Via the Coalition on Human Needs, Congress passed a temporary budget that, while providing some additional funding for relief programs, quietly shortchanges programs that invest in low-income people, because their funding isn't adjusted for inflation. The same programs have been losing funding under Bush, and the Democratic Congress largely hasn't even brought them back to their pre-defunding size.

With the recession cutting deeply into family incomes and state revenues, the need for investment in a full range of social and community services is growing. Most of these services have sustained cuts over the past three or more years. Just to list a few examples, from FY 2005 through 2008, adult job training was cut 12 percent and youth training dropped 14 percent. Child care and Head Start were cut 10 and 8 percent, respectively. Adult basic education shrunk by 12 percent, and family violence/battered women's shelters declined 11 percent. Allowing inflation to cut these programs further at a time of economic crisis holds back the potential for recovery.

The last three years and this year are pretty consistent with long-term trends. Since the 70s, nobody's really put any money in vocational and basic education. FY 2007 recorded the lowest funding level for job training and employment programs, as a share of GDP, in about the last 45 years. By a different measure, federal expenditures per worker declined from $63 in 1986 to $35 in 2006.

In other words, neither Democrats nor Republicans have cared about education and skill development for a long time. Who says the folks in Congress can't put aside their partisan differences and come together over policy?

Dean Baker in today's Housing Market Monitor:

The United Kingdom announced this morning that it would undertake an $87 billion bailout of its banks. This is approximately the same size as the bailout approved by Congress last week. (Britain's economy is just under one-fifth of the size of the U.S. economy, making this equivalent to $500 billion in the U.S. economy.)

There are important differences between the structure of the bailout in the UK and the United States. While the Paulson plan centers on paying too much for the bad assets of banks, the UK plan involves the direct infusion of capital through the purchase of preferred bank shares. The British Treasury announced the immediate suspension of bank dividends and cuts in executive compensation. It also announced that it would return banks to their core business of issuing loans and underwriting security and bond issues. It will be interesting to see how well the two plans perform in the coming year.

....

PM Gordon Brown had this excellent quote about their bailout in today's NYT:

“This is not the American plan,” he said. “Our plan is to buy shares in the banks themselves and therefore we will have a stake in the banks. We are not simply giving money.”

In essence, the Brits took a hard-nosed investment-based approach, while we opted to provide Finance with opulent charity.

Matt's last post about the recent MDRC report on high schools reminded me that I've been meaning to write something for ages about the report they put out over the summer on medium-term (eight years out) results of The New Hope Project. New Hope, along with the demonstration version of the Minnesota Family Investment program, was part of a progressive social policy road not taken in the 1990s. That's unfortunate for families struggling to make ends meet in today's dismal economy who would be much better off today if initiatives like New Hope had been brought to scale back then. Even though New Hope operated for only three years, it had positive effects on employment, earnings, and incomes while it was in place, and, as the new MDRC report finds, many of its positive effects lasted five years after the program's end:

Employment, income, and parents’ well-being. Adults in the New Hope program were more likely to work than their control group counterparts, and the combination of earnings supplements and the Earned Income Tax Credit also resulted in higher incomes. Less consistently, New Hope also had some effects on parents’ well-being. Most of these effects did not last beyond the three years that the program operated — except for a subgroup of individuals facing moderate barriers to work, for whom New Hope increased employment, earnings, and income through Year 8.

Children’s environments. New Hope affected children’s environments by increasing parents’ use of center-based child care — an effect that persisted through Year 5, or two years after New Hope child care subsidies had ended. By Year 5 and lasting into Year 8, New Hope led children and youth to spend more time in structured, supervised out-of-school activities.

Children’s development. Positive effects on children’s academic performance and test scores were evident at the two- and five-year marks. By Year 8, effects on performance had faded, and new effects had emerged. New Hope children reported being more engaged in school than control group children, and their parents were less likely than control group parents to report that their children had repeated a grade, received poor grades, or been placed in special education. New Hope also improved children’s positive social behavior, effects that lasted through Year 8. At the eight-year point, New Hope adolescents were less likely than their control group counterparts to have cynical attitudes about work and were more likely to have taken part in employment and career preparation activities.

Besides results, a number of elements distinguished New Hope from excessively hyped but less effective conservative programs developed in the 1990s, like Wisconsin's W-2. Probably the most important one was New Hope's inclusiveness: instead of limiting the program to single parents with children, or beneficiaries of particular public programs, all low-income adults over age 18 were eligible for a wage supplement, health insurance and other work supports, and a transitional job if they couldn't find regular employment. Interestingly, while Barack Obama doesn't propose reviving New Hope, a number of his proposal move in that direction, including boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers without children and establishing a transitional jobs initiative. After a long detour, social policy may be getting back on track.

One of the things I find deeply, deeply annoying about the k-12 education debate in DC is that it's so hung up on blame. Is it lazy and unqualified teachers that make schools bad? Bad parents and neighborhoods? Society and the economy? Whatever. I mean, I generally think Education Sector's stuff is interesting, but do they have to be so obsessed with teachers unions? I'm all for a framing and making political arguments, but it'd probably be better to emphasize problems and solutions.

So it felt like a breath of fresh air to read MDRC's new report on high school education. It's got lots of practical, evidence-informed suggestions and not a word about unions. I thought the section on remediation resonated the most with my experiences:

Students must have a foundational level of knowledge and skills to survive and succeed in high school. But nationally, only about one-third of eighth-graders scored at “proficient” or “advanced” levels on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics or reading tests. Even when achievement is measured by local rather than national standards, in most states at least one in four students enters high school with eighthgrade math and/or reading scores below the level of proficiency. Many ninth-graders need extra support to get caught up at least to grade level in reading and math. Unless they take remedial classes over the summer after eighth grade, enroll in back-to-back remedial and grade-level courses during the school year, or receive intensive tutoring, they will be unlikely to earn enough credits in their first year to put them on track for graduation.

I went to grade school in Evanston, Illinois, which has good schools with an economically and socially diverse student body. My high school was divided into tracks, and by the time I got there, there were vast differences in what students knew. I more or less never saw a lot of my middle and elementary school friends in class again. Few students, I think, switched tracks after freshman year.

Remediation and tutoring take funding, though, which brings me to my one complaint: the report doesn't have a section on policy implications. It'd be interesting to know what the authors think they are. But perhaps to make effective policy recommendations, you also have to blame something.

When George McGovern ran for President in 1972, he did so without the support of the AFL-CIO, which stayed neutral in the election; it was the first time since they started endorsing Presidential candidates in 1944 that they didn't back the Democratic candidate. A Time story from July '72 quoted AFL chief George Meany on the non-endorsement:

In a tone as matter-of-fact as if he were discussing the pros and cons of a pipe fitting, the onetime plumber said he doubted that "McGovern is good material. We don't think he would be in the best interest of labor. My interests would be if we could find some way to defeat both of them." He reminisced about the perennial Socialist candidate for the presidency who died in 1968: "If only Norman Thomas were alive today."

Meany has been dead for almost three decades, but apparently McGovern still holds a grudge. He recently penned an WSJ op-ed opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, and is now starring in an anti-EFCA ad campaign. As Rick Perlstein notes:

McGovern is the *only* major Democratic figure who doesn't support the Employee Free Choice Act. Every single Democrat in the Senate and all but two in the House voted for the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, excluding Tim Johnson, who was hospitalized. Even Joe Lieberman joined the Democratic caucus on this vote, and 1 Republican Senator and 13 GOP House members supported it as well. McGovern is virtually alone in his opposition to this bill.

If Norman Thomas were alive today, he'd kick George McGovern's ass. Well, Thomas was a pacifist, so maybe he would do any physical kicking, but you get my point.

Via Ted B., this extremely insightful article by UK historian Ben Jackson draws on speeches of successful UK and US progressive reformers for lessons on how to talk about reducing poverty and inequality. Jackson argues that successful leaders like FDR utilized a discourse of "social patriotism" that: 1) "mobilised lower and middle-income voters in an electoral coalition against the vested interests of the super-rich" 2) "did not employ explicitly egalitarian language to make the case for redistribution, but rather drew upon and radicalised familiar values such as opportunity, security and fairness"; and 3) "emphasised the social dimension of wealth creation and the need for strong collective action to protect individual citizens from the vicissitudes of the market." Here's Jackson on the first point:

The widespread use of this discourse of social patriotism challenges certain casual assumptions about traditional progressive rhetoric. By invoking the nation, progressive politicians spoke about a shared identity that transcended class loyalties and contrasted an inclusive community with the exclusive privilege enjoyed by a minority. The speeches of Lloyd George, Roosevelt and others did not disparage the ambitions of working families who sought to improve themselves. On the contrary, they spoke in terms designed to construct a political coalition between low and middle-income voters. Once the welfare state was put into operation, argued Herbert Morrison in 1947, 'the middle classes as well as the working classes will have reason to bless these services.' As Morrison added, this illustrated that the Labour Party 'stands up for all the useful people'. Redistribution was not presented by these politicians as advancing only the interests of 'the working class' or 'the poor' but as a majoritarian project that improved the economic position of the average citizen and was opposed only by selfish interest groups pursuing a narrow sectarian agenda.

Shawn makes an compelling point about progressive anti-poverty jobs. What's strange is that this isn't true of the right. I've seen arch-paternalist Ron Haskins articulate a pretty defined understanding of the capacity of government and the market. As you can imagine, to him poverty's a problem of "dependency" and a lack of "personal responsibility." He makes clear that he's very skeptical of government and has good things to say about the job market.

That's just to say that progressives could say what they think about the market. Conservative wonks do about government.

And given some new developments (in addition to the free-market dying), I think it's actually pretty easy to rebut the anti-government argument.

1) Poor people work, and lots working class people make low wages. The difference between them is hard to define. Are conservatives saying working class folks are irresponsible? Is the market working out great for them?

2) There's nobody really on TANF anymore, and those who are are subject to work requirements. I know that nothing will keep conservatives from arguing that personal responsiblity is the root of all evil, but does this have anything to do with reality? At this Brookings event I heard Haskins blame unemployment among poor men on "culture," in particular, rap music (Btw, rap sales are way down. Does this mean poverty will be decreasing soon?). There's just no government program to pin poverty on anymore.

3) Despite the reforms of the '90s, there's still lots of poor people.

And an affirmative case for government isn't that hard to make, either. The period of greatest decline in poverty as it's measured today was 1940 to 1970, the era of the New Deal coalition, when government actively promoted opportunity for workers. And even conservatives agree that the safety net programs of the 30s, 60s and 70s have reduced hardship among the poor and made everyone's lives more secure, especially in these uncertain times.

I think Matt's pretty much right when he argues that "in general anti-poverty policy doesn't question the dynamics of the market." It's interesting to think about why this might be the case. My sense is that many anti-poverty advocates and analysts are personally inclined to question free market ideology, but, at the same time, they see that sort of questioning as something different from the work they do. Part of the problem here involves issue ghettoization and program specialization. Progressive advocates and analysts tend to be experts in particular sub-issues and programs. We certainly need issue/program experts, but right now we have too many of them at progressive institutions inside the beltway, and too few people who can speak about progressive economic and social policy as if it were one, coherent set of ideas, rather than a list of programs to spend more money on.

Last week Ecuadorians voted by a 2-1 margin for a new constitution. Notable provisions include a right to health care for older citizens and civil marriage for gay partners. The Washington Post editorialized against the result today warning that "the new constitution repeals a limit on presidential terms that has stood since the country returned to democracy in 1979 ...." Yikes, that sure sounds bad, doesn't it? We'd all hate to see Ecuador go the way of other basket-case regimes without term limits, like the United Kingdom, where Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher both held office for over a decade.

The good news is that the new Ecuadorian constitution isn't as radical as the UK's unwritten one. While the previous Ecuadorian constitution limited Presidents to one four-year term, this one would limit them to two. Of course, that's still pretty darn dangerous. WaPo could have strengthened its case against the decision of the Ecuadorian electorate by noting how much recent damage has been caused by our own constitutional provision allowing Presidents to serve two four-year terms.

A lot of folks are declaring free-market ideology dead. I thought I'd try to open up a discussion about what it means for anti-poverty policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in general anti-poverty policy doesn't question the dynamics of the market. The conventional wisdom seems to go like this: sure, the market can't do everything, but what it does do, it does very well, and without much help. Intervention may make things worse and isn't worth the risk. Best then to stick to conditional safety nets, tax policy, and maybe wage floors.

To be more specific: workforce is not prioritized in most policy discussions I'm aware of. Better minimum wage regulations are generally accepted- unionization promotion if you're lucky. But economic planning and skill development? Not quite mainstream.

Intervention and planning, though, should seem less radical in light of the U.S. Treasury visibly attempting to prop up the entire financial services industry. The general public also seems convinced that it's the obligation of government to maintain high stock prices. Hence, the dead free-market.

So, I wonder, do recent events change your perspective on capitalism and poverty? Certainly for me, the structure of the economy seems less etched-in-stone. The financial crisis could bring on a vast restructuring, which could benefit the folks who've been left behind by the post-industrial consumer/investor society. But for that to happen the government would have to take an active hand in supporting the businesses that create more good jobs for working class folks. Rather than supporting the financial sector, for example.