Category: Uncategorized

Progressives: Own the National Security Debate! Please!

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If you read the conclusion of today’s Democracy Corps/Third Way poll analysis, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Democrats remain disturbingly not confident talking about national security.

[M]any Democrats seem relatively silent about the accomplishments of the Obama administration and their party on national security. Though a few are stressing the administration’s efforts on the new START treaty and nuclear proliferation, fewer still seem to be stressing the administration’s accomplishments regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to strengthen the military, and steps to combat terrorism. The survey strongly suggests progressives should speak out forcefully on these issues, and remind voters of the contrasts between those relative successes and the failures the country witnessed under eight years of Bush-Cheney. [emphasis added]

When the president scores 53 percent approval even after two significant domestic terrorist attempts in the last six months, that’s a strong statement. Even the last few months have seen a significant 10-point shift — moderates have changed allegiances and now trust Democrats more than Republicans on national security by six points.

Progressives need to own the national security narrative, a message I’ve tried to hammer home repeatedly over the last several months. Here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote back in April for Roll Call:

[T]he Obama administration has quietly put together a sterling record on national security. So why are Democrats so down in the dumps? As one party strategist put it, Democrats “are behaving like the president has a 30 percent approval rating. On these [security] issues, Democrats inherently believe that no one will believe our arguments.”
There’s plenty for progressives to cheer. … Progressives stand for strong, smart security policy. Obama has terrorists in retreat and American prestige on the rise. Democrats need to begin owning their successes if the American public is to give credit where it’s due.

The Democracy Corps/Third Way analysis offers solid, straightforward recommendations. These are hardly liberal fantasy — they’re pragmatic, progressive ways to emphasize what has been a successful beginning on national security that will translate into electoral gains.

  • Speak in stronger terms about anti-terror efforts.
  • Stress efforts to support and strengthen the military.
  • Emphasize successful attempts toward greater international cooperation.
  • Emphasize domestic and economic renewal as an element of national strength.
  • Provide a contrast to the Bush-Cheney administration.

Two quick comments on the specifics of the recommendations. First, on the economy “as an element of national strength,” we’re now wondering less why the White House put such a strong emphasis on precisely that point in last week’s National Security Strategy. And on that final point, John Boehner’s been going around claiming that the administration’s counterterrorism successes have been “lucky,” an argument that the survey says falls flat with voters. I’d offer my evisceration of Boehner here (it was fun to write, so please check it out).

Bored Press Finds Reason to Live

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

That sound you heard was a bored Washington press corps letting out a collective whoop at the sign of the Obama administration’s first scandal: the alleged improprieties involving Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, who were both approached by the White House for possible jobs to convince them to drop out of primaries against incumbent Democrats.

But this kerfuffle is more a case of a D.C. media establishment eager for something – anything! – to shake up the dull routine of covering a relatively smooth first term.

First, the Sestak case. Earlier this year, Sestak claimed that the White House had offered him a “high-ranking” federal job if he stepped down from his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter. Last week, the White House and Sestak filled in the details of the story: it turns out that the White House had dispatched Bill Clinton to reach out to Sestak and discuss an unpaid, part-time position on an advisory board, a suggestion that Sestak dismissed.

Republicans, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), have pushed the story as nothing less than the death of the republic. But Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said there’s nothing to it – as the position was unpaid, it couldn’t be bribery. Washington sage Norm Ornstein has called it a “non-story,” noting that “to any veteran of the political process, such offers are nearly routine across every administration.”

The Romanoff case is potentially more serious – but still much ado about not much. Romanoff revealed that the White House suggested three jobs that he might be interested in if he dropped out of his primary race against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. Last night’s Politico headline oozed muckraking gusto: “Andrew Romanoff: W.H. offered three jobs.”

The only problem is that the headline wasn’t true. Where did I find this out? From the same Politico story:

In Romanoff’s case, [White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim] Messina apparently suggested paid jobs in the administration, a difference from the Sestak overture. But unlike the unpaid position offered to Sestak, both the White House and Romanoff said Romanoff was never guaranteed a job.

“At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one,” Romanoff said in his statement.

[…]

“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions.” [emphases added]

It gets better. It turns out Romanoff had applied for a job at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the transition, even following up by phone. Last September, Messina contacted Romanoff asking if he was still interested in a USAID position or if he would continue his run for the Senate. Romanoff said he was no longer interested in the job. End of story.

Or not. As Politico’s coverage suggests, the media, denied a feeding frenzy for so long, is just getting warmed up. Mark Halperin, as reliable an index of C.W. there is, linked excitedly to the Politico story, also falsely using the word “offered” in his post.

This morning, Politico served up the big-picture slam you know it’s been waiting months to publish: “White House political team stumbles, bumbles.” (Posted at 4:46 a.m., the story won the dawn handily.) In their Romanoff piece from last night, there was this priceless nugget as well: “The White House, which remained silent for hours after Romanoff’s statement…” Hours! What is this White House hiding?!

Unfortunately, we live in a political culture where non-stories routinely become headline stories. No actual wrongdoing may have occurred, but this is all bad news for the White House anyway. When you’re spending time explaining why something you did was not improper, you’ve already lost the image battle. If this refuses to die down, it may take a frank and unequivocal statement by the president to turn the page on this faux scandal.

And so begin the dog days of D.C. summer.

Photo credit: Colorado House Democrats

Washington Independent: Outdated Tariff Systems Means the Poor Pay More

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the Washington Independent, Will Marshall explains how tariffs on low-cost goods are ineffective in the globalized marketplace:

[…] the argument that lowering or abolishing tariffs on low-cost products will cost jobs speaks more to the need to invest in training programs for low-skilled American workers. “It’s a challenge to protectionists. It does redistribute the pattern of job creation,” he acknowledged. But the genie is already out of the bottle when it comes to globalization, he said, and companies have already moved the bulk of their labor-intensive production offshore. Leaving high tariffs on cheap imported goods isn’t going to stop them from appearing on discount and dollar-store shelves, it’s just going to penalize the consumers who buy them.

“It’s easy to overlook, easy to ignore because people without political voice or power are the most affected,” he said.

Read the full article.

Long Night in Alabama

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I didn’t actually go to Alabama last night, but I felt like it after staring at county returns half the night trying to understand the capricious will of that state’s electorate — or rather the 30 percent or so of them who voted in statewide primaries.

The shocker of the evening, of course, was Ron Sparks’ landslide 62-38 victory over Rep. Artur Davis in the Democratic gubernatorial race. Davis was the prohibitive front-runner for many months, and though there was sparse public polling in the race, he did have an eight-point lead in an R2K/DKos poll done less than two weeks out.

Now some people will look at the phenomenom of a black candidate unexpectedly losing a primary in Alabama and assume it’s all about race. And some progressives who think Artur Davis is a sell-out pseudo-Republican will assume it’s all about ideology. But I think Davis simply deployed a mistaken strategy, and that Sparks ran a smart campaign. Davis clearly tried to position himself for a general election far too early, and in keeping his distance from traditional Democratic groups, he managed to convey the sense that he wasn’t interested in their votes any more than in their public support. In a low-turnout primary, that was fatal.

It also shouldn’t be completely ignored that in an otherwise largely issues-free environment, Sparks had an issue — support for greatly expanded and regulated public gaming — that’s a proven vote-winner among Alabama Democrats.

In any event, Davis managed to lose upwards of half the African-American vote — which is why you can’t chalk up his defeat to some sort of southern-fried Bradley Effect- – while getting crushed in heavily-white northern Alabama. It was truly shocking to see the first viable African-American statewide candidate in Alabama lose majority-black counties in his own congressional district like Dallas (Selma), Hale, Marengo, Perry and Wilcox. But it’s possible to overinterpret this election: with the exception of Mobile, Artur Davis didn’t do well much of anywhere. And so, ironically, Ron Sparks enters the general election with the kind of biracial coalition behind him that Davis sought to create, in all the wrong ways.

The Republican gubernatorial primary is going to a recount because only 208 votes separate the second- and third-place finishers, Dr. Robert Bentley and Tim James. Bentley’s performance was nearly as surprising as that of Sparks; he was in single digits in the R2K/DKos poll, while James spent $4.4 million — nearly half of that his own money — and made his constant feuding with Bradley Byrne the central focus of the entire race. And it appears Bentley’s impressive showing was at least partly attributable to voters tired of the Byrne-James slugfest.

Meanwhile, Parker Griffith became the latest and no-so-greatest of party-switchers to go down to ignominous defeat, in his case losing a multi-candidate Republican primary without even making it to a runoff. At the end of a long evening, his fate brought a smile to the face of even the weariest of Democrats.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: Larry Miller’s Photostream

Texas Textbook Massacre: Can the Courts Do Anything?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Two weeks ago, the Texas School Board voted to ratify, 9-5, drastic textbook changes in their state primary education curriculum after a month of “open commentary” from the public. The changes revisit basic understandings of American history, social studies and economic thought in unprecedented ways.

In a purported attempt to neutralize the pervasive “liberal bias” supposedly present in public education, the Texas School Board approved the insertion and inflation of conservative ideals, values and historical icons (Jefferson Davis, Phyllis Schlafly, Joe McCarthy) in textbooks. The modifications also seek to downplay the intentional separation of church and state by emphasizing the Judeo-Christian faith of the nation’s founders.

At the time the changes were originally proposed, the 15-member Texas School Board boasted 10 Republicans, 7 of which were far-right conservatives. These conservatives undertook a concerted campaign to rewrite the textbook curriculum late last year. Ironically, as Jeremy Binckes notes, three board members who voted for the changes don’t even use the Texas public school system, opting instead for private or home schooling.

What’s most disconcerting about these alterations is the impact they may have on the national education system. As one of the nation’s largest purchasers of public textbooks, Texas’ revisions could alter the content of textbooks distributed nationwide.

What recourse do progressives have to beat back the encroaching, fanatic know-nothingism of the fringe right? Unfortunately, judicial mechanisms may prove unhelpful. Most courts have historically recognized the right of local education boards to create a standard curriculum of its own accord. These local boards are also granted broad discretion in adopting uniform textbooks for their respective public schools. Anyone seeking to judicially contest Texas’s revisions must make the case that the modifications infringe their constitutional rights. This isn’t an easy task.

In 1980, Indiana students brought a case in the 7th Circuit claiming that the removal of books from the school library and ensuing changes to the English curriculum violated their First Amendment protections of “freedom of speech” and the corresponding “freedom to hear.” The court dismissed these claims as failing to meet the constitutional threshold, and reminded the plaintiffs that the Constitution does not permit courts to interfere with the discretion of local authorities unless some really overt indoctrination is happening.

Two years later, the Supreme Court took up the issue of teachers banning books from school libraries. In a 5-4 vote, the majority concluded that banning of books did violate a student’s First Amendment rights. Justice Brennan warned school officials they could not remove books in an effort to restrict general access to political or social ideas that they disagreed with. However, in the same opinion, Justice Brennan also recognized that local boards have “absolute discretion in matters of curriculum.”

The Texas School Board’s amendments walk a fine line between these distinctions. Will their absolute authority over curriculum legally outweigh their obvious intent to revise history on the basis of their political views?

The jury’s still out. Consequently, states and progressives seeking to protect themselves from Texas’ influence will have to use other means. The New York Times reports that California legislators have drafted a bill requiring their state school boards ensure their own textbooks don’t show remnants of the Texas changes. In the same article, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous expressed an intention to fend off the Texas changes — although he doesn’t mention how.

As for Texas, the past month of public commentary has revealed the community’s outrage and concern. Despite their final ratification vote, there are early indications that progressives can take back the Texas School Board of Education from the hard right voting bloc. The former head of the textbook revision movement, Don McLeroy, lost his re-election bid to a more moderate Republican, and is no longer part of the school board. Fellow revisionist enthusiast, Cynthia Dunbar, is not seeking re-election. Absent any clear judicial recourse, Texan progressives will have to further capitalize on the backlash generated by the national spotlight and continue their efforts to overturn the instituted reforms.

Photo credit: Wohnai’s Photostream

After Comcast, What’s Next for Net Neutrality?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Congress is gearing up to reopen the Communications Act of 1934 in order to come up with what it hopes will be a better way to make sure as much information flows through the Internet as possible and in a manner fair to consumers, service providers and other stakeholders. During a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Free State Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, it was clear that the coming debate on the future of America’s Internet policy in general and its net neutrality policy in particular will continue to be a lively one.

Congress has effectively advised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to reclassify Internet edge networks –- cable, DSL, FTTx and wireless –- under Title II of the Communications Act. A majority of House members signed letters last week to that effect, and while these letters don’t have the force of law, they’re certainly significant statements of congressional sentiment. The FCC is, after all, a creature of Congress that isn’t entitled to operate outside the scope of its statutory authority, regardless of how noble its motives may be or how urgent the problems it seeks to address are.

The paramount questions for the immediate future concern the shape of Internet policy, and most of the answers must come from Congress. Jim Cicconi of AT&T and moderator Rob Atkinson of ITIF pointed out that the net neutrality debate has sucked the oxygen out of the room on Internet policy for the past five years. Instead of developing plans for national purposes of the Internet and ensuring that it reaches all Americans at reasonable speeds and prices, the policy community has struggled with questions about packet discrimination and “reasonable network management.” While we’ve been obsessing over how to differentiate good network operator behavior from bad, other nations have leapt ahead of us in broadband speed, adoption, or both. Even after the unveiling of a National Broadband Plan, the public debate continues to focus too much on hypothetical anti-consumer behavior by network operators and service providers.

Five years ago, panelist Randy May of the Free State Foundation developed a model law for the Internet called the “Digital Age Communications Act” (DACA) that sought to update the 1934 Communications Act that governs the FCC. Under the DACA framework, regulators can only take action on incidents in which a broadband provider was enforcing policies harmful to consumers in non-competitive markets. The virtue of DACA is its simplicity – it forswears technical prejudgment of particular management practices – but it has attracted criticism from those who find it too strict as well as from those who find it too permissive; it’s not clear why a market power test is relevant once a given practice has been found to harm consumers, for example. Questions of this sort must ultimately be addressed by Congress, as they pertain to the policy space and aren’t simply matters of regulation.

Professor James Speta of Northwestern warned that the “Title II with forbearance” approach to Internet regulation proposed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is inherently unstable. (Under this idea, Title II would apply to the Internet, except for the parts of Title II that don’t.) Obviously, the reclassification itself raises troubling legal issues, and is certain to cause litigation. As the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, it would likely take years to resolve its status. The forbearance process is a second source of instability, because regulations can be imposed and withdrawn so easily as matters of forbearance. While the FCC’s proposed “Third Way” built on reclassification and forbearance appears to offer a short cut to an Internet regulation framework, its expeditious character is probably more an illusion than a reality.

A number of panelists addressed the question of what to do while we’re waiting for Congress to draft an Internet policy. Eric Klinker, CEO of BitTorrent, Inc., pointed out that industry deals with questions of Internet management through self-regulatory and other cooperative efforts. BitTorrent, Inc. was not a party to the complaint against Comcast dealt with by the previous FCC – its competitor Vuze, Inc. filed the petition. BitTorrent took a very different approach, meeting with the Comcast network operations team to determine the nature of the problem that motivated them to actively manage parts of the network as they did and to map out a better solution. Rather than seeking regulatory relief, BitTorrent developed a better protocol, uTP, which yields to interactive applications but saturates network links when no other applications are active. BitTorrent improved the Internet in a way that no regulatory action can.

The self-regulatory systems that have emerged from the broadband and Internet markets organically have been largely effective, but they may need to be supplemented with more active government involvement in the future. Whether this happens, and if so, how it happens, are likely to be the subject of debate in the near future — but that debate should take place in the Congress, not at the FCC.

Avoiding a Rush to Judgment on the Israeli Flotilla Attack

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Much of the world has reacted harshly against Israel in the wake of the tragic loss of life in this weekend’s flotilla incident. While the optics certainly look terrible for Tel Aviv, it’s critical that we avoid a rush to judgment. Two things need to take place first: one, an inquiry insuring that we have all the information we need about the incident; and two, a full consideration of the geopolitical issues in play.

Open questions remain about what led up to the horrific results, questions that need to be answered before any fair evaluation can be made. A partial list includes: Did the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) follow standard procedures to attempt to divert the flotilla as it had others? Was the flotilla given proper warning of the impending boarding? Were other non-lethal diversionary methods (such as water cannons, sound blasts, attempts to escort the ship out of the immediate area) deployed? Once the decision was made to board the ship, did IDF members on board first use non-lethal methods? Were there specific acts that caused the IDF to switch to live ammunition?

A thorough investigation may well prove that the IDF’s use of deadly force was indeed disproportionate. But learning the answers to these questions is critical before establishing that judgment.

A discussion should also take place on the legal and moral justifications for Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. The blockade has been going on for approximately two years, and Israel has justified it on grounds that Hamas could get the weapons via international shipping.

Israel’s right to defend itself is not in question. And though Gaza is not a sovereign state, Israel claims that the blockade is justified because it is at war with Hamas, the group that controls Gaza.

But the effect of the blockade on civilians in Gaza has been severe. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has condemned the blockade not on security grounds but humanitarian ones, saying it has caused “unacceptable suffering.” And the Gladstone Report, the UN’s analysis that followed the late-2008 Israeli invasion of Gaza, found that Israel’s blockade exacerbated humanitarian needs, particularly food, economic recovery and public heath.

Israel claims that it was prepared to take the flotilla’s humanitarian goods, inspect them and send them on to Gaza. But regardless of the shipment’s fate, Gaza’s citizens desperately need more, and Israel should reorient the blockade to focus on weapons while proactively facilitating humanitarian assistance. Besides, the incident has already prompted Egypt to open its border with Gaza, demonstrating that there is a limit to Israel’s ability to rope the region off.

It’s important to understand why the flotilla was out there in the first place: not to deliver aid to Gaza, but to make a political point about the blockade’s existence. It’s equally important to note that the flotilla had to provoke Israel in order to make the political point resonate with a wider audience. Israel has to learn not to play into its opponents’ hands.

Any loss of life is tragic, and whatever the investigation turns up will not change the fact that nine individuals have been needlessly killed. But we must understand the specific circumstances that led up to the incident, as well as its wider geopolitical context, before levying judgment.

Photo credit: freegazaorg’s Photostream

Alabama Primaries Take Center Stage Today

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We’re now into the heart of primary season, with next Tuesday’s 11-state (10 primaries plus the Arkansas runoff) extravaganza being the big show. But today Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico are holding primaries, with the breadth and craziness of the contests in Alabama making that state the focus of attention.

With Alabama’s Republican Gov. Bob Riley being termed-limited, there are competitive primaries in both parties to succeed him. The race between U.S. Rep. Artur Davis and state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks for the Democratic nomination has recently tightened, with R2K/DKos showing the front-runner with a 41-33 lead (there are no other candidates).

Davis, considered a leader in the House New Democrat Coalition, is also a close friend of President Obama, if not always a reliable supporter in Congress. He’s been preparing for this race for years, and may, in fact, have begun positioning himself for a tough general election a bit too early. Sparks jumped into the race after several other prominent Democrats demurred, and has benefitted from national and local unhappiness with Davis’s voting record (particularly his conspicuous votes against health care reform) and campaign.

Though his election would be a historic event for Alabama’s African-Americans, Davis refused to seek the endorsements of several major African-American Democratic organizations, which went by default to Sparks (who is white); the underdog has also won labor endorsements, and has received strong financial backing from the NEA affiliate in the state, a major power in Democratic politics. Combined with Sparks’ support from gaming interests (he favors a state lottery and casino gambling), he’s been able to keep close to Davis in fundraising (Davis has raised $2.6 million, Sparks $1.9 million).

The Democratic race was relatively civil until the home stretch, when Sparks accused Davis of campaign finance irregularities and Davis accused Sparks of discriminatory practices at the state Ag Department. The R2K/DKos poll showed Davis, despite his spurning of African-American group endorsements, beating Sparks handily among black voters (especially in his own congressional district), with the two running even among white voters. It will likely come down to turnout patterns, with the Davis campaign’s main fear being exceptionally low African-American turnout.

The Republican gubernatorial primary has been much livelier than the Democratic contest, with a runoff certain. The front-runner all along has been former state legislator and state community college chancellor Bradley Byrne, a favorite of Alabama’s powerful business community. The battle for a runoff spot opposite Byrne has revolved around efforts of other candidates to get past “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore, a Christian Right icon with close Tea Party ties, who came into the race with universal name ID and an immovable share of the electorate. Fortunately for his rivals, Moore refuses to take PAC contributions and has run a low-budget race.

That’s certainly not true of wealthy businessman (and son of former party-switching Gov. Fob James) Tim James, who’s running second or third in most polls, and who has spent $4.1 million on the race, near Byrne’s $4.7 million. James’ campaign lit up when the viral ad-master Fred Davis crafted an ad for him (just days after Arizona’s immigration law was enacted) called “Language,” ostensibly focused on demands that Alabama stop offering driver’s tests in languages other than English, which concluded with these lines: “This is Alabama. We speak English here. If you want to live here, learn it.” Mockery of the ad nationally clearly helped James among Alabama Republicans, though Byrne accused him of endangering Alabama’s heavily foreign-investment-based economic development strategy.

Though still another candidate, Dr. Robert Bentley of Tuscaloosa, made a bit of a splash by exploiting the increasingly poisonous Byrne-James competition with an upbeat message, most observers think the real game remains whether James can get past Moore. Another late development in the campaign involved reports that James (an Auburn grad whose father was an all-American football player at Auburn) was bragging that as governor he’d fire or cut the salary of Alabama Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban, an act of sacrilege the candidate was quick to deny. Meanwhile, Byrne has been accusing James of complicity with the Alabama Education Association’s attacks on the front-runner, including (in a twist that reflects the state’s largely unregulated campaign finance system) heavy AEA contributions to a shadowy group called the True Republican PAC that’s run ads savaging Byrne for allegedly believing in evolution and doubting the literal truth of the Bible (allegations Byrne has been quick to deny).

Despite all the fireworks, early turnout in Alabama today has been notably light, but we’ll have to wait and see if that benefits well-known underdogs like Sparks and Moore.

Meanwhile, Republicans are holding highly competitive primaries in two House districts, one involving party-switcher Parker Griffith, who is in danger of being knocked into a runoff, and the other to choose an opponent for conservative Democrat Bobby Bright. Democrats are holding a barnburner in Davis’ district, with one candidate likely to make a runoff being Earl Hilliard, Jr., the son of the man Davis beat to win the seat in 2002.

The big action over in Mississippi (where state elections are held off-year) is in Republican primaries to choose opponents for vulnerable Democratic House members Travis Childers and Gene Taylor. And in New Mexico, there’s a very competitive GOP primary for Governor, with local D.A. Susana Martinez currently favored over former state party chair Allen Weh for the right to take on Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

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

Time for a One-Two Punch for Campaign Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In its recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions are entitled to the same First Amendment freedoms as flesh-and-blood human beings, thereby overturning decades of settled law limiting corporate influence in elections. With political analysts predicting a torrent of new spending by special interest groups in the fall elections, congressional leaders are advancing new legislation aimed at blunting the worst effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

Introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the DISCLOSE Act would place commonsense limits on corporate independent expenditures and require CEOs and major funders to take credit for the political ads they make. The legislation rightly restricts electioneering expenditures by corporations with a significant foreign ownership stake, as well as those that benefit from large-scale government contracts or bailouts. In addition, the legislation would greatly increase transparency and disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, trade associations and other incorporated entities, bipartisan measures that are in accordance with our long tradition of constitutionally protected disclosure.

While the design of specific provisions, including the appropriate threshold for government contractor restrictions, is open to debate, the DISCLOSE Act represents a necessary first step to stem the anticipated flood of special interest money post-Citizens United. Democratic leaders have promised swift action and a House vote on the legislation after the Memorial Day recess.

But Congress cannot content itself with incremental fixes to a system of special interest funding that’s rotten at the core. Fundamental reform of the nation’s pay-to-play system will not come by imposing new limits on private campaign spending, but by changing the very source of money that funds campaigns. Bipartisan legislation to establish a new system of citizen-funded elections has already gained the support of 175 members of Congress and dozens of grassroots organizations representing millions of concerned citizens from across the political spectrum.

Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, congressional candidates who attract a broad base of public support would be eligible to receive matching federal dollars if they agree to forego special interest money and raise only small donations from their constituents. A four-to-one match on in-state donations of $100 or less would ensure that serious, hardworking candidates have the funds they need to mount a competitive campaign, even when opposed by wealthy individuals or groups.

Indeed, academic analysis of the relationship between congressional campaign spending and election outcomes has consistently found a competitive spending threshold below which candidates are unable to effectively compete and above which additional spending produces negligible returns. Candidates running for the U.S. House between 1992 and 2006 required between $1 million and $1.5 million (in 2006 dollars) to mount competitive campaigns, while spending beyond that threshold did not measurably increase the likelihood of success.

By giving small donors an incentive to invest in political campaigns and rewarding candidates who demonstrate broad public support — regardless of wealth — such a reform has the potential to rein in undue influence by special interest groups and restore the public’s trust. And far from imposing new limits on political speech, the Fair Elections Now Act would expand free speech by enabling new voices to enter the political debate regardless of wealth.

Congress is presented with an historic opportunity to right the wrongs of an activist Supreme Court with a one-two punch for reform: by passing an evenhanded DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency and accountability on the part of corporate funders of political speech, and by passing the Fair Elections Now Act to ensure that elections for public office are owned by the American people, not wealthy special interests. Let’s hope they’re up for the fight.

Photo credit: Dbking’s Photostream

In Idaho, a Palin Pick Goes Down; Contentious Primaries May Be Hurting GOP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The country remains largely focused on the Gulf oil spill going into the Memorial Day weekend, but the large batch of upcoming primary elections will keep candidates on the campaign trail and on every available communications medium.

One notable primary, Idaho’s, was held since our last update, and in the GOP competition to take on Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick, front-runner and national Republican wunderkind Vaughn Ward was beaten by state Rep. Raul Labrador, despite late personal appearances with Ward by Sarah Palin. Ward damaged himself with several gaffes, including incidents of apparent plagiarism in his speeches and a boneheaded debate statement suggesting that Puerto Rico is a foreign country. Meanwhile, Labrador (who was actually born in Puerto Rico) benefited from Tea Party support.

Next Tuesday primaries will be held in Alabama, Mississippi (whose state elections are in off-years) and New Mexico. The marquee contests then are the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial primaries in Alabama. Among Democrats, long-time front-runner Rep. Artur Davis is trying to hold off a late upswing in support for state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks. Davis, an African-American, has ceded endorsements by four major African-American groups in the state to Sparks, who is white. That, along with Davis’ vote against health reform in Congress, seems to be fueling Sparks’ campaign, and the competition is getting a bit nasty down the stretch, with Sparks accusing Davis of breaking campaign finance laws and Davis running an ad accusing Sparks of discrimination at his agency.

The Alabama Republican gubernatorial contest looks to be boiling down to a question of whether Judge Roy Moore or Tim James joins state community college chancellor Bradley Byrne in a runoff. Byrne has strong business support, and is the closest thing to a moderate (by Alabama GOP standards) in the race. Moore is, of course, a Christian Right icon, and James, the son of a former party-switching governor, has sought to horn in on Moore’s political turf, helped by his own substantial financial resources. Byrne and James have been accusing each other, somewhat implausibly, of secret ties to the Alabama Education Association. And Byrne has gone after James’ famous “English-only” viral ad for threatening the foreign investment on which Alabama disproportionately depends. Believe it or not, James has had to deal with a rumor that he’s said he would cut the salary of Alabama football coach Nick Saban.

Campaigns are approaching red-hot status in many of the June 8 primary states. The hottest, and certainly the strangest, has been in South Carolina, whose Republican gubernatorial campaign was roiled this week by a conservative blogger’s claim that he had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with front-running candidate state Rep. Nikki Haley. She’s denied it categorically, and the blogger and Haley’s campaign have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game where the former has slowly released highly circumstantial “evidence” based on text message and cell phones records, and the latter has challenged the former to come forward with real evidence or shut up. Haley seems to be winning the p.r. battle the state so far, and today, the saga could take a new turn as RedState blogger Erick Erickson, one of Haley’s legion of national conservative supporters, is promising to release evidence that the accuser was paid to make the allegations (possibly by someone connected with a rival campaign). Interestingly, the whole story broke as Haley surged into the lead in polls; her most likely runoff opponent is Attorney General Henry McMaster.

In California’s torrid Republican primaries, it’s becoming reasonably clear that Meg Whitman is finally putting away Steve Poizner in the governor’s race (though Poizner is now staking everything on attacking Whitman’s opposition to the Arizona immigration law), and Carly Fiorina seems to be suddenly pulling away from Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore in the Senate race.

In Nevada, the Republican primary to choose an opponent for highly vulnerable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has turned into an unpredictable three-way fight, with long-time front-runner Sue (“Chickens for Checkups”) Lowden trying to hold off Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, with Danny Tarkanian not far back.

But in both California and Nevada, there are growing signs that Republican primary infighting could damage the GOP in close general election battles. In CA, the vicious and incredibly expensive Whitman-Poizner contest has been accompanied by a steady rise in the polls by Democrat Jerry Brown. The focus on immigration in the GOP race probably won’t help the party’s already fragile relationship with Latino voters, either.

And in Nevada, Harry Reid, once left for dead by most observers, is creeping back into close contention with his potential GOP opponents, actually leading the rapidly surging Sharron Angle.

UPDATE: Another strange turn in the Nikki Haley saga in South Carolina, as RedState’s Erick Erickson finally released a post following up his promise yesterday that he had the goods on someone paying big money to blogger Will Folks to smear Haley, and would “name names.” In what was apparently an attempted send-up of Folks’ own methodology, Erickson offered no evidence of a payoff at all, but instead simply expressed his own weakly documented suspicions that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer might have had something to do with it. Hilarious, eh?

Top 10 Pragmatic Progressive Ideas from the National Security Strategy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Since copies of the Obama administration’s new National Security Strategy began to circulate, there’s been a lot of cheering about how different from Bush’s it is. And true, it is. That’s made clear in the letter from the president on the document’s first page. And my hunch is that people stop there — you get your headline, and you run with it, not bothering to read the rest of the document.

Well, guess what? I just cozied up with a chicken sandwich, a Diet Coke and a bag of chips and read the whole enchilada.

It’s long and at times unwieldy. I understand, for example, that “spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely” is important, but not sure the White House should be compelled to include it in the strategy text. But that’s indicative of Obama’s style — when you seek input from everyone, you’ll tend to end up with a longer list.

But after digging through the document, it’s worth pointing out the specifics of how the strategy has a distinctly pragmatic progressive outlook. With that, here are the top 10 examples:

1. It reaffirms that America’s values are the source of its power, and that American exceptionalism endures:

[T]he work to build a stronger foundation for our leadership within our borders recognizes that the most effective way for the United States of America to promote our values is to live them. America’s commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are essential sources of our strength and influence in the world.  America has always been a beacon to the peoples of the world when we ensure that the light of America’s example burns bright.

2. It prioritizes terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan while weighing them in the context of the 21st century’s other threats:

[T]hese wars—and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism—are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world. Terrorism is one of many threats that are more consequential in a global age. The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. The space and cyberspace capabilities that power our daily lives and military operations are vulnerable to disruption and attack. Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.

3. America will only be secure if all government agencies coordinate effectively:

To succeed, we must update, balance, and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies and partners to do the same. … We are improving the integration of skills and capabilities within our military and civilian institutions, so they complement each other and operate seamlessly. We are also improving coordinated planning and policymaking and must build our capacity in key areas where we fall short.

4. It is comfortable with, but prudent about, the use of force:

While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction. When force is necessary, we will continue to do so in a way that reflects our values and strengthens our legitimacy, and we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.

5. It’s tough as nails on al Qaeda:

[W]e reject the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.

6. It advocates the responsible, measured pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons:

As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments.

7. The Obama administration trusts the UN:

We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose — maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security.

8. “Democracy promotion” — a term that became identified with the Bush administration — isn’t a dirty phrase:

The United States supports the expansion of democracy and human rights abroad because governments that respect these values are more just, peaceful, and legitimate. We also do so because their success abroad fosters an environment that supports America’s national interests.

9. The United States’ security is closely linked to clean energy:

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.  The United States has a window of opportunity to lead in the development of clean energy technology.

10. It calls on politicians to stop being ridiculous and put country above politics:

Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America’s political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them. In today’s political environment, due to the actions of both parties that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue. This division places the United States at a strategic disadvantage.

Education Week: What, Exactly, Does School ‘Turnaround’ Mean?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Education Week‘s Lesli Maxwell covers the PPI Capital Forum on turnaround schools:

That, to me, was the key question raised, but not really answered, at an edu-salon convened yesterday by the Progressive Policy Institute.

And the question didn’t come from any skeptic on whether or not turning low-performing schools around is an achievable goal. It came from Justin Cohen, who as the president of the School Turnaround Group at Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, is working closely with educators in a half-dozen states on this very difficult endeavor.

With $3.5 billion in stimulus-funded Title I School Improvement Grants flowing to the states and local districts to fix chronically low-performing schools, U.S.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his team at the Education Department have focused heavily on how you turn schools around, and are requiring one of four ways to do it. Their four endorsed school-improvement models are also part of the Obama administration’s blueprint for renewing ESEA. (Those models, of course, have been gaining more detractors lately, especially inside the halls of Congress.)

Read the entire article.

Congress Puts the Breaks on Iran Sanctions – But Is the UN’s Deal Any Better?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009, a potentially counterproductive Iran sanctions bill working its way through Congress, has been delayed. Versions of the law had been passed by both houses and were being reconciled in conference committee. A staffer I spoke to a few weeks ago suggested that the bill would be signed by Memorial Day.

But no longer. My friend Brian Wingfield at Forbes reported this week that bill sponsors Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) have delayed their bill for at least a month.

A delay, and potential scuttling of the law, may not be the worst thing in the world. Read Pirooz Hamvatan’s and Ali K‘s piece on P-Fix a few weeks ago, where they point out the current bill’s flaws:

The new bill aims to cripple Iran’s economy in response to Iran’s refusal to halt its nuclear program. But the sanctions being proposed are not the right answer. Such a sweeping measure would end up only hurting ordinary Iranians, especially the middle class that the U.S. must shore up to improve Iran’s chances for reform.

The delay is thanks to the UN Security Council, which announced it had reached a multilateral sanctions deal with China and Russia. Dodd and Berman say they preferred the multilateral approach all along, and seem content to let that process play out. Both China and Russia have been reluctant partners, so the deal is a potentially big diplomatic win for the Obama administration.

However, it raises the question — why would these holdouts acquiesce to the UN sanctions package now? Did they suddenly see the light? With all the exemptions and loopholes for Chinese companies, it’s doubtful in at least Beijing’s case. Check out this TIME article for a good explanation:

Beijing extracted a significant price for its support. Not only has Beijing watered down the sanctions to be adopted by the Security Council in order to ensure they don’t restrain China from expanding its already massive economic ties with Iran; Chinese analysts also claim that, in the course of a protracted series of negotiations with Washington, their government also won undertakings from Washington to exempt Chinese companies from any U.S. unilateral sanctions that punish third-country business partners with the Islamic Republic.

The Russians must have not gotten such a great deal. Iranian President Ahmadinejad singled out Moscow as a “historic enemy” for supporting UN sanctions, but seems to have forgotten to mention Beijing.

In the end, we’re left with a potentially counterproductive bill out of Congress, or an imperfect UN package. I’ll take the UN version any day of the week — even though Chinese companies get exemptions, it’s better to forge a strong international coalition against Iran’s nuclear program.

And members of Congress who supported that bill can still campaign on their vote, whether or not it ever gets to the president.

Photo credit: Daniella Zalcman/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Defense Spending Fight Could Turn Nasty

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from Jim Arkedis’s op-ed in Forbes online:

The infamous Iron Triangle of Pentagon spending has officially challenged Defense Secretary Bob Gates.  This week, the House Armed Service Committee approved its FY2011 budget authorization, which funds certain high-visibility weapons systems explicitly cut by Gates in this year’s budget request.

Here’s how this works.  The Secretary of Defense submits a budget to Congress every year.  Then, the military services essentially go behind the Secretary’s back and provide Congress with a list of “unfunded requirements,” a wish-list of weapons that the services want Congress to buy, but that the Secretary has chosen not to ask for.  Congress is all too happy to provide money for these systems of dubious strategic or tactical merit because politically savvy defense contractors fill campaign coffers and open offices in most districts.

As an example, the “alternate engine” for the Joint Strike Fighter (Lockheed Martin) has become this year’s poster child for unfunded requirements.  Gate’s budget request cut funding for one of the two engine designs under consideration — the F135 engine (Pratt & Whitney) was prioritized over the F136 engine (GE, Rolls-Royce).

Read the full column at Forbes.

Make Life Math Mandatory in Our Schools

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The single greatest threat to our security and prosperity might not be terrorism or biological warfare — it just might be financial illiteracy. Our current economic crisis has myriad causes, but it can be traced to the failure of many Americans to make smart financial decisions. In light of this epidemic of financial recklessness, education leaders should consider making “life math” curriculum mandatory in our schools.

The standard mathematical curriculum in high schools — algebra, geometry, trigonometry, statistics, calculus — is designed to give students the building blocks necessary to further their education and, for some, eventually launch successful careers in science, medicine, engineering and other important fields. For the rest of us, mathematics beyond the basics is mental exercise that keeps us intellectually spry.

I had a great math teacher in high school, Mrs. Wanda Dostall, who helped me achieve the only “A” I ever earned in a math course. While I don’t remember a single algebraic or trigonomic function, the courses I took stimulated my critical thinking skills and challenged me to embrace complexity and search for answers. But that didn’t mean that I didn’t (frequently) ask the question (quietly to myself, and aloud), “When am I going to use this in the real world?”

And that’s why throughout high school, I looked forward to Mrs. Dostall’s “life math” course for seniors. ”Life math” was designed to give students the real-world math skills they would need to manage their personal finances and, hopefully, enjoy financial security. Unfortunately, school administrators decided the course was not “college preparatory” — and I never had the chance to take it.

It’s a shame because I, like most Americans, could have benefited from it. As an adult, I manage multiple checking and savings accounts, pay bills and taxes, and save for my retirement. I have multiple credit cards with varying interest rates. I have applied for and taken out loans, managed and paid down debt, purchased multiple types of insurance policies, and invested in the stock market – and these are just some of the many types of financial decisions that I have made, and many more that I will make in the future.

I also vote for leaders who make critically important financial decisions for our government and economy – they manage budgets, adjust tax rates, negotiate trade policies, administer jobs and safety net programs, regulate financial institutions, monitor fiscal policy, and so on.

This is real-world mathematics. But I never learned this type of real-world math in school. And to me, that’s problematic.

Why Financial Literacy Means a Better Citizenry

I remember Mrs. Dostall’s frustration with our high school’s decision to terminate the “life math” course. She understood that a course in financial literacy, while perhaps not “college preparatory,” was in fact “life preparatory,” and that the mathematics department in our public school had a responsibility to prepare young people for the real world.

I think she also understood that financial literacy is necessary to fulfill civic responsibility. Take a look at what’s been going on the last couple of years. Americans are angry about the Wall Street bailout, and rightfully so. But it’s not just the bailout that worries Americans. Our fiscal house is not in order. Our elected leaders spend more money on government programs, while they cut taxes. To fund the resulting budget shortfalls, they mortgage our future to China.

There’s much to be angry about, and sure, we can play the blame game. We can even attack government as the problem, as the right continues to do. Or, we can act like adults, face reality and own up to our own mistakes.

For too long, too many of us have chosen to live beyond our means. To get more non-essential goods and services too many of us can’t afford — but claim we can’t live without — we have amassed huge sums of debt. Too many of us have taken out loans we can’t pay off and taken on mortgage payments that consume half or more of our monthly incomes. We’ve made poor investments and failed to properly save for retirement.

And what’s really scary is that too many young Americans today, from the “me” generation of the ‘80’s through Generation X, were raised in working- and middle-class families that adopted materialism without consequence as a norm — a way of life that too many young Americans have come to expect.

If that’s not enough to convince you that we need our Mrs. Dostalls to once again teach “life math,” you can see how our poor financial decisions at home reflect the poor financial decisions made by our leaders in government and business. The culture of financial recklessness in Washington and on Wall Street is rooted in our own individual failings — and threatens the prosperity of all, including those who live responsibly and plan for the future.

I think Mrs. Dostall would tell us that we can prevent another prolonged recession; avoid another housing bubble, mortgage crisis and financial meltdown; restore fiscal responsibility; return to the surpluses we experienced in the Clinton years and pay down our debt; and secure our prosperity in a global economy. But for all that to happen, we must first take steps to increase our financial literacy, and make sure our government does the same and regulates Wall Street to balance short-term and long-term gains.

At age 27 with five years of experience in the workforce — and after some personal financial missteps — I am taking proactive steps to increase my own financial literacy. Looking back, I wish there had been a “life math” course available to me in high school, one that would have helped me understand how to create a realistic personal budget; taught me about credit, debt, loans and insurance; and given me lessons in investing for retirement. To equip the next generation with the skills and tools needed to succeed in the real world and chart our nation’s course to fiscal responsibility and prosperity, we should think seriously about making a “life math” curriculum mandatory in secondary education.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Photo Credit: Maximalideal/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Bagram Detainee Case Likely Headed to the High Court

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had the constitutional right to challenge the legality of their detention. Thus ended the question of whether all detainees in the fight against terrorism had a right to habeas corpus, right? As with all complex legal questions, the answer is never that simple.

The federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia added to the complexity of the habeas corpus issue when it ruled last Friday on a case filed by three detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Bagram is not only the largest American military base in Afghanistan, it also serves as a major detention center for those taken prisoner there, and allegedly holds some prisoners captured in other countries as well. In an opinion by Chief Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, the court found that the constitutional right of habeas corpus does not extend to detainees being held at the base.

The court made three central determinations in its decision. First, it found that the current procedure used at Bagram to deal with the detainees is even worse than the procedure that was used at Gitmo, which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional. The procedures at Gitmo, referred to as Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), did not allow detainees access to an attorney and severely restricted a detainee’s right to present evidence on his behalf or rebut evidence by the government. The court in this case found that the procedures at Bagram, called Unlawful Enemy Combatant Review Boards (UECRBs), were even less sufficient than the CSRTs, and found that this factor initially favored giving Bagram detainees habeas corpus.

But despite that finding, the court found that two other factors weighed against granting the right. It concluded that Bagram is in fact different from Gitmo because the U.S. does not intend Bagram to be a permanent base similar to Gitmo, which has been operating for over a hundred years. More importantly, it found that giving Bagram detainees the right to habeas corpus could adversely affect the military’s ability to carry out operations in Afghanistan.

It is true that giving the detainees at Bagram the right to habeas corpus could cause a host of problems. It would require giving the detainees access to attorneys, and creating that system could eat up badly needed military assets. Also, Bagram detainees whose detentions were invalidated would most likely be released inside Afghanistan. This could put enemy fighters directly back on to the battlefield.

However, as the D.C. Court of Appeals admits, the fact still remains that the Bagram detainees are being held without constitutionally sufficient procedures available to them. If the U.S. is going to operate a prison where habeas corpus does not apply, what is to stop it from shipping all future terrorist detainees to Bagram to avoid giving them the right?

That’s why this case is on a beeline to the Supreme Court. While the Court has disagreed with the D.C. Court of Appeals on detainee cases, it is far from clear how it will come out on this issue. One factor making it hard to predict is that the Court’s makeup will be different from when it decided its last major detainee case with the addition of Justice Sotomayor and – almost certainly – Elena Kagan.

In its last major detainee case, the Court split down ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion and siding with the more liberal justices. It is likely that Justice Sotomayor, as part of the liberal bloc, would vote for extending habeas corpus to the Bagram detainees. Similarly, soon-to-be Justice Kagan would almost certainly be in favor of extending the right to Bagram detainees — in 2005, while dean of Harvard Law School, she joined in a letter with three other law school deans stating that detainees should be allowed access to federal courts for review of procedures such as CSRTs and UECRBs.

That said, neither are very experienced with national security cases, so one can’t say for sure how each will vote. Another factor making it difficult to predict the outcome is the fact that Bagram and Gitmo are situated differently. Both are active military bases, but Bagram is operating in a theater of war. Allowing detainees at Bagram to engage in the habeas corpus process could affect the military’s war effort in Afghanistan, a fact that could sway one or more of the liberal justices to the other side.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Photo Credit: U.S. Army Africa’s Photostream