Third Way Perspectives
Author Archive
Reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank
April 5th, 2012
This piece was originally posted in The Hill.
Good ideas–ideas that work–should transcend ideological and partisan differences.
For almost 80 years, the Export-Import Bank of the United States has been one such good idea, enjoying broad bipartisan support while effectively promoting job-creating American exports. But the Ex-Im Bank’s work will grind to a halt within weeks without a new authorization. And, without a long-term reauthorization, the Bank’s mission would be seriously undermined, creating great uncertainty for U.S. exporters and their workers.
Rep. Rick Larsen, (D-Wash.), (one of the authors) and Rep. Don Manzullo, (R-Ill.), have introduced the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012 which would extend the Bank’s authority through 2015 and raise the borrowing authority to $140 billion.
Why should we care? First, the Ex-Im Bank is a self-supporting entity that actually turns an $800 million annual profit for the government. Second, and more important, the Bank supports U.S. exports, and exports have played an increasingly important role in driving stronger American economic growth and much-needed jobs.
Faith in Math
February 21st, 2012
Nate Silver makes a meticulous mathematical argument that President Obama would be better off gaining downscale whites even if it costs him many upscale white voters (“Why Obama will embrace the 99%”). But for his math to add up, he has to make a giant leap of faith: that populism will win over working class whites. But where’s the compelling evidence for this populist proposition?
In our surveys of this same group of voters, there is certainly anger directed toward Wall Street, Congress, and special interests, yet we keep hearing a much more resonant emotion: anxiety. These and other swing voters are deeply concerned that the country is in decline. They fear that they, and especially their children, may not be able to successfully swim against an ebbing tide of American greatness. They don’t know what America does or makes anymore that represents a solid chance for opportunity and growth for themselves and their communities.
Among arguably the most important swing block of the electorate – those who voted for Obama in 2008 but switched to the Republicans in 2010 – this anxiety about America is palpable. In our 2011 survey we asked them to imagine that the world economy were the Olympics, and only one-third said that America would earn the gold 10 years from now. An equal amount said we would not be on the medal stand at all. Michael Ford, who directs the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University, found that middle income Americans overwhelmingly believe “the future is being created elsewhere” and that the middle class has lost faith in every major institution in America except the military. A pessimistic populism focused mainly on fairness, income inequality, and anti-corporatism does not speak to, much less answer, these profound anxieties.
Whether he runs as a populist or centrist, President Obama may be reelected no matter the rhetorical framework. As Mr. Silver notes, the economy is improving, bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is in tatters. And let’s not discount the fractured primary on the Republican side. But ultimately, an anger-based “people versus the powerful” argument has been tried, time and again, in the modern political era – by Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards, among many others – and it always comes up short. What voters along the income spectrum want is a leader who eases their anxieties and speaks to their aspirations, not one who echoes their anger. If Nate Silver has persuasive evidence to the contrary, he didn’t include it in his mathematically astute piece.
A civil action for SOTU
January 19th, 2012
This piece originally appeared in Politico.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) have 28 years of Capitol Hill experience between them. Yet when these two supercommittee co-chairmen sat down for the panel’s opening meeting, it was the first time they ever met. Is it any wonder that the committee failed?
Third Way last week proposed three modest ideas based on a simple premise: Strangers make terrible legislators. We sent a letter to House and Senate congressional leaders, calling for concrete steps to improve civility, familiarity and discourse between members of opposing — and often warring — political parties. It’s an attempt to find an elixir to the poisonous atmosphere that has made Congress a non-functioning laughingstock.
The first idea is a repeat of a proposal we made last year, on the heels of the senseless shooting of Rep. Gabriel Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the deaths of six of her constituents. We again ask that Congress members sit together rather than in partisan enclaves during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address on Jan. 24.
Why do it again? For one, the spectacle of half the room leaping to its feet while the other sits glumly on its hands is just that – a spectacle. This one day, when the entire nation sits and listens to their president, Congress should appear as one body — not two sides.
This was a success last year. With the help of Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), more than 100 years of tradition was broken as members sat together during Obama’s address. There were surprising pairings, like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) kibitzing with the ultra-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). Several legislators – including Coburn – began relationships and partnerships with members of the opposing party whom they had routinely ignored.
For the public, the State of the Union became a more civil and adult affair, absent the “you lie” shouts and the whack-a-mole quality, where members popped up and down on cue to register approval or disapproval of the president’s remarks.
Second, we ask for a smack talk ceasefire. For 24 hours leading up to the State of the Union, we ask that members of Congress, the president, candidates, and super-PACs speak only about the merits of their ideas — not the demerits of the opposing party’s ideas.
We’re not saying that parties and politicians shouldn’t disagree. We merely ask that for one day out of 366, this disagreement be voiced solely by making the positive case for one’s own ideas.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on the best ideas. For a day, instead of concentrating on the best attack line – let’s listen to the other side’s case. It may make for fewer fireworks on cable broadcasts, but it will likely ensure a more informed electorate.
Third, we suggest that the House and Senate each reserve one weekend every year where members of Congress and their families spend time together and get to know one another. In 1787, Americans with great regional differences and viewpoints gathered for four months and created a blueprint for the nation. Congress ought to emulate this common love of nation to come together as fellow citizens and form the personal bonds necessary to cooperate with those of other viewpoints.
A retreat won’t make disagreements melt away, but it’s harder to vilify and objectify those you know. Our legislative process could only become better as we learn more, and listen more attentively, to those we have chosen to spar.
The United States faces immense challenges. Our budget deficit is huge. Our economy is sputtering. Our competitors are gaining on us. Our middle class is shrinking. Our entitlements are growing. Our tax code is failing. It is hard to imagine a group of bickering strangers solving America’s most pressing problems.
For the past several decades, the rancor and partisanship in Washington seems to get worse as the need for our government to function better increases. In the meantime, Americans ‘views of Congress hit new lows.
Our modest proposal: Sit together, not apart. Talk to each other, don’t yell. Know each other, don’t be strangers.
Jon Cowan is president and Jim Kessler is senior vice president of Third Way. other, don’t be strangers.
Obama Enters Deficit Primary
July 8th, 2011
This piece was originally published in Politico.
With today’s address on deficit reduction, President Barack Obama is making a shrewd opening move for his 2012 campaign — laying claim to the political center, challenging Beltway orthodoxies and setting the stage for a possible historic agreement on the budget.
Obama reportedly is set to propose serious entitlement reforms — only three months after 200 progressive groups lobbied the White House to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off the agenda. Instead, he’s expected to reach out tonight with both hands and grab onto the “third rail” of American politics.
But rather than getting burned, Obama may emerge well positioned for his reelection.
For months, Obama has been criticized for not taking the lead on the deficit. After appointing the fiscal commission that many Republicans had voted against creating, however, he needed to wait to see what Republicans put on the table, get the 2011 budget behind him and monitor the progress of the Gang of Six — the bipartisan group of senators whose work is likely to determine whether deficit reduction is just talked about or acted on.
In his speech, the president aims to shift the debate from “who wants to solve the problem?” to “how do we solve the problem?” And looking ahead to 2012, that shift is likely to benefit him enormously.
If there is a major, bipartisan budget agreement, Republicans cannot run on fiscal responsibility. If there is not, they get the blame. He wins either way. Read the rest of this entry »
Look to ’94 Crime Bill to Solve Budget Crisis
June 16th, 2011
This piece was originally published in The Hill.
The FBI reported that crime took another dip last year. That came as a surprise, because conventional wisdom held that crime rates track the economy: fewer jobs, more crime.
But the decline in the crime rate is not a one year blip. In the last fifteen years, the number of murders in America declined by one-third, assaults by one-fourth, and car thefts by one-half.[i]
Is there a lesson here for the budget debate? Just as the budget is the dominant, intractable, insoluble problem today, so was crime in the 1990s. Just as a major deal on an anti-crime package seemed improbable then, a major deal on the budget seems a pipedream today.
The Deficit Primary
April 13th, 2011
This piece was originally published in Politico.
With today’s address on deficit reduction, President Barack Obama is making a shrewd opening move for his 2012 campaign — laying claim to the political center, challenging Beltway orthodoxies and setting the stage for a possible historic agreement on the budget.
Obama reportedly is set to propose serious entitlement reforms — only three months after 200 progressive groups lobbied the White House to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off the agenda. Instead, he’s expected to reach out tonight with both hands and grab onto the “third rail” of American politics.
But rather than getting burned, Obama may emerge well positioned for his reelection.