Policymakers Newsfeed

Now They Tell Us: U.S. Officially in Recession

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:11:40 -0500

The National Bureau of Economic Research has spoken: the U.S. has been in a recession for a year. Polls tell us that a lot of Americans think the economists are late to the party on this one.

The bureau, an independent organization that's accepted as the official arbiter of economic data in the United States, actually doesn't follow the classic rule of thumb for recessions, which is two consecutive quarters where the economy shrinks. Their process considers a lot of other factors, which you can read about here. For a little historical perspective, you can check out this chart of economic growth.

But it's a rough year for the economy, and most surveys show the American public decided we were in a recession some months ago. Even back in January, 45 percent told the Gallup poll the country was in recession; by March that was up to 76 percent. Overall attitudes about the economy are very negative, with three-quarters having negative views and the same number thinking things are getting worse. To think about some of the options for getting the economy back on track, have a look at our Citizen's Survival Kit on the economy.

Change, Trust and Foreign Policy

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:13:39 -0500

The announcement of the new Obama foreign policy team has been greeted with much talk of a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, a "rebalancing" to emphasize traditional diplomacy over the military in world affairs. There's no question that the public is ready for a change in direction, according to Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. But public often defines the problem in ways that are very different from the foreign policy establishment – and the public's support should not be taken for granted.

Ever since we started the Foreign Policy Index in 2005, we've consistently found the public thinks the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on diplomacy over military force in dealing with terrorism. Most think there’s at least some justification for the criticism that the U.S. has been too quick to resort to force. That also applies in specific situations. Very few Americans support the use of force against Iran, for example.

And the public would also make humanitarian aid a much higher priority. In fact, disaster relief is at the top of the public’s list of priorities for U.S. foreign policy, on a par with traditional goals like nuclear nonproliferation. It’s rare, however, to see disaster relief get that kind of priority from the foreign policy establishment.

The public also has its own sense of the best strategies to follow. When it comes to making the U.S. more secure, the public regularly goes back to three key strategies: energy independence, better intelligence gathering and controlling illegal immigration. Those options have regularly been at the top of the public’s list in the Foreign Policy Index. Sometimes the relative position among them shifts, but it’s always the same top three by a clear margin.

There are two other key points to remember regarding public attitudes about foreign policy. Firstly, and contrary to what many commentators think, the public does see foreign policy as linked to economics. Even before the global financial crisis struck this fall, Public Agenda’s research showed concern about the economy spilling over into foreign policy, driving up concerns about energy independence and trade.

Secondly, public trust in foreign policy has been at a low ebb in the past few years. This is a change from the normal state of affairs. In general, the public still prefers to leave international relations to the professionals. Their default setting is to trust that the president and his advisers know what they’re doing – unless they see policy as seriously off track. In the last few years, that’s exactly what’s happened. About two-thirds of the public say foreign policy is on the wrong track, and half don’t trust the government to tell them the truth about foreign affairs.

The Obama administration may get the benefit of the doubt from the public, simply by virtue of being new. But trust in U.S. policy has seriously eroded, and the new administration shouldn’t assume that a change at the top is all that’s needed. Rebuilding public trust should be a foreign policy priority, too, because no policy, domestic or international, can survive for long unless it’s rooted in the public’s values and support.

Obama Names Key Cabinet Positions

Jenny Choi — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:14:18 -0500

President-elect Obama made official today his picks for key cabinet positions, among them Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and Robert Gates for secretary of defense. In the same news conference, Obama maintained his stance on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months. Meanwhile, current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit India this week, which is still reeling from last week’s terrorist siege that claimed over 170 lives. Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated in the wake of the attacks. Be sure to visit our Citizen’s Survival Kit for facts and choices to tackle these foreign policy issues.

Viewpoint: A new trio for our times

Peiting Chen — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:59:57 -0500

The era of dumb, dissed and dysfunctional government may be ending. Cynicism, cronyism and conventional political wisdom are threatened as a new, transnational political culture of idealism, activism, and potential multi-partisan cooperation dawns.

This is not yet another encomium to Barack Obama. Instead, looking at the symbolism and politics of three new (or newish) leaders on three continents, it appears that the democratic world may be entering an age as different and defining as those of two other transformations: the FDR/Keynes/social democratic post-World War II "liberal consensus" and the Thatcher/Friedman/Reagan conservative ascendancy of the last three decades.

So, how might this be the age Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva?

The threads that draw America's president-elect and the presidents of France and Brazil together are in the symbolism of who they are and their effects on their people as well as their politics and policies.
Politically, all three are more than rhetorically post-partisan. They espouse ideas and promote policies at odds with significant parts of their core constituencies. They cross political divides in surprising ways - from Mr. Obama's eloquent discussion of family and values to Mr. da Silva's embrace of global market capitalism to Mr. Sarkozy's calls for social solidarity and a "rupture" with French state capitalism.

They share a desire for greater social justice in a modern world that has benefited many but left many others hurt and trembling. They believe in helping Brazil's desperately poor, France's immigrants and unemployed, and America's legions without savings, health care or decent jobs not through Great Society-style handouts but what one observer of Mr. da Silva has called "conditional responsibility."

Certainly, there were glimmers of this in Republican and Clinton-era welfare reform, but the three men share a commitment to social compassion-with-personal responsibility writ large. Mr. Obama, Mr. da Silva and Mr. Sarkozy - emerging from left-liberal or statist milieus - have thrown off old-leftist shibboleths of anti-capitalist etatisme, while strongly embracing the need for greater government regulation and activism in building a more just, prosperous and sustainable world.

The three have discarded the global go-it-alone-ism of Gaullism, the Bush administration, and the old geopolitical obstructionism of what were once called "nonaligned nations." Instead, the three leaders stand strongly for global interconnectedness in a way that has been sorely lacking since the early days of the United Nations - on climate change, humanitarian intervention, poverty and disease reduction, migration, and reinvigorating diplomacy and international institutions. None are sycophants for globalization, yet each could be more forthright in supporting free trade.

Symbolically, the three men - their backgrounds, their styles and their political modus operandi - give a new meaning to the dismissive phrase, apropos of leadership who came before them, of being "so 20th century." As an African-American man with a Christian and Muslim, Kenyan and Kansan, single mother-to-Harvard background, Mr. Obama is today's world at its best - a world beyond race and cultural division and one of the promise of democracy and opportunity. Sans an elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration pedigree, with an immigrant and Jewish background, and a supermodel spouse shaking cobwebs from the Elysee Palace, Mr. Sarkozy has brought a curious mix of flair and inclusiveness to a hidebound society whose leadership class had strayed far from the ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Mr. da Silva, a once-rough-and-tumble union leader from the slums of Sao Paulo, has successfully expanded the market-based reforms of his predecessor while raising living standards for the poor, making Brazil the darling of investors from Wall Street to Shanghai as well as his flag-waving, working-class supporters.

All three are enormously public public figures. Mr. Obama's ecstatic throngs, likely to bring the largest crowd in U.S. history to Washington on Jan. 20, and his viral Internet presence speak to a sort of "people's democracy" that historians can only weakly search for analogues in Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. A similar popular fervency has surrounded "Lula" since before his first successful presidential campaign in 2002. While Mr. Sarkozy may not have the street or Web allure of his transatlantic counterparts, he seizes the diplomatic and media stage with gusto to push peace from Georgia to Darfur and financial-market reform from Brussels to Washington.

In one sense, this is a tale of three men with charisma, and of the triumph of opportunity and ideals over entrenched power. But, from Mr. Obama's stunningly self-controlled demeanor and Mr. da Silva's electrifying presence to Mr. Sarkozy's high-profile romantic life, these are men who are cool in multiple senses of this wonderfully nuanced word. With each, politics isn't boring. And they have galvanized their people and their aspirations. While each nation still has its share of business-as-usual politicians, these three have made political life engaging, hip and hopeful.

And there's the added promise. Beyond the potential for policy reforms that bring about greater socioeconomic inclusiveness, redefine the respective roles of markets and governments in ways that promote broad-based economic growth, and foster greater international cooperation and understanding, this trio of leaders can help dispel decades of cynicism about government and public service. Echoes of JFK notwithstanding, Mr. Obama, probably more than the other two, represents an enticement for citizens to actively care about their country and world: On the one hand, this means choosing personally to serve whether in the public sector or other roles; on the other, it means recognizing that policy-making requires an engaged, informed citizenry ready to make hard choices rather choosing the easy out of disengagement, disdain and demagoguery.

Yes, the world goes far beyond Washington, Paris, and Brasilia. Yes, China is the economic goliath changing our planet. And yes, there are all too many less-than-democratic corners of the world.

But, as the Obama mantra has it: Change is in the air. While politics and governing will continue to be littered with more defeats than victories, the substance and style of these three leaders point to an era of hope, inspiration, and perhaps even problem-solving.

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan think tank, is the author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility," published by Yale University Press this year, and teaches at American University.

The Iron Triangle

David White — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:48:55 -0500

“The Iron Triangle” examines the views of more than two dozen college and university presidents who shared their thoughts with us in lengthy, one-on-one interviews. We found that in the view of many college and university presidents, the three main factors in higher education—cost, quality, and access—exist in what we call an iron triangle, and any change in one will inevitably impact the others. This is in opposition to the public, business and government leaders, who don't accept the idea that there is necessarily a reciprocal relationship between cost, quality, and access.

Four Reports Show Grim Economic Tidings

Scott Bittle — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:06:16 -0500

The holidays are here, but economic statistics make it increasingly hard to maintain seasonal cheer. Four new reports paint a grim picture, with bad news on jobless claims, home sales, consumer spending and factory orders. Other reports show increasing demand for food stamps and strain on nonprofit food banks. As the government implements a $800 billion program to loosen consumer credit, surveys show Americans are still feeling the pinch. A Gallup poll says Americans expect to spend less than ever on Christmas and only 12 percent say this is a good time to find a job. Stay on top of the choices we face: see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Obama Zeroes In On The Federal Budget

Francie Grace — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:05:06 -0500

Barack Obama's on board for the economic stimulus package but he's also in favor of reducing the federal budget deficit – just not right away. "We are going to have to jump-start the economy," said the president-elect, as the markets reacted to steep declines in housing prices and the gross domestic product's worst dip in 28 years. "As soon as the recovery is well under way, we need to set up a long-term plan to reduce the structural deficit and make sure we are not leaving a mountain of debt for the next generation."

In the meantime, says Obama, he's told his budget director – Peter Orszag, currently director of the Congressional Budget Office, and described by his new boss as knowing "where the bodies are buried" - to cut the programs we don't need and insist that "those we do need operate in a cost-efficient way."

To illustrate his point, the president-elect pointed to a government program for farmers which made payments to over 2,700 millionaires in the past six years – even though they might not have been eligible for the boost from Uncle Sam. That program, said Obama, needs review.

Most of the budget cuts won't be that easy. Similarly, the administrators of the Wall Street bailout are having a hard time winning cheers in all quarters. Their latest move, to buy more bad mortgages and boost consumer credit, comes of the heels of the Citigroup bailout which has sparked concern about what effect it may have on other banks, which are now experiencing an increase in foreclosures and delinquencies among borrowers with previously solid credit ratings.

Obama, both in his comments on the federal budget and at his news conference Monday announcing the names of the men and women he's nominating to steer the nation out of the economic crisis, struck a bipartisan note in saying he'll consult the Republicans on economic reforms and will "honor the commitments made by the current administration" on parceling out bailout dollars.

But some of the decisions on who should be bailed out and what kinds of strings should be attached are drawing fire, in serious debate by policymakers and comments from citizens on through to comedy routines on late night television only a few degrees removed from questions being asked on Capitol Hill.

The nation, said Obama as he urged Congress to pass a stimulus and jobs creation package he can sign as soon as he's inaugurated, will weather this crisis "because we've done it before." But he's not high on writing the red ink-mired automakers the $25 billion rescue package they're seeking – not until, that is, he sees a detailed plan for how they plan to do better in the future.

A Gallup poll done days after the presidential election suggests many Americans would agree with this approach to the auto industry, even though unemployment has continued to rise and is straining national resources. Six in ten Americans surveyed by Gallup said "passing new, stricter regulations on financial institutions" is critical or very important for Obama to do as president, but only one in five said Obama should help bail out large financial institutions or provide financial assistance to the auto industry.

Fifty-one percent cited "helping homeowners in danger of losing their homes" as critical or very important for the new administration to do to improve the economy, and almost as many – 49 percent – cited "passing a tax cut for the middle class" as critical or very important.

One thing that notably didn't get much support in the Gallup poll was efforts to fight the spectacularly escalating federal budget. Asked what Obama's top priority as president should be, 64 percent said the economy, 11 percent said Iraq and Afghanistan, 7 percent said the federal budget deficit, 6 percent pointed to energy policy, and 5 percent said health care.

For more on decisions we face on the economy and the federal budget deficit, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and FacingUp.org.

Afghan President Calls for Timeline Amid Talk of U.S. "Surge"

Jenny Choi — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:31:33 -0500

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, meeting with a U.N. Security Council delegation today, called for a timeline on the war in Afghanistan. Karzai did not offer a specific time frame, but said, "If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations." Meanwhile, talk of a possible U.S. surge in Afghanistan has surfaced in recent weeks, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates announcing his support last week for deploying roughly 20,000 additional troops to the region.

Violence in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, and U.S. officials have widely cited a sharp increase in Taliban attacks and U.S., British and Canadian casualties. Military leaders have also expressed a general frustration with the performance of NATO allied forces. President-elect Obama has echoed the sentiment of a renewed U.S. presence and strategy in Afghanistan, amid rumors that he may retain Gates in his role as defense secretary.

Public attitudes about the war effort in Afghanistan have deteriorated markedly over time. More than half (55 percent) of Americans in a September CBS News/ New York Times poll said the war in Afghanistan is going "somewhat" (32 percent) or "very badly" (23 percent), an increase of 41 percentage points since March 2003. Yet while majorities continue to say the war in Iraq was a mistake, two-thirds say the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan was not a mistake.

Our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index has similarly indicated a significant decline over time in public confidence regarding the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. Just 28 percent give the U.S. "A" and "B" grades for "succeeding in meeting our objectives in Afghanistan," a 12-point drop since we first asked the question in 2005. But perhaps the key takeaway in our analysis has been the clear movement in public attitudes toward a more diplomatic approach. Seven in 10 (69 percent) say the government should "put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods", over military efforts (23 percent), and six in 10 (59 percent) believe that "improved communication and dialogue with the Muslim world will reduce hatred of the U.S.

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis

Peiting Chen — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0500

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis, by Andrew L. Yarrow, Public Purpose, November 18, 2008

The process – not the rhetoric – of change.

Peiting Chen — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:48:53 -0500

If change is to come, we cannot return to business as usual. We have seen so many elections that promised hope and more responsive government. And time and again, we have returned from our polling places to our homes and just waited for change to come. This time, something must be different.

It is wonderful that Americans showed their commitment by standing in lines for hours to vote or volunteered in the final months of the campaign – no matter which candidate they supported. But change will not come if citizens return to disengagement and leaders head to Washington and only listen to themselves and the lobbyists. The public voice that roared with impressive voter turnout cannot go silent in the months and years to come if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

This election brought more people of diverse backgrounds and young people into the political process than ever before. It would be a tragedy if American politics alienates those newcomers with a political process that doesn’t ask for their continued involvement and returns to the same old bickering between parties and jockeying for political points instead of long-term planning for the challenges that lay ahead.

President-elect Obama said, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation… And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.” But it isn’t always easy to listen to Americans from all walks of life when you spend the majority of your time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How can the president stay connected?

Public dialogue is the way forward.

With no clear consensus on how to proceed in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge unresolved questions about how to spur economic growth and no national consensus on issues like healthcare, immigration, energy and taxes, it is clear that the election did not provide all of the answers. Even if one believes that the election was the strongest possible repudiation of the Bush Administration’s agenda, it cannot be asserted that an Obama Administration has carte blanche to proceed without heed.

The promise of full public participation cannot end with the campaign. Barak Obama has promised that his administration will continue to seek full public inclusion, will respect differences and opposing points of view and will seek common ground to build on. Our community-organizer-in-chief knows that inclusion doesn’t happen by political osmosis and public participation doesn’t come about by wishful thinking.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

Organizations like Public Agenda help communities connect to leaders and have substantial conversations based on thorough issue frameworks and make progress on tough issues that demand compromise and sacrifice. We know that informed citizens are the real leaders of change across America, and no major reform can take place in the United States without their participation and support. We also know that a public that is not fully involved in learning and contributing to national conversation can be a major barrier to change.

Real public dialogue isn’t PR in progressive clothing. Nor is it a “nice idea” in democratic theory. Public dialogue is the actual day-to-day, down-in-the-trenches practice of democracy. It’s bringing together people who normally would never sit in the same room together and helping them explore issues and find common ground for action. It is extending the conversation that happens between candidates during campaigns to communities across America so that people of all walks of life and from many sets of experiences can weigh in with their own knowledge and beliefs. Building national consensus on the tough issues we face requires hard work to keep Americans engaged and learning.

PUBLIC DIALOGUE IS THE WAY FORWARD.

America didn’t just vote for Barak Obama, it voted for a different way of conducting politics. With this election, Americans have said “We want leaders who listen.” Listening can’t happen through polls, lobbyists and the echo chamber that is Washington. Dialogue works. Dialogue is the practice of democracy for the 21st century. Dialogue is the way forward, together.

Former SEC Chairman Shares Insights On The Economy

Francie Grace — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:46:33 -0500

The year ahead, says William Donaldson, is likely to be another tough one, but it's also likely that entrepreneurs will find opportunities even in the current economic climate. Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, the former top boss of both the SEC and the NYSE zeroed in on Wall Street's varied history on regulation as he discussed measures that could be of use today. Donaldson, an advisor on Barack Obama's transition team, cautioned that regulatory reforms, to be meaningful, must be done on a global scale. Click here to read more about his remarks.

Below The Radar

Maya Dusenbery — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:59:46 -0500

Between the long shadow cast by the economy and the excitement of the historic election of Barack Obama as the new president of the United States, there's one subject which has barely made it into the headlines. Among the ballot initiatives that were decided in the fifty states were three referenda which would have banned or restricted abortion. These measures, in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, were all defeated.

Although the pro-life and pro-choice movements often appear irreconcilably polarized, the public does not seem to consider the issue so clear-cut. In fact, while a majority of the public supports Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the U.S., few Americans hold strictly pro-choice or pro-life views. Twenty-four percent believe abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," 57% believe it should be legal "only under certain circumstances," and 18% believe it should be "illegal in all circumstances."

Americans also seem to differentiate between their individual beliefs and what they think should be codified in law. For example, while 53% of the public personally believe that, in general, abortion is morally wrong, 68% also think that regardless of their own individual beliefs, it is a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor.

Although abortion is a highly divisive issue, the intense battle between the most zealous segments of the pro-choice and pro-life movements serves to obscure the fact that much of the public sees a gray area. Lost in the vitriolic political debate is the fact that many Americans, although uncomfortable with a government ban on abortion, would also like to see a lot less of them.

Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements would do well to focus less on demonizing the other side (as baby-killers, on the one hand, or religious fanatics, on the other) and more on solving one goal that those on either side of the issue can agree on: reducing the number of abortions. Perhaps, by listening to the complex opinions of the public, we can find a common-ground approach to ending the long, bitter conflict over abortion in the U.S.

For more information on public views on abortion, see Public Agenda's issue guide on the subject at http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/abortion.

Could an Economic Downturn Be the Ticket to Health Care Reform?

Jenny Choi — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:25:53 -0500

An analysis in the Los Angeles Times today posits what could prove to be a tipping point for the health care crisis: the current economic slump. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced his proposal last week for a universal health care package, and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a long-time proponent of expanded coverage, says he plans to advance his own universal health care plan next week. But how can we possibly be talking about expanding coverage at the same time that the government has a ballooning deficit?

Health care costs in the current economic climate have no doubt placed an enormous added strain on the uninsured and the newly unemployed, not to mention employers, health care providers and the government. But many believe that health care and the economy are inextricably linked -- that, in essence, health care is an economic problem. Last week, the New America Foundation released a report, "The Cost of Doing Nothing," which argues that waiting to reform the system, while costs continue to skyrocket, comes with a price. By their calculations, the "economic cost of failure," the billions of dollars in lost productivity for those without coverage, is actually less cost-effective than covering every American.

Americans, on the whole, agree that our current health care system has major flaws and is in need of change, but the degree of reform is less unanimous. Public support for a universal health care plan varies based on survey question wording. Two-thirds believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all American have health coverage, but they are less galvanized about requiring it by law. Still, the consensus is that lowering the cost of health care and extending it to more people are the most important issues for the president and Congress to deal with.

More on public attitudes about various health care issues can be found in our red flags section, and be sure to visit the health care guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit for the bigger picture: key facts and statistics, plus a discussion guide that offers three approaches to the problem, with pros, cons and specific strategies for each.

The View From Here: One Of Wall Street's Own
Looks At Past Mistakes, Present Opportunities

Francie Grace — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:13:20 -0500

By Meagan Murray

William H. Donaldson (right), a member of Barack Obama's transition team and former top boss at both the SEC and the NYSE, shares his insights on Wall Street, regulation and the bailout, in a conversation with National Public Radio's Robert Siegel.

The coming year, says William H. Donaldson, is most likely going to be a rough one. "But I have high hopes that we will have pulled ourselves out - that the world will have pulled itself out – of this in four years."

The economic forecast comes from one of Wall Street's own - a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission whose many credentials in finance and government include a stint as president of the New York Stock Exchange and his current status as an economic advisor on President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.

Speaking in New York Nov. 17th at the latest installment of the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast lecture series, Donaldson shared his misgivings about the strategy of trying to stem the slide on Wall Street by having the government use taxpayer funds to buy the banking industry's most loss-mired portfolios.

"The problem with attempting to buy the ‘so-called' toxic assets is, among other things, how you price them," said Donaldson. "If you pay too much, you are subsidizing the banks. If you pay too little, you may destroy the banking system."

The better option, Donaldson stated, is injecting equity capital into the banks to create the capability for lending again.

Known as a stickler for regulation during his time at the SEC, Donaldson sees now as pertinent a time as ever for the government to play a hand in monitoring the banking industry.

"There is some opaqueness as to what demands the government has made on the banking system for putting the money in," he said. "The banks are sitting on that capital and not investing it, not loaning it. That was not the reason they've been re-liquefied. There is not much sunlight in terms of exactly what is going on."

Donaldson continued to say that arguments for continued deregulation, similar to those the New York Times reports are now being advanced by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, are destructive toward economic repair. Donaldson also believes Gramm's own deregulatory efforts – specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate and obviated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (one of the many regulatory forms of legislation passed by Congress during the Depression era) – "let everybody get into everybody else's business." The fallout, he said, resulted in both the SEC and Federal Reserve being held responsible for monitoring the banking sector, which Donaldson claimed "left huge gaps of unregulated business – the most notorious being the mortgage business."

The problem lies in the differences of responsibilities between the two agencies. The SEC, Donaldson said, serves as a police agency for investor protection by ensuring public disclosure and oversight of issued securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, is in charge of making sure the banking system is functioning strongly. The problem, Donaldson says, is there is no overlap or consideration for either bureau.

"Whose jurisdiction is this?" he asked in reference to the fallout of regulating the banking industry. "The Fed is not concerned about the investor; they're concerned about the impact of that business on the system, whereas the SEC is concerned about the investor information," Donaldson said. "Those are two totally different missions… and so there is a conflict."

Asked about the campaign by U.S. automakers to get government help, an issue on the front burner in the lame duck session of Congress, Donaldson was reluctant to back any one approach to the problem. "When you get into the automotive industry, we're dealing with a totally different animal," he said. "We're dealing with a commercial operation and a competitive industry that's competing on a world-wide basis."

An option he said both the automotive companies and government could consider is bankruptcy, wherein the company does not disappear, but winds up being restructured under new management - although American morale, he acknowledged, likely would be dented by a bankruptcy of a landmark corporation such as General Motors.

Another possibility could be a compromise between bankruptcy and a federal bailout plan, in which creditors and stockholders negotiate a plan of reorganization without filing for Chapter 11.

All in all, Donaldson believes the auto industry's woes will be another burden pushed onto the next administration. In his opinion, there is no "silver bullet" regulation that can be immediately put into effect and fix the economy, but he does suggest that the credit market should open up again to consumers, both at home and worldwide.

"We're no longer isolated," he said. "We can address some of these regulatory changes… and get our house in order, but it will be meaningless unless we have a global approach - unless we have regulation around the world that is coordinated and basically prevents somebody from fleeing a highly regulated environment to a less regular environment. That's going to be really tough to do… An attempt to get the world coordinated is one of the big challenges going on in the world right now."

Donaldson said that events such as the G-20 meeting held this past weekend in Washington are critical to addressing the need for global cooperation with economic regulation. While principles and guidelines are easy enough to extract from thought, he knows enforcing them worldwide as rules will be a task built from the ground up; something he believes our country has to achieve on its own before we can apply it to the global economy.

In the end, he left the audience with a glimmer of hope for the economy. "Things do change," Donaldson said. "There's an amazing resuscitating – from the ashes rise entrepreneurs – and I think that's going to continue."

To keep informed on the economy and the choices we face as a nation, and to let our leaders know what you want, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and our Take It To The Next Level console of e-mail addresses for everyone from the president and president-elect on down to your Senators and Congressional representative.

Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress

Francie Grace — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0500

Entering a new era in Washington is a good time for many things, including a good hard look at what needs to be done to improve our education system, from pre-kindergarten all the way up through college. With that in mind, Paul Gasbarra of our Education Insights unit has written an open letter to the president-elect and lawmakers, with an education reform "to do" list to tack to their Blackberries as they return to Washington. We invite you to check out his list and then log on to our site to discuss the education issues you feel should be priorities in 2009.

An Open Letter To President-Elect Obama And The 111th Congress

Francie Grace — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:10:55 -0500

by Paul Gasbarra

Congratulations on your victory, we look forward to being served by you. You have all worked hard to earn the trust of the people and garner their votes. Soon you will be convening in Washington to craft policy that will improve and preserve democracy in our country.

There are many challenges ahead of you: curing a sick economy, managing two wars overseas, helping Americans keep their homes, to name a few, and we here at Education Insights know that this will keep you busy for quite some time.

However we must add to your long and daunting "to do" list the task of improving the educational system in our country. Every sector from Pre-K to college needs improvement, so while you are thinking hard between sessions, we would like to give you our own modest assignment to tackle before you ascend Capitol Hill or take office at the White House.

Public Agenda is in the unique position of being equipped to provide you not only with a list of ideas but also with a healthy dose of public thought.

You no doubt heard much of the public's thoughts during your campaign, but we have carefully gathered public opinion on a variety of issues and would like to share our resources with you.

Teachers

The Obama Administration has made it clear that getting good teachers into schools is a top priority. The ranks of teachers need to be filled, and the teachers need to be better trained and mentored. Our report "Stand By Me: What Teachers Really Think about Unions, Merit Pay and Other Professional Matters," offers a chance to get a look at what teachers themselves think, and their views are more textured and complex than many assume.

For example, most teachers support standardized testing, high school exit exams, and using testing as a basis for promotion. At the same time, most are concerned about the amount of testing and the danger that too much "teaching to the test" can stifle real learning. Similarly, teachers support higher academic standards, and very few want to return to policies of the past such as social promotion. Yet, most want standards set by educators, and not by state or local elected officials.

Lawmakers are legitimately concerned about the need to remove ineffective teachers who "are just going through the motions," and they may be tempted to focus mainly on eliminating tenure or reducing the influence of teachers' unions. But the views of rank and file teachers suggest a more complex situation. Most teachers say that without unions, their working conditions and salaries would be worse, and they might be vulnerable to unfair charges from parents or students. Yet, nearly half say unions sometimes protect teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom, and most acknowledge that receiving tenure is no guarantee that teachers have proved their effectiveness in the classroom.

"Stand By Me" also offers insights helpful to those trying to insure that new teachers start off on the right foot. Teachers believe the rookies among them need more training on how to handle discipline problems. The newbies themselves see reducing class size and requiring high school teachers to major in their subject as very effective ways to improve teacher quality.

Our latest series of teacher reports deals even more closely with new teachers. "Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges and Long Range Plans," (see each part of the series, Issue I, Issue II and Issue III) offers a great deal of insight into how new teachers are trained, how they fare in their first year, and the distinctive challenges of middle and high school teachers.

New teachers are upfront about revealing they need more preparation, especially when it comes to dealing with more diverse classrooms and working with special needs students. New high-school and middle-school teachers are more likely to say they have problems with student discipline and are not getting support from the administration. Finally, new teachers from premier alternative programs such as Teach For America or Troops-To-Teachers are more idealistic than their traditional path counterparts, but often say they could use more preparation and support than they currently receive.

A Mission of the Heart: What Does It Take to Transform a School, which focuses on principals in high-needs schools, also provides food for thought. Most principals we interviewed fell into one of two distinct categories: they were either "transformers," with an explicit vision of what their school might be like and a specific plan for moving it forward, or they were "copers," just struggling to avoid being overwhelmed and make it through the day without the situation getting worse. It's a crucial and intriguing difference, and it could be an important key to transforming troubled schools.

Higher Education

Current economic woes threaten higher education in a variety of ways.

As Wall Street's woes increased, the size of many college and university endowments decreased, due to the declining value of many investments. Donors are also not immune to stock market fluctuations and economic problems and have less money to give schools. Students and their families are furthermore less likely to be able to afford college in a trying economy, and lenders are cagier about loaning money.

Unfortunately, studies here at Public Agenda suggest the picture was getting grim for the college-bound even before the bad news of the last few months. Our report, "Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today," is required reading for legislators interested in a snapshot of public views on higher education.

Most people feel that a college education is virtually a right, something that should be provided to qualified students regardless of cost. Less than half of Americans believe that someone can succeed without a college education, and they believe that employers are less likely to hire individuals with a degree.

People still tend to believe that college offers a solid education but more than ever, they think qualified students don't have the opportunity. It is important to take action to reverse this sentiment which has been growing steadily for the past decade. Moreover, significant numbers of Americans question whether higher education is becoming too much like a business with diminishing focus on education itself.

Solving the challenges facing higher education today will require the participation of many stakeholders, not least among them the leaders of colleges and universities. In our report, "The Iron Triangle: College Presidents Talk About Costs, Access, and Quality," we find that university presidents for the most part see cost, quality and access as locked into an unbreakable reciprocal relationship.

In their view, the improvements that many Americans want to see, such as more opportunity for qualified students to go to school, cannot be made without resources. . College presidents believe that to increase access and decrease costs would mean sacrificing quality. They would like to see more government investment in higher education and improvements in K-12.

A stalemate among stakeholders appears all but certain unless steps are taken to encourage a more candid and probing dialogue about what it's going to take to build the kind of higher education system to U.S. needs for the future.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education (STEM)

Technology is king in our information economy, but the STEM fields may face a dwindling talent pool unless efforts to educate and recruit more young learners to the scientific ranks aren't stepped up. Our report, "Reality Check: Are Parents and Students Ready for More Math and Science?", takes a close look at the thoughts of parents on this subject. We also got a more focused look at the issue in the Midwest with a report called "Important But Not For Me: Parents and Students in Kansas and Missouri Talk about Math, Science and Technology Education."

Reality Check reveals that while math and science are on parents' radar as important topics, more than half of parents interviewed believe that math and science education in their own child's school is fine as it is, with nearly 7 in 10 parents of high school students saying this. Perhaps this is a misconception that lawmakers should address. Students themselves aren't that keen on math and computer skills, just half of them believe that strong math and science skills are absolutely essential.

Public Agenda has also taken a close look at the Hispanic population's relationship with Math and Science. In our report, "Out Before the Game Begins," we spoke with prominent leaders in science, business, and public service about what will be needed to help Hispanics - the nation's fastest growing population group - get involved in science, math, and engineering, as their presence will be greatly needed there.

The leaders we spoke with had many helpful insights and emphasized that many young Hispanics are poorly served by the education system, lack of strong English-language-learning program and a lack of important role models in the STEM fields. Combined, these hurdles make it difficult to encourage them to pursue science education.

In a partner report to "Out Before The Game Begins," Public Agenda analyzed and compiled our recent opinion survey findings presented it in "A Matter of Trust: Ten Key Insights from Recent Public Opinion Research on Attitudes About Education Among Hispanic Parents, Students and Young Adults." In this report, we found that Hispanic parents are more trusting of teachers and administrators and value college education even more than non-Hispanic parents. However, many believe the schools their children attend suffer from by a lack of resources and social problems such as violence in schools and high dropout rates.

Public Engagement

Finally, in tough times like these, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to afford all the things we might want, such as new facilities, new technology, or big pay raises for teachers. But this doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.

One of the greatest contributions new leadership can make is to create and support opportunities for the public to get involved through well-designed and moderated opportunities for citizen engagement and problem-solving.

In the summer of 2007, Public Agenda convened a meeting of foundation representatives and leaders of community-based organizations, to explore the relationship between philanthropy, community engagement and civic health, especially with respect to the specific case of education.

At the meeting, leaders addressed using a citizen-centered approach as a model to follow. Participants argued that it would be difficult for a school to remain unhealthy in a healthy community and likewise a healthy school would not last long in an unhealthy community. So while our economy may not be healthy, our communities don’t need to follow suit.

Another important insight that came from this meeting is that participants spoke about the potential for leaders to effect meaningful change.

We'll leave you with what we hope is an inspiring quote from that conference - - words we believe are a call to action for the leaders who have stepped forward at this time when we are facing so many critical challenges:

"Very few figures have the power to capture the imagination of citizens and really mobilize the public. Therefore it's important to capitalize on those moments when powerful leaders step up and say they want to engage citizens."

Sharing the Dream

Peiting Chen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:07:35 -0500

This Public Agenda report, prepared for the "Achieving the Dream" initiative to close achievement gaps at the nation's community colleges, offers insight into how the initiative's goals will be received by critical stakeholders in and around community colleges.

Opportunity Knocks

Peiting Chen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:02:37 -0500

"Opportunity Knocks" reports findings from qualitative research conducted on parent and student attitudes about math, engineering, science, and technology education in the Kansas City region. The report builds on finding published in another Public Agenda report, "Important, but Not for Me" and explores how regional leaders can bridge the "urgency gap" by using language that emphasizes the concrete opportunities associated with improved math and science education and achievement.

The Way Forward

Michael Remaley — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:01:51 -0500

The process – not the rhetoric – of change.

It is wonderful that Americans showed their commitment by standing in lines for hours to vote or volunteered in the final months of the campaign – no matter which candidate they supported. But change will not come if citizens return to disengagement and leaders head to Washington and only listen to themselves and to lobbyists. The public voice that roared with impressive voter turnout cannot go silent in the months and years to come if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

This election brought more people of diverse backgrounds and young people into the political process than ever before. It would be a tragedy if American politics alienates those newcomers with a political process that doesn't ask for their continued involvement and returns to the same old bickering between parties and jockeying for political points instead of long-term planning for the challenges that lay ahead.

President-elect Barack Obama said, "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." But it isn't always easy to listen to Americans from all walks of life when you spend the majority of your time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How can the president stay connected?

Public dialogue is the way forward.

With no clear consensus on how to proceed in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge unresolved questions about how to spur economic growth and no national consensus on issues like health care, immigration, energy and taxes, it is clear that the election did not provide all of the answers. Even if one believes that the election was a repudiation of the Bush administration's agenda, it cannot be asserted that an Obama administration has carte blanche to proceed without heed.

The promise of full public participation cannot end with the campaign.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

Organizations like Public Agenda help communities to connect with leaders, have substantive conversations based on thorough issue frameworks, and make progress on tough issues that demand compromise and sacrifice. We know that informed citizens are the real leaders of change across America, and no major reform can take place in the United States without their participation and support. We also know that a public that is not fully involved in learning and contributing to the national conversation can be a major barrier to change.

Real public dialogue isn't public relations in different clothing. Nor is it a "nice idea" in democratic theory. Public dialogue is the actual day-to-day, down-in-the-trenches practice of democracy. It's bringing together people who normally would never sit in the same room and helping them explore issues and find common ground for action. It is extending the conversation that happens between candidates during campaigns to communities across America so that people of all walks of life and from many sets of experiences can weigh in with their own knowledge and beliefs. Building national consensus on the tough issues we face requires hard work to keep Americans engaged and learning.

PUBLIC DIALOGUE IS THE WAY FORWARD.

America didn't just vote for Barack Obama, it voted for a different way of conducting politics. With this election, Americans have said: "We want leaders who listen." Listening can't happen through lobbyists and the echo chamber that is Washington. Dialogue works. Dialogue is the practice of democracy for the 21st century. Dialogue is the way forward, together.

Large majorities of Americans say people taking on more debt than they can afford and banks making risky loans...

Allison Rizzolo — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:39:17 -0500

Majorities say the government should step in to address the problems facing financial institutions, but are divided...

Allison Rizzolo — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:33:32 -0500

Persistence Unnoticed

Paul Gasbarra — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:24:50 -0500

Is a diploma by any other name a diploma? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Graduation rates in the country are just under 70 percent, meaning that fewer than seven in ten freshmen who enter the system graduate from high school four years later.

Many of those who don't make it through are dropouts who quit school entirely, but a portion of this number are students who are taking longer than four years to complete the curriculum. A recent article in the Washington Post addresses this discrepancy, featuring the stories of students who are working full-time and coming to classes at odd hours in order to finalize their high school education. Though many favor the method of tallying the graduation rate as described above, many students are getting their diplomas and going on to find success by taking the long road.

This is a problem that is particularly pronounced in the Latino community. The Washington Post article features a handful of stories concerning students who are supporting themselves, sending money to family in other countries and completing school. In Public Agenda's summary of educational data, "A Matter of Trust: Ten Key Insights from Recent Public Opinion Research on Attitudes About Education Among Hispanic Parents, Students and Young Adults," we find that Hispanic students are more likely to say dropping out is a serious problem as well as more likely to see cutting class as a serious problem. So the encouraging thing to take from the Post article is that students are returning to school to get the job done.

According to "A Matter of Trust," most young Hispanics say they got a lot of encouragement to go to college. This is a promising sign, and getting their diploma is a first step. Such an education is highly valued among Hispanics, with 52 percent saying most people are really impressed by someone who graduates from college.

So the process is highly valued -- it may just take longer to get to the finish line than what is traditionally measured. States such as Virginia are tallying five-year graduation rates as well as four-year graduation rates. As the situation improves, we expect to see higher rates of graduates in both categories.

Obama Team Begins to Formulate Renewed Strategy in Afghanistan

Jenny Choi — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:29:57 -0500

A report in the Washington Post today highlights sharp contrasts in President-elect Barack Obama's overall strategy for the wars in Afghanistan and Iran from the current administration's, both militarily and diplomatically. A major difference is the Obama team's clear priority of shifting focus by deploying more troops to the war in Afghanistan, which has recently seen the most U.S. casualties since the conflict began. While President Bush has approved additional deployments of troops to the region, the timing would be contingent upon the U.S. presence in Iraq. Obama's advisers have also spoken about supporting talks between the Afghan government and some so-called "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban, a number of soldiers who, according to senior officers at the Pentagon, are "more opportunistic than ideologically committed."

National security advisers in the Obama camp have also spoken plainly about renewing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and intensifying the fight against al-Qaeda, though any concrete military strategy has remained vague. But President-elect Obama was clear throughout his campaign about his intention to use diplomatic tactics and to engage with countries like Iran and Syria in order to bolster the overall counterterrorism effort.

Polling numbers on the U.S. effort in Aghanistan have shown increasingly negative attitudes in nearly every category. Our last edition of the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index indicated a significant lack of public confidence in U.S. effort in Afghanistan. Just 15 percent said the United States can do "a lot" about creating a stable Afghanistan, while just 28 percent gave the U.S. "A" and "B" grades for "succeeding in meeting our objectives in Afghanistan," a 12-point drop since we first asked the question in 2005.

On efforts to fight terrorism, the Foreign Policy Index has indicated clear movement in public attitudes towards a more diplomatic approach. Seven in 10 (69 percent) say the government should "put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods", over military efforts (23 percent). Six in 10 (59 percent) believe that "improved communication and dialogue with the Muslim world will reduce hatred of the U.S." And eight in 10 worry that the war in Iraq is "requiring so much money and attention that it may be distracting the U.S. from other threats in the world," with 47 percent saying they worry about this "a lot."

The Iraq and Beyond guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit delves into these issues in further detail, with relevant statistics, charts, and succinct analysis of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and the issues that surround our national security. Also be sure to check out the accompanying discussion guide, which lays out three approaches to foreign policy, with detailed pros, cons and specific strategies for each.

Our Responsibility And Opportunity To Participate In Change

Francie Grace — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:02:29 -0500

Now that the election is over, will citizens stay engaged and continue working for the public good, or will they become passive observers and consumers, waiting for the latest set of leaders to come up with solutions to the incredible challenges we face? To make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues, the public voice that made itself heard during the election cannot afford to be silent. Click here to read Public Agenda President Ruth Wooden's thoughts on what citizens need to do, and to be an informed citizen on the issues, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit.

The People Have A Responsibility, And Deserve The Opportunity, To Participate In Change

Ruth Wooden — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:20:29 -0500

By Public Agenda President Ruth A. Wooden

Americans stood in lines to vote for hours and volunteered in staggering numbers in the final months of the campaign – and no matter which candidate they supported this was an impressive display of citizenship.

Now that the election is over, the question is this: Will citizens stay engaged and continue working for the public good, or will they return to their private concerns and become passive observers and consumers, waiting for the latest set of leaders to come up with solutions to the incredible challenges we face?

We believe that, if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues, the public voice that made itself heard on various sides of the issues during the election cannot go silent in the months and years to come.

Real change will only come if government and citizens work together to create it. And I’m not just thinking of traditional citizen activists of the left and right. The nation needs a much larger, richer and more diverse array of citizens working together to help the nation find and put in place pragmatic, and not ideological, solutions to complex problems.

But is it realistic to think that the nation can continue to tap the energy and creativity of millions of citizens now that the organizing framework of the election is over? There is if the right conditions are put in place. For over thirty years Public Agenda has worked for better public dialogue, more robust public participation and a more productive working relationship among citizens, experts and policymakers. We know it is possible to bring more citizens to the table, put fresh ideas on the table, and work through our differences and resistances to change to find ways to move forward together.

The problems we face as a nation are great, and we cannot afford to leave citizens out of solving them. The hugely effective grassroots organizing that took place during the election season ought to be mobilized to keep Americans engaged and learning. The vast majority of Americans would be happy to hear the message: “The election may be over, but your job as citizen isn’t done yet.”

Citizens deserve the opportunity to stay engaged and the times that we live in demand that they do. Public Agenda will contribute all it can to help bring this about, and will join with others from all sectors of society who share this goal.

For all the help you need to stay engaged as an active citizen, understand the choices we face as a nation, and let our leaders know what you want and what you expect them to do, see our Citizen's Survival Kit and its issue guides on the Economy, Iraq & Beyond, Health Care, Taxes, Spending & Debt, Immigration, and Climate Change.

Policymakers Newsfeed

Now They Tell Us: U.S. Officially in Recession

Change, Trust and Foreign Policy

Obama Names Key Cabinet Positions

Viewpoint: A new trio for our times

The Iron Triangle

Four Reports Show Grim Economic Tidings

Obama Zeroes In On The Federal Budget

Afghan President Calls for Timeline Amid Talk of U.S. "Surge"

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis

The process – not the rhetoric – of change.

Former SEC Chairman Shares Insights On The Economy

Below The Radar

Could an Economic Downturn Be the Ticket to Health Care Reform?

The View From Here: One Of Wall Street's OwnLooks At Past Mistakes, Present Opportunities

Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress

An Open Letter To President-Elect Obama And The 111th Congress

Sharing the Dream

Opportunity Knocks

The Way Forward

Large majorities of Americans say people taking on more debt than they can afford and banks making risky loans...

Majorities say the government should step in to address the problems facing financial institutions, but are divided...

Persistence Unnoticed

Obama Team Begins to Formulate Renewed Strategy in Afghanistan

Our Responsibility And Opportunity To Participate In Change

The People Have A Responsibility, And Deserve The Opportunity, To Participate In Change

The View From Here: One Of Wall Street's Own
Looks At Past Mistakes, Present Opportunities