Thursday, February 28, 2013

Section 5

Reports of the Supreme Court argument yesterday on the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act, reminded me of an exchange in the movie Philadelphia, where Denzel Washington played the lawyer representing another lawyer (Tom Hanks) who claims he was fired because he had AIDS. At one point during the trial, the Denzel Washington character used a number of derogatory terms to ask a witness if he was a homosexual. His client looked shocked, opposing counsel objected, and the judge asked plaintiff's counsel to explain his seemingly outrageous question:

PLAINTIFF. Your Honor, everybody in this courtroom is thinking about sexual orientation, you know, sexual preference, whatever you want to call it. Who does what to whom and how they do it. I mean, they're looking at Andrew Beckett, they're thinking about it. They're looking at Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Conine, even you, your Honor. They're wondering about it. Trust me, I know that they are looking at me and thinking about it. So let's just get it out in the open, let's get it out of the closet. Because this case is not just about AIDS, is it? So let's talk about what this case is really all about, the general public's hatred, our loathing, our fear of homosexuals, and how that climate of hatred and fear translated into the firing of this particular homosexual, my client, Andrew Beckett.
JUDGE. Please have a seat, Mr. Miller. Very good. In this courtroom, Mr. Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion and sexual orientation.
PLAINTIFF. With all due respect, your Honor, we don't live in this courtroom, though, do we?
It would actually be a charitable interpretation of some of the comments made by conservative justices yesterday to say they were merely blind to the possibility of continued discrimination in the real world that might justify continuation of the Voting Rights Act. Another interpretation is that these justices are actively involved in perpetuating discrimination. Particularly Justice Scalia's comment that a statute that merely seeks to guarantee everyone the right to vote constitutes a "racial entitlement," suggests that at least one justice sees any effort by the federal government to remove impediments to voting, as somehow favoritism to racial minorities.

We have made a lot of progress since 1965, but can anyone deny that there are still concerted efforts being made to make it more difficult for people to vote? Those efforts were on full display in 2012, which saw a gigantic upsurge in attempts to make it more difficult for people to vote. Some of the proponents of those laws openly admitted that their purpose was to make it more difficult for students, for the elderly, for the poor and uneducated, and for minorities, to exercise their most important constitutional right, because they hoped to achieve their preferred political outcome by reducing the number of voters from the opposing political party. Because those efforts are still in full sway, we obviously need to remain vigilant about protecting every citizen's right to vote. The only question is, what is the best way to achieve that?

What Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does is impose an administrative process on states with a legacy of denying the franchise to minority voters. That means that if South Carolina passes a voter id law, as they did in 2012, they have to submit it to the Justice Department for pre-approval. South Carolina's law was therefore quietly struck down before it could take effect. If on the other hand, Pennsylvania and Ohio pass similar restrictions on the right to vote, then the affected groups have to go to court, and the parties face a lengthy and expensive public process to remove the restrictions, as also happened in 2012.

Congress made a decision that an administrative rather than a judicial process is appropriate in places with a particularly egregious history of voter suppression. It's perfectly legitimate to second guess Congress's judgment. You could make the argument that conditions have improved so much even in the states and counties subject to Section 5 that the pre-clearance procedures are no longer needed. You could make the counter-argument that due to the recent, abrupt rise in attempts to make it more difficult for people to vote, conditions for achieving full voting rights have so deteriorated that pre-clearance requirements should apply to the whole country. An administrative rather than a judicial process might be more efficient to deal with attempts to restrict voting wherever they might occur. But the question before the Supreme Court was only whether Congress had the Constitutional power to deal with voting rights in the way that it did, by extending a law that has arguably been more successful and more important to guaranteeing civil rights than any other. If you believe in democracy; if you believe in judicial restraint; you would have to answer that Congress acted in a permissible way.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

The Prisoners' Dilemma

Contrary to what I said in my prior post, I think it might be possible to do a bit of sophisticated negotiation analysis on Congress's apparent inability to prevent the sequester from taking effect. What occurred to me is that the best analogy to the sequestration fight might not be a game of chicken; it might be the classic game theory problem known as the prisoners' dilemma.

In a game of chicken, either party is better off jumping off rather than going over the cliff, and each has the independent ability to make that decision. The only point of the game is to wait until the last possible second to jump off, so that you are not the "chicken." It's a stupid game, because you have to chicken out at some point to survive the game. All you can do is hope that the other guy chickens out before you do. And that is not exactly what is happening in Congress right now, because for both parties right now, the sequester might appear to be a better alternative to giving in to the other side completely. Right now the Republicans are saying to the Democrats, if you don't want the sequester, then you must agree to a different package of spending cuts, cuts that will harm social programs instead of defense and operations. Most Democrats respond that while the planned cuts to defense and other discretionary spending are terrible, cuts to social safety net programs would be even worse. On the other side, the Democrats are saying to the Republicans, if you don't want the sequester, then you must agree to a package that includes some revenue increases. And most Republicans respond that while they agree with Democrats that the sequester cuts are terrible, any kind of revenue increase, even by closing tax loopholes or eliminating deductions, would be worse. Neither wants to give in to the other side's demands.

In that way, the choice facing Congress is lot like the prisoners' dilemma. The prisoners' dilemma goes something like this: the police separately approach two prisoners who are accused of committing a crime together and give each the following choice: you can give evidence against your alleged co-conspirator (defect) and go free, or you can stay silent (cooperate), but if your partner gives evidence against you, you will get a twenty year sentence. If both parties cooperate and stay silent, however, the police only have enough evidence to convict both of a lesser crime, so both will serve a one year sentence. If both defect, both get put away for five years. Here's a depiction of this typical example of the problem:



Obviously, it is best for both prisoners to cooperate and receive the second best outcome, but how can each one learn to trust the other? The temptation is powerful to hope the other party will trust you while you rat him out and go free. And that's why parties in early stages of negotiation, before they learn to trust each other, will usually end up with the second worst outcome. The "rational" choice, when each party is thinking only of his own selfish interests, is for both to come to the conclusion that they should rat out their partner, in the hope of going free, but at worst getting 5 years instead of 20. The best choice, on the other hand, is not the same as the rational choice. The best choice requires trust and cooperation, and gives both conspirators a minimal one year sentence.  

Can Democrats and Republicans, through a process of trust and cooperation, come up with a better alternative than the sequester? Of course they can, but that alternative must involve some pain for each side. The only alternative to the sequester is a negotiated resolution, in which both sides have to accept a bit of something unpleasant for each that the other side wants. Otherwise they are surely headed for getting a lot of what both sides don't want.

It is rare for Congress to design its own prison, but that appears to be what they have done in this case. It probably seemed to make sense at the time to design a process in which an acceptable outcome could be reached by a process of trust and negotiation. But as in most prisoner's dilemma negotiations conducted by people who do not trust and do not want to cooperate with each other, we are instead likely headed for a pretty bad outcome.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Chicken

Once upon a time (actually it was on August 2, 2011, the date Congress passed something called the Budget Control Act of 2011) Congress agreed that they had to do something to reduce budget deficits over the next ten years. Pretty much everyone agreed to that, even Democrats. What they could not agree upon, however, was how to do it. So Congress devised this horrible thing called the sequester, which was a package of automatic spending cuts, half to Defense and half to domestic spending, that were originally supposed to take effect on January 1, 2013. The important thing to understand about the sequester is that it was deliberately designed to be something that almost nobody wanted. The whole, entire idea of the sequester was to force Congress to enact some kind of sensible deficit-reducing plan, because if they failed to do so, the horrible sequester that nobody wanted would take effect.

So Congress created the so-called super-committee to come up with something better. Guess what? They couldn't agree on anything.

So then Congress decided to just wait until after the 2012 election, which both parties thought might increase their leverage. The Republicans lost, and Congress somehow managed to fix all the other horrible things that were supposed to happen on January 1, but guess what? They still can't agree on how to avoid the dreaded sequester. All they could do was agree to extend the deadline to March 1, 2013.

Because nobody wants this ugly sequester, it has become a popular sport of late to blame others for creating it. John Boehner for some reason thinks it's very important right now to blame President Obama for creating the sequester. This is a big talking point of his right now. But take a look at who voted for the Budget Control Act. In the House, 174 House Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it. 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it. In other words, Democrats were split down the middle on the sequester. Republicans were for it three to one. And the public believes, by a fairly substantial margin, that if the sequester happens, it will be mostly the Republicans' fault.

Another Republican tactic represents further revisionist history. That is to say that since President Obama got some tax hikes to avoid the fiscal cliff, but no spending cuts, that now the only way to avoid the sequester must be to make only cuts, no revenues. But those tax hikes were coming anyway, when the Bush tax cuts expired, and the fact is that most of the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue. The sequester, on the other hand, was always designed as a package of spending cuts that nobody wanted, to force a different deficit-reducing package that both parties would have to agree on. And Democrats have always maintained that that package had to include a balance of revenue and cuts.

And so the latest tactic of the Republicans is now to say, hey, maybe the dreaded sequester won't be so bad after all. And if it is bad, we'll just blame the Democrats for it. I guess they are counting on people having a short memory. Maybe people will forget that a majority (mostly Republicans) in Congress voted for the Budget Control Act, and that the whole point of the Budget Control Act was to create a doomsday device that would force the parties to agree on something better.

I was thinking of writing a sophisticated analysis of these negotiations, as I tried to do with the fiscal cliff negotiations, but it's just impossible. There is nothing sophisticated about this at all. It is about as sophisticated as a game of chicken. It is about as sophisticated as a child screaming that if he doesn't get his way, he will take his ball and bat and go home and nobody will get to play.

still from Rebel Without a Cause

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Voting

The Hagel nomination fight stands as a good symbol for the position of the opposition party right now. The Republicans don't have the votes to prevent the nomination; they don't really have any coherent grounds for opposing the nomination; they don't have an alternative plan to suggest. All they have is the ability to delay the nomination for a couple of weeks by preventing a vote from taking place.

It seems that since the November election, when President Obama won a solid victory, and Democrats picked up seats in both the House and the Senate, everybody has learned to count. The Republicans can no longer make the argument that the majority doesn't support the president's policies. They realize they need to broaden their party's appeal. In the meantime, since they don't have the votes to advance their own agenda, all they can do is pout and delay.

Feeling confident after the November election, it's no wonder that all the Democrats want to talk about is allowing Congress to vote on their policies. Voting was a major theme of President Obama's State of the Union speech, from the emotional appeal of repeating the line about victims of gun violence deserving a vote on gun control legislation, to his reminder of the long lines many voters suffered in November when they tried to vote.

Put to an up or down vote, the Hagel nomination will pass. Immigration reform will pass. Some new gun control legislation will probably pass. A better deficit reduction plan than the looming sequester might even pass. And the Republican strategy of delay and obstruction might at some point have to give way to a better strategy of trying to cobble together some alternative policies that might have a chance of attracting the support of a majority. Because making fun of a 102 year old woman who had to wait in line for hours to cast her ballot is not a viable strategy.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

State of the Union

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow citizens:
Fifty-one years ago, John F Kennedy declared to this chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress.” “It is my task,” he said, “to report the State of the Union -- to improve it is the task of us all.”
Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in 20. Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.
So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the State of our Union is stronger.
But we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs -- but too many people still can’t find full-time employment. Corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs -- but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.
It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class.
It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country -- the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like, or who you love.
It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.
The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem. They don’t expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue. But they do expect us to put the nation’s interests before party. They do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. For they know that America moves forward only when we do so together, and that the responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all.
Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget -- decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery.
Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion -- mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.
Now we need to finish the job. And the question is, how?
In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, and energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as the sequester, are a really bad idea.
Now, some in Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training, Medicare and Social Security benefits. That idea is even worse.
Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms -- otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.
But we can’t ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful. We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers and more cops and more firefighters. Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that’s the approach I offer tonight.
On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.

Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs. And the reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital; they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep -- but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.
To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and the well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? Why is it that deficit reduction is a big emergency justifying making cuts in Social Security benefits but not closing some loopholes? How does that promote growth?
Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. We can get this done. The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring -- a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t work the system and pay a lower rate than their hardworking secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas, and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America. That’s what tax reform can deliver. That’s what we can do together.
I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let’s set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. We can't do it.
Let’s agree right here, right now to keep the people’s government open, and pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.
Now, most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of our agenda. But let’s be clear, deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs -- that must be the North Star that guides our efforts. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills they need to get those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?
A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than 1 million new jobs. And I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda. I urge this Congress to pass the rest. But tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat -- nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth. That's what we should be looking for.
Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.
There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns.
So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Department of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. And I ask this Congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America. We can get that done.
Now, if we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas. Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy -- every dollar. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s. They’re developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries 10 times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race. We need to make those investments.
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy.
After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods -- all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science -- and act before it’s too late.
Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.
Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. And we’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year -- let’s drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all in on clean energy, so must we.
Now, in the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. And that’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. That’s got to be part of an all-of-the-above plan. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and our water.
In fact, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.
I’m also issuing a new goal for America: Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years. We'll work with the states to do it. Those states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make that happen.
America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire -- a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and Internet; high-tech schools, self-healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America -- a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina -- said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs. And that’s the attitude of a lot of companies all around the world. And I know you want these job-creating projects in your district. I’ve seen all those ribbon-cuttings.
So tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there’s no better place to do business than here in the United States of America, and let’s start right away. We can get this done.
And part of our rebuilding effort must also involve our housing sector. The good news is our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years. Home purchases are up nearly 50 percent, and construction is expanding again.
But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected. Too many families who never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no. That’s holding our entire economy back. We need to fix it.
Right now, there’s a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today’s rates. Democrats and Republicans have supported it before, so what are we waiting for? Take a vote, and send me that bill. Why would we be against that? Why would that be a partisan issue, helping folks refinance? Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What’s holding us back? Let’s streamline the process, and help our economy grow.
These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing -- all these things will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs.
And that has to start at the earliest possible age. Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for a private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. So tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America. That's something we should be able to do.
Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own. We know this works. So let’s do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.
Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges. So those German kids, they're ready for a job when they graduate high school. They've been trained for the jobs that are there. Now at schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools and City University of New York and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate's degree in computers or engineering.
We need to give every American student opportunities like this.

And four years ago, we started Race to the Top -- a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, all for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. And we’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering and math -- the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill the jobs that are there right now and will be there in the future.
Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education. It’s a simple fact the more education you’ve got, the more likely you are to have a good job and work your way into the middle class. But today, skyrocketing costs price too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt.
Through tax credits, grants and better loans, we’ve made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years. But taxpayers can’t keep on subsidizing higher and higher and higher costs for higher education. Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure that they do.
So tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid.And tomorrow, my administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria -- where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.
Now, to grow our middle class, our citizens have to have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require. But we also have to make sure that America remains a place where everyone who’s willing to work -- everybody who’s willing to work hard has the chance to get ahead.
Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities -- they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to get it done. Now is the time to get it done.
Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made -- putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.
And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.
In other words, we know what needs to be done. And as we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts. So let’s get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away. And America will be better for it. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.
But we can’t stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, our mothers, our daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. And I now urge the House to do the same. Good job, Joe. And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.
We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.
Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.We should be able to get that done.
This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year -- let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.
Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that’s why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.
Let’s offer incentives to companies that hire Americans who’ve got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance anymore. Let’s put people back to work rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods. And this year, my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. We’ll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety, and education, and housing.
We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest. And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and do more to encourage fatherhood -- because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one. And we want to encourage that. We want to help that
Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home. It’s also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world.
Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda.
Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue and by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.
Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We're negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions -- training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.
Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. It's true, different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged -- from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad or occupy other nations. Instead, we'll need to help countries like Yemen, and Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.
Now, as we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That's why my administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism efforts. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way. So in the months ahead, I will continue to engage Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.
Of course, our challenges don’t end with al Qaeda. America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. The regime in North Korea must know they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations. Provocations of the sort we saw last night will only further isolate them, as we stand by our allies, strengthen our own missile defense and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats.
Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon
At the same time, we’ll engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals, and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands -- because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead and meet our obligations.
America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber-attacks. Now, we know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private emails. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems. We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy.
And that’s why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.
But now Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks. This is something we should be able to get done on a bipartisan basis.
Now, even as we protect our people, we should remember that today’s world presents not just dangers, not just threats, it presents opportunities. To boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. And tonight, I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union -- because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.
We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all -- not only because it creates new markets, more stable order in certain regions of the world, but also because it’s the right thing to do. In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades by connecting more people to the global economy; by empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve, and helping communities to feed, and power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation, which is within our reach.
You see, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change. I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon, in Burma, when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States. I want our country to be like that.”
In defense of freedom, we’ll remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa; from Europe to Asia. In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy.
We know the process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt, but we can -- and will -- insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people. We’ll keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian. And we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security and a lasting peace.
These are the messages I'll deliver when I travel to the Middle East next month. And all this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk –- our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military the world has ever known.
We'll invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending. We will ensure equal treatment for all servicemembers, and equal benefits for their families -- gay and straight. We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters and moms, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat.
We will keep faith with our veterans, investing in world-class care, including mental health care, for our wounded warriors -- (applause) -- supporting our military families; giving our veterans the benefits and education and job opportunities that they have earned. And I want to thank my wife, Michelle, and Dr. Jill Biden for their continued dedication to serving our military families as well as they have served us. Thank you, honey. Thank you, Jill.
Defending our freedom, though, is not just the job of our military alone. We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes one of the most fundamental right of a democracy: the right to vote. When any American, no matter where they live or what their party, are denied that right because they can’t afford to wait for five or six or seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.
So tonight, I’m announcing a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And it definitely needs improvement. I’m asking two long-time experts in the field -- who, by the way, recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign -- to lead it. We can fix this, and we will. The American people demand it, and so does our democracy.
Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource: our children. It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans -- Americans who believe in the Second Amendment -- have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.
Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. Now, if you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun -- more than a thousand.
One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.
Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. They deserve a vote. Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote.The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence –- they deserve a simple vote. They deserve a simple vote.
Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.
We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example.
We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn’t thinking about how her own home was faring. Her mind was on the 20 precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.
We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her -- because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read, “I voted.
We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the Americans worshiping inside, even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds. And when asked how he did that, Brian said, “That’s just the way we’re made.”
That’s just the way we’re made. We may do different jobs and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title -- we are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations, that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter of our American story.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.

(video here)

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Sally Jewell

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Minneapolis

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Reducing violence

Either we are experiencing an unusual period of violence, or the media is paying more attention to the daily cycle of shootings all across America than they usually do. I suspect the latter. The Huffington Post, for example featured stories and pictures of all the gun victims just since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre a month-and-a-half ago. The shocking total in that short time period: 1280.  But if the U.S. suffers about 30,000 gun deaths per year, a death toll of 1280 since Newtown is actually a lot less than usual. Even so, a shocking statistic. What the media is doing is reminding us that we live with a grim, normal reality in this country of a large number of gun fatalities. So many that we usually don't pay much attention, any more than we notice the daily carnage of traffic fatalities. But since Newtown we are paying attention.

The story that got to me and some of my mediator friends was the disturbing incident out of Phoenix this Wednesday, the same day that Arizona residents Gabby Giffords and her husband were testifying in Congress in support of gun control. The shooting took place after a mediation session, set up to try to resolve an ordinary contract dispute of the kind mediators see every day, between a furniture mover/refurbisher and a dissatisfied customer. The amount in dispute might have been less than $20,000.  Reports are that the furniture guy, representing himself, attended the mediation for an hour, and then said he had to get something from his car. What he got was his gun, and then he lay in wait outside the building for the opposing party and his counsel to come out whereupon he shot them both.

Google maps photo
People naturally wonder. Could this incident have been prevented? Do mediators and participants need to take more precautions to protect themselves? Is mediation dangerous? We deal with angry and emotional people all the time in mediation, and sometimes we stir those emotions up. Should we be doing something differently to prevent violence? I hesitate to jump to the conclusion that mediators need to provide better security. First of all, it doesn't appear that better security would have prevented an incident like this one. This guy was waiting outdoors in the parking lot. Metal detectors and even security guards probably wouldn't have stopped him.

The thing that is more likely to prevent violent incidents like this one is mediation itself: The whole purpose of mediation is to teach people how to resolve their conflicts without violence, and even without litigation (a form of non-physical violence) Mediators should recognize, however, that we're not going to be successful in creating peace in every case, and that we do this kind of work at some personal risk, and at some risk to the parties to the mediation. That's what peacemakers are supposed to do.

We need to do even more than that to deal with the culture of violence in this country. I would be in favor of teaching kids as early as elementary school some basic conflict resolution techniques, techniques that might prevent some disputes from turning into fistfights, and when the kids grow up, into knife fights or gun fights.

Sadly, a lot of the gun control debate going on right now seems to be missing the point. Not too many people are following the rules I laid down in December for having a constructive debate on this topic! And I don't see much discussion about training people to resolve their differences peacefully. The only talk about reducing the culture of violence seems to revolve around censoring video games and violent movies and television, a perennial debate that never seems to go anywhere. Both sides in the gun control debate mostly seem to be doing a good job of antagonizing each other,  just another way to perpetuate a culture of destructive conflict. Gun control advocates threaten to take people's guns away, which only provokes the gun aficionados into calling for armed guards and stocking up on even more weapons.

We need to de-escalate this conflict. We don't need to engage in a destructive debate that only exacerbates the cycle of violent conflict that is so familiar. We can start to de-escalate by reassuring gun owners that nobody is taking away their legitimate rights. We can look for common ground on issues like expanded background checks and stricter licensing requirements. And we can pay some attention to techniques of resolving conflict without violence. Mediation, anyone?