Policymakers Newsfeed

Invitation To A Health Care Reform Dialogue

Francie Grace — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:43:07 -0500

On too many issues, the political discussion provides more heat than light, and the public doesn't have a chance to deliberate over the choices for solving problems. That certainly applies to health care reform, an area in which opinion is split, often in contradictory ways.

A Gallup poll last month found 54 percent who said it's a government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, and 41 percent who said the opposite. At the same time, 25 percent said they expected to support the final health care bill, 33 percent expected to oppose it, and 39 percent said it all depends on decisions yet to be made about the legislation.

So here's an invitation for citizens to step up and be part of the debate: the National Issues Forum Institute (NIFI) is holding an online deliberation on health care. Here's the link to use to join the deliberation: http://nifi-healthcare.dialoguecircles.com - - you can also forward this URL to colleagues and others who might want to join in, or post it on your Twitter feed or Facebook site. To get ready, you can check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and NIFI's health care workbook, based on research by the Kettering Foundation.

Still Number One

Scott Bittle — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:30:36 -0500

As if anyone needed proof that immigration will remain a major issue, a new international survey reports that some 700 million people worldwide say they would move to another country if they could. Not surprisingly, the largest single group, one-quarter, say their first choice would be to come to the United States.

We can't speak to the view of those overseas, but we can certainly talk about the immigrants who are already here. In our survey of immigrants, A Place to Call Home, we found a powerful endorsement of life in America. More than seven in 10 say that if they could do it all over again, they'd still come to the United States. Just as many say they intend to make the United States their permanent home.

The reasons are simple enough: immigrants buy into American society. Three-quarters say the United States is "a unique country that stands for something special." Strong majorities also rate the U.S. as better than their birth country on a range of dimensions, including making a good living, having a trustworthy legal system and providing education and health care.

With all the ups and downs of our international reputation, with all the challenges we face, people still want to come to America. And the ones who have already come here, want to stay. That's a powerful endorsement – and in fact, you couldn't ask for a better one.

The "Awkward Age" – America's Human Resources Challenge

Francie Grace — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:41:25 -0500

The term used to be applied to early adolescence, but there's a new tricky phase of life: people from their late 50s to late 60s: healthier and longer-lived than previous generations, and many wanting or needing to stay in the workforce. So says Public Agenda's Andrew Yarrow, in a Baltimore Sun Op Ed with a lot of great links to organizations that are helping both older workers and the economy, with job training programs and opportunities for those who'd like to share their experience with others a few years behind them in their careers. Click here to check out the full article.

The new 'awkward age'

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:42:40 -0500

Reprinted from The Baltimore Sun

By Andrew L. Yarrow

Millions between midlife and old age need jobs, security and a new sense of purpose

"The Awkward Age" was a term long applied to early adolescence. Today, for demographic and economic reasons, a new awkward age has emerged in the United States: people from their late 50s to late 60s. They are not "old," as a 65-year-old would have been considered 50 years ago, but they're just beyond midlife. Conventionally, this age group has been seen as on the cusp of retirement or retired, doting on their grandchildren.

Today, the picture no longer fits many of the tens of millions of Americans at this stage of life, who - in our youth-obsessed culture - generally don't think of themselves as old. Americans live 15 years longer than two generations ago. Many at this stage of life need or want to work longer. The challenge for us is both ensuring economic well-being for this rapidly growing population and helping define a new identity and purpose for people who are neither middle-aged nor truly elderly.

Many older Americans want to work or are forced by economic need to do so. Yet, they face disincentives ranging from access to Social Security, private pensions and Medicare to our society's lingering belief that it is "normal" to retire somewhere between 62 and 66 (if not earlier), to forced early retirement and, usually, subtle age discrimination. Social Security reform proposals include raising the full eligibility age, and the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act barred employers from not hiring someone because of their age.

But demographic and employment projections pose huge challenges for this group - challenges that will only accelerate during coming decades. Of the 60 million citizens 55 and over, 25 million work (70 percent of 55-to-64-year-olds and 29 percent of those over 65, compared with 84 percent of people between 25 and 54). Labor force participation for those 65 and older has doubled during the last 15 years, although the rate is still much lower than at the end of World War II, when people died much earlier (and many simply worked until they died).

America is aging and people are healthy and active ever longer, but labor force growth is slowing: Between 2006 and 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the work force will increase by 83 percent among those over 65 and 36 percent among Americans 55 to 64 but barely 2 percent for those between 25 and 54 - and it will continue to decrease among those in their early 20s.

So, what should individuals do during this awkward age? And what do we do as a nation that needs employment to strengthen economic growth? In addition, how do we help these tens of millions of Americans find new identity and meaning for their lives, while ensuring their economic security?

For individuals, the long-term outlook is bleak if they want to work, even though over-55's have experienced less unemployment than younger Americans during this recession. The New America Foundation recently estimated that America needs to create nearly a million jobs a year just to keep pace with population growth, but the ugly truth is that net job creation has been slowing to a crawl, even before the recession. America created jobs between 1990 and 2005 at half the rate that it did during the preceding 15 years. Although employment projections are hotly debated and can be thrown off by unexpected factors, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects job growth to fall by another 50 percent between 2006 and 2016. Other analysts are gloomier.

Huge increases in the over-55 population and job growth heading south don't paint a pretty picture. Do we allow, or force, more older Americans to retire, increasing the burden on an already-strained Social Security system? Do we leave many over-55's with less income, perhaps diminished self-esteem and happiness, and a lot of time on their hands? Doing nothing also would mean lower tax revenues and higher unemployment insurance costs for government, and higher (re)training costs for government and business, and for our other social assistance and insurance programs. What's more, adult children of this "young old" population may have to provide economic support, have their parents move in, and deal with their elders' depression and boredom.

So, what are alternative scenarios for Americans in this awkward age? For starters, government and business could invest much more in older worker training programs and expand existing ones such as the Labor Department's Senior Community Service Employment Program. Private employers and government could be provided tax breaks or subsidies to hire over 55's (ideally, such incentives could be recouped through higher tax revenues). Beyond working as greeters in Wal-Marts - or the better option of embarking on new careers based on unfulfilled lifelong interests - older Americans could help address many pressing national needs, such as looming teacher shortages, caregiving for the very elderly, mentoring the young and providing support for charitable and nonprofit organizations. Many also could be hired part-time for their experience, to train and impart knowledge to younger workers.

IBM has been a leader, with its Transition to Teaching, Bridgestar initiative and FedExperience Pilot Program to provide money and training to help older employees transition into new careers. Other employers should be much less averse to people 55 and older contributing their experience or retooling themselves and starting new careers. Community colleges also have been leaders for older Americans who want to redefine themselves in their careers. Federal initiatives such as the Senior Corps volunteer program could be significantly expanded.

Beyond employment, the broader culture needs to catch up with 21st century America. We may applaud George H.W. Bush for skydiving at 85 or John Glenn for returning to space at 77. Media and advertising encourage older Americans to look, act and think young. Yet, public distaste for the idea of people over 55 starting new careers also needs to change. We need role models in TV, film and other media portraying successful older workers, as well as more older fashion models (such as the woman selling glamour in a recent Dove soap commercial).

Demographic, economic, public policy and cultural factors will continue to influence what American life will be like in this new awkward age. However, we need to recognize the problems and act to provide more choices and opportunities to benefit this rapidly growing segment of the population - and our nation as a whole.

Andrew L. Yarrow is vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University. He is the author of Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility and the forthcoming book "Measuring America." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

The Best Idea Yet on Climate Change

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:59 -0500

At one of the last preliminary meetings leading up to the international climate change conference, a U.N. official called on the diplomats to craft "simple, clear options for politicians" at Copenhagen.

An excellent idea, but they've left it until pretty late in the day. And when they've created these clear options, they might want to let the public in on them, too.

If Public Agenda's work in public engagement has taught us anything, it's that people need options. That's how most people make decisions, by weighing alternatives and considering tradeoffs. And that's what has been missing from much of the debate so far. Most people have been confused more than engaged, and that doesn't help when it comes to making the choices needed: not just whether we switch away from fossil fuels, but to what alternatives, and how quickly?

Those choices might also be useful in Washington, where a Senate committee is supposed to vote on a major climate change bill. But the Democrats are divided and the Republicans may not even show up, so the fate of the bill remains uncertain. This comes back to tradeoffs, too.

Filling in the knowledge gaps and explaining the options for change may be the most important element in solving our energy problems. Because if world leaders still need to have the options laid out before making a decision, imagine how the public feels.

Supporting Teacher Talent

Peiting Chen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:40:10 -0500

At the same time, only ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success.

The findings, which include an exploration of attitudes toward unions, are part of a national study designed to provide a comprehensive and nuanced look at the question of whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the first report in this series, Teaching For A Living: How Teachers See The Profession Today, released on Oct. 19, 2009.

Chilly Reception for Climate Change Bill?

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:47:56 -0500

The Senate environment committee is supposed to vote on a landmark bill to fight climate change this week. But the legislation's fate is in doubt as Democrats remain divided and Republicans may not even show up. The core of the struggle comes over the crucial part of any proposal to deal with energy and global warming: making tradeoffs. We've got resources to help you work through the choices senators are wrestling with, including Who Turned Out the Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, the new book by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson. Click here to learn more.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:25 -0500

New research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates examining the views of Generation Y teachers shows that 71 percent are open to financial incentives for teachers who consistently work harder and put in more time and effort. Just ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success. The study, examining whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching, is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Young Teachers Assess Old Views and Traditional Methods

Peiting Chen — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:57:52 -0400

Stimulated, But Worried (With Good Reason)

Francie Grace — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:00:00 -0400

There was both joy and skepticism on Wall Street, as third quarter GDP figures showed growth in the U.S. economy for the first time in over a year, a 3.5 percent annual rate expansion fanned by government stimulus spending seen as suggesting an end to the recession.

One group not seen stocking up on party hats is the economists. "The economy has emerged with gusto from the deepest recession since World War II," Unicredit Markets economist Harm Bandholz told Reuters. "The short-term prospects for the economy remain good."

"Short-term" is, indeed, the watchword, and Reuters underscores it with the words of economist Chris Low: "The economy is entirely dependent on federal deficit spending at the moment… Once the government steps aside, growth is likely to fall back to a one to two percent rate of growth."

So the long-term problem of the federal budget deficit and escalating national debt remains, and will have to be dealt with before the long-term is allowed to play out. That's a message you've heard here before – but here are a few new tidbits to help you wrap your mind around the issue and get involved in making the spending choices that are determining our present and shaping our future:

Lessons from the land of the rising sun: Japan, which has tried government deficit spending as an economic cure for a lot longer and to the point where its gross public debt is now twice the size of its $5 trillion economy (U.S. debt is nearly 98% of GDP), is now being treated to analysts wondering about the yen, with one suggesting its bond-financing strategy could falter within three to five years.

The merging of two titan issues: deficit reduction and health care. Democrats rallying for the latest version of the health care bill said the Congressional Budget Office estimated the coverage-related cost at $894 billion over the next ten years. Christina Romer, the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in a speech Monday, was emphatic that it would be "fiscally irresponsible not to do health care reform" and stressed that "we are also on track to meet the president's promise that health care reform will not add one dime to the deficit."

The Prosperity Index. Finland's #1. Click here to see how we're doing. Then check out our resources on this topic – the Citizen's Survival Kit and the Facing Up web site and curriculum for citizens and students – and get started. Each of us is able to both understand what's at stake and do something about it.

The Smart Approach to a Smart Grid

Scott Bittle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:08:17 -0400

Don't feel bad if your eyes glazed over this story reporting the Obama administration is going to put $3.4 billion behind an upgraded electrical grid – the so-called "smart grid." But it may match the Senate climate change hearings as the most important energy story of the day – and it's no less important when it comes to getting the public on board.

As a discussion topic, the electrical grid combines the excitement of municipal water and sewer systems with the seductive allure of the tax code. Yet our current grid is aging, increasingly overloaded, and not up to the challenges we're going to face.

Here are a few of the things the country won't be able to do unless we upgrade the grid:

Expand wind and solar power. The best places for wind farms, for example, are on the Great Plains, but not that many of us live on the prairie. We need better long-distance lines to carry the power to where it’s needed. Plus, the grid needs to be able to deal with the peaks and valleys in power generation that occur naturally when the wind dies off or the sun goes down.

Move to electric cars. If people are going to start driving cars like the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf, that means less use of oil but more demand on our electricity grid. That means an increase in demand, and maybe making electric charging stations as common as gas stations are now.

Just keep up with demand. Even if relatively little changes about how we get our energy, the country is going to demand more and more of it over the next 20 years. Right now the power grid is already running close to capacity in certain parts of the country, like Southern California and the New York-Washington corridor. A better grid will help avoid summer blackouts and other potential problems.

The "smart grid" would combine the communications power of the Internet with the brute force capacity of the current network. For example, right now the utility knows how much power you’re using, but not necessarily why you’re using it. A smart grid would allow the utility to know much more precisely what was causing a surge in demand, and shift resources to meet it. And technology at your business or home would know the grid was approaching capacity and be able to make its own adjustments, cutting back on the electricity you could afford to give up (say, adjusting your thermostat) while keeping the essential stuff.

Plus, upgrading the grid is about as bipartisan as energy policy gets, with backing ranging from environmental groups to business leaders. So why should the public care? Can't we leave this to the professionals, the power companies and the engineers?

The problem is that upgrading the grid is going to touch a lot of people very closely. Local groups frequently resist new power lines or power plants in their neighborhood. People aren't used to the idea of the power company playing Big Brother with their energy use.

The smart grid is like just about every other aspect of energy policy: it touches people too closely to take public opinion for granted. Policies that seem like no-brainers to the experts can still run afoul of the public if they're not handled right. That's completely avoidable. But it means someone has to take the time to explain the options to people and help them weigh the choices. We've made a start on doing that.

Because if you want people to plug in the smart grid, you've got to take the time to get them to buy in first.

The Number That Matters Most for the Climate Change Debate

Scott Bittle — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:30:12 -0400

As the Senate holds hearings on a major climate change bill this week, you're going to hear a lot of numbers: 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, 350 parts per million, and $100 per household. But the best number to focus on may be this one: 55.

Students in the Dominican Republic on 350 Day, part of an international campaign calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases.

That's the percentage of Americans who say they've heard "nothing at all" about cap and trade legislation, according to the Pew Research Center. That didn't get as much attention as another finding in the same survey, that fewer Americans say there's "solid evidence" of global warming, but it may be just as significant to the debate.

In another Pew survey, only 23 percent correctly identified cap-and-trade as having to do with energy and the environment. That jives with the low knowledge levels Public Agenda found in our own research.

That means the public is still a long way from being fully engaged in this issue. You don't have to be an expert to play a role in these decisions, but you do need some basic knowledge in order to follow the discussion. Right now, despite the efforts of activists, we've still got a way to go, and there are still lots of ways this debate can stall or get hijacked.

But there are easy ways to get up to speed on hard choices. The public can play a real part in this debate – if we give them what they need.

Inflation On Campus

Francie Grace — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:54:20 -0400

Dig deeper! Tuition and fees are up by about 6.5 percent at public four-year colleges, which are struggling with state budget cuts, and by about 4.4 percent at private colleges, hit by stock market losses in their endowments. The report from the College Board comes as our research shows a majority believes a college degree is both an indispensable ticket to the middle class and increasing numbers of people believe college is financially out of reach for many qualified students. To learn more, see our studies on this issue: Squeeze Play, Campus Commons, The Iron Triangle and Sharing The Dream.

Teaching for a Living

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:59:00 -0400

Two out of five of American K-12 teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to Public Agenda's Teaching for a Living study, conducted with Learning Point Associates and released in association with Education Week.

The research, designed to learn more about how to support and retain the most promising teachers, focuses on questions like why people become teachers, what are their frustrations, and what reforms they think would improve their work.

Our findings include a cluster analysis revealing three distinct groups of teachers: the “Disheartened,” the “Contented,” and the “Idealists.”

This is the first in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the second report, Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y, released Nov. 2, 2009. For more information, please contact Public Agenda communications manager Melissa Feldsher at mfeldsher@publicagenda.org or 212-686-6610, extension 50.

On Energy, It Takes More Than 'Eureka'

Scott Bittle — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:56:56 -0400

The Wall Street Journal has a big energy section today on "five technologies that could change everything." The Journal backs it up by posing this point:

"Admit it: When you think about our need to be less reliant on nonrenewable, greenhouse-gas-emitting sources of energy, part of you wishes, hopes, believes that technology will come to the rescue."

It's certainly a common enough view – the fact that Americans have faith in technology is nothing new. But surprisingly it's not necessarily a majority. In Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve, we found 41 percent who believed technology will solve the global warming problem "without requiring major sacrifices." But 48 percent said society would have to make major sacrifices to solve the problem.

That also depends on your definition of sacrifice. Actually bringing any energy technology to market, even the ones we have now, even the ones that sound like "magic bullets," requires some tradeoffs, as you can see in these stories about renewable energy and in the controversy over solar plants in the California desert.

Getting the technology to work is only part of the problem. Whatever choices we make have to be economically viable and publically acceptable. And that's always the hard part.

Teaching for a Living: Voices From The Classroom

Scott Bittle — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:28:49 -0400

Two out of five of America’s teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to new research released by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates in association with Education Week. The new report probes why people become teachers, their frustrations, and what reforms they favor. We find teachers fall into three groups: the Disheartened, the Contented and the Idealists. Find out more about what this may mean for our schools in Teaching for a Living, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

Beyond the Plateau on Math Scores

Scott Bittle — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:52:56 -0400

The latest edition of the "nation's report card" shows that math scores failed to improve for the first time since 1990, and you don't have to have great math skills to know that isn't good enough. But how do we move skills forward?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported this week that fourth-grade math skills have been flat since 2007, after more than 17 years of steady if limited progress. That's prompted a lot of debate over whether this means the federal No Child Left Behind law has stalled, what this may mean for the standards movement in general, and how we teach math in the public schools.

Those are all critical points. Based on Public Agenda's research, we'd suggest one more factor to think about: parents.

Overall, we've found that parents see standards as "necessary, but not sufficient" in raising student achievement. But we've also found a troubling complacency among parents about math and science achievement, in particular. Parents say they're generally satisfied with the math education their children get, and their concern about math and science achievement declined since the mid-1990s. To be fair, that was during a period when NAEP math scores were rising. But parents certainly didn't share the urgency of business and academic leaders, who worry that the U.S. has a lot further to do, and is in danger of losing its edge in math and science.

Our work also suggests ways of closing that urgency gap. In Kansas City, where our public engagement team has worked with local groups on math and science education, we found it helps to"speak the language of opportunity," pointing out the connection between math skills and getting ahead in life.

The other question the new scores raise is how well teachers are performing when it comes to math. NAEP did an intriguing analysis this time based on the training of math teachers: whether they had an undergraduate degree in math or in education.

According to NAEP's analysis, fourth-graders whose teachers reported having an undergraduate major in education scored higher than those with teachers who reported having a minor or not having a degree in education. Eighth-graders with teachers who had an undergraduate major or minor in math scored higher than students whose teachers did not have a major or minor in math.

Our 2007 Lessons Learned survey of first-year teachers had an interesting counterpoint to this. We asked elementary school teachers if they felt "confident and well-prepared" to teach different subjects. This isn't a measure of how well teachers are actually trained – just where they feel confident and where they feel shaky.

There wasn't much difference in reading and math, with 64 percent saying they were "very confident" teaching reading and writing and 61 percent very confident in math. In math, there wasn't any statistically significant difference between alternative certification teachers and those who were traditionally trained (although the alternative certification teachers had unique concerns in other areas, like not getting enough support overall).

For more elementary school teachers, the weak area turned out to be not math, but science, where only 38 percent said they were very confident.

Q14. (From Lessons Learned) How confident and well-prepared are you in each of the following subject areas. (First,) How confident and well-prepared are you in ...?

READ FOR FIRST ITEM, THEN AS NECESSARY: Are you very confident and well-prepared, somewhat confident and well-prepared, not too confident and well-prepared, or not at all confident and well-prepared?

		Very	Somewhat	Not too	Not at all	DK/Ref.	(N)
a. Math	Total	61%	31%	4%	1%	2%	(440)
b. Science	Total	38%	48%	10%	1%	3%	(440)
c. Reading and Writing	Total	64%	30%	4%	*	2%	(440)

Afghanistan & The War On Terror

Francie Grace — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:44:27 -0400

Is Afghanistan a war of necessity or a war of choice? That's the frame that Council on Foreign Relations president Dr. Richard Haass suggests be used in thinking about U.S. foreign policy decisions. Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, Haass argued that a war of necessity must be both a matter of vital national interest and one with no viable alternative. Haas also talked about the war to win hearts and minds of potential terror trainees. "How do we break the recruiting train?" he asked. "How do we persuade young men to make a much different career choice?" Click here to see video of the event.

Afghanistan & The War On Terror

Francie Grace — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:36:36 -0400

Dr. Richard Haass (left), president of the Council of Foreign Relations, discusses U.S. foreign policy priorities with Richard Siegel, of National Public Radio, at the October 2009 Maxwell School/ Public Agenda Policy Breakfast Series in New York.

Is Afghanistan a war of necessity or a war of choice? That's the frame that Dr. Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, suggests be used in thinking about U.S. foreign policy decisions to be made in that region.

Speaking at the Oct. 8, 2009, Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast in New York, Haass took issue with President Obama's characterization of Afghanistan as "a war of necessity." Haass, who was a foreign policy adviser in both Bush presidencies, argues that in order to be a war of necessity, two conditions must be met: is the war of vital national interest, and is there no viable alternative?

"I don't believe either condition is met in Afghanistan today," said Haass, making the case that the country of Afghanistan is not necessarily central to the global war against terrorism, as terrorist groups can and have set up shop in many different countries including Pakistan. And that, he notes, is a country in which the U.S. has "one of the scratchiest relationships," with very limited influence.

Haass - who's out with a book on this view of foreign policy decisions "War of Necessity, War of Choice: a memoir of Two Iraq Wars" – also talked about the war to win hearts and minds of potential terror trainees. "How do we break the recruiting train?" he asked. "How do we persuade young men to make a much different career choice?"

You can check out Haass' comments and the discussion for yourself: video of the event is on the Policy Breakfast web site. Another good resource on this subject: our Confidence in Foreign Policy Index, which last year showed 77 percent of Americans surveyed saying that they believed doing more to help Muslims develop economically would enhance our national security either "somewhat" or "a great deal."

Climate Change, Blackadder, and Percentages of Mystery

Scott Bittle — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:37:56 -0400

The battle over climate change has been joined in the Senate, and judging from the first day, it's not only going to be as heated as health care, it's also going to be just as obscure.

The first news stories, for example, tell us that the Senate version of a global warming bill introduced this week wants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels, compared with 17 percent in the House bill.

This puts us in mind of a scene from the old British TV comedy Blackadder, a must-see for lovers of truly fine sarcasm. One of the characters confidently tells Blackadder that a princess' eyes are said to be even more blue than the "famous Stone of Galveston." "So what you're telling me, Percy," Blackadder says witheringly, "is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen."

Don't worry; it's not just Congress. The international climate conference in Copenhagen is already shaping up as an argument between those who think we should cut greenhouse emissions 17 percent to 23 percent, versus those who think we need to cut them up to 40 percent (from 1990 levels).

These are perfectly valid, even vital targets for scientists and political leaders to argue about. But this is policymaking for elites, not the public. As far as most people are concerned, these dueling percentages don't mean much; you might as well be asking about the relative blueness of the stone of Galveston.

The problem is, of course, that the average person has no particular stake in the stone of Galveston, but they do have a huge stake in where their energy comes from. People need electricity. They need transportation. And right now they get most of that energy from fossil fuels, which are both in limited supply and linked to global warming.

What people need to grapple with this problem isn't a debate over percentages; they need basic facts, like what our energy needs are likely to be. And we’re talking fundamentals here: Coal contributes to global warming (at least the way we use it now) but nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal don’t. Our surveys show that substantial numbers of Americans don’t have even this minimal level of knowledge under their belts. They also need choices about what to do next. They need to be able to weigh alternatives realistically. What would it actually take to switch away from fossil fuels? How long would it take? How much would it cost?

These are the questions that will help the public, and the answers are critical to how they will respond to any proposal. Energy is a problem with multiple dimensions: how much it costs, whether our sources are secure, and what it does to the environment. Our Energy Learning Curve™ shows that the public's worried about all these issues, and price and security are even bigger concerns than global warming.

You're not going to ease those concerns with percentages. You're going to ease them by laying out what's reasonable and what's not, and what the tradeoffs might be. Unless we start talking about the problem in those terms, we might end up with percentages that don’t mean anything, not merely because they're confusing but because the public won't be willing to do what's needed to make them real.

How Economic Insecurity is Pressuring Social Security

Scott Bittle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:02:30 -0400

Here's a measure of both how important Social Security is and the problems it faces: the program will actually run a deficit over the next two years because fewer people are paying in and more are applying for benefits.

Of course, over the long term, that's the fundamental problem facing Social Security. As the baby boomers retire, there aren't going to be enough people paying into the program to support those who are getting benefits. But this is a specific short-term issue, as the "Great Recession" pushes more older people out of the workforce and into early retirement. And, of course, higher unemployment means fewer people are paying taxes in general and Social Security taxes in particular.

It makes perfect sense for more older workers to file early; times are tough and Social Security is, well, secure. But this is a taste of what's to come. On paper, when Social Security spends more on benefits than it takes in by taxes, the system digs into its trust fund, built up during the years when far more people were paying in than drawing out. But the trust fund itself exists only "on paper," since the government has been borrowing from Social Security and Medicare to make its annual deficits look smaller.

That means the government will have to pay the trust fund back, and it will. There's no question that the benefits will be paid. The problem is that the government will have to pay it back out of general revenue, which means either the deficit gets worse or other programs get squeezed. We've already started seeing this dynamic with Medicare, and now Social Security is feeling the squeeze sooner than anticipated. That's why our long-term fiscal problems really need to be dealt with soon: the long term is arriving sooner than you'd think.

School Days, School Years

Scott Bittle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:53:06 -0400

The Obama administration has been making noises about a longer school year, and the Associated Press takes the opportunity to examine whether American students need to spend more time in class. We can't say whether or not that will improve student achievement, but we can say it goes to one of American parents' big concerns about their children.

The president called on school systems to hold longer school days and extend school into the summer as well. It's not a new idea, and students in many countries have longer school years than Americans (although American students have a longer school day than many).

When we examined parents' attitudes about out of school time, however, academics proved to be only part of the picture. The summer months proved to be the most difficult time for parents to find things for their kids to do, and low-income and minority parents were even more worried about this. Low-income and minority parents were also more interested in academics during summer and after-school work than other parents.

Climate Change: Making Anxiety an Asset

Peiting Chen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:12:22 -0400

Climate Change: Making Anxiety An Asset

Complex problems and anxious people are a bad combination, say Public Agenda's Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, who gave that combustible formula a lot of thought while writing "Who Turned Out The Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis" (set for release October 27, 2009).

In this Op Ed piece for The Huffington Post, Bittle and Johnson argue that when it comes to climate change, the debate doesn't have to play out as badly as it has on the issue of health care reform – with various groups lining up to demonize each other, and lots of people left out in the cold wondering what the true facts really are.

Properly channeled, Bittle and Johnson say, anxiety can be an asset. They don't mean scaring people into going along with the government's plans, as arguably happened with the "war on terrorism."

Click here to take a look at their ideas on how we might build coalitions for change, in addressing the problems of a nation that is very dependent on fossil fuels.

Intergenerational Dialogues About America's Fiscal Future Refute Kids vs. Canes Conflict

Peiting Chen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:43:34 -0400

By Andrew L. Yarrow, Vice President, Public Agenda

What do terms such as intergenerational equity and intergenerational interdependence mean when thinking about the future of America’s federal finances and overall economy?

Intergenerational equity and related terms are increasingly bandied about as federal debt and unfunded liabilities top $55 trillion—a sum putatively to be bequeathed to-and drown - future generations. They also come up in increasingly pessimistic views of politicians, pundits, and Americans of all ages that today’s children and youth may well be the first generation in U.S. history to have lower living standards and fewer opportunities than their parents.

While such views may be warranted, they can connote—and often are meant to connote—intergenerational conflict, America’s economy as a zero sum game, young versus old in the scramble for diminishing resources, and a sort of fiscal Malthusianism. However, discussions of intergenerational equity usually ignore the concept of intergenerational interdependence. All generations of Americans are bound together through family ties and other networks. When we deprive a particular generation of needed resources, we end up hurting entire families, communities, and the larger economy.

So, we should reframe the discussion: Instead of just talking about cuts in entitlement spending-which do need to be made-we also should talk about investing in children and young people. If we're so concerned about "our children” and America's future, they-and our nation-can't have a very bright one unless we devote considerably more resources to ensure that young Americans get a good education, have decent health care, strong families, safe communities, a healthy environment, worthwhile job opportunities, an economic jump-start to help them thrive in perilous times, and the assurance that some safety net (aka Social Security and old-age health care) will be there for them far down life's road. Just as we don't want to beggar America's children, we can't beggar our grandparents. Before Social Security, older Americans faced widespread poverty. Social Security (and Medicare and health care in general) require major reforms, but income and health security for many elderly Americans need to be strengthened.

Most young people care about their aging family members and the elderly as much as politicians and pundits claim to care about children. Similarly, most older Americans are not "greedy geezers," and care about their grandchildren and the nation's children in general. The young don't want to put "granny" on the streets any more than older Americans want to deprive our children of the resources to thrive. As one nation, we should invest enough to help people of all ages thrive—particularly those at both ends of life who cannot do so independently.

Intergenerational equity and debates about deficits and federal spending need to be seen as "we're all in this together." In the realm of public finances, intergenerational equity is about sustainability, sharing resources, spending both humanely and with economic prudence, and providing the basics for Americans from birth to death. This isn't about a "cradle to grave" welfare state or creating new kids' entitlements. It's about re-balancing—not only our allocation of resources between the elderly and children, the haves and the have-nots; but also our talk of "intergenerational equity" as more for children, not just less for those 65 and older. And, of course, Americans between 18 and 65 also have needs that we are not meeting.

When pressed, younger and older Americans get it. It's just not the message they generally hear from Washington or some of their peers, whose sub rosa text is "kids versus canes."

In a pilot project of intergenerational dialogues that Public Agenda and Generations United recently conducted in Worcester, Massachusetts, through the Intergenerational Urban Institute of Worcester State College and the Penn State Intergenerational Program in Pennsylvania—and hope to bring to many more communities—20-somethings and over-70-somethings found common ground on underlying values: Our government should live within its means (i.e., fiscal responsibility), but should also provide good opportunities and secure lives for Americans of all ages. As one young Massachusetts woman said: "We were surprised to find that although we were all from different age demographics, for the most part we agreed on the problems and some of the changes that have to take place."

Indeed, the concerns of young and old dovetailed in the comments of a 22-year-old and a retiree at Penn State. Student Ann Mesavage expressed worries about her ability to save for the future, while retiree Ed Klevans said he was concerned about the legacy being created for his five grandchildren. But both agreed that Americans need to come together—now—to create an economically sustainable future. All ages also found common ground about the importance of investing in and taking care of people of all ages in a fiscally responsible manner.

These intergenerational groups grasped the moral issues and principles underlying fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity. Most important, their dialogue did not simply reflect young Americans’ concerns about the fiscal future as a burden imposed on them by older generations. Rather, younger and older citizens realized they have common interests in reforming the nation’s finances.

Not only are such intergenerational dialogues essential to change the terms of debate about public finances, the economy, and America’s future; but they also highlight the more general importance of bringing together young and old. The notion that young, old, and middle-aged live in different worlds and can’t productively communicate with each other is worse than a fallacy. It is a recipe for misunderstanding, division, conflict, and a world in which yet another element of our common humanity is discarded. Dialogues such as those we conducted are critical to build understanding, respect, and a sense of common purpose among people throughout their entire lives.

As one Worcester dialogue participant said: "We can't have two generations put up against each other; we need to promote generations working together."

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, is author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility" and "100 Years of American Child Policy." He can be contacted at ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

The Don't Knows: Proof the Health Care Debate Isn't Working for the Public

Scott Bittle — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:05:05 -0400

This has to count as one of the most damning survey figures we've seen recently: the CBS News/New York Times poll today finds 46 percent of the public doesn't know enough about the health care reform plans to have an opinion.

That's after all the town halls and the presidential events, after all the viral rumors and the earnest fact-checking, after all the obsessive bloviating and arm-twisting on health care that has dominated Washington for months. After all that, we still end up with nearly half of Americans saying they don't know whether it’s a good idea or not. Even more, 59 percent, say the health care reforms are "confusing."

And it isn't as if the public hasn't been trying to figure this out: three-quarters in the CBS/Times survey say they've heard or read at least something about health care reform, and 33 percent say they've heard "a lot." That's a significant number. Other surveys like the Pew News Interest Index also show high levels of public attention to health care.

This is what failure to engage the public looks like. We're not talking about the ability to gather a crowd for or against – obviously the American political system has that honed to an art. But real public engagement is more than that. The whole point is for the public to be able to come to firm conclusions about what their choices are, which approach they prefer, and what they're willing to do to accomplish it. Clearly, that hasn't happened here.

There's lots of blame to go around. Proponents haven't been able to agree among themselves, much less be clear with the public. Opponents have been content to roadblock discussion rather than propose alternatives. The media coverage has been mostly about the high-volume political tactics rather than the real options for change. And there are few chances for the public to actually compare plans side-by-side, much less the big picture problems behind them.

That's not the same as saying a bill won't pass – that depends as much on the dynamics in Congress as on public opinion. A reform bill could very well pass. But how well that reform plan fares in the real world, where sick people wrestle with insurance jargon and doctors and hospitals try to figure out how they make a living, is another story. Passing legislation isn't the end of the tale, it's the beginning. And how that story comes out will depend on how well the public has thought through want it wants from the health care system – exactly the sort of thinking that politicians and the media have failed to help along over this brutal, disheartening debate.

Climate Change, Act I: Huddle At The U.N.

Scott Bittle — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:40:44 -0400

This has been "Climate Week" at the United Nations, bringing world leaders, experts, advocates and celebrities together to help set the stage for negotiations later this year on a new treaty for greenhouse gas reduction. But with the deadline for the Copenhagen conference drawing near, are leaders and the public anywhere near each other in discussing this problem?

Kind of. But there's a long way to go.

One of the issues for the public is that energy is a "triple threat" problem. Climate change is certainly part of the challenge, but so are energy prices and energy security. Naturally enough during "climate week" there's been a lot of focus on public opinion about global warming, and in Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve™ study, seven in 10 survey participants said that they worry about global warming at least "somewhat."

But even more were worried about price (89 percent) and that we're too dependent on oil (83 percent). Even more telling is the intensity of their concern. Some 57 percent worry "a lot" about prices and 47 percent worry a lot about oil dependence, but only 32 percent say they worry a lot about global warming. That's 25 points behind prices.

But there's good news for leaders on climate change, because while the public may be more worried about other things, they end up backing many of the same solutions. There's broad consensus that the country should pursue, especially alternative energy, conservation and incentives to become more efficient. There's a lot of support for solutions – it's just that the public's reasons may be different those of the climate activists.

For more on this subject, check out Facing The Challenges Of Climate Change: A Guide For Citizen Thought And Action and Climate Change: Is It Getting Hot In Here? in our Citizen's Survival Kit.

A Sign Of Hope On HIV/AIDS

Francie Grace — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:29:08 -0400

There's a potential milestone in the fight against HIV, with word that for the very first time, a vaccine has been found to provide a small but measurable protective effect against the disease.

The results in the vaccine study are said to be barely significant on statistical grounds, and their real importance may be as a basis for further research on the way the immune system works in connection with HIV.

Participants in Public Agenda's recent study, Impressions Of HIV/AIDS In America: Building Public Support For Workable Solutions To End The Epidemic, voiced a lot of support for putting more resources behind the search for a vaccine.

Jonathan Rochkind, lead author of the report, says that similar to what we have seen in research on other topics – for example, energy – this focus group study also suggests the public puts a lot of faith in science and technology as a solution to many problems, including disease.

But in our focus groups, we also heard more than a few participants voicing skepticism about the search for a vaccine, saying that if a vaccine isn't on the way, it must be because of either lack of funds, or reluctance from drug companies.

Another important point was voiced by most of the experts – scientists, activists, community leaders, directors of public health organizations and state lawmakers – who were interviewed for our study. While nearly all supported ramping up efforts to develop a vaccine, most also cautioned against an "all eggs in one basket" single-minded emphasis on the race for a vaccine and advocated for a focus on the groups which have been found to be most at risk.

The consensus among the experts was that the greatest impact right now in the war against HIV/AIDS would be found by delivering more access to health care, more information about the spread of disease and more testing for HIV/AIDS in those high-risk communities, all adding up to a better score on prevention.

Click here to take a look at our report.

The Recession's Imprint On Immigration

Scott Bittle — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:00:22 -0400

New census data suggests the recession is deterring new immigrants from coming to the United States – but Public Agenda's research shows it isn't shaking those who are already here.

The percentage of foreign-born people in the United States dipped slightly in 2008, the first time that's happened this decade. The foreign-born population fell from 12.6 percent in 2007 to 12.5 percent in 2008. The total number of non-citizens fell from 21.9 million to 21.6 million.

Experts said fewer people are emigrating to the United States because of the recession, and the census data picked up other recession-related changes, too. Homeownership rates and median home values both fell, for example. And not only are fewer people moving to America, but fewer Americans are moving anywhere, as the number who changed residences dropped from 16 percent to 15 percent.

Our new survey of immigrants, A Place to Call Home, also picked up indications of economic strain. Six in 10 said the economy was the biggest problem facing the nation, and there were significant increases in those who cite economic concerns, like getting a job, as major reasons to pursue citizenship. If anything, newer immigrants – those who have come here since 2002 – are even more likely to cite getting a job (82 percent versus 65 percent) and being eligible for government aid (46 percent versus 31 percent) as major reasons to become citizens.

Yet the recession doesn't seem to have shaken fundamental perceptions: seven in 10 immigrants say they plan to make the United States their permanent home, comparable with the last time we asked in 2002.

We found the Mexican immigrants we surveyed are even more concerned about the economy than others, yet also even more likely to say the U.S. will be their permanent home – 80 percent compared to 68 percent of all other immigrants.

Viewpoint: Health reform's failure could have far-reaching consequences

Peiting Chen — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:43:59 -0400

Reprinted from Baltimore Sun

By Andrew L. Yarrow

As the health-care reform debate moves into its home stretch, a significant but hidden potential consequence of failing to reform health care is lost: What do the nature of the debate, the potential failure of reform, and the likely inadequacy of any reform that maybe passed mean for America's mood and self-image?

Don't get me wrong: The substantive issues of health-care reform are enormous-controlling costs in a dangerously out-of-control spending spiral that could sink our economy, lack of access to medical care and quality care for tens of millions,and a system that is so dysfunctional that neither market mechanisms nor the commanding heights of government bureaucracies perform well. And despite their political posturing, most Democrats and Republicans recognize that without cost control, quality, access and efficiency, government finances, business competitiveness and Americans' living standards are threatened more than at any time since the Great Depression.

Yet the delicate, demagogic and the parlous condition of Washington and grass-roots politics makes one wish that Nero was merely fiddling while Rome burns (which politicians have done for too long on health care). Instead, too many of our leaders are torching America, taking angry, hard-line positions when virtually all agree that at least some reform is essential.

The failure of meaningful health-care reform not only would have enormous,deleterious consequences for America's long-term fiscal and macroeconomic outlook, and for Americans' physical health; it could also, perhaps irredeemably, damage Americans' faith in their nation and dim their outlook for America's future.

It may sound histrionic to peg such things to the fate of a single piece of legislation, but the symbolic significance of failure or fake reform on an issue that has bedeviled America since World War II could swing the United States[3]into a dangerous bitterness and pessimism. It could make Jimmy Carter's summer of '79 look like the epitome of euphoric national confidence.

Despite various bursts of national confidence during the last 40 years - with President Ronald Reagan,the 1990s economic boom, and initially with President Barack Obama- the United States has experienced a long-term decline in its people's confidence in the nation's future, its institutions, its leadership and its economy. Poll after poll has found that Americans are less trusting of their leaders, government, business and other private institutions, and convinced that future generations will not have as good lives as adults today or in the late 20th century.

When Dwight Eisenhower left office, 92 percent of Americans believed that the country was on the right track and that things would only get better. When George W. Bush left office, more than 80 percent felt that the country was on the wrong track and were worried about the future. This is far more than a tale of economic pessimism, disgust at corrupt leaders, and fear of a dangerous world. Around1960, the United States was coming out of two late-1950s recessions, and many crowed that economic growth was not high enough (although, by the early 1960s,growth was very robust). While not Abu Ghraib or Watergate, there was the rather seamy trading of new refrigerators and mink coats to influence high government officials. And if our dangerous world is symbolized by terrorists,what can one say of a nation that lurched from the U2 crisis to the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Fast forward to today. While surveys have found erosion of support for President Obama, congressional Republicans and health-care reform in the last six months, they have found a corresponding decline in the proportion of Americans saying that the country is on "the right track" -pollsters' tried-and-true confidence index. Even if one does not support all aspects of health-care reform, the sheer failure of the United States to accomplish something big and meaningful has huge implications. Once, we could win world wars, send men to the moon, pass landmark legislation from Social Security to the Federal-Aid Highway Act (creating the interstates), to the 1964Civil Rights Act. It increasingly seems that even setting out to achieve big national goals is no longer possible, although one can hope that Mr. Obama was right when he said, "we can do great things." Blame partisanship,lobbyists, whomever, but it also comes down to a limited desire to take on big challenges, a characteristic that historically had been a hallmark of American greatness.

The long-term polling trajectory of growing or persistent unhappiness with the nation's direction also may stem from economic and other causes, but our inability to articulate a vision for America's future and act on it may well be another very important cause of our discontent. If our leaders can't come together to tackle the biggest issues, and garner Americans' support, it is a form of giving up.

It is not just health-care reform. The last few decades have seen intense fighting over so many issues, with the result that only small legislative reforms become law. It's like not going for the touchdown, instead settling fora yard or just holding onto the ball. People are inspired by big achievements -from the touchdown to the moon landing to the Civil Rights Act. Such things instill pride, a sense of success and optimism: If we're successful achieving one big thing, we'll be successful in the future.

If we wind up with a watered-down mishmash of so-called health-care reform, it sends another signal that America can't do great things anymore. We used to; we can; we should. Whether with health care reform, overhauling our broken tax code, providing good and affordable education, nourishing ground-breaking new technologies(think of the government's development of the Internet), or even building new communities, such projects not only could have huge tangible economic benefits but also could strengthen Americans' confidence in their nation and its future.

Doing nothing, or doing only small things, is not a sign of greatness.

Andrew L. Yarrow is vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University. He is the author of"Forgive Us Our Debts: The Inter generational Dangers of FiscalIrresponsibility" and the forthcoming book "Measure of America."His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

Is Everybody Happy? The Public and Health Care Reform

Scott Bittle — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:03:27 -0400

One of the toughest things about public opinion and health care reform is figuring out how the public goes from the personal to the political. Surveys consistently find the public says the health care system needs an overhaul, but also find most are satisfied with their own coverage.

Obviously, it's one thing for people to believe the health system needs fixing, but quite another to think they're going to benefit from that personally. There are two pieces worth reading on this:

First, it looks like the people who need health care the most are the ones who are less satisfied. Low-income people and those who say they're in poor health are less satisfied with their health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which does much of the best public opinion work on health care. And even those who give their insurance good ratings aren't immune to having problems with bills. One in seven of those who say their coverage is "excellent" and one in five who rate it "good" say they've had trouble paying medical bills in the past year.

Second, over at Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal looks at a number of different health care surveys and points out that while there's considerable skepticism about reform, there's also a lot of concern about the implications of doing nothing. We noticed the same "damned if you do, damned if you don't" pattern in surveys back in July.

These are both good examples of what you can find out by probing a little deeper on public opinion surveys. The fact is, on many issues public views are surprisingly nuanced, more so than many politicians and journalists think. That's both a challenge and an asset for policymakers, and a major reason why leaders who spend hours poring over polls still end up surprised by what the public actually does.