranked first.  The difference is our study takes total venture capital as a percent of GDP while WEF asks survey respondents “where is the best place to look for venture funds?”  The most likely reason for the discrepancy within the hard and survey data is that while the United States was clearly the best place for venture funds in the early 2000s, in the last decade that position has declined.  But, the opinions of executives seem to lag the empirical shift.

One may argue that in certain areas the only way to get data is to use survey data; in which case the question becomes: does the bias within these surveys cause more harm than simply leaving the indicator out?  But within the WEF’s study there are clearer cut examples of using survey data when hard data is readily available.  For example, the report asks respondents, “To what extent do companies in your country spend on R&D?”  Yet governments collect data on such spending, what purpose could there possibly be for using survey data instead of hard data?  (And for what it’s worth the United States ranks sixth amongst survey respondents, behind South Korea, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Singapore—all of which have higher corporate R&D as a percent of GDP than the United States.)

Yes, the United States fares better then all countries for items such as “business impact of malaria” and “available airline seats per kilometer.”  However, as countries in Asia invest magnitudes more in clean energy than us, or as the majority of European nations offer a far more generous R&D tax credit, celebrations over our top ranking in innovation might be premature.

The bottom line is that it is nice to have a sterling reputation but it is even better for that reputation to survive rigorous inquiry.

photo credit:  Wolfie Fox

Keeping America on Track: The Future of High-Speed Rail

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, September 29, the Progressive Policy Institute will host an event on the future of high-speed rail in the United States and will release “A Smart Way to Finance High-Speed Rail: Restructuring the Highway Trust Fund into a Results-Driven Transportation Fund,” a new PPI policy memo focusing financing the President Obama’s ambitious fast train network.

Register for the event.

WHO

Pierce Homer, Transportation Director, Moffatt & Nichol
Ken Orski, Editor and Publisher, Innovation NewsBriefs
Mark Reutter, PPI Fellow
Petra Todorovich, Director, America 2050

Moderator: Michael Riley, Managing Editor, Bloomberg Government

WHEN

9 – 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, September 29

WHERE

Jefferson West Ballroom, Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.

MEDIA COVERAGE

The event is open to the press.  Media wishing to attend should contact Steven Chlapecka at 202.525.3931 or schlapecka@ppionline.org.

# # #

Register for the event.

Sheep and Goats

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday, I observed that we are getting to the point where all the speculation about individual 2010 contests will begin to yield to hard data, and the actual battlegrounds will emerge.

A good example of how that might be happening is provided by new polls from PPP of two Senate races that have been ostensibly very similar, in WI and CA. In both of these blue states well-regarded but always-vulnerable progressive Democratic U.S. senators are under attack from amply-financed Republican “newcomers.”

But according to PPP, Russ Feingold is suddenly in deep trouble against Ron Johnson, while Barbara Boxer is expanding her lead against Carly Fiorina. Both these polls represent a shift by PPP from registered voter to likely voter samples, making the trends interesting measurements of the so-called “enthusiasm gap” afflicting Democrats.

According to an account by its partner DailyKos, PPP finds the “enthusiasm gap” in WI to be “one of the most severe” in the country, with Johnson’s 1-point lead among 2008 voters ballooning to 11 points among likely 2010 voters.

But in California, Boxer’s 49-40 lead among RVs in July is a virtually unchanged 50-41 lead among likely voters today. More specifically, Boxer’s support among Democrats remains very strong, and as PPP’s Tom Jensen notes:

[T]he simple reality is that Fiorina has not proven to be a particularly appealing candidate to California voters. 42% of them see her unfavorably with only 34% rating her positively. Republicans like her, Democrats dislike her almost as much, and independents are slightly negative toward her. Again, not the formula that’s going to get a Republican elected to the Senate from California.

One other factor that should be noted here is that Boxer is just about the only vulnerable Democrat seeking reelection in a state where the majority of voters still approve of Barack Obama’s performance. His approval is 53/42, and by and large the folks that like Obama are supporting Boxer- California’s one of the last frontiers left where he’s not a drag.

Interestingly, PPP also shows Jerry Brown leading Meg Whitman among likely voters by a 47-42 margin in the CA governor’s race, even though Brown is just now getting around to running television ads.

Now it may be that PPP’s current polling in either WI or CA could prove to be an outlier; it happens to all pollsters on occasion. It’s also true that Russ Feingold has a habit of getting into trouble in his re-election campaigns, only to eventually recover and win.

But whether or not these two races in particular are examples, we should soon begin to see disparities in the host of “close races” we’ve all been watching, and separate the sheep from the goats.

This article is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist

Photo credit: Kat Clay

Empower the American People, Not Special Interests, to Bankroll Elections

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Eight months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling lifted decades-long limits on corporate and union spending in elections, the 2010 midterm election promises to be the most expensive – and most secretive – on record.

In a radical departure from previous high court jurisprudence, the decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission extended full personhood freedom-of-speech rights to corporations , allowing them to spend unlimited funds to advocate the election or defeat of candidates at any level. It is little surprise, therefore, that analysts are predicting political ad spending to balloon to $4.2 billion this year, fully twice the level spent in 2008.

In the absence of FEC enforcement of longstanding disclosure norms and the failure of the DISCLOSE legislation to garner 60 votes in the Senate, millions of dollars in electioneering ads are being spent for or against candidates by unknown players who are unaccountable to either the candidates or the public. A recent study issued last week by the watchdog group Public Citizen found that less than one-third of independent groups receiving electioneering donations have revealed their donors this election; virtually every such group did so in 2004 and 2006. Small wonder that eight in ten voters roundly condemn the Supreme Court ruling in opinion polls.

With these sobering changes in special interest spending and disclosure comes an opportunity for Congress to shift the election year debate from issues – on which there is little hope of consensus between the parties – to process. The political imperative for such a change is clear, as liberals and Tea Partiers alike are outspoken in their rejection of the current system of corporate special interest-funded elections. While progressive support of campaign finance reform has long been assumed, Republican strategist Mark McKinnon recently observed, “There is a conventional myth that Republican voters are opposed to campaign finance reform, but [recent] research shows that Republican voters, like all other voters, believe our system of electing representatives is irreparably broken.”

It is encouraging news that the Committee on House Administration is planning to vote this Thursday on the Fair Elections Now Act. The bill offers a sweeping overhaul of congressional campaign finance rules. It would take require that participating candidates say no to special interest contributions and instead raise money in $100-or-less donations directly from their constituents. Qualifying House candidates who can collect at least 1,500 such donations in-state would be eligible to receive competitive matching funds with which to run a viable campaign. The legislation is supported by 164 cosponsors in the U.S. House and 26 cosponsors Senate.

For Democrats concerned with leveling the electoral playing field to allow more voices to enter the debate, the appeal of Fair Elections is clear. For Republicans opposed to old fashioned limits-based regulation of ‘free speech’ but who are equally fed up with the never-ending hunt for special interest dollars, Fair Elections represents a free market-oriented ‘more speech’ approach, enabling non-millionaire and non-special interest candidates to compete against those with big money. Recent surveys confirm broad public support for Fair Elections across every political group.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United came down, President Obama roundly condemned the decision  in his State of the Union address on the grounds that “American elections [should not] be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” Now is Congress’ opportunity to make good on their objection and to ensure that American elections are bankrolled by the American people.

Photo credit: Nick Ares

McCain’s Missing Cojones on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I have a friend who canceled plans last year to play recreational football because, “it’s Wednesday, and I usually get home early on Wednesdays and like to have dinner ready for my wife when she gets home from work.”

“How the mighty have fallen,” a second friend lamented, “I wish I could email that sentence to the You of 2006 and see what he has to say about your cojones.”

Such is John McCain on “don’t ask don’t tell.”  Here’s an interview with him in 2006 saying that “the day the leadership of the military comes to me and says, we oughta change the policy, then I think we oughta seriously consider changing it.”  Where are his cojones?

As I highlighted yesterday, the military brass has answered McCain’s call.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and retired General Colin Powell have all signaled a willingness to change the policy.  Back in March of this year, General Petraeus echoed McCain’s 2006 language almost verbatim, saying ““I believe the time has come to consider a change to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

So you’d think that when the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, America’s most respected retired flag officer and its most respected battlefield commander all endorse a change to DADT, McCain would be good to his word.

Instead, McCain is moving the goal posts.  For McCain, all of a sudden it’s not good enough that the military leadership has let its views be known, because he now claims that by voting on the measure, the Senate would be “ignoring the troops”.  This is a reference to an ongoing survey of active duty troops on their views on DADT, which McCain is working to discredit anyway, just in case it doesn’t say what he wants it to (and frankly, who knows what he wants it to say at this point.)

To be clear, the Pentagon should absolutely solicit the views of active duty personnel as a critical factor in this debate.  However, it is neither the only nor most important input.  Results of any survey must be weighed against historical averages, adjusted for bias and put in perspective.

Might the social norms of macho military culture influence soldiers to indicate false discomfort about serving with homosexuals? Should the opinion of an 18 year old private matter as much as a battle-tested Four-Star general with 40 years of military experience?  Keep in mind that the military’s rigid command structure regularly demands that its leaders make choices in the best interests of the country.  And those leaders have clearly spoken.

John McCain’s consistent inconsistencies (ha!) have been well documented by my friend Max Bergmann.  It’s curious why McCain, ex-maverick and having successfully beaten back a Tea Party challenge in his recent Arizona primary, continues down this orthodox conservative path.  Let’s hope John McCain remembers the “him” of 2006.  Or even better, the McCain of 2000.

Photo credit: Wigwam Jones

Election 2010 Hits the Final Stretch: Will the Republican Wave Happen?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With just six weeks left until Election Day, it’s getting to that time when the sheep can be separated from the goats.

There are some developments that have been long expected but have not yet materialized.  One is the tightening of the Pennsylvania Senate race, where Republican Pat Toomey, often considered far too conservative for this blue state, has had a sizable and steady lead over Democrat Joe Sestak.   Another is the traditional pre-election decline by once-competitive southern Democrats (this year’s exemplars are Texas’ Bill White and Georgia’s Roy Barnes).

Other recent developments were not expected, and may or may not be a sign of things to come.  The most obvious of these is the recent and (to Democrats) alarming surge of statewide Republican candidates in Ohio.  Another is the apparent and shocking leap of obscure Republican John Maese into the lead, in at least one poll, over Gov. Joe Manchin in West Virginia’s Senate special election.  Other possibilities include very recent recoveries of solid leads by Democratic senators Patti Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California.

It’s also getting to that point where underdogs will need to make a move if they are going to have a shot at being competitive.  If Republican Linda McMahon of Connecticut is really going to challenge Richard Blumenthal, she might as well go ahead and spend the rest of her wrestling money now to find out if it’s possible.  And soon it will be time to stop talking about the “potential” of Republicans to upset theoretically vulnerable House Democrats like Dan Boren of Oklahoma or John Barrow of Georgia.  Surely upsets occur, but winning candidates usually have gained at least some momentum by October.

In other words, we’re now in the stage where political trends are now crystallizing into impending realities.  In the polls, this is reflected in the ongoing “switchover” from surveys of registered voters to those of likely voters.  The closer we get to November 2, the more it makes sense to pay special attention to polls that screen likely voters based on their subjective intention to participate rather than some arbitrary weighting of this or that group’s probable voting propensity; it’s more of a measurement and less of a prediction.

And as each day goes by, the Republican “wave” we have all been expecting may or may not appear, at least in the kind of intensity we are talking about.  The mental “thumb on the scales” we have all come to apply to the standing of Republican candidates this year should lighten as the more objective assessments pick up either the wave or its shortcomings.

Looking at the overall landscape, Republicans appear to be in better than average position to take over the House, but it’s all about the pitched battles in 20 or 30 districts that are very, very close.  (Overall, the Cook Political Report currently calls no less than 50 House races “toss-ups,” though 47 of those are currently Democratic-held).

In the Senate, the apparent loss of Delaware means that Republicans need to put West Virginia or Connecticut into play, but still must win all but one of the baker’s dozen of competitive races in the rest of the country in order to take control.  As has been the case all along, Democrats are relatively strong in some of the states where gubernatorial results could be key to major redistricting opportunities—Florida, Georgia, Texas—and relatively weak in others—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois.

The two parties are relatively in balance from a financial point of view, with the DNC and its party committees having an unusual advantage, while as usual, Republicans will benefit disproportionately from “independent expenditures” (especially from the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads).

But from here on in, it’s time to stop talking about what might be, and figure out what’s actually happening.

No Compromise from Obama on Bush Tax Cuts, Except Dividends

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama stood his ground on his tax plan during Monday’sCNBC town hall forum, arguing that he can’t make the math work for both keeping the deficit in check and giving away tax breaks to the richest two percent of Americans.  When asked about possibilities for compromise, including cutting rates for households with incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, Obama didn’t flinch and stuck to his talking points.

So it sounds like the President’s position on the Bush tax cuts is one he’s taking to the people on Election Day, rather than taking to the Hill for negotiation and deal-making.  He also brushed off a question about a payroll tax holiday, so it doesn’t sound like that idea will be on the table between now and November either.

Obama did make a strong statement about keeping a portion of the Bush tax cuts that would apply to the wealthiest Americans: reduced rates on income from corporate dividends.  He emphasized that he has proposed a 20 percent cap on both dividends and capital gains taxes

If the Bush tax cuts expire without this change, the highest income brackets would pay 20 percent on capital gains, but dividends would be taxed at marginal rates of 39 percent for the top bracket.  So when Obama mentions this 20 percent cap on dividends, he’s actually proposing a sliver of compromise in the tax cut debate. This appears to be the only part of the Bush tax cuts that he’s willing to extend for the top 3 percent of taxpayers.

I have to think that emphasizing the dividend cuts was one of the key messaging items the White House planned for this forum today.  First, it’s CNBC, so the business and investment audience is going to like the idea.

Second, it’s a cut that Republicans can’t possibly oppose, except as part of their pouting-in-the-corner strategy of demanding all the Bush tax cuts or nothing.

Third and most significant is that this isn’t a new position for the administration, but it’s new that Obama himself is talking about it.

It’s the first time I know of that Obama has really spoken out loud about this issue, even though it was included in hisbudget plan for 2011.  The only time other the administration has said anything about that proposal was when Treasury Secretary TimGeithner mentioned it on CNBC in July.

On the merits, the idea is a good one.  There are some decent arguments for taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains to prevent the kind of investment bias that might result from taxing one at nearly twice the rate as the other, as I have briefly argued before. And because the bulk of total dividend payments go to those in the top brackets, their tax rates have a disproportionate impact on investment incentives.

Congress has for the most part ignored dividends in the debate about extending the Bush tax cuts, and the administration has done nothing to inject it into the discussion.  Until today, that is.

It will be interesting to see whether the White House actually pursues a legislative push for this cut, or if this is merely defensive posturing without follow-up to appear more business-friendly before a business audience.  Since it doesn’t have any real champions in Congress, my guess is that we may not hear much more about it, unless a prominent member or two decide to latch on to the idea as a moderate position and call the President’s bluff.

It’s Time to Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A few events over the last few weeks continue to highlight the importance of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a policy the Obama administration is on the verge of repealing – that is, provided members of his Senate caucus don’t flip out before Tuesday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee is set to vote on the measure in the defense authorization bill and move it to a full Senate vote.  The swing votes in committee may be Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Rs-ME), who have said they’re unsure how they’ll vote.

DADT was always meant as a transitional policy from the Clinton era, born out of a fight the 42nd president picked (and essentially lost) with the military brass.  It’s time to move our military into the 21st century — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has endorsed its end, as has Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.  So has Colin Powell.

I worked for the Pentagon for about five years, and I know and worked with homosexual members of the armed forces.  Their orientation never affected their ability to serve, or their subordinates’ ability to respect them.  Countries including Britain, Denmark, and Israel have all realized that being gay and being in the military is a simply a non-issue.

Last week, Jonathan Hopkins, an Army captain honorably discharged this August for being gay, had this to say in the NYT following his forced separation from the military services:

In my case, after the military learned from others that I was gay, I served for 14 more months during investigations and administrative actions to discharge me. Everyone knew, so, essentially, I lived for more than a year in a post-D.A.D.T. work environment.

…

Amid all of that, the unit continued to function and I continued to be respected for the work I did. Many, from both companies I commanded, approached me to say that they didn’t care if I was gay — they thought I was one of the best commanders they’d ever had. And unbeknownst to me, many had guessed I was probably gay all along. Most didn’t care about my sexuality. I was accepted by most of them, as was my boyfriend, and I had never been happier in the military. Nothing collapsed, no one stopped talking to me, the Earth spun on its axis, and the unit prepared to fight another day.

John Nagl, president of the bipartisan CNAS, commented on Hopkins, his former charge, in Defense News:

Jonathan is the third combat veteran I personally know who has left the Army under the terms of DADT. Collectively, they represent almost a decade of combat experience, a big handful of Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars, service as aide-de-camps to general officers and as platoon leaders and company     commanders in combat, and the investment of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. They have offered blood, sweat, and tears in defense of a nation that discriminates against them for no good reason.

This policy must end.

The cause has even received the attention of Lady Gaga, heretofore known as the spokeswoman of our times, who called for an end DADT at a rally in Collins’ Maine. She’s the most followed person on Twitter, and if she can motivate a few fans to show up, Tweet, and call the Senator, it might just make a difference

The House has already voted to repeal this highly discriminatory policy, and the Senate hangs in the balance.  If the issue is left to the next Congress, there’s no telling if a more conservative Senate would ever get around to it, which is why tomorrow’s vote is crucial. With the rise of the Tea Party and general rightward slant of the conservative movement today, it’s little wonder that Senator Collins is gun-shy about reiterating her support of a DADT repeal.  One hopes she musters the courage to do what’s right.

Photo credit: Enrico Fuente

Lashed to the Mast

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Weeks before the November elections, leaders of the Republican Party’s increasingly dominant right wing are spending nearly as much time fretting over the potential squeamishness of their own party about implementing a radical agenda as they are ensuring they get the opportunity to enact one.

In a CNN interview yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint, the one-time kooky loner who’s now a Very Big Dog in the GOP, said the GOP would be “dead” if it didn’t keep its promises to repeal health care reform, balance the federal budget and radically reduce spending. Remember he’s the guy who thinks Social Security and Medicare have ensnared Americans in socialism, and likes to call public schools “government schools.”

Another fringe figure who’s suddenly become very relevant, congressman Steve King of Iowa, is frantic in his fears that a Republican House would fail to shut down the government as part of a strategy to repeal health reform. Indeed, he’s asking would-be Speaker John Boehner to sign a “blood oath” to include a health reform repeal in every single appropriations bill, which would have the effect of shutting down the government, just as Republicans tried to do, unsuccessfully, in 1995, in order to impose a budget on Bill Clinton.

This is a sideshow well worth watching. People like DeMint and King are trying to lash their fellow Republicans to the mast of their ship and make them immune to the siren song of the massive popularity of the public programs and commitments they aim to attack: Medicare, Social Security, federal support for educational opportunity, environmental protection, and on and on. It’s an interesting approach on the brink of what many expect to be a big Republican electoral victory, and says a lot about the gap between what Republicans are campaigning on and how they actually intend to govern when in office.

This piece is cross-posted at the Democratic Strategist

Photo credit: Mark Hyre

A Discouraging Vote on School Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee has a well-deserved reputation for not mincing words.  She wasted no time last week in calling D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray’s primary victory over Mayor Adrian Fenty a “devastating” blow to children in Washington’s traditional public schools.

That pretty much scotched any talk of Rhee staying on as Chancellor under Gray. In truth, however, that was never in the cards because the Democratic primary race was in significant measure a referendum on Fenty’s signature initiative: his decision to take over the city’s troubled public schools and bring in the hard-charging Rhee to oversee their transformation.

Fenty’s defeat has delighted reform skeptics and the American Federation of Teachers, which pumped nearly $1 million into Gray’s campaign. The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt opined today that the outcome was more a repudiation of Fenty’s aloof style than school reform per se. But it’s hard for me to disagree with Natalie Hopkinson’s gleeful characterization of the vote as a “resounding rejection” of Fenty and Rhee’s struggles to dramatically improve D.C. public schools.

The Fenty-Rhee reforms proved deeply polarizing in Washington, with voters splitting along racial lines. According to a pre-election poll by the Post, 68 percent of white voters said Rhee was a reason to support Fenty, while 54 of black Democrats cited her as a reason to oppose the Mayor. What in one community looked like a bold attempt to shake up a deeply dysfunctional education bureaucracy in another looked like a callous effort to foreclose opportunities for middle class employment.

Gray played shrewdly to public discontent over Rhee’s firings of hundreds of teachers and many principals for poor performance. And it wasn’t just schools: Critics also slammed Fenty for not awarding enough high city posts to blacks, and for building bike paths and dog parks prized by affluent D.C. residents while neglecting poor neighborhoods. In last Tuesday’s primary, Gray won more than 80 percent of the vote in predominately black wards 7 and 8, while Fenty did nearly as well in mainly white Ward 3.

But what of Rhee’s charge? Will Fenty’s loss condemn tens of thousands of D.C. children to substandard public schools?

There’s no doubt that Rhee’s departure will slow the momentum of school reform in Washington. With unswerving backing from Fenty, the blunt and often impolitic Rhee imposed real accountability on the school system for the first time. She won national acclaim for making student testing more rigorous, closing failing schools, attracting outside talent (like private foundations and the Teach for America volunteers Hopkinson dismisses as “cultural tourists”), and firing incompetent administrators and  teachers.

Under Fenty and Rhee, D.C. public schools moved from the cellar of urban education into the vanguard of reform. The schools opened on time, with books and accurate counts of students. And test scores rose: Over the past three years, Washington was the only big city to show double-digit increases in state reading and math scores for the 7th, 8th and 10th grades.

Rhee also negotiated among the most innovative teacher’s contracts in the country, which offers teachers the chance to earn extra pay in exchange for loosening tenure rules. There’s worry in reform circles that her departure could induce foundations to withdraw $65 million in pledges to fund $25,000 performance bonuses for teachers under the next contract. And since Rhee was a virtual poster child for the kind of education reforms the Obama administration is pushing, there’s also speculation that D.C. would lose a $75 million “Race to the Top” grant from the Department of Education if Rhee leaves.

So now the spotlight turns to Gray, whose victory in November is a given in overwhelmingly Democratic Washington. If Fenty and Rhee failed to win support from black voters for their reforms, what will Gray do differently?

It should be noted that he is not uniformly hostile to school reform. As Council Chairman, he has been a strong supporter of D.C.’s robust public charter school sector, which now enrolls about 38 percent of the city’s students. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the board that oversees D.C. charters).

Still, Gray faces a dilemma: continue reform and disappoint key allies, especially the teachers’ union, or slow things down and risk abandoning Washington’s hard-won progress toward raising school standards.  And it’s not just Gray’s challenge. In fact, this is a moment of truth for the city’s black establishment.

Can the city’s new leaders really find a kinder, gentler way to fix D.C.’s chronically underperforming schools?  Or will they revert to the traditional practice of regarding education as a kind of patronage or public jobs program for adults?

The city’s economic vitality, not to mention hopes for raising living standards in its poorest communities, hinge on the answer.

Photo credit: from-the-window

Jon Stewart, Michael Bloomberg, and the Resurgent Center

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Over the last few days, I’ve become cautiously optimistic about the future of the political center. Something seems to be happening. Maybe it was Christine O’Donnell’s surprise Tea Party victory over moderate Michael Castle in the Delaware primary, but it feels like maybe, just maybe, the dormant defenders of moderation and reason are being roused from their slumber.

In particular, I’m encouraged by three developments: Jon Stewart’s decision to hold a “Rally to Restore Sanity” on the National Mall on October 30, Michael Bloomberg’s decision to be very public about his widespread support of centrist candidates, and the fact that independents are really starting to turn against the Tea Party.

First Stewart’s decision to hold a rally: “We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat,” advertises the website advertising the rally, “who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.” (I was impressed that Stewart’s announcement went after both Tea Partiers and 9-11 Truthers, attacking extremism on both sides)

Such a rally at first seems like an unusually public move for somebody who has made a career out of skewering from the sidelines. But could it be that Stewart looked around, realized that he was one of the few partisans for reason and moderation left with a large and enthusiastic following, and felt a sudden pang of responsibility?

Perhaps Stewart actually can give voice to a many Americans who share the Daily Show’s conceit that our current politics is fundamentally fodder for satire. But if comedy is tragedy plus distance, perhaps the increasing tragedy of American politics is making it feel less distant. Is the Tea Party as funny when it forms a meaningful voting block in the U.S. Senate?

Then there is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to speak to the New York Times (his first newspaper interview in several years) in order to grab the lead story in the Sunday paper to highlight his systematic attempt to back moderates – raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates that hew to a moderate vision of politics.

Bloomberg’s decision to make a public show of his plans may partly be an attempt to raise his profile as the leader of the radical center. But it also an encouraging development: a public signal that the political center is worth defending and supporting, and perhaps, just as Jon Stewart’s rally might be a clarion call to previously apathetic moderate voters, perhaps Bloomberg’s decision will be a similar call to disengaged moderate donors who are equally concerned about the increasingly extreme ways in which the current electoral season is shaping up.

The final encouraging development the latest CBS/ New York Times poll, in which the Tea Party’s unfavorable rating has risen from 18 percent in April to 25 percent (compared to 20 percent favorable, 18 percent undecided, and 36 percent saying they haven’t heard enough). Moreover, independent voters now have a more negative view of the party (30 percent unfavorable, to 18 percent favorable). These are small changes, admittedly, but they are in the right direction, and hopeful portents of a steady waking up to just how crazy the tea party is becoming.

Hopefully this confluence of factors – Jon Stewart’s empowering cheerleading of moderation, Michael Bloomberg’s aggressive financing of moderates, and sinking public support for the tea parties – are legitimate reasons to be optimistic that the center might indeed hold, and maybe even start to feel vital again.

Christine O’Donnell Upsets Republican Plans for the Senate, and Other Tales from This Week’s Primaries

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

What looked to be a reasonably predictable final Tuesday of the 2010 primary season was taken over by the shock of the chattering classes at the victory of Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP senatorial contest.  Indeed, the interpretation of Christine O’Donnell’s win has become as interesting as the win itself.

It’s not as though there were not abundant warnings: PPP released a poll the Sunday before the primary showing O’Donnell ahead.  But I suspect that what’s shocked Republican observers in particular was the failure of a last-minute effort by the Delaware GOP and the state’s leading newspaper to destroy O’Donnell by exposing her history of financial malfeasance.

As voters went to the polls on Tuesday, the buzz around Washington was that Castle would be just fine.  The probable assumption was that Tea Party supporters would subordinate their ideological concerns about Castle to horror at O’Donnell’s “irresponsibility,” so like the “deadbeats” that many conservatives think brought on the housing and financial crises.  It didn’t happen.

In any event, as even more stories of O’Donnell’s personal and ideological wackiness spread, and as national GOP figures began publicly to write her off (Democrat Chris Coons has assumed a big lead in post-primary polls), the Senate landscape has shifted, with more pressure than ever on Republicans to win close races in Wisconsin, Washington, Colorado and California, and perhaps put Connecticut or West Virginia into play.

The dog that didn’t quite bark on Tuesday was in New Hampshire, where Ovide Lamontagne, who was receiving some of the same (minus Sarah Palin) last-minute national right-wing support enjoyed by O’Donnell,  missed upsetting Kelly Ayotte in that state’s Senate primary by less than one percent.  My guess is that the collapse in support for a third candidate, rich businessman (and “proudly pro-choice”) Bill Binnie, saved Ayotte, which is ironic since Binnie made this race competitive in the first place by running heavy attack ads on Ayotte throughout the summer.  Lamontagne would not have been in as hopeless position as O’Donnell in a general election, in part because NH is a lot more amenable to Republicans than DE, but Ayotte’s a better bet for Republicans, though Democrat Paul Hodes was relatively close in the first post-primary poll.

In Wisconsin, longtime front-runner Scott Walker put away Mark Neumann by a surprisingly large 20% margin in the Republican gubernatorial primary.  He will now be in a competitive general election contest against Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett.

Meanwhile, in New York, where no one really expects the Republican gubernatorial or senate nominees to have much of a prayer against Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Chuck Shumer, the GOP suffered an embarrassment when party stalwart Rick Lazio got trounced for the gubernatorial nomination by the rather eccentric self-funder and Tea Party favorite Carl Paladino.  As the New York Times put it:

It put at the top of the party’s ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally’s comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to “an Antichrist or a Hitler.”

In House races, Delaware was again the state that supplied the major upset, as another Tea Partier, Glenn Urquhart, defeated the NRCC-recruited candidate, Michelle Roberts, for the state’s at-large House seat.  Former Lt. Gov. John Carney, the Democratic nominee, has now become one of a very select group favored to win Republican-controlled House seats.

In NH-2, in one of a smattering of competitive Democratic House primaries, Ann Kuster crushed former Lieberman for President chairman Katrina Swett by more than a two-to-one margin, and will face former Rep. Charlie Bass for the seat Bass lost to Paul Hodes in 2006.  In NH-1, ethically challenged former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta turned back a challenge from self-funder Sean Mahoney for the chance to take on Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter.  National GOP forces got the candidate they wanted in another vulnerable Democratic district, MA-10, where Jeff Perry won a shot at Democrat Bill Keating in the district vacated by Bill Delahunt.

And of course, in DC, mayor Adrian Fenty lost pretty badly to DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray in a contest where support was highly correlated to race.  Much of the local political discussion in Washington since Tuesday has focused on the question of whether Gray will continue or reverse the education reforms initiated by Fenty and his school chief, Michelle Rhee.

We’re now down to just two primaries: an October 2 runoff in Louisiana, and tomorrow’s primary in Hawaii.   The marquee contest in the Aloha State is the Democratic gubernatorial primary matching former congressman Neil Abercrombie, who upset a lot of Democrats in Washington by resigning his House seat just before the vote on health reform, with a Republican winning the special election to replace him, and former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann, who is a bit conservative by Hawaii Democratic standards.  Hannemann has a financial advantage, but Abercrombie has maintained a small but steady lead in the available polls.  The winner of the primary will be favored in November to defeat Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona, and flip the state from R to D governance.

Did Enviros Overreach in Ecuador?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The plot is generic Hollywood, straight out of an airport potboiler:

U.S. oil company drills in Amazon, leaves behind contaminated pools of sludge. Activists sue on behalf of rainforest Indians ravaged by disease. Environmentalists and rock stars rush in to show solidarity with the victims. Not hard to tell how this story ends; we’ve seen this movie before.

Except that in this drama, the actors don’t quite play to type. It turns out that the “good guys” cheat, manipulating an Andean countries’ weak and corrupt judicial system in a bid to extract a king’s ransom — $27.3 billion -– from the U.S. oil company. Meanwhile, that company’s claims to be a victim of a political shakedown is getting a sympathetic hearing in U.S. courts.

So maybe this murky saga is not Hollywood material after all. In any case, here’s the real story, courtesy of Roger Parloff on CNNMoney.com:

Ecuador ended its long-time oil exploration partnership with Texaco in 1990. Texaco worked out an agreement to help clean up sites in the Amazon, and was formally absolved of further liability by Ecuador’s then-government in 1998. Nonetheless, a lawsuit was filed subsequently on behalf of Indians who said they had suffered higher rates of cancer and other diseases as a result of exposure to toxic waste. A new Ecuadoran government led by Rafael Correa, a socialist and fiery champion of impoverished indigenous peoples, strongly backs the suit.

According to Parloff, there’s strong evidence that lawyers for the plaintiffs helped to write the report of an allegedly impartial “expert” appointed by an Ecuadoran court that found Texaco – since acquired by Chevron – liable for further damages. A U.S. magistrate recently issued a scathing ruling that said the plaintiffs’ apparent collusion with Ecuador’s judicial system “would be considered fraud by any court. If such conduct does not amount to fraud in a particular country, then that country has larger problems than an oil spill.”

The plaintiff’s misconduct has overshadowed the important questions: how badly did the Indians suffer from exposure to toxic waste, and who is responsible for cleaning up the sites? It’s alleged that Texaco’s remediation efforts were inadequate, even if a compliant Ecuadoran government approved them. Yet Ecuador’s state-owned oil company has continued to drill in the area since Texaco pulled out 20 years ago.

This episode yields at least three morals. First, oil exploration is hazardous, and its full environmental and health costs must always be accounted for. Second, the end doesn’t justify the means, even if the end is to bring justice to people harmed by the effects of oil drilling. And third, it pays to greet overly familiar plot lines, with stock villains and heroes, with an extra measure of skepticism.

photo credit: Rain Forest Action Network

Schwarzenegger Takes the Asian Express

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With his own state government deep in the red, Schwarzenegger needs cash to build a $40-billion high-speed railroad between San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. Instead of resigning himself to critics’ attacks that now is not the moment to spend money on rail, the governor went abroad to strengthen California’s ties with overseas train builders and bankers. At a time when folks in Washington are scratching their heads over how to pay for high-speed rail, the Governor’s trip offers an instructive way forward.

On the first leg of his journey, Schwarzenegger cut a deal with the Japan Bank for International Cooperation to loan California funds for the rail project. (The exact amount was not revealed.) In return, the governor dangled the prospect that California would choose Japanese trainsets and a Japanese operator to run the railroad.

With this understanding in hand, the ex-actor marched to Beijing and struck what may be a better deal with the Chinese Rail Ministry. The agency announced that it could offer California a “complete package,” including financing, to build the high-speed railway. “What other nations don’t have, we have,” bragged a ministry spokesman. “What they have, we have better.”

Then it was off to Korea, where the governor rode on Korea’s fastest train, the KTX, with Hyundai executives and met with President Lee Myung-bak. Afterwards, he offered the assessment that Korea and California would “be a terrific partnership” and asked his hosts to be sure to bid on the California project.

Schwarzenegger is on to an old idea. In the 19th century, European governments, as well as private investors, helped finance America’s railroads. Competition was often ferocious between the different syndicates, which kept overall costs down while enriching the Wall Street middlemen who set up the investment tranches.

Schwarzenegger’s strategy of letting experienced rail operators propose financial deals to California in return for potential entry into its market comes in sharp contrast to the approach in Washington.

Ever since it proposed a high-speed rail program in April 2009, the Obama administration has kept foreign rail builders at arm’s length and peddled the notion that American manufacturers can upscale their expertise and produce their own state-of-the-art train systems.

So far, no domestic company has even remotely stepped up to this task. Pullman-Standard, the last U.S. manufacturer to build rail passenger cars, exited the business 25 years ago. General Electric makes world-class locomotives, but these are freight locomotives unsuited for speeds above 90 mph.

Schwarzenegger realizes that having invested tens of billions of dollars in their high-speed-rail industry, governments in Asia and Europe are ready to fight for a chunk of his state’s $40-billion project. Jobs and manufacturing opportunities in California will flow naturally from the demands of the new service – as long as it gets started.

Right now, nobody in Washington seems to know how to pay for high-speed rail. A paralysis is taking shape as the federal debt grows, with no long-range funding set up. Maybe the “governator’s” shrewd negotiations with Asian officials this week will bring some fresh ideas to policymakers.

Photo credit: Hyundai

What Becomes of Michael Castle?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

“My politics fit Delaware’s politics. They appreciate the fact that I’m independent.”

That was Michael Castle, long-time Republican congressman from Delaware, quoted in CQ’s Politics in America.

Did Castle’s moderate politics fit Delaware’s politics? His strong re-election record would suggest so.  The man had never had a close race since first being elected to the seat in 1992, consistently winning by 20 or 30 points, even as Delaware went from a state that voted 60-40 for Reagan in 1984 to a state that voted 62-37 for Obama in 2008.

And sure, he was a Republican, but he was the kind of Republican who could vote for all six of the Democratic majority’s signature bills in the 110th Congress (one of only three Republicans to do so) and who would regularly break with the Republican orthodoxy to support, for example, embryonic stem cell research.

But popular as Castle might have been statewide, the Republican primary was decided by just 57,582 voters, or 6.5 percent of Delaware’s 885,000 residents. Of those, 30,561 preferred Christine O’Donnell. That’s just 3.5 percent of Delaware’s residents – not enough to fill a single major league  baseball stadium.

It is now widely assumed that Democrat Chris Coons will win trounce Christine O’Donnell in the general election, mostly owing to the fact that O’Donnell is a certified nut job.

But what I wonder is this: what happens to somebody like Michael Castle? And what happens to the many Republican moderates in Delaware who liked voting for Castle, year after year?

What happens to the Lisa Murkowksis and the Bob Bennetts as well, also forced out of their seats by a handful of insurgents for even more minor tilts towards moderation? (Bennett, to his credit, has been quite public in his criticism of the Tea Party, criticizing them for lacking a governing philosophy.)

As more and more moderates are swept away in the Tea Party tide, what becomes of them and their supporters? Presumably, many are adrift, feeling like the Republican Party no longer represents them.

For Democrats this should be a tremendous opportunity, a moment to reach out to disillusioned Republican voters who no longer see a home for themselves in the increasingly extreme party.

Republicans are rapidly forfeiting the center, gambling that an angry and energized base is a surer path to victory than a wide appeal. That may indeed be the case in 2010, but there is good reason to believe that this moment is fleeting.

What this means is that Democrats have an opportunity to seize and secure the vital center, to lay a firm claim on the politics of reason and moderation, and to provide a welcoming environment for the Michael Castles of the world.

But it’s a chance that won’t last forever. Eventually, Republicans will get wise to the fact that becoming more extreme is not a sustainable majoritarian strategy. Democrats ought to more aggressively seize this opportunity, while it lasts.

Photo credit: Lou Angeli

Lessons From Political Science

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Does political science matter? On Sunday, Ezra Klein, one of the rare journalists who seems genuinely interested in what political scientists have to say, wrote a column distilling some key lessons from political science, all of which revolve around the fact that most of what politicians do doesn’t actually make much of a difference, at least in the face of broad underlying forces: Presidential speeches don’t matter. Elections are determined by underlying economic conditions. Lobbyists aren’t as important as people think.

Over at the Monkey Cage, John Sides, who is also quoted in the article, argues that this lack of control should be good news to politicians: “Political science really does empower politicians. It tells them to ignore a lot of gossip and trivia. It tells them not to sweat every rhetorical turn of phrase.”

I must admit, I’ve been asking myself this question of whether political science matters ever since I started a Ph.D. program six years ago (and completed it a month ago). And I have a few quibbles with the conclusions that both Klein and Sides draw, and a few warnings for politicians and journalists lest they over-extrapolate from the received political science wisdom.

Those who consume political science research need to understand that political scientists are largely interested in finding patterns and proving that two variables are correlated (which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for proving causation, the holy grail of political science). But patterns tend to be rough patterns, and there are always other forces at work.

Figure 1 shows a typical XY scatterplot with a regression line, the most basic graphical tool of the social scientist.  While journalists tend to be interested in the dots (i.e., the real-life cases), political scientists are interested primarily in the regression line (i.e., the underlying relationship). Both are important, and ignoring one at the expense of the other inevitably leads to a limited perspective.

Figure 1: A Typical XY Scatterplot

Also notice: While there is clearly a relationship between X and Y variables very few dots (the actual real-life cases) fall directly on the line, meaning other factors are at work.  Of course, very little social science takes place at the bi-variate (two variable) level. Most published models explain outcomes with multiple factors, which account for more of the deviations from the predicted values (i.e., the regression line).

But even the best models still are often unable to explain half of the deviations.  What this means is that while large structural forces do drive political outcomes, there is also almost always room for idiosyncratic forces to operate as well, and they can often be decisive.

Sometimes candidates win victories they shouldn’t because of opponent gaffes. Sometimes lobbyists do get what they want, and make their clients very rich in the process. Sometimes presidential speeches do make a difference.  Political scientists are interested in the general case, and are fond of couching their findings in the cautionary language of ceteris paribus (all else being equal). But all else is rarely equal.

The thing is, it’s very hard for political actors to know when something they are going to do will make a difference. Often the impact hinges on unpredictable timing and unanticipated resonances. Anyone who has spent time in politics knows that you never know when something is going to “pop.”  So it’s almost always worth gambling because they pay-off could be big.

For a lobbyist, for example, even if on average you won’t win, when you do win, you might just win big enough to make it all worthwhile. A scoring system that treats all wins and losses equally ignores the fact that some lobbying wins are very big wins indeed, wins that far make up for a long strong of losses. For example, getting Medicare prescription drug coverage was a huge, huge win for pharmaceutical companies, surely worth many losses.

Additionally, one of the reasons why many political actions may seem to NOT matter is because political actors on both sides think that they DO matter. Consider the empirical conclusion that presidential speeches do not move public opinion. One reason that public opinion is unlikely to move is because there is always an opposition to respond, and so citizens who are skeptical of what the president has to say can easily latch on to messages that are critical. Thus they remain unmoved.

But say conservatives suddenly followed this wisdom, decided that speeches didn’t matter, and therefore didn’t bother to respond to anything Obama said. My guess is that Obama’s unrefuted speeches would start having more of an impact. Or alternately, say Obama decided speeches didn’t matter, and stopped giving them. He’d be leaving it to the conservative opposition to define him, without speaking up for himself and giving voice to his supporters. My guess is this would also have an impact on public opinion.

Likewise with lobbying or campaigning. These things exist in a kind of equilibrium. Given a rough balance of power, actions on each side are countered with actions on the other side, and hence drained of their perceived impact. Lobbyists on one side respond to lobbyists on the other side, thus neutralizing their efforts (this seemed to me one of the most important points of “Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why?”) Campaign contributions on one side are often matched by campaign contributions on the other side.

But were one side to decide outcomes were beyond their control and stop sweating, my guess is they’d very quickly prove the conventional political science wisdom wrong.

In short: there is a lot that political science can teach both politicians and journalists about underlying structural forces and general patterns that drive political outcomes. But politics takes place in specific cases, not general cases. Journalists and politicians ought to have a better appreciation for these general patterns, which will provide context for specific cases.

But politicians better not take political science wisdom too much to heart, lest they undermine it by upsetting the equilibrium that exists when they believe what they do on a daily basis actually DOES matter.