The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on March 9, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The American public has been simmering angrily on the issue of immigration for too many years. Conservatives have played politics with this issue, driving a wedge between voters while offering little in terms of real ideas on this issue. As Secretary Clinton highlights in her comments on this debate, what we are doing now is not working. Let’s drop the politics and talk seriously about the issue.
Immigration reform should be comprehensive, fair, and tough. Illegal immigrants are coming to the US for many reasons: in search of jobs, in search of the American dream, reconnecting with family members, and many other reasons. We have to address the immigration issue in a deep and complex way, or else we will solve one problem but potentially create several other problems.
The primary reason to have comprehensive reform is to secure US borders, and ensure the safety of our people. Reform must include prosecution for illegal trafficking of people into the United States and identification fraud, as well as tightened security at the borders. Reform packages, stalled over political wrangling, have highlighted the need for border security first before any current illegal immigrant can apply for legal status. But tightening border security alone will not solve the immigration issue. If we do not address the reasons people are illegally crossing the border, we will never achieve full security.
Many illegal immigrants are coming over the border because there are American companies that will purposefully hire undocumented workers. Reform must address businesses like the Agriprocessors company in Potsville, Iowa, which knowingly hired illegal immigrants and helped these illegal immigrants get false Social Security numbers. According to the Des Moines Register, the company paid workers below minimum wage, hired underage workers, and had many cases of unreported worker abuse, including a supervisor striking one employee with a meat hook. The federal government raided this company two years ago, and more than 300 undocumented workers were taken into custody. The behavior of this company is something that, as Americans, we should not condone.
If we gloss over such behavior, we will keep all of the same incentives in place that draw undocumented workers across the border in the first place. Businesses that hire illegal immigrants have shirked their public duty – taking advantage of low-wage immigrant workers, encouraging violation of laws, and avoiding payroll taxes. This must end, and comprehensive immigration reform should take a hard line against businesses that hire illegal workers. If we address the individual illegal immigrants, but ignore the businesses that purposefully hire illegal workers, we will not stem the tide of immigrants for very long.
We must acknowledge a harsh reality: there are more than 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Mass deportation of illegal immigrants is impractical and expensive. Illegal immigrants, searching for the American dream, have built lives here in the US for themselves and their families. We have to get beyond the political squabbling around the deportation issue and find a way that is fair to American citizens. I believe that an earned path to citizenship is a way to do that.
As proposed by some recent bi-partisan bills, illegal immigrants should be able to earn a path to citizenship by becoming taxpayers and paying off owed back taxes. This proposed reform will bring illegal immigrants out of the shadow economy and bring them forward as taxpaying members of society. If a reform package allows for this earned path to citizenship, this will be fair to current American citizens, while providing a practical solution to the 12 million people who have built lives in the US – making them honest, law-abiding members of American society.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on February 10, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
We can and should test the achievement of all students in American schools. School testing provides valuable data that can help us understand how well students, teachers, and schools are doing. Testing is an important part of a modern, accountable education system – a system that succeeds for our children and for our country.
But school testing is not a panacea. Testing provides one piece of data, a snapshot of a child on a specific day. Testing alone cannot encapsulate everything that happens within a school or even in a classroom.
A debate about testing is also a way to sidetrack from the real issue at stake – the future of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB has brought much needed attention to some serious issues in the education field, most particularly the achievement gap between white students and students of color.
Our schools should help all students learn and gain skills to be part of strong American workforce. Yet for the good that NCLB did, it did many other things very poor. NCLB requires that states set a proficiency standard that students must pass. NLCB requirements then focus on the gap of proficiency between the highest and lowest students. This gap is an important measure, but it is not the only measure.
Highlighting only the gap places intense focus on students at the lower end, ignoring the achievement needs and capabilities of higher scoring students. Shouldn’t an education system strive to improve the learning of all students, not simply those at the bottom? By using test scores in a multi-faceted way – instead of using them to measure proficiency levels or achievement gaps – you can not only close the achievement gap, but help students across the entire spectrum learn more and do better in their studies.
NCLB also used a false measure of “adequate yearly progress.” If schools do not meet this measure, the federal government will label schools to be “in need of improvement” That is simply semantics; people speak of these schools as failing. Those failing schools can face stiff financial penalties from the federal government. Adequate yearly progress is a measure that can penalize schools for what can often be statistical noise.
Education in the United States has a long-standing history as being under the purview of the states and localities. This national law tried to force a one-size-fits-all approach onto the states when it came to testing. The federal government has a valid interest to see that public education is of the highest quality across the country.
But NCLB has retrofitted an individualized educational system with constrictive standards. The testing requirements under NCLB encouraged states to make easy proficiency exams, so they can guarantee a high pass rate. The standards for students vary wildly across the United States. As one NEA spokesperson joked, “the fastest way for a sub-standard student in Massachusetts, a state where the bar is set high, to become ‘proficient’ is to move to a state where that word means something quite different.”
Recently, President Obama has announced new directions for the federal education agenda. As part of the recovery act, Obama included more than $4 billion of federal funds labeled for a Race to the Top. To improve schools, President Obama has decided on the carrot rather than stick approach. Rather than punishing schools for failing to meet set of standards that do not adequately measure progress, he is incentivizing reform, innovation, and improvement with new federal funds.
Coming out of the era of the unfunded NCLB mandate, this is a positive step for school districts and schools. These funds will be used to rewards school systems that are undergoing key reforms and making strides for their students. The federal government under Obama is looking to make the US educational system modern, innovative, and ready to meet the needs of the American economy going forward.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
China is a complex country with a history, a people, and an economy starkly different from the United States. China views this as its time to establish itself as a world leader. For these reasons, the United States has an interesting and difficult task ahead. The United States must figure out approaches which will help shape China’s growth. The United States does not intend to, indeed cannot, dictate how China develops, but resolution of contentious issues such as international security, global economic growth, and human rights are integral parts of our diplomatic relationship with China.
China wants to forge its own path, and part of its path is a different approach toward government. Politically, the Chinese have been very successful with their authoritarian regime and have no reason to reform their government. The Chinese do not want to emulate the United States’ rise to international prominence. They see no reason to copy the American democratic system, when their own system has been so successful.
This places the United States in a weak negotiating position. The United States feels strongly about the moral grounds of democracy, competition, and dissent. Our democracy may not always be very pretty, but we are immensely proud of our system. The Chinese have no practical reasons to adopt a tumultuous democratic system such as our own, when they have seen such developmental success with their own form of government.
For the sake of the Chinese people, we should continue to pressure China to open up their system of government. The Chinese need not adopt a system identical to the Americans, but we should strongly push for a system that allows political competition, free discussion of the media, and dissent by the people. The Chinese people, who comprise one-sixth of the world population, deserve an open and democratic government that reflects the diverse views of the citizens.
China is also a major force in international politics and is helping shape the development of nations all over the globe. Countries, looking to China rather than the Western powers, see the success of China’s authoritarian government. The spread of anti-democratic governments is a threat to everyone, including those under the rule of authoritarian regimes as well as the rest of the world community. We must negotiate forcefully with China on the issue of human rights in order to prevent the spread of authoritarian governments to the developing world. We must do this to protect the people in the developing world, ourselves, and the rest of the international community. We cannot let the 21st century be defined as the era of the spread of authoritarian rule and undemocratic governments.
Addressing the human rights situation in China is a top priority for the United States, but we are also trying to balance environmental safety, trade partnerships, monetary stability, and military dominance in our relationship with China. The U.S. relationship with China is not a simple discussion only about human rights; rather, it is a multifaceted discussion over the future of our countries and the direction in which we will lead the international community. An overemphasis on one issue may lead China to restrict the scope and extent of its diplomatic relationship with the United States. The United States must take a strong but nuanced position to pressure China into opening up their form of government.
The United States must consider several factors before determining its position on human rights. This does not imply that the United States should back down on the issue of human rights. We cannot let any of our short-term interests drown out our opposition to human rights violations perpetuated by the Chinese. Human rights concerns must remain a top priority and a major part of our diplomatic efforts towards China. The issue of human rights is just too important to the lives of the Chinese people as well as to the safety of the world community to ignore.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on November 11, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
Despite popular sentiment, it has been Democratic presidents who have historically made the difficult decisions to balance the budget and help reduce the national debt. Republican presidents, on the other hand, claim fiscal responsibility even as they spend the United States into a massive hole. Now, President Obama is coming under attack for fiscal irresponsibility from Republicans, when he is taking the necessary steps that will help save the American economy.
Looking at history, Republicans have consistently been enormous debtors. Even the champion of small government, President Reagan, spent without limit. In just eight years, Reagan was able to triple the national debt. He never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his presidency. He thought cutting taxes meant small government, but if you do not have the political will to follow that up with cuts in spending then you are fooling yourself and the American people. Reagan ran enormous budget deficits that drove the U.S. to its highest ever levels of debt.
After the massive spending years of Reagan and Bush 41, we finally got Bill Clinton. Republican love to accuse Democrats of being the teenager running around with America’s credit card, but by the end of the Clinton years, the government had balanced its budget and was headed towards paying down the national debt.
In the eight years after the Clinton administration, George W. Bush drove the national debt from just over $5 trillion to $10 trillion. In his two terms, Bush amassed more debt than any president did from George Washington through to his father’s administration, combined. Pulling a page from the Reagan playbook, Bush promised small government and his first step was to cut taxes. Unfortunately, he followed up, not with spending cuts, but with massive unfunded programs such as Medicare Part D.
The future of the United States may be bleak indeed because of our crushing debt load. We need to address the debt, but cannot do so at the expense of our economic recovery. We need to distinguish deficits for economic stimulus reasons, such as those proposed by President Obama, and deficits for irresponsible reasons, such as those presented by President Bush. The recovery bill set forth by President Obama is one of the only reasons there are some bright signs in our economic future. According to Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the recovery bill is one of the main reasons that we saw GDP growth this quarter. The current budget deficit and the mounting debt are a major concern for President Obama and the American people, but we cannot stomp on these green shoots of economic recovery by tightening up the federal budget too quickly. We must withstand these short-term deficits in order to address the longer-term debt problem after we have come out of this deep recession.
Putting it all into perspective, according to OMB estimates, the U.S. government will add another $9 trillion to its debt over the next decade. Of that $9 trillion, more than half comes from President Bush’s policies – the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the unfunded Medicare Part D. Only 10 percent comes from the Obama recovery bill. Once the United States comes out of this recession, we will see the Democrats, not the Republicans, making the tough but necessary choices to help pay off the debt.
President Obama faces a political storm, as the deficit hawks – silent for years now – will come down on the president for his economic recovery plans that include deficit spending. As politically difficult as this will be, I know that President Obama will withstand the political pressure and do what is best for the American economy and the future of our country. He will continue his short-term policies encouraging stabilization and economic growth and get serious about reducing the national debt once the economy is back up and running.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on October 27, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
President Obama recognizes the threat that a nuclear Iran poses. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made some dangerous comments regarding Israel and the Holocaust, and Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah is a threat to the safety of the Israeli people. But a nuclear Iran also puts the entire world in jeopardy. We stand against Iran’s nuclear program, both as an ally of Israel and as members of the world community.
There are glimmers of hope within Iran. As we saw this summer with the protests of the presidential elections, the political and religious leadership does not speak for all Iranian citizens. It is myopic to view Iran as a caricature within the Axis of Evil that Bush painted so dramatically just a few years ago.
As a nation, Iran is layered and complex, and the U.S. must reflect this complexity in its multi-faceted approach. Since his days as senator, the president has recommended that we do just that – take a comprehensive approach to Iran. The plans that President Obama has proposed for the past few years take an intelligent and strong approach to helping prevent the nuclear armament of Iran.
One key feature of Obama’s plan is diplomacy. Obama would not back away from his faith in the diplomatic process even under the enormous political pressures of the 2008 presidential election. Diplomacy is a strong tool for American foreign policy, and we should not take it off the table just because it may be politically expedient. Many Republicans agree with President Obama on this point, and they will even admit that when not trying to score political points – like McCain and Palin – by reiterating that diplomacy is dangerous.
Diplomacy can only work when it is conducted on the world stage. The United States will have little success unless it is able to build a united and coordinated plan with the cooperation of many parties, including the E.U., Russia, and China. China, in particular, is an important aspect to the diplomacy plan. China is a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and has growing economic and political interests in the region. China has also heavily invested in the Iranian oil industry. Without buy-in from China, the U.S. will not be able to succeed in its diplomatic tactics.
Diplomacy is also an important part of a larger plan that Obama has been emphasizing for years. He recommends “more than just tough talk.” As a senator, he sponsored legislation that takes a strong approach to Iran. His ideas include divestment from Iranian businesses and putting increased pressure on the Iranian oil trade.
Yet, oftentimes under economic sanctions, those who can afford it the least are those who suffer the most. Although we agree with President Obama that we need “bigger sticks and bigger carrots” in our approach to Iran, we need to ensure that we do not bring harm to the Iranian people. The nascent democracy movement spurred by the protests of this past summer are the exact actions that we should encourage within Iran. And we are afraid that poorly thought out sanctions may stifle such positive social movements.
We stand with President Obama and his multi-faceted approach to Iran. He is not using this issue to score political points. He knows that this decision is too important, and the idea of a nuclear Iran is too dangerous to withstand. Any approach to Iran will likely be difficult and drawn-out, and so will the domestic and international politics required to deal with the issue of a nuclear Iran. The United States must take a strong stand against this issue or endure an enhanced threat to global security. Under President Obama, we believe we will make that strong, balanced stand.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on October 19, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
It is time to stop bickering about global warming. Global warming is not a hoax. We do not need any more evidence to see if global climate change exists, because it does exist. We now see visual evidence for ourselves. Global climate change is happening right now, and we have the responsibility as people of this world to do something about it. But we need to answer the biggest question: what is the best way we can we reduce carbon emissions? I believe, based on historical evidence, that cap and trade is the most efficient and effective method we have to reduce carbon emissions.
Through the 1980’s, the United States faced another important environmental challenge, that of acid rain. Acid rain is caused by a noxious mix of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other air pollutants. Many of these pollutants came overwhelmingly from power plants, particularly coal burning power plants. Although the polluters tended to be localized, acid rain spread with the weather across the entire United States and into other countries.
Through most of the 1980’s, the US ignored the problem. President Reagan sided with the powerful coal lobby and opposed restrictions on sulfur emissions. Yet, after his election in 1988, George H. W. Bush embraced a novel approach to solving the issue of acid rain. He supported a cap and trade system for reducing sulfur emissions.
I hope I am adequately channeling my API-101 professor here, for many economists favor the cap and trade system. The system sets a limit on the total amount of emissions allowed by polluters, and the government hands out or auctions the permits to emit. Companies that can cheaply reduce their emissions do so, and can sell their pollution permits to others who cannot abate so easily. By creating a market for emissions, we allow industry to reduce in an incredibly efficient manner.
Liberals squirm at the idea that the government gives companies permission to pollute, and conservatives cringe at the idea that the government tells businesses what to do at all. I want to set those political talking points aside and focus on the real issue. Cap and trade works. Since the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments establishing a cap and trade system for sulfur emissions, the United States has cut their sulfur emissions in half. According to EPA estimates, the air along the eastern seaboard is 30 percent less polluted with haze. The Clean Air Act really did hold true to its name. Fears of skyrocketing consumer energy prices never came to fruition. In real dollars, the price of utilities has remained virtually unchanged since 1990. And the sulfur cap and trade program did this all at around one-fourth the original cost estimates to producers. The OMB even estimates the benefits of this program to outweigh the costs by nearly 40 to 1 declaring this act the most successful piece of federal legislation in the 1990’s. That seems like a clear win for the cap and trade approach to controlling pollution.
Currently, we are hearing some of the same tired arguments that we heard during the 1980’s – businesses cannot afford this, consumers cannot afford this. What we actually cannot afford is to continue on the path that we are on. We cannot stand idly by while the impacts of global climate change become more severe. We need to act now. The cap and trade program will allow the United States to finally step up to our responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions. And according to estimates, the cost of the cap and trade program is less than $.50 a day to consumers. For the price of a postage stamp, we can help reduce emissions and slow global climate change. That is a small price to pay for a stable and sustainable future.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on September 30, 2009 in Dems v. Reps
Afghanistan has reached a critical point. After holding a joke of a presidential election last month, Afghanistan is under immense pressures both internally and externally. Internally, the Taliban has made major inroads with the people in various regions of the nation. For complex religious, cultural, and economic reasons, some Afghans are turning to the Taliban. Economically, the Taliban’s presence as a controlling force behind the opium drug trade leaves local farmers, who harvest the drug as a cash crop, little incentive to buck the Taliban influence. With the resurgence of the Taliban, the country, the region, and the rest of the world are put in danger.
The United States’ position among the people of Afghanistan has also dropped precipitously. Less than a third of Afghans now view the U.S. favorably, down from nearly 70 percent in 2005. This drop is not surprising given that the U.S. and other allied forces prop up the corrupt and unstable Afghan government. U.S. forces have been in the country for eight years, and what has their presence brought the people of Afghanistan other than a crooked president elected through a foreign system?
We are currently reaping the oats that George W. Bush sowed. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. had strong international support for our objectives in Afghanistan. Bush squandered that initial unity in order to invade an unrelated country: Iraq. Bush divided our troops, our resources, and our attention. He allowed our objectives in Afghanistan to be lost in the shadow of his vendetta against Saddam Hussein. We now are left to clean up Bush’s mess.
Republicans’ solution to the cultural and military complexities of Afghanistan is to advocate for an immediate surge in the troop levels in the country. It is unclear that a larger military force will solve the issues that we see on the ground. Economic growth, infrastructure development, and eliminating corruption in the government are all goals that we have for Afghanistan, and a simple increase in the level of U.S. troops may not be the right answer.
Members of the diplomatic community have begun to speak out saying that more American troops may drive Afghans to align with the Taliban in opposition to the invading U.S. forces. It is disrespectful to the lives of our soldiers to increase the troop levels without a full evaluation of the options.
The Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has requested more troops. But with this request, he also concedes that the U.S. needs a new strategy. General McChrystal understands that something more needs to be done; yet his response is to send more troops. President Obama has invited input from the military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities. He is taking his time to evaluate all options: military, diplomatic, developmental, etc. He. We should stand with President Obama on the decision that he makes.
As the Commander in Chief, President Obama is given the most complete view of the situation on the ground and how new and different approaches can change the outcome there. President Obama’s measured, studied approach to decision making should be respected. He is taking the input of military commanders seriously and will make a decision based on his full understanding of the situation and all potential options. He will not make a decision about the lives of American military members based on political pressures. The Republicans should not try to win political points with their hawkish base by pressuring President Obama into a hasty decision about the changing mission and strategy of the U.S. in Afghanistan.
Succeeding in Afghanistan is essential. A destabilized and divided Afghanistan further disrupts any semblance of order in Pakistan and allows the continued resurgence of the Taliban and warlords. We cannot allow the Taliban and their previous Al-Qaeda allies to reestablish themselves in this country. Afghanistan is the front line in the war on terror and should have remained the central focus of the U.S. after September 11th. For now, we must respect the intelligent and balanced approach that President Obama will take when reaching his ultimate conclusion about the proper troop levels for Afghanistan.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on September 16, 2009 in Dems v. Reps
The American health care system is failing us. The system covers too few people, has become too expensive, and leads to poor medical outcomes. Currently 47 million Americans lack health insurance. That means one out of every six Americans has no protection for themselves or their families in case of medical emergencies, not to mention the lack of access to preventative or routine care. Even among those insured, the current system is unworkable. Costs are spiraling out of control: among people who file bankruptcy for medical reasons, 80 percent had health insurance coverage.
We must change our approach to health care and we must change it now. Any new system must achieve two important goals: access to health care coverage for all Americans coupled with cost controlling measures. A public health insurance option is an important factor in achieving both of these goals.
Despite their promises of reform for decades, the private health insurance industry covers fewer Americans every day. The public option could introduce much needed competition into this industry. The public option would allow consumers a choice in their provider, especially if they do not have insurance through their jobs. For many areas of the US, a public option could break up local health insurance monopolies, and provide local consumers with needed alternatives. People wishing to retain the status quo can do so, and I suspect a vast majority of Americans will choose to remain with their current private providers. However, if a health insurance company is driven out of the market by the public option maybe that is for the best. If a private insurance company cannot offer a high quality product for a reasonable price, than this company deserves to be driven out of the market.
The public option is a way to introduce new efficiencies in the health care market. Currently public hospitals treat all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. The uninsured go to the emergency room for much of their care, no matter the circumstances. Often their case is either better handled by a family practitioner or their illness may have progressed beyond the point of simple solutions. The government already pays for these patients in an incredibly inefficient way through the funding of public hospitals; switching the uninsured to a public insurance plan will allow us to treat these people more cost-effectively than before.
The public option will introduce greater transparency into the cost and pricing system of the health care industry. Private insurers have experienced protections for too long against competition and accountability despite the fact that insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade and are expected to double again in the next eight years. The government insurance system will allow consumers to understand the factors impacting medical costs, which will in turn put pressure on private insurers to be more transparent in their practices.
Having a public option paired with an individual mandate for coverage will cover far more Americans and accomplish the first goal of giving all American access to health care coverage. Instead of seeing more and more Americans lose their health insurance every year, we can expand coverage to everyone. Universal coverage will help ensure that everyone receives adequate preventative care and treatment. This will also make Americans healthier as the uninsured will now have access to screenings and primary care rather than simply emergency care after a situation has become dire.
In addition, the public option plays an important role in meeting the second goal of controlling the upward spiral of health costs. The public option, with a sizeable consumer base, will be able to negotiate with health care providers and big pharmaceutical companies to keep costs in check. Only a national program could achieve the size necessary to have sufficient power in the market to help control costs.
The Republicans have been playing a harmful game. The Republicans, as they did in the early 1990’s, see this as a political opportunity to destroy President Obama’s agenda. With enough fear tactics on “death panels” and “socialized medicine” the Republicans believe they can anger the American public enough to torpedo any meaningful health care reform. Rather than proposing their own ideas, the Republicans in Congress are just saying “no, no, no.” I believe it is time to tell the Republicans “no, now” and pass meaningful health care reform that includes a public option.
A Walk into Washington
by Mary Smith on February 11, 2009 in Features
Even before Election Day, I planned to attend the inauguration. For the first time in my life, I lived close enough to Washington to attend the ceremony. I vowed that no matter the outcome of the presidential election, the inauguration was too important to miss. Lucky for me, Obama won, and I was thrilled to see him sworn in as the country’s next President. Surrounded by millions of people, I felt the spectrum of human emotions. The only thing I did not feel that day were my toes. Read more
