Mark Penn’s Opinion Is Irrelevant

Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, thought he might be able to get back into public political prognostication a year after his biggest professional failure. In a Politico piece, Penn predicts the reaction of Americans when unemployment hits ten percent, what he calls a “political tripwire.”

Unless some tough decisions are made soon, rising jobless figures will most likely hit what could be a public opinion and political tripwire: 10 percent unemployment.

If and when the country crosses that line, it will be the No. 1 news story for days, recent stock market gains could recede, and consumer confidence will fall. And whether or not the economic crisis is coming to an end, such a high unemployment level has the potential to undermine the hard-won confidence enjoyed by the Obama administration. The Republicans will quickly claim all we have is more debt and fewer jobs.

Let’s get something straight: unemployment will creep past ten percent. Even the Obama administration acknowledges this.

But let’s also examine Penn’s accuracy with previous predictions and success as a political consultant on the big stage. It’s not pretty.

1.) Penn’s strategy memo for Clinton, written on March 30, 2007, predicts the unelectability of Barack Obama due to his lack of American roots:

But he also called Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

2.) Josh Marshall points out in a 2008 post that Penn, quite frankly, sucks at advising Democratic presidential campaigns.

But some knowledgeable campaign watchers have now confirmed me in my impression that virtually every Democratic primary campaign Penn has run going back to 2000 or earlier has lost — Checchi, Blanchard, Cuomo, Lieberman, Deutsch. The guy has an absolutely terrible record.

Oh yeah – he lost in 2008 too.

As we examine the success or failure of the stimulus going forward, there are many people more qualified than Mark Penn to accurately and truthfully discuss its impact.

Idle Summer Could Lead to Resourcefulness Among Millennials

One of the bigger stories over the next few years among American youth will be the adjustments made in a struggling economy. 80 Million Strong has already done fantastic work on this issue.

The New York Times published a piece the other day on the millennials’ struggles to find summer employment and how they’re adjusting.

School’s out for summer 2009, and instead of getting a jump on the boundless futures that parents and colleges always promised them, students this year are receiving a reality check.

The well-paying summer jobs that in previous years seemed like a birthright have grown scarce, and pre-professional internships are disappearing as companies cut back across the board. Recession-strapped parents don’t always have the means or will to bankroll starter apartments or art tours of Tuscany.

So many college students and recent graduates are heading to where they least expected: back home, and facing an unfamiliar prospect: downtime, maybe too much of it. To a high-achieving generation whose schedules were once crammed with extracurricular activities meant to propel them into college, it feels like an empty summer — eerie, and a bit scary.

I don’t want to be too positive here, especially given the legitimate economic trauma hitting many youth now (the article eventually cites data showing that almost one in four sixteen to nineteen year olds is unemployed). I do think, though, that these difficult times that lay ahead could fortify this generation and put the finishing touches on a group of people that are eventually going to need to rebuild the United States. Resourcefulness — namely learning and practicing those still-useful skills taken for granted by our parents and grandparents — is something that’s gone by the wayside. While keeping up with cutting edge technology is our expertise, we often allow it to become a hindrance from developing other skills that we might value in the tough times ahead, like sewing, canning, and gardening, among other things.

There are major problems with the economy, and they’re disproportionately impacting youth. But the entirety of the experience doesn’t have to be negative. This summer of boredom could lead to unforeseen positives for those willing to explore.

Just some food for thought. Any comments?

Subscribe

Just an invitation to subscribe to this feed by finding the “subscribe now” button to the right. You can get each post delivered to your RSS feed reader.

Hope you all enjoyed your Fourth!

Comparing Universal Health Care with Bush’s Tax Cuts

Paul Krugman makes an interesting comparison at his blog:

Now the real thing has been scored — and it’s OK. Something like 97 percent coverage for people already legally here, at a total cost somewhere in the $1 trillion range. Bear in mind that the Bush tax cuts cost around $1.8 trillion over a decade. We can do this — and have no excuse for not doing it.

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires = $1.8 trillion.

Health care for everyone = $1 trillion, at most.

Patriotism is More than Fireworks and Flag Pins

Last week Sarah at Future Majority wrote about the lasting negative impacts recessions can have on society, decimating a generation’s collective trust placed in important financial institutions and processes.

There’s another side to this recession coin, though. As cliche as it may be, one large opportunity we as Americans have is to re-examine what really matters to us. I’m not invoking that mushy stuff about “living like you’re dying,” or seizing the day, living as if every day is your last. Unfortunately deaths occur every day that reinforce the fragility of life. Recessions force us to get back to basics. We have to clean out our closets, separating the SWAG of life from the non-negotiables.

This perspective was reflected in last year’s presidential campaign. Barack Obama was lambasted by conservatives for refusing to wear a flag pin on his jacket’s lapel. The audacity! Then-candidate Obama would go on to explain that patriotism is more than whether or not one places a piece of metal on one’s coat.

“Somebody noticed I wasn’t wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven’t probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time.

“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”

Since September 2001, many a politician, with an eye on the patriotism market, donned those flag pins. They became a part of our culture. The conventional wisdom never questioned them. And I’d wager that if a candidate refused to wear a pin before the economy’s crumble, say John Kerry in 2004, the refusal would have been met with scorn and powerful attacks by the GOP on Kerry’s patriotism that would have stuck (the Swift Boat stuff could have been irrelevant). But Obama’s decision to shed the pin and explanation came too far into Bush’s term. By that point, the Bush administration’s complacency in dealing with Hurricane Katrina had already been well-noticed on the Gulf Coast and everywhere else. People had already sensed that families were losing their brave patriots in a war that shouldn’t have been fought. And signs of a faltering economy were already prevalent. Suddenly problem-solving mattered more than symbols. Before the chaos, symbolic warfare may have captivated Americans; following the storm, it didn’t matter.

The back-to-basics theme is relevant around a holiday like the Fourth of July, a day on which we commemorate the blood, sweat, tears, and everything else that coalesced into the United States of America. On a day that sees many customs observed, there is none bigger than fireworks. Unfortunately, even the most basic of customs comes with a hefty price tag. Paired with the worst economic climate in decades, the price is becoming too much for many communities to bear, setting up a “y” in the road: pay for an hour-long fireworks show, or retain jobs.

Average Americans have been able to enjoy past Independence Days, free from the burden of severe financial pressure and other things that a bad economy brings. Pleasant memories of these times yield some cognitive dissonance for these same Americans when presented with today’s fork in the road: fireworks or their troubled pursuit of happiness?

Euclid, Ohio, profiled in the Los Angeles Times this week, is one of many communities struggling with this very decision.

People have long considered the fireworks a treasure of this Cleveland suburb, where flags fly year-round in neighborhoods of bungalows and stores post signs for passersby to “support our troops.”

But the fireworks and singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” on a warm summer night — and the police and firefighters needed to manage the 30,000 people who turn out — don’t come cheap.

So this year, Euclid will have no fireworks. “I’m 55 years old and I can’t remember not going to one of these,” Cervenik said.

As the economic crisis has dragged on, city leaders around the country say fireworks are a luxury they can no longer afford. Big and small, urban and rural, the skies will remain dark over at least four dozen communities nationwide come July 4.

“It came down to this: Did we want to spend $150,000 on something that would be over in a few hours?” Cervenik said. “Or did we want to use that money to keep city workers employed?”

Fireworks don’t mean much when quality of life is seriously threatened, just as flag pins don’t carry the same value when the pursuit of happiness we treasure is in peril.

Euclid officials and the leaders of other communities choosing to sacrifice fireworks shows in the name of economic viability should be applauded. This choice, while wrenching, presents an opportunity to shine the spotlight on that which is really the most influential to our collective pursuits. It forces us to recognize that flag pins and fireworks exist because of something bigger. It forces us to separate that SWAG from the non-negotiables of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Health Care Reform Progress

A few big things have happened today regarding health care reform.

First, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) has released a health care proposal that will cover 97 percent of Americans, will cost $600 billion, and will include a public option.

Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.

[...]

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

This is huge, as Jed Lewison reports at Daily Kos, because it takes away the scare tactics Republicans and most conservative Democrats have been fanning in this debate. No one can claim now that the public option costs too much, and in addition, the effectiveness of such a policy can’t be argued.

The second thing to happen is the American Medical Association announcing its support for a public option, which, in May, it had opposed.

Dr. J. James Rohack told CNN that the AMA supports an “American model” that includes both “a private system and a public system, working together.”

[...]

“The AMA does not believe that creating a public health insurance option … is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs across the health care system,” the organization wrote, explaining that a public insurance plan could lead to “an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Rohack, who recently became AMA president, suggested Wednesday that the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program available to Congress members and other federal employees could be expanded as a public option. That would avoid having to create a new program from scratch, he said.

“If it’s good enough for Congress, why shouldn’t it be good enough for individuals who don’t have health insurance provided by their employers?” Rohack said.

These two events, along with the president’s town-hall meetings, should be enough to create some positive momentum toward getting something passed. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Friedman Insults Youth Activism Again

What is it with Thomas Friedman and his insults? First, he wrote that Millennials were too quiet, too wrapped up in the internet to care about the country’s direction. He then came back last December and tried to argue again that because we’re not chaining ourselves to bulldozers, we’re not doing anything and thus don’t care about the trajectory of the country.

Yesterday, Friedman again assailed millennials, equating Facebook and other social network sites with laziness and apathy. The offending passage is in the last paragraph:

And then there is We the People. Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate’s attention. Play hardball or don’t play at all.

Emphasis added.

The Energy Action Coalition pieced together a response it blasted to its e-mail list. I’ve provided it below:

As a young person, you care about global warming. You know that a clean energy economy will create millions of jobs and pathways out of poverty, reduce pollution, and save the planet. And you are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Right?

Well, Thomas L. Friedman, the popular New York Times columnist, isn’t convinced. In fact, Friedman concludes his latest column* by calling us out! He writes:

“Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway…. Play hardball or don’t play at all.”

Does Friedman have a point? Do we need to be bigger and louder?

I think the answer is yes.

Don’t get me wrong — I know that thousands of young people across this country are working tirelessly to usher in a clean and just energy future for us all. But if we want to truly achieve our goals, we need our elected officials to know that we are watching closely as they debate the climate policy that will shape the rest of our lives.

Take the first step. Let President Obama and your Senators know that you demand bold, just, and science-based climate solutions, and ask your friends and family to do the same.

Let’s send a strong message to our President and Senators that we’re here, we’re watching, and we’re ready for action. And let’s ask our friends and families to do the same. It’s going to take big numbers to fight back against the thousands of letters and calls generated by the dirty energy industry (not to mention their well-paid lobbyists).

Send a message to the President and your Senators, and forward this email to everyone you know.

But we know that sending email isn’t enough. In order to drown out the voice of the dirty energy industry, we’re going to need to mobilize in unprecedented numbers. Tom Friedman isn’t kidding when he suggests we should have a million people marching in the streets.

Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up to be a leader in your community, and to help get millions of feet in the streets for climate solutions.

We’ve gone big before, but now we need to go bigger. And the only way we will get there is if people like you do more. Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up today to get active in your community, to get in the faces of our elected officials, and to recruit the huge movement it will take to win.

In it to win it,

Whit Jones
Acting Field Director
Energy Action Coalition

While the e-mail was inspirational enough, the problem with Friedman’s column is that he once again lacks the understanding that change can be accomplished through a variety of means. Friedman (and there are many more who think just like him) discounts activism through institutions as nothing. In doing so, he insults those youth already busting their ass for this legislation and movement. For instance did Friedman say anything when Powershift ‘09 brought 11,000 youth activists to DC urging the government to act? Who was quiet then?

Granted, Whit’s right — we all can be a little louder on the issue, but it doesn’t have to be limited to getting in the streets. We can continue our own brand of activism by using our technological proficiency and collaborative skills to push for the bill’s passage. Yes, the bill’s important (even if it has been watered down); but the 1960s are over. Youth have a plethora of tools at their disposal to create the change they wish to see. Unfortunately, Friedman either doesn’t understand that, or doesn’t want to.

Washington Post: Paper of the Sleazy Elite

Here’s an interesting tale.

The Washington Post, in order to intensify the coziness in relationships with the powerful inside-the-beltway crowd, apparently decides that journalism’s role of holding the powerful in check is a bit too restrictive.

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

If this pans out, why would anyone trust the Washington Post any longer?

We deserve better.

Sestak’s Act is Getting Old

Joe Sestak can’t make up his mind as to whether or not he will challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in a primary election.

This morning Sestak made a big splash by telling a local paper, The Wayne Independent, that he would definitely enter the race. “I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter,” Sestak said, in what was billed as the first media interview in a barnstorm tour of all of Pennsylvania’s counties.

But Sestak spokesperson Jonathon Dworkin tells me that in fact, Sestak has not made a final decision. Dworkin says Sestak told the paper what he’s been saying to everyone else: He’s still talking to his family about whether to run.

This follows a long pattern of Sestak publicly deliberating the possibility of challenging Specter that started when Specter became a Democrat at the end of April.

Sestak’s not exactly putting his best foot forward. For a man who is upset with Specter because he’s lacking principles, Sestak’s annoying “Am I or aren’t I?” act is hardly a pleasing alternative. This behavior suggests that Sestak’s ego isn’t any less intrusive than Specter’s is. Suck it up and make a choice, sheesh.

Quinnipiac Poll: 69 Percent of Americans Want Government Health Care Option

According to a recently-released Quinnipiac poll, Americans want a public option in whatever health care reform Congress produces.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans support creation of a government-run health plan to compete with private insurance companies, a new poll found.

[...]

“American voters want their fellow countrymen to have the option of a public plan, but don’t want a public plan for themselves because they are satisfied personally with their health care,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac’s polling institute.

The poll of 3,063 adults, taken June 23-29, showed strong support for President Barack Obama’s efforts to overhaul health care. The margin of error was plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.

By a margin of 53 percent to 33 percent, respondents said they trusted Obama over congressional Republicans to handle health care.

Recent conservative efforts to frame the public option as unpopular with most Americans are simply misleading and untrue. Yes, most people might not want it for themselves, but that doesn’t mean they’re opposed to the idea.