Public Policy and Governance – Page 340

The Problem with Faith-Based Contractors

There really is no constitutional problem with government contracting with religious organizations for purely secular services. The state can purchase medical care or babysitting or welfare services from any organization, religious or secular, having the capacity to deliver those services in a constitutionally appropriate way–i.e., without proselytizing vulnerable populations, etc.

A problem that is rarely discussed, however, has become painfully obvious in Washington, D.C.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has announced that it will be “unable” to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city passes a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

So–do we allow religious organizations to make their continued participation in these programs contingent upon the District’s denial of fundamental rights to gays and lesbians? Or to put it another way, can the government give in to demands that its public policies be consistent with the religious beliefs of a contractor?

One of the problems with privatization in general is that too often, it is accompanied by a “hollowing out” of governmental capacity to provide essential services. In such cases, the contractor–secular or religious–has officials by the proverbial “short hairs.”

Comments

The Economics of Healthcare Reform

It’s getting so I hate to turn on the television, unless I’m watching something I have TIVO’d, and can zip through the commercials. On live TV, there is an ad that runs every few minutes declaring that healthcare reform will add to the national deficit and raise taxes. The ad ends by darkly warning that “America cannot afford” to reform healthcare.

Complex issues are never accurately addressed by slogans and bumper stickers, of course, but those of us who have actually been following the various proposals and arguments cannot help but be offended by the intellectual dishonesty of this particular 30-second spot. There are a number of proposals still on the table, for one thing, that would have different results. None of them currently would do any of the things this ad claims, for another. The Congressional Budget Office says that the version in the U.S. House would REDUCE the deficit by some 100 billion dollars over the next ten years.

Since I grit my teeth every time this particular bit of propaganda airs, I was gratified to see release of the following open letter from several of the nation’s most eminent economists.

Successful health care reform is vital to the nation’s fiscal and economic future. The legislation the House will vote on in the coming days will guarantee security of coverage, limit the costs of care, create incentives for improved quality of care, and set us on the path towards sustainable economic growth. In short, the House health reform legislation takes the steps necessary to promote our economic health.

Specifically, the bill:

Reduces the deficit by over $100 billion in the first 10 years, and continues to reduce the deficit in subsequent years, as judged by the Congressional Budget Office.

Takes initial steps to “bend the cost curve,” and thus might lead to even larger cost savings than official estimates suggest.

Covers nearly all American citizens and legal residents.

We urge House passage of the legislation, which provides a historic opportunity to realize the long-delayed goal of significant health care reform.

Signed,

Dr. Henry J. Aaron, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Mike Chernew, Harvard University Medical School
Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University
Dr. Judy Feder, Georgetown University, Center for American Progress Action Fund
Dr. Dana Goldman, University of Southern California
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Len Nichols, The New America Foundation

Clean Water, Vibrant City

I often read the Urbanophile’s blog; he has a good grasp of urban issues, and generally includes a wealth of data and perceptive commentary. In this post, he tells us about an ambitions program that–if successful–will yield benefits to the environment AND to city life. Worth pondering.

Playing Politics

Last week, the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down the state’s controversial “Voter ID” law.

For those of you who somehow missed the intensely political arguments about the motives for and effects of that measure—the most restrictive in the nation—let me briefly recap its somewhat checkered history.

The measure was originally championed by Secretary of State Todd Rokita, and passed by Republican majorities in the Statehouse. Democrats sued, supported by a number of organizations, including the AARP, Rock the Vote and the NAACP. They argued that the law violated the federal constitution by effectively disenfranchising many poor and elderly voters who, not so incidentally, tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. They also pointed out that Indiana had been unable to identify any instances of in-person voter fraud. (Where fraud had been confirmed, it was within the absentee ballot process, but the Voter ID law doesn’t apply to absentee voting.)

The Democrats lost in a split opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court, although the Court left the door open for a future challenge. The Supreme Court based its opinion largely on the absence of concrete evidence that the law had prevented people from casting ballots. The Democrats had been unable to identify real people who had been adversely affected by the law.

The recent Indiana Court of Appeals case was brought by the League of Women Voters, and was based on a different theory and a different constitution. This time, the argument was that Indiana’s Constitution requires all voters to be treated uniformly, and that the Voter ID law treats absentee voters and in-person voters differently. The Court unanimously agreed.

If the legislature wants to keep the law, in other words, they’ll have to apply it to all voters, not just those who show up in person.

This seems eminently reasonable, but Governor Daniels was quick to accuse all three judges who issued the opinion of “playing politics.” This rhetoric is unfortunate on a number of levels. It betrays unfamiliarity with the arguments involved, and—worse—paints judges as no more than partisans in robes. Such attacks, as the Indiana Bar Association pointed out, undermine the legitimacy of the judicial system.

Daniel’s intemperate reaction also appears to confirm suspicions that the Voter ID law was itself a partisan effort. As Doug Masson of Masson’s Blog observed in the wake of Daniel’s outburst, “The facts fit together better if you discard the premise that voter fraud was the purpose of the Voter ID law, and replace it with the premise that one political party, temporarily ascendant, saw fit to pass a law that would shave a percentage point or two off the other side’s votes. The Republicans made a calculation that the voters who would vote in person and not have identification would skew Democratic. That calculus changes if you apply the ID requirements to those who vote absentee. Therefore, the absentee voters weren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny.”

In other words, the judges weren’t the ones playing politics.

Our Morphing Media

I have been writing (and worrying) a lot about the transition of the media, and the effect of the current landscape on public discourse and policy.

As I told a friend, it’s one thing to disagree about something that we both see. We can both look at a photo, or a piece of art, or a draft of a pending bill, and disagree about its meaning, or–in the case of proposed legislation–whether it is a good idea. But the current fragmented media environment and the disproportionate attention garnered by “pundits” of varying philosophies and degrees of sanity has created a situation where we are far too often not looking at the same reality. It reminds me of the time (b.c.–before cellphones) when a friend and I agreed to meet for lunch at “the tearoom.” Back then, both Ayres and Blocks had tearooms, and I went to Ayres while she went to Blocks. This made conversation difficult, in much the same way that our current media environment does.

Clay Shirkey recently wrote an essay that is one of the more thoughtful analyses of the morphing of media. In it, he echoes the observation of Paul Starr that “journalism isn’t just about uncovering facts and framing stories; it is about assembling a public to read and react to those stories.”

In other words, there is a difference between an audience and a public. As Shirkey says, journalism is about more than dissemination of news; its about the creation of shared awareness. It’s about occupying the same reality, or eating at the same tearoom. It’s about enabling meaningful communication.

As the information environment continues to fragment into smaller and more widely dispersed niches, what will the consequences be for public communication and discourse?