weekly response

By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

Christmas for Christians, as I understand it, is a time for love, reflection, and gratitude. But in America, there is so much tension surrounding the holiday because we don't know who we are.

I remember the first time a friend announced, as a simple premise, that we live in a Christian nation. I was startled and confused, and not as a matter of principle.

This was the first time I caught wind of such a notion. Sure, the malls are decked out for Christmas, and I've sung plenty of Christmas carols over the years.  I usually think Christmas lights and decorations are pretty, though I take issue with inflatable snowmen. This is a lovely season, and more generally, I'm perfectly happy to live in a country where most people are Christian.

But how are we a Christian nation, and why would we be? And if we are, is there any way we can change that? How did we even end up talking about this? The first amendment to the Constitution is absolutely clear. Concise, even.

I've always been proud to live in a secular nation in the sense that the state doesn't interfere with religion. Of course, the United States government has interfered with religion regularly throughout our history, perhaps most notably in its treatment of American Indian religious traditions, which weren't legalized until 1972. But I remain proud to live in a country established upon laws guaranteeing religious freedom, a country wherein no cultural tradition reigns supreme. This is an ideal towards which we can strive.

Perhaps those who wish for a Christian nation will find a better life in England.

Mercifully, President Obama acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of non-Christian faith traditions in this week's address.  There might have even been a twinkle in the President's eye as he wished the nation "Happy Holidays" amidst accusations of his supposed War on Religion.

Merry Christmas, and let us each celebrate every day however we see fit.

I'd like to feature a guest blogger every so often.

You might be thinking, well, that's a neat idea, but it doesn't really concern me, because I'm not a blogger.  I urge you to reconsider! You may not be a blogger today, but that will change at the drop of a word.

If you like what you read and want to contribute, please email me at Leo.E.Brown@gmail.com. You might respond directly to the President's weekly address, but feel free to write a post on a different subject entirely. Just so long as it matches the general "atmosphere" of the blog. I'm also completely interested in more creative posts: policy proposals, poetry, and cartoons inclusive.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you will choose to contribute!

Leo

The Iraq War is over, and many troops will become veterans after years of fighting. President Obama points out that his grandfather's generation returned from World War II "to form the backbone of the largest middle class in history." But why would we expect this to happen today?

We Need Less Freedom
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.

President Obama has announced that Congress should not adjourn for the holidays until they extend payroll tax cuts for working class families. Clearly, this is the right thing to do, both for the economy and as a matter of simple compassion. Whereas eliminating this tax cut would be a punch in the gut to millions of families living on the brink of homelessness and malnutrition, its impact on the national budget would barely register against the enormous costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending.

On Tastefully Silencing Narratives

We Are Not Alone
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

About a month ago, the traffic on this blog doubled. I couldn't figure it out. Had I become more insightful? Maybe some post had gone viral?

As it turned out, all of the new visitors were from Siberia, where I now live. Because many of my Russian friends and acquaintances want to read what I have to say. In Novosibirsk, direct communication with an American is a rare opportunity. Some people may be less interested in my ideas and simply want to practice their English. Whatever the explanation, my audience has swelled and continues to grow at a quicker rate than before.

This is an opportunity for growth that had not occurred to me, and many American businesses operate with the same narrow perspective. As President Obama mentions in his weekly address, 95% of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. But according to this Washington Post article, 99% of American businesses do not export their product.

Of course, some businesses, due to their size or industry, should not export. But 99%? This couldn't be optimal.

Existing trade laws and tariffs are less then ideal, but President Obama is working to fix this. The trade deals he announced during his Asia Pacific tour will help.  The President has repeatedly signalled, through both words and action, his commitment to uphold the campaign promise of doubling American exports by 2014. Based on these facts, we can reasonably expect the government to support an economic climate conducive to exports.

But for all the government can do, American businesses need to open their minds. Because consumers are consumers, whether they hail from Westchester or Tajikistan. Americans may not be buying like they used to, but this needn't destroy our economy. By investing in international market research, businesses might realize opportunities far beyond what a healthy American economy could ever provide. We need to aggressively court the international consumer base rather than treating it like a cheap sideshow.

By viewing the global economy with a wide lens, we can continue to grow as a nation. If we repeat the mistakes of the last ten years or the habits of the last century, the world will leave us choking on its fumes.

Plead Ignorant No More
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

Senate has passed the Returning Heroes Tax Credit, a part of the American Jobs Act, which will grant tax credit to businesses for hiring returning veterans. The idea is that America should provide for its soldiers, and that no one, after putting his or her life at risk for country, should have to suffer from unemployment. This principle, upholding the legacy of the GI Bill, found bipartisan support in the Senate.

Fiscal conservatives who support this measure have more to explain than their respect for military veterans. Why, now, should the government meddle with the economy and use tax dollars to influence business decisions? This is not consistent with their commitment to austerity and small government.

Presumably, the thought is that veterans deserve particular respect for their unique form of service. This is the sort of sentiment that Democrats and Republicans usually share.

If this is the case, it points squarely to a troubling conclusion. Though fiscal conservatives usually oppose tax credits, they blink when the beneficiaries are veterans. This is a tacit, but hardly subtle, acknowledgment that judicious fiscal stimulus does work to reduce unemployment. This, of course, is why they are supporting it: it will reduce unemployment among veterans.

But while the national unemployment rate sits at 9%, fiscal conservatives only consent to provide veterans with these benefits. As a result, no other demographic will see their unemployment rate budge.  A tax credit incentive to hire recent college graduates, or single mothers, or people with purple hair could reduce their unemployment rate as well. There is now no doubt that Senate Republicans understand this concept.

With such a weak economy, many businesses are reluctant to take on more employees. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit will give some of these businesses an opportunity to safely expand and invest while shielding veterans from unemployment. Hopefully, once Americans see the concrete, indisputable results of this program, they will realize our country's potential and call upon elected officials to act in our best interest.

President Obama delegated his weekly address to Vice President Biden this week while he attended the G20 Summit in Cannes, France. Might the President consider other such substitutions from time to time? This was the first time since the 2008 campaign that I've heard Vice President Biden say so many words. I had forgotten what his voice sounds like!

In their weekly response, the Republican party features a different legislator each week. It keeps things fresh. Why not shift the spotlight around the President's cabinet? We could hear from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about his take on the recession, or maybe Labor Secretary Hilda Solis would care to explain the American Jobs Act. No need to keep such smart and influential people under wraps.

President Obama is a fine orator, but does anyone get the sense that he is a bit weary of repeating himself?

As President Obama took a week off from his weekly address, so too will I from this fair blog.  Here is the link to Vice President Biden's address, in which he bemoans the mulish ways of Congress.

[Vice President Biden's Weekly Address]

Occupy the Government
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

It might seem that President Obama is pandering to the Occupy Wall Street movement with his recent rhetoric. He wants to tax the rich to finance our nation's future. He wants to live in a country where everyone, not only those who have already made a fortune, has an opportunity to prosper.

Of course, the President has been saying these things since before he took office, and especially in the last year during the debt fight. He repeats his conviction in this week's address.

Not long ago, I suggested that the President's agenda didn't entirely align with OWS. He has since issued an executive order to ease the burden of student debt, finally enacting legislation that Congress passed in 2010.

We are right to push the man, to ask more of him, and to be angry when he fails to deliver. But anyone who thinks that President Obama is an enemy of the cause has their head in the sand.

In this widely circulated column, Thomas Friedman describes the revolting relationship between banks and government as "a forum for legalized bribery." Even the shortest fry can see that our society is guided by perverse incentive and controlled by the corrupt and ignorant.

So the anarchist contingent of OWS would nail me to the wall for suggesting this, but I'll say it anyway. In the 2010 Congressional elections, the Tea Party won a great many seats in the House. What if OWS tries to do the same in 2012? We don't have much to lose, and now would seem to be the moment to seize. Tea Party representatives are politically weak and verifiably silly. A majority of Americans sympathize with OWS. Occupations are shooting up like dandelions. Instead of Tea Party obstruction, an OWS caucus could empower President Obama to be the progressive hero that we want and need.

Or, OWS could rally behind Jill Stein for President. Ms. Stein, a serious and immensely likable Green Party stalwart, could very well scoop up OWS momentum and usher a Republican into the White House.

The outstanding question is whether OWS can stomach an infiltration of the government. Clearly, some would prefer revolution and will settle for nothing less. But the Tea Party has shown us that a concerted effort to win seats can make an enormous difference in the workings of government. And a majority of Americans, I predict, would not support a revolution.

OWS continues to amass an impressive trove of political capital and, in a brilliant tactical move, has spent none at all. As the world unites around a cause of equity and justice, political beasts will be brought to their knees. But who, or what, will stand before them? This is for the 99% to decide.

Most Russians I encounter hold some strong views about illegal immigration. As Mexicans pick our tomatoes, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other Central Asians work their construction sites and supply other low-wage labor. One interpretation of this situation is that they do a mediocre job for cheap, thus degrading the quality of Russian life and taking jobs away from citizens.

Our situation in America is rather different, regardless of editorial spin. The government does not hire Mexican farm workers, and few would argue that their work is inferior. Disgruntled Americans focus on the notion that they are keeping wages low and unemployment up.

As I discussed in my last post, this interpretation has been complicated by evidence that unemployed Americans do not accept farm labor when it is available. It is more profitable, and more reliable, to simply collect unemployment insurance. This does not seem quite right.

So I've been thinking about what the economy would look like without undocumented immigrants. For the sake of simplicity, I'll focus on agricultural labor. Here is my take: an intuitive, thought-experiment economic analysis.

*Farm wages rise. Compensation needs to be more attractive than unemployment insurance.
*Without government assistance, many farms are unable to afford the new cost of labor and go out of business. Alternatively, the government provides subsidies to aid this transition.
*American food prices rise, reflecting the high cost of labor and scarcity of domestic farms.
*Cheap food from abroad fills American markets. Food "Made in America" is now a luxury.
*Most Americans end up eating food grown in Mexico, picked by the same Mexicans who used to work here.

The demand for domestic food will never go away, but in such a scenario, it would shift to the rich and the xenophobic. Because of undocumented immigrant labor, most Americans can afford food that is grown on our soil. Without Mexican workers, some more Americans might have jobs, but they wouldn't be able to afford a tomato picked north of the border.

The New York Times has published a couple of solid pieces that pertain to some of my earlier posts.  In "The Great Restoration," David Brooks suggests that most Americans have learned from the mistakes of the last decade and are changing their financial strategies. Debt is no longer widely viewed as an effective financial strategy, and families are now "repairing the economic moral fabric" of our nation. In short, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Mr. Brooks refers to a variety of polls and demographic data in his article and presents a solid case.

What I find especially interesting is that, according to this notion, we don't need massive education reform to solve our financial problems, as I suggested back in July. Because while our economy is immensely complicated, sticking to a few basic principles can go far. Although, if we taught these principles to children and young adults, perhaps another generation would not need to learn the hard way.

The other article, "In Defense of the Back-Room Deal," written by Jordan Tama, provides a concise historical overview of secrecy in Congressional negotiations. Mr. Tama argues that shielded from the media limelight, politicians with opposing views are sometimes able to achieve logical, intelligent compromise. As I argued in this post and many prior, our political system could work so well if, somehow, politicians were not able to communicate with their constituents so easily and regularly. Balance is essential, but less time on Twitter and less time delivering wrote, inflammatory sound-bytes would definitely help to move things along. Then, if we're not happy with the results, we'll throw them out of office.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the American Jobs Act would help our economy, even if some (Paul Krugman, et al) wish it were bigger and bolder.  And the Occupy Wall Street protests have revealed a groundswell of popular discontent with the status quo, finally expressed on the streets: passionate blogging bolstered by flesh and sweat.  At a glance, this might seem like a perfect storm, a harbinger of change.

During the past week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and village idiot Sarah Palin both announced that they would not be running for president. Thereby, the Republican presidential field is set. So except in the unlikely event that former Utah governor John Huntsman, Jr. wins the primary, we now know that President Obama will face a deeply flawed sack in the 2012 election.

Nearly a decade since President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law, President Obama is now taking steps to dismantle its most ineffective stipulations. The new terms set by the President acknowledge the variable conditions and circumstances in school districts nationwide. States can now apply for a waiver and set their own standards of achievement. These changes will make our education system more efficient, relieving districts and teachers of monolithic standardized tests and counterproductive "failing" labels.

Two weeks ago, I proposed that we reinvigorate the nation by setting a goal. With this in mind, we can look to No Child Left Behind as a useful case of a failed national goal. Much blame for the law's ineffectiveness has been placed on its framework as a goal: that 100% of students reach grade-level proficiency in reading and math by 2014. Critics of the law say that this was, and always will be, impossible.

I don't need to explain why these critics are 100% right, nor will I waste space ranting about how 100% of anything misses the point completely.

Rather, I'll point out one facet of this debacle that could be easily twisted to set us back another ten years. We didn't achieve the goal of No Child Left Behind, and this was a lofty goal indeed. But our inevitable failure cannot be a referendum on lofty goals. It's not simply that we set a goal too big, too much, too ambitious. Because as we well know, it was also silly and irrelevant.

We can learn from No Child Left Behind not to stake our national dignity on ending 100% of civilian casualties or picking up all of the cigarette butts. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to demonize fast food to oblivion or use public resources to modernize public schools, as President Obama declares in his address. We can still clean up the streets and the ocean. These are goals that we can achieve, that are, by definition, attainable. And not only are they attainable, they are bigger and better than anything No Child Left Behind had to offer.

We can learn from one of the simplest, most accessible economic theories, the law of diminishing returns, that if we spend to the moon, there will remain middle school dropouts. Thankfully, President Obama is not wasting our time by complaining about the failures of No Child Left Behind, but rather proposing new goals that can bring us to a smarter, successful future. Now, with proper doses of federal spending, state sovereignty, and some confidence in our abilities, we can finally lift our children from the middle of the pack among nations. That is an attainable goal. 

Republicans have cried foul as President Obama demands immediate passage of the American Jobs Act. It's not fair, they say, that the President would expect us to pass his bill without letting us contribute our ideas.  They cite the need for compromise and discourse. 

Before dismissing Republican opposition as obstructionist and crotchety, let's allow for the possibility that their grievances are earnest. The President needs some Republican votes, and these are within reach, provided that the GOP feel welcome to a spot at the table. If all they want is to make a few changes, even if only to appear engaged and influential, President Obama should allow them this opportunity. He hasn't much to lose, and this would be a small price to pay.

The President is taking a hard line in order to appear strong, as many worry about his chances in the 2012 election. This is a fair concern.  But he would also appear strong, perhaps even more so,  if he doesn't insist on passage exactly as written. Let them make a few changes if it's going to calm them down. Remember, this whole enterprise is mostly about injured pride and saving face.

Be strong, President Obama, and hold fast to your principles. But don't draw a line in the sand now. You are better than that, and your American Jobs Act is too good to waste.

It will be best not to invite comparison to Rep. Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee who drafted this summer's Republican budget plan.  The Ryan Plan, doomed to a presidential veto from its inception, was a futile exercise in bluster and a legislative failure that further undermined GOP credibility. Everyone knew from the get-go that it would never pass, but this didn't stop Republicans from bludgeoning the discourse with its irrelevant dogma.

Unlike the Ryan Plan, the American Jobs act is a centrist piece of legislation based on compromise. House Speaker John Boehner has announced that the plan "merits consideration." I hope the President will not waste this opportunity for real compromise by insisting on verbatim passage, which is about the only way the American Jobs Act could come across as unreasonable.

Nearly ten years have passed since the September 11th attacks. In his address this week, President Obama calls upon the nation to commemorate the anniversary by devoting a day to community service. Just as firefighters, soldiers, and regular citizens have given of themselves over the last decade, we can all contribute, whether in tiny bits or large chunks, to make our world more peaceful and just.

In his call to service, the President invokes the unity that our country found in the months following the attacks. Such a non-partisan atmosphere feels a distant memory in the rancorous political muck of today, and it is tempting to long for a revival of this spirit. How are we to become a great nation anew if we don't stop bickering?

Certainly, we would do well to bicker less. And we need not bicker purely for the sake of bickering. I agree with the President that we could spend our time more usefully, and he is right to direct us to serve our communities rather than picking our toenails or prowling Facebook.  

But on this tenth anniversary of our nation's deadliest terrorist attacks, President Obama needs also to rehash the less honorable aspects of our response. As a twelve-year-old in the fall of 2001, I listened to the local radio while citizens decried Islam and its faithful as inhuman agents of evil.  

"They should all be nuked," one caller demanded.

Just over a year later, an overwhelming majority of Congress voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction (which, needless to say, did not exist).

"America speaks with one voice," proclaimed President Bush.

This has been a decade marred by prisoners detained and tortured at Guantanamo Bay, without trial or basic human rights.  Last summer, a pastor in Gainesville, Florida planned to commemorate the September 11 attacks by hosting an "International Burn a Quran Day." On a regular basis, friends and strangers bait me, hoping that as a Jew, I will lash out and rant against Muslims, indulging in a dash of xenophobic backscratching.

We have been down this road before. German-Americans during World War I and Japanese-Americans during World War II tasted the foul byproduct of our patriotism. When will we learn?

On this anniversary, we can serve our country by joining a community service project organized by an unfamiliar church, or synagogue, or mosque. We can attend a new sort of religious service, even if only once. And when an ignorant or confused citizen tosses off a racist or ethnocentric comment, we can share our view of how important diversity is to our nation's fabric.  Such a response would serve our country better than the grim, stony silence that prevails all too often in the face of injustice.

I wrote this op-ed, published by the Berkshire Eagle in today's paper, outlining a plan to maintain Republican solvency and restore functional government.  I urge Speaker Boehner to disengage with the Tea Party and lead the GOP towards the center, forcing a party fracture. This maneuver would be both politically savvy and highly convincing to a influential swath of moderate voters.

...America voted for divided government, not dysfunctional government...

But, President Obama contends in this week's address, a dysfunctional government we have. And although the President officially disagrees with Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, he would surely agree with this one main thrust of the report:

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."

Contentious and fitful. Like children. Or, perhaps more relevantly, like pillars of hubris, swollen with pride, holding the course so as not to appear weak.

As such, in the aftermath of the debt ceiling hoo-ha, Republicans remain adamantly opposed to tax hikes for the rich. This might feel good inside, but the House majority is not doing itself any favors. On the contrary, they have everything to gain by backpedaling, even just a touch. Approval of Congress is at a historic low, and numerous polls (I'll link one example) show that a majority of Americans, even a majority of Republican voters, want the newly-anointed bipartisan "supercommittee" to reach a compromise.

I'm confident that the sooner Republicans stop hollering about "no new taxes," the less silly they will appear. Wouldn't it make sense to count the deficit war as a political victory and move on? After all, they made the President look weak, triggered a credit downgrade which wreaked havoc on the stock market, and took a wonderfully uncompromising stand against taxes. Now would be an ideal time to pick some fresh, new talking points before the public begins to notice the real-world consequences of this round of GOP political bullying. After all, Standard and Poor's has noticed, and they've raised quite the stink. That's sort of like police lights in your rearview mirror. A fair time to pull over, even if you were literally in the middle of saying that you'll never get a speeding ticket.

But the party faithful prattles on. At the Republican presidential debate last night, when asked if they would reject a deal that concedes one dollar of tax increases for every ten dollars of spending cuts, all eight candidates stuck their hands up like a band of crazed teacher's pets. Not a flicker of hesitation.

I understand that in a primary campaign, it is sometimes necessary to appeal to the party base, but I honestly think these people are not helping themselves. The American public can indeed be fooled, and we don't always pay close attention to important, relevant political matters. But when it's this obvious, when politicians repeatedly flout their refusal to compromise, their ideological stasis, for such an extended period of time, few thinking voters will take them seriously. So what are they trying to accomplish?

President Obama sketches out a plan to substantially reduce unemployment and reinvigorate the economy in this week's address. To be sure, the President needs a plan. But he does not mention why he is focusing primarily on domestic manucturing, a strategy that, in my opinion, requires a bit of explanation.

Though our international trade deficit is problematic and unsustainable, we are, by no means, obligated to tackle the issue by suddenly becoming a manufacturing nation. Nor is that really possible, to the extent that would be necessary, in the 21st century. Manufacturing jobs disappeared overseas (decades before the current recession) not because of faulty policy or American decline, but because international labor became relatively cheap and plentiful. Today, we can no longer compete with Chinese production of pencils and McDonald's toys - our standards of living are simply too high - and that's OK.

To improve our balance of trade and to reactivate the economy, we need to focus on what we do best in this century. As Tom Friedman has argued, now is the time to be "stapling a green card to the diploma of any foreign student who earns an advanced degree at any U.S. university." The nation's system of higher education is surely one of its greatest assets; we must use it to our advantage in the global competition for talent. In the last decade, our own Silicon Valley has spawned multi-billion dollar companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google. These are the U.S. exports of the 21st century, and we can maintain a stronghold in this market by continuing to invest in technology start-ups. And our financial sector, while demonized and reviled, remains a global leader and major contributor to net exports.

The fact is, we need not be ashamed of our Chinese-made pencils, or, for that matter, our Chinese-made iPads. Manufactured goods were an important part of our nation's economic development, but we might best build a future upon eduction, research, financial services, and high-tech design - sectors in which we currently excel.

There's been some exciting news about the economy over the last 24 hours as stock prices plummet and job growth seems to be picking up.  The media is having a blast with sensational graphics and dramatic headlines, but let's hang on to our thinking caps and get a few things straight.

1. Now is a splendid time to buy stocks.

If you can swing it, if you happen to have money you can manage to part with for a while, invest it in Wall Street.  Stocks are suddenly a bit cheaper, so gobble them up while you can. Help yourself, help the economy.

2. Unless you're a day trader, today's stock plunge doesn't need to affect you.

Regular people who have invested part of their wealth in stocks have no obligation to sell them on a day like today. In fact, to do so would be exceedingly silly.  Those who can stomach the temporary disappearance of wealth and hold onto their horses of impulse will be rewarded later when things return to normal.

3. Things will return to normal (eventually).

Better yet, things will continue to improve after they've returned to normal. Markets go up and markets go down, and all we have to do is wait.

4. The media needs to get a grip before it is too late.

Naturally, the media are inclined to frighten the masses into thinking the economy might never recover. It is a captivating story. But this sort of yellow journalism has a real impact on consumer and investor confidence and, therefore, a chilling effect on economic growth. In the long run, the press is only making things worse for all sectors, including its own, by inspiring fear and reservation in the public.

5. The economy just added 112,000 jobs.

Finally, unemployment is down, if only by a smidge. With stock prices down (read: more affordable) and jobs up, the economy might be able to pick up some real momentum.

We can only wait to see whether these predictions and assessments will hold true. In the meantime, I don't think there is any reason to dismiss optimism entirely and squander opportunities for growth.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's debt deal, liberal commentators and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are furious at radical Republicans for hijacking the debt debate and forcing President Obama's "surrender." But, as Daniel Markovits writes in his piece, "How the GOP lost on the debt deal," published yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, it's a wonder things didn't end up a whole lot worse for the left, considering the Tea Party's extremist negotiating tactics.

Perhaps most importantly, Republicans can no longer bolster their hand with the ultimate bargaining chip: the threat of default. When a bipartisan commission meets this fall to negotiate further budget cuts, anti-tax hawks will no longer hold the power to shove the economy into the ditch; they will settle instead for indignant sound-bytes and symbolic bluster. Though the President is disappointed that Washington wasn't able to grow up and stitch together a bigger deal, the fact remains that the nation has escaped with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and education grants - the pillars of our social safety net - fully intact.

Not that it's much consolation, but it was at least a little gratifying to see President Obama call out Tea Party shenanigans this Saturday, chastising "one faction of one party" for refusing to compromise their extreme positions in the debt ceiling debate. And following this frank, pleading address, it seems that Congressional leaders have finally reached a deal sufficiently revolting to the wings of both parties. The deal includes $2.4 trillion of cuts over ten years, no tax hikes for the rich, and no cuts of Social Security, Pell grants, Medicaid or Medicare. Barring unexpected political fiasco, the broad (and, sadly, unorganized) moderate caucus of Congress will be able to pass this legislation tomorrow, presumably without the votes of extreme Tea Partiers or hard-line liberals.

Among the accomplishments of the last few weeks, the Tea Party may have finally and conclusively outed itself to the American masses as a band of bona fide wack jobs. Their unyielding stance on taxes and blithe embrace of default leave no doubt (if any remained) that this powerful caucus is not fit to govern. But we are stuck with them for the immediate future, and I heard for the first time today on NPR's "All Things Considered" a gesture towards an organized and practical response to our predicament. A "restoration of sanity," as Jon Stewart might have.

The American Dream Movement is the brainchild of Van Jones, a former White House advisor to President Obama. Unlike Mr. Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity, which placed a premium on fun, this movement presents itself as a serious political player designed to combat Tea Party fervor. Whereas the Tea Party calls for the end of government, the American Dream Movement values some of the things that government offers, such as Social Security and education grants. Mr. Jones believes that a silent majority of Americans oppose Tea Party policies, and he hopes to inspire them to political protest and action.

We will soon know whether this movement has as much traction as Mr. Jones claims. But if the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is painfully clear that any political voice, no matter how radical and irrational, has the power to tarnish the compromises that occur every day in government. In such a scary, precarious world, all thinking citizens have sacred responsibility to yell back. By adopting some of the Tea Party's organizing tactics (if not their positions), perhaps Mr. Jones will be able to lug the center of out policy debates back towards the left, closer to where it belongs.

Check out my letter to the editor, published today in the Albany Times Union! It's basically a truncated version of my education post from two weeks ago.

In this week's terse, joyless address, President Obama reminds the nation that both parties share responsibility for the last decade of unbridled government spending. In the wake of Speaker Boehner's abrupt departure from White House budget negotiations this Friday, the President makes no apparent effort to maintain his hopeful, inspired tone of the last few weeks. This address features not a glimpse of his pearly whites, not even a "have a great weekend!" As such, the summer's foul political stasis persists. The President trudges through an epic struggle of careful political maneuvering and tortured reasoning, compromise futile, for upon his every offer, Republican leaders deftly triangulate to claim a new baseline, desperate to assuage their radical constituents.

I admire President Obama's enduring commitment to civil discourse, and he certainly honors his campaign promise to bring compromise to Washington. But aside from showcasing himself as a reasonable, fair man, this approach has not yielded the necessary results. The proposals Republicans have deigned to consider all rely overwhelmingly on spending cuts, including substantial cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while protecting the corporate rich from paying fair tax rates. The President has invited these proposals by indulging the notion, now common, that both parties deserve equal blame for the current crisis. While the blame game can be dangerous and unproductive, and the President has much to gain from keeping his composure through the entire haul, I am starting to think that progress can only be made once the nation is reminded, with a bit more precision, why the budget deficit is so large.

The fact is, the majority of today's debt accumulated with President Bush at the helm. The extraordinarily costly War on Terror added nearly $800 billion to the bill before President Obama took his oath of office. In addition to increased investment in national security, the growing cost of entitlement programs during the Bush years was not funded by new revenues. Whether or not you feel that these various spending initiatives enacted by President Bush were justified, he and his supporters will proudly point out that taxes remained constant throughout his presidency. Quite obviously, this is the reason why the deficit rose much more quickly than the GDP during the last decade.

If President Obama is bold enough to point out a few of these basic, indisputable facts, his adversaries will surely accuse him of "playing the blame game." But without getting too dirty or personal, it is important for the many interested parties - including politicians, the media, and the public - to hear from the President himself some specific details about the history of our debt. By repeatedly and vaguely asserting that blame must be shared, the President isn't helping people understand what is really going on. But if folks hear him spell out why the budget deficit grew so rapidly over the last decade, even if they refuse to listen at first, they will, perhaps, be more likely to support politicians who espouse responsible, logical economic policy.

Debt math is often confusing and always fuzzy, but check out this graphic, which clearly shows the relative impact of tax cuts on the budget. Also, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman captures the exasperated plight of the left in his latest column, published yesterday in The New York Times.

It's possible that the weeks of closed-door conversation are yielding results, but neither President Obama's video address nor Friday's press conference suggest any meaningful development in budget negotiations. Rather than dignifying the familiar, self-indulgent stalemate with further attention, I'll write down a few ideas about how our economy has arrived at this pitiful juncture. For the sake of brevity, I've focused my thoughts on the housing and debt fiasco that blew up a few years ago, as well as the role of the American education system in bringing us to this moment.

Big banks certainly deserve blame for the subprime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s. By extending credit to individuals who would probably not be able to keep up with new bills, these banks put our economy on extremely shaky footing. Their morally dubious business calculations contributed to the current recession and destroyed the financial independence of millions of Americans, leaving them with a debt spiral to last a lifetime. It is frustrating to realize that wealthy, educated bankers and politicians allowed this situation to transpire in hopes of turning a profit.

The subprime mortgage crisis could have been avoided, or at least softened somewhat, had government enforced more stringent regulations and credit rating agencies issued strict credit scores. To this end, President Obama plans to name an individual in the next few days to lead the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (To the chagrin of her supporters, the agency's architect, Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, will not be chosen, mainly because so many conservatives in Congress despise her relentless advocacy on behalf of duped homebuyers.) If the agency manages to maintain its integrity and purpose amidst a muck of Congressional hearings, it will, perhaps, prevent a subprime mortgage crisis of such magnitude from ever again undermining our economy.

However, for all that government, banks, and credit agencies could have, should have, and can still do to protect the economy, the crisis could have been entirely avoided by one mechanism only: if individuals had not bought homes - without paying a penny up front - that they could not afford. The simple fact is that no bank strung up its clients and no hostages were claimed in the effort to corral high-risk homebuyers. Rather, just as any cheap salesperson, they spun a flashy deal, amped up their customer's confidence, and dangled the American dream for all to snatch. The rest, as they say, is history.

Why did so many fall for this sales pitch and wind up in debt?  Do these unfortunate individuals deserve a chunk of the blame for how things are today? Hard-line conservatives will argue that personal responsibility and an "all-American" spirit of rugged independence would have prevented so many from running up their credit card bills past the point of no return. More moderate voices will point out that everyone makes mistakes, and our country will be more stable once we offer help to those who have been taught their financial lessons the hard way. Thankfully, most Americans seem to understand that the millions who foreclosed on their homes have suffered enough, financially and emotionally, to drive home at least some lessons learned from their mistake, their naive trust of the powers that be.

While individual stories certainly differ, my concern lies in the similarities that provoked so many to fall into the same trap. So much media and political attention has been directed towards the evil of banks and stupidity of individual homeowners, but I believe that this problem of financial ignorance and irresponsibility originates in the basic structure of our education system. Upon graduating high school, not to mention college, my peers and I have been taught virtually nothing about financial management. What we do know is only the product and direct consequence of what our parents have passed along, along with any elective courses we might have chosen. In a world inextricably linked to complex financial markets, credit cards and scores, loans and debt, and myriad opportunities for investment miracle and catastrophe, such profound ignorance is a tremendous handicap and impediment to our independence and success, both as individuals and as a nation.

If parents would faithfully instill in their children intelligent and practical money management strategies, it might not be so important for our education system to take on this role. But the fact is that most parents are unwilling, or unable, or simply don't make time to empower their children with these lessons of survival. We witness this unfortunate reality every day as our friends, neighbors, and community struggle with poverty and debt, waiting in vain for economic revival. The cycle of mismanagement has revolved time and again, and if President Obama and members of Congress want to avoid another financial crisis, they need to address this gaping hole in our education system thoroughly and immediately.

I don't have on hand (and you probably weren't planning to read) a detailed policy proposal to overhaul our education system. I suppose that might be my next project. But I do know that a real solution will not take the form of a required high school economics course. To mend our society, we need to teach kindergarteners how to spend their allowance, and second graders how to set up (with adult supervision) a lemonade stand, and third graders how to start a savings account. Fourth graders need to know what I have barely figured out - just how a credit card functions - and seventh graders need to understand the basics of Wall Street. All that we, adults, strut around pretending to understand, we need to teach our nation's children before they are too spaced out or stoned to give a damn.

If the President and Congress want to be serious about "getting our fiscal house in order," they need to take a hard, long look at an education system that continues to churn out graduates without a nickel of financial common sense. This long-term investment would not only yield real results, but would finally eliminate the insidious root of our financial woes. Perhaps, if our nation were educated, if we had been indoctrinated with common sense in our youth, politicians would have less to gain and fewer constituents to please by trumpeting nonsensical solutions to serious economic problems.

This week's presidential video address is not all that different from the last, reflecting stubborn intertia in the struggle to address our nation's budget challenge. Once again, President Obama presents the centerpiece of his argument for tax hikes: that the wealthiest Americans, including large corporations and oil companies, can sacrifice a few dollars in order to budget for priorities such as Medicare, scholarships and research grants. To me, this seems like a reasonable bit of logic, but somehow, the President's approach has managed to antagonize Republicans and Democrats alike. According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Congress and the President need to figure out some sort of budget plan by August 2nd in order to avoid defaulting on the nation's debt. But as President Obama attempts to strike a compromise with Republicans, who remain unwilling to consider a single tax hike, he risks losing the support of Democrats, who are becoming increasingly suspicious of the President's motives and loyalties.

Some have written, as I mentioned in my comments under last week's post, that President Obama's rhetoric has sounded alarmingly conservative of late. In this week's address, the President announces again that we have to make sure "our government lives within its means," just as American families do. Liberals have good reason to fear the consequences of this notion; many before have fallen for the seductive populist logic that government should regularly and faithfully pay off its debt, including President Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. The last thing we need as the fragile economy recovers is senseless, unnecessary government austerity.

Listening to the President speak during his weekly address and at last week's Twitter Town Hall event, I began to think about his comments in a context that might allow him a bit more ideological wiggle room. He frightens the left by saying the government needs to live within its means, a turn of phrase typically associated with thinly-veiled free-market libertarian nonsense. But in the context of a historic budget deficit and a weak economy, and even during less extraordinary times, a government "living within its means" will not resemble a responsible family or individual with that same approach. Never does the President suggest that we need to eliminate our budget deficit; returning to a Clinton-era fiscal state couldn't possibly happen anytime soon. But should government spend its money carefully and responsibly, investing in useful, well-run programs that hold the promise of future returns? Absolutely, and Republicans are lucky to be working with a president so willing to scour the national budget for opportunities to cut pointless spending. With any luck, they will realize their good fortune just in time to eliminate unhelpful corporate tax cuts.

Cross your toes, and maybe by next week, the President will be able to announce that things have progressed! And for an intriguing time capsule, check out this ominous piece written by David Leonhardt, published by The New York Times in 2009, detailing the nation's dangerous fiscal state and how it might erupt in the near future.

President Obama is hopeful (video), for “Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to solve the problem” and reduce the national deficit. But such vague accordance will not deliver results unless substantiated by a set of concrete goals and priorities. As in any productive negotiation, both parties need to convey clearly and frankly what they can give up, what they cannot, and what is up for discussion. By establishing common ground and shared objectives at the outset of the conversation, perhaps individual temperament and pride will figure in less prominently as the President and Congress attempt to reach a useful compromise.

Most Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, and a swath of newly elected Tea Party heroes, are staunchly unwilling to vote for new tax increases. Further exacerbating the situation, these politicians have repeatedly announced their convictions to constituents and the media. In this week’s address, the President explains – again – that by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, the government can continue to provide college scholarships, health care, research grants, and postal service. But as the President’s frustration mounts, his pleas fall on deaf, obstinate ears. His political adversaries have built their political identity upon a promise to reign in government spending and slash taxes whenever possible. For these individuals, this discussion is no longer simply ideological (if it ever really was). Their pride, integrity, and purpose as elected officials are at stake; they have drawn a line in the sand and moved beyond reason in their vehement dogma.

The President’s demands are sensible, but in order to reduce the deficit, he requires the cooperation of at least some Republicans. Rather than honing in on the one policy option – raising taxes – most offensive to Tea Party sensibilities, the President might have more luck if he temporarily diverts attention from this sensitive, emotional issue. Instead of beginning the discussion by announcing, “We need to cut taxes in order to protect these programs,” President Obama could try saying, “We need to keep college scholarships, right? And medical research, too. Let’s think about how we could do that. Where can we save?”

This strategy would allow Republicans and Democrats to finally establish meaningful points of agreement. It doesn’t really help if everyone in Congress agrees that we need to reduce the deficit, just as the nuances of military engagement in Afghanistan remain contentious even while everyone in Washington wears a flag pin. Until the Republicans and Democrats agree on approximately how much the deficit must be reduced, and until they pencil in a few federally funded programs that must be protected (the postal service might be a nice place to start), negotiations will remain stagnant. But if the parties can stomach this degree of cooperation, it could trigger some important prerequisites to progress: media and political attention to taxes might simmer down, Republicans can tout the negotiations as a partisan victory, and President Obama can quietly strong-arm tax hikes for the wealthy into the final budget plan. In the current state of political inertia, the President has little to gain by digging in his heels and dignifying the mulish Republican posture. Rather, he can diffuse the petty, sour attitude of the opposition by extending an olive branch and allowing the GOP to begin a conversation without abandoning their steadfast principles. Tax hikes need to be part of the deficit reduction plan, but there’s no sense in forcing Republicans in Congress to publicly acknowledge this reality just yet.

For another perspective on the current state of the Republican party, check out The Mother of All No-Brainers, written by David Brooks and published yesterday in The New York Times. Mr. Brooks is a right-leaning moderate journalist.