At 11 a.m., I will be attending an on the record roundtable discussion on health reform with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
I will be covering the event live on Twitter. As such, the Open Left Twitter feed will appear at the top of the middle column until at least the early afternoon. You can also follow it on Twitter itself, by following the Open Left Twitter feed.
****
Also, I incorrectly noted a few minutes ago that the reconciliation bill was posted online (enormous PDF). It has not been. The bill currently online is the Senate bill, with reconciliation instructions attached for the Budget committee. David Waldman explains:
The bill on the Budget site could just be a discarded early draft from October that they'll use tomorrow as a vehicle for the fix material.
Where We've Been: This is Part Six--the final part--in my diary series, "The Myth That Conservative Welfare Reform Worked".Part 1 began this project by debunking the conservative narrative that liberals and Democrats were uninterested in reforming welfare, drawing principally on Diana Zuckerman's artlce, "Welfare Reform in America: A Clash of Politics and Research ", published in the Journal of Social Issues, Winter 2000 (pp587-599). Part 2 began the presentation of a five-section argument with the first two sections, "Section 1: The Rightwing Hegemonic Framing Of Welfare Reform" and "Section 2: A Common-Sense Take-Down of the 'Welfare Reform Worked' Myth". Part 3 was devoted to a detailed debunking of Charles Murray's Losing Ground. This part will look at National US data, both long-term trends and a set of snaphsots. Part 4 dealt with national data--both long-term trends and a set of four snapshots--showing that (a) poverty is linked to scarcity of jobs (as represented in the unemployment rate), (b) teen pregnancy and birth rates were declining well before "welfare reform" and continued (but did not accelerate) their decline afterwards, (c) the social safety net was doing an increasingly good job of fighting poverty before "welfare reform", and (d) the adoption of "welfare reform" had significant negative impacts on those in poverty, even though there were off-setting factors that prevented things from getting as bad as they might have. Part 5 showed that the US does significantly worse than other comparable nations in fighting poverty, and that we do worse in fighting the conservative bugaboo of single motherhood among teenaged girls, even though there's not much difference in teenage sexual behavior.
We now turn to our last topic: the diversity of options and outcomes among US states, even given the constraints that keep us from being like the more successful countries.
Section 5: The Story of State-Level Data
In this section, we complete our debunking of the myth that conservative "welfare reform" was a success by examining poverty rates on a state-level basis. We've already seen in Part 5 that American anti-poverty policy as a whole is a failure compared to other industrialized countries. But by looking at state-level data we can gain a better sense of what sorts of policies within the American framework are most promising in at least steering us somewhat towards the direction of more successful policies practiced by other nations.
We begin by simply looking at state-level data on a state-by-state level, informally noting how poverty is highest among certain states by various different measures. We then turn to looking at systematic groupings of states, following a methodology similar to that employed to analyze groups of nations, first pioneered by Gosta Epsing-Anerson in his 1990 book, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism and then adapted by a variety others to propose other typologies for various different purposes, both in Europe and in East Asia.
We begin with a series of maps based on census data collected by Annie E. Casey Foundation at the Kids Count Datacenter website. First is the most basic map of child poverty, showing clearly that the greatest concentration of child poverty is found in the South, with somewhat lower rates along the Eastern Seaboard (except for South Carolina), and additional high poverty in the border states of Kentucky and West Virginia, as well as New Mexico:
This pattern alone should make one thing painfully obvious: the political party (GOP) and movement (movement conservatives) whose power is centered in these states is singularly not to be trusted as experts on how to combat poverty. Quite the opposite. The policies they've chosen to implement when they have the power to do so are particularly ineffective and not to be copied elsewhere. Indeed, they should be eliminated and replaced where they are practiced. Any sort of fact-based approach to poverty reduction would have to begin by recognizing this as an obvious truth.
The book sweeps across more than 50 years of American education, pivoting on key events that forever changed the landscape of our nation's schools: from 1950's-era segregation, through the 60's and 70s' years of experimentation and its backlash during the Reagan Presidency, through the promulgation of No Child Left Behind legislation, and up to the current education policies of the Obama administration. Ravitch, a historian by trade, describes a ruthless power grab, carried out ostensibly "for the children," that is bent on dismantling our national education system. The cast of characters is surprisingly small but immensely powerful, including a Nobel Prize economist, influential think tanks on the right and left, five U.S. Presidents (Democrat and Republican), deep-pocketed education philanthropists, and a raft of bullying and dictatorial mayors and school chiefs. The recurring theme throughout the story is that a "great hijacking" of American public education is putting education at risk to "the vagaries of the market and the good intentions of amateurs."
What's perhaps more startling than the message of the book is the nature of the messenger. Ravitch, a self-avowed "conservative," was an early and eager advocate for market-based, NCLB-implemented approaches to education reform. She was Assistant Secretary of Education and counselor to Education Secretary Lamar Alexander under President George H.W. Bush and appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board under President Clinton. She also co-founded an influential task force at the conservative Hoover Institution that advocated for "education reforms based on principles of standards, accountability, and choice." In her own words,
"I was attracted to the idea that the market would unleash innovation and bring greater efficiencies to education. I was certainly influenced by the conservative ideology of the other top-level officials in the Bush administration who were strong supporters of school choice and competition . . . . Like these reformers, I wrote and spoke with conviction in the 1990s and early 2000s about what was needed to reform public education, and many of my ideas coincided with theirs."
But when Ravitch went beyond the rhetoric of reform and actually looked at the reality of what choice and competition were doing to public education, she experienced an "intellectual crisis." The ideas she had been promoting so passionately were not working, and in fact, were becoming powerful weapons of destruction.
In this two-part diary I argue that the moment of truth that Diane Ravitch describes is a clarion call for progressives to forcefully push back against the Obama administration's misguided education policies. In part one, I specify the talking points that Ravitch arms progressives with in the fight to reclaim public education. In part two, coming next Sunday, I put the book into the broader context of what's driving a "Washington consensus" on education that is being pushed by politicians and mainstream media.
Johann Hari, a columnist for the London Independent, was on Democracy Now! this week, to discuss his new article at The Nation, focusing on why leading US environmental groups are lobbying against the kind of dramatic policy changes that the science itself says are needed to save the planet from global warming:
The Wrong Kind of Green By Johann Hari
Why did America's leading environmental groups jet to Copenhagen and lobby for policies that will lead to the faster death of the rainforests--and runaway global warming? Why are their lobbyists on Capitol Hill dismissing the only real solutions to climate change as "unworkable" and "unrealistic," as though they were just another sooty tentacle of Big Coal?
At first glance, these questions will seem bizarre. Groups like Conservation International are among the most trusted "brands" in America, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shoveling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters--and burying science-based environmentalism in return. Sometimes the corruption is subtle; sometimes it is blatant. In the middle of a swirl of bogus climate scandals trumped up by deniers, here is the real Climategate, waiting to be exposed.
As with Obama on health care, the arguments offered may be dressed up as "pragmatism", but the money trail tells a different story. Only this time, we're not talking about the party establishment being corrupted, it's the supposed progressive advocacy organizations that are being corrupt and dishonest. And it's been going on for quite some time now, beginning all the way back in the 1980s:
Every great American boom and bust makes and breaks its share of crooks. The past decade -- call it the Ponzi Era -- has been no different, except for the gargantuan scale of white-collar crime.
and backs it up with a very pedestrian unglamorous example set in Williamston, Michigan. According to Wikipedia,
Downtown Williamston is located at the intersection of Grand River Avenue (M-43) and Putnam Street (Williamston Road). As of the 2000 census, the city population was 3,441. Williamston is most notable for its antiques markets, and it has been promoted as a quaint, small town just outside the larger city of Lansing.
and looks like this:
Definitely not Wall Street.
The article explains:
The more typical marks of the Ponzi Era, though, aren't as easy to see. Williamston, Michigan, for instance, lacks towering skyscrapers, Italian sports cars, million-dollar mansions, and massive security systems. A quiet town 15 miles from Lansing, the state capital, Williamston is little more than a cross-hatching of a dozen or so streets. A "DOLLAR TIME$" store sits near Williamston's main intersection -- locals affectionally call it the "four corners" -- and its main drag is lined with worn brick buildings passed on from one business to the next like fading, hand-me-down jeans. It's here, far from New York or Antigua, that thanks to two brothers seized by a financial fever dream, the Ponzi Era made its truest, deepest American mark.
Jay and Eric Merkle, active church members and successful local businessmen, were well known among Williamston's residents. In 2004, the brothers discovered that an oil-and-gas venture, which they had invested in and which promised them quick, lucrative returns, was a scam. They'd been duped. Their next move should have been simple: turn in the crooks and get on with their lives, their pockets a few dollars lighter. Jay and Eric, however, grasped the spirit of their age and made another decision entirely -- they teamed up with the guys who had ripped them off, in the process switching from prey to predator.
I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church web site," Beck urged his audience. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me....
We'll get to the rest of what Jesus has to say below, in the last section. But first, a word from His churches....
Ever since Barack Obama lifted his right hand and took his oath of office, pledging to serve the United States as its 44th president, ordinary people and their leaders around the globe have been celebrating our nation's "triumph over race." Obama's election has been touted as the final nail in the coffin of Jim Crow, the bookend placed on the history of racial caste in America.
Obama's mere presence in the Oval Office is offered as proof that "the land of the free" has finally made good on its promise of equality. There's an implicit yet undeniable message embedded in his appearance on the world stage: this is what freedom looks like; this is what democracy can do for you. If you are poor, marginalized, or relegated to an inferior caste, there is hope for you. Trust us. Trust our rules, laws, customs, and wars. You, too, can get to the promised land.
Perhaps greater lies have been told in the past century, but they can be counted on one hand. Racial caste is alive and well in America.
Most people don't like it when I say this. It makes them angry. In the "era of colorblindness" there's a nearly fanatical desire to cling to the myth that we as a nation have "moved beyond" race. Here are a few facts that run counter to that triumphant racial narrative:
* There are more African Americans under correctional control today -- in prison or jail, on probation or parole -- than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.
* As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
* A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.
* If you take into account prisoners, a large majority of African American men in some urban areas have been labeled felons for life. (In the Chicago area, the figure is nearly 80%.) These men are part of a growing undercaste -- not class, caste -- permanently relegated, by law, to a second-class status. They can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, much as their grandparents and great-grandparents were during the Jim Crow era.
Where We've Been: This is Part Five in my diary series, "The Myth That Conservative Welfare Reform Worked".Part 1 began this project by debunking the conservative narrative that liberals and Democrats were uninterested in reforming welfare, drawing principally on Diana Zuckerman's artlce, "Welfare Reform in America: A Clash of Politics and Research ", published in the Journal of Social Issues, Winter 2000 (pp587-599). Part 2 began the presentation of a five-section argument with the first two sections, "Section 1: The Rightwing Hegemonic Framing Of Welfare Reform" and "Section 2: A Common-Sense Take-Down of the 'Welfare Reform Worked' Myth". Part 3 was devoted to a detailed debunking of Charles Murray's Losing Ground. This part will look at National US data, both long-term trends and a set of snaphsots. Part 4 dealt with national data--both long-term trends and a set of four snapshots--showing that (a) poverty is linked to scarcity of jobs (as represented in the unemployment rate), (b) teen pregnancy and birth rates were declining well before "welfare reform" and continued (but did not accelerate) their decline afterwards, (c) the social safety net was doing an increasingly good job of fighting poverty before "welfare reform", and (d) the adoption of "welfare reform" had significant negative impacts on those in poverty, even though there were off-setting factors that prevented things from getting as bad as they might have.
Section 4: The US In International Comparison
In this section, we examine the international data, comparing the US to other countries. We examine both the economic data and the data related to fertility, particular for teenagers. In both cases, we find that the US is an outlier for advanced industrial nations, indicating that rather than taking conservative precriptions that would make us even less like other countries, we should take more liberal prescriptions that would make us more like others.
Economic Data
Our economic data comes from a number of studies--known as "working papers" based on the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database. First is Working Paper # 379, "Welfare State Expenditures and the Distribution of Child Opportunities", by Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding, which provides series data that allows us to compare trends of a period of years.
The first chart compares the US and Mexico (a developing nation) to the averages of four groups of nations: Anglo nations, Scandanavian nations, Northern European nations, and Central/Southern European nations. The nations in each group are listed in the text below the chart area. As can be seen, the US is far below the average of all the other groups, and indeed is closer to Mexico than it is to any of the other developed nation groups:
The Anglo nations are generally the lest generous, and culturally the most similar to the US. It's therefore instructive to compare the US to the other Anglo nations. As can be seen, the US only exceeded Australia briefly at the beggining of the period studied. After that, it was significantly below the rest, particularly after about 1990, when the spending levels in all other countries began rising far more significantly than in the US. (Recall from Part 4 that the US social safety net was significantly strongly during the early 1990 recession than it had been 10 years earlier. But the increase is quite minor compared to the increases in other Anglo countries.)
