Category: Uncategorized

Another Teachable Moment

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has done a very irresponsible thing that nonetheless offers Democrats a classic “teachable moment” about the true fidelity of Republicans to fiscal discipline. Shelby put a hold on all presidential appointments (70 are pending at present ) until he gets his way on a couple of big projects — one involving a Shelby appropriations “earmark” — benefiting Alabama.

Some may recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Republicans talked as though earmarks were the primary cause of the federal government’s budget problems. And here’s one of their own gumming up the entire executive branch over one of them, while also trying to control the exact language of a federal contract on another project to steer money to his own state.

Shelby’s action could also help draw attention to the disgraceful pattern of Republican obstruction of presidential appointments, which has left dozens of federal agencies without key personnel.

“Holds” by senators are an atavistic tradition in the first place. Democrats should not let Shelby get away with the unprecedented step of a “blanket” hold, in order to shake down the administration for earmarked money, even as his party demagogues endlessly about runaway spending. Congressional Republicans should finally begin to pay a political price for their hypocrisy and cynicism on fiscal issues.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Why It’s Too Soon to Worry About Wireless Net Neutrality

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week’s Verizon/Google joint FCC filing on net neutrality contained a substantive idea that was worth discussing – a proposal for “Technical Advisory Groups.” But there’s an item that’s also worth discussing because of its incompleteness: net neutrality in the wireless space. Google and Verizon apparently consider it an important enough issue to include, even though they couldn’t agree on anything more specific than to encourage the FCC to “examine specific market and technical factors before applying any general oversight or specific rules to wireless broadband networks.”

But while the issue of wireless network neutrality is important, it’s the wrong one to fixate on at the moment. Wireless is, in fact, different from wired, and the issue of neutrality does not transplant as cleanly from one to the other. Neutrality opponents have, in general, greatly overstated the technical case against regulation. But in the wireless arena as it exists today, their dire warnings are far more plausible.

As with the points of agreement in the Verizon/Google brief, this comes down to the participants’ market positions. Verizon is the country’s most powerful wireless operator, while Google is at the center of the Open Handset Alliance, the organization behind the Android platform and the effort to diminish carrier control that it represents.

Getting a Handle on Wireless Net Neutrality

But what does network neutrality mean in the wireless context? As with the larger debate, people have varyingly expansive ideas about where to draw the line. A good place to start is Tim Wu’s 2007 Wireless Carterfone paper. Wu, at least, is quite specific about what network neutrality involves, basing his criteria off of then-FCC chairman Michael Powell’s “four network freedoms”: choice of applications, choice of devices, choice of content and service plan transparency.

As you might imagine, the wireless carriers don’t like some of these ideas — particularly the first two — saying that they’re technically unworkable. And though I’m hardly a cheerleader for America’s wireless carriers, in this instance, they do have a point. Roger Entner makes the case, pointing out that wireless cells are a shared resource with limited capacity. Wu anticipated this criticism:

The problem with this argument is that scarcity is an economic feature of not just wireless networks, but wireline networks as well. Both wireless and the local loop are last-mile networks of limited available bandwidth, and, in fact, the bandwidth available on a copper local loop is considerably less than on some of today’s wireless networks. For both products, it can be claimed that third parties cannot be trusted to make products that respect the shared needs of the network. In the Hush-a-Phone case, for example, AT&T claimed that third parties would bear “no responsibility for the quality of telephone service, but [be] primarily interested in exploiting their products.” Similarly, local carriers for years complained that modems abused the scarce resources of the phone network (by maintaining long connections). But as Judge Robert Bork argued in another context: “All economic goods are scarce… since scarcity is a universal fact, it can hardly explain regulation in one context and not another. The attempt to use a universal fact as a distinguishing principle necessarily leads to analytical confusion.”

But this is an oversimplification. There are spatial constraints on wireless operators that don’t apply to wired networks. Two cables running side-by-side will not typically interfere with one another; two cell towers operating on the same portion of spectrum and space will. And mobile data users are just that — mobile. A bad DSL modem or heavy Bittorrent user with a cable connection might impact the service of those on the same local loop, but the size of that loop can be controlled by the network operator, and the customers on it can be easily tracked and, if necessary, sanctioned. The number of users impacted by a malfunctioning wireless modem or handset-spewing packets is primarily a factor of population density.

And on cellular networks, tracking down network malefactors is harder and sure to be more expensive than the example cited by Wu. In the Hush-a-Phone case, a commercial entity existed that AT&T could sue. If the manufacturers of the Hush-a-Phone device were to lose such a lawsuit, they risked losing their capital investment. It was in their own interest to produce a device that worked well enough with the AT&T network to satisfy consumers and avoid the network operator’s wrath. The incentives for individuals to use wireless networks gently are much weaker: a canceled contract? A stern letter? This wasn’t enough to discourage those who participated in Operation Chokehold, a deliberate effort by iPhone users to cripple the AT&T network in protest of new bandwidth restrictions.

A More Pressing Wireless Issue

Of course, Chokehold proved to be something of a bust — unsurprising, perhaps, given that even its creator was urging people not to participate by the time the event actually rolled around. Still, the capacity of individuals to damage other wireless users’ service shouldn’t be ignored. I’m in no position to judge the legal merits of Judge Bork’s assertion that scarcity is an incoherent rationale for regulation, but surely it makes practical sense to demand that people stop watering their lawns during a drought. The FCC considered Operation Chokehold a real threat; anyone who’s tried to share wifi on a discount bus line with someone watching video — or just tried to use their iPhone during business hours in San Francisco or New York — intuitively understands how cramped the data portion of cellular networks currently is.

One obvious response is that the networks should be expanded. This is undeniably true: the nation’s demand for wireless data is sure to increase dramatically. The carriers must find fairer ways to charge for access, and begin paying more attention to infrastructure and less to marketing gimmicks. But it’s still the case that the operators must prioritize reliable voice service over data service; that spectrum is a scarce resource; and that there is a tension between expanding existing infrastructure and investing in coming generations of technology.

There’s reason for optimism. WiMAX promises to deliver a wireless network designed for data, and is close to widespread deployment. The transition to digital television also promises to deliver useful spectrum for wireless data (though much of it is currently being used to broadcast reruns of Magnum P.I. and redundant weather channels, thanks to an indefensible giveaway to incumbent broadcasters). Once new wireless networks and technologies remove the tight constraints currently facing mobile data users, protecting and enhancing users’ network freedoms should become a priority for the FCC. Until then, ensuring those networks’ viability must unfortunately remain their focus.

The Right and the GOP: Pushing On An Open Door

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In any highly fluid political situation, you will always find some observers determined to argue that it’s not fluid at all–that underneath the surface, the status quo prevails, and anyone thinking otherwise is naive or poorly informed.

Tuesday night, you just knew that Mark Kirk’s U.S. Senate primary victory in Illinois would be interpreted in some circles as proving that the much-discussed rightward trend in the Republican Party, sped along by pressure from the Tea Party Movement, was actually a mirage. And sure enough, Politico‘s Jonathan Martin published an article today entitled: “Tea leaves: Republican establishment Still Rules.”

Aside from Kirk’s win (more about that in a moment), Martin’s main bits of evidence for his hypothesis are that the Republican National Committee recently rejected an effort to impose an ideological “purity test” on candidates seeking party financial support, and that recent GOP winners like Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell didn’t campaign on divisive cultural issues.

The “purity test” argument would be more compelling if not for the fact that many hard-core conservatives opposed it as insufficiently rigid, ham-handed, or unnecessary. Nobody, but nobody, in the conservative movement is more preoccupied with driving RINOs and “squishes” out of the Republican Party like whipped curs than Red State proprietor Erick Erickson. Yet he opposed the “purity test” as offering ideological heretics a phony seal of approval:

Rome long ago stopped selling indulgences, but conservatives keep right on selling them. Look, for example, at NY-23. The moment Dede Scozzafava signed ATR’s [Americans for Tax Reform] no new tax pledge, she was absolved of all her sins, including voting for 198 tax increases in the New York legislature.

Therein lies the inherent problem with candidates signing off on well meaning pablum — there are no teeth and the party will not serve as its own enforcer.

While I applaud the desire of conservative RNC members to try to put the train back on the tracks, I am afraid this will do what the ATR pledge did in Scozzafava’s case — give a lot of candidates cover to pretend to be conservative.

Plenty of other conservatives opposed the “purity test” on grounds that “grassroots Republicans” were best equipped to police candidates. Some interpreted such rhetoric as indicating a big-tent willingness to tolerate regionally important ideological variations. But as the recent DK/R2K survey of self-identified Republicans illustrated, “regional differences” in the GOP are pretty much a relic of the past in a monolithically conservative party. And nowadays the “grassroots” means conservative activists, who are indeed avid to conduct ideological purification rituals. If there is a significant body of “grassroots activists” fighting to protect the interests of Republican “moderates,” it’s an awfully quiet group.

In general, the “purity test’ furor reminds me of a quip I heard during the Jim Crow era about the relative weakness of the John Birch Society in the South: “Nobody sees the point in joining an organization standing for things everybody already agrees with.”

The argument that the success of hyper-opportunist Scott Brown and stealth theocrat Bob McDonnell “proves” the ideologues don’t have much real power in the GOP strikes me as almost self-refuting. Sure, Brown had a “moderate” reputation in the MA legislature, but that’s not why he became the maximum hero of the Tea Party Movement, whose themes he adopted wholesale. By contrast, McDonnell didn’t need to reassure social conservatives of his bona fides by campaigning on “their” issues; he had proven himself to be “one of them” for many years.

As for Mark Kirk, it’s true that conservative activists don’t like him, and there’s even a chance his Senate campaign will be immensely complicated by a Tea Party inspired third-party effort. But it’s also true he spent much of the primary campaign tacking steadily to the right, flip-flopping on the Gitmo detainee issue, and more dramatically, promising to vote in the Senate against the climate change legislation he voted for in the House. He’s hardly a good example of the weakness of conservatives in the GOP nationally.

More generally, it’s increasingly obvious that what passes for a “Republican Establishment” these days is focused heavily on surrendering to the most immediate ideological impulses of Tea Party and conservative movement activists (who are in fact the very same people in many places) and then coopting them for the 2010 and 2012 campaign cycles. In attempting a takeover of the GOP, the hard right is in many respects pushing on an open door. The RNC chairman, supposedly a “moderate” of sorts, never misses an opportunity to identify himself with the Tea Party Movement. Sarah Palin, who was the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2008, has called for a merger of the Movement and the GOP. Republican Sen. Jim DeMint has argued that they have already more or less merged.

In his piece Martin suggests that the longstanding Republican pedigree of Florida Tea Party hero Marco Rubio somehow proves the “establishment” is still in charge. I’d say it shows that “establishment” is in the process of rapidly surrendering to the “conservative coup” that Martin scoffs at. Charlie Crist, whom Rubio seems certain to trounce in a Republican Senate primary later this year, was without question a major “GOP establishment” figure just months ago, and Rubio was considered a nuisance candidate. Now he’s the living symbol of a “purity test” being applied to Republicans by the “grassroots” to dramatic effect.

Yes, many Tea Party activists continue to shake their fists at the “Republican establishment,” just like unambiguously Republican conservative activists have done for many decades, dating back to the Willkie Convention of 1940. But with some exceptions, they are choosing to operate politically almost exclusively through the GOP, to the “establishment’s” delight.

The emerging reality is that the Tea Party activists are the shock troops in the final conquest of the Republican Party by the most hard-core elements of the conservative movement. It’s apparent not just in Republican primaries, but in the remarkable ability of Republican politicians to repudiate as “socialism” many policy positions their party first developed and quite recently embraced (Mark Kirk’s support for cap-and-trade would have been considered relatively uncontroversial just a few years ago). You can certainly root around and find a few exceptions to this trend, but they are few and far between. And the implicit assumption of Martin’s piece–that the “adults” of the Republican “establishment” will once again tame the wild ideological beasts of their party–is actually dangerous.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Charters and Civil Rights

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Gary Orfield, a UCLA education professor, has long been the nation’s foremost chronicler of racial segregation in schools. According to today’s Washington Post, a new study by Orfield’s Civil Rights Project shows that public charter schools are less racially diverse than traditional schools.

“As the country continues moving steadily toward greater segregation and inequality of education for students of color in schools with lower achievement and graduation rates, the rapid growth of charter schools has been expanding a sector that is even more segregated than the public schools,” the report concludes.

This assertion seems suspect on several grounds, and it illustrates the pitfalls of viewing the public charter school movement through the frame of the nation’s great school integration battles of the 1960s and 1970s.

For one thing, minority families are freely choosing charter schools. In the bad old days of Jim Crow, they were forced to attend segregated schools. Later, as many whites fled the cities to avoid sending their children to integrated schools, black families were left behind and had no choice but to attend their local district school. As Orfield and others have documented, this “re-segregation” in impoverished urban neighborhoods was a disaster for big city school systems.

Public school choice arose in Minnesota in the late 1980s to give parents the option to send their children to schools outside their local districts. The charter school idea was conceived in part as a way to bring innovative public schools to the students, rather than forcing them to travel to other districts to find them.

The Charter Record in D.C.

 

As it happens, Washington is in the vanguard of the public charter movement (full disclosure: I’m a member of the D.C. Public Charter School Board). About 84 percent of charter school students here are black, compared with 78 percent in traditional public schools. Why have so many charters located in poor and working-class minority neighborhoods? Because it is precisely the kids in those communities who urgently need better education options. The city’s regular public schools have historically ranked near the bottom in comparisons of major urban education systems, although Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michele Rhee have launched a determined effort to lift their performance.

The city’s 58 charter schools have given low-income black and Latino children something they never had before: a choice of where to attend school, as well as an array of innovative learning programs tailored to diverse interests and learning styles. That 28,000, or 38 percent, of D.C.’s students have exercised that choice — in effect voting with their feet — attests to the need for new options. And the shrinking of the traditional school sector’s “market share” was no doubt a big factor behind Fenty’s decision to take it over.

The important question, as Charter School Board Vice Chairman Brian Jones observed to the Post, is not the racial composition of charters, it’s whether they are providing a better education than traditional schools.

The answer is fiercely contested in the research community. Here the evidence is mixed: Many of the District’s best schools are charters, but not all charters are performing well. That’s why our Board has shut down four schools and accepted the voluntary surrender of charters from seven more since 2003.

Why Segregation Is Not the Issue

 

There’s considerable irony here. When I was advocating for charter schools back in the early 1990s, many Democrats in my native Virginia and other southern states were suspicious. Given the region’s bad racial history, they feared that charters would become a new, publicly funded version of the old “segregation academies” – private schools to which white families turned to avoid sending their children to school with blacks. That’s one reason Virginia has lagged in charter school innovation.

In this respect, the Orfield report indirectly raises a very interesting question: Why aren’t there more charter schools in white neighborhoods in Washington and other major cities? Given that the dismal reputation of urban education is a chief catalyst for suburban flight, more charters might be a good way to keep more middle-class families (white and black) in the urban core.

If charters are less racially diverse than other public schools, it’s largely because they are cropping up in the urban communities that desperately need school innovation and choice. Since many charters aim at closing the educational achievement gap between white and minority students, it seems perverse to cast them as agents of school segregation.

There is a civil rights issue here, but with all respect to Gary Orfield, it’s not segregation. It’s that too many low-income black, Latino, and immigrant students are trapped in dysfunctional urban school systems.

The State of Play on Cap-and-Trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Remember cap-and-trade? Progressives now speak of it in hushed, glum tones, the way we do of the recently departed. If the bill was already unlikely to be passed in the wake of a difficult 2009 for Democrats, then Scott Brown’s win all but guaranteed that it wouldn’t be so much as a blip on the Dems’ political agenda in 2010.

Yet there are some out there who continue to hold out hope. Some are even Republicans. Here’s Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) speaking at a D.C. event yesterday:

I don’t think you’ll ever have energy independence the way I want it until you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon. The two are connected in my view—very much connected. The money to be made in solving the carbon pollution problem can only happen when you price carbon in my view.

So if the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill and say that is moving the ball down the road, forget it with me.

Now, Graham has come out against both the House-passed cap-and-trade bill last year and the bill that passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. But he, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are trying to cobble together a compromise that results in some sort of carbon-pricing scheme and, no less important, can get 60 votes.

It’s indisputable that a system that prices carbon is better at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and spurring clean energy development than a stand-alone energy bill with the usual cocktail of subsidies to energy companies – something that some in Congress are now actively pushing. As Bradford Plumer has pointed out, “without a cap on carbon, such a bill might even end up increasing emissions – especially if the proposed new transmission lines merely gave coal-fired plants access to new markets, allowing them to boost output.”

Where’s the administration in all this? President Obama’s budget pointedly left out revenue that an emissions-trading program would have brought in. (Last year’s budget, by contrast, included a revenue forecast of $646 billion over several years from a cap-and-trade system.) The administration insists that the omission shouldn’t be read as a signal of where things stand on cap-and-trade — but it’s sure hard not to. Then again, the budget also includes a $43 million increase for the EPA’s implementation of its carbon endangerment finding, certainly a signal that it intends to move ahead with a Supreme Court-mandated regulatory effort to confront the carbon problem in the absence of legislation.

For his part, President Obama in a town hall appearance in New Hampshire earlier this week gave a strong defense of the concept of pricing carbon to drive incentives for clean energy investments. But he also acknowledged that the Senate might separate the subsidies for clean energy in an energy bill from a carbon-pricing mechanism – which realistically means no cap-and-trade at all.

I understand that the president can’t throw around words like “half-assed.” But a stronger push would be nice. Graham called out an energy-bill-only route for what it is and stood firm on the issue of carbon pricing. It seems like there’s an opening there for the president to make the same argument and embolden Congress to do what’s really needed to spur a clean energy economy and curb greenhouse gases: pass a cap-and-trade system.

Stand with Westphalia

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The “aught” decade that just ended was bracketed by 9/11, perpetrated by al-Qaeda terrorists who had enjoyed havens in Sudan and Afghanistan, and a thwarted Christmas 2009 airline bombing by a Nigerian terrorist, who learned his craft in Yemen. The years were filled with a running, halting effort to prevent the Taliban from re-taking the Afghanistan government. Throughout the millennial decade, a postmodern theme dominated: terrorists virtually taking over weak states that should have been eliminating them.  Today, as we enter a shiny new decade, we should embrace a cozy and decidedly pre-modern tradition: the system of sovereign states that has served us well since the 17th century.

The world has been governed by an arrangement of sovereign nation-states with fixed boundaries since the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648. But that system faces threats today. In a fascinating article in Foreign Policy, Atlantic staff writer Graeme Wood described today’s worrisome “quasi-states”—ethnic enclaves that have currency and governments, yet are not officially recognized by the United Nations. Wood includes Abkhazia, an entity of 190,000 that separated from Georgia after a war in the early 1990s; Somaliland, a refugee enclave from a Somalian dictator’s brutality in the late 1980s; and Kurdistan, which stamps visas “Republic of Iraq-Kurdistan Region.”

No less worrisome are weak nation-states that are currently facing threats to their sovereignty from terrorist groups within their borders. The attempted airplane bombing by a Nigerian disciple of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has taken root in Yemen, is only the latest reminder.

Like termites eating away at a building’s foundation, a weak commitment to states ultimately threatens to topple the internal and external order provided by the Westphalian system, with America and our allies directly in the path of collapse. The system’s bad actors—groups who refuse to respect states per se—have perversely, if predictably, turned on the greatest state of them all, the United States. And so the system needs to defend itself, with the U.S. at the lead.

The destabilization latent in both quasi-states and weak nation-states is aggravating already dangerous conditions in many of the world’s hotspots. In Lebanon, Hezbollah currently controls two cabinet seats and 11 seats in the 128-member Parliament; the cabinet recently voted to defy a UN order for Hezbollah to disarm. In Gaza, Hamas took official governmental powers through elections in 2006, yet has failed so far to provide decent government services, while clashing with Fatah—previously the best hope for progress and stability—and fighting progress with Israel.

Prior to last year, Pakistan had essentially conceded the northwest Federally Administered Tribal Areas to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; today, violent clashes occur in the region, but the terrorists are far from subdued. Meanwhile, in Yemen, al-Qaeda operatives are moving into formal positions in the government. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban is marching again on Kabul; President Obama’s new strategy aims principally to “degrade” the Taliban, in the hopes that the Afghan state can save itself.

With almost a year to review, discussion is now beginning about what President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine exactly is. As the inevitable fray begins, here’s one big doctrinal idea: let’s dedicate America’s resources, both hard and soft, to nurturing strong states around the world, undergirded by constitutionalism and the rule of law, and pressing those actors who would otherwise create sub-states and quasi-states either to put down their weapons and join states, or suffer the oblivion that recalcitrant terrorist methods deserve.

In the coming decade, the U.S. must focus like a laser on the threat non-state actors pose to the world order.  The fronts spread throughout the world.  We need to pressure warlords in Afghanistan to join the government by making private militias unacceptable and illegal.  We should push Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to forgo violence, recognize Israel, and become legitimate.  We need continually to support and reform the government in Yemen, while fighting al-Qaeda’s intrusions.  In our own hemisphere, we need to render illegitimate the paramilitary groups who are currently re-arming in Colombia and threatening the government there.

In all of these cases, we should employ all the multilateral instruments at our disposal, working with NATO and the UN and also organizations like the IMF and the World Bank to deploy both carrots (including trade and other economic incentives) and sticks (sanctions and, in the case of aggression or imminent threats, force).

There is also much we can do unilaterally.  The FY 2010 omnibus spending bill passed by Congress shows we’re on the right track in using our “soft power” to help consolidate states.  For instance, the budget increases monies to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which incentivizes governments to undertake democratic reform, 26%, to $1.105 billion.  And in Yemen, the FY 2010 budget nearly doubles our FY 2010 economic support funds from $21 billion to $40 billion, which should help strengthen the government there.

However, there are flaws that demonstrate the need for a more systemic approach.  In Pakistan, under Congress’s 2010 budget, our military assistance will drop, from $300 million in FY 2009 to $238 million in FY 2010, and economic support barely rising, from $1 billion to $1.04 billion.  These decisions risk undermining a Pakistani government that has recently made promising steps toward finally confronting the non-state actors within its borders.

All in all, disparate strands including Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia need to be woven into a coherent, international approach, led by the United States. The issue isn’t so much quasi-states like Abkhazia and Somaliland, as interesting and troubling as they are. More urgent are non-state actors seeking to become states that directly threaten our security. And so the past should be prologue: we should stand with Westphalia, now more than ever.

Can Republicans Win the Senate?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With yesterday’s easy primary victory by Mark Kirk in IL, and with the news that former Sen. Dan Coats will leave his lobbying gig to take on Evan Bayh in IN, Republicans are now getting excited about the possibility of retaking the Senate this November.

They should probably chill a bit. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post breaks down the 10 Democratic seats Republicans would have to win — without losing any of their own — to regain control of the Senate. And while anything’s possible if this turns out to be a “wave” election, running this particular table will be very difficult.

To start with the least likely Republican victories, Chris Dodd’s retirement makes Democratic attorney general Richard Blumenthal a solid front-runner in CT. Republicans must negotiate a difficult primary and then take on one of the most popular politicians in recent Nutmeg State history. Similarly, CA Republicans must get through a tough primary before taking on Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of the more popular politicians in a state that really hates its politicians (in both parties) these days.

Bayh will hardly be an easy mark. The never-defeated former Boy Wonder of Hoosier politics, he’s sitting on $13 million in campaign cash, and has a history of winning big in good Republican years. Meanwhile, Coats has to deal with bad publicity over his 10 years of DC lobbying work, including representation of banks and equity firms. And he’s been voting in Virginia, not Indiana, all that time.

A lot of Republicans seem to be assuming that Mark Kirk will win easily in IL. Only problem is: he’s currently trailing Democratic nominee Alexi Giannoulias in early polls, and will also have to explain some major flip-flops he executed to survive his primary.

I’m probably not the only observer in either party who remains skeptical that former Club for Growth chieftain Pat Toomey is going to win in PA against the eventual winner of the Sestak-Specter primary. Toomey is certainly the kind of guy who will make sure that intra-Democratic wounds heal quickly.

And then there are states which are absolute crapshoots at this point, such as CO, where either appointed Sen. Michael Bennet or former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff will probably face former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. The same is true of an open Republican seat in MO, where Democrat Robin Carnahan has been running essentially even with Roy Blunt.

Republican open seats in NH, OH, and KY are hardly safe for the GOP, either.

All in all, it would take an odds-defying “wave” indeed to deliver the Senate to Republicans. And by the very nature of Senate races, which match high-profile politicians usually well-known to voters, “waves” are less likely to control outcomes than in House races. The only real precedent for what GOPers are dreaming of came in 1980, with Republicans improbably won every single close race.

In many respects, the Senate landscape will be much improved for Republicans in 2012. But then we will be dealing with a presidential year, different (and more favorable for Democrats) turnout patterns, and the little problem that the Republican presidential field doesn’t look that exciting (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin, who’s a little too exciting).

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Simmer Down, America

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The headlines make it sound like we’ll all be dead by July…

WaPo: “Officials warn of looming terror risk”
NYT: “Senators warned of terror attack by July”
CBS News: “CIA Chief: Al Qaeda Poised to Attack U.S.”

…but I’d still go ahead planning that BBQ on the 4th, because even if there is an attack, the headlines portray a threat environment that — while serious — probably isn’t as menacingly “looming” as they make it seem.

Here’s the actual exchange between Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and FBI Director Robert Mueller:

Senator Feinstein: What is the likelihood of another terrorist attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months? High or low? Director Blair?

Blair: An attempted attack, the priority is certain.

Sen. Feinstein: Mr. Panetta?

Panetta: I would agree with that.

Sen. Feinstein: Mr. Mueller?

Mueller: Agree.

That’s a little bit more nuanced than the writers would have you believe. The journalists’ apparent ironclad certainty about an impending terrorist attack distorts the intensely political context surrounding the issue and ignores the degraded threat al Qaeda central poses.

It’s important that the issue was raised during Senator Feinstein’s questioning and not during the intel chiefs’ opening statements. If they brought it up right off the bat, that would imply there was specific intelligence about an ongoing plot. Given the context of this exchange, security heads don’t appear to have anything concrete that is specific and imminent. They’re hedging their bets.

Now Senator Feinstein is right to ask tough questions like this — that’s her job. But if you’re a high-ranking intelligence official, and the senator overseeing your department asks you about the possibility of an attempted attack, who in their right mind would ever say, “Naaah, I think it’s all good. Nothing to worry about here…”? If that’s your answer and there is even a small-scale attempt (like the one on Christmas), then you can kiss your job goodbye.

Finally, we need to put al Qaeda’s attack capabilities in context. Senator Feinstein correctly qualified her question to ask about an attempted attack; it’s a critical word that gets ignored. Because over the next six months, I don’t believe that either AQ’s senior leadership or its international affiliates will regain the logistical competence to attempt a massive attack on the scale of 9/11. Far more likely is the small-time attempt perpetrated by individuals who, as Director Panetta mentioned, have “clean” histories and are — by definition — more difficult to collect intelligence on.

Or to reinterpret the security chiefs’ answers, “Yes, there is the high probability that someone we could never hope to know about will attempt a minor terrorist attack in the United States. It may or may not be successful, depending on how competent and lucky the operator is. To say otherwise would ignore such individuals’ patterns of recent behavior. But another 9/11 — though possible — is far less likely.”

Haiti After the Quake: Nation-Building Next Door

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Download the report.

As the tragedy in Haiti plays out in nightly newscasts, Americans can be proud of their contribution to the relief effort. With over 16,000 U.S. forces already deployed and $100 million in reconstruction money pledged from the government — on top of over $500 million donated privately — America’s commitment is firm.

Following the earthquake, President Obama wrote, “[I]n times of tragedy, the United States of America steps forward and helps. That is who we are. That is what we do.” America’s can-do spirit and a large supply of humanitarian resources are certainly a promising start, but all the good intentions in the world won’t stabilize and rebuild our ravaged neighbor. In undertaking this mammoth task, Americans should embrace the implications of the president’s words: the United States’ and international community’s effort in Haiti is nothing short of a long-term nation-building exercise.

And that’s good news. Helping Haiti firmly stand on its own over the long term — both with reconstructed buildings and a functioning government — is not only the right thing to do but will lead to a more stable region.

In a time when U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan evoke uncomfortable associations with the term “nation-building,” it’s important to note that America’s troops have been unquestionably welcomed with open arms in Haiti. “It’s high time for those troops to have been deployed. They are crucial to help restore security in our devastated towns,” said Yvon Jerome, mayor of the hard-hit Carrefour district on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince.

On a day-to-day level, any major disaster relief effort will face a set of serious yet known problems: controlling the spread of infectious disease, staving off immediate hunger and dehydration, establishing basic order in a chaotic situation. Since we’re not on the ground in Haiti, we’ll leave decisions like where to put aid stations and which neighborhoods to secure first to responding disaster relief experts.

Though immediate relief is of course today’s pressing need, this memo takes a longer view to highlight potential roadblocks along the way to a robust and effective nation-building effort. First, we prioritize steps required to bring good governance to Haiti, both within the international chain-of-command and the Haitian government. Second, we identify reconstruction priorities and funding issues that must be addressed now to give Haiti a chance at meaningful recovery once the immediate humanitarian crisis is controlled.

Thousands of lives will be saved by the massive international effort underway. But the consequences of an ineffective reconstruction effort could be huge: If the main players in Haiti don’t figure out who’s in charge and plan for the next set of challenges, the international community could do as much damage as good, and billions of dollars and thousands more lives could be lost.

Who’s in Charge, Anyway?

The U.S. military (with 16,000 troops), United Nations (12,000 soldiers), and thousands of international non-governmental organizations have arrived in droves since the earthquake. Coordinating roles, missions, and even arrivals at Port-au-Prince airport between these groups has been confusing. Continued lack of clarity could hamper aid distribution and ultimately cripple reconstruction efforts in the long term.

Broadly speaking, the UN’s Blue Helmets have taken charge of street-level security in a peacekeeping role. U.S. Southern Command has control of the major ports of entry and supply routes that distribute relief aid throughout the city and region. NGO’s have undertaken a variety of humanitarian missions in accordance with their respective specialties.

These missions evolved on an ad hoc basis from mandates or delegated authorities in the panicked aftermath of the quake. For example, Haitian President René Préval signed over air traffic control to the U.S. military in order to better manage the arrival of relief supplies.

But the UN’s mandate is to conduct the Stabilization Mission in Haiti (the UN’s presence is most often referred to by its French acronym MINUSTAH), established in April 2004 under Resolution 1542. In the post-earthquake context, its mission — supporting the Haitian government and enforcing public safety — appears constrained. MINUSTAH originally provided for a maximum of 1,622 civilian police and 6,700 soldiers. Since the earthquake, the only modification has been in MINUSTAH’s number, not its role — the Security Council has approved an increase in force size to 12,000 soldiers.

Friction between competing missions has hampered efforts. In one anecdote that typifies these complications, French Secretary of State for Cooperation Alain Joyandet implied that the Americans were giving preferential landing rights to U.S. planes and called on the UN to clarify the American role in Haiti, saying the priority was “helping Haiti, not occupying Haiti.”

Fixing the Authority Problem

Such bureaucratic infighting decreases trust between international partners working toward the same goal. The lack of a unified command will slow the relief effort as governments and institutions must constantly cross-check with one another before taking meaningful action. We make the following recommendations for beginning the long struggle to rebuild Haiti:

  • Establish Meaningful Governance: In its current incarnation the UN mission lacks the capacity to address what needs to be done, missing the mandate to deal with post-earthquake reconstruction. MINUSTAH should be upgraded to become a full “nation-building” program, designed to last 10 years. The UN and EU missions in Kosovo offer the best model. The UN’s experience in Kosovo shows that just “peacekeeping” isn’t sufficient to help rebuild a society. The UN Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) had four pillars—policing and justice, civil administration, institution-building, and reconstruction and development—that can be adapted to address the multiple problems Haiti faces as it rebuilds from the earthquake.Edmond Mulet, the former and now interim head of MINUSTAH, should be elevated to Special Representative of the Secretary General to give him a clearer mandate. (He replaced his successor, Hédi Annabi, who perished in the quake.) In addition to the “peacekeeping” pillar currently in place, other duties of development, civil administration, and institution-building should be added and all international troops on the ground, including America’s, should be brought under its chain of command. A beefed-up MINUSTAH would work with the remaining Haitian government, by assisting with oversight and capacity building.
  • Police, Not Peacekeepers: Under the pre-earthquake MINUSTAH, Brazil led 7,000 troops — mostly from the Americas — in Haiti. Immediately after the quake, Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim was in Port-au-Prince to oversee his troops and committed to doubling them and having them stay for at least five more years. While a peacekeeping role will be vital in the months to come to get Haiti back on its feet, the role of Brazilian and other blue-helmeted troops will need to change.Once order is established, the UN mission will essentially become a national police force in the absence of a Haitian alternative. To transfer power back to the local government, the UN mission should be tasked with building an effective security force and justice system. That means in addition to cops, the UN may solicit prosecutors and judges in a proxy judiciary. It’s a tall order, but it may be the only way that allows the remaining Haitian government to fully concentrate on reconstruction.
  • Consider Moving the Capital: Port-au-Prince has been reduced to a rubble heap. To solve an immediate problem, we recommend that the government consider transferring its functions and offices from Port-Au-Prince to Cap-Haïtien, per George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen’s suggestion. The new capital would also serve as the new base for MINUSTAH. A move would allow the government to focus on core issues of governance in the wake of the disaster. Cap-Haïtien, Haiti’s second-largest city, was relatively untouched by the earthquake. It has a harbor and the longest runway outside of Port-au-Prince, allowing for reconstruction efforts to be staged from there.

Priorities for Haitian Reconstruction

Beyond the complex and immediate issues surrounding relief aid, the international community must already begin work on second-order concerns once immediate humanitarian priorities are brought under control.

Front and center is economic stabilization. Though signs are emerging that basic economic activity is returning, it must be solidified. International institutions and donor countries are set to meet again at the UN in March to discuss funding for reconstruction. It would be useful to come up with a battle plan for rebuilding by establishing priorities among competing interests in government, business, and communities.

    • Remittances: Haitians need cash in hand, and quickly. It’s the best hope of sustaining any meaningful economic activity when banking has slowed dramatically and business within the Port-Au-Prince region is struggling to survive. With the announcement that Haitians can take advantage of TPS (Temporary Protective Status) from the U.S. Immigration Service, upwards of 200,000 undocumented Haitians will be able to join 600,000 Haitians working legally in the U.S.That diaspora, along with similar groups in Canada and elsewhere, sent home at least one-third of Haiti’s GDP last year. To capitalize on the outpouring of goodwill by the Haitian diaspora, money must flow directly to individuals. Wire services expect to get money transfers going to Haiti in the short term. However, with the banking sector of Haiti already fragile, and many local money transfer agents (i.e. the local corner store) wiped out by the earthquake, making sure remittances arrive will be key. Here a simple technological solution can meet the challenge. Sub-Saharan Africa has adopted programs like M-PESA to allow people to use their cell phones as checking accounts. The time and effort necessary to establish a similar system in Haiti would be worthwhile.Credit can be transferred to individual phone numbers — including from overseas — and that credit can then be used for purchases from other phone owners who have a similar plan (including prepaid) from their provider. Cell coverage is one of the few institutions that covers all of Haiti. It is also an institution that has worked through the crisis, and that the American military is working to make sure stays running. But only 30 percent of Haitians have cell phones — so in addition to cell phone credit transfer, increasing cell phone penetration should be another priority.
    • Empower the State Department: The U.S. military’s presence cannot and should not be sustained at 16,000 troops. Once the humanitarian crisis is controlled, American troops should be withdrawn, and the American component of the UN mandate should be headed by the State Department. The State Department should focus on building long-term civil institutions through accountable governance programs. Further, it should actively engage the NGO community to build the unions, a free press, and political parties. Haiti’s fragile democracy has been unable to respond to this crisis, and long-term American involvement in the country’s civil institutions will better enable it to do so in the future.
    • Debt Relief: Many have suggested that the key to Haiti’s fortunes is finishing the “Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative” debt-forgiveness process by getting France, Venezuela, and the Inter-American Development Bank (Haiti’s three largest creditors) to wipe out Port-Au-Prince’s debt. But this is hardly a panacea. Haiti’s debt amounts to service payments of only $50 million per year. In other words, debt forgiveness will help, but it will not be significant enough to alleviate any real suffering.
  • Infrastructure: Infrastructure investment offers the quickest way to rebuild Haiti. Rebuilding the roads, bridges, and major points of transportation benefits individuals, businesses, and government. The international community should work with the Haitian people to make sure that building codes are drawn up and, more importantly, enforced. The destructiveness of the earthquake was magnified by the fact that almost no rebar was used to reinforce concrete structures in the country. This turned Port-au-Prince into a rubble field instead of a quake-struck city. Building-code enforcement would also protect against the hurricanes that frequently lash the country. To rebuild Port-au-Prince, the idea of acknowledging squatter’s rights may be the most effective way to rebuild quickly, by recognizing the tools for development that individuals already have at hand.
  • Funding: Given France’s colonial past with Haiti, the Obama administration and UN should invest significant political capital to press Paris to take the lead in funding infrastructure development. The colonial relationship between France and Haiti has been historically strained as France demanded — and received — compensation for its lost colony from a newly independent Haiti. Since it took Haiti 122 years to clear the books, France should seize the opportunity to right this historic wrong. Even in the aftermath of this disaster, the French have been shamefully outpaced by the British in the initial round of pledges, but they can rebound by making a more sizeable pledge at the Haiti donor conference in March.
  • Renew and Expand the CBI: But while France can take the lead on the debt-forgiveness front, the U.S. can take the lead on fostering development. The Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), a trade-preferences act signed by President Reagan in 1982 is designed to promote development in the Caribbean countries – including Haiti. Its expiration — set for September 30 of this year — would be a further blow to the economic redevelopment of Haiti. In addition to just renewing it, however, the Congress and administration must expand the CBI to remove tariffs on Haiti’s agricultural production, specifically sugar. Allowing these vital drivers of the Haitian economy to be competitive in its largest export market would go far in giving Haitians a chance at sustained economic growth.

The rebuilding of Haiti after such a devastating event will be a long and difficult process. Local factors (corruption, lack of infrastructure, poverty) and international circumstances (the global recession, lack of focus by the international community) could forestall recovery. But firm resolve behind a nation-building project is critical if Haiti is to stand again. These prescriptions for both relief and reconstruction offer Haiti a meaningful chance to overcome the worst of the disaster and give the Haitian people hope for a better tomorrow.

Download the report.

Missing from the Budget: High-Speed Rail

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

What happened to high-speed rail in President Obama’s new budget? You will recall the president sweeping down to Florida after his State of the Union address to announce $8 billion in federal stimulus awards for rail projects that, he promised, will spark jobs and prosperity. Vice President Biden described the awards as “seed money” for developing a high-speed passenger rail system throughout the country.

That was last week. This week the administration unveiled its 2011 budget, which includes a miniscule $1 billion for high-speed rail (HSR). There are several ways to think about this request:

  • It’s 2.4% of the $41.3 billion the administration requested for highways.
  • It’s 0.026% of the overall budget and 0.08% of the projected deficit.
  • It’s not enough even to help Florida complete the proposed Tampa-Orlando high-speed line that the president enthused about last week, not to speak of laying the foundation for a nationwide network of high-speed trains promised by the vice president.

What’s going on? Timidity appears to have struck the administration as it moves from soaring promises to hard decisions about how to develop and finance a major civic work that could take decades to complete.

To get high-speed rail up and running, PPI has advocated a program that focuses on two or three corridors with dedicated rights of way. We specifically recommended funding the Tampa-Orlando line as a demonstration project of the speed and convenience of modern trains operating at twice the speed of conventional Amtrak service.

Although the administration did give some stimulus funds to Florida ($1.25 billion), it did not give enough ($2.6 billion) to fund the construction cost of the 88-mile Tampa-Orlando segment. Florida DOT is now trying to figure out how to plug the gap, which also threatens private investment in the project.

Instead of concentrating on a few select corridors, the administration sprinkled rail stimulus grants across 22 states, mostly for new sidings and signals that will marginally improve passenger train speeds on shared track with freight railroads.

One could argue that spending money on such upgrades would lay the groundwork for later HSR corridors, but the administration hasn’t bothered to make such a claim.

Rather, in its budget report to Congress, the administration blithely states that $1 billion of HSR spending will “sustain large-scale, multi-year support for high-speed rail” and is sufficient “to fund promising and transformative projects.”

That’s bunk. Most experts believe that developing a high-speed rail infrastructure serving key intercity corridors in the Midwest, California, the Northeast, and elsewhere will cost $200-300 billion over the next 30 years.

This would require a funding source of about $7 billion to $10 billion a year, with contributions coming from federal, state, and local governments, together with private investment from companies seeking to service and operate the lines.

Last year, Congress realized that developing high-speed rail requires more than the administration’s lowball figure. That’s why the House and Senate rejected the White House’s $1 billion request for high-speed rail in the 2010 budget and instead authorized $2.5 billion in spending.

The additional rail funds represented one of the few times last year that bipartisan support was found in Congress. One would think that the White House would take the hint and request at least $2.5 billion in the new 2011 budget.

In our HSR policy memo, we wrote that “the administration needs to remain engaged, proactive, and forward-thinking in shepherding high-speed rail to completion.” It’s frustrating that the administration is not exerting leadership in this vital piece of infrastructure-building that promises the very thing that’s at the top of voters’ minds – jobs.

Obama’s Budget: Turning the Aircraft Carrier Around

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Trying to write a post on the defense budget is nearly an exercise in futility. In something like 500 words, it’s nearly impossible to make an overarching judgment that neatly summarizes the bill for the largest government department in the world. That said, let’s give it a shot!

My frame of reference for Pentagon budgeting is in one sense deeply personal. Now I don’t want to make myself sound like a saint, but as a civilian DoD employee for five years, I was always very conscious that I had a responsibility to be mindful of taxpayer dollars I was spending. I experienced — anecdotally and systematically — just how atrociously, rigidly wasteful and yet astoundingly petty the Pentagon can be. In other words, the way the Pentagon spends cash is downright goofy.

Here’s an idea of where I come from: Yours truly got to spend about two months in Australia working security for a bilateral U.S./Australian war-gaming exercise. I was rather surprised when the government computer reservation system insisted that I stay at the four-star hotel in Sydney at somewhere like $350 a night, when the perfectly acceptable three-star, $150-a-night alternative down the street was available. Now I enjoyed the feather pillows and mints, but would have preferred to swap them for the cheaper hotel plus my inexplicably denied business class airfare on the 26-hour trip.

Then there was my counterterrorism watch center office — completely renovated and upgraded by 2003 to actually resemble something close to the set of 24. Trust me, it was awesome — you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a brand new LCD TV, and I had three classified computer networks at my desk, something almost unheard of throughout DoD. Cost to taxpayer? $5 million. And it would have been a good investment, too, had the Base Realignment and Closing Commission not decided to close the office by 2011.

The FY2011 budget, released yesterday, won’t correct any of those, ahem, anomalies soon. And my experiences have ingrained enough skepticism that I don’t do cartwheels when the Pentagon announces — as it did this year — that “this budget did not defer hard choices, but made them.” As small-time as my stories are, they’re symptomatic of a well-established culture that isn’t going to change with one document. I think it’s probably more accurate to say, “this budget did not completely defer hard choices, but started the process of trying to change the DoD’s culture and the way it spends money. And that’s really tough.”

Though inefficient spending will continue on large and small scales, the Obama administration’s budget priorities are finally focused on the military’s most immediate needs. After eight years of Rumsfeld’s appalling financial sleight-of-hand and willful suspension of reality, Secretary Gates has actually paid necessary attention to funding personnel and equipment needed to compete in the wars we’re in. Rumsfeld’s obsession was technology — he thought whiz-bangs and gadgets could win our wars so soldiers didn’t have to! Then came Afghanistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan (again), which proved that technology could kill a lot of stuff really fast, but that winning the peace required more boots on the ground than he bargained for. So after extended deployments that have exhausted our troops and worn out their equipment, this budget dedicates funding to address the shortcomings of the Bush administration.

The budget’s other highlight addresses how the Pentagon does business. A serious Cold War hangover, Rumsfeld’s technological focus, and two wars have created a race-to-the-bottom culture where defense contractors pitch highly complex systems as cheaply as possible. The industry has conditioned itself to underestimate cost and development time and are amazingly left to evaluate their products’ own successes — hardly a recipe for optimal competition in the best interests of the taxpayer. This budget begins the process of taming that lion:

Our objective is to achieve predictable cost, schedule and performance outcomes based on mature, demonstrated technologies and realistic cost and schedule estimates. We are also implementing initiatives that will increase the numbers and capabilities of the acquisition workforce, improve funding stability, enhance the source selection process, and improve contract execution. Our intent is to provide the warfighter with world class capability while being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar.

It’s a wonderful notion, albeit one that will probably take a generation’s worth of acquisitions to truly implement.

I’ve obviously left out so, so much about this budget. It is encouraging to know that the administration appears in tune with what our military needs, and what the taxpayer can reasonably support. Turning an aircraft carrier takes a long time, and it will be years before we get a read on how well the new mindset is taking hold.

Among the Elephants: Rightward, Ho!

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Daily Kos has just released a large Research 2000 poll it commissioned to test the views of just over 2000 self-identified Republicans. Here’s Markos’ analysis of the findings, and here are the crosstabs so you can slice and dice the results yourself.

Markos calls the poll’s results “startling,” but I guess that depends on your expectations. Seems to me that it confirms the strong rightward trend in the GOP that its leaders have been signaling now for the last two years. Some of this actually represents a long-term trend that ‘s been underway since the early 1960s; some of it involves the shrinkage of the Republican “base” to a seriously conservative core from the party’s identification peak around 2004; and some is attributable to a conscious or subconscious effort to absolve the party from the sins of the Bush administration by treating it as too “moderate.”

In any event, aside from a general and rigorous conservatism, the two findings that are probably most relevant to the immediate political future, and to the relationship between Republicans and independents, are the GOPers’ exceptionally hateful attitude towards Barack Obama, and their unregenerated cultural extremism. The first factor will complicate any efforts in 2010 to go after congressional Democrats as a bad influence on the well-meaning president (who remains more popular among voters outside the GOP than either party in Congress). And the second undermines the media narrative that today’s Republicans are semi-libertarians who have finally sloughed off all that crazy Christian Right stuff and are focused like a laser beam on the economy and fiscal issues.

How much do self-identified Republicans hate Barack Obama? Well, this is hardly news, but in the DK/R2K poll they favor Obama’s impeachment by a 39/32 margin (the rest are “not sure”). Only a narrow plurality (42/36) believes he was born in the United States. By a 63/21 margin, they believe he is a “socialist” (tell that to his progressive critics!). Only 24% say Obama “wants the terrorists to win,” but with 33% being “not sure” about it, only a minority (43%) seem convinced he’s not an actual traitor. Only 36% disagree with the proposition that Obama is a “racist who hates white people” (31% agree with the proposition, and the rest are not sure). And only 24% seem to be willing to concede he actually won the 2008 election (12% think “ACORN stole it,” and 55% aren’t sure either way).

On the cultural-issues front, self-identified Republicans are almost monolithically conservative. The number that jumps off the page is that 31% want to outlaw contraceptives (56% are opposed). But that’s not too surprising since 34% believe “the birth control pill is abortion,” and 76% (with only 8% opposed) agree that “abortion is murder.”

But it’s the homophobia of GOPers that’s really striking, considering the steady national trend away from such a posture, particularly among younger voters. It extends beyond familiar controversial issues like gay marriage (opposed 77/7) and gays-in-the-military (opposed 55/26) to exceptionally unambiguous statements of equality like the ability of openly gay people to teach in public schools (opposed 73/8). This last finding really is amazing, since St. Ronald Reagan himself famously opposeda California ballot initiative banning gay and lesbian public school teachers, way back in 1978.

The crosstabs for the poll break down the results on regional lines, and there are some variations; most notably, southerners are marginally more conservative on most questions, and really stand out in their incredible levels of support for their own state’s secession from the United States (fully 33% favor a return to 1861, as opposed to only 10% in the northeast). But by and large, the regional splits aren’t that massive; the old idea of the GOP as a coalition of conservatives based in the south and west and moderates in the midwest and northeast is totally obsolete.

The poll finds no real front-runner for the 2012 presidential nomination. Given eight options (about the only plausible candidate not mentioned is Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels), Sarah Palin tops the list at 16%, with Romney at 11%, Dick Cheney (!) at 10%, and everyone else in single digits. Fully 42% are undecided. Given the overall results of the poll, that almost certainly means the 2012 nomination process will exert a powerful pull to the right for all the candidates. I mean, really, in a scattered field, is it at all unlikely that someone will focus on that one-third of southern Republicans pining for secession and issue some serious rebel yells before the early South Carolina primary? Or might not a candidate seeking traction in the Iowa Caucuses, a low-turnout affair typically dominated by Right-to-Life activists, maybe call for banning those “murderous” birth control pills?

We’ll know soon enough how crazy the GOP crazy-train will get in 2012, I suppose. But it’s a lead-pipe certainty that the dominant right wing of the Republican Party won’t find any reason to moderate itself if the GOP makes serious gains in November.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Will GOP Tango on Nuclear Power?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama has delivered on his promise to expand nuclear energy — big time. But can Republicans take “yes” for an answer?

Obama’s new budget calls for a whopping increase in federal loan guarantees for nuclear power, from $18.5 billion to $54 billion. Last week, he also created a blue ribbon panel to explore solutions to the contentious issue of nuclear waste disposal, which many regard as a key roadblock to building new nuclear plants.

The president’s commitment to a nuclear “renaissance” in America signals a major shift among progressives. Although some environmentalists remain adamantly opposed, Obama’s pragmatic stance probably will speed the melting away of taboos on nuclear energy that date back to the 1979 Three Mile Island incident.

Increasing the role nuclear power plays in the nation’s energy portfolio serves our economic, security and environmental interests. It would help America meet rising energy demand as well as the targets it set in Copenhagen for greenhouse gas reduction. As more hybrids and electric cars come onto the market, it would enable us to generate more electricity with zero carbon emissions. And the switch in transportation fuels from gas to electricity will lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Some progressives, however, balk at expanding federal loan guarantees to underwrite nuclear plant construction. They cite a relatively high risk of default, although such risk is at least in part the result of political obstacles to expeditiously siting, approving and building new facilities.

Critics also object that Obama’s push for nuclear power is a preemptive concession to Republicans. Some GOP leaders, like Sen. John McCain, have demanded more support for nuclear energy in exchange for their support of the president’s “cap-and-trade” proposal to reduce U.S. carbon emissions and spur clean energy development. It’s true that Republicans aren’t lining up now to support the legislation, but it’s also true that the president’s budget is still just a proposal at this point.

Expanding nuclear power is worth doing whether or not some pro-nuke Republicans sign onto the climate bill. But in coming budget negotiations, Obama should offer Republicans a deal: more support for nuclear power in return for a softening of their monolithic, and retrograde, opposition to ensuring that America does its part to stop overheating the planet.

If they refuse, it will bolster the president’s point that “it takes two to tango,” and put the onus of obstructionism squarely on the GOP.

Obama’s Budget: Recognizing the Link Between Food Systems and Jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s 2011 budget contains a few notable things for progressives to cheer. One of the items that jumped out at us was its support for an intertwined effort to boost healthy foods and food jobs – an idea that we championed in a December policy paper.

The budget includes $400 million for the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Treasury to finance community development institutions, nonprofits, public agencies, and businesses with strategies for tackling the healthy food needs of communities. Funds will also be available for expanding retail outlets and increasing availability of local foods.

But even more impressive is the language that the administration uses to describe its food initiatives. In summary after summary, the link between food and jobs keeps popping up.

From the “Spur Job Creation and Revitalize Rural America” fact sheet:

The Budget helps lay the foundation for job creation and expanded economic opportunities throughout rural America by…[n]urturing local and regional food systems and expanding access to healthy foods for low-income Americans in rural and urban food deserts.

From an OMB paper on job creation:

First, to support the Rural Innovation Initiative, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to set aside funding to foster rural revitalization through a competitive grant program. Second, the Budget supports local and regional food systems through many USDA programs including the Business and Industry guaranteed loan program and the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program.

From an OMB summary of the USDA budget:

Promotes economic and job creation opportunities for rural America by focusing on five core areas: access to broadband services, innovative local and regional food systems, renewable energy programs, climate change, and rural recreation.

Taken together, these spending decisions on food systems and job creation reveal an administration in tune with the idea of a holistic approach to our economic, social, and health problems. Following a glum January for progressives, the budget offers compelling reminders of the progressive governance that we expected from the administration.

Obama’s Budget Delivers on Energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Elections really do have consequences. After years of virtual inaction from the Bush administration on a clean economy, the president’s new budget is a politically savvy, substantively brave, and altogether impressive collection of proposals. Against the dim eight years, the proposals for the Department of Energy are electrifying, and continue to show the administration’s commitment to bringing path-breaking change to energy and environmental policies.

In the critical area of “negawatts,” for instance, the president proposes a sweeping expansion in energy efficiency, with $500 million in credit subsidies to support $3 to $5 billion in loan guarantees for efficiency and renewable energy projects.

On research and innovation, he proposes $5.1 billion for the Office of Science, including $1.8 billion for basic energy sciences to discover novel ways to produce, store, and use energy. He also puts $300 million into the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (DARPA-E).

And he includes goals regular folks can get our arms around. The budget will double renewable energy generating capacity (excluding conventional hydropower) by 2012. It will push out new battery manufacturing for 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles a year by 2015. And DOE and HUD will work together to retrofit 1.1 million housing units through 2011.

Renewables, batteries, and retrofits. These are all practical achievements that will make a difference in the lives of millions of people, and that can be easily visualized.

These are progressive measures, to be sure. They’ll be popular in blue states and probably purple ones as well. But the president also includes other measures to ensure the package is taken seriously across the country. The budget includes $36 billion in new loan authority, for a total of $54.5 billion, to support DOE loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. Specifically, the budget conditionally commits to loan guarantees for two nuclear power facilities for at least 3,800 megawatts during 2010. It’s a move that will help the president sell his budget to pro-nuclear senators.

The budget also proposes $545 million to develop carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies. Substantial support for these exciting technologies is critical to getting support from representatives and senators from states, including the critical Appalachian belt, where coal is, and will continue to be, an important source of energy.

Exciting news to see substance, vision, and strategy coming together in one document and a clear indication that — on the energy front, at least — the change promised in 2008 is resoundingly here.

Elevating Human Rights on the U.S. Policy Agenda for Iran

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Fellow Mike Signer joined a panel discussion sponsored by the Center for American Progress on “Elevating Human Rights on the U.S. Policy Agenda for Iran.” He was joined by Geneive Abdo, Fellow and Iran Analyst at The Century Foundation, and Hadi Ghaemi, Coordinator at International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. The panel was moderated by CAP’s Matthew Duss.