 |
SOME ARTICLES "Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President" Chapter: Domestic Policy Council By Tom Freedman
This piece is part of the Center for American Progress' Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President, which calls on various thought-leaders to contribute their ideas on how the president can move the country forward. Tom's contribution details how the president can benefit from using a strong Domestic Policy Council to steer the White House agenda. It can be found here --- "Memos to the New President" Chapter: Ending Childhood Hunger in America By Joel Berg and Tom Freedman
This proposal is contained within the Progressive Policy Institute's Memos to the New President, a collection of proposals intended to aid the new president as he tries to move America forward and solve the major crises facing our nation. Tom and Joel's piece offers a five-step plan to achieve the president's goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015. It can be found here --- "Winning America's Future: Policies for Succeeding in the Global Era" By Tom Freedman, Nick Gossen, Ed Gerrish, and the Staff of the Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute This book, published by the Democratic Leadership Council, offers ideas on how American can succeed in a changing world. It suggests policy solutions in three areas: education, economic growth and prosperity, and America's security. It can be found here --- Tom Freedman in Politico's Arena Tom is a contributor to The Arena at Politico. For Tom's Arena page, which includes his latest postings, click here--- "How Obama Can Make up for His Gaffe" The Politico - March 20, 2009 By Sam Gill My older brother
has Down syndrome, which hinders his ability to learn. Despite his
disability, he graduated from high school and lived independently with
a job for several years until health challenges forced him to enter a
small group home. Encouraging
dependency of people with disabilities instead of helping them work is
costly to everyone. A 2005 Government Accountability Office report
found that of the $120 billion dollars America spends annually on
disability services, 80 percent goes to monetary support. While much of
this money is well spent on vital services, some is wasted because the
federal government fails to provide adequate work incentives and
support. --- "How a Philanthropic Network Can Save Journalism" The Chronicle of Philanthropy - February 26, 2009 By Franklin Foer, Tom
Freedman, and Elizabeth Wilner It's hardly breaking news that high-quality journalism is facing severe economic challenges. Nor is it news that many philanthropies are grasping at ways to draw more attention to important problems. As veterans of the worlds of media, public policy, and philanthropy, we propose an endeavor to put more philanthropic might behind supporting effective journalism. Some worthwhile experimentation has been done in this area. The time has come for a broader and more systematic effort. The newspaper industry's troubles have gone from being bad news to almost old news. Even the recent bankruptcy filing by the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, caused few shock waves amid industrywide turmoil that has a host of metropolitan dailies up for sale or in need of restructuring. Less discussed is what this means for the role of good journalism in our society. The sad truth is that unless the financial landscape changes significantly, even more journalists will be forced to cut back on their valuable work. It is difficult to overstate the importance of a vibrant and driven media in our democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district — all studied and appreciated as they merit — are the principle support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty." While the Internet provides us access to more information than ever before, when newspapers and magazines are forced to cut back further through buyouts and layoffs, our public debate will suffer as we lose the insight and new knowledge journalists provide. We need a new approach that can guarantee that smart, talented Americans produce more thoughtful journalism. The practice of philanthropies' supporting journalism is slowly spreading. ProPublica is already an established investigative nonprofit organization. National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service frequently air segments and series financed by foundation grants. The Kaiser Foundation is hiring reporters to follow health care. All those endeavors are worthy, but if this trend of one-offs continues, individual philanthropies will be learning about the news media and hunting for journalists in a highly inefficient manner. We propose an arrangement that creates a standing forum where talented journalists and respected news organizations can collaborate with interested philanthropic sponsors. Here's one way it could work. An umbrella nonprofit group could be set up and solicit interest from news organizations and established journalists. Philanthropies would be allowed to post on a Web site specific topics of which they would like to sponsor coverage. Member news organizations could respond privately and directly via the site about how and when they would cover a topic, and see if the philanthropy wants to provide money. The ground rules would be simple — from the news organization side, a willingness to accept money from philanthropies, and on the philanthropic side, a willingness to accept standard editorial practices. That is, beyond identifying the subject matter, foundations would have no control over the content that is produced. The relationships would be fully disclosed in the coverage. On the news-media side, the possible benefits of this model are obvious. Journalism and journalists would have a new source of needed financing without sacrificing much independence or control of their voice. After all, many newspapers and magazines already have private publishers. Foundations also would clearly benefit. Many have struggled to make a difference in the complex, multiplayer policy-making environment. As foundations seek attention for social problems that may be less marketable in the fast-paced age of cable, the chance to support compelling journalism should be a worthy option. For many foundations the current approach, which often leaves new ideas languishing on a shelf, has been less than satisfying. The biggest winner would be policy makers and our democracy. With a flood of talented journalists unleashed on important problems and challenged to report them to the public, we might see some issues currently deemed "too boring" for coverage getting a more compelling and thought-provoking take. Foundations and the print news media both support the public good. Foundations are not in danger of disappearing anytime soon, but they do struggle to drive the development of public policy. Newspapers and magazines have the opposite problem. They continue to exert impact in our civic discussion and in politics, but their survival is under grave threat. As we face a series of crises, including the economy, climate change, and destabilizing international conflict, there is no better time to help strong reporters get involved in observing our world and adding knowledge and understanding to a policy debate. Philanthropic sponsorship can make the important work of journalists possible in a way that heightens the focus on major policy issues. There are few better or more urgent ways to help ourselves and our world get better information. The idea at least deserves a try. Foundation-sponsored journalism would represent a marriage of opportunity and need. The result could be good for us all. Franklin Foer is editor in chief of The New Republic, Tom Freedman is a consultant in Washington and former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Wilner is director of public affairs at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and a former political director at NBC News. --- "Beyond Alliances and Nuke Treaties: A New Idea in Foreign Policy" IdeasPrimary.com - September 27, 2007 By Tom Freedman and Richard Fritz Debate over the future of After WWII the Marshall Plan achieved real
results and strengthened our position for the Cold War. Now there needs to be a
new competition of ideas. We’d suggest radically expanding one policy we know
well that germinated six years ago, but has not been fully exploited. We left the Clinton White House six years
ago proud of the work we did encouraging the distribution of food to needy
people. Every Administration is able to help millions of poor and hungry people
- but everyone also knows the real limits of direct aid. It may not encourage
local economic development, and in some cases can stifle it. One program we
worked on was different. The Global Food for Education Initiative
(GFEI) offered food to poor children in developing countries who otherwise
would have little or nothing to eat. And it encouraged parents to send their
children - mostly girls — to school, with powerful results. This is the right time to make an
imaginative and dramatic commitment - every child in the world should have
enough to eat and get an education. It’s a commitment the The scope of the problem is huge. Today an
estimated 300 million children in developing nations are chronically hungry.
More than one-third of these children, approximately 120 million, do not attend
school. Most of them, sixty percent, are young girls. In too many countries
fathers see no reason to send their daughters to school. The problems of young,
uneducated women, some of whom marry as early as age 11, are sadly predictable.
A terrible cycle of poor health, powerlessness, and poverty too often affect
generation after generation. A better education is crucial. Girls who go
to school marry later and have fewer children. Better educated and mature
mothers are better equipped to care for their children, have higher incomes and
raise healthier families. The link between education and economic success is
clear. In countries with an adult literacy rate of about 40 percent, GNP per
capita averaged $210; in those countries with at least 80 percent literacy
rates, GNP per capita is $1,000 and above. Investments in education, especially for
young women, lead not to just to higher incomes and healthier families but
lower birth rates and delayed child bearing — all of which contribute to
economic growth and stability. When people have hope that their lives, and the
lives of their children will improve, then they have a larger stake in
political and economic stability. The global school lunch program already has
bi-partisan backing - originated by President Clinton and supported by Senators
Robert Dole and George McGovern. The GFEI program is unique in that students
and families must actively participate in educational advancement in order for
the child to receive food benefits. In addition, the nations in which the
school-feeding program operates must commit to universal education: both boys
and girls must be able to attend school. The recipient country must commit to
educational goals and agree to take over the US funded school-feeding program
after a few years and thus assure the benefits will continue into the future. The cost of a global commitment is
reasonable given its potential for good. In the first year we worked on the
program, for $300 million a GFEI pilot program provided nine million children
in the developing world the assurance of at least one meal a day in a school
setting. Expanding the program adds up to real money, but a potential real
bargain. For less than $4 billion we could likely feed every child and get them
into school. Fifty years, facing the threat of Soviet
expansion and a few years removed from the blood shed of WWII, Harry Truman
pushed through a remarkable idea that sparked a European resurgence. The
Marshall Plan. Let’s hope a presidential candidate this election cycle will go
look for some beyond traditional ideas of foreign policy options and offer a
new approach for how America can once again promote growth, stability, and
change the world for the better.
Richard Fritz was
appointed by President Clinton as Assistant Administrator of the Foreign
Agricultural Service and developed the first Global Food for Education
Initiative.
--- "The Anatomy of a Great Leader"
The Politico - March 21, 2007 By Warren Bennis and Thomas Z. Freedman Amid the horse-race-like coverage
of the 2008 presidential campaign and its focus on topics such as electability
and likability, it's worth considering which candidate would make the best
leader and president. At the end of the day, voters won't be having a beer with
the next president, but we will depend on him or her to be a great leader and
deal with the daunting challenges of globalization and terrorism. The Crucible Great American leaders share an almost universal characteristic of having undergone a life-changing crucible, an often traumatic experience that tested and transformed him or her into a leader. Harry Truman had not been notably successful as a businessman, or as anything else, before serving as a young officer in the U.S. Calvary during World War I. But he found his destiny on a French battlefield when his horse was shot out from under him. Nearly crushed, Truman was pulled from underneath the broken animal with a new sense of himself. Like Truman, our next successful leader likely will have experienced something unusual that led him or her to acknowledge the strength to lead others. Willingness to Experiment Our next great leader is likely to be an experimenter who draws on the ideas of many different people. As a result of Franklin D. Roosevelt's adaptability (the same quality that allowed him to reinvent himself after contracting polio), he was able to launch dozens of innovative social programs and initiatives, discarding those that failed and proposing better ones in their place. Perhaps because they have the confidence of someone who has already been tested, great leaders generally like to collaborate. Talent, not loyalty, is the ultimate requirement for working alongside such leaders. Abraham Lincoln was an inspired practitioner of this tough-skinned type of leadership. As Doris Kearns Goodwin points out in her book "Team of Rivals," Lincoln filled his Cabinet not with loyalists, but with his most gifted political opponents, convinced that only they could help him save a nation torn apart by civil war. Optimism Great leaders tend to be optimists
and purveyors of hope. Timeliness Is it coincidence that great
leaders have generally materialized in our toughest times, just when we needed
them? During the Revolutionary War, a tiny Political Savvy The last essential characteristic is political adeptness. Practical politics and necessity have guided every one of our highly regarded presidents. Idealism is not enough. Washington, Lincoln and FDR were great politicians. The final, most important, question is one that only our new POTUS will be able to answer: Can he or she use experience, skill, willingness to experiment and optimism to exceed electability and actually lead? Warren Bennis is the
distinguished professor of management at the --- "How to Really Help Low-Wage Workers" Washington Post - February 2, 2007 By Thomas Z. Freedman If the House and Senate are able to agree on a minimum-wage hike and the president signs the bill, some may say we will have done enough to help low-income workers. It's true that low-wage workers urgently need a raise, that millions of Americans work full time and still live below the poverty line. But while an increase in the minimum wage is better than nothing, alone it is an incomplete instrument for really making work pay. We should raise the minimum wage while committing our country to a bigger bargain: If you work full time, then you and your family will live above the poverty line. This goal is not only morally right but one our country can afford. Published statistics for 2004, the most recent year with solid available data, show that about 3.5 million full-time workers earned less than poverty-level wages. Factoring in government benefits, about 2.6 percent of full-time workers live below the poverty line. That is about 2.7 million Americans. And these struggling workers frequently support families, meaning millions more depend on them. On its own, the minimum wage is an imperfect means for ensuring no full-time worker is poor. First, it almost certainly will not be raised enough. Even the plan to raise it to $7.25 an hour has been a political struggle, with success now likely but not guaranteed. It would take a wage of $10 an hour for a worker to earn $20,000 a year, about the poverty threshold for a family of four. Second, there are reasonable arguments that a $10 minimum wage would harm many small businesses. Finally, increases in the minimum wage are not indexed for inflation -- and may never be. The last increase was 10 years ago, and some full-time workers have fallen further below the poverty line since then. Even with a new raise, workers will once again slip into poverty if a decade or more goes by between increases. A better approach would be to increase the wage and simultaneously expand the earned-income tax credit (EITC). This program, signed into law by President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded and popularized by President Bill Clinton, is designed specifically to reward work. It is one of the country's most successful anti-poverty programs. The EITC program, however, has substantial shortcomings. It does not cover childless workers younger than 25, and the credit does not help meet the costs of raising additional children after a family's second child. Further, many people who are eligible don't apply for the credit. These holes have significant consequences. How many reforms are enacted would affect the cost of the credit. Increasing the EITC for families with three or more children -- more than half of all poor children live in such families -- would help an estimated 3 million families and cost about $3 billion. Crucial actions such as improved outreach or removing a built-in marriage penalty could each be done for about $1 billion; more complete reforms that would also help those living barely above the poverty line could cost 10 times that or more. But this is the best time in a decade to make this bargain with low-wage workers. An increased minimum wage will help millions of poor people; combining it with a new commitment to the earned-income tax credit could take them the rest of the way out of poverty. Arguably, supporting those who are working hard and playing by the rules is as important a societal good as tax breaks for companies or even encouraging home ownership. The question ultimately is about our nation's priorities. The federal budget is more than $2 trillion, and Congress's pork-barrel projects have been estimated at $47 billion. Home mortgage deductions -- a benefit for mostly middle-class Americans -- average about $9,500 a year per homeowner. By comparison, the cap on EITC payments last year was $4,400. The average EITC benefit in 2005 was only $1,872. The issue of whether to make such a policy change is timely with a presidential contest looming. It's not unreasonable to hope that some candidate will want the world's richest country to make a new bargain with its poorest workers. We need to raise the minimum wage. But we should also make a larger commitment. If you work hard year-round, we will make sure you are not living below the official poverty line. You may not be rich, but you'll know that in America work pays. The writer was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and is a visiting fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. --- "How Republicans Usurped the Center" New York Times - November 8, 2002 By Tom Freedman and Bill Knapp Tom Freedman, senior adviser to President Clinton from 1999 to 2001, is a Democratic consultant. Bill Knapp is a political consultant at Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communications. Washington - In the aftermath of Tuesday's setback for the Democrats, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the party has moved too far to the center. Democrats were too timid in their opposition to the president's tax cuts and his Iraq policy, the argument goes. The solution, therefore, is to attack President Bush on everything, apparently on the theory that nothing could be worse than the current approach. But if Democrats adopt this strategy in 2004, the results will be even more disastrous than Tuesday's. Instead, Democrats need to understand the current mood of the electorate, accept the obvious lessons of the election and take advantage of the new political climate: no longer is the country divided simply between Democrats and Republicans. The largest share of voters will soon be independents. Candidates must do well both within their own party and among those who have little party allegiance. In addition, voters have been deeply affected by Sept. 11 and its aftermath. According to polls, voters held both Republicans and Democrats partly responsible for the state of the economy but saw Sept. 11 as the main cause of America's economic problems. Voters approved of the way Mr. Bush handled terrorism and view national security and economic leadership as almost equally important. The most obvious lesson of the election for Democrats is that voters do not want gridlock -- they want results. Ultimately, the Democratic approach relied on being a check against Republicans, a stance the president effectively turned on its head by saying (disingenuously) that Democrats would not pass important bills like the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats had some compelling arguments. They had attractive positions on containing health-care costs, Social Security protection and better business regulation. But Republicans devised answers to take the edge off: a watered-down prescription-drug bill, pledges on Social Security, action for the cameras on corporate abuse. This Republican tactic, meant to blur differences between the parties, was taken out of the Bush 2000 playbook. In this midterm election, Democrats ended up arguing over seemingly esoteric differences on popular Democratic issues like prescription drug coverage. That let bigger national trends, like the war on terrorism, dominate. And Democrats could offer no specifics on how to put in place their own proposals. They could only explain that the Republican plans would make the problems worse. Another lesson is that centrist views must be part of any winning strategy. While one can disagree with their agenda, Republicans recruited attractive candidates who emphasized moderate positions, especially in swing states. Norm Coleman, the senator-elect from Minnesota who defeated former Vice President Walter Mondale, used to be a Democrat. Bob Ehrlich, Maryland's governor-elect, chose an African-American running mate and billed himself as a "different kind of Republican." Jim Talent, who defeated Senator Jean Carnahan in Missouri, promoted his prescription-drug plan as bringing together "the best of the Democratic and Republican proposals." Moderate swing voters want to have confidence in Democrats on matters of national security, but they also want new ideas about retirement savings, education and health care. Where Democrats did win Tuesday, they offered new ideas on these issues. The only way forward for Democrats is to find effective ways to solve problems, working with Republicans where possible and repudiating their more extreme measures when necessary. A key frustration is the Democrats' lack of a bully pulpit. Democratic leaders will need a new way to trumpet the party's best ideas. For the time being, however, there is nothing to be done about President Bush's popularity, which he has enjoyed for more than a year. Democrats can't pretend it doesn't exist. But it is possible his popularity will start to decline if he and the Republican Congress try to enact a right-wing agenda. Democrats might find some solace in Tuesday's ultimate lesson: Voters want action -- prescription-drug benefits, better environmental protection and a plan to ensure that Social Security remains solvent. It is one thing to come up with positions on these issues that are devised to poll well or make political points. Translating these positions into meaningful legislation is another matter entirely. In politics, at some point, the truth matters. Republicans used the insecurity and anxiety over terrorism to win the midterm election. Eventually, however, voters will focus on other issues as well. When they do, Democrats ought to be ready for them with a compelling, feasible and centrist approach to public policy. --- "For A New Consensus on Foreign Aid" Christian Science Monitor - June 2, 2002 By Tom Freedman WASHINGTON - The unlikely sight of rock star Bono and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill touring Africa together last week underscored an old symbolic debate, as well as the possibility of a new consensus, on American aid to the developing world. The two sides of the debate have long had simple and static arguments: Supporters of aid complain that America does not give enough; opponents say US help is wasted by corrupt governments. But now, challenged by the moral issue of suffering abroad, and the reality that terrorists are exploiting poor countries, conservative American policymakers are talking about how to make development aid effective. The O'Neill-Bono roadshow is only one sign that change may be afoot. Even conservative Sen. Jesse Helms (R) now backs more resources to combat AIDS in Africa. President Bush added the most significant voice on the side of more funds in his recent speech in Mexico, where he urged increases in development aid, acknowledged the importance of new programs, and tied future donations to a recipient country's good behavior. Just as in the cold war, when aid was seen as a strategic tool to block Soviet influence, many leaders now recognize that fighting global poverty may be a strategic US interest in the war on terror. Still, success in building a new consensus is by no means assured. Each side of the old "more vs. less" aid debate will have to recognize that the other made valid points. Further, Congress will have to help make the consensus truly bipartisan. To succeed, the new consensus will need to be based on three principles: *Helping nations become stable and economically successful will require more aid. The world has more than 800 million malnourished people; double that number live on less than $2 a day. Millions of people in Africa and elsewhere are infected with the AIDS virus, and more than 100 million children do not go to school or have a regular meal a day. The need for more aid is powerful and obvious. *Aid must be much more effective. Fifty years of development aid has not left areas such as Africa appreciably better off, nor does just sending more support seem likely to help. Many programs don't work. The examples are fairly well-known, such as $2 billion to build roads in Tanzania that are in disrepair. When I went to South Africa as part of a Clinton administration delegation, one of the first things Nelson Mandela asked us about a prospective aid program was, "How will it avoid corruption?" We need to be similarly hard-headed in evaluating proposed programs. *Aid can be a strategic tool. Successful development is not just altruistic, it is in America's long-term interest. In Afghanistan, the US sent plenty of aid after the Soviet invasion in 1979, but basically left the country when the Soviets did. The resulting chaos created a vacuum that the Taliban filled. *As in Afghanistan, the removal of superpower involvement in unstable regions has led to a blossoming of regional conflicts and instability. The US Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance reported that while in 1985 there were only five so-called man-made emergencies a year (those caused by politics or war), over the past decade the world has averaged four or five times as many each year.
One way to keep building momentum for a foreign aid consensus is to create a shared sense of what the research reveals. Such an effort could start with a bipartisan congressional resolution asking for a coordinated round of independent research by foundations and others into which programs work best, and culminating in congressional hearings. Not only would this process be instructive, it would also – by involving Congress – give US leaders a stake in the results and set the stage for longer-term policymaking on development aid. The chance to build a bipartisan consensus for effective aid programs is long overdue, and may well slip away if both sides fall back into old postures. This week Treasury Secretary O'Neill is scheduled to give what is being billed as a major address on the future of US development aid. It is a prime opportunity to move forward in breaking down old left-right divides, one the whole world should be watching. --- "Start Fresh, But Don't Start Over" Washington Post - March 4, 2001 By Tom Freedman The current fevered interest in Bill Clinton's last-minute pardons is endangering the real debate the Democratic Party needs to have: How do we go forward? The peril comes only partly from the sheer amount of attention focused on Clinton's exit from the White House. Media fascination has prompted an avalanche of Clinton psychological profiles and has tempted too many prominent Democrats to form circular firing squads. Ultimately, the pardons are done and irrevocable. After the investigations and interrogations, we must still confront our future. The pardons are the past. The greater danger posed by pardon fever is that it is distorting Democratic political instincts. Too many strategists are now preoccupied with restoring "the morality of the party," proving that Clinton was somehow responsible for Al Gore's defeat or arguing that Gore didn't really lose. They are missing the point. None of these issues will motivate voters to pull Democratic levers in the next election. The party's real challenge is to review and revise our policies to meet America's dramatically new economic, social and technological circumstances. First, party members must acknowledge the most damning fact of Democratic life today: At the national level, we haven't been so completely out of power since 1956. The point was driven home by the televised tableau from the House of Representatives on Tuesday night: The speaker of the House is a Republican. The Senate majority leader is a Republican. The president is a Republican. To begin any analysis of the party's future without reminding ourselves of this reality is to begin in denial. Democrats are already engaged in a spirited discussion about where the party needs to go next. But we should agree on one point: The party does not need a debate over its principles. Every Democrat I know believes in the party's goals of helping the disadvantaged, protecting the environment and preserving a woman's right to choose. In fact, there is a remarkable unanimity compared with Republicans -- who must avoid the issue of choice if they are to maintain coherence. What Democrats are missing is that we cannot win -- and we cannot create a Democratic majority -- without accepting once and for all that the electorate has changed. The largest bloc of voters is neither Democratic nor Republican. Self-described independents outnumber each party's faithful; to win a majority, we must capture these voters while holding together the Democratic base. President Bush and the Republicans are already appealing to this bloc. Bush's speech to Congress was, in many instances, aimed right at the hearts and pocketbooks of the independent-minded voter. His promise to "leave no child behind" on education, his repeated calls for bipartisanship and his stated desire to "bridge old divides" for the common good were intended to present the GOP as a centrist party, even as the president attempts to satisfy the right wing with Cabinet appointments and executive orders. To win the battle for these moderate voters, Democrats have to quickly learn three lessons of the new political world: * The party must lead on issues of technological and social change. Economists may not be able to agree on whether there is a "New Economy" -- especially these days, with dot coms disappearing as fast as deleted e-mail -- but there is definitely a new American experience. Voters expect institutions to move faster, do more, and respond to lives that are increasingly chaotic. The idea of "Internet time" is a cliché with truth behind it. One report recently noted that a decade ago, it took six years to move a new automobile model from concept to production. Now, it takes only two years. Doing things faster and being more innovative have become the norm for workers in the private sector. Voters' antipathy toward big, slow government programs makes Democrats more vulnerable to negative stereotyping than ever before. We must become the party that ends government's resistance to innovation. The examples are endless and limited only by our creativity: using sophisticated computerized mapping programs to track crime patterns and catch criminals, promoting energy conservation techniques, expanding privacy protections, making government user- and Internet-friendly. The other side of the New Economy coin is that we need to reorient our policies to deal with the side effects of modern technology. One example: While I was at the White House, I worked with the Council of Economic Advisers on a study analyzing the number of hours parents spend with their children. The conclusion? In the past 30 years, on average, the amount of time that at least one parent is around their children has dropped by 22 hours a week. Even though that's a logical result of the two-income family, it is still a remarkable change in a short time. If time-challenged parents are to be the vehicle for transmitting our values to the next generation, they will need help. As a party, we must figure out what kind of help. Modern employees and employers need support as well in this fast-changing world. Some companies need incentives to move their plants or businesses into impoverished areas; some workers will need more training; and employees who lose out will need legislation that ensures continued benefits -- including the pension plans that they depend on -- as they move to different companies. * The party must recognize that "economic growth" needs to be a central Democratic credo. It shouldn't be hard. After all, it was a Democratic president who presided over the record growth of the last eight years (a record that was underemployed by the Gore campaign as it sought to distance itself from Clinton). In the New Economy, more voters are affluent, suburban and better educated. The average voter owns stock and comes from a family with an income greater than $ 50,000. These voters are not particularly angry at institutions, nor do they think anyone is denying them the good life (which is one reason Gore's populist rhetoric didn't pay more dividends). They want government to keep working to continue the prosperity, to expand their opportunities while protecting them from health, economic and other emergencies. Making economic growth a central part of the Democratic message has real consequences. It means applying the tests of sound policy, not interest-group politics, when weighing national economic strategy. If we know that global economics are the key to expanding opportunity for all, both here and abroad, that means we have to turn away from protectionism. Being the party of economic growth also dictates that we reject Bush's proposed tax cut -- because it fails the test of fiscal responsibility. We must say so, and say it clearly. But rather than rejecting tax cuts altogether, we must prove a commitment to middle-class cuts that expand opportunity for those who need it most. * The party must acknowledge existing programs that aren't working and reform them -- or get rid of them. The most important place for this hard-line review is in the area of education. In poll after poll, the public has repeatedly voiced its belief that the current educational system doesn't work. The Democratic Party is in danger of lagging behind this consensus. Soon, we will be seen as simply defending the status quo. The situation in education is like the one faced in the welfare arena a decade ago. The American public is ready for dramatic steps. Increased resources alone will not prove enough. We must raise standards, demand accountability, offer more flexibility, guarantee a quality education. It is no surprise that Bush used many of those same words in his speech to Congress. The issue is becoming the political equivalent of a jump ball, and Democrats must present a compelling new case. If Democrats don't lead the way with real solutions, false but powerful ones will gain currency. If we want to be known as the party of innovation, we must be at the forefront of leaner, innovative government efforts. After Clinton signed the welfare reform bill in 1996, he asked five CEOs to found a group to encourage businesses to hire people on public assistance. So far, 20,000 companies have joined that effort, which I helped organize. They have hired more than 1 million such workers. We should be developing other ways to use the power of the private sector to advance Democratic values, rather than simply being oppositional toward business. Someday soon, the obsession with Clinton's pardons will fade. And my guess is that Clinton's legacy of record economic growth, unprecedented declines in the crime rate and a 60 percent drop in the welfare rolls will hold up just fine over time. Further, we will have a host of issues on which we rightfully will be able to oppose Bush administration initiatives -- from drilling in Alaskan preserves to inadequate steps to control HMOs. But if we fail to advance a powerful new Democratic vision, we will be relegated to the sidelines as nothing more than critics and rear-guard loyalists to a New Deal era gone by. We will do ourselves no favors if we do not create a more effective message for the coming elections. The world has changed, and we must change with it. Otherwise, our hopes to lead will vanish. |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
| Site Map |