issue: Politics

Anybody Home?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

BOOK REVIEW: Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, by Morris P. Fiorina (with Samuel J. Abrams)

For those who view themselves as political moderates, these are troubling times. Despite the renewed calls to bipartisanship and civility, the reality is that the two parties in Congress are very far apart from each other and continue to show every sign of being far more eager to engage in partisan flame-throwing than in bipartisan problem-solving.

And yet: how did things get to be this way? And what about the supposedly moderate public: how and why do they stand for this? To understand these questions, a good place to start is Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, by Morris P. Fiorina, a professor of Political Science at Stanford University.

Disconnect is essentially a book in two parts. The first is an extensive compendium of data in support of the claim that there is indeed a widening disconnect between a largely moderate voting public and an ideological polarized political class. The second part is the story of how that disconnect came about.

Just how moderate the public actually is turns out to be a matter of some debate in political science circles. An alternate view – and useful foil for discussing Fiorina’s book – is Alan Abramowitz’s The Disappearing Center (which I reviewed here), which makes the case the current polarization reflects the fact that Americans have sorted into two distinct ideological camps, and that politicians are polarized because the public is polarized (and representative democracy is therefore alive and well.)

Fiorina sees it differently: “The orientation [of the public] is more pragmatic,” he writes. “Far more people position themselves on the issues on a case-by-case basis rather than deduce their specific positions from some abstract principle….Those who ostensibly represent the American public take positions that collectively do not provide an accurate representation of the public.”

Part of the disagreement results from different data employed. Whereas Abramowitz focuses mostly on ideological self-identification and a few hot-button issues, Fiorina incorporates a broader range of issue polling, and finds that Democrats and Republicans are not nearly as far apart on most of the major issues as is commonly believed – on 40 Pew survey items, Democrats and Republicans differ only by an average of 14 points.

Moreover, they are not even moving apart that rapidly. In 1987, the average difference across the same 40 issues was 10 percent, meaning that in 20 years, there has only been an average change of four percentage points. Nor has it been consistently in opposite directions. Rather, Fiorina writes: “One sees a nonideological public moving rightward on some issues, leftward on others, and not moving much at all on still others.”

On some issues, Americans prefer more government intervention, on others less. But most of all, “Americans accept conflicting core beliefs and values.” Political views are often ambivalent and conditional, open to revision and re-consideration, as opposed to absolute and fixed. For example, four in five Americans are not sure whether life begins at conception or birth.

Americans, on the other hand, are much more divided in their assessments of political figures. George W. Bush, as we know, was the most polarizing figure in American political history. But Fiorina argues that the reviews of Bush are polarizing not because the public is polarized generally, but because Bush was an extreme partisan.

Fiorina also differs from Abramowitz in the definition of the political class. Whereas Abramowitz sees more people reporting trying to convince others to vote one way or another as a sign of more engaged political class, Fiorina notes that the percentage of Americans who work for a party or attend meetings and rallies is still the same as it was in 1952: 10 percent.

However, those 10 percent are quite different today than they were in 1952. This is one of the big stories of Disconnect. In an era gone by, politics was a clubby game, more concerned with material motivations than ideology. Politics was about compromise and bargaining, about taking care of business. It was no place for purists.

But without getting too nostalgic for the smoky and often corrupt backroom politics of a bygone era, Fiorina notes that all this openness and transparency changed the nature of politics. “The great irony,” Fiorina writes, “is that after this explosion of openness and transfer of power to the people, turnout in elections fell and trust in government plummeted.”

Without party machines to turn out votes and with new sprawling suburban districts to cover, candidates turned instead to special interests and ideological believers who were willing to volunteer and give money because they felt so strongly. A new political class that cared more about being right than actually winning took over the party mechanisms, creating the perfect breeding ground for ideological candidates.

Several demographic changes also led to political sorting. African-Americans migrated to the North and as a result became a more important political constituency. Civil Rights reforms alienated Southern Democrats, freeing the Democrats of their conservative wing and making their caucus more liberal. New Southern Republicans, plus the rise of the conservative Sunbelt, shifted the Republican center of gravity, as did the political awakening of evangelicals.

Meanwhile, as politics became more partisan, it also became nastier. Because the activists who increasingly control the party now feel more is at stake, they became more aggressive – a feedback loop that has left much wreckage in its wake.

Fiorina, like Abramowitz, offers little by way of reform. Instead, Disconnect concludes by laying the blame on deep structural forces that must somehow change on their own:

The usual institutional reforms are unlikely to do much to lessen the polarization of contemporary American politics. That polarization has deep roots in a variety of social changes that have increased the homogeneity of each party, widened the differences between the two parties, and encouraged politicians to construct electoral coalitions out of group building blocks that are less encompassing and less representative of the broader public than was the case for most of American history.

The optimistic note, however, is that by Fiorina’s reading, the American public remains quite moderate, despite the partisan warfare that has been dominating Washington. Without at least a moderate public, it is very hard to build a moderate politics.

State of the Union: Winning the Future and Winning 2012

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last night, President Obama used the phrase “win the future” as the primary motif of his speech. But clearly, on his mind was also very particular future: the 2012 election.

Right now, that future looks bright. His approval ratings are back above 50 percent; independents are deciding they like him after all, and there is no particularly strong challenger standing out in the Republican field.

If last night was the opening gambit in the 2012 campaign, it hints that Obama understands that the two keys to getting re-elected – a centrist politics and an economic recovery – are linked. What he also needs to understand is that he’s going to have to keep hammering on the same themes if he wants them to stick.

On the positioning front, voters seem to be responding well to the new centrist Obama, who actually looks a lot like the old centrist Obama that voters elected in 2008: a president who went out of his way to show that he was not interested in being a partisan warrior and was open to working with Republicans and even including a few Republican ideas here and there.

The political events of the last two months – an especially productive lame-duck session of Congress, plus a nice moment of reflection following the tragic events in Tucson – have played to Obama’s strengths and allowed him to slip back into the role that I suspect he always wanted to play: leader of all the American people, not just the Democrats.

To the extent that Obama continued his centrist politics last night – cobbling together ideas from both sides – he should continue to maintain a wide appeal.

The bigger challenge is the state and trajectory of the economy. If unemployment is falling, businesses are creating jobs, and people feel rosy about a better tomorrow, Obama is practically unbeatable.

And while national economies are complicated beasts that defy presidents, there is certainly more to do than just stand aside and cheerlead. To the extent that the Obama administration can implement the proposed program of investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy, as well as increasing exports, this should create jobs.

But more significantly (from a political sense), it creates a narrative that things are getting better, that America is building a future we can be proud of. It’s the same smiling horse of hope that Obama rode into town on that got every so jazzed up in the first place.

Some of this can happen at the executive level. But a lot of it requires some congressional participation.

Unfortunately, if the post-SOTU chatter is any indication (and it probably is), Republicans are not budging from their small-government old-time religion. Generally, they are generally laughing off Obama’s speech as so much misguided hot air. Even the lines that were supposed to make inroads with Republicans seem to have fallen flat among those they were intended to soften up.

Obama may by temperament prefer the bargaining chip approach (we’ll take one of your ideas and hope you vote for the thing), but at some point, he’s going to have to play a little more hardball. The only way Republicans come around to supporting some “investments” is if they feel that there will be a price to pay come next election of they don’t.

Obama started to do this last night by appealing to a national sense of purpose, and posing our challenge in us-versus-them terms. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” He called it a “Sputnik moment.”

Obama is going to have to keep making his case to the American people in a more sustained and forceful way than he’s ever done. He’s going to have to keep hammering on the rhetoric that if we don’t take investing in the future seriously, we may as well kiss our role as a global leader goodbye.

And this is where positioning and performance come together. By framing his agenda in a way that puts America’s global competitiveness at the forefront and pulls ideas from both sides, he’s putting pressure on the Republicans to come along. And if they do, and the policies improve economy as predicted, it’s a double-bonus for Obama.

It’s a political gamble, but it’s a smart one. Now here’s hoping that Obama has the discipline to stick with it, and give this strategy the sustained effort it deserves.

State of the Union on Foreign Policy: Hardly an After-Thought

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Though the president failed to mention the words “foreign policy” until 80 percent of his speech lay in the rearview mirror, it very much served as the underpinning of the entire exercise.

“Winning the Future”, after all, is inherently a call to rise against two competitors: domestic political obstacles that restrain American growth and prosperity, and those nations who seek to best the American model of democratic free enterprise. In that sense, the best line of his speech–“We do big things”–was probably the most forceful testament to American greatness and world leadership of the Obama presidency. It was an effective reminder that despite the impasses our politics so routinely produce that our calling is at the head of the world’s pack, and for a damn good reason.

He used the buttress of China and India to raise the spectre of international competition, even though the notion of “competing” with with New Delhi and Beijing hardly boils down a zero-sum game.  But to gird Americans to tackle the huge tasks in their way, the frame was apt–other big countries are succeeding, and their models are sub-optimal.  We can be the best, he said, even though our democracy is messy.

Pundits may critique the speech for its lack of specific initiatives, that wasn’t really the point. Lofty rhetoric and inspirational moments fall well within the president’s balliwick, particularly at a political moment when a statement of first principles establishes the possibility of buy-in from erstwhile opponents. The specifics of regulatory reform, for example, may draw knee-jerk heckles from conservatives, but the idea of political cooperation that unleashes the power of American entrepreneurship and reestablishes American economic might on the world’s stage?  That’s rhetoric to start a conversation around.

When President Obama did get down to the foreign policy details, it was a mixed bag. Some, like Josh Rogin over at The Cable, took a cynical bent and criticized the president for glossing over some of the, er, finer details. Fair enough — I might disagree with some of Rogin’s “translations”, but he underlying point is that all isn’t going quite as swimmingly in the world of foreign policy as Obama makes it appear, and that’s about right.  Even if Obama’s foreign policy deserves, in broad strokes, a good amount of praise.

I wanted Obama to draw more of a line in the sand on foreign aid funding. With House Republicans set to eviscerate the foreign assistance line item in the federal budget, Obama could have used the moment to explain that if America is to remain numero uno in the world, it can’t retreat into isolationism. An America engaged with the world protects our security interests and advances our values, and engagement must be properly resourced.

And to conclude, I was pleasantly surprised at Obama’s forceful language on Tunisia and by subtle implication, the nascent rumblings in Egypt: “[T]he United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.”

Sure, platitudes come easy after a dictator has fallen, and Egyptians — as embodied in the “all people” tacked on the end — certainly wish Obama had been more direct. But in fitting with what I’ve said above, rhetoric is important and falls squarely within the president’s job-description.

Now let’s hope he has begun the process of cajoling our divided government into action.

State of the Union: The Power of Pronouncements

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This week, I taught the first class of a graduate seminar at Virginia Tech titled “Collaborative Governance.”  Our readings included a Foreign Affairs essay where the author confidently pronounced a number of pretty simple and strong directions for policymakers.  One of the students—who is earning a Ph.D.—became extremely frustrated.  “It’s just so simplistic!” she complained.  “There’s no subtlety, no context.”

So it goes with policy pronouncements, and so it often goes with the State of the Union.  People are often frustrated that they don’t hear the specifics about what government should do.

Yet, as we discussed in class, the fact remains that the broad, often simplistic pronouncements we heard last night still do push the ship of state in one direction rather than another.  And the fact also remains that the gulf between hard policy and the politics of policy can be perilous.

Democracy and governance held a place at once enthusiastic and general in the speech.  The commitment to the metaphysical promise of democracy was very clear:  “We must never forget that the things we’ve struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere.”  About South Sudan, for instance, the president celebrated the outbreak of self-determination and freedom.

But questions were unanswered:  Here’s what President Obama said about Afghanistan:

There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them.

“Need to deliver better governance” is the sort of generality that drives people like my frustrated student nuts.  The Karzai government is currently riven about whether to ratify the results of last October’s Parliamentary election and actually seat the government, with Karzai’s Attorney General trying to declare the results invalid.  The U.S. government’s position is that the elections should be upheld—but the overarching policy on how best to achieve governance in Afghanistan is still less than completely clear.

The allusions to the stirring outbreaks of democracy in Tunisia and Sudan were inspiring but equally indeterminate.  Of Tunisia, the president said, “[T]he United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.”

We support the democratic aspirations of all people—but the speech did not mention the extremely thorny issue of our traditional partner Egypt, an autocratic nation where a Tunisia-inspired democratic revolt was happening as the president spoke. That gap spoke volumes about the difficulty of translating broad aims into hard policy.

But the saving grace came in passages about American democracy itself.  In 2010, here’s what President Obama said about our system:

Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

This was striking both for its objectivity and its slightly defensive quality.  There was a slight but crucial reframing of a highly similar statement in this year’s SOTU:

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

Perhaps it was the Giffords shooting, or the sight of the Tunisian activists in the street, or the Congressspeople sitting together—but the statement brought tears to my eyes.  This year, President Obama’s observation of the messiness of American democracy became an article of pride.  This is a generality we can all embrace.

State of the Union: Republican Response Preaches to the Choir

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If Rep. Paul Ryan’s response to the State of the Union Address was intended to broaden support for his party’s agenda, or actually “respond” to the President’s speech, I suspect it failed.  Ryan offered, instead, a base-friendly reinterpretation of the “state of the union” that made downsizing government not just an end in itself, but the answer to every problem.

Obama’s own proposals were brushed away in the response with the claim that “investment” just means “spending,” and that government needs to get out of the way and let the private sector take care of our needs.  Actually, Ryan barely alluded to the current economic challenge, other than to say it wasn’t fixed by the 2009 stimulus legislation.  Obama devoted much of his speech to a recitation of small, tangible ideas for what the federal government can do to promote private-sector growth and national competitiveness.  Ryan’s response contained just one idea: limited government.

In a brief response, to be sure, nobody should expect a detailed agenda.  But Ryan used about half his words for dog whistles to conservative activists.  There were references to the Founders’ Original Intent, beloved (however selectively) of Tea Party folk, and to the Declaration of Independence, which is the document whereby conservative legal beagles try to sneak divine and natural law into the constitutional design.  Ryan’s brief list of legitimate functions for government included “protecting innocent life,” a shout-out to the anti-abortion movement.  Gold bugs were treated to a ritualistic invocation of the importance of “sound money.”  And Ryan even appealed to the nasty, Randian underside of conservative hostility to “welfare” by citing a vague fear that America is turning “the social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”

As for the tone of the response, Ryan certainly did not reciprocate Obama’s constant pleas for bipartisan cooperation, instead treating the overthrow of every Obama policy of the last two years as the starting point for his party’s policy.

I’ve written elsewhere that Obama’s speech may have represented a clever trap to expose Republican extremism by embracing remarkably modest initiatives keyed to public sector roles in economic growth that most Americans have supported for decades.  If so, Ryan walked right into that trap, and showed it’s the GOP who are now vulnerable to the charge that they are talking about everything other than the economy, and have no ideas for fixing it other than indiscriminate attacks on government, taxes, and regulations.

But there’s more: Those conservatives who didn’t think Ryan gave them enough red meat had the opportunity to tune into a second GOP response, on behalf of the Tea Party Express, from the noted fire-breather Rep. Michele Bachmann of MN.   She omitted even Ryan’s meager bipartisan grace notes, and lurched from a cartoonish chart of unemployment rates to a set of dubious anecdotes about the crushing burden of regulations on “job creators” (the new conservative word for “corporations”).  As she closed her remarks, her choice of the Battle of Iwo Jima as the best metaphor for America’s current position was appropriately puzzling.

Like other State of the Union addresses, this one is best understood as a framing device for future conflict and cooperation between the two parties.  Judging by the GOP response(s), that party is determined to pursue confrontation with the goal of seeing how much damage it can do to the size and strength of the federal government.  The economy has become just an afterthought.  

Assessing the State of the Union Address

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It was encouraging to see President Obama last night make such an impassioned call for investing in America’s future, while clearly taking seriously the deficit challenges. It was also very encouraging to see that many of his ideas were consonant with PPI’s 10 Big Ideas for Getting America Moving and that he is charting a course past old partisan divides.

Over the course of today and tomorrow, the gang here at PPI is going to be analyzing the President’s address and the ideas contained therein. So check back with us soon for smart insights you won’t want to miss.

False Start

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

House Republicans start work today on their first big initiative – repealing President Obama’s health care reform. That the new GOP majority has made its top priority a purely symbolic and, let’s face it, vengeful act speaks volumes. Don’t expect the 112th Congress to be a model of legislative decorum and bipartisan comity.

Sobered like everyone else by the Tucson tragedy, Republicans have promised a “thoughtful” debate. But the sophomoric title of their bill – “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” – gives the game away. Even Speaker John Boehner, supposedly the adult among the new class of conservative enfants terribles, can’t refrain from calling the Accountable Care Act “job crushing” and “job destroying” on his website.

In fact, while the new health care law has some flaws, wholesale destruction of jobs is probably not one of them. Although no one can credibly predict the net employment effects of this highly complex reform, it seems likely that adding 30 million new paying customers to health insurance markets would increase demand for medical services.

In any case, House leaders know they can’t undo the President’s health reform in toto, but nonetheless feel they have to give their militant cadres a chance to get animosity to Obamacare out of their system. Once the House passes the repeal bill, probably tomorrow, it will die in the Democratic Senate. Then Republicans will get down to the more serious business of trying to pick apart the Accountable Care Act piecemeal.

In GOP eyes, the ripest targets include the requirement that everyone buy health insurance, a new long-term care insurance program, and taxes on insurance companies. While few Democrats want to undo the party’s historic achievement in finally getting most Americans covered, some will likely join GOP efforts to kill or amend these provisions.

That’s especially true of the individual mandate. It is opposed by a majority of voters, and 20 states are challenging its constitutionality in the courts. Yet, as Republicans well know, it’s also the linchpin of reform. At the heart of Obamacare is a deal in which insurance companies agree to stop cherry picking healthy customers and denying affordable coverage to people with “preexisting conditions” in exchange for adding most of the uninsured to their customer base. The deal unravels without the mandate, because then only the sickest people would take advantage of the new law, driving up premiums for everyone. Democrats tempted to oppose the mandate should keep that in mind.

As House Republicans lash the mandate as an infringement on freedom that should stink in the nostrils of all liberty-loving Americans, a little history is in order. One reason we have an individual mandate is that Republicans have opposed alternative ways to extend coverage for all Americans. They successfully blocked President Clinton’s employer mandate in 1994. And of course, they vehemently object to a national health care system that insures everyone (and taxes them to pay for it) whether they want it or not.

In reality, no truly voluntary health scheme can get around the adverse selection problem. The individual mandate is an imperfect solution, but the right question is, compared to what? The “alternatives” advanced by the GOP last during the great debate over Obamacare did not even pretend to cover most of the uninsured.

As Jill Lawrence reports in Politics Daily, health policy analysts are thinking creatively about different ways to induce people to seek health insurance. But the last thing House Republicans want to do is to improve Obamacare. Their goal is evisceration.

That’s too bad, because the nation could use a serious debate about refinements in the $1 trillion Accountable Care Act. The new long-term health care benefit incorporated in the bill (the Class Act) does need a second look from budget-conscious lawmakers. It’s especially important that the Act’s rather weak cost containment provisions be strengthened. And there will be plenty of adjustments to be made as this enormous bill is implemented between now and 2014, when its main provisions fully kick in.

In short, a party serious about governing would seize the opportunity to make fundamental improvements in the 2010 health reform law. In embracing a rollback strategy instead, House Republicans have gotten off on the wrong foot.

Obama Endorses Innovation as Regulatory Principle

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today President Obama took a big step towards improving the federal regulatory process. In particular, he came out with an executive order that addresses two of my big concerns: The cumulative effect of regulations, and bringing innovation as a key goal in the regulatory process.

Sec. 3.  Integration and Innovation.  Some sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping.  Greater coordination across agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmonizing rules.  In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization.  Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.

This is very important.  Up to this point, innovation has just not been part of the regulatory assessment process at all. Similarly, the cumulative impact of regulation has not been taken into account at all. I applaud the Obama Administration for this change.

However, the Obama initiative doesn’t go far enough to set out the principle of countercyclical regulatory policy–that is, stressing the importance of encouraging  growing and innovating industries during this period of economic weakness, and only regulating if necessary.

In addition, at the Progressive Policy Institute, we’ve been working on a proposal for  a Regulatory Improvement Commission. The RIC,  modeled on the BRAC commission, will provide a transparent and systematic process for identifying regulations that can be improved or pruned, while  maintaining important social values. Stay tuned.

This piece is cross-posted at Mandel on Innovation and Growth

What’s Next For Climate Change Policy?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The new Congress is now in session, with a large GOP majority in the House and a much diminished Democratic majority in the Senate; the prospects for serious climate change legislation in the U.S. are dimmer than ever. The Republican Party has largely turned its back on science and its own conservative ideas (remember, McCain was a champion of cap and trade back in 2008), and because of the profound climate denialism of the Tea Party movement even once reasonable Republicans are now turning their backs on the overwhelming scientific evidence, and the many ways comprehensive climate policy is good for the overall economic and security interests of the nation. (To be fair, there are a few Democrats in fossil-fuel dependent states that are also opposing new climate measures, such as Senators Rockefeller and Manchin of West Virginia.)

But not all is bleak; there are still a number of reasons to be mildly optimistic that significant progress can still be made in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

  1. The EPA is set to roll out new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, which have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by a few percentage points over the next few years. The rules will make coal generation less economically viable, and likely spur new development in less greenhouse gas-intensive sources, such as natural gas, in addition to renewable sources. I highly recommend the work by David Roberts at Grist for details on the EPA’s actions and their consequences. On January 13th the EPA revoked the permit for a massive mountain-top removal coal plant (which had been approved by the Bush Administration in 2007), signaling that the agency is prepared to put an end to the industry’s controversial practice.
  2. The Obama Administration has given the okay for a host of huge new solar plants on federal lands and gone a long way to streamlining the process by which such plants can be built. By reducing bureaucratic hurdles and red tape for large solar installations, we are likely to witness a large increase in mega-solar plants. Aside from the higher cost of solar (relative to fossil fuel), the biggest hurdle to widespread adoption has been the huge time lags and transaction costs in the permitting process; the Administration’s moves go a long way towards decreasing these barriers. The economies of scale of these plants will likely lead to significant cost reductions, making solar much more competitive in the near future. It’s important to note that these solar plants mostly rely on solar thermal technology―an 18th century technology using mirrors to heat water and produce steam, which powers a turbine―that is fast-becoming the low-cost solar alternative.
  3. The announcement by Google that it will invest $5 billion in a massive electricity transmission line in the Atlantic will help spur the development of massive wind farms off the Eastern seaboard. These hold tremendous potential and could one day provide most or all of the power for many of the East Coast’s major cities.
  4. The G-20 is moving forward with its plan to eliminate or severely reduce fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium” term. This is extremely difficult to accomplish politically, given both the entrenched interests who will lose billions and the effect on consumer prices, but even a slow and steady removal of these subsidies will help to tilt the energy mix towards less greenhouse gas-intensive forms of energy and decrease overall emissions.
  5. California is finally moving forward with its climate legislation AB32, as the final challenges to the law have been defeated. While the legislation doesn’t go into effect until 2012, it is the most progressive and far-reaching climate change policy in the world and the results are likely to be extremely consequential for the nation, and ultimately any future international climate change regime. California is the world’s 8th biggest economy so if comprehensive climate change legislation can work here it will prove a global model; according to UC-Berkeley Professor Peter Berck AB32 is likely to lead to a net increase in jobs in California because of the major energy efficiency improvements that the legislation will force into action. We will soon see if these optimistic predictions are borne out by the reality on the ground.
  6. In 2010 private investment in green energy soared to a record high, and with the global economic recovery gaining momentum oil prices are likely to keep rising, providing additional economic incentives for alternatives. To date, much of this green investment has been outside the U.S. because of the failure to pass comprehensive national policy, but there is still time for the U.S. to catch up if we can get serious.
  7. Significant progress was made in the recent COP16 meetings in Cancun, with the major developing country emitters agreeing to verification of their emissions reductions in the future. Steps were also made to begin the implementation of the major forest carbon program, REDD, which has the potential to provide a cheap path to effective carbon emissions, while also preserving much of the world’s remaining forests.

As I detail in my new book, What Environmentalists Need To Know About Economics, the theory, facts, and ingredients for good policy, are on the side of those who want to take an aggressive and forward-looking approach to global climate change (and other critical environmental issues); hopefully, the intellectually honest and serious Republicans and conservatives will pressure the GOP to return to its pro-environmental roots and become constructive players in the national conversation. More on this soon.

New Congress and Military Spending: This is Going to Be Fun

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans to pare back another $78 billion in Pentagon spending, a sum on top of the $100 billion in efficiencies he’s promised to find.  And while one fight’s a-brewing over what to do with those savings (Gates tried to get out in front of the coming austerity package by investing his savings back into DoD, while Obama’s deficit commission wants to use that money to pay down the national debt), a much bigger one is taking shape in the Republican party.

In response to Gates’ proposed savings, the GOP leadership — including new House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) — was typical: plow more money into the Pentagon, even when the Pentagon doesn’t want it.

“We are fighting two wars, you have China, you have Iran: Is this the time to be making these types of cuts?” says McKeon.

But the Tea Party — which backed a large percentage of the 85 new Republicans in Congress – has other ideas. Tea Party leader Judson Phillips has posted a letter (restricted access) on the Tea Party Nation website demanding “serious and meaningful cuts in the budget.”  It’s little wonder why so many leading conservatives are trying to paint on the blank canvass of Tea Party intellectualism and co-opt the movement before its heart-felt but un-Washington ways engulf the Republican party.

Most Democrats and progressives understand the need for fiscal restraint at the Pentagon.  After all, solving the deficit requires increasing revenues, fixing entitlements, and counting on a contribution from the government’s largest agency, the Pentagon.  The public knows this too – a new poll suggests that over half of Americans support reduced military spending.

In other words, we could be approaching the tipping point on fiscal responsibility and military spending.  Mainstream Republicans, who want to shovel money towards the Pentagon that even it doesn’t want, are beginning to swim upstream more and more.

Congress vs. The EPA, Round II

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Everything old is new again. Around this time last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in the process of issuing major rules that would lead to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Many in Congress opposed these moves, and sought to delay or halt them. I wrote about these attempts in this space (here, here, here, and here) and, as I predicted, they failed—none reached the President’s desk.

But failure has not stopped EPA opponents from trying again. Since last year, some things have changed. The EPA has moved forward with regulation, implementing GHG-related permitting requirements for new and modified emitters, and announcing in December that it plans GHG emissions standards for existing power plants and refineries. But none of these moves are surprising—the EPA is not pushing any harder now than it was last year.

But of course the 2011 Congress is different from the 2010 version, particularly since Republicans now control the House. Will this Congress be able to derail the EPA?

Maybe. It depends, not just on politics, but on what avenue of attack Congress chooses. This choice will probably be made first in the House, where new Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will set the agenda. Four broad options are on the table. Last year, each of the first two options were pursued. All four are likely this year. Let’s briefly look at each in turn.

1) New legislation: Congress could simply pass a law modifying EPA authority. Proposals range from a short delay in EPA GHG authority to removing GHGs from the CAA entirely, effectively overturning the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

While Republican control of the House does smooth the path of new legislation somewhat, the Senate and above all the President remain significant barriers. While modest legislation, such as a delaying bill, is likely to attract some Democratic support, it will need 60 votes to pass the Senate. Even then, President Obama is certain to veto any legislation restricting EPA authority. It seems very unlikely that any such bill could attract a veto-proof majority.

2) Congressional Review Act: Congress has the authority to cancel any regulatory action with specific legislation. This authority is only available for 60 days after the regulation is formally issued, however.

 

CRA resolutions do not require 60 votes to pass the Senate. This is relatively little help, for two reasons. First and most obviously, the President will likely veto any resolution. Furthermore, almost all of the significant GHG rulemakings made by the EPA were issued well over 60 days ago, and cannot be rescinded by CRA resolution anyway.

3) Appropriations: Congress may choose not to fund EPA programs, even if they remain legally permissible (or even required).

 

Congress has not yet passed a budget for 2011, so this Congress will need to pass two over the next year. This gives ample opportunity for restricting EPA funding. The appropriations process is ultimately subject to the same procedural requirements as other legislation, so any budget will have to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Defunding the EPA makes either far less likely — but unlike EPA-specific legislation, the politics are hard to predict. The budget process always involves compromises. How hard are EPA’s opponents and supporters willing to fight? If Congress does pass a budget that defunds agency GHG regulation, would the President veto it – risking a government shutdown?

4) Oversight: Even if none of the above is possible, Congress’s (or often individual committee’s) subpoena power can be used to investigate and, in practice, slow EPA action.

 

While oversight measures cannot alter EPA’s legal authority, they can make regulatory life very difficult. Since individual committees can conduct hearings and investigations, there is relatively little to stop motivated members of Congress from targeting the EPA with these tools. They are unlikely to stop any regulatory program, but they will be a drain on agency resources and energy.

In short, I don’t think headline-grabbing moves to alter EPA legal authority over GHGs are much more likely of success this year than last. That’s unlikely to change until and unless there is a change in the White House. These kinds of bills are more politics than policy; I doubt their supporters really think they will pass. Instead they allow members to make statement votes, and force EPA supporters to make votes that may be used against them later.

But the appropriations process and Congress’ oversight powers are both real, though different, threats to EPA regulation. Budget negotiations this year are likely to be acrimonious, and the EPA is a small pawn in a bigger game. If EPA opponents make defunding the agency a priority, they may be able to achieve it by doing so in an otherwise-palatable budget that the President determines he cannot afford to reject. In this sense, the relative political unimportance of the EPA works to its advantage — will Republicans in the House choose defunding the agency as their line in the sand, over other measures with much larger fiscal impact? This seems unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

Committee oversight presents a different challenge to the EPA. Some level of Congressional interference is certain, but its extent probably depends greatly on the agency’s ambition. If the EPA fears Congressional subpoena, it is less likely to regulate strongly or creatively. Instead, it may slow-walk some measures, and scrap others. Unfortunately, this may have the perverse effect of making regulation less efficient, rather than simply leading to less regulation. If agency resources are stretched (because of Congressional demands, underfunding, or both), it is less able to do careful analysis. If the agency makes avoiding controversy a paramount goal, it is less likely to try innovative approaches (such as tradable GHG performance standards) aimed at more efficient regulation. An EPA that does the minimum required by law might be more costly to the economy, not less.

This piece is cross-posted at Weathervane

Obama’s Approval Numbers Creep Up: How Can He Build on This?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

About a month ago, in the wake of a the great tax-cut compromise, I wrote a post entitled “Why Obama’s Approval Numbers Are About to Creep Up.” At the time, I reasoned that the tax cut deal was popular, Obama was playing to his strength as a broker of compromise, and a little public disagreement with the hard left might help him among political independents and moderates.

At the time, his approval rating was hovering around 47 percent. A month later, the latest AP-GfK Poll has it at 53 percent, the highest it’s been since March 2010, right before the healthcare debate kicked into high gear. More importantly for Democrats, 53 percent of Americans now rate them favorably, compared to 45 percent who view them unfavorably, almost an exact reverse of where voters were on Election Day.

But Republicans are also doing better. Last fall, only 29 percent approved of Republicans in Congress, but now that number is up to 36 percent. And Congress’s overall approval ratings, which fell to the teens at the end of last year, are back up to 26 percent.

So, in the wake of a lame-duck Congress in which some serious stuff was accomplished, it seems that Americans feel a little better about their leaders generally. It’s also possible that without the vitriolic attacks ad of campaign season invading everybody’s space, there’s a little bit of an inevitable bounce.

But the main takeaway point is that this is good news for Obama and the Democrats. As a new Gallup Poll highlights, across the political spectrum, every group except “very conservative” (even just plain old conservative) thinks that it is more important to compromise than to stick to beliefs. On this question, by the way, moderates look almost identical to both the “liberal” and “very liberal” group.

Hopefully, the Arizona tragedy will have at least some staying power as a wake-up call to the dangers of political extremism, and continue shine a favorable light on Obama’s talents as adult-in-the-room.

However, the challenge for Obama remains to do more than just get all the kids to play nice with each other. He also still needs to lay out a galvanizing positive vision to get voters excited, as he did in his campaign. These are anxious times, and anxious times are fertile ground for the politics of blame and anger, especially absent any optimism for the future.

Obama and the Democrats are gaining back a little political momentum, and the spirit of problem-solving is enjoying a mini-renaissance. Great. But let’s capitalize on this. It needs to be a starting point for working toward solutions to the generational problems that our nation faces, like solving our looming deficit crisis or restructuring the economy for the 21st century. You’ll be hearing more from us on this subject soon.

White Voters vs. Obamacare

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

House Republicans want to repeal health care reform in the worst way, even if it means doing what they slammed President Obama for doing last year: taking their eye off Americans’ economic travails.

They’ve convinced themselves that health reform is a drag on recovery, even though its main provisions won’t kick in for several years. They also claim a popular mandate to undo reform, even though polls show the public evenly divided on the issue.

There is one significant voter block, however, that strongly backs repeal: white voters, and especially white blue collar voters. Health care, unfortunately, is an issue that illuminates a deep racial/ethnic fissure in American politics.

As Ron Brownstein reports in a fascinating National Journal analysis of new exit poll data, 56 percent of white voters back repeal, while an overwhelming majority of minority voters favor either expanding or maintaining Obama’s reforms.

It’s already been widely reported that white voters backed Republican candidates in last year’s midterm 60-37 percent. That’s the lowest percentage Democrats have garnered from white voters since modern polling began. Brownstein’s analysis sheds new light on those voters’ attitudes toward Obama’s policies and government’s role in general. For Democrats and progressives, it’s not a pretty picture:

  • Three fourths of minority voters, but only 35 percent of whites, approve of Obama’s performance.
  • Whites are strongly skeptical of expansive government: 63 percent say government is doing too many things best left to people and businesses. An almost identical percentage of minorities say government should do more to solve problems.
  • Whites give priority to reducing government deficits; minorities to more public spending to create jobs.
  • Nearly half of whites who voted in the midterm identified themselves as conservatives.
  • Blue collar (non-college graduates) whites form the hard core of skepticism toward Obama and his party. They backed GOP candidates by 2-1.
  • Democrats were only competitive among whites in 2010 in two demographics—college-educated women and under 30-voters.

It’s always a mistake to over interpret the results of a single election, but it’s been a very long time—the post-Watergate election in 1974—since Democrats won an outright majority of the white vote. The defection of blue collar Democrats, the mainstay of the grand old New Deal coalition, also is old news.

Margins matter, of course, and Obama will have to narrow the racial-ethnic chasm to win reelection in 2012, even as he re-energizes his base of minority and young voters, and college women. But electoral calculations aside, the appearance of what Brownstein calls a new “color line” in U.S. politics isn’t good for the nation’s political soul. Progressives need to engage white voters more directly on questions about the size and role of government. We should be serious about making government more accountable, about enabling citizens and communities to do more for themselves, and about reining in runaway federal deficits and debts. But we should also stand firmly for public activism to rebuild America’s productive capacities, particularly our run-down infrastructure, curb out-of-control medical costs and make the promise of equal opportunity real for all citizens.

Obamacare, in fact, is a good place to start that conversation. Progressives ought to be open to refinements and improvements (especially strengthening its cost containment provisions), while remaining resolute in defending the core achievement of extending, at long last, basic health protection to all Americans. After all, blue collar white voters are not natural allies of health insurance companies. They have as much interest as anyone else in having access to affordable care, not losing coverage if they get injured or sick or change jobs, keeping their kids covered through age 26, and in encouraging medical providers to charge based on the quality, rather than quantity of care they deliver.

Progressives should also take the opportunity to remind white voters that Obamacare is no alien import from Canada or Europe, but a national version of Romneycare – the comprehensive coverage approach pioneered in Massachusetts with the full support of that notorious socialist, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

It’s time, in short, to bring the health care debate down from the level of ideological abstraction – the only level on which conservatives can win – to the concrete realities facing U.S. families struggling with soaring health costs and spotty coverage.

Tucson: The Real Questions

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Flag half mast at Captiol BuilidingWe at the Progressive Policy Institute are heartsick over the senseless attack Saturday on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which also claimed the lives of six people, including a nine-year-old girl. Not only is Gabby our friend, she is an exemplar of the pragmatic progressivism that puts country before party. We pray for her recovery, and grieve for those who will never recover from this rampage.

As if this tragedy were not bad enough, some pundits have disgraced themselves by using it to score political points and vindicate their own particular stance. Thus, we’re instructed that the attack was the inevitable result of a climate of hostility created by the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin, or anti-immigration groups in Arizona. There’s no evidence this is true, but political gladiators apparently can’t help themselves.

We’ve refrained from commenting until now in hopes of learning more about the motives of the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. It seems he suffers from severe mental illness and was animated by his own inner demons, rather than “vitriol” in the atmosphere.

The political finger-pointing that has followed the shooting has been revolting. It’s not too early to start grappling with some of the pertinent questions this tragedy actually raises. We’d highlight three:

First, why is it so easy for mentally disturbed individuals to acquire handguns in America? The gun shop that sold Loughner the semiautomatic Glock 19 apparently ran a background check. Why did it not turn up the fact that the suspect had recently been booted out of a community college for his erratic and disruptive behavior? Surely more rigorous checks are in order and don’t impair the basic right to gun ownership.

And what public purpose is served by allowing citizens to buy high-capacity magazines more suitable for war than self-protection? These were covered under the ban on assault weapons passed on President Clinton’s watch, which has since lapsed. Let’s hope the Tucson massacre gives fresh impetus to reinstating it.

Second, how is it that we lack the legal tools to protect society against mentally unhinged people before they turn violent? Most people with serious mental illnesses aren’t dangerous, but some are. Obviously, it’s hard to assess such risks in advance. Yet when people exhibit patterns of bizarre and sociopathic behavior—as did the alleged suspect in Tucson, and as did Seung-Hui Cho, who massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007—they shouldn’t simply be left to their own devices. Determining how to preempt the potential for violence entails careful thought and a delicate calibration of individual rights and public safety. But society can’t simply look the other way as individuals descend into madness.

Third, will this attack result in erecting new barriers between elected representatives and the people? As we have seen since 9/11, elected officials have a tendency to overreact to acts of violence, erecting elaborate and costly security shields against low-probability threats. Will Members of Congress now demand bodyguards and be enveloped in security cocoons like the president? If the Tucson attack leads to a greater separation between politicians and those who elect them, it will have dealt a serious blow to our democracy.

GOP: Soft on Deficits

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans talk a big game on fiscal responsibility, but don’t be fooled: Today’s GOP has gone soft on budget deficits.

This week, the new House Republican majority adopted rules aimed at controlling federal spending. That sounds innocuous enough, but a closer look at the new rules reveals the GOP’s dirty little secret: in their zeal to shrink government, Republicans have abandoned the fight to rein in America’s colossal budget deficits.

This year’s budget deficit is estimated to be about $1.7 trillion. Since House leaders adamantly oppose raising taxes to close the gap, they’d have to make epic cuts in federal spending to make even a modest dent in the deficit. But as the New York Times reports, House GOP leaders already are backing off on their promise to hack $100 billion out of domestic spending this fiscal year. Since Republicans also insist on sparing the Pentagon from the budget ax, that would have meant draconic cuts (between 20-30 percent) in domestic programs. Sobered GOP leaders are now talking about cuts in the $50 billion range.

The assertion, pressed most vehemently by Tea Party types, that fiscal discipline can be restored through spending cuts alone is new. Don’t forget that Ronald Reagan signed 11 major tax increases, including a whopper in 1988 amounting to 2.7 percent of GDP. George Bush’s willingness to boost taxes (and tax rates) as part of his 1990 budget helped set America on a course toward the budget surpluses later achieved on Bill Clinton’s watch.

By taking taxes off the table, House Republicans are breaking with their own party’s tradition of fiscal rectitude and saying, in effect, they don’t care all that much about deficits. Evidently for this curious new breed of fiscal “conservative,” expanding deficits in pursuit of smaller government is no vice.

That’s the real message sent by the new rules adopted Wednesday, which seem calculated to lock in big deficits as far as the eye can see.

Most egregious, for example, is their new “cutgo” rule. Under existing “paygo” rules, new tax cuts or spending increases must be offset with tax increases and/or spending cuts. Cutgo, in contrast, says that any new spending must be paid for by spending cuts alone, and it exempts tax cuts from offsets altogether. In other words, their costs will simply be added to the deficit. Similarly, changes in budget reconciliation rules would bar spending increases in reconciliation bills, but allow tax cuts. Expect a torrent of new tax expenditures as lawmakers realize that they can dole out new tax favors without the bother of paying for them.

If the new rules weaken fiscal discipline on the tax side of the federal budget, they do strengthen constrains on the spending side. For instance, they include a new point of order on legislation which increases mandatory spending at any point over the next four decades. They also repeal the “Gephardt Rule,” which allows lawmakers to avoid an on-the-record vote on raising the debt ceiling. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget offers a detailed analysis of the new rules here.

Unfortunately, the overall effect of the new rules will be to undermine serious bipartisan negotiations to curb both federal spending and deficits. The Senate, still controlled by Democrats, rightly will reject the GOP’s transparent bid to force all the painful decisions to the spending side of the ledger. As a slew of recent reports by bipartisan fiscal commissions show, there’s no plausible way to deal with America’s debt explosion without closing tax loopholes and raising revenues. Even such hard-core fiscal conservatives as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) recognize the need to curb tax expenditures. By impeding the search for common ground on fiscal issues, the House GOP’s anti-tax fundamentalism only delays the inevitable day of reckoning, at enormous cost to the nation’s economic prospects and the public’s confidence in their government’s ability to solve urgent problems.

Unlike House Republicans, U.S. voters think deficits matter, not just the level of public spending. This is especially true of independents, who abandoned Democrats in last year’s midterm elections in part because of their spendthrift ways. To these voters, big deficits connote not just chronic mismanagement of the nation’s economy, but also a breakdown in political responsibility in Washington.

That’s why President Obama and progressives should miss no opportunity to drive home the reality that Republicans are now the party of big deficits.

We Need a North Star For Foreign Policy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Pole StarIn early December, President Obama described his role as a “north star out there” for Americans – a distant guide that keeps us moving towards a goal.  He was defending his tax and benefit compromise with Republican leaders, explaining that compromise was in the country’s DNA and that there was value in moving in generally the right direction.

But is Obama – or anyone in the last two decades – a “north star” for American foreign policy?  Keep in mind that when I say “north star”, I’m talking about the core, uniquely American values that guide our leaders, no matter which party they come from.

Furthermore, the “north star” is not to be confused with the “Kennan Prize” of American diplomacy, named for renowned diplomat George Kennan upon coining the guiding term “containment” for America’s strategic approach to the Soviet Union. No one since the legendary Kennan has distilled an overarching American strategy into such a perfectly appropriate, yet bumper-sticker length slogan.

At foreign policy conference after foreign policy conference, academics compete for the next iteration of mythical award, which is all shined up to be ceremoniously bestowed in columns and blog posts upon the author the next great foreign policy framework.

With the “north star” concept, I’m looking more broadly.  Kennan won his prize for a specific strategy vis-a-vis a specific enemy.  I’m asking for America’s guiding foreign policy values to be articulated. Not tactics or strategies, but values.  And not liberal, progressive, or conservative ones, but American values.

I suppose the void exists because world events since the end of the Cold War have been scatter shot.  Consider major American foreign policy events since 1991:

— Disintegration of the Soviet Union
— Bill Clinton’s “Peace Dividend”
— September 11th
— Afghanistan
— The Global War on Terror (run a muck)
— Iraq
— Diffusion of power to individual actors
— Iran and North Korea struggling to get the bomb
— Lack of progress in Israeli/Palestinian peace
— The rise of democratic world powers (Brazil, India)
— … and autocratic ones (China)

It’s hardly a cohesive group, hardly lending itself to a coherent “north star.” In retrospect, it’s really tough to argue that the Iraq war comes from the same value set as a strategy to resolve the Israel/Palestinian divide.  But as America emerges from its pressing, all-consuming commitments (Iraq, Afghanistan), the Obama administration will have time to breathe, reassess, and think about America’s guiding north star in foreign policy.

Lacking one is a big concern to us here at PPI, and you’ll be hearing more from us on it in the near future.