A New Jersey Farmer Blog: Where Democracy Lives

Mitt Nicks Rick In Mich Mish-Mosh: Four Head to O-HI-O!

2012-02-29T05:54:00.001-05:00

Mitt May Win Right To Lose Michigan in the Fall!
Democrats, Pro-Vomit Vote Not Enough For Santorum!
Arizona Goes Romney! Border Remains Calm!

Mitt Romney did almost enough to dispel any lingering doubts that he will be the Republican Party's nominee for president by defeating Rick Santorum in the all-important Michigan primary yesterday. Romney crossed the 40% threshold but failed to defeat his chief rival by more than 10%, which would have ended any debate about Romney's being the GOP standard-bearer. Still, a win is a win, and now the field moves on to Super Tuesday where there is now even a doubt that Newt can win his home state of Georgia.

How did I do with my predictions? Let's check.

For Arizona:
                     Prediction                Actual
Romney          43%                         47.3%
Santorum        30%                         26.6%
Gingrich          18%                         16.2%
Paul                  8%                           8.4%

For Michigan:

Romney          39%      41.1%
Santorum        37%                          37.9%
Paul                12%                          11.6%
Gingrich          10%                           6.5%

All told, not too bad.

So now it's on to Tuesday Grande, where the big prize will be Ohio and the attack ads will come fast and furious. It's difficult to fathom what else Mitt and Rick could say that could be any more outrageous than their embarrassing forays into trees, bodily functions, automobile choices, anti-intellectual diatribes and invocations of Satan/Obama (really, have you ever seen them in the same room together?) Interesting.

For more, please visit www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Polling Report: Special Michigan and Arizona Edition

2012-02-28T06:06:00.000-05:00

This week's report begins with a question:

What would you call a candidate who LOST the following primaries: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida and Michigan?

How about, Mr. President.

That's right. Candidate Barack Obama lost every one of those primaries, and more, in 2008 yet won the nomination. That's why I'm not getting agitated over the latest results of the Republican race. As I've said over and over and over and over, Mitt Romney will be the GOP's nominee in 2012 even if he loses some big states. Granted, Michigan is different for Mitt; he's claiming pseudo-residency in the state and has set it up as a make-or-break contest. Obama at least won his home state, Illinois, so the comparison isn't perfect. But still, the national media's focus on whether Rick Santorum can win the nomination is a moot point. He can't, and he won't. To further muddy the picture, though, I will say that if he does manage to win it, the GOP will have committed hari-kiri.

The past three weeks have seen some extraordinary developments in the Republican Presidential Primaries. Rick Santorum caught fire (and brimstone) as the new, and probably final, conservative darling in the race. Romney made a few gaffes that have certainly hurt him, playing to a near-empty Ford's Field and citing his wife's two Cadillacs to name the main ones. What does it all add up to? A contested race that will probably drag on into the spring and even give Newt a chance to win his home state of Georgia.

On to the predictions.

First, in Arizona, the latest polls show that Mitt will win rather handily mainly because Santorum and Gingrich have pretty much conceded him the state. Arizona has a large Mormon population that will easily beat back the large Tea Party contingent at the polls (assuming that the Partiers can rush back from guarding the Mexican border in time to cast votes). Still, I think that Romney will need to win over 40% of the vote to make it convincing. Thusly:

Romney          43%
Santorum        30%
Gingrich          18%
Paul                 8%

In Michigan, things get complicated. In my view, Romney will need to win over 40% of the vote AND win by 10+ points to make a convincing statement. The polls aren't showing that, but if enough voters decide at the last minute that Santorum would be a sure loser in November, it could happen. I don't see it.

What is more likely to happen is that Mitt wins, but by 3 points or fewer and gets below 40%. In that case, Santorum can claim a win-by-losing argument because Romney keeps saying that this is one of his home states (even though most voters don't see the connection). The conservatives will have made their point and Santorum can then move on to Ohio and perhaps win that primary. He can also assume he'll win Pennsylvania, which would greatly complicate Mitt's message about electability.

Prediction:

Romney       39%
Santorum     37%
Paul             12%
Gingrich       10%

The race moves on to Super Tuesday. The national press will continue to talk about a brokered convention, which will not happen. Romney will eventually be the nominee. Or have I said that already.

For more, please visit www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Teachers, Taxes, Tying the Knot: Christie Throws the 2016 Dice

2012-02-24T07:34:00.000-05:00

What's the modern governor to do? You're a star on the national media circuit, you're doing your best attack dog act for Mitt Romney, and you want to be the Republican nominee for President in 2016 (because deep down you know that Romney's a loser). You've outwitted those pesky Democrats, especially Steve Sweeney (as New Jersey's own Cliff Barnes) and you need some winning issues.

Eureka! Marriage equality, tax cuts, and the New Jersey Education Association.

The veto of the marriage equality bill was nothing more than a sop to the right wing for 2016. Even Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein acknowledged that, after Christie's action, when he said:

That doesn't obviate the pain of the Governor's veto. Because I do know him, I also know he is not some anti-LGBT nut. He is no Rick Santorum. Frankly, I don't think Chris Christie has an anti-gay bone in his body, however much I cannot say the same about his impending veto. His veto will be a brutally anti-gay act, pure and simple.

So if he's not anti-gay, why else would he veto a bill that has the support of the people through their representatives (because we do live in a republic, you know)? And why else would he call for a referendum, even though the people have spoken through their representatives (there's that pesky republic thing again. You'd think a Republican would acknowledge that)? As for his promise to appoint an ombudsman to make sure that gay couples who've had a civil union get equal protection, why would a small government conservative want to add another layer of bureaucracy? And if hospitals and government officials won't recognize civil unions, would they tremble at the thought of an ombudsman (ombudsperson)? I think not.

Likewise, the 10% tax cut that the governor proposed in his budget is also chum for the right wing sharks. I'm sure Christie saw what happened when Rick Santorum admitted voting for the No Child Left Behind Act in Wednesday's GOP debate and the continued flaying of Mitt Romney, whose health care plan had the audacity to cover uninsured people in Massachusetts who, get this!, wanted to see doctors and get healthy (snort. Sorry).

Desperate to avoid those catastrophes, the governor wants to bestow between $80.50 ($50,000 income) and $275 ($100,000 income) dollars after three years on New Jersey's beleaguered taxpayers as a reward for voting for him. Never mind that most New Jerseyans want a cut in their property taxes. That would be too expensive. But the governor does have an ally in ignorance, as most of those polled expected their tax cut to be around $746. By the time they figure out the ruse, Christie will be in Iowa.

When all else fails, though, the governor can always cart out the NJEA, accuse it of some heinous misdeed and convince a few people that the suburban school they send their child to would be much better if teachers had their pay and benefits cut and their job security determined by whether their child had eaten a good breakfast so they perform well on the standardized test.

The diversion this time was Christie's response to the remark made by NJEA Executive Director Vince Giordano and the aftermath, which included GOP-backed operatives staking out NJEA headquarters with cameras, hoping to find Giordano making some rich person-type gaffe.

The real issue, which will bubble to the top this spring, is how to evaluate teachers. Christie refuses to involve educators in this discussion and says that he wants merit pay, an end to negotiated sick day rules and expanded power for principals to determine which teachers keep their jobs and which do not.

Never mind that expanded standardized testing will destroy the collegial, creative character of public schools.

Never mind that testing will overwhelm the curriculum and be an end unto itself as technology makes it easier to administer these exams.

Never mind that merit pay as both a motivator and evaluation outcome can be summed up in three distinct words: It doesn't work.

Never mind that giving principals the power to hire and fire with little oversight, even from superintendents, is one of the worst ideas to come sauntering down the pike since Wall Street developed securities based on unsustainable mortgages.

Ask any 10 teachers if this is a good idea. They'll only answer you under two conditions: they already have tenure AND they're 100% sure that this proposal will go nowhere. Otherwise, don't be offended by their silence or the tight smile and the "doesn't matter to me" lie they'll tell you.

What can we gather from Christie's actions over the past few months? That the road to 2016 does indeed run through Trenton, and the reason he's started so early is that there's always traffic or an accident or potholes to slow down even the most determined driver. This governor, though, will not be deterred. He's laid out an agenda sure to please enough conservatives that he's safe to nominate four years from now.

Meanwhile, New Jersey's citizens will continue to have high property taxes, its teachers will be guinea pigs in an experiment based on faulty data and the whims of administrators, and an entire class of people will be denied equality and civil rights.

The payout is between $80 and $275 dollars. The cost is enormous.

For more, please visit www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Love Is Natural, Hatred Is Learned

2012-02-23T10:27:00.000-05:00

Two alcoholic heterosexuals get married. They produce a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. This marriage has the blessings of both state and church. Two men or two women who want to marry each other, who are upstanding members of their communities and have adopted and raised productive children, are prohibited in most states and allowed civil unions, which are inferior to marriage in fact and in law, in a few.

This is equality under the law?

Marriage equality will be the law of the land sometime in the future but, for most gays and lesbians, justice delayed is justice denied. How can this be? How can a country that promises freedom and civil rights for all of its citizens continue to deny basic rights to a sizable group?

Opponents say that being gay is unnatural and that there's something inherently wrong with loving someone of the same gender. That's exactly wrong. Love is one of the most natural processes humans have. You don't even have to think about it. It just happens from the time we're born and lasts throughout our life.

Hatred and discrimination, on the other hand, are unnatural. We need to remember that people are not born anti-gay. Discrimination and hatred are learned behaviors and most children learn them from the very adults who claim to be fair, just and responsible. And why are these adults anti-gay? Some are frightened or threatened or jealous or ignorant or all of the above. Some use a rigid cultural definition of what constitutes a family. Some are offended by how other people show their love. Some use a deity as a weapon to threaten and marginalize.

The religious argument strikes me as utter hypocrisy. How can we love the sinner but hate the sin? Isn't that attitude responsible for sanctioned discrimination and actions against homosexuals? The same goes for the social argument that the right wing peddles. How can the party that lives on freedom and keeping the government out of our lives continue to preach that government should deny marriage equality? Both groups have made the claim that allowing gays to marry would damage heterosexual marriage. In fact, the opposite is true. Marriage has been shown to make families more stable and productive, strengthens commitments to social values, and provides for economic expansion as people make purchases for different stages of life. Gender preference has nothing to do with how we love our family members or how firmly we commit to them.

The more compelling democratic argument is that every adult should be able to marry the person they love, adopt children and be protected by all laws and rights that all other adults have, including economic rights and privileges. A federal court decision on Wednesday used an employment benefits case to determine that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White was unambiguous in its defense of liberty and equality:

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'" White wrote. "Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law....The 'ancient lineage” of a classification does not render it legitimate....Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself."

On February 7th, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

“Proposition 8 (which denied homosexuals the right to marry) served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

These courts have it exactly right. Denying citizens their full rights because of who they love is utter nonsense. The history of the United States shows us to be a country of inclusive rights. To have candidates for the highest office in the land proudly proclaim their preference for discrimination, hatred and disdain is obnoxious, offensive and backwards. Marriage equality is on its way. Let's make it sooner rather than later.

For more commitments to equality and democracy, visit www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives
and Twitter @rigrundfest

Get The Hell Off The Beach: The GOP Tsunami Heads Towards Shore

2012-02-19T11:19:00.000-05:00

Last week I wrote that the conservative movement would crash this year because of internal disagreements and the inability of one candidate to unify the Republican Party's fractious components.

Then I waited to see what the next few days would bring. They were uglier than I could have imagined.

Mitt Romney came out against the rescue of GM, even though the auto giant reported record profits and a sustained increase in hiring. Not to be outdone, Rick Santorum expressed the same sentiments, which makes Romney's stance even more vexing because Mitt's supposed to be the business savvy candidate with a keen eye for profits and efficiency. That they both agree with each other shows just how out of touch the GOP is. What sense does it make to oppose a policy that saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, revived the tax base of scores of towns, and forestalled what might have been an even worse mortgage and foreclosure crisis in Michigan and Ohio, among other states? Being anti-Obama is one thing. Being pro-ignorant of consequences is quite another.

On the contraception front, both men made sure that they offended a wide swath of the electorate, starting with Santorum backer Foster Friess's comments about gals using aspirin between their knees as a reliable form of birth control. We also found out that Santorum views contraception as harmful to women. The uproar was so great over this issue that Mitt Romney was forced to veer away from his economic message and attack President Obama as waging a war on religion. As it turns out, the Republicans are waging a war on reason as poll after poll showed that most Americans and most Catholics supported the president's policy.

I understand the religious objection and think that the Obama administration could have managed the issue more delicately than they did, but in catering to the most base of their base with appeals to hatred, war, and sexism, Romney and Santorum showed that the far right demands absolute fealty to their cause. Discussion and debate is not an option.

Marriage equality was also in the news this week and the GOP was on the wrong end of that debate as well. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie vetoed a legislature-backed bill to grant equality under the law to all citizens and called for a referendum on a constitutional right. His veto will be overturned by the deadline in 2014. Bank on it. In Maryland, the marriage equality bill will be signed by the Governor, but will probably be on the ballot this November. Opposition by African-American churches make passage difficult to gauge. Washington State also saw a bill pass, but opponents have vowed to delay or stop it.

The short term prospects for these bills might be cloudy, but the sun will shine on marriage equality simply because it's the right thing to do and the demographics support eventual passage of these laws in a number of states. Younger people support marriage equality (even Republicans) in far greater numbers than their older counterparts, a trend that began last year. Since death of the older generation is inevitable, so is marriage equality.

And there's more. Santorum also questioned the President's religious beliefs and Romney has had to protect his right flank against accusations that he's not conservative enough. With the economy beginning to grow the GOP has to bank on things getting worse. Their new line of attack is high gas prices. Wasn't that George Bush's fault in 2008? No? Then how can it be Obama's in 2012? Anybody hear of supply and demand? Anybody?

It seems as though the Republican candidates we have this year will be the ones remembered for the "Fall of Rome" for their party. They are too extreme, too conservative and on the wrong side of the generational issues. They talk about progress while making sure that we regress into a less tolerant past that they've convinced themselves was rosy. It's one that blamed women who were sexually active and slammed the closet door on gays and lesbians. It was intolerant of those who decided they didn't want to be religious. We're not going back to that time.

We're moving forward.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

The Conservative Wave Is Cresting: Next Comes the Crash

2012-02-13T05:51:00.000-05:00

If you listen carefully, you can hear it gathering momentum, foam, vitriol, recrimination and self-serving hypocrisy. It's the conservative wave roaring towards the beach, cresting and ready to crash. The 2012 election will be the beginning of the end for the far-right conservatives and, like the liberals who didn't see their wave tumble in 1984, will likely lead to an even uglier aftermath. Republicans are angry now: Imagine what will happen if they lose another presidential election this year (and they will), especially if they're able to hold on to the House and take back the Senate. So close, yet so far.

The conservative Republican era that began in 1980 and tilted the country to the right had a good run if you supported the cause, but it was never able to achieve its stated goals of severely scaling back government, ending the New Deal and Great Society programs, overturning Roe v. Wade, and ending the progressive tax structure (though they've come pretty close with this one). They built up the military and got a Democratic president to end welfare, passed a too-expensive Medicare prescription plan and raised taxes enough to begin to pay off the deficit, though that cost George H. W. Bush his reelection.

The era lasted because Ronald Reagan and both Bushes were able to tame the party's conflicting passions. Reagan galvanized the economic old guard GOP while paying lip service to the religious conservatives led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Reagan was never a religious person but he talked the talk well enough to keep the support of Christian conservatives, and really, where else were they going to go? That he was able to raise taxes, reform Social Security and work with liberal Democrats speaks to his political skills. The Bushes had a mixed record with the party's disparate groups. George H.W. inherited Reagan's mantle, but he was considered suspect on abortion. W. was more conservative, but still did not fight all that hard for the religious agenda.

Of course, the damage that all three presidents did with their hostility to government, marginalization of gays and women, and their Supreme Court choices will endure for many years.

The more recent history of the movement shows most conclusively that it is indeed on its wheezing last breath. The public still sees the Republican Party as the architect of the economic disaster of 2008, and as the economy improves President Obama will get the lion's share of the rewards. More people support marriage equality than oppose it and the recent flap over contraception shows that the GOP is out of touch with the way that most Americans, especially women, view both the birth control and religious issues.

That brings us to why this is the beginning of the end.

The far right wing of the Republican Party is driving the party's agenda and there's not one candidate who's shown they can corral the competing factions. Conservative reaction to Mitt Romney ranges from suspect to hostile and none of the other candidates can claim the right's support. Yet. That might change as Rick Santorum showed in winning three non-binding primaries this week.

If anything, the nomination battle has proven that the movement has splintered along economic, social and religious lines. Many of the proposals we've heard are meant to appeal to the far fringe Tea Party wing of the party (Ron Paul) or to the religious conservatives (Santorum and Gingrich). Romney's attempts to appeal to the center while throwing the right some scraps on abortion and taxes have so far fallen short of gaining wide acceptance. None of the candidates would take the deal that offered $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases. Some in the party still question President Obama's citizenship and religion, and the candidates accuse him of the most outlandish things: anti-religion, creating a communist state, forsaking Israel, and wanting Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

It's an extreme agenda to say the least, and it will lead to the GOP's crash. History shows that when you lose the middle of your constituency, you lose your mandate to govern. The Republican Party is on that path.

My sense is that this will all be exposed during the general election campaign and, combined with an improving economy, will result in Obama's reelection. The 2010 Congressional elections resulted in redistricting that solidified the Republican's majorities in the House, though Tea Party seats are certainly up for grabs in many districts, and the Democrats have to defend too many Senate seats to count on continued control of that chamber. Conservatives will still hold sway on many issues, but the wave is over. The United States won't become more liberal, but it will become less conservative and less extreme. Most Republicans probably don't see this trend coming, and it's already too late to stop it.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Hypochristie

2012-02-09T00:26:00.001-05:00

As a politician, we always assumed that Chris Christie had to have some hypocrisy in his blood. After all, he promised not to touch teacher's pensions when he was running for Governor and we know how that promise turned out. He also said that he would use his prosecutorial skills to ferret out corruption in New Jersey, but that seems to be off the table as well.

Now comes word that the Governor is four-square behind a referendum on marriage equality in the state, but dead set against citizens voting on whether they want charter schools in their districts. Bob Braun's article this week highlights Christie's double vision, and an equal dose of doublespeak on the legislature's part, with a sharp razor's edge:

The contradiction — hypocrisy? — was set up nicely the other day when Assembly committees acted on the two issues. The Assembly Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, released a gay marriage bill; the Assembly Education Committee, also on a party-line vote, approved a bill allowing local voters to decide whether they want to pay for charter schools in their communities.

In the Judiciary Committee, the Republicans were for referendum and the Democrats were not. In the Education Committee, the opposite was true.

While the panels were meeting, Christie was at a town hall meeting and he repeated his insistence that same-sex marriage go to a referendum. "The fact is, they don’t trust the people of New Jersey to decide," he said.

He made the comment at a charter school — and the governor has repeatedly said he would veto any bill allowing referendums on charter schools.

Nicely done, Bob.

But it doesn't stop there. Christie the unalloyed conservative is now trying to recast himself as something of a moderate, figuring, correctly in my view, that the conservative movement will see a massive flame-out this year and recede from the Republican Party leading up to the 2016 election (assuming that Mitt Romney loses in November. Which he will.). This piece by Charles Stile has all the details. By calling for a referendum on marriage equality, Christie doesn't have to veto a bill that would alienate gays. By signing a 10% income tax cut, he can play to the economic conservatives without bankrupting the state. And he can blame the Democratic majority if the plan is shelved.

How is this working out? Not bad according to this poll, but there are problems. Almost half of the respondents think Christie is concerning himself too much with his own political future, so he'll have to run softer and maybe give up the dream of becoming Vice-President under Romney.

And just yesterday, the good guv'nor picked another fight with the New Jersey Education Association over comments NJEA Executive Director Vince Giordano made over the effects of school vouchers on urban public schools. Said Christie:

"As Vince drives out of the palace on State Street in his big luxury car and his $500,000 salary, I'm sure life's really fair for him and if Vince's kids were in a failing school district he could afford to send them to any school in New Jersey that could help them succeed."

Never mind that NJEA headquarters is hardly a palace or what Giordano's salary is. Christie and his family are plenty wealthy, live in a fairly exclusive suburb, and the Governor sends his children to one of the priciest private schools in the state. There's something seriously wrong with calling out someone whose work supports the very teachers that Christie has been vilifying for his entire, um, tenure, in office.

As for the real issue, the evidence shows that both vouchers and charters are not the panacea he claims, but both do take public money out of the school systems that Christie blames for not meeting students' and parents' needs. He's robbing the system, then blaming it for being ineffective.

That's Hypochristie

For more, go to: www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

The Campfire After Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri: Santorum Sweeps! Mitt to be Nominee!

2012-02-08T06:05:00.002-05:00

And the headlines will be breathless. Rick Santorum hit the trifecta last night winning all three states and setting himself up as the chief conservative challenger to Mitt Romney. Which is like being the first raccoon to cross the Interstate before the semi barrels by going 80 mph, good buddy.

Never mind that no delegates were at stake in any of the states. It's all symbolic for the conservatives as they attempt to pull Romney so far to the right that he'll have to lean just to stand up straight.

In the end, it won't matter. Mitt will be the nominee, but he'll be damaged and forced to say even more things that he doesn't believe in order to mollify the conservatives. The Democrats are trying hard to give him an issue over religious groups forced to cover birth control. I would say this was a winning issue, but somehow, Mitch McConnell lecturing the country about religion and the pill is probably the best thing to happen to reproductive rights in a long time.

That sound you just heard? It's just Tim Pawlenty baying at the moon. Move along citizens.

See more at www.facebook.com?WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: Special Mitt-Will-Be-the-Nominee-Edition

2012-02-07T06:15:00.001-05:00

Since I didn't post a Polling Report for Nevada, my public wanted to know if there was a problem, or if I was indeed in good health. All is well. I've just been saying for a while that Mitt will be the nominee in posts both recent and past, and there aren't too many other ways to say it. Well, I did say it in December, but that's the last time I'm going to remind anyone. The upshot is that I will continue to write feverishly about the campaign, but not on a primary-by-primary basis. Unless Mitt gets upset. Which he won't.

So for Nevada, I'm going to invoke the possibly unconstitutional religious-but-maybe-I-don't-have-to-be-religious excuse. Romney won the caucus. 'Nuff said.

As for Tuesday's contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, the tune hasn't changed. I expect that Romney will win two out of three solidly, with a possible loss in Minnesota to Santorum, who is ahead in the latest polls and might be seeing his last bump as the conservative alternative to Gingrich. I'll even go out on a limb and say that Romney will sweep them all. And he'll keep on winning, but maybe not in Georgia because that's Newt's home state, and he'll be the Republican nominee.

Then Barack Obama will beat him like a linty rug in November.

You might not have heard that here first, but I'm sure you've heard the linty rug thing here first.

For more clever metaphors, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Presidential Polling Report: February 6, 2012

2012-02-06T05:50:00.000-05:00

After a month of Republican primaries, the presidential race has come into sharper focus as Mitt Romney seems to have locked down the Republican nomination, and the economy seems to be improving, which is helping President Obama in most public opinion polls. There are nine months to go before the election and probably over a billion dollars in advertisements to be spent by deep-pocketed corporations and wealthy donors. The football season ended last night with a great Giants' win.

Are you ready for the campaign?

Obama Job Approval

The latest RealClearPolitics Index of Obama's approval numbers is here. His approval numbers have dropped slightly from 47.2% to 46.6% but his disapproval numbers also went down from 47.8% to 47.6%. The story, though, is that in every major poll in the index, the President's approval numbers since January 17 are all 46% and above. This is a marked contrast to two and three months ago when his numbers were around 44%.

For those of you who want to delve into the numbers, here's the breakdown for the USA Today/Gallup Poll, and a day-by-day of the Gallup tracking poll. Both links are from PollingReport.com

Head-To-Head Match-ups

We could pretend that since Romney doesn't have the number of delegates to actually claim the GOP nomination, that the nomination is still up for grabs, but really, what's the point? The key polls from this point forward will be between Mitt and Obama. The latest polls are here, and they show Obama with a 2 point overall lead. There's only one poll in the index taken since Romney's quip about not caring about the very poor, and none since the improved jobs numbers were released this past Friday, so I expect Obama to have improved numbers as we move further into February. Romney will also benefit as more Republicans coalesce around his presumed candidacy and Donald Trump keeps his mouth shut.

The Ballots

There have been some changes to the Electoral College map, taking into account new state polling. Iowa and Nevada were subtracted from Obama's column, and New Hampshire was added, then taken away from the GOP's. The new result is that Obama is now leading in states with 217 electoral votes and the Republican is favored in states with 191. Of course, Florida and Ohio are the big prizes. The latest polling in the Buckeye State shows Obama with a 7 point lead. In a bit of surprising good news for Obama, he's tied with Romney in Missouri. Republicans must win this state if they are to have any chance in November. Then again, Obama will need to overcome some steep obstacles on his road to another term.

The Congressional Ballot also shows an improvement for the Democrats, as they lead it by 2.5%.
Whether this means they can take the House in November is a different story. That Republicans have added 10 members to their protection list is cause for Democratic optimism.

If the economy continues to improve, it will be more difficult for Mitt Romney to make the case that the country needs new leadership. Many independent voters who backed Obama in 2008 will never come back to him, and he'll need to lean on smaller margins in the swing states in order to win in November.

Follow all the action at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Sunshine State Recap: Mitt Wins and Loses

2012-02-01T06:03:00.000-05:00

At least it was quick and fairly painless. Not for Newt, but for the rest of us who need to move on to something important like Friday's jobs numbers or the Super Bowl. The bad news was the negative tone of both the debates and the ads that Romney and Gingrich ran.

How'd I do? Again, not bad.

               Prediction       Actual
Romney    43%              46.4%
Gingrich    31%              31.9%
Santorum 14%              13.4%
Paul          11%    7.0%

I thought Paul would do better, but at this point we're beyond the possible phase of the race and have entered the Nomination Zone. Boutique candidates need not apply.

The other issue is this continued talk of the motivated Republican voter. Florida GOP officials had said that they were looking for north of 2 million primary voters, and it looks a s though they fell a bit short. So much for the enthusiasm gap. Democrats are becoming more energized and could match Republican participation in the fall.

Newt says he's staying in the race. We'll see. Will conservatives flock to Santorum as the conservative du jour? I'm thinking not. Mitt is in a commanding position and will be the nominee. The rest of the campaign will measure how much he's been damaged by the infighting and how much that will affect his chances against Obama.

Follow all the action at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: Special Florida Edition

2012-01-31T05:49:00.000-05:00

I thought this one might be more fun, but Mitt's got Florida all sewn up. It will be the first non-New England state he'll have won so far, and if he gets over 40% (he will) he can claim a sizable mandate for the nomination. Newt is sounding too screechy these days, and his call for a moon shot was one of those over-the-top moments we came to expect from Herman Cain or Rick Perry.

Here are the latest RealClearPolitics numbers. Clearly, they show Romney running away with the Sunshine State. He's feeling good, cracking jokes and generally loosening up on the hustings. If he can keep that up, he might actually be able to change the perception many people have of him as a tightly wound button-down candidate. The only other drama I can summon from this race is that perhaps the conservatives will abandon Newt as the conservative standard-bearer in favor of Rick Santorum. That might take time to play out, Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

The prediction:

Romney    43%
Gingrich    31%
Santorum 14%
Paul          11%

Romney gets big headlines, more endorsements and money for his PAC. Gingrich says he's going to stay in the race, but I can see him not making it to Super Tuesday in March. Santorum leapfrogs over Newt into second place as more conservatives see him as the last best forlorn hope. Paul is, well, Paul.

That wailing sound you hear in the distance is Tim Pawlenty.

Look for more at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Mitt To GOP: You Can't Always Want What You Get

2012-01-30T05:52:00.000-05:00

But if you try sometimes, you might find...

Make no mistake about the Florida primary and the race for the Republican nomination. It's Mitt Romney's to have and to hold, 'til November 6 tears it asunder. The press, both virtual and paper-based, will continue to spin out stories showing that Newt still has some time to close the gap, or about how the conservative base will rally around Newt, and if he falters they'll move on to Rick Santorum, or how Mitch Daniels will be recruited to run a write-in or otherwise rogue campaign for those right-wingers with buyer's remorse.

As the famous saying about history goes, it's all bunk.

Romney is pulling a reverse Newt in Florida, coming from 9 points down after South Carolina to now lead by 9 in the latest polls (I'll be writing a Polling Report for Florida on Tuesday morning, but if you want a summary, you just got it).

The key to Romney's rise is the real story both for Florida and for what it bodes in the general election. It was not based on some new policy, or a burst of endorsements (in fact, Florida Governor Rick Scott hasn't endorsed anyone), or new-found respect in the blogosphere. It is based on virulently negative advertising and a debate performance that stressed attacks over substance.

That's it. Romney still has the same problems with his wealth, Bain Capital, his shifting stances on most issues and an inability to convince conservatives that he's one of them. But when he came out swinging last week attacking Gingrich's record, all of a sudden he became a rock star. His poll numbers rose. Newt became angry and lost his debating edge. GOP insiders began to turn on Newt. Which prompted this response saying that the GOP elites don't get it. Which also prompted Sarah Palin to use "Stalin-esque rewriting of history" correctly for grammar's sake, but totally wrong historically. In short, most of his party doesn't want Mitt to be the nominee, and that's a huge problem. They might warm up to him as the year progresses, but that's hardly a recipe for the vaunted Republican enthusiasm machine, which is coughing fumes at the moment.

The Republican Party is at war with itself. It will nominate a moderately conservative former governor who shares some of the right's disdain for common sense with a practicality born of his wealth and place in society. This will drive the hard-rightists crazy for the next 9 months and could fatally damage Mitt in the general election. But if his debate performances will be the bellwether for his campaign, he's rolling some mighty large dice. President Obama will have time to prepare and counter all of Mitt's arguments, and can appear as the steady leader behind an improving economy. Romney will have to be careful not to sound angry.

In the meantime, Newt says he's not going to drop out of the race. That will mean more negative ads and contentious debates. And more damage to the eventual nominee.

join the fun at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

State of the Union

2012-01-25T06:00:00.000-05:00

Let the games begin. President Obama made a forceful, compelling case for a balance of free market and governmental reforms on a wide range of issues, and defended his record on foreign policy and an improving economy. He called out both parties for inaction, and reminded us that one party's class warfare is another's common sense. He also sounded themes that will be part of his reelection campaign, such as tax cuts for businesses and investment in future technologies.

His call for fairness was in all of the previews, and evidently, that's a dirty word among the Republican leadership. Tax fairness? Socialism. Economic fairness? Socialism. Fair access to social institutions, education, and job training? Socialism.

Ahead of the speech, Mitt Romney said of the economy that, "In a normal recovery under strong leadership, it could now be full of workers." The problem is that this isn't a normal recession, it's a Republican-caused recession. And when the GOP screws the economy, the economy doesn't walk right for years. Further, research has suggested that the economy would have been worse off under Republican policies and fewer people would have been employed. Electing either Romney or Gingrich would mean more tax cuts for the wealthy, fewer services, no stimulus and worsening infrastructure throughout the country (except for a very high wall on the Mexican border).

So what exactly is the GOP for? The right to make millions and to pay a lower tax rate because you're not earning wages? Most working and middle class people earn only wages. The right to pay for a better education because you have money? Most working and middle class people can't pay or don't want to go into debt to the tune of $200,000 dollars. The right to health care only if you can pay shockingly high premiums, don't care about preexisting conditions, or don't take your medicine because the doughnut hole would cost you thousands? Running against the health care reform law might be good politics, but repeal would set us back decades.

After months of listening to the radical right bloviate about the threat that gay marriage, financial and health reform, legal and illegal immigrants, and Shariah law presents to our nation, it's about time that we heard some actual policies that make sense and serve the interests of actual citizens. And that's exactly what we heard.

Follow the campaign at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Christie's Tax Cut: Selling Our Souls for $58

2012-01-24T06:11:00.000-05:00

I've already commented on Governor Christie's 10% tax cut proposal, which sounds like a wonderful idea, except that it's not a wonderful idea. As Mark Magyar wrote in Sunday's Newark Star-Ledger, the real problem in New Jersey is high property taxes, not the income tax rate. This comes on the heels of another report which said that New Jersey's property tax rate rose at its lowest rate in 2011, an average of 2.4%.

To get an accurate picture of just how the governor's proposal would affect the average taxpayer and homeowner, let's take a look at both numbers, the income tax cut and the average increase in property taxes, and see what the real effect would be.

According to the Magyar article, a New Jersey taxpayer with an income of $50,000 pays $709 in income taxes. A 10% cut would save them $71 after 3 years. New Jersey's average property tax bill is $7,758. A 2.4% increase would be $186.19. Therefore, the average New Jerseyan would actually lose $115.19 on the transaction.

A taxpayer with a $100,000 income pays $2,446 in income taxes, and would save $244 dollars with the income tax cut. If they have an average tax bill, they would see a savings of $58, given a 2.4% increase. Assuming that someone making $100,000 lives in a town with higher property taxes such as Clinton in Hunterdon ($9558), Hightstown in Mercer ($8345) or Matawan in Monmouth ($8259) their savings would be $15, $44, and $46 respectively with a 2.4% increase in property taxes. Those savings would be phased in over 3 years. Don't spend it all in one place.

Of course, If you live in the higher tax towns in Bergen, Essex, Morris or Somerset, you'll actually lose money on the transaction. Hello Demarest (average income earner loses $89), Millburn (loss of $167), Mountain Lakes (loss of $165), and Montgomery, the new home of Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf, (loss of $141).

You can see the property tax figures by town in this chart (click on property tax data under What's New? or Taxes in Your Town).

The key point is that taxpayers would lose even more when you factor in the services that would be lost because the state would be about $1 billion dollars poorer due to the cut in revenue. This presumably means (Christie hasn't released his budget figures for the year yet) that towns and municipalities would see even less state aid and less school aid, which means that taxpayers would need to contribute more to maintain the services they already have. And even with the changes in public worker pensions and benefits, the cost of health care continues to rise, school enrollment in most towns also continues to rise, which means they'll need more teachers and services, and we still need to maintain roads, bridges and other projects that sustain our lives. If you want improvements, that costs more.

On Monday, the state released a statement saying that tax revenues for this year will be about $300 million dollars less than they anticipated. Where is there money for a tax cut in a state that's struggling to pay for basics as it is?

So the question becomes, is the income tax cut worth it? For many people, the answer is no because they'll lose money. For others, what are you giving up for your $15, $44 or $46 dollars? Quality of life? Good schools? This is what Democrats need to argue as they begin debating the bill. We don't need to be the pawns in the governor's endgame for a 2016 presidential run.

For more, go to: www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

South Carolina Saturday Night After-Party: What Happened?

2012-01-22T09:55:00.000-05:00

Newt pulled the upset, and the exit polling shows him with strength among conservatives, those concerned with electability, and women. Of course, that last demographic will get the most talk in light of Newt's affection for more than one partner at a time, but I guess the desire to defeat President Obama outweighs all other desires combined. It was a solid win, and by an even larger margin than I thought. The results:

              Prediction    Actual
Gingrich        36%               40%
Romney        34%               28%
Paul              15%               13%
Santorum      14%               17%

Obviously I missed out on Santorum and the margin, but Gingrich did what he needed to do. The debate performances and his robust conservatism won in a very conservative state. Now he can go on to Florida and see if he can win over the conservatives there. My guess is that he can. And if he wins Florida, then Romney's stock will have taken a Great Recession-type hit.

Santorum says he won't quit the race at this point. He gave it his all, but is clearly not the conservative voter's choice and he would only make it easier for Romney in the Sunshine State. Paul has his reliable 15%, but is now more marginalized than ever.

At this point, all of the candidates have been vetted. What's left will be an expensive, potentially nasty fight, although Mitt has to be careful because he was seen as running the most unfair race in South Carolina. I'm not sure what unfair means, but maybe Newt's charge against negative ads has something to do with it.

On to Florida, where voters have already been casting ballots. I imagine that after yesterday, Newt will see a surge of support.

Follow more at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: Special South Carolina Edition

2012-01-21T09:40:00.000-05:00

What a week this has been for the GOP Pack o' Presidential Potentials. We started out with Mitt Romney strolling leisurely toward the nomination with a big lead, and today finds the contenders in an absolute dogfight (but will the dog hunt?).

Newt Gingrich's well-received performance in this week's debates has given him a new life. Rick Santorum can now claim to have won the Iowa caucuses. Rick Perry is now free to take Texas out of the union if he so desires. And Romney? He's hit a bit of a rough patch on the way to the nomination, which I still think he'll win. It just might take a bit longer for him to claim it.

The latest RealClearPolitics polling average, including the latest PPP tracking poll, has Newt surging to the top of the pile, which spells real trouble for Romney. Paul will win his 15%, and despite an endorsement from many conservatives, Rick Santorum will be lucky to approach 15%, as some of his voters move to Newt. With Rick Perry out of the race, the real question is where do his supporters go. Again, I'm thinking Newt.

South Carolina is now critical for Romney. I said after New Hampshire that he could end the whole race with a showing above 40% and could claim inevitability with more than 30% in SC. Now, that's not necessarily the case. Mitt could get 30% and lose to Gingrich, or only win by 1 or 2 points. That would be a win, but he needs to improve, not regress. If he loses, or loses steam, Florida would be in play. Santorum could drop out, with his voters moving in larger numbers to Newt. Conservatives would be emboldened. Democrats would jump for joy.

My predictions: An Upset Special

Gingrich        36%
Romney        34%
Paul              15%
Santorum      14%

Santorum drops out. The race in Florida tightens. Gingrich and Romney duke it out through Super Tuesday in March. More GOP moderates publicly endorse Romney in order to save the party. Chris Christie gets even more bombastic in his support for Mitt (is that possible? healthy?). You join in at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and follow me on Twitter @rigrundfest.

Isn't this fun?

Christie See, Christie Do

2012-01-19T06:05:00.000-05:00

With apologies to monkeys everywhere.

So it seems as though Chris Christie is channeling his inner Christie Whitman with his proposal to cut New Jersey income taxes by 10% across the board. We know how well Whitman's 30% tax cut worked out. New Jersey borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pensions and government projects, which led even lesser governors to stop paying into the public employee's pension system, which resulted in the underfunded system becoming the state's unofficial bird, the Albatross, when the economy bottomed out in 2009. I wish the rest was history, but unfortunately it's become the present and future for hard-working middle class public employees across the state.

Now the big question is, where are are the cuts going to come from? Once the income tax reductions are factored in, the state will lose $1 billion dollars in income. The obvious target will be public schools, because starving the system will weaken the NJEA. Plus, if the state moves to an evaluation-based merit pay scale, then salary guides will become a thing of the past and teachers will compete amongst themselves for scarce resources while districts start cutting experienced workers (who won't have fair dismissal protections) in the name of cost savings. A few teachers will make big raises and get copious press, while the rest will have raises held hostage because their student's standardized test scores will fall outside the "outstanding" range.

There are other places to cut as well. Aid to municipalities can go down so they can make unpopular cuts to local programs without the governor having to take responsibility for them. With a 2% cap, most towns will not be able to raise money to sustain services. Programs for the poor, the indigent, health services, child care and nutrition are always juicy targets.

It's now up to the dynamic duo of Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Steve Sweeney to stand up to Christie to move their agenda. They caved in last spring on, in order, the pension and benefits bill and the state budget while managing to wrangle absolutely nothing for their side. They didn't even attempt to bargain on the benefits bill by holding up the governor's budget priorities. This wasn't just a cave, it was their own personal Lascoux, but the only animals on the walls were jackasses.

This time around, the Democrats need to have something that resembles a strategy. If the governor wants to hand wealthy citizens a $7,000 payout and the rest of us about $100 per year in return for fewer services, then they need to make a stand. That means enacting a gay marriage bill, making sure schools are fully funded, expanding mass transit to reduce traffic, and enabling towns and cities to provide services for those caught in the recession's grip.

I'm sure Christie is angling not just for reelection but, barring a Romney win in November, also a run for the presidency in 2016, so tax cutting must be on his resume. He's an effective politician; we need to give him that due, but Democrats in the legislature need to represent their constituencies too, and that means having a backbone when it comes to fighting for what's right.

Join the debate at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

School Reform: Baseball Bats to Bad Data

2012-01-17T06:09:00.001-05:00

Remember when Joe Clark was the face of educational reform? The former Principal of Eastside High School in Paterson, NJ patrolled the hallways of his out-of-control institution in the 1980s with only a bullhorn and a baseball bat, fighting poverty, gangs, crime and under-performing students as the face of urban education. His tactics were crude and anti-education, but the fact that he was a hero to many spoke volumes about the way in which people saw the problems in our schools.

Today, the people with the bullhorns and the weapons are politicians and business owners who believe that the best way to cure the ills of public schools that have educated the freest, most productive people who've ever lived on this planet, is to make our schools just like the entities that led the way towards job outsourcing, unconscionable home loan processes, and a laser-like focus on stock prices that have almost bankrupted the economy.

Joe Clark's sounding mighty effective right now.

I can understand how many politicians view the public schools. When your political ideology glorifies competition above cooperation and the bottom economic line over investment in the future, you're going to behave this way. Of course, it's easier if you have little contact with the public schools, either becuase you didn't attend or you've decided that even in the great neighborhood that you live, a private school is better. Even the progressive Clintons sent their daughter to a private school. Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter were the last White House residents to put their money where their mouths were. Just so you don't think I'm contradicting myself too much, I do believe firmly in the right of parents to make decisions in the best interest of their children. Those choices, though, have consequences when you are an elected official with direct influence on public schools.

The main point, though, is that the people pushing for changes in schools now have little, if any, experience working in education and are deliberately excluding those who do.

Here in New Jersey, the person in charge of the program to ensure teacher quality has not one minute of experience in the classroom. Is classroom experience absolutely necessary in order for someone to create a program that will assess teachers? I would say yes. Everyone who works in schools or education should have at least 5 years of teaching experience and preferably even more. How else will you know the pressures and challenges that teachers face on a day-to-day basis? How will you know how to evaluate teachers of students with varying learning styles, academic strengths and weaknesses, and social problems? How will you see the effects that more testing has on the curriculum? Reading articles and interviewing stakeholders (well, most of them) is fine, but there's something about direct experience that warms the souls of those who will be evaluated. Maybe it's that we'll see you as one of us. With some credibility. On education.

That won't happen. And that's the point. Without experience, all someone can do is apply the research on teacher evaluation, which is certainly not conclusive, and make assumptions. Governor Christie has not consulted public school teachers about his proposed plans not because he has legitimate differences with the teacher's union, NJEA, over curricular matters, but because he wants to destroy the union. He isn't interested in what public school teachers have to say about the issues because they might bring in valid but contradictory evidence that he would be responsible for addressing. His is a political argument, not an educational one. That's why most teacher oppose them, and him.

But what about merit pay, you say? Don't teachers want more money? In Washington, D.C., some teachers are earning up to $20,000 extra per year because they've been labeled "highly effective" by their supervisors. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a similar system of merit pay for the city's teachers. So why do many teachers oppose it (listen to the podcast)?

There are many reasons.

Competition, while a highly prized skill in business, works against the interests of schools. teachers need to cooperate with each other in order to educate students. They share lesson plans, teaching strategies and materials. If you force them to compete for money, or tell them that they are competing against other 4th grade teachers for a bonus, it destroys the trust that's built up between those educators.

It also begs the question of where this extra money is going to come from. Budgets are already tight and spending is capped at 2% in New Jersey. If more teachers earn bonuses than the district has budgeted for, then what happens? Are raises for other teachers sacrificed?

There is also no reliable evidence that shows merit pay for teachers results in better teaching, even if you use the false argument that teachers can be evaluated based on student standardized test scores.

Merit pay is not the only issue that will harm public schools. Among the other reforms, promoting Charter schools is probably the most prominent. Charter schools do have their place as laboratories for innovative programs, but there is no reliable evidence to show that Charters perform better than public schools. They might also be harmful to a district because charters are also publicly funded and take money away from local schools. In the New Jersey suburbs, the blow-back has already begun.

The governor's educational reform program is on hiatus at this point, but he is going to make it a priority for this year, starting with today's State of the State Address. If he is serious about making our schools better, he's going to have to include teachers in the conversation.

Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

It's Capital, Not Capitalism

2012-01-15T11:19:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney has said on the campaign trail that an attack on him is an attack on capitalism. Aside from being a self-serving, disingenuous, mendacious statement (which is enough, don't you think?), it also shows how shallow and dangerous the Republican party has become.

Romney's career at Bain Capital is a touchstone for his presidential aspirations, and his success at convincing American voters that it makes him qualified to be president will decide whether he wins in November. As of this moment, I would say that this particular venture is off to a rocky start.

Polling for President Obama's PAC is showing that anti-Bain rhetoric is a winning issue for him. Rick Santorum is saying that Romney can't win based on his Bain experience. Rick Perry called out Bain as "vulture capitalism" (and this is officially the last time that anything Rick Perry says will be quoted in the Farmer blog). Newt wants Romney to stop the "pious baloney." The attacks have continued at such a pace that conservatives are rushing to defend Mitt and capitalism itself.

They must really be worried. After all, the GOP has fought for the last year to defund social services such as Planned Parenthood, enact cuts to education, redesign Medicare so seniors will actually have to pay more, and demonize people who are on unemployment benefits as lazy. Their candidates want to deny law-abiding children of illegal immigrants a shot at the American Dream, obliterate the Federal Reserve, go back into Iraq, make abortion illegal even in cases of rape or incest, oppose full civil rights for gays, keep taxes low on the wealthy so the rest of us have to make do with less, and allow banks and financial institutions to continue to do what got us into this recession in the first place.

But don't mess with capitalism, mofo.

As usual, they have it all wrong. The questions about Bain Capital and venture capitalism are not about the future of our financial system. The problem is the function of that type of business in the American system. Venture firms do play some positive roles in the economy by either rescuing companies that might otherwise go out of business or by scooping up bargains due to bankruptcies. The makers of Twinkies recently went back into bankruptcy for the second time and I, for one, would like some venture firm to resuscitate it.

The negatives, though, are compelling. These firms have a reputation for chopping up companies into parts and selling them off to make money, and as a result people get laid off and towns suffer. They are seen as paper-pushers whose only concern is for profits and bonuses, not for actually building something. And they're seen as being cold, calculating, number-crunching entities that don't care about the effects of their work, only the results. They are ruthless in their Darwinian cruelty, but criticism of their tactics is about capital, not capitalism. Has Bain engaged in this type of behavior? Yes, yes, and yes.

The Republican Party has bet its success on a combination of Cold War-era baiting and big lies, as if their candidates are the only ones who can fix the financial problems created by their ideology. In the end, that strategy will fail because it ignores the fact that more people are not siding with the wealthy (though they don't always blame them for the inequality). Romney's defense of capitalism is laudable, but by aligning himself with the 1%, he's left himself open to the withering attacks not only from his right flank, but from a full frontal assault that's coming from Obama and the Democrats.

Join the debate at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Apres-Primary Musings: Mitt Can't Conquer the Mountain

2012-01-11T06:02:00.000-05:00

We are not impressed.

If Mitt Romney can't muster over 40% of the vote in a backyard state against a field of sub-par candidates with extreme positions on the issues, then he's not ready yet for his curtain call. Yes, it certainly was a good day for Romney, but not as good as his victory speech would indicate.

He'll win the nomination, but two things are abundantly clear. The first is that Romney still hasn't galvanized his party as a candidate, and the second is that Republican enthusiasm is turning out to be somewhat of a myth.

Let's get to the numbers.

Here's what I said would happen (left) and here's what actually happened (right):

Romney      38%        39.4%
Paul            19%    22.8%
Huntsman   16%       16.8%
Gingrich      11%         9.4%
Santorum    10%         9.3%
Roemer         3%         0.4%
Perry             1%          0.7%

As in Iowa, not bad. I seem to have underestimated Ron Paul's reliable support and overestimated Buddy Roemer's, but I don't think I was alone.

If present reports are true, all of the candidates are moving on to South Carolina where the PAC-men will be gobbling up money and air time in their quest for Romney's scraps. This will be Citizens United writ not on the main stage, but as regional summer stock theater. Millions of dollars that otherwise could be spent on more significant pursuits will be sucked down the rabbit hole of ego and vanity. That's the new democracy at work, and we'd all better get used to it because when the campaign moves to Broadway in the fall, there's going to be an ad war like no other.

South Carolina is the last stand for Huntsman, Santorum and Perry to be sure unless any of them pull wild upsets and finish in the top 3, and above 20%. Gingrich could stay in if he's in the top 3 because he now has PAC money and Paul and his minions will stick around for the duration. Romney can claim the nomination with a dominant performance, over 40%, but 30% will be enough to make him inevitable.

Follow the march to the south at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives.

Polling Report: Special New Hampshire Edition

2012-01-10T05:56:00.000-05:00

You can just call me the Hammer, because I nailed the Iowa results almost perfectly. Of course now I will suffer for my obvious act of hubris, but I don't believe that will come in New Hampshire.

This primary has an odd air about it because the overwhelming sentiment is that Mitt Romney will win, but it won't matter much. The fun will come later in the month in South Carolina and Florida.

So let's get to the polling and analysis. The latest RealClearPolitics average shows Romney with a large lead over, in this order, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich. Here are the specifics from the latest PPP Poll. Santorum has not received a major bounce out of Iowa because he's far too conservative for New Hampshire and he's professed some ideas that haven't sat well with pragmatic New Englanders, like his diatribes against gay marriage. He's also, well, Rick Santorum, who has some well-publicized issues stemming from when he was a Pennsylvania Senator and those came to light once the press started snooping around.

Ron Paul has his reliable legions who will support him throughout the primary season, so it's no surprise that he's in second place. This primary is make-or-break for Jon Hunstman, and I expect that he'll drop out of the race when he finishes a distant third. Newt will stay in through at least Florida as a pain-in-the-side for Romney now that he's received a huge infusion of money, and Rick Perry will also drop out after South Carolina when he finishes fourth in a conservative state he otherwise could win. If he wasn't such a terrible debater, that is.

The only drama I see in New Hampshire is Mitt's vote percentage. He must, in my estimation, receive above 40% of the vote in New Hampshire in order to meet expectations. If he falls below that threshold, it will be a major embarrassment for him and it will expose him as the second choice to everyone else in the field. It won't really matter what the other candidates poll. The pressure is on Mitt. If he gets above 47%, then he shows obvious strength with the people who will decide the 2012 race, moderates and independent voters, and will be seen as the presumptive nominee. Having said that, the latest polls show Mitt actually losing some support according to the tracking polls. He began the weekend at around 42%, but has dropped to 33% in the Suffolk/7News Tracking survey released on Monday.

At this point in the race, we need to face some facts: Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are damaged goods and are just saying the most outlandish things in a last-ditch effort to appeal to the far right. Paul isn't even popular with Republicans, for heaven's sake, Huntsman never received his bump (and he won't in South Carolina) and is seen as the other Mormon in the race. That's America: two, three or four Protestants of any denomination, no problem, but room for only one Mormon.

Leaders of the conservative movement have recently been stepping up their efforts to find an alternative to Mitt, and it looks like the early winner is Santorum. I think they should find a true conservative who's not in the race, vet them for all of their transgressions and run them as a candidate outside the primaries. That's their best chance at having a conservative who can be elected. I've always thought that there would be a third party candidate in this election and that they would come from the right. This might be the time to start that movement.

The last big issue is the Super-PAC money entering this race from all sides. It's enabling the field, minus Huntsman, to buy ads in South Carolina that will probably blanket the state for the next two weeks. Most of it will be aimed at Romney, and I'm sure we'll hear more about how he likes to fire people and how many employees lost their jobs because of Bain Capital.

And now for the stick-out-my-neck-for-the-guillotine moment: Prediction for Tuesday.

Romney      38%
Paul            19%
Huntsman   16%
Gingrich      11%
Santorum     10%
Roemer         3%
Perry             1%

Mitt gets enough to claim a win, but falls short of the 40% threshold. Huntsman leaves the race gracefully, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry move on to the south to make their final stands. Perry leaves after South Carolina and perhaps Santorum does too. Newt stays around because he loves to hear himself talk.

Mother Jones has a Fantasy Primary Predictor here if you'd like to play.

For more, please visit: facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and follow me on Twitter @rigrundfest

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Teachers

2012-01-08T12:36:00.000-05:00

It's simply amazing what happens when people get elected to statewide office. They seem to become experts on everything. Today's Exhibit A is education, specifically in Idaho and New Hampshire, where the legislatures have passed legislation that not only threatens the role of teachers in their classrooms, but also undermines their expertise and reduces them to penitents at the altar of official incompetence.

I've been thinking about Idaho for most of the week. Not just because I used their yummy potatoes to make latkes for Chanukah (this should be Idaho's official dish), but because of a law passed last year that mandates the use of technology in public school classrooms and requires students to take two online classes in order to graduate high school. What's wrong with that, you say? Plenty, because it was passed with no teacher input and is based on faulty educational premises.

Why would any state pass rigorous teacher certification requirements and observe educators for a number of years to make sure they're competent, only to ignore them when making key decisions about how to implement a costly program of technological innovation? That's what happened in Idaho. Teachers had almost no input into the law, and even though the Governor said this was not a first step in reducing the number of teachers in classrooms, that sentiment was contradicted by the online course requirement.

It's not a leap of imagination to believe that if the online component proves successful, either academically or economically, then the course requirement would be increased. Further, part of the funding for this program would be taken from teacher and administrative salaries, which is usually the first step towards the self-fulfilling prophecy that says since we need computers and they cost money, we need to reduce staff because we're paying too much in salaries.

The even larger concern is the legislature's, and governor's, ignorant attitude towards the classroom teachers. From the article:

Idaho is going beyond what other states have done in decreeing what hardware students and teachers should use and how they should use it. But such requirements are increasingly common at the district level, where most decisions about buying technology for schools are made.

Teachers are resisting, saying that they prefer to employ technology as it suits their own teaching methods and styles. Some feel they are judged on how much they make use of technology, regardless of whether it improves learning. Some teachers in the Los Angeles public schools, for example, complain that the form that supervisors use to evaluate teachers has a check box on whether they use technology, suggesting that they must use it for its own sake.

The most effective scenario for any change in the curriculum is to have teachers at the table engaged in the process they will be asked to implement. Educators are the experts in child development, learning theories and styles, and how best to guide their particular classes (which change every year) so that every child has the opportunity to learn at their optimal level. When politicians get involved, you get attitudes like this:

For his part, Governor Otter said that putting technology into students’ hands was the only way to prepare them for the work force. Giving them easy access to a wealth of facts and resources online allows them to develop critical thinking skills, he said, which is what employers want the most.

When asked about the quantity of unreliable information on the Internet, he said this also worked in favor of better learning. “There may be a lot of misinformation,” he said, “but that information, whether right or wrong, will generate critical thinking for them as they find the truth.”

First, technology is not "the only way" to prepare students for the work force. Teachers know that technology can be a valuable tool in the classroom, but there are many other skills that students need to learn. Tell me how a computer teaches a student interpersonal skills. Tell me how technology actually teaches a student correct spelling, grammar and usage (and no, a red or green underline doesn't count). Tell me how a computer teaches someone how to negotiate for their salary. Tell me how technology alone teaches critical thinking skills. Tell me how technology teaches organizational skills. Tell me how technology teaches a student which websites contain legitimate information and which do not.

The truth is that teachers teach these skills. They can use technology as their activity or resource to support and facilitate the lesson's educational objective, but the technology is not the end itself. So when the governor says that technology is the only way and that computers themselves can teach critical thinking, he's wrong. And that's exactly the problem with the Idaho initiative. I applaud its goals. Classrooms should have technology available to all students because not all homes are equipped, but education decisions must include teachers. Even the students in Idaho's schools get what the state's leaders miss:

Last year at Post Falls High School, 600 students — about half of the school — staged a lunchtime walkout to protest the new rules. Some carried signs that read: “We need teachers, not computers.”

Having a new laptop “is not my favorite idea,” said Sam Hunts, a sophomore in Ms. Rosenbaum’s English class who has a blond mohawk. “I’d rather learn from a teacher.”

New Hampshire's new law has nothing to do with technology. I wish it did, because it's even more frightening and potentially damaging to teachers and public schools. This Nashua Telegraph article tells the story, and here is a summary:

Public schools can now be forced to come up with an alternative to any lesson or assignment that a parent finds objectionable.

On Wednesday, the Legislature overturned a veto from Gov. John Lynch on a bill, HB 542, that will require school districts create a policy “allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable.”

The legislation does not attempt to define “objectionable,” giving parents complete discretion.

So essentially, any parent can't walk into any public school and demand an alternative curriculum by objecting to any lesson plan they want. As opposed to Idaho, Governor John Lynch vetoed this bill but was overridden by the Republican majority. The effect is the same, though. Teachers will now have to look over their shoulders at every turn and will need to craft alternate lessons, indeed an alternate course, if one parent objects. This not only undermines educational professionals in New Hampshire, but also subjects the schools to even more political mischief in the form of pandering to particular groups and stirring up dissent over familiar targets like sexual references, defense of non-western religions and vocabulary that others find objectionable. All you need to do is read the comments under the article to see what kind of damage awaits New Hampshire's educational community (Pete Perkins, you are my hero). Yes, parents will need to pay if there's a cost involved, but replacing a book or video for one child would have minor economic repercussions.

But there's also the matter of the new national test score craze.What happens when a parent opts their child out of enough lessons and the child doesn't perform well on the tests? Who's responsible? Is it the teacher's job to develop an alternative state test to measure what that students has learned in their curriculum? Will the parent be responsible for the parts of the test that the student never learned (already know the answer here). How can a teacher prepare all students when there are so many potential changes due to parent objections? Who's thought this one through (already know the answer)?

As a resident of New Jersey, I am used to having politicians with no teaching backgrounds expound on their damaging ideas. Governor Christie is a fan of using test scores to evaluate teachers, but he ignores the research that says how difficult it is to design an accurate evaluation model or the economic and curricular impact of testing every student in every subject every year. He's also excluded public school teachers from a panel that studied reform ideas that, surprise, concluded that Christie's ideas were more beneficial.

A recent New York Times article used the Value Added Model to reinforce the idea that good teachers have an impact on their students that reaches far beyond the classroom. What makes a good teacher according to the research? Why, one that raises student test scores. I call this Reinforced Illogical Garbage, or RIG. And right now, the system is RIGged against informed, rational, collaborative educational policies that tap into the enormous knowledge base of teachers, who actually know best how to educate children.

Join the debate at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: January 6, 2012

2012-01-06T06:07:00.000-05:00

What a difference a month makes. When we last checked the state of the Presidential race, Obama was still mired in an approval slump, the electoral map hadn't budged and Newt Gingrich was seen as the main threat to Mitt Romney in Iowa. The latest numbers show a dramatically improved playing field for the president probably because of his support for the payroll tax cut and a more pro-middle class message.

Obama Job Approval

The latest RealClearPolitics Index of Obama's Job Approval is here. Since last month, he has shown a dramatic improvement in his average, improving from 43.8% to 47.2% in his approval, while his disapproval numbers fell from 50.8% to 47.8%.

As of yesterday, the Gallup Tracking Poll has Obama at 46% in his approval and 47% disapproval (he was in positive territory on Wednesday), though the Rasmussen Tracking Poll has him at 45/53. Other polls in December also have Obama in positive territory for his approval/disapproval and the trends are moving in his direction. One of the keys to these numbers is that Obama has moved past the 44% approval he'd been stuck on for months. He's not at 50%, but upward movement is the name of the game.

Head-To-Head Match-ups

Obama still leads every one of the Republican challengers, though the latest Rasmussen poll has him in a tie with Romney. As was true last month, Romney matches up best with the president and placed ahead of Obama in two December polls. Still, Obama leads in the aggregate but we will need more up-to-date numbers to get a more accurate snapshot.

The Republican Field

I've covered the field in two posts this week. The first was a Polling Report preview of the Iowa caucuses and the second a recap of what we learned. I'll let those stand as an analysis of the GOP field. Michele Bachmann's withdrawal from the race and Rick Perry's reduced influence will probably result in improved number for Rick Santorum, but the feeding frenzy on his record has already begun. The latest New Hampshire polls gives Romney a solid lead, but the Washington Times has Paul surging and Santorum in double digits. Mark Blumenthal at Pollster has a great analysis of the latest polling in New Hampshire. By the weekend, it could all change.

The Ballots

The RealClearPolitics Electoral College Map also showed Obama's improvement, adding three states, Michigan, Iowa and Nevada to his ledger. He now has an estimated 229 electoral votes to 191 for the generic Republican challenger. The latest Congressional Vote has the Democrats leading by 1.6%, an increase from 1.2% in December.

One of this election season's narratives has been that Republicans are far more enthusiastic about the presidential election than Democrats. Did that ring true in Iowa? Not so much, according to this article by Michael P. McDonald on The Huffington Post. His main point is that Tea Party fever is over, but of course we only have one state's data as a guide. Let's see what happens for the balance of January.

That's it for now. The election season is beginning to percolate, so join the fun at:
facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Post-Caucus Cigarette: What the Results in Iowa Mean

2012-01-04T06:03:00.001-05:00

Was Iowa good for you? All that talk about three-way ties must have made conservatives across the political spectrum very uncomfortable. So let's tidy up a bit.

Here's what I thought would happen, and what actually happened:

Romney 26% 24.6%

Santorum 24% 24.5%

Paul 21% 21.4%

Gingrich 15% 13.3%

Perry 8% 10.3%

Bachmann 5% 5.0%

Not bad, I think.

Obviously, it was a terrible night for Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann who now have to be considered the first casualties of the race. Perry has the money to carry on and could find some sympathy in South Carolina and Florida, but he'll struggle to get any positive press out of Iowa. Better he should keep his money and spend it on a Senate race. Newt also underperformed and needs a great showing in the next three states to remain viable. Ron Paul did about as well as can be expected, but he's just not going to be the nominee. Did he gain influence in the party? Yes. Let's see what that actually gets him.

Rick Santorum is the big winner here and with debates this weekend he has the chance to capitalize on the momentum. He'd better make sure that he's prepared to defend himself because Mitt, Newt and Ron Paul are going to throw everything at him. If he does well he could place, after Mitt, in New Hampshire and set himself up for a better showing in the southern states. If he falters under the pressure, he's probably toast. Right now I would say that he's the best hope for the Tea Party and religious conservatives. And sweater vest manufacturers (who I hope are in the USA).

And Mitt? If he had kept his mouth shut on Monday and Tuesday about his chances of winning, he could have feigned surprise at his good showing. Since he set expectations higher, though, his performance has to be seen as underwhelming. He'll win New Hampshire next week, but now it has to be more than a solid win. Anything under 40% is a Pyrrhic victory. He also has to keep his composure during the debates and not come off as screechy or too aggressive. That would be seen as desperate.

So now it's on to the Granite State where global warming is killing the skiing industry. Move along citizens; nothing to see here.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: Special Iowa Edition

2012-01-03T06:05:00.000-05:00

And you thought the holidays were over. Having the Iowa caucuses so soon after the new year is a great gift for political junkies and opens what should be an expensive, long, important and uniquely-American national election season. That Iowa and New Hampshire take all of the attention so early is an unfortunate quirk of the system and will provide us with untimely candidate exits and lots of wasted money.

If you're new to the process, or just can't believe this is how we elect our president, here's how the Iowa caucuses work.

And now onto the analysis and predictions.

The poll that everyone is talking about was released on Saturday: The Des Moines Register's poll of likely caucus attendees.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.
Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.

Based on the results of this poll, one scenario stands out to me. If Romney wins, it gives him great momentum heading into New Hampshire one week from today. Assuming he wins that, we could see full carnage among the challengers. Bachmann will either drop out of the race or her supporters will go to another conservative candidate, probably Santorum if he comes in second in Iowa. A fifth place finish for Perry would also lead many of his supporters to Santorum. Jon Huntsman will also leave after losing in New Hampshire, with his supporters moving to Romney and perhaps Gingrich. In any event, a conservative will emerge as the main challenger to Romney. That will become the main story through South Carolina and Florida later in January. If it's Santorum, it will represent one of the great come-from-behinds in a long while.

It's hard to say that a Santorum win immediately sets him up as Romney's most viable main challenger. He'll need to quickly establish a presence in South Carolina and Florida, which takes money and ground game, and he doesn't seem to have much of either. He can, as can Gingrich or Paul if they place highly in Iowa, bypass New Hampshire or at least pass it off as Romney's backyard and focus on the states where there are more social conservatives. Gingrich could spend more time in New Hampshire and claim a moral victory. I'm not putting much faith in a Paul victory after Iowa.

The 41% of Iowans who could change their mind are the wild cards in this race. If they decide that Romney is most electable, he'll win a resounding victory and the race will be all but over. If they stay with one or two of the conservatives, then the race gets more interesting and probably lasts a bit longer. A stronger Gingrich showing than fourth makes him the main competition, but I don't see it. Mainly because the thought frightens me a bit. Nothing scientific about that.

A PPP poll released on Monday shows

Ron Paul at 20 percent, Mitt Romney at 19 percent and Rick Santorum at 18 percent on a survey for which PPP reports a margin of error for each candidate of +/- 2.7 percent. Running farther back are Newt Gingrich at 14 percent, Rick Perry at 10 percent, Michele Bachmann at 8 percent, Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Buddy Roemer at 2 percent. PPP interviewed 1,340 likely Republican caucus goers on December 31 and January 1.

Santorum again seems to be the recipient of a late surge and is the second choice of 14% of respondents, the highest of any of the candidates. His personal approval rating of 60% is twice his disapproval rating. heady stuff for someone who lost their last election.

The rest of the polling can be seen at RealClearPolitics.com

Both NBC and the Rasmussen poll have Romney, Paul and Santorum in that order, which supports the Register poll from the weekend.

And here's a nice chart from Polls and Votes

My pick for the results are as follows:

Romney 26%

Santorum 24%

Paul 21%

Gingrich 15%

Perry 8%

Bachmann 5%

It's always more fun when you stick your neck out (like Louis XVI and his lovely wife Marie), so make your prediction in the comments section. Remember that in order to complain about the process, you have to commit to it.

As always, you can follow the action at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Where Democracy Lives

2012-01-01T12:19:00.000-05:00

If 2011 will go down in history as a terrible year economically, it will also be known as a turning point year for participatory and representative democracy in many countries throughout the world. True people power, spurred on by technology, second-to-second communications, and defiance of imposing police/military power proved more resilient than even the craftiest dictators. The movements that succeeded in overthrowing one-party, one person or one-ideology governments were not always smooth, and in many cases there is far more work to be done in order for the revolutions to hold onto their gains, but the people who have changed governments are now living in an altered world.

Consider the promise of democracy (the United States still needs to work on some of these):

Where democracy lives, citizens do not fear the state.
Where democracy lives, the press is freer, but must be more subservient to the truth than ever before.
Where democracy lives, the military belongs to the people.
Where democracy lives, women, ethnic and religious minorities, and people of all sexual orientations have full civil rights.
Where democracy lives, economic and educational opportunities are available to all levels of society.
Where democracy lives, the political process is messier, more susceptible to special interests and harder to corral, but power rests with the people.
Where democracy lives, justice systems must restore or establish the rule of law, not the rule of the open palm.

As for the countries that are under the most serious political pressure from their citizens,

Democracy now lives in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya
It's knocking on the door in Syria.
It's at a turning point in Russia, Hungary, Iraq and Ukraine

This will not be easy, and it's not clear if the citizens of these countries will eventually taste the fruits of new-found freedom, or if the benefits of democracy will touch their lives. But they are well on their way towards a more productive, politically freer future than they were 12 months ago. The United States has a responsibility to help nurture these democratic movements, even if we aren't supportive of the groups that are elected under their new political realities.

My hope is that over the next 12 months, more people in the United States and the world over will become involved in their country's political process from every band of the political spectrum. It's essential that we have vibrant debate and a full airing of the issues that face us if we are to progress and solve our problems.

So in addition to losing weight, resolve to do one thing that will make the country and the world a better place for all of us. Register to vote. Join an organization. Contact your representative and establish a working relationship with them on an issue. Start a social media site to highlight a concern you have. Be part of the solution.

And join me daily on facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Happy New Year!

I Went to Trenton to Govern, But All I Got Was This Lousy $38 Million

2011-12-27T14:15:00.000-05:00

Governor Christie has had some major legislative accomplishments over the past two years including a 2% cap on property taxes and a public worker pension and benefits overhaul. Mind you, these laws have not necessarily made life better for New Jerseyans, as taxes have still risen and thousands of experienced public workers have either retired, fled or have been laid off because of them.

The past six weeks, though, have been another story for the guv'nor.

Despite his general popularity, the Republicans actually lost seats in the November legislative elections. Now Christie will need to rely even more heavily on the Democratic majority in the legislature and the Democratic power brokers in Essex and Camden Counties. Add in the disdain that Senate President Steven Sweeney has for Christie and you have a recipe for gridlock sprinkled with a tablespoon of revenge.

Then, the general consensus was that the lame duck legislative session was going to be one of the most active in years, with bills flying around State Street on teacher tenure and evaluation, property taxes, jobs, budget cuts and patronage. What's happened? Nada. Almost every issue was pushed to the formal session that begins in early January, and won't probably get any steam until the Governor's State of the State message in the middle of the month.

And in the spirit of the holidays, Christie picked a fight with Senator, and former Governor, Richard Codey over the permanent appointment of Commissioner of Education Christopher Cerf, accusing Codey of (gasp!) feeding information to reporters. Christie canceled Codey's security detail and fired Codey's cousin from the Port Authority board. That's politics through and through and shows that Christie will never be the warm, fuzzy leader he sometimes pretends to be.

But the true state of the Governor's clout was uncovered when New Jersey was actually awarded $38 million dollars in Race to the Top funds by the Obama Administration so it could implement a speculative teacher evaluation system based on student standardized test scores. Getting money should be a positive, but this award only dredged up the previous failure to even qualify for $400 million dollars in education funds because of the Governor's attitude towards the New Jersey Education Association. Not only did it cost the state money, it also cost Commissioner of Education Brett Schundler his job and showed that Christie would blame everyone but his leadership for the error. It's a pattern that he's repeated in every misstep since, and it's one reason why he would not make a good president.

He's ending the year by essentially becoming Mitt Romney's pit bull and possible vice-presidential running mate. Granted, he did only say that he would keep the door open, but that will only serve as a distraction in the coming year, as his flirtation with the presidency proved throughout the fall, because every time he doesn't get what he wants, the media will remind us all that he's got his eye on the national ticket. The Governor should just say no this time around and focus on the state.

It's still very possible that Christie will get some of his reforms through the legislature, but many in the state are tired of his outbursts and outlandish statements. Prosecutors like him are convinced that they are always right and that they have the ultimate truth on their side, so why compromise? We need to remember that the next time one runs for statewide office.

We Hardly Newt Ye!

2011-12-22T06:02:00.002-05:00

That was close. And scary. The idea that Newt Gingrich might actually win the GOP presidential nomination sent shivers down the spines of enough Republicans that they actually came to their senses this week and began to support Ron Paul in the Iowa caucus polls. As for the national trends, it looks like Mitt Romney is the betting favorite on Internet sites.

The Gingrich flirtation lasted only as long as voters knew little about what he might do in office. His tirades against the federal judiciary might play well with the ultra-conservatives, but they seem to be non-starters among the more moderate voters who will come out in later primary states. Also, his lack of organization is showing, but that shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Gingrich never seemed to be in the race for anything other than to get his ideas in the marketplace. He succeeded. Now there's a 50% off sticker on them and they're not long for the discontinued bin.

Republican voters have sampled all of the candidates over the course of the last few months and they seem to be coalescing around Romney, despite conservative suspicion that he's not fully committed to their causes. There's a good reason for this; he's not, but he's the only electable candidate in the field. So that leaves us with a volatile race in Iowa with any of Romney, Paul (my favorite to pull out a win), Bachmann and Perry able to cobble together enough caucus voters to move on to the next set of states. Rick Santorum is getting a little love this week from evangelicals, but that will all come to naught after Iowa.

Then the serious race will begin in earnest. Depending upon what happens in the next few days, Romney will have to defend Republican obstruction that led to the end of the payroll tax cut, or he'll have to run against it as flawed policy, despite the cut being popular among voters and economists. He'll also have to harness the Tea Party faction that doesn't want to compromise on anything, and is losing support, even with Republicans. Add on the fact that President Obama's poll numbers are improving, and Mitt suddenly has a more daunting task ahead of him than he did in October (did he just announce his first major policy decision?).

But that's all in the future. Right now, we should be thanking Newt Gingrich for a spirited campaign that ultimately showed his best days to be behind him. His rise and fall was swifter than Herman Cain's and the reality of a Gingrich presidency was always going to present problems in a world that's moved beyond the 1990s. Perhaps Romney can find room for Newt in his administration as, say, ambassador to Libya?

For more spirited debate, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Technology, Democracy and the Revolution

2011-12-18T13:13:00.000-05:00

The Internet wants us to grow up.

So far, we've used it to play games, go shopping, follow our friends (and strangers), work more efficiently, and play games. Fun activities to be sure, but now it's time for the Internet to take us into the serious future where people really will be replaced by machines and the machines will know more about us than we are comfortable disclosing to actual humans.

It will be scary for a while, but then, most revolutionary change is. Follow me.
Two opinion pieces in today's New York Times put this in perspective.

In The Internet Gets Physical, Steve Lohr informs us that underneath the consumer web lies a digital future that is serious and focused on making our lives better. To put it another way, we seem to have come to a fork in the information superhighway.

...the protean Internet technologies of computing and communications are rapidly spreading beyond the lucrative consumer bailiwick. Low-cost sensors, clever software and advancing computer firepower are opening the door to new uses in energy conservation, transportation, health care and food distribution. The consumer Internet can be seen as the warm-up act for these technologies.

These technologies are a digital thermostat by a company called Nest Labs, sensors in fruit delivery trucks that can sniff out spoilage, and, in the future,

a smart hospital room, equipped with three small cameras, mounted inconspicuously on the ceiling. With software for analysis, the room can monitor movements by doctors and nurses in and out of the room, alerting them if they have forgotten to wash their hands before and after touching patients — lapses that contribute significantly to hospital-acquired infections. Computer vision software can analyze facial expressions for signs of severe pain, the onset of delirium or other hints of distress, and send an electronic alert to a nearby nurse.

The examples are wide and varied, but the overarching theme is that small companies with big minded people are moving away from the consumer fun technologies that occupy our days to the work of melding technology and democracy for the betterment of society. These changes have been underway for a number of years, but as we've seen in Egypt, Libya, Russia, Wall Street and Main Street, the technology revolution is creating a dynamic where government and businesses need to respond more quickly to sudden shifts in the mood of both consumers and the body politic.

Examples of this change are the focus of Thomas Friedman's Help Wanted. As he says:

We are present again at one of those great unravelings — just like after World War I, World War II and the cold war. But this time there was no war. All of these states have been pulled down from within — without warning. Why?

The main driver, I believe, is the merger of globalization and the Information Technology revolution. Both of them achieved a critical mass in the first decade of the 21st century that has resulted in the democratization — all at once — of so many things that neither weak states nor weak companies can stand up against. We’ve seen the democratization of information, where everyone is now a publisher; the democratization of war-fighting, where individuals became superempowered (enough so, in the case of Al Qaeda, to take on a superpower); the democratization of innovation, wherein start-ups using free open-source software and “the cloud” can challenge global companies.

So, Congress notwithstanding, we are poised to enter an era of more widespread democratization, especially in the less industrialized areas of the world. Have we seen this before? Of course, and many of those promises were broken before they came to fruition. But this time we have the tools to expand democracy and commerce without having to rely on physical space, and we've already begun to fight. Witness what's already happened in just the past year:

“The days of leading countries or companies via a one-way conversation are over,” says Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN and the author of the book “How.” “Now you have to have a two-way conversation that connects deeply with your citizens or customers or employees.”

Netflix had a one-way conversation about raising prices with its customers, who instantly self-organized; some 800,000 bolted, and the stock plunged. Bank of America had a one-way conversation about charging a $5 fee on debit cards, and its customers forced the global bank to reverse itself and apologize. Putin thought he had power over his people and could impose whatever he wanted and is now being forced into a conversation to justify staying in power. Coca-Cola repackaged its flagship soft drink in white cans for the holidays. But an outcry of “blasphemy” from consumers forced Coke to switch back from white cans to red cans in a week. Last year, Gap ditched its new logo after a week of online backlash by customers.

Listening to consumers, voters and agitators. Organizing and assembling a coalition of people with similar interests. Ideas fighting money. These are the same issues that excited society with the advent of the printing press, the newspaper, radio and television. But those were mainly one-way conversations. We can now talk back, and so can the machines, sensors and software that are the leading edge of technological innovation.

This shift will have a great impact in schools, which will need to alter their policies banning cell phone and other devices in the classroom that students and teachers use to communicate. The present push to ban all cell phone use while driving will also need to be rethought because we rely on phones to get directions or report emergencies. In short, there is no going back to the old days of asking the gas station attendant to get information. There is only a sensible way forward. The road will be bumpy at first, but eventually ingenuity, experimentation and progress will rule the day.

Let's have a two-way conversation at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Mitt Is It

2011-12-17T09:06:00.000-05:00

I've said it before. It is now painfully apparent that Republican primary voters have cycled through almost every candidate who's running for the nomination, and they will eventually settle on Mitt. Yes, it's possible for Jon Huntsman to have his bump, although even if he doubled his support he'd only be polling at 4%. Rick Santorum? Again, it's possible, but just how is he different from Rick Perry? Or, perhaps more importantly, how is he the same as Rick Perry? Here's how: Both will lose.

And Mitt? Well, he just picked up the endorsement of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, which solidifies his position in an important southern state that votes in January, even though Haley's support is causing her problems with the local Tea Party voters.

But how do we really know that Romney is heading towards the nomination?

Intrade. That's right. The online trading market and prediction website showed that Mitt gained almost 10 points overnight, while Newt's number plummeted from 38 to18. Note to Newt: When the capitalists are bailing on you, it's time to lobby for an ambassadorship to an island with hefty security. Even worse, he's now behind Herman Cain(!). Ouch. Of course, these numbers could change tomorrow, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic turnaround for any of the candidates in the field.

Romney might not win the Iowa caucuses and it won't hurt him unless he falls to fourth place. He'll win in New Hampshire, and by then a few of the candidates will have dropped out and thrown their support behind "the eventual nominee'" who will be Romney. Conservatives will have to either grin and bear him or stay home on election day, but that will only help Barack Obama, and we all know that helping the president is just not in the GOP's DNA.

It might be February before Gingrich's campaign issues a DNR order, but that day will come, sooner rather than later. Then the real campaign can begin.

For more pithy science references in political analysis, visit www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Class and the Classroom: Does Money Matter?

2011-12-13T06:08:00.001-05:00

Why does it seem that money matters everywhere but in public education? Corporations spend lavishly to recruit the best workers and provide the most luxurious perks. The best places to live are in the wealthier suburbs that can pay for clean, safe streets. High end cars have the latest gadgetry and safety features.

But public education? In the most important industry we have to promote learning, culture, and democracy we race to the bottom to find out who can spend the least and cut the most, then lament that we don't get the best people to teach or the highest test scores in the world. Politicians want to break teacher's unions under the pretense of saving money and are working to create evaluation systems that will use bad data to punish educators and pay them less. And the biggest fraud is the old saw that schools can ameliorate the effects of poverty and raise all students to above average academic levels, a claim that any mathematics teacher will tell you defies the bell curve.

This particular lie is uncovered in the opinion piece, Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It? by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske in Monday's New York Times. The findings should not surprise anyone:

The correlation has been abundantly documented, notably by the famous Coleman Report in 1966. New research by Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University traces the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families over the last 50 years and finds that it now far exceeds the gap between white and black students.

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores across states is associated with variation in child poverty rates.

International research tells the same story. Results of the 2009 reading tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment show that, among 15-year-olds in the United States and the 13 countries whose students outperformed ours, students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country. Can anyone credibly believe that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international tests is unrelated to the fact that one-fifth of American children live in poverty?

George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act was meant to address this correlation, but it only showed how faulty the logic was behind the law.

As we are now seeing, requiring all schools to meet the same high standards for all students, regardless of family background, will inevitably lead either to large numbers of failing schools or to a dramatic lowering of state standards. Both serve to discredit the public education system and lend support to arguments that the system is failing and needs fundamental change, like privatization.

We've wasted billions of dollars trying to achieve results using the wrong measurements and the wrong strategies, from relying on standardized tests to using scripted curricula to cutting money for vocational and technical training for students who do not excel at academic subjects. Then came the devastating budget cuts precipitated by the recession and the rise of Republican governors who don't understand that competition within schools does little other than to destroy the collaborative atmosphere that enables successful schools to thrive.

What works?

Large bodies of research have shown how poor health and nutrition inhibit child development and learning and, conversely, how high-quality early childhood and preschool education programs can enhance them. We understand the importance of early exposure to rich language on future cognitive development. We know that low-income students experience greater learning loss during the summer when their more privileged peers are enjoying travel and other enriching activities.

Since they can’t take on poverty itself, education policy makers should try to provide poor students with the social support and experiences that middle-class students enjoy as a matter of course.

Of course, you can't replicate the middle class experiences by implementing policies that hurt the existing middle class while protecting the wealthy, but that's a minor detail.

As always, though, there's more.

Another article sheds more light on the relationship between quality education and money in a less obvious realm; the military. That's right. According to Military Children Stay a Step Ahead of Public School Students by Michael Winerip, children in public schools on military bases are performing better than the general public school population on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and are narrowing the income gap at the same time.

At the military base schools, 39 percent of fourth graders were scored as proficient in reading, compared with 32 percent of all public school students.

Even more impressive, the achievement gap between black and white students continues to be much smaller at military base schools and is shrinking faster than at public schools.

On the NAEP reading test, black fourth graders in public schools scored an average of 205 out of 500, compared with a 231 score for white public school students, a 26-point gap. Black fourth graders at the military base schools averaged 222 in reading, compared with 233 for whites, an 11-point gap.

In fact, the black fourth graders at the military base schools scored better in reading than public school students as a whole, whose average score was 221.

Now, I'm not saying that a 39% reading proficiency rate is something to crow about, and there is the matter that military people must be high school graduates and pass an entrance exam to get into the service, but the results do show an improvement over other public school children. And they succeed without doing most of the things that busybody state governments want their schools to accomplish. Military base schools do not use standardized tests to evaluate teachers, but only to identify students' strengths and weaknesses, and the principal can decide how many times to observe their teachers. Average class size is lower than regular public schools and there seems to be a positive relationship between the teacher's union and the administration.

But the real lesson is that economically and academically, the students get the support from home that they need in order to succeed. All of the families have health care, housing and necessities because they serve in the military, and at least one parent in the household has a job. These are the basic middle class advantages that are missing from many communities across the country, but ones that politicians are ignoring in their race to blame teachers and demonize their negotiated benefits. They are also what Ladd and Fiske refer to as the absolute minimum that less fortunate students need to compete with upper middle class schools.

Excellent public schools must be available to all students, but they won't be as long as know-nothing politicians and would-be reformers concentrate on the wrong remedies and research that advocates privatization and cuts to social programs. We need to replicate what actually works for children, families and communities.

Find out what else works at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

My Kingdom For $10,000

2011-12-12T05:49:00.000-05:00

So, how much damage did Mitt Romney do to his presidential campaign after offering Rick Perry a $10,000 wager on his health care position? We'll find out in the next few days after the pollsters have had a chance to wade through their data, but my sense is that it will do damage to what's left of Romney's standing as a regular guy who happens to be rich.

The damage control has already begun.

Political campaigns have turned on worse gaffes, as Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain can tell you, but this one will stand out as Romney's low point. It also comes at a bad time, with voting set to commence in Iowa a day after you've returned that last questionable holiday gift.

Of course, Newt Gingrich has harvested the most media attention over the past few weeks, and this trend continued last night. This AP article described Newt as having a "steely calm" and as:

defending his most controversial stands without appearing to be the thin-skinned hothead his critics often describe.

The former House speaker seemed to accomplish that goal in Saturday's debate in Iowa. His challenge will be to sustain the strategy while rivals attack him on the airwaves and the ground, and to convince conservative voters that he's their champion despite his occasional departures from orthodoxy.

But Newt's already had to backtrack on his comment describing the Palestinians as an invented people, which will do nothing to help his foreign policy credentials. And he did a little bit of constitutional reinvention when discussing his views of the mandate that would require everyone to buy health insurance. It seems that he supported it in 1993 when he was fighting Bill and Hillary's program, but explained it this way on Saturday:

"I frankly was floundering, trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills, while still leaving an out so libertarians could not buy insurance," Gingrich said. "It's now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. "

So I guess the Gingrich constitutional test has an 18 year time limit. He'll need to work on that one.

Overall, Mitt did not do poorly aside from the bet, Bachmann's reference to Newt Romney was amusing, and Ron Paul's message continues to be the most consistent of all of the candidates. It won't get him the nomination, but you can't accuse him of flip-flopping. He's my pick for second place in Iowa.

What now then? Thankfully, Donald Trump's mega-disaster debate has been exposed for what it truly is: an opportunity for him to be the star in a political game that only he can win. The GOP field will continue to try and get their messages out while the rest of America goes shopping, and President Obama will try to paint each and every one of them as against the middle class. The latest polls show Obama ahead both nationally and ahead of Gingrich specifically in the key swing states of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Six months ago, it would have been madness to predict the Republican state of affairs as it exists today. Six months from now, I think that Mitt Romney will stand as the eventual nominee. I don't have $10,000 to back it up, though.

For more prescient predictions, visit facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Bold Ideas Lead to Great Schools:The Future of Education Reform

2011-12-09T05:59:00.002-05:00

Sometimes an idea, or set of ideas, comes along that's so clear and sensible, it makes you stop and wonder why we haven't implemented it. Then again, some ideas are so ineffective, it's a wonder they haven't been buried in an avalanche of criticism.

Such is the state of public education reform in the United States at this moment. Governors throughout the country have tried, and in some cases succeeded, in forcing their versions of school reform in their states with little or misguided thought and a jaundiced eye towards the teachers who will need to carry it out. They eschew collaboration for rigidity, cooperation for coarseness, and conversation for calumny. Theirs is a corporate model based on competition, but that's not necessarily how schools work. So far, this top-down approach has done little for education, but has done a great deal to sour relations between the adults who need to implement the changes and the politicians who want votes.

The key to real, lasting, effective reform in this country lies in a partnership between the state governments and teachers, parents and students, and the most effective reforms will focus their energies on people working together. That's why the ideas in the article, Taking Teacher Quality Seriously: A Collaborative Approach to Teacher Evaluation by Stan Karp of Rethinking Schools Blog, are so vital. They are aimed at improving education and student performance without sacrificing the rights and concerns of teachers. As Karp says:

One promising model is the Montgomery County, Maryland Professional Growth System (PGS), which has taken a collaborative approach to improving teacher quality for more than a decade. Several defining features make the Montgomery model very different than the test-based “value-added” or “student growth” approaches. The Montgomery Co. professional growth system:

was negotiated through collective bargaining rather than imposed by state or federal mandate.
is based on a clear, common vision of high quality professional teaching practice.
includes test scores as one of many indicators of student progress and teacher performance without rigidly weighted formulas.
includes a strong PAR (peer assistance and review) component for all novice and under-performing teachers, including those with tenure.
takes a broad, qualitative approach to promoting individual and system-wide teacher quality and continuous professional growth.

There are many strengths to the PGS, as outlined above and in the rest of the article. It allows for collective bargaining, so it's less antagonizing than the Wisconsin model that took away that right from teachers, and it has a component for peer assistance (PAR), where experienced teachers can share their expertise with newer educators.

But perhaps the best part of the system is that it's not SDOT (Shoved Down Our Throats) by politicians who have little, if any knowledge of what works best in classrooms. It's teacher-centered; and that's the correct approach because teachers are the ones best qualified to carry it out.

The PGS also addresses another concern that the public has about education, and that's teacher quality. As Karp notes:

In 11 years, the PAR process has led to some 500 teachers being removed from the classroom in a countywide system of about 150,000 students with approximately 10,000 teachers and 200 schools. Over the same period, nearly 5,000 teachers have successfully completed the PAR process.[ii]

But PAR is only part of a professional growth system designed to improve teacher capacity throughout the system, not just identify and remove ineffective teachers. It’s a qualitative approach growing out of a shared vision of high quality professional practice. The PGS begins with “six clear standards for teacher performance, based on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards” and includes “performance criteria for how the standards are to be met and descriptive examples of observable teaching behaviors.”

You can read the standards in the article. It's refreshing to see that every one of them begins with the word, "Teachers."

There's more to like in the explanation of the process that teachers and administrators use to evaluate the program and each other. Teachers and principals are equally represented on a panel that determines if a teacher is effective. There's an appeals process if a teacher is given a negative recommendation, and the system is based on documentation at every level of evaluation and appeal. This is a far cry from what happens at many public schools, especially here in New Jersey, where many teachers are observed once or twice per year and documentation is cursory, general or incomplete.

In the end, it's the words the participants use to describe the process that show how effective the program can be. Here are some examples:

“It wouldn’t work without the level of trust we have here,” MCEA president Doug Prouty told the NY Times.

“(G)ood teaching is nurtured in a school and in a school system culture that values constant feedback, analysis, and refinement of the quality of teaching.”

While the system is spelled out in detail, what really makes it possible is the level of trust and cooperation that grew out of years of developing a collaborative approach to issues of teacher quality.

In Maryland, they seem to be on the right track.

In New Jersey, we might be moving in that direction.

On December 1, State Senator Barbara Buono introduced two education bills. The first would establish a teacher residency program to replace the present student teaching requirement.

Under the bill, all fourth-year students would be placed in a school district five days per week for a full-semester under the supervision of a district mentor teacher. The students would also take a seminar course during this period that provides a collaborative learning experience and peer discussion with other residency students and with faculty.

The bill would also create teacher mentor positions in each school district. These master teachers would then serve to introduce the teacher residents into the profession over the course of the full semester. It would be a collaborative program and would recognize excellent teachers.

The second bill would require each school district to develop a set of standards by which all teachers would be evaluated, by both peers and principals, based on district curriculum standards. They would be observed four times per year and be required to submit a portfolio of their work. There is no mention of standardized tests, and this process would be determined through collective bargaining. Those are good things. The bill also mentions collaboration and cooperation. Senator Buono's bills will not be the final word on these issues, but they are a welcome addition to the debate.

The current reform models that rely on threats and stare-downs might make for exciting videos, but they are terrible public policy. If more Governors and Commissioners of Education would commit to the cooperative, collaborative ethic, they would find that educators would more readily commit to implementing bold reforms enthusiastically.

For more bold, enthusiastic ideas, visit facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Polling Report: December 6, 2011

2011-12-06T05:50:00.000-05:00

Since our last episode, on November 6, one year before the national elections, much has changed in the race for president. We are currently in the middle (end? beginning?) of the Gingrich ascendancy, and there is some evidence (from this CBS News poll) that Newt could pull off a stunning comeback win in Iowa, which would put him in terrific position for New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada later in January. So with that appetizing thought in our heads, let's move on to the main meal.

Obama Job Approval

The latest RealClearPolitics Index of Obama's job approval is here. Since last month, Obama's approval has dropped form 45.3% to 43.8% and his disapproval has risen slightly, from 50.7% in November to 50.8% today. A look at the main 3-day averages that RCP uses, Gallup and Rasmussen, shows almost no change in Obama's improvement. Further, this article puts Obama's approval lower than Jimmy Carter's at the same stage in their presidencies. Clearly, this is not good news for the President's supporters.

Head-To-Head Match-ups

These number tell a much different story. While more Americans disapprove of the job the president is doing, they favor him over every other prospective Republican nominee.

He's also slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in the swing state of Florida, but only by 1 point.

The Republican Field

It's the Newt show at this point, and that's a very recent phenomenon, coming on the heels of, and in some ways caused by, the implosion of Herman Cain's campaign. The numbers are stark and solid, but the real question is, how long will they last?

Perhaps more troubling for Mitt Romney's campaign are these results from pollsandvotes.com showing Romney's support actually dropping in the first four states to hold votes next month. If Mitt doesn't watch out, he might be in a position where a less-than-solid win in New Hampshire could be seen as a failure or a "he's supposed to win" moment that doesn't pay off in the long run.

My sense is that Romney will win most of the January states simply because, at this point, Gingrich doesn't have a presence in these states that would allow him to conduct the retail politics necessary to corral votes. It's even more uphill for Newt in Iowa, where getting your people to the caucuses is the main concern. Still, he does have money and is beginning to air TV ads that will reach far more people than getting out and shaking hands.

But Romney also has to be concerned. Conservatives will show up in droves this year, and he could find himself third, behind Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. That would be quite a fall. Romney didn't think he would have to fight hard for Iowa since he's been in the state for the past two years, but that's changed now.

The Ballots

The Electoral College map hasn't budged since November.
And neither has the Generic Congressional Ballot, which shows Democrats leading Republicans by 1.2%

Although it's very early in the campaign, Obama's strategists have mapped out his electoral college strategy, and it looks something like this:

First, the president is aiming to win all the states John Kerry won in 2004. That would bring him to 246 electoral votes, including Pennsylvania's mother lode of 20. Add New Mexico, which the president won in 2008, and that's five more electoral votes. Now he's at 251.

Then it gets hard. The final 19 electoral votes would come through a process of mix and match.

North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and even Arizona are in the mix, with each showing both promise and peril for Obama's reelection chances.

That's it for now. Before I push off for the holidays (I'll post another polling report on January 3 for Iowa), let me suggest some gifts for the political junkie in your household. Or in your shoes.

From Amazon, if you're one of those people who still reads (how 2009!)
Obama curios
Gag gifts.
The best free gift!

Cheers.

Lies, Damn Lies, and the Truth About Teacher Tenure

2011-12-05T06:19:00.001-05:00

Have you heard the latest story about teachers and tenure? No? It goes like this. A teacher was given stellar observations for two and a half years. In the spring of their third year, the principal wrote a savagely negative review of one of the teacher's lessons because the teacher made comments about how cold their room was during the winter, and the children were complaining that it was difficult to concentrate. Parents called the principal to complain. The principal felt embarrassed and wrote a negative evaluation. The teacher never received tenure.

Never heard that one?

How about this one? A student accused a tenured teacher of using inappropriate language in the classroom. The principal didn't get along with this teacher, an officer in the local teacher's association, and made it abundantly clear that all they needed was an excuse to cause the teacher trouble. After a cursory investigation, the principal recommended that the teacher lose their salary increment for the next year because teachers shouldn't use that kind of language in front of students. Two months later, the student admitted lying about the incident because they were upset with a grade they earned in the teacher's class. The teacher was given back the salary increase that was taken from them.

Chances are good that you never heard that story either.

Why do I mention these incidents, both of which actually occurred? Because they illustrate the difference between a teacher having fair dismissal rights and one that does not. They also illustrate the lies and misinformation floating around about what tenure actually means in practice.

Nowhere is this in more vivid view than Tom Moran's piece in Sunday's Newark Star-Ledger. It's essentially a response to an article by Janine Walker Caffrey, the Superintendent of Schools in Perth Amboy, NJ. Both of these writings sound the alarm bells that the public loves to hear. From Moran:

Janine Caffrey, the schools superintendent in Perth Amboy, could hardly believe the teacher was so incompetent.

The kids didn’t have needed textbooks. There was no lesson plan. Other teachers complained that students were learning nothing. And when the principal demanded changes, the teacher wouldn’t budge.

So Caffrey, a spark plug of energy, left her sparsely furnished office to meet the teacher for a showdown, ready to whap some sense into this person once and for all.

But it didn’t work out that way.

“This teacher looked me in the eye and said, ‘I won’t do it.’ Just an outright refusal. And this has happened to multiple people before me. We’ve done multiple corrective action plans, and it’s not achieving any results.”

So the teacher won the showdown and is still standing in front of a classroom full of kids every day, supremely secure in defiance.

Only one word can explain this insanity: tenure.

It certainly sounds horrible, and if the story is true, that teacher should not be teaching in the public schools. The real problem is not tenure, though. It's buried deep in Morans' article and it goes like this:

To be fair, districts share some of the blame as well. Tenure rules might be crazy, but it is possible to get rid of the worst teachers if the district builds a solid case with a paper trail. In the case of the refusenik teacher, Perth Amboy failed to do that. The teacher had won satisfactory evaluations in the past, as nearly all teachers do.

The problem, my friends, is that the principal was not doing their job. There's no sharing here. If principals are not building cases or informing the teacher's association representatives that a teacher is a problem, or is having a problem, then the principal is at fault. All on their own. And if the principal or supervisor is routinely giving positive reviews to ineffective or bad teachers, they need to stop. I don't know where Moran gets his "nearly all teachers" receive satisfactory evaluations data. My guess is that he's simply repeating what he's heard. It's a great story, but he needs to support his statements with facts.

Why is this all on the administration and not the teacher's union? Because the NJEA has nothing to do with whether a teacher earns tenure. The legislature wrote and passed the tenure laws and school administrators are responsible for implementing them.

Tenure is not a job for life. It's a guarantee that a teacher cannot be fired for frivolous, personal, vindictive reasons by administrators who don't like them or need to install a relative in their place.

Tenure is a requirement that a teacher who has earned it is confronted by evidence of misdeed, misconduct or behavior that puts children at risk.

Tenure is earned after working, with positive recommendations by the Superintendent, Principal and, if necessary, Department Supervisor, for three years in the same school district. It shouldn't be handed out like candy at Halloween, but sometimes it is. And it's not the teacher's fault. The responsibility is all on the administrator. And if Superintendents like Janine Caffrey do not build a case, then a bad teacher can only be removed by going through the process, which Moran cites in a nifty chart in his article.

Moran and Caffrey also bring up how much it costs to discipline or fire a teacher who has earned tenure. The NJEA has offered a tenure reform plan that would streamline the process so it would take 90 days at most, as opposed to the possible two plus years it takes now, to settle cases. That would help, but it would do nothing to solve the problem of administrators doling out good reviews to ineffective or bad teachers.

So what to do?

How about having principals and supervisors observe teachers 8 times per year for the first three years (or four years as the NJEA plan proposes) and 6 times a year once they've earned tenure? That would create a tremendous amount of data by which a teacher could be evaluated before and after they've earned tenure. And since the overwhelming majority of teachers who do earn tenure deserve it and are members of the best teaching staff in the country as measured by national test scores, observing them a few more times might catch the few who would be problems down the road. Another good idea would be to have a teacher's first year be a residency year, where someone new to the profession could receive help from a qualified mentor. This mentoring could then continue for the next 3 years.

One other issue also rears its head when people discuss tenure, and that's the question of why teachers have it and other professions don't. My answer is that other professions should have some kind of objective job protection. The arguments against public workers by governors such as Chris Christie, Scott Walker and John Kasich revolve around the idea that since private sector workers don't have these benefits, then no workers should have them. They seem to be more concerned with breaking the unions than they do with actually improving education.

That's backwards.

The decline of unions has meant that workers are more and more at the mercy of management and it's time that we changed that conversation. Terrible stories, such as the ones in Moran's article only illustrate one side of the debate. If school management would all do their jobs in an honest, forthright way, we could more readily dismiss ineffective teachers. And that would be a positive step forward for everyone.

Take another positive step forward and visit us at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Will The Gingrich Steal Christmas, Or Is Newt Moot?

2011-12-04T12:09:00.002-05:00

Consider: This has been the year of economic gloom, a devastating Japanese tsunami, an earthquake in Virginia, a hurricane in New England, and a destructive East Coast snow storm before Halloween. These are bad enough.

Are we really headed for a holiday season dominated by discussion of Newt Gingrich's chances in the Republican primaries? The fates are indeed playing a cruel joke on us mere mortals.

The stories and analysis are coming fast and furious. Let's see...

There's Newt the complete idiot.
Newt saying idiotic things.
Newt the poll climber.
Newt the spoiler.
Newt the statesman.
And Newt the insufferable.

So which Newt are we going to get? And why should we care? After all, he's not going to win the nomination.

I still think that ring will be worn by Mitt Romney, the subject of a long story in the New York Times Magazine today. It's not an especially flattering account, but it gets to the heart of how Romney intends to win next year. From the article:

Mitt Romney’s campaign has decided upon a rather novel approach to winning the presidency. It has taken a smart and highly qualified but largely colorless candidate and made him exquisitely one-dimensional: All-Business Man, the world’s most boring superhero. In the recent past, aspirants and their running mates have struggled to clear the regular-guy bar. Dan Quayle lacked a sense of struggle; Michael Dukakis couldn’t emote even when asked what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered; George H. W. Bush seemed befuddled by a grocery-store scanner; John Kerry was a windsurfer; John McCain couldn’t count all of his houses.

Romney, a socially awkward Mormon with squishy conservative credentials and a reported worth in the range of $190 million to $250 million, is betting that in 2012, recession-weary voters want a fixer, not a B.F.F. As the Romney campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, told me: “The economy is overwhelmingly the issue. Our whole campaign is premised on the idea that this is a referendum on Obama, the economy is a disaster and Obama is uniquely blocked from being able to talk about jobs.”

What happens when the economy starts improving? This is the oft-repeated conundrum of the candidate running against a recession. Ronald Reagan made it an issue in 1980 and won overwhelmingly. Bill Clinton hammered George H.W. Bush about the economy and defeated him, despite the fact that the economy was improving during the fall of 1992. In 2012, Romney will be in a position where he has to hope that things don't markedly improve before the election. For an American exceptionalist, it must hurt him to have to root against jobs, rising wages, recovering banks and the success of the euro zone, but I think he believes that if he smiles all the time, voters will forgive him.

And Newt (this is a story about Newt)? Well, Newt is touting his resume these days.. He's running on ending communism and getting the economy moving in the 90s, despite voting against (and having every Republican vote against) the Clinton budget of 1993 that set the stage for the decade's expansion. On that issue, Newt is moot. But, again, it doesn't matter, because Newt will never be the GOP nominee.

The pundits tell us it's a two-man race over on the right, now that Herman Cain has dropped out and the other retreads have had their days in the sun and their corresponding sunsets. I feel bad for John Huntsman, who never got his renaissance, and who might qualify as the only reasonable Republican in the race. But this is the year of the uncompromising conservative and I imagine that Mitt and Newt will fight to see who can oppose abortion, taxes and union rights more than the other.

The good news is that the holidays are fast approaching, and this year, we've really earned the good cheer.

For more good cheer, visit us at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

What The Hell Are We Paying YOU For?

2011-11-30T06:12:00.013-05:00

For a guy who uses his religious beliefs to deny marriage equality and oppose abortion, Governor Christie certainly cusses a lot (he's no Steve Sweeney, but still). During the run up to Hurricane Irene, he implored a citizen to "Get the hell off the beach." Now he's gone after President Obama with a question New Jerseyans should be asking of him. The direct quote, for the record, comes from this article on Politico:

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

The Governor also used crass language a couple of weeks ago after saying that math and science teachers should be paid more than gym teachers. When called on his remarks by the New Jersey Education Association, his retort was, “Cut the crap,” to which NJEA spokesperson Steve Wollmer replied, “‘Cut the crap’ isn’t very gubernatorial, is it?” Wollmer said. “Each teacher contributes equally to students’ success.”

And given Christie's age and weight, perhaps disparaging physical education and health teachers is not in his best interests.

But I digress. While the governor has been excoriating the President, he hasn't been doing much governing. He went to Massachusetts to stump for Mitt Romney and keep his name afloat for national office in 2012; otherwise, he's been quiet.

That won't last for long. The legislature is gearing up for one of the busiest lame duck sessions in memory, with bills on education reform, aid to cities and a contentious telecommunications deregulation bill on the docket. Yet with New Jersey already known throughout the United States as a famously corrupt state, government ethics reform will probably not be one of the session's major accomplishments. According to this article on nj.com:

New Jersey needs more honest governance, and not simply because virtue is its own reward. Conflicts of interest by elected officials and pay-to-play contracting at the municipal and county levels cost the battered taxpayers of this state uncounted millions of dollars each year and help elevate those property taxes we all complain about. It’s obvious that taxpayers lose when public contracts are steered to generous contributors instead of to vendors who can do the job more cheaply and effectively.

But the people who make policy at the Statehouse are comfortable with the status quo, and the public — which reacts with outrage anytime there’s a straightforward tax increase — doesn’t seem to see the connection between corruption and high taxes.

Only about 26 percent of New Jersey’s voters turned out Nov. 8 to take part in an election in which all 120 seats in the Senate and Assembly were up for grabs. The result: a Legislature which, for at least two more years, will be virtually a carbon copy of the one that will expire in January — the same one that has done nothing to advance political ethics.

Governor Christie ran on ethics reform, but he hasn't pushed it, and without some kind of bill, property taxes in New Jersey will keep rising. On top of that, public sector layoffs have increased unemployment, but have done nothing to lower taxes, and increased pension and benefits payments have taken money out of consumer's pockets. And did I mention that property taxes are still too high?

So governor, I'll be polite and simply ask, "What are we paying you for?"

See more at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Republican Debate

2011-11-23T06:33:00.001-05:00

I must say that I agree with Newt on immigration. We need to recognize that many illegal immigrants are productive members of our society and/or were brought here by their parents and have been good students. Why punish them as outlaws when we could certainly use their energy and creativity, if not their work ethic. It is time to pass legislation that would allow these people to become citizens if they follow procedures and keep their records clean. Sending someone back for a traffic violation is shortsighted.

Most everything else Newt says is inflammatory and dangerous, but polls are showing that many Republican voters like his experience. He could give Mitt a serious run, unlike Cain, who lost once and for all last night, and Perry, who didn't have much of a plan other than to say that Obama is horrible (blah, blah).

Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Super Dud

2011-11-21T06:15:00.000-05:00

So many epitaphs, so little time.

Debt panel poised to admit failure
Lawmakers Concede Budget Talks Are Close to Failure
You could even get interactive and take a look at all of the failed plans on one page.

In the end, Americans don't do well with all-powerful groups that issue ultimatums (ultimata?). They strike us as undemocratic and untrustworthy, and they undermine the limited government ethos on which this country was founded. We're supposed to work together to solve our problems, using our representatives as proxies to fight against the noxious influence of factions and interest groups. Creating a group whose work could not be altered or debated runs so counter to our system of checks and balances, that I'm frankly surprised that nobody brought a suit against it as unconstitutional. Perhaps the lesson is that lobbying money will buy you anything, even a mini Politburo in the bowels of Washington.

The problem now is that Congress if both full of, and influenced by, the types of groups the Founders wanted Congress, and indeed representative government, to protect us from. The Tea Party believes that they are the only ones who are correctly interpreting the Constitution. The Occupy Wall Street movement believes that democracy can only truly be served with income equality, which would require a redivision of the economic pie. Both groups are certain of their orthodoxies. In large part they reflect the ideologies of the parties in Congress, who are beholden to their benefactors to the exclusion of common sense and the common good.

The first sign of problems with the supercommittee came when both sides discussed ways to maneuver around the automatic cuts prescribed in the law. Without the fear of automatic cuts, it became possible, even probable, that the committee would fail. After that came the name-calling and doom-saying. Now comes the finger-pointing.

If anything, the Republicans will bear the brunt of negative public reaction should the committee ultimately fail. Both Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney have called on President Obama to protect cuts to the military. You'll notice that they're not so quick to call for sparing cuts to programs that recession-ravaged Americans need. Also, the Republican's absolute opposition to revenue hikes flies in the face of public opinion, as the chart below from Poll Watch Daily points out.

In fact, their argument flies in the face of history. From this New York Times article:

In the five fiscal grand bargains of the 1980s and early 1990s, tax increases accounted for an average of 61 cents of every dollar saved. In fact, in President Reagan’s 1982 and 1984 budget-trimming deals, more than 80 percent of deficit reductions came from tax increases. What’s more, the deals passed with majority support from both parties. Mr. Reagan may be remembered as an antitax hero, but he actually raised taxes 11 times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Republicans used to rank deficit reduction ahead of curbing taxes, but now the reverse is true. What changed?

What changed was that the Republicans were slowly taken over by the uncompromising right wing, most of whom took Grover Norquist's no-tax pledge (which many of them broke during George W. Bush's term, but then found religion in 2009, just in time for Obama).

So what will happen now? Not much, it seems, if the committee falls apart. From Newser.com:

There’s a reason Capitol Hill isn’t in panic mode ahead of the supercommittee’s dreaded Nov. 23 deadline: because nothing will actually happen in the now-likely event that the committee fails. Turns out those massive spending cuts that supposedly serve as a sword of Damocles for lawmakers don’t kick in until January 2013, the Washington Post reports, giving lawmakers plenty of time to work out a fix. Of course, they’ll probably wait to actually do so until after the next election.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts also kicks in at the start of January 2013, so expect yet another do-or-die legislative scramble then. A deal certainly looks unlikely right now, despite a brief bipartisan meeting last night. Max Baucus was so pessimistic that he became angry and "emotional" as he talked to the Post. “Everybody’s afraid—afraid of losing their job—to move toward the center,” he said. “Compared to the thousands who have given their lives in service to this country, I think it’s tragic and it speaks volumes.”

Other casualties of the failure would be the expiration of the payroll tax cut, which would hit middle class families with an average hike of about $1,000, and the end of long term unemployment insurance. Tax cuts for the wealthy would not be touched.

This is a failure of leadership, bipartisanship, imagination, creativity, and will. We the people deserve better.

Please join and like us at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

As New Jersey Goes, So Goes the Nation

2011-11-18T06:16:00.000-05:00

Anybody looking for a change in tone from Governor Christie after the mid-term elections should be disappointed. With a lame duck session of the Democratic-controlled legislature coming up and the prospect of more tussles over school reform and the state budget, Christie is back to being the brawler that conservatives fell in love with earlier in the year. It doesn't mean that he has the best ideas, or that he knows how to reform education so children will actually benefit, but it does mean that he's throwing rhetorical bombs for general consumption.

Exhibit A is this Mostly False rating from PolitiFact over comments the Governor made saying that the graduation rate and per-pupil spending rate in Newark shows that the system is "broken." As is often the case, Christie talks a good game, but the truth is nowhere to be found.

Next is Christie's very short-lived rapprochement with the New Jersey Education Association. Last week his Acting Commissioner of Education Christopher Cerf spoke at the NJEA Convention in Atlantic City and actually said,

"I just want to assure you, this issue of improving public education, especially for our neediest students, is not a political platform for him (Christie)," Cerf said. "It is the purpose of his being in office. He has the highest regard for teachers and teaching."

Well, um, he has an interesting way of showing his, um purpose and regard. Like saying that teachers use their students as "drug mules" to propagandize them with NJEA messages.

In case you though the guv'nor was getting soft, worry no more, because on Wednesday, Christie went back to attack mode at Secaucus High School with A message of love, but not with the NJEA. From the article:

Christie at first took a stab at diplomacy, citing the union's recent overtures on tenure reform — "We started to hear noises that they want to be part of the reform, and that's great."

He gave them a few brownie points for not running attack ads against him in the recent campaign. "You no longer see them spend … millions of dollars trying to convince you that I'm evil incarnate."

And he even hinted that they might have some say in the education overhaul that he is pushing in the lame-duck session.

But when asked if he would sit and meet and negotiate with his enemy up close – and perhaps hate them a little less — Christie balked. The reason is simple. The union remains his favorite punching bag, the large, powerful symbol of calcified Trenton status quo, the thugs that have had the political process by the throat for decades.

It's nice to know that teachers will have some say in the reform process. After all, we're the ones who will have to carry it out.

Always remember, though, that deep down, Christie believes that the NJEA is a foe to be defeated, as he said last June:

"We need to take on the teachers union once and for all, and we need to decide who is determining our children's future, who is running this place," Christie told a group of deep-pocketed Republican donors at the now-legendary private conclave organized by oil billionaires Charles and David Koch last June. "Them or us? I say it's us."

Us versus them, indeed. Because the Koch brothers care more about your children's future than their teacher. That's the message.

The lame duck session of the New Jersey Legislature could have national implications if Christie is to get his way on tenure, vouchers, privatizing public education and charter schools.

Democratic leaders Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney, who caved in to their local bosses over votes on the pension and benefits bill last June, have vowed to stiffen their backs this time. For the sake of public education, let's hope so.

Join the debate at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

We Need Reform, Not Revenge

2011-11-14T06:14:00.001-05:00

If you wanted to reform the legal system, you would probably want to speak to attorneys.

If you wanted to reform the way that sports leagues address the problem of concussions, you would want to speak to coaches and players.
If you were interested in reforming medicine, you'd probably want to speak to doctors and nurses.

But those who want to change the education system want nothing to do with teachers. Pretend-reform governors such as Chris Christie (NJ), Scott Walker (WI) and Rick Scott (FL), entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and politicians including President Obama all believe that they know more about how to improve the public education system in the United States than professional educators who are working with students on a day-to-day basis to educate them and provide them with life skills.

And the public seems to endorse this approach.

As a 27 year veteran of the classroom, I can tell you that what's been done so far: taking away teachers' collective bargaining rights, reducing teacher pay in the name of economic fairness, and attacking the unions that have, until recently, enabled teachers to become solid members of the middle class and protected them against political and personal retribution, has been a miserable failure. Those actions have produced nothing that even remotely improves education or that will attract the best teachers to the nation's classrooms.

But that's exactly what these amateurs want. They want to destroy the last vestiges of powerful unions that will stand up to their lie that only the free market and charter schools can provide a quality education for all children. They don't understand that forcing teachers to compete for scarce educational resources and pay will obliterate the cooperative environment that is the cornerstone of every effective school. And they are wrong, in every sense of that word, when they say that the true measure of a teacher's value is based on student test scores. More absurdly, in Florida, the formula for determining a teacher's value is so confusing that even a member of the state committee tasked with developing it abstained from a vote because she didn’t understand it.

Educational reform must be supported by data and studies that show what actually works in the classroom. That's what's largely missing from those who purport to want to improve schools. If they looked at studies, they would find that:

Teacher performance pay alone does not raise student test scores - New Vanderbilt study finds.

"We tested the most basic and foundational question related to performance incentives - Does bonus pay alone improve student outcomes? - and we found that it does not," Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives, said. "These findings should raise the level of the debate to test more nuanced solutions, many of which are being implemented now across the country, to reform teacher compensation and improve student achievement."

The benefits of Charter Schools have been vastly overstated compared to public schools.

In the report, “How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement,” Stanford
University professor Caroline Hoxby and her colleagues Sonali Murarka and Jenny Kang probe
the academic achievement of 30,000 New York City students who had applied to charter schools
and had been randomly separated by lotteries into charter schools (the “lotteried-in” students) and
traditional schools (the “lotteried-out” students).

Hoxby and her colleagues made the headline-grabbing assertion that, on average, for students that
attended from kindergarten through grade eight, New York City charter schools could close the
“Scarsdale-Harlem gap”—that is, the achievement gap between students in Harlem and students in
the much more affluent suburb of Scarsdale—by 66 percent in English and 86 percent in math. This
is a shocking finding that, if true, would suggest that charters could be a magic bullet after all. But
Hoxby’s colleague at Stanford, Sean Reardon, the education researcher and expert in social sciences
methodology, scrutinized Hoxby’s report and uncovered serious design flaws in the study.4 Reardon’s
analysis largely undercuts the claims of dramatic gains that have attracted so much media
attention.

Using test scores to evaluate teachers is flawed.

Take a look at any of the videos on the page, or peruse page 17 of this article.

In fact, all of their arguments have little data behind them.

At the New Jersey Education Association Convention this past Friday, Acting N.J. Commissioner of Education Christopher Cerf spoke to the assembled teachers and repeated the greatest falsehood these non-educators believe: that research shows effective teachers are the single largest factor in student success.

That is completely wrong, according to noted educational researcher Richard Rothstein. From his article:

It has become conventional in educational policy discussion to assert that “research shows” that “teachers are the most important influence on student achievement.” There is, in fact, no serious research that shows any such thing.

I have posted on the Economic Policy Institute website an analysis of this claim, showing that it is not an accurate reflection of the president’s view, nor is it accurate on its own terms. I won’t repeat all the details here, but invite readers who are interested to read the analysis in its entirety

Since their goal is not real reform, but rather, an overthrow of teachers' rights to have a say in the curriculum, working conditions, salaries, and school policies, the politicians and wealthy business people who are driving this movement don't need hard data. They only need money and a platform. Unfortunately, at this time in our nation's history, they have both.

So, as usual, it's time for educators and real reformers to take charge of the debate. Spread the word about thoughtful, meaningful reform using the facts. Ignorance and money are our most potent adversaries.

Join the discussion at facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

Defining Mobility Down: The New Republican Economy

2011-11-11T08:31:00.000-05:00

In 1993, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote an essay entitled "Defining deviancy down” in The American Spectator (vol. 62, no. 1, winter 1993, pp. 17-30). The subtitle was “How We’ve Become Accustomed to Alarming Levels of Crime and Destructive Behavior.” In other words, with an increase in violent behavior, society began accepting some crimes as normal, while only the most shocking crimes caught our attention.

In 2011, we've allowed the Republican party to define mobility down by accepting the idea that there's nothing government should do to help people in economic need, and to actually blame the unemployed and poor for their condition. In other words, with an increase in poverty and the loss of middle class purchasing power, middle and working class Americans must sacrifice their savings, pensions, medical insurance and children's futures so that the wealthy can continue to have their lifestyles protected. Mobility must be sacrificed at the altar of lower taxes on the rich and unbridled competitive capitalism.

This lie is usually repeated whenever the GOP wants to cut a social program or force workers, unionized or otherwise, to pay more because not doing so would mean that millionaires might have to pay more. Shared sacrifice is fine for the 99%, but not for the top earners. And so far they've used the argument that because private sector workers don't have what public workers have, public workers must give up their gains.

This translates into a destructive line of illogic: Since private sector workers have to pay more for less insurance, are at risk for losing their pensions when the stock market tanks (if they have a pension), and have to take wage freezes and cuts, all middle class workers should suffer and sacrifice. Meanwhile, the wealthy have seen their incomes grow upward of 400% over the past 30 years.

The right wants this line of thought to be the new normal. It's a shocking turn of events and exactly the opposite from what made the United States great in the post-World War II era. What's worse, the media has repeated the new definition of mobility so many times, it's become an accepted idea.

The Progressive goal for this election cycle has to be to restore economic sanity to the debate. Instead of lumping all middle class workers into a subgroup that needs to sacrifice, we need to find ways to lift all workers so they have decent, affordable health insurance, livable wages and acceptable working conditions. Voters in Ohio struck the first blow by repealing the law that cut public worker collective bargaining rights. Occupy Wall Street has begun to slowly change the terms of debate by focusing on the obscene inequality between the wealthy and middle class wage earners. Even Republicans are now cautiously discussing raising revenue through changes in the tax system.

But that's not enough. We need to hammer home the point that the 2009 stimulus law raised economic growth and employment when it was in effect. As soon as the money stopped, the economy slowed. Cutting wages and benefits have made things worse by taking money out of the economy when the responsible policy would be even greater stimulus. It's outrageous to hear pro-business Republicans talk about investing in the stock market, but arguing against investing public money in industries that the private sector won't touch.

Social and economic mobility is the lifeblood of this country. Let not allow the right wing to tell us all how much we can't do.

Join the debate at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

The Christie Coattails

2011-11-09T06:27:00.000-05:00

Good thing he didn't run for president. That would have been downright embarrassing.

Although the results of yesterday's legislative elections in New Jersey showed Democrats gaining one seat, it denied Governor Christie any opportunity to gloat about a referendum on his policies or his ability to rally his supporters against an entrenched political machine. From the article:

Christie had hoped his party would pick up a few seats or at least break even, which he said would "make history" because almost every first-term governor’s party has lost seats in the midterm election. But that was a tall order because a new legislative map approved this spring continued to favor Democrats.

Democrats said Christie has been unable to translate his national starpower into gains for Republicans in New Jersey.

"He’s all coat and no tails," said Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex), the state Democratic chairman.

The elections also show the limits any governor confronts when a redistricting map is drawn to benefit the other party. Still, given the national prominence Christie gained in the summer and fall, it's quite a jolt to discover that his reach is so limited in his home state. Does that matter to him? It doesn't appear to. According to this article,

And rather than consoling and recalibrating a defeated a state Republican Party, he planned to spend most of today in New Hampshire and Boston with supporters of Mitt Romney, whom he has endorsed for the Republican presidential nomination.

Which prompted this response from Wisniewski:

"Tomorrow he’s going up to help Mitt Romney," Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex), the state Democratic chairman, said Tuesday night. "I hope he does for Mitt Romney in New Hampshire what he did for Republicans in New Jersey."

The governor and the legislature have an active lame duck session planned where they hope to address taxes, teacher tenure and the budget. The election yesterday doesn't change the math very much. Will it change the tone? We'll find out.

November 6, 2012

2011-11-06T11:38:00.000-05:00

Yes, there is exactly one year to go before election day. How time will fly. To that end, I will be providing monthly updates on polling and the political intrigue that becomes every presidential election cycle.

At this point it is difficult to assess the race with all but a small degree of certainty until the Republicans choose a nominee. Also, more Democrats will unite behind Obama as the reality of a Republican-controlled government sinks in. I do believe that there will be a third party candidate, but am not sure where on the spectrum they will come from. I could see a far-right candidate if Mitt Romney is the GOP leader, but I could also see a viable moderate who splits the difference between the major parties, and a progressive candidate stepping in because of left-wing unhappiness with the president. That's what makes this so much fun. But for now, let's get to what we actually know.

Nate Silver weighs in with an article in the Sunday New York Times magazine entitled, Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election. His basic conclusion is that Obama's chances depend on who the Republican nominee is and how well the economy is doing by the summer of 2012. My summary sounds simplistic: the article is a must-read.

Dr. David Hill, on the other hand, says that Obama fails all viability tests and will not be reelected, mainly because he has few actual accomplishments that the public can associate with his administration. Yes, there is health care and financial reform, but what else can he run on? Hill uses three data sets to support his points and right now they all point towards a Republican victory next year.

As for the latest polls, here's what we have from RealClearPolitics.com.
Obama's Job Approval
The Electoral College Map, based on the most recent polls
Head-to-head results for President

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll is here.

Obama generally runs ahead of the Republican field, but clearly Mitt Romney has to be seen as his main competitor and is even leading the president in some surveys.

Not all is good news for the Republicans, though. Democrats hold an aggregate 2.4% lead in the Generic Congressional Vote, suggesting that they could take back the House of Representatives next year.

In the end, though, this election will come down to a handful of battleground states that include Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia and others. The latest numbers from those states can be found in this article.

There are some wildcards in the election, the most notable being Obama's foreign policy successes and any uptick in economic activity coupled with a steady decline in the unemployment rate. If Obama is successful at painting the Republican nominee, and the GOP in general, as obstructionist and on the wrong side of the issues, that will help him. Many recent polls suggest that the public supports higher taxes on the wealthy and fewer cuts to social programs.

All of these variables await us.

Post your thoughts here or on my Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

The Cain Scrutiny

2011-11-03T06:16:00.002-04:00

At this point, in the middle of what will probably be the defining moment of his candidacy, Herman Cain holds the key to the Republican nomination. If he holds onto his support and builds on it, he could go into the voting stage of the campaign with a chance at winning some of the early primaries. If the scandal erodes his support, the main concern will be where his supporters go. To Romney? Perry? Gingrich (that Newt is still in the hunt is truly remarkable)?

As of today, Cain either leads or is close to Mitt Romney at the top of the polls in South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Maine (Romney territory), and at least one national poll. Never mind that he trails President Obama in head-to-head match-ups (scroll down a bit). He can worry about that once the nomination is sewn up. Cain clearly has a constituency and so far it seems to be sticking by him. Surveys in the next 2-3 days will begin demonstrating the staying power of his support and the toll the allegations are taking on him, but if more women step forward with claims, he will clearly not be the nominee.

The general feeling among party officials and most of the media is that Mitt Romney will eventually be the Republican nominee, but his support seems to be soft. In this article by Mark Blumenthal at the Huffington Post, the Republican Power Outsiders are not committing to Mitt in great numbers. Asked of they had endorsed a candidate in the race yet, a full 66% said no, they had not. Of the 31% who had endorsed a candidate, Romney and Rick Perry were tied atop the list with the support of 14% each.

The chart below, from the Huffington Post article, is also revealing.

Note that Newt is in 3rd place. The man is amazing. The news for Mitt Romney, though, is that this could be a long race.

Which brings us back to Herman Cain (remember Herman? This is a post about Herman). What makes Cain's support and climb up the polls remarkable is that he's been in the race from the beginning, and went from afterthought to frontrunner without a radical overhaul of his campaign. Michele Bachmann was the right's darling in August, and then Rick Perry harshed her mellow simply by entering the race. Cain has since held his own in the debates, won the Florida Straw Poll, and is withstanding attacks over his economic plan and how conservative he really is. He's risen in the polls all by himself and has held on to his numbers despite taking a somewhat circuitous route on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Further, his choices of running mate could make for a Republican dream team. Can you say Cain-Rice (then again, maybe not)? Cain-Christie? Cain-Daniels?

When Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Hunstman and Bachmann eventually leave the race, much of their support could go to Cain as opposed to Romney. After all, there isn't much of a moderate electorate left in the Republican party to go to Romney. He hasn't topped out, but he's going to have to convince a lot of conservatives to move away from Perry and Cain in order to win in Iowa and South Carolina.

But of course all of this depends on the next few days and whether Herman Cain can move past this episode with minimal damage. After all the time he spent in the background of the race, Cain is now getting the full frontrunner treatment. He should be careful what he wishes for.

It All Makes Sense (If You Stand On Your Head)

2011-10-31T10:10:00.000-04:00

If the Republicans running for president went on Saturday Night Live and proposed their policies, the best we could say is that they weren't funny. The problem is that they're serious. And the scary part is that one of them could actually become president.

First up,

Governor Rick Perry believes that he can balance the federal budget with his 20% flat tax plan.

"You got to look at the spending cuts as well and you have to look at the dynamics of the growth that goes on here," Perry said, adding that a simplified tax system would give job-creating entrepreneurs more confidence to invest.

Yes, I got to, Governor, but if consumers aren't spending because the cuts are also cutting jobs, then where's the money to invest going to come from? Asked in the same interview how he would make up the $5 trillion dollar hole his plan would create in the federal budget, his answer was, "There's nothing wrong with lower revenue," he said. "I don't want more revenue in Washington, D.C.'s hands." If you're trying to pay for things that private industry won't pay for, then there is something terribly wrong with lower revenue.

Perry's most telling answer was actually a non-answer to a key question. From the article:

When asked if his proposal would give a bigger break to wealthy taxpayers than to poorer ones and raise questions about fairness, Perry said the wealthy more often are job creators. "Historically, those who have money put more money into their business," he said. "They hire more people."

In effect, yes, the wealthy will benefit and I will implement more of the failed trickle-down policies of the past.

Meanwhile, Herman Cain is still trying to explain to Americans how they would benefit from his 9-9-9 Plan. On CBS's "Face The Nation" he merely said, "We have some more educating of the public (to do)," Cain said. "And this is why, maybe, some people don't like it yet." Perhaps Mr. Cain can hire some out-of-work public schoolteachers to educate the public. There are plenty of them around.

What's worse is that even more sensible Republicans are looking at these plans and are finding them wanting. Consider this from the article, Studies challenge wisdom of GOP candidates' plans, an AP story on Yahoo!News:

"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."

Each of the Republican candidates wants to significantly cut taxes on the wealthy, repeal the Dodd-Frank bill and cut federal spending for programs that middle class Americans need during a time of economic dislocation. They want to let the market decide our future without regard to the fact that market creates winners and losers, and the candidates don't really want to help the losers. Oh well.

If you want to find an island of common sense in all of this, then look no more. In his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times last week, Professor James Livingston, from Rutgers University says, It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid and he has a compelling argument. He says:

As an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.

Then he gets all professor-y

Between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. What’s more, in 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.

In other words, over the course of the last century, net business investment atrophied while G.D.P. per capita increased spectacularly. And the source of that growth? Increased consumer spending, coupled with and amplified by government outlays.

Can you dig it? I knew that you could.

What the Republicans are saying is exactly the opposite of what has historically been the case. We can continue to cut taxes to the wealthy and let them thrive while the middle and working classes lose earning and spending power, or we can do the right thing and make our economy more equitable.

This is the choice we have next November.

The Law Is What We Say It Is

2011-10-26T06:12:00.002-04:00

Just when you thought they couldn't get any more dangerous, here come the Republican presidential contenders with their unique brand of American exceptionalism. In this case, though, it means that intelligent debate is the exception.

Rick Perry left open the possibility that the issue over President Obama's birth certificate issue is not exactly closed by not specifically answering the question. Instead, Perry said that "It's a distractive issue," without going on to say that he was making it a distraction by not saying that, yes, the president was born in this country.

Meanwhile, six of the eight would-be commanders-in-chief would "want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues." That's according to this Huffington Post report. Only Mitt Romney and John Huntsman have stayed away from direct attacks on federal judges.

The right's antipathy towards judges would seem to be counterproductive for conservatives. From the article:

Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor who has written a book about the relationship between public opinion and the high court, said he is puzzled by the effort to take federal courts out of the picture. He said that would increase the influence of more liberal-leaning state courts.

"The wonder of it coming from the Republicans now is that we have what is easily the most conservative Supreme Court in many, many years. This is nothing more than red meat they throw to the conservative base," Friedman said.

The New York Times also weighed in on this issue with an article that said, in part:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”

And for people who say that they interpret the Constitution as the Framers intended, the candidates certainly are undercutting one of the basic tenets of that document. The independence of judges was such an important concept that Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper number 78 that,

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution" and,

"This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves..."

Talk about ill humors. It seems that the candidates need to take some time to actually read the founding documents. Then they might be in a better position to run the country.

Hamilton also addressed the issue of those who objected to the Constitution because, like the Tea Party, they believed that the courts would ultimately take power from the legislature. His answer comes in Federalist 81:

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.

It's a phantom argument. The courts simply don't have the legal power nor do they have the force to take power from Congress. The right wing would have us believe that court rulings on desegregation, school prayer, abortion, contraception, civil equality and governmental authority belie this argument and prove that the Supreme Court has acted like a legislature. Of course, they don't see court decisions that treat corporations like people or that reinterpret the right to a gun as an individual right with no regard to the militia clause of the second amendment as offensive to both legislative and constitutional intent.

This is a radical reinterpretation of the law that will have profoundly negative effects on American society and represents the apogee of conservative legal thought that has been scaling the judicial heights since 1981. A Republican president would be able to solidify a conservative majority on the Supreme Court with just one appointment. A Republican Congress could conceivably pass legislation that severely limits the court's ability to even decide certain types of cases.

That is something we must seriously think about between now and next November.

Leading From the Front

2011-10-25T06:21:00.000-04:00

Doing nothing is not an option.

That seems to be the message from President Obama as he unveiled a mortgage modification program that might actually attract enough homeowners to make a difference in the economy. The plan would allow homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages to refinance at lower rates and avoid high closing costs.
Here's another angle from the AP through Yahoo1 News.

This announcement also allows Obama to move away from what is becoming a tired defense of his proposed jobs package and jump into what is probably the main cause of the stagnant economy; the housing market that is stifling consumer spending. It's the beginning of a period where Obama will be introducing a new program every week to show that even without Congressional approval, the president can move the country forward.

Politically, this is a response to Mitt Romney's comment in the Republican's Las Vegas debate that, “the right course is to let markets work.” The markets have spoken and housing prices have plunged. Without some kind of intervention, it will take years for house prices to recover. This program is by no means a panacea, but it is a step in the right direction.

And speaking of steps, an analysis of the Republican debate by Dr. David Pennock of the University of Michigan, shows that the right wingers might have stepped in the doo-doo by bickering their way through the evening. Pennock's discussion shows that as the debate wore on, the perception that the Republicans would defeat Obama in 2012, as measured by Intrade, dropped the more they went after each other as opposed to discussing actual policy.

Then there's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying that saving teacher, police and firefighter jobs is not the federal government's responsibility. He says it's a state issue, and of course we all know how wealthy the states are these days. So it seems that McConnell would save some jobs, but if you're in education and law enforcement, the Republicans figure you're just not that important. Look for Congress to continue doing nothing on the jobs front.

It is worth noting that the programs Obama is proposing are more popular with the public according to both this NBC/Wall Street Journal poll and this Gallup poll, than what the Republicans are peddling.

That's what he will run on, and that's why he will win.

Just Being Christie Is A Full Time Job

2011-10-24T06:16:00.000-04:00

In hindsight, it's a good thing Governor Christie decided not to run for president. He's got enough to do in New Jersey, thank you very much, as evidenced by the issues below.

First up is a report that Christie's pension reforms will do nothing to actually solve the problem, because the state will not make full pension payments until 2018. That means that New Jersey taxpayers will be on the hook for a payment that goes from zero (nada, nothing) in 2011 to $468 million in 2012 to $5.04 billion in 2018. Payments will then increase about $600 million every year after that. Local governments, who have been making their payments all along, will continue to do so, but all indications are that municipalities will have to pay more, as will those workers in the pension system. This bit of sleight-of-hand was kept under the rug when the pension and benefits reform bill was being debated and adopted earlier this summer.

The Governor, it seems, is taking New Jersey on a path that will make us look like Rhode Island, whose general treasurer is warning will spend 20% of its money on pensions within a couple of years. Not only is this unsustainable, it's a violation of the public trust and the promise that states made to public workers in return for low salaries and years of service. Look for this to be a major issue in 2013, if we can wait that long.

The second catches Christie repeating the lie that President Obama's health care law is "a government takeover of health care." This particular quote earned him a Pants On Fire rating from PolitiFact and shows his intellectually lazy side. Christie should know better, and in truth I think he does, but there's a campaign on and if he wants to stay relevant on a national stage, then he's got to at least appear as far right as he can go. Still, it's disappointing.

But you have to give Christie points for trying. After all, he's still trying to convince New Jerseyans that his interpretation of the law is the only valid one, as he espoused in his reaction to Judge Linda Feinberg's ruling that the pension and benefits reforms do not apply to judges. Were all judges supposed to recuse themselves from this suit? Attacks on judges, whether from governors or presidential candidates, only serves to undermine the judiciary. And it's even more disturbing coming from a former prosecutor who is sworn to uphold the law..

It will be quiet until the legislative elections, then I'm sure more fireworks will go off.