Social Security’s insecurity

Poor, poor Social Security.  The little entitlement program that could must be having some real self-esteem problems lately.  What with everyone running around saying how they need to “save” it and how it’s going to “run out.”  Meanwhile, it just chugs along without complaint, sending standard-of-living-guaranteeing checks to millions of senior citizens while its profligate cousins Medicare and Medicaid bleed money like sailors on leave.  Yet no one seems to care about them.

Even worse, some of the folks who talk about saving it, really just want to lock it in the basement and not feed it while giving its bedroom away to some flashy new national 401k plan or something.

The press, meanwhile, can’t seem to tell the difference between “saving” and “obliterating” and have decided to tell the American people that both candidates want to “save” poor, poor, doing-its-job Social Security but they have different ideas about how to do it.

Matt Yglesias explains:

One issue on which Barack Obama and John McCain differ is Social Security. McCain would like to replace Social Security as we currently understand it with a very different kind of retirement program that wouldn’t offer security to retirees and would have no progressive impact on the income distribution. Because this plan is unpopular, he would like to confuse people about his support for privatization of Social Security and he would also like to secure bipartisan cover for privatizing it. Obama, by contrast, wants to keep Social Security very much as it is, and if deficits projected for the future emerge he’s interested in altering the payroll tax cap in order to secure more revenue.

Or as the headline writers put it on the front page of The Washington Post “Candidates Diverge on How to Save Social Security”. Because in headlineland, saving a program and destroying a program under pretext of saving it are just two different ways of saving it.

So I wonder if the headline writers at the WaPo think that President Bush did a nice job “saving” New Orleans?

Abortion

Thank goodness I don’t think this is going to be a big issue during this election.  With the country as screwed up as it is and with as many people who think it’s heading way off in the wrong direction, there just isn’t any room for the traditional wedge issues.  If you really, really don’t like abortion, you’re probably going to vote Republican anyway and if you really, really want to make sure that women can have abortions, you’re almost definitely voting Democratic.

Therefore, the candidates can focus on the folks who are just meh when it comes to terminating pregnancies.

That’s not to say that abortion isn’t an “interesting” issue.  There’s been so much debate over it and how it is or is not a litmus test for Supreme Court candidates that it’s worth learning as much information as we can.

Most folks can probably agree that all things considered, it’s a medical procedure that they probably wouldn’t want to go through nor would they want any of their loved ones to go through it.

Ana Marie Cox and Karen Tumulty at Time Magazine’s Swampland blog posit a good way to gauge one’s support of abortion rights in discussing Obama’s position on late term abortions.

How late? Only about 10 percent of all abortions take place after the first trimester. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit organization whose statistics are considered reliable by both sides of the debate. About 1 percent–that’s more than 10,000 a year– take place after 20 weeks gestation, which becomes uncomfortably close to viability.

Tumulty wrote a piece about late term abortions that sought to reveal a little about the circumstances under which these admittedly very unpleasant procedures sought:

These were, by and large, not the tragic cases of fetal abnormality that were so often cited by pro-choice groups; nor were these decisions made as casually as the anti-abortion forces suggested. By and large, according to the women I talked to and to the people who saw cases like theirs every day, women seeking abortion at later stages were doing it either because they were young or they were poor.

So once again, when politicians, many of whom are not poor, young women, spend energy trying to ban late term abortions, that’s energy they could be using to figure out how to prevent those young, poor women from getting into the situation in which they need a late term abortion.

Off the Radar: Budget deficit

Looks like John McCain want to put the national debt - or at least current budget deficits - back on the radar.

In a speech today, McCain promised to balance the budget in four years.  However, the devil may be in the details:

It is unclear how Mr. McCain plans to balance the budget, given that fiscal analysts who have examined his economic plans say that his calls to extend the Bush tax cuts while cutting corporate and other taxes would likely increase the deficit.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo goes a little bit further with his critique of McCain’s plan:

Now, the general routine is the face of this kind of candidate announcement is that journalists and economists look at the numbers to see if they add up. In most cases, the exercises generates fairly unsatisfying contradictory opinions, with some experts saying one thing and other experts another.

But here’s the thing. McCain doesn’t have any numbers. None. Not vague numbers of fuzzy math. He just says he’s going to do it. Any other candidate would get laughed off the stage with that kind of nonsense or more likely reporters just wouldn’t agree to give them a write up. But this is all over the place.

The simple truth is that given his foreign policy promises in Iraq and tax cut promises at home there’s really no way McCain could come up with even a fuzzy plan to balance the budget in his first term. So he’s decided instead just promise it. Included in his white paper is just the standard hocum about cutting waste, fraud and abuse in government and making sure we have “reasonable economic growth.”

It must be great to be writing policy papers for the McCain campaign.  Back in my own campaign days (a Republican candidate for mayor in 2003 and a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004), I was tasked largely with researching and writing up the substantive material that backed up the candidates’ proposals and plans.  Time and again it was impressed upon me by the higher ups on the campaign just how important it was to get all of the facts straight, make sure all of the numbers added up and cite everything.  Otherwise, the press would pick at the one piece that wasn’t airtight and turn the whole thing into a process story about how screwed up the campaign was for not catching the mistake.  The policy ideas themselves would be lost.

Apparently those rules don’t apply anymore.  If that had been the case a few years ago, instead of researching those papers, calling the “experts” for information and meticulously sourcing everything, I could have just thrown down a few vague promises, attached a picture of the magic wand and called it a day.  And man, I could have used a few more three-beer lunches back then.

That said, the budget deficit and the long term implications of our growing national debt are incredibly important issues for this campaign and so far, aside from attacks on the current administration for turning a $4 trillion surplus into a $9 trillion debt, they gotten little serious consideration.

One group is seeking to change that and has been on a Grateful Dead-like tour of the country for the past few years trying to drum up support.  They even had a concert film of sorts made which has turned into something of a film festival darling.

I can’t say much now, but I’ll prime the pump by letting you know that they’ve got big plans for Philadelphia in the fall in an attempt to make this region the start of a nationwide push to put the national debt issue on the radar in a big way.

Don’t mess with taxes

HuffPo contributor Paul Abrams has some simple advice for Democratic “strategists” who get paid the big bucks to spout off on CNN: “Learn How to Discuss Taxes or Don’t Go on TV.”

He lays out 8 different points that should be brought up over and over and over again.  I wonder whether anyone will listen.  We’ll know when the phrase “They borrow and spend” gets played seven times in a row in one of those cleverly edited Daily Show montages.

Being one who appreciates grand, sweeping statements that are very difficult to disprove, I especially like the idea of hearing this a few times before November:

We had a $5 trillion surplus, they’ve turned into a $4 trillion deficit, a $9 trillion turnaround, the greatest financial mismanagement in the history of the world.

In the HISTORY of the world.  Damn, I wish I could on tv and say things like that.  Public broadcasting tends to frown on such wonder hyperbole.

Service with a grumble

I’ve never thought of a call to national service as illiberal necessarily but Matthew Yglesias seems to think that the spirit of Obama’s service plan is just that:

Because the underlying idea is bad and illiberal, the people proposing national service schemes tend to avoid proposing specific policies that really match the rhetoric. Consequently, the details tend to be some good-to-harmless policy proposals yoked together with some fuzzy talk.

He goes on to characterize two of the more popular service programs - the Peace Corps and Teach for America - as “public sector jobs that are simply structured as to operate outside the normal contours of recruitment and employment.”  Being “outside the normal contours” is the key.  If they were just other public sector jobs, my wife, a former Vista would have made a little more money so that she didn’t have to subsist on ramen noodles and a single light bulb for those two years.

The Caucus has more on Obama’s speech from today:

Mr. Obama said he would set a goal for all middle and high school students across the nation to perform 50 hours of service a year, while college students would be asked to perform 100 hours of service a year. The incentive for college students? An American Opportunity Tax Credit, intended to make the first $4,000 of college education free.

He apparently got a little dig in on the current President whose idea of post-911 service for civilians has been to have them go out and shop to strengthen the economy.

Obama definition of change changing

According to Politico, the change candidate may have realized, much like Robert Redford in The Candidate, that when it looks like you might actually win, caution takes over:

But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.

Somehow, I don’t think too many progressives and Democrats are that disappointed.  They’re probably thinking along the same lines as Adrian Balboa when she came out that coma in Rocky II:

Just win.

Phrase of the Day: Persuasion Army

From Swampland’s account of Obama’s election strategy:

The Persuasion Army. Plouffe repeated this term often. “We’re absolutely committed to building the best persuasion army. We think that’s something Bush did really, really well in 2000 and 2004.” Plouffe said it’s much more powerful to have people from your own neighborhood not only explaining their support for Obama but being able to answer questions and correct wrong impressions. “And it’s not just about quantity, though a critical volume to get the work done is important, it’s about quality and we’re lucky that one of Obama’s strengths is that he draws some really talented people,” he said. Plouffe pointed to yesterday’s L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll: “If only 13% of your voters support you enthusiastically, your volunteer base will be very low, versus when more than 40% say they are very enthusiastic about you, your volunteer base is very high.”

For Hawaii, of course, they’ll need to call in the Persuasion Navy and possibly the Persuasion Air Force.

Obama looks to create his own wave

In the book Running Alone, James MacGregor Burns describes Kennedy’s 1960 campaign for presidency as being built upon a network of devoted Kennedy followers rather than dependent on the existing Democratic party infrastructure.  Kennedy and his people had one goal in mind - get JFK elected.  He writes that presidents since then have followed this model and paid little attention to making their coattails as long as possible.

Barack Obama’s campaign has shown signs of following a similar path, essentially being built on a loyal cadre of Obama supporters and dependent on millions of small time donors for funding.  Obama has shown a similar lack of interest in depending on the Democratic party infrastructure.  Unlike Kennedy, however, Obama seems to be seeking to become the Democratic party.

I don’t often link to Politico.com stories since they tend to focus more on process than policy, but this one fascinates me in that reports on how the Obama organization is attempting to create a long term, if not permanent, majority for the Obama/Democratic party:

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

In Wyoming, Democrat Gary Trauner, running for the state’s sole congressional seat, lost narrowly against an incumbent in 2006 and is now seeking an open seat.

“If we can register more Democrats, if we can increase the Democratic performance and turnout, maybe we can pick up a congressional seat,” Hildebrand said.

Obama can do this because of the devotion that he has inspired by his supporters.  In absolute terms, those diehard volunteers are not enough necessarily to swing a deeply red state like Texas in Obama’s column but by strategically deploying them to vulnerable Republican state legislature districts, Obama could do more for his long term strategy for governing.

The Obama campaign recognizes that there’s more to do than just win in November.  In order to get anything done, he’s going to need healthy majorities in the House and the Senate (like a filibuster proof 60 strong seats).  By extending his coattails down to the local level, he may set himself up with a nice little governing coalition after the mid-term elections in 2010 and for a potential second term in 2012.

This could be interesting.

The opposite of sprawl

America’s collective flocking to the suburbs can be described as a perfect storm of market forces, social prejudices, government action, technology and ingenious marketing.

Market conditions: Just after World War II, as millions of men returned from service, the market conditions that existed - cheap land with low building costs as opposed the expensive prospect of redevelopment and the high cost of labor in inner cities - meant that builders were more than willing to throw up acre upon acre of ranch housing on land that was formerly farms and forest.

Social prejudices: Meanwhile, the migration northward of many African Americans continued, prompting the white flight from areas of cities that had been populated by various white ethnic groups.  At the same time, according to some sources, banks began to redline certain areas of cities which often happened to be predominantly black so that people interested in buying in those areas would not be able to obtain loans at affordable rates.

Government action: The government encouraged the suburban shift by spending billions on additional infrastructure, notably highways but also schools, sewage and water systems, etc.  With the infrastructure in place, more building followed.  More building encouraged people to spread out even farther which spurred more infrastructure.  Being a zero sum game, more money for suburban infrastructure often meant less money for urban upkeep and service delivery, hastening the decay of these areas and encouraging more folks to move out.

Technology: Advances in production techniques made the automobile more affordable to more people.  Combined with discoveries of oil which increased the supply and decreased the price of gasoline, the car became the dominant mode of transportation and made suburban living just as convenient - if you didn’t mind driving - as living within walking distance of work or entertainment.

Ingenious marketing: Decades of advertising and messaging made entire generations believe that owning a car (or two) and a half acre plot with a 2500 sq ft. (now 4000 sq. ft.) house was their god-given right.  On the flip side, movies and pop culture reinforced an idea often talked about by politicians, namely, that cities were bad, dirty, dangerous, post-apocalyptic places that were inconvenient during the day and downright frightening at night.

Well, all that seems to be changing.

The next president will be the first one since Truman have market forces work against sprawling, ex-urban living for his entire time in office (as opposed to the current president for whom that reality began a few years into his term).

In an article that has been shuffled around the internet pretty thoroughly today, the New York Times profiles several exurbanites and reports on research showing a sharp decline in housing prices in the far suburbs relative to the stable or slight declines of urban housing.

The article cites a recent essay in The Atlantic Monthly by Christopher B. Leinberger, an urban land use expert:

Many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s — slums characterized by poverty, crime and decay.

While this vision is not shared by all, it’s worth noting than in European countries which have traditionally valued city living more highly than the suburban dream, notably France, the suburbs are often the places with the higher crime, greater poverty and decay.  Regardless of whether you agree with Leinberger or think that the shift will be more gradual, there’s little doubt that the movement is happening.  As gas prices and the costs for heat and electricity continue to rise, the white flight will be in the opposite direction - away form high prices and back to smaller houses, greater density and walkability, public transit and connection to employment and entertainment centers.

Atrios hits the nail on the head with what policymakers - often state and city officials but increasingly the federal government - need to do to prepare for this shift:

Despite my own obvious preferences, people like the burbs. It’s going to take more than the stick of high gas prices for there to be any kind of radical change. It’s an opportunity for a place like Philadelphia, where there are still plenty of inexpensive places to live. But transportation needs to be improved, crime rates cut, schools improved, and city services generally need to be better. Now is the moment…

The market forces - the almighty invisible hand - is lining up.

We’ve already seen shifts in the “marketing” of city living.  Pop culture gave us Friends, Seinfeld, Sex and the City, and other examples of the glamor and fun of life in the big city.  Condo builders and real estate agents are trying hard to convince us that we have a god-given right to a ten-minute walk from river fronts, opera and ballet companies, restaurants and our places of business.

Social prejudices are still with us but not as bad as before.  Plus, a $3000 per year heating bill and $150 to fill up the tank have a way of helping people get over certain irrational fears of “the other.”

Technology will make the homes in the city more efficient and our connectivity to our community easier.

All that’s left now is a shift in government action.  No more highways, just trains.  Zoning that encourages density.  Tax incentives that encourage renting or urban home ownership.  Building codes that don’t put the almighty car at the top of the priority list.

Yes.  A lot of this will be up to state and local officials.  But most of it won’t happen without a fundamental shift of resources by the federal government to help fix everything up.  Cities are poised to be hosts to the biggest party this country has ever known as millions of folks return to the neighborhoods once occupied by their parents and grandparents.  Federal resources will ensure that the house is straightened up when the guests arrive.

Global warning unheeded

Not a typo.  This guest column on Gristmill by NASA’s James Hansen reminds us that we knew about global warming a long time ago and chose to do… nothing.

This election truly is the most important of our time.  Both candidates profess to believe in the threat posed by global climate change.  It remains to be seen who will do a better job (a) educating the public about it and (b) convincing the public that their policies are the best way to fight it.

There are a number of folks in their late 40s, early 50s - the power folks - who are just as content to be as filthy rich as they can be now, no matter whether they get that money at the expense of sound environmental policy and sustainable principles.  They figure they’ll be dead anyway when the oceans finally are lapping at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and the planet looks like something out of Thundarr the Barbarian.

Will the next president enact policies that keep that group happy or will he be looking out for the rest of us and our kids?

I worry.