AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Upcoming Event
Meet & Greet with Governor Martin O'Malley
Saturday October 17
10:00 am
Wayfarer Coffee Roasters, 626 Main St., Laconia
Join with fellow Democrats for a town hall meeting with former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
For more on the event and about Governor O'Malley, click on the following link:
2. Concern About NH's Housing Problem
UNH poll: Nearly 90% of Granite Staters say housing affordability a problem
from eagletimes.villagesoup.com, October 15, 2015
MANCHESTER — Nearly 90 percent of Granite Staters say housing affordability is a problem in New Hampshire, and three quarters say presidential candidates should focus on it, according to a UNH Survey Center poll for the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for Housing America’s Families.
"Affordable housing is seen as a moderate to serious problem by three-quarters of New Hampshire adults, and 82 percent think it is harder these days for young people to afford home ownership,” said Andy Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center. “Furthermore, Granite Staters think that candidates running for president should address the issue and that candidates who do so are more likely to get their vote."
The poll of 820 New Hampshire adults found that a stunning 88 percent say housing affordability is a problem in the state. Only 7 percent say it is “not a problem at all.”
Housing affordability is such a big concern in the Granite State that 75 percent of New Hampshire adults say presidential candidates should focus on it. Only 13 percent say the candidates should put “no focus” on affordable housing.
“These poll results clearly demonstrate that most New Hampshire households recognize that our state faces a serious housing affordability challenge,” said Dean J. Christon, executive director of New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. “New Hampshire Housing’s own studies confirm that the state continues to face a scarcity of affordable rental housing and a lack of choice at most price ranges in the homeownership market.”
A majority of Granite Staters (58 percent) say it is very difficult (28 percent) or somewhat difficult (30 percent) to find affordable housing in the state, the poll found.
Regarding the housing challenges facing Millennials, 82 percent of Granite Staters say it has become more difficult for young people in New Hampshire to afford a home.
"Access to affordable housing is an issue that hits home with thousands of Granite Staters, and they want to see our political leaders offer real solutions,” said Pam Patenaude, president of the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for Housing America’s Families. “As these poll results show, politicians who ignore this issue are missing a tremendous opportunity not only to fix a serious problem our political system has left unresolved for too long, but also to connect with voters on a matter of great personal importance to so many."
Thirty-five percent of New Hampshire residents say they are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who has a specific plan to address housing affordability, 3 percent are less likely to vote for that candidate and 57 percent say it would make no difference in their vote.
The poll was commissioned to inform participants in the New Hampshire Housing Summit, sponsored by the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for Housing America’s Families and the Bipartisan Policy Center, to be held at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Friday.
The New Hampshire Housing Summit will feature numerous public officials as well as state and national housing experts coming together to find solutions to America’s affordable housing crisis. Among the presenters will be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former New York Gov. George Pataki.
The summit will run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, 100 Saint Anselm Drive, Manchester, New Hampshire. Members of the media wishing to attend may contact Drew Cline at (603) 661-8383.
About the poll: The University of New Hampshire Survey Center included housing questions on its September 2015 Granite State Poll. Eight hundred twenty (820) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed by landline and cellular telephone between Sept. 17 and Sept. 23, 2015. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.4 percent. Included were three hundred forty-four (344) likely 2016 Republican Primary voters (MSE = +/-5.3) and three hundred fourteen (314) likely 2016 Democratic Primary voters (MSE = +/-5.5)
3. NH Economic Forecast for 2016
New Hampshire Economic Outlook October 2015
by New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, nhpolicy.org, October 15, 2015
Executive Summary In the forecast presented one year ago, we noted that New Hampshire and Vermont were in a foot race to see which state had the second fastest job recovery in New England. Massachusetts had already recovered all of the jobs lost in the Great Recession. At this writing, New Hampshire is back to the level of employment last seen before the beginning of the Great Recession.
New Hampshire has a low unemployment rate (3.6 percent in August 2015 compared to the U.S. 5.1 percent), and state job growth has been gaining strength. About half of the jobs added in the last few years pay an above average wage.
The year 2016 will be a very good year for the New Hampshire economy with strong employment growth, driven by a continued recovery in the housing sector and low energy prices overall. However, New Hampshire job growth will lag behind the U.S. rate in the balance of the forecast period, in part because the New Hampshire economy will grow more slowly than the U.S. economy in the future.
Infrastructure is key to the well-being of any society, allowing smooth transit, healthy living, and a quality of life where the economy grows, so it is no small surprise that infrastructure investment continues to be a primary public policy conversation. And the state has many different tools at its disposal to support infrastructure development.
To measure how New Hampshire ranks compared to other states, we present a broad range of measures related to New Hampshire’s infrastructure, including transportation infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater facilities, and communications infrastructure. The specific indicators were informed by the goal that New Hampshire should have a safe, reliable multimodal transportation; high band-width, high-speed communication; and that improved water supply, wastewater and storm water systems are able to meet the needs of businesses and residents throughout New Hampshire.
Highlights of the October 2015 Forecast
• The Granite State will add manufacturing jobs at the rate of a 0.2 percent average gain each year. However, it is expected that Granite State manufacturing output will continue to increase much faster in the forecast period, as it has in the past five years.
• Private services employment growth will increase to 2.0 percent annually in the forecast period. The fastest rate of growth (2.7 percent) will occur in Information Services, followed by 2.6 percent annual growth in Leisure & Hospitality jobs, and 2.5 percent average annual growth in Professional and Business Services jobs from 2014 to 2018. New England Economic Partnership October 2015: New Hampshire Page 2
• New Hampshire construction employment has been ramping up since the recession. The pre-recession level for New Hampshire construction jobs was 26,000, so employment in this sector will not increase much above 25,000 in the forecast period, as some of the prerecession construction employment was due to the housing bubble.
[To read the full report, with details, charts, and notes, click on the following link:
4. One Overview of the State's Solar Cap Issue
Outdated regulation threatens rooftop solar
by Dave Solomon, unionleader.com, October 14, 2015
The solar power industry has taken off with such ferocity in the past year that regulators and lawmakers have been hard-pressed to keep up.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the case of “net-metering,” a cornerstone policy for solar development that in New Hampshire is sorely in need of an update.
Some of the leading purveyors of solar power, like SolarCity and Sunrun, have been marketing aggressively to New Hampshire businesses and homeowners in the past year, signing up hundreds of new customers, opening up offices and creating new jobs.
But they are rushing blindly toward a brick wall, not sure if they will hit that wall next week or next month, or what will happen when they do. The economic potential of a rapidly growing industry hangs in the balance, along with the hopes of many homeowners for a lower-carbon footprint and a more predictable energy future.
One of the economic advantages of having solar panels on your rooftop is that you can sell power back into the grid on those days when you generate a surplus, and get a credit on your electric bill through a program called net metering.
So many people have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past year, that a statewide limit on net metering that has been adequate since 1998 has been almost totally consumed in the past 12 months, and no one is really sure what the state is going to do about it.
Everyone agrees that the 50 megawatt limit on net metering, in a state that can consume more than 4,000 megawatts on a hot summer day, is outdated, but there is no consensus on a solution. Legislative efforts to address the problem last year came up empty.
State Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, told a recent energy summit in Concord that at least six bills with varying solutions are likely to be debated in the upcoming session. “I know that net metering is going to be front and center,” he said.
The Public Utilities Commission also has a proceeding underway to examine various aspects of the net metering program, citing the “strong and growing interest.”
Possible solutions
Representatives of the solar power industry want to see the cap eliminated, so there would be no limit on the number of people who could install solar panels and take advantage of net metering, becoming small energy generators in their own right.
Some utilities have lobbied against such a move, warning that the cost of maintaining the utility poles, wires, transformers, circuit breakers and the like have to be paid by someone. If too many customers become power-producers, a shrinking number of consumers will be left to maintain the transmission and distribution system.
Solar advocates counter that renewable energy produced right where people live reduces the need for transmission and in the long run will save money on transmission and distribution.
“The caps are put in place because utilities want to limit competition,” says Chandler Sherman, public affairs manager at SolarCity. “It’s like telling Apple they can only sell so many iPhones a year. Change is scary, and this is something new. But this is the future of energy and rather than fighting solar, we should be talking about ways to improve the grid and adapt to it.”
The 50 megawatt cap is shared by the state’s four utilities, based on their portion of the state’s energy market. Eversource, with more than 70 percent of the market, has a limit of 36 megawatts; the three small utilities — the N.H. Electric Coop, Unitil and Liberty — each have between 3 and 6 megawatts.
The NHEC, serving about 11 percent of retail customers in the central part of the state, hit its 3 megawatt limit in April; Liberty maxed out its limit in July; and Eversource is over the limit, if you count projects in the queue. Only Unitil has some breathing room. (See related story)
Unlike the three investor-owned utilities, the NHEC is a member-owned, nonprofit, whose board of directors is free to act outside of PUC jurisdiction. So they came up with a solution of their own, which may prove to be a model for the rest of the state.
They eliminated the cap, but reduced the value of the credit for energy sold back into the grid to account for transmission and distribution costs.
“Basically, members who have systems approved after May 1 and installed by Dec. 31 will be compensated at a rate that is approximately 2 to 3 cents per kwh lower than the full retail rate,” said NHEC spokesman Seth Wheeler.
“We feel we have hit upon a good solution that maintains the economic incentive for our members who want to install renewable energy systems, but doesn’t shift the burden of under-recovery to members who choose not to install renewable energy or are unable to do so,” he said.
Hoping for a win-win
When Bradley told the audience at the energy summit, “There’s a group of us trying to work out language that would lift the cap and have the PUC set a rate that is reflective of the cost of service,” he was alluding to an approach similar to what NHEC is already doing.
Folks with solar panels will get money for the energy they sell back into the grid (just not as much), and utilities will recover some of their transmission and distribution costs. “When both sides have something to gain, I would predict that legislation will pass,” Bradley said.
It won’t come a moment too soon for the solar companies, who are frustrated both by the cap and the lack of transparency in the process. The director of the state’s renewable energy program could not say where the state stands with regard to net metering limits, and referred question to the individual utilities.
“There is such little transparency, the data sharing is so poor, and there is so much uncertainty in the regulation that we don’t know if all our projects in the queue will be accepted, or if the cap will be hit any day now,” said Sherman.
One thing is certain — a lot of people are going to be disappointed if the cap is not lifted or at least expanded.
“It’s clear there is a tremendous demand for solar in New Hampshire, and this cap is putting an unnecessary limit on a growing local industry,” she said.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the case of “net-metering,” a cornerstone policy for solar development that in New Hampshire is sorely in need of an update.
Some of the leading purveyors of solar power, like SolarCity and Sunrun, have been marketing aggressively to New Hampshire businesses and homeowners in the past year, signing up hundreds of new customers, opening up offices and creating new jobs.
But they are rushing blindly toward a brick wall, not sure if they will hit that wall next week or next month, or what will happen when they do. The economic potential of a rapidly growing industry hangs in the balance, along with the hopes of many homeowners for a lower-carbon footprint and a more predictable energy future.
One of the economic advantages of having solar panels on your rooftop is that you can sell power back into the grid on those days when you generate a surplus, and get a credit on your electric bill through a program called net metering.
So many people have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past year, that a statewide limit on net metering that has been adequate since 1998 has been almost totally consumed in the past 12 months, and no one is really sure what the state is going to do about it.
Everyone agrees that the 50 megawatt limit on net metering, in a state that can consume more than 4,000 megawatts on a hot summer day, is outdated, but there is no consensus on a solution. Legislative efforts to address the problem last year came up empty.
State Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, told a recent energy summit in Concord that at least six bills with varying solutions are likely to be debated in the upcoming session. “I know that net metering is going to be front and center,” he said.
The Public Utilities Commission also has a proceeding underway to examine various aspects of the net metering program, citing the “strong and growing interest.”
Possible solutions
Representatives of the solar power industry want to see the cap eliminated, so there would be no limit on the number of people who could install solar panels and take advantage of net metering, becoming small energy generators in their own right.
Some utilities have lobbied against such a move, warning that the cost of maintaining the utility poles, wires, transformers, circuit breakers and the like have to be paid by someone. If too many customers become power-producers, a shrinking number of consumers will be left to maintain the transmission and distribution system.
Solar advocates counter that renewable energy produced right where people live reduces the need for transmission and in the long run will save money on transmission and distribution.
“The caps are put in place because utilities want to limit competition,” says Chandler Sherman, public affairs manager at SolarCity. “It’s like telling Apple they can only sell so many iPhones a year. Change is scary, and this is something new. But this is the future of energy and rather than fighting solar, we should be talking about ways to improve the grid and adapt to it.”
The 50 megawatt cap is shared by the state’s four utilities, based on their portion of the state’s energy market. Eversource, with more than 70 percent of the market, has a limit of 36 megawatts; the three small utilities — the N.H. Electric Coop, Unitil and Liberty — each have between 3 and 6 megawatts.
The NHEC, serving about 11 percent of retail customers in the central part of the state, hit its 3 megawatt limit in April; Liberty maxed out its limit in July; and Eversource is over the limit, if you count projects in the queue. Only Unitil has some breathing room. (See related story)
Unlike the three investor-owned utilities, the NHEC is a member-owned, nonprofit, whose board of directors is free to act outside of PUC jurisdiction. So they came up with a solution of their own, which may prove to be a model for the rest of the state.
They eliminated the cap, but reduced the value of the credit for energy sold back into the grid to account for transmission and distribution costs.
“Basically, members who have systems approved after May 1 and installed by Dec. 31 will be compensated at a rate that is approximately 2 to 3 cents per kwh lower than the full retail rate,” said NHEC spokesman Seth Wheeler.
“We feel we have hit upon a good solution that maintains the economic incentive for our members who want to install renewable energy systems, but doesn’t shift the burden of under-recovery to members who choose not to install renewable energy or are unable to do so,” he said.
Hoping for a win-win
When Bradley told the audience at the energy summit, “There’s a group of us trying to work out language that would lift the cap and have the PUC set a rate that is reflective of the cost of service,” he was alluding to an approach similar to what NHEC is already doing.
Folks with solar panels will get money for the energy they sell back into the grid (just not as much), and utilities will recover some of their transmission and distribution costs. “When both sides have something to gain, I would predict that legislation will pass,” Bradley said.
It won’t come a moment too soon for the solar companies, who are frustrated both by the cap and the lack of transparency in the process. The director of the state’s renewable energy program could not say where the state stands with regard to net metering limits, and referred question to the individual utilities.
“There is such little transparency, the data sharing is so poor, and there is so much uncertainty in the regulation that we don’t know if all our projects in the queue will be accepted, or if the cap will be hit any day now,” said Sherman.
One thing is certain — a lot of people are going to be disappointed if the cap is not lifted or at least expanded.
“It’s clear there is a tremendous demand for solar in New Hampshire, and this cap is putting an unnecessary limit on a growing local industry,” she said.
5. Not So Green
Kelly Ayotte’s True Record On Energy & The Environment
by Ttaraila, nhdp.org, October 15, 2015
Concord, N.H. – As Kelly Ayotte continues trying to rewrite her record of putting her Washington special interest backers before New Hampshire, it’s important to take a look back at Ayotte’s true record on energy and the environment:
See below for highlights on Kelly Ayotte’s true record on energy and the environment:
AYOTTE STANDS WITH KOCH BROTHERS, AGAINST NH’S ENVIRONMENT
Ayotte Has a Lifetime Score of 23% on the League of Conservation Voters National Environmental Scorecard And Got A 0% In 2014 [LCV, accessed 10/15/15]
In 2010, Ayotte Said “I Don’t Think the Evidence [on Climate Change] is Conclusive.” Ayotte told the Portsmouth Herald editorial board: “…there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.” [Portsmouth Herald, 9/30/2010]
Ayotte Signed Koch Brothers Pledge to Vote Against “Any Legislation on Climate Change.” “[Ayotte] once pledged to Americans for Prosperity—the Koch brothers’ main political arm—that she would vote against any legislation on climate change.” [The New Republic, 2/5/15]
FORCING CONSTRUCTION OF KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Ayotte Voted To Disregard The Federal Review Process And Force Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. In March 2015, Ayotte voted to pass, over President Obama’s Feb. 24, 2015 veto, a bill that would bypass the normal review process for the Keystone XL pipeline and immediately allow TransCanada to construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline and cross-border facilities known as the Keystone XL pipeline. [S. 1, Vote 68, 3/4/15]
PROTECTING BIG OIL SUBSIDIES
Ayotte Repeatedly Voted To Protect Tax Breaks For The Largest Oil Companies. Ayotte voted against the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” in 2011 and the “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act” in 2012 that would have closed more than $20 billion in tax loopholes for the five biggest oil companies. [S. 940, Vote 72, 5/17/11; S. 2204, Vote 63, 3/29/12]
EXPANDING OFFSHORE DRILLING AND WEAKENING OVERSIGHT
Ayotte Voted To Expand Offshore Drilling With Oversight Standard That Were Weaker Than The Ones In Place Before The 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced S. 953, the deceptively titled Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011, which would expand offshore drilling and make it more dangerous by enacting oversight standards that are weaker than those in place before the catastrophic 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which tragically killed eleven workers, wreaked havoc on Gulf coast businesses in the fishing and tourism industries, and damaged coastal and marine ecosystems.” [LCV, accessed 10/15/15]
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced S. 953, the deceptively titled Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011, which would expand offshore drilling and make it more dangerous by enacting oversight standards that are weaker than those in place before the catastrophic 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which tragically killed eleven workers, wreaked havoc on Gulf coast businesses in the fishing and tourism industries, and damaged coastal and marine ecosystems.” [LCV, accessed 10/15/15]
UMDERMINING CLEAN POWER PLAN
Ayotte Voted For Amendment Undermining Enforcement of Clean Power Plan. In March 2015, Ayotte voted for: “McConnell, R-Ky., amendment no. 836 that would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would prohibit the EPA from withholding highway funds from states that refuse to submit state implementation plans required under the agency’s clean power rule.” The amendment was adopted, 57-43. [S.Con.Res. 11, S.Amdt. 836, Vote 116, 3/26/15]
WEAKENING CLEAN WATER PROTECTIONS
Ayotte Voted In Favor Of An Amendment That Would Threaten Waters Americans Depend On For Drinking, Swimming, And Fishing. “The amendment would bar the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from restoring longstanding Clean Water Act protections to critical streams and wetlands across the nation. It would prohibit the Army Corps and EPA from limiting pollution in waterways that supply public drinking water for 117 million Americans” [LCV, accessed 10/15/15]
AND NATIONALLY
6. Two Worlds
cking_contrasts_between_the_
Trump’s America vs. Hillary’s America: The Most Shocking Contrasts Between the Democratic & Republican Debates
If there's one thing last night's debate made clear, it's that our political parties are living on separate planets.
by Heather Digby Parton, salon.com, October 14, 2015
Everyone on the right agreed that the Democratic debate last night was dull as dirt: No fireworks, no pizazz. The candidates didn’t insult each other’s looks or tell gory tales of mayhem or brag about their poll numbers. In fact, they did the opposite. They behaved like human beings. When the debate moderators insisted on discussing the most tedious beltway obsession since Al Gore and the buddhist temple — Hillary Clinton’s emails — Bernie Sanders drew huge applause from the audience, and no doubt from every Democrat watching the debate at home, when he said:
“I think the Secretary is right. And that is I think the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
And that was the end of that. With the exception of some eccentric moments from former senators Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, the Democrats held a lively debate about ideas and exchanged views on how to deal with problems facing the country. They talked about guns and college debt and Syria and Social Security and much more. Not one of them looked like deer in the headlights, clueless about the subject at hand (something that happened frequently in the GOP debates), nor did they weirdly launch into their stump speeches at the slightest provocation.
Truth be told, they all seemed somewhat … normal. (Or at least as normal as any politician can be.) And that is the last thing the Republicans wanted anyone to see. After all, some people who aren’t deluded by Fox News and talk radio might then remember that this is serious business, and the GOP can’t have that.
One never knows how these things will go, but at the very least one hopes that a majority of the Americans are still looking for someone sane and sober to run the country. It may not be as entertaining as Donald Trump raving about his wall or Carly Fiorina delivering a torrent of gruesome accusations against Planned Parenthood, but it’s important. There was little suspense — after all nobody was waiting with bated breath to see what crazy thing one of these candidates would say next. What they got instead was a stage full of experienced public servants with deep knowledge of government policy.
If there’s one thing that was made obvious last night, it’s that the GOP is one big heaping mess of a political party right now. The contrast between it and the Democrats couldn’t be sharper and not just in the presidential race. After all, the backdrop of last night’s event was a drama happening in the Capitol in which House Republicans can’t agree on who should be Speaker. How do they expect, then, to bring the entire country together under one president? It’s laughable. They’re laughable. The candidates on the stage last night in Las Vegas, on the other hand, were serious.
Now it’s true that there might have been some Republicans on their debate stage who aren’t entirely clownish and who, in other circumstances, could show themselves to better advantage. But it’s their party and they can’t cry about this even if they want to. Every last one of them has been instrumental in making the GOP what it is today. All of them would likely be happy to see Trump out of the race and most of them wouldn’t be sorry to see Carson go either. Every day, those two are out there spewing vile racist and anti-semitic rhetoric (among a dozen other offensive comments), making it almost impossible for the Republicans to gain a national majority and win the presidency — even if they could past the unpopularity of the mainstream GOP platform, which is only slightly less repellant.
The differences between the two parties aren’t just matters of debate style unfortunately. Now that we have seen the presidential candidates in both parties on the debate stage, it’s clear that the two parties don’t just have different political philosophies. They represent two different countries.
Republican America is a dystopian hellscape in which evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers and Planned Parenthood sociopaths are committing mayhem on children and selling the body parts. And that’s just for starters.
Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality, solve the looming crisis of climate change and manage global crises without plunging the nation into more wars. They also must hold off that anarchistic opposition which sees the world as a dystopian hellscape and that may be the greatest challenge of all.
A little over a year from now voters are going to decide which country they want to live in. Let’s hope they choose wisely. The rest of us are going to have to live in it too.
7. True to Form
Why the Democratic Presidential Debate is Just Like the GOP's
by Dean Baker, cepr.net, October 14, 2015
In Tuesday night’s first Democratic presidential debate, contenders gave their views on how the government can ensure that the benefits from economic growth are broadly shared, so that ordinary workers see rising living standards. In the debate and prior campaign comments, both of the two leading contenders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders put forward proposals that would have the government reduce the cost to families of health care and college education. They also promised measures to give workers more control over their time in the form of paid family leave and paid vacation in the case of Sanders.
In these areas, the Democratic contenders are following in a long tradition of the party’s leaders. In the case of health care, it was of course Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Medicare legislation that provided insurance for the country’s seniors, along with Medicaid that provided health care to the poor. This safety net was expanded with the State Children’s Health Insurance Program under President Clinton and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under President Obama. Now, Clinton is proposing to fill some of the gaps in coverage left by the ACA, while Sanders wants to expand Medicare to cover the whole population.
The commitment to making college affordable to children from poor and moderate income families historically had bipartisan support, with the National Direct (originally “Defense”) Student Loan program initiated in the Eisenhower administration. The Johnson administration supplemented these subsidized loans with the Pell Grant program. More recently, the Obama administration has expanded the loan program, reducing costs by providing loans directly rather than through private lenders. It also has allowed income-based repayments to protect graduates who have difficulty finding jobs or earn low pay. Clinton promises to make all loan repayments income based, while Sanders proposes to have free tuition at public universities.
Both Clinton and Sanders want to mandate paid family leave to ensure that workers can take time off to care for a newborn baby or sick family member. Sanders also wants to ensure that all workers have at least two weeks a year of paid vacation. The effort to ensure workers enjoy some amount of leisure dates back to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) passed in the Roosevelt administration. The FLSA institutionalized the 40-hour workweek, requiring employers to pay an overtime premium if their workers put in more than forty hours a week.
The FLSA also put in place the first nation-wide minimum wage. Both Clinton and Sanders propose raising the minimum wage. Sanders has chosen a target of $15 an hour by 2020. Clinton has not yet indicated what her target would be for the minimum wage.
Both candidates also promised a tighter rein on Wall Street. Both urge stronger regulation of banks, with Sanders proposing a financial transactions tax that will provide a harsh penalty for excessive trading. This again follows in the tradition of the New Deal regulation of the financial sector. Bill Clinton’s administration provided a major break from this tradition, as it joined a push toward deregulation of the sector.
If the Democratic candidates are sticking to party traditions, the same is true of the Republican candidates as well. Most of the leading candidates have put forward proposals for major tax cuts, as had President George W. Bush and President Reagan. Their tax cuts would give the largest breaks to high-income taxpayers. This is justified by the fact that they pay the most in taxes so that an across the board tax cut will give them the most money.
Like their predecessors, the Republican candidates seem little concerned about the budgetary impact of these tax cuts. They claim, like prior Republican presidents, that the faster economic growth induced by their tax cuts will largely make up for lost revenue. This has not proved be the case in the past. As far as paying for the Democratic initiatives, Sanders has been clear about his desire to raise taxes on the wealthy, although it will be necessary to see both the programs and tax proposals spelled out in more detail to determine if and how they balance out.
While the party nominations are still far from settled, it seems clear that there will be some real differences on economic issues in the election next fall. The differences are likely to have noticeable consequences for most of the public.
8. Identity v. Class
A. http://www.washingtonmonthly.
Identity Politics vs Class-Based Populism is Not an Either/Or Question (Part I)
by Nancy LeTourneau, washingtonmonthly.com, October 10, 2015
I remember that, prior to the election of Barack Obama, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats had to find a way to win Southern states in order to elect a president. That was a direct result of the Republican’s Southern Strategy and was confirmed by the fact that, since the 1960’s, the only presidential success Democrats experienced was in electing Southern governors (Carter from Georgia and Clinton from Arkansas). The election of our first African American president from Illinois (and Hawaii) changed the map when it comes to presidential elections.
Now we are hearing from a chorus of pundits/strategists that the only way Democrats can win elections is to abandon “identity politics” and appeal to white working class voters. Thomas Edsall is one of the people who regularly makes that argument and he’s done so again with an article titled: How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?
Edsall makes this claim by first of all providing data showing that Democrats are raising money from wealthy donors and that they now represent congressional districts that “tilt towards the well-to-do.” Part of his argument goes as follows:
In 1988, support for the Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis fell as income rose. Those making less than $12,500-a-year backed him 63-37, while those making more than $100,000 voted against him 67-33.
In 2012, by contrast, Obama won low-income voters, those making less than $30,000, decisively, 63-35, but also did far better than Dukakis among those making more than $100,000, winning 44 percent of their votes. Four years earlier, in 2008, Obama won among voters with the highest incomes, above $200,000, 52-46, and nearly tied among those making $100,000 to $200,000, 48-50.
Then he goes on to point to policies the Democrats helped pass in the 1990’s that aligned with the interests of those donors/voters. As such, he concludes that the party has left its “populist roots” and that this is because they have become “the political home for those whose most passionate cause is cultural, as opposed to economic, liberalism…” Here’s his conclusion:
The practical reality is that the Democratic Party is now structurally disengaged from class-based populism, especially a form of economically redistributive populism that low-to-moderate-income whites would find inviting.
Edsall’s point about President Obama’s appeal to upper income voters reminded me of an article by Andrew Gellman and Avi Feller that I just found recently in which they analyzed data from exit polls in the 2012 presidential election. They open with data showing that the wealthy continued their strong support for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. But…
…there’s much more to this story. The maps we have made show that the election was not just about red and blue states. What’s actually going on is that the division between red and blue America is mostly about a split among richer voters…
Lower-income voters consistently support the Democratic candidate in nearly every state. Upper-income voters, on the other hand, are more mixed in their political views: wealthy voters in Mississippi are strongly Republican while wealthy voters in Massachusetts are strongly Democratic…
In other words, contrary to what you have heard, there’s only a strong red America-blue America split toward the top of the income distribution. Toward the bottom, the electoral map is a sea of blue.
Gellman and Feller find the same kind of distribution when comparing differences along the lines of age, gender and race. And they conclude with this:
In all these cases, the red-state, blue-state division is sharper in categories that tend to vote Republican. Put another way: Obama’s voting blocs look about the same everywhere in the country, while Romney’s vary more from state to state.
This is not a story about the Obama campaign’s strategy or Mitt Romney’s failures as a presidential candidate — the demographic maps for 2004 and 2008 look very similar. The red-blue electoral map that we’re used to poring over is mainly the result of a political and geographic divide among American voters at the older, richer and whiter end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Another way of saying the same thing is that - outside of the Republican strongholds of the South and Mountain West, Democrats have been winning over the “older, richer and whiter end of the socioeconomic spectrum” - all while maintaining their base among the younger, less wealthy and people of color. That is what made the election of a Black man from Illinois possible.
Identity Politics vs Class-Based Populism is Not an Either/Or Question (Part II)
by Nancy LeTourneau, washingtonmonthly.com, October 10, 2015
In a previous post, I critiqued Thomas Edsall’s suggestion that the Democratic Party’s focus on identity politics was at odds with a class-based populism that would appeal to low-to-moderate income white voters based on presidential election results. Now let’s take a look at how that election affected the Party’s policy proposals.
Barack Obama became President during this country’s Great Recession. As such, his first priority was to pass a stimulus package, which he did within 28 days of being inaugurated. The next great battle was over the passage of health care reform. And after that came Wall Street Reform (to correct the abuses that had led to the Great Recession). In the middle of all that, he rescued the auto industry - saving millions of jobs. None of these efforts targeted “identity groups,” but some have suggested that Obamacare was the greatest redistribution of wealth from upper incomes to lower since the Great Society programs of LBJ.
Since then, with the Republican takeover of the House and the loss of a supermajority in the Senate, Democratic priorities have not been able to get passed in Congress. But the list of proposals have included an infrastructure bank, the American Jobs Act, universal pre-K, raising the minimum wage, paid family leave and free community college. All of these would provide universal benefits that are not targeted to identity groups.
As a matter of fact, President Obama has consistently come under fire for not doing more on issues like the disparities that exist for African Americans on income, housing, education, etc. Joy Reid documents in her recent book Fracture how the Congressional Black Caucus and African American leaders have continually pressured this administration to target legislative proposals towards these issues - only to be rebuffed. Jennifer Senior recounts some of the same dynamics in her recent article titled: The Paradox of the First Black President.
On the other hand, the Obama administration has fought for immigration reform, pay equity for women, criminal justice reform and the end of DADT/DOMA. Democrats passed the Lilly Lebetter Fair Pay Act, the Fair Sentencing Act and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Act. President Obama has also used the executive branch to investigate police brutality, challenge voting restrictions, prosecute redlining, reach settlements with Black farmers and Native American tribes, etc.
But in terms of an over-arching agenda, President Obama has continually articulated what he believes to be “the defining issue of our time.” Here’s how he talked about it during his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in 2011.
Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers. We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up….
But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.
In the face of all these challenges, we’re going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?
This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008. It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.
But we know that people’s frustrations run deeper than these most recent political battles. Their frustration is rooted in their own daily battles — to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement. It’s rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them. And it’s rooted in the fear that their kids won’t be better off than they were. They may not follow the constant back-and-forth in Washington or all the policy details, but they experience in a very personal way the relentless, decades-long trend that I want to spend some time talking about today. And that is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain — that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.
I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: Making sure our economy works for every working American. It’s why I ran for President. It was at the center of last year’s campaign. It drives everything I do in this office.
I’ll stop there because perhaps you get the idea. Throughout his presidency, Obama has referred to this as his “North Star.” It’s true that, unlike some of his Democratic colleagues, he doesn’t tend to identify and demonize a villain in this story. But to the extent that people don’t see our first African American President’s commitment to addressing income inequality (i.e., class-based populism), one has to wonder whether it has to do with their issues with the messenger rather than the message.
9. Focus
americanprospectfall2015/
The Politics of Frustration
by Paul Starr, The American Prospect, Fall 2015
Republican primary voters, we are told, are furious about the failure of their party’s elected leaders to deliver on their promises. Despite controlling Congress, those leaders have done nothing about illegal immigration and have failed to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, or prevent the agreement with Iran from going through. Fed up with career politicians and fearing dire changes in American society, the party’s rank and file have instead gravitated to candidates who have never held public office—Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. At least, that has been the story in the early going of the presidential race.
On the left, there is an analogous impatience. Just as Republicans are frustrated with the Republican Congress, so progressives are frustrated with the Obama presidency. The standard measures of economic inequality show little progress. Median incomes remain stagnant. The nation and the world continue to hurtle toward a fateful reckoning with climate change.
To some extent, both the conservative and progressive frustrations have the same origin—limited power in a divided government. Neither side is able to get its way because neither party controls all the levers of power. But there is an additional parallel. Both conservatives and progressives say the parties’ agendas aren’t radical enough.
In the Republican campaign, candidates have been trying to outdo each other in radical appeals. Build a wall on the Mexican border—and the Canadian one too. Ban abortion—even in cases of rape and incest. Abolish the Department of Education. Abolish the Internal Revenue Service. Institute a flat tax—no, abolish income taxes altogether. Unilaterally abrogate the new agreement with Iran and show the Ayatollah we mean business. Send troops to Iraq again and to Syria as well.
The Republican primaries are a case study in a social psychological phenomenon known as “group polarization.” When people talk only with those who share their views, they tend to move toward the extremes. None of the candidates, except occasionally Ohio Governor John Kasich, dares talk like a moderate.
On the Democratic side, the candidates are unlikely to race to the left in a way that’s comparable to the Republican race to the right. But the idle talk about adopting single-payer health care and emulating a Scandinavian welfare state has a similar air of unreality about it. Without a total remaking of American society and politics, these ideas have no chance of being enacted outside of Vermont (which didn’t get anywhere with single-payer after initially approving it).
I get that Democrats need to inspire their base, but I have never found political delusions inspiring. The Republican candidates ought to provide motivation enough for Democrats to show up at the polls. In Europe, the conservative and social democratic parties may be close enough that voters see no meaningful difference between them. But in the United States, the gap between the Republicans and Democrats is cavernous.
It is also simply not true that the Obama presidency has failed to make good on the crucial issues of our time. The Affordable Care Act is the most significant program benefiting low-income working people to have been enacted in decades. Recent changes in taxes have been strikingly progressive. The rate on top incomes has risen from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, and capital gains taxes for high-income people have jumped from 15 percent to 23.8 percent (counting the extension of the Medicare tax to capital income that was part of the ACA).
It is also simply not true that the Obama presidency has failed to make good on the crucial issues of our time. The Affordable Care Act is the most significant program benefiting low-income working people to have been enacted in decades. Recent changes in taxes have been strikingly progressive. The rate on top incomes has risen from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, and capital gains taxes for high-income people have jumped from 15 percent to 23.8 percent (counting the extension of the Medicare tax to capital income that was part of the ACA).
Obama has also taken important steps on climate change, providing funds for research on radical innovation in energy, imposing regulations on carbon emissions from power plants, and laying the ground for progress in international negotiations.
The Democrats now face one political imperative above all others: holding the presidency so as to restore a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. To be sure, Democrats will have a chance to move the Court further if they also regain control of the Senate, but the presidency is the key. The next four years will likely bring at least one and possibly two retirements among the Court’s liberal justices, and if a Republican president replaces them, conservatives will be able to consolidate their majority and entrench far-right constitutional ideas.
If Democrats can prevent that from happening, there will come a time when they can again pass substantial liberal legislation. But it is not likely to be in the next four years because of the Republican hold on the House. Republican leaders have to control the frustration in their ranks to avoid being stuck with a reckless and unqualified presidential nominee. Democrats have to overcome the frustrations in their ranks to be able to get their voters to show up and to sustain support despite the Republicans’ likely continued power to block major legislative initiatives. It is tricky to be inspiring and realistic at the same time. We want our leaders to disregard the chains of political practicality, which they can do in exceptional circumstances like a national crisis. This is not that kind of moment. The challenge now for Democrats is to avoid getting ahead of themselves and to understand that they will be able to do a lot more in the future if they can focus on what they have to do now.
If Democrats can prevent that from happening, there will come a time when they can again pass substantial liberal legislation. But it is not likely to be in the next four years because of the Republican hold on the House. Republican leaders have to control the frustration in their ranks to avoid being stuck with a reckless and unqualified presidential nominee. Democrats have to overcome the frustrations in their ranks to be able to get their voters to show up and to sustain support despite the Republicans’ likely continued power to block major legislative initiatives. It is tricky to be inspiring and realistic at the same time. We want our leaders to disregard the chains of political practicality, which they can do in exceptional circumstances like a national crisis. This is not that kind of moment. The challenge now for Democrats is to avoid getting ahead of themselves and to understand that they will be able to do a lot more in the future if they can focus on what they have to do now.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment