Public Policy and Governance – Page 52

Sending A Message

A recent article in the New York Times reminded me how dramatically political sorting has changed the electoral landscape.The lede focuses on just one of the article’s examples

Eric Genrich is running a full-throated campaign in support of abortion rights, reminding voters of his position at every turn and hammering his anti-abortion opponent in television ads. At a recent event, he featured an obstetrician who now commutes to a state where abortion is legal to treat patients and a local woman who traveled to Colorado to terminate a nonviable pregnancy.

There’s just one inconvenient reality: Mr. Genrich is running for re-election as mayor of Green Bay, Wis., an office that has nothing to do with abortion policy.

As the article goes on to detail, Genrich is just one of several candidates for municipal offices on the ballot this spring in races in Wisconsin, Chicago, St. Louis, Lincoln, Neb., and elsewhere “who are making their support for abortion rights — and often their opponent’s past opposition — a centerpiece of their campaigns, even though abortion policy in all of these places is decided at the state level.”

If the mountains of polling post-Dobbs are correct, this is a pretty transparent effort to hang an unpopular and very salient issue around the neck of Republican candidates, whether or not they will have any authority to weigh in on the issue.

I should be conflicted over the tactic, which falls under the old “sending a message” justification. I used to tell my students that passing laws intended to “send a message,” laws that could only be selectively enforced–if at all–undermined the rule of law. Prime examples were the “anti-sodomy” laws in many states. In some states, those laws only applied to LGBTQ folks (a clear violation of equal protection and an equally clear invitation to selective enforcement). In others, the laws applied even to married couples, theoretically inviting local magistrates into the conjugal bedroom to ensure proper fornication.

Since the real-world likelihood of that intrusion was something less than zero, the laws were usually defended as efforts to “send a message” and/or “set a standard for moral behavior.” What they really did was reduce respect for the rule of law.

Given the clear inability of municipal candidates to affect state-level abortion law, isn’t the use of a “hot” political issue a variety of sending a message? And if it is, is it any more defensible than the moral posturing of which I’ve previously disapproved?

Actually, it is different and defensible, partly because the political environment is different.

Thanks to gerrymandering, the Electoral College and various other anti-democratic practices, very few Americans are able to cast truly meaningful votes. That disenfranchisement is somewhat ameliorated in states that allow citizen referenda; in places like Indiana, where a massively-gerrymandered legislature is in thrall to a super-majority of the most retrograde MAGA Republicans, there is no possibility of an initiative or referendum and thus no mechanism available to a majority of citizens who disagree with whatever that legislature is doing.

Dobbs allows the states to grant or withhold what had for fifty years been deemed a fundamental right. Aside from all the other legal arguments about that decision, it rested on the premise that voters in each state would determine that state’s policies on the matter. But Americans no longer live in a democracy, if democracy is defined by majority rule.

As political life in America has become nationalized, Democratic strategists have recognized that– in today’s tribal politics– “the precise responsibilities of an office matter less than sending a strong signal to voters about one’s broader political loyalties.” Granted, there is also an element of “turnabout is fair play.” The Times notes that, for decades, local Republican candidates ran on issues like abortion, immigration and national security, despite having no power to affect any of those issues.

Of course, also for decades, political party affiliation didn’t track perfectly with positions on issues like abortion. Both parties had their racists and anti-racists, misogynists and advocates for gender equality, homophobes and LGBTQ allies. Partisan identity was more likely to signal differences on economic issues than cultural ones.

A position on reproductive choice is a pretty reliable indicator of a candidate’s worldview–a “marker” that tells voters where that candidate stands in the culture wars. Candidates’ approach to abortion serves to signal their likely perspectives on a broad array of issues.

Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the country, but you can’t gerrymander a statewide election. Judge Protasiewicz’ sent a message by making her support for reproductive rights very clear; voters sent an equally clear message to the anti-choice Republicans who control that state.

It was a message that ought to resonate beyond Wisconsin and into 2024.

Comments

The Philosophy of Taxes

It’s April. Tax month.

Americans are notoriously anti-tax. (In fact, “tax” may be the only four-letter word that only has three letters). I’m no different; it’s April, and I’ve reluctantly remitted what I owed, while thinking about all the other things I could do with those dollars. But I also know that reaction is intellectually indefensible, because taxes pay for the kind of world rational humans want to inhabit.

Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilized society.

Those well-to-do people protesting their tax burdens would never treat their country clubs and other membership organizations the way they treat/cheat their governments. (How would the Orange Menace react iff Mar-A-Lago members declined to pay their dues?) Those manicured golf courses need tending. The clubhouse roofs and mechanical systems require maintenance. The properly servile “help” won’t be there to bring you your Scotch and soda if they aren’t being paid. Etc.

The people who presumably understand the need to pay dues adequate to keep their clubs and organizations functioning need to acknowledge that–as members of the polity–they have similar obligations to their country.

I think we all agree that government should be efficient–that our tax dollars shouldn’t pay for (frequently hypothesized) “fraud and waste.” And it’s entirely legitimate to argue about whether we really need this or that government program. Most legislative efforts to ease the tax burdens of wealthy folks, however, are based on justifications that have consistently proved to be unfounded.

A recent article from Governing analyzed the effects of two decades of tax cuts in Ohio.

Tax reform is a politically charged issue, with conservatives saying lower income taxes help drive economic prosperity, and progressives saying tax cuts have functioned as handouts to the rich, while defunding crucial public services.

Despite those stark differences, both right- and left-leaning groups who spoke to cleveland.com said the impact of Ohio’s income tax cuts on the state economy overall throughout the past 20 years has been minimal.

“The theory behind it is that cutting these taxes will spur on extra growth and get extra investment,” said Jonathan Ernest, an assistant professor of economics at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management. “You would expect after some number of years to start seeing growth, and we haven’t necessarily seen that.”

Ohio’s experience is not an anomaly, but–as with so many other elements of our highly politicized policy process–evidence has been swamped by ideology.

We need to see the majority of anti-taxation arguments for what they really are: rejections of the importance–or even the existence– of the common good, and a disinclination to help maintain important social goods accessible to their fellow citizens. (Let’s call that disinclination what it is: selfish. It isn’t “self-interested,” because genuine, long-term self-interest requires the maintenance of a stable, flourishing society–and highly unequal societies are notoriously unstable.)

Anti-tax Republicans push back against progressives who want to move the U.S. policy in the direction of Scandinavian countries–despite the fact that those countries score far higher on measures of happiness and social cohesion– by warning against “confiscatory” tax rates.

Actually,despite the mythology, Scandanavian taxes aren’t much higher than our own, once we combine Americans’ local, state and federal burdens–and their citizens get much more value for their money, including relief from the enormous costs of higher education and health care.

As the author of the linked article wrote,

US critics say that Swedes pay 56 percent — so the government takes over half of your money. This is not true — 56 percent is the marginal tax rate, i.e. what high earners pay on income over a certain amount in both state and local taxes. Only 15 percent of Swedes pay tax at this rate. It turns out the average Swede pays less than 27 percent of his or her income in direct taxes. As I’ve written elsewhere, my wife and I pay about 22 percent of our US income in taxes. Our Swedish income tax was 31 percent. So, yes, our income taxes in Sweden were higher than in the US, but we still paid less than one-third in tax.

And you get far more for your taxes than you do in the US. In Sweden, college is free and students get a housing stipend….

The 33 million Americans who are still not covered by health insurance don’t have much choice when they get sick, unless you think, “Your money or your life?” is a choice. Paradoxically it turns out the bloated, heavily lobbied, privatized US system spends more tax money ($4,437) per person than Sweden’s socialized health care ($3,184).

Eradicating medical and educational debt would do a lot more to boost America’s economy than adding tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Comments

Mitch Daniels And Tea Leaves

We all view the news of the day through a personal lens. I know that I do. So it may be that my “reading” of a recent item in the Indianapolis Business Journal simply reflects my conviction that the Republican Party is far along in the process of disintegration.

The article reported on former Governor Mitch Daniels’ acceptance of a new position:

Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is set to join the Carmel-based Liberty Fund this week in the new position of distinguished scholar and senior adviser, the educational foundation announced Tuesday.

The position was created specifically for Daniels, who has spent the past decade as president of Purdue University. The Liberty Fund said Daniels’ work will focus on the creation of educational programming and partnerships that will strengthen the not-for-profit’s existing education programs.

The Liberty Fund is one of the richest foundations in the state, with about $341 million in assets as of April 2021. The pro-free-enterprise foundation, which has about 45 employees, was founded in 1960 by businessman and philanthropist Pierre Goodrich, the son of James Goodrich, Indiana’s 29th governor (1917-21).

The foundation raised its local profile by opening a $22 million headquarters at 111th Street and U.S. 31 in Carmel in 2016.

“I have watched for decades as the Liberty Fund, with impeccable scholarship and fidelity to principle, has labored to keep lit the lamp of freedom, and spread understanding of its historical and intellectual underpinnings,” Daniels, 73, said in written remarks. “Now, with individual liberty under relentless threats foreign and domestic, I’m grateful for the funds’ invitation that I try to assist it in its noble and essential mission.”

Wealthy Republicans and conservative institutions have a long history of providing comfortable “stopping points” for politicians who are between electoral gigs, and perhaps this is simply another illustration of the cozy relationship of political folks with their moneyed patrons.

But through my “lens” I see it differently.

I’m superficially familiar with the Liberty Fund. I even attended one of their conferences. And while I have substantial differences with the extreme libertarian political philosophy that led Pierre Goodrich to establish the organization, it is a philosophy that for many years formed a significant part of the GOP’s policy agenda.

The books published by the Fund are by thinkers like Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, and David Hume, along with reprints of the Federalist Papers and other documents explicating the Constitution. The conference I attended focused on a scholarly discussion of totalitarianism and the writings of Hannah Arendt.

I seriously doubt that Kevin McCarthy or the ragtag members of the House misnamed “Freedom Caucus” have ever read any of those books, or have ever heard of Hannah Arendt. The vast majority of today’s Republican officeholders are buffoons and/or racists, intent only upon appealing to their White Nationalist MAGA base and retaining power.

And that brings me to the few remaining Republicans like Mitch Daniels. When Mitch was Governor, I disagreed with several of his policy priorities, but I endorsed and admired his refusal to engage in culture war politics.

I have been predicting the implosion of the Republican Party for several years. That’s my “lens.” The conservative businesspeople we used to call “Country Club” Republicans, who tend to be educated, are increasingly fleeing the out-and-proud racism, misogyny and conspiracy theories embraced by the MAGA Republicans and Trumpers.

Before I read about Daniels new position at the Liberty Fund, I’d been planning to post about the GOP’s abandonment of anything resembling a principled, intellectually-defensible conservatism. (That today’s GOP has no agenda–conservative or otherwise– was made abundantly clear by the party’s failure to produce a platform during the last election cycle.)

What does that have to do with Daniels new “gig”?

When there were rumors that Daniels might run for Senate, and oppose MAGA world’s Jim Banks in the primary, the far right Club for Growth came out with guns blazing, accusing him of being an “old guard” Republican–i.e., too liberal. (Still sane?)

That knee-jerk reaction was just more evidence–as if we needed it– that today’s GOP is a pathetic assemblage of reaction and racism, leaving the Democrats as the party-by-default of everyone else. That’s terrible for the country, because we lose the benefit of principled conservative analyses of proposed legislation, and because the Democratic Party has to cope with the internal disputes that are inevitable when a party becomes home to pretty much every voter–from center-right to “out there” left– who rejects the current GOP.

Bottom line: My “lens” tells me that Daniels and the Liberty Fund and conservatives like Paul Ryan who once had a home in the GOP are mounting a last-gasp effort to retake the party.

My lens also tells me it’s too late.

Comments

That Pesky Thing Called Evidence

The World’s Worst Legislature is barreling toward the session’s finish line, and the Republican super-majority shows no sign of moderating its war on public education, despite recently emerging evidence that several of the most enthusiastic proponents of vouchers have disturbing conflicts of interest, not to mention overwhelming evidence that privatizing schools leads to poorer educational outcomes.

Of course, Indiana’s lawmakers are impervious to evidence of all kinds. (Look at Indiana’s gun laws, disregard of environmental impacts…the list goes on.)

I know my periodic posts on the subject are the equivalent of “whistling in the wind,” but as the research continues to pile up, I find it hard to restrain myself.

So…

In the Public Interest recently shared “a clear and concise breakdown of the problems of vouchers,” written by a Professor of Education Policy at Michigan State University, and titled “There is no Upside.”

Here’s the lede:

What if I told you there is a policy idea in education that, when implemented to its full extent, caused some of the largest academic drops ever measured in the research record?

What if I told you that 40 percent of schools funded under that policy closed their doors afterward, and that kids in those schools fled them at about a rate of 20 percent per year?

What if I told you that some the largest financial backers of that idea also put their money behind election denial and voter suppression—groups still claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 election? Would you believe what those groups told you about their ideas for improving schools?

What if I told you that idea exists, that it’s called school vouchers, and despite all of the evidence against it the idea persists and is even expanding?

The article followed up with a compilation of independent analyses drawn from both the research community and “on the ground” reporting by journalists. You need to click through for the details, but here are the “top level” findings:

First, vouchers mostly fund children already in private school. Seventy to -eighty percent of kids using vouchers were already in private school before taxpayers picked up the tab.
Among the relatively few kids who did use vouchers to leave public schools, test scores dropped between -0.15 and -0.50 standard deviations.
The typical private school accepting vouchers “isn’t one of the elite, private schools in popular narrative.” The typical voucher school is “small, often run out of a church property like its basement, often popping up specifically to get the voucher.”
Understandably, many kids leave those sub-prime schools. (In Wisconsin, about 20 percent of kids left their voucher school every year and most transferred to a public school.)

Then there is the issue of transparency and oversight.

All of the above evidence should already tell you why it’s critically important that states passing voucher laws also include strong academic and financial reporting requirements. If we’re going to use taxpayer funds on these private ventures, we need to know what the academic results are and what the return on government investment is.

And of course, we don’t.

Then, of course, there’s discrimination.

We know that in Indiana, where one of the largest and lowest-performing voucher programs exists, more than $16 million in taxpayer dollars went to schools discriminating against LGBTQ children. Similar story in Florida—and that includes kids whose parents are gay, regardless of how the children identify.

Given the fact that Indiana’s legislature is advancing other discriminatory measures aimed at the LGBTQ community–especially several ugly measures targeting trans children–I’m sure our lawmakers consider that documented bigotry to be a feature, not a bug.

The article also traces connections I’d not previously been aware of between the most active voucher proponents and far-right organizations engaging in efforts to suppress votes and reject the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Interestingly, the article doesn’t highlight one of my main concerns: that vouchers are an end-run around the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State. Here in Indiana, over 90% of voucher students attend religious schools, a significant percentage of which are fundamentalist. The children who attend overwhelmingly come from the corresponding faith communities. Even the religious schools that don’t actively discriminate do not and cannot provide the diverse classroom environment that prepares children for citizenship in increasingly diverse America.(Most don’t teach civics, either.)

It also doesn’t address how vouchers disproportionately hurt rural communities.

The article concludes:

So there you have it: catastrophic academic harm. A revolving door of private school failures. High turnover rates among at-risk children. Avoiding oversight and transparency. Overt, systematic discrimination against vulnerable kids and families. Deep and sustained ties to anti-democratic forces working in the United States today.

That’s school vouchers in 2023.

That’s the “system” Hoosier lawmakers want to greatly expand–with funds stolen from the state’s already under-resourced public schools.

It’s indefensible.

Comments

He Who Frames The Issue..

I keep thinking about a line from that old Burt Bacharach song–“What’s it all about, Alfie?” After all, figuring out what it’s all about–framing the correct issues– could be the most important task humans face.

We don’t do it well.

I used to tell students that what three years of law school teaches is: “He who frames the issue, wins the debate.” It’s a maxim that the GOP clearly understands.

Is the massive assault on trans children an effort to use a wedge issue to political advantage in our ongoing culture war? Or is it, as Republicans piously claim, an effort to “protect” children?
Are the various efforts to prevent schools from teaching accurate history and/or providing thought-provoking reading material mechanisms to control the educational narrative, or are they intended to “empower parents”?
Does “school choice” allow parents to select schools that are best for their children? Or are such programs a way to circumvent the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State, so that tax dollars can flow to religious institutions?
Are laws forbidding mask mandates efforts to protect our precious individual freedoms, or do they represent dangerous pandering to the GOP’s anti-science base?
Are the gun nuts in the legislature really protecting Americans’ “2d Amendment” rights? (I can’t even come up with an alternate framing rooted in policy–in my view, lawmakers who want to protect kids from “inappropriate” books but not from being murdered by firearms are mentally disordered.)
And of course, there’s the mother of all dishonest framing–abortion bans that will inevitably cause the deaths of large numbers of women masquerading as “pro-life” measures, rather than the anti-women efforts grounded in religion and misogyny that they clearly are.

You can probably come up with a number of similar examples of laws defended on the basis of X that are really expressions of Y.

I thought about the multiple examples of GOP excellence in framing when I read that Michigan’s Governor had signed a bill overturning that state’s brilliantly misnamed “Right to Work” law. Right to Work laws are one of the most successful examples of dishonestly “framing the issue” in order to win the debate.

Talking Points Memo recently reported on the decades of successful marketing that gave so many states these laws.

On its face, who’d object to a “right-to-work” law?

By that token, and divorced from its substance, who wouldn’t be “pro-life”? Who quibbles with the assertion that “all lives matter,” or that markets should be “free”?

Right-wing activists have historically been good at branding, at characterizing even policy positions that restrict rights as postures of freedom and advancement.

“Right-to-work” laws are a seminal example of this marketing technique. They have nothing to do with guarantees of employment, but allow those in unionized jobs to opt out of paying union dues — while the unions are still required to provide services, like representation in disputes with management, even to those non-paying workers.

These laws have become the topic of national conversation, as Michigan is poised to repeal its version, the first state to do so in over 50 years.

The article noted the origins of the phrase and the trajectory of its subsequent marketing.

There is some dispute as to the phrase’s origins, but most point to anti-union Dallas Morning News editorial writer William Ruggles as coining the modern usage. In his 1941 Labor Day column, he called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit the “closed shop” or “union shop” — workplaces where unions can negotiate a contract that includes union membership as a condition of employment.

His column reportedly piqued the interest of Vance Muse, an avowed white supremacist who was working for various racist, anti-Semetic and anti-union campaigns — including a push for a “right-to-work” law in Arkansas (the name for the legislation courtesy of a Ruggles suggestion). That effort was successful: Arkansas became one of the first states to pass a right-to-work law, along with Florida.

“Opponents to unionism in the South discovered this brilliant rhetorical phraseology, and they began to propagandize on it,” Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor who directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told TPM.

From the beginning, this marketing campaign had a distinctly libertarian bent. It was meant to evoke the idea of individual freedom, that workers should get to pocket their hard-earned cash that would otherwise go to union dues.

Interestingly, states with right-to-work laws are almost all the same states that have outlawed abortion. As the article notes, advocates for both are extremely good at marketing themselves, and at getting their chosen rhetoric to be adopted by the mainstream.

Meanwhile, Democrats keep using slogans like “defund the police.” No wonder we have minority political control.

Comments