issue: Politics

Can Unions Open Burma?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Special Report

The following is a guest column from PPI friend and sometime contributor Earl Brown, Labor and Employment Law Counsel for the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.

BurmaIf you want to see what a society without law or civic space looks like, go to Burma. A half century of military misrule has devastated this once fertile center of Asian science, scholarship, law, commerce and civic debate. But in this desert, Burmese activists are preparing to seize the potential democratic space recently opened up by the new regime. Last month, it issued a new labor law, the Labor Organization Law, which appears to allow independent unions to register and function legally for the first time in memory.

The new law allows the creation of new unions, with a minimum of 30 members. Burmese trade union activists are now using this new labor law and filing papers to establish free trade unions. In the past few weeks, groups of woodworkers, garment workers, hatters, shoemakers, seafarers and other trades, including agricultural workers, have registered openly as trade unions. After decades of unceasing international pressure and sanctions to little discernable effect, outside watchers of Burma are eager to see positive movement and are praising this new law. They see the new labor law as part of other highly publicized initiatives by the regime to open up Burmese society. For example, Burma’s new president has recently received the leader of the Burmese democracy movement, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, in a highly publicized audience. The Burmese regime released 200 political prisoners in October and has also cancelled a huge dam project with Chinese construction firms that was fiercely opposed by villagers.

Whether these apparent openings—including the new labor law—are real is a matter of debate by those following events in Burma. All are watching to see the reaction of the Burmese regime to the efforts by Burmese industrial workers as they organize under the Labor Organization Law. Will the regime actually allow free unions?

Autonomous unions were once among the pillars of the robust civil society in Burma that had grown up in the face of British rule, fueled by a fierce desire for independence and democracy. Unions helped build this vibrant and diverse civil society by giving voice to industrial workers. Alongside associations of scholars, students, professionals in various disciplines, including lawyers, religious folks in temples and churches, ethnic and political parties, unions laid the basis for Burmese democracy. So did the Burmese bar.

True, many of Burma’s laws were repressive imports from colonial India. But the independent and anti-colonial Burmese bar was populated by talented advocates and drafters, employing both Burmese and British traditions and languages. In this bar, a skilled group of labor lawyers waged vigorous advocacy for both sides of the industrial relations equation, for unions and employers.

When General Ne Win seized power in the 1960s, however, he launched an attack on the diversity and vigor of Burmese civil society. Using the slogans of socialism, General Ne Win sought to replace peaceful debate about and advocacy of divergent interests with the dreary and artificial “harmony” of military rule. The honest articulation of any interests beyond those of the military was suppressed in the name of order. In this imposed order, unions, and lawyers as vehicles of advocacy and debate became targets. After 50 years of suppression, these once proud traditions of democratic trade unionism, of legal advocacy, and of civil debate eroded and eventually disappeared.

The demise of a vigorous civil society and civic debate did not steal the impulse for democracy. But it did eliminate robust traditions of independent trade unionism and law. Unions and legal institutions, such as independent lawyers, could have helped check the repressive hand of Burma’s military junta. That is why they, and most other independent civil society organizations, became targets of the military.

In her 2010 speech to the Community of Democracies on civil society, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton explained why dictators are impelled to suppress unions, lawyers and the other building blocks of that civic pluralism and robust advocacy so essential to sustaining democracy beyond elections:

Our democracies do not and should not look the same. Governments by the people, for the people, and of the people will look like the people they represent. But we all recognize the reality and importance of these differences. Pluralism flows from these differences. And because crackdowns [to civil society] are a direct threat to pluralism, they also endanger democracy.[1]

Freedom of association and expression is the air that union movements and lawyers must have to breath. Guaranteeing those rights is thus one first step to rebuilding the pluralistic Burmese civil society so necessary to democracy and economic development. Unions and lawyers are clearly key to recreating the vigorous democratic civic world and discourse that have been suppressed and degraded for so long inside Burma, and so necessary to any Burmese revival.

If you worry, like so many Americans, about excessive regulation, just check out recent Burmese history—where military officers can get a piece of your enterprise or endeavor at their whim. Talk to the Burmese entrepreneurs who without consent, compensation or process acquired new and rapacious military “partners” in their businesses. That’s what a world without rules and regulations looks like. A world without law, process, or lawyers does not have the diversity of interests needed to insure governmental accountability.

The International Confederation of Trade Unions (ITUC) has just completed an analysis of the new labor law, pointing out its many defects. It allows for the complete suppression of strike activity for wages, hours and working conditions. This important economic law was issued without any consultation with unions, independent scholars or employers. It is poorly drafted, and not harmonized with other Burmese laws or the new Burmese Constitution. It lacks clarity and important detail, and sadly reflects the deterioration of Burmese legal traditions such as draftsmanship. But, despite all these negative features, this new law seems to allow for registration of autonomous trade unions. The woodworkers and other workers who are registering under the Labor Organization Law will give the outside world, and Burma itself, a real test of whether this initiative in the direction of a freer civil society is genuine.

We, on the outside, will not only be able to see if the apparent opening of civil society is real, we may also see the recreation of a robust civil society with unions and other civic associations as new soil for the growth of democracy and the rule of law inside Burma. All concerned with the rule of law and democracy in Burma and Asia should keep their eyes on the efforts of the Burmese woodworkers, garment workers, seafarers and others to register free unions. Their efforts will tell us all if the openings are cosmetic for outside consumption or real for use by Burmese civil society.

[1] Clinton, H. (2010, July). Civil Society: Supporting Democracy in the 21st Century. Speech presented at the Community of Democracies, Krakow, Poland.

Wingnut Watch: Cain’s Latest Problem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Herman CainAs the November 23 deadline for congressional action on a “supercommittee” package to reduce budget deficits by $1.2 trillion and avoid automatic domestic and defense cuts approaches, conservative activists have been steadily ramping up the pressure on supercommittee Republicans to hold a hard line against any tax increases. This missive from Heritage Action for America is pretty representative of the drumbeat:

Unfortunately, the “super committee” is veering off course and the odds are growing that massive tax hikes will be part of a final deal. Even worse, not all Republicans are willing to take massive tax hikes off the table. According to news reports, more than 100 House members–Republicans and Democrats alike–sent a letter to the “super committee” urging a “big, grand bargain–taking nothing off the table.” In Washington, that is code for a tax increase.

A few anti-supercommittee conservatives are willing to come right out and say that allowing across-the-board defense cuts to be enacted is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding tax increases. The most common rationalization is that these “sequesters” would not take effect until 2013, and a newly triumphant Republican president and Congress could fix the problem after the 2012 elections. Using the same kind of arguments, many activists have long claimed that a “grand bargain” that included major changes in federal retirement programs in exchange for tax increases would be unacceptable on grounds that Democrats would never keep their promises on spending in the future.

At an earlier point in the process, it appeared conservatives might allow some “wiggle room” for the supercommittee on taxes by considering the idea of a package that includes base-broadening “tax reforms” without raising actual rates on the wealthy or any major category of corporations. But the renewed popularity of sweeping, radical tax system overhauls, as reflected in the adoption of variations on the regressive “flat tax” idea by presidential candidates Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, has undermined what little support existed on the Right for revenue-raising elimination of “loopholes” under the general framework of the current tax code.

The same wingnuts who are having little trouble sticking to their no-compromise guns on deficit reduction are having a bit more trouble settling on a presidential candidate. A week ago, the big debate in Republican political circles was whether presidential polling front-runner Herman Cain would transform himself into a serious if unconventional candidate with a real organization and a consistent presence on the campaign trail, or instead would fade in the wake of either a comeback by Rick Perry or a sort of resigned acceptance, first by conservative elites and then by the rank-and-file, of Mitt Romney as the nominee. The betting line was not in Cain’s favor.

Then came Politico’s October 30 bombshell story revealing that the National Restaurant Association had settled two claims of sexual harassment against Cain during his presidency of the trade group in the last 1990s, and a couple of days of shifting stories from Cain and his campaign in reaction to the allegations.

Although the mainstream media has concluded from almost the very beginning that the Politico story means curtains for an already implausible Cain candidacy, it looks very different from Wingnut World. Though a few conservative opinion-leaders (mostly those thought to be friendly to Mitt Romney) have either kept their mouths shut or suggested Cain should come clean, the general reaction has been to defend him, with varying degrees of heat. The most common conservative media meme, one that Cain himself has encouraged, is to compare him to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an outspoken African-American conservative who is being smeared by the “liberal media” and “the Left” generally, who are fearful that he will liberate his people from the “plantation” of subservience to Big Government and the Democratic Party.

Beyond the chattering classes, the very initial evidence is that rank-and-file conservatives are inclined to give Cain the presumption of innocence, and perhaps of innocence persecuted. Politico itself posted a headline today reading: “Iowa yawns at Herman Cain allegations.” The story attached to it had this very revealing passage:

Gregg Cummings, the Tea Party Patriots’ Iowa state coordinator, said among tea partiers the story of Cain’s sexual harassment allegations pales in comparison to the desire to have a conservative—“not Romney”—win the caucuses and the nomination.

“Hardly anybody is talking about it,” he said. “It’s not a big issue, in other words. I think the urgency of making sure that we get a conservative candidate to win the primaries is of greater concern to most of the tea party folks right now.”

More tangibly, the first poll taken entirely after the original Politico story broke, by Rasmussen in South Carolina, showed Cain with a ten-point lead over Mitt Romney and the rest of the field, his best showing to date in any South Carolina poll.

Sometimes damaging information about candidates just takes a while to build up steam in an array of media outlets and then penetrate the public’s consciousness. So Cain is hardly out of the woods, aside from the fact that more graphic details of his behavior, or indications of a cover-up, could soon emerge. But given the impulsive reaction in Wingnut World, it’s also possible, ironically, that this is exactly what the Cain campaign needed to distract attention from his lack of interest in world affairs, his waffling on abortion, or the details of his tax plan, and instead make him a martyr to the “constitutional conservative” cause that is still in search of a champion against Mitt Romney.

Photo credit: roberthuffstutter

It’s About (the) Time: Ending the Nonstop Campaign

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Somewhere in the last two decades, politicians began to believe that the way to win an electoral majority is not to prove that you can govern well, but to prove that you can campaign.

Today, politicians are caught in an ever-escalating, never-ending, 24-hour, 365-day campaign cycle dominated by the burden of raising enough money to wage a campaign creditably. For incumbents, the heft of a candidate’s war chest is what keeps potential challengers at bay—which means that even the safest members need the insurance of a sizeable sum of cash on hand. And for every candidate, last quarter’s results are just about the only proxy by which a candidate’s viability is judged.

The constant horserace over money (not ideas) has taken its toll on the quality of governance. For example, the Rasmussen report released a poll in July finding that 85 percent of Americans view members of Congress as “just out for their own careers.” Almost every poll finds Congress’s approval rating in the single digits.

Second, serious debate about any issue—e.g., the federal budget or taxes—is virtually impossible because there is no “safe period” in which an issue can’t be turned into a political football. Moreover, politicians simply have no time to devote to learning the arcana of policy. They are too busy attending fundraisers. As Republican freshman Richard Nugent said, “As soon as I got to Congress, people started asking me if I had started fund-raising,” Nugent said. “I was amazed at that. It seems to me that a person ought to get some results first before you start getting too focused on re-election. Otherwise, what on earth are the voters sending you to Washington to do?”

 

Wingnut Watch: Flat Tax Fanatacism

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Plans to reduce the taxes of wealthy “job creators” remained on the minds of conservatives this last week, with Rick Perry harnessing the reboot of his floundering presidential campaign to a “flat tax” proposal that’s really an alternative maximum tax for people currently in the higher brackets. In an effort to get conservative voters to think about everything and anything other than immigration policy in considering him, Perry nestled his tax plan in a larger package that includes total suspension of federal regulations for a period of time, uninhibited exploitation of fossil fuel resources, and a balanced budget constitutional amendment that includes a permanent limitation on spending as a percentage of GDP (this last item is an item beloved of SC Sen.–and Wingnut Generalissimo–Jim DeMint, whose endorsement Perry would surely love to secure prior to next January’s Palmetto State primary).

Perry’s tax plan and the optional nature of its rates raise a lot of questions, but its shape-shifting features are politically convenient, particularly as compared to Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal, with its unambiguously regressive thrust and its reliance on an unpopular national sales tax. With Newt Gingrich also hawking a flat tax scheme, the conquest of the Republican Party by cranky tax schemers is now very far advanced.

More generally, the GOP presidential contest is revolving around the broadly shared expectation that the campaign of Herman Cain, who now actually leads Mitt Romney in a plurality of national polls, and is attracting three and four times as much support as Rick Perry, will soon collapse. Cain added to that expectation last week with an unforced error of considerable magnitude: a rambling series of remarks in an interview by CNN’s Piers Morgan suggesting the candidate thinks of abortion as a private matter in which government should not interfere. By the time Cain realized his mistake and reiterated his position favoring a ban on all abortions without exception, a lot of damage had been done to his reputation for competence and ideological reliability, particularly among the social issues activists who exert disproportionate power in the Iowa Caucuses. Iowa social conservative kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats summed up the general impression by saying Cain was beginning to sound like the John Kerry of 2004 (not a compliment). It probably wasn’t a coincidence that Cain’s long streak of wowing conservative audiences at joint candidate events came to a decided end in Iowa over the weekend, when he was distinctly underwhelming in a speech to the annual banquet of Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition.

With Cain’s support levels in Iowa (and other states) already being called into question because of his lack of organization in the state and his low number of visits, it remains to be seen who would benefit from a theoretical Cain collapse. While many observers think the situation in Iowa is ripe for Mitt Romney to swoop in and score a knockout blow over a divided conservative opposition, he’s not exactly showing signs of doing so (he skipped the FFC event, for example, even though he had just made his first brief visit to Iowa since April). Perry is definitely plotting an Iowa comeback, beginning TV ads this week and spending time on such potentially productive activities as a pheasant-hunting jaunt with congressman Steve King, perhaps the only political figure with the power to absolve Perry from his heresies on immigration policy.

You’d think the potential vacuum on the Right would provide an opening for a comeback by Rep. Michele Bachmann, the winner of the August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. But Bachmann’s campaign is visibly struggling, and attracting media attention only for such negative developments as the mass resignation of her NH staff.

Rick Santorum continues to seek to outflank the field on social issues (Cain’s abortion gaffe was a major gift to him), and is totally devoted to an Iowa-centric campaign that will eventually take him to all 99 counties in that state. But the only also-run candidate showing forward momentum in polls in Iowa, or indeed in other early states, is none other than Newt Gingrich, whose strategy of using candidate debates to show off his policy chops and attack the moderators has lifted him ahead of Perry in most surveys. Gingrich and Cain recently accepted a Texas Tea Party invitation to hold a “Lincoln-Douglas”-style one-on-one debate in the Lone Star State next month. Texas is hardly a competitive state so long as Perry is running, and isn’t an early state, either, so this debate decision has reinforced suspicions that both Gingrich and Cain are “business plan candidates” who are in the race to promote their books and television careers rather than to secure the nomination.

But it is clear there will remain for the immediate future strong demand for a “true conservative” candidate who can keep Mitt Romney from running away with the nomination. Just yesterday Romney provoked fresh outrage from conservatives by refusing to take sides in the red-hot Ohio referendum on Gov. John Kasich’s legislation to cripple public-sector unions, SB 5. Romney was almost immediately forced to recant, but that step, of course, simply reinforced his reputation as a flip-flopper.

When you add it all up—Perry’s terrible mispositioning on immigration, Cain’s sloppy campaigning and unnecessary abortion gaffe, and Romney’s incurable tin ear for conservative sensibilities—this is a presidential candidate field with an abundant ability to take a bold step forward onto a garden rake. Like a football game decided by the “turnover margin,” the GOP nomination could ultimately go to the candidate who manages to go for a few crucial weeks at a time without coughing up the ball.

Photo Credit: Mays Business School

Senate Guts School Accountability

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The U.S. Senate is finally getting around to reauthorizing the controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), something that was supposed to happen in 2007. Unfortunately, instead of fixing NCLB’s evident flaws, there’s a bipartisan push to fatally weaken the law as a credible tool for educational accountability.

A bill to renew the bill (known again by its historic title, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) crafted by Sens. Harkin (D-Iowa) and Enzi (R-Wyo.) is being widely panned by education reformers. As Michelle Rhee points out, “by removing meaningful evaluations, the country would be taking huge step backward in the effort to reform our schools.”

In a rare moment of bipartisanship, Congress passed NCLB in 2002. It was designed to tie federal support to education (mostly through the Title I program of aid to schools in low-income areas) to improvements in student performance. Its signal achievement was to require local school authorities to measure the academic achievements of all students, including racial and ethnic subgroups. This provision meant that schools could no longer hide their failure to educate all students behind averages.

But NCLB’s critics pointed to several glaring flaws. One was the requirement that 100 percent of public school students reach proficiency in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year. Not only is this standard deemed unattainable, but it puts too much weight on standardized assessments of widely varying quality.

Another problem with NCLB is its requirement that schools have “highly qualified teachers”. That sounds innocuous, but in practice it has led schools to hire teachers based on their academic credentials rather than their actual ability to teach. An abundance of data has shown that one of the quickest ways to achieve student growth is through an effective teacher. A “highly qualified teacher” by NCLB definition is one that is simply “certified and proficient” in the subject matter taught—regardless of how well those credentials translate into student learning, achievement, or growth.

The Harkin-Enzi bill kills the “100 percent proficiency” target, but doesn’t replace it with a better yardstick. Instead, it vaguely charges states to strive for “continual growth.” The bill is thus a throwback to NCLB’s predecessor, 1994’s weak Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). This toothless measure paved the way for such lax accountability standards as Tennessee’s goal to “improve mean performance level(s) across grades by [an] average of .05” for grade-levels three through eight—hardly a worthy goal for true reform.

Harkin’s original draft required the states to adopt teacher and principal evaluations which would focus on both in-class observations and student achievements. Unfortunately, it was watered down in a redraft on Monday.

After the rewrite all the meaningful elements—save perhaps the mandate that states enforce a college-readiness standard—went by the wayside. The weaker version of the bill closely tracks a letter sent to the senators by teacher and principal advocacy groups, including the National Education Association. The gist of their message to the Senate was, “We appreciate the great reform ideas you’re proposing here but just please don’t implement them.” Also, the new version is clearly intended to assuage the “federal overreach” fears of GOP local control advocates.

In short, the bill not only omits concrete accountability standards, it also disregards the policy prescription that effective teachers—effective in the sense that the teacher actually impacts the student—are the key to true education reform. This ESEA reauthorization does nothing to positively impact an education system that is consistently failing the future of this country. The redrafting effort headed by Sen. Enzi on Monday is a clear message to reform-minded advocacy groups that the letters they are sending urging the federal government to do more in the way of education standards—such as the ones published by EdWeek and EdTrust—are not as effective as those sent by the teachers’ unions. In other words, you can speak loudly but you better carry a larger voting contingency.

Wingnut Watch: A Fair Tax?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the more exotic policy tendencies of Wingnut World is a history of strong and pervasive support for replacing income taxes with higher consumption taxes. Many conservatives support this step on grounds that it will promote savings and investment, which is another way of saying that they believe capital should not be taxed at all. Others like the idea of getting rid of the compliance costs and “bureaucracy” associated with income taxes, and still others are attracted to the “flat” nature of consumption taxes, which do not vary based on the taxpayer’s personal circumstances (whether it’s income, or the various characteristics that earn deductions and credits against income tax liability).

The so-called “Fair Tax”—the general term used for any number of schemes for shifting from federal income to consumption taxes—has been a hardy perennial for years among conservative activists and talk show hosts. Among the latter was Herman Cain, whose so-called 9-9-9 (replacing current federal income, capital gains and estate taxes with a 9 percent national sales tax, a 9 percent VAT on corporations, and a 9 percent income tax with no deductions or credits) plan is explicitly advertised as an intermediate step towards a “Fair Tax.” Like the “Fair Tax,” Cain’s plan seems to have great curb appeal for rank-and-file conservatives, but less so for opinion-leaders.

Cain’s recent surge in the polls as a presidential candidate has suddenly put 9-9-9 and the broader movement to get rid of progressive income taxes under a microscope. On the eve of Tuesday night’s candidates’ debate in Las Vegas, the Urban Institute/Brookings Tax Policy Center published an analysis of the distributional implications of Cain’s proposal that immediately became fodder for his rivals and for critics generally. Faced with claims that 9-9-9 would boost total taxes for most American households with annual income under $200,000, Cain was reduced to repetitive denials without much in the way of explanation. Even among conservatives who are not troubled morally or politically by the idea of making federal taxes massively more regressive, the argument that 9-9-9 would give Uncle Sam a new instrument for confiscating private dollars (the national sales tax) is getting some traction. One of 9-9-9’s designers, the ubiquitous Steven Moore, is already urging Cain to replace the sales tax proposal with a 9 percent payroll tax.

There is virtually no broad-based polling of 9-9-9 available (figuring out how to describe it in a survey question is a real challenge, particularly since Cain and his advisers are not always very precise). But a new HuffPo/Patch survey of activist leaders in early caucus and primary states (whom they call “Power Outsiders”) shows lukewarm support at best.

The timing of the intra-party assault on Cain’s signature domestic policy proposal is no coincidence. It is based on the belief that he is a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon whose lofty support levels represent a “parking place” for conservatives who don’t like Mitt Romney but haven’t been sold on any of his competitors, and find Cain interesting and refreshing, not to mention his usefulness as an all-purpose antidote to suspicions that conservative hatred of Obama is at least partially racial in origin.

Tuesday night’s debate represents a transition point from a six-week stretch of frequent debates, to the run-up to actual voting events. Earlier this week another important piece of the nominating contest puzzle fell into place when Iowa set a firm date of January 3 for its “First-in-the-Nation Caucus.” There remains a not-insignificant chance that New Hampshire will schedule its primary for early in December in order to avoid too-close proximity to Nevada Caucuses currently planned for January 14, though it’s more likely that Nevada will move a few days in order to let NH have its event on January 10. Any way you slice it, though, candidates have a relatively brief window of time to get their act together before voters in the early states begin to become distracted by the holidays, which will also make negative campaigning problematic on grounds that it conflicts with the “spirit of the season.”

With Mitt Romney presumed to have a commanding lead in two of the five January events (NH and Nevada), developments in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida are of particular interest at this juncture. New NBC/Marist polls in SC and FL show Cain and Romney basically tied with just under a third of the vote each, with Perry mired in the high single-digits. This state of affairs is close to where the most recent polling in Iowa has placed the race there as well. If, as the conventional wisdom suggests, Cain soon begins to lose support because of attacks on 9-9-9, his lack of policy sophistication generally, or simply the fading novelty of his candidacy, the big question is whether those votes go back to Rick Perry, are scattered among various candidates, or even go in significant numbers to Mitt Romney. In any event (barring a December NH primary), media coverage of the campaign will now focus ever-increasingly on Iowa, where the picture is complicated by the relative importance of the “ground game” and Romney’s decision so far not to seriously compete in the state. Cain’s organizational weakness in Iowa is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that his former state director (who quit because her candidate seemed to be ignoring the state) just signed up for a less elevated job with Rick Santorum. So in the place where the 2012 nominating contest formally begins in less than eleven weeks, the two front-runners in that state and nationally are not really running at all. Something’s got to give, and soon.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Wingnut Watch: Lost in Wingnut World

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Bloomberg-Washington Post DebateAt a time when we are constantly being told that no one in America cares about anything other than the economy, one of Wingnut World’s most durable forums for people who intensely care about cultural issues was held this last weekend. The Value Voters Summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council, attracted every significant GOP presidential candidate other than Jon Hunstman. But as has often been the case, the controversial nature of the event’s sponsors and speakers overshadowed anything the candidates had to say.

Most notably, Robert Jeffress, a Southern Baptist minister from Dallas who was asked by conference sponsors to introduce Rick Perry (he’s a long-standing supporter of his governor and one was one of the pillars of Perry’s big prayer event back in August), made big waves by going out of his way to tell reports he regarded Mitt Romney’s LDS church as a “cult.” This is an old refrain for Jeffress, but casting the Republican presidential nominating contest as a war of religious identity in which Christians should follow Perry was sure to grab headlines. Moreover, one of the main speakers at the event was Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (a major Value Voters Summit co-sponsor), who lived down to his reputation as a purveyor of all sorts of bigotry, mainly aimed at gays, Muslims and Mormons. Romney, who preceded Fischer at the podium, was driven to an indirect swipe at him for “crossing a line,” which of course just gave Fischer a new excuse to whine about being persecuted.

The whole series of events led some commentators to wonder if a sustained attack on Romney’s religion, with or without the complicity of Rick Perry, had been launched to stiffen resistance to the 2012 front-runner among white conservative evangelicals.

The presidential candidate who was most successful in cutting through all the distractions at the Value Voters Summit was Herman Cain, whose stock speech is still blowing the doors off in conservative gatherings. He got a lot of standing ovations, but perhaps the biggest greeted his assurance that he and other African-Americans had nothing to be angry about thanks to the opportunities they’d received as Americans.

On a more formal level, Ron Paul registered at the event by winning its Straw Poll by a comfortable margin. The ability of his supporters to routinely dominate straw polls (except for those like August event in Iowa that attracted many thousands of attendees, or the P5 straw poll in Florida where voters were delegates elected months earlier) simply by flooding the room has seriously eroded the news values of his wins.

As the presidential candidates prepared for another debate on Tuesday, polls continued to document an ongoing collapse in support for Rick Perry and a corresponding surge for Herman Cain—not just in national surveys, but in the states that play an early role in the nominating contest. In Iowa, where no public polls were released during September, and late August polls showed Perry romping into an immediate lead, two surveys from NBC-Marist and Public Policy Polling came out this week documenting Perry’s slide into fourth or fifth place, and Cain’s rise to a position rivaling Mitt Romney. Since the Iowa Caucuses require both grassroots support and a strong organization to bring it out on a cold winter night, Cain’s weak organization in the state makes actual success in the caucuses more problematic (conversely, Perry is thought to have a very good Iowa organization). Aside from the Perry-Cain dynamic, the new numbers from Iowa show how tempting it is becoming for Mitt Romney to leap into Iowa (which he’s largely avoided, no doubt because of the high cost he paid for losing Iowa in an upset in 2008) and pursue an early knockout with a run through Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, the first three stops on the primary trail.

When the candidates assembled in New Hampshire on October 11 for a Bloomberg/WaPo debate focused on the economy, most attention was devoted to Cain, who predictably drew criticism of his signature 9-9-9 tax proposal; Romney, who had emerged from the ashes of Perry’s early ascendency to regain front-runner status (a trend punctuated by an early endorsement from Chris Christie); and Rick Perry, who needed a gaffe-free debate and some renewed sense of attachment to the hard-core conservatives who had been abandoning him for Herman Cain. The general take is that Romney cruised (getting in an extended crowd-pleasing attack on China’s commercial policies and taking a shot at Perry’s indifference to the plight of the uninsured in Texas). Cain did well but opened himself to further trouble on the details of 9-9-9 (Santorum drew some blood pointing out that the plan’s new national sales tax would not be popular in NH). Perry made no mistakes, but made no gains; RedState’s Erick Erickson concluded he was “rapidly becoming the Fred Thompson of the campaign season,” a deadly comparison given Thompson’s high potential and quick fade in 2008.

Aside from the debate’s horse-race nature, it reinforced once again how far the entire field has drifted from what used to be considered the mainstream of political discourse. All the candidates agreed the housing and financial crises of 2008-2009 were entirely created by the federal government, not the financial sector, and most implied excessive lending to the poor and minorities was a big part of the problem. All the candidates appear to favor deliberate deflationary monetary policies. All the candidates who spoke on the topic rejected any budget compromise that involved either tax increases or defense cuts. Two candidate, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, told egregious lies about the relationship between “ObamaCare” and Medicare, pursuing the old “death panel” meme with renewed vigor. And to cap it all off, when Rick Perry was asked a direct question about income inequality, he didn’t seem to grasp the problem at all.

It looks like the eventual winner will have to bring a translator along when it’s time to debate the president. Many Americans don’t speak wingnut.

Wingnut Watch: GOP Field Decided and Calendar Set

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A lot happened in the presidential campaign sector of Wingnut World this last week. The GOP field for 2012 probably became fixed. The calendar for the nominating process shifted and jelled. Rick Perry’s dive in the polls, and Herman Cain’s rise, accelerated, even as the Texan’s status as co-front-runner with Mitt Romney remained central to the conventional wisdom.

It’s not clear how many sincere wingnuts were part of the noisy posse that tried, unsuccessfully, to drag Chris Christie into the presidential race (a lot of the Draft Christie momentum came from northeastern donors associated during the last cycle with Rudy Giuliani). His ferocious YouTube videos and confrontational attitudes towards public sector unions were very popular in Tea Party circles. But his positions and record on immigration, guns, global climate change, and same-sex civil unions were sure to get him into serious trouble with ideological conservatives had he actually pulled the trigger.

With Christie definitively out, the only major pol who hasn’t fished or cut bait is Sarah Palin, who continues to insist she hasn’t made up her mind about whether or not to run in 2012. But recent polls show two-thirds to three-fourths of Republicans—including many who profess admiration for her—saying she should not run. So that development is unlikely, unless Palin simply decides it’s the best way to recapture the public attention she seems to have gradually lost.

If the 2012 field is “closed,” the calendar is also nearly finalized, though not without a revolt against the RNC’s rules led by Florida and followed by the privileged “early states” whose prerogatives Florida challenged. The original scheme to reduce “front-loading” of the nominating process involved a February “window” for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, with all other states pushed back to March or later, and states holding primaries or caucuses in April or later retaining the right to use winner-take-all procedures to increase their clout. Initially, the plan seemed to be working, with most states moving their contests as intended, and quite a few (e.g., California) choosing to coordinate later presidential primaries with regular primaries to save money. The mega-primary of “Super Tuesday” is going to be a shadow of its former self.

But Florida’s decision last week to hold its primary on January 31, in the face of sanctions that would forfeit half its 2012 delegates, messed up at least part of the scheme. The chain reaction of early states (SC has already moved to January 21) is almost certain to push the start-date in Iowa to the first week in January. But if the competition survives that early phase of states from Iowa through Florida, the pace of the schedule of events will be much slower, with a big gap in February and less of a logjam in March than in past years.

For the candidates, the implications of a early-beginning process with a more deliberate pace are two-fold: an early “knock-out” is possible, but unlikely given the high probability that the Iowa winner will lose New Hampshire to Mitt Romney. A longer slog to the nomination favors candidates with superior resources, like Romney and Perry, but not Herman Cain.

Speaking of the candidates, polling this last week emphatically showed Rick Perry in a virtual free-fall after his bad stretch of appearances in Florida, with Herman Cain—who trounced Perry in Florida’s “P5” Straw Poll on September 24—getting a significant share of Perry’s vote and Romney’s support barely moving at all. Perry dropped from 23 percent in mid-September to 12 percent in the latest CBS poll, and from 29 percent to 17 percent between early September to the present in a new ABC/Washington Post survey. Cain rose from 5 percent in the CBS poll and 3 percent in the ABC/WaPo poll to 17 percent in both today.

There are two quite different theories about Rick Perry’s fall from grace which have a significant impact of what might happen next. One is that his clumsy behavior in debates, and his overall good-ol-boy Aggie Yell Leader persona, just aren’t very presidential and make him less electable than, say, Mitt Romney. Polls do show Perry not running as well as Romney in trial heats against Obama, but presumably his problems could be fixed by a good debate performance or two or the expenditure of some of the $17 million he has raised since announcing his candidacy in August.

But the other theory is that Perry isn’t quite turning out to be the simon-pure Tea Party conservative he was advertised to be when he first announced his candidacy at a RedState gathering in South Carolina, and is in danger of forfeiting the treasured “conservative alternative to Mitt Romney” mantle. A lot of this was entirely predictable to anyone familiar with his record in Texas, but still, many conservatives seem to be shocked by his adamant defense of a wildly unpopular position favoring in-state college tuition for the kids of illegal immigrants (opposed by 86 percent of Republicans in the latest CBS poll). And accordingly, a total collapse in his levels of support among Tea Party supporters—from 45 percent a month ago to 10 percent today in the ABC/WaPo poll—is at the heart of his overall slide in the polls.

If ideology rather than “electability” is Perry’s main problem, and he doesn’t find a way to fix that, then irony or ironies, after driving the Republican Party decisively in their direction over the last three years, wingnuts could wind up without a viable presidential candidate they feel really good about. Perhaps Herman Cain can somehow turn his present popularity into a real, functioning presidential campaign, but his track record on campaign management is not great and GOP elites don’t take him seriously as a potential president. Michele Bachmann’s campaign seems to have run into a deep ditch in her best state, Iowa, and if Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are going anywhere, it’s not apparent by any objective measurements. Ron Paul, of course, is permanently unacceptable to a majority of serious wingnuts because of his foreign policy views.

Unless Rick Perry can repair his ideological reputation, it’s beginning to look like “movement conservatives” will once again have to make a choice between less-than-ideal candidates. Perhaps they can console themselves with the recognition that today’s “moderates” in the GOP are several degrees to the right of yesterday’s howl-at-the-moon hard-liners.

Photo Credit: mjecker

Taxing Rich is No Fiscal Panacea

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Class WarfarePresident Obama’s tax offensive may be aimed at energizing his despondent base, but it’s also touching a nerve with the broader public. A new Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly (66 percent) back the president’s call to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000.

Evidently, you don’t have to be a European-style social democrat to believe that the rich should chip in more to help get federal deficits under control. Grover Norquist take note: We are all class warriors now.

Official statistics on incomes explain why. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the top 10 percent of earners on average have seen their income grow a whopping 106 percent since 1979. Over the same period, those in the middle and lowest quintile have experienced meager income growth of just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

Moreover, IRS data show that the top 10 percent have received 42 percent of the total share of adjusted gross income earned between 1986 and 2008. Conservatives lament that high earners are also paying a higher share of their earnings in taxes. That’s true, but their income is growing faster than their tax burden. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent increased by 28 percent from 1986 to 2008. (IRS tables)

In short, income gains over the past generation have been dramatically concentrated at the top. Modest increases in the tax burden borne by the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans will still leave them very well off compared to the rest of us. As President Obama has said, this isn’t class warfare so much as math.

But the math doesn’t tell us the best way to raise more revenue from the most affluent Americans. In thinking about this, progressives should keep two imperatives in mind. One is the need to make the tax code more pro-growth as well as more fair. The other is to make sure that tax reform advances the cause of debt reduction.

President Obama proposed on Sept. 19 to raise $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of his plan to cut deficits by $3.3 trillion (not including the Iraq and Afghanistan draw down) over the next 10 years. His tax initiative has two main parts. First, it would cap the benefit from itemized deductions from 35 percent, the top marginal tax rate, to 28 percent for families with income of over $250,000 (200,000 for single-filers). This is not exactly a crushing new burden on the hapless rich. In fact, it would take us back to President Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, which dropped the top rate to 28 percent. The White House says limiting deductions in this way would raise $410 billion for closing federal deficits.

Second, the President’s plan would raise an additional $866 billion by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for high earners at the end of the year, while preserving them for middle class and low income families.

Both ideas are defensible on fairness grounds. But it’s not so clear that increasing income tax rates is the best place to look right now for more revenue. Politically, increases in marginal rates are probably a non-starter with most Congressional Republicans, who still genuflect to the supply side shrine. Even some Democrats, however, are leery about raising personal income tax rates in the midst of the current jobs crisis.

The alternative is the road taken by President Obama’s own Fiscal Commission. Its “modified zero plan” (analysed by Paul Weinstein and Marc Goldwein here) would raise $1.1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures. That’s a smaller number than the President’s. But most economists believe these backdoor spending programs introduce enormous complexity and distortions into the tax code. Curtailing them would promote economic efficiency and growth.

What’s more, the Commission’s plan uses the revenue to “buy down” both corporate and personal income tax rates, and to cut deficits. These rate cuts were crucial to attracting Republican support for a bipartisan compromise that combined tax reform and entitlement reform to reduce the debt by $4.2 trillion over 10 years.

This approach, also endorsed by the Senate’s Gang of Six, has one huge advantage over other tax reform schemes – it’s attracted bipartisan support. The President’s tax plan, on the other hand, seems calculated to embarrass Republicans rather than draw them toward a “grand bargain” on debt reduction.

In any case, the fiscal commission’s plan doesn’t just pinch the rich, although they benefit disproportionately from tax expenditures and loopholes. It also hits many middle class recipients of tax subsidies like the mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion for employer-paid health plans. As appealing as it is to insist that the rich pony up more to solve the debt crisis, there are practical limits from how much we can squeeze from high earners. In truth, our fiscal chasm is so deep that middle class taxpayers will have to up their contribution as well. Otherwise, we will have to make unacceptably deep cuts in domestic and entitlement spending to get the debt under control.

So by all means, let’s ask the wealthy to chip in more. But let’s also keep in mind that soaking the rich, by itself, won’t restore fiscal responsibility in Washington.

Photo credit: outtacontext

Wingnut Watch: Perry Struggles and Republicans Continue Searching for Savior

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s been a fairly introspective week in Wingnut World. Remarkably little right-wing blood was spilled over the continuing appropriations resolution fight and denouement; no thundering emanated from talk radio or the blogs about the necessity of fighting to the last ditch and shutting down government.

Instead, most of the gabbing has been over the demolition derby of “P5,” last week’s series of presidential candidate events in Orlando, Florida. As I predicted might happen in the last WW, Rick Perry had a terrible 48 hours (actually, a few less than that, since he abruptly left Orlando for Michigan on Saturday morning, letting a surrogate give his speech prior to the state party’s straw poll) in the Sunshine State. By all accounts, he performed poorly in the September 22 Fox/Google candidates’ debate, failing to add much to prior weak defenses of his positions on Social Security and immigration, and stumbling and mumbling his way through a botched attack on Mitt Romney’s record of flip-flops. He didn’t make much of a mark in the September 23 CPAC event, but more importantly, he got trounced in the September 24 straw poll after his campaign made a big deal out of its significance and apparently spent some serious money working the delegates before they assembled.

Since Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann conspicuously gave the straw poll a pass well in advance, and it wasn’t the kind of open event Ron Paul could pack with his supporters, Perry was expected to romp. But instead, the big winner was Herman Cain, who made a favorable impression with a smooth and upbeat performance in the candidate debate, and fiery versions of his well-worn stock speech both at CPAC and just prior to the straw poll.

Cain, you may remember, was written off by most observers after an initial splash among Tea Party supporters, mainly because he was not spending enough time in Iowa or New Hampshire to convince even his own staff that he was serious about competing. But in the intimate context of P5, where money and organization mattered less than the immediate impression made by the candidate, Cain’s charisma was enough, particularly among Floridians annoyed at Rick Perry for sleepwalking through the debate, insulting them as “heartless” for their misgivings about his stance on immigration, and then getting out of town as quickly as he could.

There’s only been one big national poll taken since last week’s events, by CNN, and it didn’t show much in the way of movement among the candidates, though both Cain and the perennial debate star Newt Gingrich did better, and Michele Bachmann continued her ignominious slide in national popularity. Measurements of Republican elite opinion, however, indicated a distinct shift from Perry to Mitt Romney, who didn’t do that much better than his rival in Florida, but had lower expectations to meet and didn’t make major mistakes.

But perhaps the most significant symptom of renewed Republican unhappiness with the party’s presidential field has been the intense pressure on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to make a late entry into the race, despite his constant disclaimers that he’s not interested and not ready for the presidency. In a Q&A session after a well-received speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library last night, Christie seemed to open the door to something like a draft to run. You can expect a period of intense speculation over Christie’s plans to ensue, along with a serious effort by his rivals to expose restless conservative voters to his record of heretical positions on immigration, guns, “Shariah Law,” and other topics.

But time is running short for Christie to get into the race, if that’s what he decides to do. As the actual candidates camped out in Florida last week, a commission set up by the legislature to choose a 2012 primary date by the national party’s October 1 deadline was beginning to meet. One of the pols that appointed the commission, House Speaker Dean Cannon, is now publicly predicting they will move the primary to January 31, which would all but destroy the RNC’s plans to prevent excessive “front-loading” of the calendar and likely set off a chain reaction among the “early states” that would push Iowa at least to early January and perhaps even back into 2011. If the initial blitz of events that so often determines the nomination is to begin in just over three months, it’s getting a little late for candidates to test the wind and ask to be begged to run.

U.S. Outs Pakistan

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Adm. Mike MullenTop U.S. officials this week accused Pakistan of abetting a terrorist group responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The bombshell here isn’t Pakistani duplicity—that’s old news—but the Obama administration’s decision to go public. It means Washington finally has run out of patience with our supposed “ally.”

The U.S. complaint centers on the Haqqani network, an Afghan terrorist group holed up in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that the network is “a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” He said the ISI helped Haqqani operatives carry out a truck bomb attack that wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO troops on Sept. 11, as well as a suicide assault on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

The ISI’s ties to Haqqani network date back to the anti-Soviet jihad and subsequent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Apparently, the ISI sees no reason to sever those ties just because the Haqqanis are now killing U.S. and NATO forces instead of Russians. As Mullen explained, the ISI sees the network as a valuable “proxy” that can give Pakistan leverage in Afghanistan, especially after U.S. forces have gone home. There’s another somewhat more sinister explanation: many in the ISI and army hierarchy share an ideological affinity with Islamic terror groups that target both Afghanistan and India.

So is Pakistan really an enemy masquerading as a friend? The situation is complicated because Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, even as its army rebuffs our pleas to expel the Haqqanis from North Waziristan.

The blunt testimony by Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signals the end of several years of “quiet diplomacy” aimed at getting Pakistan to make a clean break with jihadi terrorism. Outing the ISI may put more pressure on a weak civilian government. However, the Pakistani government is not only looking over its shoulder at the powerful security branches, but also at a public strongly opposed to U.S. infringements of Pakistani sovereignty.

On the other hand, Americans are entitled to ask what we have to show for the $20 billion in U.S. aid sent to Pakistan over the last decade. Last year, Congress approved $1.7 billion for economic aid for Pakistan, and $2.7 billion in security aid. At a minimum, we ought to stop trying to bribe a government that is playing us for fools.

With two wars on its hands, maybe the United States can’t afford a total rupture with Pakistan. But we can’t achieve any kind of lasting success in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan provides a safe refuge to the Haqqanis and other insurgents. That’s a genuine dilemma, but at least U.S. leaders have begun to grapple with it honestly.

Wingnut Watch: Texan troubles in the Sunshine State

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In February, the “invisible primary” for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination was kicked off in Washington by the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference. On Friday, a second CPAC event will be held in Orlando in deliberate proximity to tomorrow’s Fox/Google candidates’ debate and Saturday’s Florida GOP presidential straw poll (CPAC will not feature its own straw poll). As in Washington in February, the event will revolve around a cattle call of speeches by presidential candidates and conservative celebrities. The smell of red meat will hang heavy in the air, and speakers can and will be expected to forswear all ideological heresy and smite both Democrat Socialists and RINOs.

But it’s instructive to note how the presidential contest has changed in those seven months between CPAC-DC and CPAC-FL. In February, the intrepid conservative-watcher Dave Weigel of Slate ranked in order of general impressiveness the CPAC appearances of no less than twelve candidates, quasi-candidates, and possible candidates: (1) Ron Paul (who won, for the second straight year, the annual straw poll); (2) Gary Johnson; (3) Mitch Daniels; (4) Haley Barbour; (5) John Bolton; (6) Donald Trump; (7) Mitt Romney; (8) Newt Gingrich; (9) Herman Cain; (10) Tim Pawlenty; (11) Rick Santorum; (12) John Thune. You will note that five of these worthies wound up never running president. A sixth, T-Paw, has dropped out. A seventh, Gingrich, is no longer being taken seriously as a candidate, while an eighth (Cain) and ninth (Santorum) are barely clinging to relevance, and a tenth (Johnson) can’t get an invitation to a debate. Meanwhile, Weigel did not even mention Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, both of whom actually did speak at CPAC, or Jon Huntsman, who at this point was still Barack Obama’s ambassador to China. Interesting, eh?

With four or five months (depending on decisions pending in the states on the date of the starting gun in Iowa) still to go before actual voters begin to participate in the nomination process, how much more is likely to change? A lot could depend on what happens in Florida late this week, particularly to insta-front-runner Rick Perry.

The Texan’s somewhat shaky performance in the CNN-Tea Party Express debate on September 12 (also in Florida) may embolden his rivals to go after him again tomorrow night in Orlando. His areas of vulnerability could again include immigration policy (Cuban-Americans–the Hispanic voting group most active in Florida Republican politics–are not terribly sympathetic to undocumented workers from Mexico). It’s unlikely Michele Bachmann will again bring up Perry’s unsuccessful efforts to immunize Texas schoolgirls against the HPV virus, since her handling of the issue backfired on her in the intervening days. But if she wants to pursue the “crony capitalism” rap on Perry in a way that undermines his Tea Party support, there’s rich ground available in his futile and unpopular campaign to build a giant system of privately operated toll roads—the Trans-Texas Corridor—that might have enriched some of Perry’s friends and supporters at the expense of local landowners, and that reminded some hard-core conservatives of shadowy rumors about a “NAFTA Superhighway” designed to encourage illegal immigration and threaten U.S. sovereignty. The whole issue looks tailor-made for Bachmann.

Perry’s apparently dovish feelings about overseas troop deployments could be another target, given the very hawkish tendencies of Florida Republicans (and especially Cuban-Americans, who went heavily for John McCain, then campaigning mainly on the Iraq “surge,” in the 2008 Republican primary).

But without question, Romney, Bachmann, and perhaps others will keep up the pressure on Perry about Social Security in a state where about one-third of Republican primary participants are over the age of 65. The most recent polling in Florida, by Insider Advantage, showed Romney with a healthy lead over Perry among likely primary voters 65 and older, despite Perry’s overall nine-point lead. Since Social Security is also central to Team Romney’s “electability” argument against Perry, alarming Florida seniors generally about the Texan’s expressed disdain for the New Deal program as an unconstitutional “failure” will be a priority. Republicans have reason to be anxious about the Sunshine State: the last Republican to win the White House without winning Florida was Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

Regardless of exactly how he does in the debate, or in his CPAC-FL speech, Perry has long planned to cap the week with a smashing victory in the Saturday state party straw poll (which goes by the rather self-important name of “P5” to indicate that it is the fifth such event in Florida). But Romney and Bachmann have undermined the significance of the event by declining to appear in the pre-straw-poll cattle call, or actively compete in the straw poll. The pre-ordained nature of the Perry victory, and thus its relative lack of newsworthiness, is reinforced by this straw poll’s unusual nature: voting participants were selected months ago by county GOP organizations. So Ron Paul won’t be able to win this one by any last-minute packing of the room with his youthful supporters.

P5 might, on the other hand, draw attention to Perry’s support among Florida GOP power-brokers, including several key legislative leaders, and reportedly (though he remain officially neutral), the controversial right-wing Gov. Rick Scott. But the even bigger dogs in Florida Republican politics are another matter. Sen. Marco Rubio, who is the presumptive favorite for the second spot on the ticket no matter who wins the first spot, has little reason to endorse anybody. And his political patron, former Gov. Jeb Bush, is assumed to share his clan’s general antipathy towards Perry. If Romney can build doubts about Perry’s electability and specifically his appeal to seniors, and also secure open or covert backing from Jeb Bush, this difficult week in Florida could be just the beginning of the front-running Texan’s troubles in the Sunshine State.

Behind Abbas’s UN Gambit

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President of Palestinian National Authority Addresses General AssemblyPalestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations tomorrow to welcome Palestine as its 194th member and newest state. As Abbas well knows, that’s not going to happen. So why are Palestinians devoting their diplomatic energies to scoring purely symbolic points at Turtle Bay?

In essence, Palestinians are engaging in a kind of forum shopping. Historically, the U.N. has been sympathetic to their plight, and notoriously hostile to Israel. Abbas comes to New York seeking statehood on terms more favorable than the Palestinians have been able to get from nearly two decades of peace processing with Israel. It’s part of an all-too-familiar pattern in which Palestinian leaders expect the international community to spare them from making the unpopular concessions that peace with Israel demands.

Abbas claims his hand has been forced by Israeli intransigence. There’s something to that: The right-listing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been obdurate and prickly in its dealings with everyone, from the PA to Washington. It has failed to offer imaginative proposals for rekindling stalled peace talks, to confront a settler movement that threatens to hijack Israel’s domestic politics, and to counter effectively a spreading campaign to isolate and delegitimate the Jewish state.

Nonetheless, it was Abbas, not Netanyahu, who walked away from bilateral talks last year in a dispute over Israeli settlements. Now Abbas is pulling an end run around the peace process—and putting Washington on the spot—by asking the Security Council to grant Palestine full U.N. membership. The Obama administration has vowed to veto any such resolution, even though it supports a Palestinian state in principle. The White House rightly insists that the Palestinians can earn statehood only by making peace with Israel.

Abbas won’t return home to Ramallah with the grand prize of statehood. So why raise expectations that he knows will be dashed?

Here we wade into the multilayered subtleties of Middle East politics. One obvious motive is to dramatize Israel’s growing isolation in the region, as Turkey turns on its erstwhile ally and anti-Israel sentiment flares next door in post-Mubarak Egypt. Another is to split Europe and the United States and stoke anger at America in the Arab street, thereby racheting up pressure on Washington to extract concessions from Israel.

Many observers believe that Abbas is desperate to head off Arab spring-style demonstrations against the PA, which has been losing popularity in recent years to Hamas. If this reading is correct, then Abbas’s U.N. gambit has more to do with perpetuating the PA’s lease on power in the West Bank than winning recognition of a Palestinian state.

Finally, even if statehood is out of reach the Palestinians could win a booby prize if the U.N. General Assembly upgrades their status to that of a “non-member state.” This would allow Palestine to join various international bodies and possibly to press claims against Israel in the International Criminal Court.

Whatever his motives, Abbas’s U.N. caper carries immense risks. The PA has called for massive, non-violent demonstrations in the West Bank today to drum up support for the statehood bid. If these get out of hand, and provoke a violent confrontation with Israel, it will break a fragile peace and undo progress toward handing over security responsibilities in the West Bank to Palestinian forces.

Unilateral assertions of “sovereignty” could also prove costly for the Palestinians in other ways. Israel, for example, could withhold custom duties it collects that help to pay PA salaries. Both Houses of Congress likewise have passed resolutions threatening to cut off U.S. aid—$600 million a year—to the PA.

Such punitive measures, however, raise the specter that many observers fear most—the PA’s collapse. If as seems likely Abbas’s gambit fails to change conditions on the ground, it could engender massive disillusionment with the PA and Fatah. The winner would not be Israel but Hamas, which has no interest in a Palestinian state that does not include the whole of what is now the state of Israel. Barring another intifida and outbreak of terrorism, Israel and Washington ought to keep cool and keep funding the PA.

The United States nonetheless should stand firm against premature demands for Palestinian statehood. If it were created today, the new entity would lack two prerequisites for international recognition as an independent state: political unity and an unambiguous commitment to peaceful cooexistence with Israel.

In fact, it is the PA-Hamas split, not Israel, that poses the greatest obstacle to Palestinian aspirations to dignity, justice and independence. The blunt truth is, that until the Palestinians resolve their internal conflict—in favor of a negotiated peace and a two-state solution—they don’t deserve to have one of their own.

Photo credit: United Nations Photo

Policy Brief: Another Kick in the Teeth: Loan Limits and the Housing Market

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For weeks, August 2—the date on which the U.S. Treasury might have defaulted on its debts—was the deadline that drove policymakers toward a deal on raising the debt ceiling and lowering the nation’s spiraling debt and deficits.

Another pending deadline—October 1—has won far less attention. But it too could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy if Congress allows it to expire.

This date is when the maximum size of a mortgage loan (the “loan limit”) that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or bought by government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE’s) drops significantly. On October 1, these loan limits will fall in 669 counties in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with an average reduction of more than $50,000 and in some cases by more than $100,000. In these areas, many prospective homebuyers once eligible for an FHA loan would no longer qualify, while others may face the prospect of a higher-cost “jumbo” loan.

The result could be the potential sidelining of a key segment of homebuyers, which in turn would further weaken demand, depress home prices and drop another wet blanket on consumer confidence as Americans continue to watch their home equity evaporate. Needless to say, this is the last thing the housing market or the economy needs as it struggles toward recovery.

Without question, government should ultimately pare back its involvement in the housing market and let private capital play the leading role. But this should also happen when the markets are ready, not according to an arbitrary timetable. Unfortunately, the initial conditions that warranted the current loan limits in the first place have not improved substantially. Nor does it seem private sources are ready to jump in if government support were to end.

Read the entire brief.

The Most Important Sentence in Obama’s Speech

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The AtlanticIn the Atlantic, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel explains why President Obama needed to start in the middle of his speech and focus on the competitiveness and production narrative:

“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere.”

President Obama needs to give his jobs speech again. This time he should start in the middle.

To addressing the American people’s concerns and to win in 2012, the President needs a narrative–a story that explains how and why we got into this mess, what he has done to help so far, and how his latest proposals might help get the economy out of a ditch.

The good news: Thursday’s jobs speech contained the beginnings of a powerful story about the need to restore U.S. competitiveness. As Obama said:

“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, and out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth.”

The bad news: Obama buried this nascent narrative in the second half of the speech. What’s more, most of his proposals last night–including the payroll tax cut–did not directly attack the competitiveness problem he identified.

Obama must do better than that. He should be telling the story of how America got distracted–by 9/11, by political infighting, and by excessive confidence. He should be explaining how we allowed ourselves to emphasize consumption and the present, rather than production and the future. And he should link each of his policy proposals to the idea of rebuilding the production economy.

Read the entire article.

Six Reasons the Supercommittee Will Succeed

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein finds six reasons to believe the Congressional Supercommittee will succeed:

Whatever you think of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgradeAmerica’s credit, their justification was fairly plain. Political gridlock has managed to scuttle several successive efforts to get a handle on the federal debt. And few, if anyone, is sanguine that the new “supercommittee” in Congress will have any better luck.

But a closer look reveals that, despite the nation’s pessimism, there are several reasons to believe that the 12-member supercommittee may be able to implement a plan that sets the nation back on track. The setup has been rigged to force a deal. So, in an age where “shorting” the market has become a sort of dirty word, the smart money may be in betting that Washington will enact a responsible comprehensive budget framework by the end of the year.

First, the dynamics of the committee itself suggest that that building sufficient support in the room will be that much more palatable. Negotiators need only corral seven of the twelve members (50 percent plus one) to send any deal straight to the floor of both houses of Congress. By comparison, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission was required to receive a full 77 percent, and managed only 61. In essence, the fact that a decision by any single member could boost any proposal past the required threshold will compel every member of the commission to negotiate in a serious manner. That diminishes the likelihood that political shenanigans will scuttle this deal like they have undermined previous negotiations.

Read the other five over at Real Clear Politics.