Leadership Not

The Republicans are quick to accuse President Obama of exercising a lack of leadership when it comes to passing legislation, most recently a bill to extend the reduction of payroll taxes. I personally have issues with President Obama’s leadership, but not in the narrow sense portrayed by his Republican detractors.
There are perhaps as many definitions of leadership as there are leaders. For the sake of this discussion I’ll go with Wikipedia’s definition: the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
One of the hallmarks of Presidential leadership is his ability to mobilize a political consensus to move his agenda forward. By his, I mean an agenda he feels is in the best interest of the country. To my way of thinking President Obama has failed to do so, in large measure by being unwilling to go directly to the people in a sustained fashion – using his bully pulpit to engage the citizenry and thereby put pressure on his political opponents. President Obama points out Republican alliances to big business, oil, and the uber-rich, but has lacked the conviction or courage to drive these points home.
Re-electing President Obama will do nothing for his agenda unless he has a Democratic Congress to work with. Even this situation, as evidenced by the first two years of his administration, is an insufficient condition for success. As an example, the Bush Administration avoided a Democratic filibuster of their tax cut package by ruling that the cut could be passed under reconciliation rules. When it came time to reinstate some of these taxes, Democratic leaders lacked the will to take the same tact. Think what would have happened had President Obama had the political instincts of Lyndon Johnson. I’m not sure we would necessarily have been better off, but the much of the agenda that President Obama ran on would have been enacted into law. Lyndon Johnson and Nancy Pelosi would have made a formidable team, much to the consternation of the right.
This leadership failing is not to be confused with the leadership failing called into question by the Republicans. The Republican leadership takes pride in being the party of no: no to any and all judicial and administrative appointments, no to any bills. Just look at the record. Even when the Democrats virtually cave into Republican demands in crafting legislation, the far right remains inclined to defeat the final bill just to deprive Obama of any sense of accomplishment.
President Obama has no influence with the Republicans on the hill and will never have any. His attempts at compromise were never reciprocated in any meaningful way. In fact, his personal involvement only complicates the problems of Congressional democrats in moving legislation forward. The Republican charge of a lack of leadership is without merit: you can’t lead when you have no chance in influencing Republican behavior. You won’t hear Republicans carp about his larger lack of leadership lest the sleeping dog awake and call for a House and Senate that is willing to work with him to address what he believes are the needs of the country.

Progressive Era Redux

The signers of the Declaration of Independence affirmed three unalienable rights –life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that were to be secured by the state based on the consent of the governed. Heady words, indeed.
Many question whether their personal ability to purse happiness is being held hostage to the inordinate influences of the top one percent of Americans upon the federal government. Most do not question the right of some Americans to earn and retain substantial wealth. Increasingly, however, they point to the unfair advantages bestowed upon the uber-rich by federal and state governments.
This was not always the case. From the end of the Second World War until the beginning of the Regan administration, a rising economic tide led to substantial increases in the standard of living of all income levels. The growth in family income ranged between 112% - for the lowest 20% of American family income earners – to 99% for the top 20%. The trends diverged beginning with the Reagan tax cuts and continued thereafter. From 1980-2007 the growth in family incomes ranged from 15% to 33% for bottom 80% of population as opposed to 95% for the top 20%. Family income levels for the top 1% of American families rose by a whopping 251%.
This marked shift in income distribution did not raise a hue and cry. Americans do not begrudge the rich, in part because they hope, however unrealistically, one day to be able to similarly enjoy the fruits of their hoped-for success. The banking crisis and subsequent recession has brought these disparities into sharper focus. What has become particularly galling to some, most notably the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the way these gains in wealth have been achieved. Specifically, they look at the influence of the uber-rich on state actions:
• The Bush tax cuts were focused on improving the lot of the wealthiest Americans by virtue of the sharp cuts on taxes for capital gains and taxes;
• Legislation was passed to reorganize the financial services industry and those appointed to oversee financial services were plucked from the very industry they were watching. Not surprisingly, regulators were loath to constrain poor banking practices or otherwise alert the public at large to the potential dangers of excessive bank lending to sub-prime borrowers.
• Legislation was passed that effectively bailed out many banks despite their poor practices: financial community managers were soon once-again collecting substantial financial bonuses.
• Legislation to improve oversight was slow in coming and has yet to be fully implemented because of Republican-led filibusters against Presidential nominees to head the new Agency.
Home ownership is the major form of wealth creation for many middle class families and, in marked contrast to their treatment of the financial sector the government has done little to help those whose property values plunged through no fault of their own. Those whose houses were under water, moreover, found it impossible to take advantage of the fall in interest rates to refinance. Moreover, economic revival is being constrained by the government’s newfound zeal in reigning in deficit financing. While hundreds of billions of dollars were authorized to rebuild Iraq, they find the government reluctant to extend unemployment benefits or lower income tax breaks.
In the late 19th century American citizens rallied behind the progressive movement. Upset over the greed of the Robber Barons and government sanctioned restraint of trade and union movements, they empowered their elected representatives to make fundamental changes to include anti-trust legislation, a highly progressive income tax, and the direct election of Senators (to remove the power of the upper class in the selection of Senators by state legislatures.) Currently President Obama is stirring the pot with progressive-sounding language. Whether he has the mettle or inclination to go forward with this platform is problematical. I would venture that a properly articulated progressive platform would find a willing audience.

Be Careful of What you Wish For

In a July poll conducted by CNN, nearly three-fourths of all Americans favored a balanced budget amendment. In fact, 49 state constitutions have long contained language requiring an annual balancing of the budget. Although specific Amendment language has not been crafted, Congressional Republicans insist that any amendment ensure (a) total expenditures do not exceed total receipts, and (b) tax increases must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. 

 
With the exception of financing WWII, prior to President Reagan past administrations were fairly effective in keeping annual deficits in check. Even FDR cut spending in the midst of the Great Depression – causing a double dip recession – in order to reduce annual federal deficits. 

 
While the proposed amendment may not have stopped the Reagan administration from cutting tax rates – in the belief that lower tax rates would boost the economy such that tax revenues would actually rise –it would have made it next to impossible for President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush and Clinton, from raising taxes to bring the resulting deficits under control. President Reagan’s substantial increase in defense spending- which arguably led to the end of the cold war- may not have been possible. 

 
If the amendment had been in place President Bush, would have to have (a) been forced to limit the size of his tax cuts, (b) found it extremely difficult to pursue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and (c) been precluded from increasing Medicare coverage to include prescription drugs.
President Obama’s stimulus program would have been impossible. If fact, as the recession deepened, the federal government, like all of the states, would have been forced to cut back substantially on spending to cover the decline in tax receipts and increase unemployment outlays. Today unemployment would be substantially above current levels. 

Are Republicans – who strongly back this Amendment – throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The requirement of a two-thirds Congressional majority for tax increases is a game-changer when it comes to the role played by the federal government. It is one thing to argue that Americans must pay for the services they wish to receive, it is another matter altogether to tie the hands of future voters. The first argues for fiscal responsibility, the second locks in the social policy preferences of the far right. If future generations decide on a greater role for the federal government and are willing to pay for it, than they should be allowed to do so. The two-thirds requirement for tax increases makes this highly problematic.
I’m also against the one size fits all aspect of the proposed amendment. Many if not most economists ascribe to the principle that budgets should be balanced when the country is at full employment, running a slight surplus during the best of times when tax receipts are particularly high and a deficit when substantial people are out of work. Substantial borrowing would only be permissible when future generations – who must repay the debt- are made better off as a result. A defensive war could be financed by borrowed funds, for example, in order to secure America’s future. Government spending of borrowed monies to limit the impact of an economic recession would also be permissible since the impacts of substantial economic downfalls carry well into the future. 

Instead of pushing for an Amendment, why can’t Congress force itself to act responsibility? They actually sought to do so beginning in 1990 when PAYGO statutes were put into effect. PAYGO compelled that any new Congressional spending or tax changes not add to the federal deficit. Under PAYGO, if you wanted to pass a new initiative you either had to increase taxes or cut the budget somewhere else. Similarly, tax cuts had to be balanced by spending cuts. Seems to me this would work today as well, as long as there were allowances for defensive wars and dealing with economic downturns. Continued self-policing, however, requires continued resolve. In 2002 the Republican controlled Congress allowed PAYGO statues to expire, paving the way for budget-busting tax cuts, wars, and the Medicare prescription drug plan. Only in 2007 – when the damage was done – were PAYGO statues reinstituted by the now Democratically-controlled House of Representatives. (Notably, Obama-care meets PAYGO requirements.) 

 
The far right, in the name of fiscal responsibility, offers up an amendment that will also severely limit the ability of present and future generations to deal with challenges they may face and to put into place programs they may prefer. Before Americans embrace this Amendment they should be aware of its full implications. In so doing, they may opt for using the ballot box to hold Washington responsible.

Support the Real Job Creators

Republicans have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to increasing taxes on the rich. Such taxes, they argue, would only worsen the economy because jobs are created by the investments made the richest Americans. Singling out these job creators for increased tax burdens, they say, would only worsen the American economic situation.
I’m all for creating jobs. God knows we need to do so with unemployment running over nine percent. If the richest one percent were the job creating class than by all means leave them along. However, this is just not the case.
Jobs are created when businesses can no longer fill their orders with the workers they have on hand. By this logic, the government needs to go easy on those segments of the population most likely to place orders – i.e. buy stuff – while taxing those who are holding on their incomes – saving the monies - rather than spending it on investment, goods and services.
Republicans assert that rich Americans are more likely to invest and that investment by the rich creates more jobs in the long run than the same amount of consumption by the lower and middle classes. Many economists dispute this point, but let’s assume that it could be true. If so, than the Republican’s new shorthand for the richest Americans – “job creators” – may be more than a glittering generality.
Suppose, however, that the extra income provided to the rich by keeping a lid on their taxes and special benefits do not increase investment in plant and equipment. If that is the case than – in the interest of lowering unemployment – shouldn’t we be increasing the taxes on rich and lowering them on those lower income groups who will immediately use their extra income to buy stuff and thus create jobs?
Fortunately, data exists to shed light on this conundrum. If the rich were creating jobs by investing in plant and equipment - either personally or via the corporations whose stock they have purchased – we would see increased levels of investment. If, instead, they were holding on to their monies, it would show up in corporate profit taking. (Simply put a corporation either invests its earnings or takes a profit.)

Corporate profits hit record levels in 2010.
Nonresidential fixed investment – where the rich job creators would work their magic either directly or via the corporations they jointly own – has yet to recover to 2006 levels.
At the end of the day, investment decisions by the firms and rich entrepreneurs are based on consumer demand and not on the amount of savings provided to the rich by virtue of lower tax rates. Consumer demand is based, in turn, by the amount of monies in the pockets of the lower and middle income Americans. It is these Americans, not the very rich, who are the true job creators.

Going All In: Taking the Crisis-Afforded Opportunity

The nation faces a true crisis. Sometime next month, unless Congress authorizes an increase in the debt ceiling, the United States will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations. However, if you know where to look and if you are willing to take the necessary risks, every crisis provides the opportunity for real change. The rebirth of the US Automobile industry, following their need for a government bail-out, would seem to be such an example.
Democratic governments, in fact, seem to require a crisis before making hard choices. This does not imply, however, that hard choices will be always be made in crisis situations.
Trying to stay abreast of the ongoing deficit reduction negotiations between the Democrats, Republicans, and President Obama is no easy matter. Interestingly, there are three, not two, groups involved. President Obama’s solution, in many ways, looks more like a Republican than a Democratic proposal.
All three camps agree in the need to bring projected Federal expenditures into balance with projected revenues. The devil – and the debate- is in the details. By way of background, the major contributors to the ongoing debt problem – remember the US was running a budget surplus by the end of the Clinton administration – in order are (a) the decline in tax receipts by virtue of the Bush tax cuts, (b) the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (c) increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid. The costs associated with offsetting the recession are substantial but transitory: the real dilemma lies in balancing the government’s books if and when the economy returns to full employment.
Early last year, when Congress was unable to gain Republican approval for a congressionally run bi-partisan debt reduction commission, President Obama issued an executive order to form his own bipartisan commission. Their report, released last December, called for major changes to both entitlements and the tax code – stemming the growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security outlays while reducing tax benefits to certain groups.
The politics, surprisingly, are similarly straightforward. The Republicans wish to balance the government’s books by substantially reducing federal disbursements to the unemployed, poor, sick, and retired. Republicans claim they were elected on the promise to not raise taxes, and argue that this pledge extends to maintaining existing tax advantages, for example to oil companies. To their credit, the party, under Ron Paul’s leadership, has put forth an integrated plan. based on reduced spending and lower taxes, to balance the books.
The Democrats, in contrast, are fighting tooth and nail to preserve entitlements while seeking to return tax rates on the richest to earlier levels. Feeling free to take shots at the Republican plan, the Democrats have not advanced their own integrated proposal to balance the books.
President Obama, reminiscent of the health care debate, chose to let the two parties fight it out before taking a position. He was specifically reluctant to enter the fray unless he felt the Republicans were prepared to enter into serious negotiations. With results of political negotiations mixed at best, and with time running out, Obama, in poker parlance, went “all in”. He took the opportunity afforded by a looming fiscal crisis to advance a proposal for a massive $4 trillion cut in the budget deficit over the next decade, with two thirds of the cut resulting from reduced expenditures – Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and one-third from higher revenues, largely by ending tax breaks.
In offering the Republicans this proposal, the President went against his own party. Validating the recommendations of the bipartisan debt reduction commission, he was willing to substantially reign in government entitlements. At the same time he was standing firm on his personal pledge that he would allow any solution be borne solely by the middle and lower classes. Again, reflecting the recommendations of the debt reduction commission, he called for increased tax revenues, primarily from the wealthy.
While Speak Boehner worked with the President to strike a deal, at the end of the day the Republican leadership was unwilling to similarly challenge their rank and file to seize the opportunity offered by the current financial crisis. Rather than having a responsible and meaningful compromise that restores fiscal responsibility, Congress is likely to follow long standing political traditions and somehow muddle through, at least to the next fiscal crisis.
Each side will spin the President’s motivations and the like: Republicans, for example, will continue to characterize the Democrats as the party of tax and spend. The simple fact remains, however, that President Obama –taking the opportunity afforded by the financial crisis- was willing to make substantial concessions on government spending in return for less substantial Republican concessions on taxes I’m not saying he would have received the support of House and Senate Democrats in this regard, but at least he was willing to risk failure in order achieve meaningful progress. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Republican leadership. The opportunities afforded by our financial crisis appeared to have gone wanting. The American people will suffer as a result.

Irresponsible Brinksmanship

Am I missing something about this debt crisis? Let’s run down some of the more salient issues at play.

While the costs of two wars and fighting the recession play a role, the major cause of the build-up in debt is the revenues lost by virtue of massive tax cuts under the Bush administration. Not surprisingly, the tax burden placed upon US taxpayers is at a 60 year low. Despite these two salient facts, the Republican leadership will not countenance even a semblance of discussion on cutting the deficit by raising taxes.

Unemployment remains stuck at over nine percent: the rate among minorities is almost three times this amount. Republicans and Democrats alike have essentially given up on developing programs to reduce unemployment for the simple reason that such programs take federal funds.

At the same time that nothing is being done to reduce unemployment, Republican measures to control the debt favor substantially reduced spending on those safety nets such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and TANIF that cushion some of the misery associated with being out of work.

The brinksmanship being played over the debt ceiling only serves to exacerbate America’s economic problems. The prospect of a federal debt default, no matter how remote, has caused businesses to stop in their tracks. The economic optimism of a few months past has turned to growing investor pessimism over the ability of the government to govern responsibly.

The key word is ‘responsibly’. To be fair, the Republicans ran on platform promising fiscal responsibility, and it is clear that their message resonated with the majority of Americans. Republican control over the House of Representatives means they control how much money is raised and spent. They have been successful in cutting government spending and can continue to do so.

The debate that has been opened up between the left and right on the proper long term course for America – further tax cuts and heavy spending reductions vice less severe cuts to entitlements along with some tax increases – is a good example of responsible government. It needs time to be fully vetted and explained to the American voters: let the 2012 elections be a referendum on which way Americans wish to go.

Holding the Democrats hostage by tying a vote on the debt ceiling to massive cuts in spending with no tax increases is irresponsible brinksmanship. This is different than the clash between then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton that led to a short closure of the US government. In this case the long-term creditworthiness of the United States is threatened: the ramifications of even a short default are long-term in nature, at a minimum raising the cost of borrowing by the US government (paid in the end by US taxpayers).

There is no need for the Republicans to be so heavy-handed at this point in time. The risks to American economic recovery and financial solvency are too great. Although the Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. With this in mind, a compromise would seem reasonable. Republican leaders should agree to the increase in the debt ceiling that is required for American solvency while continuing the debate with President Obama on the proper future role for the federal government. If they have it right, Republicans will be rewarded with control of the Senate and the White House next year.

The Obama Way

The strike against Osama Bin Laden speaks volumes about president Obama's leadership style. In his presidential campaign, Obama was very direct on his approach to Osama Bin Laden: if elected he would track down and kill Bin Laden even if it meant unilateral actions in Pakistan. This was a marked departure from candidate Obama's overall stance on national security and foreign policy, where he pledged to end the Bush-era unilateralism in favor of a multilateral approach to international affairs.

President Obama has been true to his word on both counts - trampling Pakistani sovereignty on the one hand while refusing to take a leadership role in the coalition of forces seeking to end the reign of Omar Kadafi.

What then, have we learned about President Obama's presidential timber? Firstly, he is deliberate in his decision-making while having the mettle to make the hard calls. Secondly, the buck really stops on his desk on important matters: pundits have criticized his use of the first person when discussing the mission, but the shoe fits - Obama is intimately involved in key administration decisions. Thirdly, everything is situational. While he ha over riding domestic and foreign policy visions, President Obama decides each issue on its own merits. These characteristics - on vivid display in recent days - hold true on domestic issues as well.

Uber-Rich or Rank and File

In a recent op-editorial E.J. Dionne discussed the obligation of the elites to ensure the continued well-being of the larger society. In effect he was blaming the uber-rich for the battle against higher tax rates.

I’m not sure the very wealthy are the problem. President Obama opined, in his recent speech, that he wasn’t getting much mail from the people who would bear the brunt of higher taxes. Some of America's wealthiest have publicly stated their willingness to shoulder a higher tax burden.

The political problem has a different dynamic. The Republicans defend tax increases the way that the NRA reacts to gun control: defend each potential inroad at all costs. Is it possible that higher taxes have become so politically intertwined with big government that the two cannot be separated in the context of diminishing federal deficit spending? Presidents Reagan and Bush I supported higher taxes to deal with mounting deficits. In contrast Speaker Boehner has declared that discussion of tax increases are 'dead on arrival'.

While the uber-rich have certainly enjoyed their good fortune, I’m not sure they are the problem.

Defunding Socialism

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is consistent with a vision of America where all Americans must ultimately fend for themselves. It reflects the notion, held by many, that America must not go the way of those West European societies which ascribe to the notion that citizens are collectively responsible -by paying significantly higher taxes - for ensuring an minimum standard of living for all, to include universal access to health care and quality old-age care.

Our nation has remained conflicted on these issues since Social Security was introduced by FDR. Democrats and moderate Republicans have been supportive of expanding social safety nets to include Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, and support to low income families. The costs of these safety nets are on the rise, to the point where higher taxes are now required if they are to be sustained. Congressman Ryan has opened the door to a fundamental reappraisal of America’s commitment to one another. At present there is no one on the left picking up the gauntlet he has thrown down. If the Democratic leadership fails answer the challenge, than someone else will.

KISS

I used to believe that an informed citizen could stay sufficiently abreast of government happenings but no longer hold this opinion. My tipping point came last week. Sixty-Minutes’ report on the adverse impact of high corporate tax rates convinced me that something had to be done to help out corporations; the subsequent disclosure that GE paid nothing in corporate taxes evoked a similar outrage albeit in the opposite direction. In 2009 the World-Bank International Finance Corporation estimated that the United States has a lower effective rate of corporate income tax than Germany, Japan, Canada, China and India. I now understand President Obama’s stated willingness to cut corporate tax rates on the condition that special exemptions are concomitantly eliminated. Apropos of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show segment, I “give up” on understanding government.

Apparently most Americans share my distrust. Last April, only 22 percent of Americans surveyed by Pew Research say they can trust government in Washington almost always or most of the time. Their fears are well based. In theory, we send Congressmen to exercise their best judgment on our behalf. We expect laws will be crafted and tweaked to reflect subtle situational differences such that all are treated fairly in the end. In reality, our government is hyper-pluralistic: corporations and interest groups – working through hired lobbyists and by providing campaign contributions – are extremely effective in getting their way. Our elected representatives and their staffs invariably seem to craft and tweak laws to serve the interests of a select few at the expense of the many.

The answers to this disconnect lies in following the bright-line rule whenever possible. The benefits of simple and transparent laws, to include regaining the public’s trust, outweigh the hardships borne by individuals and corporations in special circumstances. Following the bright-line rule when writing legislation would severely mitigate if not curtail special interest legislation. One example would be a single tax rate on corporate profits with no other conditions. A second example would be to limit virtually all adjustments to and deductions from personal income earnings when calculating personal income tax payments. The health insurance reform law’s two thousand pages speaks volumes to the obfuscation associated with Federal lawmaking. People don’t know what to think and are prey to the political spin emanating from both sides of the isle. Exemptions to government regulations – environment, food and drug-- would be similarly restricted.

At the end of the day, even though some conditions or situations qualify for special treatment when writing federal legislation, they must be ignored in order that laws are straightforward, transparent, and easy to monitor. The costs to the few should be outweighed by the gains to the many. Bright-line lawmaking offers a path to restoring trust in government and ending hyperpluralism’s strangle hold on the legislative process.

The Pendulum Must Swing

I'm not in favor of the one-way political discussions now underway: we need to address the deficit, to be sure, but it would be nice to see a more balanced discussion pitting tax increases against cutting programs. I think much of the cutting now underway, particularly in Congress, provides cover for the right to neuter those government programs not of their liking. The relatively trivial cost 'savings' from ending government support to NPR comes to mind as does ending funding to Planned Parenthood.

These programs may well have outlived their usefulness, who knows. But don't tell me this is the way to balance the budget. The focus should be on the big ticket items such as defense and the entitlement programs. The one thing not being discussed is higher taxes, not even returning tax rates to the levels that existed over the two decades preceding the Bush tax cuts. That's simply not in the cards: the Republican majority was elected to cut spending and protect the tax burden.

The pendulum has to swing. Services need to be cut and the people need to feel the pain, such as it might be. If the pain is bearable than we have done the right thing by curtailing government programs. Public support for addressing the budget deficit via higher taxes as well as slicing programs will coalesce only if the pain is too great. It may take one or possibly even two Congressional elections before the will of the people is accurately reflected in Congressional decision-making. One thing seems to be certain, however, there will be change.

The Weakest Link

The media has been rife with stories explaining the technological safeguards that were or were not in place in Japan. At the same time we are informed about the extensive measures taken in the United States to preclude an Atomic accident to include training site mock-ups of nuclear reactor control rooms.

The extensive steps taken to limit the likelihood of disaster are comforting but they do not address the real problem – human error. Reporting from Japan indicates that the reserve power generators, which would have keep the reactors cooled, failed because a worker failed to fill up the tank. Bereft of diesel, the generators shut down and water was not pumped into the reactors. Simply put, the problem was human.

If memory serves me right, human error was also responsible for the Chernobyl disaster. At Three Mile Island, it was determined that operator error played a major role in allowing the coolant to escape.

The logic is inescapable: human decision making is the weak link in any solution. Technological prowess, at the end of the day, is ultimately dependent on the quality of the human element. Perhaps, then, the media should be focusing on the quality of the American workforce employed in nuclear facilities. What are their pay scales? Do they take IQ tests? Are there limits on the numbers of hours worked.

In a world that is increasingly characterized by the widespread application of advanced technology, it is well worth remembering that some things never change – the potential for human error. With this in mind we may well question the utility of employing highly technological solutions, which essentially compound the damages that can be done by those few humans who remain in the game.

Be Careful of What You Wish For

Across the nation teachers are under siege. Elected legislators and governors seek to reduce teacher compensation by eroding collective bargaining rights and holding firm on salary increases. Concomitantly, they are taking a meat axe to other educational spending, including substantial reductions in the number of teachers at a time when student populations are increasing. Classroom effectiveness has been under increasing scrutiny for several years, with calls for a thorough housecleaning of ineffective teachers on the one hand, and plans to first measure and subsequently tie teacher pay to some standard measurement of student performance on the other. One can only conclude that American citizens feel that teachers are not making enough of a difference in the classroom to justify the current level of oversight and funding.

The status held by teachers was far different when I was attending school. In the 1950s and 1960s -when fewer than ten percent of all Americans had graduated from college- teachers were viewed as a highly educated professional class. Classroom discipline issues were less of an issue, in part because parents had little tolerance for misbehavior in the classroom: parental respect for teachers was mirrored by student respect. America had its share of ineffective teachers, to be sure, but these were seen as the exception rather than the rule. This paradigm has been turned on its head. Today we extol our few super-teachers, and look for ways to instill these attributes in their less capable peers. Overseers look for ways to ensure a minimum acceptable level of teaching performance.

Part of this change comes from the increased focus on equating education with student performance on standardized tests. Surprisingly, however, the teachers we remember as special were those who made class interesting, treated us with respect, made us feel that we had the ability to succeed in life, and motivated us to perform at our best. The content of our learning took second place to the context. These characteristics don’t lend themselves to testing, however. It seems we have come to equate what is important in the classroom with what we can measure rather than what may really matter.

Young men and women enter and remain in the teaching profession because they are excited by the challenge of making a difference with America’s children. They recognize that the job has been made more challenging by standardized testing and larger class sizes, but they seem ready to take up to the challenge. Those who remain in teaching do so because of the positive feedback they get from their students. It doesn’t take much imagination, however, to foresee a substantial shift in attitudes of current and future teachers regarding the net benefits of teaching. It has become a thankless profession characterized by hyper-critical oversight, increased workloads, a decline in public appreciation, and reduced remuneration. We may be in the process of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cutting education is not like closing a state park during the week, or reducing government fuel subsidies to the needy. In the latter cases, impacts are immediately felt and subject to quick adjustment. The combined impact of our current onslaught on the teaching profession will not be felt so quickly. It may take up to a generation before its impact is clearly understood. In the rush to balance our budgets we may find that we have been penny wise and pound foolish. In our relentless pursuit of academic rigor we may find that the qualities we shoved aside in the interest of test performance are the very ones that make all the difference.

Charter Schools and the American Way

The North Carolina general assembly is all about increasing charter school opportunities for North Carolina students and their parents. As the story goes, charter schools provide parents with the opportunity to better align their child's interests with educational opportunities. Moreover, charter schools put pressure on regular public schools to improve performance. How can anyone argue with this win-win scenario?

I would subscribe to this scenario if charter schools, which exist because of public funding, are subject to the same rules as regular public schools. Specifically, regular public schools are responsible for instructing all students who appear at the school house door regardless of age, emotional baggage, educational qualifications and the like. In marked contrast, a student failing to make the grade - academically or behaviorally- in a charter school can be dismissed - returned to their local regular school.

The subtle benefit of an all inclusive public school system is that schools mirror real life. Students in public schools reflect the full range of racial and economic diversity present in the larger population. Their experiences better prepare them for effective adult participation in American society. Public schools served as the spoon that blended the racial and ethnic differences in America's melting pot approach. The quality of public schools may have been monitored by the parents of certain segments of this society, but their oversight applied to the entire school population. School boards, elected by the entire population, were expected to respond the needs of all societal segments.

Fast forward to a world populated by charter schools - public institutions of learning that have been effectively'privatized'. Students have to compete for admission and those who 'fail the grade' are returned to the public school system. Good teachers will naturally be attracted to such schools, in part because of the curriculum offerings and, in part, because of the knowledge that problematic students tend to be weeded out of the charter school environment. Worsening public school environments only feeds the pressure to create additional charter schools. With no ceiling on the number of schools the process will likely accelerate; the public school system will ultimately become the home base for those students who are unable to enter or maintain their enrollment in a charter school.

Students who are favored by intellect, self-confidence, and financial security are going to do well in any environment. Moreover, they set the example, albeit imperfectly, to fellow students as to what is possible in this country. These same students - via their positive academic participation-- also serve to improve the learning environment for all concerned. In this regard public schools tend to mirror society. Charter schools, in fulfilling their promise, erode this core dynamic.

Hard Choices Require Mutual Respect

A storm had thrown the Mayflower well off course- to the uninhabited west coast of the Cape Cod bay. The Pilgrims realized they had free reign in choosing how to structure their lives together in the New World. Their compact to one another – to which all subscribed – was to abide by the will of the majority as long as each had a say in voting on the Colonies laws. Their individual acceptances of majority will was facilitated by the recognition that all were in the same situation: there was no social or economic stratification among the Pilgrims. In short, there was no wealth to fight over.

Fast forward almost three hundred years. The United States had become the most powerful and richest nation in the world. It had evolved into a society where the distribution of income had become highly skewed, more so that at any time since the days of the robber barons of the late nineteenth century. Class struggle – long a scourge of any democracy- has moved front and center in public policy debates.

Paul Krugman speaks to this dynamic in his 13 January New York Times op-editorial –A Tale of Two Moralities. One side, he notes, believes strongly that “society’s winners” should be taxed to pay for a “social safety net” for all citizens. They effectively subscribe to the socialist tenants prevalent throughout Western Europe. Other Americans are equally strong in their conviction that citizens have the right to keep what they have worked hard to earn: they view “taxes and regulation” as “tyrannical impositions on their liberty”. Krugman points out, correctly, that there is no middle ground in this debate.

This class warfare was far less fractious in the past, in part, because the Republican Party was more moderate in its outlook than it is today. More importantly, past Administrations were able to simultaneously address needs of both factions. President Reagan substantially cut taxes without reducing the safety net: President George Bush cut taxes substantially while increasing Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Both did so by using America’s credit card to partially fund government operations. The consequence of this continued deficit spending has been the steady rise in U.S. indebtedness.

We can no longer have it both ways. The annual deficits from programs instituted but not funded during the Bush years have been exacerbated by the current Administration’s spending to first stem the economic downturn and subsequently to facilitate economic recovery. At this point America has effectively reached its credit limit. Although we probably cannot afford to constrain debt growth immediately, we must come to grips with disconnect between tax collections and government expenditures.

Our democracy is faced with making some fundamental choices regarding what we stand for as a nation. Unlike the past, there will be real winners and losers in the current debate. Those who cling to a relatively flat tax rate may be faced with absorbing substantially higher tax burdens. Those who believe in a central role for government in ensuring minimal levels of health care and personal income may be faced with substantial reductions in government support. Substantially cutting US defense and homeland security spending only mitigates this dilemma. Something and someone has to give.

Harsh choices require all of us to heed President Obama’s plea for an end to the vitriolic animosity that has become part and parcel of our national debate. The health of our democracy will depend, in no small measure, on the ability of the political ‘winners’ to be sensitive to the deep-seated values held by the ‘losers’. By analogy, those factions that do not get their way in public policy debates must accept that such losses are a natural outcome of the democratic process.
In our democracy, each citizen is equally entitled to their view of the proper role of government. This fundamental legitimacy should not be denigrated no matter how ‘irrational’ or ‘irresponsible’ their views may appear to others. Politicians espousing programs that go against one’s personal views are not ‘misguided’or a‘threat to the country’. They are simply representing the views of the electorate.

Failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views threatens the vitality of a democracy that started some three-hundred years ago when one hundred and two men and women combined to form a government based on equal participation in decision making and the shared recognition that each individual owed their allegiance to those decisions that were agreed upon. A tenacious clash of values is part and parcel of the democratic process, but so too is the recognition that everyone is entitled to an equal say in the matter regardless of their views. Democracies are sustained, not by policy outcomes, but by the process by which these outcomes are reached.