How Do Mere Mortals React To "Politics as Soap Opera"

I mean, when it's not quite as literally soap opera as it was during the Ken Starr / Monical Lewinski era.

In terms of those who aren't addicted to politics.... Do they particularly care if Obama gets his stimulus package passed within 2-1/2 weeks of taking office instead of 1-1/2? Is anybody appalled that he included provisions demanded by Republicans? Or is this drama that political junkies dream up and project upon the rest of America?

It amazes me that people who should know better seem to think Obama was going to walk into Congress with his own pure-as-snow stimulus bill, be received like Moses coming down Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, and somehow avoid the whole ugly mess that is Congress. The factory that actually produces legislation. Sure, it would have been nice had members his own party not tucked in their bibs as soon as they heard the numbers involved, but it's the nature of the beast.

The Games Politicians Play

I don't know if Obama should scold the person who stuck the birth control provision into the stimulus bill, or thank them. The scolding should follow from the fact that this was supposed to be a pork-free, non-political bill that could pass with broad bipartisan approval. The birth control provision gave right-wing Republicans a talking point - they could point to it and say "What does birth control have to do with stimulation."

And that brings us to the possible "Thank you." Other than being fodder for an easy one-liner, Republican opposition has been unprincipled and dishonest. The fact is, the provision is good public policy and is consistent with the Medicare policies of a number of Republican governors. It would have saved those governors a ton of money and unnecessary hassle in obtaining waivers so that they could offer birth control benefits through Medicaid. And when the provision was dropped, the Republican answer was still "no" - giving Obama the opportunity to... do this:

“We’re not going to get 100 percent agreement, and we might not even get 50 percent agreement, but I do think people appreciate me walking them through my thought process,” the president said, as he left a meeting with GOP senators just off the Senate floor.

“I hope I communicated a sincere desire to get good ideas from everybody,” he added. “My attitude is this the first major piece of legislation we’ve worked on, and that, over time, some of these habits of consultation and mutual respect will take over, but old habits die hard.”

The shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans were ignoring public policy in favor of a talking point, leaving Democrats to explain why the birth control provision belongs in a stimulus package and makes good sense. Now the talking point is gone and the Republicans are left to sputter things like "We need more tax cuts" or "It's unfocused... not that we have any better ideas".

Obama was placed in an awkward position by the legislators who stuck the birth control provision into the stimulus bill. That measure was inconsistent with his stated goals for the bill. But to ask for its removal opened him up to attacks from the left, accusations that he's selling out women's health. While it's standard Washington fare to stick appropriations like this into "must pass" legislation, this really wasn't the time. I hope that Democratic party leaders have a bit of a sit-down after this, to discuss how they might avoid shooting the President and themselves in the foot over the next two years. Meanwhile, they should work to get a similar appropriation passed through, perhaps, a bill directing some aid or assistance to the states or updating Medicaid rules.

What A Pathetic Display

The Washington Post, observing that the only proposal to save the auto industry is failing in the Senate - due to, of all things, a Republican demand for what amount to wage caps on auto workers - "What's Plan B?" It astonishes me that a Republican President can't convince enough of his own party's senators of the urgency of action, that they drop their filibuster threat. In what seems like "business as usual", a scheduled vacation appears more important to the Democrats than actually forcing the Republicans to break out their encyclopedias and, if they truly wish to block the bill, actually filibuster.

The short answer to the question, "What's Plan B", appears to be to use TARP money for the bail-out, which could mean that none of the restrictions, compromises, or demands placed upon the Big Three by the bailout bill will be implemented. The Republican Party may be giddy with the idea of harming or breaking the UAW and benefitting the foreign auto manufacturers who are located in "red states", but G.W. is worried about the tattered remnants of his legacy.

"Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said.

And, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it is considering using the Wall Street rescue fund to prevent the USA's strapped carmakers from failing.

I like that - it's "because Congress failed to act", rather than, "Because the President couldn't convince his own party to back a bill he supports." Perino elaborated that "it would be 'irresponsible' to further erode the economy by allowing failure in Detroit", but how about some honesty here about just who it is that the President is describing as irresponsible.

The Washington Post repeats some common, yet silly, complaints about the auto industry,

Furthermore, if the Detroit carmakers are going to survive, they will have to completely overhaul the way they do business - and start building cars that people will buy.

Lets look back a whole year:

General Motors announced today that it sold 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide in 2007, which puts it in a dead heat with Toyota for the title of world's best-selling automaker.

Now the Big Three deserve criticism for disregarding the end of cheap oil, but really... but for the spike in gas prices this summer and the current financial crises, at current gas prices those highly profitable gas guzzling vehicles "that no one wants" would be flying off of car lots across the nation. (If auto makers booked their profits when those vehicles sold, as opposed to when they were shipped to dealerships, they would be looking a lot healthier right now - because sales appear to be picking up.)

For that, they are going to need new leadership, a rational assessment of their long record of failure and, yes, a much larger infusion of government cash.

We're back to that "new leadership" thing.... Something the Post isn't demanding of the finance industry, despite a perhaps unparalleled record of failure and incompetence by its leaders. Heck, the Post doesn't even appear upset by the astronomical wages, bonuses, and even stock dividends that bailed-out financial companies are paying with taxpayer money.

Perhaps we need a financial industry czar - somebody who saw that derivatives were, let's say, a "time bomb" or as "financial weapons of mass destruction"... Oh, but let's be realistic. Nobody could have seen the financial industry's problems coming. We need to find a Warren Buffett for the intelligence community, and apparently we need a Warren Buffett for the auto industry. It's truly a shame we can't find a Warren Buffett for the financial industry.

I've already commented, but it bears repeating - where exactly does the Post imagine that the Big Three will find "magic men" to lead them in a new direction? Ford got its CEO from Boeing; Chrysler's CEO used to head, of all things, Home Depot. How far outside the industry is far enough to satisfy this ridiculous demand - and what's wrong with looking for people within the industry who actually know about cars and may even have a track record of developing vehicles that are suited to the future?

Nobody - including the carmakers - fully understands the depth of Detroit’s problems or how much money it will take to dig them out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told Congress last week that rescuing the companies would cost taxpayers $75 billion to $125 billion over the next two years. And that’s probably optimistic.

Now that's a fair criticism. Chrysler, for example, is pretending that the bailout will result in a quick return to profitability. Does it believe that, or is it spinning a fairy tale? If the former, there's good cause to question the competence of its leadership. If the latter, it appears to be part of a mendacious plan by Cerberus Capital Management to get a taxpayer subsidy that allows it to avoid taking a loss on a bad investment. As you already know, I think it's the latter.

If the Big Three are glossing over a future that, realistically, will require a taxpayer bailout exceeding $100 billion, we should be sending them back to revise their plans to reflect that reality - and to demonstrate how they could recover with a smaller infusion of taxpayer money.

Beyond the Post's dream that the Big Three will find "magic men" to take over for their present leadership, it whines,

And the bill doesn’t set any conditions to ensure automakers invest in fuel-efficient vehicles. Any long-term plan must make sure the automakers don’t simply keep making gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles, whose popularity - unfortunately - has recovered as gas prices have declined.

There's not even a slight effort to achieve internal consistency. If the idea is to force auto manufacturers to build cars that consumers want, it appears that they are doing so - as long as gas prices are low. If the idea is to force them to give up their gas guzzlers in favor of fuel-sipping vehicles, that's something quite apart from getting them to build the vehicles people want to buy. Let's be blunt - if you could build a car the size of a small house, have it get 25 MPG, do 0-60 in less than ten seconds, and sell it in various forms for $20-$30K, it would be the most popular car in America. (The auto manufacturers are about as likely to be able to create such a car as they are to find the Post's "magic man" leaders, so don't accuse me of being unrealistic.)

It should go without saying, but it doesn't - so here we go again. If the goal is to create a competitive domestic auto industry, you can't do that by hamstringing auto makers and forcing them to build under fuel efficiency standards that don't apply to their competitors. If you want more fuel efficient cars on the road, build an even playing field by instituting new, meaningful CAFE standards that apply to everyone.

If the Post is correct, that it's going to take $75 - $125 billion to turn around the domestic auto industry, then perhaps its time to think about something far different from a bailout that tries to keep the three auto makers in business. There are a number of options, short of and including bankruptcy, that should be considered in the new year. Assuming GM and Chrysler aren't already in bankruptcy by then.

But how about at least passing a contingency plan - an authorization of aid to parts suppliers to keep them out of bankruptcy in the event that Chrysler and/or GM file Chapter 11. If we're going to risk that they fail, let's at least try to keep them from dragging Ford down with them.

That "Why The Party Failed" Thing

In taking on Ross Douthat's tendentious piece on abortion, I didn't address his headline, ostensibly the thesis of his piece, that "Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P." Of course not. If the GOP's approach to abortion politics were to doom it, it would not be by driving away people like Kathleen Parker and Max Boot. It will be when the religious right gets tired of promises, promises, promises and no delivery, and the single issue anti-abortion voters either vote for a third party candidate or stay home. What doomed the Republican Party in the 2008 election was the Bush Administration's top-to-bottom, back-to-front incompetence, coupled with a dozen or so too many corruption scandals.

Which isn't to say that, within the foreseeable future, I won't be writing pretty much the same thing about a future Democratic administration....

"If Only Those Idiots Treated Our Ideas With Respect"

Mixing common sense with nonsense, Douglas MacKinnon warns, Don’t Count Him Out Yet, "John McCain can still win." Well, no kidding.

In pointing to things that can drag Obama down, MacKinnon presents an interesting exercise in contrasts. Having recently written, GOP unfairly branded racist, lamenting the suggestion that the GOP might play to racial prejudices, he now argues,

Finally, the ugly side of this equation. Race is going to be a factor in this election. How much, no one knows. A New York Times/CBS News poll gave some indication when it found out that “one-third of voters said they knew someone who would not vote for Mr. Obama because he is black.”

It is unfair to assume in advance that a campaign is going to take a particular political low road, even factoring in history, and it's certainly unfair to work from the assumption that most or all GOP supporters are racist or sympathetic to racism. But if you're going to concede that one third of voters aren't going to vote for Obama because he's black, you don't have to spend much time scrutinizing the polls to know where those votes are flowing. The fact that McCain has largely stayed away from race issues does not mean that there aren't people at other levels of the state and local party, or people who enjoy a national audience who informally align themselves with the party, who are doing their utmost to depict Obama as the scary, dark-skinned, supposedly Muslim "other".

I don't happen to think that the election is going to suddenly swing to McCain because voters have a sudden revelation that, <gasp>, Obama's black. I suspect that most of the 1/3 of voters MacKinnon describes have already made up their mind to vote for somebody other than Obama, and advice pollsters accordingly. I doubt that there are more than a tiny number of people who think that they are voting on the issues but will decide, upon entering the voting booth, that they're really part of that 1/3. The rest of us will decide out votes on other issues.

MacKinnon doesn't like unfair stereotypes of Republicans, but....

Beyond today’s experience argument, why do Democrats sometimes lose when all indications are that they will coast to victory? One reason that has gained traction in certain quarters is that the people who control the Republican Party understand and respect their opponents. Republicans think Democrats are wrong, but Democrats think Republicans are stupid, and that’s why Democrats lose.

Oh, really? So if I listen to the speeches McCain and Palin gave at the national convention, I'll hear their deep respect for the Democratic party and its ideas?¹ If I flip on talk radio, I'll hear Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage sensitively analyze the issues of the day with great respect for the positions of Democrats? No, wait, if I listen to the pundits and analysts who pen best sellers directed at Republican readers and read their books, I won't find their ideas exemplified by titles like "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", "Obama Nation" or "Liberal Fascism"? Or "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"?

Spare me.

The leading difference is that the GOP manages to gin up its base with fantasies of a "liberal elite" that is plotting to "take away your rights" (or, in the case of gay marriage, abortion or birth control, give you rights or protect the rights you have), an approach that is perhaps exemplified by MacKinnon's, "They think we're stupid" line.² But what you're seeing there isn't Democrats condescending to Republican voters or treating them like they're stupid. And it's certainly not a demonstration of Republican respect for the ideas and values of the Democratic Party.
________________
1. Some have suggested that the Republican Party's past anti-intellectual stances are serving to both undermine conservatism and marginalize conservative intellectuals.

2. There are similar caricatures that some Democrats attempt to present to excite their base, but for a variety of reasons they're much more scattershot and much less effective.

Reinventing Education

Following up on his prior editorial, David Brooks again reminds us of the importance of education. To his credit, this time he doesn't try to find partisan advantage in the Obama campaign's platform as compared to McCain's silence:

Third, it’s worth noting that both sides of this debate exist within the Democratic Party. The G.O.P. is largely irrelevant. If you look at Barack Obama’s education proposals — especially his emphasis on early childhood - you see that they flow naturally and persuasively from this research. (It probably helps that Obama and Heckman are nearly neighbors in Chicago). McCain’s policies seem largely oblivious to these findings. There’s some vague talk about school choice, but Republicans are inept when talking about human capital policies.

There truly is a tension between Brooks and his party on these issues. While Brooks enjoys mocking "big government" programs as much as any other Republican, he appears to have his own vision for a similar set of programs, particularly programs directed at children from birth through the age of five (focusing on "motivation levels, emotional stability, self-control and sociability"), but followed by improved K-12 education, (as you might expect) a community service requirement for young people (even though he has never participated in the type of public service he advocates), and universal college education. His nod to conservatism is that he deems his programs investments in "human capital".

Brooks puts himself squarely at odds with that icon of conservative education policy, Charles Murray. He's not locked into Murray's ideology in which your IQ (which he, of course, links to race) dictates your fate, college may become an irrelevancy, but the kids he deems intellectually inferior can still make a good living by learning skilled trades and working for rich people. Brooks rejects the idea that IQ, or at least future academic performance, cannot be substantially improved by strengthening families and homes, and providing a strong educational framework for early childhood development.

Heckman points out that big gaps in educational attainment are present at age 5. Some children are bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development and, increasingly, more are not. By 5, it is possible to predict, with depressing accuracy, who will complete high school and college and who won’t.

I.Q. matters, but Heckman points to equally important traits that start and then build from those early years: motivation levels, emotional stability, self-control and sociability. He uses common sense to intuit what these traits are, but on this subject economists have a lot to learn from developmental psychologists.

He just has no real idea how to get there from here.

Brooks has a vision of college that is pretty much the opposite of Murray's, but he isn't basing his argument on the facts.

Goldin and Katz describe a race between technology and education. The pace of technological change has been surprisingly steady. In periods when educational progress outpaces this change, inequality narrows. The market is flooded with skilled workers, so their wages rise modestly. In periods, like the current one, when educational progress lags behind technological change, inequality widens. The relatively few skilled workers command higher prices, while the many unskilled ones have little bargaining power.

Yet if we're defining a "skilled worker" as one with a college education, college graduates aren't doing particularly well. The wealthy - the truly wealthy - whether they earned or inherited their way into the top 1%, are thriving.

The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year.

* * *

Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

I can agree with this part of Brooks' thesis - we need to find ways to foster the best performance from our nation's children. We should provide a context where any child who has the interest and aptitude for college has the opportunity to attend. But I also want to see college shift back toward being a place of intellectual exploration and growth, from its current trend toward being a form of trade school. That means not attempting universal college education. Give those who want it the opportunity to catch up at a community college or junior college before entering a four year school, but expect those entering a four year degree program to hit the ground running. Don't dumb down undergraduate and graduate programs to accommodate students who don't belong in the program, including those who wish to coast through a program because they get an automatic raise at work when they get the degree.

And what of the employer side? When I talk to people who graduated from college in the 1950's and 1960's, they often describe a world in which your degree (whatever your major) opened pretty much any door. One described how, with a teaching degree, he was heavily recruited into entry level business management positions. Through the 1970's and 1980's, there was a shift toward more specialized degrees (e.g., the MBA), but there was still a lot of opportunity for college graduates regardless of their major. For those inclined toward math or computers, the opportunities were particularly great, and that was followed by a period in the dot-com boom where pretty much anybody with a degree and a pulse could get a job doing something web-related.

But the overall trend has been toward the four year college degree as a vocational degree - with students wanting to know both, "What job can I get with this degree", and "What will it pay?" Jobs that once required a high school diploma, for reasons that are sometimes genuine but may also be arbitrary, often now demand a college degree. Jobs that once required an undergraduate degree often now demand a masters. The universality of college can make it harder to get ahead, and plays a significant role in the flattening of salaries for college graduates.

Meanwhile, with the cost of college going through the roof, the incentive increases to enter a field that "pays well". Colleges that used to get a lot of working and returning students have to battle for students (and money) with diploma mills like the University of Phoenix. Students who feel forced to pursue a degree "to get a decent job" can drag down a class, due to academic unpreparedness and their disinterest in certain (often "harder") classes. At the same time, between the rising costs of U.S. colleges, increased domestic opportunities for college, and U.S. immigration policy, we can no longer count on the population of foreign students that used to help fill up our college classrooms.

One of the joys of being a columnist (or a blogger) is that you don't have to "put up" - you can produce a new euphemism for great society programs ("This isn't a 'big government' program - it's an investment in human capital"), or make a broad set of proposals and suggestions while pretending they carry no social or economic price tag. But at the end of the day, if you're serious about reform, you have to somehow tie those ideas to reality. As Brooks occasionally, grudgingly implies, the first step in implementing his own ideas and reforms is by targeting the only political party that cares about these issues - in his own words, on this front "The G.O.P. is largely irrelevant." (But even if he starts supporting the party that is more consistent with his stated ideology, it's going to be hard to get any traction.)

Turn Off Your IQ At The Door

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the primary? According to Rep. Heather Wilson (R, NM), it's because she was overwhelmed by the formidable liberalness of the victor... Dennis Kucinich?