21st Century Agenda for America

On America's changing demographics:

According to an article by Ronald J. Hansen for The Arizona Republic, the 2010 census data shows that Arizona's rapid growth in population is due largely to a huge increase in the number of children under 10.  Furthermore, ccording to William Schooling, Arizona's state demographer:

Arizona's greatest growth appears to be among relatively young Hispanics, who have higher birth rates than the population as a whole

The implications of all this? Continued or increased demand for services such as child care, teachers and school construction, a possible increase in healthcare costs, and more of a focus on the fastest-growing counties.  The full article has the details.

On the Millennial Generation:

A recent study carried out by the Public Religion Research Institute on abortion and the influence of religion and moral values found that while the millennial generation is slightly more supportive of abortion than the public as a whole (60% compared to 56%), they are significantly more supportive of same sex marriage -- by 15 points -- than any other age group in the population.  A Huffington Post article by James Wagoner analyzes the impact that this and other conclusions from the study will likely have on the 2012 elections.  Some excerpts:

Millennial youth have, as the pollsters state, "a unique, nuanced approach to the issue of abortion, combining strong support for the availability of abortion services and access to birth control with moral reservations."

Millennial youth are major supporters of a broad array of sexual health and rights issues. They not only support same sex marriage and access to abortion, but they also support comprehensive sex education (82%), access to contraception for women who can't afford it (82%), the morality of same sex relationships (57%), and the morality of sex between an unmarried man and woman (70%).

An article by Diane Stafford in the Kansas City Star talks of a new study to be released this month on marketing to the millennial generation.  The study, called “American Millennials: Deciphering the Enigma Generation,” compares the results of 4,000 surveyed millennials with the results from 1,400 baby boomers and analyzes the trends and differences.  According to Barkley (a Kansas City-based advertising and public relations agency that is co-sponsoring the study) Senior Vice President Jeff Fomm, due to the use of Twitter, blog posts and web-based consumer ratings, Millennials:

...communicate on networks nobody owns. We have to learn how to market with them, not to them. We used to be in control of our brand and communicate that to our audience. Now we don’t have as much control.

Women and Minority News:

According to a Bloomberg article by Jonathan D. Salant, Democrats and allied groups are framing Republican moves to cut federal spending through measures such as an end to traditional Medicare and cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood as a war on women, arguing that these and other measures have a disproportionately negative effect on women.  The goal is ultimately to influence the 2012 elections by using these arguments to sway female voters in Obama's favor.  For example,

“The Republicans have handed the Democrats a gift,” said Leonie Huddy, a political science professor at Stony Brook University in New York. “If they play it right, they have exactly the issue that will attract women voters to them.”

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Aziz Huq criticizes Oklahoma's "Sharia ban" and the legislators of six other states who have been debating laws explicitly prohibiting courts from considering or using Sharia law.  He says such laws, in addition to being discriminatory, pointless, and a threat to national security are also largely baseless.  He says:

To begin with, the bans’ justifications are thin. Despite the worries voiced by candidates in the recent Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, no state, county or municipality is about to realign its laws with religious doctrine, Islamic or otherwise. Nor does any state or federal court today in Oklahoma, or anywhere else, need to enforce a foreign rule repugnant to public policy. Under the legal system’s well-established “choice of law” doctrines, the courts are already unlikely to help out someone who claims their religion allows, say, the subordination or mistreatment of women.

With Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Lamar Smith on the verge of releasing legislation that would propose to make E-Verify mandatory.  Ross Douthat, in his Sunday editorial,  took the idea of a mandatory E-Verity a step further.

Douthat also saw the Supreme Court Decision on the Legal Arizona Workers act as a reason to move forward with a national E-Verify system:

The E-Verify law was never as polarizing as last year’s police-powers legislation, but it still attracted plenty of opposition. Arizona business interests called it unfair and draconian. (An employer’s business license is suspended for the first offense and revoked for the second.) Civil liberties groups argued that the E-Verify database’s error rate is unacceptably high, and that the law creates a presumptive bias against hiring Hispanics.

There are of course problems with assertion, mainly that E-Verify is riddled with errors, a GAO Report noted for FY 2009:

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said 76 percent of name-related Tentative Non-Confirmations (TNCs)  were issued to citizens (i.e. there is a mismatch in the name submitted for verification and SSA and DHS databases, such as misspellings, name changes, and errors associated with having multiple surnames). 
• If E-Verify were made mandatory, GAO reported that the agencies estimate there would be 60 million queries per year, and 164,000 citizen and non-citizen new hires would receive a name-related TNC each year. 
• If the entire existing workforce were required to be verified, the number of TNCs would be substantially greater.  GAO has found that workers often face significant challenges in resolving erroneous TNCs.

Despite these problems Douthat sees E-Verify as a way forward on reforming our immigration system:

Advocates for “comprehensive” reform, the holy grail of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans alike, have long implied that it’s essentially impossible to prevent illegal immigrants from finding their way to eager employers. Instead, they argue, we have no choice but to ratify the status quo — i.e., mass low-skilled immigration from Mexico and Central America — by creating a vast new guest-worker program and offering citizenship to illegal immigrants already here. So far, though, Arizona’s E-Verify law seems to be providing a strong counterpoint to this counsel of despair.

Douthat does give credit where credit is due, and notes that the Obama Administration is stepping up prosecutions on employers, he also sees this as a way to do away with giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. The problem with this construct is, even if E-Verify worked well enough to detect all undocumented immigrants it would still not provide a way to remove them all in a cost effective manner. With the House gearing up to move on legislation making E-Verify mandatory every where, it is increasingly looking like E-Verify and enforcement legislation are the only tools which the GOP will utilize to fix our broken immigration system.

At this point I don’t know what is going to happen in Congress over the next few days with the new “deal” announced by the President Tuesday, but my initial take is that he got more than he is being credited for, and the GOP was exposed as having a very weak economic hand which spells trouble for them in the consequential economic debates to come. 

At a macro level, very little has changed with this deal.  We still don’t have a national economic plan, a roughed out consensus on how to get the economy moving again and over time reduce the deficit.  As long as job and wage growth remain below desirable levels, the current very intense – and very much needed - debate about the future of the American economy will be with us.  The steps proposed this week will help provide some stimulus to the ailing American economy at a time when demand remains weak, put a little extra in everyone’s paycheck for the next two years and do an awful lot for the many Americans out of work for far too long.  At its core the deal is a rejection of a politics of austerity inappropriate for the economic and political moment.  So on balance it is a good deal for America’s middle class.  In fact independent analysts have so far been upbeat about the deal, raising their estimates for American GDP growth next year. 

But this deal is not enough alone to ensure “recovery” in the short term or prosperity in the long term.   Much more must be done – from radically improving how our kids and workers learn and acquire new skills, to modernizing our aging infrastructure, to adopting a new national energy strategy, to promoting regional, “place-based” economic development and innovation, to finishing the job on immigration reform, to making a sustained and powerful case for continued economic liberalization throughout the world – all the while starting to get serious about putting our fiscal house in order.  The deal needs to be seen as what it is - a single step forward in a much longer march towards a better American economy in the 21st century. 

What surprised me the most about the deal was what the Republicans thought most critical to our economic future.  They fought for and won on two major points – the temporary extension of Bush era tax rates on incomes over $200,000 a year a person and $250,000 per family, and a trimming of the inheritance tax.  Both of these “victories” protected the very wealthiest among us from modest tax increases.  The expiration of the individual income tax rates would have increased a wealthy person’s tax bill by less than 10%, and returned to rates which were in place during the greatest economic boom in American history.  Republican claims that restoring these rates would be risky for the recovery remain more political spin than sound economics. 

The Republican strategy on display this week reinforces how intellectually bankrupt and ideologically enthralled with wealth but not growth and broad based prosperity the right has become. Their big “wins” were to protect the wealthy in a time of historic inequality, offer nothing concrete to help grow the economy and, and perhaps most remarkably, refusing to accept the most powerful deficit reduction tool currently available to either party – the expiration of the high-end tax rates - after spending 18 months attacking the Democrats for letting the deficit grow too much.  The deal reminds all of us that the Republicans rhetorical commitment to deficit reduction is the big lie of American politics today.  

Like many I am disappointed with aspects of the deal, but President Obama enters the next round of this debate having won some major concessions from the GOP; reinforced his position as a champion for everyday people and the overall American economy; and having had his opponents publically and foolishly choose the interests of the wealthiest among us over the national interest or the American people at a time of great national challenge.  While this may not have been a rout for President Obama, I think he enters the next and much more consequential stage of this battle in better shape than his out of touch conservative adversaries, and the American people enter 2011 also better off than they would have been otherwise.  That’s perhaps the best holiday present we can give to the American people in these challenging times. 

Update: See this excellent piece by David Leonhardt for more on the economics of The Deal.

The past three years at NDN & The New Policy Institute have provided me a great opportunity to expand my work on issues of national importance.  From working in 2008 to educate Latino voters about electoral participation, getting Lou Dobbs off CNN with the NDN-led DropDobbs campaign, challenging the anti-immigrant Vitter-Bennett amendment in the US Senate, conducting cutting edge research about Latinos, launching the Latin American Policy Initiative, and working on fixing our nation’s broken immigration system, to once again mobilizing Latino voters in 2010, it has been a productive period.  I am proud of all the work that has been done, and the foundation we have built to continue to move forward.  However, as times change, so do the demands on our leaders.

It is with this in mind that I announce that I will be leaving NDN & The New Policy Institute at the end of the year.  As many of you know, I came to NDN with a campaign background.  As we look to the challenges ahead, I think that my talents will be best utilized directly in campaigns and elections.  I will be launching my own campaign and political consulting firm based in Nevada.  This will allow me to spend more time with my family, and focus my energies on the things that I do best.  I have greatly enjoyed working with many wonderful people in my capacity here at NDN/NPI over these past three years, and hope I will be able to stay in touch in the years ahead. 

More information about the transition at NDN will be forthcoming soon.  But as always the NDN/NPI team is on it, and will be working hard to ensure continuity in all of the areas we’ve worked so hard on in recent years.   Thank you.

Executive Summary

This report uses exit poll data provided by the National Election Pool (NEP) from the 2010 and 2006 election cycles to provide a comparison and analyses for the electoral participation of Hispanic voters. This data was selected to provide an apples-to-apples comparison of the two election cycles. The NEP does not provide data on Hispanic voter participation for all states, so only states with data available were selected.

The most immediate observation is that Hispanics increased their share of participation in every statewide contest with the exception of the race for Governor in Illinois. In addition, Hispanics maintained their national share of 8% as they did in 2006. The 2006 election cycle was covered as one is which Hispanics would make their voice heard, and received positive attention. The national narrative in 2010 was much different and most media and pundits speculated that Hispanics would not be as active this election cycle. A review of the exit poll data shows that their speculation was wrong, and that Hispanic voters were extremely engaged in the 2010 election cycle.

There were several races in which Hispanic voters proved pivotal, but the race that provides the most clear indication of the role that Hispanic voters played in the 2010 election cycle was the contest for the US Senate seat held by US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This match-up provided a clear contrast between a candidate courting the Hispanic vote, and a candidate alienating the Hispanic vote. US Senate Majority Leader Reid won decisively among Hispanic voters and his support among Hispanic voters provided him the margin of victory.

The data shows that Hispanic voters have demonstrated a commitment to electoral participation over the past few election cycles. This commitment to electoral participation is important as it will ensure that candidates continue to court them, and will ensure that their issues gain increased attention from candidates.

Click HERE for the full report:

In Texas, a heavily Hispanic state, Republican legislators are drafting highly anti-immigrant legislation for 2011.

David Montgomery of the Fort Worth Telegraph has the whole story here:

"Conservative lawmakers, empowered by last week's Republican election gains, introduced a host of bills Monday that include an Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigration and the requirement of a photo ID to vote."

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, who at her finest can be seen here railing against "Terror Babies," has begun a new quest to pass Anti Immigrant legislation in the state capitol:

"Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, said she set up folding chairs and camped out near the House chamber over the weekend to be first in line to file a batch of bills that include a voter ID measure and Arizona-style legislation that would allow local law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants."

The Texas state legislators actions highlight the battle currently raging over what to do in the absence of any federal legislation that addresses our broken immigration system. After Arizona, states have become increasingly emboldened to pass their own immigrant legislation.

Certainly state legislators should try to help their constituents, but until there is a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of laws like SB1070, these new laws may be much ado about nothing.

It is important to note that where similar laws have been passed they have been incredibly expensive to enact and been all but impossible to implement as there have been so many lawsuits filed against said laws. 

It would be wise for states to at least wait until the 9th circuit comes back with their ruling on whether the law is constitutional or not, before they attempt to pass laws that may be thrown out shortly after they are passed.

That might save state legislators time and money, that they could devote to passing laws that would actually help the state, as opposed to tying it up in legal battles with the federal government.

Yesterday, Americans voted to return leadership of the House to Republicans, put many more Republican governors in statehouses and trim the Democratic majority in the Senate. While a huge recession undoubtedly contributed to yesterday's results, there is no question that they reflect voter unhappiness with how the Democrats handled the last two years.

What did the Democrats do wrong?  Critically, they did not focus on the economy, the one issue that people cared about most.  Instead, after passing the ARRA act, they pursued a strategy of using the financial crisis to move other priorities.  Indeed, the tea party which provided most of the energy behind the Republican resurgence came into its own in the summer of '09 when it organized rallies at Town Hall meetings to lobby Congressman against Obamacare.  And polls turned sharply agains the President and the Democrats after the Senate passed Health care legislation on Christmas eve.  The problem with healthcare legislation was it did not deal with the economy and, it went against the preferences of a majority of the public.  Expect Republicans to continue to use this issue against the Democrats for some time.

Second, the Administration generally did not take ownership of policy.  Leaving the policy up to Congress highlighted the sausagemaking element always present in making law and it was process (ie proposals to deem and pass) as much as substance that soured many people on the Administration's agenda.  Energy legislation--central to the Administration's vision of a clean economy, languished in various Senate committees. (Of note, the financial services bill where the Treasuty did take leadership moved successfully.)

Thus, pre-occupied with non economic issues and ceding policy leadership to Congress, the Democrats failed to articulate a plan to solve the one problem that people are rightly focused on in the midst of 10% unemployment, how to right America's economic ship and recover what was once considered an American birthright, rising incomes and prosperity.

While yesterday's losses were steep, they do not spell the end of the Obama presidency.  In 1994, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress yet those elections are remembered primarily as a footnote in the Clinton Administration's successful tenure and prelude to the prosperity that followed.  How then should the Administration react to what happened?  Here are some ideas.

First polarization at this point in history works for Republicans and against Democrats, not the other way around.  The last thing the Administrations should allow is the return of old wedge and hot button issues.  The Administration though it may be tempted to double down on left leaning priorities should recognize that it will be judged on problem solving. Polarization will not only reduce the likelihood of victories, it will also lower business confidence which may slow economic recovery.  While it should stick to principles it should also go the extra mile in reaching out to the other side.  The flip side of this is that the other side may resist working together.  However, the Democrats must try.

Second, though Republicans may find it in their political interest to be a party of no, they will be hard pressed to vote against policies they support.  Thus, where there is common ground, the Administration needs to find it.  Cutting taxes on small business, lowering tarrifs, making government smarter, and eliminating red tape to make America more competitive are potential areas of common ground.  Once more, Democrats win through accomplishments.

With respect to accelerating the emergence of clean energy as a job creating machine, streamlining regulations and opening up energy markets to new participants, ideas and capital can prove popular with Democrats and Republicans alike.  Our Electricity 2.0 initiative is focused on tapping the billions in private capital now off limits to the electricity network--the network at the center of the electrity regulation--due to its 20th Century regulatory architecture.  There are currently a number of financing proposals as well to tap private capital for clean energy and infrastructure projects without imposing a fiscal burden on the federal government.

Finally, Democrats should remember that part of being the party closest to the people--besides trying to enact policies that benefit everyone--is reflecting the preferences of the majority of the people.   Big D Democrat has a lot in common--or should--with small d democrat.  Politically and philosophically, the Democrats win when they represent the people, not elites or special interests. 

Yesterday may have been a good day for Republicans and a bad one for Democrats.  What's important, though is that the parties make tomorrow a better day forAmericans.  They can if they work together.   For the Obama Administration reaching out to the other side should be a policy and political imperative.

Today’s poll from The New York Times tells the story of a country focused solely on frustration over the bad economy. Jobs and the economy, added together, are the top concern of 60% of Americans. (No other issue comes close to those figures, including the budget deficit, which sits at 3 percent.)

Additionally, the poll write-up reinforces the notion that we have discussed at NDN, neither party is where it wants to be right now:

The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign.

A case for Republicans: Voters are remarkably open to change, even if they are not sure where Republicans will lead them. Most Americans, including one-third of those in the coalition that elected Mr. Obama, now say he does not have a clear plan to solve the nation’s problems or create jobs. Democrats remain highly vulnerable on the economy.

A case for Democrats: They are seen as having better ideas for solving the country’s problems. The public steadfastly supports the president’s proposal to let tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. And far more people still blame Wall Street and the Bush administration than blame Mr. Obama for the country’s economic problems.

Voters have a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 63 percent disapproving of Democrats and 73 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs that Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress.

So, while neither party is where it wants to be right now, there is good in this than bad for the President and his party. The American people are still far more with him than the alternative, they just angry and frustrated, and rightfully so. It’s also inarguable that the President’s ideas have been far better then the opposition's, and the truth is borne out in the polling.

Additionally:

The president’s overall job approval rating is 45 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. On the economy, his rating is worse, with 41 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. When asked whether Mr. Obama has a clear plan for solving the nation’s problems, 57 percent responded that he did not, yet twice as many give him more credit than Republicans for having a plan.

The good news for the Democrats right now is that they have the ability to increase their standing with the American people, and the path is very clear: they must convince the country they have a plan for the economy. The President has a strong case to make about what his administration done over the last two years, and that it’s all been part of a plan to fix an economy with serious problems that have been playing out for the last decade. The next month and a half are all about making the American people believe that he has a plan for the future and his opponents have one that just doesn’t work.

For the Republicans, they have to step up if they really want to take advantage of this poor economy, which means they too have to offer a serious economic plan for the country. It's something the American people don't think they've done yet.