issue: Politics

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.

Let’s Not Just Read the Constitution, Let’s Actually Discuss It

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sign calling for people to get the "Constitution Flu"So the House Republicans are planning to get their “People’s House” show started today by reading the U.S. Constitution, that beloved document that our constitutional law scholar of a President has apparently never bothered to read.

It’s clearly symbolic politics, but I’m not as offended as, say the New York Times editorial board (who thinks it is a “a presumptuous and self-righteous act”). Rather, I think that Akhil Reed Amar, author of “America’s Constitution: A Biography” and a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, has it right. Here’s what he told the Washington Post:

I like the Constitution. Heck, I’ll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?… My disagreement is when we actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn’t say what the tea party folks think it says.

For the political right and especially the Tea Party, the Constitution has taken on the quality of a holy relic, a symbol of a lost America. Running through the Tea Party mythology is a familiar decline-of-civilization narrative: America was once an Edenic land of limited government and personal liberty. If only we return to the lost and mythic Constitution, we can somehow Restore America. (Apparently, in this story, Congress has been recklessly passing un-Constitutional laws without anybody even noticing – not even the most conservative Supreme Court in 80 years!)

Tea Partiers certainly have great fun making oh-so-clever signs about America’s lost constitution, but I’d happily wager that very few of them could actually pass a basic test about what’s in the hallowed document. (Surveys show that Americans actually know depressingly little about what’s in their beloved Constitution: a remarkable 49 percent think the President has the power to suspend the Constitution; 60 percent think the President can appoint judges without Senate approval; three-quarters of Americans think the Constitution guarantees a high school education; 45 percent of Americans’ think the Communist manifesto slogan  “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is found in the U.S. Constitution. Could you name all Ten Amendments?)

 

In this respect, a public conversation about what’s actually in the Constitution would probably be a very good thing. We might actually have a more informed discussion, and, as E.J. Dionne and Greg Sargent have both noted, there’s plenty of reason for progressives to welcome it. Rather than ceding it as a symbol of the political right, maybe we should discuss the broad federal powers to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States” (Article I, Section 8).

Unfortunately, the great likelihood is that the Constitution will be read once, and then promptly tossed aside. The words, in all their 18th Century legalese, will go in one ear and out the other (assuming anybody is actually listening). And life will pretty much be the same as it was before, with the majority of Tea Partiers still desperately clinging to their particular fantasy of what they believe the Constitution represents without any better understanding of what is actually says.

Will American Exceptionalism Sink or Save Obama?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new Gallup poll out today highlights what could be a problem for Obama going into the 2012 election: his reluctance to embrace the idea of American exceptionalism. According to Gallup’s polling, 37 percent of Americans think that Obama does not “believe the U.S. has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world.”

What makes this dangerous is that Americans are in an anxious and insecure mood these days, seeing a world that doesn’t match up with well-established ideas about American greatness. These days, only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world, and only 34 percent expect Americans can get back to the world’s top economy in 20 years. Only 17 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States.

And yet, despite all this, 80 percent of Americans still believe in America’s unique greatness (73 percent of Democrats, 91 percent of Republicans).

There is a gap here. American exceptionalism is part of our cultural heritage and our self-identification. We believe there is something special about our nation. And yet, something is preventing us from achieving its full potential. What is it? No wonder there is so much anxiety.

The danger is the temptation to blame the wrong causes. The political right has increasingly spinning stories about how big government socialism is preventing America from achieving its true potential, and as The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty recently noted in an excellent round up of Republican talking points on American exceptionalism, “Lately, it seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.

But there is an upside here too, which is that despite the mood of declinism, there is also an underlying base of confidence and resilience. Americans still feel there is something special about this country, which means that there is a narrative on which to build a story of recovery. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again. This is America. We can roll up our sleeves and make hard choices about our future.

Can Obama be the leader to make that pivot? The good news is that 58 percent of Americans actually do think Obama believes in America’s unique greatness, including 57 percent of Independents (not surprisingly, 83 percent of Dems but only 34 percent of Republicans think Obama believes this). Not overwhelming, but at least it’s a start.

As numerous commentators have noted, the Obama administration is in need of an overarching narrative, a coherent and aspirational story about the direction in which he is trying to take the country. Recently, Obama tried out a “Sputnik Moment” trope in speeches. Though it hasn’t exactly caught on (and the analogy is a bit strained), at least he’s thinking along the right lines.

American greatness does not have to be a jingoistic tool of the political right. It can also be a powerful set of ideas for Obama to tap into about how we don’t have to give into declinism, and how we can indeed get America moving again because always have. We’re special like that.

Impossible DREAM

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of Barack Obama’s finest moments as President came this past September, when he gave a speech to Congress urging passage of the health-care reform bill. In his closing remarks, he invoked the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and what Kennedy had written him in his final days: “What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” Those words resonated with Obama. “I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country,” he told the country that night.

Those same words stung with relevance this weekend. Overshadowed by the landmark repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a triumph of social justice, was a cruel development: the Senate’s failure to break the filibuster to pass the DREAM Act.

In more reasonable days, the DREAM Act would have been a no-brainer. The bill paves a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents. It would grant permanent residency status to immigrants who graduate from high school and complete two years of college or enter the military. In other words, young men and women who were brought to this country illegally by their parents and who want to become more integrated into our national life would finally have the means to do so.

A good idea, and a bipartisan one too – once upon a time. In a period when our nation is in need of as many achievers and public servants it can get its arms around, the DREAM Act would seem to be a common-sense solution (not to mention a deficit-reducing one, as the CBO found).

But those days are long gone, and when the vote to cut off debate came up, the bill fell five short of 60. Three Republicans – Richard Lugar, Robert Bennett, and Lisa Murkowski – voted in favor, while five Democrats voted against. All this despite the fact that, under the Obama administration, there have been a record number of deportations, part of Obama’s effort to convince the bill’s holdouts that it is serious on enforcement.

The pictures that accompanied the news stories of the bill’s failure tell the story. Here’s how the Times described the scene:

Young Hispanic men and women filled the spectator galleries of the Senate, many of them wearing graduation caps and tassels in a symbol of their support for the bill. They held hands in a prayerful gesture as the clerk called the roll and many looked stricken as its defeat was announced.

For those young men and women, the rebuff must have been unfathomable: Why would this country explicitly deny them the opportunity to be productive contributors to our national life?

That the DREAM Act has gone from a pragmatic, consensus policy to anathema to not just the right but even a handful of Democrats speaks to a worrisome shift in American attitudes. Demagoguery is rife; resentments are in full bloom. It makes one worry for the character of our country.

The Obstacles to Political Compromise

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There has been much discussion this week about the launch of No Labels and its significant attempt to organize the cause of political moderation and bipartisan compromise into a movement. I hope it can succeed. But it’s worth reflecting for a moment on why political compromise is so hard these days, and the obstacles that a movement organized around the ideal of a politics of consent and compromise faces.

Fortunately, two very smart political thinkers have done exactly this, so my work in this post is merely to summarize and reflect a little on their arguments. In an important essay entitled “Mindsets of Political Compromise,” UPenn President Amy Gutmann and Harvard Political Theorist Dennis Thompson have made what strikes me as a very trenchant observation: “The more that campaigning comes to dominate governing in democratic politics, the harder compromise becomes.”

Gutmann and Thompson argue that there are two primary mindsets in politics – the uncompromising mindset and the compromising mindset.

The uncompromising mindset is the mindset of the modern campaign, which “favors candidates who stand firmly on their positions.” Campaigning is about drawing distinctions and standing by principles, as it should be – voters need to know the difference between two candidates to make informed choices.

In their conception, this uncompromising mindset has two elements: “principled tenacity” and “mutual mistrust.”

Principled tenacity rests on the widely-held assumption that politicians are supposed to have deeply felt moral principles about things like justice and fairness, and they should fight for them.

Mutual mistrust is “the assumption that their opponents are motivated mainly by a desire to defeat them and their principles.” This often leads to cynicism, and they write that, “as the cynicism about the motives of politicians spreads to cynicism about the process of compromising, particular compromises become easier to resist and condemn.”

By contrast, the compromising mindset is, or should be, the mindset of governing, since reaching solutions in a democracy almost always requires some compromise. It also has two elements: “principled prudence” and “mutual respect.”

Principled prudence is based on “a pragmatic recognition that compromise is usually necessary in a democracy to accomplish anything of significance.” But it does not amount to mere compromise for the sake of compromise. It is instead a recognition that even if politics is the art of the possible, sometimes nothing is still better than the possible.

Mutual respect is the assumption that even if political opponents may have ulterior motives, they are still capable of negotiating in good faith and for what they think is right and that they are acting on principle.

Gutmann and Thompson argue that, “to reach a compromise, then, politicians must adjust their wills as much as their reason. They must be able to turn a will to oppose into a will to cooperate. That involves a psychological shift as much as a policy change.” They spend some time in their piece tracing out procedural ways to encourage politicians to find more common ground and be more aware of these different mindsets. (You can read the whole piece here)

Thinking in terms of mindsets is useful, because it clarifies just how different and incompatible the processes of getting elected and governing have become.

What this implies is that political moderates who care about the process of governing ought to get serious about campaign reform issues. Put simply, the permanent campaign increasingly means a permanent incapacity of elected officials to collectively solve problems. If politicians are spending all their time bashing their opponents and standing firm for their principles, that doesn’t leave them much time to get together to actually govern productively.

A slight caveat to this is that, as I’ve written in a recent op-ed for Politico, there is good evidence that the voting public, especially Democrats and Independents, do like compromise. And voters may even reward politicians who are seen as being willing to compromise. However, I’m aware of few campaigns organized around the claim of “I’m willing to compromise with the opposing party, so elect me.” All campaigns, as far as I can tell, are about drawing distinctions, even if it’s between a candidate who’s post-partisan and independent and one who’s not.

Photo Credit: Trebor Sholtz

Centrists of the World Unite

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s no secret that the relentless polarization of U.S. politics has left independent and moderate voters  politically homeless.  Today a bipartisan group of activists gathers in New York to launch an effort to organize this “radical center” and amplify its voice in Washington.

No Labels is the brainchild of Nancy Jacobson, a veteran Democratic activist and fundraiser.  Its organizers include veteran political players from both parties of a distinctly pragmatic, non-doctrinaire bent (including yours truly).  It aims to build an online network of Americans – imagine a MoveOn.Org for centrists  –  who are fed up with the nation’s dysfunctional political system and want to do something about it.

That won’t be easy, even with the Internet’s unprecedented power to connect virtual communities of like-minded people.  Unlike arch partisans and members of interest groups, independents and moderates are notoriously hard to mobilize.  They tend not to be impelled by passionate causes, and to pay fleeting attention to politics. “Liberals and conservatives have passion. Moderates and independents have lives,” observes political analyst Charlie Cook.

There’s little doubt, however, that voters across the broad middle of the spectrum have become more disenchanted with politics and government.  The midterm election was the third straight in which independents turned against the incumbent party.  This restiveness is grounded in what they see as the Obama administration’s failure to deliver, especially on the economy.  Independents don’t trust the Republicans either, and the last thing these voters want is an intensification of Washington’s zero-sum political game.

According to a new poll by Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor, only 10 percent of Independents welcome the GOP victory as a chance to roll back government.  Seventy percent said neither party’s agenda alone can solve the nation’s problems. This poll confirms other recent surveys in finding a strong preference for bipartisan cooperation over confrontation.  President Obama’s tax-cut deal shows he’s gotten the message.

So No Labels is tapping into something real.  On the other hand, it so far is defined more by what it’s against – incivility, partisan cant, rigid dogmas, special interest power and, above all, a paralysis in government’s ability to solve problems – than by what it’s for.  Can a movement organized by political insiders tap and channel grassroots anger in politically consequential ways?  Can it coalesce behind a positive agenda for governing?  We’ll see.

For now, it’s enough to say that the problems No Labels seeks to solve are real enough.  There’s no question we need a broad civic mobilization to bring intense pressure to bear on our political leaders to work together to solve the nation’s problems.  Independents and moderates may be an inchoate political force, but there are lots of them. If No Labels can get even a fraction of them mobilized for political action, Washington will take notice.

Tip-Toeing Around The Elephant: US Mitigation And The COP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The US was in an awkward position in Cancun. The administration clearly wanted to show leadership, but it was hamstrung by an inability to deliver legislation with any tangible commitments. Since that seemed unlikely to change in the new Congress, US negotiators were left playing defense on the key issue — mitigation.

This makes movement in other areas (such as finance and forests) difficult, though that is in part due to US insistence on parallel, rather than serial, treatment of issues.

The result was sometimes bizarre diplomatic displays by the US, such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s address — essentially a remedial crash course in climate science. Secretary Chu did not take questions, one suspects because it would have been difficult to answer the obvious one — how does the US plan to meet the President’s 17%-cuts-by-2020 goal articulated last year?

Difficult, but not impossible. The awkward position in which US officials find themselves and the effects it has on US credibility and capability make the administration’s continued avoidance of serious public discussion of EPA carbon regulations puzzling. Research at RFF and elsewhere indicates that EPA regulations, either on the books already or likely in the near future, could achieve emissions reductions in the range of the President’s goal.

I’ve studied these regulations over the past year or so, and I’ve been repeatedly surprised by their likely impact. Vehicle fuel economy standards, new power plant permitting rules, and whatever the agency decides to do for existing sources can each make a significant emissions impact. Perhaps more interestingly, coming EPA regulations ostensibly aimed at other pollutants could have a big impact on carbon by pushing a substantial portion of coal plants into retirement, and replacing them with cleaner technology.

It’s not clear why the US administration and negotiators didn’t trumpeting these regulations as evidence of a commitment to cut emissions. It’s possible it is felt that a regulatory approach won’t be understood or taken seriously by the international community, but EPA regulations are far from the only complex issue on the table (just ask your local climate finance expert for a quick summary if you suspect otherwise). And other countries are undoubtedly familiar with a regulatory approach — for many it is their preferred domestic environmental policy. One thing is certain, though — the best way to ensure that the international community (and the American public) fails to understand or appreciate the EPA’s capabilities is for the administration and its negotiators to refuse to explain them.

Another possibility is that the administration worries that hyping EPA’s powers is politically dangerous. The agency is more effective, this argument goes, if it can operate quietly and at its own pace. To put it more directly, to speak of regulation is to destroy it — perhaps because Congress would respond by seeking to cripple the agency.

But the President should not forget that his party still controls the Senate, and that he still wields the veto pen. Even if the President resigned himself to giving up EPA powers (or delaying them) as part of a compromise, it would surely be in his interest to say how strong these powers are, thus increasing their value in any bargain.

Moreover, the argument that regulatory emissions cuts are more effective if kept quiet contradicts what is arguably the central dogma of US foreign climate policy — that US action is valuable not for its small contribution to global goals, but as a tool for unlocking negotiations and prompting action elsewhere. If US negotiators can’t or won’t talk about the best policy tool the US currently has, they can’t do their jobs. This makes the long term likelihood of a meaningful international agreement much smaller.

EPA regulation is not the first, best option for US climate policy; it is above all likely to be more costly over the long run than a pricing mechanism. But neither this admission, nor the fact that EPA regulations are legally required, are good reasons not to forcefully and frequently articulate their emissions benefits. Perhaps we as a country should be embarrassed that we cannot adopt a national climate policy that more closely approaches the ideal in terms of both costs and benefits. But the administration should not let any embarrassment about what the country cannot currently do prevent them from talking about what it can.

As my colleague Dallas Burtraw pointed out in his talk here this week, US credibility on climate requires that the administration be a lot bolder — not by making new commitments that it lacks the domestic powers to back up, but simply by publicly, loudly, and clearly saying what it can and will do with the tools it already has.

This article is cross-posted at Weathervane

Paradoxes of Actually Governing 101: The Republican Earmark Backtrack

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I must admit, I take a certain delight in watching the Tea Party contingent realize that even they can’t quite stand 100 percent behind their extremist anti-government rhetoric.

Here is Michele Bachmann, backtracking in Politico on the great Republican idea of banning all earmarks: “But we have to address the issue of how are we going to fund transportation projects across the country?” Bachmann, it turns out, wants to make sure that the federal government pays for the Stillwater Bridge, which connects her Minnesota district to Wisconsin over the St. Croix River. Such is the theme of the entire Politico story: Even hard-core Republicans decide they want “member-directed spending” after all, and they are now figuring out how to get around their bold decision to kill earmarks.

The earmark ban was always more political theater than anything else. As I’ve written for Miller-McCune, earmarks only account for about two percent of all discretionary spending, and the money would wind up being spent anyway by normal funding mechanisms, just without the local intelligence of needs that Representatives tend to bring.

But the fun thing to watch now is how, despite all the impassioned railing against wasteful government spending, the Tea Partiers are realizing that their constituents actually like federal involvement in the local economy. And that in order to get re-elected, they are actually going to have to make sure that federal money keeps flowing in.

This should hardly come as a surprise. As I recently noted here at ProgressiveFix, polling shows that while Republican voters bash government in the abstract, they tend to approve of actual government programs in the specific, including spending on transportation. Political scientists have labeled this the symbolic conservatism/operational liberalism divide, since many voters like to say that they are conservative, but when it comes down to actual programs, they actually want government to do stuff.

Presumably, this will not be the last time that the Tea Party brigands find themselves caught up in the paradox of realizing the voting public is not so extreme is the cathartic Washington-bashing of campaign season made them out to be. I look forward to watching the twists and turns.

Why Obama’s Approval Numbers Are About to Creep Up

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the latest Gallup poll finds that 66 percent of Americans support both extending  tax cuts on all Americans for two years and an equal 66 percent support extending unemployment benefits for two years. This is very good news for Obama and a good sign this could be a turning point as he attempts to rebuild his popularity and the bargaining power that comes with it. It’s been a long time since two-thirds of voters approved of anything so high profile that Obama supported.

Moreover, as much as the liberal base may carp about the deal (as they should), the fact that Obama was able to broker a major compromise in and of itself should give him a bounce. As I wrote in a recent Politico op-ed, Americans, especially Democrats and those fickle independents, like leaders who are willing and able to compromise.

Another recent Gallup poll underscores this point. By a 47-27 percent margins, Americans say it is more important for political leaders to compromise to get things done than to stick to their beliefs, with Democrats and Independents much more inclined to prefer compromise. This Gallup poll also found that 36 percent of voters thought Obama was willing to compromise but Republicans were not, whereas 17 percent thought Republicans were the compromisers and Obama was the obstacle. (Another 25 percent thought both sides were willing, and 16 percent thought neither side was willing.)

The President is presumably most interested right now in rebuilding his popularity, which is hovering around 46 percent these days.  Presumably the calculus in the Oval Office is (I think correctly) that the frustrated swing voters who will decide the 2012 elections want a leader who is pragmatic and is not going to hold up their tax cuts or their neighbor’s unemployment benefits for that ubiquitous epithet of a justification, “political purposes.”

By playing the role of compromiser, he’s: a) playing to his political strength, since voters are much more likely to see Obama as the leader in brokering compromise than his Republican counterparts; and b) playing to the voters most likely to vote Democratic in November 2012, since Democrats and Independents genuinely prefer compromise to sticking to strong positions.

Meanwhile, the lefties have every right to complain and they should. To the extent that Obama can have a few public fights with his liberal base, this will probably help him to regain some popularity among swing independent voters, and with it, the political capital that will allow him to start future negotiations with Republicans in a stronger position. Which should ultimately lead to more progressive outcomes.

An Ugly But Necessary Deal on Taxes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The tax cut deal struck last night by President Obama and Congressional Republicans has only one thing going for it: urgent economic necessity. If unemployment weren’t stuck at just under 10 percent – possibly for years, warns Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – there would be no way any self-respecting progressive could support it.

How ugly is this deal? Let us count the ways. First, it forces progressives to swallow the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. President Obama’s undoubtedly painful decision to go back (for now) on his oft-repeated promise to repeal them reflects the post-midterm political realities of divided government.

Second, it’s hugely expensive. It could cost as much as $800 billion over the next two years, even as the federal government staggers under the weight of massive deficits. It’s an inauspicious start, to say the least, to the new era of fiscal discipline Republicans promised in the midterm elections. Let’s face it: they’d rather have tax cuts. In any case, the price tag makes you wonder if America can afford this kind of bipartisan compromise.

For all that, the deal was probably inevitable given the economy’s persistent weakness. To have failed to extend the middle class tax cuts would have withdrawn hundreds of billions of purchasing power from the economy at a time when demand is insufficient to trigger new business investment. To have not extended the cuts for upper-income taxpayers would have made it difficult if not impossible for Obama to get what he wanted from Republicans: namely, an extension of unemployment benefits, a payroll tax holiday workers next year, and a renewal of business tax breaks passed this year.

Waiving the payroll tax is an important creative addition, since by lowering labor costs it gives employers a direct incentive to hire workers. Also on the plus side, the deal keeps rates on capital gains and dividends low, and includes “direct expensing” of business investments.

President Obama clearly views his tax provisions as stimulus by the only political means available to him, given public – not just Republican antipathy – to more government spending. He raised the stakes yesterday, warning that America has arrived at another “Sputnik moment” and could be eclipsed by rivals if we can’t turn the economy around. The President also showed little patience with liberal purists who are loudly bewailing, for the umpteenth time, their “betrayal” by a Democratic President.

“Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do,” he said. “The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

It’s true that a majority of the public consistently has opposed tax breaks for the rich. But it’s also true that Americans, and especially the independents who propelled the Republicans’ midterm gains, have even less appetite for political brinkmanship designed to score partisan points. The U.S. left is always up for a bracing round of class warfare, but voters aren’t likely to reward tactics that could result in slowing down the recovery and raising their taxes at the worst possible moment.

The good news is that the extension is only for two years. That gives time for a reconsideration of the whole ungainly package in 2012, by which time the jobless rate presumably will have fallen back to earth. That allows room for a more constructive debate next year over a sweeping tax overhaul designed to promote growth, long-term fiscal stability, and fairness. It also puts the question of how to restore a progressive tax code smack in the middle of the next presidential elections, where it belongs.

Photo credit: David Reber