New Geography

Category: Politics

  • Obama Still Can Save His Presidency

    A good friend of mine, a Democratic mayor here in California, describes the Obama administration as “Moveon.org run by the Chicago machine.” This combination may have been good enough to beat John McCain in 2008, but it is proving a damned poor way to run a country or build a strong, effective political majority. And while the president’s charismatic talent – and the lack of such among his opposition – may keep him in office, it will be largely as a kind of permanent lame duck unable to make any of the transformative changes he promised as a candidate.

    If Obama wants to succeed as president he must grow into something more than movement icon, become more of a national leader. In effect, he needs to hit the reset button. Here are five key changes that Obama can implement to re-energize and save his presidency.

    1. Forget the “Chicago way.” The Windy City is a one-party town with a shrinking middle class and a fully co-opted business elite. The focused democratic centralism of the machine – as the University of Illinois’ Richard Simpson has noted – worked brilliantly in the primaries and even the general election campaign. But it is hardly suited to running a nation that is more culturally and politically diverse.

    The key rule of Chicago politics is delivering the spoils to supporters, and Obama’s stimulus program essentially fills this prescription. The stimulus’s biggest winners are such core backers as public employees, universities and rent-seeking businesses who leverage their access to government largesse, mostly by investing in nominally “green” industries. Roughly half the jobs saved form the ranks of teachers, a highly organized core constituency for the president and a mainstay of the political machine that supports the Democratic Party.

    The other winners: big investment banks and private investment funds. People forget that Obama, even running against a sitting New York senator, emerged as an early favorite among the hedge fund grandees. As The New York Times’ Andrew Sorkin put it back in April, “Mr. Obama might be struggling with the blue-collar vote in Pennsylvania, but he has nailed the hedge fund vote.”

    At best, the president’s policy seems like Karl Rove in reverse, essentially smooching the core and ignoring the rest. This is a formula for more divisiveness, not the advertised “hope” Americans expected last November.

    2. Focus on Real Jobs, Not Favored Constituencies . The Chicago approach works better in a closed political system controlled by a few powerbrokers than in a massive continental economy like the U.S. Health care and education, which depend on government largesse, are surviving. But the critical production side of the economy that generates good blue-collar jobs – like agriculture, manufacturing and construction – is getting the least from the stimulus.

    These industries need more large-scale infrastructure spending, as well as more focused skills training and initiatives to free capital for politically unconnected entrepreneurial businesses. Instead, productive industries face the prospect of more regulation while capital for small businesses continues to dry up.

    Those in post-industrial bastions tied to speculative capital – think Manhattan and the Hamptons – are the ones most benefiting from Obamanomics. College towns like Cambridge, Mass., Madison, Wis., Berkeley, Calif., and Palo Alto, Calif., will also prosper, becoming even richer and more self-important. It seems, then, that Obama has done best for elite graduates of Harvard and Stanford and other members of the “creative class.”

    The rest of America, however, is still waiting for a real sustained recovery. Industrial and office properties remain widely abandoned not only in Detroit but Silicon Valley. The future sustainability of our economy depends mostly on what happens to those who previously staffed these facilities – those who produced actual goods and services – not just on a relative handful of people working at Google or the national laboratories. In other words, we need jobs for machinists, welders and marketers as well as scientists with Ph.D’s.

    3. Step on the Gas. Providence has handed America – and Obama – an enormous gift in the now recoverable deposits of natural gas found across the continent. Proven levels have been soaring and now amount to 90 years’ supply at current demand. More will be found, and across a wide section of the country.

    Natural gas may be a fossil fuel, but it is relatively clean and thus the perfect intermediate solution to our energy problems. The problem: The president’s green advisers will seek to prevent developing these resources.

    Although Obama should support strong environmental controls on gas extraction, the greens should not be allowed to block this unique and historic opportunity to shift economic power back to North America. Along with modest increases in domestic and Canadian oil, natural gas could end our dependence on fossil fuels from outside North America. This would relieve our military from the onerous task of defending other people’s oil supplies. But most important, the new energy sources could expand our industrial and agricultural economies so they can capitalize on the huge potential growth from markets at home and in the developing world.

    The natural gas era could then finance continued research and deployment of renewable fuels. Let’s give it the 10 or 20 years that great transformations require. Quick fixes will lead us to subsidize the purchase of rapidly dated technology from China or Europe; we should aim at the energy equivalent of the moon shot, helping forge a huge technological advantage.

    4. Rediscover America. As a candidate, Obama spoke movingly about his Kansas roots, but lately he seems to have become all big city all the time. This administration offers very little to people who live in places like Kansas, as many of my heartland Democrat friends complain.

    Urbanites often forget that this is an enormous country. Crowded into dense cities themselves, they fail to look down from the window when crossing the country by plane. The vast majority of America is, well, vast – sparsely settled, if settled at all.

    Moreover, Obama’s people need to understand that 80% of America live in suburbs or small towns. They do not want to live in dense cities or realize a move there would mean living in less than idyllic conditions. If Obama wants to shape a green America, he must find ways that work with the majority’s preferences.

    But so far the president’s housing, transport and planning advisers seem to be pushing the death of suburbia and promoting ever more densification. It’s hardly surprising, then, that suburbs and small towns feel left out. After finally starting to inch toward the Democrats, they are now turning again to the right. If Democrats want to retain their majority, they need the strong support of these constituencies – without it the Congressional majority will be gone by the end of the second term, if not the first.

    5. Chuck the Nobel; Embrace Exceptionalism. Many progressives love Obama because they see him as one of them in the struggle with what the immortal Bill Maher calls “a stupid country.” But the president should remind himself that the country may not be quite as dumb as it sometimes looks from Oslo – or from Dupont Circle, Cambridge or Soho.

    Being smart was part of the reason the Republicans lost the majority. The voters understood the country was wasting resources – and young people – on internecine conflicts for energy that we could produce at home. The Bush years also undermined any GOP claim to fiscal responsibility.

    Initially Obama allowed us to redefine American exceptionalism as something more than monomaniacal use of force and overconsumption. He spoke to our traditions of inclusiveness, adaptability and idealism. He offered the perfect vehicle because he and his story are so exceptional. Yet Obama sometimes seems more interested in serving as the apologizer rather than as commander in chief. His vision appears less American than pseudo-European.

    This is not the path to success for American presidents. Whether Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman or even Bill Clinton, a president has to be a spokesman for his country. Right now, on the world stage, Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter.

    I suggest these things because, for all his missteps over the past year, Barack Obama is my president and I want him to succeed. But to do so, first he needs to hit his own reset button – and the sooner the better. Unlike some, I do not believe the Obama presidency is already doomed. Presidents often grow in office: Despite his exceptionalism in other areas, let’s hope that Obama proves the norm here.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.

    Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

  • The Fog of Stimulus

    The news is full of stories about the the impact of the ARRA on job creation, including this one from the The Wall Street Journal about a shoe store owner who created or saved nine jobs with less than $900.

    In the story, the Army Corps of Engineers spent $889.60 buying boots from shoe store owner Buddy Moore of Kentucky. Because the boots were purchased with ARRA funds, the Corps asked Buddy to report how many jobs the boot order had “created or saved.” He and his daughter struggled with paperwork, online forms, and a “helpline,” only to make a wild guess 15 minutes before the reporting deadline that they had created nine jobs.

    Though not completely spelled out in the article, the impression is that Buddy and his daughter reasoned that they had created or saved nine jobs, because their boots had “helped nine members of the Corps to work.”

    This sort of misreporting is now fodder for ARRA opponents, and is the last thing that the White House wanted on its hands. In July the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued this memorandum and created a series of PowerPoints and PDFs intended to assist ARRA recipients with their reporting.

    These documents do not appear to be currently available on the White House website, but you can find the Google doc here. This list (also not directly available) shows that the Army Corps of Engineers is and was considered a primary recipient. Given its status, it is the one required in the initial PowerPoint to report the “job creation narrative and number.”

    As a prime recipient, the Corps should have been briefed on the fact that the key data issue to avoid was: “Significant Reporting Errors: (which are) instances where required data is not reported accurately and such erroneous reporting results in significant risk that the public will be misled or confused by the recipient report in question.”

    They also would have had to listen in to this presentation on data quality, which stresses that prime recipients are fully responsible for the quality of the data. The Corps could have caught the reporting mistake by running a simple math equation, which would have indicated that the shoe store had created a full-time job for every $98.84.

    If this were true, only $2 billion (administered by Buddy Moore) would have reemployed every single unemployed person in the US, a savings of $785 billion to the American taxpayer.

    In the end, it turns out that because the payment made by the Corps was less than $25,000, the Corps (while responsible for reporting the total number and amount of small sub-awards less than $25,000) was not required to have Buddy Moore report anything.

    Prime recipients are still responsible to report a total jobs creation estimate based off what sub-recipients and vendors do with the funds they disperse. To do that, the Corps could have called up Buddy and asked him to estimate the extra hours he worked for that specific order, and calculated Full Time Equivalents using those hour(s) by “… adding the total hours worked by all employees in the quarter, and dividing by the total hours in a full-time schedule.”

    In this case, let’s assume he worked an extra hour filling the boot order. A quarter-year full-time job would take 520 hours to complete, so he would report that the Corps funds created 1/520 of a quarterly FTE (.001923 FTE), or just about 2/1000th’s of a full-time job for a quarter of the year. The shoe store’s estimate of job creation, therefore, was 4,680 times too big.

    The OMB’s method of job reporting is, by our estimation, a good way of quantifying job creation. The problem, highlighted by the WSJ article, is that average businesses and recipients have had a hard time understanding what data was needed in the first place, and then what they were supposed to do with it.

    Mark Beauchamp is a customer service representative at Economic Modeling Specialists Inc., an Idaho-based data and economic analysis firm.

    Illustration by Mark Beauchamp.

  • Congress and the Administration Take Aim at Local Democracy

    Local democracy has been a mainstay of the US political system. This is evident from the town hall governments in New England to the small towns that the majority of Americans choose to live in today.

    In most states and metropolitan areas, substantial policy issues – such as zoning and land use decisions – are largely under the control of those who have a principal interest: local voters who actually live in the nation’s cities, towns, villages, townships and unincorporated county areas. This may be about to change. Two congressional initiatives – the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill and the Oberstar Transportation Reauthorization Bill – and the Administration’s “Livability Partnership” take direct aim at local democracy as we know it.

    The Boxer-Kerry Bill: The first threat is the proposed Senate version of the “cap and trade” bill authored by Senator Barbara Boxer-Kerry (D-California) and Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts). This bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), would require metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop greenhouse gas emission reduction plans. In these plans, the legislation would require consideration of issues such as increasing transit service, improvements to intercity rail service and “implementation of zoning and other land use regulations and plans to support infill, transit-oriented development or mixed use development.” This represents a significant step toward federal adoption of much of the “smart growth” or “compact development” agenda.

    At first glance, it may seem that merely requiring MPOs to consider such zoning and land use regulations seems innocent enough. However, the incentives that are created by this language could well spell the end of local control over zoning and land use decisions in the local area.

    True enough, the bill includes language to indicate that the bill does not intend to infringe “on the existing authority of local governments to plan or control land use.” Experience suggests, however, that this would provide precious little comfort in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that occur when a metropolitan area runs afoul of Washington bureaucrats.

    The federal housing, transportation and environmental bureaucracies have also been supportive of compact development policies. As these agencies develop regulations to implement the legislation, they could well be emboldened to make it far more difficult for local voters to retain control over land use decisions. There could be multiple repeats of the heavy-handedness exercised by the EPA when it singled out Atlanta for punishment over air quality issues. In response, the Georgia legislature was, in effect, coerced into enacting planning and oversight legislation more consistent with the planning theology endorsed by EPA’s bureaucrats. No federal legislation granted EPA the authority to seek such legislative changes, yet they were sought and obtained.

    There is also considerable support for the compact development agenda at the metropolitan area level. The proclivity of metropolitan and urban planners toward compact development is so strong as to require no encouragement by federal law. The emerging clear intent of federal policy to move land use development to the regional level and to densify existing communities could encourage MPOs to propose plans that pressure local governments to conform their zoning to central plans (or overarching “visions”) developed at the regional level. Along the way, smaller local jurisdictions could well be influenced, if not coerced into actions by over-zealous MPO staff claiming that federal law and regulation require more than the reality. It would not be the first time. Further, MPOs and organizations with similar views can be expected to lobby state legislatures to impose compact development policies that strip effective control of zoning and land use decisions from local governments.

    Surface Transportation Reauthorization: The second threat is the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA or reauthorization) draft that has been released by Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minnesota) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This bill is riddled with requirements regarding consideration of land use restrictions by MPOs and states. Unlike the Boxer-Kerry bill, the proposed STAA includes no language denying any intention to interfere with local land use regulation authority.

    Like the Boxer-Kerry Bill, the Oberstar bill significantly empowers the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency and poses similar longer term risks.

    The Administration’s “Livability Agenda:” These legislative initiatives are reinforced by the Administration’s “Livability Agenda,” which is a partnership between the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Among other things, this program is principally composed of compact development strategies, including directing development to certain areas, which would materially reduce the choices available to local government. Elements such as these could be included in an eventual STAA bill by the Obama Administration.

    The Livability Agenda: Regrettably, the Boxer-Kerry bill, the Oberstar bill and the “Livability Agenda” will make virtually nothing more livable. If they are successful in materially densifying the nation’s urban areas, communities will be faced with greater traffic congestion, higher congestion costs and greater air pollution. Despite the ideology to the contrary, higher densities increase traffic volumes within areas and produce more health hazards through more intense local air pollution. As federal data indicates, slower, more congested traffic congestion produces more pollution than more freely flowing traffic, and the resulting higher traffic volumes make this intensification even greater.

    There are also devastating impacts on housing affordability that occur when “development is directed.” This tends to increase land prices, which makes houses more expensive. This hurts all future home buyers and renters, particularly low income and minority households, since rent increases tend to follow housing prices. It is particularly injurious to low income households, which are disproportionately minority. The large gap between majority and minority home ownership rates likely widen further. So much for the American Dream for many who have not attained it already.

    The Marginal Returns of Compact Development Policies: These compact development initiatives continue to be pursued even in the face of research requested by the Congress indicating that such policies have precious little potential. The congressionally mandated Driving and the Built Environment report indicates that driving and greenhouse gas emissions could be higher in 2050 than in 2000 even under the maximum deployment of compact development strategies.

    Local Governments at the Table? The nation’s local governments should “weigh in” on these issues now, while the legislation is being developed. If they wait, they could find bullied by EPA and MPOs to follow not what the local voters want, but what the planners prefer. Local democracy will be largely dead, a product of a system that concentrates authority – and perceived wisdom – in the hands of the central governments, at the regional and national level.

    Even more, local citizens and voters need to be aware of the risk. It will be too late when MPOs or other organizations, whether at their own behest or that of a federal agency, force the character of neighborhoods to be radically changed, as Tony Recsei pointed out is
    already occurring in Australia.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

  • Smart Growth Places 3rd in Houston Mayor’s Race

    Houston city councilman Peter Brown, unique as a devotee of smart growth (compact development) in this city of light land use regulation, placed third in the mayoral election yesterday. Brown had long advocated Portland-style smart growth land use and development policies for the city of Houston and looked likely to garner the most votes in the four-way race. Brown, an architect and urban planner, spent more than $3 million of his own money in the election.

    The Houston metropolitan area distinguished itself by not experiencing the profligate credit and smart growth related house price bubble and, as a result experienced little decline in house prices and largely avoided the Great Recession. Houston is the largest municipality in the nation without zoning, however, with land regulation being principally limited to private covenants between land owners. Other Texas metropolitan areas also averted the housing bubble and the Great Recession, because their generally more liberal approaches to land regulation did not produce the price distortions that occurred in more highly regulated metropolitan areas as in California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast.

  • GOP Needs Economic Populism

    You would think, given the massive dissatisfaction with an economy that guarantees mega-bonuses for the rich and continued high unemployment, that the GOP would smell an opportunity. In my travels around the country — including in midstream places like suburban Kansas City and Kentucky — few, including Democrats, express any faith in the president’s basic economic strategy.

    Ask a local mayor or chamber of commerce executive in Kentucky or Kansas City about the stimulus, and at best you get a shrug. Many feel the only people really benefiting from Obamanomics are Wall Street grandees, public employees, subsidized “green” companies and various other professional rent seekers.

    It’s not surprising, then, that most Americans — upward of 60 percent — feel the country is headed in the “wrong direction.” Most of these malcontents are not zealots such as those you might find at a tea party. They are more akin to villagers watching in horror as two armies, each fighting in their name, wage war on each other, leaving desolation in their wake.

    Yet it’s unlikely that the independent-minded will move to the GOP until the party comes up with a credible economic plan that addresses popular concerns. One big problem lies in the very nature of the Republican Party. Since Theodore Roosevelt, the party has devolved into a de facto shill for large corporate interests. One notable exception, to some extent, was Ronald Reagan, whose rise challenged the hegemony of some in the corporate establishment, first in California, when he was governor, and later nationally.

    Republicans may now find it convenient to rail against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but it’s something many supported under George W. Bush. Even now, most are loath to fight excessive pay and bonuses at places like Goldman Sachs. Instead, it’s populists like North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders who seem most outraged by the massive rip-off of taxpayers.

    Republicans also do not seem sympathetic to pro­posals by former Fed chief Paul Volcker and others to break up “too big to fail” banks or reimpose distinctions between investment and mainstream banks. If anything, this illustrates that for all the rhetoric about self-sufficiency and small business, they remain more attuned to Wall Street and K Street than Main Street.

    Yet there may be new opportunities for Republicans on the economic front. This winter, the focus of political debate will shift from health care to energy legislation. Whatever the negatives associated with President Barack Obama’s proposals, Republicans’ long-standing inability to reform clearly flawed health care systems has undermined their credibility. The health insurance industry and right-wing ideologues may applaud their efforts, but it’s unlikely to impress the many middle- and working-class Americans for whom the current system is not working.

    In sharp contrast, the coming debate over energy and climate plays to the weaknesses of the Democrats. All the administration’s talk of reducing our “addiction” to foreign energy can be painted as fraudulent, since the powerful green lobby will militate against developing our country’s huge natural gas and other fossil-fuel deposits, as well as nuclear power.

    In the past election, some of the few good moments for John McCain came in the wake of his embracing a nationalistic, growth-oriented “Drill, baby, drill” agenda. This approach remains popular not only with conservatives but also with moderates and independents, particularly in energy-producing states.

    Obama’s climate change proposals offer an additional opportunity. The mainstream media remain slavishly tied to the Al Gore warming thesis, but skepticism toward the anti-carbon jihad is building via the Web. In recent months, Gallup, Pew and Rasmussen have reported reduced enthusiasm for radical steps to battle climate change. Right now, this seems to be a major concern for barely one in three Americans.

    Yet the “cap and trade” proposals could prove a boon to some of the very corporate interests — on Wall Street and among utilities — still considered core supporters by some Republicans. GOP leaders seem simply incapable of comprehending the discreet charm that Timothy Geithner’s collusive capitalism holds for many corporate chieftains. In this, they resemble the boyfriend who ignores the implications of finding someone else’s Jockeys on his girlfriend’s bed.

    Sadly, those who do tend toward populism, like current front-runners Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, appear too socially regressive to appeal to the suburban independents who will decide the elections in 2010 and 2012. Americans may yearn for an economically populist alternative, but not if they think it will bring back the Inquisition.

    In the end, economic populism, not social conservatism, can transform Republicans into something other than a scarecrow party. And they could make this strategy work, if they only had a brain.

    This article originally appeared at Politico.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.

  • Healthcare Reform or Health Insurance Bailout?

    What is the real endgame of healthcare debate in Washington? Is it going to be a bailout of the insurance industry as opposed to a plan to provide healthcare for every American? The original jumping off point for this entire debate was that the United States is the only major industrialized country that does not have a national healthcare system. The debate has moved away from “how do you get healthcare” to “how do you get health insurance.”

    Even if we accept that the discussion is more properly about reforming insurance than providing healthcare, the debate still focuses on how insurance could be paid for rather than how insurance could be fair. Funny thing is, when Congress voted to bailout the financial institutions, no one asked how they would pay for it. Millions of Americans wrote, emailed, faxed and called their representatives in Washington in opposition to the 2008 bailout. That bill was passed. Yet, with millions of Americans clamoring for healthcare, decades passed with no action. Even now, as we become accustomed to the idea that the federal government will take a stand on how healthcare is paid for – without the government actually paying for it – there are 5 different bills, topping 1,500 pages each, and nothing is even close to being done. George Will told This Week anchor George Stephanopoulos that Congress won’t spend the five minutes it would take to put all five versions of the bill on the internet because then people will know what’s in it – and Congress doesn’t want that. Imagine the hell we-the-voters would rain down on them if we knew what they are up to?

    The scariest part of the potential legislation is the notion of creating an “insurance exchange.” It appears the federal government has already forgotten the trouble that these market exchanges create. The requirement that you give your retirement money (IRA, 401k, etc.) to a financial institution to qualify for favorable tax treatment from the IRS may have done more to inflate the stock market (investment exchange) bubble than all the risk-loving financial institution CEOs combined. All that pension and retirement money is the fuel that the financial institutions used to inflate the bubble. The “market exchange” idea did nothing for air pollution. Similarly, it will likely do nothing for improving access to or the cost of healthcare.

    All of the Sunday morning talk shows (October 25, 2009) debated the “public option.” This sub-debate apparently holds the political key to getting legislation passed, whether or not enough senators and representatives will vote “yes” that there won’t be a filibuster or a veto. The “public option” comes in three flavors. One version is that health insurance will be mandatory and the government will provide an insurance program at a (presumably) very competitive price to consumers. The second version has an opt-out component: insurance is not mandatory so you could opt-out of coverage even under the government’s insurance program. The third version, known as the “trigger”, would set up a deadline, say two to three years after passage, during which time either the insurance industry will stop abusing policyholders – for example, by canceling your insurance the first time you get sick – or the federal government will enter the industry and provide some real competition. According to John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, the public option is key to getting enough votes to pass this in the Senate. He seems to have forgotten that only the House of Representatives can authorize the federal government to spend money – this is not properly the Senate’s turf.

    Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, stated it with perfect clarity on ABC’s This Week: The provision of the public option is only a sliver of healthcare reform. It is neither the panacea that the left-wing believes it to be nor the evil plan envisioned by the right-wing. It is all about the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

    If only it were as simple as right-wing/left-wing, red-state/blue-state divisions. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold told CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that the lack of a public option “would be a serious gap” in any legislation. He spoke forcefully about the need to control abuses by insurance companies. He went so far as to say that the trigger version of the public option would simply give the insurance companies two or three years to manipulate the system to their advantage. “We need to take action now,” Feingold said, to slow insurance company abuse.

    Not surprisingly, Feingold was not among the Senators receiving Clusters of Cash from the Health Care lobbyists and their clients in the most recent campaign fundraising cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That might explain his position – or maybe his position explains the lack of contributions.

    Back in October 2008, then Treasury Secretary Paulson advised insurance companies they could qualify for TARP bailout funds. On April 8, 2009, now Treasury Secretary Geithner opened the tap to send TARP funds to insurance companies. One month later, Neal S. Wolin was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Deputy Secretary to Geithner at Treasury. Until 2008, Wolin worked for The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. as President and Chief Operating Officer. On June 12, 2009, Hartford announced that it would receive $3.4 billion under the TARP. Several other insurance companies that applied back in October eventually declined to take TARP money.

    If you still don’t see how cozy the insurance industry is with the federal government in that series of events, listen to Bill Moyers explain it on PBS. “Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.”

    During the summer, I thought the Republicans were opposed to the public option as a Trojan Horse – meant only to move us one step closer to a single payer system that would have the federal government paying for all healthcare. Now that it’s just about the federal government paying for all health insurance, Republicans seem to be favoring it. Wonder who will end up the loser at the end?

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  • Let Freedom Ring: Democracy and Prosperity are Inextricably Linked

    With autocratic states like China and Russia looking poised for economic recovery, it’s often hard to make the case for ideals such as democracy and rule of law. To some, like Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules, autocrats seem destined to rule the world economy.

    A columnist for the Guardian, Jacques predicted that by 2050 China will easily surpass America economically, militarily and politically. The belief in the power of autocracy even extends to such leading American capitalists as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who have nothing but high praise for what Gates enthusiastically describes as a “brand-new form of capitalism.”

    Fortunately a new study released Monday by my colleagues at the Legatum Institute refutes the notion that the road to worldly riches lies in autocracy and repression. In a careful study of everything from economic opportunity, education and health to security, freedom of expression and societal contentment, the Legatum “Prosperity Index” makes a powerful case for the long-term benefits of democracy, free speech and the rule of law.

    Some of this stems from how Legatum measures prosperity. The survey takes into account both wealth and well-being, and finds that the most prosperous nations in the world are not necessarily those that just have a high GDP, but that also have happy, healthy, free citizens.

    The top of the list, which ranks 104 countries, is dominated by flourishing democracies. The only exception in the top 20 is No. 18’s Hong Kong, which ranks first in economic fundamentals and continues to be ruled, if not quite democratically, under a far more permissive system than the rest of mainland China. The next semi-autocratic state on the list is Singapore, at No. 23 – another Confucian-style autocracy with great economic and human capital fundamentals.

    This linking of democracy and prosperity with well-being is by far the most significant aspect of the study. But what else determines the success of nations in the modern world?

    1. Small democracies do best.

    The denizens of the Greek city-states or their Renaissance counterparts would have recognized something of themselves in the small, well-managed countries that dominate the top of the list. The top five, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway – as well as the Netherlands at No. 8 – certainly fit this description. These countries rank highly on the quality of life measurements, and, not surprisingly, their main cities also tend to dominate the most-livable-cities lists. With the exception of Switzerland and the Netherlands, these places do not perform as well in terms of basic economics, scoring between 10th and 18th. Although some might ascribe these rankings to successful social democratic policies, virtually all these mini-states have instated significant market-oriented reforms in recent years.

    Other top players Australia (No. 6) and Canada (No. 7) are far larger than their European rivals. And though their citizens are not as socially coddled as in Scandinavia, they enjoy strong democratic institutions, high levels of social well-being and good governance and education.

    And in purely economic terms Australia and Canada boast better economic fundamentals than the Scandinavian countries. One reason may be their enormous stockpiles of natural resources, now in high demand from countries like China and India. These countries also benefit by a large and often skilled migration from these and other Asian countries.

    2. Among the mega-countries, the U.S. is still way ahead

    Don’t cry for me, America. In terms of the large countries, both in population and size, no one comes close to the No. 9-ranked U.S. Indeed there’s not another country with over 100 million people on the list until you get to Japan at No. 16.

    Like all big countries, America is a complicated place, with distinct areas of strength as well as disturbing weaknesses. The U.S. leads all countries in entrepreneurship and innovation and ranks second in the stability of its democratic institutions – the Swiss are No. 1. Less than optimal health and safety rankings, however, push America from the top. Its economic fundamentals are also sub-prime, ranking only 14th, which isn’t surprising in light of persistent current account and now government deficits.

    Despite its problems, the U.S. still outperforms its other large rivals, not only Japan but also the U.K. (No. 12), Germany (No. 14) and France (No. 17). Yet judged within the ranks, all four of these economies have to be considered successful in terms of delivering prosperity and a reasonably high quality of life to their citizens.

    3. Breaking down the BRICs

    The Index’s most fascinating findings can be found a bit further down. The focus of the world’s economy has been shifting to countries that have been – and in some cases remain – governed by Communist, military or single-party dictatorships.

    Democracy’s efficacy can be seen clearly in success enjoyed by the former European Communist states – the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Hungary – all of which land in the first third of the ratings. Similarly, Taiwan (ranked 24th) and South Korea (26th), long ruled by military-dominated dictatorships, show how democratization and rising prosperity can flourish together.

    This pattern can also be seen among the “big boys” of the economic upstarts – the so-called BRIC countries. Here the leaders of the pack are both functioning democracies, Brazil (No. 41) and India (No. 45). These rapidly growing economies are kept out of the top tier by significant shortcomings in vital fields such as education, health and public safety.

    The other two BRIC powers, China and Russia, neither of which can be considered anything close to open societies, lag behind. Russia’s mineral wealth gets it a respectable 39th in economic fundamentals, but a lack of democracy, personal freedom and personal safety – as well as poor governance and corruption – drags it down to a paltry 69th. China, ranked a disappointing No. 75, also performs admirably on economic fundamentals, clocking in at No. 29, but is hammered for glaring shortfalls in democracy, personal freedom and governance as well as health and education.

    4. Autocracy may seem to pay, but not in the long run

    Throughout modern history, autocracy has proved effective in sparking fast growth, but a pervasive democratic deficit, poor governance and lack of personal freedom seem likely to constrain long-term progress. For one thing, the ruling elite in the dictatorship is under no strong compulsion to adjust to the needs of its population. Short of forestalling outright rebellion, nest-feathering tends to gain the upper hand.

    As you get to the bottom of the list, the price of dictatorship rises higher still. In this nether-region, there is nary a democratic state. Some of the low-ranking Third World countries are obvious – like Cameroon (No. 100) or Yemen (No. 101) – but some potentially rich but despotically ruled nations do poorly as well.

    Take, for example, No. 94 Iran, a country with enormous natural resources, a well-educated population and a rich cultural heritage. A reasonably enlightened Iran would likely sit in the top third of the list instead of skipping toward the bottom.

    Even the bottom-ranked country, Zimbabwe, left its colonial period with a thriving agriculture sector and great mineral wealth. Here again despotic rule has shown itself an adept destroyer of economic promise.

    In these times of acute self-doubt not only in America but across the democratic world, the Legatum ratings validate the idea that if democracy is not the inevitable wave of the future it represents by far the most efficient way to manage a society. In the end, democracy and prosperity prove not two distinct elements, but, in fact, inextricably linked to each other.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.

  • Property Owners Pay for City’s Dysfunction Under L.A.’s New Graffiti Ordinance

    Graffiti is a bane of urban life, a form of vandalism that demoralizes entire neighborhoods and invites worse crime.

    Graffiti is an art form and an outlet for expression amid the jumble and obvious strains of urban life.

    You’ll hear arguments from both of those viewpoints, depending on who you talk to about graffiti.

    The Garment & Citizen is of the firm opinion that anyone is free to consider graffiti an art form – but all should be mindful that such status doesn’t give anyone the right to express themselves by painting, etching or otherwise tagging someone else’s property. Pablo Picasso himself would not have had any right to create his “Guernica” on the side of someone else’s building, as far as we’re concerned.

    It would have been a loss to the world, of course, if Picasso had gone through life with no canvass for his genius. The world needs Picassos, and it’s important to remember that such talent sometimes grows on tough corners.

    It would be an ideal situation if we had a school system that could consistently engage such talented individuals…and parents with the time to nurture youngsters inclined toward art…and an overall outlook as a society that values art as something more than a commodity to be marketed.

    We’re lacking to some degree or another on each of those counts.

    Consider what goes on before some kid decides to emblazon graffiti on someone else’s property.

    First, there’s been some breakdown in the family unit. Sometimes it’s a parent or parents who don’t care enough to warn their children off such behavior. Other times they are too busy trying to feed and clothe their kids, leaving little time to teach them right from wrong.

    You can bet that many cases also involve a school that has failed to engage and educate the youngster.

    There’s probably a lack of after-school resources, too, leaving kids to find camaraderie with mischief makers while their parents are still working.

    All of these factors come into play on graffiti in our city. They all point to the dysfunction that has found a cozy spot in Los Angeles for decades.

    We live in a city where the minimum wage is $8 an hour, which will bring $320 for a 40-hour week – hardly enough for rent. Is it any wonder that folks at the bottom end of the pay scale might have to spend more time working and fewer hours on their child’s upbringing?

    Everyone knows that the drop-out rates at Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) campuses are sky high in general, and higher still as you move down the socio-economic ladder. Yet not much ever changes when it comes to expectations of how well the organization teaches our children.

    Then there’s the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which recently came close to a roster of 10,000 officers, the highest mark in the agency’s history. Compare that to other major cities in the U.S. and you’ll see that we still don’t have enough cops. We have never had enough cops. And now there’s talk of trimming staffing levels for LAPD because the city is short on money.

    These are the pillars of the dysfunction that we have lived with for years in Los Angeles. How does a city go so far down a path of ignoring all these problems and allowing the ground for graffiti vandals to grow so fertile?

    Look no further than City Hall. That’s where members of the City Council recently passed an ordinance that will require any new commercial or residential buildings to include anti-graffiti coatings on the structures. The only exception comes if a property owner signs a lifetime contract to remove any graffiti within a week.

    There you have it – this problem rolls downhill. Failure upon failure leads to the doors of property owners. They must, under the ordinance, join city officials in giving up on any thoughts about directly addressing graffiti vandalism. They must, our elected officials say, pay good money to prepare to be vandalized.

    The new ordinance is one way to raise revenue, but it also raises a white flag of surrender – a de facto confirmation that our elected officials lack the governmental skill and political will to face up to graffiti vandals and address the various factors behind the crime.

    That’s a dictionary definition of dysfunction – and it passed the Los Angeles City Council unanimously.

    Jerry Sullivan is the Editor & Publisher of the Los Angeles Garment & Citizen, a weekly community newspaper that covers Downtown Los Angeles and surrounding districts (www.garmentandcitizen.com)

  • Wikigovernment: Crowd Sourcing Comes To City Hall

    Understanding the potential role of social media such as blogs, twitter, Facebook, You Tube, and all the rest in local government begins with better understanding the democratic source of our mission of community service. The council-manager form of local government arose a century ago in response to the “shame of the cities” — the crisis of local government corruption and gross inefficiency.

    Understanding what business we are in today is vital. It drives the choices we make and the tools we use. Railroads squandered their dominance in transportation because they defined their business as railroading. They shunned expansion into trucking, airlines, and airfreight. While they were loyal to one mode of transportation, their customers were not. Similarly, newspapers are in crisis because they defined their trade as the newspaper industry. Today’s readers don’t wait for timely news to arrive in their driveways. They have digital access on their computers and hand-held phones. Guess where advertisers are going?

    Most local governments suffer similar myopia. Many managers define our core mission as delivering services. But that overlooks the history of why local governments deliver those services. We deliver police services in the way that we do because Sir Robert Peel invented that model in response to the public safety challenges of industrializing London.

    We deliver library services because Ben Franklin invented that model in response to the need for working people in Philadelphia to pursue education and self-improvement. Governments didn’t arise to provide services; services arose from “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

    Our core mission is not to provide traditional services, but to meet today’s community needs. To do this, we can learn more from the entrepreneurial risk-taking of Peel and Franklin than from public management textbooks.

    We face these new dangers and opportunities:
    • Transitioning from unsustainable consumption to living in sustainable balance with planetary resources.
    • Overcoming an economic crisis that is slashing our capacity to maintain traditional services and meet growing community needs.
    • Embracing growing diversity while dealing with increasing fragmentation marked by divergent expectations about the role of local government.

    During a similar period of historic upheaval, the young Karl Marx wrote that “all that is solid melts into air.”

    Of course, it’s possible to underestimate the emerging crisis from the perspective of local government in many American towns and suburbs. The local voting population seems stable, though declining in numbers. The “usual suspects” still populate the sparse audiences at council and commission meetings. The budget is horrendous, but we’ve seen these cycles before.

    In reality, this overhang is typical of the lag between action and reaction, the inertia Thomas Jefferson identified when he wrote, “Mankind are more inclined to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

    In California, we’re confounded by the seemingly endless crisis in political leadership that is squandering our state’s credit rating and capacity to deliver vital services. Members of our political class resemble cartoon characters who dash off a cliff, then momentarily hang in the air before abruptly plunging. As the economist Herb Stein wryly observed, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

    Global Communication Tools
    In the current tough times, we all pay lip service to civic engagement and we all pursue it, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and success. But if we want to avoid plunging into the vortex like the state of California (and Vallejo, California, its bankrupt local counterpart), we will need to reassert and reinvent government of the people, by the people, and for the people in our communities.

    The textbook model puts the elected governing board squarely between us and the public. Elected officials interpret the will of the people. They’re accountable to the public. We report to those who have been elected. But in the modern world, professional staff cannot hide behind that insulation. We cling to the old paradigm because we lack a better one.

    That’s where the real significance of social media comes into focus. These aren’t just toys, gizmos, or youthful fads. Social media are powerful global communication tools we can deploy to help rejuvenate civic engagement.

    The Obama presidential campaign lifted the curtain on this potential. “Nothing can stand in the way of millions of people calling for change,” he asserted at a time when conventional political wisdom doubted his path to the White House. MyBarackObama.com wasn’t his only advantage, but he deployed it with stunning effectiveness to raise colossal sums from small donors, pinpoint volunteer efforts in 50 states to the exact places of maximum leverage, and carry his campaign through storms that would have capsized a conventional campaign.

    It remains to be seen how this translates into governance at the federal level. But it has direct application to local democracy. Crowd sourcing is a new buzzword spawned by social media. It recognizes that useful ideas aren’t confined to positional leaders or experts. Wikipedia is a powerful success story, showing how millions of contributors can build a world-class institution, crushing every hierarchical rival. “Wikigovernment” is not going to suddenly usher in rankless democratic nirvana, but it’s closer to the ideal of government of the people, by the people, and for the people than a typical local government organization chart.

    “To govern is to choose,” John Kennedy famously said. Choices must be made, and citizens will increasingly insist on participating in those decisions. As citizens everywhere balk at the cost of government, we can’t hunker down and wait for a recovery to rescue us. Like carmakers suddenly confronted by acres of unsold cars, we are arriving at the limits of the “we design ‘em, you buy ‘em” mentality.

    A crowd-sourcing approach to local government resembles a barn raising more than a vending machine as a model for serving the community. Instead of elected leaders exclusively deciding the services to be offered and setting the (tax) price of the government vending machine, a barn raising tackles shared challenges through what former Indianapolis mayor Stephen Goldsmith calls “government by network.”

    Citizen groups, individual volunteers, activists, nonprofits, other public agencies, businesses, and ad hoc coalitions contribute to the designing, delivering, and funding of public services. The media compatible with this model are not the newspapers such as — for example — the local newspaper that reports yesterday’s council meeting. The new media are the instant Facebook postings, tweets, and YouTube clips that keep our shifting body politic in touch.

    The Dark Side
    It’s not hard to conjure up the dark side of all this. Web presence is often cloaked in anonymity. This isn’t new in political discourse; the Founders engaged in anonymous pamphleteering. But the Web can harbor vitriol that wasn’t tolerated in the traditional press (at least until recently).

    The Web also tends to segregate people. One study concluded that 96 percent of cyber readers follow only the blogs they agree with. This self-selection of information bypasses editors trained in assessing the credibility of information. Opinion is routinely passed off as fact.

    But it isn’t surprising that the cutting edge of digital communication is full of both danger and promise, nor should it keep us from using these new media in our 2,500-year quest for self-government. The atomization generated by a zillion websites also breeds a hunger for the community of shared experience. Both the election of Barack Obama and the death of Michael Jackson tapped into that yearning.

    We can foster that yearning by deploying these exciting new tools in the service of building community. Yes, it’s risky to be a pioneer, but in a rapidly changing world, it’s even riskier to be left behind.

    This is part two of a two-part series. A slightly different version of this article appeared in Public Management, the magazine of the International City/County Management Association; icma.org/pm.

    Rick Cole is city manager of Ventura, California, and this year’s recipient of the Municipal Management Association of Southern California’s Excellence in Government Award. He can be reached at RCole@ci.ventura.ca.us

  • Our Euro President

    Barack Obama’s seemingly inexplicable winning of the Nobel Peace Prize says less about him than about the current mentality of Europe’s leadership class. Lacking any strong, compelling voices of their own, the Europeans are now trying to hijack our president as their spokesman.

    There’s a catch, of course. In their mind, Obama deserves the award because he seems to think, and sound, like a European. In everything from global warming to anti-suburbanism to pacifism, Obama reflects the basic agenda of the continent’s leading citizens–in sharp contrast to former President George W. Bush.

    Indeed it’s likely that if Obama wanted to run for presidency of the E.U., he could mail it in. Unfortunately for him, he presides over a country that faces a very different future from that of Europe.

    This is not to say we cannot learn from Europe in certain areas–namely fuel economy and health care. Republicans dropped the ball on both of these issues, and as a result both our health care system and automobile efficiency pale next to those of the continent.

    Still, the reality is that America and Europe are very different, which would necessitate disparate policy approaches. Our growing divergence with Europe spans everything from demographics to economic needs and basic values. In all these areas, the gap is likely to increase over time.

    This is why the Obama Administration’s Europhilia, now likely to become more pronounced, represents a dangerous temptation. For one thing, Europe’s generally ultra low birth rates–compared with those in the U.S.–imposes structural limits on how their economies can grow and even if they even need growth.

    If our core problems come from over-consumption and irrational financial-sector exuberance, Europe’s sluggishness stems from the lack of an expanding workforce and consumer base. This means Germany–by far the most important E.U. country in terms of population and gross domestic product–must rely on exports to maintain its generally slow growth rate. More important, as the current generation in their 50s retire, the workforce is likely to shrink dramatically in almost all European countries, making even modest growth difficult.

    In a rapidly aging society like Germany’s and those of other E.U. countries you can make a case for slow growth, limited work hours, early retirement and a strict regulatory regime. But for America, with its growing workforce and population, slow economic growth simply is not socially sustainable.

    More broadly, we are talking about two different mindsets. As one writer puts it, Europeans “emphasize quality of life over accumulation” and “play over unrelenting toil.” In contrast, most Americans seem ill-disposed to relax their work ethic, which has been central to the national character from its earliest days.

    Of course, the European approach is celebrated by some Americans, particularly those who already have achieved a high level of affluence. It plays very well in “little Europes” of America, cities like San Francisco, Portland and Boston, places with relatively few children and generally slow-growing populations.

    But most Americans do not seem ready for a lifestyle buffeted by regulations and limitations. Still attached to their aspirations, they seem no less satisfied with their way of life than do Europeans. Even amid the recession, 70% of Americans still embrace the idea that they can get ahead through hard work.

    There are other critical differences. Americans remain more religiously minded. One analyst, David Hart, has spoken of Europe’s “metaphysical boredom.” Half or more of Europeans never attend church, compared with barely 20% in the U.S.

    Among younger Europeans, the loss of traditional Christian identity–with its focus on long-term commitments, sacrifice and responsibility–is virtually complete: According to one Belgian demographer, barely one in 10 young adults in the E.U. maintains any link to an organized religion. In contrast roughly 60% of Americans, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey, believe religion is “very important,” twice the rate of Canadians, Britons, Koreans or Italians and six times the rate of French or Japanese.

    Some observers, both in America and abroad, see this spiritualism, particularly among evangelical Christians, as reflecting a kind of social retardation. Yet belief in America is remarkably varied, extending beyond groups that are easily classified as liberal or conservative. In America, a broad “spiritual” focus–dating from the earliest founders and continuing through the transcendentalists and Walt Whitman–persists as a vital force. Even President Obama, whose base tends to be secular, has made much of his religious ties.

    In Europe, the only truly rising faith appears to be the secular religion of the environmental zealots. Often almost theocratic in its passion, the green movement tends to be hostile to even modest population growth and economic progress. It’s no coincidence that the last American to win the Nobel Prize was the climate change high priest himself, former Vice President Al Gore.

    To be sure, Americans also care about the planet, but they seem more disposed to see technological innovation, not abstinence, as the best way to confront ecological problems. The kind of highly restrictive regulatory environment common in Europe–and sadly in such places as California—simply is not well-suited for a country that must produce much more wealth and millions more jobs in order to sustain itself.

    Even though they may espouse secular ideals, this more growth oriented mentality also attracts a sizable number of talented and ambitious young Europeans to the U.S., as well as Australia and Canada. Although influential social commentator Richard Florida has claimed that the bright lights and “tolerance” of Europe are luring large numbers of skilled Americans, actual migration trends tell quite the opposite story. By 2004 some 400,000 E.U. science and technology graduates were residing in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a recent European Commission poll, intends to return.

    Perhaps the president should speak to these young Europeans. They still buy the notion of America as a country open to innovation and striving for upward mobility. Europe, in contrast, perhaps as the result of two debilitating wars in the last century, understandably craves peacefulness and social stability over all else.

    When he goes to Oslo next month, Obama should remember that America’s future is not to become a bigger version of Norway, a tiny country fat with fossil fuels that can afford its air of moral superiority. We are also not latter day versions of Britain, France, Germany or Russia–all of them worn empires exhausted by history.

    Ultimately America is about hope and aspiration. It is, if you will, a country based on an ideal, not a race or cultural legacy. As the British writer G. K. Chesterton once put it, the U.S. is “the only nation…that is founded on a creed.” That creed is not so much religious as aspirational, and it will become more important as we attempt to cope with our own growing diversity as well as the rising powers from the developing world.

    So even as he enjoys his popularity on the continent, Obama must be careful not to succumb to those who urge him to reshape America in Europe ‘s image. Take this prize, Mr. President, and then shelve it.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.

    Official White House photo by Pete Souza