The American Dream’s Unlikely Champion: The Congressional Budget Office

The American Dream’s Unlikely Champion: The Congressional Budget Office

– Christopher Carroll

The Obama administration isn’t doing Tuesday’s Congressional Budget Office report justice. It’s time to champion it as a victory for the Affordable Care Act and for the American standard of living.

Contrary to Republican claims that the C.B.O anticipates the A.C.A to “kill” two million American jobs, the report details their expectation that there will be two million fewer Americans working. The distinction between the two is important.  While the Republican claim implies that the A.C.A will take jobs away, the non-partisan C.B.O anticipates that there will be 2 million fewer Americans choosing to participate in the workforce. In other words, the C.B.O estimate is an analysis of labor supply, not job demand.

The difference is elemental and makes the C.B.O report one of good news rather than ill. The report is projecting a trend that points to an increase in the standard of living, welcome news for generations of Americans who will likely see a decline from the living standards of their parents and grandparents. The Affordable Care Act, in the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, will both insure more people and allow them to choose not to work in jobs that they don’t want simply to keep their healthcare coverage.

Improvement of the standard of living is part of what is frequently referred to as “the American Dream.” Americans and immigrants live in this country not only with the hope of creating the lives they want for themselves, but also of providing the opportunity for their children to have a better life than their parents. Today, with the failure of pension systems, a lackluster economy that in the long-run may never grow at more than 2.2%, high underemployment, and exorbitant education costs, the least society can do is help provide affordable, if not free, healthcare.

****

Any indication that the Affordable Care Act is achieving higher standards of living should be championed, not feared, excused or ignored. Championing its successes will be difficult but must be done before the mid-term elections.

The Obama administration must give incumbent democrats on the Hill ammunition to fight the A.C.A related onslaught they will undoubtedly face during a tough election cycle.  As Chris Cillizza wrote in a piece for the Washington Post, the positive substance of the C.B.O report is easily drowned out in Republican attacks. It will be incumbent on the President to lead the counter charge (and allow the country to address the real problems in the C.B.O report, like the anticipated anemic long-term growth of the American economy).

Following the botched roll-out of the A.C.A, the dysfunctional performance of some state health care exchanges and the fact that some Americans will pay more for insurance, ignoring the fact that American lives will improve as a result is nothing short of political negligence. Failure to draw attention to this side of the C.B.O report could cripple the futures of democrats on the Hill and with them the future of healthcare reform and the rest of President Obama’s agenda. If defense of the American Dream can’t bring the administration to fight, maybe nothing can.

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East  

 -Christopher Carroll

It seems that a team of international and Iranian negotiators are nearing a breakthrough in talks to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear development program. For some, the news has been received with cautious optimism. For others, including some in Congress and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, the news foretells a bad future for American Middle-East policy.

However, if a deal can be reached and some sanctions lifted, Iranian relations with the world and with the United States may finally begin to improve. “For the first time in nearly a decade,” an administration official told the New York Times, “we are getting close to a first step that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll it back in key areas.”

Talks between Iran and what is now known as the P5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N Security Council plus Germany, are scheduled to resume next week in Geneva where a possible compromise to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear program will be discussed. The hope is that a six month freeze of the Iranian program would grant international negotiators additional time to reach a permanent agreement with Tehran.

Talks will certainly revolve around Iranian insistence that the international community acknowledge their right to enrich uranium, a right that the United States asserts does not exist. Furthermore, any deal to relax economic sanctions would have to be accompanied by Iranian compliance with strict restrictions upon their program. Benyamin Netanyahu and Congress, however, fear that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are giving up too much.

Congressmen on both sides of the isle, including Senator Robert Menendez (D. – NJ), the Democratic Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham (R. – S.C), have expressed doubt over the President’s progress and desire to impose new sanctions on Iran.

As Senator Menendez explains in an Op.-Ed. for USA Today, rather than reduce sanctions, some in congress believe that “tougher sanctions will serve as an incentive for Iran to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is similarly upset, charging that the potential deal being brokered by U.S  negotiators is “a bad and dangerous deal,” that will bring trouble “to a theater near you,” presumably the United States.

However, the potential benefits of a deal cannot be overlooked and both Congress and the Israeli government are choosing the status quo over a potential Iranian resolution.

****

While sometimes effective, economic sanctions can only take American and international policy so far. As Joseph Nye explains in his book, The Future of Power, economic sanctions are generally only effective when “economic relations were great, sanctions were heavy, and the duration was limited.”

While the sanctions have certainly been heavy (a vast majority of the $100 billion of Iranian reserves are inaccessible due to international sanctions and the country’s oil exports have been slashed by over 50 percent) the negative repercussions of long-term economic sanctions will outweigh the benefits.

“Soft” power, a vague and overused term in academic political discussion, is becoming increasingly important in international politics. Military power does not hold the political sway it did in decades and centuries past. America must weigh the political costs of imposing its will in coercive military and economic manners. If the Iranian government is crippled as a result of international, and mainly U.S, sanctions, the people will grow to increasingly resent Americans and the West. This will only foster stronger Iranian desire to obtain nuclear weaponry, regardless of the havoc such desire wreaks on the economy.

In today’s world, where communication, culture and commerce can be exchanged instantaneously, the soft power a nation wields is as important as it’s military might. Convincing world powers that they want to do your bidding, rather than are made to do your bidding, is a much more effective form of power.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the United States Congress are right to be cautious regarding Iran. We have been down this road before. Additionally, Prime Minister Netanyahu not only fears a nuclear-armed Iran, but another powerful economic and strategic competitor in the region. However, a potential diplomatic agreement cannot be ignored.

It will be up to international negotiators to ensure that appropriate enforceable restrictions are in place. However, until then, Congress and the international community should be careful with their public posturing. The fact that simply halting the Iranian program for six months is a priority and a potential breakthrough cannot be overlooked. They must be getting close to something.

Could a Phone Call Lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

The Power of a Phone Call: Could it lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

-Christopher Carroll

Though the country has grown accustomed to political conflict, strife and anger, conversation between foes is still possible; just not between domestic politicians.

It has been a tough time in Washington D.C. The government shutdown is entering it’s second week. The debt limit is expected to be reached October 17. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is widely known, has opened it’s insurance exchanges with a limp. Lost in the beavy of bad news in Washington, has been the progress seen in one of the most important international issues of the past decade. For the first time since the Carter administration, the Presidents of the United States of America and Iran spoke to each other.

The September 27th conversation took place by phone, President Obama from the Oval Office and President Hassan Rouhani from his car on the way to the airport following the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It marked the first time since the 444 day Tehran Hostage crises three decades ago that leaders of the two countries had spoken to one another.

The conversation, which lasted fifteen minutes, included discussion of the most contentious divisions in Iranian-U.S relations. The two leaders, writes Peter Baker of the New York Times, agreed to accelerate talks “aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.”  Presidents Obama and Rouhani also expressed their hope that a rapprochement between the two nations would transform the Middle East.

President Obama, in a statement to reporters after the call with President Rouhani, expressed cautious optimism, hoping that resolution of the nuclear issue, “obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual respect.”

The call came after a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif proved constructive. While President Obama had expressed a willingness to meet the Iranian President at a General Assembly luncheon, the Rouhani skipped the event, preferring to interact by phone to avoid political backlash at home. The fear that Islamic hardliners in Iran would provide political trouble in Iran seemed to fulfilled yesterday, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed his disapproval of the conversation.

Here in America, the news has had a mixed reception. Advocates for closer relations are excited, believing, as Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund explains, that “it helped fundamentally change the course of Iranian – U.S relations.” Others are less optimistic, believing that rather than a shift in U.S – Iranian relations, it is rather a result of the economic sanctions placed on Iran. “The economic pain now is sufficient to oblige a telephone call, though not a face-to-face meeting,” explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to the Times

What cannot be denied, however, is that this news is a welcome change in America.

****

While the talks between the two leaders certainly worries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the willingness two converse is a good, and obviously important, step towards addressing serious concerns in relations between Iran and the U.S. The President who rode into the White House preaching the importance of conversation and compromise with allies and enemies alike, is exhibiting the foreign policy he called for. While his strategies have largely failed in the realm of domestic politics, it will hopefully lead to real progress in international politics. By being willing to engage in conversation with the international community, the President might yet again show a surprising deftness of hand in foreign policy; one he seems to lack in domestically.

The President should be cautious about the way he moves forward from here. He must not be willing to sell the farm too early and give too much in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Doing so would not only allow a volatile country to arm itself with catastrophic weaponry, but would also undermine relations with Israel, still one of our most important allies, and could compromise moderate Iranian politicians in the Middle East, crippling any potential progress in negotiations. However, pursuing genuine conversation with Iran will send a message to the entire world that America is no longer going force it’s will on the world in back rooms, with the lights off and night vision goggles on. America is going to talk to it’s enemies and it’s allies, it’s neighbors, friends, and competitors, and work to not only ameliorate threats to American interests, but resolve the issues that face the worldwide community.

Americans that have grown used to political competition and conflict should take heart in the President’s actions and American politicians would do well to look toward the President’s example. Conversation between foes can become a conversation between colleagues.

Shut it Down – Obama Can Save the Country from Default

Shut it Down – Obama Can Save the Country from Default

– Christopher Carroll

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid can win the federal budget and debt limit debates. They can do it by letting Republicans walk into their own trap. By allowing the federal government to shut-down, they can save the country and economy from the much worse disaster of debt default.

After the Senate passed, in an expedited procedure,  a bill that would have temporarily funded the government and avoided an impending shutdown while preserving Obamacare, House Republicans again refused to comply with the President and Senate democrat’s refusal to involve Obamacare.

Saturday brought more drama to the political stage. Following a rare Saturday meeting, House Republicans passed a Continuing Resolution that will temporarily fund the government while delaying Obamacare for one year.

House Speaker Boehner had indicated a desire to direct House Republicans to pass the Senate’s version of the continuing resolution, thereby rallying strength for the approaching debt limit battle. He was, however, unable to muster support from within his party for his strategy. The unruly caucus proved too much for Boehner to handle, bucked his leadership and insisted on delaying the A.C.A in any agreement.

The House GOP, by not following Speaker Boehner’s advice, has given the Obama administration and Senate Democrats a get out of jail free card. Even after democrats vociferously and publicly refused to defund, delay or compromise the A.C.A in all budget or debt limit negotiations, the Republican’s stubborn insistence that they do just that will allow President Obama and Senator Reid to justify allowing the government to shut down. While a shutdown would be disruptive, a default would be catastrophic.

****

President Obama and Harry Reid should let the government shutdown. It would give them political power in negotiations over the debt limit, due to be reached by October 15.

At this point, avoidance of a federal shutdown will likely only take place if Republicans concede to Democratic firmness and public disapproval. If this were to happen, Republican lawmakers would likely return to the debt limit debate with a vengeance, insisting that in return for raising the debt limit they receive any number of their priorities. Given Democratic unity on the federal budget, it is unlikely that they would succumb to Republican coercion and the country and economy would be thrown into turmoil.  This must not happen.

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Instead, President Obama and Congressional Democrats should allow the Republicans to fall victim of a trap of their own making. By allowing the government to shut down, they would be allowing national distress on a relatively minor scale; the economy would falter due to uncertainty, federal employees would be furloughed and unprotected federal programs would be suspended. A debt default, on the other hand, would be catastrophic. The economy would stagger, the world markets would shiver and the countries credit rating would be slashed. The economic recovery will not sustain blows of that magnitude.

By allowing a federal shutdown, Obama may be able to avoid economic disaster by teaching the country, and Republicans, through the lens of experience. The country and economy will be forced to watch the effects of a government shutdown and not only hold them responsible, but fear the vastly more painful debt default.

Republicans have been rewarded for their recent spates over the federal budget and debt limit. It is becoming commonplace for the nation to watch budgetary conflicts every year in Washington D.C. The Republican party, who recently have had relatively little political leverage, are finding themselves able to control debates and manufacture influence through budgetary and debt negotiations. Only if the President and Democrats refuse to be coerced and blackmailed through CRs and debt limit increases will a seemingly perpetual cycle break.

If Obama doesn’t give in to discussions, he may be able to save the country the pain of default. By allowing Republicans to buck their own leadership, President Obama will allow the G.O.P to step into a trap that they themselves have set.

High Stakes Chicken

High Stakes Chicken – Republicans and Democrats are locked in a game of budgetary chicken whileAmericans and the economy can do nothing but watch

-Christopher Carroll

While Republicans are busy fighting an ideological grudge match against Obamacare, Americans and the economy are caught in the crossfire.

Friday marked a busy day for the House in Washington D.C. After passing a bill that could temporarily fund the Federal Government through December 15, Eric Cantor and House republicans held a closed door meeting to decide on strategy for negotiations over the impending debt limit. That vote has been scheduled for next week.

The Republican strategy is clear; they are linking their desire to defund the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to both the major fiscal deadlines that rapidly approach. Even with the President and congressional Democrats repeatedly asserting their unwillingness to allow these fiscal deadlines to become bargaining chips, Republicans are pushing an ideological battle as far as it will go. In doing so, they are pushing the country to the brink of economic disaster.

The bill to fund the government through mid-December, comes in the form of a Continuing Resolution, or CR, which keeps the government funded while buying time for legislators to agree to new appropriations bills. Within the CR now on it’s way to the Senate for debate, House Speaker Boehner and Republican leadership included the defunding of Obamacare, long a priority of a faction of the Republican caucus. Meanwhile, Republican strategy to raise the debt limit “links a yearlong postponement of the health law’s implementation to a yearlong extension of the government’s borrowing authority.” Regardless of its passage through the Supreme Court, Republicans intend to follow through on passed rhetoric and attempt to gut the A.C.A.

The bill now before the Senate has no chance of passing and will, without a doubt, be amended. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. – NV), has already said that a CR that defunds Obamacare is “dead” on arrival. Even if it were to find a way to the President’s desk, Obama has already promised to veto a budget bill that defunds the ACA.

While Democrats are painting the House CR and debt limit strategies as simply attempts to further ideological differences at the expense of the nation, Republicans believe they can get Democrats up for re-election in republican leaning districts and states to vote with them. Freshman senator Ted Cruz (R. – TX), the leader of republican efforts to scrap the A.C.A, has said he will use any means necessary, including filibuster, to stall Senate passage of a different funding bill.

****

The Republican strategic calculus is incredibly flawed.

As explained by Republican strategist and policy advisor Karl Rove, the Republican’s defunding strategy represents political kryptonite, not the ace in the hole that many politicians seem to think. While it is true that polls show that Obamacare is unpopular, risking government shutdown is even more so. Less than one American in four supports efforts to repeal or defund the law and risking the shutdown so as to attack a political grudge is politically fool-hearty way to alienate voters and risk the loss of seats in the Senate and House.

Additionally, the stubbornness shown by the GOP, even after repeated warnings that the President and Senate Democrats would allow the defunding of Obamacare,

Official portrait of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

has already done damage to the American economy. A shutdown or failure to raise the limit would do even more. We have already seen the repercussions of the Republican strategy. Just this past Wednesday, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, announced that the Fed would not scale back the current economic stimulus, surprising many on Wall Street and across the country. The move indicated that the Fed does not think that the economy will continue the current pace of improvement and that unemployment will remain high for the foreseeable future. But it is naïve to think that Ben Bernanke was not also accounting for the uncertainty that surrounds the debt limit and government shutdown. Clearly, Mr. Bernanke feels that the likelihood, and the resultant repercussions, of a shutdown are too big to ignore. Instability and uncertainty are anchors on any economy and ours is already weighed down by a stimulus that robs it of economic momentum.

The only positive thing that can be said of the Republican strategy is that it has distracted the country from addressing the implementation of the A.C.A. While posturing, pontificating and politicking about shutting down the government and defunding the A.C.A., Americans have seemingly not realized that the A.C.A exchanges open October 1st. If the GOP strategy is merely one of diversion, it has succeeded, though at the cost of increasing voter fatigue over their strategy.

****

The damage that would be inflicted upon the U.S economy by either a government shutdown or failure to raise the limit would be vast. It would be crippling for an economy trying to recover with the sequester already tied around it’s neck. While President Obama and congressional Democrats will not be blameless, default and shutdown are particularly dangerous for the G.O.P. Rather than standing up for what American want and need, they will appear willing to grind the economy and federal services to a halt, choosing instead to fight an ideological grudge match rather than govern the nation. As is so often the case in United States politics, the American people are the collateral damage.

The Path not Recently Traveled

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too.  Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

-Christopher Carroll

Dark days are coming. The lights may be turned off in Washington. Easy to forget in the recent Syria conflict turmoil is that America is once again hurtling toward fiscal disaster. For most Americans, it’s the same old story; more Washington ineptitude, more partisan bickering, more selfish nonsense and more political puffery.

Congress, due to return to Washington D.C shortly, is facing two major fiscal debates, reaching the debt limit and an impending government shutdown. The velocity with which these deadlines approach is going to put a great deal of pressure on Congress to act quickly, something they have not been known to do frequently.

Last week, the Obama administration announced that the Department of the Treasury will run out of money sooner than expected. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said that the Department expects to exhaust methods to postpone arriving at the limit in mid-October, putting it on schedule to immediately follow the other major fiscal fight, the funding of the federal government. Both of these fights are expected to be bloody, but having them back-to-back could make them fatal.

The fiscal debate will be a major battle. The Obama administration has said that the President will not entertain negotiation over the debt limit, insisting instead that the debt limit be raised to prevent default on previously accrued debts. “Such a scenario could undermine financial markets,” explained Lew, and could “result in significant disruptions to our economy.” Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R. – OH), expects a “whale of a fight” over the debt limit, hoping to leverage raising the borrowing limit so as to attain further budget cuts beyond what is known as the sequester.

Even before the debt limit is reached, September 30th will bring the end of the current government’s funding. Unless a budget or continuing resolution is reached before the September 30th deadline, the government will no longer have the authority to remain operational.

Similarly to their stance on the debt limit, House Republicans believe that the threat of a government shutdown provides political ammunition. Many plan to insist upon further budget cuts, to accompany those already in place by sequestration, or the gutting of the Affordable Care Act, in any budgetary deal. Many democrats want to replace sequestration in a new budget agreement, but Speaker Boehner and his caucus don’t seem to be remotely interested.

****

It is difficult to envision a way in which the Obama administration and House GOP come to an agreement on either of these issues. The administration insists that it will not negotiate with Congress on the debt limit while Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor plan on reaping concessions on taxes and healthcare. Meanwhile, it is just as hard to see the two sides agreeing on a comprehensive budget while Democrats want to replace the sequester, thereby easing the noose strangling the economy, while Republicans push for keeping the sequester and repeal of the ACA. Dark days seem to be fast approaching.

****

The dual fiscal threat facing Washington and the country presents danger for all parties concerned; Republicans, Democrats and Americans alike. Republicans must be careful not to overplay their hand. The 1995 government shutdown was far more damaging to Newt Gingrich than it was to President Clinton, and if Speaker Boehner and the GOP want to win a Senate majority in midterm elections, they cannot afford to disenchant swing voters. President Obama, meanwhile, cannot afford to be so stubborn during budget discussions that he risks tainting negotiation over the debt limit, a debate that presents more danger to the national economy than does a government shutdown.

However, the dual threat, while potentially a deadly cocktail, may actually make negotiations easier for Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The issues presented in both debates will provide more flexibility for lawmakers to trade, compromise and accommodate each other. With more assets on the negotiating table, it may be easier for Congress to resolve and avoid both fiscal disasters.

Sadly, the dual cocktail that could provide benefits to lawmakers will likely prove poisonous for the public. If the government shuts down, the country risks default on payments and damage to our international credit rating. If Obama plays the budget negotiations on the conservatively safe side, preserving Obamacare while simultaneously getting the debt limit raised, the economy will not only continue to struggle against the sequester but will be forced to burden additional tax-breaks and budget cuts. If the opposite takes place and the Obama administration is able to reach a budget plan but in doing so gives into Republican demands on taxes and Obamacare, or angers Republicans enough to prevent a debt limit increase, the nation will once again experience the economic turmoil of two years ago. None of this is even to speak of the possibility that no agreement, on either debate, is reached.

While many people chalk the latest economic distress and debate to Republican obstructionism, Democratic spending and Congressional puffery, deeming the recent trend a new phenomena is blatantly untrue.  Not since George Washington was able to hold the young nation together by himself have we seen an American nation not plagued by partisan posturing and perilous rhetoric.  Most recently, the Hastart Rule and gerrymandering have made it worse. It is now up to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Minority Leader Pelosi and President Obama to manage their caucus. Otherwise, the American people will be left in the dark.

Eric Holder Takes Up Arms

Eric Holder Take Up Arms

-Christopher Carroll

Attorney General Eric Holder is bent on addressing inequality in America. In a year that has proven difficult for the DOJ, Eric Holder is seemingly looking to make up for lost time.

Holder announced that the DOJ will file a lawsuit against the State of Texas over SB14, a “the strict voter identification law,” arguing that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Texas’ SB14, signed by Governor Rick Perry on May 27, requires voters to present valid photo identification at all polling places. Following the Supreme Court’s early summer decision to strike down Section Four of the Voting Rights Act, this type of legislation has proven to be extremely contentious. While proponents argue that bills like SB14 prevent voter fraud, adversaries charge that it unfairly discriminates against minorities, the elderly and the young.

Though Republican legislators in Texas, Governor Rick Perry included, complain that Holder’s decision is just the latest example of the “administration’s blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment,” many others allege that these laws are politically motivated. Many contend that the law, and others like it, are “adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

Holder’s latest attack on inequality comes in the form of voter enfranchisement as states legislatures look to preserve political control and power. The new lawsuit follows Holder’s attack on mandatory minimums, long seen as overly harsh tools that disproportionately discriminate against minority offenders in the U.S. The United States of America is a country with incredible wealth and prosperity but with correspondingly cavernous gaps in inequality. These gaps will continue to widen as long as minorities, the needy, the young and the old are taken advantage of.

****

Eric Holder seems to be trying to leave his mark on the office of Attorney General. Rather than being remembered as the A.G who signed off on phone tapping, Mr. Holder seems to be actively addressing racial inequality that has for too long gone ignored.

The attention is a welcome relief. Inequality of all types is rampant in America. Social, economic, racial, educational and vocational inequality is a cancer on our communities and economies. By suing Texas, Holder is reemphasizing the need to address voter disenfranchisement in American politics, an issue that is both a cause and symptom of unequal treatment. American governments and politicians should be emphasizing voter participation, not discouraging it, and we seem to, at this moment at least, have an Attorney General who wants to hold American leaders up to true American standards.

Frisking the Vulnerable, Disenfranchising the Public

 Frisking the Vulnerable, Disenfranchising the Public

-Christopher Carroll

Those people who need the police most are often the same who are disenfranchised by them. Stop and frisk practices and proposals to fingerprint people in public housing only further damage those whom society needs to protect.

It has been a busy month for law enforcement watchdogs.  Last week, United States Attorney General Eric Holder directed the DOJ to reform the use of mandatory minimum sentences in some drug charges, a directive that was given at nearly the same time that U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYC “stop and frisk” policy unconstitutional.  Just days later, in remarks that seemed to run steadfastly against the current political tide, Mayor Bloomberg made seemingly suggesting that residents of public housing be fingerprinted for their own safety.

These latest comments, coming just days after the NYPDs stop and frisk policies (which Bloomberg staunchly supports) were stopped on the grounds of unconstitutionality, come as New York City municipality elections draw closer. Democratic hopefuls wasted no time jumping on the Mayor’s remarks, with Bill Thompson calling the suggestion yet “another direct act of treating minorities like criminals” and Bill de Blasio accusing Bloomberg as being “out of touch.”

New York’s crime rates have dropped across the board and proponents of stop and frisk, Mayor Bloomberg included, believe that the policy is one of the chief reasons why. Though Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly have banned racial profiling, the numbers suggest that targets of stop and frisk are based on racial grounds, with about 87% of people stopped and frisked being black or latino.

While it is undeniable that crime has gone down in NYC under Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure, the role stop and frisk policies have played in making the streets safer is much more contentious. Only 10% of those people stopped were arrested or required to appear in court. Does the trend of racial profiling make that 10% success rate worth it? No. Not only does the low success rate of stop and frisk suggest that police are wasting valuable resources and time detaining innocent people and that these police practices being executed at the expense of civil liberties, but they undermine the trust the people have in those who are entrusted to serve and protect.

English: New York Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mayor Bloomberg’s fingerprinting proposal, while seemingly off the cuff and intended to make public housing safer, would have the same effect. Like the stop and frisk policies, it would undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional. That reality aside, Bloomberg’s idea would follow the same mold of many of many other Bloomberg public safety proposals. Like stop and frisk, the soda ban and others before, it would undermine any trust and respect the public may have for the government and police. Without trust and respect, public officers and representatives have no true authority or legitimacy. Fingerprinting and stop and frisk policies would do the same damage to the NYC police and government that mandatory minimums did to the justice system nationally. By executing these policies in seemingly indiscriminate ways, the police and justice system do more to damage public safety than to bolster it.

****

New York City has become one of the safest big cities in America under Mayor Bloomberg’s terms in office. However, this has not been because of policies like stop and frisk or proposals like fingerprinting residents of public housing. Rather, these policies do more damage to the public well-being than promote it. These policies ultimately disenfranchise people who need police protection the most.

Eric Holder Is Sending Mandatory Minimums to Death Row

Eric Holder Is Sending Mandatory Minimums to Death Row

-Christopher Carroll

Mandatory minimums finally seem to be on death row. Let’s hope they don’t languish there like so many other Americans.

In a speech given for the American Bar Association in San Francisco on Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that some non-violent drug offenders without affiliation with gangs and drug organizations, will not be subjected to the mandatory minimums that have characterized drug law enforcement since the mid-1980s.

Holder’s remarks were not ambiguous. After calling the criminal justice system “broken,” he explained that “with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate – not merely to warehouse and forget.”

“A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities,” continued Holder. “Many aspects of our criminal justice system actually exacerbate these problems rather than alleviate them,” he added.

Mandatory minimums were introduced to our judicial system in 1986 with the passage of the  Anti-Drug Abuse Act, a reaction to national outrage over widespread drug activity and violence in the country. Proponents of the law believe that harsh mandatory sentencing laws serve as a deterrent to breaking the law. Additionally, many believe that the “removal of a fact – the amount of drugs associated with a crime – that is so obviously relevant when considering blameworthiness and punishment,” runs contrary to standard disciplinary practices.

However, in a time marked by economic, racial and social inequality, Holder’s new stance is vital.

New policy will help reduce the length of prison sentences, which will have the effect of reducing the staggering rate and number of incarcerated people in the country. This will reduce costs, allowing vast sums of money to be diverted to other endeavors, whether they be education, healthcare, or tax breaks.

Additionally, by directing U.S attorneys across the country to develop “specific, locally tailored guidelines” for determining whether or not federal charges should be filed, Mr. Holder is encouraging local discretion in matters regarding the fate of members of communities. By returning sentencing to the discretion of judges and law enforcement officials, Holder is reserving jurisdiction, power and responsibility for those closest to disciplinary system. This reflects an extraordinarily fundamental American value, one where local officials, officers and policy-makers are more likely to know what is needed than are elected officials and experts in Washington D.C. We see the effectiveness of similar decision-making structures throughout history and the country: education policy is more effective when written by school boards, not Senators; emergency relief is faster when lead by local officials rather than monolithic organizations in D.C. By returning sentencing discretion to judges and allowing local district attorneys and law enforcement to set standards, Holder is leading the charge to reverse the public’s eroding sense of the moral credibility of their judicial system.

Lastly, and most importantly, mandatory minimum policy must be reformed because it unfairly treat minorities. In a paper submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Families Against Mandatory Minimums writes that “research has shown that certain policies and procedures in the criminal and juvenile justice systems have a disparate impact on the African American and Latino communities in the United States. Mandatory minimums systematically and disproportionately affect minority groups in this country.”

This is unacceptable, made even more so by the fact that it is doubtful that mandatory minimums serve has a major criminal deterrent. It is far more likely that the inequality that pushes people toward criminal action outweighs sentencing deterrents. Social, economic, educational, environmental, sexual and developmental inequalities serve as the overwhelming reasons for criminal activity in our society. Policies that prove to strengthen those inequalities only make matters worse, causing people to resent and reject the judicial system that is meant to protect them. People who fear that reforming mandatory minimums weakens society and disciplinary systems do not realize that they actually do the opposite. By removing a source of unequal treatment, Eric Holder is leading the charge towards making our streets safer, our liberties stronger, and the fabric of our society more certain.

Book Review: Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American foreign Policy and How it Changed the World

BOOK REVIEW: Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American foreign Policy and How it Changed the World

-Christopher Carroll

 

Walter Russell Mead’s Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, is a wonderful book that is easy to read, engaging and provocative. Published in 2001, it won the Lionel Gelber Award for the best book written in English on International Relations in 2002.

Mead theorizes that American foreign policy has been exceedingly successful and not the blundering mess that many consider it to have been. He defends this through examining four schools of international thought in American policies: the Hamiltonian, where protection of economic markets and American economic interests reigns supreme, the Wilsonian, where creation of a moral world order and governing system is key, the Jeffersonian, where protection of the American constitution is the primary interest of government and the Jacksonian, where populist opinions and American folk values rule international action. The interplay between these schools, according to Mead, is one of the reasons American foreign policy has been so successful.

Cover via Amazon

Mead’s writing and analysis are fantastic. His engaging style is easily comprehended, allowing his argument to take full effect. By turning to the American past, he is able to identify pillars of American thought and tap into his audiences’ sense of American history, lore and culture. This allows Mead to guide the audience through his description of the schools and how they have influenced American policy.

Though written before the tumultuous events that have followed the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, Mead’s analysis has been proven both correct and relevant to today’s readership. His argument that American foreign policy is in the most danger when the nationalist and globalist schools do not have a common goal or enemy has been realized of late. In these ambiguous times, though all four schools get a little bit of what they want, the country’s policy is often middling. The schools, which all play exceedingly important roles in policy making, must be able to agree on a common hegemonic paradigm (like during the Cold War) for American policy to function successfully. When it does, Mead would argue, American foreign policy is uniquely successful and powerful.

****

Though Mead professes to identify with the Jeffersonian school, he seems he writes most persuasively for the school he attributes to Andrew Jackson. Mead is right to stress the importance of a frequently overlooked and misunderstood portion of American society. Folk culture and interests have undeniably strong effects on domestic and foreign politics. Because of this, the Jacksonian and Jeffersonian schools will play major roles in American foreign policy in the near future.

The economic meltdown has brought resentment upon the Hamiltonians and the toll that the War on Terror has taken has made the country Wilsonian-weary. Already, the country’s reluctance to enter conflicts in Syria, Egypt and Libya are proof of the nation’s hesitancy to follow the moralistic preferences of Wilsonians. Instead, the minimalist nature of Jacksonian foreign policy, supported by Jacksonian populism, will lead American policy. The world will likely see a more hesitant America in the world of foreign policy. America will, for a short time at least, adopt a foreign policy that could be described as a  “what doesn’t hurt us, won’t concern us” strategy. This is likely to be sound strategy in a world marked by global economic insecurity and idealistic dissemblance.

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

-Christopher Carroll

It has been a busy couple of months for anyone who follows national security policy. This week has been no different. Yesterday, in a press conference, President Obama announced his plans to reform the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, opening the door for further scrutiny of the NSA’s practices. This follows a whirlwind of recent surveillance and security debates, starting with Edward Snowden’s disclosures and culminating with this week’s closure of 19 American embassies and diplomatic outposts. That whirlwind has gotten our politicians and citizens to finally start asking the right question: How much surveillance and security do we need and what are we willing to give up for it? The answer lies in how President Obama will gain the trust of those he governs.

****

On Tuesday, the State Department closed 19 embassies, including those in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and ordered that all non-essential, non-emergency personnel be removed from Yemen. The order came following American intelligence suggested that Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, and Nasir al-Wahishi, the leader of AQAP and a man believed to have been recently promoted to the second highest ranking official in the global organization, were planning a major attack.

The closure of the embassies has had mixed reception. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tx.) called it a “very smart call” while Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger said it was based on a “very credible” threat, “based on intelligence.” Meanwhile, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu-Bakr worried that the closures of U.S embassies was handing terrorists victories. NBC analyst and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center  Michael Lieter, criticized the State Department as well, claiming the threat is overblown “hyperbole,” coming from “reckless commentators or ill-informed or ill-spoken Hill folks,” said Leiter.

****

Regardless of whether or not the threat was appropriately responded to, the fact remains that American intelligence gathering practices have again been brought to the foreground.

American surveillance practices are by no means unique in the world. French newspaper Le Monde has reported has reported that the French DGSE has been collecting “meta-data” similar to the NSA’s PRISM program. Others, including former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker, allege that European nationals are more likely to be watched by their own government than Americans are from theirs.

Obama’s speech marks just the latest turn of events. The Snowden disclosures and subsequent uproar that followed it, along with the criticism of the administration’s alarming prosecution of “leakers,” has forced the President to address the intelligence and security issue head on.

The President intends to make the nation’s surveillance policies more transparent. He proposed creating a public advocate, or ombudsman, charged with providing a barrier to any unnecessary erosion of privacy rights and the tightening of what is allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act. These steps, he hopes, will help provide both Americans and the entire world with the ability to have “confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them,” said President Obama, as does “leadership around the world.” Will President Obama be able to gain that trust?

****

It will be very interesting to see whether these new proposals are effective and if they are even implemented at all. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R – N.Y.) feel that the proposals are incredibly dangerous and, in the words of Rep. King, are “a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility.”

Transparency is always good in a democracy. The more transparent a program, the easier it is for both the implementers of the program and those affected by it know what is allowed and expected of them.  As was seen this week in As seen this week in Yemen, the world is more dangerous now than ever before. Like a snake in long grass, enemies and terrorists can strike unseen with incredible precision and power. The Atlantic Ocean is no longer the barrier that it was in 1772 or even 1942. There are now countless ways for a small group of individuals to wreak havoc on an entire nation half a world away. Though we outspend the entire world on defense, we are no safer than we were at any other time in our nation’s history. What are we willing to do to defend ourselves?

The President should be applauded for acknowledging the controversy surrounding these programs and for his desire to make them as transparent as possible. However, he and his administration must do a better job of communicating to the nation and the world what these programs accomplish. We need to know what has been done and, without compromising national secrets, how they have been done for one simple reason: trust. .

Trust is a trait that is impossibly difficult to attain and ridiculously easy to lose. The hyper-polarized nature of today’s politics and the unprecedented low-regard the nation has for Congress will not help President Obama gain trust, nor will the President’s poor policy communication skills, his inability to seem like one of the people or his lack of military service prior to his Presidency. Nevertheless, he must find a way to gain it so as to put the surveillance problems in his Presidency behind him. If Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower told the country that these programs were vital, the country would believe him and would stop asking questions. Obama needs to find a way to earn that trust.

The President bviously must do so without compromising the safety of our diplomats, soldiers or citizens. A public advocate is a good start and must be a person who is not only skeptical of the NSA in general but is also selected in a fashion that bestows public trust upon him or her. This will likely mean finding a person who dislikes both Congress and the President and is skeptical of government oversight and military power. Maybe this person is a former Supreme Court Justice. Maybe this person is nationally respected journalist.

Whomever is picked, maybe by finding the right person to protect the people, the President will gain the respect and trust of the people. Only then will he be able to tell those he governs that they can be safe in today’s dangerous world while retaining total privacy. Only then will he be able to tell the people they can have their cake and eat it too. Whether or not it is true won’t really matter.

The Bleeding Has Stopped but the Job Market Is Not Recovering

The Bleeding Has Stopped but the Job Market Is Not Recovering

-Christopher Carroll

The most recent jobs report is further proof that the economic recovery is anemic. Not only is this not likely to change any time soon but if Washington fiscal policy continues, the “recovery” may never be realized. The United States may have to grow accustomed to middling growth and high unemployment rates.

The Department of Labor reported that the economy added jobs in July, cutting the 7.6 percent unemployment rate to 7.4.  However, this was lower than many expected and has given many people pause.

The seal of the United States Department of Labor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jackie Calmes and Catherine Rampell of the New York Times have pointed out that the number of federal workers forced to take unpaid time off has “soared this summer — to 199,000 in July, from 55,000 a year earlier.” This is directly attributable to the sequester, an attempt by Washington bureaucrats to rain in the national deficit by curtailing military and domestic spending.

This problem has not only been seen in the federal workforce. Nationally, the number of people working part-time involuntarily due to cut back hours, furloughs or an inability to find full-time employment was unchanged in July, remaining very high at 8.2 million people. Additionally, the number of long-term unemployed people remained at 4.2 million, roughly 37 percent of the overall unemployed.

The toll the sequester is taking on the economy is now widely recognized as a crippling hindrance on economic growth. Justin Wolfers, an economic professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, described the incompatibility gap between the economy’s needs and Washington policy as being “larger than any I’ve seen in my lifetime,” adding that “this is not the right time for fiscal retrenchment.”

The jobs report and overall economic trends certainly support professor Wolfer’s claim. While the unemployment rate has dropped consistently in the United States and the economy has slowly but consistently added jobs over the past year (0.8 percent and 1.2 million jobs), the employment rate has remained unchanged.

This has meant that because people are dropping out of the “actively seeking a job” category and are therefore excluded from consideration, the falling unemployment rate is deceiving. Not only are we adding mostly part-time and poorly paid jobs to the economy, but we are adding people to the jobs market at the same rate that we are adding jobs. The result: an artificially low unemployment rate and an essentially flat-lined employment rate.

Adults are taking the brunt of the poor job market. Before the recession, just over 63 percent were employed. Post-recession, just 58.7 percent of adults are employed (see graphs). As noted by Binyamin Appelbaum of the Times, this is partially because the United States is getting older. This may be the new normal. The American economy may never see substantial increases in the employment rate. So long as Washington continues to enact policies that damage growth and discourage job creation, the number of jobs added will continue to fail to stay in front of the number of people added to the market. Sequestration is hurting the economy, debates about raising the national debt limit terrify the markets and employers are left to guess when Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will enact quantitative easing.

These numbers seem to suggest that economic recovery is just a myth. Rather than improving, the economy seems to have only stopped the bleeding. For now, Congress is at home for a month long recess. Millions of Americans are at home too.

Lower Loan Rates: Welcome Progress, But Only Part of What’s Needed

Lower Loan Rates: Welcome Progress, But Only Part of What’s Needed

-Christopher Carroll

In an all too infrequent occurrence, the House passed a bill that received sweeping bipartisan support and will be signed by President Barack Obama.  Students and families shouldn’t get too excited though. While a step in the right direction, the bill doesn’t address what is really ailing higher education: the cost of tuition.

The bill, which will reduce the cost of borrowing for federal student loans, passed 392-31 after having passed in the Senate with 81 votes. The rare bipartisan nature of the bill is a testament to the importance of lowering federal student loan interest rates and to the public outcry seen when rates doubled last month. However, even though it has the support of both sides of the aisle and the White House, it does not address the serious economic challenges facing our students and recent college graduates. The astronomical costs of college will follow these generations for decades.

****

 

The new bill ties federal student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note.  Due to currently low national interest rates, the bill sets undergraduate Stafford loan interest rates at 3.86%, graduate Stafford loan rates at 5.4%, and PLUS loans at 6.4%.  While this is markedly lower than the levels last week, it is far from a perfect plan, as it these rates will rise in accordance with the economic recovery.

Though chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), described the bill as a “victory for students and taxpayers” (link#5), some democrats, including Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), fear that “it does not solve the long-term student debt crisis.” Those fears are extremely justified, not because interest rates are prohibitive but because the cost of tuition is extraordinarily high.

Courtesy of CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/13/news/economy/college_tuition_middle_class/index.htm

As discussed in a July 30th post, recent college grads and those soon to graduate face immensely difficult challenges. Poor job markets and crushing student debts are, for many, going to dictate when and if students ever achieve their economic potential and experience an economic prime. This will become even more difficult as parents without enough retirement money saved lose pensions and become reliant on their children.

****

Reducing the cost of borrowing is a good start. But we need to reduce the amount of money families are forced to borrow in the first place. Many jobs in our economy necessitate an undergraduate degree to be even considered for a job. The President has said repeatedly how important it is for our students to go to college. But, as long as school is prohibitively expensive, the cost of loans will matter less than the actual price of tuition. Lowering borrowing rates is a great step, but it’s the sticker price that will kill you.