CT Progressive

This and that:

• UFCW talks Facebook strategy.
• Is the future of journalism in jeopardy? As long as reporters are unable to assess factual claims on their own, and make such flimsy excuses for when they’re duped, yes.
• It turns out that the 2006 candidates — Malloy, Rell, and DeStefano — would have qualified for public finance grants under the rules for the Citizen’s Election Program.
• A great look at George Wallace’s political style, and where it turns up in contemporary politics.
• If you’ve been missing the flamboyantly wacky aspects of the Family Institute circa 2006-2007, you’ll enjoy a little Gallagher.
• The link is a little old, but it’s good to remember who’s driving policy in Congress.
• The upcoming action relating to the Diebold/ESS merger will have some interesting ramifications for Connecticut as the state looks to replace its accessible voting machines – and as the existing machines begin to break down.

This story at The Mirror has been kicking around my head for a few days now:

After the Sheff order, dozens of open enrollment magnet schools with themes such as science or the arts opened across the state with the aim of promoting voluntary integration. However, unlike magnet schools, charters did not have specific racial targets and were designed to test innovative approaches to curriculum and teaching. Several of the schools opened in the state’s poorest cities, aimed specifically at disadvantaged students, most of whom are members of minority groups.

In 11 of the state’s 18 charters, minority children account for more than 94 percent of the students.

“The charter school movement has been a major political success, but it has been a civil rights failure,” UCLA Professor Gary Orfield wrote in a foreword to the Civil Rights Project report. Orfield, one of the nation’s leading authorities on school desegregation, was a witness for the plaintiffs in the original Sheff trial.

[...]

“The biggest problem with the report is it ignores student achievement,” Toll said. “It prioritizes integration above everything else.” In too many of the nation’s schools, “many of our minority kids are not getting a quality education,” she said. “That’s the real civil rights issue.”

At schools such as Jumoke, closing the achievement gap is the overriding goal.

Located in a former Catholic school, an aging brick building in Hartford’s North End, Jumoke’s elementary school zeroes in on academics, scheduling lengthy blocks of time each day for reading, writing and mathematics.

The school provides daily enrichment classes for students who meet academic benchmarks and extra help for those who don’t. Children wear uniforms, and the school posts signs such as “Respect Others” and “No Bully Zone” along the walls, part of its effort to emphasize character development.

“We’re bringing in quality teachers … and setting expectations high,” says the school’s principal, Lynn Toper, a former State Department of Education consultant. “Our parents are thrilled to be here. How often do you hear that?”

Both sides of the argument are sympathetic, but after some time thinking about it, I think that what the charter issue really highlights are the limits of using public schools as engines for social change. Schools are one of the best tools we have, but they can’t reverse a slow trend towards “soft” segregation based in tax policy, zoning laws, real estate steering, legacy economic gaps, and social stigmatization of cities among wealthier classes. Integrating our schools can’t, by itself, integrate our society.

What struck me was the quote that “Our parents are thrilled to be here. How often do you hear that?” My concern is that charters, on top of not being as racially diverse as they could be, introduce a class-based division into a larger educational system that was already highly segregated by race. As opt-in institutions, charters will disproportionately attract children whose parents are highly motivated and with the resources (time, transportation) to pursue those opportunities for their kids. Likewise, high-performing students and those with high degrees of parental involvement are drained from public schools, diminishing the variety of experience and background shared with student peers — in both sets of institutions. I see it as potentially being a parent-driven form of tracking for students.

In any case, if the article piqued your interest, it’s worth checking out the entire report [PDF link] — it weighs in at 85 pages before the endnotes and appendices. I haven’t made it all the way through, but I will.

Battling through the ages.

I have to say, I’m really glad to not be living in California.

I hate this:

The Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee voiced its approval Wednesday for a tax incentive package that gives up to $90 million to Starwood Hotels and Resorts up for relocating its headquarters from White Plains, New York to Stamford, Connecticut.

The deal which took more than three years to structure will bring 813 new jobs to the state and is expected to generate far more revenue than the tax credit the state is offering, state officials said. [...]

According to Starwood executives, the median compensation for its employees is $114,000.

813 employees x $114,000 salary x 5% income tax x 10 years = $46,341,000

That doesn’t mean that the project is a bad idea or shouldn’t be approved, but let’s be honest: it will be a long, long time before this deal is a positive on state tax rolls. And in year 11, what will we do if Starwood says “extend our credit, or we’re moving”?

Jim Amann leaving the Governor’s race.

He endorsed Malloy in the 2006 primary, though I can’t really imagine any of the candidates looking for his endorsement this time out.

This has been brewing for a couple of days now, and it brings a couple of points to mind:

First, what Lamont said was stupid and wrong. No doubt.

Second, I’m very impressed that nobody who’s familiar with Malloy’s history of labor relations in Stamford seems to have said a single word about how awe-inspiringly cynical his attack here is.

Third, there’s a disconnect here that repeats itself over and over again with progressive policy initiatives – a compromise is hashed out behind the scenes and introduced, but those who want to be seen as centrists don’t get the memo (or the airtime, more likely), and attack whatever bill as too liberal.

With healthcare, a national health system was compromised down to single payer, single payer activists were sold on the public option, the public option was vaporized in exchange for nothing. Advocates, who would have been thrilled at half a loaf, start getting pretty unhappy when they’re told to give back the 1/8 of a loaf that they have remaining. And now, everyone’s clucking at the clever Democrats promoting the ultra-conservative Paul Ryan healthcare bill. Of course, the Ryan bill will go down in flames, but in February 2010, some fringe Republican character will get a chance to insert items into the signature Democratic legislative accomplishment while the large and loyal progressive caucus has been frozen out for the better part of a year.

The President or the Governor is always going to tack to the center – as another example, Bush wanted the authority to invade anything and everything without giving any reason, and compromised by accepting the mere authority to invade Iraq for no particular reason. He was able to compromise with the extreme right because there was a functioning extreme that he could negotiate with.

But now, as Lamont is realizing that the bill (click here to see the draft) is already compromised to a pale shadow of what liberals wanted, it’s basically impossible to ask for any further compromises in the name of moderation and reasonableness. So he’s forced to either crap on a bill that was already pretty conservative and incremental (making it moreso), or sound like an idiot for not understanding what’s actually on the table.

Yes, what Ned said was uncool, but without a functioning left in the legislature, it’s something that’s going to be repeated over and over again no matter who winds up being Governor.

Another reason why we’ll miss Senator Dodd.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced today that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment in the coming days to reverse the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision overturned 100 years of precedents to come to the unjustified conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans.

“Money is not speech,” said Dodd. “Corporations are not people. And in the wake of one of the most radical decisions in the Supreme Court’s history of campaign finance jurisprudence, a constitutional amendment is necessary to fully restore the trust and voice of the American people. If corporations – foreign as well as domestic – are allowed even greater and more direct influence over our elections, our democracy as we know it will cease to exist. I won’t stand for that. I urge my colleagues, and the American people, to join me in defense of democracy by supporting this amendment and other interim steps to mitigate the damage done by this decision.”

Amending the Constitution — turns out it’s good for something other than right-wing fundraising after all.

I’ve been following the debate over Himes’ vote against the House “Jobs Bill” with some interest. The measure, according to Himes, is “a $75 billion Democratic spending plan which largely expanded programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

The first interesting debate is one over whether the vote was principled or politically opportunistic. I lean towards the latter, but have to admit that the technocratic argument against Himes’ position comes off a lot better in print than the political one, as you can see in this CT Post article. And once a consensus starts to gel that constituents can’t really “reach” their elected representative with their concerns (this quote from the Post article – “While I think of everybody I represent, I don’t cast votes according to what any particular small minority agitates for” – gets at what a lot of activists and DTC people are perceiving), then you may as well design your criticisms to sound good when they’re picked up in local media instead of targeting them to what you might perceive that electeds’ perspective and priorities to be. And it’s certainly better to make a Congressman argue with Paul Krugman than My Left Nutmeg.

But that characterization of the spending package kept ringing out in my mind – the idea that the bill was an extension of the early 2009 stimulus measure. If you remember, the House passed a package heavily tilted towards the more effective spending measures, which were then shifted dramatically towards less-effective tax cuts by the Senate. (A comparison of differences between the two bills can be seen here – definitely worth checking out).

In a way, redirecting TARP money towards local governments, direct aid to the unemployed (extended healthcare and unemployment), housing, and transit (as NYC commuter rail faces service cuts due to budget shortfalls) asserts that the House was correct in its original proposal, which Himes seems to acknowledge when he complains that too large a part of the original stimulus has yet to be spent. A more detailed list of the supplemental bill’s programs (which actually add up to a little over $150 billion) can be seen at Pelosi’s legislation blog, and, minus the highway spending, sounds relatively fast-acting.

These institutions being what they are, I understand that “The House Was Right” is not going to be at the top of any Pelosi press releases on the subject. Still, as both a policy and politics matter, it seems a tragic mistake for Representatives of any stripe (and Democrats in particular) to advance the notion that our government has done all it can or should to restore stability at all levels of the economy.

Discussion has been ramping up this week over the Federal Reserve, as Ben Bernanke’s confirmation for another term as Chair begins. Progressive superhero Bernie Sanders has put a hold on the nomination, while our own Senator Dodd is apparently the point man for ensuring the confirmation goes smoothly.

Bernanke and many supporters appear to be claiming that politicizing the Fed’s policies in the context of the confirmation would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve; Dodd seems to be leaning on the idea that the Fed has done a great job, and that it’s simply the regulatory system that needs updating.

I’m torn on the subject – while there’s been some fascinating left-right alliances forming, I can’t help but think there’s a tension between the differing philosophies, and I’ve seen progressives burnt by one or two of our own acting as “beards” for extreme conservative interests enough times to hesitate before jumping in.

It’s absolutely true that Bernanke has not done many of the beneficial things that it is in his power to do. The most persuasive criticism is that he has pursued the well-being of banking and trading institutions over the Fed’s stated policy of pursuing full employment. Put another way, we gave the money to the wrong people – stocks are up, and jobs are down. The big-picture critique from the left might be that the actions taken to stabilize the economy have only served to perpetuate the mugging of the poor and middle class by organized wealth, and that the current policy reinforces the offensive “trickle-down” theory of economic well-being at the same time that it illustrates “trickle-down’s” ultimate failure.

However, it seems to me that hanging some bureaucrat lets the people that really screwed the economy off the hook, and would serve those who want to eliminate government regulation entirely. Remember the argument from last fall that promoting minority homeownership caused the entire collapse of the American economy? I think the hard right – the Grover Norquists of the world – has understood from the first whisper of the word “collapse” that by the end of the day the public would demand a pound of flesh for all the suffering generated by these financial institutions, and I think they’re right. The thing is, they’ve been casting around for one that lets the traders and the idle billionaires that love them get off unmolested, and Bernanke is just the latest.

Of course, Dodd is right that the regulatory regime isn’t strong enough, but doesn’t seem to get that there’s something that isn’t being satisfied out here in the wilderness of public opinion. That doesn’t mean that he should kick over the podium and strangle Bernanke on the Senate floor – but being nice, being fair, and delivering a speech about how he supports this nominee and their independence without reservation (with some toughness down in the twenty-fourth paragraph) is not doing the job of communicating that our Senator is as unhappy as we are. (If you didn’t read it from the link above, here it is again: Dodd Supports Bernanke’s Confirmation, Calls for Improvements to the Federal Reserve).

It’s frustrating, since all the conditions for an epic shift in national priorities have been in place for a couple of years now: between Iraq, Katrina, and the financial sector meltdown, Americans seem to have gotten exactly how ruinous conservative policies are for our country. With Afghanistan, the ever-shrinking healthcare reform plan, and the sustained practice of treating criminals like princelings so long as they work south of Chambers, the Change We Need is not looking very much like the Change We Wanted in the First Place. When progressive activists start lining up behind initiatives from the Americans for Tax Reform, there’s some real trouble brewing – to me, that says that our ability to believe there’s real reform around the corner is just about exhausted.

Commentary from John Cohn:

The ritual is becoming familiar. Health care reform passes a major political hurdle. And progressives don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Last time, the occasion was a vote in the House of Representatives. Health care reform passed by the slimmest of margins, but not before conservative Democrats had extracted a major concession on abortion rights.

This time, it was a vote in the Senate–not on whether to pass a bill, but whether to begin debating one. This measure, too, passed by the slimmest of margins, but not before conservative Democrats and one notorious independent made clear they were prepared to shut things down later if legislation includes a public insurance option.

It’s no fun to watch this unfold. And yet this is the exactly the sort of drama you should expect for the next few weeks, as the Senate deliberations play out. [...]

For progressives, victories are more likely to come in the form of ground not conceded than ground gained. Every day that legislation doesn’t get worse is a day to cherish.

This was the exact problem that the healthcare advocacy community and bloggers foresaw in July – and why so many people were angry when Congress decided to wait around until after the August recess to schedule their vote. And when our Democratic Representatives lack the grasp of basic politics displayed by some blogger on the internet (all due respect), it’s easy to see why their base of supporters don’t see a good reason to come out and vote next year.