Social Policy Archives - Page 14 of 14 - Progressive Policy Institute

Jesus at the Tea Party

Posted on March 15, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As you may have heard, Glenn Beck has gotten himself into some serious hot water by suggesting that people (or more specificially, Christians) leave their churches or even their denominations behind if they harbor any talk about “social justice” or “economic justice,” terms he identifies as “code” for communist- and Nazi-sponsored totalitarian designs. As usually interpreted, Beck’s line sounds like a fairly common kulturkampf tactic by conservatives who are engaging in civil war against alleged “modernism” within the Roman Catholic Church, or who have been urging Protestants for years to abandon “liberal” mainline churches for various fundamentalist gatherings.

But if you listen to what Beck actually said last week, in another rant on the subject, he’s saying something about Christianity that’s a lot more radical than the usual back-to-the-1950s stuff about religion focusing on personal morality rather than caring for the poor. Calling “social justice” a “perversion of the Gospel,” Rev. Glenn explains it this way:

Nowhere does Jesus say, “Hey, if someone asks for your shirt, give the government a coat, and then have the government give him a pair of slacks.” You want to help out, you help out.

Now you often hear religious conservatives argue that state social welfare programs undermine the charitable instinct or the private organizations that help the poor. But Beck seems to be suggesting that any government efforts–indeed, any collective efforts–to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and so forth, are “perversions of the Gospel.” Beck’s Jesus is a strict libertarian.

Beck’s original remarks were treated by some as a thinly veiled attack on the Catholic Church, since, as the conservative religious journal First Things quickly pointed out, the very term “social justice” was invented by a nineteenth-century Jesuit theologian interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas. “Social justice” isn’t just a trendy contemporary slogan, and it certainly wasn’t pioneered by communists or Nazis: it was the central theme of the great Social Encyclicals of various Popes, most notably Leo XIII, whose 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, is considered especially normative.

More basically, the idea that Christianity is opposed to state action in pursuit of the common welfare is highly alien to both Catholic and Protestant traditions. Most religious observers would contend that “social justice” as practiced by communists and Nazis is a “perversion” of Christianity, and hardly any would confuse government-sponsored health and welfare programs with totalitarianism. Even amongst the hard-core Christian Right, most spokesmen save their Nazi analogies for attacks on legalized abortion.

As it happens, Beck is a Mormon, which isn’t exactly a libertarian creed, either. But he’s really endangering his status on the American Right by claiming that Jesus would today be out there with the Tea Party folk fulminating about the “looting” of taxpayers to help the poor.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33894056@N03/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Pragmatic Progressive Argument for Repeal

Posted on March 8, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the 1990’s, pragmatic progressives led the way in reinventing government. Under the leadership of President Clinton, wasteful spending was cut from the federal budget and new cost-effective strategies were implemented that reduced inefficiencies. However, for all our achievements in the ‘90’s, some of the reforms enacted during those years were less than successful. Today, pragmatic progressives must own up to past mistakes and propose fixes to outdated, ineffective and costly policies. Among those failed reforms is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

Mandated by Congress in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act and signed into law by President Clinton, the DADT policy targets for expulsion from the armed services those who have a propensity for, display behavior associated with, or commit acts of homosexuality. It’s important to note that DADT prevented baseless initiation of investigation into a service member’s orientation, which the military’s former policy allowed, and was, in fact, the compromise policy that emerged from President Clinton’s original proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Opinions and conjecture aside about this compromise in 1993, DADT is plainly in need of repeal now — and support for such a move is rock solid. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and former Secretary of State General Colin Powell have recently joined other active and retired high-ranking military and Defense Department officials in calling for its end.

The support for repeal among military brass underscores the pragmatic value of doing away with the policy. For one thing, the policy has inarguably done harm to our national security efforts. Under DADT, almost 800 “mission-critical” troops have been discharged in the last five years, including at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists. These unnecessary discharges create additional challenges and risks for our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, our military continues to face an overall recruiting crisis. DADT unnecessarily limits the pool of potential recruits, including some of the best and brightest young minds we need to win the war on terror and run our military in the decades to come. According to recent estimates, some 4,000 service members each year choose not to re-enlist because of the policy, and 41,000 gay and bisexual men might choose to enlist or re-enlist if the policy were repealed.

Under DADT, more than 13,500 gay soldiers have lost their jobs and medical, educational and other benefits. Many of those discharged are young Americans who enrolled with the promise of a college education and a better life. Others given the boot have served for decades and have lost more than a job — their entire careers have been wiped out, too, because of their sexual orientation.

And then there’s the financial downside of the policy. It costs up to $43,000 to replace a discharged service member. Add at least $150,000 more to that figure for officers and $1,000,000 for Navy and Air Force pilots. If you consider inflation and the cost of additional required training for service members to fight the war on terror, you can imagine the average price tag on this policy has increased — and will continue to increase — significantly over time.

With 75 percent of Americans, including 64 percent of Republicans, calling for an end to DADT, the political risk to overturning this policy is minimal. In fact, when one considers the size of the pro-equality voting bloc, which includes an overwhelming majority of young Americans, one could argue the benefits greatly outweigh the costs of action on this reform.

Rather than approaching DADT as strictly a cultural or social issue — which is how our conservative opposition would like to define it to inject homophobia in the debate and divide Americans — progressives should also frame DADT as a matter of national security, civil service and fiscal responsibility. Taking up this policy challenge under these terms would reflect our progressive values and “third way” approach — to cut wasteful government spending, focus our national security to fight global terrorism and the wars of the 21st century, reduce unemployment and reward work, and promote national service.

“Race to the Top” for Child Nutrition

Posted on February 23, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the least heralded but potentially consequential initiatives by the Obama administration has been its steady campaign against child hunger and obesity. The administration has set an ambitious goal of eliminating child hunger by 2015. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama has spearheaded the Let’s Move! program, aimed at combating childhood obesity.

At an event at the National Press Club today, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack spoke in greater detail about the administration’s priorities as the Child Nutrition Act comes up for reauthorization. The centerpiece of the administration’s child nutrition push is an additional $10 billion over 10 years to improve school breakfast and lunch programs, increase child participation, and equip schools with the resources they need for student health.

One aspect of Vilsack’s presentation seemed familiar:

We cannot rest while so many of our children struggle with access to food, but the federal government will never solve this challenge alone. In the last year, educators have seen the difference that a national “race to the top” in education has made. I am pleased to announce my support for a new competition to eliminate hunger by 2015. We’ll provide competitive grants to Governors, working with stakeholders statewide, so that states can act as laboratories for successful strategies. We’ll let them be creative in experimenting with models that match program delivery with evaluation, so that we can learn what works and what doesn’t. Possible steps will include policy modifications to existing nutrition programs, enhanced outreach efforts, improved coordination between nutrition assistance programs and family supportive services, and work with community and non-profit organizations. Grants would be provided to States with prior accomplishments and commitments to reducing hunger, applications that target communities with higher prevalence of child hunger, and projects that reflect collaboration with a wide range of partners. It is only with these sorts of coordinated efforts that we will achieve our ambitious and important goals.

“Race to the Top” is, of course, the hugely successful program that the Obama administration has used to incentivize education reform across the country. By dangling the promise of federal funds, the White House has been able to push reforms in states and districts that for years had resisted change.

Vilsack’s proposal is especially familiar to us here at PPI. Our own Joel Berg and Tom Freedman, in a “Memo to the New President” last year, called for something like it:

State governments are often the testing ground for the nation’s most important policy experiments. Your administration could reward states for successful innovations in feeding the hungry and improving nutrition. For example, every three years, the USDA could finance bonuses to the five states that show the greatest reduction in the agency’s measures of food insecurity and hunger. These states could then use their winnings to expand and improve their anti-hunger programs. This would act as an incentive for other states to create truly effective hunger policies.

Vilsack’s proposal is another demonstration of the creativity with which the administration is tackling some of our pressing domestic problems. Initiatives like the one Vilsack announced today or Race to the Top may not get as much publicity on a day-to-day basis, but they may yet end up the most enduring of this administration’s accomplishments.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chidorian/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

The World Without Obama

Posted on February 19, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

If you’ve been watching the cult TV show “Lost,” then you’re familiar with the concept of parallel universes. That is, alternate realities in which history turned out differently, because people made different decisions.

It’s a useful concept when it comes to thinking about President Obama’s current predicament. On a variety of fronts, the Obama administration is suffering from an inability to show Americans the parallel universe in which its past policies were not enacted — and the future that will result if its current proposals bite the dust.

That’s most obviously true with the early, fateful decisions to continue TARP and bail out the auto companies. They arguably averted the collapse of the global financial system, the virtual extinction of consumer and business credit, and 1930s levels of unemployment (especially hard-hit would have been the upper Midwest). Nevertheless, no matter how often the president tells us his actions kept a deep recession from developing into a Great Depression, it remains an abstract proposition for the people who are currently unemployed. The same is true for the 2009 economic stimulus package, which virtually all experts, public and private, credit with saving about two million jobs. The continued job losses reported each month make it hard to claim that one has succeeded by avoiding even greater unemployment.

The problem of “proving a negative” is even more daunting when it comes to prospective policy proposals. Critics savage Obama for a health care plan that doesn’t do enough to limit costs. Obama responds that health care costs are going up anyway, without a plan. But it’s not easy to convince people that the status quo is riskier than a large and complicated series of changes in how Americans obtain health insurance. That’s why the White House has made such a big deal out of Anthem Blue Cross’s gargantuan premium increases for individual policyholders in California. It is, they argue, a sign of where the status quo is headed absent reform. They do not, unfortunately, have such a convenient example that will help them explain the need for climate-change legislation, as conservatives, stupidly but effectively, cite this winter’s heavy snowstorms as disproof for the scientific consensus about global warming trends.

There is one way to deal with Obama’s dilemma. Although it’s difficult to prove that American life under the president’s policies is better than life without them, it should be easier to point to another parallel universe: life under Republican policies. But such an effort requires a basic strategic decision. Should Democrats point back to the reality of life under George W. Bush, which most people remember pretty vividly, and simply say today’s GOP wants to “turn the clock back”? Or should they focus on current Republican proposals, such as they are, which in many respects make Bush policies look pretty responsible? It’s hard to take both tacks simultaneously, since the extremism of contemporary Republican politics is in no small part motivated by a determination to separate the GOP and the conservative movement from association with that incompetent big spender, Bush, who failed because he “betrayed conservative principles.”

It appears the White House is increasingly inclined to take the second, forward-looking approach to highlighting the GOP’s desired alternate reality, rather than the first, backward-looking one. As much as some Democrats wail about the “bipartisanship” rhetoric that surrounds Obama’s outreach to Republicans, which he’s employed while challenging them to direct debate over health reform and economic recovery, the president’s main intention is clear. He wants to force the opposition to help him present voters with a choice between two specific courses of action — or simply admit that their strategy is one of pure gridlock, obstruction, and paralysis (which, as my colleage J.P. Green has pointed out, spells “G.O.P”).

The stake that Obama and the Democrats have in convincing Americans to consider these parallel universes couldn’t be much higher. This November, if voters remain fixated on the current reality, rather than the terrible alternatives, then the midterm elections really will be a referendum on the status quo and its Democratic caretakers. Explaining life as it would be without Obama, and as it could be under Republican management, is not easy. But Democrats must do it or face catastrophe at the polls.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Scott Brown for President? No Way.

Posted on February 11, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A lot of dumb things get said in American political commentary, and I’ve undoubtedly said a few myself over the years. But one dumb thing that ought to be quickly exploded is the persistent talk that newly minted Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts might run a viable campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

Yes, Brown is a godlike figure to Republicans right now. Yes, various domain names connected with a Brown presidential run got snatched up the moment he won his Senate race. And yes, he’s the symbol of the “fresh faces” Republicans long for every time they look at the rather unexciting (or in the case of Sarah Palin, too exciting) field they will likely choose from in 2012.

But it ain’t happening. And that’s not because of his rather signal lack of experience since, as his fans love to point out, Barack Obama only had a year more of elected experience beyond the state senate when he was elected in 2008.

To mention the most important reason it ain’t happening: Brown is pro-choice. He explicitly opposes overturning Roe v. Wade, and in fact, his rhetoric on abortion is remarkably similar to that of the president. And this, boys and girls, has become an absolute disqualifier for Republican presidential prospects these days; just ask Rudy Guiliani. Or better yet, ask John McCain or Joe Lieberman, since McCain’s decision to put Lieberman on his ticket in 2008 was only abandoned when his advisors told him he’d face a potentially successful convention revolt if a pro-choice running-mate were chosen.

Sure, pro-lifers supported Brown’s Senate run, but there’s all the difference in the world between being a candidate in a blue state who can help disrupt Democratic control of the upper chamber, and being a candidate for national leader of the GOP and the person who makes Supreme Court appointments. Past Republican presidential candidates have gotten into trouble for failing to support a constitutional amendment recognizing fetuses from the moment of conception as “persons” endowed with full constitutional rights. Supporting Roe is an abomination to today’s GOPers; in a recent poll, self-identified Republican voters said they considered abortion “murder” by a margin of 76 percent to eight percent (nearly a third of them, in fact, want to outlaw contraceptives). This is not a negotiable issue.

If that’s not enough to convince you that Brown 2012 is a mirage, consider another problem: Brown was and remains an avid supporter of Massachusetts’ universal health plan, which is extremely similar to the national plan passed without a single Republican vote by the U.S. Senate. That wasn’t a problem for Brown in the Senate race; indeed, his main argument for his pledge that he would vote against any such bill in the Senate was that Massachusetts didn’t need help from the feds because they had already enacted the same reforms. But he’s still on record favoring a “socialist” scheme for health care, and specific items like an individual mandate for health insurance coverage, which most Republicans nationally consider unconstitutional, or perhaps even a form of slavery.

To be sure, this is a problem that Brown shares with Mitt Romney, who signed his state’s version of ObamaCare into law. But Romney has been inching away from the health plan since his 2008 presidential campaign, and will probably repudiate it entirely before long, while Brown’s hugs for the plan are very fresh.

Speaking of Romney: his own presidential ambitions are still another bar to a Brown candidacy. The Brown campaign kept the Mittster under wraps until Election Night, which was smart since Romney is not very popular in Massachusetts. But Brown’s political advisors are all Romney people, who presumably have some residual loyalty to their old boss. Will Romney, who probably first saw a future President of the United States in the mirror before entering kindergarten, step aside for this whippersnapper? Unlikely, and there’s definitely no room in a Republican presidential field for two socialized-medicine supporters from Massachusetts.

So you can forget about Brown for President in 2012, which will become apparent once he starts casting heretical votes in the Senate in order to position himself for a re-election run that same year. He clearly seems smart enough to understand that in 2012, he’ll be dealing with far less favorable turnout patterns, and can’t expect his opponent to run as feckless a campaign as Martha Coakley’s. Odds are, Democrats will run a candidate against Brown who has heard of Curt Schilling and doesn’t wait until the final week to run ads.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_television/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Obama’s Budget: Recognizing the Link Between Food Systems and Jobs

Posted on February 2, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s 2011 budget contains a few notable things for progressives to cheer. One of the items that jumped out at us was its support for an intertwined effort to boost healthy foods and food jobs – an idea that we championed in a December policy paper.

The budget includes $400 million for the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Treasury to finance community development institutions, nonprofits, public agencies, and businesses with strategies for tackling the healthy food needs of communities. Funds will also be available for expanding retail outlets and increasing availability of local foods.

But even more impressive is the language that the administration uses to describe its food initiatives. In summary after summary, the link between food and jobs keeps popping up.

From the “Spur Job Creation and Revitalize Rural America” fact sheet:

The Budget helps lay the foundation for job creation and expanded economic opportunities throughout rural America by…[n]urturing local and regional food systems and expanding access to healthy foods for low-income Americans in rural and urban food deserts.

From an OMB paper on job creation:

First, to support the Rural Innovation Initiative, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to set aside funding to foster rural revitalization through a competitive grant program. Second, the Budget supports local and regional food systems through many USDA programs including the Business and Industry guaranteed loan program and the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program.

From an OMB summary of the USDA budget:

Promotes economic and job creation opportunities for rural America by focusing on five core areas: access to broadband services, innovative local and regional food systems, renewable energy programs, climate change, and rural recreation.

Taken together, these spending decisions on food systems and job creation reveal an administration in tune with the idea of a holistic approach to our economic, social, and health problems. Following a glum January for progressives, the budget offers compelling reminders of the progressive governance that we expected from the administration.

New Report Charts Food Hardship in Every District

Posted on January 26, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new study by the D.C.-based Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) underscores the severe food hardship faced by Americans in this brutal economic climate. FRAC’s report compiles for the first time ever food hardship data in every one of the nation’s congressional districts and top 100 metropolitan areas.

In my home city of New York, the numbers are dismal. People in seven of the 13 congressional districts here faced severe food hardship in 2008-09. The 16^th Congressional District in the South Bronx, where more than one in three residents could not afford enough food, had the highest rate of food hardship in the nation, and the 10th Congressional District in Central Brooklyn, where 30.8 percent faced food hardship, had sixth highest rate out of all the country’s 436 congressional districts. Considering that the city still has 56 billionaires, this is an appalling turn of events, which provides the latest wake-up call that all levels of government need to take immediate action to reverse the city’s growing hunger poverty, and inequality of wealth.

While key parts of the city face a particularly severe problem, I believe the most notable news from this data is just how widespread food hardship is in all corners of the city and nation. Even in the relatively least hungry congressional district in the city – Rep. Anthony Weiner’s district that has been traditionally thought of as a bedrock middle-class of neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens – more than one in 12 residents couldn’t afford enough food, a level likely higher than in the majority of industrialized Western nations of the world. Because America’s wages are now so low and our safety net so gutted, even the parts of New York City suffering the least are still in worse shape than most people in our competitor nations.

In the New York metropolitan region, including suburban Connecticut and New Jersey, 21.6 percent of households with children faced food hardship. The problem is so widespread that, even when you factor in some truly wealthy areas in Manhattan, Westchester, Long Island, and suburban Connecticut and New Jersey, more than one in five people in the metropolitan area couldn’t afford enough food. Statewide in New York, 17.4 percent of all state residents faced food hardship.

The new report only underscores the need for a Good Food, Good Jobs program that I proposed here in December. Low-income areas across America that lack access to nutritious foods at affordable prices — the so-called “food deserts” — tend to be the same communities and neighborhoods that, even in better economic times, are also “job deserts” that lack sufficient living-wage employment. A “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative would be a good way to tackle our interrelated hunger, malnutrition, obesity, and poverty problems.

Inequality, Living Standards, and the Middle Class

Posted on January 11, 2010September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Happy New Year everyone! I am very late to this debate, but I wanted to weigh in on the conversation launched by Dalton Conley’s pre-holiday American Prospect article on progressivism and inequality. In case you missed it, Conley argued that progressives shouldn’t care that much about inequality and that we should instead care about the poor. Inequality, he showed, has grown between the rich and the middle, but not between the middle and the poor. Bruce Bartlett, weighing in from the right, agreed.

I’ll address the living standards of the middle class and the poor in subsequent posts, but let me add my two cents about inequality trends in this one. An analysis I conducted back in November showed that what has likely happened is that the very top—the top one-half of one percent—has pulled away from everyone else, though the increase from 1980 to 2009 has probably been fairly modest. Whether this has been a good or bad thing—or aside from trends, whether higher inequality in the U.S. than elsewhere is a good or bad thing—ought to depend on three questions, empirical and normative, none of which we have much of a handle on.

First, how does letting the rich get richer affect the absolute living standards of everyone else? As Alan Reynolds has argued, measures of inequality tend to reinforce a fixed-pie conception of national wealth—gains by the rich come at the expense of everyone else. But of course, the pie is not fixed in size, and it may be that allowing the rich to get a greater share of the pie makes for a bigger pie and bigger slices for everyone (a point made by Bartlett). Think about Rawls’s maximin rule—that any inequality that results in the worst-off being better off is just. It’s not necessarily the case that greater inequality must help out those who fall behind, but it’s certainly plausible.

Second, how does letting the rich get richer affect the relative deprivation experienced by everyone else? There are two questions here. When the rich get richer, people at the bottom and even in the middle may get priced out of certain goods and services, as prices get bid up by the wealthy. On the one hand, it may be that yachts become less affordable to the non-rich, which presumably no one would get too worked up about. On the other hand, if the price of an Ivy League education or prime neighborhoods becomes unaffordable to the non-rich, that would have bigger implications. Beyond the issue of being priced out of goods and services, inequality may make the non-rich feel less well off—even if their absolute living standards improve. If the Nissan Sentra you own is nicer than the Chevy Cobalt you used to have but feels no better since more people are driving Jaguars than in the past, then there’s room for debate about whether you are “better off”.

Third, if inequality makes most people better off in absolute terms (by making the pie bigger) but makes them feel worse off in relative terms (if their bigger piece feels smaller than before because of how much bigger others’ slices have gotten), then how much weight are we to give each effect? Unlike the other two considerations, this one has empirical and normative dimensions. You may think that being better off but feeling worse off is a net change for the worse, while I may think that it’s only being better off that matters. Robert Frank has made the case—not entirely convincingly, in my view—for the former view.

If you’re looking for the answer to these questions in a blog post, then my heart goes out to you. What I will say is that a situation in which the top 1 in 200 pulls away from the bottom 199 is quite a bit different than a situation in which the top 40 pulls away from the bottom 160, since relative deprivation is likely to be a bigger problem in the latter case.

More to the point, reflexive soak-the-rich tendencies among progressives are unjustified—the details and the facts matter, unless you simply are opposed to inequality regardless of whether it might help the bottom and middle.

Middle-class living standards next…

Update: Click here to read the next post in the series.

The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Food as a Centerpiece of Public Policy

Posted on December 11, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from Joel Berg’s “Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts into Jobs Oases,” a new policy report from PPI.

The former chair of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Kiki de la Garza (D-TX), used to quiz audiences with a riddle: “When does a nuclear submarine need to rise out of the water?” People would guess that it would rise when it needed air, but he explained that it could turn the water into oxygen. Others would guess that it would rise when it ran out of fuel, but he would then explain that the nuclear fuel would last for years. When no one could guess, he would answer the riddle: “When it ran out of food.”

Given that food is a basic human need, it is amazing that people almost always failed to figure out his riddle. More broadly, it is astonishing how often food is overlooked in so many vital policy discussions. (The neglect spills over into pop culture: In the earliest version of the classic computer simulation game SimCity, you could decide where to put a football stadium or museum but not where food stores or markets should be.) For most of U.S. history, urban planners have usually ignored food issues in their grand schemes.

We need an entirely different mindset. Food should be a central organizing principle for neighborhood development, uniting residents through community gardens, farmers’ markets, supermarkets, food cooperatives, and food-related small businesses. Community gardens can reclaim empty lots from drug pushers. Food businesses can create jobs and raise community income. Farmers’ markets can give neighborhoods central gathering spaces and nurture a feeling of the “public commons” that is so often lost in today’s society. This new mindset will benefit both our economy and public health.

For a community to have good nutrition, three conditions are necessary: food must be affordable; food must be available; and individuals and families must have enough education to know how to eat better. If you don’t have all three legs of this stool, it will collapse. Yet all too often, projects only focus on one of the three. Many provide nutrition education, lecturing people that they should eat better, but make food neither more available nor more affordable. Sometimes, food is brought into low-income neighborhoods, but at prices too high for most people to afford. That won’t work either. The only way to truly succeed is to focus on all three aspects of this problem at once.

To read the executive summary, click here. To download the report, click here.

The Problem of Food Deserts

Posted on December 9, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from Joel Berg’s “Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts into Jobs Oases,” a new policy report from PPI.

Our hunger, malnutrition, obesity, and poverty problems are closely linked. Low-income areas across America that lack access to nutritious foods at affordable prices — the so-called “food deserts” — tend to be the same communities and neighborhoods that, even in better economic times, are also “job deserts” that lack sufficient living-wage employment….A Good Food, Good Jobs program can address these intertwined economic and social problems.

[…]

In Los Angeles County in 2002, an average supermarket served 18,649 people, while the average supermarket in a low-income neighborhood served 27,986 people. The higher the concentration of poverty within a neighborhood, the fewer supermarkets there were. In ZIP codes where fewer than 10 percent of households lived below the federal poverty line, there were approximately 2.26 times as many supermarkets per household as there were in ZIP codes where the number of households living below the federal poverty line exceeded 40 percent. In addition, the higher the concentration of white people in a neighborhood, the greater the number of supermarkets.

In neighborhoods without supermarkets, corner stores, bodegas, and convenience stores fill in the gaps. In a study of rural Orangeburg County, South Carolina, researchers identified 77 stores in the county, of which only 16 percent were supermarkets and 10 percent were grocery stores. The remaining 74 percent were convenience stores. Low-fat and nonfat milk, apples, high-fiber bread, eggs, and smoked turkey were available in 75 to 100 percent of supermarkets and grocery stores versus four to 29 percent of convenience stores. Just 28 percent of all stores sold any of the fruits or vegetables included in the survey. Convenience stores also tended to charge more for items than did supermarkets.

A study conducted by the City of New York found, “The city is vastly underserved by local grocery stores.” That dearth has an economic impact. “NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in grocery spending lost to suburbs,” according to the city.

The lack of supermarkets makes a real difference. Areas without a full range of markets are “obesogenic” (obesity producing). Four different studies have demonstrated a positive association between access to food stores and improved dietary choices. A study in four states found that areas with high numbers of supermarkets had lower rates of obesity, while areas with higher numbers of convenience stores had higher levels of obesity. Nationwide, for every additional supermarket in a census tract, fruit and vegetable consumption increases by as much as 32 percent.

To add insult to injury, low-income Americans often pay more for food, even though they often purchase food of lower quality than that purchased by higher-income Americans.

To read the executive summary, click here. To download the report, click here.

The Incredible Hulk in Copenhagen

Posted on December 7, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Among some members of the chattering class, it’s become something of a meme to assert that the Obama administration is too deferential to its opponents — whether Tea Partiers arguing about health care or Senate Republicans attacking on Afghanistan. The charge has especially been taken up by his critics, who seem to delight in attacking the president they’re beating up as a president whom, well, they can beat up. In September, for instance, Fred Barnes wrote in the Weekly Standard, “There’s the Obama who defers, the one who dithers, and the one who’s out of touch. The Obama presidencies have one thing in common. They’re all weak.”

These critics should be silenced, at least for a while, by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement today formally declaring that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant, paving the way for its regulation under the Clean Air Act.

On the cusp of meetings in Copenhagen to discuss an international climate treaty, the announcement has huge significance. It essentially enables the administration to circumvent climate obstructionists in Congress. Under the rules announced today, the administration can not only directly regulate carbon — it can exceed the limits contemplated by current Senate and House bills that would cap carbon dioxide emissions by 17 to 20 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

It seems unlikely that the EPA will actually act unilaterally to regulate carbon; the most administrable policy will probably remain market-based solutions such as cap-and-trade and similar proposals, rather than a command-and-control approach. However, the announcement today has political and strategic significance beyond its legal effect — and shows that the administration has just opened a brand new offensive playbook on carbon.

Two things are clear from the announcement today. First, the EPA decision puts the president on an unequivocal and strong footing for his visit to Copenhagen in a little over a week. The president will now be able to assert leadership on the issue on the basis of a clear authority to act.

Second, with today’s announcement, Barack Obama has placed a big stick on his desk in the Oval Office. His opponents in Congress and in industry will be pounding their own desks in outrage. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-OH) immediately released a statement today, for instance, saying, “The EPA claims its process is dictated by science, however, it’s conveniently timed to push its politics.” Yes, that is a plaintive note you detected in Sensenbrenner’s statement. That’s because the president’s opponents will now have no option but to play on the president’s turf on carbon.

Cap-and-trade passed the U.S. House earlier this year. As it stands, cap and trade — originally a market-based, Republican-friendly program — faces a very uncertain fate next spring in the U.S. Senate. But with his move today, the president has told Senate opposition that he has the upper hand, and that if they do not act to cut carbon, he will. On climate change, where the president will certainly be faced with Tea Party-ish opposition every day of his administration, the Incredible Hulk-like transformation (green meeting muscle) comes just in time.

Notes on the Hunger Problem and Volunteering

Posted on November 25, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Coming on the heels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent report on food insecurity in the U.S., the New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH) this week released its annual survey (PDF) of the city’s food pantries and soup kitchens. Its findings provide another vivid snapshot of the economic distress gripping the country, but also offer an encouraging sign of the federal government’s efforts to alleviate suffering:

In 2009, New York City’s emergency food providers (food pantries, soup kitchens, and brown bag programs) reported a 20.8 percent increase in need for their services, with the fastest growth in demand from families with children. While this comes as no surprise, given that the demand at such agencies has been rising for years and has only been accelerated by the recession, this year’s findings also show something new: a renewed potential to alleviate hunger through government action.

As need increased dramatically, for the first time in years, this survey showed a positive trend: although the economy continued to plummet in 2009 and increasing numbers of New Yorkers relied on soup kitchens and food pantries for help, such agencies had somewhat more ability to meet the growing demand than previous years, as Chart 2 shows. This is mostly due to increasing participation in the SNAP/Food Stamp Program and a surge in anti-hunger funding from the federal recovery bill.

The study credited the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the so-called stimulus bill — for providing much-needed support for aid efforts, and urged the government to renew stimulus funds to ensure that the neediest continue to receive the help they need in a challenging economic time. Moreover, as NYCCAH Executive Director and Progressive Fix contributor Joel Berg wrote here last week, “It’s a well-known fact that food stamps offer one of the best bangs for buck when it comes to stimulus,” another consideration in aid expansion’s favor.

The NYCCAH release also included this entreaty:

We, as Americans, also need to change our attitude towards volunteerism — instead of donating cans around the holidays, we need to be offering our skilled services to pantries and soup kitchens year round. While it may be gratifying to serve soup for a morning, it will do more good to help a pantry apply for a grant or develop a website.

As reported in this Sunday’s New York Times, food aid programs are besieged by would-be volunteers looking to ladle soup or load cans around Thanksgiving. In fact, most places have nowhere to put most of them. As Berg told the Times about food aid volunteering, “Please, please, please don’t do it just on Thanksgiving, and please, please, please understand, we have skills-based needs that are far more important than just food service.”

The need for skills-based volunteers at soup kitchens and pantries is a familiar plea from those on the front lines of the hunger wars. But, as Berg notes, it also underscores the importance of national service programs like AmeriCorps and the AmeriCorps VISTA. A vigorous volunteer corps, given proper training, can — and do — fill the skills-based gaps for these vital social service programs.

On this front, the Obama administration has given civil society actors another reason to cheer, with his expansion of AmeriCorps earlier this year. With that, the stimulus bill, and its vocal support for volunteerism, the administration has shown a keen understanding of the complementary roles national service, civic enterprise, and government action play in bolstering the public welfare. It’s reason to be thankful in a dreary time.

Candor We Can Believe In

Posted on November 18, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Let us now praise undiplomatic women.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s Rhee at yesterday’s event:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facing the Hunger Problem

Posted on November 17, 2009September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

Make universal, in-classroom school breakfasts standard in public schools

Fund universal school lunches

Increase reimbursements to school districts that provide healthier foods

Make WIC an entitlement and fund nutritional improvements in the WIC package

Reduce paperwork and increase reimbursements for both government and non-profit agencies that sponsor after-school and summer meals for kids

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

On a Good Night, A Discordant Note

Posted on November 9, 2009September 18, 2024 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.