Category: Uncategorized

Afghanistan: Civilian and Military Casualties Aren’t a Zero-Sum Game

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sarah Holewinski and Jim Morin–two of my friends through the Truman National Security Project –have an excellent op-ed in today’s Christian Science Monitor on a issue that may haunt and confuse many Americans. First, Holewinski and Morin restate something that may still be missed in the public debate–that our forces are primarily in Afghanistan to protect Afghan civilians from the Taliban, not to fight the Taliban directly. This then begs a question Holewinski and Morin ask–if our forces are primarily concerned with protecting Afghans from the Taliban, does that mean more of our guys will die as a consequence?  Here’s their take:

Military families back home want to know: Are troops walking into hell with one hand tied behind their backs? Are civilian lives being spared in exchange for military ones?

The answer to both questions is no.  […]

Protecting the population isn’t political correctness; it’s a vital military objective and a distinct advantage over an enemy that uses civilians as shields. The drop in civilian casualties is a mark of success.

Allied troop fatalities have meanwhile increased, but efforts to spare civilians are not the cause. Rather, troops are fighting the insurgents where they live – as in Marjah. Taking on the Taliban requires taking that risk. American and allied forces may be walking into hell, but given the right strategy and purpose, they remain free to fight effectively. […]

Combat is violent, frightening, and confusing, and troops on the ground have both the instinct – and the right – to protect themselves. The critical role for commanders is to convey the lesson taught by the US Army’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual, drafted under Gen. David Petraeus: “Sometimes the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.”

Military tactics are always balanced against strategic objectives, force protection, and humanitarian imperatives. In Afghanistan, international forces have had more than eight years to figure out what hasn’t worked and what will. The new emphasis on civilian protection is a welcome move toward striking the right balance.

In the Army there is a saying, “Mission First, Soldiers Always.” Safeguarding civilians and taking care of soldiers are not mutually exclusive. We owe our troops as much training, operational guidance, and moral certainty as modern war will allow.

This issue highlights how policy can be distorted and create bad political optics.  This is a nagging problem with the Afghanistan debate.  For example, the public discourse on President Obama’s decision on the war centered on two issues: how many troops, and the right’s false charge that he was “dithering” on what to do.  In that regard, the White House let the debate get away from it because, frankly, thousands of troop numbers grabs headlines in ways that strategy discussions don’t.

So, progressives should heed this op-ed and use it to push back when charges come–from either the left or right–that our troops are dying because we’re allegedly more concerned with Afghans.  There will be casualties, of course, but we have to understand that Afghan casualties vs. American casualties aren’t a zero-sum game.

Are We Serious About Climate Change? Then Let’s Price Carbon

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Climate policy seems to be returning to the legislative agenda. The Cantwell-Collins “cap and dividend” bill is getting real (and bipartisan) interest. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman “tripartisan” climate proposal is rumored to be nearly ready. As these proposals indicate, it is likely that the Senate will start its discussions on climate from first principles, despite the presence of a more-or-less complete bill (Waxman-Markey) from the House.

These are interesting times for climate politics, and in many ways similar to how the politics of health care reform played out last year, with likely shifts in the basic ideas and key details over the coming months. I firmly believe Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill — it’s just a matter of time (though I do hope the endgame is not as protracted as it has been for health care). But what that bill will look like is anyone’s guess.

Major issues will be familiar: how to allocate allowances and revenues, whether to fund nuclear energy or expand drilling, whether and how to include offsets, maybe even whether to scrap cap-and-trade and tax carbon instead (I think there’s a nonzero chance). These debates are all worth having and paying attention to. But we — that is, anyone who cares about climate change, which should be everyone — cannot lose sight of the one element any climate bill must include: a price on carbon.

There is simply no other policy mechanism that can cut emissions, drive the necessary innovation and produce the necessary changes to the U.S. economy. It’s not just that nothing else is as efficient — nothing else will work. Other tools like technology standards, subsidies, and offsets may be useful, but they are secondary in importance. If a proposal does not include a carbon price, it either isn’t about climate or it isn’t serious. None of this is new or surprising: we have a tool, and we know it works.

A Carbon Price Consensus?

To return to the health care analogy, a price on carbon will in some ways play a similar role to that played by the “public option” — it is considered by many to be the necessary core of a meaningful policy, and opposed fiercely by others. I think the similarities end there, however. Pricing carbon is far more important — indeed, necessary — to climate policy than a public option ever was for health care. It is possible to make progress on the basic goals of health care reform (cutting costs, reaching the uninsured, promoting equitable access, etc.) without a public option. The same is not true of climate change mitigation and a carbon price.

Consequently, there is broader and, to some extent, more bipartisan support for pricing carbon than there was for a public option. Despite Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) recent declaration that cap-and-trade is dead (not exactly what he said, it should be pointed out), a few Republicans and virtually all Democrats alike realize that a carbon price must be part of meaningful climate legislation. The only people who don’t believe this either don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming at all (and are therefore at least principled, if on the wrong side of the science) or are just playing politics with the most important issue of our time. Perhaps this is not surprising, but it is disappointing.

If you care about climate change, the first question you should ask of any proposal is, “Does it put a price on carbon?” Only if the answer is yes is it worth getting into details. As someone once said about soccer, “The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. That is fact. Everything else is theory.”

This holds true for proposals that might be attractive for other reasons, like an “energy only” bill, even if it includes a renewable portfolio standard. This or other measures that don’t include a carbon price are not going to produce significant change in U.S. emissions, and aren’t going to spur the necessary innovation for long-term change in how we produce and use energy. The same goes for incentives and subsidies for “green technology” and creation of “green jobs.” These sound nice, but if you really want the jobs and technology, you need to implement a carbon price. We are likely to see a wide variety of proposals with a wide variety of policy mechanisms over the coming months. All of them will be characterized as pro-climate, pro-innovation, and pro-jobs. It is critical to look past this rhetoric, and even beyond many of the policies included in the proposals, and determine whether there is a carbon price at their core — regardless of how much “rebranding” of climate proposals goes on.

Demanding a price on carbon makes sense regardless of your politics: producing the greatest reduction in emissions at the lowest cost is attractive for everyone. The details of a climate bill do matter, and will surely drive wedges between political groups — but the time has come for a political consensus on pricing carbon. I think progressives should be open to ideas on climate policy from all directions. The proposals that are likely to be at the center of debates in the Senate, Cantwell-Collins and Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, are bipartisan from the start. There will undoubtedly be other proposals and much discussion of the details. But amid all of the political maneuvering, we shouldn’t lose sight of the indispensable core of climate policy. Everyone serious about climate change should be banging the same drum: price carbon.

Can Charlie Crist Switch and Survive?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the more interesting ongoing spectacles this year has been the crashing and burning of Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, the once invincible political titan who now appears destined to lose, perhaps badly, a U.S. Senate primary to conservative Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio. Initially, Rubio was considered more or less a nuisance candidate who would keep Crist from straying too far off the conservative reservation. Now, according to a new PPP poll of Florida Republicans, Rubio is trouncing Crist 60-28.

Echoing earlier complaints among Florida Republicans that Crist should have just run for re-election, there’s been talk that the heavily tanned incumbent might switch to the governor’s race (qualifying doesn’t end until April 30). Others have suggested he should get some revenge on conservatives by staying in the Senate race but running as an independent. At 538.com, Nate Silver explores these alternatives, and concludes that Crist should probably either hang it up or run for the Senate as an indie, assuming he’s not interested in a future in the GOP. Turns out switching to the governor’s race isn’t promising:

The same PPP poll that found Crist trailing Rubio by 32 points also found him trailing Bill McCollum, the leading Republican candidate for governor, by 14. That’s not quite as bad a deficit to overcome, but it doesn’t account for the additional annoyance voters might feel if Crist switched races, which could come across as entitled and presumptuous. In addition, the general election could get tricky, as Crist’s approval ratings are tepid and as Democratic candidate Alex Sink — although now trailing McCollum in most polls — is considered a decent candidate.

On the other hand, says Nate, some polls have shown Crist running reasonably well as an indie against Rubio and likely Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, essentially creating a three-way tie.

Either “switch” by Crist, it’s clear, would be good news for Florida Democrats, giving them a better chance in November while promoting GOP ideological warfare.

But Charlie probably owes it to his dwindling band of friends in the GOP to make up his mind soon. In neighboring Georgia, the news that U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Gov. Sonny Perdue are hosting an Atlanta fundraiser for Crist has not gone over very well in Georgia Republican circles. If Crist is perceived as double-crossing Florida Republicans, he will become truly radioactive for all who have touched him.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Win Dixie

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As we all understand, Republicans are about to have a pretty good election in November. Much of the GOP excitement revolves around congressional races that could unseat “red-state” Democrats who won during the 2006 or 2008 cycles, along with a number of incumbents (some of whom have decided to retire) who have been around much longer. Ground zero for the Republican tsunami is, of course, the Deep South, where in some areas John McCain did better in 2008 than George W. Bush did in 2004, and where every available indicator shows the president to be very unpopular among white voters.

But beneath this storyline, some odd and counterintuitive things are going on. In three Deep South states, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, Democrats have a decent chance of retaking long-lost governorships, in part because of infighting among Republican candidates, and in part because Republican rule in those states has not been terribly successful or popular. It’s far too early to make predictions, but it’s possible that we’re in for a repeat of the astounding gubernatorial Trifecta that Democrats pulled off in those same three states in 1998. That event confounded widespread assessments that the South had become a one-party GOP region, and it could happen again, in even more unlikely circumstances.

Our own appraisal begins in Georgia, with one of the surprise winners of 1998, former Governor Roy Barnes. Barnes lost his reelection bid in 2002 to Sonny Perdue, a party-switching state senator, despite the power of incumbency and a huge financial advantage. Since then, Barnes has regularly admitted his mistakes. And, amazingly enough, in the latest Georgia gubernatorial poll, he’s running ahead of every single Republican candidate.

Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans, who have dominated state politics since 2002, are having some serious problems with their own gubernatorial bench. The consistent frontrunner in the polls, longtime insurance commissioner John Oxendine, is awash in ethics allegations about contributions from the insurance companies that he is responsible for regulating. His record is so blatantly bad that none other than Erick Erickson, the Georgia-based proprietor of the nationally influential, hard-core conservative web site RedState, has said he’d vote for Barnes if Oxendine is the GOP nominee.

Rather pathetically, the alternative to Oxendine and the favorite of some party insiders is Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia’s Ninth District (like Perdue, a party-switcher), who recently said he would resign his congressional seat after a health care vote to concentrate on his gubernatorial campaign. As it happens, Deal’s resignation managed to short-circuit a House Ethics Committee investigation into a no-bid state auto-salvage contract that was awarded to a company which Deal controls. The insider buzz in Atlanta is that Deal was motivated to resign, in part, because of panic among Georgia Republican pooh-bahs who worried that Oxendine would walk away with the gubernatorial nomination on name ID alone.

The rest of the Republican gubernatorial hopefuls are struggling as well. The entire party, and several of the gubernatorial candidates, were tainted by association with disgraced former House Speaker Glenn Richardson, who was forced to resign after a lurid sex-and-lobbying scandal. The one candidate who seems ethically starchy, Secretary of State Karen Handel, has struggled to raise the money necessary to win, and also suffers from the perception that she’s the unpopular Sonny Perdue’s chosen successor.

All these Republican problems could eventually fade, and Roy Barnes must also navigate a Democratic primary against Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a law-‘n-order conservative who is one of the nation’s longest-serving African American statewide elected officials (as well as two other lesser but credible opponents). Nevertheless at present, Barnes—or Baker, if he could somehow upset Barnes—looks entirely viable for November.

Next door in Alabama, you’d think that the Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner, Congressman Artur Davis, wouldn’t stand a chance. He’s a member of the much-hated United States Congress; he’s African American; he’s a close personal friend of Barack Obama; and he’s frequently been tagged, like the president, as an Ivy League-educated, twenty-first-century–style black politician. But the sparse public polling available shows Davis in a very strong position for the general election, assuming that he dispenses with a primary challenge from state agriculture commissioner Ron Sparks, who’s been struggling to raise money. Davis, who has long nursed gubernatorial ambitions, carefully tailored his congressional record to Alabama public opinion: He voted against health care reform in the House, and he was also the first Congressional Black Caucus member (and, for that matter, the first one on the Ways and Means Committee) to call for Charlie Rangel to step aside from his powerful chairmanship.

Meanwhile, there is no real frontrunner in the Republican gubernatorial primary, which bids fair to become an ideological flame war. Back in 2002, the “establishment” candidate, state Senator Bradley Byrne, made the fatal mistake of voting for a-tax reform initiative that was soundly defeated in an emphatic expression of Alabamians’ mistrust of government. Tim James, son of former conservative Democratic and Republican Governor Fob James, was one of the main opponents of that initiative, and he will bring it up constantly. Meanwhile Christian Right warhorse Roy Moore, the famous “Ten Commandments Judge,” is actually running second to Byrne in early polls. All of the dynamics in the race will pull the GOP candidates to the hard-right, while Artur Davis continues to occupy the political center; and his candidacy will almost certainly boost African American turnout to near-2008 levels. That means anything could happen in November.

South Carolina is often thought of as the most Republican of Southern states. But Mark Sanford, the disgraced incumbent governor, has complicated his party’s prospects. Meanwhile, an ideological civil war is brewing that reflects the growing tension between the state’s two Republican senators, right-wing bomb thrower Jim DeMint and the more moderate Lindsey Graham (Graham, long suspect among home-state conservatives for his friendship with John McCain and his occasional bipartisanship, has recently been formally censured by two of South Carolina’s county GOP organizations for a variety of sins). As in Georgia and Alabama, the Republican gubernatorial field is a mess: Nobody is a frontrunner and all the candidates are stampeding to the hard right. And I do mean hard right. In a sign of the times, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, who has few friends in the state’s Republican establishment, delivered a speech comparing recipients of subsidized school lunches to “stray animals” who should no longer be fed unconditionally. While he took a few shots from fellow Republicans for his indiscreet language, nobody disputed, and some praised, his basic premise that any form of public assistance corrupts its recipients and should come with some sort of reciprocal obligation.

The frontrunners in early polls are Bauer and Attorney General Henry McMaster. Upstate Congressman Gresham Barrett, who must overcome the opprobrium of voting for TARP, is close behind. Meanwhile, Sanford’s protégé, state Representative Nikki Haley (who was even endorsed by the governor’s ex-wife), is trying to push the campaign hard right by opposing any expenditure of federal stimulus dollars in this high-unemployment state. At a recent candidate forum, when the rivals were pushed to call themselves “DeMint Republicans” or “Graham Republicans,” Bauer and Haley flatly identified with DeMint, while McMasters and Barrett dodged the question.

On the Democratic side, a Rasmussen poll in December showed the front-running Democrat, State School Superintendent Jim Rex, actually beating Bauer and running within single digits against other GOP candidates. (State Representative Vincent Sheheen is also a credible Democratic candidate). Again, anything could happen, but the assumption that Republicans have a lock on this state’s elections is as dubious as the same assumption back in 1998.

So, at a time when Democrats are despairing of good news, it’s important to understand that the donkey isn’t quite dead, even in the Deep South. There are consequences to Republican extremism and malfeasance in office. And, when GOP candidates battle for first place on the crazy train of contemporary conservatism, it’s Democrats who stand to benefit.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Blue Dogs Only Chasing Their Tail

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It often seems that Blue Dog Democrats, along with a handful of Senate moderates, are the only people in Washington who are serious about fiscal responsibility. Chasing the will-o-the-wisp of a balanced budget amendment, however, seems more likely to distract from than advance that essential cause.

The idea is seductively simple: The only way to restrain deficit spending in Washington is to make it unconstitutional. That’s how the states keep their books balanced, and there’s no reason the federal government shouldn’t do the same.

In fact, there are several. Consider that today’s federal deficit is about 12 percent of GDP. It’s going to go down as the economy recovers, but the spending and tax adjustments that would have to be made to get it all the way down to zero would be unduly draconian and disruptive. Also, unlike state mandates, a federal balanced budget amendment for accounting reasons would not distinguish between capital investment and consumption. But government borrowing to invest in public infrastructure or higher education, for example, makes economic sense, because it will generate more economic activity and amortize itself over time.

What’s more, the federal government acts as the nation’s fiscal safety valve, or strategic reserve. During severe economic downturns, the only way many states can provide services while preserving their fiscal virtue is to get counter-cyclical assistance (or revenue sharing) from Washington. A constitutional ban on deficits could prevent Washington from responding to emergencies of all kinds.

In truth, we don’t need a balanced federal budget — we need a disciplined federal budget. Congress would be better off adopting Sen. Mike Bennett’s (D-CO) sensible suggestion that federal deficits be held first to four percent, then to three percent of GDP each year. At that level, they’d be gradually whittled down by economic growth, and the government could borrow without swelling the national debt.

A balanced budget amendment, moreover, is a blunter instrument than we need to deal with overspending and undertaxing in Washington. It doesn’t hone in on the real problem, which is the automatic and unsustainable growth in entitlement spending. A better idea, from the Brookings-Heritage Fiscal Seminar, is to bring Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on budget, which would require Congress to periodically reconcile income and spending to keep the programs solvent.

Finally, a balanced budget amendment is just too damn difficult to enact. Congress has to approve Constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote, well nigh inconceivable given how hard it is to muster the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Then three-fourths of the states would have to approve an amendment.

Demanding a balanced budget amendment thus is more of a symbolic gesture than a real solution to America’s fiscal crisis. Recall that it was a key plank in the GOP’s 1994 Contract with America, but Republicans quickly lost interest once they won control of Congress. Nonetheless, Newt Gingrich has endorsed the amendment in a bid to recapture the old magic for this year’s midterm elections.

Unlike the Republicans, of course, the Blue Dogs have real street cred when it comes to fiscal rectitude. They fought successfully to resurrect “pay go” rules that require Congress to offset new spending with tax hikes or budget cuts. And key Blue Dog leaders like Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) have led the charge for a bipartisan commission to get entitlement spending under control.

It’s vital, though, that progressive deficit hawks not let the holy grail of a constitutional amendment deflect them from the gritty, day-to-day battles in Congress to get America’s exploding deficits and debts under control.

A Wake Up Call on National Security

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democracy Corps and Third Way continue to hit on a theme I’ve been pushing for the last few weeks. Despite the president’s solid poll numbers on security, the organizations’ research shows that the historic national security gap is reappearing. Just after the president’s inauguration, the gap had closed to well within the margin of error. In early 2009, Democrats trailed Republicans by just three points on the question of which party was better equipped to “keeping America safe.” But in a new survey, Republicans now trump Democrats by 17 points. Ouch.

The poll digs much deeper than most polls, which traditionally lump in questions of national security with a slew of other issues. But this one is a full psychoanalysis of the country’s mood on our safety, and the results are more of a mixed bag than a downright nightmare for progressives. The president maintains stronger national security numbers than his overall approval rating (47 percent), with 58 percent approving of his handling of Afghanistan, 57 percent positive on “leading the military,” and 55 percent liking that he’s “improved America’s standing in the world,” among other similarly positive numbers.

Furthermore — and this is great — the poll continues to confirm that the public rejects accusations by Dick Cheney that Obama’s policies have made the country less secure. Oh yeah, and five percent believe Obama is doing a better job than George Bush against terrorists.

To sum up, the public approves of the commander-in-chief, but they’ve again become skeptical of generic Democrats. Or as the authors put it:

While ratings for the president may be softening, his party is facing an even more troubling trend. When the questions move beyond the president to Democrats generally, we see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges.

How do we firm this up? Basically, grab the ol’ bull by the horns, just like I’ve been blabbering on about. Seriously — Dems have a good record, now they just have to relay it through effective story-telling that connects with voters’ emotions. Progressives have been sheepishly responding to conservative attacks with wonky facts. But conservatives don’t care about facts — they painted Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, as unpatriotic. Now that progressives have the facts behind them, they need to get aggressive about telling voters that we’re strong and smart on national security.

Why the Jobs Crisis Is Actually an Innovation Crisis

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Forget for the moment the $15 billion jobs bill moving through Congress — even its supporters admit that it’s far too paltry to make even a tiny dent in the unemployment rolls. And ignore the economic commentators who tell you that the labor market is recovering just because job loss has slowed.

No, the U.S. is having a genuine long-term jobs crisis, one which stems from a deeper problem: The Great Innovation Machine of the American economy seems to have broken down. With a few notable exceptions (think Apple and Google), this has been a period when companies have found it remarkably hard to turn promising breakthrough innovations into commercial breakthrough products. The list of “big-idea” innovations that seem tantalizingly close to market, but not quite there, just keeps getting longer and longer. Some examples: After 20 years of research, no human gene therapy has yet been approved for sale by the Food and Drug Administration; electricity generated from solar cells is still far from price-competitive with electricity from coal or natural gas; and biotech has not yet fulfilled its promise of speeding the discovery of new drugs.

The jobs crisis, in my view, is the direct result of the innovation shortfall. Since the 1990s, both Democrats and Republicans have expected the “jobs of the future” to come from the innovative, technologically advanced industries. Computers, semiconductors, internet companies, pharma, biotech, communications: all seemed to have enormous potential to create new jobs. What’s more, innovation seemed to be the only way that the U.S. could compete against low-cost producers abroad.

Many regions designed their economic development strategies around attracting biotech and infotech jobs to replace the “old-line” factory positions that had fled overseas (do a Google search for ‘biotech initiative’ and see how many hits you get). The desire to bring in pharma jobs is the reason why New London tore down homes and businesses to make room for a Pfizer research facility in 2001.

But the sad truth is that the innovative sector of the economy hasn’t generated many jobs recently. Let’s be very specific here. From the bottom of the job market in 2003 to the so-called peak in 2007, technologically advanced industries such as semiconductors, communications equipment manufacturing, and telecommunications lost thousands of jobs. Across the same period, the industry that the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “Internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals” — a catch-all category that includes Google, Yahoo! and all the high-profile Internet firms — added only 6,000 jobs.

Life sciences didn’t do much better. From 2003-2007, employment in pharma was stagnant, and biotech added only 16,000 jobs. Indeed, Pfizer recently pulled out of New London, leaving behind a lot of hard feelings. (For more on the jobs shortfall in the innovative sector, see my blog at www.southmountaineconomics.com.)

Turning Innovation into Jobs

So what has happened here? A big part of the jobs crisis stems from a simple fact: Commercializing innovation has taken a lot longer than people expected. Across multiple areas, from biotech to alternative energy to advanced materials to the private uses of space, both large and small companies have faced fundamental scientific and engineering problems. The best example is the sequencing of the human genome, which was announced to great fanfare in 2003. But turning that initial breakthrough into commercial products has turned out to be far more complicated and difficult than many thought. (For more on the innovation shortfall, see my June 2009 cover story, “The Failed Promise of Innovation in the U.S.,” for BusinessWeek.)

In today’s global economy, innovation makes up the main comparative advantage for the U.S. If we are not generating jobs in the innovative industries, it’s no surprise that we have a jobs crisis.

Addressing the innovation shortfall has to be a cooperative project between business and government. How? Here are three low-cost ways to foster a better climate for innovation and jobs:

  • Elevate innovation to the top of the policy agenda. President Obama needs to publicly give higher priority to innovation. In the latest Economic Report of the President, innovation is relegated to the very end of the report, and does not even get a whole chapter to itself (the chapter is called “Fostering Productivity Growth through Innovation and Trade”).Why is a public emphasis on innovation important? Government is much better at stopping breakthrough products and services than creating them. New ideas, by definition, are threatening to the status quo. That’s why the president has to give a clear signal to the entire government bureaucracy that innovation is important.On the one hand, this shift in public priorities can be done right now, without any additional funding, so Obama wouldn’t have to fight Congress. On the other hand, Obama might have a big struggle to get support from his own economic advisors, some of whom don’t seem to place such high value on innovation.
  • Broaden out government funding for R&D beyond healthcare. To maximize the chances for innovation-related job growth, we want a broad and diverse program of federal support. However, in recent years, federal funding for R&D has increasingly focused on healthcare. Obama’s proposed FY 2011 budget continues that trend, with federal spending on health R&D projected to exceed spending on nonhealth civilian R&D by more than 30 percent. The result: Other areas of R&D are being starved for funds.
  • Improve measurement of the innovative sectors of the economy. Innovation is not as tangible as, say, a new building or a new truck. We are great at counting construction and vehicle production, but horrible at keeping track of innovative activities.And as management consultants say, you get what you measure. For example, we know virtually nothing on business spending on R&D in the U.S. during the downturn — a key piece of information for understanding where the economy is going. The good news is that the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the National Science Foundation have made some progress in this direction. However, a relatively small amount of money could accelerate the upgrading of the statistics, with a big impact on policy.

These proposals will not guarantee that the U.S. will suddenly experience a surge of innovation-related job growth. There’s nothing that anyone can do to ensure that commercially viable innovation will arrive on a particular schedule. But to raise the odds of good jobs in the future, we need to make innovation a priority today.

Download the PDF version.

The EPA and GHGs: Sometimes the Little Things Matter Most

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Major pieces of legislation from the Hill, blockbuster rulemakings, and Supreme Court cases get all the policy headlines. Sometimes, though, small things can make just as much of an impact. Last week’s completion by the EPA of a proposed revision to an internal memo — the Johnson Memorandum — could be an example of this, though it looks like it will be most notable for maintaining the status quo. Still, it’s interesting to look at what impact it could have made (and may yet, if the final version is different).

The memo and today’s revision have to do with a bit of Clean Air Act (CAA) arcana: which polluters have to get preconstruction permits to build new plants or modify existing ones? This question seems superficially to be interesting to only the most pedantic of CAA wonks, but the answer has real effects for the cost and effectiveness of policy.

These permits are a big deal. They are expensive and time-consuming to get and require facilities to install the “best available control technology” (BACT). Since the EPA will very shortly regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions, the question has pressing relevance. The EPA’s controversial “tailoring rule” is aimed at minimizing the impact of these permit requirements (called PSD in CAA lingo) by restricting them initially to larger sources. But the even more immediate question of when those large sources have to get permits is determined elsewhere in the Johnson Memo. (For more on how these pieces fit together, see the chart here.)

The EPA has traditionally required only emitters of pollutants subject to actual control under the CAA to get PSD permits. This means that emitters of pollutants that are only reported, not regulated, don’t have to get permits. It also means that emitters don’t have to get permits until regulation actually forces action; regulation just being announced isn’t enough. The Johnson Memo, released in 2008 by the Bush-era EPA and named for then-EPA Administrator Steven Johnson, confirmed this traditional approach.

Now that the EPA is about to regulate GHGs, the agency is reopening this issue. If you thought that the 19-page Johnson Memo was a comprehensive treatment, get ready for the 77-page reconsideration. In the proposed version of reconsideration (released last year), the EPA claims its preferred option is to stick with the traditional approach. This would probably result in permit requirements for GHGs beginning in January 2011, according to Administrator Lisa Jackson’s letter to Congress last week. But the proposed reconsideration mentions alternatives, such as a permit requirement when an endangerment finding for a pollutant is made, or even when reporting is required. If one of these options is chosen by the EPA in the final reconsideration, emitters will require permits now (since GHGs are subject to reporting in 2010 and an endangerment finding was made in December).

As Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell & Giuliani discussed at RFF’s Clean Air Act event last week, this timing issue really matters for emitters. If an emitter has a new plant or modification awaiting a permit, whether a permit application is processed before or after GHGs become part of the BACT inquiry is very important. Uncertainty makes planning difficult. Combined with the uncertainty surrounding the tailoring rule, GHG emitters are unsettled and unhappy. Unsettled and unhappy industries tend to sue agencies and lobby Congress. Environmentalists also care about timing. They want GHGs to be a part of the permit process as soon as possible, and are likely to exert pressure of their own.

Since the Johnson Memo and the new reconsideration of it are EPA interpretations of its own statutes, they are very hard to challenge in court (they are entitled to Chevron deference). This makes pressure on the agency directly (through the comment process) or indirectly (through Congress) the most likely avenues of attack from either side.

Since the proposed reconsideration confirms the existing approach, I think it will be relatively unchanged in its final form. If the EPA does pursue a change in this policy, however, the effects will be large. This is just one of countless illustrations of how, in Washington as much as anywhere, the little things matter.

This item is cross-posted at Weathervane.

More On ObamaCare/RomneyCare

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here’s something to tuck away in your files on both health care reform and 2012 presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, from Tim Noah at Slate (via Jon Chait). Looking at Romney’s new pre-campaign book, Noah observes:

Romney’s discussion of health reform is, from a partisan perspective, comically off-message. (How could he know what today’s GOP message would be? He probably finished writing the book months ago.) Remove a little anti-Obama boilerplate and Romney’s views become indistinguishable from the president’s. They even rely on the same MIT economist! At the Massachusetts bill’s signing ceremony, Romney relates in his book, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., quipped, “When Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy are celebrating the same piece of legislation, it means only one thing: One of us didn’t read it.”

Noah goes on to mix up some Obama and Romney quotes on health care reform, and challenges the reader to say which is which. Can’t be done.

Back in January, I predicted that Romney’s sponsorship of health care reform in Massachusetts might turn out to be a disabling handicap in a 2012 presidential race, given the shrillnesss of conservative rhetoric about features in Obama’s proposal that are also in Romney’s–most notably, the individual mandate.

Something happened since then, of course, which has been of great value to Romney in protecting his highly vulnerable flank on health reform: Scott Brown, another supporter of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, became the maximum national GOP hero and set off to Washington to try to wreck Obama’s plans. That meant that not one, but two major Republican pols would be promoting ludicrous distinctions between RomneyCare and ObamaCare as though they were actually vast and principled.

But I can’t see this illogical brush-off as working forever. If the Mittster does crank up another presidential campaign, fresh media attention will be devoted to his record and “philosophy” on health care. And more importantly, Romney’s rivals in a presidential race won’t for a moment give him a mulligan on the issue the GOP has defined as all-important. Mitt’s “socialism” in Massachusetts will eventually re-emerge as a big, big problem for him, and arguments that it was just state-level “socialism” won’t quite cut it in a Republican Party that’s moved well to the Right since the last time he ran for president. Before it’s over, they’ll make it sound like he’s the reincarnation of Nelson Rockefeller, money and all.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

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

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Pragmatic Progressive Argument for Repeal

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the 1990’s, pragmatic progressives led the way in reinventing government. Under the leadership of President Clinton, wasteful spending was cut from the federal budget and new cost-effective strategies were implemented that reduced inefficiencies. However, for all our achievements in the ‘90’s, some of the reforms enacted during those years were less than successful. Today, pragmatic progressives must own up to past mistakes and propose fixes to outdated, ineffective and costly policies. Among those failed reforms is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

Mandated by Congress in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act and signed into law by President Clinton, the DADT policy targets for expulsion from the armed services those who have a propensity for, display behavior associated with, or commit acts of homosexuality. It’s important to note that DADT prevented baseless initiation of investigation into a service member’s orientation, which the military’s former policy allowed, and was, in fact, the compromise policy that emerged from President Clinton’s original proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Opinions and conjecture aside about this compromise in 1993, DADT is plainly in need of repeal now — and support for such a move is rock solid. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and former Secretary of State General Colin Powell have recently joined other active and retired high-ranking military and Defense Department officials in calling for its end.

The support for repeal among military brass underscores the pragmatic value of doing away with the policy. For one thing, the policy has inarguably done harm to our national security efforts. Under DADT, almost 800 “mission-critical” troops have been discharged in the last five years, including at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists. These unnecessary discharges create additional challenges and risks for our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, our military continues to face an overall recruiting crisis. DADT unnecessarily limits the pool of potential recruits, including some of the best and brightest young minds we need to win the war on terror and run our military in the decades to come. According to recent estimates, some 4,000 service members each year choose not to re-enlist because of the policy, and 41,000 gay and bisexual men might choose to enlist or re-enlist if the policy were repealed.

Under DADT, more than 13,500 gay soldiers have lost their jobs and medical, educational and other benefits. Many of those discharged are young Americans who enrolled with the promise of a college education and a better life. Others given the boot have served for decades and have lost more than a job — their entire careers have been wiped out, too, because of their sexual orientation.

And then there’s the financial downside of the policy. It costs up to $43,000 to replace a discharged service member. Add at least $150,000 more to that figure for officers and $1,000,000 for Navy and Air Force pilots. If you consider inflation and the cost of additional required training for service members to fight the war on terror, you can imagine the average price tag on this policy has increased — and will continue to increase — significantly over time.

With 75 percent of Americans, including 64 percent of Republicans, calling for an end to DADT, the political risk to overturning this policy is minimal. In fact, when one considers the size of the pro-equality voting bloc, which includes an overwhelming majority of young Americans, one could argue the benefits greatly outweigh the costs of action on this reform.

Rather than approaching DADT as strictly a cultural or social issue — which is how our conservative opposition would like to define it to inject homophobia in the debate and divide Americans — progressives should also frame DADT as a matter of national security, civil service and fiscal responsibility. Taking up this policy challenge under these terms would reflect our progressive values and “third way” approach — to cut wasteful government spending, focus our national security to fight global terrorism and the wars of the 21st century, reduce unemployment and reward work, and promote national service.

Democracy, Iraq-Style

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Everyone knows that America’s attempt to implant democracy in Iraq was a fool’s errand. Everyone, that is, but the Iraqi people.

Stubbornly defying terrorist bombings and official incompetence, they turned out in force to vote in national elections over the weekend. Although the outcome isn’t yet known, the elections confirmed Iraq’s status as the Middle East’s most important, if precarious, experiment in democracy.

The process hasn’t been pretty, but there’s no denying that something like a normal, pluralistic politics is emerging in a society brutalized by a sadistic tyrant and scarred by the sectarian violence that followed the U.S. invasion. The big question now is whether Iraqis will continue along the path of power-sharing and representative government, or give up on democracy and opt for some form of authoritarian rule, which is the norm in their neighborhood.

It’s easy to be pessimistic about Iraq, so let’s start with the positive side of the ledger. First, al Qaeda has been defeated. Though it still perpetrates atrocities against Iraqi civilians, it has scant popular support and cannot stand up to Iraq’s army and police. Sectarian strife also has subsided, at least for the moment; the Economist reports that civilian casualties are at a six-year low.

Second, politics is becoming less sectarian as communal groups splinter and forge cross-cutting alliances. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has broken with the main Shia groups, which failed to field their own candidate for his post. Also expected to do well is former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a nationalist whose coalition includes Shia and Sunnis. In the north, a reform movement called “Change” has broken with the two dominant Kurdish parties on the issue of local political corruption. And in pointed contrast to Iran, Iraq’s Shia clerical establishment stays out of politics.

On the other side of the ledger, Iraq’s emerging political order faces several enormous challenges. One is a fatal combination of governmental weakness and corruption. The central government still cannot supply basic infrastructure, including electricity. Rampant bribery and cronyism are giving democracy a bad name and feeding popular sentiment for strongman rule. It’s not hard to imagine Iraq moving toward a “soft authoritarianism” like Egypt’s or perhaps the even more stifling models of Syria or Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi economy is in shambles. Unemployment is pervasive and private industry is weak; government is the employer of first and last resort in Iraq. Although the country has enormous oil reserves, there’s a real danger it could use them to foster dependence on state subsidies rather than private sector work.

Finally, there’s the question of what happens when U.S. troops are no longer around to backstop Iraq’s political evolution. Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Bush administration and Baghdad, all U.S. forces must be out by the end of 2011. As Peter Beinart warns, this deadline may not allow enough time for the consolidation of democracy in Iraq. The United States plays a quiet but vital role in mediating sectarian conflicts and helping Iraqis set up nonpartisan governing institutions. In our absence, civil war could flare up again, Iran might escalate its internal interference in Iraqi affairs, or there could be a military coup in reaction to public anger over the chaos and incompetence of civilian government.

Of course, the United States cannot unilaterally change the Status of Forces Agreement. But Obama should be vigilant and open to a request from the Iraqi government to do so should that become necessary. We have come too far, at enormous expense to both Iraqis and Americans, to give up now on Iraq’s struggles to build a decent government that rules by popular consent.

NY Lost at the Oscars Last Night

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

“So did you watch the Oscars last night?”

You probably heard that question at least 20 times around the water cooler this morning, and followed it up debating the merits of Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker or Jeff Bridges (who will always be “The Dude” to me) vs. Colin Firth…unless you were one of three million households in New York City, in which case you were fuming that Cablevision and ABC conspired to keep the Academy Awards off your TV screen. In a last-ditch effort to not alienate all their viewers, the two companies — which had allowed ABC service to Cablevision subscribers to expire at midnight the night before the Oscars — got ABC back on Cablevision under an “agreement in principle” about the time Christoph Waltz was accepting the best supporting actor award.

How two of the largest entertainment companies in the country (ABC you know; Cablevision, in addition to being the nation’s fifth largest cable company, owns Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall) could work together to keep the biggest night in entertainment from viewers would seem to boggle the mind.

Cable operators provide local terrestrial broadcast stations over their cable systems under a “must carry” rule, paying carriage fees to provide free-to-air local channels. This arrangement — a leftover from the birth of the cable era in the 1980s — is how you can get your local affiliate on your cable box. But now that “everyone” has cable (87 percent of households in the U.S. subscribe to satellite or cable), terrestrial providers have noticed that they could be charging cable providers for as much as they are paying for the Home Shopping Network. Needless to say, while cable providers want rates to reflect what they feel is the cost of providing a free-to-air channel, local stations want to have the special relationship they have with viewers priced into their carriage fees.

With the conversion of free-to-air analog signal to digital broadcast TV — indistinguishable in quality from the basic cable signal — the stakes seem to have gotten higher. The first shots in this particular war rang out among the New Year’s fireworks, when Fox Television and Time Warner Cable came to a last-minute agreement on providing Fox TV (and the bowl games it broadcast) to 13 million Time Warner subscribers. Fox was looking to get one dollar per subscriber from Time Warner, while the cable provider hoped to continue paying in the neighborhood of the existing nickel-per-customer fee structure.

As local broadcasters are a patchwork across the country, their carriage fee agreements come up for renewal on an irregular basis. The game of chicken was played again this past week between ABC and Cablevision — and with no agreement and neither side blinking, the cars crashed. New York area Cablevision viewers were the losers, though I’m sure Time Warner subscribers and local bars were very popular last night.

The impasse raised the attention of Sen. John Kerry and the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet — who unsurprisingly thought this was as head-slappingly bad an idea as the rest of us — but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisdiction over the issue. FCC media bureau chief William Lake emailed a tepid statement yesterday urging “both parties to quickly reach a resolution for the benefit of viewers.” Rather than taking a passive role with service providers, content providers, and consumers, the FCC should have taken a proactive role in this issue. The goal should have been to keep the players involved from grandstanding in an attempt to gain an undue advantage, and bring them both to the table in search of a solution beneficial to both parties and — most importantly — us viewers.

On the Right Nuclear Weapons Track

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from Will Marshall’s op-ed published today in AolNews.com:

President Barack Obama has resumed a vital post-Cold War chore interrupted by his predecessor — reducing America’s nuclear arsenal. The White House reportedly is putting the final touches on its Nuclear Posture Review, which aims to reinforce the world’s nonproliferation regime without undercutting deterrence.

The new strategy reverses the Strangelovian course pursued by George W. Bush during the heyday of conservative infatuation with unilateralism and pre-emptive strikes. For example, rather than build on the momentum of previous arms-reductions efforts, Bush funded research on a new line of nuclear weapons — “bunker-busters” — intended to take out underground nuclear facilities or command centers.

Under Obama’s strategy, America will develop no new nuclear arms. Instead, Obama is contemplating a new system, called “Prompt Global Strike,” that would enable the United States to hit targets anywhere with non-nuclear weapons. And where Bush rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty, Obama, who backs the treaty, will invest in efforts by U.S. weapons laboratories to ensure the reliability of a smaller stockpile.

Expect conservatives to attack these changes as fresh proof of Obama’s “naïve” quest for a world without nuclear weapons — a vision he offered in his first address to the United Nations in September. The right found an improbable ally in French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who reproved Obama for dreaming while rogue states like Iran and North Korea are bent on expanding the nuclear club.

But Obama’s critics don’t explain how the United States can stem the spread of nuclear arms by holding on to many more than we need. Russia also wants to get rid of its superfluous nukes, which is why it’s been pressing Washington for a new arms-reduction treaty. What’s more, under the 1965 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear powers are obliged to reduce their nuclear stockpiles in return for agreement by nuclear “have-nots” to forgo building nuclear weapons.

Read the full column at AolNews.com.

The Iraqi Election You Haven’t Heard About

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Iraq is having a major election on Sunday. No way, really? Yup, really. The leader of the winning coalition gets to be prime minister even. Suffice it to say, I’m pretty sure this one has slipped under the radar for most Americans. My quick and informal poll of friends — “Are you aware that Iraq is going to elect a new prime minister on Sunday?” — drew a mix of blank stares and disbelief. Gone are the days of George W. Bush’s PR blitz, where the ex-prez’s attempts to build public support for his war hung on selling the country on wistfully wrapped, grandiose concepts of liberty and freedom.

This time around, the Obama administration has opted for a more low-key approach. Democracies aren’t built overnight, a lesson the Bush folks probably knew, but since they had staked so much political capital to a quick victory and transition in Iraq, they couldn’t see the forest for the trees. The reality is that this election is more important than the last one, and the next one will be more important than this weekend’s. The mere act of holding elections is of course highly significant, but they must continually confirm the growth and strength of state institutions to truly build a democracy. That’s what this election is really about — how stable is Iraq?

So who’s going to win, and what issues are Iraqis concerned with? Man, if I could answer either of those with granularity, I could probably figure out how to make a lot of money with it. For starters, click here for a guide to all the different coalitions. Current polling predicts that incumbent PM Nouri al-Maliki’s coalition will win 30 percent of parliamentary seats, ex-PM Ayad Allawi’s (a Shia, running with a Sunni and secular Shia on a national unity coaition) bloc will take 22 percent, and the Iraqi National Alliance (a conservative Shia group) will get 17. But this doesn’t necessarily determine the “winner” because all the main groups will have to form a governing majority by reaching out to some of the millions of minority blocs in a coalition-of-the-coalitions government. In other words, Allawi might become prime minister if he can form a bigger coalition alliance with a few critical minority groups.

“Issues” in Iraq don’t carry — at least for now — the same weight and implications they do as in Western democratic politics. Iraqis aren’t going to bicker about abortion language in a health care bill in Baghdad, for example. Rather, Iraqi politicians are still debating the first two levels on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and wants: basic security, public services, and the like.

Which is why incumbent PM Nouri al-Maliki has named his coalition “State of Law,” which is of course designed to appeal to those who desire security. It’s also why there has been an uptick in attacks across Iraq over the last few months, as various groups try to disprove al-Maliki’s claim that he has the upper hand in the security situation.

I think we’ll really know how far Iraqi democracy has come based on sectarian voting patterns. Are Shias just voting for other Shias? Sunnis for Sunnis? Kurds for Kurds? We’ll know that democracy has really come to Iraq when a Shia will vote for a Sunni based on issues, not patronage. But since the issues are still so rudimentary, sectarianism still probably carries the day.

Finally, the post-election period will be the most critical. How easy will it be to form a governing majority? Will there be a peaceful transfer of power? How bad is sectarian violence? These questions all hinge on one another, I’m afraid. There may be calls for the U.S. to extend its presence in Iraq if the post-election period is really messy. But as I’ve written here, that’s a lot tougher than it might seem.

So pay attention, America — Iraq still deserves your attention.

Pro-Reform Majority?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With Republicans beating the drums incessantly for the proposition that “the American people have rejected health care reform,” it’s probably not a bad time to recall the discussion that broke out late last year over evidence that many people saying they oppose specific proposals do so because they want to take reform much farther.

Exhibit A was an Ipsos-McClatchy poll taken in November. Here was Nate Silver’s take on it:

Ipsos/McClatchy put out a health care poll two weeks ago. The topline results were nothing special: 34 percent favored “the health care reform proposals presently being discussed”, versus 46 percent opposed, and 20 percent undecided. The negative-12 net score is roughly in line with the average of other polls, although the Ipsos poll shows a higher number of undecideds than most others.Ipsos, however, did something that no other pollster has done. They asked the people who opposed the bill why they opposed it: because they are opposed to health care reform and thought the bill went too far? Or because they support health care reform but thought the bill didn’t go far enough?

It turns out that a significant minority of about 25 percent of the people who opposed the plan — or about 12 of the overall sample — did so from the left; they thought the plan didn’t go far enough.

Well, Ipsos-McClatchey is back with another poll, and it’s shows an even stronger percentage of reform “opponents” thinking current bills don’t go far enough: more than a third of the 47% of respondents opposing “the reforms being discussed” say it’s because “they don’t go far enough.” Added to the 41% of respondents who say they support “the reforms being discussed,” that’s a pretty significant majority favoring strong government action to reform the health care system.

If that’s right, then maybe a majority of Americans technically favor a “no” vote on health care reform. But it’s not at all clear that they’ll be any happier with a perpetuation of the status quo, much less the kind of “reforms” Republicans are talking about. It looks like a significant share of the public wants something with a strong public option, or perhaps a full-blown single-payer system. It’s disengenuous to pretend these are people who have linked arms with Rush Limbaugh and congressional Republican leaders to fight against serious reform.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

The Tea Party’s Retreaded Ideas

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For all the talk about the Tea Party Movement and its demands that America’s political system be turned upside down, it’s always been a bit hard to get a fix on what, exactly, these conservative activists want Washington to do.

To solve this puzzle, it’s worth taking a look at the Contract From America process — a project of the Tea Party Patriot organization, designed to create a bottoms-up, open-source agenda that activists can embrace when they gather for their next big moment in the national media sun on April 15. The 21-point agenda laid out for Tea Partiers to refine into a 10-point “Contract” is, to put it mildly, a major Blast from the Past, featuring conservative Republican chestnuts dating back decades.

There’s term limits, naturally. There are a couple of “transparency” proposals, such as publication of bill texts well before votes. But more prominent are fiscal “ideas” very long in the tooth. You got a balanced budget constitutional amendment, which ain’t happening and won’t work. You got fair tax/flat tax, the highly regressive concept flogged for many years by a few talk radio wonks, that has never been taken seriously even among congressional Republicans. You’ve got Social Security and Medicare privatization (last tried by George W. Bush in 2005) and education vouchers. You’ve got scrapping all federal regulations, preempting state and local regulations, and maybe abolishing some federal departments (an idea last promoted by congressional Republicans in 1995). You’ve got abolition of the “death tax” (i.e., the tax on very large inheritances). And you’ve got federal spending caps, which won’t actually roll back federal spending because they can’t be applied to entitlements.

My favorite on the list is a proposal that in Congress “each bill…identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.” This illustrates the obliviousness or hostility of Tea Partiers to the long string of Supreme Court decisions, dating back to the 1930s, that give Congress broad policymaking powers under the 14th Amendment and the Spending and Commerce Clauses. This illustrates the literalism of Tea Party “original intent” views of the Constitution; if wasn’t spelled out explicitly by the Founders it’s unconstitutional.

We are often told that the Tea Party Movement represents some sort of disenfranchised “radical middle” in America that rejects both major parties’ inability to get together and solve problems. As the “Contract From America” shows, that’s totally wrong. At least when it comes to policy proposals, these folks are the hard-right wing of the Republican Party, upset that Barry Goldwater’s agenda from 1964 has never been implemented.

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