Public Agenda Newsfeed

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.

Feds Study Rival Plans To Address Mortgage Crisis

Francie Grace — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:45:25 -0500

As bailout-seeking auto execs arrived back in Washington, leaving corporate jets at home and driving hybrids instead, word of AT&T's huge layoff and the latest jobless stats washed over Wall Street along with a report the government might push some mortgage rates down to 4.5 percent. The plan, which wouldn't apply to refinances, is a rival to that advocated by FDIC chair Sheila Bair, who'd use federal funds to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. As citizens, we've got choices to make: learn more about the economy, the budget deficit and other key issues in our Citizen's Survival Kit.

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.

Obama Names Key Cabinet Positions

Jenny Choi — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:14:18 -0500

President-elect Obama made official today his picks for key cabinet positions, among them Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and Robert Gates for secretary of defense. In the same news conference, Obama maintained his stance on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months. Meanwhile, current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit India this week, which is still reeling from last week’s terrorist siege that claimed over 170 lives. Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated in the wake of the attacks. Be sure to visit our Citizen’s Survival Kit for facts and choices to tackle these foreign policy issues.

Viewpoint: A new trio for our times

Peiting Chen — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:59:57 -0500

The era of dumb, dissed and dysfunctional government may be ending. Cynicism, cronyism and conventional political wisdom are threatened as a new, transnational political culture of idealism, activism, and potential multi-partisan cooperation dawns.

This is not yet another encomium to Barack Obama. Instead, looking at the symbolism and politics of three new (or newish) leaders on three continents, it appears that the democratic world may be entering an age as different and defining as those of two other transformations: the FDR/Keynes/social democratic post-World War II "liberal consensus" and the Thatcher/Friedman/Reagan conservative ascendancy of the last three decades.

So, how might this be the age Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva?

The threads that draw America's president-elect and the presidents of France and Brazil together are in the symbolism of who they are and their effects on their people as well as their politics and policies.
Politically, all three are more than rhetorically post-partisan. They espouse ideas and promote policies at odds with significant parts of their core constituencies. They cross political divides in surprising ways - from Mr. Obama's eloquent discussion of family and values to Mr. da Silva's embrace of global market capitalism to Mr. Sarkozy's calls for social solidarity and a "rupture" with French state capitalism.

They share a desire for greater social justice in a modern world that has benefited many but left many others hurt and trembling. They believe in helping Brazil's desperately poor, France's immigrants and unemployed, and America's legions without savings, health care or decent jobs not through Great Society-style handouts but what one observer of Mr. da Silva has called "conditional responsibility."

Certainly, there were glimmers of this in Republican and Clinton-era welfare reform, but the three men share a commitment to social compassion-with-personal responsibility writ large. Mr. Obama, Mr. da Silva and Mr. Sarkozy - emerging from left-liberal or statist milieus - have thrown off old-leftist shibboleths of anti-capitalist etatisme, while strongly embracing the need for greater government regulation and activism in building a more just, prosperous and sustainable world.

The three have discarded the global go-it-alone-ism of Gaullism, the Bush administration, and the old geopolitical obstructionism of what were once called "nonaligned nations." Instead, the three leaders stand strongly for global interconnectedness in a way that has been sorely lacking since the early days of the United Nations - on climate change, humanitarian intervention, poverty and disease reduction, migration, and reinvigorating diplomacy and international institutions. None are sycophants for globalization, yet each could be more forthright in supporting free trade.

Symbolically, the three men - their backgrounds, their styles and their political modus operandi - give a new meaning to the dismissive phrase, apropos of leadership who came before them, of being "so 20th century." As an African-American man with a Christian and Muslim, Kenyan and Kansan, single mother-to-Harvard background, Mr. Obama is today's world at its best - a world beyond race and cultural division and one of the promise of democracy and opportunity. Sans an elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration pedigree, with an immigrant and Jewish background, and a supermodel spouse shaking cobwebs from the Elysee Palace, Mr. Sarkozy has brought a curious mix of flair and inclusiveness to a hidebound society whose leadership class had strayed far from the ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Mr. da Silva, a once-rough-and-tumble union leader from the slums of Sao Paulo, has successfully expanded the market-based reforms of his predecessor while raising living standards for the poor, making Brazil the darling of investors from Wall Street to Shanghai as well as his flag-waving, working-class supporters.

All three are enormously public public figures. Mr. Obama's ecstatic throngs, likely to bring the largest crowd in U.S. history to Washington on Jan. 20, and his viral Internet presence speak to a sort of "people's democracy" that historians can only weakly search for analogues in Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. A similar popular fervency has surrounded "Lula" since before his first successful presidential campaign in 2002. While Mr. Sarkozy may not have the street or Web allure of his transatlantic counterparts, he seizes the diplomatic and media stage with gusto to push peace from Georgia to Darfur and financial-market reform from Brussels to Washington.

In one sense, this is a tale of three men with charisma, and of the triumph of opportunity and ideals over entrenched power. But, from Mr. Obama's stunningly self-controlled demeanor and Mr. da Silva's electrifying presence to Mr. Sarkozy's high-profile romantic life, these are men who are cool in multiple senses of this wonderfully nuanced word. With each, politics isn't boring. And they have galvanized their people and their aspirations. While each nation still has its share of business-as-usual politicians, these three have made political life engaging, hip and hopeful.

And there's the added promise. Beyond the potential for policy reforms that bring about greater socioeconomic inclusiveness, redefine the respective roles of markets and governments in ways that promote broad-based economic growth, and foster greater international cooperation and understanding, this trio of leaders can help dispel decades of cynicism about government and public service. Echoes of JFK notwithstanding, Mr. Obama, probably more than the other two, represents an enticement for citizens to actively care about their country and world: On the one hand, this means choosing personally to serve whether in the public sector or other roles; on the other, it means recognizing that policy-making requires an engaged, informed citizenry ready to make hard choices rather choosing the easy out of disengagement, disdain and demagoguery.

Yes, the world goes far beyond Washington, Paris, and Brasilia. Yes, China is the economic goliath changing our planet. And yes, there are all too many less-than-democratic corners of the world.

But, as the Obama mantra has it: Change is in the air. While politics and governing will continue to be littered with more defeats than victories, the substance and style of these three leaders point to an era of hope, inspiration, and perhaps even problem-solving.

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," published by Yale University Press this year, and teaches at American University.

The Iron Triangle

David White — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:48:55 -0500

“The Iron Triangle” examines the views of more than two dozen college and university presidents who shared their thoughts with us in lengthy, one-on-one interviews. We found that in the view of many college and university presidents, the three main factors in higher education—cost, quality, and access—exist in what we call an iron triangle, and any change in one will inevitably impact the others. This is in opposition to the public, business and government leaders, who don't accept the idea that there is necessarily a reciprocal relationship between cost, quality, and access.

Communications Director

Alex Trilling — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:27 -0500

Public Agenda, the nonpartisan research and civic engagement organization, nationally recognized for its more than 30-year commitment to bringing citizens and leaders together to address issues, such as education reform, foreign policy, the federal budget and many others, is conducting a national search for a new communications director to work in its New York City headquarters.

The director of communications is a senior-level position reporting directly to the president of Public Agenda. Prospective candidates for the position will have at least 10-15 years of experience in public policy-related communications, the ability to lead department staff and expertise in communicating through traditional and new media.

The mission of Public Agenda’s communications department is to articulate and amplify the organization’s program work by identifying target audiences and communicating its public engagement activities, public issues analysis and its advocacy of public dialogue.

Public Agenda’s communications department concentrates its efforts on:

Advising the organization and individual departments on how best to frame their messages, coupled with advice on timing and composition of audience target lists, etc.
Developing materials (both print and electronic as well as audio and video vehicles) that draw attention to Public Agenda’s work and communicate the departments’ “products”
Producing events that bring together audiences and draw media attention to Public Agenda’s
work and mission of bridging the gap between citizens and leaders.

Essential skills/attributes of the communications director:

Excellent writing skills
Extensive media relations experience
Demonstrable leadership ability
Creativity
Belief in the organizational mission

The position requires collaborative skills and the ability to work with leaders across departments on complex multi-dimensional projects.

Email a letter of interest, resume and writing sample to: atrilling@publicagenda.org.
References will be requested upon successful advancement through the interview process.
No calls, please.
Additional information about Public Agenda is available at www.publicagenda.org.

Materials should be submitted no later than December 19, 2008.

Contact:

Alex Trilling
General Manager
Public Agenda
6 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis

Peiting Chen — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0500

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis, by Andrew L. Yarrow, Public Purpose, November 18, 2008