Five years ago this month, CNN hosted its final “Crossfire” episode at George Washington University. For those of you that don’t remember, or have made the conscience decision to block it from your memory, this relatively popular show pitted two political pundits (one from the left and the other from the right) against each other in what CNN called “debate.”
For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.
There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.
We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.
Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.
We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Constructive Criticism or Insubordination?
President Obama recently removed Gen. Stanley McChrystal from his post as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan because ofdue to remarks he and he staff made about members of the Obama administration in a recent Rolling Stone feature. In the article, McChrystal and members of his staff made frank remarks of other members of the U.S. diplomatic team, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones; the Vice President; and members of Congress. Much of the vitriol in their comments focus on how the various players involved in creating a lasting democracy in Afghanistan, at times, work against the interests of McChrystal’s Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategy.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Is Utah the New Standard?
A few weeks ago, three-term Utah Senator Bob Bennett was denied the opportunity to hold his party’s banner in the 2010 general election, which he would have undoubtedly carried to his fourth term in the upper chamber. Okay, fair enough. The GOP in Utah grew tired of his representation of them and, after 18 years, wanted change. That is understandable and it is democracy (other than the fact that the vote was only open to the people that participated in the convention).
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Another Bellwether from California: local government consolidation
A recent story on PRI’s Marketplace radio show got me thinking about how the current economy is impacting local governments and what may come in the future: the cities of Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena are considering merging and consolidating all or parts of their government in order to save costs. Due to a reduction in taxes and state-level budget cuts, the cities are exploring whether a consolidation will help them do more with less.
It makes logical sense that less government translates into lower cost: larger entities have a better negotiating position in purchasing goods and services (gas, paper, various outsourced administrative services, etc). But there may be other reason why government consolidation may be beneficial. A 1980 study in Administrative Science Quarterly found that “the number of administrative units per capita is significantly and negatively related to quality of services.” In other words, fewer government entities lead to an improvement in the public’s perception of the quality of the government services being provided.
Whether or not Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena go forward with their consolidation, the issue of government simplification may remain a hot topic at the local level for the foreseeable future. State and local government across the country are considering a variety of new measure to reduce expenses and raise revenue . Where else could simplifying the government help reduce costs? Two states where simplifying the complexity of government could result in not only an improvement in perception but actual improvements in how the government is managed are New Jersey and my home state of Rhode Island.
New Jersey has 21 counties, yet has 566 municipalities, and more than 600 school districts, some of which actually have no schools but Rhode Island, to its credit, has only four counties, but has 39 individual municipalities and 50 school districts, all of which do have at least one school (thank goodness for the previous efforts to consolidate the State’s 67 officially recognized villages into its 39 cities and towns).
Even though New Jersey is seven times as large, it is “relatively efficient” (if New Jersey were the size of Rhode Island, it would have 79 municipalities and 83 school districts). Then again, Rhode Island has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country at 12.5%, compared with New Jersey’s 9.8%. The striking numbers here are the number of governmental entities each state has. Each of these municipalities and school districts require its own administrative body, and each needs to generate revenue to pay for its operations (even if it doesn’t have a school).
Because one of the only ways local government can generate revenue is through property taxes, the situation has resulted in higher property taxes for these two states. As a result, New Jersey home owners pay the most in property taxes, Rhode Islanders pay the fifth most in property taxes. New Jersey home owners pay the highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income (and Gov. Christie may increase these taxes statewide), and Rhode Islanders pay the seventh highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income . In New Jersey, this has hurt the state as a whole when governors and state legislators, in an effort to gain votes, pass “property tax relief” bills, which passes along tax rebates to home owners, further inflating the state’s deficit. To balance the budget, Gov. Christie has encouraged local residents to reject their school board’s budget, allowing the state to reduce its obligations to the local school districts. In Rhode Island, the state assembly has already cut funding to local school districts .
While these efforts to blindly cut funding to schools may appear to be the “fiscally responsible” answer, without an accompanying plan to maintain and improve the strength of the educational system, it is not the social responsible solution. In a larger sense, both states’ efforts to manage public pension obligations present a larger and more long-term threat to their budgets (and both education reform and public pensions are an entirely more complicated bag of worms which will be addressed another day).
So, why can’t our public leaders find improvements and efficiencies through consolidation? The main threat to simplification and consolidation comes from the public leaders who run these micro-governments. All politics is local, and with these small municipalities, this rule is twice as true. Ballot efforts to consolidate governments do not have a history of success, due to the support by the residents of their local leaders. With their tiny fiefdoms to rule over, these public leaders are actually working against the public good when they refuse to take action to (or even discuss the possibility of) streamline government. Yes, it may eliminate their job, but it’s for the public good, which is why we hired them in the first place.
It makes logical sense that less government translates into lower cost: larger entities have a better negotiating position in purchasing goods and services (gas, paper, various outsourced administrative services, etc). But there may be other reason why government consolidation may be beneficial. A 1980 study in Administrative Science Quarterly found that “the number of administrative units per capita is significantly and negatively related to quality of services.” In other words, fewer government entities lead to an improvement in the public’s perception of the quality of the government services being provided.
Whether or not Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena go forward with their consolidation, the issue of government simplification may remain a hot topic at the local level for the foreseeable future. State and local government across the country are considering a variety of new measure to reduce expenses and raise revenue . Where else could simplifying the government help reduce costs? Two states where simplifying the complexity of government could result in not only an improvement in perception but actual improvements in how the government is managed are New Jersey and my home state of Rhode Island.
New Jersey has 21 counties, yet has 566 municipalities, and more than 600 school districts, some of which actually have no schools but Rhode Island, to its credit, has only four counties, but has 39 individual municipalities and 50 school districts, all of which do have at least one school (thank goodness for the previous efforts to consolidate the State’s 67 officially recognized villages into its 39 cities and towns).
Even though New Jersey is seven times as large, it is “relatively efficient” (if New Jersey were the size of Rhode Island, it would have 79 municipalities and 83 school districts). Then again, Rhode Island has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country at 12.5%, compared with New Jersey’s 9.8%. The striking numbers here are the number of governmental entities each state has. Each of these municipalities and school districts require its own administrative body, and each needs to generate revenue to pay for its operations (even if it doesn’t have a school).
Because one of the only ways local government can generate revenue is through property taxes, the situation has resulted in higher property taxes for these two states. As a result, New Jersey home owners pay the most in property taxes, Rhode Islanders pay the fifth most in property taxes. New Jersey home owners pay the highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income (and Gov. Christie may increase these taxes statewide), and Rhode Islanders pay the seventh highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income . In New Jersey, this has hurt the state as a whole when governors and state legislators, in an effort to gain votes, pass “property tax relief” bills, which passes along tax rebates to home owners, further inflating the state’s deficit. To balance the budget, Gov. Christie has encouraged local residents to reject their school board’s budget, allowing the state to reduce its obligations to the local school districts. In Rhode Island, the state assembly has already cut funding to local school districts .
While these efforts to blindly cut funding to schools may appear to be the “fiscally responsible” answer, without an accompanying plan to maintain and improve the strength of the educational system, it is not the social responsible solution. In a larger sense, both states’ efforts to manage public pension obligations present a larger and more long-term threat to their budgets (and both education reform and public pensions are an entirely more complicated bag of worms which will be addressed another day).
So, why can’t our public leaders find improvements and efficiencies through consolidation? The main threat to simplification and consolidation comes from the public leaders who run these micro-governments. All politics is local, and with these small municipalities, this rule is twice as true. Ballot efforts to consolidate governments do not have a history of success, due to the support by the residents of their local leaders. With their tiny fiefdoms to rule over, these public leaders are actually working against the public good when they refuse to take action to (or even discuss the possibility of) streamline government. Yes, it may eliminate their job, but it’s for the public good, which is why we hired them in the first place.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thank You Foster Parents
Most people don’t know, but May is National Foster Care Month. It is a month to raise awareness and properly recognize foster care parents and organizations. I have had the privilege of spending some time working with this population and, let me tell you, it was eye-opening.
To be sure, not every foster care situation turns out well. In truth, many don’t – at least not by society’s standard. But children would not be placed in the foster care system if they enjoyed all of the privileges many of us claim. The foster care kids I worked with often knew their parents, but most certainly communicated that it would be easier if they didn’t.
I remember the first day I was hit with words that felt as if I had been punched in the gut. I was with a kid that was 12 years old, which, at the time was half of my age. He and I were talking about how his mom was getting out of court-ordered drug rehab in the coming week. I asked if he was excited to have visitation “privileges” with his mom (expecting the answer was an obvious one). I was shocked when he told me how he wished she would stay locked up forever.
Immediately, I said “you don’t believe that.” Without hesitation he said that he did. He rattled off the problems his mom caused, the revolving door between she, jail and rehab and about how her brief stints on the outside only further aggravated him and “screwed up” his visitation with his grandmother, who was the one family member he remained in contact with throughout his foster care placements. Hearing his story, I actually took his side (albeit I did not tell him) and wished his mom would just leave him alone unless she could promise she would not be out of his life for another jail term in the near future. He simply did not deserve the torture of her sporadic appearances in his life.
That night, I told my parents I loved them and wanted them to know that our differences and disagreements were not that bad. They, along with my brother, with whom I fought incessantly, had always been there for me; even if I was not there for them. They provided meals, shelter, protection, and, most importantly, unconditional love: things I took for granted, but are not universally known. This was my first sob story and it happened in my second week on the job. It certainly was not the last.
As I listened to stories like this, and far worse, I realized what a difficult world it is out there for so many kids. They do not enter their foster home in an ideal situation and they certainly don’t always make life easy on their foster parents. But through the dedication and commitment of foster parents, orphaned and abused kids might gain some stability, some nurturing, some structure and some direction. They might even, gain a loved one.
Foster parents, during National Foster Care Month and beyond, deserve society’s thanks. They provide hope and opportunity to kids that have too often lost both. They provide a future to kids that want to forget their past.
To be sure, not every foster care situation turns out well. In truth, many don’t – at least not by society’s standard. But children would not be placed in the foster care system if they enjoyed all of the privileges many of us claim. The foster care kids I worked with often knew their parents, but most certainly communicated that it would be easier if they didn’t.
I remember the first day I was hit with words that felt as if I had been punched in the gut. I was with a kid that was 12 years old, which, at the time was half of my age. He and I were talking about how his mom was getting out of court-ordered drug rehab in the coming week. I asked if he was excited to have visitation “privileges” with his mom (expecting the answer was an obvious one). I was shocked when he told me how he wished she would stay locked up forever.
Immediately, I said “you don’t believe that.” Without hesitation he said that he did. He rattled off the problems his mom caused, the revolving door between she, jail and rehab and about how her brief stints on the outside only further aggravated him and “screwed up” his visitation with his grandmother, who was the one family member he remained in contact with throughout his foster care placements. Hearing his story, I actually took his side (albeit I did not tell him) and wished his mom would just leave him alone unless she could promise she would not be out of his life for another jail term in the near future. He simply did not deserve the torture of her sporadic appearances in his life.
That night, I told my parents I loved them and wanted them to know that our differences and disagreements were not that bad. They, along with my brother, with whom I fought incessantly, had always been there for me; even if I was not there for them. They provided meals, shelter, protection, and, most importantly, unconditional love: things I took for granted, but are not universally known. This was my first sob story and it happened in my second week on the job. It certainly was not the last.
As I listened to stories like this, and far worse, I realized what a difficult world it is out there for so many kids. They do not enter their foster home in an ideal situation and they certainly don’t always make life easy on their foster parents. But through the dedication and commitment of foster parents, orphaned and abused kids might gain some stability, some nurturing, some structure and some direction. They might even, gain a loved one.
Foster parents, during National Foster Care Month and beyond, deserve society’s thanks. They provide hope and opportunity to kids that have too often lost both. They provide a future to kids that want to forget their past.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Rules
I’m currently in the process of reading Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. The book is a “refresher” of basic economic theory, both micro and macro, and presents the fundamental concepts that underlie economic s in simple and direct prose (for anyone that wants a nice econ refresher, I highly recommend it). Early in the book, Wheelan confronts the role of government in economics; presenting an argument that government has a role in economics but should not be involved in the market. In other words, “[g]overnment has the potential to enhance the productive capacity of the economy and make us much better off as a result.” The basic underpinning of Wheelan’s argument is this: the government exists to set the rules, and, without the rules, we wouldn’t have an economy.
The idea is this: the free market is great and we should do our best to make sure that free markets exist, but, without a democratic government (and the laws, rules, and regulations that go along with a democratic government), the cost of doing business would be too high for any rational person or business to chose to engage in the economy. Businesses would need to pay for basic security that they get for free in a democratic society. He cites a 2000 column from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, where Friedman argues that developing countries envy the U.S. because of its government bureaucracy.
Without the laws, rules, regulations, and uncorrupted government agencies that make up a stable western democracy, economic development is nearly impossible. These regulations provide the framework for protecting patents, ensuring that monopolies don’t price gauge us, and define property rights. Plus infrastructure investment – it sure is nice not driving on dirt roads (I’ll comment on this in greater depth in another post). As Wheelan writes, “Good government makes a market economy possible. Period. And bad government, or no government, dashes capitalism against the rocks…the reality is that nobody ever likes the umpire, but you can’t play the World Series without one.” For Wheelan, the proper role of government is to deal with externalities, those consequences of individuals acting freely in their own best interests that impact other people.
Juxtaposed against this is the wave of anti-government populism embodied by the “tea party.” These populists want less government in their life. The irony is that I would wager that they don’t want to eliminate the role of government in their life; the inherent sense of fairness and justice that permeates the rhetoric from this group leads me to believe that some government is good. When the “tea partiers” wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, they’re really saying, “Don’t tread on me, unless treading on me will benefit me.” So, it’s not, “Don’t tax me.” It’s more, “I don’t want you to tax me, unless it’s going to the fire department, which will save my house from burning down after I had the unlicensed electrician do some work on my house.” The challenge is in defining the limits of good government. What negative things have an impact on you that are the result of someone “exercising their freedom”? And who decides?
The idea is this: the free market is great and we should do our best to make sure that free markets exist, but, without a democratic government (and the laws, rules, and regulations that go along with a democratic government), the cost of doing business would be too high for any rational person or business to chose to engage in the economy. Businesses would need to pay for basic security that they get for free in a democratic society. He cites a 2000 column from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, where Friedman argues that developing countries envy the U.S. because of its government bureaucracy.
Without the laws, rules, regulations, and uncorrupted government agencies that make up a stable western democracy, economic development is nearly impossible. These regulations provide the framework for protecting patents, ensuring that monopolies don’t price gauge us, and define property rights. Plus infrastructure investment – it sure is nice not driving on dirt roads (I’ll comment on this in greater depth in another post). As Wheelan writes, “Good government makes a market economy possible. Period. And bad government, or no government, dashes capitalism against the rocks…the reality is that nobody ever likes the umpire, but you can’t play the World Series without one.” For Wheelan, the proper role of government is to deal with externalities, those consequences of individuals acting freely in their own best interests that impact other people.
Juxtaposed against this is the wave of anti-government populism embodied by the “tea party.” These populists want less government in their life. The irony is that I would wager that they don’t want to eliminate the role of government in their life; the inherent sense of fairness and justice that permeates the rhetoric from this group leads me to believe that some government is good. When the “tea partiers” wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, they’re really saying, “Don’t tread on me, unless treading on me will benefit me.” So, it’s not, “Don’t tax me.” It’s more, “I don’t want you to tax me, unless it’s going to the fire department, which will save my house from burning down after I had the unlicensed electrician do some work on my house.” The challenge is in defining the limits of good government. What negative things have an impact on you that are the result of someone “exercising their freedom”? And who decides?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)