All Feeds

Connecticut Court Rules in Favor of Same Sex Marraige

Jenny Choi — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:02:29 -0400

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry under that state's constitution. The eight couples who filed suit in 2004 argued that they had been unfairly denied the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell has said that she would not challenge the court's ruling.

Connecticut, following in the path of Massachusetts and California, will become the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage. Polls have shown that while most Americans are still very much reluctant to say the law should recognize gay marriages, support has increased in the past dozen or so years. And six in 10 believe that legal recognition is inevitable. Yet while more than half say allowing gay marriages would degrade the institution of marriage, just as many say the government should not promote traditional marriages.

Can the G7 Leaders Stop the Slide?

Jenny Choi — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:42:58 -0400

With stock prices plummeting in Asia and Europe, and the Dow Jones fluctuating erratically amid rampant sell-offs, President Bush will convene a meeting on Saturday of finance ministers and central bankers from the major industrialized nations of the Group of Seven. President Bush spoke in advance of the G-7 meeting to reassure Americans about the financial rescue plan. He is expected to propose the government purchase of shares in banks and "troubled assets" to head off the global economic crisis. The global financial crisis has put the economy foremost in voters' minds. For nonpartisan facts, figures and solutions regarding the economy and the deficit, see our Voter's Survival Kit.

The Second Presidential Debate: Actually, There's a Lot Going On

Scott Bittle — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:12:54 -0400

Despite the criticism of the town hall format, in many ways the second presidential debate was more substantive than the first session, and dramatically more so than the vice presidential debate last week. (I mean the real one, not the SNL version). Political junkies often say the town hall debate just regurgitates old news, but for many voters who haven't been paying attention and are just starting to think about the candidates, that's useful information. (Even more useful, if we may be so bold, is our Voter's Survival Kit, which points out many of the facts that the candidates skated over in the debate.)

We're also continuing our video commentary in partnership with VoterWatch's Blogging the Debates project. In the embedded video below, you can see our analysis of what the candidates were saying as you watch the debate video. Plus, you can get all our debate-related material, including transcripts of what the candidates said, and much more, at our new Debates 2008 page.

Public Policy Communicators Lunch

Peiting Chen — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:00:32 -0400

New York City has dozens of nationally and internationally recognized public policy organizations along with many influential philanthropic organizations. Plus, it has hundreds of academic centers producing important new thinking. In fact, the New York City area probably has more individuals working to affect public policy than any other American city outside of Washington, DC. While the region is well-served by organizations that help to bring together commercial communications professionals there hasn't been an organization helping connect communicators who are focused on public policy in New York City.

Communications professionals working in the public policy field are coming together to network and learn from one another in this first informal brown-bag lunch.

Our debut networking event will be a fairly informal with plenty of time for introductions. At some point, we will settle in with our lunches and talk about: "Are you planning on reaching out to the new administration and new Congress in your work? If so, how do you update your contact lists? Do you use a Washington Office? How do you advance your issues without lobbying?"

If you are interested in joining the group, please contact:
Michael Hamill Remaley
Vice President and Director of Communications
mremaley@publicagenda.org or 212.686.6610 x13

Where Does the Money Go? PowerPoint Presentation on the Federal Budget Crisis, at the Northwest Philanthropy Conference

Peiting Chen — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:35 -0400

What do the federal government's financial problems mean for the nonprofit world? How should the philanthropic sector respond to the global financial crisis? How can nonprofits lead in an environment of tight budgets and tough choices? "Where Does the Money Go? Your Guide to the Federal Budget Crisis" authors Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, both executive vice presidents at Public Agenda, spoke to nonprofit leaders on these topics Sept. 26, 2008, at the annual Philanthropy Northwest conference in Couer d'Alene, Idaho. They argue that philanthropy has a key role to play in helping Americans understand the challenge and make sensible decisions, as well as by making critical investments in priorities that may fall by the wayside in tough financial times.

Click here to view the PowerPoint presentation.

Federal Judge Orders Release of 17 Gitmo Detainees

Jenny Choi — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:54:21 -0400

A Federal District Court judge, in a major blow to the Bush administration's detention policies, has ordered the release of 17 detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The New York Times reports the men are ethnic Uighurs, a Muslim minority in western China, and have been held at the prison since 2002 under the required classification of "enemy combatants." Judge Ricardo Urbina has ordered them brought to court on Friday, at which time they are to be released into the care of supporters in the Washington, D.C., area.

The Bush administration - which has long associated the Uighur detainees with terrorist groups in Afghanistan, where they fled to escape Chinese rule - recently conceded that it will no longer try to prove that the 17 men are enemy combatants. Judge Urbina dismissed the Justice Department's arguments on detaining the men as an attempt to assert an executive power of detaining individuals indefinitely without court review. That, said the judge, is "not in keeping with our system of government."

The government, which accuses the men of having received weapons training in Afghanistan around the time of the Sept. 11th attacks, is seeking a stay of the judge's order, on the grounds that the men should not be released into the United States.

Federal officials meanwhile are on the defensive on a second front regarding the rights of detainees and prisoners, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act release of documents and e-mail discussing the treatment of inmates at U.S. military brigs in Norfolk, Va., and Charleston, S.C.

The Associated Press reports the documents and e-mails were obtained by a human rights group at the Yale University Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union, which contend that the federal government has violated the constitution's prohibition of cruel treatment. It is alleged that military personnel at brigs where two American citizens and a U.S. resident were held were ordered to give the men the same treatment as detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- in essence, depriving them of their constitutional rights.

None of the men were ever charged with a crime. Another document reveals the testimony of a brig officer who talks about months of harsh interrogations and sensory deprivation treatment of one of the prisoners and warns Pentagon officials that he feared the inmate was in danger of losing his sanity.

Detention policies in the war against terror have ignited a long-standing, contentious battle, and public attitudes are fairly divided on the issue. While 57 percent in one poll say they support the government holding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay without a trial, responses are evenly split when the question wording changes. In a Fox News poll in 2006, 43 percent said it's fair to hold accused Taliban or al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay without charging or trying them, while 44 percent said it's unfair. Likewise, responses are mixed when asked if holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has made the U.S. safer from terrorism; 34 percent said it has "somewhat" and 45 percent said it has not.

In our last edition of the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, 41 percent said it's "partially justified" to say that the U.S. is so concerned with its own security that it sometimes abuses prisoners in the war on terrorism. Compare that to 34 percent who say it's not justified at all and 18 percent who say it is "totally justified."

A Renewed Vision For A Renewed City

Francie Grace — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:55:45 -0400

When hurricanes strike, we think of loss of life, ruined homes, and devastated economies, and the push is for food, clothes, cash and help in rebuilding. That's all critical – but for a community to create a better future they can really rely on, something else may be needed. Lara Birnback, Public Agenda's senior public engagement project director, reports on public engagement in Moss Point, Mississippi – a city struggling with the impact of a plant closing and Katrina's devastation – where civic leaders are determined to transform their home into a world class river city.

At the Town Hall: Time for Real Issues

Scott Bittle — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:04:25 -0400

I admit it, I like the town hall-style presidential debates best. Over the years, the big advantage of the town hall debates is that the real people in the audience ask about real issues. We don't have the spectacle we saw during the primaries, where the journalist-moderators spend precious minutes relaying the charges-and-countercharges that the candidates themselves spend more of their time on. The presidential debate tonight will be in the town hall format, and if we’re lucky, the questions will be about things that really matter to voters.

That said, you can sit through a debate and still come out without learning anything about substantive issues. Despite the best efforts of Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill, the moderators of the first two debates, most candidates are well trained to answer the question they wish had been asked, rather than the one that was actually asked. At last week's vice presidential debate, if you listened carefully, pretty much all you would have learned about the economy was that Gov. Sarah Palin supported "reform" while Sen. Joseph Biden wanted to help "the middle class." Okay, now what?

There are actual options out there for dealing with the problems facing the country. It would be nice if the candidates took the opportunity to lay them out for the public. Since their record on that is pretty sketchy, Public Agenda has set out key facts and some options in our Voter's Survival Kit, which includes great resources and links on the debates. The kit makes a pretty good cheat sheet to look over before the debate (or right after, when you're wondering, "did that really make sense?")

The economy will almost certainly be Topic A at tonight's debate. If you've only got time for to look at one thing, check out "The Fix We're in Now." The "Get the Facts" section will give you some perspective, too. Another good resource is the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Overview of the Economy page.

The other big topic will likely be taxes and federal spending. Our "Has the Bill Arrived?" guide lays out the basics on that – including a number of things that I'm betting neither candidate is going to acknowledge onstage.

Generally speaking, candidates assume you already know something about the tax system –or that you won't bother to look it up. Numbers get thrown around but nobody every steps back and talks about what the government actually spends and how it raises money. We can save you some time, because a few charts really tell the story. Have a look at our charts on Federal Spending, Federal Revenue, Deficit/Surplus and Top Tax Rates – this will really help clarify what they're talking about. Remember that's the top ("marginal") tax rate, and most people don't reach that level.

Our other guides cover health care, Iraq and foreign policy, Immigration and climate change. Have a look, settle in for the debate – but don't let the candidates slide. They'll be asked specific questions, and you deserve specific answers.

Debates 2008

Francie Grace — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:52:48 -0400

DEBATES 2008

Click here for information on the next debate

Click here for information on the most recent debate

At Public Agenda, we're big fans of critical thinking. That doesn't mean throwing rotten tomatoes at the screen (or computer monitor). It does mean taking the facts we have - you've got'em too, it's all laid out in our nonpartisan Voter's Survival Kit issue-by-issue guide to this year's hot topics - and keeping them in mind as we listen carefully to the candidates answering and not answering questions in the presidential and vice presidential debates.

Here are some great tools to use when checking out the candidates' performances in this year's debates. We recommend you dig in before making your decision on Election Day.

Once you do - you may have a thought or two about the issues at stake. If you've got comments, we'd love to hear them - click here to have your voice heard and become a part of the Election 2008 discussion.

Sept. 26, 2008: Presidential Candidate Debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Mississippi

BloggingTheDebates.com posting by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle: frame-by-frame comments on portions of the debate, visible simultaneously as you watch the video of the debate which very nearly did not happen, with Sen. John McCain agreeing to the debate with Sen. Barack Obama only about 12 hours before its scheduled beginning. Moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS.

Complete transcript of the debate

University of Mississippi's debate site

Oct. 2, 2008: Vice Presidential Candidate Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Comments by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle on portions of the widely anticipated and viewed showdown between Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, with thoughts on the remaining presidential debates.

The vice presidential candidate debate was moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Complete transcript of the debate

Washington University in St. Louis' debate site

Oct. 7, 2008: Presidential Candidate Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee

Video of the debate including frame-by-frame commentary by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle, visible simultaneously as you watch the candidates square off on the economy, health care, Iraq and Afghanistan.

A town hall meeting-style debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw, with additional questions submitted by citizens participating via the Internet.

Complete transcript of the debate

Belmont University's debate site

Oct. 15, 2008: Presidential Candidate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York

Moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Hofstra University's debate site

Public Agenda will continue our participation in the VoterWatch BloggingTheDebates project; check back with us the day after the debate to see our comments, visible simultaneously with the video of the event.

More Great Resources For Monitoring The Candidate Debates

Commission on Presidential Debates

This nonprofit nonpartisan organization, which sponsored all the presidential and vice presidential debates since 1988, has a lot for concerned citizens including a look at the 150-year history of the political debates and information on how to hold your own debate on the issues.

Great Moments in Presidential Debate History

Belmont University's Election 2008 lecture series takes you behind the scenes of the presidential debates of the past few decades, with observations from political strategists and commentators who were there.

Take It To The Next Level

Public Agenda's collection of links to the candidates and the positions they endorse, plus the latest news from the campaign trail, information on voter registration, absentee ballots and more.

FacingUp.org

Straight talk about the burgeoning federal budget, why it matters, and what can be done about it.

Election 2008 Countdown Clock, Budget Deficit Clock, and Smash The Spin!

Public Agenda's free widgets to put on your own web site, to link your site visitors to the latest news on the big issues in this critical election.

Get Widgets!

Our gallery of free election widgets from all over, to spread the word to other voters as time runs out to make a choice at the polls on Election Day.

Scholastic.com's Election 2008 Kids Newsroom

Wondering what America's future voters are thinking? This site includes debate coverage by Scholastic's Kid Reporters, as well as an ongoing student vote and many other interactive features.

Viewpoint: Toward a new American consensus

Peiting Chen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:20:47 -0400

Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party and significant chunks of the Democratic Party have coalesced around a consensus that has supported largely free markets and a diminished government role in the economy, value-free social values, and a wink and a nod toward fiscal responsibility. But now, this mixture of watered-down cultural values and hands-off economic policies simply isn't working well or in most Americans' best interests. It's time for a new way forward, taking the best from our country's liberal and conservative heritages.

So, what's next - or should be next?

What the United States needs is a new political cocktail: one jigger of greater focus on values, one jigger of fiscal rectitude, and one jigger of new public-sector engagement in building a prosperous society with security and opportunity for all. It's time to jettison the oft-used mantra of being a "social liberal and economic conservative" for a 21st-century political philosophy that is both more radical and, in crucial respects, more conservative.

That's not to say that LBJ and Ronald Reagan, the hippies and the evangelicals all didn't get some things right. The Democrats, and their union base, benefited millions in fostering broad-based economic growth, using activist fiscal policy, social protection and regulation, and support for worker and retiree economic security in the decades after World War II. Mr. Reagan and many subsequent Republicans also highlighted that, in many respects, the free market gets things right more often than government. (Granted, this may not seem especially evident during the current financial crisis).

Moreover, the 1960s counterculture and rights movements were absolutely right to press for greater tolerance - in the form of more equitable gender roles, respect for once-marginalized groups, the ability to pursue less traditional routes to personal fulfillment, and the principle that nonharmful individual behavior should not be subject to state or community intrusiveness. Likewise, religious conservatives have taken the important lead in saying that much of modern narcissism - in family and personal life, unbridled consumption and hedonism, and putting the individual ahead of the community or nation - is not OK.

Such a philosophical amalgam may not appeal to those who believe in unregulated, winner-take-all capitalism; welfare state socialism; the cheapening of relationships, sex, credit, truth or sense of responsibility to community and nation; or debt-financed spending. Nor will it inspire those who would want women, gays, nonwhites or non-Christians (narrowly defined) to be brought into line by the values police. Yet, most Americans, in their hearts, believe in personal and social responsibility, in economic prosperity and equity, and in Lincoln's immortal words of "charity toward all and malice toward none."

While the policy adjustments may be complex, the real issue is about culture and changed beliefs and values as precursors and corollaries to policy change. Of course, probing these cultural and value domains would require much more than a single column, so let's consider a few places where such a new philosophy might lead in practical terms.

For one, it would mean government reshaping its priorities and roles to spend more on growth and opportunity-producing investments such as education, energy, the environment, and science and to be stronger in regulating not only out-of-whack financial markets but also labor markets that have created a small flotilla of super-rich executives and investors and an oversized armada of workers struggling to make ends meet for their families. But it also would mean reshaping government so we don't continue to spend ourselves deeper and deeper into a national debt that is fast approaching $10 trillion.

Equally importantly, it is about fostering an appreciation - in families and houses of worship, in schools and the media - that we can't just "live for today" or "look out for No. 1," in two discardable phrases of the 1960s and 1970s. Americans, historically a proudly self-reliant people, need to take more responsibility for themselves and their children, for example, by saving more and spending less, by eating and living in a more healthful fashion, and by taking a lead in teaching their children to value learning. Strong families and extended interpersonal networks not only help build better futures for America's children but also make values of love and commitment more meaningful. This is especially important in our easy-come, easy-go culture exemplified by the lives of supermarket-tabloid celebrities. Similarly, rather than thinking only about what we can get, we need to think more about what we can give-in our communities, to our nation and to the world.

Values such as the importance of family, service, thrift, respect, responsibility, honesty and giving are essential for a good America. But so too are economic policies that, once again, can provide what John Kennedy called "a rising tide that lifts all boats," because growth without equity offers neither justice nor strength.

Would such a heretical brew alienate hard-core believers on all sides? We can only hope that those in each camp see the benefits of finding a new American common ground that emBRACes at least some of the values of their their principled antagonists.

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan think tank, is the author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility." He teaches at American University.

$10.1-trillion national debt? Let's cut taxes!

Peiting Chen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:16:25 -0400

Even before the current financial crisis, a federal budget deficit of nearly $500 billion was projected for next year. Now an additional $700 billion has been committed to bailing out Wall Street, not to mention as much as $200 billion for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So what do our friends in Washington do? They cut taxes to the tune of about $110 billion for everyone from companies that make wooden arrows for kids to Caribbean rum distillers.

Yeah, I get it: Those profiles in courage running Congress couldn't find the political backbone to do the right thing for the country unless they sweetened the deal with a bunch of pork-barrel gimmes for their constituents.

But these bozos took a lousy situation and made it exponentially worse by running up the nation's credit card bill at a time when fiscal prudence is the order of the day.

Not only have taxpayers been made responsible for the excesses of big banks. Our kids and grandkids will now be on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt that we owe the Japanese, the Chinese and a number of less savory lenders.

"The national debt is like a fat guy in a small boat," said Robert E. Wright, an economics professor at New York University and author of "One Nation Under Debt: Hamilton, Jefferson and the History of What We Owe."

"The more debt you load on, the closer to the water line you get. Pretty soon, it takes only a small wave to sink you."

Thanks to the bailout bill approved by the House and Senate last week, the nation's borrowing limit has been raised to $11.3 trillion from $10.6 trillion. As of Friday, the national debt stood at $10.1 trillion -- about $33,500 owed by every man, woman and child.

To put some perspective on how out of control our borrowing has become, it took the country about 200 years to run up its first trillion dollars in debt. Then President Reagan took office in 1981 and the national debt started to soar, quadrupling to $4 trillion by the time the first President Bush exited the White House.

Under President Clinton, the national debt grew to $5.7 trillion, and has since nearly doubled on Bush Jr.'s watch.

Put another way, the country's debt load represented just a third of gross domestic product when Reagan arrived in Washington. By the time Bush gallops back to Texas in January, our debt will represent about 70% of the overall economy.

What does that mean for you? It means the prospect of higher taxes, higher interest rates, a weaker dollar and commensurate difficulties for employers -- i.e. fewer jobs -- as future generations of Americans wrestle with paying the debt down.

"The termites are already in the woodwork," said Andrew Yarrow, vice president of the think tank Public Agenda and author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility."

"The sky isn't falling yet," he said. "But the growth of debt is eroding our economic well-being."

About a quarter of our debt is owed to foreign countries, with Japan and China topping the list at $593 billion and $519 billion, respectively, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

Other creditors include Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Nigeria.

With our borrowing at such an extreme level, the tax cuts accompanying the bailout package appear all the more reckless.

Many people may look at tax credits for alternative energy and commuting by bicycle as an investment in energy independence.

But a tax credit for American Samoan businesses? A tax credit for employing people from Indian reservations? A tax credit for racetrack owners? A tax credit for shooting movies in the United States? These were all included in the bill.

About half the $110 billion in tax cuts will go toward shielding millions of middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax, a levy intended for rich people but now reaching lower on the economic food chain because it's not adjusted for inflation.

Congress has been "patching" the AMT for years but has been reluctant to do away with the dysfunctional tax. Why? Because getting rid of it would increase the government's projected budget shortfall by about $1 trillion over the next decade, and nobody wants to think about what that would do to the nation's books.

Michael Hudson, an economics professor at the University of Missouri and president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, said the government's commitment to big spending and low taxes has placed us on the road to ruin.

"No government in history has operated this way," he said. "Every government that's tried this has gone bankrupt."

We aren't there yet -- not even close. But the trend is clear, and the fix will grow increasingly expensive with each passing year. Imagine if you kept running up your credit card bill with no plan for paying it down.

At some point, you'd be in a heap of trouble.

President Herbert Hoover famously quipped about 80 years ago: "Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt."

It wasn't funny then. It's downright scary now.

Consumer Confidential runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.

Teens, Video Games and Civics

Chris Haller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:01:59 -0400

While research and discussion about video games typically revolve around the negative impact virtual violence may have on our youth, the latest study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project (pdf) suggests that gaming can strengthen civic behavior. The first national survey of its kind finds that playing video games is commonplace, with 97percent of teens aged 12-17 playing games and at least half of them playing games on any given day.

The study took a closer look at the role gaming has in eight civic outcomes, ranging from interest in politics to taking part in protest marches. And, surprisingly, the quantity of game play is not strongly or consistently related to most civic outcomes, but a strong correlation exists for some specific qualities of game play.

While there is little evidence to suggest that simply playing video games might be related to active civic participation among teenagers, the context in which games are played and the style or characteristics of game play are significant indicators, according to the findings of this study.

Teens with the most "civic gaming experiences" – those primarily playing games that feature elements of "civic or political activities, helping others and debating ethical issues" – were found to be significantly more likely to participate in civic activities than their peers. Likewise, teens that play videos in the company of their friends instead of alone, as well as those contributing to game-related discussion forums or helping other gamers online, turned out to be more likely to live a more vibrant civic and political life.

With the enormous popularity video games have today, Joseph Kahne of Civic Engagement Research Group and co-author of the report says: "We need to focus less on how much time kids spend playing video games and pay more attention to the kinds of experiences they have while playing them."

Viewpoint: Why liberals should care about deficits

Peiting Chen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:28:32 -0400

From Baltimore Sun

From Ronald Reagan until Robert Rubin, fiscal restraint, deficit reduction, and "balancing the budget" were all but exclusively the province of conservatives. In practice, the last decade or so has changed that political equation, as President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin successfully cut spending, raised revenues, and balanced the federal budget for the first time since the 1960s - only for President Bush to increase spending, cut revenues, and increase federal debt by more than $4 trillion. Of course, in both cases, a Republican-controlled Congress helped.

Yet, despite this seemingly startling reversal in which party could best claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, many liberals remain deeply suspicious of - if not downright hostile to - ideas of reforming America's spend-and-tax policies that have left us $9.6 trillion in the hole, with another $50 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities. Although there is increasing lip-service, and some action, about bipartisanship in getting the United States to balance its out-of-whack books, many liberals fail to see why fiscal responsibility is in their interests - as well as in the interests of conservatives and all Americans.

So, why should liberals care? Why shouldn't they just see debt and deficit reduction as conservative Trojan horses to cut social programs and attack government? And why should they "give in" on programs like Social Security when a Republican administration has plunged the nation $4 trillion deeper into debt?

There are at least three major reasons.

But, first, a few basic myths need to be dispelled: 1) ending the Bush tax cuts alone won't solve the problem; 2) ending the Iraq war or making other defense cuts won't solve the problem; and 3) we can't keep Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as they are without hurting millions of other equally deserving Americans.

A key reason that liberals, like all Americans, should care about fiscal responsibility comes down to what the philosopher John Rawls calls "intergenerational justice." By running up ever greater debt, we pass trillions of dollars of IOUs to our children and grandchildren. They will have to pay the bills that we have run up - in higher taxes, reduced benefits, slower economic growth, and, possibly, economic Armageddon. Would you take your 3-year-old son or granddaughter to buy a new house and hand him or her the mortgage? If liberals believe in equity, providing equal (or better opportunities) for future generations as for today's Americans is just as important as creating a more just and equitable society in the present.

A second reason for liberal concern should flow from a commitment to economic security for all. The potential consequences of inaction include either economic crises of various flavors or the slow erosion of Americans' economic well-being. Whether growing debt spooks markets and sends the economy into a maelstrom or "simply" makes it harder for either business or government to raise funds to invest in people and create good jobs, future generations' living standards are threatened - something presumably of concern across the political spectrum. And it's always the poor and middle class who suffer most.

Finally, there are the sheer mathematical realities of what our out-of-kilter federal finances are doing, and will do, to the kinds of initiatives that liberals love. With mandatory spending, for entitlements and growing debt service, eating two-thirds of federal spending (a proportion that is rising), little will be left for anything else. Domestic discretionary spending - the catch-all for education, science, transportation, energy, environment, justice, and so much else - gets just one-sixth of the federal budget. Defense accounts for one-fifth.

On present trajectories, without massive increases in taxes, all that (including defense) gets squeezed out by out-of-control mandatory spending over the next generation. So, no more money to improve children's education or health. Nothing left to help Americans afford homes or get skills for good jobs. Nada for development of new energy sources or any other scientific research. Forget the environment or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. And, of course, nothing for the kinds of beneficial new initiatives that Americans have creatively, and often even wisely, developed throughout our history.

Federal spending is a gauge of national priorities. If we let debt continue to grow, we'll be saying, in effect, that our priorities are to fund nothing more than well-intentioned, but now unaffordable, entitlement programs, and to consume public resources now at the expense of future generations. This is not a call to jettison Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - which have made so many Americans' lives better - but to radically reform them so that the United States can fund efforts to address so many other national needs.

If making our country and our children's lives better isn't a liberal (and conservative, and American) agenda - what is?

What Happened to Health Care Reform in The Presidential Campaign?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:36:29 -0400

Does It Really Have to Cost So Much?

Peiting Chen — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:41:42 -0400

C-SPAN coverage of Forum on Rising Costs

Press Release: Educators and Students Call for Government-Higher Education-Family Collaboration to Address Soaring College Costs

Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today

Click here to see the Powerpoint presentation

The event was held on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at the Jack Morton Auditorium, George Washington University

CNN correspondent Frank Sesno and a panel of college presidents and students talked about the rapidly rising costs of higher education and what can and should be done to tame them. Among the topics the forum addressed:

What kinds of changes will help more Americans get through college without unmanageable debt?
What responsibility do colleges and universities have to expand access and foster social equity?
Should taxpayers pick up more of the tab? Should state and local governments assume more of the costs for public education and college loans?
Can colleges and universities reduce their costs without harming quality?

The event featured a student panel voicing their concerns on costs and exchanging views with our expert panel.

This forum, jumping off from the Public Agenda report "Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today," included panel discussions both with students and leaders in education and economic policy.

Panel I: How Did We Get Here?

Patrick Callan, Founding President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Steven Knapp, President, The George Washington University
Jared Bernstein, Director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute
John Immerwahr, Senior Research Fellow at Public Agenda and Professor at Villanova University
Several college students from a private university, a community college, and a state university

Panel II: What Can We Do?

William E. Kirwan, Chancellor, University System of Maryland
Patrick Callan, Founding President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Jared Bernstein, Director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute
James Boyle, President, College Parents of America
Several college students from a private university, a community college, and a state university

For more information please contact Shaheen Hasan at shasan@publicagenda.org or by phone at 212-686-6610 ext. 50.

Public Agenda, www.publicagenda.org, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, www.highereducation.org, is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes public policies that enhance Americans' opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school.

A Renewed Vision for a Renewed City:
Public Engagement For Urban Planning And Disaster Recovery

Lara Birnback — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:28:22 -0400

Money isn't the only thing needed when a Gulf Coast town coping with the double disasters of a factory closing and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina sets out to transform itself into a world class river city. Public Agenda's Lara Birnback reports on world class determination in Moss Point, Mississippi – where public engagement is helping community leaders create a better future.

Citizens of Moss Point, Mississippi, seen here in August 2008, are beginning to use public engagement to recover from hard times and create a retooled future making the most of their city's strengths.

You may not have heard of Moss Point, Mississippi – home to about 16,000 people – but chances are, you have heard of its best-known river, the Pascagoula. That's not the only major waterway in town: Moss Point is the place where the Pascagoula and the Escatawpa Rivers come together and with the Gulf Coast just a mile and a half away, the story of Moss Point – like so many others since Hurricane Katrina blew in – is very much about water: a sorrowful tide three years ago but today, the stuff of a hopeful future.

Like most of Mississippi's Gulf communities, Moss Point was deeply affected by Katrina's march ashore on August 29, 2005. Although there was not much direct damage during the hurricane itself, storm waters soon flooded the city, which is virtually surrounded by rivers, bayous and wetlands.

The storm surge devastated the historic downtown and created chaos in many neighborhoods and residences. As the city struggles to rebuild, City Hall is still in a temporary trailer. The police and fire stations also have yet to set up in new permanent offices.

With scarce resources and limited experience in city planning and development, Moss Point's city leaders, many of whom were newly-elected when Katrina hit, were not prepared for the daunting task of rebuilding that followed.

The timing was further complicated by an earlier blow to the local economy: the closing of an 89-year-old paper mill shuttered in 2001 by International Paper, which told its 375 employees the factory could not compete with more modern facilities.

The combined result: a city in strong need of both a new plan for the future, and a new way of getting there, which is where Public Agenda comes into the picture. Literally, on the ground in the community, where we are working with city officials, civic leaders and concerned citizens.

In the aftermath of the storm and flooding, Moss Point's plight came to the attention of state and federal officials and the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC), a non-profit organization that supports transformative community-driven projects across the globe, launched the Gulf Coast Renewal Project to help Moss Point recover, rebuild, and create a stronger city better able to withstand future challenges.

ISC helped Moss Point public officials develop rebuilding plans, navigate redevelopment projects, and negotiate relationships with state and federal disaster recovery agencies while encouraging leaders to consider ways to effectively engage the community in the recovery and renewal process. Participating in a September 2007 Gulf Funders meeting in New Orleans, Moss Point Mayor Xavier Bishop and representatives from the ISC invited Public Agenda to provide Moss Point leaders with training and technical assistance in community engagement.

Moss Point's campaign to become known as a world class river city (above, the Pascagoula, which comes together with the Escatawpa River at Moss Point, a mile and a half from the Gulf Coast) builds on its past as a hub for manufacturing and maritime industry and uses nature to advance its plan to be a center for new businesses including eco-tourism.

Moss Point is using the devastation of the past few years as an opportunity to redefine itself – a goal defined in a very public way, with a 2020 Vision Statement, new logo and slogan, "Becoming a World Class River City," which won a public relations award in Sept. 2007, a few days after it was adopted. Community leaders envision a well-run, eco- and people-friendly community, evolving from a traditionally industrial economy to one also sustained by eco-tourism based on the waterfront setting and wildlife, including coastal brown pelicans and migratory white pelicans whose visits are part of the marketing for the city's executive retreat and meeting facility, the Pelican Landing Conference Center.

Public Agenda is beginning its work in Moss Point at an important moment, with planning underway on several critical fronts, including housing and downtown redevelopment. Robust community input and involvement at this stage could lead to more informed, equitable and sustainable decisions.

At present, community engagement in Moss Point's planning processes is just getting started. Early in the planning process, city officials and community leaders participated in the workgroup design process known as a "charrette" to help guide the architectural plans for rebuilding and renewal.

Over the past two years, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen have made a number of efforts to inform and involve Moss Point residents in the rebuilding and renewal process, most notably in a historic series of neighborhood outreach meetings held in every city ward to share the outcomes of the charrette process and to solicit feedback on the initial plans for rebuilding Moss Point's downtown and waterfront area.

Even so, many opportunities remain for city leaders to seek more broad-based community input on the important decisions facing the community. Public Agenda's first goal is to help build a capacity among city leaders to effectively involve and engage the community in the planning process. [For more on how to do this in your own community, download Public Agenda's free Primer on Public Engagement and check out the many resources available in our Center for Advances in Public Engagement (CAPE).]

Assisting city officials and civic leaders in Moss Point are Public Agenda's Gwen Wright ( left), who is providing training on effective public engagement strategies, and Chris Haller, who is providing technical assistance including online strategies for soliciting public participation.

In late July 2008, Public Agenda led a workshop for city officials, business, civic and grassroots leaders on the basic principles of community engagement, and how it relates to the city's planning and reconstruction work.

Combining small group activity and brainstorming with presentation, the training was intended to both inform current reconstruction efforts and deepen leaders' understanding of the power and possibilities for community engagement.

Overall, the roughly 40 participants responded positively to the knowledge brought by Public Agenda, and reported that the session resulted in a broader understanding of the significance of building a relationship with the public/community and agreeing on the importance of public participation as a solid first step towards engagement.

"After the 'storm,' we were flooded with more than water," said one workshop participant. "Experts came from everywhere to solve our problems for us. You were the first to bring an agenda that empowered the average citizen. I thank you for that."

"I really enjoyed the training today, and look forward to taking what I have learned to each and every group I am involved in," said another Moss Pointer. In their evaluations of the project, participants appreciated the fact that heated group discussions took place in an environment that included both concrete steps and guidelines for working out solutions to community problems. Many also said they liked having a clear outline to follow in order to implement their plans, leaving them feeling both prepared and empowered by tangible solutions.

In September, building on the public engagement principals she learned in the training, Donna Joseph, Moss Point Parks and Recreation Director, held a special "Coach's Clinic" for parents, coaches and other volunteers involved in coaching local sports. The meeting enabled them to review current programming and activity schedules offered by the Parks and Recreation Department, and weigh in on the kinds of offerings they wanted to see in the future, including how they'd like to stay involved.

For many of those who attended, it was the first time they had ever been consulted about their views and needs. "We learned," said Joseph, "how we need to engage people on the front side of things, to learn about what they want."

Focus groups are being held in 2008 to help us learn more about how average Moss Point residents talk and feel about the city and their neighborhood and find out more about their priorities for redevelopment and the future. This knowledge will help to inform the work of local leaders and deepen their understanding of the importance of that community input.

In 2009, we hope to work with Moss Point civic leaders to design a more comprehensive public engagement initiative, including activities such as issue framing, community and neighborhood conversations, and possibly forms of online engagement.

Lara Birnback, Public Agenda's senior public engagement project director, is responsible for many aspects of Public Agenda's public engagement initiatives including project development and management, strategic planning, research and training. Her background includes civil society development in Central Europe and the Balkans and study of the impact in Budapest, Hungary, of changes in post-communist social policy on women and families.

National Debt

jonhinton — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:29:16 -0400

Who gets the interest on the national debt?

The Fine Print on Breakfast Cereals

Jenny Choi — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:42:17 -0400

Consumer Reports has conducted a study of 27 breakfast cereals, to be published in the November issue of the magazine, rating each cereal on its nutritional content. Cheerios, Kix and Life came out on top for having relatively low amounts of sugar and fair or substantial quantities of fiber, iron and calcium. But most of the other cereals had low ratings, with a majority of them containing 40 to 50 percent sugar. Also worth keeping in mind is the fact that Consumer Reports calculated its ratings based on the suggested serving size, but researchers found that kids consistently serve themselves 50 to 65 percent more than that amount.

Another interesting finding of the study, which looked at cereals in 32 nations, was that several brands sold in the United States had more a lot more sugar than the same brands sold in some other countries. Honey Smacks, for example, was found to have 55 percent sugar in the U.S.A. and a less sweet 40 percent sugar content in the version of the product that is shipped to stores in Germany, Switzerland and Slovenia.

Past research has indicated the alarming fact that marketing plays a major role in this issue, and according to Consumer Reports' figures, $229 million is spent per year on advertising cereals to kids. Our survey on issues facing parents today, A Lot Easier Said Than Done, found that 68 percent say it's "absolutely essential" for their kids to have good nutrition and eating habits, but only 40 percent say they have succeeded on that front. In fact, nine out of ten parents tell us that their children eat junk food, and 21 percent say they eat it "constantly." Among parents' biggest worries are the impact of negative messages in the media, though parents are evenly split on worrying about whether their child watches too much TV.

Confused by Economic Meltdown? Updated Voter’s Guides on Economy, Federal Debt Help Citizens Make Sense of it All

Peiting Chen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:49:30 -0400

Here We Go Again

Francie Grace — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:18:55 -0400

As Wall Street, President Bush, Congress and the presidential candidates wrangle over how best to calm investors, reassure the credit markets, and stabilize the economy, we can't help noticing a prominent element of the many proposed rescues. Each one, at times in increasing proportion, involves huge hikes in the already staggering federal budget deficit and national debt, which takes its own toll on the economy. While some kind of Wall Street bailout is widely viewed by experts and politicians on both sides of the aisle as a necessary evil to halt a crisis so wide many cities, businesses and individuals are unable to raise needed cash, critics of the bill in its current form have been meeting with William Isaac, an architect of a 1980s savings and loan bailout whose ideas so far haven't involved taxpayer funds.

The ripple effects of the turmoil that began here have governments around the world scrambling to safeguard their most important financial institutions and have led to both calls for an international conference to forge new financial regulations and reform global economic institutions and new questions about U.S. leadership in the financial sector. Even in countries where most citizens are unlikely to follow the stock market or big business news, the echo of recent rocky times in the U.S. is being felt. In Mexico - where money sent home by Mexicans living in the United States is Mexico's second largest source of income, exceeded only by oil revenue – there's been a 19 percent drop in how much cash got sent back to Mexico. No numbers yet on how other Latin American and Caribbean nations are being affected, but according to a Pew Hispanic Center study, the total cash normally received is in the tens of billions, with the impact no longer limited to the countryside or the poor.

In Congress and on Main Street USA, which the candidates have been repeatedly referencing as the battle rages over what to do about the economy, there are important decisions to be made and we strongly recommend that voters consult our nonpartisan Voter's Survival Kit now and before Election Day, to learn more about different approaches to economic health and the escalating federal budget crisis.

Blogging the Debates: What the Candidates Won't Tell You about the Budget

Scott Bittle — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:35:41 -0400

The Wall Street bailout is giving a lot of people a dose of cold fiscal reality – but you wouldn't know it to listen to Barack Obama and John McCain. And a great way to see this refusal to face fiscal facts in action is to watch Public Agenda's comments on the Blogging the Debates project.

Blogging the Debates is a kind of "Politics meets Mystery Science Theater" application, in which participating organizations can use VoterWatch's video player to make comments as the candidates debate. Organizations as varied as the Heritage Foundation and the Nader for President campaign are using it to analyze the presidential debates, and we're jumping in, too. You can see our video commentary below. We'll be doing similar commentaries on the remaining two presidential debates, as well as the vice presidential debate later this week.

If you've already seen the debate, you know moderator Jim Lehrer tried to get the candidates describe how they would deal with the bailout's enormous impact on the federal budget. The budget was running a $400 billion deficit even before the bailout, and the cost of the bailout plan ensures the next president won't have a lot of extra money to spend. Have a look at our video commentary – it's what we would have told you if we'd been sitting in your living room Thursday night. (That, and "Please pass the pretzels.")

Don't Let Diplomacy Be Just a Campaign Slogan

Shaheen Hasan — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:39:53 -0400

Chicago Sheriff Says No To Foreclosures, Fed Mulls New Rescue Plan

Francie Grace — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:39:59 -0400

With the economy so tough the sheriff in Chicago is refusing to do any more foreclosure evictions, the Federal Reserve is reportedly considering taking an ownership stake in many U.S. banks to restore confidence in the financial system. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama and John McCain are arguing for each other's plans on the economy, also a big issue in Congressional races, while voters rights' advocates worry about thousands of voters being thrown off the rolls in six swing states. For nonpartisan facts on the economy and the deficit, see our Voter's Survival Kit.

All Feeds

Connecticut Court Rules in Favor of Same Sex Marraige

Can the G7 Leaders Stop the Slide?

The Second Presidential Debate: Actually, There's a Lot Going On

Public Policy Communicators Lunch

Where Does the Money Go? PowerPoint Presentation on the Federal Budget Crisis, at the Northwest Philanthropy Conference

Federal Judge Orders Release of 17 Gitmo Detainees

A Renewed Vision For A Renewed City

At the Town Hall: Time for Real Issues

Debates 2008

Viewpoint: Toward a new American consensus

$10.1-trillion national debt? Let's cut taxes!

Teens, Video Games and Civics

Viewpoint: Why liberals should care about deficits

What Happened to Health Care Reform in The Presidential Campaign?

Does It Really Have to Cost So Much?

A Renewed Vision for a Renewed City:Public Engagement For Urban Planning And Disaster Recovery

National Debt

The Fine Print on Breakfast Cereals

Confused by Economic Meltdown? Updated Voter’s Guides on Economy, Federal Debt Help Citizens Make Sense of it All

Here We Go Again

Blogging the Debates: What the Candidates Won't Tell You about the Budget

Don't Let Diplomacy Be Just a Campaign Slogan

Chicago Sheriff Says No To Foreclosures, Fed Mulls New Rescue Plan

A Renewed Vision for a Renewed City:
Public Engagement For Urban Planning And Disaster Recovery