100-something days

When I started this blog I said I would write about three things: Buenos Aires, politics, and music. I’ve managed to cover two of those categories extensively while outright dropping the third. It’s not that politics at home haven’t been kicking ass – they have – I just haven’t really had it in me to write about them. But since I am comfy watching Trial’s epic set from Burning Fight and getting my chomp on some Oatmeal Squares, but not particularly interested in doing actual homework, I will finally address some recent thoughts I’ve had.

One party Congress? I was pretty stoked for Specter’s switch if only as some sort of shameful vengeance for my frustration with him during the Bush SCOTUS nominee confirmation process. But contrary to my well-known partisanship, it bums me out that Republicans are such an irrelevant party. For the moment I am happy to have a basically filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (oh MN!) because it’s about time the government got some serious shit done – thank you Republican Congresses for putting off healthcare and immigration reform, exacerbating the problem of global warming by doing nothing about it, etc. – but I would generally be happier if there was a more two-sided debate occurring on the Hill. In the most Mill of thought processes, I genuinely believe that public policy is of a higher quality when both sides shape the process and (Burke) curb each others excesses. Although I strongly disagreed with the arbitrary decisions of the “Gang” of moderates, and by no means mean to hold them as the ideal, it would be good to have a well-supported intellectual challenge to the borrow-and-spend policies of the Obama administration, not Club for Growth tea parties and Michael Steele temper tantrums.

About time! One of my favorite refrains about Barack Obama is that he was the first Millennial generation candidate and the first Millennial generation president. I know he is technically too old to be a member of my generation but I strongly believe that he resonated with the youth so much this fall because his political philosophy mirrors that of my generation. Examples of this abound but I will cherry pick three particular policies which confirm my expectation.

First, I am thrilled about the Ted Kennedy Serve America Act. The law triples the size of AmeriCorps and increases available education subsidies for said volunteers, a worthy example of presidential leadership – and a stark contrast to Bush’s post 9/11 request that we “go shopping…” At the bill signing ceremony, President Obama prominently acknowledged my generation’s commitment to national service:

It’s the same spirit of service I’ve seen across this country. I’ve met countless people of all ages and walks of life who want nothing more than to do their part. I’ve seen a rising generation of young people work and volunteer and turn out in record numbers. They’re a generation that came of age amidst the horrors of 9/11 and Katrina, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an economic crisis without precedent. And yet, despite all this -- or more likely because of it -- they’ve become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas, that people who love their country can change it.

On some level I know that choosing this as my first example is kind of pathetic, a bipartisan pat-yourself-on-the-back bill that is about as controversial as loving puppies, but the truth is that I see a bill like this as a true act of leadership, a demand for Americans to serve each other at a time when we’re feeling alienated, scared, and expecting our government to serve us.

Second, thank you White House for fighting the good fight for students. It’s about time that student loan reform was a political issue. The plan ends the system of middle men, terminating private student lending and makes all loans directly through the government. It also adds a bunch more money for Pell Grants and Perkins Loans. I don’t think the plan is perfect – I continue to be concerned about the insufficiency of increases to financial aid in assisting middle income families – but man is it a step up from the predatory system of student loans currently in practice. I wish everyone, or namely just my favorite Senator Bill Nelson and his Nelnet buddies in Omaha, had the sense to see how good of an idea this is.

Third, the changes in the administration’s policy towards Cuba are a harbinger of good to come. They’re not extensive but they are at the very least an extremely meaningful act of political symbolism and, from all indications, step one in a series of new steps US-Cuba and inter-hemisphere relations. OAS leaders seemed also to think so. This definitely fits my generation's post Cold War attitude.

Hardest job in America. I definitely don’t think the administration has been doing an absolutely complaint-free perfect job. Governing, especially now, is tough stuff. To take one example, I’ve been frustrated not to see a decisive, coherent approach to Guantanamo. (Note what I am NOT saying here.) The Bush administration really cornered those who have come after, saddling the Obama administration with a furious collection of radicalized prisoners under dubious self-made constructions of laws of war. I do believe Obama’s people are stuck between a rock and a hard place – bringing the prisoners into the States means the application of due process for trials that lack enough evidence to be convincing and the impossible task of finding a place to house them in the mean time – however the administration has resolved not to leave them at Gitmo or to use secret prisons, so they have to do something with these prisoners that isn’t sending them back to Yemen. (Or, if there isn't a case to be made, the law is the law and they have to send them back to Yemen as tough as it is to swallow.) My complaint about the lack of a decisive and coherent approach reflects my frustration that administration has continued to apply this dubious definition of international laws of war rather than a more domestic definition of criminal law, thus opening possibilities such as the continuation of the prison at Gitmo, a continuation of the dubiously legal military tribunals, etc. However, it’s tough stuff. They didn’t pull these folks in so they’re left working with, and probably not enough around, the system the Bush administration gave them… in conclusion, I’m pretty glad I’m not sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office these days.

ANYWAYS, that’s just a couple of thoughts. I have plenty more, if you want to know just ask.

my generational debt? my priorities!

Last week I called attention to a couple of items that had been cut from the House stimulus package by the so-called “gang” of Senate moderates. The list included $5.8 billion for health prevention activity, $1 billion Head Start/Early Start programs, and $2 billion for increasing access to broadband internet. I’m not sure if they made it back into the final stimulus package – I am pretty sure they didn’t – but either way the point I want to make it still relevant: Our generation and our children will be paying for the stimulus package and forthcoming bank bailouts, which makes it all the more important that the bill has some degree of mid-to-long term sense. I appreciate that this will be an expensive enterprise – through probably not the $2.3 trillion plus debt members of the Republican caucus keep citing – and I think that’s a great reason to load it with more than just immediate forms of relief like the AMT fix or added unemployment benefits but also to take advantage of this opportunity and take a big step toward restoring America’s long term competitiveness.

My ideological convinction that investments should also balance longer-term priorities is all the more reason that it’s driving me crazy that Republicans, starting with Michelle Malkin, have been calling the stimulus package The Generational Theft Act of 2009. Think Progress catalogues some of the claim’s recent appearances:

Malkin’s views are apparently beginning to hold sway with Republicans in Congress. On January 29, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said of the proposed stimulus package, “This bill is a generational theft bill.” In a blog post yesterday for AmericaSpeakOn.org, a new conservative 501(c)4 group, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) used Malkin’s language as well:

The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren.This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has become a top critic of the recovery package in the Senate, also referred to it as “generational theft” on CBS’ Face The Nation.

WAIT. HOLD UP. The same Congressional Republicans complaining about a stimulus package that costs less than the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the over $1 trillion spent in Iraq are just now talking about “generational theft?” These same folks who are gutting the sensible long-term priorities within the bill – that which they’ve described as “Democratic pet projects” – are complaining about the debt that they’re not inheriting? If this is my generational debt, a claim I could work with considering it's going to be my debt, that's a good reason for it not to be loaded with the same bad policies of the last eight years. 

I agree with Krugman’s assessment that this talk is “deranged.” (Krugman himself is advocating for an even bigger bill and thinks the administration is merely “kicking the can down the road.”) Ron Brownstein is on MtP is also ripping into this, asking what credibility Republicans have to claim the upper hand on fiscal stewardship. Watch it here.

As usual, Michael Connery at Future Majority beat me to the punch.

The facts of the matter are simple. We're facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the question on the minds of most economists isn't "how big will the deficits be," rather, it's "will the stimulus be big enough to plug the gaping holes in our economy." The economic recovery package isn't $800 billion in pork or wasteful spending, rather it is a stop-gap to save jobs, and a mid- to long-term investment in the future our citizens, our infrastructure, and our economy.

In its final form, the stimulus package will:

•   Modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. The plan will also double American renewable energy-generating capacity over three years.
  
•   Make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized, reducing medical errors and saving billions in health care costs.
  
• Equip thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
  
• Expand broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
  
• Enact the largest investment in America’s crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems since the creation of the national highway system.
  
• Invest in high risk-high reward science-based research and innovation, and bring it to market—to invent the technology the world uses, and prevent and cure deadly and costly diseases.
  

As Connery is noting, the stimulus package contains long-term provisions. Brownstein, again, reports in the NJ this weekend that Obama Focuses On Ends, Flexible On Means. What I am implying here is that these provisions are what a stimulus package that isn’t generational theft should look like, one that invests not only for the short-term (job creation vis a vis infrastructure projects) but in the long term (in sectors like weatherization and green building).

If anyone has called attention to this concept, it’s been Nick Kristof. In this On the Ground blog entry from two-ish weeks ago, Kristof began hammering the idea that the best part of the stimulus package were its investments in education. His column this weekend, too, address this is issue. As he notes, the bill invests $100 billion in education. When the Dept of Ed’s annual budget is merely $59 billion, this is obviously a really big deal. And to me, this suggests a stimulus package with some forward thinking. 

FINAL NOTE: Yes, I am in Argentina. I arrived this morning. But after a little suitcase mishap yesterday afternoon, I didn’t get a chance to finish this yesterday so it took first prioritiy. As for Argentina: I took a two hour nap and could probably fall asleep right now.  

a week in review of sorts

I hope to make this, a weekly round-up of my favorite news and commentary, a regular feature to keep myself writing and thinking about politics at home while I'm away. If you're keeping score, anticipate Friday appearances. 

• McLatchy has a list of what the Senate cut from the stimulus package. I will be revisiting this but just as a preview: $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity, $1 billion Head Start/Early Start, and $2 billion broadband. 
  
• Two great articles on SCOTUS this week, one piggybacking the other. First, Adam Litpak of The Times ponders “To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left” which is summed up beautifully in Litpak’s closer: Mr. Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination will no doubt be an accomplished lawyer whose views are generally to the left of the ideological center. What remains to be seen is what sort of liberal — and what sort of liberalism — he intends to endorse.  Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick followed that article with a reasoned consideration (and rejection) of the progressive plea for a liberal lion on the Court. And by liberal lion, I would probably be better served to say a “liberal loudest animal you can think of.” (Cue justice brennannnnnn / dear justice letter now.) I am spotlighting these both because I particularly enjoyed reading them but also because Justice Ginsburg, the Court’s most liberal member, just underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. It seems President Obama might have a Court nominee sooner than expected, cf Reuters.
  
• LOTS OF DRAMA in the upper echelons of the military/diplomatic world. First, Thomas Ricks scoops that it was Gen. Ray Odierna who pushed first for the troop surge. Second, Gen. Anthony Zinni flips a (very very public) shit because he was offered the post of Ambassador to Iraq, then lost it to Chris Hill without being told. Personally, I’m immensely pleased. Hill is a level-headed, results-oriented professional who I am thrilled to have in the service of our country. Most of all, I loved the long-form profile of Dick Holbrooke in the Week in Review. The best line: Many people have personal trainers; Mr. Holbrooke has a personal archivist. Awesome. All three are highly suggested reads.
• David Plouffe, beer pong champion? The Esquire's profile reveals few campaign secrets or insights on the surface but is still a mighty entertaining read. 
• OKAY Jonah Goldberg is a hack. I know. But I couldn’t help but agree with the sentiment behind his scathing indictment of Geithner and Daschle in the LA Times. Like the characters he mocks, I do believe that paying taxes is a patriotic duty and appreciate his righteous indignation. Speaking of hacks, Thomas Friedman on nation-building in Gaza stresses a point that I think is positively crucial: state capacity and effective institutions in the territories is essential for peace in the Middle East. (Or, for that matter, anywhere.)
• Finally, how did I miss that Kanye West, Lil Wayne, (9-mo. pregnant) M.I.A. and Jay-Z performed together tonight? Is this on youtube yet?

T-7 days for BSAS!

David Brooks does it again

David Brooks frequently strikes gold in his columns, especially when he's mocking the set of people with whom I tend to identify. The pleasure I receive when reading his Lunch Period Poli Sci op-ed is endless, even though I've read it probably too many times. I was going to drop a blockquote in but it's just too good to hash like that.

Today's column, Ward Three Morality, just added to my love. For those who can appreciate what this means, Ward Three encompasses Tenleytown, Klingle, Cathedral Heights, Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Foxhall, Friendship Heights, Glover Park, and Woodley Park. AKA these are the folks who patronize 2Amys and Politics and Prose, who embody the future I probably want one day. Knowing many of those folks, and self-mockingly considering myself an amateur of their ranks, I couldn't help but crack up at this hilariously on target dig: 

The good news for rich people is that people in this neighborhood are very nice and cerebral. On any given Saturday, half the people in Ward Three are arranging panel discussions for the other half to participate in. They live in modest homes with recently renovated kitchens and Nordic Track machines crammed into the kids’ play areas downstairs (for some reason, people in Ward Three are only interested in toning the muscles in the lower halves of their bodies).

I know that Brooks is being cheeky here but he is also imparting some serious shots at both sides. I'm not going to lie, it pleases me that these Ward Three folks are calling the shots now. Maybe I shouldn't feel so happy about that. Brooks is really right when he says Under their rule, the federal government is permitted to throw hundreds of billions of dollars around on a misguided bank bailout, but if a banker like John Thain spends $1,500 on a wastepaper basket then all hell breaks loose. (I am again reminded of Nietzsche. These drab upper middle class folks embody the bourgeois values Nietzsche loves to hate.) Like Brooks, I suspect this will be a prominent theme in economic crisis America and a continued criticism from the old right to the left. 

I similarly delight in his long-form Atlantic piece about high-acheivers in my generation, The Organization Kid. I think some of his insights are a bit off, and some clearly embody what I mock about Princeton and Penn, but much of the article is eerily true. I was thinking about it just yesterday when I was reading an American Scholar op-ed called The Disadvantages of Having an Elite Education. The beginning of the Scholar article, which is quite long, was both rather engrossing and also uncomfortably accurate.

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League degrees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.

I experienced something very similar, to my complete dismay, when I was hanging out with a friend of a friend at a hardcore show. While I have some disagreements with both Brooks and Deresiewicz -- for instance, I know many people my age who are not econ majors heading for careers in investment banking -- there is much credence to their perspectives.