Dear Common Community,

The New York Times editorial today critiques last Tuesday’s election as a win for ”dark money” or “the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election.”   When historians look back at this period of American history, they will liken it to a scandalous era when democracy was bought and controlled by moneyed interests.

Below is a reprint of the editorial.

Tony

================================

Dark Money Helped Win the Senate

New York Times Editorial

November 9, 2014

The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?

Nil, of course. The next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has long been the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington, under the phony banner of free speech. His own campaign benefited from $23 million in unlimited spending from independent groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The single biggest outside spender on his behalf was a so-called social welfare group calling itself the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which spent $7.6 million on attack ads against his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. It ran more ads in Kentucky than any other group, aside from the two campaigns.

What is its social welfare purpose, besides re-electing Mr. McConnell? It has none. Who gave that money? It could have been anyone who wants to be a political player but lacks the courage to do so openly — possibly coal interests, retailers opposed to the minimum wage, defense contractors, but there’s no way for the public to know. You can bet, however, that the senator knows exactly to whom he owes an enormous favor. The only name associated with the group is Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George W. Bush White House, who also worked for two of Mr. McConnell’s previous campaigns.

The $11.4 million spent anonymously for Mr. McConnell, though, didn’t even make him the biggest beneficiary of secret donations, a phenomenon that grew substantially in this election cycle. In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In Colorado, at least $18 million in dark money was spent on behalf of Cory Gardner, the Republican newly elected to the Senate; $4 million was spent on behalf of Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent. In North Carolina, $13.7 million in secret donations was spent for Thom Tillis, the new Republican senator; $2.6 million went to Senator Kay Hagan, who was ousted.

Dark money wasn’t the only type of spending that polluted the cycle; this year there were 94 “super PACs” set up for individual candidates, all of which are attempts to bypass federal limits and allow big givers to support the candidates of their choice. (These donations have to be disclosed.) Of the $51.4 million these groups spent, 57 percent were on behalf of Democrats. Overall, of the $525.6 million in independent expenditures this cycle (excluding party committees), about 57 percent was for Republicans.

That money wasn’t just spent on attack ads. As Nicholas Confessore of The Times reported, it was used for tracking opponents and digging up damaging information, and expanding the ground game to turn out voters. Republicans used the money to set up a “research” group called America Rising, which existed only to sell embarrassing information and footage about Democratic candidates to Republican campaigns and super PACs.

Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever.

Dear Commons Community,

Douglas A. Medina, a PhD candidate in the Political Science Program here at the CUNY Graduate Center, has just published an article on the history of open admissions and the subsequent imposition of tuition at CUNY. Entitled, Open Admission and the Imposition of Tuition at the City University of New York, 1969–1976: A Political Economic Case Study for Understanding the Current Crisis in Higher Education, he revisits many of the issues and players of the period. Douglas also relates his investigation to higher education today.  As stated in the abstract (see below), his examination of the policies reveals an ideological struggle between meritocracy, as grounded in the individualist ideal of the American Dream and equality and democracy, as grounded in calls for inclusion, access, solidarity, and empowerment. His class analysis offers a critical context for understanding the current transformation of higher education beyond CUNY.

It is a great piece of research that anyone interested in the history of American higher education will find important.

Tony

Abstract

Between 1969 and 1976 the City University of New York (CUNY) experienced two monumental policy transformations. These transformations were a result of changes in the political economy of New York City and State leading class struggles to erupt between and among groups. This article highlights two of these struggles: first, what came to be known as the “open admissions” policy, one of five demands made by students and their supporters in 1969–1970 at City College, and second, the imposition of tuition for undergraduate students in 1975–1976, a neoliberal condition set by business and political elites designed to privatize and commodify CUNY. In contrast to existing policy studies and sociology of education approaches to the study of CUNY, which are approaches limited by their ideologically liberal focus on outcomes that lead to “racial disparity” and inequality of individual achievement, an alternative class analysis is proposed that entails the concrete historical, political, economic, and ideological context of these struggles and their causes. The examination of both policies reveals an ideological struggle between meritocracy, as grounded in the individualist ideal of the American Dream and equality and democracy, as grounded in calls for inclusion, access, solidarity, and empowerment. The resulting class analysis offers a critical context for understanding the current transformation of higher education beyond CUNY.

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times editorial today focuses on the major weakness in the American economy.   Even while the stock market is at an all-time high and jobs are expanding, the fundamental problem in the economy is that wages are stagnant and working people are struggling to make ends meet. Wages have not kept up with inflation for several years running. In addition, most of the new jobs reported yesterday indicate that nearly all of the private-sector job gains were in restaurants, retail stores, temporary work, health care and other low-to-moderate-paying fields.

In sum, the economy is not working for those who rely on paychecks.  It is working well for those who rely on stock dividends and capital gains.

Below is a reprint of the editorial which says it all.

Tony

==================

Job Growth, but No Raises

New York Times Editorial

November 8, 2014

The employment report for October, released on Friday, reflects a steady-as-she-goes economy. And that is a problem, because for most Americans, more of the same is not good enough. Since the recovery began in mid-2009, inflation-adjusted figures show that the economy has grown by 12 percent; corporate profits, by 46 percent; and the broad stock market, by 92 percent. Median household income has contracted by 3 percent.

Against that backdrop, the economic challenge is to reshape the economy in ways that allow a fair share of economic growth to flow into worker pay. The October report offers scant evidence that this challenge is being met. Worse, the legislative agenda of the new Republican congressional majority, including corporate tax cuts and more deficit reduction, would reinforce rather than reverse the lopsided status quo.

The economy added 214,000 jobs last month, in line with its performance over the past year. Consistent growth is certainly better than backsliding, but growth is still too slow: At the current pace, it will take until March 2018 for employment to return to its pre-recession level of health.

Even then, more jobs would not necessarily mean higher pay. Updated figures by the National Employment Law Project, a labor-advocacy group, show that about 40 percent of the private-sector jobs created in the last five years have paid hourly wages of $9.50 to $13, and 25 percent have paid between $13 and $20. Those findings are underscored by the new jobs report, which shows that nearly all of the private-sector job gains were in restaurants, retail stores, temporary work, health care and other low-to-moderate-paying fields.

Wages have barely kept up with inflation for several years running, and there are no economic or political forces to push them up. Working people can make more when employers bump up hours, which in October averaged a post-recession high of 34.6 hours a week. Workers also will see their paychecks go further as gas prices fall. But they are not getting ahead in any real sense.

None of this was inevitable. When the private sector is unable or unwilling to create good jobs at good pay, government is supposed to use stimulus to spur employment. It is also the job of government to enact and enforce polices like robust minimum wages and legal protections for union organizing. But the 2009 stimulus, too small to begin with, was offset by federal spending cuts beginning in 2011, while job-enhancing policies have gone nowhere, in large part because of Republican opposition.

Other forces that undermine broad prosperity bear examination. Trade with nations that manipulate their currency, exploit workers and damage the environment to gain unfair advantages costs Americans jobs. An outsized financial sector feeds bubbles and busts that devastate employment. Republican leaders have identified new trade deals and less financial regulation as priorities, but a heedless push on those fronts ignores the negative job-related consequences.

The economy is not working for those who rely on paychecks to make a living, which is to say, almost everyone. Steady gains in the October jobs report, while welcome, do not change that basic fact. Nor will policies currently on the horizon.

Dear Commons Community,

In another sign that public university systems are being squeezed and are passing costs onto students, UC President Janet Napolitano proposed a 5 percent tuition increase for each of the next five years. As reported by the Associated Press:

Tuition at the University of California’s 10 campuses would increase by as much as 5 percent in each of the next five years under a plan UC President Janet Napolitano is expected to present to the system’s governing board Thursday.

The proposal follows three years in which tuition rates have remained frozen. It would increase the average annual cost of a UC education for California residents pursuing undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees in academic as opposed to professional disciplines from $12,192 to up to $12,804 next fall and $15,564 in fall 2019, according to a copy of the plan provided in advance to The Associated Press.

Napolitano said the five-year framework fulfills a goal she set when she assumed the president’s office last year of making “modest” tuition hikes a predictable part of the university’s budget so families and campuses can know what to expect and plan accordingly.”

Other large public systems such as CUNY and SUNY are in the middle of similar tuition increases.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Frank Luntz, a communications adviser and Republican pollster, and president of Luntz Global Partners, has an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times, analyzing Tuesday’s election results. In sum, he is warning Republicans that their victories on Tuesday were not an endorsement of their ideas and positions as much as a rejection of incumbents  in Washington, D.C. To quote:

“On election night 1994, as Republicans recaptured the House for the first time in 40 years, I stood in the audience and watched my client Newt Gingrich, who would soon become speaker of the House, declare the beginning of the “Republican revolution.”

I knew immediately that the smartest man I had ever worked for was making the worst rhetorical blunder of his career. Nobody voted Republican to start a revolution. They did so because they were fed up with a Democratic president overreaching on health care and a government seemingly incapable of doing even the smallest thing effectively. We all know what happened when Mr. Gingrich tried to turn his rhetoric into action.

Sound familiar? No one is quite saying “revolution” this week, but Republicans across the country, in their glee over Tuesday’s elections, are coming dangerously close to making the same mistake.

True, there will now be more Americans under Republican representation than at any time in decades. And the re-elections of G.O.P. governors in blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin are certainly a validation of their policies. It was a tsunami; someone needs to get the Democrats a towel. But that anti-Democrat wave was not the same as a pro-Republican endorsement. In many races that went from blue to red, Republican success was hardly because of what the G.O.P. has achieved on Capitol Hill. In fact, if Americans could speak with one collective voice — all 310 million of them — this is what they said Tuesday night: “Washington doesn’t listen, Washington doesn’t lead and Washington doesn’t deliver.” Purple states tossed out their Democratic senators for being too close to Washington and too far from the people who put them there.

The current narrative, that this election was a rejection of President Obama, misses the mark. So does the idea that it was a mandate for an extreme conservative agenda. According to a survey my firm fielded on election night for the political-advocacy organization Each American Dream, it was more important that a candidate “shake up and change the way Washington operates.”

I didn’t need a poll to tell me that. This year I traveled the country listening to voters, from Miami to Anchorage, 30 states and counting. And from the reddest rural towns to the bluest big cities, the sentiment is the same. People say Washington is broken and on the decline, that government no longer works for them — only for the rich and powerful.

… Our election night survey showed that 42 percent chose their Senate candidate because they hated the opponent more. One pre-election poll had over 70 percent willing to throw everyone out and start fresh.”

Mr. Luntz hits the mark with his analysis. The American people are fed up with our elected officials in Washington, D.C. Polls during the past year indicated that they are more fed with Congress than with President Obama whose approval ratings hover around 40%. By contrast, Congressional approval ratings are at about 13%.  Americans don’t care about Democratic solutions or Republican solutions. They want common-sense solutions that make everyday life just a little bit easier. But they can’t get their houses in order until Washington gets its own house in order.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Tom Friedman comments today on the “nonsense midterm elections” that avoided many of the most serious issues confronting the U.S. and the world. He states that we are in the middle of three climate changes – one digital, one ecological, one geo-economical. Below is an excerpt from his New York Times column:

“We’ve just had a nonsense midterm election. Never has more money been spent to think so little about a future so in flux. What would we have discussed if we’d had a serious election? How about the biggest challenge we’re facing today: The resilience of our workers, environment and institutions.

Why is that the biggest challenge? Because: The world is fast. The three biggest forces on the planet — the market, Mother Nature and Moore’s Law — are all surging, really fast, at the same time. The market, i.e., globalization, is tying economies more tightly together than ever before, making our workers, investors and markets much more interdependent and exposed to global trends, without walls to protect them.

Moore’s Law, the theory that the speed and power of microchips will double every two years, is, as Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson posit in their book, “The Second Machine Age,” so relentlessly increasing the power of software, computers and robots that they’re now replacing many more traditional white- and blue-collar jobs, while spinning off new ones — all of which require more skills.

And the rapid growth of carbon in our atmosphere and environmental degradation and deforestation because of population growth on earth — the only home we have — are destabilizing Mother Nature’s ecosystems faster.

In sum, we’re in the middle of three “climate changes” at once: one digital, one ecological, one geo-economical. That’s why strong states are being stressed, weak ones are blowing up and Americans are feeling anxious that no one has a quick fix to ease their anxiety. And they’re right. The only fix involves big, hard things that can only be built together over time: resilient infrastructure, affordable health care, more start-ups and lifelong learning opportunities for new jobs, immigration policies that attract talent, sustainable environments, manageable debt and governing institutions adapted to the new speed.”

I am not a big Tom Friedman reader but he is saying something important today.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

It was the Republican Party coming out on top last night as election results were tallied from around the country. As reported in the New York Times:

“Resurgent Republicans took control of the Senate on Tuesday night, expanded their hold on the House, and defended some of the most closely contested governors’ races, in a repudiation of President Obama that will reorder the political map in his final years in office.

Propelled by economic dissatisfaction and anger toward the president, Republicans grabbed Democratic Senate seats in North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Arkansas, Montana and South Dakota to gain their first Senate majority since 2006. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a shrewd Republican tactician, cruised to re-election and stood poised to achieve a goal he has pursued for years — Senate majority leader.

An election that started as trench warfare, state by state and district by district, crested into a sweeping Republican victory. Contests that were expected to be close were not, and races expected to go Democratic broke narrowly for the Republicans. The uneven character of the economic recovery added to a sense of anxiety, leaving voters in a punishing mood, particularly for Democrats in Southern states and the Mountain West, where political polarization deepened.

The biggest surprises of the night came in North Carolina, where the Republican, Thom Tillis, came from behind to beat Senator Kay Hagan, and in Virginia. There, Senator Mark Warner, a former Democratic governor of the state, was thought to be one of the safest incumbents in his party, and instead found himself clinging to the narrowest of leads against a former Republican Party chairman, Ed Gillespie.

Those contests were measures of how difficult the terrain was for Democrats in an election where Republicans put together their strategy as a referendum on the competence of government, embodied by Mr. Obama.

House seats where Democrats had fought off Republican encroachment for years were finally toppled. Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, was easily re-elected in Wisconsin, a state that voted twice for Mr. Obama. In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott, once considered endangered, finished the night on top. And states that had seemingly been trending Democratic, like Colorado and Iowa, fell into Republican hands.

With at least a nine-seat gain and most likely more, House Republicans will have close to 245 seats, the largest Republican majority since the Truman administration.

“Barack Obama has our country in a ditch, and many of his lieutenants running for the Senate were right there with him,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “The punishment is going to be broad, and it’s going to be pretty serious.”

If the past several years were not bad enough, it is going to be an even tougher two years to come for President Obama.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

On this Election Day, David Brooks examines the state of data-driven politics and concludes it is a “fiasco”. Here is an excerpt from his column:

“Over the past decade or so, political campaigns have become more scientific. Campaign consultants use sophisticated data to micro-target specific demographic slices. Consultants select their ad buys more precisely because they know which political niche is watching which TV show. Campaigns trial test messages that push psychological buttons.

Discussion around politics has also become more data driven. Opinion writers look at demographic trends and argue over whether there is an emerging Democratic majority. Pundits like me study the polling crosstabs, trying to figure out which way Asian-Americans are trending here and high-school-educated white women are trending there.

Unfortunately, the whole thing has been a fiasco. As politics has gotten more scientific, the campaigns have gotten worse, especially for the candidates who over-rely on these techniques.

That’s because the data-driven style of politics is built on a questionable philosophy and a set of dubious assumptions. Data-driven politics is built on a philosophy you might call Impersonalism. This is the belief that what matters in politics is the reaction of populations and not the idiosyncratic judgment, moral character or creativity of individuals.

Data-driven politics assumes that demography is destiny, that the electorate is not best seen as a group of free-thinking citizens but as a collection of demographic slices. This method assumes that mobilization is more important than persuasion; that it is more important to target your likely supporters than to try to reframe debates or persuade the whole country.”

His closing comments:

“Some politicians, like F.D.R. or Ronald Reagan, can reframe debates and envision coalitions that don’t exist. Their visions emerge out of unique life experiences, which are unusual but have broad appeal. They build trust not through a few targeted messages but by fully embodying a moment and a people. They often don’t pander to existing identities but arouse different identities.

Today we have a lot of technical innovation, but not a lot of political creativity. The ecosystem no longer produces as much entrepreneurship — mutations that fuel evolution.

Data-driven candidates sacrifice their own souls. Instead of being inner-directed leaders driven by their own beliefs, they become outer-directed pleasers driven by incomplete numbers.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Of the 36 gubernatorial elections being decided today, three have special resonance for people in higher education.In each case, a Republican governor took a hard line on higher-ed spending; in each case, that governor now finds himself in electoral peril. As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

“Two high-profile incumbents, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are fighting for re-election in races that are considered tossups. And then there’s one race that is not close: In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Corbett is considered a likely loser on Election Day.

Those three were among the wave of new Republican state lawmakers and executives who swept into office in the 2010 elections, giving the GOP control of a majority of the nation’s governors’ mansions and legislative chambers. Their election followed the recession, as state governments struggled with shrinking tax revenues.

The three governors ripped pages from the same playbook: deep cuts for higher education at a time when enrollments were increasing.

But their attempts at higher-education reform have not gone all that smoothly. Now, at the end of their first terms in office, all three find themselves largely at odds with their college constituents.

Defeats on Tuesday for Governors Corbett, Scott, and Walker could bring shifts in policy for their states’ public colleges. But don’t expect a big increase in appropriations if their Democratic opponents win: Most state economies continue to grow slowly, and the challengers say they will focus largely on relieving student debt, not on increasing spending for colleges.”

Get the word out and VOTE!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article on who will shape the Federal Government’s higher education policies (or at least in the Senate) should the Republicans capture the upper house in tomorrow’s elections. The article sees Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and a former president of the University of Tennessee, as chairing the influential Senate Committee on Higher Education. This seems likely.   Alexander has a mixed record on higher education. He has supported simplifying federal government oversight which would be a welcome but also has been a bit too conservative on expanding financial aid. Here is an excerpt:

“For years, the Republican senator has been trotting out those two props in an effort to persuade his colleagues to roll back regulations and simplify, simplify, simplify student aid. And for years, the regulations and programs have kept on multiplying.

Now, with Republicans poised to reclaim the Senate in Tuesday’s elections, Mr. Alexander may finally be in a position to change things. As the presumptive chair of the Senate committee that oversees education, he would control the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the major law governing student aid. Already, he’s drafted legislation to shrink the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or Fafsa, and to reduce the overall number of student-aid programs. He’s formed a commission to identify redundant regulations, and he’s talked of “starting from scratch” on the reauthorization bill.

“My principal goal in higher education is to deregulate it,” the senator said in an email interview.

It will not be a picnic with Alexander but I think we could do worse.

Tony