Angry Americans

Chris Cillizza of The Fix offers a post on recent findings that Americans are — get this — not happy with their government and the future of the country. Not too suprising, I suppose, as our past two presidential administrations haven’t exactly topped the approval charts. Not to bum you out over the holidays or anything, but there are some interesting thoughts and numbers here:

Americans are deeply pessimistic about the state of the country and its future, according to a series of new national polls, a negativity that puts politicians in a difficult place as they try to woo voters and keep hold on office.

In the  new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 63 percent said the country was headed in the wrong direction, the highest number in President Obama’s term to date. A similar 67 percent said the country was headed off on the wrong track in a Washington Post/ABC News survey released earlier this week.

New Pew data paints an even darker picture of Americans’ views about our current standing — particularly in regards the economy. Nearly nine in ten Americans say the current economic conditions are either "fair" or "poor" and there is an overwhelming sense that we as a country are losing ground.

Fully 67 percent of the sample said the country was "losing ground" on the budget deficit — today’s expected House vote on the tax cut compromise won’t help there — while 64 percent say ground is being lost on "cost of living". Two thirds (63 percent) said the country is losing ground on the "availability of good-paying jobs" and 58 percent said the same about the "rich-poor gap".

The numbers are startling and make clear the challenge before President Obama — or any politician — hoping to convince people that better days are indeed ahead.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said that the overall pessimism is intertwined with the state of the economy, noting that more people in the NBC/WSJ poll said that the economic recession was the issue that has impacted them most this decade — more so than even the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The only things that would significantly change the right direction number is a substantially better economy or an event like 9/11 that rallied the country," added McInturff.

Barring that, what’s a politician to do?

Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster, said consistency is the key to surviving the country’s bout with pessimism. "Once [politicians] decide upon the best policy/solutions, they need to spend more time than ever before in making sure the public is invested and are continually kept informed," said Yang. "Leadership is about good government, but it is also about communicating good government effectively."

That sort of constant education effort takes time — and money out of campaign coffers. But, with Americans seemingly ready to believe the worst about just about everything, it may be an elected official’s only path back to office in the coming months and years.

Hoosiers Mentioned in Early GOP Talks for 2012

Should probably pace myself on the 2012 talk, but what the heck, we need something to get excited about: Chris Cillizza of "The Fix" offers a blog post on the top 10 contenders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. And wouldn’t you know it, two Hoosiers are right there in the mix:

9. Mike Pence: Pence’s decision to step aside as the fourth ranking Republican in the House makes clear that he has his eye on a bigger prize. His allies cast him as the only candidate in the field who can unite social and fiscal conservatives and, in the early cattle calls, Pence has performed well. Still, as a House member, he has to overcome a perceived stature gap as well as show he can raise the money to be competitive.

7. Mitch Daniels: The Indiana governor is term limited out of office in 2012 and, despite saying he would never run for another job, certainly seems to be weighing a presidential bid. Daniels ran and won as an outsider in Indiana and had built a record over the past six years in office that makes fiscal conservatives smile. Daniels’ problem? He doesn’t have much interest in the cultural wars that are so important to social conservatives. Can someone focused almost exclusively on fiscal issues win a Republican primary for president?

And this is a stretch, but … on the other side, this op-ed was published in The Washington Post Sunday, arguing that Obama would benefit his party, himself, and the country most by not seeking re-election. Doubtful, but it’s an interesting argument. Should he heed this advice, one wonders if it may open the door for a more centrist Democratic candidate in 2012 — perhaps a certain former governor/soon-to-be former senator. Time will tell.

School Leaders Offer Promising Reform Message

This will likely be the longest blog post you will find on these pages. But that’s OK, because it probably is the most important.

It’s a message about fixing schools, something you’ve seen and heard plenty of times in the past. But on this occasion the authors are 16 superintendents or other leaders of major school districts across the country. One of the 16 is Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Eugene White.

These are some of the reforms needed to save our schools and, more importantly, the young people who are our future. Read this, pass it along to others and do what you can to help make a difference.

As educators, superintendents, chief executives and chancellors responsible for educating nearly 2 1/2 million students in America, we know that the task of reforming the country’s public schools begins with us. It is our obligation to improve the personal growth and academic achievement of our students, and we must be accountable for how our schools perform.

All of us have taken steps to move our students forward, and the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program has been the catalyst for more reforms than we have seen in decades. But those reforms are still outpaced and outsized by the crisis in public education.

Fortunately, the public, and our leaders in government, are finally paying attention. The "Waiting for ‘Superman’ " documentary, the defeat of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million gift to Newark’s public schools, and a tidal wave of media attention have helped spark a national debate and presented us with an extraordinary opportunity.

But the transformative changes needed to truly prepare our kids for the 21st-century global economy simply will not happen unless we first shed some of the entrenched practices that have held back our education system, practices that have long favored adults, not children. These practices are wrong, and they have to end now.

It’s time for all of the adults — the superintendents, educators, elected officials, labor unions and parents — to start acting like we are responsible for the future of children. Because right now, across the country, kids are stuck in failing schools, just waiting for us to do something.

So, where do we start? With the basics. As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents’ income — it is the quality of their teacher.

Yet, for too long, we have let teacher hiring and retention be determined by archaic rules involving seniority and academic credentials. The widespread policy of "last in, first out" (the teacher with the least seniority is the first to go when cuts have to be made) makes it harder to hold on to new, enthusiastic educators and ignores the one thing that should matter most: performance.

A 7-year-old girl won’t make it to college someday because her teacher has two decades of experience or a master’s degree — she will make it to college if her teacher is effective and engaging and compels her to reach for success. By contrast, a poorly performing teacher can hold back hundreds, maybe thousands, of students over the course of a career. Each day that we ignore this reality is precious time lost for children preparing for the challenges of adulthood.

The glacial process for removing an incompetent teacher — and our discomfort as a society with criticizing anyone who chooses this noble and difficult profession — has left our school districts impotent and, worse, has robbed millions of children of a real future.

There isn’t a business in America that would survive if it couldn’t make personnel decisions based on performance. That is why everything we use in assessing teachers must be linked to their effectiveness in the classroom and focused on increasing student achievement.

District leaders also need the authority to use financial incentives to attract and retain the best teachers. When teachers are highly effective — measured in significant part by how well students are doing academically — or are willing to take a job in a tough school or in a hard-to-staff subject area such as advanced math or science, we should be able to pay them more. Important initiatives, such as the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, are helping bring great educators to struggling communities, but we have to change the rules to professionalize teaching.

Let’s stop ignoring basic economic principles of supply and demand and focus on how we can establish a performance-driven culture in every American school — a culture that rewards excellence, elevates the status of teachers and is positioned to help as many students as possible beat the odds. We need the best teacher for every child, and the best principal for every school. Of course, we must also do a better job of providing meaningful training for teachers who seek to improve, but let’s stop pretending that everyone who goes into the classroom has the ability and temperament to lift our children to excellence.

Even the best teachers — those who possess such skills — face stiff challenges in meeting the diverse needs of their students. A single elementary- or middle-school classroom can contain, for instance, students who read on two or three different grade levels, and that range grows even wider as students move into high school. Is it reasonable to expect a teacher to address all the needs of 25 or 30 students when some are reading on a fourth-grade level and others are ready for Tolstoy? We must equip educators with the best technology available to make instruction more effective and efficient. By better using technology to collect data on student learning and shape individualized instruction, we can help transform our classrooms and lessen the burden on teachers’ time.

To make this transformation work, we must also eliminate arcane rules such as "seat time," which requires a student to spend a specific amount of time in a classroom with a teacher rather than taking advantage of online lessons and other programs.

Just as we must give teachers and schools the capability and flexibility to meet the needs of students, we must give parents a better portfolio of school choices. That starts with having the courage to replace or substantially restructure persistently low-performing schools that continuously fail our students. Closing a neighborhood school — whether it’s in Southeast D.C., Harlem, Denver or Chicago — is a difficult decision that can be very emotional for a community. But no one ever said leadership is easy.

We also must make charter schools a truly viable option. If all of our neighborhood schools were great, we wouldn’t be facing this crisis. But our children need great schools now — whether district-run public schools or public charter schools serving all students — and we shouldn’t limit the numbers of one form at the expense of the other. Excellence must be our only criteria for evaluating our schools.

For the wealthiest among us, the crisis in public education may still seem like someone else’s problem, because those families can afford to choose something better for their kids. But it’s a problem for all of us — until we fix our schools, we will never fix the nation’s broader economic problems. Until we fix our schools, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will only grow wider and the United States will fall further behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, rendering the American dream a distant, elusive memory.

The authors: Joel Klein, chancellor, New York City Department of Education; Michelle Rhee, chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools; Peter C. Gorman, superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (N.C.); Ron Huberman, chief executive, Chicago Public Schools; Carol R. Johnson, superintendent, Boston Public Schools; Andrés A. Alonso, chief executive, Baltimore City Public Schools; Tom Boasberg, superintendent, Denver Public Schools; Arlene C. Ackerman, superintendent of schools, the School District of Philadelphia; William R. Hite Jr., superintendent, Prince George’s County Public Schools; Jean-Claude Brizard, superintendent of schools, Rochester City School District (N.Y.); José M. Torres, superintendent, Illinois School District U-46; J. Wm. Covington, superintendent, Kansas City, Missouri School District; Terry B. Grier, superintendent of schools, Houston Independent School District; Paul Vallas, superintendent, New Orleans Recovery School District; Eugene White, superintendent, Indianapolis Public Schools; LaVonne Sheffield, superintendent of Rockford Public Schools (Illinois).

Early Poll Numbers Bode Well for GOP

Early poll numbers indicate GOP candidates could be in strong positions come November. Some are attributing this to the Obama administration’s low approval ratings (just 46% give him positive marks in a Post-ABC poll). It is early, however, as much could happen between now and the 2010 election. The Washington Post reports:

For the first time in more than four years, Republicans run about evenly with Democrats on the basic question of which party they trust to handle the nation’s biggest problems. Among registered voters, 40 percent say they have more confidence in Democrats and 38 percent say they have more trust in Republicans. Three months ago, Democrats had a 12-point advantage.

On the economy, 43 percent of voters side with Republicans when it comes to dealing with financial problems, while 39 percent favor Democrats. (Fifteen percent say they trust neither party more.) Although not a significant lead for Republicans, this marks the first time they have had any numerical edge on the economy dating to 2002. In recent years, Democrats have typically held double-digit advantages on the issue.

The principal obstacles to GOP electoral hopes continue to be doubts that Republicans have a clear plan for the country should they win control of the House or Senate in November. But overall, the poll shows that the party has made big gains in the public’s estimation since earlier this year.

Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years – and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats’ 40 percent.

What do you think? Will the GOP enjoy a massive seat grab this year, or will anti-Obama sentiment taper off in a few months? Or, do you think most elections will become about the candidates and not the status of their parties? (Novel concept, I know.)

Indiana Senate Race Getting National Attention

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post has an interesting article today about the Coats/Ellsworth Senate battle for Evan Bayh’s vacant seat. The piece focuses on Ellsworth, and raises some real questions regarding whether or not he can overcome Coats’ early lead in the polls, or gain some much-needed name recognition by November.

Ellsworth, 51, has taken few legislative risks during his two House terms, sticking mainly to local interests. He ensured Indiana hardwoods were included as eligible materials for green building incentives in the stimulus bill. He helped to remove federal barriers that restricted the yields of Indiana tomato growers. He secured funding to improve the lock system on the Ohio River.

At the state fair, Ellsworth met local pork industry officials over a lunch of "garbage burgers," pork patties topped with pulled pork barbecue, and got an earful about a stalled trade agreement with South Korea that is worth about $10 per hog for Hoosier farmers. The officials didn’t understand why the Obama administration couldn’t get the deal done.

"I hear you," the congressman reassured Michael Platt, executive director of Indiana Pork. "But you’re seeing more and more Democrats open to trade agreements, provided they’re fair to American workers."

Ellsworth supported three pillars of the Democratic agenda – health care, the stimulus and the financial regulatory overhaul – but voted against the climate-change bill that passed the House last summer. He opposes abortion and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He won the endorsement of the National Rifle Association over Coats, who supported several gun-control measures during his tenure in Congress.

He favors extending the full menu of 2001 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, including preserving lower rates for the top income brackets – a position that could put him at odds with Democratic leaders and the White House.

"In this fragile economy, although they did add to the national debt, now is not the time," Ellsworth said of the taxes in an interview last week between campaign events.

Yet he does not shy from his party affiliation. "We Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of," Ellsworth told 35 Democratic activists who assembled in Indianapolis on a hot weekday afternoon in August for campaign training. The dingy room was cluttered with binders, water bottles and telephone lines, the signs of a busy election office. Canvassing guidelines taped to the wall instructed volunteers to "knock and take a step back" and "bring dog treats."

So what do you think? Will party trending hurt Ellsworth in November? Does he have a shot to win?

Execs Say Washington is Going Too Far

A couple of interesting observations from Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications and chairman of the Business Roundtable. This group of top executives has been strongly courted by the Obama administration and included in various policy discussions.

Seidenberg, speaking at the Economic Club of Washington earlier this week, however, had the following quotes:

  • He accused the president and Democratic lawmakers of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."
  • He added that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."
  • "In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore. By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."

And it’s not just Seidenberg. The Washington Post reported that: Seidenberg first expressed his concerns about the direction of Democratic economic policy in a meeting last month with White House budget director Peter Orszag. When Orszag asked for specifics, Seidenberg polled the members of the Business Roundtable and a sister organization, the Business Council. The result was a 54-page document, delivered to Orszag on Monday, chock full of bullet points about actions taken or considered by a wide array of executive agencies, including the White House Middle Class Task Force and the Food and Drug Administration.

"We believe the cumulative effect of these proposals will help defeat the objectives we all share — reducing unemployment, improving the competitiveness of U.S. companies and creating an environment that fosters long-term economic growth," Seidenberg wrote in a cover letter for the document, titled "Policy Burdens Inhibiting Economic Growth."

Sarbanes-Oxley Goes to Court

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the legislation enacted following the Enron meltdown, will now be reconsidered by the Supreme Court. The Washington Post reports:

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to consider a challenge to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the centerpiece of the government’s response to the watershed accounting scandals at Enron and Worldcom.

The case tests the constitutionality of a nonprofit oversight board created to regulate auditors of public companies. Plaintiffs in the case, including a Nevada accounting firm, allege that the oversight board was endowed with unchecked government powers.

If the court agrees, it could force Congress to reopen the debate over one of the most sweeping pieces of business legislation since the 1930s. Supporters say the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has helped protect investors; critics say it has imposed costly burdens on corporations.

The court accepted the case for consideration in the term that begins in October.

Congress enacted Sarbanes-Oxley after big accounting firms such as the now-defunct Arthur Andersen failed to protect shareholders from a wave of accounting manipulations that made corporations look healthier and more profitable than they really were. Until 2002, the accounting profession was largely responsible for making its own rules and overseeing itself.

Hat tip to Reason Magazine’s blog.

And just so you know: If you’re like most business and are still trying to grasp the complexities of this law, you could probably use our book, The Sarbanes Oxley Act: A Practical Guide for Companies, which is authored by attorneys from Ice Miller.

Juan Williams to Present Insider’s View at Economic Club

Juan Williams — one of the most accomplished and respected journalists in America — will share his powerful insights with the Economic Club on May 1 (at noon in the Indiana Convention Center’s Sagamore Ballroom).

Williams’ storied journalism career includes 23 years with the Washington Post, a bestselling book on the Civil Rights movement and an Emmy. He currently works as a senior national correspondent for NPR and analyst for Fox News — where his professionalism and candor through spirited debate has become well-known.

Join us on May 1 as Williams presents an insider’s view of politics, the economy and other current affairs. Get your tickets now.

School Choice Expert: It’s Not Just Low Income Students Struggling in the U.S.

Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy and co-author of two books on school choice, addressed those in attendance at the Economic Club of Indiana lunch today.

Izumi’s primary warning to Americans is that, despite perceptions, it’s not just low income students who are struggling in the public school system. He also offered many eye-opening statistics about higher education, stating that on a national level, 6 in 10 community college students must complete remedial courses.

He advocates private school vouchers, and explains that President Obama attended a private school in Hawaii and credits his experiences there as helping to shape his ambition and talents. And yet, Izumi notes, Obama opposes public money being allocated for private vouchers.

Izumi contends it is important to separate the connection between residential location and schools, noting that many middle class parents end up bankrupting themselves in an effort to live in a nice area, yet are still let down by the public schools. He touts the successes of voucher programs in cities like Milwaukee and Cleveland, and says competition has been a boon to schools in Sweden, of all places.

Initiated in the early 1990s, Sweden’s universal voucher program has been successful, according to testimonials offered by Swedish administrators in a video shown by Izumi. In fact, they were so popular that even when a "socialist" government gained power in the mid-1990s, the program was kept in tact due to its popularity, he asserts. 

You can view the four-minute video on the New York Times web site here.

The next Economic Club of Indiana speaker will be Juan Williams on May 1. Williams is best known for his 21-year career at the Washington Post and for his work as a Fox News contributor. Get your tickets while they last.