Uncategorized Archives - Page 305 of 343 - Progressive Policy Institute

How Does Kerry-Lieberman Stack Up Under the Cheat Sheet

Posted on May 19, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Factory Pollution Over the past few weeks, we’ve written a series of posts here detailing the issues that make up climate policy. The result is a climate policy cheat sheet of sorts: a list of these issues, divided into categories based on our view of their importance. Now that the Kerry-Lieberman draft bill has been released, we can use the list of issues to analyze it. Other summaries of the bill are out there, but we hope this one is simple and accessible enough to be useful to non-experts (this is the same goal we had for the cheat sheet itself). While we clearly have a policy preference—the greatest emissions reduction at the lowest cost—we don’t want to analyze or criticize the bill here; we just want to describe it. Other than the preferences and opinions implicit in our issue categories, we’re just giving you the facts here. We hope that sparks debate (even if it’s unlikely to convince you to tackle reading the 1000-page bill itself).

The Kerry-Lieberman Cheat Sheet

Category I Issues: What’s Essential for a Good Climate Bill

1. Does it create a price on carbon?
In short, yes. Kerry-Lieberman creates a cap-and-trade system that effectively sets a price on carbon emissions — but not all emissions are subject to the price, and those that are may not be included immediately.

2. How much of US emissions are covered by that price?

Initially, in 2013, the bill includes only the electricity and refining sectors within the cap-and-trade system. Transportation is included under the cap as well, but allowances must be bought by producers and importers — they aren’t auctioned. Large industrial facilities are included after 2016. Agricultural emissions aren’t included, but some reductions there can qualify as offsets.

In total, around 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are capped, but different sectors are treated differently. Not all sectors are part of the same market.

3. What is the path of emissions reduction set by the cap?

The emissions cap in the bill would decline over time, and would result in emissions reductions of 4.75 percent by 2013, 17 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.

Category II Issues: What’s Important for a Good Climate Bill

1. How are emissions allowances allocated?

Allowances are allocated by a mixture of gratis allocation and auctions. In the first years of the program, the majority of allocations are given away to industries and various research efforts, while some allowances are auctioned and the revenue generated is used to compensate consumers. By 2030, auctions are used to distribute 75 percent of allowances. A full breakdown of the allowance allocations is available here.

2. How are the public revenues from climate policy spent?

Revenues from auctions will be spent to benefit the public in a number of ways. Kerry-Lieberman directs the majority of auction revenues towards assisting low-income consumers, supporting the Highway Trust Fund, and rebating all consumers, though those provisions do not kick in until later years of the program. In the short term, allowances are given away to local electric and gas utilities with the requirement that the revenues generated be used to reduce the impact of the carbon price on consumers.

3. Are banking and borrowing allowed?

The bill allows for both banking and borrowing. Firms can bank an unlimited amount of allowances. There is also no limit when borrowing allowances from the next calendar year’s allocations. If firms want to borrow from future years, they may do so up to five years ahead, but they can only borrow up to 15 percent of their total allocation for the year in which they are borrowing. Additionally, any borrowed allowances accrue 8 percent interest.

Category III Issues: What’s Negotiable for a Good Climate Bill

1. Is there a price collar?

Yes. The price floor is set at $12 and increases annually at 3 percent above inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The price ceiling is initially set at $25 and increases annually at 5 percent above inflation.

2. Are offsets allowed?

Offset are allowed. Similar to Waxman-Markey, regulated parties may use up to 2 billion offset credits to be in compliance. At the outset of the program, 75 percent of offset credits must come from domestic sources and up to 25 percent can come from international sources. If regulators determine the supply of domestic offsets is not enough to meet initial proportions, then international offsets may increase up to 50 percent of the total supply. After 2018, 1.25 actual international offset credits are equal to 1 emission allowance. The US Department of Agriculture has primary oversight of domestic offsets.

3. What are the effects on international negotiations and trade-vulnerable industries?

The bill maintains the United States’ previously stated commitment to reduce its emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It includes some funding provisions in the form of allowance allocations for international adaptation efforts. Trade-vulnerable industries’ entry under the cap is delayed until 2016 and they are given rebates in the form of 15 percent of all allowances from 2016 to 2025. The bill also expands current clean energy manufacturing tax credit programs by $5 billion and it establishes a WTO-compatible border adjustment to be instituted sometime after 2020, dependent on presidential and congressional findings.

Category IV Issues: What’s Not Important for a Good Climate Bill

1. Is a renewable portfolio standard set?

No. There is no federal standard, though states are permitted to keep or implement them.

2. Is existing EPA authority to regulate GHGs preempted?

Generally, yes. The Clean Air Act authority that the EPA currently has to regulate stationary sources is preempted. The EPA would keep its authority to regulate vehicles, the only part of its authority it has used to date for greenhouse gases. The EPA could still set performance standards for industrial sources not included under the cap, but to date the EPA has shown no interest in regulating these smaller sources.

3. Are state GHG regulations preempted?

State cap-and-trade programs would be preempted by the bill, though states with such programs and emitters subject to them would receive credit. Other state-level regulations are not preempted. In principle, states could implement renewable portfolio standards, performance standards, or even a carbon tax.

4. Are allowance markets closed to Wall Street?

The allowance trading market would be regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the regulatory restrictions in the bill are extensive. Markets are, however, open in principle to parties other than emitters themselves if they are “necessary for a liquid and well-functioning market”. Carbon derivatives are allowed but tightly regulated. Short-selling of allowances is prohibited.

5. Does the bill promote energy security?

The bill would increase investment in new nuclear power plants with loan guarantees and an expedited regulatory review process.

The bill would also create incentives to expand offshore oil and gas drilling, with 37.5 percent of royalty revenues directed to states that permit drilling. States would, however, retain veto rights over drilling within 75 miles of their coast and in other circumstances where they can show they would be significantly affected.

Photo credit: Uwe Hermann / CC BY-NC 2.0

A Few Post-Primary Thoughts

Posted on May 19, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

I don’t have too much to add to J.P. Green‘s analysis of the May 18 primaries. But here are a few thoughts:

Blanche Lincoln failed to win without a runoff because she didn’t do nearly well enough in her old House district (the 1st, which is NE Arkansas) to offset a virtual drubbing in the 4th CD (southern Arkansas). She actually won Pulaski County (Little Rock), Bill Halter’s home town, very comfortably, and won throughout NW Arkansas. Since my own pre-primary analysis suggested that a large undecided African-American vote might be the key, it’s worth noting that the 4th and 1st districts have, respectively, the highest, 24 percent, and next highest, 19 percent, African-American population percentages. Without exit polls or precinct level data, it’s hard to say this is why Lincoln failed to win, but it looks like that might be the case, particularly since the black vote was tilting towards Halter in pre-primary polls. If so, this could be a danger sign for Halter in the runoff, since African-Americans traditionally don’t participate in southern runoff elections in anything like a proportionate manner. Otherwise, the runoff dynamics definitely favor the challenger, particularly if labor’s financial involvement on Halter’s behalf continues.
The CW is that in Jack Conway KY Democrats nominated the stronger candidate against Rand Paul. That could well be true, though Dan Mongiardo’s regional strength in Eastern Kentucky, a traditionally Republican area where hard-core conservatives often struggle, might have posed some special problems for Paul.
In retrospect, Arlen Specter’s long Senate career has been a continuing minor miracle. This is a guy who has managed over the course of decades to deeply alienate both liberals and conservatives, and he’s also known as one of the least attractive personalities in Washington, which is saying a lot. To survive after a party-switch would have been truly incredible.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

Boehner Still Struggling with National Security

Posted on May 19, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

John Boehner at Press Conference How’s this for nerve? At a press conference on May 6, Republican Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio accused the Obama administration of relying on “luck” to keep America safe. But Boehner’s own recipe for national security is based on even less. Rather than engage the White House in a constructive dialogue on how best to protect the nation, Boehner chose to throw political rotten tomatoes. His gamesmanship is a disturbing reminder that the House minority leader cares more about winning elections than keeping the country safe.

Amazingly, Boehner chose to lob his rhetorical garbage in the wake of the successful manhunt for would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. Ignoring the incredibly efficient work of America’s defense, security, and law enforcement agencies, Boehner charged the administration with operating “without a real, comprehensive plan to confront and defeat the terrorist threat.”

But clearly Boehner doesn’t have a clue of just how hard the administration has been working. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense issued its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). And in a few weeks, the White House will release its National Security Strategy. This may come as a shock to Boehner, but the QDR — led by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, a Republican himself — and the National Security Strategy actually are the administration’s “comprehensive plans”.

Maybe Boehner missed it because he was too busy coming up with his own “plan.” Boehner actually did convene something called the National Security Solutions Group, a caucus of 18 Republicans that was supposed “to develop solutions to the current and future threats.” But to date, Boehner’s clique looks more like political theater than substantive intellect — it hasn’t issued a single new idea. And the QDR makes Boehner’s group look out-of-date, insufficient, and redundant anyway.

Perhaps Boehner failed to offer security ideas at his press conference because he lacked the confidence that any of his own might actually work. With a national security track record like Boehner’s, he probably calculated that it would be best to insult and run, rather that defend the policies he has supported in the past.

Exhibit A of Boehner’s policy stinkers? Invading Iraq.

Since that one didn’t turn out to be the cakewalk that Boehner, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush originally planned, it’s understandable why he might be gun shy about forwarding new ideas. Indeed, Boehner remains so obsessed by Iraq that his website — as of this writing — continues to insist that Iraq, not Osama Bin Laden’s home in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, is “the central front of a global war [on terror].” Never mind that al Qaeda only came to Iraq after America did.

Then there’s Boehner’s odd belief that the administration’s decision to reorient missile defense — a policy supported by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — comes at the expense of America’s allies. So how do those allies actually feel? Just fine, it turns out. Take it from Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s Foreign Minister, who said in the first week of May that “Polish-American relations are solid” and that Poland “rather like[s] the new version better than the previous one” of missile defense.

Boehner also sided with Dick Cheney in endorsing torture. General David Petraeus had a different view, saying torture was “neither useful nor necessary” and calling on America to “occupy the moral high ground.”

The fact is that John Boehner has been consistently wrong about which policies keep America safe. He’s reckless and out-of-touch with the national security landscape of the 21st century and more concerned with winning elections than stopping terrorism. His catcalls at the Obama administration only distract attention from the serious national security challenges America continues to face.

John Boehner is right that we need more than luck to defeat terrorism. We need national leaders to rise above empty rhetoric to protect the country in a bi-partisan manner. Unfortunately, Boehner is not acting like one of those leaders.

Photo credit: republicanconference / CC BY-NC 2.0

Partnering with the Private Sector to Fill the Infrastructure Gap

Posted on May 19, 2010 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The 2007 collapse of bridges in Minneapolis and Oakland, which resulted in significant injuries and massive traffic disruptions, vividly demonstrated the decline of our nation’s infrastructure. Decades of neglect are beginning to have very real consequences in the lives of citizens. Left unaddressed, the infrastructure gap will soon begin to have severe repercussions for our nation’s economic capacity.

These issues arise at a time when traditional methods for financing public projects — using general fund revenues, proceeds from the sale of bonds, grant monies from outside agencies to fund the improvements — are proving insufficient. Whether due to economic factors (public entities reaching the limits of their ability to float bonds) or political obstacles (the difficulty of raising taxes), governments are in need of additional ways to finance necessary public improvements.

Attesting to the dire situation was a recent report by a blue ribbon panel examining the inability of the national highway trust fund — a fund financed by the gasoline tax — to keep up with the nation’s highway needs. The current system has failed to keep up with inflation and, ironically, has been undermined by increased fuel economy, as lower tax revenue is brought in for the same number of vehicle miles traveled.

Although the bipartisan commission agreed that substantial additional investment in transportation infrastructure was needed over the next 50 years to support economic growth, it was unable to agree upon a method of financing. While a majority supported an increased fuel tax indexed to inflation, a minority called for using a variety of market-based approaches, including congestion pricing. Unfortunately, while it has authorized interim funding to keep the trust fund solvent, Congress has been unable to summon the political will to comprehensively address this problem.

But a proven financing alternative exists for our public infrastructure needs: the public-private partnership (PPP). PPP approaches have been used successfully in Europe, Canada and other countries. In the U.S., they have been used more sparingly, with a limited number of projects in Texas, Florida and Virginia, among other states. As PPPs have become better understood, more states have adopted laws to facilitate their use. This policy memo provides a brief description of how PPPs work, weighs their risks and benefits, and seeks to emphasize their growing utility in a period of retrenchment for public funding of infrastructure.

What Exactly Are PPPs?

The Federal Highway Administration defines public-private partnerships as “contractual arrangements between public and private sector entities pursuant to which the private sector is involved in multiple elements of public infrastructure projects.” There are many different PPP structures, under which the private role can involve various aspects of the design, construction and operation of a public facility. However, project finance is really the point of PPPs. Under many PPP arrangements, private investors supply the capital to get infrastructure projects built. In exchange for providing funding, those private partners obtain a stream of income from the completed public project to recoup their investment and make a profit.

One of the most attractive features of PPPs is the flexibility they allow in arranging financing. Some PPP projects begin with a valuable asset, like a bridge or toll road, that can be transferred to a private partner in order to raise the cash that is needed to undertake other projects. Some PPP projects allow private partners to take advantage of innovative financing vehicles, such as government credit programs or private activity bonds, which provide tax benefits to firms taking on public infrastructure projects.

Yet another type of PPP transaction involves shifting financial risk to the private entity and the payment obligation to the public users (again, as with toll roads). This approach can prove controversial, however, as the public may object to making payments to a private party for facilities that were previously operated by their government or to rates that are subject to the control of a private company. On the other hand, if the public holds rate-setting power, the private partner will want some assurance that there will be sufficient funds to enable it to meet its obligations.

Although there are no real limits to the type of enterprises that can be undertaken using the PPP model, certain kinds of projects seem like a better fit than others. Projects that produce a steady stream of income, such as toll bridges, toll roads, and water facilities, are particularly well-suited to PPPs, since the revenue stream can be relied upon by the private partner to recoup the costs of developing the project. Other successful PPP’s have included hospitals, schools, offices and penal facilities. (Many such projects are described by the Canadian agency promoting the use of PPP’s, while a list of American case studies is available from the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships.)

But PPPs are not limited to money-producing projects. Many public facilities, such as transit systems, customarily lose money and are supported by public funding. Such facilities can be operated through a PPP approach by means of subsidies, often termed “availability payments,” that provide a stream of income to the private partner for making the facility available for the intended use. These payments can be adjusted to provide incentives to the contractor to maintain the facilities in optimal condition.

The Risks and Rewards of PPPs

Because of PPPs’ potential to inject a stream of private capital into projects that otherwise would have to be deferred, infrastructure experts have become increasingly interested in turning to them. But despite their clear benefits, federal, state, and local governments have been slow to accelerate their use, as the risks of PPPs give government actors pause.

What are those risks? For one, PPP transactions typically involve more complexity than the traditional design-bid-build approach, given the added terms needed to address financing, operations and maintenance. Details that normally would be addressed throughout the course of a facility’s operation must be anticipated and addressed in the initial transaction. In order to handle the added complexity, agencies often turn to outside consulting and legal experts. The upfront cost of such help and the risk that a deal may not ultimately pan out may discourage some agencies from exploring PPP options.

Another risk is political. Sometimes PPP projects meet with opposition, often from public sector labor groups, who may view such projects as a threat to their jobs or bargaining power. Such is the case in California, where legislative initiatives to authorize PPP’s have been opposed by the Professional Engineers in California Government, a union that represents state-employed engineers.

A change in the political winds can also wreak havoc on a proposed PPP transaction. This occurred with the “Texas Trans-Corridor” project, an innovative proposal by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to construct a series of combined infrastructure corridors in that state. While initially positively received, the proposal soon drew opposition from a vocal faction, leading to its demise. As one commentator noted: “It has been said that no single statewide issue in Texas had ever succeeded in unifying business, labor and agriculture interests plus small and large municipalities in a common effort since the Alamo fell.”

But while there are real risks in undertaking PPP transactions, the dilapidated state of our infrastructure leaves us with little choice but to consider them. Besides, the benefits far outstrip the risks – and even the risks are manageable provided agencies follow best practices. In cases where no alternative funding source is available, only PPPs can make public projects happen. One reason that agencies consider the PPP approach is to complete needed projects without increasing their debt load. In some circumstances, the agencies may prefer to shoulder long-term financial obligations (such as long-term leases) rather than bond obligations.

PPPs could lead to the prompt delivery of projects through more efficient contracting and the early initiation of a revenue stream. In some instances, the infrastructure project involves a highly technical facility, such as a desalinization plant, where a supplier can more accurately predict the timing and cost of project delivery. It can then contractually obligate itself to an accelerated delivery schedule with a fair degree of confidence.

PPPs also give public institutions the ability to selectively allocate risk between the public and private partners. Take the case of a toll road for which expected traffic counts might not materialize. Such a project might be unattractive to a private party, which might prefer a fixed payment rather than risk the uncertainty of traffic demands. A public entity in that instance might take such traffic variations in stride and be willing to bear that uncertainty, knowing it won’t face other risks that a private entity would, such as construction claims. The beauty of the PPP approach is that it allows a high degree of flexibility to the parties in intelligently allocating the various risks they face.

Conclusion

The success of PPP projects in Europe and Canada has sparked interest within the U.S., but only a few have been completed. A useful list of case studies of U.S projects highway and transit projects can be found in a report issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, “Innovation Wave: An Update on the Burgeoning Private Sector Role in U.S. Highway and Transit Infrastructure.”

Examples of successfully completed American projects are the Las Vegas Monorail project and the South Bay Expressway, which links an active commercial port of entry at the Mexican border with the greater freeway network in San Diego County, California. Other American PPP projects under development include highway projects in Florida, Texas and Virginia. The Federal Highway Administration’s website contains useful descriptions of many domestic PPP projects, as well as others using the design-build contracting approach. In Canada, numerous projects have been completed, many of which are featured on the Canadian government’s PPP agency website. Just in time for he 2010 Winter Olympics, Vancouver, B.C. completed the “Canada Line,” a $2.054 Billion, 11.8-mile rapid transit line connecting downtown Vancouver with its international airport.

Although PPP transactions are both complicated and challenging, the prospect of developing significant infrastructure improvements without adding to public debt loads or diverting scarce general funds is a very attractive option. While some may distrust such solutions, a deal that is well-crafted and skillfully presented can engender public support. Given the growing shortfall in meeting our nation’s infrastructure needs, creative approaches like PPPs deserve thorough consideration as a means of delivering projects that might not otherwise come to fruition.

Tuesday’s Primary Showdown

Posted on May 18, 2010 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today is a major primary day, with Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas holding Senate primaries, and Oregon a gubernatorial primary. I’ll deal with these by poll closing times: Kentucky at 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. EDT; Pennsylvania at 8 p.m. EDT; Arkansas at 8:30 p.m. EDT; and Oregon at 10 p.m. EDT.

In Kentucky, it looks like Rand Paul is very likely to win the GOP Senate nomination, beating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the fair-hair child of the Bluegrass Republican establishment, and particularly of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Paul has been leading Grayson steadily in every recent poll, and the latest, from Magellan Strategies, shows Paul pulling away with a 55/30 lead. Another recent poll, from PPP, shows that fully one-third of Kentucky Republicans think their party is “too liberal,” and it’s these voters who are fueling Paul’s surge. Even though this is a closed primary and Paul is in many respects a conventional if extreme conservative, as indicated by the endorsements he received from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and James Dobson, expect to hear a lot of “Tea Party Insurgency!” hype when the results come in tonight. Hype aside, Paul’s non-interventionist views on foreign policy, which are similar to his father’s, are unusual for a Republican politician, and it’s quite interesting that Grayson’s attacks on them didn’t gain much traction.

The Democratic Senate primary will likely provide the only real drama in Kentucky tonight, with polls indicating a close race between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway. Though Conway has been endorsed by MoveOn.org, the contest hasn’t been particularly ideological; both candidates oppose cap-and-trade legislation, and while Mongiardo has said he would have voted against health reform in the Senate, it’s because the bill “didn’t go far enough.” Conway has had a significant financial edge, and seems to have some late momentum, but the geographical turnout patterns —Mongiardo is from Eastern Kentucky, while Conway is from Louisville — will probably determine the result. Both candidates trail Paul in general election polls by a considerable margin.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary is a genuine barn-burner, with party-switching incumbent Arlen Specter trying to hold off a late surge by Rep. Joe Sestak. Every poll in the last week has shown Specter losing his relatively large lead over Sestak, as the challenger benefits both from the support of progressives who dislike Specter’s partisan background and from moderate-to-conservative Democrats who don’t like his social liberalism or his current pattern of staunch support for the Obama administration. It is universally conceded that the race will all come down to turnout, with Specter—who is being backed not only by the Obama administration, the DSCC, and Gov. Ed Rendell’s organization, but also by most major unions—counting on a large turnout from Philadelphia, where he has a huge lead among African-Americans. Both candidates have trailed Republican Pat Toomey in most polls, though Sestak’s general election numbers have been significantly improving recently.

The other Pennsylvania race drawing national attention has been the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha. It’s the classic Western PA white-working-class district: it’s been represented by Democrats since the New Deal, and was carried by both Al Gore and John Kerry, but not by Barack Obama. Unsurprisingly, the most recent public polling, by PPP, showed a dead heat between Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns. A Democratic hold in this seat, widely expected to go Republican when Murtha died, would provide a real boost to Democratic morale.

In Arkansas, the marquee contest matches Lt. Gov. Bill Halter against Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but the race has almost been overshadowed by national interests. Halter has strong backing from a variety of unions who are enraged by Lincoln’s flip-flop on the Employee Free Choice Act, while the incumbent, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, has received massive backing from the agribusiness and financial industries. Millions are being spent on both sides on “independent” ads attacking one candidate or the other. Lincoln is also being supported by the president and by former president Clinton.

Polls have consistently shown Lincoln leading Halter, but with less than 50 percent of the vote. If Lincoln or Halter is unable to win a majority of the votes, they will faceoff in a runoff election as required in Arkansas. There is a sizable undecided vote among African-Americans, who lean towards Halter, and Lincoln’s campaign has been running Obama and Clinton radio ads aimed at African-Americans. Regional turnout will also be a big factor, with Lincoln expected to do well in the Delta region she used to represent in the House, and Halter expected to do well in Little Rock. The contest could well serve as a lab experiment on the ancient proposition that undecided voters invariably turn against incumbents; if Lincoln gets a decent share of the undecided vote, she should win.

The Republican Senate primary is a low-profile affair with eight candidates, and it’s been generally assumed that Rep. John Boozman will win, probably without a runoff. Boozman will be helped by geography: he represents northwest Arkansas, a heavily Republican area where turnout will be boosted by a highly competitive primary to choose his replacement in the House. But two other candidates in the field, state senator Gilbert Baker, who is from central Arkansas, and former statewide candidate Jim Holt, a fiery Tea Party-style conservative who shares Boozman’s geographical base, could get enough support to force him into a runoff, particularly if voters respond to attacks on Boozman for supporting TARP.

Every poll taken this cycle has shown both Lincoln and Halter trailing every named Republican in general election trial heats. The big question is whether Arkansas’ strong tradition of voting Democratic downballot even when support for the national party is weak is finally expiring as it has in other parts of the Deep South.

In Oregon, limited polling predicts that former Gov. John Kitzhaber will easily win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination over former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. His Republican opponent is expected to be former Portland Trail Blazer Chris Dudley, but don’t be surprised if conservative Allen Alley pulls an upset, as one late poll suggests is possible.

Finally, in non-primary political news, a major brouhaha has broken out in Connecticut, where Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was the heavy favorite to hold onto Chris Dodd’s Senate seat in November, was the subject of a big New York Times story (fed by one of his Republican rivals) revealing that he has on at least one occasion referred to himself as a veteran of the Vietnam War. It turns out that he’s not; he served in the Marine Reserves during that war, but never deployed. At the moment, the DSCC is standing by Blumenthal, but Connecticut Democrats do have the option of choosing another candidate in their state convention, which will be held this weekend.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

The Tehran Two-Step: Obama Administration Should Reject the Current Iranian Nuke Deal

Posted on May 18, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s the Tehran Two-Step, and this time, the White House needs to call Iran’s bluff.

As written, the Obama administration should reject the nuclear enrichment deal with Iran brokered by Turkey and Brazil. The current form of the deal would seem to be a win-win-win for Iran. It gives Iran the enriched uranium they sorely need but cannot obtain for legitimate purposes, like medical research, and softens the Chinese and Russian line on U.N.-backed sanctions, while retaining the amount of uranium necessary to construct a nuclear device.

Why, then, did this deal seem so promising last fall, when Iran nearly agreed to ship its uranium to Russia and France for enrichment and refining, respectively? That deal was a win-draw-lose for Tehran. It got the uranium needed for medical purposes and delayed — if not canceled — talk of U.N. sanctions. However, the big difference is that Iran would not have retained enough uranium for its own bomb.

Last fall during the first round of negotiations, Tehran would have been required to ship 2,640 pounds of uranium abroad, which was two-thirds of its entire stock. Iran’s remaining uranium would not have been enough to construct a nuclear warhead.

However since then, Iran has added to its uranium supply. The current deal under consideration does not change the amount Iran would be required to ship abroad, which turns out to be critical because that amount now represents only half of Tehran’s stock. If the international community agrees to the deal in which Iran shipped only 2640 pounds of uranium abroad, Iran would probably have enough uranium stock remaining to build a nuclear device.

By agreeing to the deal, Iran suddenly appears a more credible international diplomatic partner. The Russians and Chinese, whose support for U.N. sanctions was won thanks to yoeman’s work by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, could now be inclined to back-off. At the moment, China is making especially disturbing signals regarding their support for additional sanctions. It’s the standard Tehran playbook — take a hard-line until sanctions or some other punishment appears imminent, then suddenly appear reasonable just before the penalty advances past the point of no return.

How can we be sure that Iran won’t be punished? Quite simply, Iran’s happy with the deal: A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the deal offered proof that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

In short, the deal on the table last fall would have provided additional security, as Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund stated, by “lengthening the fuse” until Tehran could have acquired nuclear weapons. This version doesn’t, and the Obama administration should reject it and wait for a serious Iranian offer.

The Other NPT

Posted on May 18, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

This month 189 countries are gathered at the United Nations in New York for a review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This review, which has occurred every five years since the treaty was indefinitely extended in 1995, is designed to give the member states the opportunity to discuss how the goals of the treaty are being met — or not. In broad terms, the treaty obliges those members with nuclear weapons to get rid of them and those members without nuclear weapons to never seek them, while promoting peaceful use of the atom by all.

The NPT, as the treaty is informally known, has been highly successful to date: a slow but steady global spread of nuclear power has occurred, while at the same time, many countries have elected to halt nuclear weapons programs and join the treaty regime; three countries — Israel, India and Pakistan — have never ratified the treaty and are either known or believed to have nuclear weapons; only one country — North Korea — has abandoned the regime and developed weapons; and only one country — Iran — is currently believed to be developing a nuclear weapons program while still notionally adhering to the treaty. One of the reasons the NPT has been so successful in promoting nuclear power while damping the spread of nuclear weapons are the guidelines created by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, a consortium of the countries that build and supply the vast majority of the materials required to build and maintain a nuclear power or nuclear medicine program. These guidelines exist “to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices which would not hinder international trade and cooperation in the nuclear field.”

It is time, however, to consider a different NPT, namely, a Non-Proliferation Tax. This NPT is the indirect price everyone pays for keeping dangerous nuclear materials and nuclear technologies out of the hands of those who might use it for nefarious purposes. But don’t worry — this isn’t a new tax up for debate. Rather, it’s part of the current taxes individuals and businesses already pay.

Some of what we get out of this tax is obvious: funding U.S. diplomats and technical experts to work on these issues at the United Nations and other international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to coordinate U.S. work with the NSG. Other efforts are well known, such as those led by the U.S. Departments of State and Energy collectively known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program — or Nunn-Lugar Program, for the Senators most responsible for writing the 1992 legislation that created the program. These programs have helped to secure Russian nuclear weapons and fissile materials and to provide Russian and other former Soviet weapons scientists with the training to find work in non-weapons fields; they are being expanded to cover other topics, such as the life sciences, and other parts of the world, such as South and Southeast Asia.

Other efforts that are funded by this non-proliferation tax include the Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, and the Second Line of Defense, SLD, program. The PSI is a program, started under the G.W. Bush administration and is a collaboration among some 95 countries to intercept illicit shipments of nuclear equipment and materials. The SLD program, also started under the G.W. Bush administration, is installing radiation portal monitors at border crossings and major seaports all over the world in an effort to detect smuggled fissile materials and improvised and stolen nuclear weapons.

Some of these programs are expensive — the SLD program will cost billions of dollars, and the U.S. has spent many more billions over the past 15 years — but the importance of the programs is also irrefutable. Some have calculated that this cost is $50 per month for every household in the U.S.

The problem, though, is that the cost of nuclear proliferation isn’t always obvious to the people, companies, and industries that directly benefit from the nuclear power sources that this money safeguards. After all, the programs are run by the U.S. government and funded by U.S. taxpayers, not by ratepayers or by the nuclear industry. The goal, then, should be to ensure that nuclear power spreads in a way that doesn’t require a significant growth in the non-proliferation tax. This requires careful examination of new enrichment and reprocessing technologies, to make sure that development and commercialization of these new technologies will not make it harder to safeguard the facilities that use them or to detect covert programs. It also requires the broad industry-wide information sharing program suggested in my last column.

This is not an insurmountable problem, but requires that a holistic view of the costs of the proliferation of nuclear technologies be taken as we see an expansion of nuclear power.

Let the 2010 Census Be the Last One Solely on Paper

Posted on May 18, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

An army of census takers has begun knocking on doors all across the country, following up on the 48 million households who didn’t send in very user-friendly forms in spite of a ubiquitous media campaign. There must a better, cheaper and even safer way to do this.

There is. People should be able to respond online.

In 2000, the government quietly experimented with a limited online option and it was very successful, as noted in a 2008 report by ITIF’s Daniel Castro. The online option was not publicized, but a few savvy citizens (.07 percent of respondents) discovered the link on the U.S. Census Bureau’s website and 94 percent of them said they liked it.

Ten years is several generations in Internet time. Less than five percent of Americans had broadband connections at home in 2000. Today, an estimated 68 percent take advantage of broadband access, and that percentage grows by six to eight percent each year. To be sure, there are many without access to computers and still others who would prefer not to respond online. Still, with so many more of us online daily and with the short form the Census Bureau used this year, it is reasonable to think we would have a high participation rate and could end up with a more accurate count. Canada, Australia, Singapore and Norway are using the Internet to collect data. We should, too.

Regrettably, back in 2008, the Census Bureau nixed the idea of an Internet-based data collection for 2010 mainly for three not very compelling reasons -– that it would not necessarily increase the response rate, that the entire undertaking could be wrecked by security problems and that it was too expensive. Given how much of life has migrated online, these objections seem a little flimsy in 2010.

First, no one claims using the Internet-based approach will boost overall participation. The Census Bureau quite correctly cited data from other countries that have adopted an online system. But it might help individuals respond more thoroughly and accurately. Besides, higher participation isn’t the only reason for using the Internet. It is easier and more conducive to the online habits of an increasing number of Americans.

Second, while security concerns such as denial of service attacks, “phishing” (where fraudulent sites pose as legitimate sites to extract sensitive information from people), or the use of spyware to steal data are legitimate, they are not sufficient to completely scrap an online count. For one thing, the risks from a denial of service attack are minimal in a non-time-sensitive project like the census — if the website is unavailable, respondents would simply check back later. The concerns about unscrupulous operators and hackers are part of life online and security experts have gotten pretty good at protecting consumers and citizens. ITIF estimates that 25 years after the first dot-com, the global economy is larger by $1.5 trillion a year thanks to the commercial Internet. The Internal Revenue Service says roughly 100 million of the 140 million tax returns filed this year were done so electronically. That’s a lot of personal data and money floating around and most of it is secure, so long as people are attentive to instructions and wary of possible fraud. There may be no such thing as a 100 percent secure system (on the Internet or in the real world) but that is no reason to put off going online with the census.

Third, but perhaps most important, is cost. The census is not cheap. The cost for the education effort, forms, workers and other activities adds up to $14.5 billion, according to the bureau. In 2008, there was a much-publicized and costly kerfuffle over the bureau’s problems with hand-held devices. The decision to scrap them rather than figure out how to use them effectively may have cost taxpayers $3 billion needlessly.

Aside from that snafu, the agency observed in 2008 that it would be hard to predict online usage and the number of paper forms that would be needed, and that there would be considerable startup costs for an online system. But an analysis by ITIF in February 2008 estimated that even with an online response rate of just 10 percent, the savings could have added up to $28 million — more than enough to cover the $22.5 million the Census Bureau estimated would be needed to implement an Internet-based system.

The bottom line is that there will always be challenges shifting an undertaking as massive as the decennial census from paper to electronic mode. But the Census Bureau, and all other government agencies for that matter, should be creating ways to overcome these challenges and not be fearful of being overcome by them. It is hard to think of anything that could be done more smoothly than the census with the smart use of information technology. That’s 20/20 hindsight for 2010 and foresight for 2020.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/seandreilinger/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

In Oregon, Signs of the Clean Energy Future

Posted on May 17, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A fascinating experiment is unfolding in the nation’s Northwest, where a candidate for governor of Oregon is campaigning against politics itself. In a recent visit to Washington, D.C., John Kitzhaber, a medical doctor by training who served two terms as governor of Oregon from 1995 to 2003, discussed his approach to his third campaign. Wearing a blazer, his trademark sunrise tie and boots, Kitzhaber described his desire to run a wonky campaign that would be mostly about policy — especially clean energy, the subject of PPI’s E3 Initiative.

“I’m in a position in my life where I don’t need to do this,” the 63-year old Kitzhaber said. “I’m not running a typical slash-and-burn campaign.” Kitzhaber has followed through so far, in a few short months churning out some thoughtful policy papers on job creation, energy and health care.

Of particular interest is his focus on energy. In Oregon — a state that already places a great emphasis on clean energy — Kitzhaber said he sees an opportunity to “recreate the political center.” Oregon has been leading on mining “negawatts” for over three decades. As Kitzhaber’s energy plan notes, “The economic and environmental returns on these investments have been even greater: ‘new’ energy supplies from efficiency savings cost one-half to one-third that of new power plants, emit no carbon or other pollution, and don’t jeopardize fish runs. Energy efficiency has been the single largest new resource for the region since 1980.”

Oregon’s existing targets are already ambitious: 25 percent renewables by 2025, and reducing greenhouse gases to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. However, Oregon currently lacks a comprehensive strategic plan for all these goals.

At the D.C. meeting, Kitzhaber observed that Oregon spends $12 billion a year on energy, but 85 percent leaves the state. As governor, he promised to begin with large-scale energy retrofits, including public buildings, where he thought 25 percent of energy could be quickly reduced, freeing up capital and creating good jobs in the process. “We need to view a KWh saved just the same we view one created,” he said.

This approach would put Kitzhaber squarely in line with the Obama administration, which in a series of largely unheralded victories, has used stimulus funds to turn the ocean liner of America’s domestic energy practices toward a sunnier horizon.

Whether or not Kitzhaber wins, it seems clear that there’s a trend here among certain states to push the green envelope. In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick and Secretary of Energy and Environment Ian Bowles have paved the way in pushing an integrated, regional approach to clean energy and demonstrating clear results, as PPI recently highlighted with an event in Boston with local economic leaders.

In these partisan times, and with the recently released Kerry-Lieberman bill, these are all promising signs that clean energy really can be about policy, not politics.

Another Incumbent Goes Down

Posted on May 14, 2010 by The Progressive Policy Institute

There were two House elections of note earlier this week. The one which earned national attention was in West Virginia, where ethics-challenged Rep. Alan Mollohan (D), who had served 14 terms in office, was beaten decisively by Democratic primary opponent state senator Mike Oliverio. The winner styles himself as a conservative Democrat, but given Mollohan’s own relatively conservative record, it’s likely the result had less to do with ideology than with serial investigations of the incumbent for alleged conflicts of interest associated with his chairmanship of an appropriations subcommittee. This seat has been targeted by Republicans, and Oliverio may be harder to beat than a wounded Mollohan.

Down in Georgia, a special election was held to replace Republican Rep. Nathan Deal, who resigned his seat to “concentrate” on his gubernatorial races; Deal was also being investigated and criticized by the Ethics Committee for alleged interference with a state grant program that benefitted his own business. In the heavily Republican mountain district, the big issue was strong Tea Party and Club for Growth backing for former state Rep. Tom Graves, who finished first with 35 percent of the vote, but will face a June 8 runoff with a more conventional Republican, former state senator Lee Hawkins, who gained 23 percent of the vote. Graves will be favored in the runoff, but will have to run for a full term beginning with a primary on July 8.

Next Tuesday primaries will be held in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon and Pennsylvania. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) is in a close primary battle with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter; there are competitive primaries in both parties for a Senate seat in Kentucky; Oregon will feature a comeback bid by former Gov. John Kitzhaber; and in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter is in serious trouble from a challenge by Joe Sestak. I’ll have more about those races on Tuesday morning.

Poll Watch

Polling news includes a very interesting Mason-Dixon survey of the Republican Senate primary race in Nevada. When asked if the “Chickens For Checkups” controversy involving longtime frontrunner Sue Lowden affected their likely vote, Nevada Republicans generally said it would not. But for no other apparent reason, Lowden’s support has dropped significantly since the last Mason-Dixon poll in April, and she’s now locked in a competitive three-way race in which Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle has suddenly leapt into second place. The poll gave Lowden 30 percent, Angle 25 percent, and Danny Tarkanian 22 percent. The primary is on June 8, and the winner will face Harry Reid.

A new Rasmussen survey in New Hampshire shows Republican former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte continuing to hold a solid (50/38) lead over Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes for the seat held by retiring Sen. Judd Gregg. A DKos/R2K poll in Kentucky suggests that Democrats Dan Mongiardo and Jack Conway are in a dead heat, while on the GOP side, Rand Paul holds a 10-point lead over Trey Grayson.

Yet another poll in Pennsylvania, this one from Suffolk, shows Joe Sestak pulling ahead of Arlen Specter (49/40). And a PPP survey of Republicans to measure early support for prospective 2012 presidential candidates places no fewer than four candidates (Mike Huckabee with 25 percent; Mitt Romney with 23 percent; Newt Gingrich with 21 percent, and Sarah Palin with 20 percent) in a virtual dead heat.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Earning Green Cards Through Diplomas

Posted on May 14, 2010 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The recent re-emergence of immigration on the national agenda, not to mention our slow recovery from an economic slump, has illuminated an underappreciated but serious flaw in U.S. immigration policy: It is fundamentally misaligned with the needs of America’s economy.

Our current policy does little to prevent an influx of undocumented workers across our southern border, or to raise the education levels of those who are already here. It admits legal immigrants mostly on the basis of unifying extended families, rather than the skills they bring. The U.S. in recent years has admitted roughly one million legal entrants per year. Of these, about two-thirds are admitted based on family ties, while 16 percent come in for employment-related reasons. Programs targeted at skilled migrants let in only about 180,000 people each year. Our immigration policy, in short, lowers the overall skill level in the U.S.

It is time we looked at immigration reform through the prism of human capital development. America’s ability to compete globally increasingly depends on skilled workers and ceaseless innovation. Two policies in particular will help us re-orient our immigration posture.

First, we need to make it easier for foreign students who receive advanced degrees from U.S. institutions in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to stay in the U.S. and join the workforce. Our current immigration system makes it unnecessarily difficult for STEM advanced-degree graduates who are here legally to gain employment. Those students have to compete with foreign-educated and more experienced workers for the 65,000 H1-B visas and 80,000 priority worker and advanced-degree green cards issued every year. We need to change immigration law so those students have a chance to earn a green card with their diploma.

But they are not the only students whose potential we are squandering with an outmoded immigration system. Every year up to 65,000 children of undocumented immigrants graduate high school. While it’s not illegal for them to attend college, universities and colleges have given new scrutiny to immigration status in the wake of 9/11, which has had a chilling effect on undocumented immigrants’ enrollment. It’s in our economic interest to encourage these kids to get a college education. Enacting a policy that would give them a path to citizenship through college education and national service can only strengthen the country.

Rewarding Achievement in Science and Math

First, we should enact policies that make it easier for motivated, capable young immigrants to establish U.S. citizenship. Attaching a green card — granting lawful permanent residence — to every foreign student’s post-graduate STEM degree diploma is one such policy.

Currently foreign students are allowed 12 months of practical training after completing their studies. Under a Department of Homeland Security interim ruling issued in 2008, foreign students with STEM degrees can extend that out to just over two years (29 months). However, students cannot have more than 90 days of unemployment during this time. Once their visa expires, they have to leave the U.S., taking their education and skills with them.

But the average unemployment stint is 130 days, and in this recession, over 200 days — more than twice the official limit. The rule means that students in technically intensive degrees are being turned away after valuable education capital has been invested in them. By attaching a green card to a STEM advanced degree, hardworking and high-achieving foreign students won’t have to leave the U.S. to apply their skills and find good work. From the U.S.’s perspective, it would get to keep bright and industrious workers who can add the most value to our economy.

The government should also exempt green-card recipients who hold advanced STEM degrees from green card caps currently in place. Advanced-degree holders currently face a five-year wait to get a green card. By exempting them from that cap, we can keep valuable human capital here.

Not everyone is on board with this idea. Critics have argued against policies that would encourage foreign students to enter STEM graduate programs in the U.S. They contend that providing further incentives for foreign students will accelerate the crowding out of U.S. students — particularly minorities — and workers in the STEM fields.

But such skeptics ignore the considerable benefits of a vigorous STEM/green card policy. The open flow of knowledge and talented researchers has long helped keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology. According to a National Academies report:

The participation of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars is an important part of the research enterprise of the United States. In some fields they make up more than half the population of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. If their presence were substantially diminished, important research and teaching activities in academe, industry, and federal laboratories would be curtailed, particularly if universities did not give more attention to recruiting and retaining domestic students.

Unleashing the innovative and entrepreneurial energies of our best students — be they American or foreign-born — will be key to America’s resurgence. Stapling a green card to the diplomas of foreign STEM advanced-degree holders is one concrete policy step we can take to ensure that outcome.

A Pathway for Children of Immigrants

The same opportunity to become integrated and contribute to American society should be given to those who came to the U.S. as children with their undocumented parents. This may strike some as controversial, but it’s common sense. When an adult comes into the U.S. illegally, he or she is exercising a choice and is responsible for its consequences. That’s not true of the child who follows his or her parent across the border. A child should not have to suffer severe legal and economic limitations for the simple act of following a parent’s decision.

Yet that’s exactly what happens under the current system. Right now, the children of undocumented immigrants are stuck: As they grow up and go to school, they become more and more American. Yet this country gives them no pathway to legal residency or citizenship. This is bad not just for them, but also for our nation. We are consigning thousands of people to uncertain limbo status, with little hope for full membership in our society. But we are also depriving ourselves of the opportunity to benefit from their energy, ideas, talents and engagement in our national life.

We can tackle this problem by offering an expedited pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants who go to college or engage in meaningful national service. This idea has been floated as part of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The measure would grant conditional permanent-resident status to undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday, lived here for at least five years, are of good moral character and either graduated from high school or attained admission to college.

Opponents of this initiative complain that giving permanent-resident status to children of undocumented immigrants will be just a backdoor way for their parents to document themselves and live legally in the U.S. But those objections don’t stand up to scrutiny. Permanent residents can only petition for spouses and unmarried children, not parents or siblings. Citizens can petition for siblings or parents, but if that relative has been living in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, they may not re-enter the U.S. for 10 years.

It’s also worth noting that comprehensive immigration reform will likely result in some undocumented families having to leave the U.S. For those who meet the conditions to stay, it’s in our economic interest to encourage their kids to get a college education.

Estimates of the number of young people who would become eligible for legal residency under the Dream Act vary widely. The Migration Policy Institute has estimated (PDF) that 360,000 unauthorized immigrants would become immediately eligible, with perhaps another 715,000 who might become so if they make it through high school and meet the other requirements.

Supporters of this idea should be open to some changes in order to not only win passage but also strengthen the benefits from the proposal. For example, if the only way to get the initiative through Congress is to extend the academic requirement for full permanent-resident status from two years of college to four, that’s better than seeing the whole thing go down to defeat, as what happened with the Dream Act.

A broader definition of national service can also win additional votes. Let’s expand the service requirement beyond military experience. An undocumented youth might satisfy the service provision by teaching in low-income schools, tutoring in an adult-literacy program, helping to maintain our national parks, serving in the Peace Corps, or enlisting in a service program established by one of the states.

A Pragmatic Course

America’s immigration policy is badly broken and requires fixes that go far beyond what we have proposed here. We need sweeping reform that dramatically reduces illegal immigration by enforcing laws in the workplace; that ties legalization to workplace verification of identity and legal status; that enlarges the pipeline for legal immigrants, particularly those with high skills; and that engages Mexico in cooperative efforts to curb the flow of guns and people across the border and confront the scourge of narco-terrorism.

A progressive blueprint for reform must also bring our anachronistic immigration laws into closer alignment with America’s economic needs. America can only hold onto its high living standards by competing on the basis of high-value goods and services. Because rapid innovation is key to U.S. comparative advantage, we need immigration policies that attract more educated and skill workers to our shores.

Immigration reform must tilt our laws toward skills. We could achieve this by increasing the number of permanent visas to skilled workers; by replacing per-country limits — which effectively cap skilled entrants from large countries like China and India — with an overall limit; and by limiting family-sponsored preferences to nuclear rather than extended family members.

And we must take the two steps proposed here: stapling a green card to diplomas awarded to foreign students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees from U.S. universities, and offering legal status to qualified children of undocumented immigrants who get a college degree. Offering a pathway to citizenship to high-achieving immigrants doesn’t just reward talent and diligence — it will lay the groundwork for America’s resurgence in the 21^st century.

Kagan’s Alleged Distance From the “Mainstream”

Posted on May 13, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

In their efforts to find something objectionable about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, some conservatives are resorting to an argument that is so vague as to seem innocuous, but that is also consonant with a serious strain of invidious prejudice: as a lifelong New Yorker, she’s inhabited a liberal “cocoon” that is remote from the mainstream life of most Americans. Kathleen Parker offered a particularly explicit version of this argument in a Washington Post column the other day. Here’s a sample:

Certainly New York City dwellers would argue that they struggle with ordinary concerns, just in a more dense environment. But New York, like other urban areas, tends to be more liberal than the vast rest of the country. More than half the country also happens to be Protestant, yet with Kagan, the court will feature three Jews, six Catholics and nary a Protestant. Fewer than one-fourth of Americans are Catholic, and 1.7 percent are Jewish.

This claim that Kagan’s nomination violates some unwritten rules of geographical and ethnic balance on the Supreme Court is spreading pretty rapidly. I did a fairly systematic response over at FiveThirtyEight, noting that (1) this wouldn’t be first time the Court might had three New Yorkers; (2) life in New York isn’t exactly the liberal cocoon that conservatives so often describe it as; and (3) geographical background or even diversity of experience has not in the past been a particularly good predictor of judicial philosophy or contributions to the Court.

If Parker’s argument and many like it strike you as risking encouragement to some very old prejudices, you should check out my response.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hlrecord/ / CC BY 2.0

Gates and Fiscal Responsibility (Again)

Posted on May 13, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

This past weekend Secretary of Defense Bob Gates continued to talk his Kansas brand of sense about Pentagon spending. After a lecture on shipbuilding last week at the Navy League teed up tough questions to the Navy — like whether we can continue to afford $7 billion submarines — Gates took to the Eisenhower Library in his home state to expand that theme across his entire department. I’d bet you a crisp $20 bill that this is the line that caused an audible gasp in Reston and on the Hill:

The Defense Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed, and operated – indeed, every aspect of how it does business. In each instance we must ask: First, is this respectful of the American taxpayer at a time of economic and fiscal duress? And second, is this activity or arrangement the best use of limited dollars, given the pressing needs to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, and invest in the capabilities necessary to deal with the most likely and lethal future threats?

As a starting point, no real progress toward savings will be possible without reforming our budgeting practices and assumptions. Too often budgets are divied up and doled out every year as a straight line projection of what was spent the year before. Very rarely is the activity funded in these areas ever fundamentally re-examined – either in terms of quantity, type, or whether it should be conducted at all. That needs to change.

But then again, maybe the shock value has worn off — fiscal responsibility has been such a theme under Gates’ leadership that perhaps tough-minded rhetoric on defense spending now comes with little surprise.

Then Gates delved into specifics. And now it was the soldiers’, sailors’, airmen’s, and marines’ turn to get nervous:

[H]ealth-care costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to roughly $50 billion – roughly the entire foreign affairs and assistance budget of the State Department. The premiums for TRICARE, the military health insurance program, have not risen since the program was founded more than a decade ago. Many working age military retirees – who are earning full-time salaries on top of their full military pensions – are opting for TRICARE even though they could get health coverage through their employer, with the taxpayer picking up most of the tab. In recent years the Department has attempted modest increases in premiums and co-pays to help bring costs under control, but has been met with a furious response from the Congress and veterans groups. The proposals routinely die an ignominious death on Capitol Hill.

The resistance to dealing with TRICARE stems from an admirable sentiment: to take good care of our troops, their families, and veterans – especially those who have sacrificed and suffered on the battlefield. This same sentiment motivates the Congress routinely to add an extra half percent to the pay raise that the Department requests each year. Furthermore, the all-volunteer force, which has been a brilliant success in terms of performance, is a group that is older, more likely to have spouses and children, and thus far costlier to recruit, retain, house, and care for than the Eisenhower-era military that relied on the draft of young single men to fill out its ranks.

Those are the political and demographic realities we face. To a certain extent they limit what can be saved and where. But as a matter of principle and political reality, the Department of Defense cannot go to the America’s elected representatives and ask for increases each year unless we have done everything possible to make every dollar count. Unless there is real reform in the way this department does its business and spends taxpayer dollars.

Two quick points here.

First, America’s armed personnel and their families represent an important political constituency. No administration wants the baggage that comes with reducing benefits for America’s fighting men and women. For the time being, that includes this one. If a serious restructuring of military pay and benefits ever occurs, it would likely be in about year six or seven of the Obama administration, safely after reelection.

Even then, it might prove impossible as Congress continues to feed the beast of fiscal irresponsibility. News broke just today that the Hill is about to vote on a 1.9 percent military pay raise. Guess what? That’s a half-percent more than the Pentagon recommended.

Second, in my mind, the structure of the benefits isn’t the problem. It’s the amount of care. I wrote a paper last year called “The Pentagon’s Most Expensive Weapon,” and I concluded that once you add up all outlays — including costs associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs — for military personnel, DoD spends not the $136 billion it tells you, but more than $300 billion.

Why are these costs skyrocketing? It’s a simple function of our foreign policy — America’s service members may be getting older and costlier, but since Afghanistan and Iraq, they’re also getting injured more frequently and in greater numbers. Here’s my conclusion:

The problem of rising personnel costs can only be addressed from higher up the chain. Extended deployments overseas invariably increase costs because of the strain they place on the force — in casualties, logistics, sustainability, and recruiting and retention costs. Once the force has recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is incumbent on America’s civilian leadership to carefully weigh the extended cost burden placed on the Pentagon’s personnel account when plotting our global security strategy. In short, America must choose its wars and deployments carefully, as exploding personnel costs are the untold story of Pentagon spending in 2010 and beyond.

In other words, you can talk about trimming benefits and reducing the ever illusive “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and that is no doubt a good thing. And so is eliminating unneeded weapons systems.

But if we’re going inject real savings on personnel into the system, we can’t just talk about TRICARE, we have to stop fighting dumb wars. And ultimately, that decision is above Gates’ pay grade.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eschipul/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Mollohan Defeated

Posted on May 12, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

So, just three days after Utah’s long-time Republican Sen. Bob Bennett was denied re-nomination, long-time Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia suffered the same fate, though in his case it was in a primary where he received only 44 percent of the vote against 56 percent for state senator Mike Oliverio. Mollohan had been in office for 28 years after succeeding his father, who held the seat for 14 years before that. Now that’s some serious incumbency!

While it’s natural to link the Bennett and Mollohan defeats to a similar anti-incumbency trend, that’s a bit misleading. Bennett’s problems were clearly ideological in nature. Mollohan’s biggest problem was ethics; he’s been the subject of multiple investigations of conflict-of-interest allegations in his role as an Appropriations subcommittee chairman, and Oliverio’s campaign called him “one of the most corrupt members of Congress.”

With Republicans considering Mollohan an especially ripe target, it’s possible that Oliverio’s win will make the seat an slightly easier hold for Democrats.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Could Meg Whitman Lose Her Primary?

Posted on May 12, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

After spending upwards of $60 million, much of it lately on attack ads against her Republican primary rival, Steve Poizner, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman appears to have lost most of a large lead over Poizner and is heading towards the June 8 balloting in an astonishingly vulnerable position.

A new Survey USA poll out this week shows eMeg leading Poizner 39 percent/37 percent, a 20-point net swing in Poizner’s favor since the previous SUSA survey in April. Even if you are skeptical about the accuracy of SUSA’s robo-polls, California political cognoscenti all seem to agree that Poizner is closing fast.

This is significant beyond the borders of California for at least four reasons. The first and most obvious is that Whitman’s epic spending on early television ads doesn’t seem to be doing her a lot of good. If she winds up becoming the new Al Checchi — the 1998 Democratic gubernatorial candidate who broke all previous spending records on heavily negative ads and then got drubbed in his primary — it will be an object lesson to self-funders everywhere.

The second reason a Whitman defeat or near-defeat would resonate broadly is that it would confirm the rightward mood of Republicans even in a state where they are reputedly more moderate. At this point, both Poizner and Whitman are constantly calling each other “liberals,” with Poizner, who’s running ads featuring conservative GOP avatar Tom McClintock, getting the better of that particular argument. Whitman would have undoubtedly preferred to have kept closer to the political center in preparation for a tough general election campaign against Jerry Brown. But Poizner is forcing her to compete for the True Conservative mantle in a very conspicuous way.

Third, there are signs that Poizner is also forcing Whitman — and by implication, the entire California Republican Party — to risk a repetition of the 1990s-era GOP alienation of Latino voters by endorsing harsh immigration measures. This has been a signature issue for Poizner from the beginning; he supports bringing back Proposition 187 — the 1994 ballot measure pushed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson that is widely interpreted as having destroyed California’s Republican majority by making the state’s huge Latino population a reliable and overwhelming Democratic constituency. Poizner has also lavishly praised the new Arizona immigration law. Having tried to ignore the issue initially, Whitman is now running radio ads in which Pete Wilson (her campaign chairman) touts her determination to fight illegal immigration. If those ads migrate to broadcast TV, it’s a sure bet that Whitman is panicking, and that monolithic Latino support for Brown in the general election is a real possibility. And if that can happen in California, where immigrant-bashing is so obviously perilous, it can certainly happen in other parts of the country.

Finally, it’s worth noting that aside from immigration, the issue on which Poizner seems to be gaining traction is the attention he’s devoted to Whitman’s involvement with Goldman Sachs. She was on the firm’s board for a number of years, and earned a very large amount of money from an insider practice — then legal, now illegal — called “spinning,” which she nows says she “regrets.” Poizner’s having a lot of fun with this issue, and the California Democratic Party is chipping in with an ad ostensibly promoting financial reform in Washington that is mainly aimed at Whitman. Lesson to would-be-business-executive-candidates: some kinds of private-sector experience are not helpful to your candidacy in the current climate.

It’s worth noting that there’s another major statewide GOP primary going on in California, involving another female former-business-executive who gained national attention through involvement in the McCain presidential campaign. That would be Carly Fiorina, who is running for the Senate nomination to oppose Barbara Boxer, but is struggling to catch up with an opponent, Tom Campbell, who really does have a moderate repuation, at least on abortion and same-sex marriage. And one of Fiorina’s main problems is a third candidate, Chuck DeVore, who’s running hard as the True Conservative in the race. Fiorina has recently wheeled out endorsements from Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. All three major GOP Senate candidates have endorsed the Arizona immigration law. The outcome of this race, and where the competition positions the winner, could also have a fateful impact on the general election and on the future of California politics.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Miranda Rights, the Public Safety Exception and Congress

Posted on May 12, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The arrest of Faisal Shahzad has revitalized the conversation about the legal rights of terrorism suspects apprehended in the U.S. In February, I wrote that a public safety exception to ordinary Miranda procedures exists, and called it a useful tool in terrorism cases because it could allow for interrogation of terrorism suspects for a reasonable period of time before they are read their Miranda rights, as happened in the case of the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

The incident in Times Square has given even more momentum to the idea of Miranda-less interrogations. On Sunday, Attorney General Holder came out and said that he wants Congress to pass a law specifically allowing interrogations without Miranda warnings in international terrorism cases. Such a law would obviate the need for law enforcement to rely on the current public safety exception.

Holder’s proposal is unique. The public safety exception is not the result of congressional action, but rather was created by a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In fact, all exceptions to Miranda rights under federal law come from court decisions and not from Congress. The question is this: Is it necessary for Congress to create a Miranda exception for terrorist suspects, or is the existing public safety exception enough? The congressional approach has several pros and cons.

The major benefit to Congress passing a law that explicitly creates a Miranda exception would be the specificity it would provide. Currently, law enforcement officials decide whether to invoke the public safety exception depending on whether they think a risk to public safety exists. Whether or not an officer’s belief is legitimate is determined on a case-by-case basis in court. Congress could make a law that lays out specific timeframes and circumstances under which a terrorist suspect could be interrogated without Miranda rights. Law enforcement officials would benefit greatly from knowing exactly what kinds of constraints exist.

Another benefit would be that, as long as law enforcement acted within the bounds of the statute, prosecutors would be more easily able to justify Miranda-less interrogation. As it is now, if a terrorist’s defense attorney challenges his client’s interrogation, prosecutors must show that law enforcement acted out of a legitimate concern for public safety. That process can be significantly more difficult and time-consuming than if prosecutors could simply point to a statute authorizing interrogation without Miranda.

Conversely, the existing exception’s major benefit could be its flexibility. The exception was created without specific constraints because the Supreme Court knew that it could not foresee all possible scenarios in which the exception could be applied. Similarly, Congress will not be able to foresee all possible terrorism scenarios. This could lead to a situation in which Congress creates a law that gives law enforcement less latitude than they might receive under the current exception.

It’s likely that Congress will try to pass a law that allows for a terrorist suspect to be interrogated for 48-72 hours, or even more, without being read his Miranda rights. Interrogations of such length would probably not be allowed under the existing exception. Should Congress authorize long interrogations without Miranda, expect a significant backlash from civil liberties advocates and some elected officials. Moreover, a statute granting law enforcement a great deal of flexibility could run the risk of being overturned in the courts. Stay tuned.