Bright Hall

Why I Can't Reduce My Carbon Footprint

Tony Romm — 2009-04-25T17:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, American University

Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

It would not be Earth Day weekend without the requisite guilt: Pesky environmentalists proselytizing their cause ad nauseum, hoping to influence at least one group of complacent bystanders to evaluate their carbon footprint. Though annoying, their cause has ample merit: A recent study by the National Climate Data Center reveals that the period between January and March 2009 was the eighth hottest on record. The next three months, for that reason, are certain to pan out no differently.

So on the heels of an excessively warm Earth Day, from the couch in my excessively warm apartment in Washington D.C., I decide to question my own impact on the environment. To do so, I locate an informal quiz at EarthDay.net, one of the "holiday's" leading advocacy groups. The verdict: I am a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space, living a lifestyle that, if emulated by billions, would destroy the Earth more than four times over:

I'm shocked; until now, I have no idea I'm truly wrecking the Earth, and I thus feel guilty. I subsequently consult the Web site's quiz-specific conservation guide, hoping to gain some insight into which specific behaviors contribute to my planet's downfall. What I find, however, verges on asinine.

The top tip EarthDay.net offers me is predictable: I should replace my most common household appliances with machines or devices that are more energy efficient. Although I have not the resources to make any such purchases right now, I estimate their cost using BestBuy.com anyway. My findings are hardly surprising. To replace the old refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner and television in my apartment with the cheapest (and smallest) ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances on the market, it would cost me approximately $1,900, sans delivery and tax. This hefty sum excludes a host of other inefficient appliances that I normally use -- including my laptop and stove, for instance -- which would presumably cost me even more to replace.

(Click to read more about the quiz and what it means.)
The Web site also suggests I reduce my daily animal product intake by half, meat and poultry especially. I find this section considerably troubling, given that I eat poultry (never meat), at most twice per week. But I note it anyway: Abstaining from chicken and turkey saves me a few dollars -- until I decide to purchase an equivalent, pre-packaged good (which the Web site also discourages). On balance, I find I've actually spent more money than I would have normally budgeted for food, probably in a halfhearted attempt to purchase only those items packaged using recyclable materials. I also discover that I've produced about two times as much waste as I would have if I just ate the damn chicken sandwich I wanted in the first place.

Discouraged, I return to my checklist to note one final peculiarity -- my "energy land" consumption is massive. I start playing with the quiz's questions in a feeble attempt to lower this rating, and I discover only one: Turning off all power to my apartment, which somehow only reduces my overall Ecological Footprint by .2 global acres. I note similar changes to this measurement when I consent to living in a small house without any running water, or otherwise deprive myself of basic human amenities (that my apartment, much less the District, would not let me shut off even if I asked). I realize, at this point, that there's little net benefit to such massive inconvenience -- maybe $120 saved each month so that I can write this article in the dark without Internet -- so I quit the quiz and begin reflecting.

And it is at that point I realize I'm not alone in my frustration. It is somewhat indisputable that addressing global warming is a unparalleled "moral imperative," as the Goreacle told lawmakers at a committee hearing last week. The perennial images of melting ice caps and potent storms are haptic reminders of humankind's manifest wrath on the lonely planet that they greedily inhabit. To be sure, the green movement has its doubters, some of whom have received more attention than is naturally warranted. But Americans on balance seem to be slowly admitting their role in the Earth's progressive climate change, even if they are simultaneously taking credit for breakthroughs that are wholly fictional.

Consequently, it is no longer guilt or doubt preventing scores of Americans from altering their lifestyles in the name of a global pursuit. Rather, it's the economy: Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, suggests rationalism, an implicit understanding of losses and gains, and amid America's economic meltdown, that calculation has itself become a contradiction. How does a family without a steady income outfit their empty kitchen with a new set of energy-efficient appliances? How can an underpaid D.C.-based, entry-level journalist afford an energy efficient car, much less any personal form of transportation? And why should either feel guilty for those inabilities?

Hypotheticals aside, this has been the ubiquitous struggle of the modern environmentalist movement: how to balance a legitimate, rational concern for the environment with the equally legitimate, equally rational economic constraints that tug constantly at families' wallets. The green thumbs among us have not an answer to this quandary, and it is evident in a number of their public information campaigns -- this quiz included. Indeed, I reckon I am not the only college student this weekend to question the utility of Earth Day-induced guilt; it is 88 degrees Fahrenheit here, which is hot even by the District's standards. I also know I'm hardly the only soul too poor to afford to save the planet. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I can't -- at least, by the real environmentalists' rigid standards.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Brown University Faculty Votes To Hijack History

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-14T21:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, News, Brown University, Microtrends on Campus, American University, Muskingum College

An obsession with political correctness at American universities has rapidly become a national phenomenon in recent years. A few colleges have really taken it too far.

Brown University's faculty voted last week to rename Columbus Day "Fall Weekend" on the University's calendar, a move that apparently was in step with the wishes of students according to a poll by the college newspaper The Brown Daily Herald. The poll revealed a majority of students disapproved of continuing to call the holiday Columbus Day.

The decision came after weeks of pressure from student groups proposing change.

American University's Undergraduate Senate passed a similar resolution a few years ago declaring the holiday "Indigenous People's Day" instead.

Columbus Day is named of course after Christopher Columbus, the man incorrectly attributed with discovering North America. As we know today, Columbus was tied to the enslavement and abuse of native inhabitants of the West Indies. Columbus Day has been celebrated since 1971.
But really, Columbus Day? It seems strange that academics would be so willing to hijack history for the sake of an extremist obsession to purify it. Owning a history book doesn't give one the right to rewrite it, however. Columbus Day still exists as does U.S. history in its entirety - dark spots as well as bright.

The faculty might have instead used the day instead to ... oh, I dunno, teach? Since when is it an acceptable standard in American academia to ignore history instead of use its errors as a basis to teach and educate?

"Brown University made itself an example to the nation by carefully exploring its ties to the slave trade and using that process to promote greater understanding," Providence mayor David Cicilline, a 1983 graduate of Brown, said in a press release last week. But the decision to "simply erase the celebration of an incredibly significant moment in world history and Italian-American culture for the sake of political correctness does just the opposite," he added.

While Columbus might not be credited now with being the first person to discover America, many Italian-American organizations still credit Columbus, an Italian explorer, as a major historical influence on western civilization's introduction to a new part of the world.

Providence newspaper columnist Bob Kerr called the decision "detached," especially because of the large number of Italian descendants residing in Providence. Rush Limbaugh also opined on the decision, attacking the students who urged for the change.

One Brown student said Columbus is "undeserving of a holiday." Another said "what they teach us in elementary school is misleading - hero worshiping."

The decision was "a progressive step," he added.

I couldn't disagree more. The most feasible part of the students' argument is that Columbus wasn't deserving of the holiday in the first place. But what is certain is that the holiday is also is a yearly reminder of how far we've come. It provides a basis on which teachers can educate their students.

A much greater injustice is done in ignoring the sacrifices made at the hands of the ignorant. Their story deserves to be told, not swept under the rug and the best way to do that is for Columbus Day to remain untouched. It is not an elementary teacher's place to go all philosophical on an 8-year-old, and I don't think children are educated to idolize Columbus - at least I wasn't.

At a higher level of learning, the flaws of such individuals need to be observed and critiqued.

The decisions by both American University and Brown University were more accurately in step with those attempting to censor historical scars, and call it cliche, but those who ignore history are, indeed, destined to repeat it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mapping the Gay Marriage Debate

Tony Romm — 2009-04-07T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, American University

First Iowa, then Vermont -- two states, in less than two weeks, have conferred marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the nation's capitol, meanwhile, the D.C. Council has approved a measure that would recognize gay marriages performed out of state -- a decision that, while unanimous, is still subject to a final vote and Congressional approval.

In 29 other states, however, constitutional bans still prohibit in-state gay marriage, fail to recognize out-of-state gay marriage contracts, or bestow no domestic partnership benefits upon same-sex couples.

The following map outlines those states in which gay marriage-related laws have been passed:

View Larger Map (Please note that due to the size of the window, Alaska and Hawaii were omitted. Both states have banned gay marriage)

How to use: Click on each state to read any applicable information, or click on the map to open a larger window.

Legend:

Green - State performs gay marriages
Yellow - State performs civil unions
Blue - State endows same-sex couples with domestic partnership rights
Red - State bans gay marriage
Pink - State recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and/or civil unions

INFORMATION COURTESY OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

"House" Star Leaves Show for White House

Tony Romm — 2009-04-07T11:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Odd News, American University

From Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello comes news that last night's plot twist on House -- Kutner's (Kal Penn) seemingly unprovoked suicide -- was hardly the result of cast infighting or creative conflicts.

Rather, as the EW blogger unveiled during an interview published this morning, Kutner's death was purely... political?

"Yes. I was incredibly honored a couple of months ago to get the opportunity to go work in the White House," said Penn, still famous for his role in the "Harold and Kumar" films. "I got to know the President and some of the staff during the campaign and had expressed interest in working there, so I'm going to be the associate director in the White House office of public liaison." [sic]

Specifically, Penn will reprise his role as an Obama spokesperson and coordinate the administration's outreach efforts with the "Asian-American and arts communities," the Chicago Sun-Times reported on Tuesday. He'll serve directly under Valerie Jarrett, chief of the Office of Public Liaison.

Penn, however, gave no indication of when he will officially assume his new position -- and, most important to the Hollywood types, whether it signifies an end to his acting career.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Alaskan Republicans Ask for Begich's Resignation

Tony Romm — 2009-04-03T11:49:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, American University

Now that federal prosecutors have abandoned their ethics case against embattled Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the state's leading Republicans have asked Stevens' successor, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, to defend his seat in a special election.

The latest round of Alaskan political boondoggling began earlier this week when the state's GOP chair, Randy Ruedrich, publicly attributed Begich's close, 3,700-vote victory over Stevens last November to "a few thousand Alaskans [who] thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies." Gov. Sarah Palin then echoed that assertion in a separate interview on Thursday, telling the Anchorage Daily News, "Alaskans deserve to have a fair election not tainted by some announcement that one of the candidates was convicted fairly of seven felonies, when in fact it wasn't a fair conviction."

To Ruedrich and Palin, the ideal redress would be a prompt do-over, triggered by Begich's resignation. The vacancy would then permit Stevens, who was indicted in July for failing to disclose gifts he received while in office, to attempt a new campaign without the looming threat of legal action.

Understandably, Democrats have balked at that idea. In a national context, a loss for Begich would temporarily quash the party's longstanding attempt to forge a 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate majority. Locally, explained Alaskan Democratic Party Chair Patti Higgins, a re-vote would only belittle the intelligence of Alaskan voters writ large, who probably want to avoid a protracted, off-year political battle. Even fellow Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, admitted on Thursday that a new election was "not an option."

Still, other Stevens fans have appealed for the 40-year Senate veteran to take his fight to the governorship. A run in 2012 would pit him against the relatively-popular Palin, assuming she chooses to seek re-election. It remains unclear, however, whether Alaska's leading GOP architects and donors would support such a move.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The 3 Most Awkward Recession Stories

Tony Romm — 2009-03-31T20:32:00+00:00

Filed under: Media, The Economy, American University

It is hardly a secret that journalists relish crises of all flavors. Distress, economic or otherwise, satiates our inner-most desires to break important news. Occasionally this excitement verges on nauseating.

If that general prognosis immediately conjures images of economic recession stories gone sour, you're probably not alone. In the months that have followed the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, journalists have penned countless stories -- some veritably profound and insightful, many alarmingly pathetic and unsound. Here's a sampling of the best of the worst:

1. Recession Sex!

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch posed a question for the ages last Friday -- does the chilly economy heat up the boring bedroom? Presumably, the author augurs, "People are spending less, especially on entertainment and restaurants. They're staying in and looking for cheaper ways to have fun." And because the sex industry has also suffered -- brothels in Nevada are now attributing their staggering losses to the recession, while the pornography industry has all but lost its clientele -- married men and women are hedging their wedding stock options (err, vows) and finally enjoying themselves. The result, experts allege, has been a manifest (yet unmeasurable) increase in relationship success rates. However, if recession sex is anything like its cacophonous predecessor terror sex, the fun won't last long. Case in point...

2. Recession vasectomies!

"In troubled times, vasectomies snip and prosper" -- or so says CNN, which published the story on Tuesday. According to writer Madison Park, a number of males recently left unemployed by the recession (and thus, without health benefits) have sought the "symbolic snip" as the ultimate contraceptive. Some clinics, including one profiled in the CNN article, have even tried to capitalize on this trend with creative gimmicks like "Vas-Madness" -- an awe-inspiring combination of the male community's fear of pregnancy with the popular NCAA Men's Basketball tournament. "[Patients] would love to have a procedure, go home and sit there when you've got all-day programming, watch basketball," the mastermind doctor told CNN. True, you may not be able to afford a television on which to watch those games, but...
3. Ode to an airplane repossessed! You would think from The New York Times' diatribe last week on aviation foreclosures that airplane repo men are the modern-day equivalents of Revolutionary era British tax collectors. The newspaper treats the 100 personal jets at risk of foreclosure this year as the biggest national epidemic since, well, the recession itself. Adding to the lament of lost luxury is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution report about the revival of frugality (as if college students ever let it die), the Economic Times "castle sales" eulogy, and Bloomberg touting Japanese fasionistas' robot model troubles as microcosms of a larger, global financial crisis.

Of course, that's not all: Since November 2008, journalists have penned additional pieces attributing a number of other odd trends to the recession, including a rise in shoe repair transactions, a jump in dollar store profits and an increase in cremations.

Add to those tangents an onslaught of awkward photos -- perhaps struggling newspapers should compile their numerous "sad investor" pics into a calendar and sell it to stay afloat -- and it's easy to understand why the Obama administration now offers online resources for Americans suffering from "recession depression."

Such questionable reportage threatens to saturate the "information marketplace," further contributing to Americans' disinterest in the country's economic affairs. It also depicts us reporters as tasteless, veritably bitter and, frankly, just not very good.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Did The NYT Kill A Story Linking Obama to ACORN?

Tony Romm — 2009-03-30T20:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, American University

WASHINGTON -- Did The New York Times wrongly spike a story that would have implicated then-candidate Barack Obama in the ACORN controversy? So testified Heather S. Heidelbaugh, a lawyer representing Republicans in an ACORN lawsuit, during an overlooked House Judiciary subcommittee hearing last week.

According to Heidelbaugh's prepared remarks, NYT beat reporter Stephanie Strom submitted to her editors in late October a story that alleged Obama offered the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, a list of its "maxed-out donors" for their get-out-the-vote fundraising operations. The primary source in the piece was Anita Moncrief, a fired ACORN employee and frequent informant to Strom. However, per Heidelbaugh's testimony, the Times refused to publish the controversial article because, as Strom allegedly told her source, "it was a game changer." Strom subsequently penned not a single additional ACORN story between the described incident and the November election, Heidelbaugh added.

Although Strom could not be reached for comment, the Times' Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, told The Bulletin of Philadelphia that the NYT "do[es] not discuss [its] news gathering and won't comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."

Even so, it remains unclear whether any wrongdoing actually occurred. If the allegations are true, Obama's collusion with ACORN could constitute "gross violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," Heidelbaugh said. However, the hearing's participants did not further inquire as to how or why this was the case.

Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to indict the Times for journalistic malpractice.
Even if Obama did, in fact, conceal his real relationship with ACORN, it is quite possible that newspaper editors lacked adequate sourcing to prove it. Moncrief, who provided the NYT much of its inside information, was fired by ACORN in 2008 for misusing its corporate credit card. Her questionable motivations, combined with the last-minute nature of Strom's story, may have contributed to the Times' decision to kill it.

Yet, this is hardly the first time observers have excoriated Obama on the subject of ACORN. During the 2008 campaign, the Democratic nominee fielded an array of criticisms about it, many of which alleged he was involved in its fraudulent voter registrations and questionable fundraising efforts. Although the campaign successfully deflected each of these insinuations, inevitably emerging victorious in November, Republicans and Democrats alike have since expressed an interest in further investigating ACORN's business practices -- especially those originating during the 2008 campaign.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Non-Profit: Not Going To Save Newspapers

Tony Romm — 2009-03-25T02:17:00+00:00

Filed under: Advise & Dissent, American University

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on non-profit newspapers.

Perhaps some journalists will head to work tomorrow (assuming they still have a job) rather relieved: A new bill, introduced on Tuesday by Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md, would allow struggling broadsides to declare themselves as "non-profit," pursuant to the U.S. Tax Code's guidelines for 501(c)(3) organizations.

In English: Newspapers could take the form of universities, as proposed on The New York Times' op-ed page in January, and similarly sustain their enterprises through endowments.

The analyses that have accompanied the news of Cardin's proposal have accurately attributed to the new business model one important downside: Newspapers who self-declare as "non-profit" cannot endorse political candidates for office, among other political activities. Unfortunately, that is hardly the only side effect of such a switch. Non-profit status, which has served some media outlets rather well, could actually prove quite harmful to newspapers in the long term. Here are two reasons why:

1. Investment incentives? -- If Zachary Seward's estimates are correct, it will require at least $114 billion to guarantee the short-term survival of every struggling American newspaper -- approximately one-seventh of what the United States conferred to homeowners in its recent stimulus package. Of course, the non-profit model proposes that private investors, not the federal government, would provide the funding to endow journalistic enterprise writ large.

But therein lies the problem.

Even if it's true that a cadre of news enthusiasts anticipate the opportunity to sustain the sagging "fourth estate," their philanthropy will hardly be even handed. The Times' tested college endowment analogy explains why: Despite a manifest concern for the future of higher education, philanthropists most commonly offer their coveted cash to colleges likely to produce notable successes and breakthroughs. In those academic settings, innovation underpins investment; investors have the greatest incentives to donate only to the best.

Applied to the news industry, however, it is hardly "the best" who require dire financial assistance. Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's collapse this year elucidate that it is the lack of innovation, not the incidence of it, contributing to the medium's decline. Therefore, if money flows in the direction of those most capable of evolving, small, local papers will still stand to suffer (a truth to which the American university system can also well attest). And that's the exact scenario Cardin designed his bill to reverse.

2. Whither political ads? -- The recession may diminish the ability of corporations to advertise their products, further compounding print media's financial dilemma, but one revenue source is always bound to be booming: national politics. Contrary to economic pressures at the time, The Washington Post reported in 2004 that news Web sites expected to earn over $1 billion in election advertisements that year -- money they, of course, intended to share with their print counterparts. And by 2008, even $1 billion seemed minuscule. That year, Politico alone (which has a moderately successful print edition) captured $146,000 in direct ad buys from the Obama campaign; WashingtonPost.com, similarly, raked in $100,000 over the same period. Although both estimates included neither Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., advertising figures -- the campaign did not file Web-itemized FEC reports -- nor the ads either site sold via third-party firms, the numbers still convey the importance of political advertisements to newspaper publishers.

Non-profit status would likely erase those net financial benefits. According to the IRS tax code, "Section 501(c)(3) organizations" -- newspapers, in this case -- "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." That could include political ads, which could be construed as "indirect participation" in the election. However, the new business model would permit publishers to claim other advertisement revenue as "tax exempt." How much this would save newspapers -- and, additionally, how much it would cost the federal government -- still remains unclear.

Then again, maybe it is the mindset -- not the method -- that is flawed here. Conventional wisdom (and a cultural meme to boot) suggest that the demise of newspapers corresponds with a demise in understanding, knowledge and curiosity. Yet, that's hardly true. Formats determine the most effective means by which a message is transmitted, to be sure, but good journalism exists irrespective of its aesthetic. The "fourth estate" is thus likely to keep its title, regardless of whether its audience learns about the world from a dead tree or a flickering laptop screen. For that reason, even if Cardin's bill passes -- and it is unclear, at this stage, whether it will -- it is unlikely non-profit status will save the dying newspaper industry. Indeed, only ingenuity (and, perhaps, a better conceptualization of what "journalism" is) can do that.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

What Obama's NCAA Picks Say About His Politics

Tony Romm — 2009-03-19T02:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, American University

WASHINGTON -- Bracketology, meet Barack-tology.

The two rhetorical constructions collided on Wednesday when the commander in chief, fulfilling a famous campaign promise, stopped by ESPN studios to offer his predictions for the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament.

Assuredly, journalists in the forthcoming days are likely to exhume from the First Fan's bracket a host of totally uncorroborated conclusions. College students across the country, meanwhile, are certain to frown on the president's encroachment into their traditionally apolitical (and perennially controversial) territory. Yet, none of this is to suggest that the president's picks aren't worthy of at least some analysis -- and, surprisingly, there's quite a bit to be said. Here's the pre-tournament highlight reel:

1. Obama opts for only the top teams -- Even the most cursory of glances at the president's bracket reveals Obama's strident faith in the NCAA's rankings. In the 61 match-ups that comprise the Men's tournament, Obama selects the higher rank to win 89 percent of the time; only in 7 games does he side with the underdog. Thus, Obama's Final Four consists only of first- and second-seeded teams: Louisville, Pittsburgh, Memphis and UNC. The political irony here aside -- Obama is perhaps the epitome of self-admitted underdogs -- any basketball aficionado knows better than to pick winners almost exclusively according to NCAA placement. Only once since the league expanded the tournament's size in the early 1980s have all of the top-seeded teams emerged victorious from Semifinal Saturday, and it is hard to imagine a scenario in 2009 in which that would repeat itself. The sheer strength of this year's pool also complicates the trajectories of Obama's favored #2 seeds -- especially Memphis, which faces a tough fight against UConn, and Michigan State, which only a week ago performed rather poorly against Ohio State. All that said, Obama's faith in the rankings may fail him this year --statistics, unlike poll data, are surprisingly far less accurate predictors of outcome than Obama would like to believe.

2. The come-back kid -- Whither Cinderella? The past two years' worth of Men's Basketball tournaments have sported at least one surprise success story. As the Houston Chronicle so aptly indicates, "There were eight upsets last year by teams seeded five or more spots lower than the teams they defeated. Davidson reached the Elite Eight last year as a No. 10 seed but didn't get back to the Tournament this year despite the return of sharp-shooting Stephen Curry." And before Davidson, of course, there was George Mason University. In addition to serving as the site of one of Obama's first rallies, it was also witness to a last minute victory over the much-favored UConn Huskies in 2006 -- a feat that solidified the school's place in that year's Final Four. Defying tradition (and maybe his own personal political history and roots), Obama's bracket portends no such successor to GMU's or Davidson's underdog throne -- a safe yet unhelpful gamble in 2009.

3. More of the same? -- It may be moot, but it is nonetheless intriguing: Ten of Obama's top 16 teams have made more than one trip to the Final Four, and all but one of them -- Gonzaga, which Obama drops to UNC in the Sweet Sixteen -- have reached the prestigious round at least once in their school's history. Put differently, Obama, perhaps somewhat serendipitously, predicts not a single newcomer will break into the tournament's later rounds (much less win the championship).

Of course, it is naive to insinuate Obama should have altered his basketball picks to conform to his personal political beliefs; in multiple spheres, the president is a fierce competitor, and precedent frequently foreshadows results (just ask political incumbents). But it is also nonetheless ironic to identify behaviors amid President Obama's basketball predictions that Candidate Obama would have quickly and vocally derided. Indeed, campaigns and championships are different worlds -- that is, until deliberately made otherwise. But that is precisely what Obama should fear. Hell hath no fury like a sports nut scorned, or perhaps more importantly, like a Republican senator itching to pin on the administration an utter lack of priority and urgency. Sports are fun, invigorating even, but Barack-tology has its limits, you know...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Travels Bridge to Nowhere With Proposed Earmark Reforms

Tony Romm — 2009-03-17T18:34:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, American University

Call it a stroke of irony (or an ill-timed political mistake), but it is highly unlikely that President Barack Obama's proposed earmark reforms would have prevented the legendary "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco -- the $233-million, pork-tastic overpass for which Alaskan politicians, including Republican Governor Sarah Palin, are most infamous.

As The Hill revealed today, the Obama administration's reform plan is designed to make the earmark process more transparent and competitive. Under the new regulations, lawmakers would be required to hold public hearings on pork projects and disclose the full details of those proposals on their Web sites. Additionally, Congress members would be barred from directing earmark funds to for-profit companies without first soliciting contractor bids.

As a result of that final condition -- which only nominally applies to states' public works projects -- the Bridge to Nowhere could have emerged from Congress unscathed, The Hill hypothesized. According to Politifact, which dissected comments made by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. on the matter, "a congressional committee directed the $225 million earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge to the Alaska Department of Transportation." In other words, because ADoT is a state agency, the bridge (had Gov. Palin not later nixed it) could have been completed without significant opposition.

Stranded Alaskans, however, would hardly be the only beneficiaries of Obama's ambiguous reforms. Under the new rules, so too could the likes of another Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned in 2005 amid defense earmark bribery allegations, reap the personal and political benefits of scrupulous pork. Per Obama's proposal, defense earmarks regarded as secret intelligence programs would "continue to remain secret and immune to... requirements for more public scrutiny and transparency," The Hill reported. Thus, to analysts and spendthrift members alike, Obama's earmark reforms are hardly solvent, considering defense pork in the 2007 appropriations bill totaled nearly $6.6 billion.

But a more important omission from Obama's reform proposal is theoretical in nature. At the heart of the president's criticism is the presumption that voters, long frustrated by reckless federal spending, frown at the inclusion of local pet projects. The introduction of public hearings and comment periods on proposed pork, therefore, constitutes a calculated attempt by the Obama administration to use voters as a democratic check on earmarks. Yet it is politically naive to believe that constituents -- who deride the federal government for such "unfunded mandates" as education and health care -- won't frequently rubber stamp their politicians' pork-barrel initiatives. And it is equally ignorant to assert that Congress members, who stand to benefit electorally from constituent-supported earmarks, would willingly limit their collective politicking abilities. To that degree, Obama's earmark criticisms merely constitute a metaphoric "reform to nowhere." Ambiguous and unrealistic, they insufficiently address the root causes of allegedly wasteful spending.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Senate Dems to Pay For Paycheck Amendment's Defeat

Tony Romm — 2009-03-11T00:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, American University

WASHINGTON -- Although Senate Democrats on Tuesday fended off a Republican amendment that would have otherwise returned the omnibus spending bill to the House, they may have done so at a hefty political price.

The proposed provision, introduced by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have tacked on to the $410-billion appropriations conglomerate a timely repeal of automatic Congressional "cost of living" pay raises. While Majority Leader Harry Reid stressed to Vitter that Democrats would soon support his measure -- even immediately proposing to re-purpose the amendment as a bill -- Reid helped orchestrate its tabling, by a vote of 52-45, under the justification that the House would not approve of the Senate's late politicking.

Although not a single Republican up for re-election in 2010 voted to table the amendment, nine of the 15 vulnerable Democrats did. Their "aye" votes, while integral in moving the omnibus bill to the president's desk sans conference committee, could have immense personal political repercussions: Congressional pay raises, especially during a recession, make great ammunition for challengers hoping to unseat "out-of-touch" incumbents. (Click "Full Article" to view amendment voting chart)

Senators up for 2010 re-election	Table or pass amendment?	Home state's political climate (Cook report)
Arlen Specter, R-PA	AMEND	Lean R
Barbara Boxer, D-CA	TABLE	Likely D
Barbara Mikulski, D-MD	AMEND	Solid D
Blanche Lincoln, D-AR	AMEND	Solid D
Bob Bennett, R-UT	AMEND	Solid R
Byron Dorgan, D-ND	TABLE	Likely D
Chris Dodd, D-CT	AMEND	Likely D
Chuck Grassley, R-IA	AMEND	Solid R
Chuck Schumer, D-NY	TABLE	Solid D
Daniel Inouye, D-HI	TABLE	Solid D
David Vitter, R-LA	AMEND	Lean R
Evan Bayh, D-IN	AMEND	Solid D
Jim Bunning, R-KY	AMEND	Toss up
Jim DeMint, R-SC	AMEND	Solid R
John McCain, R-AZ	AMEND	Solid R
John Thune, R-SD	AMEND	Solid R
Johnny Isakson, R-GA	AMEND	Solid R
Kristen Gillibrand, D-NY	TABLE	Solid D
Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska	AMEND	Solid R
Michael Bennet, D-CO	TABLE	Lean D
Mike Crapo, R-ID	AMEND	Solid R
Patrick Leahy, D-VT	TABLE	Solid D
Patty Murray, D-WA	TABLE	Likely D
Richard Burr, R-NC	AMEND	Likely R
Richard Shelby, R-AL	AMEND	Solid R
Roland Burris, D-IL	TABLE	Toss up
Ron Wyden, D-OR	AMEND	Solid D
Russ Feingold, D-WI	AMEND	Likely D
Tom Coburn, R-OK	AMEND	Likely R
Total Dem incumbent AMEND		6
Total GOP incumbent AMEND		14
Total Dem incumbent TABLE		9
Total GOP incumbent TABLE		0

Information courtesy of Senate.gov, Cook Political Report

Despite the omnibus squabbling, lawmakers did vote on Tuesday to deny themselves a bigger paycheck in 2010. For 2009, however, Congressional pay increased 2.7 percent, according to U.S. & World Report

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Guns to Kill D.C. Voting Rights Bill?

Tony Romm — 2009-03-05T00:41:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, American University

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats postponed on Wednesday a bill that would seat the District's first voting representative in Congress because of threats by chamber Republicans to attach to it a gun rights amendment.

According to The Hill, "Republicans want to add a provision to the voting rights bill that would wipe out most of the gun laws that remain in the District after the Supreme Court tossed out its handgun ban last year." House Democrats, by contrast, largely oppose the amendment, which the Senate permitted and passed earlier last week.

Although the majority party currently possesses the votes required to override the provision and approve the original bill, Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., hinted on Wednesday morning that such an outcome would not come without its consequences. Recent threats by the National Rifle Association to "score" -- or rank and note publicly -- the procedural votes of House lawmakers have forced some moderate- and conservative-leaning Democrats to support the amendment, contrary to the rest of the party's wishes. For that reason, House Democratic leaders have opted to postpone debate while they devise a way to satisfy the party's two equally important fractions.

So too has the proposed amendment tempered hopes among the District's local lawmakers. The D.C. Council, which had previously and vocally supported the voting rights bill, told Washington Post reporters on Wednesday that they would be unhappy with, if not totally unsupportive of, any law that further undermined their ability to regulate firearms. Local residents at community meetings echoed those concerns earlier this week, reportedly noting that the amendment would have them "opposing [their] own interests."

However, even if House Democrats discover an effective way to mobilize against the gun lobby and defeat its corresponding amendment, its exclusion from the voting rights bill is still all but guaranteed. In order for the legislation to reach the president's desk, both the House and Senate must pass identical bills -- which means a conference committee must reconcile the chambers' legislative differences. In other words, because Senate GOP support is contingent upon the gun amendment's inclusion -- and Senate Democrats need some cross-aisle support to pass the voting rights bill -- D.C.'s first official seat in Congress may be inexorably (and somewhat serendipitously) tied to a gun reform provision the city nominally despises.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Romney Wins 2009 CPAC Straw Poll... Preemptively Loses 2012?

Tony Romm — 2009-03-01T08:52:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, American University

WASHINGTON D.C. -- After conceding at the annual gathering only a year earlier, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney serendipitously eked out a symbolic victory in the Conservative Political Action Convention's (CPAC) presidential straw poll, held here on Saturday.

According to Politico, Romney, who received only 20 percent of the CPAC vote, was closely trailed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (14 percent), Texas Rep. Ron Paul (13 percent), Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (13 percent), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (10 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (7 percent). Also on the ballot were South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Despite the wide array of choices, however, nine percent of CPAC attendants said they were undecided.

Yet, this is hardly Romney's first CPAC straw poll win -- in fact, in 2007 and 2008, the former Massachusetts governor trounced his competition, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who the party inevitably nominated.

Luckily for Romney, he is not the only GOP candidate to have lost a general election despite an impressive CPAC poll victory. Rather, he conforms to a historic norm, one whereby the winner of the conference's symbolic poll rarely reaches the general election:

Poll year	CPAC poll winner	Winner's political future
2008 \| 2007	Mitt Romney	Ironically conceded at CPAC in 2008
2006 \| 2005	Sen. George Allen, R-Va.	Defeated by Dem. challenger Jim Webb in 2006 Virginia Senate race
2004-2001	GOP held White House
2000	George W. Bush	Won presidency
1999	Former Undersecretary of Education Gary Bauer	Dropped out after New Hampshire primary
1998	Steve Forbes	Won only two delegates in 1996, dropped out after taking 3rd in Delaware in 2000
1995	Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Tx	Received less than 1 percent of the 1996 presidential primary vote; joined 2008 McCain campaign

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How The Press Can Remain Relevant Under Obama

Tony Romm — 2009-02-24T12:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Advise & Dissent, American University

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on Obama's media management style.

In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas.

Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."

To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.

Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.

Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.

Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.

That is, easy to see, but nonetheless unreasonable. The presidency and the press have always maintained a historically adversarial relationship, one that is contingent upon coexistence: the president depends on media to articulate policy, and reporters depend on presidents for information.That the two constantly struggle for control in that relationship is merely an inherent byproduct of political tradition and media evolution.

It is also why journalists should not expect anything more from the Obama administration. No matter how frequently he associates his presidency with a new "era of transparency," the executive branch's general need to rebuff external criticism and skepticism persists irrespective of which party or president controls the White House (and whatever rhetorical platitudes they offer voters on the path to get there). Openness is integral to democracy, -- and the journalists who claim to defend it -- to be sure. But an unfiltered relationship between the press and government is hardly as practical as some reporters would like to believe.

To stay relevant, journalists must adapt. From the news media's incremental lateralization -- the idea that news is now a many-to-many dialogue, not a one-to-many hierarchy -- has arisen the importance of truth gatekeeping, a task for which professional journalists have always been best suited. And in this occasionally cacophonous era of "social media" -- an area in which Obama's administration also possesses some advantages -- the value of news filters have increased exponentially.

As a result, Beltway journalists are still the most tactically and (surprisingly) financially equipped breed to build source networks, launch massive investigations and deliver enterprise reporting -- even if their poor short-term memories often cause them to forget this. Obama's hackneyed information strategy may complicate those tasks, make no mistake; but those "abuses" hardly constitute brash exceptions from an unfortunately historic -- yet democratically destructive -- political norm.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Analyzing the Facebook Terms Skirmish

Tony Romm — 2009-02-18T13:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, News, Media, American University

After Facebook quietly introduced a new Terms of Service (TOS) agreement that would have allowed the 175 million-strong social network to retain licenses on user content even after those profiles have been deleted, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has decided to recant those changes, citing considerable user dissatisfaction (see Kaitlynn Riely's prior Bright Hall coverage here and here).

According to Mashable, a Web 2.0 media blog, the social network's primary error introducing the revisions was its tactics, not its specific terms edits. Recalling the site's controversial redesign last year, against which the Facebook community struggled fruitlessly, the site posited that, "Facebook has done a poor job of communicating the changes, leaving Zuckerberg on the defense instead of proactively keeping users informed on potentially controversial moves the company is making." Mashable did add, however, that it was highly unlikely Facebook would have used its questionable "permalicense" condition maliciously.

While Facebook contemplates a more appealing TOS reconfiguration, Zuckerberg has created a Facebook group to cull user feedback -- the Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsbilities (login required). According to the group page, "This group is for people to give input on Facebook's terms of use. These terms are meant to serve as the governing document for how the service is used by people around the world."Already, more than 44,000 users have joined the effort, a sizable fraction of which has shared such TOS suggestions as closing Facebook groups to religions, permitting photos of breastfeeding mothers, installing new user age limits and -- as Zuckerberg predicted in his open letter -- opening Facebook to other social networks and Web services.

The latter concern especially, Zuckerberg said, presents immense legal and logistical challenges to the ever-expanding social network (and its current, rolled-back TOS): "People want full ownership and control of their information... At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them-like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on-to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with."

Facebook, surprisingly, has already attempted such a system: Facebook Connect, a ramped-up version of the API Facebook previously introduced for third-party application developers. According to TechCrunch, "[Facebook Connect] will allow users to "connect" their Facebook identity, friends and privacy to any website. Third party websites will be able to implement and offer more features of the Facebook Platform off of Facebook - the same features available to third party applications today...." A handful of Web communities, including MyWorkster -- a more social LinkedIn -- have already applied this new, experimental Facebook service to their online communities, albeit with mixed (and vastly unreported) success.

Yet, for the new technology to work on a larger scale, Zuckerberg hinted, Facebook must revise its TOS -- and, as such, edit its licensing policy. As Mashup explains, "with Facebook Connect in place, it's likely that Facebook simply must do this in order to avoid possible lawsuits over content that isn't even stored by them anymore." The network expansion for which users have long pined, in other words, is not plausible under the current TOS agreement.

But persuading users this trade-off is necessary might prove considerably more difficult than first anticipated. In a CNET poll (posted on Facebook earlier this week), 56 percent of respondents indicated they wanted the social network to revise its "permalicense," if not altogether quash the idea. A more telling 38 percent answered "I don't know." No matter what the reply, though, Facebook must still convince its 175 million users en masse that lateral expansion and increased Web integration is worth the weight in lost content licenses. And that rationale, presumably, is going to require more than just an open letter and subsequent Facebook group to sell.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bush Hits Speech Circuit; First Stop -- Canada?

Tony Romm — 2009-02-13T12:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, News, American University

Twenty-three days after leaving office, former President George W. Bush has decided to take his first lap around the lecture circuit, beginning with an appearance in Canada next month, The Dallas Morning News reported Friday morning.

According to the Associated Press, the event -- a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta sponsored by local businesses, financial analysts, a law firm and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce -- is closed to the public; organizers have either already invited or expect only 1,500 Canadians to attend. The topic, according to the Dallas Morning News, is "a conversation with George W. Bush," a speech in which he is expected to "'share his thoughts on his eight momentous years in the Oval Office'." It is still unclear whether Bush will follow in his predecessors' footsteps and be paid for the engagement.

Unfortunately for the previous president, it is equally unclear how a Canadian audience will receive his message. In 2004, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll reported that 64 percent of Canadian respondents had an unfavorable opinion of the Bush presidency. That strain on U.S.-Canadian relations continued long into 2006, growing so powerful, reported The New York Times, that Canadian politicians leveraged their relationship with the former U.S. president during their own legislative contest.

In 2008, BBC pollsters further revealed that Canadians -- and the citizens of 16 other countries -- expected America's then-unnamed next president to markedly improve bilateral relations (and hoped that the new executive would be President Barack Obama). Presumably, those poll predictions have panned out: AFP reported the day before Obama's inauguration that his approval rating among Canadians had topped 80 percent. Meanwhile, Bush -- at least domestically -- exited the White House with the lowest approval rating of any president since Richard Nixon, and -- somewhat speculatively -- faced similarly low poll numbers abroad.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Blogging Not Recognized as Journalism

Tony Romm — 2009-02-12T00:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, News, Media, American University

For the second time in two years, lawmakers have introduced a controversial bill that would provide qualified protection to journalists facing federal subpoenas to disclose their sources.

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, revealed on Wednesday by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN), returns at the beckoning of journalists who have long criticized the federal government for the absence of any source protections. Under current law, reporters are at the mercy of federal grand juries and civil proceedings; when formally requested, they must share their evidence or risk being held in contempt of court. The proposed law, by contrast, would mimic similar state "shield laws" and create a federal "reporter's privilege, with exceptions for national security, terrorism, the prevention of bodily harm, and eyewitness testimony from a crime scene," according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The new bill, however, is not without its vocal opposition.

Still at issue in the perennial shield law debate is who, exactly, qualifies as a "journalist." According to the new bill, which is identical to the previous Free Flow of Information Act, the phrase "covered persons" includes anyone "who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain..." That definition, lawyers indicated last year, does not include bloggers, many of whom only casually contribute content to their communities or frequently do so without "substantial" -- if any -- pay.

Regardless of their professional or profit motives, bloggers have faced extensive legal challenges over the past two years -- albeit at the state level where some shield protections already exist. In Virginia, for example, blogger Kathleen Seidal was served a state subpoena in 2008 as part of a personal injury lawsuit, one that required her to submit documents that included traffic data. Elsewhere, in Tennessee, local blogger Thaddeus Matthews fought Memphis lawyers over whether they could subpoena him for refusing to reveal his source in an ongoing police investigation. And in California, 24-year-old Josh Wolf was jailed for refusing to relinquish tapes identifying lawbreaking protesters at a Group of 8 summit in 2006. He spent 228 days behind bars.

Yet, not everyone agrees these state squabbles justify the addition of a "blogger provision" in the federal shield law. Despite the organization's previous support for bloggers fighting federal and state subpoenas, the Society of Professional Journalists issued a press release on Wednesday that included no mention of such a revision. "Today, we are asking you to join the fight to improve and protect journalism. Please contact your representative and voice your support for this measure that is essential to upholding a free and independent press," wrote James Aeikins, SPJ's president.

But bloggers' vociferous criticisms have not gone unheard: In 2007, the Senate anticipated this debate over who constitutes a "journalist" and rewrote its version of the bill to eliminate the "substantial portion/gain" condition. However, the chamber never voted on the bill; it died at the end of the previous Congressional session and has only been reintroduced in the House.

Since then, President Barack Obama has expressed vague interest in a federal shield law, a clear departure from his predecessor, who threatened to veto any such law in 2008. Still, it remains unclear whether President Obama supports the House bill in its present state -- and more importantly, whether House members have any interest in advancing it to the president's desk this year.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Census Bureau to Report to White House?

Tony Romm — 2009-02-05T18:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, News, Odd News, American University

After a number of minority groups expressed concern that Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg would "downsize census outreach efforts," President Barack Obama decided Thursday to altogether bypass the Commerce Department and force the Census Bureau to report directly to the White House, according to Congressional Quarterly.

At issue is Gregg's prior disposition toward the constitutionally-mandated, decennial census. As a three-term GOP senator from New Hampshire, Gregg frequently supported cuts in the bureau's funding, even opposing President Bill Clinton's appeals for emergency money in 1999. In both instances, Democrats lambasted Gregg, alleging that his efforts would have complicated the counting process, especially in traditionally under-reported minority neighborhoods at risk of being subsumed into larger congressional districts.

Although Gregg has yet to defend his positions in cabinet confirmation hearings, the Obama administration hoped to preempt any political fallout on Thursday by releasing scant details of its revised census plan. Speculation, however, does exist: According to Politico and a second CQ dispatch, the revised census hierarchy would permit Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to "h andle Census Bureau matters," though to what extent remains unclear.

Buoyed by such uncertainty, House Republicans immediately condemned the Obama administration for politicizing the census.

In a joint letter to the White House on Thursday, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) and Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) criticized the president's plan to circumvent the Commerce Department. According to the two members, any proximal relationship between the political wing of the White House and the Census Bureau "severely jeopardiz[es] the fairness and accuracy" of a count that determines how much a congressional district will grow or shrink, how many representatives each state is afforded -- and thus -- how many electoral votes each state receives.

As of Thursday evening, neither the Obama administration nor Gregg's office had addressed the matter on record.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Latest Victims of the Recession: Your Addiction, Your Mail, Your Sweet Tooth

Tony Romm — 2009-01-29T00:23:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Odd News, The Economy, American University

It has affected college students' goals, family members' careers, incoming politicians' aspirations, and now, Americans' guiltiest pleasures. That the U.S.economy's untimely slump has touched upon every aspect of American life is certainly the understatement of 2009, and even the most trivial aspects of our routines bear the marks of its consequences. Here are just four examples:

1. Two short of shortbread. Sure, they escaped the peanut butter fiasco, but they didn't quite fare as well against the economy. Facing increasing overhead and transportation costs, the Girls Scouts of USA announced Wednesday that they would subtract two to four cookies from their "boxes of Thin Mints, Peanut Butter Sandwiches, Shortbread Cookies, DoSiDos and Trefoils," according to CNN. The move, Spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins told reporters, comes in lieu of a price increase, which Girl Scout administrators feared would further pulverize their 2009 profit expectations.

Normally, such news would have provoked thankful sighs from the health nuts among us, who stress annually during Girl Scout cookie season, however...

2. Running on Empty. ...even gyms are suffering. Earlier this month, Reuters reported (or, more accurately, reaffirmed) that American gym membership rates are inexorably tied to the economy; when it becomes too expensive to subscribe to monthly fitness programs, Americans simply don't. Unfortunately, that line of thinking hasn't helped the health industry's health, either. In slightly over a year, Bally's Total Fitness, a national exercise company, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy twice. Worse, other struggling fitness companies -- many of which are suffering because of their low-price attempts to reengage customers -- are soon expected to follow suit. Perhaps those cookies don't seem so expensive after all...

3. Less Bang to Your Bux. Starbucks, too, has implemented a host of cost-cutting measures this season in a feeble attempt to keep its prices low and profits high. Unfortunately, part of its revised sales formula includes closing 300 stores this financial quarter in addition to the 600 it announced it would shut down last July. The move, according to Wednesday's New York Times, should affect more than 6,000 workers, many of whom Starbucks hopes to shuffle into other positions throughout the company. But if the costlier commute for still-overpriced coffee doesn't quiet your inner yuppie, perhaps the recent news about the news will: Even the Times, the staple diet of any Starbucks frequenter, can barely afford to stay afloat. Maybe Folgers and broadcast news are making a comeback this year...

4. Return to Sender. If you're one of the few people in the United States who still depends wholly on snail mail for communication, the recent announcement that the U.S. Postal Service may soon halt all deliveries on Tuesdays must be troublesome. In his Senate testimony earlier this week, Postmaster General/CEO John E. Potter explained that new technological and financial pressures have forced his office to reconsider the Postal Service's purpose:

"In fiscal year 2008, total mail volume fell by more than 9 billion pieces - 4.5 percent. With volume down significantly, revenue did not meet projections, even with a May price adjustment, and remained essentially flat compared to the previous year. Costs, however, continued to grow, at a rate far higher than could have been anticipated."

Of course, Potter noted, nothing is definite; Congress has not yet debated any changes to the mail schedule, a topic it hasn't visited since 1983. But maybe a 5-day mail week isn't such a bad thing, for either Americans' personal finances or the aforementioned industries' prospects: The policy dampens hope for a fast economic recovery, to be sure -- but at least you'll no longer receive bills on Tuesdays.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Simple Addition Won't Save The Pell Grant

Tony Romm — 2009-01-19T00:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, Money, News, The Economy, American University

Assuredly, somewhere, students rejoiced at lawmakers' announcement on Thursday that they intend to enlarge the Pell Grant, a need-based gift aid program, by $500 next academic year. House Democrats, who introduced the increase as part of their upcoming (and hotly contested) $850 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also hope to pair the bigger grant with equally sizable increases in education infrastructure funding and tax credits.

Assuming the bill passes untouched by Senate skeptics, it'll constitute a symbolic victory for the higher education community, which has historically pined for more Pell Grant funding.

Unfortunately, it will be a small, unhelpful victory at that. Long plagued by diminishing purchasing power, the Pell Grant currently covers about 33 percent of an eligible student's cost of attendance at a four-year public college or university -- less than half of what the grant initially covered when it was introduced in 1972. Predictably, an additional $500 per annum, no matter how well-intentioned, does not address the decades throughout which Congress did not increase Pell awards in tandem with inflation.

A simple calculation sufficiently illustrates why: If the National Education Association's (NEA) public school cost of attendance estimates for 2009 are correct, the proposed expanded Pell Grant -- $5,321 for those students who qualify for the maximum -- would still only account for 34 percent of state college students' yearly bills, a meager one-point increase that will cost the government $16 billion to implement. And that figure assumes tuition only rises 6 percent next academic year; for those students bracing for even larger tuition hikes, the Pell Grant might possess even less power.Then again, that's why solving the Pell Grant's shortcomings is not a matter of simple addition. Unlike Stafford Loans, which pay for themselves with fixed interest rates, the federal grant program has no auxiliary funding mechanism; the government can't reinvest graduates' payments because there is nothing to be repaid. But that, after all, is the paradox of gift-based financial assistance: Although the grant lessens the burden on low-income families (for transparency's sake, mine included), it does so at the detriment of the federal budget, usually to the tune of more than $15 billion a year. In other words, every expansion of the grant program -- in either the amount of Americans it serves or the money it provides -- deepens the debt and diminishes the government's ability to provide those funds in the future. Worse, it leaves higher education's more intractable financial crises -- the loan market and the tuition hikes, among other issues -- totally untouched.

Whether President-elect Barack Obama possesses enough political capital to address the Pell Grant's structural inadequacies remains unclear; to do so in a solvent, effective manner, he must either raise taxes or cut other programs, neither of which seems particularly appealing during a period of economic decline. Until then, however, college students can only celebrate marginal increases with lukewarm enthusiasm. Solving the Pell Grant's problems isn't a matter of simple addition, but living with its effects just might be.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments