EPI’s State Of Working America Goes Digital

(Originally posted February 3, 2011)

The Economic Policy Institute’s indispensable bi-annual book series The State of Working America is now a website. This is an excellent resource, and it’s needed now more than ever.

Where’s Our (Honest) Education Debate?

(Originally posted February 3, 2011)

President Obama State of the Union Address combined welcome language about respect for teachers with what Greg Sargent correctly labeled “the obligatory slap at teachers unions”.

As an aside, the speech also gave the all too familiar impression that education is a panacea. Though improving education is without a doubt very important, both politicians and the pundits that discuss their speeches have a tendency to talk about the issue in a way that implicitly absolves policy-makers of responsibility for things like high unemployment. So to be clear, the country needs both truly bold measures to deal with unemployment and the foreclosure crisis, as well as improved education.

While there is every indication that the Obama Administration really believes in their approach to education and the president’s rhetoric reflects that, at the end of the day he’s still reinforcing inaccurate perceptions about teachers unions and he’s got to to be called out on that. Unfortunately, when it comes to short-changing teachers, the president is far from alone.

Whether the leading self-proclaimed education “reformers” are malicious or basically well-intentioned depends on who we’re talking about, but there’s no doubt that their coalition includes a heavy dose of the former. Their sentiments are echoed by virulently anti-union conservatives and thoroughly disingenuous members of Team Structural Unemployment. “Reformers” like Michelle Rhee are frequently invoked by GOP politicians (Tim Pawlenty, Rick Scott, Chris Christie, Meg Whitman, and Newt Gingrich among others) to validate their fierce opposition to teachers unions.

The failure of influential Democrats, who for whatever reason lend a hand to this charade, to grasp the political consequences is startling. It’s not at all difficult to see where this goes next. Teachers unions will be used as a cudgel against unions in general. Combined with similarly dishonest attacks on pensions and public sector workers, this will make any effort to pass desperately needed, generations overdue labor law reform even more difficult. As the deck remains stacked against unions, the working/middle class will continue to lose ground and any remaining leverage, and Democrats’ most formidable ally in key Midwestern states will be weakened. So elected Dems gladly going along with vastly overblown charges against teachers doesn’t make sense politically.

Yet the strategic incompetence of Democrats who give cover to anti-union “reformers” is minor compared to the substantive problems with the “reform” agenda itself. Strongly criticizing teachers unions would be warranted and necessary if they were the problem. But the evidence that this is the case, or that the so-called reform agenda as we know it is a real solution, just isn’t there. High profile “reformers” bring a lot of confident talk and glittering generalities to the table, but they have very little in the way of results, evidence, or well thought out plans.

Thanks in no small part to Davis Guggenheim, the man behind the documentary Waiting for Superman, the “reformers” are driving the debate. Guggenheim and his film were all over the place, receiving almost comically favorable coverage, so much so that the film’s rightful absence from the list of Academy Award nominees for Best Documentary Feature was mourned by the usual suspects.

While it’s true that the Beltway consensus was already moving in the direction of the well-financed “reformers” before the film, Guggenheim’s liberal credentials (he directed An Inconvenient Truth) did a lot to accelerate the process and make it extremely difficult for skeptics and critics of the approach advocated in the film to get a fair hearing. Guggenheim was instrumental in setting the stage for a lopsided, unrealistic, and ultimately dangerous education debate.

At this point, it’s nearly impossible to escape the conclusion that Guggenheim either went about his work on this film in a purposefully dishonest way, or he’s afraid to admit that he got it wrong after the fact.The litany of studies contradicting his premise continues to grow. His film has been the subject of thorough takedowns from Diane Ravitch and Dana Goldstein, among others. Yet Guggenheim’s public engagement with critics has been paltry. He has shown few signs that he has wrestled at length with the counter-arguments, or considered the fallout from a film that gets so much wrong having such a profound impact.

Extremely influential people like Oprah Winfrey have taken their cues from Guggenheim, holding up Michelle Rhee as the model of education excellence and directing tons of support to Rhee’s organization that aims to be the Club for Growth or Sierra Club of education. In this respect, Guggenheim and Waiting for Superman are to education what Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Loose Change are to 9/11 and foreign policy. People may walk away from their “documentary” feeling informed, and the filmmaker may receive celebrity endorsements, but their work still presents very misleading information and draws a highly unrealistic conclusion. It’s just done in a way that resonates with people through a powerful medium. That’s hardly something to applaud… or something to be proud of.

The “reform” movements has its signature phrases (“dropout factories”) and buzzwords like “accountability” — a concept that virtually no one is opposed to. If a teacher is actually bad, and goes through a legitimate process directed by people who know what they’re talking about, of course they shouldn’t be kept around. Again, I can’t think of anyone who is opposed to that. Ironically, the self-proclaimed champions of accountability and meritocracy, after making quick work of a “pro-bad teacher” strawman, move on to claims like these:

Teachers unions are opposed to accountability.

Testing is the best way to judge performance.

Teachers unions foster bad teachers. (Ignore the percentage of teacher unionization in successful places.)

These bad teachers are the main drag on the education system.

Charter Schools work.

Charter Schools are good for the education system as a whole.

Issues relating to economic inequality, health, and funding aren’t really part of the problem.

People need to stop making excuses for teachers. (read: there is no such thing as a reason, only an “excuse”)

People need to stop expecting results from Rhee-ism. (read: when students ride to school on hoverboards, then you can start applying this whole “accountability” thing to the noble reformers)

If you are skeptical of or opposed to the Rhee model, you must like the status quo.

Where’s the accountability for the purveyors of this nonsense? How are they deserving of intellectual merit pay? How many dubious assertions can emanate from the self-styled Super People before their credibility is called into question? “Let’s throw more tests at the problem” is not a solution for students, and “scapegoat the teachers, celebrate the deceivers” is not a basis for an honest education debate.

Related: Coverage from Dianne Ravitch, Dana Goldstein, and The Answer Sheet.

Note: The title for this post was inspired by an Eric Alterman column from 2007 on the lack on a real debate about trade. Incidentally Alterman’s new book, Kabuki Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama, looks really good.

Democrats For Year-Round CPAC: 2011 Edition

(Originally posted February 02, 2011)

Alex Pareene has the lowdown on what to expect for those attending CPAC 2011. It reminded me of my long-held (okay… more like since 2008) desire for CPAC to become a year-round event. For any non-movement conservatives attending the event who may be interested in making the case for constant CPAC to those in attendance, here’s a primer on conservative argumentation to help you blend in.

Offense

Three Names To Rule Them All

Memorize the names of three politicians: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Pronounce the names in ALL CAPS voice, “OBAMA! PELOSI! AND REID!” These three are on the exact same page on everything. There are no disagreements, ever. Tie as much criticism as you can to the dreaded three. If you forget your other talking points, simply return to these names.

Stop The Taxes!

Claim that you are being taxed like crazy. There is no need to know anything about who pays what or any recent trends and developments. Does it start with a “t” and end in and “ax”? Then it’s happening to you at unprecedented levels. This is Liberalism Socialism Communism Marxism, because these labels are interchangeable.

Stop The Spending!

Claim that “new spending” is bankrupting the country. There is no need to know what most of the money is spent on, when it started, and whether it’s smart spending or dumb spending.

If it’s government spending that benefits you, that’s because you’re a Real American who doesn’t need the government’s help, but you rush to take it anyway because you have deemed yourself deserving. It’s all those liberals and “illegals” and welfare people who are taking all of the money. It’s not at all like California, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, New Jersey and other blue states pay a lot more in federal taxes than they get back so reliably red states like Mississippi, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Tennessee can rake in the cash.

So stop the spending. Don’t reduce health care costs, keep those wars going, keep showering the most wealthy with tax breaks and balance the budget all at once.

Profiles In Incoherence: National Security Credentials

Name: Senator John Kerry
State: Massachusetts
Profile: Decorated Vietnam war veteran with 20 years of experience (in 2004) on Foreign Relations Committee.
French Factor: Spoke a little French on a few occasions.
Party: Democratic
Conclusion: Could not be trusted to keep the country safe.

Name: Former Governor Mitt Romney
State: Massachusetts
Profile: Never served in military; went against foreign policy experts of virtually every stripe by opposing the New START.
French Factor: Speaks fluent French.
Party: Republican
Conclusion: No apology! Mitt will definitely keep America safe.

Profiles In Incoherence: Hollywood

Big Breitbart is right. Hollywood sucks and celebrity involvement in politics is invariably illegitimate. Except if said celebrity is a conservative, in which case “OMG! We got Stephen Baldwin and Victoria Jackson, you guys! I wonder if they’ll take part in any of the Ronald Reagan tributes!”

Taking Away Our Freedoms

The Democratic agenda takes away freedoms. What freedoms? All of ‘em. How are they taken away? Look, they just are, okay.

We’re All Libertarians Now

You’re a libertarian. You’re fed up with all of these “crimes against liberty”. Nevermind that you are very supportive of taking away rights from women and gay people and you couldn’t care less about civil liberties. You know there is a such a thing as libertarians, and you’re one of them. You agree with Republicans 99% of the time, but ever since 2008 you’ve been talking up your phantom libertarian streak.

Defense

Free Speech

Your free speech is the thing that is trampled on whenever you are asked a question that is in any way challenging. The 1st Amendment says that you get to say whatever you want whenever you want and anyone who challenges the accuracy of what you’re saying is infringing on your free speech and trying to silence you.

Boogey Down

Are you in a debate about pretty much anything? Your discussion could use a mention of “illegals” or twelve. It may not be relevant to the subject at hand, but that doesn’t matter. Activist judges… ACORN… George Soros… labor unions AKA “Big Minimum Wage”… always have at least one nefarious entity ready to feel the wrath of your ignorant rage.

Elitist

Facts are elitist little things. Conservatives do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce, which is a great way to really stick it to the elite.

Persecution Complex

Conservatives are at once the majority and profoundly oppressed. If confronted with proof that you are not in the majority on something, question the reliability of the evidence no matter how much of it there is. If you feel that you must, you can accept the majority view as evidence that the country is going to hell in a hand basket thanks to progressive chicanery.

Alinsky Tactics

If called out on lack of coherence and/or basic knowledge and/or shame, you must recognize that you have just become a victim of Alinsky Tactics. Alinsky is this guy that Brietbart and Beck rant about. Pronounce his last name in an ominous tone that makes it sound extra Russian. Do not include his first name, Saul, because then he sounds like he’s from the bible.

Use Polysyllabic Words

Find one of these and use it repeatedly to convey quasi-intelligence. For Sarah Palin it was “microcosm.” For Tim Pawlenty it’s “continuum.”

Use ConservaMath

One example of an elected Democrat saying something kooky equals 700 examples of Republicans saying something similar or far worse

Also, George W. Bush kept us safe — if you exempt the whole major terrorist attack inside the country nine months into his first term thing. We’re about two years into Barack Obama’s first term and there has been no major terrorist attack inside the country. Obviously, this means that only a Dick Cheney Republican can be trusted to keep America safe.

Read The Front Of Books, Recite Title Or Subtitle Often

Stop these Crimes Against Liberty. (David Limbaugh)
Stop this Secular Socialism. (Newt Gingrich)
Stop this Liberalism, which Is A Mental Disorder. (Michael Savage)

Bonus protip: Be prepared for more protesting, public classification of enemies, and general freaking out over the inclusion of GOProud.

Merkley On The Foreclosure Crisis

(Originally posted February 1, 2011)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) was on MSNBC today talking with Dylan Ratigan about the failure of HAMP, the foreclosure crisis, and the case of Bea and Terry Garwood of Michigan, the subject of new reporting from Shahien Nasiripour and Artur Delaney.

Merkley urged the president to cover the foreclosure crisis in his State of the Union Address. The president’s refusal to lay the groundwork for the kind of necessary action the banks who benefit from the status quo and their apologists are bound to hate was arguably the most troubling omission from the speech; the Administration seems content to keep fiddling while this fire burns.

Related: David Dayen on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on HAMP and mediation.

Bill Daley vs. Pragmatism

(Originally posted January 31, 2011)

New White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was interviewed on Face The Nation yesterday.

His comments on three big domestic issues are revealing.

First up, jobs. It’s not like Face The Nation is watched by a lot of people, but in so far as Daley’s happy talk unemployment comments reflect the Administration’s line on the economy going forward, they are seriously problematic. Let’s game this out a bit.

If Daley and his boss’ recent language is any indication, if the real economy improves a little in the coming months, the Administration is going to claim to have broken the back of the Great Recession, or something to that effect. But if the improvement is not meaningful and sustained (and there’s very little reason to believe that it will be), Obama will be seen as the president who cried “Recovery!” one too many times.

The president wouldn’t be human if he wasn’t tempted to talk up the good things that he’s done. We know that the Recovery Act, for instance, helped considerably. But we also know that when the president takes credit for “progress” or mitigating the damage, voters either recoil or become highly skeptical of his claim. As frustrating as this dynamic must be to them, it’s still a really bad idea for the White House to talk up their economic performance. The last thing they need is a “Recovery Summer” redux. I’m not saying that erring on the side of “here’s what we’re going to do” as opposed to “here’s what we did” is easy, or that there’s a perfect alternative, but the danger in sending the message that the White House is satisfied with the unemployment numbers is evident.

Second up, the Beltway Bubble’s favorite subject, the budget deficit. Daley’s willingness to push the deficit-centric mindset ignores that the economic imperative and the clear priority of voters is job creation.

As for health care, there was a Democratic trifecta and 59-60 votes in the Senate. When did Daley want it to be done? Did the fact that already struggling people desperately need health care influence his thinking at all? More to the point, is Daley really this clueless about why the legislation that passed is relatively unpopular? Where has this guy been the last 2 years? Oh yeah, JP Morgan and Third Way.

If Bill Daley can make the proverbial trains run on time and sing sweet lullabies to soothe the precious fee fees of the “business community”… fine. Whatever. But Democrats who listen to this guys’ strategic advice are asking to lose in more ways than one. Daley’s outlook is not “pragmatic.” On a number of big issues, his views are decidedly out of touch. He’s a great example of the kind of Third Way Dem whose shallow, Beltway Goggles-tainted “insight” is crippling the party.

Social Security: The Case For Vigilance

(Originally posted January 30, 2011)

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was stronger on Social Security than many of had feared. But in this case, much better than bad shouldn’t be considered good enough.

Here’s the part many of us where waiting for:

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

This sounds relatively good at first, but falls short in important ways.

Legitimate Cause For Concern

There will not be a Beltway “bipartisan” solution that truly strengthens Social Security. Any alleged compromise to cut the program would have to try to co-opt the “strengthen” language. As far as “slashing” goes, the devil is in the details. No president in their right mind would come out and say “I slashed Social Security!”

As an aside, while I’m confident President Obama doesn’t want to hurt the “most vulnerable” politicians have been known to say they won’t hurt the most vulnerable while simultaneously advocating things that do just that. Pledging to protect “the most vulnerable” is optimal language. Conservatives are certainly willing to deploy the phrase in order to give their devastating for the poor/working poor/middle class agenda a “compassionate conservatism” sheen. Even hardline economic libertarian Ron Paul talked about protecting the most vulnerable in ads he ran while running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Dino Rossi did the same during his run for Governor here in Washington while pushing an agenda that hurt the most vulnerable.

Generally speaking, when a politician says they will protect the most vulnerable they shouldn’t be taken at their word. They know that stating that they will look out for the vulnerable causes a lot of observers to tell themselves that there is no way someone could say such a thing and turn around and do the opposite. But this happens often. Think of BP’s greenwashing, or Lloyd Blankfein touting his economic patriotism, or AHIP and PhRMA running emotionally compelling ads that cast themselves as patient-centered. When it comes to the vulnerable, the struggling, or the country as a whole (there’s a ton of overlap now), what a person or group says must always be compared to what they actually do — no matter how convincing their words.

Social Security And The Deficit Can’t Be Lumped Together

The president went on to say this:

So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done. If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.

Obama gave the distinct impression that Social Security belongs in a “hard choices” fiscal discussion. The is a pernicious myth; it’s intellectually dishonest for the president or anyone else to further it, something Obama has done repeatedly. It’s critical that Democrats seeking to protect the program hold the line on this.

Clearing A Very Low Bar

Obama touted the the “bipartisan Fiscal Commission” he “created last year”. Remember, this was the commission he stacked with right-wing Republicans and Wall Street Dems, whose ridiculously skewed work he continues to confer legitimacy upon. This president has given a stunning amount of cover to people who just don’t like successful programs; a reality he’s surely aware of.

For the SOTU, the White House made the decision not to do tremendous political damage to themselves in states like Iowa and Florida while fracturing the Democratic Party to placate the grossest of liars in Pete Peterson and company. The decision is definitely appreciated but it’s not like the Obama White House deserves an award for making it. The president’s statement is much better than what he had left the door open to, but after all he did to further the disingenuous attacks on the program, it’s still rather pathetic.

An Obvious Pressure Point

After patting himself on the back for Simpson-Bowles, the president said that there are proposals from their report (which didn’t pass the stacked commission) that he doesn’t agree with. So why hasn’t he named them? There’s a rather simple principle at work here. He said he opposes certain proposals. Okay, which ones? If he wants Congress to make “hard choices” he should start off by making the not at all hard choice of elaborating on his comment. Vague positioning will not help us Win The Future.

It also makes sense to challenge the president’s view of Social Security, which by his own admission (in Johnathan Alter’s The Promise) was shaped by Pete Orszag. Either Obama is saying misleading things because he’s been misled himself, or he’s spreading falsehoods and half-truths in order to achieve a goal.

The Opportunity Cost

Until the president explicitly opposes things like raising the retirement age, or a large enough number of members of Congress step forward in opposition to effectively end the prospects for Social Security deformation — progressives will not be able to focus on other pressing matters.

Related: The statement from the Strengthen Social Security coalition.

ACTION: Tell Your Senators To Join The Social Security Caucus

(Originally posted January 28, 2011)

Yesterday, Senators Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Boxer, and others announced the formation of a Defend Social Security Caucus in the Senate.

It’s very important that everyone contact their Senators and urge them to join the caucus. A united progressive Democratic grassroots is capable of helping the caucus reach critical mass that effectively ends any chances that Social Security will be deformed.

A potential plan: Constituents contact their Senators and mobilize aggressively in their state so others do the same. Think of the public option effort and DADT as models.

Progressives, populists, liberals, mainstream Democrats… whatever you call yourself, we can do this. We have reality, our party’s most deeply held values, and an overwhelming public mandate to defend this successful program on our side.

A potential goal: At least 10 new members every week over the next few weeks.

Ambitious? Yes.
Worth the effort? Absolutely.

Reminders: Screwing with Social Security is completely unnecessary. As Joan McCarter reminds Lindsey Graham, it is not a contributor to the deficit. Raising the retirement age and other ideas pushed by Wall Street tycoons like Pete Peterson are intensely unpopular across the board. Democrats representing rural states, the Social Security Caucus is for you.

Here’s why I believe the “at least 10 a week” goal is achievable.

Already Associated (8*)

Bernie Sanders (VT)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)

Note: Lautenberg is a confirmed member. Debbie Stabenow was reported to be in attendance at the briefing, but constituents will want to contact her about membership. While Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) is clearly sympathetic to the cause, he isn’t an actual member.

Next Up (22)

These are Senators who, because of the state they represent and/or their own stated views, are ideal additions.

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Pat Leahy (VT)
Chris Coons (DE)
Bob Menendez (NJ)
Al Franken (MN)
Jack Reed (RI)
Carl Levin (MI)
Tom Udall (NM)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Patty Murray (WA)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Daniel Akaka (HI)
Dan Inouye (HI)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Ben Cardin (MD)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Bob Casey (PA)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
John Kerry (MA)

“Why Not You?” (9)

Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Herb Kohl (WI)
Mark Begich (AK)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Michael Bennet (CO)
Mark Udall (CO)

“You Realize Screwing Up Social Security Is VERY Unpopular In Your State, Right?” (6)

Max Baucus (MT)
Jon Tester (MT)
Jim Webb (VA)
Mark Pryor (AK)
Joe Manchin (WV)
Ben Nelson (NE)

Lost Causes; Still Need To Feel Heat

Dick Durbin (IL)
Tom Carper (DE)
Mark Warner (VA)
Kent Conrad (ND)

Republicans are an afterthought. But there are two groups worth pushing if they represent you. Push to register intense opposition to cuts in hopes of backing them off (perhaps publicly) from willingness to entertain cuts: Lisa Murkowsk (AK), Chuck Grassley (IA), Mark Kirk (IL), Susan Collins (ME), Dick Lugar (IN). Push to create strong internal disincentive to pursue Beltway bipartisan deal by making visions of devastatingly effective attack ads dance in their heads: Marco Rubio (FL), Rob Portman (OH), Olympia Snowe (ME), Scott Brown (MA), Ron Johnson (WI).

Related video:

Get ‘em Bernie

More Clips

Sherrod Brown

Tom Harkin – “You bet I would.”