Category: Uncategorized

A Week of Decisive Primaries

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This week’s political menu features four state primaries, today in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri, and on Thursday in Tennessee. Since none of these states have 50 percent requirements for party nominations, the primaries will be decisive, and in many cases involving large fields of candidates and low turnout rates, nominees will head towards November without a whole lot in the way of demonstrated public appeal.

Speaking of low turnout, estimates are that about 20 percent of Kansans (a closed primary state) will vote today, with perhaps 25 percent in Michigan and Missouri (open primary states).

The marquee events in Michigan are competitive gubernatorial primaries in both parties (Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is term-limited). On the Democratic side, House Speaker Andy Dillon, generally regarded as a moderate, held the lead for months, but seems to have lost it to a late surge by labor-backed Lansing mayor Virg Bernero. According to a survey last week from Michigan-based EPIC-MRA, Bernero leads Dillon 40-32, though the undecided vote remains high. On the margins, the Democratic turnout could be influenced by the high-profile efforts of one Republican candidate, former Gateway executive Rick Snyder, to encourage a crossover vote (Michigan allows voters to choose which primary they will participate in after they enter the voting booth).

That same EPIC-MRA poll shows Snyder, who has outspent his opponents using personal wealth, in a very close three-way race for the GOP nomination against Attorney General Mike Cox and Rep. Peter Hoekstra. Lingering back in the pack is Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, the favorite candidate of Michigan-bred Guitar-Idol-turned-Right-Wing-Activist Ted Nugent. As is often the case in this year’s GOP primaries, Hoekstra and Cox are engaged in a more-conservative-than-thou competition.  But unusually, Snyder is content to be labeled a “moderate,” and has accepted an endorsement from longtime Republican Gov. Bill Milliken, who in turn endorsed the last two Democratic presidential nominees. Former Congressman Joe Schwarz, widely reviled as a RINO by Michigan conservatives, is heading up an outreach program for Snyder among Democratic and independents. If this works, the iron control of the GOP nationally by the conservative movement will relax the slightest bit, and if it fails, it will be an object lesson to would-be Republican moderates everywhere.

There are a host of competitive congressional primaries in Michigan today, mostly on the Republican side, where candidates will battle for nominations for three open seats (two now held by Republicans, including gubernatorial candidate Hoekstra and fellow-West-Michigander Vern Ehlers, and one now held by retiring Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak), and for the right to take on theoretically vulnerable Democratic freshmen Mark Schauer and Gary Peters. Among Democrats, the big races involve challenges to long-time incumbents, with Detroit Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in very big trouble (in no small part because of the sins of her son, former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick). Having won re-nomination two years ago against a divided field, Kilpatrick is now in danger of losing to State Senator Hansen Clarke.  The incumbent has fought back with endorsements and campaign appearances from Jesse Jackson, Sr., and Jim Clyburne, but nobody will be surprised if she becomes the fourth House incumbent to lose in a primary so far this year. Another incumbent unlikely to meet that fate is Sandy Levin, who is burying challenger State Senator Mike Switalski in heavy spending and active campaigning (securing fundraising help from Bill Clinton).

In Missouri, the race to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Kit Bond will be formalized today, with Democrat Robin Carnahan facing only token opposition, and Rep. Roy Blunt likely defeating Tea Party favorite, State Senator Chuck Purgason. Blunt did a good job of recruiting national conservative support, most notably the chair of the new House Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. The Carnahan-Blunt race will match representatives of Missouri’s two most prominent political dynasties; Roy is the father of former Gov. Matt Blunt, while Robin is the daughter of Mel (governor) and Jean (senator) Carnahan.

The hottest House race in MO is the Republican contest to choose an opponent for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, who represents an increasingly conservative district that routinely goes Republican in presidential elections. State Senator Bill Stouffer appears to be the GOP establishment’s choice, while Vickie Hartzler is a longtime Christian Right activist. With a ton of minor candidates on the ballot, these two stand out, and Skelton hopes to drown the winner financially.  He does have a long record of winning big in this district, dating back to 1976,

Over in Kansas, the marquee race is the Republican nomination to succeed Sen. Sam Brownback, who’s running for governor. Two incumbent Republican House members, Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, are locked in a relatively close contest dominated by Tiahrt’s efforts to play the “true conservative” card against front-runner Moran. While Tiahrt has been endorsed by Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo, Moran has countered with his own endorsement from Jim DeMint, and by becoming a charter member (along with Tiahrt) of the House Tea Party Caucus. Geography may matter a lot in this race; Moran’s expected to do well in his central-west Kansas district, and Tiahrt in his Wichita-based district. The key could be performance in the 3rd district that includes socially moderate Kansas City suburbs, where Moran’s reputation for grinding his teeth a bit less than Tiahrt on issues like abortion could actually help him.

There are competitive Republican primaries in both the Moran and Tiahrt districts, with the latter featuring a long-shot Democratic chance at a pickup thanks to a strong, well-financed candidate, Raj Goyle. In the state’s one current Democratic district, Stephene Moore is trying to succeed her husband, retiring Rep. Dennis Moore, and in the Republican primary, establishment favorite Kevin Yoder, with a big financial advantage, is trying to hold off former State Rep. Patricia Lightner, a favorite of anti-abortion activists.

On Thursday in Tennessee, the big race is the Republican contest for governor (Democratic incumbent Phil Bredeson is term-limited), with the deep pockets of Knoxville Mayor Bill Halsam helping him maintain a lead over Chattanooga-based Rep. Zach Wamp and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.

With all three of the leading candidates hailing from East Tennessee, Haslam’s heavy spending could vault him to a big lead in the middle and western sections of the state. The other two candidates appear to be willing to do just about anything to get free media and seize the coveted “true conservative” mantle.  Wamp had to backtrack a bit after suggesting that he’d be willing to push secession of his state if health reform isn’t repealed. And Ramsey weighed in against construction of an Islamic community center in Mufreesboro, suggesting that the First Amendment might not apply to Muslims on grounds that Islam is “a cult.” Yee-haw.

Democratic candidate Mike McWherter, son of former Democratic governor Ned McWherter, awaits the winner of the GOP nomination.

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

Private Affluence, Public Squalor

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Just the other day I was wondering if it was a sign of hard times that movies and television shows seem to be featuring obscenely wealthy people, even more than is usually the case. Similarly, it seems like there are an awful lot of people running for office this year who have personal money to burn, having clearly done very well financially even as their fellow-citizens suffered.

I still can’t prove my theory about movies and television, but according to a well-researched Jeanne Cummings article in Politico, this is indeed a very big year for self-funding candidates:

About 11 percent of the combined $657 million raised by all 2010 candidates has come in the way of self-financing — nearly double the 6 percent measured at the same juncture in the 2006 midterm, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.Of the $134 million raised by all Republican House challengers as of June 30, a whopping 35 percent of the cash came from the candidates’ own bank accounts, the analysis found. Among Democrats, the percentage of self-made donations was just 18 percent.

If such spending stays on course, the Institute’s Executive Director Michael Malbin expects the GOP challengers’ field to eclipse the 38 percent self-financing high-water mark set by Democrats in 2002. “This is or is near a record,” he said.

Much of Cummings’ article focuses on the relatively low success rate of self-funded candidates in prior elections, and explores different reasons for that phenomenon, from lack of self-discipline to specific issues over how the candidate got rich to begin with. Several well-known candidates this year could have some of those issues:

Ohio businessman Jim Renacci, who is challenging freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri, for example, is expected to be attacked for going to court to avoid paying taxes on $13.7 million in income.In the California Senate race, Republican Carly Fiorina, former head of Hewlett-Packard, is being criticized for laying off thousands of workers and taking a $42 million golden parachute.

[Florida Senate candidate Jeff] Greene is coming under fire for the way he made millions off the subprime mortgage meltdown. Those criticisms could be especially powerful in a state hit hard by foreclosures. And his relatively thin connections to Florida and prior celebrity lifestyle in Los Angeles — Mike Tyson was the best man at his wedding — are also expected to be used to paint him as an unsuitable senator for the Sunshine State.

And in Connecticut, [Senate candidate Linda] McMahon is trying to finesse using the wealth from her WWE enterprise while still distancing herself from the scandals — from steroids to sexual harassment — that have plagued the professional wrestling industry.

But as Cummings makes plain, rich candidates invariably claim they’ll be independent because they aren’t spending anybody else’s money, and a lot of voters buy it. It’s another good argument for public financing of campaigns, but until such time as that reform is enacted, there will be plenty of people who look in the mirror one fine morning, see a future governor, congressman, senator or president, and decide to share their resplendence with the rest of us.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo Credit: HikingArtist’s Photostream

Behind the Big Paywall

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Anyone who has been active in politics since the prediluvian era of the 1990s can probably remember a time when a central event of every weekday was the arrival on the fax machine of The Hotline, once the Daily Bread of the chattering classes.

You can revisit those days–or, if you are younger, discover them–via a long article at Politico by Keach Hagey that examines The Hotline’s past, present and future in some detail. It certainly does bring back memories:

Howard Mortman, a former columnist and editor at The Hotline, remembers the first time he saw the process — a blinking frenzy of subscribers dialing in by modem, one by one, to get their pre-lunch politics fix.

“We would publish at 11:30, and you could go downstairs and see the lights flicker as people downloaded The Hotline from the telephone bulletin board,” he said. “At that time, in 1995, that was cutting-edge technology.”

Today, The Hotline is still putting out its exhaustive aggregation of cleverly titled political tidbits at 11:30 a.m., though subscribers hit a refresh button instead of a fax number to get it. But the sense of cutting-edge technology and unique content is gone, eclipsed by an exponentially expanding universe of political websites, blogs, Twitter feeds, Google alerts and mobile apps that offer much of what a $15,000 annual office membership to The Hotline offers — but faster and for free.

In effect, Hotline was the first “aggregator,” and as a result was an exceptionally efficient and even cost-effective way to obtain political news at a time when clipping services were the main alternative. And for all of Hotline’s gossipy Washington insider attitudes, it did cover campaigns exhaustively, from coast to coast, in a way that was virtually unique at the time.

If you are interested in the process whereby The Hotline has struggled to survive in the online era, or in the cast of media celebrities who got their start there, check out the entire article, with the appropriate grain of salt in recognition of the fact that Politico views itself as a successor institution.

The takeaway for me, though, is the reminder that for all the maddening things about blogs and online political coverage generally, it’s really remarkable how much is now available to anyone, for free, 24-7–material that is shared by the DC commentariat and, well, anybody who cares to use it. In The Hotline’s heyday, its subscribers (concentrated in Washington but scattered around the country) really did represent a separate class with specialized access to information that created and sustained a distinct culture.

If you have money to burn, there are still paywalls you can climb to secure a privileged perch from which to observe American politics, just as you can obviously learn things living and working in Washington or frequenting its real or virtual watering holes that wouldn’t be obvious to others. But we have come a long way. And it’s actually wonderful that the entire hep political world no longer comes to a stop shortly before noon, in some sort of secular Hour of Prayer, in anticipation of The Word rolling off the fax machine.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo Credit: Grass Compass Church’s Photostream

Comparing Employment Changes During Recessions

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I keep seeing that chart that shows how employment declines in the current recession are so much worse than in past ones. You know, this one:

On many dimensions, of course, the current recession is much worse, but this chart has always seemed funny to me. And after reading Paul Krugman mock the idea that the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s were at all comparable, I decided to make my own damn chart. Because the above chart looks at employment levels, which are affected by labor force growth, I decided to look at employment rates instead (subtracting the unemployment rate for each month from 100). Because the composition of the labor force has also changed over time (lots more married women, most notably), I decided to confine to white men ages 20 and up. And because it’s unclear to me what “peak” is used in this chart (see the vague note at the bottom of Rampell’s chart) and since the relationship of the NBER business cycle peak to the unemployment rate involves a lag, I decided to measure from the peak employment level. Got all that? Here’s my chart:

I’ve labeled the lines the same way that Rampell’s chart is labeled, by the recessions that followed each employment rate peak. The figures are from BLS and are based on their seasonally adjusted series.

This approach makes clear why people were disappointed by the “jobless” recoveries from the recessions of the early 1990s and 2000s, which were no faster than after the much more severe recession of the early 1970s (though of course, the declines in employment were much smaller to begin with). More to the point, it also shows that while the current recession still looks bad, bad, bad, the decline in employment is comparable to the decline during the double-dip recession, which is apparent from the “1980” line. That’s not the most fantastic news of course, but it’s worth noting. Unfortunately, I doubt this is the chart you’ll see others use and update as things evolve in the next few months.

This item is cross-posted at ScottWinshipWeb.

A Poll-o-centric View of the Upcoming Primaries

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I know it probably seems like this year’s primary season has been unbearably long. But as July comes to a close, there are 23 state primaries (plus runoffs in, so far, Georgia and Oklahoma, and a special election in West Virginia) still ahead. Next week’s schedule includes primaries on August 3 in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri, and on August 5 in Tennessee. Most of the action is on the Republican side, except in Michigan. Kansas has a close Republican Senate primary and two competitive GOP House contests; Missouri has two big Republican House primaries; and Tennessee has a close three-way Republican gubernatorial contest.  In Michigan, both parties have very complex and competitive gubernatorial primaries (including that rarest of phenomena, a Republican candidate campaigning as a moderate), and there’s another strong challenge to Democratic Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick.

In the chattering classes, there’s been considerable discussion the last few days about Democratic efforts to improve morale, particularly a DCCC memo that denies Republicans have much of a chance of taking over the House. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver mocked the memo as making slopping assumptions about the number of seats “in play” and also taking for granted four takeovers of Republican-held seats that are far from certain. RealClearPolitics’ Sean Trende takes a somewhat different tack, and concludes that Republicans’ prospects in November could be better than in 1994, because their goal is simply to take back two-thirds of the House seats they controlled prior to 2006. (On a different front, Stu Rothenberg of Roll Call accused Democrats of trying to rationalize likely House losses as attributable to factors beyond their control, which provoked me to respond).

There’s lots of fresh polling data. In California, PPP and PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) have new statewide surveys out, and both show Democrats Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer maintaining steady if relatively narrow leads. PPP has Brown leading Meg Whitman 46-40, while PPIC shows him up 37-34 with a big (23 percent) undecided vote.  In the Senate race, PPP shows Boxer increasing her lead over Carly Fiorina by 6 points since the June 8 primary. She’s now up 49-40, and just as importantly, has a significantly better approval disapproval rating than Fiorina (Boxer’s is 44/46; Fiorina’s is 28/40). PPIC places Boxer’s lead at 39-34, with, again, a high-undecided rate of 22 percent.

A new Mason-Dixon poll of NV shows Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in a dead heat; Reid leads 43-42, with the favorable-unfavorable ratios of both candidates also being very similar (Reid: 38-51; Angle: 38-47).

Two new surveys in the under-reported Senate race in New Hampshire show Republican front-runner Kelly Ayotte with a significant but shrinking lead over Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes.  PPP now has Ayotte up 45-42; a University of New Hampshire poll shows her leading Hodes 45-37.

Last week PPP created a buzz with a poll showing Democrat Alex Sink taking the lead in Florida governor’s race thanks to a toxic Republican primary between Attorney General Bill McCollum and former hospital chain magnate Rick Scott.  Now Quinnipiac has a new survey showing both McCollum and Scott basically tied with Sink, with independent Bud Chiles in double-digits and a very large undecided vote.

And Michigan-based EPIC-MRA has a survey out of both parties’ gubernatorial primaries in Michigan. On the Democratic side, the poll shows labor-backed Lansing mayor Virg Bernero holding a 40-32 lead over state legislative leader Andy Dillon. Among Republicans, EPIC-MRA shows a very close three-way race, with former Gateway exec Rick Snyder, who has been openly appealing for Democratic and independent crossover votes, at 26 percent, while Attorney General Mike Cox is at 24 percent and congressman Peter Hoekstra at 23 percent; the latter two candidates have been battling for the Tea Party/”true conservative” vote.

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

Phil A. Buster and Democratic Regrets

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In an interesting argument over at OpenLeft about the biggest mistake recently made by Democrats, Chris Bowers suggests that fighting Republican efforts to gut the right to filibuster back during the “nuclear option” debate of 2005 had truly fateful consequences:

[N]ot allowing Republicans to destroy the filibuster back in 2005 is the biggest mistake made by not only President Obama, but by the Democratic trifecta as a whole (and, I admit, my biggest mistake too). This would have resulted in a wide swatch of changes, including a larger stimulus, the Employee Free Choice Act, a better health bill (in all likelihood, one with a public option, and completed in December), an actual climate / energy bill, a second stimulus, and more. If Democrats had tacked on other changes to Senate rules that sped up the process, such as doing away with unanimous consent, ending debating time after cloture is achieved on nominations, eliminating the two days between filing for cloture and voting on cloture, and restricting quorum calls, then virtually every judicial and administration vacancy would already be filled, as well.

I agree with the general argument that Democrats who got all nostalgic about Senate traditions in 2005 when Republicans were threatening to eliminate filibusters against judicial nominations were not thinking strategically. In particular, those who cheered the Schoolhouse Rock-inspired “Phil A. Buster” ads run by the progressive Alliance for Justice would now probably cringe at the memory.

But for the record, it’s important to remember what was actually going on in 2005, in the Republican effort to force Senate floor votes on Bush judicial nominations. The GOP argument was not against filibusters tout court, but against judicial filibusters. And their argument was that such filibusters were unconstitutional on grounds that they violated the provisions requiring Senate advice and consent for judicial nominations. Indeed, the “nuclear option” they threatened was simply a ruling by the vice president, as presiding officer of the Senate, that Rule XXII governing the terms for ending debate was unconstitutional with respect to judicial nominations. Ending filibusters altogether was never on the table, barring some see-you-and-raise-you Democratic tactic of offering Bush his judges in exchange for a more radical step towards majority rule in the Senate, which was never seriously contemplated.

Sure, Republicans have had some fun over the last couple of years quoting Democrats who made pro-filibuster comments in 2005, and it’s true that some Democrats didn’t try very hard back then to make the specific case for judicial filibusters (a case that could have been made on grounds that lifetime appointments to the federal bench require greater Senate scrutiny than the routine legislation that Republicans now routinely block, creating a virtual 60-vote requirement for Senate action). But Democrats need not spend too much time regretting the failure to take advantage of an opportunity that never really existed in 2005.

Photo Credit: displacedtexan’s Photobucket

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Keeping the Record Straight on the Midterm Landscape

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

At CQ today, Roll Call columnist and election handicapper Stu Rothenberg has a piece today complaining about Democrats who are arguing that it was inevitable all along that they’d have a bad midterm outcome, regardless of the economy or other objective developments.

I’m not sure which “Democrats” Rothenberg’s talking about, since the only person he cites who believes the economy is irrelevant to the midterms is Joe Scarborough.

But while I don’t personally know anyone who thinks the economy isn’t going to be a drag on Democratic performance, in burning down this straw man, Rothenberg goes too far in dismissing structural factors that were going to make 2010 far more difficult for Democrats than 2008 no matter what Barack Obama did or didn’t do.

Since Rothenberg’s entire argument is framed in terms of House seats Democrats are likely to lose, the obvious structural factor to keep in mind is the historic tendency of the party controlling the White House to lose House seats in midterms. Stu acknowledges that, but points out that the level of losses varies (of course it does) and also points to 1998 and 2002 as years the ancient rule of midterm losses didn’t apply. That’s fine, though anyone citing those two years as relevant should probably note that the former year came in the midst of the first impeachment of a president since 1867, while the latter year came after the first attack on the continental United States since 1814. At any rate, while most Democrats early in the Obama presidency hoped the party would overcome the heavy weight of history, few predicted it as likely.

But the second structural factor is one that Rothenberg does not mention at all: the very different demographic composition of midterm versus presidential electorates, which is especially important this year given the high correlation of the 2008 vote with age (at least among white voters), and the heavy shift towards older voters in midterms. As I like to say, this means that Democrats were in trouble for the midterms the very day after the 2008 elections. That doesn’t mean everything that happened since doesn’t matter, by any means, but it does suggest pessimism about 2010 and a corresponding optimism about 2012, when the 2008 turnout patterns are likely to reemerge or even intensify.

Finally, in this kind of discussion of House “gains” and “losses,” it’s important to remember that the entire U.S. House of Representatives is up for reelection every two years. So the position of the two parties nationally is reflected by the absolute results, not which party “gains” or “loses” seats from the prior election. If Democrats hang onto control of the House, it’s a Democratic victory (albeit a much smaller one than in 2008) because they will have won a majority of seats (and presumably a majority of votes for the House nationally), and it’s not a Republican victory but instead a smaller defeat. House gains or losses are relevant to trends, of course, but shouldn’t dictate characterization of specific election results.

In other words, Rothenberg’s effort to anticipate and preempt Democratic spin about the November elections is all well and good, but there a lot of questionable assumptions about this election that need to be examined–most definitely the idea that any significant Republican gains mean the country has fundamentally changed its mind since 2008. That’s a “spin” that Republicans are already avidly promoting every day.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo Credit: wallyg’s Photostream

Dems and Spending: There Will be Blood

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest fiscal forecasts confirm that America faces a fiscal emergency. The national debt is projected to double as a share of GDP from 32 percent in 2001 to 66 percent next year. Then it could rise to 90 percent by the end of this decade, and reach 146 percent by 2030. At that point, we’d be spending about 36 percent of tax revenue to finance our debts, up from 9 percent today.

The nation’s yawning fiscal gaps, driven largely by entitlement spending, can’t be closed by a combination of economic growth and tax hikes. When it comes to government spending, there will be blood. Only not now: At the federal level at least, unemployment will have to fall dramatically, probably to around 5 or 6 percent, before real discipline can be imposed on public spending. Otherwise a premature turn to austerity could plunge the national economy back into recession.

Let’s stipulate that Republicans are consummate hypocrites when it comes to fiscal discipline. On taking power in 2000, they let budget controls lapse, spent the hard-won surplus they inherited on tax cuts, charged a trillion-dollar prescription drug entitlement to the nation’s credit card, and launched the very Wall Street bailout they now have the temerity to denounce.

And now GOP leaders insist that the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be extended to the wealthy, not just middle class families as President Obama has proposed. Since they offer no offsetting spending cuts or tax hikes, this would add between $2-$3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Okay, Republicans have no shame, and Democrats are paragons of fiscal rectitude by comparison. Nonetheless, Democrats before long will have to commit what many regard as unnatural acts: make deep cuts in public spending.

For a sobering glimpse of what the future might hold, look at California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday declared a state of emergency in a bid to force state legislators to pass a budget aimed at closing a $19 billion shortfall.

The Golden States deficit, according to Reuters, “is 22 percent of the $85 billion general fund budget the governor signed last July for the fiscal year that ended in June, highlighting how the steep drop in California’s revenue due to recession, the housing slump, financial market turmoil and high unemployment have slashed its all-important personal income tax collection.”

Democratic lawmakers nonetheless have blocked Schwarzenegger’s proposals for deep spending cuts, leaving the gubernator to threaten another round of unpaid furloughs for state workers. California may also be forced to issue IOUs instead of payments to vendors if the legislature fails to pass a budget soon.  And the state is trying to renegotiate generous pension schemes for state employees.

The California crisis should be a wake up call for Democrats in Washington. A major fiscal retrenchment is coming, and they need to be better prepared for it than their counterparts in Sacramento.

Photo Credit: Anonymous Account’s Photostream

History Does Not Repeat Itself — It Doesn’t Even Rhyme

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Somehow the summer of 2010 has become the winter of liberals’ discontent. The blogosphere and MSNBC are rife with handwringing liberals wondering, “Is Barack Obama becoming a new Jimmy Carter”? Though President Obama’s sliding approval ratings and high unemployment should concern all Democrats it is, nevertheless, time for liberals to park the Volvo, put down their collective lattes, turn off NPR and repeat after me: Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter.

FOX, RedState, and the New York Post are truly worthy of this lame and totally unimaginative analogy. Recently, however, the HuffingtonPost, Guardian, and even Zbigniew Brzezinski have parroted this metaphor. Historical analogies might make someone appear knowledgeable but they are too often used as a substitute for actual thinking. Repeat after me: Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are NOT like peas & carrots.

Unlike Obama, Jimmy Carter governed at the end of a durable liberal political paradigm: the New Deal era. Since the onset of the Great Depression liberals had so ruled the political landscape that even Dwight Eisenhower accepted and even expanded upon the New Deals welfare state. Indeed, when Barry Goldwater ran upon an anti-New Deal platform in 1964, he garnered less than 40 percent of the vote.

By the late 1970s, New Deal-style solutions of deficit spending and government programs had not only grown stale, they simply no longer addressed the problems confronting the nation. Reagan was hardly right on all issues, but targeted tax cuts combined with defense spending did help spark real and lasting economic growth. Similar to the seventies, today Reagan’s pragmatic conservatism has morphed into a rigid and inflexible ideology demanding reflexive and obsequious political kowtows regardless of circumstance.

While Reagan deserves much credit and liberals sowed the seeds of their own demise, significant demographic forces enabled conservatives to oversee a political realignment. It was the offspring of New Deal Democrats who elected Reagan. In moving from the industrial Midwest and Northeast to the Sunbelt, they shaped and formed Reagan’s base. From Southern California, Arizona, and Texas to Florida, millions of Americans left regions dominated by unions and white ethnic Democratic political machines for the decidedly libertarian West and socially conservative South. Thus, when Carter assumed the presidency the nation had literally undergone a seismic demographic shift, which gave Reagan an opportunity for political realignment.

Adding to the altered political geography was the legacy of 1968. In that terrible year Americans not only witnessed the assassination of MLK & RFK, it was the time during which a generation of liberals and leftists fell out of love with America. Soured by the Vietnam War, assassinations, and a white political backlash, liberals were alienated and distrustful of Middle Americans.

Unlike the 1970s, the political zeitgeist and demography are on progressives’ side. Whether it is Hispanic population growth in the Southwest and Upper South or a generation of young Obama Democrats, 2010 America ain’t 1980, 1994, or even 1936 America.

Demography, ideas, and political metrics hardly assure victory. The Republicans could take the House and even engineer a long-shot defeat of Obama in 2012. But that political success, like Democratic victories in 1970, 1974, and 1976, are short-term hiccups delaying an inevitable political realignment.

It is time, however, for progressives to move beyond the past. Indeed, with all due respect to Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson, liberals last enjoyed real and durable presidential leadership and success when Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” was at the top of the charts, “Meet Me in St. Louis” was a box office smash, and the St. Louis Browns sent the one-armed Pete Grey to patrol centerfield.

Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton provided an occasional oasis and even some substantial victories but today’s liberal distress only reveals we don’t know how unfamiliar we are with success. President Obama’s passage of a stimulus package, national healthcare, Wall Street reform, and a muscular and revised Afghanistan policy are the very definition of achievement. Liberal achievement has always prompted a conservative pushback. Similar to Obama’s agenda, Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Medicare were not universally embraced upon their enactment.

Like the New Deal or any liberal era, hard work and political organization are a must if Democrats hope to safeguard and build upon their achievements. It is time for liberals, however, to stop the self-doubt and dare I say malaise (yes, I used that word—as a reverse jinx). We have an eloquent and inspiring leader in Barack Obama who heads up an extraordinarily savvy political operation. Though only Bing Crosby might recognize it liberalism is back. Repeat after me: progressives get shit done.

Photo Credit: Steve Rhodes’ Photostream

Celebrating Unemployment

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s hardly news that state and local governments around the country are laying off workers and reducing services in the current economic and fiscal climate. But putting aside services for a moment, the sheer impact of public-sector job layoffs is becoming pretty alarming:

Cash-strapped cities and counties have been cutting jobs to cope with massive budget shortfalls — and that tally could edge up to nearly 500,000 if Congress doesn’t step up to help.

Local governments are looking to eliminate 8.6% of their total full-time equivalent positions by 2012, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors.

“Local governments across the country are now facing the combined impact of decreased tax revenues, a falloff in state and federal aid and increased demand for social services,” the report said. “In this current climate of fiscal distress, local governments are forced to eliminate both jobs and services.”

That’s just local governments, mind you, not the states who are themselves facing major layoffs.

Now many conservatives would celebrate this news on grounds that eliminating some of the parasites who work for government will somehow, someway, free up resources for the private sector. I’ve never understood exactly how that’s supposed to look, but as Matt Yglesias points out, it’s a really bad time to experiment with efforts to counter-act a recession by increasing unemployment:

Conservatives have largely convinced themselves that public servants are such vile and overpaid monsters that anything that forces layoffs is a good thing and the moderates in Congress seem scared of their own shadows so nothing will be done. But economically speaking, the time for local governments to try to trim the fat is when unemployment is low and your laid-off librarian, ambulance driver, or guy who keeps the park clean can get a new job where his or her skills will plausibly be more optimally allocated. But guess what produces less social welfare than driving a bus? Sitting at home being unemployed. And so it goes down the line. Dumping people into a depressed labor market all-but-guarantees an increase in idleness along with a drop in revenue for local retailers that will lead to more idleness and waste.

Higher unemployment is simply bad. Deliberately promoting it is worse.

Photo Credit: Alfcio’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Why Democrats Must Change the Defense Budget Process, Now

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For the first time in my life, I think I agree with John Boehner (R-OH) when it comes to national security. Well, sort of. (And trust me, that’s a tough admission from a guy who wrote this column eviscerating Boehner’s track record on national security.)

Here’s what the Minority Leader said following yesterday’s war funding vote to send $33 billion to support the military deployment in Afghanistan:

“We’ve been through all of this wrangling, and for what? All we’ve created is more uncertainty for our troops in the field, more uncertainty for the Pentagon, and it’s all unnecessary.”

Before you go thinking that I’ve lost my mind, let me explain. Boehner is trying to ding Democrats politically for so much as debating (and then voting against) the Afghanistan supplemental. Essentially, Boehner chafes because Democrats refuse to write the Pentagon a blank check. While I fully support funding troops in the field, you’re about to see why I’m not endorsing Boehner’s blank check by any stretch.

But on the other hand, if you’re sick and tired of having to revisit this “wrangled” vote several times a year, the man might just have a point. And I’ll bet he doesn’t even know it. Democrats would do well to pay attention.

For the third time this year, Congress has appropriated money for Afghanistan. They did it first in the baseline defense budget (“check please!” $549 billion), the “overseas contingency fund” ($129 billion), and now this $33 billion supplemental. That comes to a whopping total of some $711 billion (depending on how you round, of course).

Each of these appropriations not only causes consternation throughout the Democratic caucus, but also reinforces the idea that Pentagon spending is void of any sense of restraint. After all, if you’re trying to sneak a defense appropriation into the first bill and it gets axed, the current system gives you two more chances to slide it in.

The current appropriation is a perfect example — just one month ago it was $30 billion, yet at yesterday’s vote, it grew ten percent to $33 billion. Why does Congress need an extra $3 billion today that they didn’t 30 days ago?

The good news is that Boehner has unwittingly opened the door for a sensible, pragmatic solution to defense budgeting: end the supplemental budgeting process. End the wrangling.

Instead of voting on three separate defense bills that total $711 billion, just vote on one bill that is $711 billion. Not only would it avoid stomach-turning votes for Democrats, a single defense appropriation would limit wasteful spending and prioritize America’s soldiers deployed on the field of battle.

Think of it this way: Once that money is appropriated, that’s it. There’s a definitive bottom line that Congress has to stick to. This forces hard choices about spending priorities based on a set amount. It is not the typical defense budget two-step of what’s available both now and what can be added in the future.

Money would be allocated first and foremost to the warfighter. Faced between the choice of spending money on the weapons, logistics and salaries that our deployed troops need, and buying more of a weapons system we don’t require. What choice do you want your member of Congress to make?

But with today’s three defense budgets, Congress can buy the all the weapons they want, and then appropriate as much as they need for the war.

John Boehner talks about “certainty” for the Pentagon, but he’s only talking about the certainty of spending more, with no sense of discipline.  If Democrats are smart, they’ll roll our three budgets into one, and be certain about prioritizing the warfighter and starting to control defense spending.

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

Congress and Climate: The Long View

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As you know by now, no climate bill will emerge from this Congress. Most have picked up Lindsey Graham’s metaphor — “cap and trade is dead” — though I prefer to think of a bill as “mathematically eliminated”. In other words, the right reaction is not permanent loss of hope but “wait til next year.” That hope is faint, however, given the likely makeup of the next Congress.

It has not taken long for the process of taking stock and assigning blame to begin. Will Marshall here at Progressive Fix has written on Congress’ failure (and I agree with everything he writes). The New York Times op-ed page has been dominated by pieces on why the bill failed, and who is to blame. Grist  summarizes reactions. I don’t have much to add to what has already been said. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, and I think there is plenty of blame to go around. That said, I’m still very optimistic about the prospects for action on climate – and by that I mean specifically a national, comprehensive carbon price – in the relatively near future. I think failure in 2010 is a setback, but will be viewed in retrospect as a minor one. This is little different from the way I felt weeks or months ago, but events of last week seem to have suddenly made me a contrarian. Climate pessimism is the new zeitgeist. So why the optimism? Because changes are coming that make climate action inevitable. The world is moving, with or without the Senate.

Some of these changes are structural. Above all, climate policy has to face physical reality, not just social and political preferences. The science of climate change is clear on the big issues, is constantly improving its predictions, and is deepening our understanding of the climate system. The longer we wait, the more we will know — and the warmer the planet will get. Those skeptical of climate science have played almost no role in the failure of climate legislation this year; they were marginal from the beginning. Better knowledge, and tangible evidence of the consequences of climate change, will make the case for action steadily stronger. Physics, as much as politics, will move the “centrist” position on climate towards action. I hope this will be by way of clear but remote physical evidence, such as melting icecaps, rather than by way of weather disasters or droughts. Demographics point in the right direction as well. Young people tend to be more strongly in favor of limiting carbon emissions (though not all polls agree). As today’s youth start to vote and gain power and influence, legislators will have to respond or choose another career.

Another more or less structural change on the way is pressing need for deficit reduction. As both Tyler Cowen and Nate Silver have pointed out in the last couple of days, this, too, will increase the chances of a price on carbon. Higher taxes are almost a certainty given our debt burden and the plausible range of spending cuts. As Cowen puts it, a price on carbon is the “least bad tax” in the sense that it discourages harmful actions (emitting carbon) rather than productive activity.

Other changes come from policies already in the pipeline. Existing state and federal laws provide some authority for regulating carbon emissions, though results will be more modest and costs higher than they would be with a uniform national carbon price. This is my area of expertise, and we’ve written a lot on the issue at Resources for the Future. The summary is this – the EPA can get modest but meaningful carbon reductions with the tools it has, likely at modest cost. EPA regulations on “traditional” pollutants like sulfur dioxide, which are emitted primarily by fossil fuel (and above all coal) plants will also have co-benefits for carbon emissions. These incidental reductions in carbon emissions will make the goals we need to reach with an eventual carbon price more modest. In the past, health benefits from reduction in pollution from coal has been cited as a secondary reason to price carbon. Now, the tables are turned – moves to reduce these pollutants using existing Clean Air Act authority will have climate benefits. Put it this way – in the long or even medium-term, climate action isn’t dead, but coal is, at least unless carbon capture and storage technology becomes available at modest cost. David Roberts at Grist makes this point, with the added irony that coal will likely be begging for cap-and-trade before long, since it would probably give the industry a handout in the form of allowances that could be sold as plants are shut down.

Finally, there’s the economy. Whether out of opportunism or genuine fear, concerns over the economic impact of climate policy fueled opposition this year. If 2010 politics could be matched with the 2007 economy, I have no doubt that a climate bill (of some kind) would have passed the Senate. The politics will get rosier for climate action, for the reasons I explained above. The economy will strengthen as well, and “jobs” will not dominate politics to the extent that they are the only acceptable justification for policy, and the rhetorical foundation of all opposition to policy. Those that agree with Ross Douthat that “sometimes it makes sense to wait, get richer, and then try to muddle through” will be more prepared to muddle through as we get richer. If the economy does not improve, we have bigger problems – though the one small benefit of our economic troubles is that it has likely bought us a little time on climate. Carbon emissions are down sharply over the last few years. In fact it will be an interesting question to look back once we have some perspective and ask whether the economic crisis was beneficial or harmful in climate terms.

These changes are all inevitable or at least very likely. Together, they will make a carbon price ever more politically possible, and eventually politically necessary. As most people who have considered the climate problem seriously have known for a long time, pricing carbon is the only workable solution. Eventually, it will come.

Of course, whether climate action will happen is easier to predict than how long it will take. I don’t have an solid answer for the latter question. Some of the shifts I mention will take longer than others. Structural changes, like global warming itself and demographic shifts, may take a long time to affect politics. Policies in the pipeline are more well-understood, but many are in the planning stage and could be held up, possibly by litigation. Meaningful EPA regulations on carbon could be in place by late 2011, or might not be effective until near the end of the decade. Economic improvement should, I hope, come more quickly – but there are of course no guarantees, and the “joblessness” of the recovery to date may mean the economy will dominate politics for longer than growth figures would indicate. So I don’t  know when we’ll have real climate legislation. My best guess would be 2013 –  another presidential & congressional election, presumably a stronger economy, fossil industries under pressure from the EPA and states, and, plausibly, palpable evidence of climate change could all converge to make a comprehensive climate bill politically possible. But that’s only a guess.

A critical look at last week’s events and, indeed, the last few years of congressional inertia is warranted. Pushing for action on climate – whether at the grassroots or in the Capitol – is still desperately needed. The longer we wait, the greater the risk and the higher the cost. But these events are just minor scenes in a story whose end we already know. Climate action may come sooner, or it may come later, but it will come.

Photo Credit: Casino Jones’ Photostream

Getting Serious About Education: Why Can We Measure Students But Not Teachers?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week, Michelle Rhee, chancellor of D.C. public schools, made national news by firing 241 — six percent — of the District’s teachers deemed underperformers. Rhee’s move came after negotiations in June with the Washington Teachers’ Union that created a merit-based bonus system that permits well-performing teachers to earn up to a 21 percent pay increase. The agreement also allows the District to fire those who did not meet minimum benchmarks. Teacher assessment scores will be based half on student improvement and half on in-class teacher evaluations.

While performance-related pay has been around since the 1700s and affects the pay scale of over 85 percent of private sector employees, the debate over merit pay for teachers is still highly contentious. On one hand, proponents argue merit pay will help cash-strapped schools retain good teachers and shed bad ones. They also argue that this will create a salary scale that is fairer than the system of seniority pay that currently exists in most school systems. On the other hand, opponents contend that merit pay may work for seamstresses, but teaching is too complicated to base quality on student performance on a standardized test.

The argument goes, evaluating teachers based solely on a set of student-achievement benchmarks will incentivize teachers to neglect the essential but non-tested responsibilities of educators.  As George Parker, current president of the Washington Teachers’ Union put it, “It [merit pay] takes the art of teaching and turns it into bean counting.” Yet numerous other professions that require complex skills and responsibilities have adopted merit pay with positive results. For example, the department of Homeland Security has recently implemented performance-related pay for security analysts, and few would equate scrutinizing terrorist threats with “bean counting”.

The real question for education policy makers is to what degree can metrics assess the added value of different teachers? Part of the answer to this question relates to the availability of good data. Teacher performance may vary significantly depending on a number of variables such as student household income or the percentage of students with English as a second language. Without significant aggregate databases recognizing and accounting for such variables when developing performance pay systems may be difficult or even impossible. Yet technological advancements in the longitudinal data systems being put in place in states and districts are increasingly allowing for a more granular understanding of where educators do and do not add value to the learning process. Although it’s probably true that the current level of data may not be enough to predict exactly what makes a good teacher, what’s important is to use the data, along with the ways of assessing teacher performance, we have to make a better incentive system for the nation’s educators.

Yet that hasn’t been the case. In 1950, for example, 97 percent of public school teachers were paid based on seniority and education attainment (because data did not exist to fairly reward teachers based on any other benchmarks). But by 2007, 96 percent were still being paid based on these payment schedules; regardless of the numerous studies that have actually found experience (after the first two years) and teaching certifications are two of the worst indicators of teacher performance.

The blatant disregard of the evidence is not accidental. Several players in education policy—particularly teachers’ unions—have described evidence-based pay as some sort of pedagogical chimera, sucking the lifeblood out of what it takes to be a good teacher. For example, Doug McAvory, general secretary to the National Association of Head Teachers, a teachers’ union in the UK, argues, “The extension of performance-related pay based on pupil progress will further demoralize and demotivate teachers.” Yet given that educators readily embrace handing out grades to seven year olds, the argument that performance metrics might “demoralize” underperforming adult professionals seems unpersuasive. Such arguments do little more than distract educators from the importance of using technology and advanced metrics to create better schools.

ITIF and others have emphasized the importance of an educated workforce to improving the innovative and global competitiveness of the United States, but U.S. students are falling behind when measured against their counterparts in other countries. For example, in 2007, only ten percent of U.S. fourth-graders and six percent of eighth-graders scored at or above the international benchmarks in mathematics. Yet as other nations, such as Finland, South Korea and Sweden, have embraced data-based pay in public schools, United States has resisted.

Educators and policy makers should keep in mind the simple syllogism that there is nothing better than a good teacher and nothing worse than a bad one. As a society, we should do what is necessary to get more of the former and fewer of the latter, whether that requires more money, monitoring or better metrics.

Hot Night In Oklahoma

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today’s primary election is in Oklahoma. Both parties have interesting gubernatorial contests, while Democrats have one congressional primary of national interest and Republicans have two.

Oklahoma is a “runoff state,” where majorities are required for party nominations (runoffs will be held on August 24).  It’s also a closed primary state.  49 percent of Oklahomans are currently registered as Democrats, and 40 percent as Republicans, though Republican turnout could wind up higher thanks to a surplus of competitive races.

The current governor, Democrat Brad Henry, is term-limited, and the two Democratic political heavyweights who are competing to succeed him are generally in the moderate-conservative tradition he exemplifies.  The frontrunner from the beginning has been longtime (1995-present) Attorney General Drew Edmondson, an Okie from Muscogee who is the latest representative of a distinguished political family.  Edmondson raised the hackles of conservatives this year by refusing to join the multi-state Attorney General lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health reform.  But he also has been endorsed by the NRA.  His opponent, Lt. Gov. Jari Askins, has managed to more or less keep up with the well—financed Edmondson on the money front (in part through a large personal loan to her campaign), and sports a slightly better performance in general election trial heats.  One survey suggests that Edmondson is doing a lot better than Askins among strong Obama supporters, union members, and minority voters; in a low-turnout primary that could matter a lot.  But in this unusually civil race, the main divide has been geographical: Edmondson is doing very well in the vote-heavy Tulsa area, while Askins’ base is in the more Republican southwest Oklahoma region.   Askins’ final ace-in-the-hold is a late endorsement by former Oklahoma Sooners’ football coach Barry Switzer, a huge celebrity in the state; a similar Switzer endorsement is thought to have contributed mightily to Brad Henry’s late surge in 2002.

The polling in this race has shown Edmondson with a marginal lead, however, many of the voters are still undecided.  The final Sooner Poll shows Edmondson up 49-33; the final Sooner Survey poll has a much larger undecided vote, with Edmondson leading 38-27.  There is no third candidate, so there will be no runoff.

On the Republican side, the gubernatorial primary initially looked like a classic showdown between an “establishment” (if very conservative) officeholder, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, and Tea Party activist state senator Randy Brogdon.  Fallin, a fixture in Oklahoma politics (she was Lt. Gov. from 1995-2007 before winning election to the House), voted for TARP.  But aside from maintaining a large financial advantage (about 4-1), Fallin worked hard to line up national “validators” of her conservatism, winning endorsements from Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty and the latest conservative celebrity, Jan Brewer.  And it’s thought that Brodgon went a little over the top in accusing Fallin of corruption.

In any event, polls show Fallin poised to win without a runoff.  The final Sooner Poll has her up over Brogdon 56-18; the Sooner Survey puts her lead at 50-22.  With two minor candidates in the field, Brogdon could theoretically force Fallin into a runoff, but it’s unlikely.  His best hope is very low turnout and a good showing in his Tulsa base.

There’s a red-hot Republican primary to succeed Fallin in the House, and a late Sooner Poll shows the long-time front-runner, former state legislator Kevin Calvey running first with 28%, though political newcomer and “conservative outsider” James Lankford is moving up very fast.  A runoff between the two is the most likely outcome.

The other congressional district with a lot of activity today is the 2nd district, where Blue Dog Democrat Dan Boren (son of former U.S. Senator and current University of Oklahoma president David Boren) has attracted both a primary challenge and a large field of Republican opponents.  Boren’s primary opponent, state senator Jim Wilson, has attracted a lot of national netroots support for his criticism of Boren’s conservative voting record, but unfortunately for him, not much money. Boren should win handily. There are six Republicans vying for the nomination in the 2nd, and though this is a nationally targeted race for the GOP, their candidates here are little known and underfunded.  A Republican runoff is very probable, though it’s anybody’s guess who will be in it (businessman Howard Houchen is the best-funded).

Despite the Democratic registration advantage, Republicans control both chambers of the Oklahoma legislature, both Senate seats, and four of five House seats.  If they can win back the governorship after eight years of Democratic control, and somehow knock off Boren, this would solidify their domination of Oklahoma politics.  But Boren’s generally considered a heavy favorite for November, and both Edmondson and Askins are within single digits of Fallin in general election polling.

Looking Forward

Next up on the primary calendar are Kansas, Michigan and Missouri on August 3, and Tennessee on August 5.  It’s been an interesting week in Tennessee’s highly competitive Republican gubernatorial primary.  Congressman Zach Wamp got some unwanted national attention after suggesting that the Volunteer State might have to secede from the Union if health reform is not repealed. He later retracted the threat, but vowed to fight the feds tooth and nail through steps short of armed rebellion. And then another major candidate, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, in response to right-wing angst over the construction of an Islamic community center in Murfreesboro, allowed as how he wasn’t sure the First Amendment applied to Muslims since Islam may not be a religion, but instead a “nationality, way of life or cult.”

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

Wikileaks: Lack of Editorial Discretion

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Does the existence of a whistle-blower website like Wikileaks do more harm or good? Decisions about exposing information to the public depends on nuance and context, and it’s clear that in the wake of this case, Julian Assange, the site’s editor-in-chief and public face, has little appreciation for either.

Wikileaks is, in effect, a conduit for purported whistle-blowers, and describes itself as a “buttress against unaccountable and abusive power” and prides itself on “principled leaking.”

As a vehicle for whistle-blowing, the site has a responsibility to assert editorial discretion about the content it supplies, carefully weighing costs and benefits to the whistle-blowing party, those the information directly impacts and third parties. If Wikileaks is an open-repository for secret information without discretion and vetting, that’s a problem.

Prior to releasing the current military documents, the site should have exercised discretion with the following criteria in mind:

— Does the totality of the information indicate unequivocal, fact-based wrongdoing?
— Is this information new? Does it add to the public debate?
— Does its release endanger or save lives?
— Does its release cost or save public money?

By its own standard, Wikileaks, at best, punted. More likely, it outright failed and discredited itself.

Assange could not make a reliable judgment about the totality of the information he released because he could not have possibly known what exactly he was releasing. With Wikileaks staff reportedly of about five full-timers and a budget of $300,000, it’s difficult to imagine how the site could have shifted through so many documents and assembled a reasonable cost-benefit analysis, even with an “army” of hundreds of part-time volunteers. Rather, he essentially outsourced vetting to The New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel, and other websites that have cattle-called hungry readers to sift through the material. Ergo, Wikileaks likely had no idea if it was releasing ironclad evidence of wrongdoing.

Second, as I detailed yesterday, the information was clearly not “new.” It only served to amplify public debate. Further, the information’s release likely endangered American lives, and certainly jeopardized American sources in methods and consequently, its safety.

Finally, it’s unclear about saving public money, unless you argue that ending the war would do so. But that argument, much like the answers to all of the above, suggest that Assange and Wikileaks are motivated much more by activism than journalism. And that discredits any strain of legitimate public service the site hopes to render in the future.

From now on, Wikileaks would do well to know exactly what it’s releasing, know that it’s a new fact, and weigh the balance of lives, security and money.

Photo Credit: Joe-manna’s Photostream

Primary Day in Oklahoma

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If it’s Tuesday, there must be another primary election, and today’s is in Oklahoma, where both parties are holding gubernatorial primaries, and there are a couple of congressional contests of interest.

I’ve got a preview up at FiveThirtyEight for those who want a serious run-down. The bottom line is that Attorney General Drew Edmondson is favored to defeat Lt. Gov. Jari Askins for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, in what’s been a very civil contest; while Rep. Mary Fallin is almost certain to defeat Tea Party advocate Randy Brogdon for the GOP nod. Meanwhile, Blue Dog Dan Boren will turn back an underfunded progressive primary challenge, and Republicans will go to runoffs in his district and in Fallin’s.

Oklahoma’s one of those states with a pretty hardy Democratic tradition (registered Dems still outnumber registered Republicans) that’s been trending Red for some time. Hanging onto the governor’s office and a congressional seat, particularly in this kind of year, would be quite an accomplishment. Today’s primary will help determine whether that happens.

Photo Credit: Wright914’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.