KCRWs Left Right & Center 12.26.08 Show

Dec 26, 2008
102 comments

We're looking back at the year that was. Please note that we had to record it last week. Unfortunately, Arianna's not with us. Next week possibly a predictions show -- or we'll just talk about whatever's been in the headlines. Happy New Year to all in advance. We welcome your comments, as usual. Thank you all so much for participating in this forum. We will continue the dialogue in the years ahead and we wish you health, peace, and joy.

***UPDATE 12/29/08: MATT'S LATEST COLUMN IS INCLUDED BELOW*****

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matt Miller's latest column

from the New York Times, Sunday, December 28

Nixon's The One -- To Imitate On Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happy holidays to all -- you can find information on my new book, "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas," (and read the introduction) at http://www.mattmilleronline.com/. It will be published on January 6.

Nixon's the One - to Imitate on Education

By Matt Miller

Local control of schooling - which means local financing of schools - is an injustice, masked as a virtue, so deeply ingrained in the American mind that no politician in either party dare challenge it. But America's obsession with local finance, which made perfect sense in the 19th century, is now sinking us morally and economically. To fix it, Barack Obama needs to steal an idea from Richard Nixon.

Drive around Chicago, Detroit or most other big cities and you'll see dilapidated schools staffed largely by rookie teachers. The districts spend, say, $10,000 a child. Twenty minutes up the road you'll find suburban schools that sport Olympic_quality pools, Broadway_style (or maybe Off Broadway) theaters and the best teachers in the state. Those schools spend more like $17,000 per pupil.

This is what local control hath wrought, with financing schemes under which less than 10 percent of the money spent on primary and secondary education comes from the federal government. The grim equation by which accident of birth determines educational quality in the United States is straightforward. The poorer the district and the state, the lower the local tax base, with less money for students. No other advanced nation tolerates such inequities.

Money isn't everything. Some high_spending districts, like Washington and Newark, are dens of mismanagement. But communities like these are distracting exceptions. If you compare most poor, urban areas to their nearby affluent suburbs, the suburbs typically spend thousands of dollars more per pupil.

Because big chunks of district budgets go to teachers' salaries, local financing means we systematically assign the greenest, least_qualified teachers in America to the children who need great teachers the most. Research shows that after a few years in such classrooms, these children never catch up.

In the early 19th century, the property tax was considered the fairest way to pay for schooling. Property was the main form of wealth, and rich and poor people didn't live in separate taxing communities. The wealthy paid more than the middle class and the poor paid nothing, yet all enjoyed access to the same public schools.

Since World War II, however, we have segregated ourselves into a multitude of tiny tax enclaves. The last important official to look hard at the consequences was Richard Nixon. His commission on school finance, headed by the chairman of Procter & Gamble, issued a report in 1972 that urged states to equalize financing disparities, and proposed spending a little federal cash to help.

Nixon's commissioner of education said publicly that the federal government should pay 25 percent to 30 percent of the cost of public education. His domestic policy staff considered a new national tax, with the proceeds distributed to states that drastically reduced state and local property taxes while closing the financing gaps among their school districts.

In the end, of course, Nixon found he had bigger problems to deal with. But he left a blueprint for Mr. Obama to follow. The federal government contributed just $45 billion of the $488 billion spent on primary and secondary schools in 2004 and 2005 (the most recent data available). That's just nine cents of the nation's education dollar.

Going to 25 percent to 30 percent of the overall tab by using a Nixonian revenue_sharing plan would lift the federal contribution by $80 billion to $100 billion a year, and replace an equivalent amount of state and local taxes. A little more federal money might be needed to sweeten the pot, round up the votes and give a boost to the poorest schools.

Federal cash could also be offered to lift teacher salaries for high_poverty schools. States or districts that accept the money would have to allow higher pay for the best teachers or those in scarce specialties like math and science, defer or eliminate tenure (or link it to student achievement gains), and make it easier to fire bad teachers. These districts could pay top teachers up to $150,000 a year, attracting a new generation of talent to America's toughest classrooms.

Mr. Obama says rebuilding rundown schools will be part of his stimulus plan. That's a start, but a one_time construction boon can't solve the perennial woes caused by the very structure of American school finance.

At a moment when we've basically nationalized the banking, mortgage and insurance industries, a little nationalization of school operating costs is in tune with the times.

***

Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the author of the forthcoming book "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas."

More at the new site
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.mattmilleronline.com/

KCRWs Left Right & Center 12/19/08

Dec 19, 2008
81 comments

A wish for the world this holiday season. Peace to all and may our future be hopeful.

Peace_symbol_6_l

Auto Bailout; Madoff; Senator Caroline? More Obama-noms

Merry Christmas to all and Happy Chanukah, Kwanzaa and Chinese New Year. (Did I leave anything out?) President Bush decided to rescue the auto industry to the tune of $17.4 billion in loans. Bob says he punted the tough calls to Obama; Tony says what else could he do? Madoff made off with billions, and Bob agrees with Paul Krugman who said that these financial titans destroyed, not built, wealth. Tony defends capitalists against these charges. Will Caroline Kennedy be the next senator from NY? Should she be? What's this political aristocracy thing about? Matt thinks it's demoralizing. Tony says NY loves celebrity senators. Even if they're not qualified. Obama-noms are discussed. And by the way: have you heard there's a chance the White House bowling alley may be retooled as a basketball court??????

Sorry Arianna couldn't be here this week but we certainly want to hear from YOU!

MENTIONED ON TODAY'S SHOW
MATT'S BLOG!
mattmilleronline.com

New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The Madoff Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 19, 2008

The revelation that Bernard Madoff — brilliant investor (or so almost everyone thought), philanthropist, pillar of the community — was a phony has shocked the world, and understandably so. The scale of his alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme is hard to comprehend.The scale of his alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme is hard to comprehend.

Yet surely I’m not the only person to ask the obvious question: How different, really, is Mr. Madoff’s tale from the story of the investment industry as a whole?

Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/272324

KCRWs Left Right & Center 12/12/08 Show

Dec 12, 2008
27 comments

GOP to Detroit-NO! Oy Blagojevich! Obama Nominees

The Senate GOP rejection of the House/Admin deal is top of the news. All believe that W’s “kick the can down the road” policy -- taking the a portion of the banks’ TARP and applying it to the auto bailout -- is inevitable, but Arianna marvels at the double standard that allow the banks to get free money while Detroit and its workers could hang themselves with the attached strings. Illinois governor Blagojevich: what more need we say? Bob takes the opportunity to condemn the media for hoisting this story above the other important news, like Afghanistan and the report condemning Bush admin for use of torture. Arianna says the whole thing’s more fascinating psychologically than politically citing Julius Caesar (the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves), while Tony says Rahm Emanuel and other Obama transition team members seem act as if they have something to worry about. He reminded us that Nixon didn’t know about Watergate but got in trouble when he tried to cover it up. And in the energy arena, is Dr. Steven Chu, noted and respected physicist and Obama’s nominee, a mad scientist? We know he wants to make gas prohibitively expensive—but electricity, too? Is he nuts? Or right? Listen in and weigh in -- or put up a post before the show begins!

MATT MENTIONED THIS COLUMN in the show:

Blagojevich's Behavior Is Common

Douglas E. Schoen, 12.10.08, 04:00 PM EST

Trading favors is de rigueur in politics.

"...But while what Blagojevich did is undeniably beyond the pale, it is frankly much more common in the political world than anyone has been willing to acknowledge." (read the rest at the link above)

KCRWs Left Right & Center 12.5.08 Show

Dec 5, 2008
46 comments

AP Photo by Susan Walsh Auto Execs in DC

Job Losses and Recession; Auto Execs--From Tin Ear to Tin Cup; Mumbai Terror

*Update on Thurs. 12.11: I've added Matt's latest column, "Memo to Obama" below

*Update on Wed. 12.10 -- Adding the article Bob Scheer talked about to links below (Toyota buys GM). PS: Tony's show yesterday was good!! Listen to it at link at the end of the post in red.

*UPDATE: Tuesday 12.9 at 2:30 Pacific 89.9 FM on air in SoCal/streaming live online, via podcast or on-demand: Tune in to hear Tony Blankley discuss "Whither Conservatism" on our show, The Politics of Culture -- with Al Regnery, publisher of American Spectator mag; Tony Perkins, Pres of the Family Research Council, and nay-sayer, David Frum, who's become a critic of the Sarah Palin wing of the party (former Right on LRC, his new blog launches Jan. 20 NewMajority.com). That's www.kcrw.com (click live tab) or online later at www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/pc.

530,000 jobs lost – in November alone – as the Auto company execs trade their tin ears and corporate jets for tin cups and a hybrid car ride to DC begging for a bailout…is it policy making or a morality play? Bob’s worried about Paul Krugman’s prediction for a double-digit drop in the economy. Arianna calls the economy a stalled plane that needs a jumpstart -- in mid-air. Tony – without being too Pollyanna-ish – says it may be the worst month for job losses but it’s ranked the 41^st worst month as a percentage of total jobs…he disagrees with Bob who says those trillion dollars have been wasted on the financial industry, and he calls for MASSIVE spending on the part of government (Bob calls that socialism!). The terror in Mumbai is treated briefly followed by some rather rushed rants.

LINKS:

Matt mentioned this blog: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/

Bob talked about this column:

Paul Krugman, The New York Times

Conscience of a Liberal

December 4, 2008, 9:07 am

Worries about next year

I’ve been ruminating over economic prospects for next year, and I’m getting scared.

Two points:

1. The economy is falling fast. We’ll see what tomorrow’s employment report says, but we could well be losing jobs at a rate of 450,000 or 500,000 a month.

2. Infrastructure spending will take time to get going — a new Goldman Sachs report suggests that projects that are “shovel-ready” are probably only a few tens of billions worth, and that a larger effort would take much of a year to get going……(read the rest at link above)

Bob also mentioned a provocative piece on TruthDig.com about why Toyota should buy GM:

A Toyota Takeover Could Save GM

By Michael D. Intriligator

Posted on Dec 5, 2008

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081205_a_toyota_takeover_could_save_gm/

...I believe that considering only these two options for an imperiled GM —either bailout by the U.S. government or bankruptcy—omits an important alternative, which I see as the best option: a takeover of GM by Toyota Motor Corp....

Matt Miller's Latest Column

from Politico -- December 8, 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a new column that ran in Politico on Tuesday. Also, I've begun blogging frequently at my new website, and hope you'll check it out. http://www.mattmilleronline.com/. As my wife says, if this technology had been available 13 years ago, she could have had most of the pleasure of being married to me with none of the aggravation...:)

Memo to Obama: Don't narrow your options

by Matt Miller

As President-elect Barack Obama crafts an economic plan for a country in crisis, he faces a risk that presidents often don't appreciate until it's too late: Options presented to presidents are narrowed before they ever reach their desks. This happened to President-elect Bill Clinton in 1992 in a way that is instructive for Obama's new economic team and for Democrats who hope to fix the economy while advancing progressive goals.

While every presidential transition is hectic and prone to second-guessing, it seems clear in hindsight that internal debate over Clinton's original economic plan focused on options that weren't different enough to offer truly alternate paths. As Bob Woodward later reported, the transition discussion quickly became organized around several options for what the budget deficit would be four years later - ranging from $195 billion to $240 billion. In long meetings, Clinton's team debated which scenario was best in terms of the economy, Clinton's campaign pledges and the amount of new public investment that these constraints would accommodate.

Yet the fabled duels between the "deficit hawks" and the "progressives" on Clinton's team masked a deeper, surprising consensus. The difference between their options was about $45 billion in four years. That's an $11 billion or so difference per year - less than 1 percent of the federal budget at the time. This early narrowing of options - which then framed all subsequent discussion - arguably left the president with the worst of both worlds: He ended up shortchanging his planned investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development, even as he was forced to spend most of his presidency wrestling the deficit to the ground. It's hard to know if bolder options might have led to different choices, but such options weren't presented to him.

Today, the risk for Obama is similar. Obama has an ambitious progressive agenda, must manage the country through an economic crisis and inherits a tide of red ink much larger than the one Clinton inherited. Yet there are pluses, as well. A consensus has emerged on the need for a serious new stimulus for the economy, while economists of all stripes say we should put off near-term worries about the deficit until the storm has passed.

But this consensus still leaves an enormous range for potential action. The difference is vast between what an Obama administration can do while running deficits of $800 billion and $1.3 trillion, or even (hold your hat) $2 trillion, for a couple of years. The temptation may be for his incoming team to narrowly examine options within a deficit constraint that seems tolerable because markets already expect it - say, $1 trillion over the next year or two. I believe Obama should ask to see options that include deficits (meaning spending boosts and tax cuts) much bigger, and also much smaller, than this.

The guiding question should not be, "What deficit number do we think is politically tolerable?" - though the optics here will obviously come into play. The questions should concern (1) what level of new government-generated demand is needed, and for how long, to offset the coming contraction in private sector demand; (2) what other parts of his agenda Obama believes the country can accomplish in his first term, as well as what groundwork can be laid for accomplishment in a second; and (3) how might this be sustainably financed, even if the answers go beyond the boundaries of what has been deemed politically or economically possible.

Once meaningfully different packages are presented, Obama can decide how he will weigh the trade-offs, how he'll make the politics work and which size "sandbox" he really wants to be playing in. (He can also offer a framework for long-term fiscal sanity by proposing various "triggers." For example, once unemployment returned to below 6 percent, it might take a supermajority vote of Congress to run deficits above 2 percent or 3 percent of the gross domestic product.)

The silver lining of today's crisis is that it should free Obama and his team to think more broadly about these basic questions. The need to forestall a calamitous economic meltdown, and the ability to finance large deficits temporarily in ways not foreseeable 15 years ago, means Obama doesn't have to be trapped in the vise that left Clinton famously grumbling by the end of his first year that he had been reduced to an "Eisenhower Republican."

Because groupthink and extraordinary time pressures can lead even talented, well-intended advisers to push the discussion too narrowly, too soon, Obama should insist on a broader set of options today. That will assure the next president that he won't have Clinton's regrets in a few years.

***

Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as a senior adviser at the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton. His new book "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas" will be published by Times Books in January.