Life After Debt

Today NPR reported on a possible crisis facing the government back in 2000: The potential that the U.S. would pay off all of its debt. Irrefutably we dodged that one - a decade later, the public now holds over $10 trillion in national debt.

"There's such a thing as too much debt," said economist Jason Seligman. "But also such a thing, perhaps, as too little."

Seligman wrote a report, "Life After Debt" as the country was running a budget surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration. As explained in the NPR clip, there were challenges in conceiving a world without U.S. debt: the lack of Treasury bonds would have sent ripple effects through the global economy.

Two recessions, two tax cuts, and two wars later, clearly we took the diverging path from our debt-free national projection.

Here's a link to the full report written in 2000 and released this week.

Brick City (2009)

Brick City is like a real-life KSG case. . .

Continuing the theme of film and public policy, I’d like to introduce you to the wonderment (yes, I just used that word) of Cory Booker and his transformation of Newark, NJ. Brick City captures the daily drama of a community striving to become a better, safer, stronger place to live. The Sundance Channel describes the docu-drama as a sort of expose on the soci-economic, political and crime life of one of the fastest growing cities in New England. Booker, is the third African American to preside as mayor over the city, and brings a wealth of non-profit and legal experience to the position. After losing one of the most highly contested mayor elections, Booker ran again in 2006 and won.

I’d describe the docu-drama as a soft-core version of HBO’s The Wire. For policy “wonks,” the reality docu-drama profiles the relationship between political strategists, the police department, communications, and the citizens of Newark. While the film really centers on the city’s historical decreases in the violent crime rate, the piece looks at Booker’s ability to bring diverse groups of people together to improve the lives of all Newark residents.

The complete series is now available on Instant Netflix . . .

Film and Public Policy

In light of a new film series initiative at George Mason's School of Public Policy as well as Sanford's recent screenings of Countdown to Zero, I thought I would share some exciting politically-related films and documentaries premiering in 2010.

"Inside Job"

Inside Job is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which eventually lead to the worst recession since the 1930s.

"Gerrymandering"

This documentary chronicles how gerrymandering impacts the U.S. electoral landscape. Most people fail to realize the importance of power at the local level. Gerrymandering reminds us that redistricting (every 10 years) enables politicians and political parties to sustain their power.

"Waiting for Superman"

Similar to the documentary, “The Lottery,” this film is a potential academy award nominee. The documentary profiles the charter school system in America, specifically following several students and their experience with educational lotteries.

"Freakonomics"

Mirrors the book Freakonomics . . . which is about everything!

"Fair Game"

Details the Valerie Plame CIA scandal in which the CIA agent was publically ousted. You can decide who’s responsible.

“The Tillman Story”

This film premiered at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. The film looks back at the life of a football star who left the NFL to join the U.S. military.

"Casino Jack and the United States of Money"

Now playing on Instant Netflix, this film chronicles Jack Abramoff and the corruption scandal surrounding the former DC lobbyist.

Video: History of American Political Opinion

Isarithmic History of the Two-Party Presidential Vote from d sparks on Vimeo.

via GOOD

-Shannon Ritchie

The Dark Side of American Health Care

When I think about bureaucratic politics, I think of the American health care system. I think of the bride-to-be who suddenly had to incur heavy medical expenses. I reflect on where we were in health care policy-making and how we ended up placing power in bureaucratic hands.

The typical American health politics story is one characteristic of lengthy periods of gridlock punctuated by sudden jiffies of reform. These seemingly minute incremental adjustments to the health care system channel into the recent bureaucratic politics. A distinct pattern governing American health care politics is that public authority over medicine has been ceded to individual physicians and other private sector bureaucrats. They now dominate health care legislation on almost every level of government.

Unfortunately, the accountability shift comes at a price. The emerging health politics is increasingly more controlled by the methodology and mindset of self-interested bureaucratic actors. Health care bureaucrats now play a greater role in formulating and implementing legislation with much less deference to the concerns of organized public interests. The much-detested administrative costs of American health care represent not simply a policy problem but also a prevailing political force.

I see “the dark side” of bureaucratic politics when the citizens’ concerns are stifled. With the American health care system, “this dark side” is ever more prominent because the burgeoning private sector authorities can be expected to pursue their own fiscal interests into the future.

-Susan Chen

The Need to "Adapt the Presidency"

As we learned from Neustadt, the power of the presidency is the power to persuade. Well, what if the forum to persuade is limited?

On 60 Minutes tonight, in President Obama's first interview since the election last week, he addresses this confinement. Here's a short excerpt from the transcript:


NARRATION: ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN OK WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, HAS BEEN HIS EAGERNESS TO SPREAD HIS GOSPEL TO THE FAR REACHES OF BROADCAST /CABLE UNIVERSE. IT SEEMS LIKE HE HAS BEEN ALMOST EVERYWHERE. LENO AND LETTERMAN. MTV AND COMEDY CENTRAL, AMERICAS’ MOST WANTED AND THE VIEW. SOME HAVE FOUND IT DEMEANING AND UN-PRESIDENTIAL.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The challenge right now, and you know this better than I do, than I do, Steve, is that—it used to be a President could call a press conference and the three major networks would come and he’d talk to them, and you pretty much reached everybody in America. And these days— the closest I can get to that is being on 60 Minutes.

But there are a whole bunch of folks— who watch The Daily Show¸ or watch The View. And— so I’ve got to adapt the presidency to reach as many people as possible— in as many— settings as possible so that they can hear directly from me.

Um, You know, but this is an example of where— on the one hand folks say, “Well, you know he’s a little too remote.” Then if I’m on The View, “Well, you know, he shouldn’t be— you know— on some daytime TV show

My attitude is— if I’m reaching people, if I’m talking to them, I’m willing to take the risks of— overexposure on that front.
-------

"Adapt the presidency". Obama's words suggest that he sees the need to re-shape the presidency as an institution. And in doing so, he furthers his effectiveness at the only power Neustadt suggests he has -- the power to persuade.

FDR used fireside chats. Kennedy was the first to hold a televised press conference. Embracing new media to shape public opinion is inevitable - so why is Obama villainized for going on The View?

-Shannon Ritchie

Short Term Memories

With Republicans taking control of the House and making ground in the Senate, the question I have to ask is: Do Americans have short term memories? It seems only yesterday when there was so much discontent with Republicans that Democrats were able to rise up and take control of Congress. Discontent with Obama is well deserved, but do Americans forget when the recession started? Do Americans forget who started the first bailout? It seems that George Bush went from the girlfriend we wanted to dump, to the girlfriend we feel bad we cheated on.

Of course, the average American simply does not understand the complexity of politics and policies in place. Frankly, we as MPP students barely understand it. Which leads me to my next point. Why are Democrats horrible at marketing themselves, their policies, and against Republican counterparts? It is obvious that Republicans and Tea Partiers are able to connect with the average American, referencing current politics with easy to understand symbolism like "waves" and "tsunami." Why don't Democrats pick up this lingo? Maybe they just need to hire a better political marketing team. I hear a lot of laid off MBA grads are looking for jobs.