Financial Truth Commission – something to tweet about

Danny Townsend, Yale University

This article is cross-posted from New Deal 2.0

The news isn’t that new: young people are getting hammered by the recession. While people of all generations have been suffering the pains of cut paychecks, layoffs, furloughs, and otherwise having their careers and lives put on hold, the youngest members of the work force are feeling like they might never make it out of the starting gate. No matter where you stand in the bracket of 16-25-year-olds, prospects are dim. Thinking of higher education? Enjoy the prospect of rising tuition, diminishing financial aid and the elimination of entire academic programs, like in the California public school system. Already in school? If you can find a job, chances are you’ll earn up to 10 percent less in your career over the next ten years. And if you’re just looking for work, good luck – our age group, which is only 15 percent of the population, represents about one-third of the unemployed.

One thing is for certain: if we’re going to put in more and more time and energy into our careers and education, we’d like to do so with some realistic hope about our futures. In the short run, that means less unemployment and better ways to finance new education and old debt. In the long run, though, hope depends not only on a return to macroeconomic business-as-usual but also on an understanding of how the current crisis came to be – and how it can be prevented from happening again.

That’s where the Pecora II Commission comes in. Technically the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the FCIC has been dubbed “Pecora II” in reference to the investigation set up in the early 1930s to establish the causes of the Great Depression. The findings and implications of the original investigation, named after the strong-willed and thorough attorney Ferdinand Pecora, formed the basis for watershed financial developments such as the creation of the FDIC, the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the passing of the Glass-Steagall Act (the repeal of which has been cited by some as a contributing factor to events leading to the current recession). The FCIC is supposed to get to the bottom of what caused the crisis.

The findings of such an inquiry could obviously be of tremendous value for the future of the U.S. economy. But there are already problems with the process – partisan fights over how the commission will be allowed to operate. And while partisan fights are nothing new for the Federal government, they can be particularly lethal to a commission that is designed to make impartial findings in a highly politically sensitive topic.

That’s why the Roosevelt Institute has launched an open letter and petition drive directed at the commission. The letter asks for some commonsense measures to ensure the commissions efficacy and credibility – appointing a single independent investigator with an ample budget, the ability to hire and fire staff, and the authority to subpoena relevant witnesses.   The current signatories include some pretty big luminaries – from Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to former Secretary of Labor Rob Reich. And you could be next.

For all of our less-than-stellar economic indicators, one thing our generation has going for us is political momentum. So if you’re inclined, tweet, post, digg, etc the letter to spread the word. This commission isn’t just a one-time political cause; the findings of Pecora I resulted in policies and institutions that continue to shape the economy over 70 years later. Young people, then, have the most at stake. It’s time to let the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission know that we know this: the foundation of future policy depends on an impartial, thorough accounting of the past.

America’s Youth Speaking Up

Sehar Sabir, University of Maryland College Park

With the onslaught of what has been dubbed to be the worst economy in the United States since the Great Depression, pay checks may be getting smaller but the visibility of an overlooked generation is getting larger. When President Barack Obama was elected into office, the youth movement became widely recognized as an influential, inspirational, and fresh force that had immensely aided Obama in winning the election. And once he took oath it simply got stronger.

The 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs campaign has become the latest phenomenon, for it is fighting to bring justice to the millennial generation in regards to the employment opportunities that they deserve, but have been deprived of. Young Americans ages 16-24 represent 15% of the labor force yet 1/3 of the unemployed. This disproportionate effect in job distribution is causing the disgruntled voices of America’s younger generation to get louder and louder, demanding that lawmakers pay heed to their needs.

Very recently, these voices joined forces from all over the country at the 80 Million Strong summit held in Washington, DC. Members of the millennial generation representing over 30 states flew down to the nation’s capital, demanding that their opinions, their struggles, and their stories be heard on the issue that’s devastating so many young lives. What they may not have realized however, was the significant impact this initiative would have.

With powerful speeches and famous faces, from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to Majority Whip James Clyburn, it was inevitable that hearts would be touched and actions would be inspired when a room full of neglected youth fighting to make a change gathered to shape their own economic future. By collaborating with each other on policy ideas and then lobbying those ideas, over 100 young activists were able to shine the spotlight on the problem of youth unemployment.

All attempts at progress come with obstacles however. It often got stressful, for personal emotions and passions tended to conflict with the efficiency of some elements in the process to construct a unified platform that could be lobbied. At times, it seemed as though morale was being lost, anxiety was thwarting advancement, and simple frustration was causing miscommunication; in the end though, everyone was able to touch base with reason that brought them together in that stuffy conference room on Capitol Hill- the desire to bring justice to the generation that truly is the future of America.

This dedication finally did pay off. After the conclusion of the summit, Chairman George Miller House Education and Labor committee said that 80 Million Strong will be granted a hearing to further discuss the policy proposals that were homogenously voted on and agreed on to be revolutionary during the summit. 80 Million Strong has finally won one more battle in its war against the effects of the economic crisis on the millennial generation and I can assure you that this is not the last you will hear from the coalition for young American jobs; in fact, it is just the beginning of what will soon become a ground-breaking movement.

empujar el botón de reajuste

U.S. Marines @ Guantanamo Bay recently conducted a training exercise with the Cuban Frontier Brigade, simulating joint-response efforts to a natural disaster. While military photos of the operation were withheld by the U.S. government, officials from Southern Command were allowed to comment on the incident.

Also, apparently last month, U.S. Archbishop Timothy Broglio was given a special flight by the Army from Guantanamo to the Caymans-so that he could catch a flight to Havana and minister across the country.

These events can be considered as low-level tests by the Obama Administration in preparation of dismantling the Cuban Embargo and freeze in diplomatic and civic exchange. Stay tuned. Depsite the vocal fears issued from the Far Left, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is changing…one small step at a time.

The Elderly, the Obese, and the Public Option

David Weinberger, CUNY Hunter College

In what I hope will be a four-part series of posts, I’ll review coverage recommendations for the pending public health care option, as is currently being considered in the United States Congress.

Fast-forward four months, and President Obama has just signed a piece of legislation initiating some sort of national public option plan. For the first time in American history, health care is a federally guaranteed right. But what does the plan entail? Is it really competitive in a preexisting, cutthroat, multi-billion dollar industry?

The AP reported this month that the coming round of Medicare beneficiaries, the oldest tier of baby boomers, have obesity rates that greatly exceed those of their predecessors:

“[…] That translates into a coming jump of obese Medicare patients that ranges from 5.2 percent in New York to a high of 16.3 percent in Alabama, the report concluded.”[1]

Now, for the first time, among the stakeholders in the obesity crisis is the American taxpayer. Whether you agree with its right to exist or not, the Medicare program costs real tax dollars:

“Studies show Medicare spends anywhere from $1,400 to $6,000 more annually on health care for an obese senior than for the non-obese.”[2]

So, how do we offset this impending budgetary threat? A public option, much like Medicare, can only be sustainable if we as a nation do the best that we can to cut back on health care costs. The importance of preventative care seems to be a fixture in the argument for the public option, but the specifics—what constitute preventative care—have not yet been decided upon.

Obesity should of course be prevented to the largest extent that is possible within the confines of legislation, and I do believe that President Obama has been a great advocate for that element of public health. Obesity itself, although arguably a preventable condition, is simply a conduit to other, more expensive diseases and conditions, and should therefore be attacked as a threat, as well as its own ailment. Its treatment should not be considered only a remedy, but should instead be considered a preventative measure. When we treat an obese patient (i.e., through weight loss procedures), we should consider this treatment as a way of preventing cardiac diseases and diabetes, and not as a treatment of its own ends.

Bariatric surgeries average between $17,000 to $35,000 per patient, compared to $46,000, the average cost of a comprehensive heart bypass surgery.

We see then that the cost of providing an obese adult with affordable weight-loss surgery under the public option is significantly less than the cost of a lifesaving surgery for an obese older person in cardiac arrest. Of course, if the bariatric surgery were made a right, it would not come without trial. To prevent this life-changing procedure from becoming one that is exclusively cosmetic, we would preserve the same measures of member qualification analysis that private insurers currently employ. The list of requisites prior to going under the knife includes a number of pre-screenings and approval by primary care physicians and specialists and, often, mental health counselors.

Extreme weight loss procedures such as stomach stapling and gastric bypass are incredible preventative procedures for which we should be paying. The bottom line is that, if the public option does not include weight loss surgeries and encourage early obesity intervention, then we are going to pay in the form of real human lives and taxpayer dollars.

Coverage for weight loss surgery under the public option is not only a question of morality or ideology, but an economic imperative that we help obese Americans prevent the slew of diseases and dangers that come with the condition.

 

---

[1] “Mississippi’s still fattest but Alabama closing in”. Lauran Neergaard. Associated Press Archive. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=APAB&p_theme=apab&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=obesity&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22obesity%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no. July 1, 2009 (accessed July 1, 2009)

[2] Ibid.

Shopping for Democracy @ the Banana Republic

-Reese Neader-

Consider Honduras: More than 60 percent of the country lives in poverty, with more than 40 percent of the population living on less than $2/ day. This is the country that coined the popular phrase, “Banana Republic”-being run for decades by a decadent and brutally repressive overclass getting its mandate from U.S. national (business) interests. Until last week, Honduras was not on the radar…

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE:

When he took office in 2006, Manuel Zelaya was a moderate-right canidate that represented the establishment Liberal Party. But, as luck would have it, political reality transformed him into a pragmatic populist.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, rammed through by the Bush Administration in 2007, serves as the perfect example of why the global capitalist system is under ideological attack. The agreement promised development, but actually drove down wages as Honduras competed for investment dollars with its neighbors.

As the situation in Honduras deteriorated, Zelaya adopted an increasingly liberal platform. He raised the monthly minumum wage for workers by more than 60 percent, giving him massive popularity with the rural poor. In response to the Drug War raging across the Hemisphere, he proposed the legalization of some narcotics. He also steered his country toward the Bolivian Alternative and Petrocaribe.

ONE TOKE OVER THE LINE:

The hammer came down when Zelaya began calling for the democratization of the political system, petitioning his government and calling for a popular referendum to create a constituent assembly that would draft a new, popular Constitution. It should be noted that Zelaya was attempting to subvert the constitutional order of the country (however undemocratic), and that the military was fulfilling its constitutional role as protector-when it stepped into the game. Zelaya only had one month left in his term, was not eligible for reelection, and was suffering from sub-30 percent approval ratings.

Depsite the endemic poverty that exists in the country, Honduras had sustained seven straight peaceful transitions of Presidential power since 1982. The national legislature ordered the arrest of the President, appointed their speaker as the interim President (the legal succesor), and did not institute martial law until after riots ensued.

The most important fact to consider is that the military has not taken control of the country. They ousted Zelaya and escorted him to Costa Rica, and also physically blocked an attempt (sponsored by the international community) to return Zelaya by airplane to the country. But the military has not usurped the national government, which continues to run independently. At least at this point, the national elections slated for November are still scheduled. But…and there is a but….the Constitution of Honduras does not allow the removal of a public official by force.

BLOWBACK:

The United Nations and member states of the OAS have universally condemned the coup and President Obama has issued public statements demanding the reinstatement of Zelaya-asking the ““political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.” The leaders of Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil have been exceptionally harsh in their protest of transpiring events. The OAS issued a 72 hour ultimatum demanding that Zelaya be reinstated, and now-and until further notice-Honduras has been removed from that organizagtion.

But the U.S. does have other strategic concerns. The State Department has continuously chosen not to define the situation in Honduras as a “coup”. Doing so would legally require the U.S. to slap sanctions on the country, which would cause further destabilization. Honduras is the site for the Soto Cano Air Force Base, the largest U.S. military base in the region. The Obama Administration has every intention of keeping the base open and has fostered secret talks with Zelaya, pushing him to tone down his populist rhetoric and rescind his demands for national referendum. Thomas Barnett, a highly respected and popular strategist attached to the Naval War College, wrote a piece for Esquire that praises the efforts of the Honduran military and questions the efficacy of using the term, “coup”, to describe the situation.

Venezuela responded violently to the coup, no doubt upset over the loss of a strategic partner. But early attempts by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to publicly link the coup to a CIA plot looked ridiculous in light of President Obama’s overtures. One day before Zelaya’s removal, the Honduran leader had spoken with Spanish newspaper El Pais, personally thanking Obama for using diplomatic pressure to prevent a coup against him.

Conservative pundits have been trying to brand Obama’s defense of Zelaya as a shocking turn towards Hugo Chavez and Latin American socialism. This is an unfair and ridiculous assumption. Obama recognizes the coup as not only an opportunity to subvert Venezuela’s regional influence and place Chavez in an awkward position, but also to exercise some of the demons of U.S.-Latin American policy.

DIRTY MIRROR:

Zelaya (and other Latin American leaders) might not envision the same brand of democracy that we practice in the United States, but nevertheless they support regional cooperation, dialog, and sustainable development. This is an easy time for the U.S. to demonstrate that it supports democracy without exception. By extending our hand to Honduras, the U.S. can make a cheap expression of solidarity that can open new doors for Hemispheric relations. And that is the only way you can begin to normalize relations with Cuba, fix the Drug War, or stem the tide of anti-American sentiment in the region.

*But perhaps worth considering: noting a concern for the impoverished citizens of Honduras, when does “rule of law” and the preservation of stability (in an unjust social order) take precendence over the desire for freedom and prosperity? Who is entitled to make that decision and why?

Welcome Back to the New America

Wage Peace

Changing Institutions of Higher Education

Kirsten Hill, Tulane University

Kaplan University’s aforementioned ad aimed to “redefine higher education” in the public’s eye and recently succeeded in sparking a much-needed debate over whether or not traditional colleges serve today’s students.

For Kaplan University the answer to this is, traditional universities do not. The plug for this for-profit learning institution is: “get the education you need for the life you want to live.” Kaplan U believes its programs are unique in that they teach you “how to absorb and apply the real-world knowledge that will be meaningful in your professional life.”

But isn’t this what all higher education institutions believe?

Kaplan U is not unique in its beliefs or goals—it is unique in its approach. Kaplan U provides students who may not otherwise be able to attain a higher education with an opportunity to do so. Kaplan gives adults who are either uneducated or interested in becoming more educated a chance to do so. Kaplan U is flexible, affordable and convenient.

In these tough economic times flexibility, convenience and especially affordability are attractive qualities. With rising tuition costs and difficulty attaining loans, the traditional path to higher education is certainly looking less appealing. The Chronicle of Higher Education has recognized the increasing tend towards online education. In their College of 2020 Executive Summary it was noted that the traditional model of college is changing and “the idyll of four years away from home—spent living and learning and growing into adulthood” will continue to become a smaller part of the higher education picture.

While I’m not about to support elimination or even decrease of the traditional college experience, I will say that we could take a few pointers from Kaplan U and change our education system so it better caters to the needs of individual students. We should work to ensure that all schools teach meaningful lessons and help students apply knowledge in the real world.

For youth and adults who don’t have the time or money to attend a traditional college, online programs are a godsend. However, education needs to be more than just sitting in front of a computer screen: students need to be engaged with their education. While for some the only option may be to receive an online education, this should not become the norm. A huge aspect of education is experience. We should capitalize on our youth’s current interest in public service and provide options for students to interact with and help their communities. As mentioned in Kaplan U’s ad we should share student’s talents with the world, but rather than doing this online, we should do this in our local communities.

Traditional University: Fail

Kirsten Hill, Tulane University

Kaplan University’s television ad is considered “the best piece of college marketing this year.” The ad is catchy and appealing; the message blunt: the traditional college system is failing its students.

With such a serious accusation it’s no wonder that colleges are taking offense to this ad. It’s offensive. Old ideas? Wasting talent? Those are pretty harsh statements. But, that being said, I don’t disagree. I love this ad, but not because I think online universities should be the future of our education system.

For many, the ad’s bottom line is that colleges need to be more technologically savvy, offer more online options and start reaching out to adults. I don’t disagree with this; however, I believe that the most important message we can take from this ad is simply that we need to revamp our higher education system. Kaplan University is right on the money: it is time for a new tradition.  Where Kaplan U and I depart is in determining what this new tradition ought to be.

The current education system, “steeped in tradition and old ideas” has failed us. It has failed us because it traps us in a classroom and does not offer us enough opportunities to learn by doing. It has failed us by not making education affordable. It has failed us by not allowing more individualization in our pursuit of a degree.  It most certainly has not failed us (current students) by not being online-friendly. In this sense, it has only failed those who don’t have the time or money to attend a college.

A Brave New War

-Reese Neader-

This past week, the Obama Administration commenced a bold strategic turn in the Long War: U.S. troops withdrew from cities in Iraq and U.S. Marines initiated the beginning of a massive troop surge in Afghanistan aimed at recapturing the country from Taliban elements.

BABYLON DISCO:

In a sweeping ceremony replete with fireworks and protests, Iraq was “officially” handed back its sovereignty (kind of). After six years of occupation, the fragile central government of Iraq celebrated “victory” with parades and fireworks. But the fate of the young country is far from certain. Politics in Iraq are still a very tricky subject. The future of US policy in Iraq is an ongoing conversation, although at this point there is a high level of cautious optimism that the current Iraqi government can provide permanent stability thanks to the tightening grip of President Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa Party . The infamous “Green Zone” was returned to Iraqi control at the beginning of the year, and the top US commander in Iraq has stated that the Iraqi military is ready to take control of security operations. President Obama has scheduled all US combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by 2011, but has stated that he is ready to be flexible to the demands of shifting political realities.

It should be noted that an unintended consequence of American influence in the country has been the widespread dissemination of US pop culture transmitted to Iraqi youth in occupied country. With democratization has also come the rising popularity of alcohol, prostitution, and drug abuse. Whenever US soldiers make their final exit, American culture has left a lasting imprint on the people of Iraq.

CLIMBING THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN:

While US troop levels have been well documented for having a severe straining effect on combat readiness, US engagement in Afghanistan has bolstered the experience of young soldiers who will take crucial leadership positions in the coming years. While there has been a strong learning curve, US military presence in the region has provided invaluable lessons for our military as we march warily into the 21st century.

Re-thinking Afghanistan has allowed the US to create a more robust and integrated response towards the generation of security in the country. Examples of new thinking have included promoting ambitious agricultural programs that stimulate the economy, provide jobs for impoverished citizens, and reduce dependence on opium production. President Obama has stressed the important linkages between defense, development, and diplomacy; and the recent troop surge is only one phase of a multi-pronged push to embrace a more holistic (and hopefully much more succesful) version of national security in Afghanistan.

GROWING THE EMPIRE:

Even as the US continues to rapidly shrink its presence in Iraq and turn up the heat in Af-Pak operations, the dimensions of the Long War continue to expand. Central Asia, the major supply hub for Af-Pak operations, is coming under increasing attention as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan offer new challenges and opportunities for strategic planning.

It remains to be seen what course the Long War will take. But what is for sure is that as you read this strategists within the Pentagon are waging a war of opinion about how to retool the US military for tomorrow’s engagement. The celebration of our national birth and the corresponding events of the past week should give pause to the reader…What should be our Grand Strategy? What should your army look like? And can we afford it?

Welcome Back to the New America.

Wage Peace.

The Conservative’s Path to Gay Marriage Recognition

Kate O’Gorman, Barnard College

The conservative right may have stumbled on an opportunity for same-sex marriage activists. They’ve muddied the waters of the interstate recognition of marriage by adding a new form of marriage to the mix: covenant marriage.

Covenant marriage restricts access to divorce by eliminating the option to obtain a “no-fault” divorce, and increases the requirements for a marriage license. Covenant marriage couples must undergo marriage counseling before marriage and choose covenant marriage with a declaration of intent. When married, couples may only divorce for a small number of reasons, such as adultery, physical or sexual abuse, or abandonment.

Though it has been considered in over thirty states, the majority of American states do not have covenant marriage programs. Only law in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Arizona, covenant marriage further calls into question how marriages accepted in only a few states should be recognized across state lines. How are states without covenant marriage treating covenant marriage couples that have moved to their state?

It appears as though the jury is still out on this one. Scholars of covenant marriage have offered three solutions: 1) allow the covenant marriage state to maintain jurisdiction because of its particular claim in the divorce, 2) treat a covenant marriage as a contract and honor it in the new state, or 3) revert the marriage into a traditional marriage without the restrictions of covenant marriage once the couple crosses state lines. Thus far, it seems as though at least Texas has chosen door number 3, allowing a covenant couple to be divorced without restrictions. This policy, however, seems to take some of the bite out of covenant marriage. Not happy with your marriage? Just cross state lines.

Thus, in order to be effective, covenant marriage should be recognized across state lines.  Yet, covenant marriage appeals to many of the same constituencies that decry the interstate recognition of same-sex marriages, such as Ann Coulter who I questioned at a recent Columbia University speech and Huckabee, who converted his marriage to a covenant marriage in 2005. While I doubt hypocrisy is of great concern, how can a state recognize covenant marriage, an alternative marriage available in only three states, when it does not recognize same-sex marriage? These alternative forms of marriage, appealing to folks on opposite sides of the political spectrum, deserve the same treatment: they should be recognized across the US. Isn’t that what the Full Faith and Credit Clause is for?

So, here’s an idea: if we want to uphold and protect the institution of marriage, let’s honor it, in all of its forms. By discarding the marriages formed in other states, all marriage contracts are cheapened because of their dubious legitimacy in other states. We honor marriage best by celebrating the expression of love by two individuals, regardless of whether they are a same-sex couple, a covenant couple, or a traditional married couple.

Analyzing The Iran Protests From Afar: What We See, or What We Want to See?

Morgan Hoban, UC Davis

News media and bloggers have in the past few days focused their attention on Iran. And, rightfully so; massive protests against what is perceived to be a rigged Presidential election is terribly newsworthy. And with the reporting has come the commentary and analysis. We are being told that these are the largest demonstrations since the 1979 revolution, suggesting in a not too subtle manner that another may be afoot.  The BBC recently posted an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108499.stm) including this quote: ” The rallying cry of the protesters has been “death to the dictator”, and the BBC’s Jon Leyne in Tehran says the chant is surely directed at Ayatollah Khameneni…… Whether the protesters understand it or not, our correspondent says, they are implicitly challenging the whole system.” (Orientalist dejavue anyone?)

Are they? Really?

Does having a pro-democracy rally mean you want to tear down the current government? Is it possible that even though many western observers view the entire structure of the government established by the 1979 revolution as totalitarian, Iranians may view it as a sound republican structure with an imperfect execution? Is it possible that the mass protests in favor of opposition candidate Mousavi have the more limited aim of simply advocating that the right the structure of the Islamic Republic grants them to elect their President should not be taken away from them? That they are fighting not against the government, but excessive governmental control that oversteps its institutional bounds? Mousavi ran on a platform of reform, not revolution.

My point is that those were the words of the Jon Leyne, not a quote from one of the protesters. While the protests may indeed be advocating another revolution, they may not.

As we observe events in Iran, it would be a serious mistake to assume that the priorities and opinions of those protesters mirror our own. These are men and women are putting themselves directly in harm’s way for what they believe in. Whether they are advocating for a new revolution, the more modest goal of preserving the democratic functions that the government grants them, or something in between, they are taking a stand for democratic principles. It would be tragic if in covering and publicizing these events we ascribed words and intentions that not only misrepresent what they are trying to do, but potentially make things even more difficult for them (It would be easier for the police to violently suppress “anti-government revolutionary activities” than a “peaceful reform demonstration”).

I think we owe it to the protesters that in coverage of their protests we should strive to represent and reflect their aims and objectives; not our own.

——————————————-

The morning after I posted, the NY Times published this op-ed by an Iranian student. I think it is in the spirit of the post to include the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19shane.html