Posts Tagged ‘ Barack Obama ’

Why Obama Shouldn’t Play it Safe in 2012

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

So, surprise, surprise, Barack Obama is officially running for re-election in 2012. As someone who knocked on doors in 2008, I watched the official 2012 announcement video with some eagerness, hoping to be inspired anew. Perhaps he would say something akin to his 2007 speech in Springfield, which launched his then long shot campaign with stirring calls to purpose.

“I want to win that next battle – for justice and opportunity,” he said in 2007. “ I want to win that next battle – for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.”

But Obama doesn’t even appear in the 2012 video, a two-minute montage of five “volunteers” talking in the most remarkably content-free generalities: “There’s too much that is fundamentally important” says a white man from North Carolina, who later admits, “I don’t agree with Obama on everything” (though he does trust and respect him).

“There are many things on the table that need to be addressed,” says a Latino mom, who wants the best for her children, and for Obama to be the person who addresses, you know, things. An African-American woman reminds us that the President has a job to do, so we’ll have to get inspired ourselves. Fade to blue: “It begins with us,” reads the text.

Yes, I understand what Obama is doing. He’s trying to re-capture what made the 2008 campaign work, which was a propulsive sense of “we” – volunteers caught up in the story of Obama and all he could do. And he could get away with the vagueness of “Hope” and “Change” because all he needed to be then was the anti-Bush. And so I hoped: Here was a real intellectual who will not only take the challenges of governing seriously, but who could also stirringly articulate a national vision of coming together to solve hard problems.

Now, as the 2012 campaign season kicks off, Obama is clearly playing it safe. The fundamentals are on his side. The Republican field is weak; the economy is moving back in the right direction; his poll numbers are decent; demographic shifts are expanding his base of supporters. And Obama’s not one to veer from the cautious path. Especially not at this early stage.

But here’s the thing. In 2008, conservatism was discredited. Heck, even McCain wanted to be the candidate of change. In 2011, conservatism is flourishing again, reinvigorated by the Tea Party. And conservatives are telling a compelling about the American spirit, and the way in which it can be regenerated if only we can get rid of that awful greedy leech responsible for everything that’s gone wrong for the last however many years: Big Government. Moreover, the coalition that Obama put together in 2008 looks decidedly weaker now.

Presidential campaigns can be defining moments. There is no other opportunity for a political figure to speak so often and so loudly to the American people about what we stand for as a nation, to define the moment and define the basis for leadership in it. And yet, most incumbent presidents waste this moment, because they just want to play it safe. They figure, I’ll get re-elected, and then, then I’ll finally be free to offer a true vision, to lead this time for real without actually having to worry about re-election.

Except, second terms rarely offer the opportunity for that defining moment. And they especially don’t offer that opportunity if the campaign hasn’t paved the ground for it, hasn’t prepared the public and made the case. As Irving Kristol once put it: “What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality is perceived.”

I’m sure the Obama campaign people will come up with some wonderful poll-tested cognitive scientist-approved campaign slogan for 2012 and then repeat it ad infinitum. But in doing so, here’s what I ask: please, please don’t squander this opportunity. Please come up with a message and a story that makes an affirmative case for lasting progressive values of pragmatic experimentation and solving hard problems through collective means. Challenge the Tea Party memes. Reclaim history, reclaim the Founders, reclaim the meaning of American Exceptionalism.  These are more than just things on the table. They are the way we understand and make sense of present day events.

On Libya, Obama Doesn’t Swing Hard Enough

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

He kept tee-ing it up for himself, but seemed to stroke a few long drives that were barely the wrong side of the foul pole last night.

I wanted the president to come out with a thunderous defense of why humanitarian intervention is in our national interest. I sense he knew he had too, which is why he circled round to the issue no less than four times by my count. He spoke of the importance of protecting human life, of why a massive refugee crisis would be disastrous, and why non-intervention could ultimately lead to a higher cost in the future.

Here’s what I wanted him to say: “The United States’ strategic interest is in protecting human lives that would otherwise face murder at the hands of their tyrannical dictator. This serves America in two ways: First, we are protecting those who yearn for individual liberty that has been denied them for 42 years; and second, by standing up for those seeking their individual freedoms, we are creating a more stable world.  Democratic countries are stable countries, and they make for a more secure America.

On that note, I’ve just published a piece in Foreign Policy addressing American intervention, and Barack Obama’s foreign policy philosophy.  I take on Stephen Walt, a self-proclaimed “realist”, and define the differences between neoconservatism and progressive internationalism.  He mixes them up, and it’s important to explain why Libya is not Iraq.  Read it here.

2012 and the Anxiety Belt

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

As thoughts begin to drift to 2012, a debate is emerging whether Obama can win without Ohio. William Galston, who has now written a second installment of his Obama-needs-Ohio series, is of the mind that, “If a candidate can carry Ohio, he will have appealed to a large enough slice of the national electorate to have won the states that tilt even further in his preferred direction, and he is odds-on to win the race.”

As every pundit knows, the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has run through Ohio for 11 consecutive elections, earning the Buckeye State a reputation as a national bellwether. The odds of this happening entirely by chance would be 1 in 2,048.

In my mind, however, the question is not so much about Ohio per se. It’s about the entire region, or what I’m calling the Anxiety Belt, because a lot of people there are worried that their best days are behind them.

As a state, Ohio is actually not particularly representative. It is one of the least educated in the U.S., and has one of the highest manufacturing bases. It is also older, whiter, and poorer than your average state.

But, if we look beyond Ohio and add in the other key five swing states in the region – Pennsylvania (20 votes), Michigan (16 votes), Indiana (11 votes), Wisconsin (10 votes), and Iowa (6 votes) – we now have an important block that adds up to 81 votes.

And these states are similar to Ohio as a whole: less educated, more manufacturing-oriented, Whiter, older. and slightly poorer than the nation as a whole.

In the 2010 elections, Democrats lost five House seats each in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and two seats apiece in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan. Democrats also lost all four Senate seats up for election in these six states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin).

Demographics do matter. Democrats have not enjoyed parity with Republicans among white voters in 20 years (since Bill Clinton), but 2010 was especially bad, with white voters breaking 62-to-38 for Republicans in the mid-term elections. When you’re trying to win a state that is, say, 85 percent white, even if you can garner 100 percent of the minority vote, it is mathematically impossible to win that state unless you at least win 41.3 percent of the White vote, assuming equal turnout.

Of course, even if Obama loses all six of these states but keeps every state he won in 2008, he would still come out with 281 electoral votes. But this would mean keeping Florida (29 votes), North Carolina (15 votes), Virginia (13 votes), Colorado (9 votes, Nevada (6 votes), and New Mexico (5 votes). This doesn’t leave much room for error.

Of course, one of the ongoing questions in electoral strategy is to what extent regional differences still come into play. Matthew Dickinson has calculated that 2010 was the most nationalized election in at least 56 years, and that “the relative influence of national factors in both presidential and midterm congressional elections has been on the rise for several decades.” Certainly, there will be a strong national component to the election.

But that doesn’t mean Obama can ignore the concerns of the Anxiety Belt, which is, on average, older, poorer, whiter, and less well-educated than the nation as a whole. In the simplest terms, Obama can’t afford to forgo the 81 electoral votes that this represents because it leaves him no cushion elsewhere. And to get these votes, he’s going to have to figure out how to speak to at least some of the anxious white working class because the coalition of college-educated and minority voters is just not as strong there as elsewhere.

Evening Fix

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Our top five reads of the day:

  • William Galston thinks that Obama can’t ignore the Rust Belt: “Clues suggest that the Obama’s 2012 campaign will focus more on the Democratic periphery—territory newly won in 2008—than on the heartland, where elections have been won and lost for the past half-century. This could turn out to be a mistake of epic proportions. Why? Because the United States looks a lot more like Ohio than like Colorado.”
  • Josh Kraushaar is disappointed in the President’s inability to lead on the budget crisis: “Obama said in his State of the Union address that he wants to “win the future,” but his policies remain stuck in a 20th-century mindset defending a strained government entitlement system and public-sector unions.”
  • Steven Pearlstein thinks Gov. Walker should have taken labor relations 101 and tried to reach out to the public employees: “Now compare that with how Wisconsin’s new chief executive handled the situation: Impose an across-the-board pay cut and tell employees neither they nor their representative will ever again have a say in how things will be run or get a pay raise in excess of inflation. A great way to start things off with the staff, don’t you think? Remember that the next time you hear some Republican bellyaching at the Rotary lunch about why government should be run more like a business.”
  • Leslie Gelb urges America to not get too actively involved in the Middle East: “Many will argue this modest and careful course will place you on the wrong side of history. But, Mr. President, they don’t know where this Arab whirlwind is tossing us any better than you or I. My fear is that an activist and grand strategy will grossly exaggerate America’s power to shape events and will do more harm than good.”
  • Ben Wildavsky isn’t so worried about American students’ scores on international assessment tests: “In this coming era of globalized education, there is little place for the Sputnik alarms of the Cold War, the Shanghai panic of today, and the inevitable sequels lurking on the horizon. The international education race worth winning is the one to develop the intellectual capacity the United States and everyone else needs to meet the formidable challenges of the 21st century — and who gets there first won’t matter as much as we once feared.”

Obama Raises his Bet on High-Speed Rail

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011
Mark Reutter



PPI Fellow Mark Reutter is the former editor of Railroad History and author of Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2005, rev. ed.).

by Mark Reutter

The White House won’t back down. That was the signal beamed yesterday when Vice President Joe Biden announced the administration’s plan to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail over the next six years. But questions remain: How can the administration convince a spending-skeptical public it’s a worthwhile investment? And how can it bring long-term funding predictability to high-speed rail?

Since winning control of the House, Republicans have been angling to cancel the administration’s high-speed rail program as part of their deficit reduction plan. Their goal is to halt the program before any new train segment is constructed in Florida and California (where plans are most advanced) and to rescind funds appropriated but not yet spent on other passenger rail lines under the stimulus act.

Yesterday, the administration called their bluff by asking for $8 billion for fast trains in the 2012 federal budget, followed by $45 billion over the next five years.

The proposal puts a bold but reasonable dollar sign on President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to bring high-speed rail to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. The federal government now spends about $35 billion a year to maintain its highway system. Washington will have to spend considerably more to expand roads to accommodate a growing population if new train lines are not in the transportation mix.

Assets Matter

But to make high-speed rail happen, the White House needs to mount a better public education campaign. For starters, the president must hammer home the point that developing modern infrastructure matters just as much as cutting spending.

In other words, while we want to avoid government waste that raises the national debt, productive debt – or debt that creates future opportunities for all citizens – is not a burden, especially when money can be borrowed at record low interest rates.

A presidential trip to General Electric’s locomotive factory in Erie, Pa., could demonstrate that America has an existing manufacturing base for high-speed rail. This base needs to be tapped before more jobs migrate to countries that actually make things.

GE has pledged to develop high-speed trainsets aimed for the California and Florida lines. CEO Jeffrey Immelt could pitch in by tasking his big financial arm, GE Capital, to help finance promising rail projects.

President Obama should also lean on his newfound friends at the Chamber of Commerce. Joe Biden got it right yesterday by warning that “commerce is going to suffer and it’s going to show up on the bottom line” if the U.S. does not improve the flow of people and goods. Building and operating high-speed lines would also create tens of thousands of middle-class jobs.

Reforming Congressional Spending

Public persuasion must be matched by a more clear-eyed view of how to fund this long-term program without the uncertainty of annual congressional appropriations.

The six-year surface transportation bill coming before this session of Congress could be an excellent vehicle for the White House to develop a reliable source for high-speed rail funding. We have outlined in a policy memo how to restructure the transportation bill, now beset by wasteful congressional earmarks, into a productive program that leverages public money with private capital.

While the White House and House Republicans currently appear far apart on high-speed rail policy, there are areas of compromise. House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) has been critical of stimulus money spent on existing rail lines for upgraded passenger service. Mica says he is in favor of “true” high-speed rail that operates above 150 mph and would support federal funds that reduce trip times along Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor.

There seems to be room for the White House to accommodate Mica’s concerns, including expediting an environmental impact study that currently hangs up progress in the Northeast Corridor, and ways for Mica to persuade his colleagues that reflexively obstructing rail projects is not the way to bequeath America a better transportation future.

How to Avoid the Infrastructure Blind Side

Monday, January 31st, 2011
Norman Anderson



Norman Anderson is the president and CEO of CG/LA Infrastructure.

by Norman Anderson

In listening to President Obama talk about infrastructure in his State of the Union Message, I couldn’t stop thinking about last year’s great movie “The Blind Side.” A young, talented, left-handed quarterback fades back to pass, surveys the field, has three receivers open and…bam, once again he’s crushed by a bull-rushing defensive end, who once again rolls over his right guard.

President Obama may have greatness in him, and he may become great, but where infrastructure is concerned every time he steps up to the lectern I have to shut my eyes – it’s that scary.

First, President Obama doesn’t have the personnel in place for a successful – let alone ‘we do big things’ – infrastructure initiative. Think about it: who in the White House is in charge of infrastructure? And when has a signal initiative ever been successful without someone in charge?

Whether this is our Sputnik Moment or not, infrastructure is rocket science. If the U.S. Is to double our spending on infrastructure (moving from $150 billion year to $300 billion), someone in the White House needs to provide clear signals and hefty shoves to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy, as well as to the responsible officials (governors and secretaries) in the fifty states. Currently there is no one…bam.

Second, there is no overall infrastructure plan. A sustained increase in U.S. competitiveness does not require magical investments, whether in high-speed rail, the smart grid, electric cars and renewable energy – truly wide-open receivers downfield. It requires a clear consensus vision of the global challenge, and of which projects are strategic to responding to that challenge, and its opportunities.

The President not only needs to build a team, he needs to create a vision for that team – it is what great presidents do. Infrastructure built now provides value for 20-30 years, so where does the U.S. want to be in 20-30 years, and how – specifically – are we going to get there? Otherwise we will continue to spend incredibly scarce political, financial, and managerial resources on projects that are immaterial to our success. Unless the President’s team – and right now we are all on his team – is driven and directed by a vision of national competitiveness and renewal…bam.

Third, from the business point of view, the first two issues – not much of a team, and not much of a plan – are ‘walk away now’ fatal flaws – but there is another issue that needs to be addressed, perhaps the biggest blind side issue of all: how is a sustained infrastructure initiative to be financed in an environment of severe federal and state austerity?

The only serious answer is a National Infrastructure Bank, something that both Democrats and Republicans agree upon – and an idea strongly favored by incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica.

All of our competitors –China, India, Russia, Brazil, the European Union – have national infrastructure banks. It is a source of strategic advantage in the globalized economy, and needs to be a fully-functioning part of our infrastructure renewal. Without a significant funding source, in the range of $250 billion-$300 billion over ten years, I simply have to shut my eyes in horror…bam, bam, bam.

In watching President Obama step up to the lectern on infrastructure – now for the third or fourth time in his young presidency – I am both fearful and perplexed. The President needs to step back from the field – up to the balcony, as Harvard’s leadership guru Ronnie Heifetz would say – and reflect on what actually needs to be done. To recognize that he needs to be more coach than quarterback, and take the time to find the players (a Team of Rivals he does not have), build the team around a compelling vision (the real job of a President) and finance the effort (you can ‘dream of things that never were, and ask why’ – but if you want to see those things you will have to find a practical, sustained, politically acceptable way to pay for them).

I have to get the nightmare out of my mind of a young, supremely talented quarterback, dropping back to pass – once again – and then…bam. I want my talented President to step up to the lectern and this time, get the who, what, and how of his infrastructure initiative right.

What To Do As Egypt Transitions to Democracy

Monday, January 31st, 2011
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s bizarre and wandering late-night address to the nation on Friday is almost certainly the beginning of his end.  Mubarak’s tone-deaf offer to reshuffle his cabinet is a ham-fisted attempt to address the Egyptian protesters’ concerns that only underlines his weakened position.  Only one of two paths seems open for Mubarak: that he clings to power through a campaign of violent and bloody repression, or that he flees Cairo to enjoy a luxurious retirement in Switzerland or Saudi. Given the army’s restraint thus far, thankfully the latter seems more likely.

The Obama administration deserves real praise for standing on the right side of history. Secretary Clinton’s remarks on the weekend’s talk shows struck an unambiguous tone as she called for the Egyptian people to “have the chance to chart a new future. It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy.” Even John Boehner has praised the administration’s handling of the situation.

Should Egypt soon find itself staring “real democracy” in the face, what is the Obama administration’s next move?  The White House would do well to re-read a piece Shadi Hamid wrote for PPI in late 2008, particularly these sections:

Elevate democracy promotion through aid conditionality. The perception that America stands opposed to democratic openings in the Middle East must be challenged head-on so that Arabs and Muslims will begin to feel that they—rather than foreign powers—hold the keys to change within their own societies. The United States can start by articulating a regionwide contract whereby foreign aid is made explicitly conditional on a set of benchmarks, including respect of opposition rights, freedom of expression, and progress toward holding free elections, even if only on the municipal level at first.

Engage political Islam. Democratization will likely further empower Islamists, a reality that the United States must come to terms with. In order to re-establish credibility on democracy promotion—and just as importantly, to show that we have no gripe with Islam—we need to engage in a sustained dialogue with all religiously-oriented parties as long as they fulfill the conditions of renouncing violence and committing themselves to the democratic process. A new administration must begin by stating as a matter of policy that the United States is not opposed to dealing with non-violent Islamist groups and has no problem with parties of a religious character coming to power through free elections.

This would be coupled with the initiation of a U.S.-Islamist “dialogue,” designed to explore areas of tension and misunderstanding. As trust develops, the discussion would move toward the question of how moderate Islamists can help us and how we can help them. In exchange for supporting the political participation of Islamist parties in their respective countries, America would seek to extract certain “concessions” in return, including guarantees that they would respect vital U.S. interests, including standing peace treaties with Israel.

Obama and Human Rights in the Middle East

Friday, January 28th, 2011
Andrew Albertson



Andrew Albertson is the former Executive Director of the Project on Middle East Democracy and a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

by Andrew Albertson

Events over the last few weeks demand a reconsideration, if not a full-scale reevaluation of the wisdom of the Obama administration’s overall approach to democracy and human rights in the Middle East.

Facts are stubborn things, and the reality is that President Obama’s administration has now succeeded where President Bush never did. On his watch, Tunisia’s people rose up in protest over economic corruption and government repression and a dictator fled. The Arab world has a fighting chance at establishing its first true democracy.

At a minimum, those on the right who incessantly take credit wherever freedom blossoms need to grapple with that fact. But even more than that may be called for.

The Obama administration’s approach has not always been perfect, but it does appear, for the most part, rather consistent. And it does appear to have helped. It combines a steady rhetorical insistence on universal principles with an attempt, not always successful, to avoid lending its political support to either governments or protesters—betting on both and neither at the same time—event at times of crisis for regimes.

With events heating up in Egypt, the Obama Administration has done nothing to impede—and in fact has amplified—Egyptians’ calls for change.

With regard to events in Tunisia, Clinton was even more direct. Just days before Ben Ali fled the country, with his government grasping for support, she refused to throw him a rope, telling Al Arabiya: “We are not taking sides.”

Most importantly, the Obama administration has called on the governments of Egypt and Tunisia to respect the rights of peaceful protesters and to refrain from violence. This is by far the most valuable stance the U.S. can take in this moment of instability. An Tiananmen-style crackdown in Cairo’s Tahrir Square would have devastating consequences for Egyptians and Americans alike.

The toughest part has yet to come: Todays’s protests in Egypt are likely to be larger than the ones on Tuesday, and Tunisia has yet to consolidate anything resembling a democratic government. But so far, we have to commend the Obama administration’s approach to both Tunisia and Egypt.

State of the Union on High-Speed Rail: How to Pay for Fast Trains

Thursday, January 27th, 2011
Mark Reutter



PPI Fellow Mark Reutter is the former editor of Railroad History and author of Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2005, rev. ed.).

by Mark Reutter

In setting a national goal of providing high-speed train service to 80 percent of Americans by 2035, President Obama challenged himself and Congress to come up with a way to finance the biggest transportation program since the Interstate Highway System.

The president called on Congress to “redouble” efforts to rebuild the nation’s transportation infrastructure and advance high-speed rail (HSR) even as it cuts elsewhere. He framed the issue as part of our generation’s “Sputnik moment” where the world has changed and government investment is needed to generate growth and stimulate private innovation.

“We do big things,” he said, wrapping HSR in the mantle of other federal initiatives, such as Transcontinental Railroad initiated by Abraham Lincoln and the highway system inaugurated by Dwight Eisenhower, that transformed American life.

Obama can start by submitting to Congress a radically reformed six-year surface transportation appropriations bill to replace the expiring act known as SAFETEA-LU, as we argued in a recent memo.

SAFETEA-LU has already been lambasted by Congress’ own advisory group, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, as directionless and dysfunctional.

The commission has pointed out that $24 billion was appropriated to more than 5,000 congressional “earmarks.” That means that each member of Congress got to pick an average of 10 projects for their districts without any outside review. Such earmarking has made highway funding a poster child of the kind of pork-barrel spending that House leaders – and many Tea Party-backed House Republicans – vow to slash.

So here’s the President’s chance to cut government waste while securing long-term HSR funding. The new bill should allow money collected through the Highway Trust Fund to flow to HSR. Eliminating earmarks and such peripheral programs as Safe Routes to Schools could free up $5 billion a year for rail construction – or $30 billion over the bill’s lifetime – without requiring an increase in the federal gas tax, which is an anathema to Congressional Republicans.

The administration should also think of creative ways to leverage public monies to seed private capital for HSR construction. It was great to hear the president allude in his speech to private investment as a way to finance his rail program. We need to hear more as Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood develops tangible ways to leverage private capital, including capital promised by foreign train builders.

Using federal money to seed private-sector investment has long been advocated by John Mica (R-Fla.), the new chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mica, who is responsible for drafting the next surface transportation bill, could be a constructive partner with the Obama administration.

Mica supports “true” high-speed rail as a transformational technology and has been critical of the administration’s allocations of federal stimulus funds to higher-speed conventional rail projects.

We have shared his concern that the administration, in its first round of grants a year ago, spread funds that would marginally improve passenger train speeds on shared track with freight railroads. Since then, the administration has placed much more emphasis on getting a dedicated high-speed route under construction between Tampa and Orlando and jumpstarting California’s high-speed line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Mica wants to use private capital to underwrite high-speed rail development in the Northeast Corridor. He is holding a hearing today in Manhattan where he will take testimony from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, Thomas Hart of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association and Petra Todorovich of the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility.

Obama demonstrated on Tuesday his commitment to the vision of high-speed rail. Mica can turn this vision into funded reality in a divided government. And Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman who knows Mica quite well, says he is open to finding common ground. How these gentlemen interact over the next six months will bear close attention.

Assessing the State of the Union Address

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

It was encouraging to see President Obama last night make such an impassioned call for investing in America’s future, while clearly taking seriously the deficit challenges. It was also very encouraging to see that many of his ideas were consonant with PPI’s 10 Big Ideas for Getting America Moving and that he is charting a course past old partisan divides.

Over the course of today and tomorrow, the gang here at PPI is going to be analyzing the President’s address and the ideas contained therein. So check back with us soon for smart insights you won’t want to miss.

The Right Growth Formula

Monday, January 24th, 2011
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The specter of economic decline is haunting America. President Obama seeks to banish it by making jobs and U.S. competitiveness the centerpiece of his State of the Union report to Congress tomorrow. This sets the stage for a critical contest between dueling theories about how America can get its economic mojo back.

Over the weekend, Republicans flooded the media with preemptive strikes against Obama’s expected calls for boosting public investment to spur growth. “With all due respect to our Democratic friends, any time they want to spend, they call it investment, so I think you will hear the president talk about investing a lot Tuesday night,” GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday.” “This is not a time to be looking at pumping up government spending in very many areas.”

True to form, Republicans have a very simple theory for rekindling jobs and growth: Cut federal spending. That’s why they’ve tapped their leading fiscal hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, to respond to Obama’s speech. And Rep. Michele Bachmann will offer an unofficial, “Tea Party” riposte to the President online.

Now, I’m all for fiscal discipline. I’ve chided progressives for posing a false choice between deficit reduction and economic growth. Restoring fiscal stability is an essential ingredient of any credible plan for robust growth.

But cutting spending by itself won’t help us rebuild our infrastructure (which is the foundation for productivity), strengthen our comparative advantage in science and technological innovation, or produce a highly skilled workforce. As virtually all serious economists recognize, these are tasks for government.

Yet today’s Republicans are so besotted by anti-government populism that you can’t even count on them to be good capitalists anymore. Perhaps conservative think tanks should organize seminars to reacquaint House Republicans with Adam Smith, whose defense of laissez faire economics did not blind him to government’s responsibility to supply public goods like roads, ports and education. As he wrote in the Wealth of Nations:

The third and last duty of the [government] is that of erecting or maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, although they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could not repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.

As PPI maintains in Getting America Moving Again, a new Memo to President Obama, it will take both more public investment and more dynamic markets to reinvigorate our economy. We need to boost spending on research and commercialization of new inventions. We also need to boost spending on modernizing the nation’s transport and energy infrastructure – for example, by building high speed rails and smart grids that can accommodate clean energy generation. This can and must be done within a new framework for restoring fiscal stability that cuts tax expenditures, caps spending on defense and domestic programs, and most importantly, slows the unsustainable growth of the big entitlement programs.

At the same time, we also need to revamp archaic tax and regulatory policies that dampen incentives for economic innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking. To that end we have proposed a base-closing style commission charged with culling the accumulation over time of burdensome rules and regulation.

In truth, neither party’s economic orthodoxies are equal to the challenge facing our country. That’s why President Obama needs to challenge both sides tomorrow to unite behind a bold plan for a national economic resurgence.

The History of Retrospective Regulatory Review

Thursday, January 20th, 2011
Michael Mandel



Michael Mandel is the chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute and the founder of Visible Economy LLC, a New York-based news and education company.

by Michael Mandel

As part of President Obama’s executive order on “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” he called for agencies to conduct  ”Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules,”  and to “modify, streamline, expand, or repeal” the ones that are  ”outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.”

Definitely moving in the right direction….but the key is how to implement this requirement in a way that works. Unfortunately, the track record of agencies performing such mandatory retrospective analyses on their own rules is not dissimilar to the results of doctors conducting surgery on themselves.

I quote from a 2007 GAO report entitled  ”Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist to Improve Effectiveness and Transparency of Retrospective Reviews.”

Every president since President Carter has directed agencies to evaluate or reconsider existing regulations. For example, President Carter’s Executive Order 12044 required agencies to periodically review existing rules; one charge of President Reagan’s task force on regulatory relief was to recommend changes to existing regulations; President George H.W. Bush instructed agencies to identify existing regulations to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden; and President Clinton, under section 5 of Executive Order 12866, required agencies to develop a program to “periodically review” existing significant regulations.17 In 2001, 2002, and 2004, the administration of President George W. Bush asked the public to suggest reforms of existing regulations.

<snip>

For the mandatory reviews completed within our time frame, the most common result was a decision by the agency that no changes were needed to the regulation. There was a general consensus among officials across the agencies that the reviews were sometimes useful, even if no subsequent actions resulted, because they helped to confirm that existing regulations were working as intended.

<snip>

Our limited review of agency summaries and reports on completed retrospective reviews revealed that agencies’ reviews more often attempted to assess the effectiveness of their implementation of the regulation rather than the effectiveness of the regulation in achieving its goal.

<snip>

Agencies reported that the most critical barrier to their ability to conduct reviews was the difficulty in devoting the time and staff resources required for reviews while also carrying out other mission activities.

<snip>

Most agencies’ officials reported that they lack the information and data needed to conduct reviews. Officials reported that a major data barrier to conducting effective reviews is the lack of baseline data for assessing regulations that they promulgated many years ago. Because of this lack of data, agencies are unable to accurately measure the progress or true effect of those regulations.

<snip>

Agencies and nonfederal parties also considered PRA [Paperwork Reduction Act--MM]requirements to be a potential limiting factor in agencies’ ability to collect sufficient data to assess their regulations. For example, EPA officials reported that obtaining data was one of the biggest challenges the Office of Water faced in conducting its reviews of the effluent guideline and pretreatment standard under the Clean Water Act, and that as a result the Office of Water was hindered or unable to perform some analyses. According to the officials, while EPA has the authority to collect such data, the PRA requirements and associated information collection review approval process take more time to complete than the Office of Water’s mandated schedule for annual reviews of the effluent guideline and pretreatment standard allows.

This last one is especially fun, and shows up over and over again in the literature on retrospective regulatory review. Basically, the OMB has to review and approve data collection by the government, which means that collecting data to prove that a regulation doesn’t work requires more paperwork.

This piece is cross-posted at Mandel on Innovation and Growth