New Geography

Tag: Obama’s America

  • Obama’s Elite Power Base

    Looking back at President Obama’s first year in office, this much is clear: Obama first enraged the right wing by seeming to veer far left, then turned off the left by seeming to abandon them. Even as Fox News fundamentalists rail against “socialism,” self-styled progressives like Naomi Klein scream about a “blown” opportunity to lead the nation from the swamp of darkest capitalism.

    Both right- and left-wing critics fail to consider the fundamental nature of the Obama regime. This presidency represents not a traditional ideology but a new politics that mirrors the rise of a new, and potentially hegemonic class, one for which Obama is a near-perfect representative.

    Every president and political movement, of course, brings to power an often-hoary group of grasping interest groups. Under the conservatives and George W. Bush, the favored classes included standbys like the fossil-fuel energy companies, Big Agriculture, suburban homebuilders, and the defense industry.

    Rather than the “good old boys,” Obama’s core group hails from what may be best described as the “creative class” – the cognitive elite, or, to borrow from Daniel Bell’s The Coming of Postindustrial Society, the “hierophants of the new society.” They come not from traditional productive industry, but the self-conscious “knowledge” sectors – such as financial services, the software industry, and academia.

    From early on, Barack Obama attracted big-money people like George Soros, Warren Buffett, and JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon far more effectively than his opponents in either party. 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.”

    Other bastions of support could be found in Silicon Valley, where Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist John Doerr were all early backers. Obama, the former law school professor, also did exceedingly well with academics, and many of his pivotal wins in the Midwest rested heavily on both votes and volunteers from college constituencies.

    Finally Obama gained the early support of public-sector unions, now arguably the dominant power within the Democratic Party. Together, these groups now enjoy the lion’s share of influence inside the administration.

    In contrast, the representatives of traditional Democratic sectors such as industrial labor unions, Latinos, or even many African Americans were slow to join the Obama bandwagon. Even after they joined his electoral coalition, they have received little in the way of succor from the president and the administration.

    Indeed, for most of these voters, the past year has been an awful one. Unemployment for Latinos, blacks, and blue-collar workers has skyrocketed, particularly among males. For them, Obama’s economic plan has done very little – unsurprising given its primary focus on sustaining public-sector employment and large financial institutions.

    In contrast, the core Obama constituencies appear to have ridden out the recession in fine shape. Mega-patron George Soros, for example, has boasted openly about how he was having “a very good crisis.” Much the same can be said of the largely pro-Obama hedge funds and investment bankers, for whom Paulson to Bernanke to Geithner has provided a double-play combination for the ages.

    Academia has also emerged as a big winner. This administration is crammed with professors from Science Adviser John Holdren and Energy Secretary Steven Chu to former Harvard President Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council. More broadly, academics have reaped massive windfalls from the stimulus, both in terms of direct support for universities and funding for research projects.

    One place where the priorities and class interests of the cognitive elite coalesce most has been on “climate change.” In contrast to manufacturers, farmers, or fossil-fuel firms, investment bankers, software companies, and university professors have little to fear from the rash of “green” policy initiatives.

    In fact, for these groups, “climate change” often means a once-in-a-lifetime bonanza. Wall Street sees the administration’s “cap and trade” proposals as opening a whole new frontier to enjoy yet more profit. University researchers – particularly those with the right spin on the climate issue – have been big winners in the tens of billions of dollars being handed out by the Chu-led Energy Department and other federal agencies.

    Overall, subsidized “alternative energy” – largely excluding both nuclear power and natural gas – also provides Silicon Valley with federal backing for ventures in everything from luxury electric cars and dodgy geothermal developments to “smart” energy grids. And, of course, all this increased federal spending also plays into the public-sector unions, for whom an ever-expanding government represents the ultimate growth industry.

    In the short term, Obama’s loyalties have gained him political credit even in hard times. Support from Wall Street and Silicon Valley assures access to big-money sources and influences the upper echelons of the establishment press, particularly in New York. Meanwhile, the academy and the public bureaucracy provide a cadre of political shock troops who may be needed to rouse an increasingly disaffected Democratic base in the 2010 elections.

    But Obama’s class strategy also poses considerable longer-term risks. The cognitive elites – clustered in places like Washington, New York, Boston, or Silicon Valley – tend to only talk to and listen to each other. This often makes them slow to recognize shifts in grassroots opinion on such issues as the health plan or global warming.

    That risks continued erosion of support from many hard-pressed middle-class voters around the country more concerned with economic growth and holding onto their home than saving the planet. These are precisely the voters, not the tea party activists or their leftist analogues, who likely will determine the political winners in 2010 and beyond.

    Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

    This article originally appeared at The Daily Beast.

    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.

  • The Crisis Next Time: Public Finance

    The financial crisis of 2008 paved the way for the employment crisis of 2009, which has now paved the way for the upcoming public finance crisis of 2010. Most federal, state and municipal budgets are strained to the breaking point while the economy still has not found its footing. Meanwhile our national politics is obsessed with expensive overhauls of environmental policy and healthcare reform. Our latest policy strategy is an attempt to borrow and spend our way to prosperity, ala Japan of the past twenty years.

    It’s tempting to point to a few simple causes of these economic misfortunes, such as mortgage subsidies, loose credit standards, or excess financial leverage, but the truth is that we are experiencing the fallout of a failed policy paradigm.

    This paradigm was rooted in the past century with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Employment Act of 1946 and the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Stabilization Act of 1978. It’s a paradigm dependent on many admittedly useful policy tools, including both Keynesian demand stimulus and the Austrian school’s theory of money and credit, the monetarism of Friedman, as well as the supply-siders of the 1980s.

    So, in what ways have these approaches failed?

    The policy goals are clearly stated: stable GDP growth and full employment. But the economic results have been decidedly mixed: the growth of real incomes laden with an exploding entitlement state, structural budget crises, widening wealth disparities, a catastrophe-prone banking system, and volatile asset markets. We’ve heard the term “systemic risk” bandied about the recent financial crisis, but this report card captures the true risks of the system we’ve created.

    Politically and socially, Americans clearly want a society where a growing middle class thrives, opportunity exists for individual success and advancement, and a prosperous elite accepts the responsibilities of power not to exploit the weak and disadvantaged. Instead, our political economy is hollowing out the middle class, creating more dependency among the poor, and fostering a culture of corruption and irresponsibility among the elites. Elsewhere I’ve characterized this current state of affairs as Casino Capitalism and Crapshoot Politics.

    Second question: why has our democratic politics failed to deliver? The short answer: Our government is doing too much of what it shouldn’t be doing and not enough of what it should.

    Free market economies are very good at producing wealth by harnessing the incentives of market participants. Market prices are valuable information signals that tell everyone how much of each good to produce. Governments, however, no matter how enlightened, cannot attain this efficiency. But, due to the political imperative to “do something” in response to countless demands, they feel compelled to try. Thus the focus on “growing the economy” and “creating jobs.”

    Unfortunately, these goals often demand incompatible policies, highlighting the differences between the private and public sectors. Private firms earn profits (i.e., create wealth) by increasing productivity, often by reducing labor costs. However, the public sector follows no profit criteria, so the government increases employment without attention to productivity. Thus, with more public sector jobs we create more employment while producing less. At the same time, the growth of the public sector empowers a politically powerful public union interest in its continued expansion. This is no way for a nation to grow rich.

    When we peel away the logic we find the true goal of public sector job creation: political redistribution of the economy’s wealth-creating capacity in order to mitigate the effects of markets. This is not an unworthy societal goal, but our public policies adopt counterproductive means to achieve it.

    To be fair, the political problem arises because private markets are agnostic towards the distributional effects of their success. Inequality, poverty, pollution, environmental degradation, the concentration of economic and political power – all these are unfavorable distributional effects of markets that give rise to political demands. The question is over how government should meet these demands.

    The 20th century attempt to tax and redistribute wealth has landed the modern welfare state in a cul-de-sac of exploding budgets, rising costs of living, slower economic growth and structural unemployment. We’re robbing Peter to pay Paul and neither – except for a relative handful of bureaucrats and rent-seeking capitalists – is better off for it. This adds up to less opportunity all around. Again, the problem is with our failed paradigm. We need to align our policies with behavioral incentives without surrendering our policy goals to an agnostic market mechanism.

    To construct a new paradigm we might do best to return to first principles of what Americans want: freedom, opportunity and justice. In order to enjoy these principles, citizens need to be empowered with choice, autonomy, and protection from unmanageable risks. Only functioning free and competitive markets can provide the necessary resources.

    So, what should be the proper role for government?

    The maldistribution of resources can be mitigated if citizens participate in the wealth creating process as more than an input labor cost. Public policy should cease deficit spending to promote employment and instead look to creating the necessary environment for private risk-taking, saving, investment, and production. This includes insuring market competition and mitigating the effects of economic risk and uncertainty. Tax and regulatory policies should promote the widespread accumulation, diversification, and access to capital to empower individuals and families with the necessary resources to build wealth and insure themselves against uncertainty. Where private insurance markets are incomplete, there is a role for limited social insurance to fill the gap.

    Numerous specific policies flow from this general paradigm shift, for example, we can stop penalizing savings through overly loose credit and onerous tax policies on interest and dividend income. There is no reason not to have a tax-free threshold for capital income that reflects the desired savings level of the median annual income household.

    Why have we stuck with a failed policy paradigm? Part of the answer is the Kuhnian nature of scientific revolutions, but the pursuit of power and influence by narrow interests is certainly a determinant factor. Economically and socially, we know where we need to go. Getting there politically is another matter. Our present political leadership (of both parties) certainly is not taking us in that direction.

    Michael Harrington is a policy analyst and writer with a multidisciplinary background in economics, finance and political science. His specialties are international capital markets, trade, and social insurance. He has taught political science at UCLA and conducted economic research for The Reason Foundation, The Milken Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce. His published writings and opinions have appeared in numerous business journals, including the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, BusinessWeek, the Economist, the Christian Science Monitor and the Los Angeles Times.

  • Don’t Give Up On The U.S.

    If the U.S. were a stock, it would be trading at historic lows. The budget deficit is out of control, the economy is anemic and the political system is controlled by academic ideologues and Chicago hacks. Opposing them is a force largely comprised of know-nothings–to call them Neanderthals would be too complimentary.

    Not surprisingly, many Americans have become pessimistic. Two in three adults now fear their children will be worse off than they are. Nearly 40% think China will become the world’s dominant power in the next 20 years, as indicated by a recent survey.

    Yet, in spite of everything, I would still place my long-term bets on the U.S. Here’s why:

    1. The U.S. is the only advanced country in the world with viable demographics. By 2030, all our major rivals, save India, will be declining, with ever-larger numbers of retirees and a shrinking labor force. By 2050 Germany, Japan and South Korea could approach having twice as many people over 65 per capita as the U.S. By then, the U.S. will have 400 million people, which may be more than the entire EU and three times the population of our former archrival Russia.

    2. In terms of energy resources, the U.S., combined with Canada, is the second richest region in the world after the Middle East. The country possesses vast resources of natural gas, about 90 years’ worth, as well as strong areas for wind power. Given America’s past profligacy, the country could derive considerable savings with even modest conservation efforts.

    3. America remains the world’s agricultural superpower, with the most arable land on the planet. With another 3 billion people expected on the planet by 2050, the U.S. should enjoy a continuing boom in food exports.

    4. Military power matters now and in the future. We are not living in a Star Trek future of earthly harmony. The U.S. leads in military technology and, yes, our martial spirit remains a positive factor, despite the portrayals from Hollywood. For all its missteps, the U.S. military has achieved its strictly war-fighting missions–in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a host of smaller conflicts–over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Europe and Japan have taken themselves out of the military game, and it will be decades before China will be ready for a head-to-head challenge.

    5. There is no large country that comes close to the U.S. as an entrepreneurial hotbed (Taiwan, Israel and Hong Kong come close but are far smaller). The recent Legatum Prosperity Index showed the U.S. remains by far the largest generator of new ideas and companies on the planet.

    Of course, all these critical advantages could be squandered by fecklessness. The empowered American left–in sharp contrast to the tradition that runs from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman all the way to Bill Clinton–often envisions the U.S. as a country headed into the dustbin of history, and deservedly so.

    Leftist historian Immanuel Wallerstein, for example, asserts that the U.S. has been “a fading global power” since the 1970s. The only question now, he suggests, is “whether the United States can devise a way to descend gradually, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself.” Another leading liberal analyst, Parag Khanna, envisions a “shrunken” America that is lucky to eke out a meager existence between a “triumphant China” and a “retooled Europe.”

    The traditionally pro-American right increasingly shares this pessimism, albeit for different reasons. With Obama and the Democrats in power, many conservatives, including such keen observers as Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson, believe the country has hit the historical skids.

    Yet declinism is often overstated. Today, only someone delusional would suggest that once widely feared Japan, soon to fall to third place (behind China) as an economic power, constitutes a serious threat to American preeminence. However, the fantasy of a European resurgence remains deeply embedded among American policy wonks and academics. It is a firmly held belief despite the continent’s decades of slow growth, demilitarization, disastrous demographics and mounting budget woes, particularly on its southern and eastern fringes.

    On the other hand, China and India represent true ascendant economies of the next decade and beyond. China’s rise has led one writer, the Guardian’s Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World, to suggest that America must “learn to bow” before the great power of the 21st century.

    Yet for all their impressive growth, neither China nor India possesses either the institutional strengths or natural resources of the U.S. China’s current boom has much to do with an orgy of money-printing that would make Barack Obama blush. Real estate in some places is turning bubblish. There are reports of vacancy rates as high as 50% in Shanghai’s commercial market.

    India, as anyone who has spent time there knows, remains a highly fragmented and largely impoverished country. It will be a great power of the future, but a very poor one, which will take many decades, even a century, to approach even a decent fraction of America’s current per capita income.

    Often overlooked as well is America’s unique advantage as an inclusive multiracial society. Over the past decade America has produced two African-American Secretaries of State and one President. America remains unique in its ability to absorb different races, religions and cultures, an increasingly critical factor in maintaining global preeminence.

    What Americans need most now is to develop policies that build on our essential strengths. Some tech enthusiasts and members of the Obama Administration claim that “the age of infrastructure is over.” However, in reality there is no way to assure a decent future for the next 100 million Americans without a major investment in everything from roads and broadband to transmission lines, water systems and basic skills training

    Some conservatives may oppose such a domestic surge, but the investment reflects a strong American tradition. The critical issue will be to make sure a commitment to infrastructure does not morph into a Washington-led industrial policy that would inevitably reward the well connected and stunt our innovative edge.

    In the end, Americans must remain true to our individualist traditions. Compared with Europeans, who instinctively look to government for guidance, the vast majority of Americans still believe that hard work is the key to self-improvement. Our primary economic asset continues to lie with entrepreneurial spirit and adaptability.

    In the coming decade, American success will require precisely this blend of public support and private initiative. If the U.S. stays true to its unique traditions, it will remain the world’s best investment for decades to come.

    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.

  • What To Look For In Healthcare Reform: Location, Location, Location

    A Reuters article that was widely picked up around the globe recently raised the question, Are Doctors What Ails US Healthcare? Comparing the New York suburb of White Plains to Bakersfield, California, the article uses the evergreen two-Americas paradigm to discuss disparities in health care. Drawing heavily on the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare, it highlights a sad but inescapable fact: doctors want to live in some places and not in others, giving the “have” populations more intensive medical care which they might or might not need, while have-nots, who tend to be older, sicker and poorer, get health care to match. The article asserts that there’s nothing in current health care reform legislation that will do anything to address the disparities.

    I agree. But then, what should we expect? The legislation, which I find marginally more desirable than doing nothing at all, is largely about insurance, not about health care. This is what happens when we emphasize how we pay for something, rather than what we are paying for. Are doctors what ails U.S. health care? Only in the sense that they are operating on the same basis as everyone else in the health care market: every man for himself.

    You don’t have to make bi-coastal comparisons to find the disparities highlighted in the Reuters article. My own Hudson Valley not-for-profit insurance company faces them every day. We cover the Medicaid populations from the aforementioned White Plains, NY, to the South, to the blighted economies of the Catskills to the North and West. The distance involved is only about 150 miles, but day in, day out it might as well be 1500. And socially, it might as well be 150 years. Sullivan County is still organized geographically the way it developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — farms, woods, and mills, only without the mill jobs.

    There was a brief shining moment (well, half a century) when urban Jews and other vacationers formed the basis of a thriving tourist trade in the “Borscht Belt” resorts of Monticello, Sullivan County’s hot spot. When they closed, they provided ideal settings for residential drug and alcohol rehab for poor people from New York City, but those aren’t exactly the foundation for high-quality community health care. When we initially started offering state-sponsored insurance to the poor of Sullivan County, the historical dearth of specialists made it a laboratory for what a free market looks like when there’s no competition. (Do I hear the words “strong public option”?) Because New York State requires us to have a decent network of contracted doctors for our enrollees, the sole cosmetic surgeon – for example – could extract pretty much any fee he wanted from us in exchange for seeing a patient who needed emergency reconstructive surgery.

    Your tax dollars meet supply and demand and a mandate to pay within a private market.

    I don’t blame the specialists. They are highly trained and skilled, and have paid their dues. If I blame anyone, it’s the system that sets the dues so high, in the form of college and medical school loans and years of fellowships that leave well-meaning doctors feeling that they deserve all that money, just like corporate farmers and hedge fund managers.

    It’s also not the doctors’ fault that they want good schools and cultural amenities. I haven’t seen much of Bakersfield, but I know that schools in and around White Plains have good reputations and are just twenty miles from Broadway and the Metropolitan Museum (and ten miles from my Tarrytown office). Maybe we can fix schools and reinvigorate the National Endowment for the Arts to make every remote locale more like Westchester, but that would be socialism.

    Dartmouth Atlas data is easily available online, and well worth spending some time with. You can use it to create all kinds of two-America scenarios that provide instant object lessons in our health care inequities. My personal favorite is that health care spending in Miami, Florida for Medicare patients in the last two years of life (highest in the nation) is exactly twice that in Portland, Oregon (lowest of the regions studied), with commensurate volumes of appointments, referrals, tests and hospitalizations, and no better outcomes. Here we see the same dynamics that make pawnshops spring up around gambling casinos and candy stores near public schools. Doctors go where the customers are, and once they arrive they maximize their revenues and measure success by volume, not outcomes.

    Why should we expect anything different, when reform legislation is captive to the same kind of have/have not dichotomy that shapes health care delivery itself? Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota are two of the pillars of the anti-public option caucus. They come from states with small populations, and both take barrels of money from the health insurance industry because they can’t raise it locally. If they play their cards right, who knows? They could leave Congress and become haves themselves, like Billy Tauzin, who is now Big Pharma’s man in Washington, having engineered the passage of Medicare Part D, or Tom Daschle, once a champion of single payer, who now plays both sides of the street with special interest money.

    Are Doctors What Ails US Healthcare? quotes David Goodman, Director of Health Policy Research at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, who says there’s an “irrational distribution” of the most valuable and expensive U.S. health care resources. I would say that the distribution is entirely rational given the insanity of the larger situation.

    If we’re ever going to find our way out of this mess, we’re going to have to do for these health care backwaters, both rural and urban, what we used to do when private capital wouldn’t do the job. Set goals and build the infrastructure to serve them, because the market won’t do it. Want to electrify Appalachia? You need the TVA. Want to make the desert bloom? Build dams and aqueducts. Want to open up the interior of the country? Build an Interstate Highway system. Want doctors to practice in unattractive markets? Create an MD Bill for doctors like the old GI Bill for veterans, so that doctors emerge from training feeling more like public servants and less like indentured servants.

    I attended a discussion of health care reform not long ago at the Yale School of Public Health. The representative of the private health insurance industry put the issues in a compelling perspective, although not, perhaps, for the reasons he cited.

    His arguments were three: First, we require automobile owners to carry insurance, so requiring everyone to carry health insurance shouldn’t be a problem (I know that President Obama made this point, too, and I hated him for it). Second, do you want a health care system that runs like the Post Office, or one that runs like Federal Express? And third, the health insurance industry is really a jobs program, and do we really want to put all those people out of work?

    These are shallow arguments. Car insurance? There’s no law that says you have to own a car, but everyone needs health care. A health insurance mandate is more like forcing every American to buy a new car and giving them a choice between Ford or GM. Post Office and FedEx? A company that can’t send a package overnight from suburban Tarrytown into New York City without round-trip flights to Memphis and back is no model for health care delivery, and besides, I’d like to see what FedEx can do for the price of first class postage. Jobs? A dynamic economy finds ways of redeploying redundant workers in more significant jobs. Wouldn’t those actuaries make good math teachers?

    The arguments were so hollow that no one bothered to argue, and the insurance rep was undoubtedly relieved. A fellow panelist who practices medicine in Cambridge, Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard, said simply, “My practice would have no trouble making money on Medicare, single-payer reimbursement rates if we didn’t have to pay so many people to argue with insurance companies.”

    Unfortunately, the larger discussion is still stuck on insurance, and as long as it is, the two health care Americas will never become one.

    Georganne Chapin is President and CEO of Hudson Health Plan, a not-for-profit Medicaid managed care organization, and the Hudson Center for Health Equity & Quality, an independent not-for-profit that promotes universal access and quality in health care through streamlining. Both organizations are based in Tarrytown, New York.

  • The European Model Gets A Makeover

    Does the United States finally have its first European President in Barack Obama? Does he truly want to Europeanise the American health system and impose European-style socialism on the US? RealClearPolitics.com assures us that ‘his policies on government spending, taxation, health care and carbon emissions would all tend to bring America in line with European norms.’

    It is a powerful message – or it would be were the US not already in line with European norms in nearly every way that matters. In terms of social welfare expenditure, working hours, socialized health and even military spending, the US slips snugly in place among its European counterparts.

    So why the constant comparisons between the US and Europe? It’s all rather simple: people who refer to ‘Europe’ as an alternative to the United States rarely specify which European countries they mean. Europe is a continent consisting of around 50 countries (its borders are debatable) of which only 27 are in the EU and 26 in NATO. These countries run from Liechtenstein, with the highest GDP per capita in the world, to Kosovo, which is poorer than Nigeria. The idea that one common European policy or culture could exist in such a diverse environment is absurd.

    Europe, as a single economic system with a single culture simply doesn’t exist. It is a myth, pushed by some on the left as an egalitarian liberal alternative to the US, and by some on the right as an example of a socialist failure – neither side ever defining what Europe actually is.

    Perhaps this is all a little pedantic. After all, we know that when people talk about European socialism they mean France, Germany and Sweden, not the irrelevant, piddling little states like Ireland, Latvia and, eh, Russia. By far Europe’s largest and most populous country, with more than three quarters of its population living on the European side of the Urals, Russia is rarely counted as European at all. Commentators often ponder ‘Europe’s response to Russia,’ a nonsensical statement unless ‘Europe’ is clearly defined as the EU, or the European NATO members, or whoever.

    When Europe is left undefined in this way, it becomes a convenient catch-all tag to mislead, reinforce prejudices and polarise debates. Look no further than the present debate about health care in the US, where Obama has been criticized for wanting to Europeanise American health care, the implication being that there is a single European socialist alternative to the US. Glenn Beck pounced on this idea last July:

    America’s health care is much better than Europe’s…. Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers than Europe. Take prostate cancer: 91.9 percent of men live through it, versus 73.7 percent in France and just 51.1 percent in Britain.

    These are shocking statistics, but puzzling. France and Britain are just two of Europe’s 50 countries, so why are they picked to represent the rest? In fact there is massive variation in cancer survival rates across Europe. Poland managed to save only 37.1% of prostate cancer victims. But Austria, with its heavily socialized health system, had a survival rate of 86.1%.

    Just days ago a study by the Israeli Health Ministry showed that the US has a total female survival rate of all cancers of 66%, with Finland managing 67%. Glenn Beck could avoid the fact that Finland’s socialized health care is a bit better at saving women from cancer than the American system, because he simply generalized about the entire European continent and cherry-picked two convenient statistics from it.

    This October, former Italian prime minister Romano Prodi told an audience at Brown University that the US should follow Europe’s lead in recognizing health care as a right. As a left-wing Italian, it’s understandable why Prodi would say this: in 2006, government expenditure on health made up 77.2% of total health spending in Italy, compared with only 45.8% in the US. The European region as a whole averaged at 75.6%, much higher than the US.

    Yet government health expenditure in Italy’s neighbour Albania made up only 37.3% of the total health spending. Cyprus was 44.8%. Switzerland 59.1%. Moldova 46.9%. Georgia was only 21.5%. Prodi seems to have ignored these countries because they were inconvenient for his generalization, yet they are crucial to the debate. If Obama is trying to ‘Europeanise’ the American health system, does it mean he wants to cut government expenditure to Albanian levels or increase it to Iceland’s?

    As it happens, the US government under Bush spent more on health as a percentage of GDP than most European countries: 7% in 2005 compared with only 4.3% in Poland, 5.3% in Slovakia and 5.8% in ‘socialist’ Norway.

    Nobody would judge American policies – for example, its social protection or welfare programs — by averaging out policies in Cuba, Costa Rica, Canada, Nicaragua and any other countries that happen to share the continent with it, but this happens with Europe all the time. Donald Rumsfeld seemed to realize it was silly when, in 2003, he dismissed Germany and France as ‘old Europe’, pointing to NATO’s centre of gravity shift into eastern Europe. Rumsfeld had a point: many of the former Communist countries have distinctly different economic situations to some of those in ‘old Europe’.

    In 2005 the EU countries with the highest expenditure on social protection as a percentage of GDP were Sweden (32%), France (31.5%), Denmark (30.1%), Belgium (29.7%) and Germany (29.4%), all ‘old Europe’ nations. OECD statistics for 2005 show the US has a much lower expenditure on social protection, only 15.9%.

    How about new Europe? Latvia spent only 12.4% of its GDP on social protection in 2005. Estonia spent 12.5%, Ireland spent 18.2% and Romania spent 14.2%.

    Perhaps the strangest reference to Europe in recent times came after Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Wall Street Journal had this to say:

    George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again…. On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda…. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global “majority.”

    The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is chosen by five Norwegian committee members, who are, in turn, elected by the 169 members of the Norwegian parliament. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

    Yet somehow the Wall Street Journal managed to convince itself that five Scandinavians in a small non-EU country represent well over 700 million people and all fifty European countries’ foreign policies. This makes as much sense as phoning up Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and dubbing their opinions as representative of ‘American foreign policy’.

    Let’s be clear. It’s not that there aren’t trends among European countries, especially among the ‘old’, wealthy, West European countries. But in terms of most socio-political indicators, the US sits quite comfortably inside the European group, rather than standing apart as a radical alternative to it. The US isn’t even the highest in military spending as a percentage of GDP: Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Greece all spend more.

    It would take little effort for journalists to point out what exactly they mean by Europe: EU members, NATO members, Western Europeans, etc. So let’s not talk about this non-existent Europe anymore. At best it is lazy and inaccurate; at worst it is misleading and divisive.

    Shane Leavy is a freelance journalist for hire. Born and raised in Ireland, he has lived on three continents and been published on four, made an award-winning radio documentary on the banned Chinese religious movement Falun Gong, and written about science, religion, travel, culture, politics, environment and business.

  • For Millennials, It’s the Economy Stupid

    This month’s off year elections sent one message to Washington that has been heard loud and clear. Voters expect Congress to focus on the economy, especially employment, and take decisive and affirmative steps to deal with both the causes and ravages of the greatest economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression. As the Obama administration considers a variety of new proposals to help bring down the unemployment rate, one key constituency is raising its voice and asking for a return on the investment it made in his presidency.

    Members of the Millennial generation, born between 1982-2003, who were eligible to vote in 2008 went for Barack Obama over John McCain by a 2:1 margin and made up over 80% of the President’s winning margin. They continue to support his presidency and identify as Democrats by similar margins. A late October Pew survey indicates that Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by almost 20 percentage points (52% vs. 34%), well above the 8-point Democratic advantage among older generations. In the latest Research 2000 weekly tracking survey conducted for Daily Kos, 80% of Millennials had a favorable opinion of the president; only 14% of everyone in this generation viewed him unfavorably. This compares with a 55% vs. 39% favorable/unfavorable ratio among the entire electorate in both the Research 2000 survey and in a series of November surveys conducted by organizations ranging from ABC News and the Washington Post to Fox, although some other polls put the President’s job performance ratings closer to 50%.

    But despite the clearly stronger support the President has among their generation, Millennials are increasingly restive about the lack of action in Congress to address the economic problems they face – both now and in the future.

    Recent Pew research studies underline the major impact that the recession has had on individual Americans and their families. Thirteen percent of parents with grown children told Pew researchers that one of their adult sons or daughters had moved back home in the past year. Pew found that of all grown children living with their parents, 2 in 10 were full-time students, one-quarter were unemployed and about one-third had lived on their own before returning home. According to the census, 56 percent of men 18 to 24 years old and 48 percent of women were either still under the same roof as their parents or had moved back home.

    The lack of jobs was particularly acute among adult members of the Millennial Generation (18-27 year olds), 61% of whom said that they or someone close to them was jobless recently. A clear plurality (46%) says that the “job situation” rather than rising prices (27%), problems in the financial markets (14%) and declining real estate values (7%) is their major economic worry.

    As a result, the number one concern among Millennials is the state of the economy and the need for jobs, but they have a unique perspective on how to deal with this issue.

    Millennials believe there is a clear link between education and employment and are increasingly concerned that the pathway through the educational system into the world of work is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive to navigate. Last week, about one hundred of the nation’s top private sector and government leaders gathered for the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council also identified education as the nation’s top economic priority.

    For Millennials, the problem is personal. A smaller share of 16-to-24-year-olds – 46 percent – is currently employed than at any time since the government began collecting that data in 1948. A job market with Depression-level youth unemployment (18.5%) and a wrenching transformation in the types of jobs America needs and produces makes the implicit bargain of education in return for future economic success harder for Millennials to believe in every day.

    Recently Matt Segal, Executive Director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) and Founder and National Co-Chair of the “80 Million Strong for Young Americans Job Coalition” presented some ideas to the House Education and Labor Committee on what Congress could do to address this challenge. He advocated increased entrepreneurial resources be made available to youth; more access to public service careers through internships and loan forgiveness programs; and the creation of “mission critical” jobs in such fields as health care, cyber-security and the environment that would tap the unique talents of this generation. Since two-thirds of Millennials who graduate from a four-year college do so with over $20,000 in debt, debt, his testimony also urged immediate Senate approval of the student debt reform bill recently passed by the House.

    There is more that can be done beyond these excellent recommendations. This summer, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors released a report outlining the importance of community colleges in making America’s workforce more competitive in the global economy. “We believe it’s time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future.” The report urged Congress to pass House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larsen’s bill, The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009, in order to help meet President Obama’s goal of graduating five million more Americans from community colleges by 2020.

    Millennials, like their GI Generation great grandparents in the 1930s, are facing economic challenges that caught them by surprise and for which no one prepared them. But Millennials aren’t looking for a handout or sympathy. Instead, in the “can do” spirit of their generation, they are organizing to overcome the challenges created for them by their elders. It’s time for the Democrats who control Congress to recognize these concerns and to act decisively on their behalf.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

  • 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

  • Obama’s Home Town

    Hyde Park, in Chicago, is where President Obama called home before moving to Pennsylvania Avenue.

    I once called 5118 S. Dorchester home.

    Hyde Park is a college town surrounded by – but not really part of – a big city. The University of Chicago, founded in 1890, is the heart of the community. The campus was built of Indiana limestone, fake Gothic, and made to look old from its very inception. Some people like it.

    In 1893, Hyde Park hosted the World’s Columbian Exhibition (a year late). This showcased the new campus, and also what is now the Museum of Science & Industry, at the northern edge of Jackson Park. The Midway Plaisance – as in carnival midway – then a canal traversed by Venetian gondolas, now marks the southern boundary of Hyde Park.

    The tradition continued with Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer Adler – the latter founder of Encyclopedia Britannica, and both authors of the Great Books model of liberal arts education. Subsequent residents have included Muhammad Ali, William Ayers, Saul Bellow, and Barack Obama.

    The community is bordered on the east by Lake Michigan, on the west by Washington Park (as in green grass – where few white residents dare to picnic), on the south by the ghetto community of Woodlawn, and to the north by Kenwood – also mostly a ghetto. The formal northern boundary is Hyde Park Blvd (51st St.), but really the neighborhood extends a couple of blocks north into Kenwood. Including this (say to 49th St.), Hyde Park is less than two square miles, and has about 30,000 people.

    To preserve its integrity as a college town, the area is separated as much as possible from the surrounding ghetto. As a result, public transportation to and from Hyde Park is poor to anyplace besides the Loop. It is difficult to get to Hyde Park from nearby communities. This is what gives it the feel of a separate village. It takes half an hour to get to the rest of Chicago.

    The Illinois Central tracks bisect Hyde Park along Lake Park Ave. East of the tracks is a lakeshore community, traditionally Jewish. Here are high-rise condos such as one would find on the North Side. The famous and impressive Shoreland Hotel has become a college dormitory. Hyde Park Blvd. turns south, east of the tracks, and is a very impressive avenue leading to the Museum of Science & Industry. A pedestrian tunnel leads under Lakeshore Drive to the marvelous Hyde Park Point – a peninsula jutting out into the lake. This offers the very best view of the Chicago skyline from anywhere in the city. Drive to the very end of 55th St. and you’re there.

    The town-gown divide runs right along 55th Street: south is gown (and mostly white), north is town (and majority Black). The entire community is racially integrated – one of the defining features of Hyde Park. Nevertheless, east of Woodlawn and south of 55th Street is mostly faculty and graduate student housing. Conversely, the northwest part of town is predominantly Black.

    55th Street itself is very boring – the victim of urban renewal in the 60’s and 70’s. The only interesting place is the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, a modern but very satisfying building. (On my last visit the building looked to be in disrepair).

    The commercial main street is 53rd Street from Woodlawn to Lake Park. I am pleased to say that while individual businesses have come and gone, the character of this street is mostly unchanged over the past 30 years. Half white and half Black, half university and half blue-collar, the street is a great place for people-watching. The center is a small shopping area known as Harper Court. When I last visited, the Valois Cafeteria (53rd and Blackstone) was still there – great place!

    Four blocks south is 57th Street, the main street of the campus neighborhood. This used to be justly famous for fantastic bookstores, and probably still is. Please visit the Seminary Co-op Bookstore at the corner of 58th and Woodlawn. (It’s inside the Chicago Theological Seminary building, in the basement; there are small signs.) A less interesting branch is along 57th Street. A small used bookstore on 57th Street just before the tracks is still there (called Powell’s, but probably unrelated to the Portland store). I’m certain all the other independent bookstores are gone.

    The university proper starts at Woodlawn and extends west. The impressive Rockefeller Chapel is on Woodlawn south of 58th Street. Frank Lloyd Wright’s justly famous Robie House is at 58th and Woodlawn. The main quad of the university extends from 57th and University all the way to 59th and Ellis. It is well worth exploring. If you can, go into the Harper Library. And walk past the Divinity School. The unforgivably ugly Regenstein Library is across 57th Street – classic brutalism.

    West of Ellis is a huge medical complex: the University of Chicago hospitals. This neighborhood is very different still, as neither nurses nor patients live in Hyde Park. The academic core of the university extends west of Ellis as well, and now includes a Science Quad.

    By the time one gets to Cottage Grove – the western boundary of Hyde Park and the eastern limit of Washington Park – one is actually in the ghetto. I never felt safe walking along Cottage Grove. Indeed, except for the university campus, I rarely ventured west of Ellis. Otherwise I walked around town at all hours of the day or night.

    The campus has crossed the Midway Plaisance, and now includes a row of large buildings along 60th Street – notably the law school. This is a wall against impoverished (and increasingly uninhabited) Woodlawn.

    I understand that one additional building needs to be built in Hyde Park: the Obama Presidential Library. Please let the White House know where you think they should put it. The matter is of some urgency.

    I’m hoping they can start construction no later than 2013.

    Daniel Jelski is Dean of Science & Engineering State University of New York at New Paltz.

  • Cap And Trade And The Smog Market Ripoff

    Now that Senators have reconvened from summer hiatus, one of their first tasks will be to contemplate the greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade carbon market that President Obama would like to institute to blunt global warming. Their necks better be limber. Partisans of Keynesian, market-based regulations will undoubtedly point to the Midwest’s federally run “acid rain” program to reduce harmful power-plant emissions as proof that giving industry profit incentives in cleaning up their operations can be successful. Regulation skeptics will wave that example off dismissively, urging Senators to swivel their heads for a look across the Atlantic, where the European Union’s Emissions Trading System has registered lousy results.

    Whatever those markets do or don’t foreshadow, if the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and its mandated cap-and-trade become law, a glimpse of an unintended — and unsavory — future may reside in the tale of the inscrutable businesswoman from smog-bound Southern California who scammed the area’s pollution exchange…twice (see my site, www.chipjacobs.com, for the newest revelations of a second scam). Rather than a tale of a dreamer’s demise, Anne Sholtz’s story is a bracing reminder that to create a market, no matter its aim, is also to inspire a class of people determined to game it.

    If Wall Street traders can commodify sub-prime mortgages with impunity, and the Enrons of the world can manipulate energy markets like a pinball machine, imagine a future when tradeable permits for carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are auctioned and swapped over the public’s head. A Heritage Foundation economist expects the action to hit $5.7 trillion in value, and many experts say it all adds up to an irresistible buffet for chicanery.

    Few in Washington ever heard of Sholtz, 44, before last spring, when the former Caltech economist was sentenced in federal court to a year of home-detention and five years of probation for defrauding the nation’s first air pollution cap-and-trade market. Sholtz was cozy with the RECLAIM program and the bureaucrats who run it at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). That’s because in the early-1990s she had helped design the concept as an adviser.

    Her know-how proved dangerous. Between November 2000 and April 2001, Sholtz tried fooling one of her clients, a New York-based energy trader, into believing she could complete a fat, multimillion-dollar deal with what is now ExxonMobil Corp. when in fact she could not. Stringing executives at the client company along until she could reactivate a transaction, she emailed and faxed falsified sales documents, including phony invoices.

    Pleasant, brainy and ever-hustling, Anne Sholtz was not somebody folks expected to see handcuffed. Her 2004-arrest by EPA agents on white-collar fraud charges shocked and mystified local environmental circles. She and her companies, Automated Credit Exchange and EonXchange, had boasted a heavyweight list of clients and financial partners, and had worked with the Dutch government on an emissions test-market. As one of California’s rising green-entrepreneurs, Sholtz was a niche-celebrity with access to powerful politicians and regulators, and a hillside mansion, fine cars and whatnot to show for her ingenuity.

    For our purposes, the reasons she’d risk all that matters less than the fact she was able to do so undetected. (You can read the entire expose here.) And that Obama’s proposed carbon market would look a lot like L.A.’s now 15-year-old smog bazaar. RECLAIM sets progressively lower emissions’ limits for roughly 330 of the Southland’s largest oil refineries, power plants and other manufacturers, and allocates credits calculated for each one. Companies that install new particle-trapping equipment or develop cleaner operations in other ways to reduce oxides of nitrogen and sulfur can sell their unused credits to peers who may exceed their allotment. Since 1994, there have been about $1 billion in trades, which brokers help negotiate, and about 40-million pounds of smog chemicals transacted.

    AQMD contends that, after a languid start, its regimen has achieved its emission-cutting goals. At first, an over-allocation of credits to ease industry into the new system simply encouraged many companies to delay purchasing greener equipment. (Using the same logic, the current Obama-backed energy bill, sponsored by House Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, would initially give away an eye-popping 85 percent of greenhouse-gas credits to cushion carbon-dependent states. This means dramatic emission reductions likely won’t happen for years.)

    RECLAIM added another bold move to Southern California’s environmental pedigree, a change that industry actually wanted. But in developing such an open-ended, boutique market officials essentially flaunted their gullibility to cheaters, scammers and profiteers. It took AQMD several years to learn of Sholtz’s deceit, and only then after nine of her clients complained about being cheated.

    A year before that, in 2001, the air district had been blindsided by California’s electricity crisis, and the subsequent order by then-Gov. Gray Davis that power-plants run nonstop to prevent rolling brownouts. Speculators from Texas to New York with no industrial operations in the South Coast basin hoarded RECLAIM credits they knew utilities needed, later reselling them at huge markups. The market teetered near meltdown, and district brass had to yank power companies from the market.

    Ironically, one reason AQMD officials were oblivious to Sholtz’s actions was because they’d nixed her very own recommendation during RECLAIM’s design phase to stamp each credit with identifying marks, somewhat akin to a bar code. Loose trade-reporting requirements added more vulnerability. As California’s experience makes clear, building an incorruptible greenhouse-gas market may not be just formidable, it may be impossible, because the money and opportunities for deception are so tantalizing.

    This May, two Republican congressmen skeptical of Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, Joe Barton of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon demanded extensive answers from the EPA about the Sholtz case. Why, they asked, were so many case documents still sealed by the Justice Department? How could this have happened on regulators’ watch, and what does it portend for a greenhouse-gas market?

    On their heels, AQMD executive officer Barry Wallerstein defended his market as virtually bulletproof to further criminality, while the EPA downplayed the matter as an isolated case. Those declarations occurred before documents emerged showing that Sholtz had told prosecutors during her 2005 settlement plea about “rampant” violations and graft by AQMD executives administering the market.

    All of which is to say Senators should look straight forward with furrowed, “prove-it” brows when fellow members and environmental glitterati pronounce that a greenhouse gas market will operate cleanly because really smart people with nifty technology will be policing it. As the Waxman-Markey legislation stands, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the EPA, and perhaps several more agencies will be patrolling for fraud, speculation, price manipulation and so-forth. Other enforcement details are hazy.

    Chip Jacobs is the co-author, with William J. Kelly, of Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles. Jacobs can be reached at chip@chipjacobs.com

  • The Curse of my.barackobama.com

    President Obama’s campaign was indeed a revolution, not one of policy, but rather a dramatic change in how candidates communicate with voters. It is a reality that helped make Barack Obama our chief executive, but now threatens his ascendancy as well.

    It all started with Obama’s hiring of Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook, as part of his campaign team. Hughes’ job was to develop an online community for the campaign. He was largely dismissed by seasoned political operatives more comfortable with conventional media and campaign tactics.

    David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, gave an honest assessment saying, “Technology has always been used as a net to capture people in a campaign or cause, but not to organize. Chris saw what was possible before anyone else. I still can’t quite wrap my mind around it.”

    Hughes built for the Obama campaign the ability to create and manage content and conversations with vast numbers of people in mere seconds. With an entry into Facebook, video download, or link to information the Obama campaign could shape the opinions of millions of people across America, answer criticisms, and organize campaign events.

    The results of Hughes work was reported on Fastcompany.com: “By the time the campaign was over, volunteers had created more than 2 million profiles on the site, planned 200,000 offline events, formed 35,000 groups, posted 400,000 blogs, and raised $30 million on 70,000 personal fund-raising pages.”

    Hughes had given Obama the ability to do things in real time. He showed the inherent weakness of newspapers as they were reporting what seemed like yesterday’s news. He was out in front of network nightly news programming. He made the Obama campaign a source of news that rivaled networks like never before in history. In short, he was shaping opinion at its source.

    In some ways this was a departure from the ways campaigns were waged in the past: staging huge armies and fighting battles on defined battlefields. The Obama campaign was more like a guerrilla force whose battlefield was at the time and place of their choosing. It bypassed staging. It ran lean. It organized by word of mouth and “buzz” among a new breed of political “activist” who understood the potential of new technology. Obama provided the opportunity to take the new political technology for a “test drive”.

    Fast forward nine months and the same technology that helped Obama win his election is now serving to undermine his policy initiatives. The ability to go viral was not proprietary of MyBO.com.

    People showed how to take marketing viral, like Mark Hughes in his book “Buzzmarketing”. Hughes engineered the successful takeover of Half.com using “buzz” generated from renaming a town in Oregon. He made ads specifically for YouTube rather than networks. One ad, for the “duckbill” dust mask, went viral and sales shot through the roof. You can still find the ad on YouTube. Hughes understood how conversations were changing. He knew that sending content to someone online could quickly go viral when inserted into that person’s social networks. This is the foundation of “buzz.”

    President Obama won several quick and decisive victories early in his presidency with stimulus, omnibus budget, and “cap and trade” legislation. The President’s goodwill ran high in the early months. His resounding campaign victory using new tactics to reach voters held Members of Congress in awe of both his political and fund raising abilities.

    But, the same technology that Obama developed to win an election just nine months ago is now being successfully used to organize grassroots opposition to his policies. What stated as “Tea Parties” across America has developed into a broad based uprising opposing Obama’s health care initiative. The opposition has found its voice and it is spreading its word virally. These communications are quickly outpacing our political leader’s ability to spin issues.

    John McCain recently commented that there was a “peaceful revolution taking place.” He went on to amplify this point by saying, “There is a grass-roots uprising the likes of which I have never seen. There’s anger; there’s concern about the future. There’s concern about the generational theft that we’ve committed by running up unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.”

    The usual tactics to stem the latest grassroots tide are not working. The more politicians talk down the protesters defining them as “un-American” the more energy it provides. Sarah Palin’s post on her blog that the health care bill contained “death panels” worked virally through networks with resounding speed. The result was the Senate removed the provision (end of life counseling) from its bills rather than risk a protracted fight in cyberspace.

    How is this happening? People are organizing around information in real time. Visit Drudge Report, Huffington Post and Politico every day and you can read and see politics happening in every corner of America. With YouTube you can be there at a town hall meeting hosted by Barney Frank on the left or Michelle Bachman on the right. You can take this content and send it into your social networks like Facebook, Linkedin, MySpace or hundreds of other platforms. Ordinary Americans can now instigate discussions, mold and change opinion and do it all under the radar. This is fundamentally changing our politics.

    President Obama and Congress both now have to deal with the curse of MyBO.com. Social networking has enabled Americans to organize in new ways. Grassroots and community organizing are no longer the sole domain of the political left. In real time every misstep and piece of misinformation works its way into public dialogue on blogs, YouTube and websites where political thought is collected, dispersed and refined.

    The days of politics as usual are over. The Obama team will have to play the game under a set of rules that have not all been written yet. This new era in politics will be much more open and subject to more public scrutiny than at any time in history.

    The same communications tactics that won President Obama an election in 2008 may prove to be his greatest challenge in building public consensus for action going forward. In the age of “buzz” our young President will face challenges like none other. His greatest challenge may be in learning how to tame and control the inherently unruly politics of the information age.

    Dennis M. Powell is president and CEO of Massey Powell, an issues management consulting company located in Plymouth Meeting, PA.