Category: Uncategorized

How the U.S. Lost the Leadership Role in Nuclear Energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to travel to different countries and interact with many of the world’s top nuclear engineers and scientists. They all say the same thing: the U.S. needs to reclaim its leadership role in nuclear energy development activities.

The international nuclear science and engineering community looks to the U.S. for leadership and direction in nuclear technology research, new concept development, deployment of advanced technologies, construction of research and power reactors, and the safe operation, regulation, and oversight of nuclear facilities, and their regulation and oversight.

However, for the past two decades the U.S. has fallen behind the rest of the world in many areas. Although we maintain a leading position in some, including research productivity and reactor operation and regulation, we have lagged in others: the development of research facilities, new power reactor construction, used nuclear fuel recycling, and implementation of new technology. In recent years, we have lagged in a number of key nuclear technology areas and have failed to significantly upgrade our capabilities and facilities. The result is that other nations now have the world-class leadership position in key aspects of nuclear energy.

Here’s what we haven’t done:

  • We have not built a new power reactor in this country for more than 25 years.
  • We have not upgraded or grown our capabilities to analyze radioactive materials.
  • We have not commissioned a research or test reactor since 1992 or a new power reactor since the mid-1990s.
  • We no longer have the fast neutron irradiation facilities, which are necessary in the development and testing of advanced materials, reactor concepts, fuel cycles, and the destruction of radioactive waste materials.
  • We no longer have the capability to forge the large steel components needed for the next generation of nuclear power plants.

Meanwhile, other countries have stepped forward to advance nuclear technology. In China, 16 new plants will be in operation by 2020, which would quadruple its nuclear capacity in the next decade or so. Other developing countries are following this example — some 30 countries that do not currently operate commercial nuclear plants are actively considering the construction of nuclear power plants.

Yet even as the world proceeds apace on nuclear energy, America is essentially sitting out the game, unable to compete because our nuclear technological and operational capabilities have atrophied from decades of dormancy.

To retain a world leadership position — to compete in the burgeoning global market for nuclear energy and take the lead in nuclear energy security — the U.S. must consistently invest in building new plants and developing new concepts for future reactors; lead in fuel-cycle research; educate future generations of nuclear scientists and engineers; and consistently upgrade facilities for the study of materials, fuel cycles, radiation damage, large-scale component manufacturing, neutron data measurements, and critical facilities. We also need to maintain our capabilities and understanding of radioactive material handling and the protection of workers and the public.

Technological leadership today requires being an active and reliable participant in the international community that one desires to lead. The U.S. needs to reinvest, replenish, and grow its capabilities in order to maintain a leadership position. Otherwise we cede the leadership and court the danger of becoming a minor player — even an irrelevant one — in the global discussion on nuclear energy.

Read Andrew Klein’s new PPI Policy Memo, “Why Progressives Should Be More Open to Nuclear Energy.”

A Chart That Should Keep Progressives Up at Night

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In my last post, I noted that progressives need to turn their attention toward the medium- and long-term fiscal crisis the country faces. How massive is the challenge we face? The following chart, from Keith Hennessey, an ex-Bush policy advisor, says it all:

taxes-and-spending-long-term-trends 2

Obviously the first thing to jump out is the escalating divergence between federal spending and revenues in the decades ahead. And the spending projection in the chart is from 2007, so it doesn’t include the stimulus or spending on the financial crisis (or the projected cost of health care reform). That’s scary enough. But the scariest part may not be evident at first glance.

The red line shows federal taxes as a percent of GDP going back to 1945 and projected outward to 2080 by Hennessey based on its historic growth. The yellow line shows federal spending as a percent of GDP. The chart makes clear that the level of federal taxation has actually varied little since World War II (which says nothing about how marginal tax rates faced by different groups have changed). You can see the last build-up of deficits that occurred from the 1970s through the mid-1990s. You can also see the build-up of the Bush years.

Historic Shortfalls

The kind of budget shortfalls we are looking at in the future dwarfs anything we’ve ever seen. There are two ways to close the fiscal gap – cut spending or increase revenues. What Hennessey’s chart makes clear is that the level of taxation it would require to meet projected spending needs is far higher than anything the country has ever seen-slash-tolerated. Indeed, even closing half the gap through higher taxes would necessitate historically unprecedented taxation levels.

Progressives, in short, are going to be caught between a rock and a hard place: we will either have to find a way to convince the electorate to go along with massive tax hikes, with all of the electoral risk that entails, or we will have to come up with a plan to make equally massive cuts to entitlements that are likely to also be unpopular and that may do significant harm if not thought through carefully.

It’s true that the right will also be caught in this dilemma, but its situation is not quite as severe for two reasons. First, as the chart implies, their preferred path to fiscal sanity (spending cuts) starts off a much easier sell than tax hikes, given historical patterns. And second, the right has little programmatic interest in permanent spending hikes. The Reagan and Bush years showed that there is a constituency on the right for greater defense spending, but unless we really end up permanently at war with radical Islam, it can be expected that the Pentagon’s budget will rise and fall as global circumstances dictate. Progressive goals, on the other hand, such as greater federal education spending, expansion of child care assistance, more generous safety nets, and broader social insurance constitute costly and (ideally) permanent spending increases that will exacerbate the fiscal gap in the above chart.

The Upshot for Progressives

What does this mean for the progressive agenda? First, it is vital that we prioritize our goals, a process that is going to require us to drop many of them, as difficult as that may be. Second, we need to come to terms with what “higher taxes” is going to mean in practice. U.S. taxation is actually as progressive as in Europe because we have taken so many families off of the income tax rolls. The added boost to raising taxes on “the rich” is much smaller than the revenue that could be raised by broadening the tax base so that we were not so reliant on upper-income families to pay for the benefits of government that everyone enjoys.

Third, we need to look for ways to achieve progressive aims that do not cost the federal government so much. That could include certain types of regulation, but it could also include a shift toward progressive cost-sharing in social insurance programs. Rather than trying to raise taxes to give people the benefits they say they want, we could move toward a paradigm where people gradually incur increasing costs of these benefits privately, forcing them to directly confront the trade-offs and efficiency concerns that social insurance tends to hide. Those with limited incomes could receive federal assistance but would still be incentivized to use benefits efficiently. (I will suggest what such programs might look like in future pieces here.)

Some progressives may object to the idea of progressive cost-sharing because it shifts costs and risk onto individuals. But they are going to incur the costs one way or another, whether through higher taxes or greater out-of-pocket spending. And given the impracticality of paying for future benefits solely out of taxes, risk is also likely to be privatized either way — whether by a thoughtful policy framework or through massive cuts in existing programs.

But let there be no doubt — the long-term prospects for significantly expanded progressive government are dim, and in fact, a retrenchment in coming decades is inevitable. President Clinton was wrong — the Era of Big Government is not over. But it will be soon. As progressives we must lead the process of winding it down in a responsible and fair way.

The Dutch Try Something New: A Kilometer Tax

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Netherlands has taken the plunge on a very good idea. The Dutch cabinet recently announced a new “pay-as-you-drive” tax plan.

The initiative, which is the first of its kind in the world and still awaits passage by Parliament, would introduce a three-cent tax for each kilometer driven in 2012, rising to 6.7 cents in 2018. But the tax won’t be uniform. It will be higher during rush hour and on cars that guzzle more gas. To somewhat balance out the new tax, the road tax will be eliminated and a new-car tax will be slashed.

Something like this has been proposed in the U.S. In February, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood broached the idea: “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled.” But that trial balloon was shot down by the White House before it was barely off the ground.

It’s a shame because it’s a concept worth taking seriously. The National Surface Infrastructure Financing Commission, also in February, released a report (PDF) endorsing a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fee as the most viable approach to fund federal investment in our road infrastructure. Today, that investment is funded by gas taxes, but those haven’t been raised in years, and now generate about one-third of the funds necessary to keep the highway system from deteriorating further.

The tax would be adjusted based on factors like time of day, type of road, vehicle weight, and fuel economy. A GPS system would keep track of the information necessary to accurately charge taxes.

Aside from becoming a more stable source of infrastructure funding, the VMT fee would send market signals that could lead to quality-of-life improvements. Prices set higher during rush hour could prompt some people to make fewer trips, use more public transportation, do more telecommuting, and/or choose to travel at alternative times, easing traffic in the process. (A pilot VMT project in Oregon resulted in a 12-percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled.)

There are legitimate concerns about a VMT fee — privacy issues not the least among them (though those are addressed well here) — but the upside is too good for it to not be a part of the transportation policy conversation. Perhaps it will be once again if the Dutch experiment proves a success.

Candor We Can Believe In

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Let us now praise undiplomatic women.

Two cases in point: Michele Rhee, Washington, D.C.’s blunt public schools Chancellor and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday, Rhee told a gathering of CEOs that the District suffers from a “complete and utter lack of accountability in this system.” That’s likely to intensify the flak she’s already taking from the teachers’ union, which is apoplectic about her decision to lay off 250 subpar teachers, and from the City Council, which sees her as insufficiently deferential on matters of school reform.

But Rhee was unapologetic. “Collaboration and consensus-building are quite frankly overrated in my mind,” she told the executives. “None of you CEOs run your companies by committee, so why should we run a school district by committee?”

It’s a good question, though such characteristic bluntness probably won’t lengthen her tenure as chancellor. Rhee is adamant about putting the needs of Washington’s public school children, who are overwhelmingly poor and minority, above the interests of adults in the District’s political-educational complex who resist fundamental changes in a system that’s manifestly failing.

On measures of student performance, the District ranks 51st among the states and near the bottom of nation’s biggest metropolitan regions. In weeding out teachers on the basis of job performance rather than seniority, Rhee has hit a very sensitive nerve. She’s saying, in effect, that public education in the District isn’t a jobs program for city residents. Let’s hope she goes on making waves.

Here’s Rhee at yesterday’s event:

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton created a flap in Pakistan recently when she had the temerity to note that Osama bin Laden and his top al Qaeda henchmen have been living in that country since 2002.

The Pakistani press, ever alert for signs of U.S. encroachment on that nation’s sovereignty, went ballistic. Foreign policy mandarins sagely opined that the U.S. secretary of state had committed a clear breach of diplomatic protocol by embarrassing her hosts.

Well, they should be embarrassed. The presence of America’s terrorist enemies in Pakistan should be a besetting sore point in U.S.-Pakistani relations. It signifies either governmental incompetence or, worse, collusion. And with the Pakistani Army now clearing Taliban havens in South Waziristan, which it formerly regarded as no-go territory, the question of why the nation’s intelligence and security forces can’t locate our enemies only grows more insistent.

Pakistani officials reportedly are pushing back hard on U.S. suggestions that they go into North Waziristan next. It’s the home base for the notoriously thuggish Haqqani network, which is responsible for a wave of kidnapping and terrorist attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

All this suggests that Pakistan, set to receive about $7 billion in U.S. aid, remains a strangely reluctant partner in the struggle against extremists who threaten Pakistan, Afghanistan and the U.S.

The White House reportedly is upset with Clinton for her occasional outbursts of candor. Let’s hope they don’t fit the muzzle too tightly.

No Quick Political Fixes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As someone who will be offering regular political analysis here at Progressive Fix, I thought I’d lay down some personal markers about the current political landscape and how progressives should think about their immediate and long-range objectives. There’s quite a bit of “analysis” out there right now of very dubious value, particularly on the right but occasionally on the left, and it’s a good idea to address some of the basic disagreements about where the country is moving politically.

First of all, demographic trends in electoral politics don’t typically create iron laws of voting behavior, but they do matter a great deal. And once you discount some rhetorical overreach involving a few claims that Barack Obama was engineering an FDR-style realignment of gigantic and irreversible proportions, the pro-Democratic trends exhibited by the American electorate in 2006 and 2008 are indeed very significant, even if events undermine their strength or delay their effect. To put it simply, most growing segments of the electorate have been trending strongly Democratic, while Republican appeal has been concentrated in declining segments. And in the long run, any disappointment felt by Democratic-trending groups at actual Democratic governance may well be offset by the manifest tendency of the GOP to reflect the most unpopular views of its shrinking base.

Second of all, long-term trends don’t always match short-term results. As it happens, midterm elections typically attract a notably different electorate than presidential elections, dominated especially by the one major voting segment that trended Republican in 2008: culturally conservative white seniors. And participation in midterms by the most rapidly Democratic-trending group, under-30 voters, has been invariably very low. (The record is a bit more uneven with respect to another Democratic-trending segment, minority voters, particularly African-Americans, who occasionally have relatively high midterm turnout rates). This historic pattern, more than any “turn to the right” or “buyer’s remorse about Obama,” is the legitimate source of Republican optimism and Democratic pessimism in 2010. The reality is that Obama’s approval ratings right now are close, in aggregate numbers and among most Democratic groups, to his actual vote levels in 2008; they are not lower.

Third of all, tempting as it is to look at future elections, and especially 2010, as turnout battles, there is a good reason for paying special attention to swing voters, defined as very likely voters who have no stable attachment to either party. (To be clear, “swing voters” are not – repeat, not — the same as “self-identified independent” voters, a majority of whom are actually partisans who don’t like the label). The reason is simple and arithmetic: in a two-party context, “turning” a true swing voter gains two net votes (one in your column and one less in your opponent’s), while “mobilizing” a “base” voter gains one, and perhaps less than that if the mobilization technique helps the other party mobilize its own base.

Fourth of all, “swing voters” are by no mean monolithic, or necessarily “moderate”; they do, however, have high levels of mistrust of both parties, and of government. So all other things being equal, they tend to have high anti-incumbent feelings, and also tend to vote at low levels in times of general unhappiness with the direction of the country.

The Challenge in 2010

So adding it all up, the big challenge for Democrats in 2010 is to minimize the demographic edge Republicans have in midterms and to neutralize the tendency of true swing voters to blame the incumbent party for general disgruntlement with the political status quo.

Obviously enough, improvements in the real-life conditions of the country will benefit Democrats tremendously (though, ironically, it could also help prop up vulnerable Republican incumbents, particularly in state elections). Beyond that, three Democratic desiderata are apparent — (1) a record of accomplishment on widely appreciated national challenges; (2) an effort to disassociate Democrats from aspects of the status quo (e.g., corruption, power-grabbing, excessive partisanship, and scary-sounding developments like very large budget deficits or skyrocketing health care costs) that are especially unpopular; and (3) aggressive exploitation of past and present Republican extremism, making elections a conscious choice rather than a referendum on the status quo.

So if this basic analysis is right, what are the implications for current debates among Democrats about political strategy?

A False Choice for Progressives

For one thing, it’s long past time to end the false choice between base- and swing-voter strategies. Repeat after me: a vote is a vote. At present, Democrats are probably more threatened by poor base turnout in 2010 than by the loss of true swing voters, but that could change, and it’s by no means clear that what we need to do to “energize the base” (which is a lot less liberal ideologically than some of its champions suggest) differs significantly from what we need to do to win swing voters.

For another thing, the idea that Democrats must be governed strictly by the views of self-conscious “progressives” or “moderates” represents another false choice. Democratic “centrists” are right in saying that an ideologically diverse set of elected officials increases the party’s electoral reach; Democratic liberals are right in saying that a “progressive” coalition unwilling or unable to address basic progressive policy objectives isn’t worth a whole lot. Party discipline in Congress or elsewhere ought to be based on what is necessary to achieve those objectives in the long run, in full recognition of the high cost of allowing Republicans the opportunity to misgovern America at this crucial juncture.

So there’s no easy “fix” for our political challenges. But we should approach these challenges with the same attitude of principled pragmatism that guides our substantive policies.

Why Progressives Should Be More Open to Nuclear Energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

 

The international scientific consensus is clear: The Earth is warming, and humanity’s reliance on carbon-based energy sources is a significant factor. Scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations believe that unless global emissions are stabilized by 2030 and cut by at least half by 2050, the Earth’s temperature will increase by more than 3 degrees centigrade by the end of this century.

Should this happen, these scientists predict, both the natural world and human society will experience dire consequences, including mass extinctions, severe flooding caused by rising sea levels, and the failure of primary crops. To prevent these predictions from coming to pass, developed countries like the United States may need to cut carbon emissions by as much as 80 percent by 2050.

So far, the progressive response to this challenge has focused on increasing our use of renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy.  A renewable-based energy portfolio is certainly a worthy goal. However, it will probably be a long time—likely decades, not years—before such sources have a realistic prospect of providing the baseload needs of our national economy, let alone meeting the requirements of the entire globe.

In short, we sorely need reliable, non-carbon energy sources as we make the transition to an economy that makes significant use of renewable energy. In light of this need, it is time for progressives to become more open–minded about an energy source that they have tended to eschew or even demonize: nuclear power.

Nuclear has already proved its value as an alternative to greenhouse-gas-emitting energy sources. While there are only 104 nuclear reactors operating across the country, those plants provide about a fifth of all the country’s electric power—and about 80 percent of all the zero-carbon energy produced in the U.S.

Addressing Progressive Concerns

If the extent of our current reliance on nuclear power comes as a surprise, that may be because the industry has done a good job of avoiding the mishaps that once sullied its reputation. Since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, U.S. nuclear power plants have experienced no serious incidents, and are generally considered the safest and best-operated nuclear facilities in the world. In fact, the safety culture at U.S. plants is so strong that working at a U.S. nuclear power plant is safer than working in the manufacturing sector.

Along with the safety issue, another factor that has made some progressives slow to seriously consider the merits of nuclear energy is economics. While the cost of nuclear power is often a point of heated debate, the fact is that nuclear plants produce the cheapest electric power on the grid. Currently, nuclear plants generate electricity for around 2 cents per kilowatt-hour in a market where the average cost is more than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

But there’s a caveat here, and the critics of nuclear energy are quick to point it out: The savings from nuclear energy come once a plant is up and running. The real issue is whether it makes long-term economic sense to incur the enormous expenses of building new plants from scratch. Whether the cost of new plants is competitive remains to be proved, but several utilities have signed contracts to build new nuclear power plants at costs that appear quite reasonable. Time will tell if the final cost of these new plants meets expectations.

Another sticking point is the issue of nuclear waste. Progress toward resolving the issue of what to do with nuclear fuel after it is used in a reactor is currently on hold.  President Obama has called for the formation of a “blue-ribbon panel” to reexamine the options for dealing with this highly radioactive material. Alternatives under consideration include burying the fuel “as is” in stable geologic formations and recycling the still useful parts of the fuel with disposal of the truly non-reusable remaining components.  The good news is that once-used nuclear fuel can be stored safely for a long period of time while researchers and politicians look for a better solution.

Some people are concerned that these projects will divert vital funds from renewable-energy projects, but there is no evidence that this would be the case. U.S. utilities have very aggressive plans to increase their use of renewables—electric companies plan to deploy about 145 gigawatts of new wind capacity over the next 10 years.

The Challenges for Renewables

Nuclear projects under serious consideration are predominantly in parts of the country with limited renewable resources, such as in densely populated southeastern states where the air is too languid for wind energy, the sun is too cloud-blocked for current or near-term solar technologies, and a potentially useful biomass sector remains in its infancy. Areas with more economic and accessible renewable resources—such as the wind corridors along the coasts and through the Great Plains—are likely to have the best chance at being successful in deploying renewables at larger scales, breaking the technological ground for others to follow.

Eventually, advances in technology may allow utilities in more states to build practical renewable-energy facilities. Moreover, we must build a 21st-century electricity grid that will enable more widespread use of renewables and allow widely distributed electricity generated in resource-rich areas to be efficiently transmitted across long distances to parts of the country that need energy.

But these changes will take many decades. In the interim, if we are to arrest the increase in emissions by 2030, as recommended by climate scientists, nuclear power should help provide a path to an emissions-free future.

No one expects that nuclear energy (or any other single technology) can solve all our energy challenges by itself. However, it can clearly help. Just one plant of the type that three U.S. utilities have recently signed contracts to build would displace the burning of about 7 million tons of coal each year.

Most importantly, as the U.S. and other countries increase the use of hybrid and electric vehicles, access to non-emitting electricity will become an essential element in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Renewable energy used in combination with a new generation of nuclear power plants gives us our best opportunity to reduce carbon emissions in a realistic and cost-effective manner.

The Global Appetite for Nuclear Energy

While Americans weigh the important issues associated with nuclear power, the fact is that many other countries have already decided to proceed with the construction of a new generation of nuclear plants. There are 50 new reactors currently under construction in 13 countries around the world. China alone will place 16 new plants into operation by 2020, which would quadruple its nuclear capacity in the next decade or so. Other developing countries are following this example—some 30 countries that do not currently operate commercial nuclear plants are actively considering the construction of nuclear power plants.

Hazards lurk here. Few of these nuclear newcomers—which include nations such as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia—have the trained personnel and infrastructures in place to implement adequate regulations and controls at their facilities.

Nevertheless, the quest for greater energy independence and a non-carbon source capable of fueling developing economies is spurring these countries to build nuclear power plants. It is in everyone’s interest that these projects be carried out in the most responsible manner, with safety set as the highest priority.

Just as America’s ability to influence other countries to reduce greenhouse gases depends on our ability to take the necessary steps at home, our ability to work with other countries to assure nuclear safety will depend on how seriously they view our commitment to advanced nuclear energy technologies. America’s voice will carry far less weight in developing countries if those nations are building new plants 30 years more advanced than anything in use in the U.S.

If the U.S. technological infrastructure decays to irrelevance, we will have little ability to influence other countries in the development of meaningful safety standards. If U.S. companies are unable to build their advanced technologies in this country, we will have little success in convincing other nations to use our technologies instead of those that may be less safe.

Nuclear Energy and Jobs

In addition, a true nuclear renaissance could bring tens of thousands of new high-technology, manufacturing, and construction jobs to the U.S. Many companies are already preparing for the expected construction of new plants. More than 10,000 jobs have already been created, and each nuclear plant project will employ around 1,500 people during construction and about 800 during operation.

Beyond these jobs, the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, estimates that each new nuclear plant will require approximately 400,000 cubic yards of concrete, 66,000 tons of steel, 44 miles of piping, 300 miles of electric wiring, and 130,000 electrical components. In many parts of the country ravaged by recession, a nuclear plant project would provide a major long-term economic boost.

After nuclear plant construction ceased in the U.S., American firms lost the ability to manufacture many of the key components required for a new nuclear plant. The opportunity to restore this vital component of the industrial base, which would provide the capability to manufacture many other complex components for other applications, is now before us. With so many nuclear power plants planned around the world, American workers can regain a share of this expanding export market—but not unless new plants are built in the U.S.

Progressives must consider the role that nuclear energy can and will play in the U.S. and around the world. The “Just Say No” approach to nuclear energy has proven to be counterproductive to our national interests. Today, the world is moving toward an energy future that is cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels—a future that includes nuclear power. It is time for progressives to assume a leading role in helping to shape that future.

Download the full report.

Facing the Hunger Problem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday’s release of the USDA’s report on hunger in America was the latest dismal dispatch from the recession’s frontlines. According to the report (PDF), 14.6 percent of Americans experienced food insecurity in 2008, up from 11.1 percent in 2007. Translated in raw numbers, that’s 49 million individuals – nearly 17 million of them children – who had low or very low food security during the year. That 49 million number is greater than the combined total populations of New York, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky.

The depressing numbers only underscore just how hard-hit Americans have been during the downturn. But they also make one thankful that among the administration’s first accomplishments was to increase the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly known as the Food Stamps Program) by nearly $20 billion as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year.

Aside from providing immediate and badly needed relief for struggling families, the expansion of the SNAP program also likely gave the economy a jolt. It’s a well-known fact that food stamps offer one of the best bangs for buck when it comes to stimulus. A 2008 study by Moodys Economy.com found that the multiplier effect of a dollar of SNAP stimulus was 1.73, the highest among the stimulus options studied.

Still, nutrition safety net programs are still far too small. The Food Stamps program reached only 66 percent of eligible people in 2007. And while it’s great that the administration has been vocal and active about the hunger problem, the time is ripe for the president to propose a far more specific plan with more money.

In particular, President Obama needs to continue to seize the moment and accelerate his work to meet his goal of ending child hunger by 2015. (Tom Freedman and I wrote in greater detail about some of our ideas here.) For that to happen, Congress should pass, and the president should sign, a serious Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill. Such a bill should:

  • Make universal, in-classroom school breakfasts standard in public schools
  • Fund universal school lunches
  • Increase reimbursements to school districts that provide healthier foods
  • Make WIC an entitlement and fund nutritional improvements in the WIC package
  • Reduce paperwork and increase reimbursements for both government and non-profit agencies that sponsor after-school and summer meals for kids

The administration’s infusion of stimulus funds into the SNAP program no doubt brought relief to millions of Americans. In light of the USDA report, the administration should continue its efforts to bolster social services and embark on a serious job creation program to bring an end to hunger.

Iraq: The Beginning of the End. Almost.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It seems like just yesterday — to surge or not to surge?

If you’re thinking it was just yesterday, then you’ve got the wrong major American military deployment. Not Afghanistan, but Iraq. What a difference a year makes — at the heart of the presidential campaign debate on national security in 2008, Iraq has all but faded from public discussion.

So, to review: Earlier this month, the Iraqi parliament passed an election law for the January 18, 2010, parliamentary vote. The law theoretically resolved a handful of outstanding yet crucial issues that were needed to facilitate the vote, even though the U.N.’s man in Baghdad says pulling off the election by January would be a “herculean task.” Just today Iraqi President Jalad Talibani again threw the January poll in doubt by insisting, perhaps on behalf of his Sunni veep, that minority and refugee Iraqis needed greater representation in parliament.

The election is the last major hurdle to a U.S. military withdrawal at the end of 2010 (save 40,000-50,000 American troops for training and counterterrorism operations). Failure to conduct a legitimate election — and more importantly, to have the loser accept the results without resorting to more violence — could potentially re-escalate sectarian strife as Iraq’s deep political wounds along ethnic lines would be ripped open again.

Addressing and resolving the parties’ various complaints about the election law will be a major issue over the next few days. Watch this space.

If you believe Tom Ricks’ analysis (and in this case, I happen to) there’s a good chance that violence in 2010 — at least against Iraq’s civilian population if not American military forces — will be the highest it has been in several years. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one-off attacks are on the rise, with the occasional massive bombing like the August attack against the Iraqi Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance that killed some 155 people. Groups proclaiming themselves to be al Qaeda in Iraq — though probably composed of Saddam’s Ba’ath party loyalists — have claimed responsibility in several instances.

The good news? Even though they carry the “al Qaeda” brand, they’re not intent on or capable of an attack on the U.S. mainland.

The bad news? They could be a major destabilizing force in Iraq for years to come, because the U.S. military has pulled back from cities and towns — as stipulated in the Status of Forces Agreement — and is now in a supportive role to Baghdad’s forces, which seem none-too-hurried to ask for American help. What’s more, the cash used to flip the Sunni Sons of Iraq to cooperate with Iraqi/American forces has dried up as the task of distributing payment has fallen to the Iraqi government.

Or, to cut all this down to a nice, tidy phrase used by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction’s (SIGIR’s) quarterly report from October 2009: “The security picture in Iraq remains mixed.”

As for reconstruction itself, SIGIR points to several positive developments in oil infrastructure development, but nothing will be really resolved until a comprehensive revenue-sharing agreement among the Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds for hydrocarbons is passed.

That’s a ton to chew over. Here’s what I think all this means: If the election is held come January and the Iraqi security forces are able to at least contain violence, then the U.S. will able to stick to the plan. American troops will be substantially reduced from 120,000 to 50,000 by the end of 2010. This is no small feat and there are a few major hurdles before it happens. However, if it does happen, allow me to bastardize a Churchillian phrase and say it would represent the beginning of the end.

In Germany, a Defense Minister to Watch

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor Freiheer zu GuttenbergAngela Merkel may be the German chancellor, but the country’s most popular politician these days — and the man Americans should pay more attention to than they do—is Defense Minister Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg.

Despite his anachronistic pride in his family’s roots in the Bavarian nobility (“Freiherr” means “Baron”), zu Guttenberg dazzles the German public with his youth (he’s just 37), his oratorical flair (admittedly a low bar in a country used to snooze-fest speakers), and his non-political provenance (unlike most German elected officials, he didn’t enter politics until his 30s; before, he ran the family business).

Zu Guttenberg, a member of the center-right Christian Socialist Party Union (a regional sister party to the national Christian Democrats), was economics minister in the first Merkel cabinet for less than a year, and his selection as defense minister was something of a surprise. But despite his inexperience, he has come out punching: In just three weeks since his appointment, zu Guttenberg has reiterated Germany’s commitment in Afghanistan by deploying another 120 troops; paid a surprise visit to the country (where, dressed in a turtleneck sweater under a bulky bulletproof vest, he posed for cameras behind a helicopter door-gunner, weapon in hand); announced his support for the embattled German general whose decision to bomb a pair of hijacked tankers near Kunduz resulted in scores of civilian deaths; and — most notably — became the first German politician to call the Afghan conflict a “war.”

Normally, a German defense minister does not speak unless spoken to; fears of militarism still run deep there, across the political spectrum. Two-thirds of the German public opposes the Afghanistan deployment. There was talk during and after the campaign that the nearly inevitable ruling coalition between the center-right, relatively hawkish Christian Democrats (CDU) and the free-market, relatively dovish Free Democrats (FDP) could result in a drawdown, if not outright withdrawal, of German troops from Afghanistan. And tensions do seem to be emerging along those very lines—even as zu Guttenberg calls on the German public to support the troops, FDP Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has been telling reporters “we can’t stay in Afghanistan for eternity and three days.”

Which is the first reason why Americans need to be paying attention to zu Guttenberg. He is extremely pro-American (during his pre-political career in business, and ever since, he has cultivated close ties to both parties in D.C.) and a true believer in NATO’s Afghanistan mission. He won’t be afraid of checking Westerwelle on defense issues, and should Merkel sour on the mission, he’ll be an important backstop preventing a sudden drawdown.

In fact, don’t be surprised if zu Guttenberg tries to make a run around Westerwelle on other topics as well, from relations with other NATO members to climate change. At 37, he’s an almost-guaranteed candidate for the chancellorship once Merkel exits the stage, and a great way to solidify his position within his party would be to isolate the man most Christian Democrats can barely manage to tolerate. And that’s the second reason to watch zu Guttenberg: He is not just a growing force within German politics today, but he very well may represent the future of U.S. German relations.

Update: A couple of errors in the original post have been fixed. Thanks to commenter Robert Gerald Livingston for pointing them out.

Photo by Michael Panse, MdL / CC BY-ND 2.0

Does America Have a China Policy?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s visit to China has underscored the dramatically unbalanced nature of the Sino-American relationship. No, not the oft-lamented imbalance in trade between the two countries, but a strategic imbalance. Put simply, China has a U.S. strategy, but it’s not clear that the U.S. has a China strategy.

The Chinese know what they want, and for the most part, they are getting it. Foreign policy mavens take note: this is what 21st-century realpolitik looks like.

China wants the United States to keep its markets open. “I stressed to President Obama that under the current circumstances, our two countries need to oppose all kinds of trade protectionism even more strongly,” Chinese President Hu Jintao said yesterday in a joint news conference in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. Though he was too polite to say so, he had in mind U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and tires.

While President Obama swore fealty to free trade, he also called for “balanced growth,” which is diplo-speak for U.S. efforts to get China to spur domestic consumption and rely less on exports. The president also declared that the world cannot count on overleveraged U.S. consumers to be a perpetual engine of global growth.

Change in Trade Relationship Unlikely

That’s right in concept. But the U.S. trade deficit with China — even in the midst of recession and financial crisis — is expected to be $200 billion this year, about the same as last year. And U.S. injunctions to pump up domestic demand are no more likely to work with China than they did two decades ago with another export juggernaut, Japan. Beijing not surprisingly seems intent on sticking with the economic strategy that has produced annual growth rates of 10 percent – even as the U.S. wallows in 10 percent unemployment.

Worried about the value of the huge hoard of dollar assets they are sitting on, the Chinese admonished U.S. officials to keep the dollar’s value from sliding further. President Obama, determined to accentuate the positive, praised China’s previous pledges to “move toward a more market-oriented exchange rate over time.” But pegging the renminbi to the dollar is integral to China’s quasi-mercantile strategy. We should expect no more than cosmetic adjustments that will have scant effect on exchange rates and, therefore, will not give a major boost to U.S. exports to China.

So all and all the president’s visit was satisfactory from China’s point of view. Beijing got assurances that the administration would not shut out Chinese imports, or let the dollar get much weaker. It had to endure only mild U.S. nudges on boosting domestic consumption and letting its currency appreciate.

The Limits of Cooperation

For his part, President Obama stressed the need for Beijing to work with the U.S. to get North Korea and Iran to forswear nuclear weapons, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China pays lip service to nuclear non-proliferation, but it has steadfastly declined to use its economic leverage to bring serious pressure to bear on North Korea. It also has blocked stiffer U.N. sanctions against Iran, even while upping its trade with Tehran. And China is adamant that it won’t sign a global warming pact with binding targets next month in Copenhagen.

The president seems not to have said much about democracy, which begs the question of whether the White House believes the absence of accountable governance in China in any way inhibits a close partnership with the U.S. Obama, however, did win Beijing’s acquiescence in a human rights dialogue set to start next year.

In sum, Beijing displayed a hard-boiled realism about hewing to an economic nationalism that has catapulted China from the Third World to the first tier of nations in just 30 years, but at a growing cost to global growth and financial stability. It also gained recognition as a key stakeholder in the world’s steering committee of great powers, without having to sacrifice anything of importance to the common cause of stemming the spread of nuclear weapons or slowing climate change.

What the U.S. got was the atmospherics of a cordial and cooperative Sino-American relationship, and little else.

President Obama is right, of course, that a U.S.-China collision is neither inevitable nor desirable. He may also be right that that none of the world’s toughest challenges can be met without Sino-American cooperation.

It is time, however, for frank acknowledgement of the limits of cooperation. We need to be clear about where U.S. and Chinese interests diverge, and about what, above all else, American really wants from China. Once the administration can answer that question, it will be able to pursue U.S. strategic interests with as much focus and determination as Beijing brings to the bargaining table.

Why Retrofitting Should Be Sexy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

You’ve doubtless seen ads recently offering you a $1,500 “stimulus federal tax credit” for 30 percent of the cost of putting in new windows. How the stimulus is related to windows might not be transparent to anyone less than wonky. But it’s an important facet of the Obama administration’s broader attempt to place retrofitting at the center of a new national energy policy.

The sexy side of environmentalism has never been about houses. We generally focus on cute animals (e.g. polar bears marooned on ice floes) or Hollywood disaster scenarios (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow). But the fact is that retrofitting houses to make them more efficient, through means that will create jobs, is the low-hanging fruit of the new environmental movement.

The new path was amply revealed in an exciting (if this is your sort of thing) report recently released by Vice President Biden’s Middle Class Task Force and the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality titled, “Recovery through Retrofit.” The report puts the stimulus expenditures (such as the $1,500 windows credit) in a broader strategy.

The potential gains are pretty staggering. As the authors note, existing techniques and technologies — that is, “business as usual” approaches — can yield an incredible 40 percent energy savings per home, a reduction of 160 million metric tons of greenhouse gases by 2020, and total savings of $21 billion in home energy bills annually.

The report does the smart thing in modern progressive policymaking, focusing on how to use government to create a market that will allow entrepreneurs and consumers to find their own solutions, rather than imposing top-down measures that end up being inflexible and oppressive.

Consistent with this market-based approach, the report isolates three “market barriers”:

  • Access to information for consumers who need to understand how to retrofit their homes — it can be challenging to figure out if an “energy audit” firm is legit.
  • Access to financing for homeowners facing high upfront costs for home energy audits and retrofits — installing solar panels on your roof, for example, can be several thousand dollars.
  • Access to skilled workers who can actually perform the weatherization and retrofits — making sure folks are trained to strip and install adequate insulation is not as simple as it sounds.

There’s a lot of good stuff in the report. On improving consumer information, it proposes applying the ENERGY STAR ® label, which has worked beautifully to help consumers purchase efficient appliances, to houses as well.

On access to financing, the authors suggest measures that would allow the cost of retrofits to be added into a homeowner’s property tax bill, with amortized payments lower than the average utility bill. The cost (and value) of retrofitting would attach to the property, not an individual, meaning it would become part of the value of the house.

Finally, on worker training, the report advocates establishing uniform national workforce and certification training standards for retrofit workers — familiar to anyone who’s had to be licensed for a craft.

This is just a brief outline. You can check out the 12-page report for yourself here. It’s not polar bears or a new ice age, but from windows to workers, it’s a promising blueprint for change.

Obama to China

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s three-day swing through Shanghai and Beijing presents an interesting opportunity to make real headway on three critical trans-Pacific issues.

First is economics. Whether the issue is China’s near recession-proof economy, currency devaluation, or seemingly inexhaustible appetite for American debt, Obama has been walking a tightrope to frame financial competition as a healthy companion to cooperation. While it’s perhaps somewhat natural for Americans to “fear” Chinese economic hegemony, keep this in mind: China has to keep growing at a rate of close to 8 percent annually, or it won’t be able to integrate its approximately 20 million brand new job seekers each year. The potential instability could wreak havoc, so on some level (American debt notwithstanding) Chinese growth should be managed rather than ignored or fought.

Second is world leadership, specifically on climate change. I was listening to a BBC podcast this morning that highlighted China’s fascinating and divisive internal debate on its place in the world, with various cadres within the governing Communist party arguing for relative isolation over front-running. This is where Obama’s message can strike home: The world needs China as a global leader as other countries look to Washington and Beijing before making their move. The Indias, Brazils, and Russias of the world see little reason to agree to any wide-ranging worldwide carbon restrictions if China doesn’t play ball first.

Finally, many will paint the president’s visit as too soft on his Chinese hosts — Obama refused a visit in DC with the Dalai Lama and has been rather publicly muted (though not silent) on the issue of human rights (though he did address the issue at a town hall meeting with students). For the record, human rights must be a part of the conversation, both as a moral issue and bargaining chip (as base as that may sound). Obama has been rather careful to present them as one of many agenda items, one that doesn’t needlessly anger Beijing and derail important conversations on issues in which America needs a Chinese partner now.

Bin Laden’s Cleric Condemns Ft. Hood Shootings

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Danger Room has a great scoop.

Salman Al-Awdah, a Saudi cleric who played an influential role in Osama Bin Laden’s early radicalism, called the Fort Hood shootings “irrational” and an “empty thought.” Al-Awdah said, “Incidents [such as the Ft. Hood shootings] have bad consequences, and undoubtedly this man might have a psychological problem; he may be a psychiatrist but he [also] might have had psychological distress.”

Though Bin Laden had once described Al-Awdah as his “ideal personality,” the cleric has somewhat moderated his stance recently, having condemned 9/11 even while subsequently signing a 2004 letter that called for jihad against U.S. forces in Iraq.

It’s a notable differentiation. In the past, Al-Awdah has distanced himself from terrorism targeting civilians, while endorsing military ones.  Even though Ft. Hood was technically not in the field of battle, many of its soldiers were headed out to Iraq or Afghanistan, or just returning home. You’d think Al-Awdah would view them as culpable as forces in a war zone.

I’ve written previously that I don’t believe Ft. Hood was terrorism. That Al-Awdah passed on an opportunity to legitimize the attack — instead emphasizing Nidal Hassan’s mental illness — only underscores my analysis.

Understanding the Threat from al Qaeda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

At first glance, it seems like an obvious call: al Qaeda hasn’t attacked the U.S. in over eight years, so why endanger more American lives and spend billions to fend off a group that’s on the ropes?

Or, even for many who believe al Qaeda continues to pose a threat, it’s hardly obvious why the Obama administration is considering Gen. McChrystal’s request of 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. After all, the terrorist group has withered to maybe 100 members, most of whom are across the border in Pakistan. Shouldn’t a counterterrorism strategy that disrupts plots as they develop be enough?

A friend who works in Hollywood once told me that movie producers emphasize that the audience should understand exactly what’s at stake throughout the picture. In the Afghan security drama, the audience — the American public — has long since been lost and bored by the plot. Who can blame them? Think of all the twists and turns that have diverted their attention over the last eight years: Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, a torture debate, Gitmo, wiretaps, and, of course, Afghanistan, among many other factors, have all desensitized, frustrated, or angered much of the country to the point that many are sick of thinking about national security. If George McGovern dusted off his presidential campaign slogan, “Come Home, America,” and ran this year, he might fare better than last time.

That’s why as the White House contemplates its choice for strategy and resources in Afghanistan, it’s crucial that Americans become reacquainted with what’s still at stake.

A Loss of Urgency

Right now, it’s true that al Qaeda’s senior leadership — the only one of the many different “al Qaeda” groups worldwide that has a serious interest in attacking the U.S. — probably doesn’t have the capability to plan and execute a devastating 9/11-style terrorist attack. Al Qaeda’s core leadership remains intact, but after eight years of pounding by American and NATO forces, it’s highly questionable whether Osama Bin Laden’s intimate cadre could today mount an intricate logistical and financial campaign necessary for a large-scale operation half a world away.

One can’t blame Americans for thinking that the stakes aren’t particularly high. America feels relatively secure today, and some complacency may have set in.

But as Steve Coll first suggested in Ghost Wars, his history of intelligence services in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s helpful to think of America as a soccer goalie defending against Team al Qaeda. It’s possible to pitch shut-out after shut-out for several games in a row, but no matter how good the goalie is, at some point, he’s bound to let one through.

To build on Coll’s metaphor, al Qaeda, unfortunately, is prepared for a long season. One of al Qaeda’s under-appreciated strengths is its patience. Bin Laden’s modus operandi is that it’s better to do nothing than to try and fail. Al Qaeda took five years to plan the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, two years for 2000’s U.S.S. Cole attack, and another two for 9/11. Plot development time would no doubt be much longer today.

That’s why al Qaeda is effectively sitting on the sidelines in Pakistan. It has been pinned down by the American and NATO presence in Afghanistan and is biding its time, hoping that the Taliban can retake control of Afghanistan and re-open the playing field.

A Plan to Defeat — Not Delay — Terrorism

Gen. McChrystal’s plan is a proposal to keep them off the field for good. Instead of worrying about disrupting plots as American intelligence learns of them, McChrystal’s strategy, if successful, would permanently deny al Qaeda a chance to slip one past the goalie by forever taking away the safe haven it needs to plot a massive terrorist operation.

Some question the links between al Qaeda and the Taliban, wondering whether, should the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan, it would necessarily facilitate al Qaeda’s return. But in an essay in Foreign Affairs, Barbara Elias provides a convincing rebuttal: “If key Taliban officials behaved as representatives of a government seeking to maintain control of their territory, they would have given up al Qaeda in the fall of 2001, just as Pakistan supposedly agreed to give up the Taliban. Why would they turn against al Qaeda now if they didn’t then?”

As I argued in an article for Foreign Policy, al Qaeda needs a safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to have any hope of conducting a massive terrorist attack against the U.S. The Obama administration and European leaders may never be able to fully defend against a Madrid- or London-style attack, but America can defend against another 9/11 by denying al Qaeda the cover it needs to conceive, plan, train for, and execute a terrorist plot.

There’s no question that Gen. McChrystal’s request is a bitter pill to swallow as the administration asks for billions more to finish off a distant enemy seemingly on its last legs. It is tempting to wager that America will remain secure even if the Taliban retake parts of Afghanistan by keeping al Qaeda off balance with less expensive Special Forces raids and targeted air strikes.

That roll of the dice isn’t worth it. If al Qaeda regroups and re-grows by implanting itself in Afghan territory, it would establish itself anew as a serious security threat to the U.S. And if it were able to launch another 9/11-style attack, the White House — regardless of its occupant — would be back at square one, making new decisions about thousands more American lives and hundreds of billions fresh dollars. It’s not an attractive option, but on the whole, it makes more sense to swallow the castor oil and adopt Gen. McChrystal’s recommendations. They offer the best chance of permanently quashing the al Qaeda threat.

That’s what’s at stake.

Cap-and-Trade and the American Farmer

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the more unfortunate developments in the debate over cap-and-trade has been the refusal of the agriculture lobby to sit down at the table and work toward a good compromise with policy makers and business leaders on climate-change law.

The pressure has worked. The Waxman-Markey bill passed this summer conspicuously leaves out the farm industry, which is a significant contributor to the climate problem, from fertilizer-emitted nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than carbon dioxide) to livestock emissions to the distortionary impact of ethanol on land use. But despite Congress’s concessions to the powerful agriculture industry, the farm lobby continues to fight efforts to pass cap-and-trade, as farmers express fears that putting a price on carbon — which is, of course, the key to slowing emissions — would be too burdensome for them. The resistance to cap-and-trade among farmers was illustrated by an Economist article this week that featured a Montana farmer named Bruce Wright, whom the article reported “cannot see how he could run his farm without cheap fossil fuels.”

The refusal to engage on the issue is unfortunate — and, it turns out, misguided. Never mind that the American heartland would suffer some of the worst effects from climate change (the most dire models see a repeat of the Dust Bowl). According to a new study by 25x’25 Alliance, an advocacy group spearheaded by volunteer leaders in the agriculture, forestry, and renewable energy communities, cap-and-trade could end up being a net plus for farmers’ bottom line. The study (PDF here) found that a properly structured cap-and-trade scheme could bring in an additional $13 billion in annual revenues for agriculture and forestry, as income from offsets more than compensate for higher input costs for energy and fertilizer. (Among the offsets considered include methane capture, bioenergy crop production, and grassland sequestration.)

Moreover, the study also modeled a scenario in which emissions are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (in accordance with the 2007 Supreme Court decision finding that the agency was responsible for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act) instead of through cap-and-trade legislation. The study found a considerably worse outcome for farmers: “Agriculture is subject to higher input costs with no opportunity to be compensated for the GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction services the sector provides.”

A press release announcing the 25x’25 study underscores the point that farmers have more to lose by stonewalling on climate change legislation. “Farmers and ranchers want to be a part of the climate change solution and this study illustrates the significant role they can play,” says Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union. “Failing to address climate change through legislation, and instead subjecting producers to EPA regulations, would be a huge mistake.”

As I’ve written before, cap-and-trade will lead to a higher cost burden to some, but also create a new revenue opportunity for others. According to this study, a cap-and-trade system with a decent offsets mechanism would actually be a boon to farmers who are moved to change their ways by new market incentives. Here’s hoping the Bruce Wrights of America catch on.