Richard Kirsch

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow

Recent Posts by Richard Kirsch

  • The Economic Story Progressives Need to Tell

    Apr 3, 2012Richard Kirsch

    As part of the How We Value Government series, a simple narrative with clear heroes and villains that progressives too often fail to tell.

    As part of the How We Value Government series, a simple narrative with clear heroes and villains that progressives too often fail to tell.

    In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush vowed to protect Medicare two sentences after he trashed "nationalized health care." The fact that Medicare is our national health care system was apparently as lost on the president -- and most of the listening American public -- as it was on the senior citizens who went to town hall meetings to protest the government takeover of health care after seeing their doctor earlier in the day on government health insurance.

    When was the last time you heard someone define Medicare as "our national health care system for seniors?" Imagine if that was a regular description that Democratic elected officials and Medicare advocates used. Maybe the concept might begin to take hold.

    People filter the experiences of their own lives and the world at large through stories and narratives. The greatest hole in progressive communication about government is not the absence of myriad good examples of how government meaningfully improves people's lives and drives a more prosperous economy or a host of recent examples of how stripping government protections is disastrous. What is missing is the consistent telling of our story about the role of government in creating broader shared prosperity, opportunity, security, and freedom.

    One mistake that progressive advocates of government make is to make government the subject. People don't wake up in the morning wondering about government; they wake up thinking about getting their kids to school and themselves to work. They don't worry about the size of government; they fret about keeping their jobs, how they are going to pay for their kids' college and have enough left over to retire. The story we tell has to be focused on the core anxieties of ordinary people and how government can address those concerns.

    Like any yarn, our story has to include heroes and villains. And since this is a narrative about how the world works, we need to explain what the villains did wrong to get us into this mess and what the heroes will do to rescue us, or better yet, themselves.

    For the past year I have been working with a group of progressive leaders and communicators on the development of a "progressive economic narrative," a way of telling our story about the role of the individual, business, and government in creating shared prosperity. The goal of the group is "to develop and promote a common economic narrative that is used across the progressive movement, a powerful story that we are telling consistently through words and actions, in our communications and organizing."

    Join the conversation about the Roosevelt Institute’s new initiative, Rediscovering Government, led by Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick.

    The progressive economic narrative we've drafted has five conceptual pillars, which describe what went wrong with the economy, define a powerful economy and how we get there, outline the political challenge, and conclude with a call to action. It has villains -- Wall Street speculators, CEO campaign contributors, and the super-rich -- who did bad things: cut our wages and benefits, shipped our jobs overseas, got rich quickly at the expense of American workers and families. These evildoers bribed politicians to rig the rules in their favor, and in doing so, crashed the economy, crushed and closed the middle class, and wrecked our democracy.

    The hero in our tale is the great American middle class, the engine of our economy. At the heart of our story is the notion that, as Senator Paul Wellstone used to say, "We all do better when we all do better." This is a statement of economic truth and of our values. We believe that the true measure of our economic success is the well-being of our families and the productivity of our nation, not the stock market and corporate profits. And that economic progress is driven by innovating and investing in the future so that all Americans have good jobs and can educate their kids, support their families, and retire with security. We all do better when we all do better.

    To get there, our hero -- the middle class, working families, the 99% -- has to fight to free the government from the grip of the rich and powerful and put our democracy back in the hands of ordinary Americans. That matters because the great American middle class does not happen by accident; it is built by decisions we make together. Decisions made when the government works for all of us -- decisions to invest in our people, to expand opportunity and security to pave the way for business to innovate and meet the future, and to write rules that boost businesses that do the right thing, like creating good jobs in America or safeguarding the environment.

    You will recognize that this is a very different story from that told by the right, in which economic success depends on rugged individuals in a market free from government. Our story is that people, business, and government drive the economy by working together to create broadly shared prosperity, opportunity, and security.

    If this seems simplistic, that's a strength. It is also misleading, because so much of communication on our side fails to talk about our view of what makes the economy a success and how the main actors -- people, business, and government -- each play a role. Simplicity is a powerful asset if we begin to tell the story consistently in all our communications, which means our words and our actions. The "we" here needs to be broad, including progressive organizers, activists, pundits, journalists, and academics.

    If we are to help Americans rediscover government, we need to keep telling a powerful story about how a government that works for all of us will allow each of us to prosper and believe again in an America in which our children will prosper.

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

  • The Economic Question at the Core of the Individual Mandate

    Mar 27, 2012Richard Kirsch

    Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, it won't change the fact that health care is a public good that must be provided to all Americans.

    Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, it won't change the fact that health care is a public good that must be provided to all Americans.

    It is fitting testament to the fundamental problem with our health care system that the key legal question the Supreme Court is considering today is whether the requirement that most people have health coverage is a violation of the commerce clause. The legal issue is whether the act of not buying a product constitutes commercial activity. Opponents question whether the government could require people to buy any product, with broccoli as the favorite example. (Do people really hate broccoli that much?) The underlying premise of the challenge is that health coverage is a commodity, not a public good.

    In defending the individual mandate, the government argues that health care is not like other commodities. As NPR's Julie Rovner reported last May when a federal appeals court in Virginia was considering the issue, "[Acting U.S. solicitor general Neal] Katyal drove his point home repeatedly: Health care is not like any other product; everyone consumes it, whether they buy insurance or not. 'That is a virtually universal feature of human existence,' he told the judges. 'Everyone is going to seek health care. Nobody can know precisely when.'"

    Candidate Obama made the same point during a memorable moment of a debate with John McCain in October of 2008. When NBC's Tom Brokaw asked the candidates, "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" Obama's answer was crystal clear: "I think it should be a right for every American."

    In economic terms, the point that both Obama and Katyal are making is that health care is a public good, not a private commodity. As I write in Fighting for Our Health:

    The theory that health care is a consumer good like any other commercial product and that health care markets work like other markets is pure fantasy, at odds with everything we know about how health care is actually consumed. Health care markets violate the fundamental tenets of market economics...

    Health care is a public good, not a commodity. The reason that other developed countries spend so much less on health care, and cover all their people and deliver higher health quality care, is that these countries recognize this fact. As a public good, health care must be made available on an equitable basis to all, and prices and supply must be regulated. In the rest of the developed world, almost everyone has their health coverage supplied by the government or by a regulated nonprofit insurer, and the coverage comes with very low out-of-pocket costs. In other words, other developed countries follow the exact opposite course recommended by conservatives and achieve systems that are much more efficient economically.

    Check out the new special issue of The Nation, guest-edited by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick.

    The passage of the Affordable Care Act sets the United States on the course to making health care a public good, which is why conservatives are so deeply opposed to it. For the first time, the government has a legal obligation to make health care affordable. The ACA accomplishes this in a uniquely American way, a combination of a big expansion of public coverage through Medicaid, financial penalties for employers who do not provide coverage for their workers, and income-based government subsidies for people to buy regulated private insurance.

    The individual mandate is a key component of that last measure. Without the mandate, the regulated market would fail, since allowing people to buy coverage only when they need it drives up costs for everyone else and leaving people without coverage shifts the costs of their care to others. In short, a private decision not to buy a public good has substantial public consequences.

    The great irony of the conservative challenge to the individual mandate is that there is no credible legal challenge to the concept that the government could raise taxes to provide public health coverage to everybody. Because both conservatives and those who profit from the health care industry have opposed a national insurance system, the ACA was developed first in Massachusetts and then nationally as a grand compromise. If the Supreme Court were to rule against the individual mandate, the only remaining constitutional course to provide coverage to everyone is through national health coverage.

    Regardless of what the Court rules about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, health care will still be a public good, even if our health care system continues to have a schizophrenic relationship with the economics of health care, treating it like a public good and a commodity at the same time. In the long run, the only way to achieve a health care system that provides quality care that is affordable to the nation will be for the system to recognize that health care is a public good. The ACA is a major step in that direction and would be so even without the mandate. The expansion of Medicaid, the incentives for employers to pay for coverage, and other features of the law that regulate insurance rates and change the way Medicare pays providers all treat health care this way.

    If the Supreme Court rejects the mandate, millions of people will go without health coverage, thousands of them will continue to die prematurely each year because they lack coverage, and tens of thousands will continue to suffer from crippling medical debt. Still, the economic pressures and tragic personal pain caused by our current health care system will continue to drive the United States in the direction of making health care a right. That will be true even if the Supreme Court decides that health care is more like broccoli than clean water and air.

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

  • Romney Finds Republican Religion on the Minimum Wage

    Mar 7, 2012Richard Kirsch

    Romney's flip-flop on raising the minimum wage betrays what Republicans really mean when they talk about small government.

    Last month I wrote about how economic issues like the minimum wage were twisting Republican candidates into pretzels as they tried to make it look like they cared about the economic squeeze on American families while toeing the line on free-market orthodoxy. As I said at the time:

    Romney's flip-flop on raising the minimum wage betrays what Republicans really mean when they talk about small government.

    Last month I wrote about how economic issues like the minimum wage were twisting Republican candidates into pretzels as they tried to make it look like they cared about the economic squeeze on American families while toeing the line on free-market orthodoxy. As I said at the time:

    Romney, clearly aware that he needs to support some policies that show him sympathetic to struggling families, has broken with free-market orthodoxy by supporting indexing the minimum wage to inflation. For this he was loudly attacked by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh, among others. Andrew McCarthy’s post in the National Review captured the mood with the headline, “See Mitt Pander.”

    It turns out Mitt couldn't take the heat from his right yet again (which makes you wonder how he'd deal with the pressures of actually being president). This week he got back in line with right-wing economic theology, telling CNBC's Larry Kudlow "there's probably not a need to raise the minimum wage." Even in reversing his position he can't help throwing in a waffle: "probably."

    In the same interview, Romney told Kudlow that "people are hurting; they want someone who can see rising incomes, rising jobs, and a bright future for their kids." Unless, it appears, those people are working full-time at minimum wage and still don't make enough to rise above the poverty level.

    Maybe the problem is that full-time workers are not "the very poor" who Romney isn't "concerned about." He told us "we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it." So I guess since minimum wage workers are just poor, not the very poor, Romney doesn't think they need help.

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    As Romney knows, it's easy to go after the very poor, who are demonized as dependent on government hand-outs in code for racist politics. But there is overwhelming support for people who are working hard and still barely able to feed their families. Even if most people make well above the minimum wage, they still feel the economic crush of stagnant wages, disappearing benefits, and job insecurity.

    You can just see the Obama campaign lampooning Romney for pretending he understands that "people are hurting" while opposing raising the minimum wage, after he was for it. It's a perfect combination of Romney the rich guy who doesn't get it, Romney the captive of the right wing, and Romney the flip-flopper.

    But beneath the political vulnerability is a deeper truth that Obama and progressives more broadly need to drive home this year. When Republicans preach smaller government, less regulation, and defending business as job creators, they are sentencing families to a future that is the opposite of what Romney told Kudlow he wants. It's a future of shrinking incomes, disappearing jobs, and a darker future for our children.

    We don't need smaller government; we need government that works for working people, not the ultra-rich. We don't need less regulation; we need rules that assure that working families can live in dignity. It's not businesses that are the job creators. It's people who go to work every day, who shop on Main Street, who are the business creators. And that includes people who work their butts off every day at the minimum wage.

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

  • The Real Economic Crisis Ties the GOP in Knots

    Feb 17, 2012Richard Kirsch

    Republican candidates are torn between supporting free market purists and the public's desire for a living wage.

    Republican candidates are torn between supporting free market purists and the public's desire for a living wage.

    When it comes to the economy, the GOP has a real problem that pollsters and message-massagers can't wave away. After three decades of the rich getting richer and the middle class being crushed and closed, Americans are very suspicious of the super-rich and corporate CEOs and are looking for real evidence that politicians understand their plight. Two issues in the Republican primaries have spotlighted the internal troubles that economic reality causes for the GOP.

    The issue that has received the most attention is the aggressive attack by Gingrich on Romney's record as a financial (aka "vulture") capitalist, shutting down factories and shipping jobs overseas to make himself and his cronies richer. When the Gingrich super PAC put real money behind that message in South Carolina, Romney tanked at the polls. But in a rare show of unity, both the Republican mainstream and rightwing howled at Gingrich for daring to challenge the free market.

    The other issue that is confounding Republicans is the minimum wage, where Romney has taken a shellacking from the same forces that defended his record as a corporate raider. Romney, clearly aware that he needs to support some policies that show him sympathetic to struggling families, has broken with free-market orthodoxy by supporting indexing the minimum wage to inflation. For this he was loudly attacked by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh, among others. Andrew McCarthy's post in the National Review captured the mood with the headline, "See Mitt Pander."

    Romney isn't the only leading Republican candidate who may be flummoxed by the conflict between the public -- which overwhelmingly supports increasing the minimum wage -- and free-market orthodoxy. When Rick Santorum attacked Romney for giving the thumbs up to indexing the minimum wage, the former Pennsylvania Senator revealed that he too is willing to support the government establishing a minimum wage. Santorum said,

    That is a very bad idea. Oh, absolutely. You can't do that. You want to talk about driving wage inflation? That's a very bad idea. When -- when the minimum wage drops below a certain level -- and it's usually a floor of about 7 percent of wages at minimum wage, I've supported, you know, increasing it back up to make sure that it stays above that level, so there is, in fact, a minimum wage. But when you index it, you're not talking about a minimum wage. You're talking about an index that's going to drive wage inflation.

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    You can bet that if Santorum becomes the nominee, that attempt to be seen as appeasing both sides will appeal to nobody.

    While Republicans may be tied in knots, you can bet that President Obama will have a field day pointing out the differences between the eventual Republican nominee's professed concerned about hard-pressed Americans and the reality of their policy positions. On the minimum wage, neither Santorum nor Romney points a way out of even basic poverty for Americans who work full-time. Keeping the minimum wage where it is now and indexing it to inflation, as Romney proposes, would lock Americans who work full time at the minimum wage into poverty. The minimum wage would need to be raised from its current rate of $7.25 to $9.30 to bring a family of three with a full-time worker out of poverty.

    Santorum's proposal, based on an economic workforce indicator, has no relation to what matters to a family: whether their hourly earnings keep them out of poverty. In a study conducted for the National Employment Law Project, the Economic Policy Institute calculated his proposal would result in a wage of $8 an hour, well below that minimal test. If the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation in 1968 it would be more than $10.30 today, but Congress has raised the minimum wage only three times in the last 30 years.

    This year, Democrats around the country are beginning to see that raising the minimum wage is a timely and powerful issue. The legislative leadership in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey are each pushing to raise their state minimum wage and then index it to inflation. Similar proposals are pending in Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. Activists in Missouri and San Jose, California are gathering signatures to put measures to increase the minimum wage on the ballot in November. Currently 18 states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal level of $7.25. Ten states annually index their minimum wage to inflation to keep up with the rising cost of living. One sour note on this list is Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, who has raised typical Republican reservations to the proposal, saying that "We'll look at it, we'll study it."

    When Obama, ran for president in 2008 he endorsed raising the minimum wage to $9.50 in 2011 and then indexing it to inflation. Now would be a good time for the president to reaffirm that position and for Democrats in Congress to press for its enactment, if only to continue to highlight the huge contradiction between Republicans' alleged concern for working families and their deeper allegiance to free market theology.

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

  • A More Progressive Budget, a More Progressive President?

    Feb 15, 2012Richard Kirsch

    It doesn't matter what the president's motives are for proposing better policies. What's important is that progressives hold him to it.

    A time-honored but largely useless exercise is trying to divine whether the actions of politicians are motivated by their core beliefs or by "politics." For most successful politicians, the line between the two is murky. In fact, it has to be. Politics being the art of the possible, elected officials who try to exercise their power will always be navigating a circuitous course within a broad set of values.

    It doesn't matter what the president's motives are for proposing better policies. What's important is that progressives hold him to it.

    A time-honored but largely useless exercise is trying to divine whether the actions of politicians are motivated by their core beliefs or by "politics." For most successful politicians, the line between the two is murky. In fact, it has to be. Politics being the art of the possible, elected officials who try to exercise their power will always be navigating a circuitous course within a broad set of values.

    So it is that some wonder whether the budget proposal put forth by President Obama is driven by the president's belief that we need to take a more progressive direction to address the nation's deep problems. Or is the president just deciding he needs to tack left in order to rally his base behind him for the upcoming election?

    What matters is not the president's motivation; what matters is what he does and how his actions are received. Having failed to reach a "grand compromise" with Republicans in the summer of 2011, including damaging cuts to core social insurance programs, Obama had no place to go but to his left. He was pushed there by finally realizing that his faith in his own ability to be an ideological bridge between left and right had been wrecked by the capture of the Republican Party by the extreme right. He was left looking weak to independents and a disappointment -- if not a traitor -- to his core supporters.

    In many of his speeches since the summer's debacle, and in many of the substantive proposals in the American Jobs Act and his new budget, President Obama has embraced a progressive view of the economy and put forth proposals that would revitalize the economy by creating middle-class jobs paid for by taxing the rich. The proposals are good policy -- the only available course that offers hope to address our long-term economic problems -- and good politics, popular with wide swaths of the public.

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    The real challenge for progressives is to use 2012 to increase the likelihood that a reelected President Obama will keep to the new course in 2013. To do that, we will need to do four things. The most important task is to demonstrate that progressive views on the economy are winners with the public and at the ballot box. That will require running aggressive issue campaigns on core economic issues -- such as job creation, reining in Wall Street and the banks, taxing the rich and corporations, and ending corporate control of our democracy. The actions, message, and spirit of the Occupy movement need to be carried on across the country, including in battleground states and congressional districts, connected to voter registration, persuasion, and get-out-the-vote efforts.

    The second key is to applaud and support the president and his allies in Congress when they do the right thing. When politicians perceive they are taking a risk, they need to hear cheers. There's no point in asking "what took you so long?" or "do you really mean it?" Instead, we should welcome and encourage words and actions that are in line with our values. If we don't, the president and other Democrats will believe those who say that you can never satisfy the left and seek more comfortable shelter with the advocates for the status quo.

    However, applauding the good doesn't mean giving up on the better. The third ingredient is to keep pushing for more. For example, we can applaud the president for wanting to change the corporate tax code to punish companies that take jobs overseas, but that doesn't mean we should accept his proposal that there be no net increase in corporate tax collection. At a time when corporate taxes are at a historic low in terms of their share of federal revenues, and corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash, we should be raising more money from corporate income taxes, not treading water. We need to push for more progressive policies now to set the table for 2013, when Obama will again be attempting to enact legislation in the face of an onslaught from corporations and the right.

    The last step is to do all of the above in a way that creates stronger coalitions, involves more activists, develops new leaders, and builds a real sense of momentum among progressives, from the large well-established infrastructure to the netroots and grassroots movements to the Occupiers. The more that we work together, both intentionally and by respecting the roles we all play, the greater our ability to actually move the nation in a progressive direction in 2013 and beyond.

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

Pages