All Feeds

Government Agency Reports Greenhouse Emissions Up Last Year

Jenny Choi — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:41:34 -0500

Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. were up by 1.4 percent in 2007, after a decline the previous year, according to newly released figures in a report from the Energy Information Administration, the statistics arm of the Energy Department.

To put this in context, greenhouse gas emissions, comprised of mostly carbon dioxide, have increased by a total of 16.7 percent since 1990. The bad news in the U.S. was outpaced in China, where carbon dioxide emissions alone rose by 7.5 percent from 2006 to 2007. Total global carbon output, compared to the previous year, was up by 3 percent.

Some good news here is that the U.S. and China are working together on a number of projects intended to reduce pollution. At a meeting in Beijing this week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson talked about the June U.S.-China agreement for ten years of cooperation on energy and environmental issues, which includes many corporate partnerships. Paulson also said U.S. officials expect to leave Beijing with new agreements on short, medium and long-term goals for clean air, clean water, electricity generation, transportation, and protecting wetlands and other natural areas.

Although three-quarters of the American public believe that global warming is a proven fact, public attitudes on this issue are remarkably divided along political party identification and ideological lines. Democrats are far more likely to say the effects of climate change have already begun, while more Republicans believe that the threat tends to be exaggerated in the news.

Overall, there has been very little movement in public concern about climate change. Despite the finding that seven in 10 say they are at least "somewhat worried" about global warming, the issue ranks surprisingly low on a list of environmental concerns.

Be sure to check out our Climate Change Choicework Discussion Starter and the climate change guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit for more about the root of the problem, detailed charts and statistical background, and three possible solutions -- including pros and cons for each approach.

Feds Study Rival Plans To Address Mortgage Crisis

Francie Grace — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:45:25 -0500

As bailout-seeking auto execs arrived back in Washington, leaving corporate jets at home and driving hybrids instead, word of AT&T's huge layoff and the latest jobless stats washed over Wall Street along with a report the government might push some mortgage rates down to 4.5 percent. The plan, which wouldn't apply to refinances, is a rival to that advocated by FDIC chair Sheila Bair, who'd use federal funds to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. As citizens, we've got choices to make: learn more about the economy, the budget deficit and other key issues in our Citizen's Survival Kit.

Priced Out Of Prosperity?

Paul Gasbarra — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:17:01 -0500

The picture was grim this week as the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released a report predicting that a college education could soon become unaffordable for most Americans. In the past 25 years, the cost of college has increased by 439 percent. [The New York Times notes that this figure is not adjusted for inflation.]

When it comes to making schools affordable for their residents, all but one state flunked the center's rubric. Having spoken to people in higher education, this comes as no surprise. Though college costs have increased for a variety of reasons such as health care costs, energy costs, and competitive salaries from faculty, these increases are made far more drastic by a continual reduction of state funding for state schools.

The lack of state funds is often recouped by passing the price on to students. In turn, going to college costs a family a larger percentage of their income than previous years. Low income families are especially hard hit. The New York Times reports that a four-year university education would cost a family making median wages in the bottom quintile of earners 55 percent of its yearly income. In other words, the poorest families would have to contribute more than half of every dollar they make in order to get a four-year degree. And the alternative, community colleges, cost such a family nearly as much.

Of course, financial aid is available for many, but the report reveals shockingly that lower-income students get less than those from more affluent families. This is yet another confirmation of a trend spotted early last year in our report, "Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today," which was done with the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Our researchers found that more than ever, people said they believe that many qualified, motivated students don't have an opportunity to go to college. This, at a time when college education is seen as a foundation for a middle class lifestyle.

College is not only necessary on a personal level - it also counts on a national one. As Patrick M. Callan, one of the principal authors of the recent report, points out, "The educational strength of the American population is in the group that's about to retire. In the rest of the world, it's the group that's gone to college since 1990."

The center's report projects that costs will only increase until eventually all but the most affluent Americans will be priced out of the university experience. That is, of course, if nothing changes and costs continue to go up while family incomes continue to go down.

Research underway at Public Agenda is exploring many of the ways different states are trying to hold down cost and increase efficiencies. The recent financial troubles have made this something of an involuntary act. As tax revenues decrease, state budgets often turn towards universities to make cuts.

While some of those may have been long overdue, Callan argues that cutbacks in time of fiscal stress are the opposite of what we need. If the argument is that an educated populace brings greater overall wealth to states and the nation, then now is the time to spend money and effort making college more accessible and affordable, and not to discover that soon very few will be able to afford their mortarboard.

Paul Gasbarra is a research associate for Education Insights, Public Agenda's initiative to help those on the front lines of education reform – teachers, parents, community and school leaders – cooperate more effectively to achieve key education goals. For more on education reform, check out his recent article, Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress and feel free to add your own ideas to his "to do" list for our leaders in Washington.

Now They Tell Us: U.S. Officially in Recession

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:11:40 -0500

The National Bureau of Economic Research has spoken: the U.S. has been in a recession for a year. Polls tell us that a lot of Americans think the economists are late to the party on this one.

The bureau, an independent organization that's accepted as the official arbiter of economic data in the United States, actually doesn't follow the classic rule of thumb for recessions, which is two consecutive quarters where the economy shrinks. Their process considers a lot of other factors, which you can read about here. For a little historical perspective, you can check out this chart of economic growth.

But it's a rough year for the economy, and most surveys show the American public decided we were in a recession some months ago. Even back in January, 45 percent told the Gallup poll the country was in recession; by March that was up to 76 percent. Overall attitudes about the economy are very negative, with three-quarters having negative views and the same number thinking things are getting worse. To think about some of the options for getting the economy back on track, have a look at our Citizen's Survival Kit on the economy.

Change, Trust and Foreign Policy

Scott Bittle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:13:39 -0500

The announcement of the new Obama foreign policy team has been greeted with much talk of a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, a "rebalancing" to emphasize traditional diplomacy over the military in world affairs. There's no question that the public is ready for a change in direction, according to Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. But public often defines the problem in ways that are very different from the foreign policy establishment – and the public's support should not be taken for granted.

Ever since we started the Foreign Policy Index in 2005, we've consistently found the public thinks the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on diplomacy over military force in dealing with terrorism. Most think there’s at least some justification for the criticism that the U.S. has been too quick to resort to force. That also applies in specific situations. Very few Americans support the use of force against Iran, for example.

And the public would also make humanitarian aid a much higher priority. In fact, disaster relief is at the top of the public’s list of priorities for U.S. foreign policy, on a par with traditional goals like nuclear nonproliferation. It’s rare, however, to see disaster relief get that kind of priority from the foreign policy establishment.

The public also has its own sense of the best strategies to follow. When it comes to making the U.S. more secure, the public regularly goes back to three key strategies: energy independence, better intelligence gathering and controlling illegal immigration. Those options have regularly been at the top of the public’s list in the Foreign Policy Index. Sometimes the relative position among them shifts, but it’s always the same top three by a clear margin.

There are two other key points to remember regarding public attitudes about foreign policy. Firstly, and contrary to what many commentators think, the public does see foreign policy as linked to economics. Even before the global financial crisis struck this fall, Public Agenda’s research showed concern about the economy spilling over into foreign policy, driving up concerns about energy independence and trade.

Secondly, public trust in foreign policy has been at a low ebb in the past few years. This is a change from the normal state of affairs. In general, the public still prefers to leave international relations to the professionals. Their default setting is to trust that the president and his advisers know what they’re doing – unless they see policy as seriously off track. In the last few years, that’s exactly what’s happened. About two-thirds of the public say foreign policy is on the wrong track, and half don’t trust the government to tell them the truth about foreign affairs.

The Obama administration may get the benefit of the doubt from the public, simply by virtue of being new. But trust in U.S. policy has seriously eroded, and the new administration shouldn’t assume that a change at the top is all that’s needed. Rebuilding public trust should be a foreign policy priority, too, because no policy, domestic or international, can survive for long unless it’s rooted in the public’s values and support.

Obama Names Key Cabinet Positions

Jenny Choi — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:14:18 -0500

President-elect Obama made official today his picks for key cabinet positions, among them Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and Robert Gates for secretary of defense. In the same news conference, Obama maintained his stance on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months. Meanwhile, current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit India this week, which is still reeling from last week’s terrorist siege that claimed over 170 lives. Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated in the wake of the attacks. Be sure to visit our Citizen’s Survival Kit for facts and choices to tackle these foreign policy issues.

Viewpoint: A new trio for our times

Peiting Chen — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:59:57 -0500

The era of dumb, dissed and dysfunctional government may be ending. Cynicism, cronyism and conventional political wisdom are threatened as a new, transnational political culture of idealism, activism, and potential multi-partisan cooperation dawns.

This is not yet another encomium to Barack Obama. Instead, looking at the symbolism and politics of three new (or newish) leaders on three continents, it appears that the democratic world may be entering an age as different and defining as those of two other transformations: the FDR/Keynes/social democratic post-World War II "liberal consensus" and the Thatcher/Friedman/Reagan conservative ascendancy of the last three decades.

So, how might this be the age Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva?

The threads that draw America's president-elect and the presidents of France and Brazil together are in the symbolism of who they are and their effects on their people as well as their politics and policies.
Politically, all three are more than rhetorically post-partisan. They espouse ideas and promote policies at odds with significant parts of their core constituencies. They cross political divides in surprising ways - from Mr. Obama's eloquent discussion of family and values to Mr. da Silva's embrace of global market capitalism to Mr. Sarkozy's calls for social solidarity and a "rupture" with French state capitalism.

They share a desire for greater social justice in a modern world that has benefited many but left many others hurt and trembling. They believe in helping Brazil's desperately poor, France's immigrants and unemployed, and America's legions without savings, health care or decent jobs not through Great Society-style handouts but what one observer of Mr. da Silva has called "conditional responsibility."

Certainly, there were glimmers of this in Republican and Clinton-era welfare reform, but the three men share a commitment to social compassion-with-personal responsibility writ large. Mr. Obama, Mr. da Silva and Mr. Sarkozy - emerging from left-liberal or statist milieus - have thrown off old-leftist shibboleths of anti-capitalist etatisme, while strongly embracing the need for greater government regulation and activism in building a more just, prosperous and sustainable world.

The three have discarded the global go-it-alone-ism of Gaullism, the Bush administration, and the old geopolitical obstructionism of what were once called "nonaligned nations." Instead, the three leaders stand strongly for global interconnectedness in a way that has been sorely lacking since the early days of the United Nations - on climate change, humanitarian intervention, poverty and disease reduction, migration, and reinvigorating diplomacy and international institutions. None are sycophants for globalization, yet each could be more forthright in supporting free trade.

Symbolically, the three men - their backgrounds, their styles and their political modus operandi - give a new meaning to the dismissive phrase, apropos of leadership who came before them, of being "so 20th century." As an African-American man with a Christian and Muslim, Kenyan and Kansan, single mother-to-Harvard background, Mr. Obama is today's world at its best - a world beyond race and cultural division and one of the promise of democracy and opportunity. Sans an elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration pedigree, with an immigrant and Jewish background, and a supermodel spouse shaking cobwebs from the Elysee Palace, Mr. Sarkozy has brought a curious mix of flair and inclusiveness to a hidebound society whose leadership class had strayed far from the ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Mr. da Silva, a once-rough-and-tumble union leader from the slums of Sao Paulo, has successfully expanded the market-based reforms of his predecessor while raising living standards for the poor, making Brazil the darling of investors from Wall Street to Shanghai as well as his flag-waving, working-class supporters.

All three are enormously public public figures. Mr. Obama's ecstatic throngs, likely to bring the largest crowd in U.S. history to Washington on Jan. 20, and his viral Internet presence speak to a sort of "people's democracy" that historians can only weakly search for analogues in Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. A similar popular fervency has surrounded "Lula" since before his first successful presidential campaign in 2002. While Mr. Sarkozy may not have the street or Web allure of his transatlantic counterparts, he seizes the diplomatic and media stage with gusto to push peace from Georgia to Darfur and financial-market reform from Brussels to Washington.

In one sense, this is a tale of three men with charisma, and of the triumph of opportunity and ideals over entrenched power. But, from Mr. Obama's stunningly self-controlled demeanor and Mr. da Silva's electrifying presence to Mr. Sarkozy's high-profile romantic life, these are men who are cool in multiple senses of this wonderfully nuanced word. With each, politics isn't boring. And they have galvanized their people and their aspirations. While each nation still has its share of business-as-usual politicians, these three have made political life engaging, hip and hopeful.

And there's the added promise. Beyond the potential for policy reforms that bring about greater socioeconomic inclusiveness, redefine the respective roles of markets and governments in ways that promote broad-based economic growth, and foster greater international cooperation and understanding, this trio of leaders can help dispel decades of cynicism about government and public service. Echoes of JFK notwithstanding, Mr. Obama, probably more than the other two, represents an enticement for citizens to actively care about their country and world: On the one hand, this means choosing personally to serve whether in the public sector or other roles; on the other, it means recognizing that policy-making requires an engaged, informed citizenry ready to make hard choices rather choosing the easy out of disengagement, disdain and demagoguery.

Yes, the world goes far beyond Washington, Paris, and Brasilia. Yes, China is the economic goliath changing our planet. And yes, there are all too many less-than-democratic corners of the world.

But, as the Obama mantra has it: Change is in the air. While politics and governing will continue to be littered with more defeats than victories, the substance and style of these three leaders point to an era of hope, inspiration, and perhaps even problem-solving.

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan think tank, is the author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility," published by Yale University Press this year, and teaches at American University.

The Iron Triangle

David White — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:48:55 -0500

“The Iron Triangle” examines the views of more than two dozen college and university presidents who shared their thoughts with us in lengthy, one-on-one interviews. We found that in the view of many college and university presidents, the three main factors in higher education—cost, quality, and access—exist in what we call an iron triangle, and any change in one will inevitably impact the others. This is in opposition to the public, business and government leaders, who don't accept the idea that there is necessarily a reciprocal relationship between cost, quality, and access.

Communications Director

Alex Trilling — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:27 -0500

Public Agenda, the nonpartisan research and civic engagement organization, nationally recognized for its more than 30-year commitment to bringing citizens and leaders together to address issues, such as education reform, foreign policy, the federal budget and many others, is conducting a national search for a new communications director to work in its New York City headquarters.

The director of communications is a senior-level position reporting directly to the president of Public Agenda. Prospective candidates for the position will have at least 10-15 years of experience in public policy-related communications, the ability to lead department staff and expertise in communicating through traditional and new media.

The mission of Public Agenda’s communications department is to articulate and amplify the organization’s program work by identifying target audiences and communicating its public engagement activities, public issues analysis and its advocacy of public dialogue.

Public Agenda’s communications department concentrates its efforts on:

Advising the organization and individual departments on how best to frame their messages, coupled with advice on timing and composition of audience target lists, etc.
Developing materials (both print and electronic as well as audio and video vehicles) that draw attention to Public Agenda’s work and communicate the departments’ “products”
Producing events that bring together audiences and draw media attention to Public Agenda’s
work and mission of bridging the gap between citizens and leaders.

Essential skills/attributes of the communications director:

Excellent writing skills
Extensive media relations experience
Demonstrable leadership ability
Creativity
Belief in the organizational mission

The position requires collaborative skills and the ability to work with leaders across departments on complex multi-dimensional projects.

Email a letter of interest, resume and writing sample to: atrilling@publicagenda.org.
References will be requested upon successful advancement through the interview process.
No calls, please.
Additional information about Public Agenda is available at www.publicagenda.org.

Materials should be submitted no later than December 19, 2008.

Contact:

Alex Trilling
General Manager
Public Agenda
6 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016

Obama Zeroes In On The Federal Budget

Francie Grace — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:05:06 -0500

Barack Obama's on board for the economic stimulus package but he's also in favor of reducing the federal budget deficit – just not right away. "We are going to have to jump-start the economy," said the president-elect, as the markets reacted to steep declines in housing prices and the gross domestic product's worst dip in 28 years. "As soon as the recovery is well under way, we need to set up a long-term plan to reduce the structural deficit and make sure we are not leaving a mountain of debt for the next generation."

In the meantime, says Obama, he's told his budget director – Peter Orszag, currently director of the Congressional Budget Office, and described by his new boss as knowing "where the bodies are buried" - to cut the programs we don't need and insist that "those we do need operate in a cost-efficient way."

To illustrate his point, the president-elect pointed to a government program for farmers which made payments to over 2,700 millionaires in the past six years – even though they might not have been eligible for the boost from Uncle Sam. That program, said Obama, needs review.

Most of the budget cuts won't be that easy. Similarly, the administrators of the Wall Street bailout are having a hard time winning cheers in all quarters. Their latest move, to buy more bad mortgages and boost consumer credit, comes of the heels of the Citigroup bailout which has sparked concern about what effect it may have on other banks, which are now experiencing an increase in foreclosures and delinquencies among borrowers with previously solid credit ratings.

Obama, both in his comments on the federal budget and at his news conference Monday announcing the names of the men and women he's nominating to steer the nation out of the economic crisis, struck a bipartisan note in saying he'll consult the Republicans on economic reforms and will "honor the commitments made by the current administration" on parceling out bailout dollars.

But some of the decisions on who should be bailed out and what kinds of strings should be attached are drawing fire, in serious debate by policymakers and comments from citizens on through to comedy routines on late night television only a few degrees removed from questions being asked on Capitol Hill.

The nation, said Obama as he urged Congress to pass a stimulus and jobs creation package he can sign as soon as he's inaugurated, will weather this crisis "because we've done it before." But he's not high on writing the red ink-mired automakers the $25 billion rescue package they're seeking – not until, that is, he sees a detailed plan for how they plan to do better in the future.

A Gallup poll done days after the presidential election suggests many Americans would agree with this approach to the auto industry, even though unemployment has continued to rise and is straining national resources. Six in ten Americans surveyed by Gallup said "passing new, stricter regulations on financial institutions" is critical or very important for Obama to do as president, but only one in five said Obama should help bail out large financial institutions or provide financial assistance to the auto industry.

Fifty-one percent cited "helping homeowners in danger of losing their homes" as critical or very important for the new administration to do to improve the economy, and almost as many – 49 percent – cited "passing a tax cut for the middle class" as critical or very important.

One thing that notably didn't get much support in the Gallup poll was efforts to fight the spectacularly escalating federal budget. Asked what Obama's top priority as president should be, 64 percent said the economy, 11 percent said Iraq and Afghanistan, 7 percent said the federal budget deficit, 6 percent pointed to energy policy, and 5 percent said health care.

For more on decisions we face on the economy and the federal budget deficit, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and FacingUp.org.

Afghan President Calls for Timeline Amid Talk of U.S. "Surge"

Jenny Choi — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:31:33 -0500

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, meeting with a U.N. Security Council delegation today, called for a timeline on the war in Afghanistan. Karzai did not offer a specific time frame, but said, "If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations." Meanwhile, talk of a possible U.S. surge in Afghanistan has surfaced in recent weeks, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates announcing his support last week for deploying roughly 20,000 additional troops to the region.

Violence in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, and U.S. officials have widely cited a sharp increase in Taliban attacks and U.S., British and Canadian casualties. Military leaders have also expressed a general frustration with the performance of NATO allied forces. President-elect Obama has echoed the sentiment of a renewed U.S. presence and strategy in Afghanistan, amid rumors that he may retain Gates in his role as defense secretary.

Public attitudes about the war effort in Afghanistan have deteriorated markedly over time. More than half (55 percent) of Americans in a September CBS News/ New York Times poll said the war in Afghanistan is going "somewhat" (32 percent) or "very badly" (23 percent), an increase of 41 percentage points since March 2003. Yet while majorities continue to say the war in Iraq was a mistake, two-thirds say the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan was not a mistake.

Our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index has similarly indicated a significant decline over time in public confidence regarding the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. Just 28 percent give the U.S. "A" and "B" grades for "succeeding in meeting our objectives in Afghanistan," a 12-point drop since we first asked the question in 2005. But perhaps the key takeaway in our analysis has been the clear movement in public attitudes toward a more diplomatic approach. Seven in 10 (69 percent) say the government should "put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods", over military efforts (23 percent), and six in 10 (59 percent) believe that "improved communication and dialogue with the Muslim world will reduce hatred of the U.S.

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis

Peiting Chen — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0500

New Initiative: Aims to Teach, Engage Students In Averting U.S. Fiscal Crisis, by Andrew L. Yarrow, Public Purpose, November 18, 2008

The process – not the rhetoric – of change.

Peiting Chen — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:48:53 -0500

If change is to come, we cannot return to business as usual. We have seen so many elections that promised hope and more responsive government. And time and again, we have returned from our polling places to our homes and just waited for change to come. This time, something must be different.

It is wonderful that Americans showed their commitment by standing in lines for hours to vote or volunteered in the final months of the campaign – no matter which candidate they supported. But change will not come if citizens return to disengagement and leaders head to Washington and only listen to themselves and the lobbyists. The public voice that roared with impressive voter turnout cannot go silent in the months and years to come if we are to make real progress on entrenched, unresolved issues.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

This election brought more people of diverse backgrounds and young people into the political process than ever before. It would be a tragedy if American politics alienates those newcomers with a political process that doesn’t ask for their continued involvement and returns to the same old bickering between parties and jockeying for political points instead of long-term planning for the challenges that lay ahead.

President-elect Obama said, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation… And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.” But it isn’t always easy to listen to Americans from all walks of life when you spend the majority of your time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How can the president stay connected?

Public dialogue is the way forward.

With no clear consensus on how to proceed in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge unresolved questions about how to spur economic growth and no national consensus on issues like healthcare, immigration, energy and taxes, it is clear that the election did not provide all of the answers. Even if one believes that the election was the strongest possible repudiation of the Bush Administration’s agenda, it cannot be asserted that an Obama Administration has carte blanche to proceed without heed.

The promise of full public participation cannot end with the campaign. Barak Obama has promised that his administration will continue to seek full public inclusion, will respect differences and opposing points of view and will seek common ground to build on. Our community-organizer-in-chief knows that inclusion doesn’t happen by political osmosis and public participation doesn’t come about by wishful thinking.

Public dialogue is the way forward.

Organizations like Public Agenda help communities connect to leaders and have substantial conversations based on thorough issue frameworks and make progress on tough issues that demand compromise and sacrifice. We know that informed citizens are the real leaders of change across America, and no major reform can take place in the United States without their participation and support. We also know that a public that is not fully involved in learning and contributing to national conversation can be a major barrier to change.

Real public dialogue isn’t PR in progressive clothing. Nor is it a “nice idea” in democratic theory. Public dialogue is the actual day-to-day, down-in-the-trenches practice of democracy. It’s bringing together people who normally would never sit in the same room together and helping them explore issues and find common ground for action. It is extending the conversation that happens between candidates during campaigns to communities across America so that people of all walks of life and from many sets of experiences can weigh in with their own knowledge and beliefs. Building national consensus on the tough issues we face requires hard work to keep Americans engaged and learning.

PUBLIC DIALOGUE IS THE WAY FORWARD.

America didn’t just vote for Barak Obama, it voted for a different way of conducting politics. With this election, Americans have said “We want leaders who listen.” Listening can’t happen through polls, lobbyists and the echo chamber that is Washington. Dialogue works. Dialogue is the practice of democracy for the 21st century. Dialogue is the way forward, together.

Former SEC Chairman Calls Bailout Deal "Opaque" at New York Insiders Event

Peiting Chen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:08:43 -0500

Former SEC Chairman Shares Insights On The Economy

Francie Grace — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:46:33 -0500

The year ahead, says William Donaldson, is likely to be another tough one, but it's also likely that entrepreneurs will find opportunities even in the current economic climate. Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, the former top boss of both the SEC and the NYSE zeroed in on Wall Street's varied history on regulation as he discussed measures that could be of use today. Donaldson, an advisor on Barack Obama's transition team, cautioned that regulatory reforms, to be meaningful, must be done on a global scale. Click here to read more about his remarks.

Order Videos

Peiting Chen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:39:14 -0500

If you are interested in ordering one of our Choicework Discussion Starters in video format, please contact Lara Birnback at publicengagement@publicagenda.org or (212) 686-6610 x44.

Choicework Discussion Starters

Peiting Chen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:23:15 -0500

Choicework Discussion Starters: Videos, PDFs And More

Based on decades of research and experience concerning how average citizens think and talk about issues, Public Agenda's Choicework Discussion Starters are designed to help groups and communities talk productively about public problems.

Choicework Discussion Starters present alternative perspectives on an issue, highlighting the pros, cons and trade-offs of going down different paths. They use everyday language, not professional jargon, and focus on the kinds of concerns and values that non-experts can readily engage.

Public Agenda's Choicework Discussion Starters are all available in print versions, and many have corresponding 10-12 minutes videos as well. In some cases, Spanish language versions are also available. Print versions of the Choicework Discussion Starters are available for free PDF download. Videos may be ordered from Public Agenda for $20.00 each.

Choose A Topic

Environment

Facing the Challenges of Climate Change: A Guide for Citizen Thought and Action

Download PDF

Scientists warn that the human activity is causing changes in the climate, with potentially disastrous effects for humans and the planet. How can we address the problem of climate change? This Choicework Discussion Starter can help you examine different arguments about the best way to face the challenges of climate change.

Oceans for Everyone: A Dialogue on Seattle, the Sound and the Seas in the 21st Century

Download PDF

Pollution, overfishing, and population pressure are taking their toll on Puget Sound, and threatening the health of its ecosystems. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help Seattle residents discuss what they can do about the state of the Sound and surrounding oceans.

Early Childhood and Afterschool Programs

Everybody Ready for School: How Can we Ensure High Quality Early Childhood Programs?

Download PDF

High-quality preschool programs can help youngsters be more successful later on in school and life. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help you discuss the best way to ensure all children have access to high quality preschool programs.

After the Bell: What Do We Want Our Afterschool Programs to Do?

Download PDF

Millions of children participate in afterschool programs, but many people have different ideas about what these programs should accomplish. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help you decide which priorities for afterschool programs are most important for your community.

Child Care

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

How should we support the childcare needs of today’s families? This Choicework Discussion Starter will help your community decide what makes the most sense for children, parents and families.

Interfaith Relations

Police-Community Relations

Improving Police-Community Relations

Download PDF

Many urban communities struggle with tensions between law enforcement and community members or groups. This Choicework Discussion Starter offers communities an opportunity to discuss the best ways to prevent these tensions from developing and of resolving them when they do arise.

Preventing Terrorism and Promoting Civil Liberties

Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

Local law enforcement plays a critical role in the fight against terrorism. How can law enforcement officers be most effective in fighting terrorism? What role, if any, should the community play in these efforts? The Choicework Discussion Starter can help your community explore this important issue.

Working Together to Promote Public Safety

Download PDF

There are a variety of strategies that can guide a police department in its efforts to prevent crime and promote public safety, and some may be more effective for a given community than others. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help you better understand the range of strategies police departments can use and which strategies are most appropriate for your community.

Ensuring School Safety

Download PDF

School safety is vital for creating a supportive educational environment. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help communities evaluate different approaches to ensuring safety and security in schools.

Economy and Budget

Understanding Property Tax Reform in New Jersey

Download PDF

Created for a statewide discussion forum on taxes, this Choicework Discussion Starter is intended to help citizens in New Jersey take stock of the taxes in their state and talk about the ways the state can raise resources for the public services citizens want.

Higher Education

Success is What Counts: A Community Conversation to Help All Community College Students Achieve

Community colleges are a critical part of our nation’s educational system. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help community college administrators, faculty and students discuss approaches community colleges can take to help students achieve their goals and be more successful in college.

Education Reform

Ready for 21st Century Careers

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

A solid background in math, engineering, technology and science is necessary for a growing number of good jobs and promising careers. This Choicework Discussion Starter is intended to help your community discuss how to work together to ensure students today get the education they’ll need to succeed in the 21st Century.

Creating a Formula for Success in Low-Performing Schools

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

While schools are places where most students learn and grow, there are also too many schools where students are just getting by, or worse, are failing to learn much at all. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help your community talk about ways to boost student achievement in schools whose students are not succeeding academically.

Helping All Students Succeed in a Diverse Society

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

Everyone wants to see students succeed, but too often too many are doing more poorly than they should. The Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to support community dialogue about how, in a society as diverse as ours, we can work together to help all students succeed.

Making Standards Work for All Students

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

Many states have established some form of academic standards for student learning that define what students should know and be able to do at different stages of their school careers. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help communities talk about how to make sure these standards work for all students.

Neighborhood Schools and Student Diversity

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

Most families would like to send their children to good, safe schools close to home but also think it’s important for children of different backgrounds to go to school together. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help your community discuss how to balance the often competing values of neighborhood schools and student diversity.

Parental Involvement

Most parents and educators agree that parental involvement is crucial for schools to be successful. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help you and your neighbors discuss what is most important to you about parental involvement and how schools can encourage more involvement by parents.

Purposes of Education

What are the purposes of education and how should schools prioritize these purposes? The Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help you and your neighbors discuss what purposes of education are most important to you and what educational priorities you’d like to see in your own community.

School Funding

School funding is one of the most controversial issues facing many districts today. Do schools have the funds necessary to do a good job, or are they limited by their budgets? This Choicework Discussion Starter can help your community have an open conversation on different approaches to school funding.

School Choice

Some people want educational alternatives to the traditional public school system through voucher or charter school programs. Others think the best route to better educational is through reform of the traditional public school system. This Choicework Discussion Starter can help you discuss which approach is best for your community.

Teaching Methods

Are the “tried and true” teaching methods with the best way to help today’s kids learn, or are there new, innovative approaches that work better? This Choicework Discussion Starter can help your community examine different teaching methods and discuss which approach you would want in your school district.

Ensuring Teacher Quality

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

Most people would agree that you can’t have good schools without good teachers, and that it’s crucial to ensure there is a quality teacher in every classroom. This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help your community generate ideas about how to make sure all students have quality teachers.

The No Child Left Behind Legislation

See the video
Download PDF (available in English and Spanish)

The national school reform legislation known as No Child Left Behind (or NCLB) applies to every public school in the nation. Its stated purpose is to make sure that every student in every public school is learning at grade level by the year 2014 and its central mechanism for improving education is school accountability.

Will NCLB’s accountability system lead to higher achievement for all students? Or, are changes needed to meet the goal of leaving no student behind? This Choicework Discussion Starter is designed to help you and your neighbors decide for yourselves.

Ensuring School Safety

Download PDF

Below The Radar

Maya Dusenbery — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:59:46 -0500

Between the long shadow cast by the economy and the excitement of the historic election of Barack Obama as the new president of the United States, there's one subject which has barely made it into the headlines. Among the ballot initiatives that were decided in the fifty states were three referenda which would have banned or restricted abortion. These measures, in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, were all defeated.

Although the pro-life and pro-choice movements often appear irreconcilably polarized, the public does not seem to consider the issue so clear-cut. In fact, while a majority of the public supports Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the U.S., few Americans hold strictly pro-choice or pro-life views. Twenty-four percent believe abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," 57% believe it should be legal "only under certain circumstances," and 18% believe it should be "illegal in all circumstances."

Americans also seem to differentiate between their individual beliefs and what they think should be codified in law. For example, while 53% of the public personally believe that, in general, abortion is morally wrong, 68% also think that regardless of their own individual beliefs, it is a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor.

Although abortion is a highly divisive issue, the intense battle between the most zealous segments of the pro-choice and pro-life movements serves to obscure the fact that much of the public sees a gray area. Lost in the vitriolic political debate is the fact that many Americans, although uncomfortable with a government ban on abortion, would also like to see a lot less of them.

Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements would do well to focus less on demonizing the other side (as baby-killers, on the one hand, or religious fanatics, on the other) and more on solving one goal that those on either side of the issue can agree on: reducing the number of abortions. Perhaps, by listening to the complex opinions of the public, we can find a common-ground approach to ending the long, bitter conflict over abortion in the U.S.

For more information on public views on abortion, see Public Agenda's issue guide on the subject at http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/abortion.

Could an Economic Downturn Be the Ticket to Health Care Reform?

Jenny Choi — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:25:53 -0500

An analysis in the Los Angeles Times today posits what could prove to be a tipping point for the health care crisis: the current economic slump. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced his proposal last week for a universal health care package, and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a long-time proponent of expanded coverage, says he plans to advance his own universal health care plan next week. But how can we possibly be talking about expanding coverage at the same time that the government has a ballooning deficit?

Health care costs in the current economic climate have no doubt placed an enormous added strain on the uninsured and the newly unemployed, not to mention employers, health care providers and the government. But many believe that health care and the economy are inextricably linked -- that, in essence, health care is an economic problem. Last week, the New America Foundation released a report, "The Cost of Doing Nothing," which argues that waiting to reform the system, while costs continue to skyrocket, comes with a price. By their calculations, the "economic cost of failure," the billions of dollars in lost productivity for those without coverage, is actually less cost-effective than covering every American.

Americans, on the whole, agree that our current health care system has major flaws and is in need of change, but the degree of reform is less unanimous. Public support for a universal health care plan varies based on survey question wording. Two-thirds believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all American have health coverage, but they are less galvanized about requiring it by law. Still, the consensus is that lowering the cost of health care and extending it to more people are the most important issues for the president and Congress to deal with.

More on public attitudes about various health care issues can be found in our red flags section, and be sure to visit the health care guide in our Citizen's Survival Kit for the bigger picture: key facts and statistics, plus a discussion guide that offers three approaches to the problem, with pros, cons and specific strategies for each.

The View From Here: One Of Wall Street's Own
Looks At Past Mistakes, Present Opportunities

Francie Grace — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:13:20 -0500

By Meagan Murray

William H. Donaldson (right), a member of Barack Obama's transition team and former top boss at both the SEC and the NYSE, shares his insights on Wall Street, regulation and the bailout, in a conversation with National Public Radio's Robert Siegel.

The coming year, says William H. Donaldson, is most likely going to be a rough one. "But I have high hopes that we will have pulled ourselves out - that the world will have pulled itself out – of this in four years."

The economic forecast comes from one of Wall Street's own - a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission whose many credentials in finance and government include a stint as president of the New York Stock Exchange and his current status as an economic advisor on President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.

Speaking in New York Nov. 17th at the latest installment of the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast lecture series, Donaldson shared his misgivings about the strategy of trying to stem the slide on Wall Street by having the government use taxpayer funds to buy the banking industry's most loss-mired portfolios.

"The problem with attempting to buy the ‘so-called' toxic assets is, among other things, how you price them," said Donaldson. "If you pay too much, you are subsidizing the banks. If you pay too little, you may destroy the banking system."

The better option, Donaldson stated, is injecting equity capital into the banks to create the capability for lending again.

Known as a stickler for regulation during his time at the SEC, Donaldson sees now as pertinent a time as ever for the government to play a hand in monitoring the banking industry.

"There is some opaqueness as to what demands the government has made on the banking system for putting the money in," he said. "The banks are sitting on that capital and not investing it, not loaning it. That was not the reason they've been re-liquefied. There is not much sunlight in terms of exactly what is going on."

Donaldson continued to say that arguments for continued deregulation, similar to those the New York Times reports are now being advanced by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, are destructive toward economic repair. Donaldson also believes Gramm's own deregulatory efforts – specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate and obviated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (one of the many regulatory forms of legislation passed by Congress during the Depression era) – "let everybody get into everybody else's business." The fallout, he said, resulted in both the SEC and Federal Reserve being held responsible for monitoring the banking sector, which Donaldson claimed "left huge gaps of unregulated business – the most notorious being the mortgage business."

The problem lies in the differences of responsibilities between the two agencies. The SEC, Donaldson said, serves as a police agency for investor protection by ensuring public disclosure and oversight of issued securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, is in charge of making sure the banking system is functioning strongly. The problem, Donaldson says, is there is no overlap or consideration for either bureau.

"Whose jurisdiction is this?" he asked in reference to the fallout of regulating the banking industry. "The Fed is not concerned about the investor; they're concerned about the impact of that business on the system, whereas the SEC is concerned about the investor information," Donaldson said. "Those are two totally different missions… and so there is a conflict."

Asked about the campaign by U.S. automakers to get government help, an issue on the front burner in the lame duck session of Congress, Donaldson was reluctant to back any one approach to the problem. "When you get into the automotive industry, we're dealing with a totally different animal," he said. "We're dealing with a commercial operation and a competitive industry that's competing on a world-wide basis."

An option he said both the automotive companies and government could consider is bankruptcy, wherein the company does not disappear, but winds up being restructured under new management - although American morale, he acknowledged, likely would be dented by a bankruptcy of a landmark corporation such as General Motors.

Another possibility could be a compromise between bankruptcy and a federal bailout plan, in which creditors and stockholders negotiate a plan of reorganization without filing for Chapter 11.

All in all, Donaldson believes the auto industry's woes will be another burden pushed onto the next administration. In his opinion, there is no "silver bullet" regulation that can be immediately put into effect and fix the economy, but he does suggest that the credit market should open up again to consumers, both at home and worldwide.

"We're no longer isolated," he said. "We can address some of these regulatory changes… and get our house in order, but it will be meaningless unless we have a global approach - unless we have regulation around the world that is coordinated and basically prevents somebody from fleeing a highly regulated environment to a less regular environment. That's going to be really tough to do… An attempt to get the world coordinated is one of the big challenges going on in the world right now."

Donaldson said that events such as the G-20 meeting held this past weekend in Washington are critical to addressing the need for global cooperation with economic regulation. While principles and guidelines are easy enough to extract from thought, he knows enforcing them worldwide as rules will be a task built from the ground up; something he believes our country has to achieve on its own before we can apply it to the global economy.

In the end, he left the audience with a glimmer of hope for the economy. "Things do change," Donaldson said. "There's an amazing resuscitating – from the ashes rise entrepreneurs – and I think that's going to continue."

To keep informed on the economy and the choices we face as a nation, and to let our leaders know what you want, check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and our Take It To The Next Level console of e-mail addresses for everyone from the president and president-elect on down to your Senators and Congressional representative.

Homework For The New Administration And The 111th Congress

Francie Grace — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0500

Entering a new era in Washington is a good time for many things, including a good hard look at what needs to be done to improve our education system, from pre-kindergarten all the way up through college. With that in mind, Paul Gasbarra of our Education Insights unit has written an open letter to the president-elect and lawmakers, with an education reform "to do" list to tack to their Blackberries as they return to Washington. We invite you to check out his list and then log on to our site to discuss the education issues you feel should be priorities in 2009.