CITIZENS: NEWSFEED

The Public, the Budget and Plain Speaking

Scott Bittle — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:44:58 -0500

A trillion-dollar deficit is scary. So is a possible second Great Depression. But scarier still would be trying to solve these problems without real input from the public.

Today's new federal budget numbers from the Congressional Budget Office project an almost unimaginable $1.2 trillion deficit this year – and that's without counting any stimulus package offered by the Obama administration. President-elect Barack Obama has already said we might see trillion-dollar deficits for several years. And he also said the country can't get its fiscal house in order without tackling Medicare and Social Security.

In the end, this isn't just a matter of numbers. It's a matter of being honest with the public about the fiscal problems we have, both in the short term and the long term. The public frequently doesn't understand what's going on with the budget. Let's face it, it's incredibly arcane. But they do understand priorities.

There's no need to once again run through the Obama administration's daunting to-do list. But the nation's fiscal problems present one of the most difficult political maneuvers imaginable. The administration has to:

Spend enough to avert or at least minimize a potential depression, and persuade the public that huge deficits to do that are okay, and
Make significant, probably painful changes to deal with the nation's long-term problems, like the budget-busting costs ahead for Medicare and Social Security – and persuade the public to go along with those changes.

In other words, the government has to buy round after round of drinks and then, eventually, cut people off. Go into a bar and try that sometime. It takes some explaining.

This strategy makes perfect sense to economists and budget experts. But they're not the ones who need to be persuaded. For the public, the idea of "huge spending now, fiscal restraint later" may be harder to swallow. They need a chance to work through the options, think through the priorities. In other words, they need to be engaged.

Candor is a start, and it's been notably absent on this issue for a long time. President-elect Obama's blunt warnings this week have been much more frank than he was on the campaign trail. So is the fact that the administration says it wants to use the grassroots network from the campaign to tackle health care (rising health costs are a critical part of the problem here). It's at least a beginning in terms of laying the groundwork needed to bring the public along. But it will take more than that. Because one thing is certain: the public isn't going to let the government do what's necessary to solve these problems without their consent.

Chasing The Future, With A Big Sack Of Debt

Allison Rizzolo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:52:12 -0500

By Allison Rizzolo

Forget everything you heard last week.

That became a theme of Professor Donald Kettl's The Future of American Politics seminar at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, as the class dove into Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances, Public Agenda's nonpartisan curriculum on the impact of the federal budget deficit and the national debt.

"I was surprised by the amount of ignorance," says John O'Malley (above), a U Penn student who, with classmate Will Son, unleashed a video camera on campus to raise awareness about the federal budget deficit and the national debt.

The Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances curriculum, available free of charge courtesy of a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, includes a nationwide written and multimedia essay contest. In addition to being an interactive component of the program, it's an opportunity for students to have their voices heard while learning about the sea of red ink which is already changing the nation we live in and will change it a lot more unless citizens and policymakers consider potential solutions and decide on a course of action. [Click here for more on the contest and its winners, two of whom are from U Penn.]

Some students who signed up for Kettl's course, a chance for freshmen to experience learning in a format more like that of a senior seminar, thought they were in for a straightforward overview of American politics.

"Boy, were they wrong!" says Aaseesh Polavarapu, a freshman from Tennessee planning a history and Hispanic Studies major, who found the class' study of the federal budget deficit and the national debt to be a real eye-opener.

The semester started out simply enough. The class dedicated time and discussion each week to issues including political institutions, the federal budget, and spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

And then, during the second week of the course, the economy began its plunge.

John O'Malley, a freshman from Philadelphia, recalls: "Dr. Kettl began telling us: 'Everything I told you last week, well, now it's ten times worse.'"

Headlines Hit Home

It was a challenging time for the thirteen students in the class. "They walked in not even knowing what a college course was, and found themselves right down in the weeds," says Kettl. "Whatever their expectations were, that's not what they ended up doing."

Appreciating the students' bewilderment, Dr. Kettl sought to bring difficult concepts to life through the Students Face Up curriculum at FacingUp.org and through information from the Concord Coalition, both nonpartisan sources dedicated to raising awareness about fiscal responsibility.

The students also read "Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis," by Public Agenda authors Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, and found it particularly helpful. The book, says Polavarapu, is "a great resource in outlining the problem in a simple but impactful way." O'Malley says that, for him, the book "made it real."

The University of Pennsylvania was one of the first colleges to try out the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances curriculum, which helps students understand the reason why the mushrooming fiscal crisis is a problem – but is not without potential solutions.

Reading assignments were followed up by roundtable discussions and problem-solving sessions. As someone who is self-admittedly "not so good with numbers," O'Malley found the discussions and readings hugely valuable. Speculation, he says, shifted to reality as the discussions and readings put theories and ideas about the budget deficit and the national debt with impenetrable numbers and unfamiliar jargon into a framework the students could understand.

Prior to their participation in the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances curriculum, the students in this political science class were aware that something was amiss with the economy in general, but were unaware of any specifics.

"I had some idea that things weren't going too well simply because I interned at Merrill Lynch during my senior year in high school," says Kelvin Poon of Brooklyn, N.Y., who plans to major in business. "But I didn't know about the financial problems in our health care and Social Security programs."

Another student suggests that part of the problem may have been that prior to the Wall Street meltdown, there was relatively little news coverage of the nation's looming financial problems. "I honestly didn't know much about the budget deficit or national debt at all, mostly because it wasn't ever really talked about!" says Adria Lamba, a pre-med freshman from Doylestown, Pa. " I was interested in the war, stem cell research, the current economy, equal rights, and many other issues... but the fiscal budget crisis somehow never made the headlines, so I didn't know it was even an important issue."

The Economy Gets Up Close And Personal

Once the financial crisis started, attention certainly shifted, albeit briefly. "It was big news on campus when [the crisis] happened because all of the business school kids started worrying about their job prospects - especially those already hired by firms that went down. However, after about a week, the news died down on campus," says Polavarapu. "Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have taken the time to follow economic news without the class…[it]… kept me in check with what was happening."

"I turned them loose," says University of Pennsylvania political science professor Don Kettl (above), who was impressed at the results when he asked students to come up with a way to get people on and off campus to start caring and doing something about the nation's looming deficit and debt.

What struck the students most resoundingly is the fact that this problem, which on the surface seemed out-of-reach and far from their own experience, is indeed a problem they must face. Despite unfamiliar terminology and an issue which sounded "boring at face value," says Lamba, it became clear that this is "a problem for the youth. Most people in Congress, or our parents, or the elderly, were the ones worrying about these issues... but we are the ones that are going to have to solve it, or face the consequences."

Polavarapu, acknowledging that like many of his fellow students, he still gets "lost in some of the terminology on the news sometimes," says he now understands a "tremendous amount of what's going on, because of the class. At first, I knew we had a large debt but I never really thought about its implications. I figured we've had a debt for a long time and that we'd pay it off eventually. However, Dr. Kettl introduced our class to the immediacy of the problem. He also was sure to outline how this would affect us, our kids, and our kids' kids."

Once the students knew all the facts, says Poon, "I don't think it [was] possible not to be concerned."

The students were then ready to take action. "I was surprised by the amount of ignorance," said O'Malley, who is pursuing a major in political science and communications. "I realized, 'Wow, this is something I need to get a handle on!' It made me more involved, more determined to do something."

Part of what they realized they needed to do was get others to care about the issue. Their professor concurred, encouraging them to think of ways to get others thinking and talking about the issue, especially those who would be affected most: members of their own generation. To address that aim, Kettl gave the class a fairly broad, open-ended assignment: figure out a way to get people learning, caring, and doing something about the budget deficit and the national debt.

Sounding The Alarm On Deficits And Debt

It didn't take long for his students to rise to the challenge.

To get started, the students broke into a few different groups. The largest group created an ad campaign, complete with characters (Kate, Larry, Don, Guo and Carl) that modeled everyday citizens and the problems they personally are facing or are likely to face. Two students in this group, John O'Malley and William Son, decided to make videos highlighting the lack of awareness about the budget deficit. Another group was interested in writing. Still another wanted to create pamphlets to draw attention to the problem.

Ultimately, the class decided that the most effective way to get people's attention was cooperatively, by creating a web site for their message. Pound-It.org, whose name and logo are meant to reflect the need to pound home the issue of the federal budget, is the amalgamation of all the students' work, from blog entries to videos and pamphlets for various age groups that you can download and distribute.

You can call this student (above, at the U Penn cafeteria) a good sport – and more informed about the nation's finances than he was before agreeing to be questioned on camera by Pound-It web site producers who made the rounds on campus asking fellow students to guess the size of the national debt and the deficit. Only one person came even close.

To the students, a web site seemed to be the most obvious way to garner attention. "Teens today aren't going to read a long pamphlet or poster, or necessarily pick up a newspaper, but everyone is online. By making the information simple and accessible, we thought we could reach more people," says Lamba, who says RockTheVote.com – popular with teens throughout Campaign 2008 – was an inspiration for the class' own Pound-It.org.

Polavarapu values the wide audience inherent in the Internet, which "gives people a new ability to share their thoughts to a large audience after a few clicks."

This large audience is itself largely young. According to a 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 91 percent of individuals between the ages of 18 and 29 use the Internet, compared to 75 percent of the total adult population. This generation, says Kettl, approaches "civic discourse in a more virtual, viral, electronic base. Conversation is not less sophisticated or powerful because of this, just different. We are going to discover, if we are interested in engaging this generation on the big issues… this generation will be rooted in technology."

Many students in the class say they are daily readers of The New York Times, which they receive free on campus. But they also depend on sites such as CNN.com and recognize the growing trend toward online news media. While they see negatives in this migration, namely in the relevance and reliability of sources and a decline in fact-checking, they also detect many positives.

The built-in advantages of the web, says O'Malley, can include the way web sites are used. He believes Internet users tend to take a more active involvement in the news, as they dig to find the information, react more, and may converse about the news in forums or comment areas.

Rocking The Budget (With A Little Inspiration From Those MAC and PC Guys)

In giving birth to Pound-It, the class wanted to emulate the ease of navigation and user-friendliness of sites such as CNN.com. Polavarapu, who taught himself web design skills starting in middle school, stepped up for duty as Pound-It's designer.

He had a very specific look in mind. "To make a site that was appealing to the young generation," he explains, "I wanted to go in the opposite direction of what a lot of sites are doing. They're very professional, formatted, and verbose. I wanted to create a dark, grungy site that really nailed home what needed to be said. I created a small content area… and tried to give the site an alternative look."

Kettl concurs with the idea that simplicity would appeal to the younger generation: "The class liked the Mac versus PC [television] advertisement. Why? What made that ad more powerful? Why is Google more successful than Yahoo? Because of simplicity - taking a complex message and communicating it simply."

Another U Penn student tries her luck in estimating the size of the debt the nation and its taxpayers (that's you and me) owe, while on camera for "Man on the Street 2," the video which won the judges award for Best Multimedia Essay in the Fall 2008 round of the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest.

In addition making the site visually clean and easy to navigate, the students also sought to provoke an emotional reaction from the website's viewers. If viewers relate to the subject emotionally, the students felt, viewers would also be more likely to remember what they learned and act upon that knowledge.

Son and O'Malley sought to provoke that emotion through video. They hoped that video in general, with its visual and auditory impact, along with their particular subject matter, would create a visceral reaction from their viewers. They hit the campus, video camera in hand, to put together a series of "Man on the Street" videos, in which they approached random students on the University of Pennsylvania campus and asked them questions about the budget crisis and the national debt.

One group of students was asked to provide a figure for how much debt they though the United States had accrued. Often the students were unable to provide an accurate response and expressed astonishment upon receiving the answers. Before uploading the videos, O'Malley showed them to his roommates and friends to gauge their reactions. Whether he faced surprise, anger, offense, or laughter, he was happy to see his videos causing real emotion.

Son and O'Malley also got another payoff they might not have expected: as the 2008 winners of the Best Multimedia Essay chosen by the judges for the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest, they are splitting a $500 cash prize.

Outrage Of The Week

Other contributors to Pound-It also found ways to give their message an emotional impact. Poon began writing a weekly paragraph-long blog entry called Outrage of the Week. Poon finds blogging to be a valuable medium as blogs "are shorter and have more personality, two major pros. Most people don't want to read too many long, bland articles."

Poon's column carries a particular emotional punch because, as his classmate, Lamba, notes, "it's just a short paragraph that deals with something you wouldn't otherwise hear about, like earmarks or certain bills or financial mishaps. It's a great way to get sort of the inside scoop on what's going on."

A newbie to blogging, Poon became engrossed in writing Outrage of the Week, working to catch the attention of readers by "pointing out discrepancies or just silly things that shouldn't be happening and then linking them to the debt crisis. They're supposed to be short pieces that make the reader go [Wow!]."

Other student bloggers focused on the generational aspects of the debate, health care reform, and questions about bailouts being discussed on Capitol Hill.

Taking into account the hard work that went into the web site and the accolades it has received, a number of students have decided to keep it going, and have both new content and marketing strategies up their sleeves.

Those plans include working with the Concord Coalition and Concerned Youth of America, another nonpartisan group focused on fiscal responsibility, in distributing pamphlets and stickers on and around campus. They are optimistic that their site will continue to grow and attract visitors, and perhaps even help to effect real change in Washington.

So Pound-It will go forward. It is a remarkable achievement for anyone, not to mention a group of first semester freshmen, says Kettl, who plans more lessons using Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances. "I am pinching myself."

Allison Rizzolo, an intern at Public Agenda, assists our online staff in getting the latest facts and figures for issue guides on public policy problems, policy options, and public opinion.

How, And How Much, To Stimulate The Economy

Francie Grace — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:58:17 -0500

As the Obama daughters begin school in their new hometown, the president-elect is focusing on $300 billion in proposed tax breaks for the economic stimulus package, now thought unlikely to be approved by Inauguration Day. An unprecedented surge in the national debt and a hike in the commercial building vacancy rate in many major cities are the latest symptoms of economic weakness. Meanwhile Team Obama, now minus Bill Richardson, is scrambling to choose a new nominee for Commerce Secretary. Stay on top of our economic choices: see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Team Obama, Technology & Public Engagement

David White — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:24:04 -0500

Although Barack Obama's community organizing past was the object of derision at the Republican convention, it's easy to make the argument that it was this very experience that enabled him to build such an effective political machine, especially online. I think giving his supporters such an unprecedented ability to make themselves heard led to a lot of the enthusiasm for Obama. And now that he's the President-elect, the Obama team is in the process of transitioning that online strength into an effective component of his governing operation.

Even after Obama supporters used his campaign site to organize in opposition to Obama's position on a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (more commonly known as FISA), Obama stuck with the open nature of the site. His response to that embarrassing incident may be seen as evidence that he means what he says about trying to reenergize public participation in the governing process.

If you go to the Obama presidential transition web site, Change.gov, you'll see continuing efforts to include the public. The "Your Seat at the Table" section allows users to see and comment on what outside groups are telling the Obama transition team. "Join the Discussion" features a question from the transition team to start an online discussion by users, followed by a video response from the Obama team.

Just about every section of Change.gov allows users to comment. Users are allowed to vote up or down on comments, which allows high-rated comments to rise to the top. That voting affects a user's "Reputation Meter," so that the more high-rated comments you make, the higher your reputation becomes. Tools like that show that the Obama team is planning on making this into a long-term tool.

The most significant project on the site currently is the Health Care Community Discussion project. It recruits users to lead a health care discussion in their own neighborhoods.

So these are all positive steps. By keeping his supporters actively involved between election seasons, Obama is doing an admirable job of rebuilding a sense of civic engagement that seemed to erode over the last few decades. But he can and should take things further.

Public Agenda has been involved in public engagement for over thirty years, and our experience has taught us the differences between authentic public engagement and "business-as-usual" approaches to public involvement. These principles are key for true public engagement:

Begin by listening. Be alert to the issues that non-experts care about, the language they use to discuss them, and their concerns, misperceptions and initial sense of direction with respect to solutions.

Attend to people's leading concerns. When there are gaps between the priorities of leaders and those of the public, it is important to recognize that people will be most receptive to leaders' concerns if the issues that they themselves are already feeling most concerned about are acknowledged and being addressed by leaders.

Reach beyond the "usual suspects." Find ways to include the broader public, especially those whose voices have traditionally been excluded.

Frame issues for deliberation. Help people wrestle with the differing perspectives, and the pros and cons of going down different paths.

Provide the right type and amount of information at the right time. It is helpful to provide people with carefully selected, essential, nonpartisan information up front in order to help them deliberate more effectively, but it is equally important to avoid overloading people with a "data dump."

Help people move beyond wishful thinking. The trade-offs that are embedded in any issue that citizens must confront should be brought to the surface. Challenging leaders who pander to people's wishful thinking and providing corrective information once it's become clear the public is "hung up" on a misperception or is lacking vital information are key tasks here.

Expect obstacles and resistance. It takes time, and repeated opportunities, for people to really work through problems, absorb information about the trade-offs of different approaches, and build common ground.

Create multiple, varied opportunities for deliberation and dialogue. People need to go through a variety of stages to come to terms with an issue, decide what approach they are willing to support and figure out how they can make their own contribution. Community Conversations, "study circles," online engagement strategies and media partnerships are a few of the possibilities.

Respond thoughtfully and conscientiously to the public's involvement. It is critical that leaders respond to the public's deliberations. For instance, participants should be informed of the ways their ideas and concerns are being incorporated into the work. Moreover, it means taking the time to explain why some ideas are not being incorporated. Doing so deepens people's understanding of the issues and fosters mutual respect.

Build long-term capacity as you go. When done well, each round of public engagement will set the stage for broader and deeper public engagement in the future. The work should always operate on two levels simultaneously: On one level it is about addressing a concrete problem, such as improving education, public safety or jobs. On another it is about building the capacity for a democratic community to communicate and collaborate effectively in order to solve its common problems and enrich its public life.

While Obama's team may be headed in this direction, there are still some problems that need to be worked out. Users obsessed with a fringe issues or current events can overwhelm unrelated discussions. In one case, a discussion on community service was flooded with comments on drug legalization. Another discussion devolved into an argument about the invitation for evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. While problems like these may be solved by tweaking the technology, other problems require a change in attitude from users of the site.

In a recent "Open for Questions" event on the site, Obama supporters flagged as inappropriate legitimate questions about the Gov. Blagojevich scandal. It's understandable that they feel protective of Obama, but if users with differing views on issues feel unwelcome, the site will quickly devolve into what happens so often online: a bunch of like-minded people talking only to themselves.

The Obama team will have to decide if they're going to just apply new technology to the old goal of building a more powerful political machine, or use it to match their campaign rhetoric by embracing public engagement and changing the way the country is governed.

Five Cheers For Our Contest Winners

Francie Grace — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:57:22 -0500

Congratulations to the winners of the fall 2008 round of Public Agenda's Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances student contest! Two winning entries were chosen by our panel of judges, and two others were selected in a popular vote by registered users of the FacingUp.org site. Thanks to all of you who entered written and multimedia essays on the federal budget deficit and the national debt, their impact and what to do about the problem – we saw a lot of great ideas and interesting observations.

The winners chosen by our judges are:

Best Essay: The $500 prize goes to Mallory Livingston of Emporia State University in Kansas, for "Our Generation and the Impact of America's Growing National Debt." Kudos to Mallory for a great job explaining the mushrooming and serious nature of the nation's fiscal crisis and the kinds of things we'll have to do to create a climate in which we can begin to solve the problem of the federal budget deficit and the national debt.

Best Multimedia: The $500 prize will be split between John O'Malley and Will Son, of the University of Pennsylvania, for their video, "Man on the Street 2: Facts and Figures," an excellent slice of life on campus talking to students about the federal budget and national debt, serving up a few shockers and surprises along the way.

The Peer Prize winners, chosen in a popular vote by registered users of FacingUp.org are:

Best Essay: There was a tie in votes in this category, so the winners will split the $500 Peer Prize for Best Essay. They are: Amber Dawn Vanderhofe, Emporia State University, for "Resolutions for the National Debt," in which she outlines some suggestions, and Mallory Livingston, Emporia State University, for "Our Generation and the Impact of America's Growing National Debt." Note: for Mallory, this prize is in addition to the $500 Best Essay prize awarded by our judges, for a total of $750, making her our Grand Prize Winner.

Best Multimedia: The $500 prize goes to Teelah Churchill of Lyndon State College, in Lyndonville, Vermont, for "National Debt," a fast-paced video journey through the problem featuring snippets of analysis and student opinions.

The problem of the nation's debt and federal budget deficit isn't over – in fact, it got worse even as you read this sentence – and neither is the nonpartisan Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances curriculum, which is continuing free of charge thanks to a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

The curriculum is open to both college students and interested citizens on and off campus. We hope to see many of you again in the spring semester. Stay tuned to FacingUp.org for updates on our next contest, interactive additions and more new things in the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances curriculum.

And to learn more about the federal budget and national debt, and how it is already affecting our lives, check out the resources at FacingUp.org, and, the guide to Taxes, Spending & Debt, in our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Surge in Welfare Rolls Testing Last Wave Of Reforms

Jenny Choi — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:29:17 -0500

One major fallout of our current recession that could gain some visibility in the coming months is the swell in welfare rolls, a result of a last month's sharp rise in unemployment. The Washington Post puts the issue in grave context, suggesting that this could be the first significant test for the nation's welfare system since it underwent an overhaul a dozen years ago. To refresh everyone's memory, the welfare legislation, enacted in 1996 and up for renewal in 2010, requires recipients to work in exchange for government assistance and places a five-year time limit on cash benefits. At the center of the debate at the time was the pervasive concern that the previous program placed many participants in an indefinite situation of "welfare dependency," rather than giving them temporary assistance that helped to lift them out of poverty.

Welfare rolls decreased after the new system was implemented, and the law was successful and popular on many fronts, but the Post points out: "How much of that decline, politicans and scientists debated, was due to the programs' tough new rules -- and how much to the good economic times?" Surely, the current shortage of jobs and surge in layoffs, not to mention a suffering economy, is bound to put an inordinate amount of strain on the entire welfare system. One expert who held a position in the Clinton administration is advocating for a suspension of these rules, saying "The whole construct is to go out and find jobs. So it's a Catch-22. It's kind of an impossibility."

Add to these questions the fact that many states are already facing budget deficits, having spent their fixed annual amount of federal welfare dollars to mitigate other areas of poverty like child care and training programs.

Most opinion surveys have been fairly silent on the topic of welfare, but public attitudes after the 1996 welfare legislation still carry a great deal of relevance to these issues. Those Americans who were informed about the reform law said it works well because of the work requirement, and in fact, people tended to resent the values of the old system more than the cost. Majorities of Americans said they believe government should be responsible for the needy, though they are divided on government assistance if it means going deeper into debt. Still, many were divided on whether we were spending enough to assist the poor.

New Poll Indicates Public Optimism on Iraq

Jenny Choi — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:49:33 -0500

In a time when the media and the public seem to be plagued with ever-more-distressing news about the flailing economy, ABC News/Washington Post is out with a new poll (click here for the pdf) showing fresh numbers on how Americans are feeling about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A now-infamous event during President Bush's recent trip to Iraq, in the words of ABC News, "took him to the root of his own unpopularity," when an Iraqi TV journalist hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush.

Certainly there could be no better symbol for America's poor image abroad, especially when majorities have consistently said in our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index that they believe the rest of the world sees the U.S. negatively. And Americans have indicated that that, in fact, matters a great deal; 63 percent said it's "very important" to our national security that the rest of the world see us positively (24 percent said it's "somewhat important").

Meanwhile, the new ABC News/Washington Post findings reveal public attitudes have largely remained negative on the war in Iraq and President Bush, with numbers holding steady (at 64 percent) on the belief that the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Yet there is a considerable showing of optimism, with 56 percent saying the U.S. is making significant progress in restoring civil order in the region and 65 percent saying they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq in the next twelve months. It's worth noting that this kind of optimism could very well be linked to the finding that two-thirds (64 percent) believe President-elect Obama will be able to successfully end the U.S. involvement there.

But perhaps more drastic -- and remarkable in its contrast to attitudes about Iraq -- is the decline in public feeling about Afghanistan. Just 44 percent say the U.S. military action in Afghanistan has been successful, a major shift since 2002, when 70 percent considered our effort successful. Meanwhile, opinion regarding whether the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting has remained mixed, with 55 percent saying it was worth it.

The spring edition of our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index similarly showed a slight uptick in attitudes on success in Iraq and increasingly negative feelings about the war in Afghanistan. And while the public has consistently shown a preference for diplomacy over military solutions, we saw a growing shift in public attitudes towards diplomacy in our fight against terrorism; seven in 10 in March 2008 said they favor more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods, up eight percentage points from January 2006.

For more on Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign policy options facing our nation, see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Fed May Resort To Dramatic Interest Rate Cut

Francie Grace — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:27:58 -0500

The Federal Reserve reportedly may cut the federal funds interest rate to near zero, to jumpstart the economy, with industrial production down, unemployment causing nearly half of all foreclosures, and Fannie Mae now moving to help tenants of foreclosed landlords. Bailout watchers have found a huge loophole in limits on executive compensation, and crafters of the proposed auto industry rescue are said to be mulling a requirement that companies getting help first declare bankruptcy. We've got economic choices to make: stay informed with the Citizen's Survival Kit.

Some Wins and Losses on the Climate Change Front

Jenny Choi — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:12:56 -0500

Reports from the U.N. climate conference are generally positive, with developing nations like Mexico and Brazil laying out plans to curb emissions, despite a global recession, and high hopes for a transitioning U.S. presence. European nations plan to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The Interior Department meanwhile has a new rule to keep the Endangered Species Act from being used as a "back door" to legislate climate change, which researchers say is occurring "unevenly." Stay on top of the environmental choices we face: see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Is Public Opinion A Lagging Indicator?

Scott Bittle — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:04:01 -0500

A lot of Americans probably greeted last week's announcement that the U.S. is officially in a recession with something of a snort. Surveys show the public was willing to call this a recession long before the National Bureau of Economic Research was – and in previous recessions they were willing to keep calling it a recession long after it was officially over.

To be fair, it's not the bureau's job to match up with public perceptions. Their role is to step back and look at the data coolly, which is why they don't confirm recessions until they're well under way, and don't announce a recession's over until well after it's gone.

But no one would claim that public opinion is irrelevant to the economy. And on this topic, the public's judgments are both better- and worse-informed than the economists. Typical Americans certainly don't apply the same standards most economists use, whether it's the classic rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters where the economy shrinks, or the far more complicated formula used by the research bureau.

On the other hand, people have a lot of first-hand evidence that they lack in areas like science policy or international affairs. They know whether their jobs are secure, how much they're paying for gas or a loan, whether houses are selling in their neighborhood, and just how big the balances are getting on their credit cards. So the public’s perceptions are grounded in some pretty important realities. Policymakers ignore those perceptions at their peril – because if there's a split between the statistics and people's impressions, most people will rely on their own impressions.

In this most recent case, the public was a little late, but not by much. The research bureau says the recession started in December 2007. In January, 45 percent (a pretty high figure) told the Gallup poll the country was in a recession or depression. By March that was up to 75 percent, and earlier this month it was up to nine in 10.

The more intriguing point, however, is that in previous recessions, majorities of the public continue to believe the recession is going on after it's "officially" over.

For example, the last recession officially lasted from March to November 2001. But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that half of Americans (52 percent) thought the recession was still going on a year later, in November 2002.

This pattern was even stronger in the recession before that, which ran from July 1990 to March 1991. At that point, 81 percent of Americans told the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that the nation was in recession. More importantly, just as many believed it in September 1992, a view that had no small impact on the re-election prospects for then-President George H.W. Bush. (The historical data isn't available easily online, but the Roper Center database has it all.)

There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that unemployment is one of the most important economic issues for the public, and yet it's also what economists call a "lagging indicator," one of the last parts of the economy to recover after a recession. Another is that it often takes time for public perceptions to catch up with social trends.

This is already one of the longer recessions since World War II, and most economists say it's going to go on for a while yet. If history is any guide, the public's view of the economy may be the biggest lagging indicator of all.

Former SEC Chairman Shares Insights On The Economy

Francie Grace — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:05:27 -0500

The year ahead, says William Donaldson, is likely to be another tough one, but it's also likely that entrepreneurs will find opportunities even in the current economic climate. Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, the former top boss of both the SEC and the NYSE zeroed in on Wall Street's varied history on regulation as he discussed measures that could be of use today. Donaldson, an advisor on Barack Obama's transition team, cautioned that regulatory reforms, to be meaningful, must be done on a global scale. Click here to read more about his remarks.

Math Scores Are Up, But Lag Behind Other Nations

Paul Gasbarra — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:22:30 -0500

A study of 61 countries found some of the largest test-to-test improvements ever in the math skills of American students. Despite those gains, science test scores were flat, and the U.S. lagged behind other nations. Our Reality Check: Are American Parents and Students Ready For More Math and Science? showed parents were complacent about science and math education; most believe classes are fine as they are. Meanwhile kids remain lukewarm about math and science, critical skills for U.S. competitiveness. What does it take to ace the test? Click here to give it a try.

Our Budget, Our Future: Number-Crunching On Campus

Francie Grace — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:44:12 -0500

"Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances," a pilot project in which Public Agenda is a partner, is shifting into high gear with classroom discussion guides and other materials to be used at hundreds of colleges to spark debate on ways to solve the mushrooming federal budget crisis. The curriculum materials, funded by a $500,000 grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, will also be available online and can be used on their own or as mini-units in existing college courses. Check out FacingUp.org for more on how to campaign for action on the federal budget deficit.

What Does It Take To Get To, And Through, College?

Francie Grace — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:29:05 -0500

Following up on our "Life after High School" study on college prep and attendance issues among 18- to 25-year-olds, we are researching the aspirations, obstacles and decision points on going to college and earning a diploma. We're talking to 22 to 30-year-olds who earned a degree or are on their way to doing so, and those who have dropped out or are strongly considering doing so, including a look at the choices of low-income students. Funding for this study comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For more on these issues, check out "Squeeze Play" and "The Iron Triangle."

The Mortgage Mess: Who To Blame, How To Help

Francie Grace — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:57:13 -0500

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's recently ousted executives are back in the spotlight, answering questions before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, which is scrutinizing a huge stack of documents and e-mail as it examines the risks the mortgage lenders and its accountants took and the sums that were paid to their top bosses. The hearing comes as regulators trying to stop the foreclosure tidal wave grapple with a new disturbing trend: word that more than half of mortgages whose terms were eased in the first quarter of this year fell into delinquency again within six months.

With foreclosures expected to total 2.25 million this year, more than double the usual total, and one in ten homeowners with mortgages now behind in their monthly payments, an increasing number of Americans are either personally struggling with, or know someone who is confronting, foreclosure. An October Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found 60 percent who said lowering their rent or mortgage payment would help their personal financial situation "a lot" or "some," while 46 percent said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about being able to make their rent or mortgage payments.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll that same month found 51 percent who felt "very" or "somewhat" worried that their personal financial security was threatened, and 61 percent who were "strongly" or "somewhat" in favor of the federal government providing assistance to individual homeowners who are facing foreclosure. Only 28 percent said they were "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed, and 73 percent said lack of government regulation is partly responsible for the current financial and housing crisis.

That poll shows Americans were divided on whether the first $700 billion Wall Street bailout would keep the economy from getting worse: 48 percent were "not too confident" or "not confident at all" that the taxpayer funds would help, and 44 percent were "somewhat" or "very" confident the rescue package might work.

A Time Magazine/Abt ARBI survey at about the same time reveals very different feelings for bailouts of companies as opposed to individuals. Fifty-two percent said the government, instead of rescuing mortgage-mired lenders, should have let those financial institutions go out of business. Twenty-two percent disagreed. Asked whether the government should help people who can't afford their mortgages by suspending foreclosures until the economy has improved, 44 percent were in favor of the idea, 33 percent were opposed, and 20 percent were undecided.

Public opinion is part of the equation when it comes to the decisions our policymakers and lawmakers are making on the economy. Stay on top of the economic issues and the choices we face with our Citizen's Survival Kit, which includes our Take It To The Next Level console of e-mail addresses to let your voice be heard by leaders from President Bush and President-elect Obama on through the House and Senate.

One In Ten Are Behind On Their Mortgage Payments

Francie Grace — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:07:09 -0500

The number of Americans behind on their mortgages is up by another 9.2 percent. So says the Mortgage Bankers Association, also noting an 18-year spike in the number of people seeking cash by refinancing their homes. As the feds study rival mortgage fixes, retail sales are at a 35-year low and unemployment's at a 34-high, news prompting Rep. Barney Frank to say ignoring automakers' bailout pleas is not an option. An economist, looking at the jobless numbers, calls them "almost indescribably terrible." For more on the economy, see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Government Agency Reports Greenhouse Emissions Up Last Year

Jenny Choi — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:41:34 -0500

Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. were up by 1.4 percent in 2007, after a decline the previous year, according to newly released figures in a report from the Energy Information Administration, the statistics arm of the Energy Department.

To put this in context, greenhouse gas emissions, comprised of mostly carbon dioxide, have increased by a total of 16.7 percent since 1990. The bad news in the U.S. was outpaced in China, where carbon dioxide emissions alone rose by 7.5 percent from 2006 to 2007. Total global carbon output, compared to the previous year, was up by 3 percent.

Some good news here is that the U.S. and China are working together on a number of projects intended to reduce pollution. At a meeting in Beijing this week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson talked about the June U.S.-China agreement for ten years of cooperation on energy and environmental issues, which includes many corporate partnerships. Paulson also said U.S. officials expect to leave Beijing with new agreements on short, medium and long-term goals for clean air, clean water, electricity generation, transportation, and protecting wetlands and other natural areas.

Although three-quarters of the American public believe that global warming is a proven fact, public attitudes on this issue are remarkably divided along political party identification and ideological lines. Democrats are far more likely to say the effects of climate change have already begun, while more Republicans believe that the threat tends to be exaggerated in the news.

Overall, there has been very little movement in public concern about climate change. Despite the finding that seven in 10 say they are at least "somewhat worried" about global warming, the issue ranks surprisingly low on a list of environmental concerns.

Be sure to check out our Climate Change Choicework Discussion Starter and the climate change guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit for more about the root of the problem, detailed charts and statistical background, and three possible solutions -- including pros and cons for each approach.

Priced Out Of Prosperity?

Paul Gasbarra — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:17:01 -0500

The picture was grim this week as the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released a report predicting that a college education could soon become unaffordable for most Americans. In the past 25 years, the cost of college has increased by 439 percent. [The New York Times notes that this figure is not adjusted for inflation.]

When it comes to making schools affordable for their residents, all but one state flunked the center's rubric. Having spoken to people in higher education, this comes as no surprise. Though college costs have increased for a variety of reasons such as health care costs, energy costs, and competitive salaries from faculty, these increases are made far more drastic by a continual reduction of state funding for state schools.

The lack of state funds is often recouped by passing the price on to students. In turn, going to college costs a family a larger percentage of their income than previous years. Low income families are especially hard hit. The New York Times reports that a four-year university education would cost a family making median wages in the bottom quintile of earners 55 percent of its yearly income. In other words, the poorest families would have to contribute more than half of every dollar they make in order to get a four-year degree. And the alternative, community colleges, cost such a family nearly as much.

Of course, financial aid is available for many, but the report reveals shockingly that lower-income students get less than those from more affluent families. This is yet another confirmation of a trend spotted early last year in our report, "Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today," which was done with the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Our researchers found that more than ever, people said they believe that many qualified, motivated students don't have an opportunity to go to college. This, at a time when college education is seen as a foundation for a middle class lifestyle.

College is not only necessary on a personal level - it also counts on a national one. As Patrick M. Callan, one of the principal authors of the recent report, points out, "The educational strength of the American population is in the group that's about to retire. In the rest of the world, it's the group that's gone to college since 1990."

The center's report projects that costs will only increase until eventually all but the most affluent Americans will be priced out of the university experience. That is, of course, if nothing changes and costs continue to go up while family incomes continue to go down.

Research underway at Public Agenda is exploring many of the ways different states are trying to hold down cost and increase efficiencies. The recent financial troubles have made this something of an involuntary act. As tax revenues decrease, state budgets often turn towards universities to make cuts.

While some of those may have been long overdue, Callan argues that cutbacks in time of fiscal stress are the opposite of what we need. If the argument is that an educated populace brings greater overall wealth to states and the nation, then now is the time to spend money and effort making college more accessible and affordable, and not to discover that soon very few will be able to afford their mortarboard.

Paul Gasbarra is a research associate for Education Insights, Public Agenda's initiative to help those on the front lines of education reform – teachers, parents, community and school leaders – cooperate more effectively to achieve key education goals. For more on education reform, check out his recent article, Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress and feel free to add your own ideas to his "to do" list for our leaders in Washington.

Now They Tell Us: U.S. Officially in Recession

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:11:40 -0500

The National Bureau of Economic Research has spoken: the U.S. has been in a recession for a year. Polls tell us that a lot of Americans think the economists are late to the party on this one.

The bureau, an independent organization that's accepted as the official arbiter of economic data in the United States, actually doesn't follow the classic rule of thumb for recessions, which is two consecutive quarters where the economy shrinks. Their process considers a lot of other factors, which you can read about here. For a little historical perspective, you can check out this chart of economic growth.

But it's a rough year for the economy, and most surveys show the American public decided we were in a recession some months ago. Even back in January, 45 percent told the Gallup poll the country was in recession; by March that was up to 76 percent. Overall attitudes about the economy are very negative, with three-quarters having negative views and the same number thinking things are getting worse. To think about some of the options for getting the economy back on track, have a look at our Citizen's Survival Kit on the economy.

Change, Trust and Foreign Policy

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:13:39 -0500

The announcement of the new Obama foreign policy team has been greeted with much talk of a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, a "rebalancing" to emphasize traditional diplomacy over the military in world affairs. There's no question that the public is ready for a change in direction, according to Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. But public often defines the problem in ways that are very different from the foreign policy establishment – and the public's support should not be taken for granted.

Ever since we started the Foreign Policy Index in 2005, we've consistently found the public thinks the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on diplomacy over military force in dealing with terrorism. Most think there’s at least some justification for the criticism that the U.S. has been too quick to resort to force. That also applies in specific situations. Very few Americans support the use of force against Iran, for example.

And the public would also make humanitarian aid a much higher priority. In fact, disaster relief is at the top of the public’s list of priorities for U.S. foreign policy, on a par with traditional goals like nuclear nonproliferation. It’s rare, however, to see disaster relief get that kind of priority from the foreign policy establishment.

The public also has its own sense of the best strategies to follow. When it comes to making the U.S. more secure, the public regularly goes back to three key strategies: energy independence, better intelligence gathering and controlling illegal immigration. Those options have regularly been at the top of the public’s list in the Foreign Policy Index. Sometimes the relative position among them shifts, but it’s always the same top three by a clear margin.

There are two other key points to remember regarding public attitudes about foreign policy. Firstly, and contrary to what many commentators think, the public does see foreign policy as linked to economics. Even before the global financial crisis struck this fall, Public Agenda’s research showed concern about the economy spilling over into foreign policy, driving up concerns about energy independence and trade.

Secondly, public trust in foreign policy has been at a low ebb in the past few years. This is a change from the normal state of affairs. In general, the public still prefers to leave international relations to the professionals. Their default setting is to trust that the president and his advisers know what they’re doing – unless they see policy as seriously off track. In the last few years, that’s exactly what’s happened. About two-thirds of the public say foreign policy is on the wrong track, and half don’t trust the government to tell them the truth about foreign affairs.

The Obama administration may get the benefit of the doubt from the public, simply by virtue of being new. But trust in U.S. policy has seriously eroded, and the new administration shouldn’t assume that a change at the top is all that’s needed. Rebuilding public trust should be a foreign policy priority, too, because no policy, domestic or international, can survive for long unless it’s rooted in the public’s values and support.