issue: Politics

The Real Reason to Support a Financial Transaction Tax

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Thanks to Gordon Brown’s support, the idea of a financial transaction tax has been gaining a bit of attention over the last couple of weeks. The idea is simple: place a small tax (say, 0.25 percent or less) on all financial transactions.

Partially, it’s a way to raise a little revenue from those who can most afford to pay to create an insurance fund against future bailouts, which is how it is being billed. And just yesterday, it was reported that House Democrats have discussed using it to fund a jobs bill. (Dean Baker has estimated that the tax could bring in $100 billion.)

But mostly, it’s a good idea because it throws a little sand in the gears of the giant financial speculation casino.

Wall Street banks make a good deal of money by running very sophisticated computer programs, looking for tiny (and supposedly risk-free) arbitraging opportunities, and then making those opportunities pay off by investing with incredibly high volume. These trades are something like the equivalent of buying a bunch of dollars for 99.75 cents each. It’s a great deal if you can do it en masse, and an even better deal if you can also borrow almost all of the money you are investing.

But if banks had to pay a 0.25 percent tax on every dollar they sold, then it suddenly wouldn’t seem like such a good deal to buy dollars for 99.75 cents each. This is what a transaction tax would do.

This would mean that Wall Street banks would spend less time looking for short-term opportunities to buy dollar bills for 99.75 cents. This a good thing, because it’s hard to see how having some of the smartest people and most sophisticated computer programs dedicated to this kind activity helps the economy. Something is wrong when 40 percent of all U.S. corporate profits are coming from the financial sector, as they were for much of the 2000s.

A transaction tax would mean that banks would instead devote more time to investing their capital in good, long-term investments. This seems to me what a banking sector is supposed to do — allocate capital to the most promising business ventures, which then sometimes actually spur innovation and improve the standard of living for everyone, not just those who happen to be clever enough to take part in the big casino.

Unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is against such a tax, and his support is pretty important, since any transaction tax would require an international agreement. This is not surprising, since Geithner is and always will be a creature of Wall Street.

Still, it’s hard not to marvel at the latest round of bonuses on Wall Street and wonder how it is that these guys are making $30 billion while the economy continues to stumble. Slowing down the Wall Street speculation machine might help channel some energy elsewhere — maybe into actual productive recovery.

Knowing Your Juncker from Your Van Rompuy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Pop quiz, hot shot:  Who are Jean-Claude Juncker and Herman Van Rompuy?

If you answered, “Two guys I met studying abroad in Florence my sophomore year,” you’d be close…but wrong. And according to the BBC, you wouldn’t be alone in your ignorance — a smattering of man-in-the-street interviews produced hardly better results.

Mr. Juncker and Mr. Van Rompuy are the prime ministers of Luxembourg and Belgium, respectively (and if you trivia buffs need some extra ammo to entertain Aunt Betty around the dinner table on Turkey Day: Juncker, in power since 1995, is the longest serving head of state in Europe).  Both are in the running for the post of EU President, a new position created by the European Union when Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Poland finally ratified the Lisbon Treaty over the last several weeks.

The treaty’s backers argue that Europe has long-needed to speak with one voice on the world stage, thus the desire for a permanent president. Up to now, the EU has had a rather ridiculous six-month rotating presidential term, filled by the EU’s member states’ leaders. It’s a thankless job — at 27 members, there are only a handful of issues that truly unite Europe’s political classes. And some — like the Iraq war — are so divisive that they tear at the very fabric of European integration.

In most free and democratic countries, major offices are chosen by the electorate. Oddly, the first EU president won’t be. Tonight, the EU’s 27 heads of state will lock themselves in a room, dine on the continent’s finest delicacies, sip (or slosh, if you’re one Mr. S. Berlusconi) its most prized wines, and pick one of their peers to hold the post. All without a campaign poster in sight, or a public debate to be had. That’s right — Europe’s first president will be chosen in the manner of Popes and politburos, not democracies.  With no hope for this presidency, let’s hope the next one is chosen by the voters. After all, the EU’s parliamentarians are.

Tony Blair is also in the running for the post, but don’t expect him to get it. When 27 extraordinarily powerful men and women sit down to choose someone to be — in one convoluted sense, anyway — their boss, they aren’t likely to pick a charismatic home-run hitter. A quiet, controllable technocrat from Luxembourg or Belgium like Juncker or Van Rompuy is much more likely.

That tactic could backfire — look at Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. He was chosen in 2005 as a compromise candidate by ethnic powerbrokers; weak at first, al-Maliki has grown to be the most assertive force in Iraqi politics. But then again, don’t count on it in Europe — megalomaniacs like Nicolas Sarkozy aren’t eager to be outshone by the new prez.

Update: Rompuy FTW!

Herman Van Rompuy, the quietest, least-offensive choice in a field of quiet candidates, has been selected as Europe’s first president.

In Germany, a Defense Minister to Watch

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Reid Wobbling on the “Cadillac Plan” Tax?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A New York Times editorial today threw its support behind a health reform provision that we’ve backed in the past: an excise tax on so-called Cadillac plans. But the Times‘ endorsement came on a weekend when prospects for the tax seemed to dim.

On Thursday, it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) was considering raising the Medicare payroll tax on workers earning $250,000 or more to help pay for health care reform. According to one report, the idea being floated is a half-percent increase in the tax, to raise some $40 billion to $50 billion over 10 years. Another idea is to extend the payroll tax to capital gains and dividends from high-income earners.

Why the decision to tap into a new funding source for the reform package? One reason could be an effort to hike the Senate’s stingier (compared to the House bill’s) subsidies for low-income people. But a likelier reason could be, as the Times reported, an effort by Reid to cut back, if not outright eliminate, one of the Senate’s main financing sources, the excise tax.

If the payroll tax hike ends up replacing the excise tax, it would be an unfortunate development for reform. For months now, some powerful Democratic constituencies have been putting pressure on lawmakers to drop the idea. HCAN, a progressive health reform advocacy group, has come out swinging against it; the AFL-CIO has been running ads like this to scare the public and Congress.

But far from a tax that unfairly targets the middle class, the excise tax on high-cost health plans would actually be progressive. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the “thresholds for the proposed excise tax are sufficiently high that most health insurance plans would not be affected.” Moreover, such a tax would go some way toward bending the proverbial cost curve:

The proposed excise tax would make a major contribution to slowing the growth of health care costs by discouraging insurers from offering, and firms from purchasing, extremely generous health insurance coverage that can encourage excess health care utilization. That, in turn, would reduce incentives for excessive health care spending.

As employers seek out cheaper, more efficient health plans, the savings then get converted into higher wages for employees. Indeed, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, of the $201 billion in increased revenue the excise tax would bring, only $38 billion would come from the excise tax itself — the rest would come from increased payroll and income taxes from the higher wages and salaries that employees would be paid.

While an increase or expansion of the payroll tax for high-income earners might yield some new and badly needed funds for reform, it would not be a sustainable source, what with health cost inflation growing at a far faster rate than payrolls and the taxes levied on them. The fact is that the excise tax on high-cost health plans simply produces too many good outcomes — revenue generation, cost reduction, wage increases — for progressives to pass up, let alone oppose.

Race to the Top Begins

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Department of Education today released the final application for its Race to the Top Fund after a period of public comment and revisions. With the release, the department officially parts the curtain on an ambitious education initiative, one that may well prove to be the closest the Obama reform agenda comes to an unqualified success.

The seriousness with which the administration takes education policy can be seen in gestures substantive – Race to the Top – and symbolic, such as the decision to mark the anniversary of President Obama’s election with an education event in Wisconsin.

The department’s rules for Race to the Top offer states a guideline on how best to steer their education policy. At stake: a $4.35 billion pool of funds that the department will award to states based on their performance in more than 30 criteria. Of that $350 million goes to states to create common-standard assessments. The remaining $4 billion will be up for grabs.

The program’s assessment process involves scoring states in a detailed system that goes up to 500 points. The department’s thinking on reform can be gleaned from the breakdown of scores. Under the rubric of “Great Teachers and Leaders,” the department plans on awarding up to 138 points, 28% of the total, more than any category. That category breaks down into subcategories, with points awarded for measuring student growth, developing evaluation systems, and using evaluations to inform key decisions, among other measures. The message is clear: student improvement and teacher excellence are at the heart of reform.

The other category that receives a large share of the points — 25% — is dubbed “State Success Factors,” which enumerates the ways in which states can present to the department their comprehensive vision for reform. The section asks states to articulate its plans for reform, prove its capacity to carry it out, and enlist the support of school districts. Joanne Weiss, the director of the Race to the Top program, explained in an interview with Education Week that the category aimed to encourage states to really think through their reform strategy. “It became clear that a lot of states were treating [the criteria] as a checklist. There was no big picture,” Weiss said. “Now this is where they build their case.”

The key now is the judging process. The department will select 125 judges from 1,400 applicants to go through and grade the state applications. As the Eduwonk blog points out, “If they’re not strong and keenly attuned to change and reform then this initiative won’t succeed.” Here’s hoping that the department applies the same rigor to that process as it wants the states to apply to theirs.

Dispatches from the Republican Self-Immolation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

First, from Maine, where a new poll shows that Sen. Olympia Snowe would get trounced in a Republican primary by a more conservative opponent. With the mob whipped up into a RINO-hunting frenzy, the party was willing to lose Arlen Specter, so why not Snowe as well?

Then word from South Carolina that the Charleston County Republican Party censured Sen. Lindsay Graham for his willingness to work with Democrats on climate change and other legislation. Let that sink in for a minute. This isn’t a GOP moderate, but someone whom National Journal ranked the 15th most conservative lawmaker in the Senate — apparently, 14 slots too low for the Republicans of Charleston. As we’ve said here before, if that’s the way Republicans want to run their party, then we progressives have no choice but to step back and let them.

But all is not lost for Republicans. First there were the victories in New Jersey and Virginia last week. This week a new Gallup poll showed that independents now break 52 percent-30 percent in favor of the generic Republican candidate if the midterms were held today.

The new poll should worry Democrats. But the real danger lies in what it might make Democrats do — namely, nothing. It may be tempting to forget the agenda, sit tight, and ride out the storm, but Democrats shouldn’t let the dismal numbers cow them into paralysis, particularly on health care reform. The worst thing that can happen is that nothing happens on health reform. Preserving the status quo on health care would mean disaster for our country’s fiscal future. For Democrats, failure to come through with the end goal in sight will depress the base and convince independents that congressional Democrats can’t get anything done — a surefire formula for electoral disaster.

Reform and Its Discontents

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It has become fashionable among some progressives to lambast the administration and congressional Democrats for the slow pace and incremental approach they have taken in trying to pass health reform legislation. (For a nice sampling, check out some of the posts and comments at Open Left.)

Ezra Klein highlights one emblematic strain among progressive critics, pointing to a piece by Marcia Angell, an M.D. and senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, in the Huffington Post. Angell, a single-payer supporter, writes, “Is the House bill better than nothing? I don’t think so…. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.”

Klein offers a sensible counter-argument:

The idea that a high-profile failure in a moment where a liberal Democrat occupies the White House and Democrats hold 60 seats in the Senate for the first time since the 1970s will encourage a more ambitious success later does not track with the history of this issue, nor with the political incentives that future actors are likely to face. If even Obama’s modest effort proves too ambitious for the political system, the result is likely to be a retreat towards even more modest efforts in the future, as has happened in the past.

Among some progressives, there is a kind of denial about the nature of American reform. They fail to grasp that change, when it has come, has happened incrementally and evolutionarily. The New Republic’s John Judis touched on this yesterday when he pointed out that Social Security, that progressive landmark, was in fact less imposing an edifice when initially constructed in 1935:

That act, when it passed, was a bare shell of what it became in the 1950s after amendment. Benefits were nugatory. And most important, coverage was denied to wide swaths of the workforce, including farm laborers.

Why farm laborers? Well, because Franklin Roosevelt and liberal Democrats needed the vote of racist Southern Democrats who wanted to deny benefits to blacks, most of whom were farm laborers.

To believe that failure on reform today would only lead to a more progressive reform effort tomorrow is delusional, plain and simple. As TNR’s Jon Cohn argues, “You could plausibly claim that the reforms on the table today are more or less what moderate Republicans were proposing under Clinton, just as the Clinton reforms were not that far removed from what Nixon himself wanted in the early 70s.”

And yet for far too many progressives, a failure to perfect health reform now would constitute a defeat of epic proportions. This is why when Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a single-payer advocate, voted “No” on the House health bill, he received hardly any reproofs from the netroots (Angell praised him), even as they went after other dissenting Dems. (One blogger for Open Left, Mike Lux, did lambast Kucinich – and was then promptly pushed around in his post’s comments section.)

After 70 years of trying to achieve universal health care, progressives are as close as they’ve ever been to that goal. It’s not perfect. It’s not pretty. But let’s not let the perverse allure of being sanctimonious in defeat – an addiction that plagues too many on our side – derail the best shot we have at improving the lives of millions of Americans.

On Health Reform, Cost Containment Remains the Missing Piece

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s push for health care reform has provoked so many political sideshows that it’s easy to lose track of the main plot. The most important debate – how to slow the inexorable growth of health care costs – has scarcely begun.

Instead, Democrats spent months wrangling over the public option, which is basically a proxy for the endless debate over the proper size and role of government. Now they are tussling over abortion, that hardy perennial of the culture wars. And the Senate may add immigration to the already combustible mix.

These are, of course, large and important issues in their own right. But they distract progressives from what health reform is really supposed to accomplish. What most Americans want is relief from constantly rising health care costs and the nagging fear that they could lose coverage altogether if they get sick or lose their job. The public also wants a system that leaves no one out, though polls show mounting worry about the cost of guaranteeing universal coverage.

The House bill passed last weekend passes the coverage test. Through a mix of insurance market reforms, public subsidies and a mandate on individuals to buy insurance, it extends coverage to 39 million Americans. That’s as close to universal coverage as we are likely to get, and by itself a major progressive achievement.

But it comes at a stiff price: $1.2 trillion over the next decade. At a time when the federal deficit has tripled in just a year, many Americans think that’s a lot of money to spend. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill includes enough offsetting savings to pay for health reform without adding to deficits. To his credit, President Obama has vowed to veto a bill that isn’t deficit-neutral.

But if it doesn’t aggravate America’s short-term fiscal woes, the House bill fails to deal seriously with the long-term challenge of reducing the unsustainable pace at which health care costs grow each year. That is what drives premiums up for working Americans, helps to price U.S. businesses out of global competition, and escalates spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

Today’s New York Times reports on a “growing revolt” among some Democrats and prominent health care experts over the lack of strong cost controls in the House bill or others under consideration. “My assessment at this point is that the legislation is heavy on health and light on reform,” the Times quotes Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) as saying. He’s exactly right.

As the action now shifts to the Senate, Wyden and pragmatic progressives need to insist on adding credible measures for “bending down” the health cost curve. The menu of plausible options includes a Medicare Commission with real powers to reduce payments for low-quality or ineffective health care, and strict limits on the federal government’s open-ended tax subsidy for employer paid health plans.

It goes without saying that real cost containment will meet resistance from powerful interests, from doctors to organized labor. Against that, Democrats must weigh the dismal prospect of a health care “reform” that merely makes a deeply flawed system bigger and more expensive, without changing the incentives and behaviors that lead to runaway medical inflation.

Rousing the Rising American Electorate

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the big talking points about the election last week was that Democrats lost independent voters. But a new survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reminds us that they weren’t the only ones the Democrats missed on election night.

The GQR survey of Virginia and New Jersey registered voters (not all of whom voted in the election) confirmed what Ed Kilgore posited the other day: that the story of the 2009 election was the poor turnout of the “Obama Coalition.”

GQR conducted the survey for Women’s Voices. Women Vote, an organization that focuses on political outreach to historically underrepresented groups in the electorate: unmarried women, younger voters, Latinos, and African Americans. GQR dubs this coalition the “Rising American Electorate” (RAE), a group that turned out in historic numbers last year for Barack Obama but trickled to the polls this year. The ones that did vote overwhelmingly chose Democrats Jon Corzine in New Jersey (by 25 points) and Creigh Deeds in Virginia (by 27 points). It’s just that there weren’t enough of them to win the election for Democrats.

The problem facing Democrats is how to motivate the RAE next year. Polls show that Obama is still well-liked personally and that his approval ratings are holding up, despite the nagging recession. But Obama isn’t up for election next year – Democrats are. And while the Republican base is fired up, the Democratic base shows no sign of rousing from its slumber. Couple that with signs that independents are starting to inch to the right and you have a recipe for a bad 2010 for Dems.

On a Good Night, A Discordant Note

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Some on the left have been going hard against Democrats for caving on the Stupak amendment in the health care reform bill the House passed on Saturday. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), prohibits federal funds from going to insurance companies that cover abortions in the health exchanges. Never mind that the House health bill, if it becomes law, would improve the lives of millions of Americans – the Stupak amendment is a stain that can never be erased, according to some in the blogosphere.

Digby, one of the left’s preeminent bloggers, saw the failure extending all the way to “the president himself [who], like many of his elite male cohort, often gives the impression that women’s rights are just another annoying special interest.”

In an earlier post, Digby waxed even more indignant about the Stupak amendment:

I suspect that the leadership decided that abortion was the least important thing they could throw to the slavering Blue Dogs to take home as a victory over the liberals in this debate. And they had to find a hippie to punch to make the thing acceptable to the villagers, so they decided to punch the desperate pregnant girl. She’s used to it.

Since the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant with their obstructionism the Democrats have decided that in order to further the president’s edict to change the tone and further bipartisanship they will just have to compromise with themselves.

Democrats everywhere will now be able to brag about furthering the Godly cause of forced pregnancy, while having also voted to pass health care.

Look, the Stupak amendment was an unfortunate concession to the pro-life faction in the Democratic caucus. I certainly don’t like it. But what would Digby have the Democratic leadership do? Refuse Stupak a vote and risk passage of the final bill? The leadership certainly didn’t think that that was worth the risk – Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) said today that reform “would’ve failed” without the compromise — and I don’t blame them.

Or perhaps Digby would rather that those Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment be expunged from the party. That would certainly cut down on the number of Democrats with whom Digby disagrees. It would also be a fast track to shrinking the Democratic tent – a tent that, thanks to the self-destruction of the GOP, now encompasses left and center. Digby has been an astute observer of a Republican Party that’s hell-bent on purifying itself into obscurity, and yet she sees no contradiction in her own views toward the Democratic coalition.

Would Digby prefer that progressives cast out all pro-lifers from our ranks? According to Gallup’s most recent poll on abortion attitudes, 47 percent of the public identify themselves as pro-life, while 46 percent identify themselves as pro-choice. A May 2009 Pew survey found that 46 percent said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases – the lowest figure since 1995 – and 44 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases – the highest since 2001. Because Democrats now occupy the center as well as the left, many Americans who count themselves as pro-life now might consider themselves Democratic or at least lean that way because of other issues. Are we really prepared to tell half of the electorate that they’re not welcome because of that one issue alone?

The irony is that the blogosphere’s prescription of denying the existence of pro-lifers within the Democratic ranks probably contributed to the success of the Stupak amendment. Amy Sullivan, writing in Time’s Swampland blog, argues:

But it also seems clear that the Democratic leadership and White House dropped the ball on finding a compromise with pro-life Democrats. The deal reached late last night/early this morning in the Speaker’s office is not a compromise; it is in fact more than the Catholic bishops and Stupak himself asked for as late as mid-summer. The Speaker didn’t get rolled by crafty or stubborn members of her party, though. This was a predictable consequence of a high-handed approach to dealing with pro-life members of the Democratic caucus.

Despite the fact that anyone who has followed U.S. politics over the last thirty years could have told you that abortion would be a controversial aspect of health reform, no one tried to preemptively address the concerns of pro-life Democrats by sitting down with them early in the process. The White House didn’t reach out to some of the more good-faith players on the pro-life side until early September. And Pelosi didn’t sit down with Stupak until September 29. This despite the fact that 19 Democratic members sent her a letter in June expressing their concerns with abortion coverage in health reform.

In other words, you can ignore those who disagree with you, but it doesn’t make them disappear. In this case, it may even have come back to bite the leadership.

Make no mistake: progressives should stand for a woman’s right to choose, and Democrats should do all they can to kill the odious amendment in conference without endangering the end goal of reform. But to reduce the complicated work of politics into a with-us-or-against-us game is neither normatively nor politically desirable. The progressive rank-and-file have to realize that you make laws with the public you have, not the public you wish you had. Some in that public will have different, deeply held beliefs that might differ from yours and mine. With progressives now ascendant, we have to take into consideration the views of moderates, independents, and centrists in governing this often-unwieldy polity.

Some progressives like to believe that there is no such thing as the moderate middle — that a projection of brute liberal force will disabuse moderates of their milquetoast views and they’ll come to see the light. Forget the condescension inherent in that view. Try getting 218 votes with that attitude. If Speaker Pelosi had taken that approach on Saturday, I doubt these same bloggers would be congratulating her for losing health reform but at least standing her ground on a woman’s right to choose.

The House Health Reform Vote

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Amidst general pleasure over the House´s passage of health reform legislation Saturday night, there´s also progressive angst over two issues: the narrowness of the vote, which leaves little or no margin for error when the conference committee report comes up, and the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which goes much further than previous House or Senate bills in restricting the ability of consumers to purchase abortion coverage in the new exchanges.

The first concern is probably overwrought. Speaker Pelosi clearly whipped her vote, and gave a free pass to vulnerable Democrats to vote “no.” Since the final version is likely to be less subject to conservative attack than the House bill, Pelosi should be able to hold all 219 Democrats and perhaps add a few.

The Stupak Amendment is more problematic, since 64 Democrats voted for it. But given the arcane nature of the differences between Stupak and earlier anti-abortion provisions, it’s unclear that any Democrats who voted for the House bill would vote against the conference report with a slightly less obnixious anti-abortion provision.

In any event, we should take a deep breath right now and appreciate the historic nature of the House vote, which didn’t look that secure until right before it occurred. Aside from its substantive importance, the vote should prove helpful in diverting the news media from ludicrous overinterpretation of the NJ and VA gubernatorial results.

Theories For the 2009 Turnout Calamity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Now that the results from NJ and VA have been masticated for a few days, it´s pretty obvious that the most ominous–but potentially reversible–factor in the dual Democratic defeats was a massive change in the composition of the electorate. According to exit polls, under-30 voters represented 21 percent of the Virginia electorate in 2008, and only 10 percent last Tuesday. And in NJ, the under-30 share of the vote dropped from 17 percent in 2008 to 8 percent in 2009.

African-American turnout didn´t drop so much; in VA, it declined from 20% of the electorate in 2009 to 16 percent this year, and in NJ, it actually went up marginally as a share of the electorate. But since turnout generally dropped, it´s clear that 2008´s massive African-American turnout for the Democratic ticket was not replicated.

With Democratic fears about 2010 already heavily focused on the typically older and whiter composition of midterm electorates, the NJ-VA results simply confirm what we already knew, but at a level of intensity that is surprisiing (though Corzine´s general unpopularity and Deeds´ questionable campaign tactics are responsible for some of the problem).

The question going forward, of course, is why the Obama Coalition turnout was so weak, and what, if anything, Demcrats can do to reverse this trend during the next year.

And that´s where the relative clarity over the numbers breaks down into varying interpretations over the implications.

Unsurprisingly, many self-conscious Democratic progressives think that Obama´s “centrism” has “discouraged the Democratic base,” much as, they believe, Bill Clinton did so in his first two years, leading to the Republican landslide of 1994. In this view, the administration and congressional Democrats need to forget once and for all about “bipartisanship,” congressional compromises, Blue-Dog-coddling, or deficit worries, and plunge ahead with a boldly progressive agenda that revitalizes the 2008 coalition. This interpretation, of course, collides with the counsel of those focused on the disastrous performance of 2009 Democratic gubernatorial candidates among independents, who are (often falsely) assumed to be “centrist” in orientation.

Others focus on the mechanics of voter mobilization, and suggest that what most needs to happen in the next year is a rebuilding of the Obama ¨”machine” that helped boost minority and youth turnout to historic levels in 2008.

And a third theory is simply that conditions in the country, and the enduring unpopularity of both political parties, has eroded the Democratic vote in those segments of the electorate least likely to vote (young voters being most conspicious in that category). According to this theory, a record of forward momentum in Congress (on health care and climate change) and on the economy is most crucial in reducing the fallloff in pro-Obama turnout and the carnage among independents.

The first and third theories point in different directions, since a ¨”bold progressive¨ direction may not be consistent with congressional accomplishments (aiming instead at a Trumanesque placement of blame on Republican obstruction and extremism). And both theories may not sufficiently account for the difficulty in transferring Obama´s relatively strong approval ratings in the potential electorate as a whole to actual voters deciding between actual Democratic and Republican candidates competing across the country in individual races. As Jonathan Singer pointed out this week at MyDD, one scenario going forward is that Barack Obama could become a latter-day Ike, incapable of transferring personal popularity to his party (though split-ticket voting has vastly declined since the 1950s).

Democrats need to debate and sort out these theories of last week´s turnout calamity. But one this is clear: a continuing focus on the dangerous extremism of the GOP is consistent with every theory, particularly if, as is likely, Republicans go into 2010 hoping to reclaim control of the House, and head towards 2012 with a presidential field tilting to the crazy Right. You can argue all day about whether Obama or congressional Democrats have dashed the hopes of many 2008 voters for dramatic change in Washington. But 2008 Obama voters who are made abundantly aware that today´s Republicans want to govern from a position well to the Right of that of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay are a lot more likely to go to the polls next November no matter how sanguine they are about the administration´s record.

The Electric Car Ecosystem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The second coming of the electric car — particularly in the guise of the highly anticipated Chevy Volt — has certainly received a fair amount of publicity in recent months. No wonder: the electric car represents America’s best bet to rejuvenate its auto manufacturing industry.

But while it’s exciting enough to dream of factories humming again and assembly lines pumping out the next generation of autos, the promise of the electric car goes beyond its immediate boost to the American car industry. A fascinating article by Bernard Avishai in Inc. details what exactly the rise of the electric car could mean to our economy:

Actually, here is where the dots connect and the news turns good. For the technical challenge of greening electric cars means entering a commercial landscape that mirrors the transformative industries of the 1980s and ’90s: computers and software, switching and networking, consumer electronics converging with cellular technology. This landscape is full of start-ups and medium-size supplier businesses that play to American strengths: entrepreneurship, originality, comfort with the virtual. We ought to stop thinking about the auto industry as a handful of great manufacturing companies superintending large, dependent suppliers — or, for that matter, cars as standalone objects. Rather, the electric car will be a kind of ultimate mobile device, produced in expanding networks for expanding networks; a piece of hardware manufactured by a burgeoning supplier grid and nested in an information grid interlacing the electrical grid. Building out these three networks will be more profitable, and a greater engine of economic growth, than building the cars themselves.

A word that pops up frequently in Avishai’s piece is “ecosystem.” Not in the environmental-ecological sense — though that obviously matters, too — but rather in the sense that a new complex of entrepreneurs, innovators, and manufacturers will likely spring up in response to the mainstreaming of the electric car. Reforming the grid, constructing a new electric-car-recharging infrastructure, making the next generation of batteries, building hardware and software for the smart cars: these and other ancillary industries have already been jump-started by the promise of the carbon-free car.

Where does government fit in? The Obama administration has already shown its commitment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $500 million for producers of electric drive components, $400 million for grants promoting plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and $4 billion toward the development of the smart grid. Avishai points out that when Obama signed the stimulus package, he was introduced by the head of Namaste Solar, a company of 60 employees — a subtle nod toward the idea that the green economy will be driven by thousands of new, smart companies that spring up to compete in the clean tech ecosystem. The players in the nascent industry also believe that the government has a role in establishing standards early on to bring stability to a free-for-all environment and remove some uncertainty for start-ups to jump into the fray.

And this doesn’t even get to the other obvious benefit of our car transformation: the reduction of carbon emissions as millions of gasoline-powered cars are replaced by the new breed of automobile. It all seems like a vision out of science fiction. What’s thrilling is, as Avishai reports, it’s already happening.

More Election Day Thoughts

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

After a second day of analysis and reflection, key implications of Tuesday’s elections seem clearer.

The election was a referendum, all right, but on the state of the U.S. economy, not President Obama. In exit polls, most voters (over 80 percent) said the economy was their top concern. Those who professed to be “very worried” backed the Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey by wide margins. If high unemployment persists well into next year, as White House economists forecast, it will spell serious trouble for Congressional Democrats.

Republicans were more motivated to vote Tuesday. Democrats suffered a big drop-off of voting by the young and minorities compared to 2008. But the pivotal factor was the dramatic swing of independents, whom Obama won last year. This time, independents voted 2-1 for Republican candidates.

There was an ideological subtext to the independents’ defection. In addition to worries about jobs and the economy, many of them seem fixated on the nexus of “big government,” spending and debt. There’s no doubt that growing distrust of government is complicating President Obama’s ability to forge majorities in Congress for his big, and costly, initiatives, especially health reform.

Many progressives worry that the election results will send moderate Democrats running for the tall grass. Certainly, the outcome should concentrate the minds of Congressional negotiators who are struggling to get 60 votes in the Senate for health reform. Too much time has been wasted on the public option, which already has been watered down and which in any case isn’t worth jeopardizing prospects for an historic breakthrough on universal coverage.

The way for Democrats to hold their moderates in line is to 1) make sure the bill’s cost doesn’t balloon, and that it meets Obama’s demand to add “not one penny” to the federal deficit; and, 2) take tougher steps to reduce medical cost inflation.

The election also may fuel Congressional demands to put on hold President Obama’s other ambitious goals – regulatory reform, a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, immigration reform – so that lawmakers can concentrate instead on the economy. That may make sense, if they can find practical ways to relieve economic distress without aggravating public anxiety about government overreach and profligacy.

But one thing Tuesday didn’t produce was evidence of an electorate turning hard right. The only movement conservative running – Doug Hoffman – lost his race for Congress in upstate New York, flipping a traditionally Republican seat to the Democrats. Will the Palin-Beck wing nevertheless continue their crusade to drive moderates out of the Republican Party? We can only hope.

The GOP’s Failed Stab at Health Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Congressional Budget Office has now weighed in on the House Republicans’ proposed substitute to the House health reform legislation. The results aren’t pretty.

According to the CBO, the GOP plan does little to expand coverage: 52 million Americans would remain uninsured by 2019, up from 50 million in 2010. Nor does the plan do anything to end insurers’ practice of denying health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. And forget about subsidies to help working-class Americans afford health insurance.

Ezra Klein sums up the CBO’s findings nicely:

CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance….

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

But the plan does lower premiums, which is no surprise since sick people who need heath coverage the most will be left out of the system. So Republicans have that going for them.

Cap-and-Trade: Neither a Job Killer Nor a Free Ride

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Cap-and-trade legislation in Congress has come under fire from both left and right. Some on the left claim that the distribution of free emissions allowances to industry amounts to a “free ride.” Meanwhile, many on the right slam the bill as a job and economy killer.

But a new study (PDF) by PointCarbon Research, a carbon market research firm, rebuts both sides’ claims. The study focuses on the impact that climate change legislation would have on the largest emitters in the power and oil industries, which represent about 40 percent of the covered emissions in the U.S.

Contrary to right-wing forecasts of widespread economic collapse, PointCarbon found that a cap-and-trade market would, in fact, yield winners and losers among industry players. “Some companies will actually be considerably better off with a U.S. cap-and-trade program than without,” the study found, noting that companies like Exelon (the largest American utility), FirstEnergy, NRG, and PG&E stand to gain the most. Firms with a diversified fleet of non-emitting (hydro, nuclear, and renewables) and low-emitting plants are more competitively positioned and will likely see benefits.

Meanwhile, firms that rely heavily on high-emissions plants (Southern Co., AEP, Duke) would see the biggest exposure. That finding debunks the idea that industry receiving free allowances would be getting a “free ride” under cap-and-trade. As the study points out, “in reality the bulk of free allowances destined for [the power] sector will not help large power companies exposed on the generation side.”

But even as some firms do see more of a negative impact on the bottom line, the study notes that as the carbon market matures, “companies will be able to mitigate their exposure through internal reductions and offset investments” – meaning that the incentive to innovate and modernize that a carbon price brings will eventually help these companies adjust to the new low-emissions economy.

The study raises a fundamental point: “[P]utting a cost on emissions means giving a value to reductions.” In other words, a price on carbon will mean a cost burden to some – but a revenue opportunity for others. Letting actors compete in this new market is the most efficient and effective way to address the looming climate crisis.  That is precisely what the Senate cap-and-trade legislation hopes to achieve.