A Tale of Transitions: What Mitt Romney Could Learn from Walter Mondale

Sep 27, 2012Bo Cutter

Romney's chances of becoming president are dimming, but if he changes his message, he could still lose gracefully.

Every presidential campaign reaches a moment when the two main candidates have to start their transition planning. 2012 is no different, and we've reached that moment. President Obama has to begin planning the transition to his second term. Governor Romney has to plan his return to private life. I'll focus on President Obama in several commentaries; this is a brief reflection on Mitt Romney. 

Romney's chances of becoming president are dimming, but if he changes his message, he could still lose gracefully.

Every presidential campaign reaches a moment when the two main candidates have to start their transition planning. 2012 is no different, and we've reached that moment. President Obama has to begin planning the transition to his second term. Governor Romney has to plan his return to private life. I'll focus on President Obama in several commentaries; this is a brief reflection on Mitt Romney. 

First, what's the evidence that we've reached this point? FiveThirtyEight gives President Obama a 79.7 percent chance of winning reelection. Real Clear Politics shows a widening Obama lead in the polls, with an average margin of 4 percentage points. A significant break occurred approximately around the end of August. The Iowa Election Market is currently predicting that President Obama will win approximately 54 percent of the national vote, and the Intrade prediction market is currently pricing a 76 percent chance that President Obama wins reelection.

These are all just probabilities, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we now mostly know where this election is headed. And no matter what gets said externally, this is what is being privately concluded by many in the Romney campaign also.

This means that Governor Romney has a difficult gauntlet to run -- one that is psychologically hard to confront. He has to run as hard as he can; he can't just stop. He will see growing dissension within his own campaign, increasing second-guessing from the Republican Party elders, public debates about his campaign strategy, and a growing lack of interest on the part of Senate, House, and gubernatorial candidates in being seen with him at all. Through this he has to act every moment as though he knows he will win. You cannot know how hard this is unless you've seen it close up. And Romney then faces the inevitable post-election ritual bloodletting and blame game, particularly because his party, in its soul, thought this election was a layup for them.

Governor Romney has to maneuver through all of this and retain his own self respect and the respect of others. But he also faces a bigger test -- one that may not yet have occurred to him. He has a genuine responsibility to show a decent respect for core elements of the American philosophy and system of governance.

It's hard to explain what I mean by this without seeming to make a partisan point, which in this case I'm trying to avoid. In my view, Mitt Romney seems to have been an admirable, effective leader with a genuine commitment to private virtue. But in his campaign he has allowed himself to be seen as an unprincipled opportunist, presented a thoroughly unpleasant caricature of conservative thought and an appalling view of his opinion of everyone less fortunate than he is, and at times shown remarkably little concern or respect for some of the complexities of American governance. He has acted as though "there is no there there," as though he sees this presidential campaign as just another campaign, just another deal to close. 

I'll quote at length from a conservative columnist I respect, Michael Gerson:

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

A few libertarians have wanted this fight ever since they read "Atlas Shrugged” as pimply adolescents. Given Romney’s background, record and faith, I don’t believe that he holds this view. I do believe that Republicans often parrot it, because they lack familiarity with other forms of conservatism that include a conception of the common good.

But there really is no excuse. Republican politicians could turn to Burkean conservatism, with its emphasis on the “little platoons” of civil society. They could reflect on the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity, and solidarity with the poor. They could draw inspiration from Tory evangelical social reformers such as William Wilberforce or Lord Shaftesbury. Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.” Instead they mouth libertarian nonsense, unable to even describe some of the largest challenges of our time.

About a decade ago, I was part of a conversation with former Vice President Walter Mondale, a man I worked for a long time ago and greatly admire. Vice President Mondale said that while he was still bothered by the extent of his loss in 1984, he had to his surprise also come to a parallel realization: the role of presidential nominee of one of the two major parties is a distinct public role and job by itself, one that brings both substantial privileges and real responsibilities. The role cannot simply be a political campaign in that way that almost all other campaigns can be. A presidential candidate is given the right to speak to the American people, and they care what a presidential candidate says in a way they care about no other campaign.

Mitt Romney is almost certainly not going to have a presidential legacy, but he could still have a good presidential candidate legacy. Sometime soon, in the quiet of the night, he might want to call Walter Mondale.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm. Recently, he served as the leader of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team. He has also served in senior roles in the White Houses of two Democratic Presidents.

Share This

The War on Crime as a Conservative (and Progressive) Assault on Liberal Philosophy

Sep 21, 2012Mike Konczal

In case you didn't see, Aaron Schwartz just had an absurd level of felony charges brought against him for allegedly trying to mass download JSTOR by prosecutors. You can support him here. Meanwhile Twitter turned over the account records of Malcolm Harris to the New York criminal justice system.

In case you didn't see, Aaron Schwartz just had an absurd level of felony charges brought against him for allegedly trying to mass download JSTOR by prosecutors. You can support him here. Meanwhile Twitter turned over the account records of Malcolm Harris to the New York criminal justice system.

How can we theorize innovations in criminal justice policy over the past decades as a reaction to liberalism? Not liberalism like the New Deal or the Great Society, but liberalism as in the philosophical theory of the modern era. Let's start with the policy innovation driven by neoconservatives, and then examine how the progressive assault on classical liberalism also functions in the war on crime.

The Conservative Assault

One part of liberalism is about formal equality--liberty to participate as well as equal freedom from government interference. The War on Drugs and aggressive quality of life initiatives, beyond filling our jail cells, are about getting a lot of low-level charges and convictions on as many people as possible. From 1994-2000, arrests for smoking marijuana in public view (MPV) were up 2,670%. Why does this matter? They interact with three-strike laws to build to large sentences out of minor charges. This also allows for the creation of hierachy through a law ostensibly dedicated to equality and liberty. Once people have been prisoners, they face serious legal impediments, such as limits on access to voting, public housing, public employment, and public assistance. Tens of thousands of legal restrictions regulate the ability of ex-convicts to function and exist in society. There are also certain presumptions against individuals, especially felons, that deny any type of formal equality before the law. When Michelle Alexander talks about a New Jim Crow system of segregation through the legal code and policing, this is the dynamic she is discussing.

Another part of liberal philosophy is that if the state wants to use its power to act against an individual, say for violating a crime, they need to make their case through an institution that is skeptical of that power. In the United States, that means trial by jury, under the supervision of a judge. The judge and a jury of one's peers are supposed to be the key agents in a court.

Another key policy innovation of neoconservatives is attacking the relative independence and power of judges. There have been a host of conservative policies designed to reduce the power of judges, of which mandatory minimums are one of the most important. As judges lose power, prosecutors gain it. Prosecutors are now the major presence in the courtroom, overseeing the overwhelming majority of cases that are run through plea-bargains.

When the evangelical Harvard law professor William J. Stuntz writes that the American criminal justice system has collapsed, this focus on the prosecutor as the arbiter of justice in the courtroom, rather than the judge and the jury, is what he means. Stuntz: "Prosecutors now decide whom to punish and how severely...To a degree that had not been true in America's past, official discretion rather than legal doctrine or juries' judgments came to define criminal justice outcomes....criminal law does not function as law. Rather, the law defines a menu of options for police officers and prosecutors to use as they see fit."

Notice how the prosecutor overseeing Aaron Schwartz's case just decided to charge him with 13 felonies, mostly for violating the Terms and Services "terms of service" of a website. At 13 charges, it looks like the prosecutor is trying to stack the deck on overreaching and arbitrary charges so they can have as much leverage as they can get when it comes time to go to court. That isn't a rule of law, it's a rule of prosecutorial discretion as justice. This is what a collapsed criminal justice system looks like.

The Progressive Assault

Part of the progressive assault on the laissez-faire of classical liberalism was creating the idea that there is no pre-political distribution in the economy. Property is a creation of government, and therefore the distribution of that property is also created by the government. Governments must balance conflicting boundaries of property, and must do so democratically, because appeals to "natural rights" or "economic liberty" will ultimately be empty. Matt Bruenig has several recent posts - one, two, three - spelling out this "myth of ownership" argument over distribution and property rights that are worth checking out.

This progressive approach to property and the state is absent in contemporary talk on economic policy, but it is being theorized and applied in the most avant-garde ways when it comes to criminal justice policy. Let's talk about dogs that do drug searches. If the police wanted to search your suitcase, or look through it with hypothetical x-ray goggles, they'd need a warrant. That would be an illegal search of your property, which is protected by the Constitution. However if a drug dog sniffs your suitcase and smells drugs, that doesn't count as a search.

Why? As Justice Stevens argued in United States v. Jacobsen (1984), "Congress has decided -- and there is no question about its power to do so -- to treat the interest in 'privately' possessing cocaine as illegitimate; thus governmental conduct that can reveal whether a substance is cocaine, and no other arguably 'private' fact, compromises no legitimate privacy interest." Since the dog can only "see" contraband such as cocaine when it sniffs, that sniff doesn't count as a search of your property, because you have no right to contraband.

You have a legitimate privacy interest in your property, except when you don't, because the government doesn't recognize your property as "property." Even though drugs are excludable, rivalrous, and have their price determined in large part by supply and demand, they aren't property the government recognizes, so the bundle of rights that go with property don't apply. The distribution of property outcomes is overwhelming determined by the government here.

People have talked about property this way in the past, but less so now. We talk about inheritance as almost a right now, but John Stuart Mill, for instance, argued in Principles of Political Economy that while "the right of bequest, or gift after death, forms part of the idea of private property, the right of inheritance, as distinguished from bequest, does not." Your right to receive inheritance doesn't exist outside of political framework, which can be held democratically accountable. (For those who think the war on drugs should be stopped and that you receiving an inheritance should be thought of as a type of quasi-contraband, the current policy framework is very backwards.)

There's not enough space here to really dive into it, but there's a mind-blowing legal realist seminar on the "Myth of Ownership" taking place in the realm of "asset forfeitures" criminal justice policy right now. The government sues property and money for being illegitimate under civil law; the government can seize the proceeds of the trade of contraband as well as property instrumental to that transaction. If you drive a car solely to sell contraband, and use the surplus of those sales to buy a home, what property claim can you have to own that car or that house? Here the government is actively creating and policing the boundaries and relationships of property through denying its existence as legitimate "property," all done under criminal law.

This brings us to Malcolm Harris' Twitter account. Who owns a tweet? Who has the ability to turn it over to a third party, and who has the ability to block it? The property claim of a tweet is now being determined through the ability of the government to take it for criminal justice purposes.

A New York criminal court had demanded Twitter hand over Malcolm Harris' tweets, and Twitter did so last week under extensive pressure. The court argued that "Here, the defendant [Malcolm Harris] has no proprietary interests in the @destructuremal account’s user information and Tweets between September 15, 2011 and December 31, 2011...While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical 'home' on the Internet." They are determining that Harris has no legitmate property claim on the tweet and no right to prevent a search of his account on Twitter's mainframe.

It is fascinating, though problematic, to see the idea, boundaries and relationships of online "property" being determined through the criminal justice system. Here the "property" of online records are carved out and created based on where it will be easiest for cops and prosecutors to access them. Hence all the more reason to have Congress re-establish baselines on what our privacy expectations are online, in the opposite way it has been dissolving privacy and property claims under the banner of the War on Drugs.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Making Telecom Central Again: Our Economic Future Depends on High-Speed Internet For All

Sep 20, 2012Susan Crawford

Expanding high-speeding Internet access to all Americans is as essential now as the Rural Electrification Act was in the 1930s.

Expanding high-speeding Internet access to all Americans is as essential now as the Rural Electrification Act was in the 1930s.

The basic facts are familiar: of a nation of 314 million Americans, 100 million of us lack high-speed access to the Internet. We're behind 15 other countries when it comes to that high-speed access; none of top city hubs for fast, affordable access are in the United States. Speeds are slow, prices are high, and a third of us are being left behind. Most people who make less than $20,000 a year don't have access; everyone who makes more than $75,000 a year does. Almost every part of life today, and every policy area you care about, depends on a reliable, affordable, high-speed connection. For everything from finding a job to accessing online classrooms, those without access are at a distinct disadvantage. And our country as a whole is at a disadvantage, as new developments that require working collaboratively with massive amounts of data will happen elsewhere.

Why did this happen, and why do I care?

It happened because of policy. We're being squeezed by a deregulated and enormously powerful industry that has no incentive to build a fast, affordable, level digital playing field for Americans.

This narrative is really just like the electricity story. In 1920 in America, unregulated private companies controlled electricity. The result? 90 percent of farmers didn't have it, at the same time that all rich people in New York City did. And it was wildly expensive in many places. Although it's now considered an essential input into everything we do, at the time electricity was seen as a luxury; the companies served the rich and big businesses, and left everyone else out. The electricity business, after all, involved very high up-front costs. If you could make that initial investment, it served as an extraordinarily effective barrier to entry -- who needed two electrical lines? -- and you could pick off the rich customers, making life difficult for any second comer, because they'd be stuck with serving people who were more spread out and not as wealthy. Then, once your lucrative business was in place, you could raise prices with impunity. You didn't have to expand. You could just harvest.

We did something about that problem at both the local and national level. It took tremendous leadership by Franklin Roosevelt, who went to swim in Warm Springs, Georgia and was horrified by the expense of the scarce electrification there. Although a rich and privileged man, he instinctively understood that the success of the entire nation depended on having a large marketplace for electricity -- both for people to thrive and for American industry to sell new goods to. And so he mounted enormous rural electrification efforts in the 1930s and regulated these companies, making sure that they received a fair profit for a world-class and universally provided service.

Today, the U.S. is falling far behind when it comes to the 21st century version of electrification: the country's upgrade to fiber connectivity, the global standard. Although our U.S. telephone system was the envy of the world when it was built, and served every American at a reasonable price, we're apparently unable to think of fiber as a utility. We've seen enormous consolidation and monopolization of both wired and wireless access in America by the companies to which we've entrusted our daily lives of information. This isn't good for any part of American society, and it is, or should be, a truly bipartisan issue.

It's also, like electricity, both a local and a national issue. There are bright spots across the country where communities are coming together to commission fast, cheap fiber networks. We need to make it possible for every community to make that choice. That will require federal legislation to block state laws that lock up localities and keep them in the incumbents' hands. We need to make sure that there are rules in place to protect competition and allow for oversight at the federal level as well.

Finally, it's an urgent issue. Right now, a tsunami of state-level deregulation is sweeping the country. Right now, Verizon is telling the D.C. Circuit that it is a First Amendment "speaker" and that therefore any regulation of its activities is unconstitutional. Right now, the regional cable monopolies are buying up former competing telecom companies, strengthening their grip on wired access across the country.

I care because I think we face a choice between two fundamentally different visions of the future. Today's free marketers seem to be content with a second-class network that only rich people can afford. They're pushing for even fewer regulations on the giant telecommunications companies who have the power to control everything we learn and create. Think about that: they want to give the richest and most powerful companies in our country even more riches and more power to serve as gatekeepers over everything we do. To harvest us. And at the same time, they want to make sure that basic high-speed infrastructure isn't a priority for the country. Their vision is simple: "Communicating is a luxury for the rich." I don't think that's right, and most of our peer nations don't either.

I'm thrilled to be invited to be a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. One of the high points of this year for me was meeting members of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network at their summit at Hyde Park. They are so smart, so focused, and so energetic. This generation understands how essential fast online access is, and how important it is for local communities to protect their ability to communicate at a reasonable cost. What's unique about Roosevelt is that it operates on both a local, decentralized level and on the national level -- just like the Internet itself. I'm looking forward to taking on this issue with the Roosevelt team. 

Susan Crawford is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Mitt Romney's 47% Remarks: Wrong on the Facts, Not Just the Rhetoric

Sep 18, 2012Jeff Madrick

Americans who rely on government programs aren't "takers." They're people who have been left behind by our economy.

Americans who rely on government programs aren't "takers." They're people who have been left behind by our economy.

Mitt Romney’s “off-the-cuff” remarks that nearly half of Americans are “dependent” on government and believe they are “victims” who are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to-you-name-it,”  were widely publicized. This is in fact old saw for a certain kind of anti-government conservative. I have given talks deep in conservative territory where courteous memebers of the audience would come up to me afterwards and say they agree we should pay taxes for infrastructure but not for giveaways “to those people.”

But coming from a presidential candidate of one of the major parties, such remarks are stunning. Moreover, Romney later claimed he stood by them. He insulted half the American people; at least the people who spoke to me were talking about perhaps only one quarter of them! Romney also used the once-ubiquitous claim by conservatives that only half of Americans pay income tax. 

There was widespread criticism of Romney's rhetoric, but the stronger case against his condescending and elitist remarks is to present the facts, of which he seems happily unaware. Fortunately, the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have pointed out that the large majority of Americans pay federal taxes when payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are included. The only Americans who don’t pay taxes are some of the elderly, the poor, and the young.
       
But it is the dependency issue that requires real information. Income for the lower half of American earners has been growing very slowly since the late 1970s -- more or less when Ronald Reagan took office. Compared to economies overseas, the wage performance has been just plain bad. 
        
Why? The declines of unions, the refusal to raise the minimum wage with inflation, and the increased pressure by Wall Street to minimize expenses in the short run -- typically labor expenses -- have all contributed. So have rapidly lost manufacturing jobs and globalization in general. Finally, on average economic growth was slow in the 1980s until the mid-1990s. Only in the late 1990s did growth push the unemployment rate down adequately to boost incomes for the lower half. In the 2000s, we had adequate growth but little job or wage growth. Without social programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the lower half would have hardly seen incomes grow at all.
      
Was dependency a cause of low incomes? This is easily refuted nonsense. Had social programs hurt rather than helped Americans, poverty rates would have been low in the 1950s. As Michael Harrington alerted America, the poverty rate was probably 30 percent in the 1950s. Finally, the U.S. government computed a poverty line -- a low one, mind you. It found the poverty rate at about 22 percent. 
      
Why? Couldn’t have been dependency. The War on Poverty had not yet begun. By the 1970s, however, the poverty rate was down to 11 percent. As Social Security expanded, elderly poverty rates fell from 50 percent to about 10 percent. And so on. These are the purposes of government, Mitt.
      
On our Rediscovering Government website you can find a set of charts and an important summary paper by Lane Kenworthy on this issue.
 

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Should We Stop Referring to Student Loans as "Financial Aid"?

Sep 14, 2012Mike Konczal

Students who take out loans aren't receiving special favors. They're making financial transactions like any other.

Do we make both a conceptual and analytical mistake when we refer to student loans as a form of "financial aid"? Should that term be something to be resisted? Demos' Tamara Draut brought up this point in a conversation recently, and I think it needs to be explored further, because it frames how we speak about student loans.

Students who take out loans aren't receiving special favors. They're making financial transactions like any other.

Do we make both a conceptual and analytical mistake when we refer to student loans as a form of "financial aid"? Should that term be something to be resisted? Demos' Tamara Draut brought up this point in a conversation recently, and I think it needs to be explored further, because it frames how we speak about student loans.

The government records and documents student loans as a form of aid. Here's a list of the "amount of financial aid awarded to full-time, full-year undergraduates, by type and source of aid," and loans are listed right next to grants. When pundits say that "student aid" has exploded over the past decade, and argue that aid is driving increases in tuition, it disguises that the aid that has exploded is a signficant amount of debt for young people.

I've taken out loans and received gifts. When I've signed up for, say, a car loan, I never went "oh you shouldn't have" afterwards, like when I've received a really nice birthday gift. I understood that the creditor wanted to lend me a certain amount of money at a certain rate, and I wanted to borrow it. Full stop. Unless the interest rate charged is purposely manipulated for some reason [1], there's no reason to think of this as aid at all.

Student loans are an economic transaction, the same as if the government contracted out to build a bridge, or hired a person to serve in the military or police force or be a teacher. The money spent here isn't "aid." Hiring someone to build a bridge exchanges labor for cash. Student loans exchange cash now for cash later plus interest. Those student loans would be underprovided without the government, certainly, but in the same way that bridges and law enforcement and other goods would also be underprovided if they weren't done by government.

I think this clarifies some of the issues and responses I'm seeing in the discussion about whether or not higher education is driven by increases in so-called "aid." Megan McArdle wrote in Newsweek, "In a normal market, prices would be constrained by the disposable income available to pay them. But we’ve bypassed those constraints by making subsidized student loans widely available." Let's leave aside the issue that the vision of education constrained by disposable income is Mitt Romney's vision that students should get "‘as much education as they can afford." There's a bigger issue.

I'm not sure what "normal market" means here, but many kinds of markets, perhaps even all of them, aren't constrainted by disposable income. Major, long-term debt fuels all kinds of important purchases, from houses to cars to health care to big-ticket durable goods. Events like retirement or having kids are dictated by longer-term savings decisions. Much of your monthly spending, like your rent or your cell phone, is in a contract that stipulates some future payments must be made regardless of your disposable income. There's a reason economists talk about spending as influenced by lifetime incomes.

Student loans are a way of mitigating a credit constraint, which is different than providing aid. Here it reflects not subsidized demand, but actual demand smoothed over a long time period. That's going to put a lot of demand into play. It shouldn't surprise us that demand is very high when credit constraints are removed. Higher education is one of the most important mechanisms of social and economic mobility we have, and it is also one of the primary ways we have for people to fully develop their talents and capabilities.

If actual demand overwhelms the supply of the system, that's a problem of supply, not demand. And the obvious solution is to increase the supply. Throughout our country's history we've done that in landmark bills that do it through public provisoning paid for by taxation, bills like the Morrill Act and California Master Plan. Now, as that system is left to crumble, we are looking to the private, for-profit sector to fill that gap. I fear that will only exacerbate the cost problems we've seen so far, and the data is looking that way too

But if not as a form of financial "aid," how should we refer to student loans?

[1] There's a narrow, though important, question about whether or not student loans are a "subsidy" because their interest rates are too low or too high. The Department of Education found that (R-10) for ”Direct Loans, the overall weighted average subsidy rate was estimated to be -13.91 percent in FY 2011; that is, the overall program on average was projected to earn about 13.91 percent on each dollar of loans made, thereby providing savings to the Federal Government.” What's a good word for the opposite of a subsidy? Whatever it is, student loans are that. Others argue that there needs to be a higher discount rate used to calculate this, and then you would see a subsidy. Let's assume for this post that the interest rate is seen to be fair by all parties.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  
 
Young woman paying bills image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

Two Issues with Megan McArdle's Piece on Higher Education

Sep 13, 2012Mike Konczal

Megan McArdle has a new cover story at Newsweek, "Is College a Lousy Investment?"  Is the benefit worth it with rising costs? Several people have addressed the benefit part, particularly Dylan Matthew here and Reihan Salam here.

Megan McArdle has a new cover story at Newsweek, "Is College a Lousy Investment?"  Is the benefit worth it with rising costs? Several people have addressed the benefit part, particularly Dylan Matthew here and Reihan Salam here.

I have a piece about higher education that I'm really excited about coming out in the next few weeks with Aaron Bady for Dissent, so I don't want to spoil it. But for now, I think there are two important things to engage with in McArdle's piece. The costs part is important, because this will likely be the center-right argument going forward, and I think it has problems in an important way. McArdle:

Vedder adds, “I look at the data, and I see college costs rising faster than inflation up to the mid-1980s by 1 percent a year. Now I see them rising 3 to 4 percent a year over inflation. What has happened? The federal government has started dropping money out of airplanes.” Aid has increased, subsidized loans have become available, and “the universities have gotten the money.” Economist Bryan Caplan, who is writing a book about education, agrees: “It’s a giant waste of resources that will continue as long as the subsidies continue.” [...]

In a normal market, prices would be constrained by the disposable income available to pay them. But we’ve bypassed those constraints by making subsidized student loans widely available. No, not only making them available: telling college students that those loans are “good debt” that will enable them to make much more money later.

This is based on something called the Bennett Hypothesis. In the 1980s Education Secretary William Bennett argued that increases in student aid largely just allowed colleges to raise their tuition, capturing all that money. If true, this would be the lowest hanging policy fruit imaginable: save money by not providing aid and lower tuition in the process.

Sadly, there's no evidence for this argument. And I mean "no evidence" not like "there's significant debate" or "reasonable people disagree," but like this has been extensively studied and the general consensus is that it is not true. I spent some time going through this research and couldn't find anything conclusive, and requests from others writing on this haven't been helpful. This could likely be true as it relates to for-profit schools -- there's a study somewhere that indicates this -- which shouldn't suprise us, as for-profits exist to suck up federal subsidies by business design. But it doesn't appear to be true for the vast majority of higher education, and to whatever extent it could be true it isn't a major driver.

 Here's a big post by David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, listing all the institutions that have investigated this. Among other studies and experts quoted, here's:

“Regarding the relation between financial aid and tuition, the regression models found no associations between most of the aid packaging variables (federal grants, state grants, and loans) and changes in tuition in either the public or private not-for-profit sectors.”
 
– U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, Dec. 2001, Study of College Costs and Prices 1988-89 to 1997-98, Vol. 1
 
“The Commission finds no evidence to suggest any relationship between the availability of Federal grants and the costs or prices in these institutions,” and “has found no conclusive evidence that loans have contributed to rising costs and prices.”
 
– National Comission on the Cost of Higher Education, February 1998, Straight Talk about College Costs & Prices
 
“After the change to the Stafford loan limits beginning in AY 2007-08, the price [of college] … increased at a rate generally consistent with prior years. [...] Overall, [previously conducted] analyses are descriptive and do not necessarily indicate a linkage between increases in the loan limits and changes in tuition or borrowing.”
 
– Government Accountability Office, May 2011, Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase
This is important, because McArdle's argument allows her to make it seem like government action to provide for higher education is largely counterproductive. Rather than examining the decreasing support for higher education, the difficulty of finding "Baumol’s cost disease" in higher education, the growth of a "hybrid" design for our public education sector, the decrease in Pell grants relative to total college costs, the way that the for-profit industry is taking over for public institutions, or the issue of risk-shifting to the individuals and providing services out of fees instead of taxes - rather than it being a choice on how we provide the essential social good of higher education, and who benefits and who loses from those choices - McArdle can imply that if the government tried to make education more affordable it would backfire and just make the problem worse.
 
This becomes even more of a problem with the second issue, the likely transmission mechanism. Just because aid goes up doesn't mean that prices must go up - the increases in food stamps haven't caused an equivalent increase in food prices. In a follow-up post to her article, she alludes to the microeconomic issue at play: "Vedder’s theory is that, as he put it, universities are raising tuition 'because they can'."
 
In economics-speak, that means that the supply of higher education is inelastic relative to price. If that's the case, then the right course of action is for the government to provide more supply at a cheaper price; i.e., free higher education. JW Mason has argued that if supply is inelastic, "each dollar spent on grants to students reduces final tuition costs less than one for one, each dollar spent on subsidies to public institutions reduces tuition costs by more." Think of it as "the public option for higher education" argument, with the same motivations. This is not a new argument. in 1899, the president of Stanford argued that “if the State makes no provision for higher education there is no other agency on which we can depend to supply it.” That seems as relevant now, over 100 years later, as it did back then.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

New Article: On Paul Ryan's World of Welfare Capitalism

Sep 13, 2012Mike Konczal

I have a new article at The Nation with Bryce Covert titled How Paul Ryan Would Decimate the New Deal. "Ryan’s vision for reforming the social safety net can be explained in three verbs: he wants to block grant Medicaid, voucherize Medicare and privatize Social Security.

I have a new article at The Nation with Bryce Covert titled How Paul Ryan Would Decimate the New Deal. "Ryan’s vision for reforming the social safety net can be explained in three verbs: he wants to block grant Medicaid, voucherize Medicare and privatize Social Security. Yes, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would likely still exist, but those changes would mean a profound difference for the average person who receives government benefits over his or her lifetime."

We walk through how a specific person would encounter these programs as they are administered currently and under Ryan's vision. We then talk about Gøsta Esping-Andersen's idea of "Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" and try to understand what a social-democratic welfare state would look like versus a classically liberal (read: libertarian) welfare state. We use that to formalize Ryan's vision as shredding the remaining social democratic parts of the New Deal and Great Society's welfare state and replacing them with a new, libertarian framework.

I just had my mind blown from encountering Gøsta Esping-Andersen's work about six months ago. So even if you are tired of debates about Paul Ryan's budget from the blogosphere, this might be a helpful way to approach the topic from a new angle. Hope you check check out the new article!

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

What Does Obama Really Stand For: Community or Small Government?

Sep 10, 2012Jeff Madrick

The president's convention speech focused on the power of community, but the details of his future policies remain sketchy at best.

The president’s acceptance speech in Charlotte last week emphasized his new theme of community and "being in this together." For all its mushy sentiment, this is a major victory for those like us at Rediscovering Government who have been talking about the need to revitalize the discourse about government for quite some time.

The president's convention speech focused on the power of community, but the details of his future policies remain sketchy at best.

The president’s acceptance speech in Charlotte last week emphasized his new theme of community and "being in this together." For all its mushy sentiment, this is a major victory for those like us at Rediscovering Government who have been talking about the need to revitalize the discourse about government for quite some time.

Obama hesitated to sound such a theme in the past. He seemed to run from potential charges of class warfare or favoring big government. He failed to boast about his stimulus plan and some of his investment programs. He hardly talked about his health care program. The conversation in America has changed, of course, partly because of the vice presidential nomination of an extremist, Paul Ryan, who wants to cut government spending to 16 percent of GDP. That’s about the 1950s level. 

But Obama has been moving in this direction for quite a while now. He still avoids the word "government," preferring "community." But he also nicely introduced the word "citizenship." Among Ronald Reagan’s most damaging legacies was, I think, that he undermined the meaning of being a citizen in America. To him, we did not belong to a nation. We belonged only to ourselves. It would be nice to bring the concept of citizen back.

I can’t overemphasize how useful it was for Obama to lay out this old but now new vision. Bill Clinton, who had proudly proclaimed the end of big government in 1996, also said similar things. There is now a distinct us versus them as the election season begins. “Us” is those who want to work together. "Them” is those who treat community as a drug we'll become dependent on. It is probably no accident that the Republican ticket is composed of men descended from rich parents. Lots of rich kids become effective leaders, but many don’t understand how tough it can be to have no one to lean on, to borrow from (as Mitt now famously suggested), or even to be taught by.

But having listened closely to the Obama speech, I am still hungry for more candor. Even a few days later, I have no idea what Obama plans to do over the next four years. We know he will care, and we know he will not take a pound of flesh from the poor or strivers to the middle class if he can help it, but what do we know about his future programs?

He was about as careful as Romney and Ryan were in Tampa to avoid any specifics. Will he propose a new stimulus if the economy teeters, or will he remain dedicated to a narrow deficit-cutting plan even during a weak economy? Does he think there is anything truly commendable about the Simpson-Bowles deficit-cutting plan he had sponsored (if then mostly ignored)? The plan disastrously aims to limit federal spending to 21 percent of GDP, its 40 year- average, even as the population ages, health costs rise, and we know pre-K education is urgently needed. It would cut Social Security sharply. But Obama mentioned it in his speech, and it has become the widely cited “bipartisan” model for fiscal responsibility. The public relations program in its favor is a stunner. It is not really bipartisan at all, of course. Both the Democrat Bowles and the Republican Simpson are devoted and extreme deficit hawks.

What line will Obama hold on Social Security? Will he significantly upgrade his proposals to invest in infrastructure? How about a higher minimum wage? Better labor laws? Is there a potential jobs program in the works? Serious education reform? Will he encourage a lower dollar to help manufacturing and propose ways to create a more level playing field in global trade? Will he propose a serious tax increase to pay for needed public investment and buttress entitlements programs once the economy is righted?

I can’t say it’s bad politics to ignore the details for now. The best case for Obama is that as his health reform law helps more people, he will build American confidence in government. Mitt Romney has already conceded as much, saying he will retain some of Obamacare. With some proof that governmnet helps under his belt, perhaps Obama can move forward. He can add to his health care program with a true public option and perhaps expansion of Medicaid reimbursements to providers, which are too low. He can also adopt more rigid cost controls, drug negotiating procedures, and firmer preventive medicine incentives. A more positive attitude toward government might awaken fresh ideas about educational reform. Perhaps we can put art and music programs back into schools and tackle universal access to the web. Maybe we can even build a universal pre-K system that is cheap and good, one of our most important needs.

I know Romney has only one major idea in his head: tax cuts. If at first they don’t succeed, try again. But of course, tax cuts did succeed for the wealthy, just not for the “community” of America.

What’s really in Obama’s head? Is he a limited government man at bottom, just another Third Way New Democrat? Or is he really a community government man? I don’t know, and that bugs me. Moreover, I am not sure we will find out before Election Day.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

 

Barack Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

The New New Deal and the Little-Known Transformation of American Government

Aug 31, 2012Mark Schmitt

The New New Deal isn't just another book about the White House or Congress. It tells the story of what happens when laws are passed and governing begins.

The New New Deal isn't just another book about the White House or Congress. It tells the story of what happens when laws are passed and governing begins.

What's the best book about the Obama administration, particularly on domestic policy? A few months ago, I would have recommended Noam Scheiber's The Escape Artists, but The New New Deal, by Michael Grunwald of Time, is not only the best book about the administration and its immediate challenges, but perhaps the only one that will (and should) continue to be read long after 2016. This post isn't a full review of the book (for that, I recommend Michael Cohen in The Guardian, but others are forthcoming) – rather, I want to highlight two aspects of the book that both made me feel a little guilty and got me thinking.

The narrative takes place in three locations: at the White House, in Congress as it interacts with the White House over the stimulus, and deep in the executive branch of government. Grunwald is very good on the drama in the White House, as economic advisors including Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Jared Bernstein struggled to find a formula to contain the economic disaster that was also politically viable in an environment where neither politicians nor the public fully appreciated the depth of the crisis or the logic of Keynesian stimulus. If his book has none of the contrived Oval Office melodrama of Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, it's because Grunwald understands the subject, and thus knows that the range of options – and the range of real disagreement -- was not that wide.

He amply demonstrates that the great alternative-universe fantasy -- in which the stimulus could have been much, much larger and only political malpractice held it back – is exactly that, a fantasy. The miracle is that the economic stimulus, even if inadequate to fully restore the economy's lost output, was as large as it was, and managed to contain such a multitude of new ideas. Nonetheless, Grunwald acknowledges and digs deeply into the errors that the White House made, such as asking Romer and Bernstein to put forth a projection of unemployment rates with and without the stimulus – which may have been accurate in estimating the difference between the two, but not the overall employment picture.

The New New Deal also shines in its accounting of the legislative response, particularly the Republican opposition to the stimulus -- or, more correctly, to Obama. Grunwald offers a good model for journalists that it's possible to do more than just transcribe something like, “Senator X said he opposed the stimulus because it didn't contain enough tax cuts and infrastructure spending.” When a politician's stated positions make no sense and are glaringly inconsistent, a real journalist can say just that. His parsing of Senator Judd Gregg's shifting logic on the stimulus as he flirted with becoming Obama's Secretary of Commerce is masterful, as is his interview with former Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican whose amiable rationales make even less sense than those of conservatives.

But The New New Deal made me feel guilty in two big ways. First, I've on occasion made the argument that progressives don't really have an adequate set of new ideas, especially about the future of the economy. But as Grunwald shows, not only are there ideas, but many of them are being put into place as we speak, from the Race to the Top education reforms to the birth of an American solar energy and battery industries to the mundane work of weatherization of millions of homes and businesses to save energy. I didn't fully appreciate the scope of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance system, for example. It's far from sufficient to offset the lost potential from the recession; there's a lot more to be done to rebuild the foundations of a broad and secure middle class, and some of it can't be done by government. But the germ of the ideas that will build the future are there.

Why has it been so easy to overlook that? That's the second point on which I feel guilty. Like most writers about public affairs, I tend to focus somewhat on electoral politics and on legislative politics and policy. Most media coverage is grossly overweighted toward electoral politics – that's why there are 15,000 reporters in Tampa to cover a fully scripted non-event. But even those of us who try to focus more on policy and legislation often overlook the big third dimension, which is government. Virtually nothing is written about the actual implementation of policy in the executive branch or in the states. Newspaper coverage is limited to a watchdog role that seeks out stories like the failed loan to Solyndra, which is how that one failure (which Grunwald shows was already underway in the last days of the Bush administration, under an existing loan program) could become the proxy for the entire stimulus, or as they call it in Tampa, the “failed stimulus.” Most federal agencies have no journalists at all covering them on a daily basis, other than reporters for specialized publications and industry newsletters.

While there are books comparable to Grunwald's about legislation (The Bill, by Steve Waldman, about the early Clinton public service and education initiatives, Showdown at Gucci Gulch, about the 1986 tax reform, and the classroom classic, The Dance of Legislation, by Eric Redman, which is about the 1970s), very few continue to look at what happened in government after the legislation passed. The richest sections of Grunwald's book open up the internal politics of government: one great set piece tells the story of the Department of Energy's office responsible for administering weatherization assistance for low-income families, one that had been a “turkey farm” (a term commonly used in public administration to refer to an unimportant office to which useless employees are assigned) and couldn't even get funds out the door. Given an impossible assignment in the stimulus – to weatherize 600,000 homes – an entepreneurial young leader, Claire Broido Johnson, turned the office around and exceeded the goal.

Such stories, along with accounts of the ARPA-E clean-energy research program and the Race to the Top education program, show that the Obama administration is changing government in ways that go much further than the “Reinventing Government” initiatives of the Clinton-Gore era, which focused mainly on government's relation to citizens, who would be treated more like customers. Creative, ambitious leadership is encouraged, and real competitions, like Race to the Top, are replacing the formula- or earmark-funded programs of the past. It took a while to get started (which is why some of it was ineffective as short-term Keynesian stimulus), but its long-term effects on both government and the economy are likely to be profound.

To restore confidence in government, it is necessary to do all these things – to make government more responsive, imaginative, tough on failure but supportive of promising ideas. But it won't do any good if people don't know about it, and the phrase “failed stimulus” goes unchallenged. The New New Deal is not only one of the two best books ever written about government (the other is Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner), but an acute reminder to every journalist, political writer and political analyst to pay more attention to real stuff of government, which doesn't happen at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mark Schmitt is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Yesterday's Wind? Paul Ryan's Speech Was Full of Hot Air.

Aug 30, 2012Jeff Madrick

Paul Ryan may have a reputation as a truth-teller, but his convention speech was far from the truth.

Paul Ryan may have a reputation as a truth-teller, but his convention speech was far from the truth.

Honest? Intellectual? Neither quality was on display last night when Paul Ryan gave his first major national speech to America and provided red meat to his fellow Republican conventioneers. Profoundly sarcastic about Barack Obama, taking one rhetorical swing after another about how the administration failed, he promised in soaring language that Mitt Romney and he would do far better, put America back to work, and save Medicare. How? Not a word. No mention of a plan, not even in broad strokes.

Perhaps Ryan was told to leave the plan to Romney during his acceptance speech. But of course, neither Romney nor Ryan has told us much about their plan at all. They will cut taxes, but will they close the deficit they so deplore and blame on Obama? The CBO says Ryan’s plan won’t do that for decades, and even that forecast relies on spending cuts and the closing of tax loopholes neither Ryan nor Romney will specify. This is honesty?

At the very least, Ryan could have told us why he believes in small government, not simply that he believes in it. He could have tried to present some evidence, theory, or even conjecture about how it limits growth. He could have sought a historical example or two of a better America. Of course, this would have been difficult. The facts don’t back him up.

Ryan said Obama was trying to sail on “yesterday’s wind.” The Republican chant about making the poor personally responsible for their own good is truly “yesterday’s wind.” Before Social Security, when workers were largely “responsible” for their own retirement, about half the elderly lived below the poverty rate. American policymakers paid too little attention to poverty until Michael Harrington wrote his book, The Other America, documenting how many poor there were. In the 1950s, before Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, the poor had to get by on their own, as Republicans would have it today. The poverty rate then was 22 or 23 percent, but now America’s official poverty line is lower compared to median incomes than in most other rich countries.

If Ryan is what passes for intellectual in Republican circles, the party is in serious trouble. He is an ideologue. He espouses faith in a small government dogma, not theory or evidence. And we have heard this chorus for a century or two. Good thing the nation ignored it and built a set of social programs that were central to the development of a middle class -- civil rights for black people and women, free education, major transportation systems, and protection from workplace abuses, old age, and the scourge of being born into poverty.

As Ryan said about Obama, his facts are merely true because he states them. Last night, Ryan took two big cheap shots. He had the audacity to suggest Obama was to blame for an auto plant that GM closed before he took office, when in fact Romney was opposed to the Obama bailout of GM. And of course there was Obama's $700 billion “raid” on Medicare in order to provide coverage for others, mainly the poor and the young. Obama is cutting back reimbursements to providers and a subsidy for Medicare advantage. It won’t affect senior benefits. But the honest and intellectual Ryan did not explain this to us.

The Ryan charade is about to end. Ryan showed himself last night to be a politician willing to distort the facts and cynical enough about his audience’s intellectual capacity to provide no evidence, theory, or history to support his points even if he had them at his disposal. The Republicans’ rising star turned out to be a breath of stale air. 

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

 

Paul Ryan image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

Pages