All Feeds

School's Out, But Should it Be?

Scott Bittle — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:05:19 -0400

Despite some direct prodding – and funding – from the federal government, summer school programs are being cut back across the country. Alice Cooper may well approve, but where does this leave American parents?

The reason for the cutbacks is straightforward, according to The New York Times. The recession is forcing school boards to pull back severely. There's $100 billion in federal stimulus money available for schools, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan has been calling on school systems to expand their summer programs. Many districts say, however, that their budget woes are so serious they still need to drop summer school to preserve other programs.

One point that comes through in our research is that many parents and students depend on summer programs. When Public Agenda examined attitudes about out-of-school programs in our All Work and No Play survey for the Wallace Foundation, nearly 3 in 5 parents said summer was the hardest time to find something for their child to do. Nearly one in three expressed concerns about their child hanging out with the wrong crowd.

And while this concern cuts across all demographic lines, there's no question this is particularly tough for low-income and minority parents. Six in 10 low-income parents and almost the same number of minority parents say their kids "don't have enough good options" during the summer months. That's compared to a little more than four in 10 higher income and white parents.

Educators often argue that summer school boosts academic achievement because it keeps students from forgetting skills over vacation. Our research shows that argument resonates with low-income and minority parents. By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, they're more likely to worry that their child will fall behind on academics during the summer.

Too Many Students, Too Little Money?

Scott Bittle — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:59:15 -0400

Community colleges around the country are facing tough choices on how many students they can actually serve – choices that Public Agenda's research shows are running right into the public's biggest concerns about higher education.

The Washington Post reports this week that there's a danger many students will be turned away, because of two trends driven by the same root problem: the economy. State governments facing budget problems are slashing their aid to higher education, even as enrollment rises. More and more students are turning to less-expensive two-year colleges either to learn new skills or as a more affordable alternative to four-year programs. That means community college leaders, with their traditional commitment to open enrollment, are facing crucial, painful decisions.

Clearly, you can't make those kinds of choices without knowing what the public wants and needs from higher education. In Squeeze Play 2009: The Public's Views on College Costs Today, conducted for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, we found the public already feels that college is becoming less affordable even as attending college is becoming more necessary.

The number of Americans who say a college education is a necessity has jumped 24 points over the last eight years, from 31 percent in 2000 to 55 percent in 2008. Yet two-thirds also say many qualified people don't have the opportunity to go to college. That number has jumped almost as much, from 45 percent in 1998 to 67 percent last year.

There's also a clear warning sign for college leaders in our research. Higher education has always had a great deal of public goodwill, but Public Agenda's recent surveys show worrying levels of anxiety and skepticism. Slightly more than half of the public (55 percent) says colleges today are more like businesses and mainly care about the bottom line." Nearly as many say colleges could "spend less and still maintain quality. And nearly half say their state's public college system needs to be ""fundamentally overhauled."

Given those numbers, higher education leaders need to reach out to the public as they're figuring out how to complete their mission with the money they've got. The public cares about higher education. It matters to them. And public support is a critical asset as these decisions are made.

Wal-Mart Jumps Into The Health Care Debate

Francie Grace — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:41:19 -0400

It's no surprise that the nation's largest private employer has a strong opinion on health insurance – but the point of view is a switch. After years of opposition to a plan for businesses to be required to help fund employee insurance, Wal-Mart says it backs the idea – if that's part of reform legislation, if costs are similar to its current insurance, and if small businesses are exempt. Separately, an independent panel is recommending that the feds begin focusing on comparing the effectiveness of various medical strategies. Get the facts on our health care choices: see the Citizen's Survival Kit.

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Racial Bias Case

Jenny Choi — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:48:42 -0400

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of 18 white firefighters, a decision that found the city of New Haven wrongly threw out the results of a promotional exam in which minority firefighters fared poorly. The case has brought widespread attention for overturning the decision of the appeals court that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor took part in. The decision is sure to have implications for how employers consider race in their hiring and promotions decisions but some say it establishes confusing standards. To learn more about this issue, see our Choicework guide to affirmative action.

Obama: Climate Change Bill Is "Extraordinary First Step"

Francie Grace — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:46:41 -0400

The energy bill approved by the House is praised by President Obama as a good start but he'd like one thing taken out: trade penalties on nations exceeding global warming targets. The Senate is next stop for the bill, which limits greenhouse gases and provides incentives for alternative energy, so-called "clean coal" technology and nuclear power. The strategy mirrors our Energy Learning Curve™ study, in which proposed incentives got wide support, but measures to force people to act greener sparked opposition. Stay on top of the issue: check out Planet Forward and our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Confused about the Climate Bill? Why Shouldn't You Be?

Scott Bittle — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:08:21 -0400

The House is still scheduled to vote on a major bill on global warming today, and the debate is getting extremely bitter – not to mention confusing. So if you're having trouble following along, there are a couple of stories that may make you feel better.

First, The New York Times examines why the estimates of how much the bill will cost and what it can achieve are all over the map. It's no wonder that people are confused. And secondly, the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog points out that no matter how the House votes, this bill is still a long way from being enacted into law.

So you still have time to get up to speed. Besides this useful roundup, have a look at the Fast Facts on Energy at Planet Forward, or the climate change guide in Public Agenda's Citizens Survival Kit.

A Bad Time For "Bad Math"

Francie Grace — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:37:47 -0400

"We are expanding government promises in ways that are unaffordable, unsustainable, and make no sense whatsoever." Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast in June, David Walker, CEO and president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, called for the creation of a Fiscal Future Commission to put all government spending on the table and engage the public to chart a course out of deficit spending and plans based on "bad math." Transforming the government, he says, takes tough and often, unpopular, choices but it can be done. Click here to learn more.

A Bad Time For "Bad Math"

Allison Rizzolo — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:44:59 -0400

By Allison Rizzolo

Speaking at the Maxwell School/ Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, on June 25, 2009, in New York City, the Honorable David Walker, CEO and president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, drew upon a metaphor in his analysis of the country's current financial situation.

"We have a house - let's envision it as the White House - that's got a cracked foundation, leaking plumbing, a roof that needs to be repaired, and that's underwater… it's got a mortgage that's worth more than the house. And at the same point in time, we're engaging in a discussion that's, 'Look, let's build a new South Wing!' And we'll pay for the South Wing, but it's attached to this house."

"When are we going to start fixing this house?" asked Walker, who is well-known for his advocacy of the need to address the escalating problem of the federal budget and national debt. "We are expanding government promises in ways that are unaffordable, unsustainable, and make no sense whatsoever."

Peter G. Peterson Foundation president and CEO David M. Walker, speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast in New York, called for the convening of a Fiscal Future Commission to put all government spending on the table and engage the public to chart a course out of deficit spending and plans based on "bad math."

Walker, a former Comptroller General of the United States (the government's chief auditor), approached the subject of our fiscal future with a determined optimism that solutions to the federal budget deficit problem exist.

The answer, said Walker, lies in "dramatic and fundamental transformational reforms" that will involve "re-baselining" the government. It's a tall order, but, according to Walker, it can be done: "You can transform government, but it takes tough choices, and not popular choices, in many cases."

What about the "easy rhetorical solution," asked Robert Siegel of National Public Radio and host of the Policy Breakfast Series. Can we "'grow our way' out of this?"

"The U.S. is not top 25 in the world in math," Walker replied. "The fact of the matter is that the math doesn't come close to working. If you take our current ditch, the federal financial hole… we would need double-digit real GDP growth - after inflation, every year for decades - to grow ourselves out of the hole. It hasn't happened. It isn't going to happen."

The "federal financial hole" is, he added, "not a matter of money."

In fact, "we spend more money than any other country on Earth on health care and education," said Walker, "and we get below average results across the board in those two areas."

Our fiscal future is in jeopardy "not because we're not spending enough money," said Walker. The problem, instead, is "bad math."

"The government," he continued, "spends a lot of money, issues a lot of tax preferences, and in many cases, is not receiving measurable results."

Walker identified "four dimensions" to the current fiscal crisis: "deficit, debt, dependency and the ditch," a term he used to describe the "sum of the total liabilities and unfunded promises for Social Security and Medicare alone."

The solution to all four dimensions, according to Walker, lies in asking "a number of fundamental questions about every major federal government tax preference and government spending program."

To that end, Walker is calling for a convening of a Fiscal Future Commission that is statutory and which "ends up having everything on the table… that ends up engaging the American people… and that would make a package of recommendations" to introduce to Congress. Walker sees a commission of this type as "the only way we're going to be able to get politicians to make tough choices."

In his view, four things must happen to address the deficit: tougher statutory budget controls, changes in the tax system, and reform of both the health care system and Social Security. What needs to be done in the case of Social Security, he said, is so straightforward that he calls it a "lay-up."

If the solutions to Social Security reform are so clear, why has it yet to happen?

Public Agenda president Ruth Wooden, asking David Walker - whose past experience includes service as Comptroller General of the United States, leading the Government Accountability Office - when he thinks Social Security is likely to move to center stage for the Obama administration.

Walker pointed to what he views as "a leadership deficit in Washington" as part of the problem. "That's the biggest deficit we have… American people are ahead of their elected officials," said Walker. "They get it. We need more leadership… They are absolutely dying for people to tell them the truth and to exhort leadership."

Unfortunately, he added, the truth is not always a popular message.

"We have something the founding fathers never intended, which is something called career politicians, and they view their position as a job," said Walker. "Therefore they don't want to tell people the truth, they don't want to answer the tough questions, and they'd rather give people what they want: they want more government and less taxes. The problem is," again, "the math doesn't work."

Solutions to the fiscal crisis, says Walker, may not be popular, but they are feasible. One large element in a successful financial future, he believes, would be an increased tax rate.

Walker also commented on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which many people point to as culprits for running up the deficit. In reality, the wars account for only three percent of the "federal financial hole." On the other hand, eliminating the tax cuts enacted during the last administration would also eliminate ten to twelve percent of the problem.

"Tax rates are going to go up," said Walker, "and overall tax burdens are going to increase as compared to what historical levels were… My concern is, the longer we wait, the higher taxes are going to go… We need to act sooner rather than later."

Health care reform, weighing heavily on the minds of citizens and Congress alike, is "the biggest… fiscal challenge we face," according to Walker. "If there's one thing that can bankrupt America," said Walker, "it's health care cost. There is no free lunch."

"We are the only industrialized nation that does not have a budget for health care," Walker points out. "Even socialized medicine countries have a budget… because they know it's more than money—it's emotion."

Walker identifies the cost of health care as "one of the reasons that wages have not been going up as much, and one of the reasons that pensions have been frozen… Health care costs are out of control."

And while "we need to recognize reality," understanding that’s "there's a limit to how much we can allocate to health care," Walker feels strongly that we can do better that what we're doing now, which is "a strikeout on the…basic things that it takes for any system to be successful and sustainable over time."

Solving the problem of health care, as with every other dimension of the fiscal crisis, will take "tough choices," but Walker sees a way forward. "We do ultimately need to move to a system that provides universal coverage," he says, "not universal opportunity, universal coverage for certain types of healthcare based on broad-based societal needs."

Walker also acknowledges that we "may need to consider an individual mandate… then the debate is, 'What must you have?' And this is where we don't have a debate. What is the basic and essential level of care that we want to make sure that everybody has, because it's in our societal need and frankly it's in our interest too, and that's what I would argue would be preventative and wellness and catastrophic protection."

As for Social Security reform, Walker envisions gradually increasing both the normal and early retirement ages, indexing them to life expectancy, strengthening the minimum benefit for those at or near poverty level, reducing the replacement rate for middle and upper income, raising the taxable wage base cap, and adding an automatic, supplemental savings account that the government can't touch.

All of this, Walker says, can be accomplished in one piece of legislation.

"Things aren't that complicated," said Walker. People need to realize that they can't "have everything that they want and expect not to have to pay for it at some point." The re-baseline, then, needs to take place not just in government but also in the attitude of the public.

We need to "really just get back to the basics," Walker concluded, "and say, 'We need to reengineer this,' and we're not looking for a nip and tuck. We're looking for radical reconstructive surgery, in installments, over time."

To learn more about the federal budget deficit and national debt and what we can do about it, check out FacingUp.org, our site devoted to this issue, and Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances, our nonpartisan curriculum for college students and concerned citizens, available free of charge through a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Good News, Bad News and the Climate Bill

Scott Bittle — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:34:01 -0400

Sometimes, the old setup lines are the best ones, and with that in mind it's fair to say that the Energy Learning Curve offers good news and bad news for lawmakers working on a massive climate change bill this week.

The bill, 1,200 pages long and expected to be voted on by the House on Friday, would make sweeping changes in U.S. energy and environmental policy. The one that's getting the most attention is a "cap-and-trade" system for greenhouse gases, but the bill touches nearly every aspect of the energy debate: "green jobs," research into clean coal, and measures to increase efficiency. There's already fierce debate over what the bill will mean for energy prices.

The good news is that our Energy Learning Curve shows a lot of public consensus on energy policy and global warming. There's strong support for a number of proposals, particularly alternative energy, conservation, and incentives to become more efficient, as well as a strong sense of what's off the table (anything that increases the cost of driving, for example). So there are actually a lot of bipartisan ideas that draw substantial public support (some 10 potential solutions gained more than two-thirds support in the survey).
The bad news, however, is that the public's knowledge level on energy is low, so low that they may not have the basic facts they need to know what's realistic or to judge the tradeoffs that are going to be needed.

Half of Americans in our survey can't name a renewable energy source. Four in 10 can't name a fossil fuel. They overestimate how much renewable energy we use in the United States, and how much oil we have in the country. More than half say nuclear energy contributes to global warming (whatever its virtues or faults, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases).

The lesson here is not to throw up your hands and try to make energy policy without the public. For one thing, it wouldn't work. Energy touches people too closely. And secondly, Public Agenda has always found that people can and do grapple with complicated problems, once you give them some key facts and real options.

Fortunately, we have a few good starting points already set up. Have a look at the Fast Facts on Energy at Planet Forward, or the Fact Files in our Environment guide. And for some of the options for dealing with the problem, look over the choices in our Citizens Survival Kit on climate change.

Reform With A Capital "R"

Jenny Choi — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:26:46 -0400

Anyone who's even remotely following the narrative impact of our current economic woes on the deficit should be well aware that our government is living way beyond its means. And in fact, it was living way beyond its means in debt and liabilities even before this economic crisis began. Calls for reform have surfaced in many forms and been made more pressing by the multitude of crises on the horizon, from energy to health care, not to mention Medicare and Social Security.

The McKinsey Quarterly (viewable after free site registration) is out this month with a compelling and rather sweeping case for reform in light of the government's recently expanded role. They suggest that $45 billion to $135 billion a year could be saved if the government were to make significant changes to its productivity and operations. The writers of the study argue: "Tax increases and budget cuts may be unavoidable in the coming years, but governments could minimize them by concentrating on raising efficiency and effectiveness, so that public spending yields the maximum benefit." And there are some empirical examples, in the Defense Department and the IRS, of how such efforts to improve productivity can have a pretty significant result.

And while the study offers case studies from the U.K. and France to paint a picture of how all governments can trim down while maximizing public services, the tune sounds awfully familiar to the White House's call from a few months back. Recall OMB director Peter Orszag's conference in March on "terminations, reductions and savings," at which he proposed $17 billion in budget nips and tucks for next year. Some balk at the idea; while $17 billion sure sounds like a lot of money, it pales in the context of a $3.5 trillion budget.

But perhaps what's missing from this debate is the public's voice. Even if they aren't informed on every corner and nuance of the overall budget debate, Americans have time and again, in our studies, emphasized that trust is a two-way street. For the public, the government's ability to do small things helps build trust needed for taking on the big things. And our long term fiscal issues are a big thing.

Public Ready For Changes To Health Care System But Unclear About Necessary Trade-offs, Citizen Forums Suggest

Peiting Chen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:27:08 -0400

Public Thinking About Coping With The Cost Of Health Care:
How Do We Pay For What We Need?

Peiting Chen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:18:33 -0400

A new analysis of the results of the 2008-2009 National Issues Forums on Coping with the Cost of Health Care indicates that forum participants see the nation's health care system as at or near the breaking point and no longer able to be sustained. Public Agenda's report, based on discussions involving more than 1,000 citizens in deliberative forums held in 40 states and the District of Columbia, shows that U.S. citizens are so gravely concerned about the cost of health care that many worry about it daily. Their concerns are wide and varied:

being wiped out financially by a catastrophic illness,

losing employer-provided coverage due to a job loss,

keeping up with escalating co-pays and deductibles, and

paying for even minor medical expenses – a problem for the nearly 50 million uninsured.

Participants in National Issues Forums on this subject overwhelmingly favored some kind of national health care program that would ensure appropriate medical care for all citizens. But participants were uncertain how to proceed and what such a system would look like, suggesting that the public has not reached a considered public judgment about what direction reform should take.

The findings of this report, prepared for the Kettering Foundation, suggest more work is required to move the national dialogue forward: people need a clear set of policy choices, with inherent costs and trade-offs spelled out, with an opportunity to deliberate about those options.

Stalemate: The Worst Possible Outcome

Francie Grace — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:19:06 -0400

The nation, says Ruth A. Wooden, is still in a very partisan moment, and with the public indicating overwhelmingly that the economy is the issue they most want addressed, it's important to remember that when results matter, stalemate would be the worst possible outcome.

Wooden, as president of nonpartisan Public Agenda, is a champion for the nonpartisan approach to solving urgent public policy problems. Click here to see the video of her observations at the Demos Forum in New York, where she and Norton Garfinkle discussed the latest edition of the Public Confidence in the State of the Nation, a series of reports by The Future of American Democracy Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to research and education.

Garfinkle is editor of the report and chairman of The Future of American Democracy Foundation. Wooden is a board member of Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization, and also serves on The Future of American Democracy advisory board, which is led by Public Agenda chairman and co-founder Daniel Yankelovich.

Risky Business

Francie Grace — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:25:00 -0400
The ink isn't even dry on President Obama's proposals to guard against future economic turbulence but the debate's begun, with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner first up on Capitol Hill. The plan includes tighter regulation of financial markets and creation of a new consumer protection agency which could ban fees it considers harmful and enforce increased availability of financial products in lower income communities. Some people might pass on the offer. For the past three months, as federal debt escalated, a third of Americans told Gallup they were able to reduce their own total debt.

Gay Leaders Say Some Benefits is Not Enough

Jenny Choi — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:30:28 -0400

President Obama signed a federal memorandum late yesterday to extend some benefits to partners of gay and lesbian federal employees. This was the first significant move from the Obama administration regarding gay rights, which news sources report comes as a direct result of increasing pressure from advocates of gay rights. But many of these advocates say it's simply not enough -- and are demanding full benefits, including health care.

The memorandum also comes on the heels of a federal brief filed last week by the Justice Department to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that exempts the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Many gay rights leaders have held President Obama to the promise he made during his presidential campaign to repeal DOMA.

General public support for gay rights has steadily crept up in recent years, with majorities showing strong support for a host of same-sex rights. Three-quarters (74 percent) in a December 2008 Newsweek poll backed inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004); 73 percent supported extending health insurance and other employee benefits (compared to 60 percent in 2004), and two-thirds (67 percent) favored granting Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004).

It's critical to put this in context of the fact that 57 percent of Americans in a Gallup poll last month continue to oppose legal recognition of marriages between gays and lesbians, with 40 percent saying they should not be recognized by the law as valid. These numbers flip nearly identically when respondents are asked whether gay and lesbian relationships should be legal (56 percent say they should and 40 percent say they should not), which cements the theory that poll results can hinge on the mention of a single word: "marriage."

In fact, when pollsters offer a third choice in their survey question wording, Americans are almost evenly split three ways. A recent FOX News poll indicates 33 percent believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married (up 13 percentage points since March 2004), 33 favor a legal partnership, and 29 percent say there should be no legal recognition (down 11 percentage points from March 2004).

Twitter Comes Of Age: In Tehran

Francie Grace — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:05:55 -0400

The digital tool that started out silly (asking users "What are you doing?") grabbed the world by the horns as Iranians doubting the integrity of Friday's announced election victory used 140-character bursts on Twitter and posts to other social networks to get the word out inside and outside Iran.

As a limited recount began and supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi took to the streets, an unusual thing happened: the internal troubles of Iran became the most-discussed subject on Twitter worldwide and a hot topic in the U.S.

Some Americans deluged CNN with complaints, claiming weekend coverage of the story was too sparse. Others, horrified at reports of seven dead in post-election violence, infused their Twitter pages with green, to show solidarity with Iranian protestors.

"Suddenly, everything that's happening over there feels very close," said Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, speaking at the 140 Characters Conference in New York, where Twitter was discussed as a tool for Government 2.0 – transparency and more immediate citizen interaction – as well as citizen engagement.

One of over 17,000 photos uploaded by users of the photo-sharing site Flickr, this one described as being from the streets on Tehran on June 15, 2009.

Dorsey wasn't alone in his view of his service as a plus for democracy: Twitter got a call from the State Department, asking that a scheduled maintenance shutdown be postponed as long as possible, to keep the service up and running for the benefit of Iranian users. Twitter obliged with a switch to a one hour shutdown at 5 p.m. ET – a time when Tehran, about nine hours ahead of New York – is mostly asleep.

A few hours after that, the Iranian government succeeded in blocking access to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, but messages – some posted anonymously for fear of reprisals - continue to fly around the globe, including over 17,000 photos posted on Flickr.

President Obama has indicated concern about the election and the violence but says it is ultimately up to the Iranian people to decide how it elects its leaders and how to establish freer debate and democratic principles.

Skepticism of the electoral process is new to many in Iran. A Gallup poll of Iranians last year found 50 percent who expressed confidence in election results: about the same as among Americans asked about U.S. elections, and higher than many nations, while lower than Europe and Asia overall.

Even before Iran moved into the top tier of the news, public awareness was already significant when it came to questions about how the U.S. should conduct itself in relation to the country which, until modern times, was better known as Persia.

A CBS News/New York Times poll in late April asked Americans whether the U.S. should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program. Fifty-three percent said we should; 37 percent said we should not. That's in line with a winter Gallup poll and an early April CNN/Opinion Research survey. In the latter, 59 percent said the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran, and 40 percent who favored waiting until Iran makes significant changes in its policies towards other countries.

In that same survey, Iran was viewed as a long-term threat by 60 percent of Americans, while 22 percent felt an immediate threat and 17 percent saw no threat at all. Gallup, however, found higher negatives: 80 percent of Americans said they had a very unfavorable or mostly unfavorable opinion of Iran. Even so, 45 percent said the U.S. should not take military action even if diplomatic or economic efforts fail; 28 percent said we should take military action in those circumstances; and 18 percent said simply that we should take military action against Iran.

The preference for diplomacy is similarly present in Public Agenda's 2008 Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, in which 47 percent of Americans surveyed said diplomacy is the best way to try to establish better relations with Iran. Twenty-eight percent preferred economic sanctions and 12 percent said we should threaten or take military action.

Obama's Date With The Doctors

Francie Grace — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:35:46 -0400

Perhaps no meeting of the American Medical Association, at least not in recent memory, has attracted more public attention than this one. The powerful doctors' group has set the stage for a major speech Monday from President Obama at their Chicago convention by coming out against the creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan.

Health services, says the A.M.A., should be "provided by private markets, as they are currently." That's a challenge for Democratic lawmakers, many of whom support a so-called "public option" for health insurance in varying degrees: either as a form of insurance competing with private insurers, or, on a larger scale, as national health insurance. Then there's the proposal from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), in which nonprofit health insurance cooperatives – independent of the government – could be created by groups of residents and small businesses.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says a bill "will not come out of the House without a public option." Even beyond the details of how to make health care available to more Americans, and how to pay for that expansion, there's another debate underway: what to do about escalating health care costs. At the same time, some raise questions about expanding the government role in health care and whether there aren't other ways of controlling costs.

It's a complicated issue, with statistics showing we don't get good overall results for our money, and others – attracting attention at the White House – revealing tremendous regional differences in cost.

That's led to proposals shifting money from high cost areas to help patients in low cost areas. Click here to learn more about public opinion on this issue, and for a look at the different approaches to health care reform, see our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Administration Broaches Executive Pay With Caution

Jenny Choi — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:20:46 -0400

Announcing the appointment of a so-called compensation czar, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the Obama administration is not interested in capping pay for chief executives but will attempt to “rein in” compensation practices by linking salaries to long-term performance rather than short-term gains. That will include stricter oversight of the seven firms that received bailout funds. The move comes three months after a Gallup poll showing strong public anger over bonuses at insurance red ink king AIG. Keep up with the latest on the economy: see our Citizen’s Survival Kit.

Paygo: Useful, but Not Nearly Enough

Scott Bittle — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:34:47 -0400

President Obama's announcement that he'll support so-called "pay as you go" legislation is getting most of the coverage today, but if you care about the federal deficit and national debt, David Leonhardt's big-picture piece in The New York Times is the one to read.

Why? Well, for one thing, the Washington debate on paygo quickly became a fight over who's to blame for the government's fiscal problems. If you step back and look at the problem, the answer is actually pretty simple: everyone.

That answer is also not limited to the past eight years or so. The fact is the federal government has run deficits for 35 of the last 39 years, in good times and bad, under Republicans and Democrats. That would be bad enough, but in addition, the combination of skyrocketing health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers is going to cause Medicare and Social Security spending to skyrocket. We're reaching the point where if we don't act soon, the government's own projections say the situation will be "destructive and destabilizing" for the country. After a certain point, we won't be able to get out from under the debts the government faces.

The second point that's critical is, taken one by one, nearly everything that's being proposed can be summed up this way: "important, but not enough." Paygo, with all its past usefulness and potential flaws, is important, but not enough. Health care reform that cuts costs is important, but not enough. Cutting discretionary spending is important, but not enough, and so is increasing revenue.

Or as Leonhardt puts it:
The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

And this goes to something that's fundamental to our Facing Up to the Nation's Finances initiative: the public has to be part of this process. None of the options will work unless the public buys into them. And the American people are not going to go along unless they're convinced of how serious the problem is and that the government has a real plan to deal with it.

Maxwell School/ Public Agenda Policy Breakfast: "The Way Forward: Putting Our Fiscal House in Order"

Peiting Chen — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:28:14 -0400

Guest:
The Honorable David Walker
President & CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation;
former Controller General of the United States

For more information, please contact Shaheen Hasan at shasan@publicagenda.org

Will Trading In be a Trade Up for Energy Policy?

Scott Bittle — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:47:08 -0400

Congress is getting serious about a "cash-for-clunkers" plan, essentially offering people cash vouchers to "trade in old cars for new fuel-efficient models."

Under the plan currently in Congress, consumers could get vouchers for up to $4,500 on trading in a vehicle that gets 18 miles per gallon or less for something that gets at least 10 miles per gallon more.

Obviously, anything that gets people buying cars would be good for troubled American automakers, and anything that gets people buying efficient cars would be good for our energy policy. What Americans drive is a key part of the energy debate, as you can see in several intriguing contributions to Planet Forward. The Obama administration has already taken a big step by pushing to increase mileage standards.

The findings of our Energy Learning Curve™ research offer both some good news and some cautionary notes on this front. For one thing, one-third of Americans say they've already thought about buying a more fuel-efficient car. For another, nearly three-quarters say they'd favor a tax credit for those who buy hybrids or other fuel-efficient cars.

And one thing that came across clearly in the Energy Learning Curve was that the public doesn't want to be pushed on energy issues. Anything that increases the cost of driving, like gas taxes, are solidly rejected by the public. Most Americans feel they have to drive, and the cost of doing it is already a burden. In this area, carrots are more appealing than sticks.

Obama Sounds A New Note In The Mideast

Jenny Choi — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:23:43 -0400

President Obama spoke in Cairo today on the need to improve U.S.-Muslim relations, in a much-anticipated speech that touched upon a gamut of issues, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamic extremism, nuclear proliferation, and most of all, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama’s most resonant statements, however, were in regard to new beginnings between the U.S. and the Islamic world, a relationship “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” He said, “[America and Islam] are not exclusive… they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

In many ways, this was a decidedly symbolic speech, not about laying out the administration’s approach to foreign policy, as the New York Times points out. Obama spoke of a deepening divide between Americans and Muslims, plagued by mistrust and stereotypes. “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," the president said. "But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”

President Obama, seen here in Cairo, attempted to directly engage the different stakeholders in the Mideast, saying it is "in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest."

Indeed, the knowledge deficit here among the American public is significant – and it hasn’t improved much since 9/11. It’s critical to view survey results on this topic with caution because of the consistently sizeable share of “don’t know” responses. Brand new Gallup numbers indicate that just ten percent of Americans say they know “a great deal” about the opinions and beliefs of people who live in Muslim countries, an increase of just five percentage points since the same question was asked in March 2002. And nearly half (47 percent) say they know either “not much” or “not at all,” a seven point decrease since 2002.

Similarly, a Newsweek poll in July 2007 found one-third (32 percent) who said that they “don't know” whether the Koran condones violence or not. And 19 percent said they “don't know” whether Muslim culture glorifies suicide or not. The Pew Research Center has done a great deal of research on this topic over the years, and when they've asked whether respondents have favorable or unfavorable opinions of Muslims, “don’t know” responses have been consistently in the 20 percent range.

There is some nuance to be found in public attitudes about Muslims and U.S.-Muslim relations, particularly in the context of President Obama's Cairo speech. Last year, Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index found 73 percent who said only a small minority of Muslims support terrorism.

Yet eight in ten Americans were worried about the "rise of Muslim extremism in the world" (38 percent worry "a lot”), and seven in ten (73 percent) worried “a lot” or “somewhat” about growing hatred of the United States in the Islamic world (one-third worry "a lot"). And while six in ten believed improved dialogue with the Muslim world can reduce hatred of the United States, most Americans gave the government poor grades on that front. Three-quarters said establishing good relations with moderate Muslims is something the government can do something about.

Throughout our series of Foreign Policy Index reports, we found both a consistent worry by the public about U.S. relations with the Muslim world, and, a greater inclination towards diplomacy in our nation's approach to foreign policy. Two-thirds (64 percent) said they think the rest of the world views the United States “somewhat” or “very negatively,” and 87 percent said it’s important to our national security that the rest of the world sees the United States positively.

Closing The Math And Science Gap In Education

Scott Bittle — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:47:52 -0400

There was some positive news this week on the math-and-science education front: the New York Times reported on two studies that show progress for women. One report, from the National Research Council, shows progress for women in university science faculties, while a second from the University of Wisconsin says the math achievement gap between boys and girls has all but closed.
In Public Agenda's research and engagement work on math and science education, we've been intrigued by how little we've seen of a gender gap in attitudes about this. In our Reality Check surveys of high school students, we found no evidence that girls were less interested in math and science than boys, or less confident in their skills. Two-thirds of both boys and girls said they've "learned a lot" in math class, and similar numbers of boys (55 percent) and girls (58 percent) say increasing the number and quality of math and science courses would improve education.
So much for the good news. The bad news is that many students -- girls and boys alike – aren't are all that enthusiastic about careers in math and science. In our survey, we found just half of students felt strong math, science and technology skills are "absolutely essential" to their future. Nearly one in four had a reaction that can be roughly translated as "Yuck!" -- saying they'd be "really unhappy if I ended up in a job or career that required doing a lot of math and science."
American students may not be getting much of a push from their parents on this, either. Educators, policymakers and business leaders have been deeply concerned about the U.S. falling behind on science and technology, but the parents we surveyed seemed pretty complacent about what their children were getting.
Most parents (62 percent) do say students need advanced math like algebra and calculus to succeed in life. But majorities also say that "things are fine as they are" when it comes to the amount of math their child gets in school (57 percent). Seventy percent of high school parents say their child's school is teaching the right amount of math and science.
In fact, fewer parents worry about math and science education than in the 1990s. When Public Agenda surveyed parents in 1994, 52 percent said not enough math and science was a "serious problem" in their child's school. By 2006, that had fallen to 32 percent.
Public Agenda isn't just researching this problem – we're working to engage people in solving it as well. If you live in the Kansas City area and are concerned about these problems, you can take part in a Community Conversation planned on June 12. That's part of a three-year initiative led by Public Agenda with the Regional METS Leadership Coalition and One KC Voice, with funding from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

Time to Drop the Hammer on Troubled Schools?

Scott Bittle — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:10:47 -0400

Enough is enough in many of the nation's lowest-performing schools, according to Arne Duncan, the new secretary of education. He's announced that one of his major goals will be to have 250 of the worst schools closed, reorganized and reopened next year.

Duncan doesn't actually have the power to order schools closed – that rests with local school boards. But Duncan does have $3 billion in federal stimulus money earmarked to pay for turning around troubled schools, and that's a powerful inducement to local authorities.

Most experts do agree that a relatively small number of schools, sometimes tagged "dropout factories," account for a huge share of our educational problems. Yet trying to fix them has baffled educators and policymakers for decades. If we're going to rebuild these schools, how do we go about it?

One vital element is going to be leadership, the kind of people we put in charge of these schools. In our Mission of the Heart study, we conducted focus groups and interviews with principals and superintendents in high-needs districts, the people struggling with the tough problems.

The striking difference was how the administrators broke down into two distinct groups: the "copers" and the "transformers." They all had similar complaints: red tape, a lack of administrative support, parents who have their own daunting challenges. But how educators dealt with them was drastically different. Copers were struggling to keep from being overwhelmed; transformers took a "can-do" attitude and had an explicit vision of the school culture they wanted.

Obviously, the nation's schools need more "transformers" to lead the schools Duncan wants to rebuild. But Public Agenda's researchers were left with two big questions: First, are transformers "born" or "made?" The transformers we talked to were talented, committed people, but so were many of the copers. Many of the transformers had the advantage of being in school systems that nurtured their talents. With better support, could more copers become transformers?

Secondly, running a high-needs school is a grueling job, and the administrators we talked to were putting in long, hard days. How long can we expect transformers to keep up the brutal pace needed to keep ahead of the problems they face? Are we burning out our best school leaders? And if so, how do we keep them in the game – just when we may need them the most?

GM: "A Chance To Rise Again"?

Francie Grace — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:41:43 -0400

That's how President Obama describes General Motors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, as a similarly hopeful note was also sounded on the instantly historic homepage of The Detroit Free Press. The headlines "GM begins its rebuilding process" and "Bankruptcy won't slow progress, GM exec says" are in smaller letters than those trumpeting the fate of the century-old company, or the closing of factories and dealerships. But they're the same size as word that a federal judge has approved Chrysler's plan to move out of Chapter 11 and become part of the Italian firm Fiat. Smaller type still, but in a place of silent but stern importance: news of G.M.'s exit from the Dow Jones Index.

As the old G.M. dies, the new G.M. – 60 percent owned by the federal government – is born, and expected to receive as much as another $30.1 billion in federal aid.

Surveys have shown most Americans have favored allowing G.M. to pass into bankruptcy protection, are reluctant to back government bailouts, and uneasy about government ownership of industry.

In March, opposition to using billions in government loans to keep G.M. and Chrysler afloat was 63 percent in a Pew Research Center poll (30 percent backed the idea), 59 percent in a Gallup/USA Today poll (39 percent said the opposite), and 65 percent in a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll (31 percent said the reverse) in which questioning continued into early April.

Also in April, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found 76 percent who said the feds should let the two companies go into bankruptcy and 22 percent who said the government should provide additional assistance to prevent bankruptcy.

That same survey found 44 percent who thought the bankruptcy of one or more U.S. automakers would cause only minor problems for the U.S. economy and 37 percent who said it would cause major problems. At the same time, 55 percent said they did not think such an occurrence would have any impact on their personal financial situation.

Has the economic crisis led the federal government to be too involved in the way some businesses and financial institutions are run? The CNN poll found 42 percent who said federal involvement is "about right," 35 percent who said "gone too far," and 23 percent who said "not gone far enough."

The Fox poll, exploring related issues among registered voters, a sharp partisan split. Asked about bailouts of financial institutions that were facing bankruptcy, 59 percent disapproved and 35 percent approved, with Democrats split (50 percent approval, 45 percent disapproval), Republicans strongly disapproving (77 percent compared to 18 percent), and a big disapproval margin also seen among Independents (59 percent to 31 percent). The results were similar on approval of more federal loans for G.M. and Chrysler, although this time the split among Democrats was 53 percent against the helping hand and 44 percent in favor.

"What we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM," Obama said today, pledging that a private board and not the government will "call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around." The Fox poll, while done prior to the G.M. filing, suggests voters are divided on this issue: 49 percent said the government should stay out of decisions by bailed out corporations and 45 percent said the government should be involved. Among Democrats, government involvement was favored by 62 percent and opposed by 33 percent; among Republicans, 65 percent were opposed and 28 percent in favor; and among Independents, 54 percent were opposed and 37 percent in favor.

Children first

Peiting Chen — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:53:03 -0400

Reprinted from BaltimoreSun.com

Revive the tradition of a decennial conference on America's youth

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt had the wisdom and foresight to bring together a disparate array of experts and advocates at the White House to discuss the condition and needs of America's children and what government, businesses, and nonprofits could do to make the lives of the nation's youngest citizens better.

The 200 participants in this first White House Conference on Children focused on how to improve the lot of institutionalized and neglected children and strengthen poor families, resulting in state legislative action across the country and the creation of the Children's Bureau, the first federal agency to monitor children's welfare.

Every 10 years, every president in power through Richard Nixon convened a White House Conference on Children, bringing together ever-larger numbers of experts and interested parties, yielding a wealth of proposals and new policies adopted by federal and state governments and embraced by large parts of the private and nonprofit sectors.

These high-level gatherings not only sparked important national discussions of children's well-being and needs but also legislation as varied as ending child labor, reducing child and maternal mortality, supporting research on children's physical and emotional development, enhancing spending on K-12 and postsecondary education, and bolstering efforts to improve children's health and nutrition.

But no children's confab has been held at the White House in nearly 40 years. The White House has held more expert extravaganzas than ever in recent decades, yet - shockingly - not since the baby boomers were kids has a president (and a Congress, which must authorize funding) made it a priority to organize a conference and lead a national discussion about America's children.

It's time. If, as we so often say, children are our future as a people and nation, why not bring together the greatest minds, parents, those who work with children and thinkers of all political persuasions to discuss what America's priorities should be for the 70 million to 75 million Americans under 18?

There is no shortage of issues to fruitfully address. Elementary and secondary education are woefully inadequate in preparing children with the knowledge and skills for life, as a library full of studies have demonstrated. And, in our quest for higher math, science, and reading test scores, the arts, humanities and physical education have been slashed by embattled school administrators.

Poverty is more widespread among children than any other age group. The rise of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have radically affected the lives of almost half of America's children. Morals have been eroded and children have been threatened by the less-savory aspects of the Internet, Hollywood, and other corners of popular culture, which make violence, sex, and the debasement of others all too acceptable and accessible. And drug use remains widespread, despite generations of "wars on drugs."

While we have a national health-care crisis, partially addressed by the recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program and President Barack Obama's commitment to health-care reform, too many young Americans lack the decent care that should be universal in a rich society such as ours. Childhood obesity is at epidemic levels.

Like so much well-intentioned but Orwellian discourse in Washington, we talk proudly about "leaving no child behind," but we leave tens of millions behind all the time. Can't we get beyond sound bites and piecemeal fixes to take a comprehensive and careful look at how our children are doing and how the public and private sectors, child-welfare advocates and parents can make children's lives better?

The Rough Rider who stormed San Juan Hill, busted monopolistic trusts, created the national park system, worked to strengthen the U.S. economy, and signed legislation to make our nation's food and drugs healthier also had the time and intelligence to put children's welfare at the highest levels of America's policy agenda and public discussion. A hundred years later, we should honor him and do right by our children nation's youth by launching a serious, far-reaching, national discourse with a centennial White House Conference on Children hosted by President Obama.

What are we waiting for?

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University, is author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility" and "100 Years of American Child Policy." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

The Latest Tally on What You Owe

Scott Bittle — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:17:42 -0400

There's no shortage of depressing numbers in the news today, but one set of numbers in particular deserves to be flagged. That's USA Today's assessment of how much the average American family owes thanks to our national debt.

Thanks to the federal government's intense spending to stave off economic collapse, the average American household owes another $55,000, to a $546,668 share in the national debt and future obligations, according to the newspaper's calculations.

But the bank bailouts and economic stimulus packages are only part of the problem. That's a short-term strategy, there don't seem to be any good alternatives, and as long as the economy turns around, we can get away with it. The outlook for Medicare and Social Security continues to get worse, and over the long term the federal budget remains unsustainable.

Or course, the implications of the national debt are different than personal debt. No one's going to foreclose on the White House or send the repo men after Air Force One. But the federal government is overextended, just as lots of businesses and families have been. That could turn into the financial crisis after this one, unless we start taking this seriously.

For more on how we can get going on this, visit our Choicework guides on Facing Up to the Nation's Finances.

Not Just Talk: Community Conversations

Francie Grace — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:58:07 -0400

As the school year winds down, some students, parents, teachers and community leaders are planning a better future. In Bridgeport, Ct., where we've been assisting local leaders in dialogues on community problems, students and adults will gather on June 9 to discuss ways to make the schools safer and better. [Click here for details on attending that event.] Could public engagement help address a problem in your own community? We have resources available without charge to help communities learn how dialogue and deliberation can replace partisan gridlock.

Same-Sex Marriage Hits A Wall In California

Francie Grace — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:43:14 -0400

The battleground is expected to switch back to the voters, with a new referendum as early as next year, now that California's highest court has upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage. In a 136-page-long decision, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

In the ruling, the court said the petitioners and the Attorney General essentially were complaining that it is "just too easy to amend the California Constitution" through a referendum such as Proposition 8, which imposed California's gay marriage ban. "It is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling continues. "If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted… this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative."

Justice Carlos Moreno, who was considered by President Obama as a possible U.S. Supreme Court nominee, was the only dissenting opinion in the 6-1 decision. He says it "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution."

At the same time, the court declined to overturn the 18,000 gay marriages that took place before the ban was imposed. The reason, according to the ruling, is that changing the legal status of those marriages would result in "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives."

With same-sex marriage legal in five states, and two others considering legalization, opponents see the California decision as a "shot in the arm." So says same-sex marriage opponent Bruce Hausknecht of the group Focus on the Family Action, who tells The Wall Street Journal this case will be used "to communicate to people all around the country that at the end of the day, citizens do still control how they're governed."

A Gallup poll released today and based on questions asked in early May found 57 percent were opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage with the same rights as traditional marriage, very nearly the same, or a few percentage points' difference, from the amount of opposition found in surveys in each of the past five years. Going back further in time, shifting opinion is clear: opposition was 68 percent in 1997, slowly and steadily inching down to the current level of opposition.

Support for gay marriage at the same time picked up dramatically, with 27 percent backing this position in 1997, steadily climbing to 42 percent by 2004, and hovering within a few points of that mark ever since, registering this month at 40 percent.

Survey answers broken down according to the self-identified political ideologies of survey participants produces some interesting contrasts: 75 percent of liberals favor legalization; 80 percent of conservatives oppose it; while moderates split down the middle, with 50 percent in favor and 46 percent against.

Not surprisingly, support also varies according to age, steadily declining from 59 percent among America's youngest adults down to 32 percent among senior citizens.

Support for gay rights not involving marriage is another question: 56 percent say sexual relations between same-sex consenting adults should be legal, essentially the same as last year, but a significant increase over time: in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that number was in the low 40s and dipped to 35 by the late 1980s.

Current support is also strong in some other areas: 67 percent say same-sex domestic partners should have access to health insurance and other employee benefits and 73 percent believe they should have inheritance rights.

To learn more about this subject, see our issue guide on gay rights, which includes a timeline of 400 years of laws, court cases and other key milestones.

Helping Hands: Not Necessarily From Above

Francie Grace — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:44:19 -0400

Consumer spending continued to slide in May – a new Gallup poll shows that even the wealthy are cutting back – but what about charitable giving?

More than a few nonprofit organizations and charitable groups have reacted to the recession by redoubling their fundraising efforts, but on an individual level, donations of cash don't always come from those who have the most to give.

A McClatchy Newspapers story, reporting that the fifth of the American population which earns $19,301 or less is the group that gives the largest percent of its income to charity, observes that "the generosity of America's least wealthy isn't so much rare as rarely noticed."

Virginia Hodgkinson, who has researched charitable giving trends for the nonprofit associations group Independent Sector, tells McClatchy that the lowest-income fifth of the population always gives at more than its capacity. "The next two-fifths," she says, gives "at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."

The newspaper's analysis, based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey, reports that the group that gave the biggest chunk of its income is also the least educated segment of the population, the oldest, and the most likely to be students, minorities, women and recent immigrants. .

Those percentages are from 2007, the most recent statistics available, so it's hard to say if things are any different right now. A December Gallup poll, however, found very little change in the percentage who said they gave to charity: 84 percent in 2008 compared to 87 percent in 2005. Gallup didn't ask how much they gave.

Public Agenda's 2005 study, The Charitable Impulse, done in collaboration with the Kettering Foundation and in partnership with Independent Sector, found that donors of small amounts often view local nonprofit organizations as an engine of efforts to improve local civic life.

Donating to charity was also seen as a civic act, similar to voting, a way of acting on one's preferences. Giving is closely linked to personal experiences and emotional connections.

"The money goes more where you want it to go," said one focus group participant in a Boston suburb. "When you give - whether it is your time or your money - to a charity, you are able to make sure that it goes to what you want it to go to."

All Feeds

School's Out, But Should it Be?

Too Many Students, Too Little Money?

Wal-Mart Jumps Into The Health Care Debate

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Racial Bias Case

Obama: Climate Change Bill Is "Extraordinary First Step"

Confused about the Climate Bill? Why Shouldn't You Be?

A Bad Time For "Bad Math"

A Bad Time For "Bad Math"

Good News, Bad News and the Climate Bill

Reform With A Capital "R"

Public Ready For Changes To Health Care System But Unclear About Necessary Trade-offs, Citizen Forums Suggest

Public Thinking About Coping With The Cost Of Health Care:How Do We Pay For What We Need?

Stalemate: The Worst Possible Outcome

Risky Business

Gay Leaders Say Some Benefits is Not Enough

Twitter Comes Of Age: In Tehran

Obama's Date With The Doctors

Administration Broaches Executive Pay With Caution

Paygo: Useful, but Not Nearly Enough

Maxwell School/ Public Agenda Policy Breakfast: "The Way Forward: Putting Our Fiscal House in Order"

Will Trading In be a Trade Up for Energy Policy?

Obama Sounds A New Note In The Mideast

Closing The Math And Science Gap In Education

Time to Drop the Hammer on Troubled Schools?

GM: "A Chance To Rise Again"?

Children first

The Latest Tally on What You Owe

Not Just Talk: Community Conversations

Same-Sex Marriage Hits A Wall In California

Helping Hands: Not Necessarily From Above

Public Thinking About Coping With The Cost Of Health Care:
How Do We Pay For What We Need?