Simeon Talley's blog

To belabor a point made previously on this blog - deficit hawks are jeopardizing not only the nascent economic recovery but the economic prospects of young people. Don’t take my word for it. There’s a growing chorus of journalists and political commentators across the political spectrum weighing in on the deficit hysteria consuming Washington.

The NYTimes runs a piece today aptly titled “American Dream is Elusive for a New Generation ”. The article profiles the travails of a 24 year old recent college grad struggling to find desirable work and living back at home with his parents.

As the passage below highlights, young people attempting to navigate their way into and through this job market are facing historic headwinds.What's striking is that young people display a persistent sense of optimism, a belief that better days are ahead. But that unrelenting optimism may change in the future, and it depends on what type of economic recovery takes place. The story 30, 40 or even 50 years from now may be that of a generation whose economic possibilities were constrained by this Great Recession.

“I don’t think I fully understood the severity of the situation I had graduated into,” he said, speaking in effect for an age group — the so-called millennials, 18 to 29 — whose unemployment rate of nearly 14 percent approaches the levels of that group in the Great Depression. And then he veered into the optimism that, polls show, is persistently, perhaps perversely, characteristic of millennials today. “I am absolutely certain that my job hunt will eventually pay off,” he said.

For young adults, the prospects in the workplace, even for the college-educated, have rarely been so bleak. Apart from the 14 percent who are unemployed and seeking work, as Scott Nicholson is, 23 percent are not even seeking a job, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total, 37 percent, is the highest in more than three decades and a rate reminiscent of the 1930s.

Calls for increased government spending have for the most part been articulated from the left. Yet it appears that the dismal job numbers last month have caused some conservative deficit hawks to recognize the value in additional fiscal spending. Economist Mom runs this snippet taken from an open letter to Scott Brown in the Boston Globe

…take it from David Walker, former US comptroller general and now, as president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a leading deficit hawk. “While the current deficits are large, they don’t represent the real threat to the future of the country,’’ he said. “The real threat is the medium-to-longer term structural deficits that will be here after the economy has recovered.’’…

No fiscal falcon with a proper balance of economic and fiscal priorities is going to fault you for supporting that extended aid.
“As a deficit hawk, I wouldn’t worry about extending unemployment benefits,’’ said Bob Bixby, president of the Concord Coalition. “It is not going to add to the long-term structural deficit, and it does address a serious need. I just feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto the wrong street corner at the wrong time, and now they are getting mugged.’’

And here, Matt Mills a traditional deficit hawk makes an argument for increased fiscal spending via The Washington Post

I come before you, in other words, a deficit hawk to the core. But it is the height of economic folly -- and socially dangerous, in my view -- to elevate deficit reduction as a goal today over boosting jobs and growth. Especially when there are ways to goose the economy while at the same time legislating changes that move us toward fiscal sanity once we're past this stagnation.

Even NYTimes columnist David Brooks tepidly endorses extending unemployment benefits in his most recent column, albeit while making an argument against a second stimulus.

It goes without saying but deficits and the debt matter. Yet the additional measures in spending that most are now advocating for have no serious bearing on our real long-term budget problems.

These are not arguments made in the abstract, the Senate’s failure to extend unemployment benefits have real human tragedies behind them (calls into the National Suicide hotline have increased). States will be forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees if Congress doesn’t extend additional aid.

What will Congress or more specifically the Senate do once it returns from its holiday recess? Only time will tell. We can only hope that the convergence across the political spectrum for additional fiscal spending outside of the halls of Congress informs the action within it.

I’ve been struck by the wave of austerity capturing not only American politics but politics across the globe. Not only has the Senate failed to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to states, the post-mortem G8/G20 headlines were that the world’s leaders would primarily be focused on deficit/debt reduction as opposed to additional large overtures to stimulate the economy.

Deficit hawks or Austerians seem to be winning the day! Don’t get me wrong, deficits and the debt does matter. But the preoccupation with the deficit now is ill placed. Paul Krugman in the NYTimes warns of a Third Depression. The Times also runs a piece detailing the effects of “belt tightening” in Ireland. The key graphs are below…

As Europe’s major economies focus on belt-tightening, they are following the path of Ireland. But the once thriving nation is struggling, with no sign of a rapid turnaround in sight.

Nearly two years ago, an economic collapse forced Ireland to cut public spending and raise taxes, the type of austerity measures that financial markets are now pressing on most advanced industrial nations.

There’s very little to possibly lose from additional government spending. But if governments turn their attention away from reviving the still fragile economy the consequences could be disastrous. Democrats and Congress can’t get weak knees now.

This all could have tremendous generational impacts. Recent college graduates entering the job market now in the midst of recession will earn less than graduates who enter the job market in better economic times. And consider that young workers are beset with new and challenging problems. Student debt, declining wages, widening inequality, rising costs etc. etc. etc.

The most recent jobs would have had an only marginal impact on the deficit. It just doesn’t make any sense for Democrats to get timid now when it comes to the economy. Debates over the debt and deficit are often made with future generations in mind. All of this profligate spending now jeopardizes the standard of living of future generation, the meme goes. Well, I’m sure young people appreciate that concern. But what young people really need right now is for the Congress to focus on creating jobs and stimulating growth, so that young people will actually have an economic future worth looking to.

As repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gains momentum in both houses of Congress, Republicans appear to be planning to mount a vigorous defense of the policy. This in spite of a recent CNN poll stating that nearly 8 in 10 Americans favor repeal. (You couldn’t get 8 in 10 Americans to agree that the sun is indeed the center of the universe and the Earth is in fact round).

The arguments in favor of DADT have long been debunked . It serves no purpose except as a remaining vestige of discrimination. Furthermore, if South Africa and Israel allow military service irrespective of sexual orientation…why can’t or shouldn’t the US?

But all of the above isn't really the point of this post. Republicans should heed caution and tread very carefully during this debate. If they follow through with current opposition and vote en masse against repeal, they’ll further alienate young people. Unlike the political debates over healthcare or the stimulus, repeal of DADT strikes what is now a majority of Americans and an overwhelming number of youth as the right thing. Simpley because it's the right thing to do. The policy is seen as discriminatory and unjust. Supporting the status quo on this issue is standing on the wrong side of history, the consequences of such would be damning to the party’s future vitality.

For the next six months the political environment will favor Republicans. Tuesday’s primaries and special election in PA-12, have cast doubt as to the extent Republicans will be able to capitalize on voter frustration. The reality still remains however, that the majorities that Democrats now enjoy in the House and the Senate will be diminished. But over the course of the next 5, 10, 15 years as millennials become an even larger share of the electorate, Republicans current fortunes will change. By 2018 4.5 million more millennials will be able to cast ballots; by 2020 millennials will be nearly 40% of all eligible voters.

Numerous demographic profiles, surveys and studies have allowed the broader public to become familiar with the political and social attitudes of millennials. In fact the point of this blog Future Majority, is to tell the story of millennial politics from the perspective of millennials. I need not repeat what most of you are already very familiar with. You know that young people have progressive/liberal worldviews and favor Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Or that this is the most diverse generation in American history, where Hispanics are 19% of everyone aged 18-29. And that young people view discrimination as wrong whether it is in the military, the church or in the workplace.

Today's Republican Party is quixotically living in a different era, circa 1960 or 1980. The voices and ideas animating the right currently – Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Arizona Immigration law – are all disconnected from the values, concerns and aspirations of young people. For whatever its worth, George Bush was serious about immigration reform and courting Hispanic voters. Only a few years later, we were hard pressed to find a serious Republican in a leadership position that could strongly condemn the AZ immigration law that de facto legitimizes racial profiling. And now after voluminous evidence that DADT doesn’t work (we’ve discharged thousands of soldiers with critical skills and competencies) and isn’t fair nor necessary (soldiers are being asked about their sexual orientation), Republicans are still adamantly defending the policy.

It’s idiocy on moral and political grounds.

This is a historical problem for the party as well. Two generations ago, it was African Americans that left the Republican Party for good and haven't looked back. Now the party is dangerously flirting with ceding Hispanics, the LGBT community and broadly speaking youth to Democrats for the forseeable future.

Repealing DADT would represent social progress. It wouldn't signify parity or full equality, but it would mean that society is becoming a bit more just. Those who stand in the way, athwarting such progress will pay dearly at the ballot box in the not so distant future.

Update:

TALKS JUST EXTENDED TO THE WEEKEND.

So much has happened while so little real progress has been made.

Obama’s speech essentially reiterated the US’s already stated position – mitigation commitments by all major economies, transparency by both developing and developed countries alike and $10 billion in the short term, $100 billion in the long-term by 2020 for climate finance. The speech was primarily directed at the Chinese. The president didn’t say anything new. The 17% number has not moved and he didn’t specify what the US contribution would be to the climate finance fund. In talking with journalist and delegates from developing countries, that’s exactly what they wanted to hear. The speech is being interpreted as take it or leave, which may play well with the domestic audience but has not gone over well here.

After the speech Obama met with Chinese president Wen Jenbao, no word on the outcome. Ban Ki-Moon just asked requested to extend the conference into the weekend. This could mean two things – we are close to an agreement but leaders need some more time or not enough progress has been made on the last day. This meeting with 193 representatives from each country and over 100 heads of state in attendance is becoming a bi-lateral meeting between China and the US. For all we know right now, the Chinese have not agreed to the American proposal.

There’s a draft text that was leaked early this morning that shows how far apart from consensus countries really are. Very, very troubling.

It’s late afternoon here in Copenhagen, there was a scheduled signing ceremony for 3pm. Everyone is still waiting, still guessing as to what will happen. The pessimism is growing.

The scene inside the Bella Center is frenetic. Hundreds of journalists are all trying to piece this puzzle together. You find TV cameras stalked outside meeting rooms, where they don’t know who’s inside, but whomever they are they want that quintessential shot.

For more updates follow me on twitter #simeontalley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the final day the process of negotiations have moved from talks between delegates to direct communication between heads of states. As I write this, President Obama is in talks with other leaders over the remaining unresolved issues. CNN’s Ed Henry tweeted that President Obama has scuttled his schedule and is in a meeting with Ethiopia (representing China) Russia, South Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Norway and Columbia. Accompanying President Obama to Copenhagen is a renewed sense of optimism for the prospects of success at COP15.

We know where the fault lines lie. Essentially where we were two weeks ago - emission cuts that would limit temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius by 2020, climate finance and if developed countries like China, India and Brazil will agree to a system of international monitoring and verification. Whatever form of the final deal, it must include a nod towards or even a better, a specific timeline or deadline for a legally binding agreement.

What do we know now in the eleventh hour? These types of talks will proceed in the future on a two-track process – a Kyoto Protocol track and a long-term cooperative agreement track. The G-77 favors the KP route, while the US along with other developed countries tried and failed to remove the Kyoto negotiating process from the Copenhagen proceedings. We know that China can nix any final deal it doesn’t approve of but, that the Chinese position has slightly softened. That African nations long distrustful of the US in these types of proceedings effectively elevated their issues and concerns in Copenhagen. And that President Obama will have to charm and cajole this international body forward or risk another major embarrassment in Copenhagen.

No one, I mean no one really knows that the outcome of all of this will be. However most are hoping for success.

Dispatches from Copenhagen

The climate change talks taking place in Copenhagen are on life support. One week in to the conference, and with one week to go, progress towards a worthwhile climate change deal has been slow. In order to salvage COP15, negotiators will have to double down in order to reach a deal.

Monday’s major news was a group of African nations walking out on negotiations and in dramatic fashion - late in the evening hour - choosing to come back to the negotiating table. Last week it was reported that the Danish government had met with a group of rich nations including the US outside of the formal process and agreed to a draft “text”. A text that could eventually become the agreement that the Copenhagen conference produces. Several poor nations were angered by what they perceived as a backdoor deal that favored rich nations. The mood has been sour and souring ever since, culminating in today’s walkout.

The walkout by African nations would have made a Copenhagen deal impossible and it reflects long held divisions. Organized as the G-77, developing nations want developed nations to commit to 40-45% emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2020. And if you’ve been following international negotiations at all, you know that developed countries so far committed have committed to considerably less. The US’s commitment to 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, is estimated to be only a 3-4% reduction from 1990 CO2 levels. And hell is more likely to freeze over before a change in US position.

G-77 countries want more ambition by way of emission reductions and adaptation financing. So far, developed countries haven’t budged. With one week to go and only two days until heads of state start to roll in, negotiators have to find a way to reach consensus in order for the Copenhagen conference to have a positive outcome.

An EU Commissioner characterized the atmosphere as “frozen”. And that’s a fairly accurate description of where we stand currently.

Youth attending the conference have certainly made a their presence felt. US Youth representing the large youth delegation, have organized events every single day of the conference calling for a fair and ambitious (FAB) deal. After all, its young people who’ll bear the brunt of the negative effects of inaction on climate change.

In one week Copenhagen, Denmark will play host to the UN Climate Change conference. In Copenhagen 192 nations will participate in an effort to reach an international climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. The conference begins on December 7th, I'll arrive in Copenhagen on the 12th to observe the proceedings and report on the progress (or lack thereof).

You read the news just like I do, so I won't regurgitate headlines here (at least not in this post). But while the focus has been on what won’t happen in Copenhagen – a binding international climate change treaty. What hasn’t been covered unless you’re paying keen attention are the thousands of activists all across the world who are petitioning their governments and who will descend upon Copenhagen to advocate for a treaty. What you won’t hear about are the hundreds of young people from all across the world who have formed the first officially recognized youth delegation. Young people will actually have an officially recognized voiced in the proceedings in Copenhagen.

The prospects for a binding deal are slim. More likely its probable that countries will walk away making only verbal or “political” commitments to reduce carbon emissions and agreeing to a framework and a timeline to reach a binding deal at a future session. There’s room to be cynical, but that’s all too easy. Change, is in fact hard work! And, there is plenty of work to do.

Below is a listing of youth specific organizations that’ll have a presence in Copenhagen.

SustainUS

Energy Action Coalition

It’s Getting Hot In Here
(Blog)

G-1 Billion
(Blog)

International Youth Climate Movement

Unite for Climate

Adopt A Negotiator

Sierra Club Student Coalition

Campus Progress

Bumped. -Craig

Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google, summed up the effort to pass a U.S. climate-change bill as an “epic, epic struggle.”

This summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a climate-change bill that aims to reduce carbon emissions and make investments in renewable energy. The Senate has recently taken up the task of stitching together a bill and, well, the positive and the frustrating aspects of the American political process are on full display. Climate-change legislation languishes and wallows in several Senate committees, and the vested interest of the few hold it captive. Recently, top Democrats said there likely won’t be any climate-change legislation until next year.

This legislative impasse has an immense, tragic importance for young people. And as I will argue in a future post will be a politically important issue for youth in 2010.

It would all be inconsequential if it wasn’t absolutely urgent for the United States to act and act soon. In one week, 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen to forge one of the most difficult international agreements ever — a comprehensive climate-change treaty. The Copenhagen conference is seen by many as one of the last opportunities for the world to lock in a process that reduces greenhouse gases in time to stave off disaster.

Copenhagen will not only be a historic gathering of world leaders, scientists, and thought leaders — it’ll be a critical one as well. The time that remains — the window that we have for a climate-change deal for the world’s 6 billion people — is closing.

It’s an understatement to only suggest that the stakes are high. But success in Copenhagen hinges largely on what the United States will do domestically and will commit to in Copenhagen. While President Obama’s pre-emptive commitment to reduction levels that match those in the House’s version, they still don’t go far enough.

For all our trumpeting of American leadership in the world — and our almost instinctive belief in American exceptionalism — on the most critical issue facing the world today, the world’s greatest power is missing.

But why? What’s holding us back?

Right now, there are 2,810 climate lobbyists registered in Washington, D.C. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. In the lead-up to the House vote on June 26, more than 460 new businesses and interest groups lobbied Congress on its climate-change legislation, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization. We’re unable to decipher how much money they actually spent on specific climate-change lobbying efforts, because businesses don’t have to detail their expenses for each separate issue they are lobbying in Congress. But say we assume that the issue consumed only 10 percent of their time. That amount comes to more than $27 million in the second quarter, according to the same group.

Not all of these efforts are aimed at defeating climate change. But a lot of them are, and even more are aiming to slow down the pace of change and dilute the level of carbon-reduction targets that scientists say are necessary. Many of the global-warming deniers of the ’90s now argue that climate-change legislation will reduce jobs and hurt the economy. While embracing global warming as fact, their lobbying efforts focus on making sure they can still make a profit in the old-energy economy.

The election of President Obama brought hope in the U.S. and foreign capitals around the world that we would renew our commitment to work multilaterally to address the world’s toughest problems.

Whether its changing the hyper-partisanship in Washington, dealing with the economy, or cap and trade - change is in fact hard!

And on the defining challenge of this generation and the next, it is the efforts of those vested in the status quo that are largely inhibiting progress. It’s a generational failing or, more harshly, a generational atrocity.

How old will you be in 2050? By then, those who are blocking progress now probably won’t be alive. But you will be, when the consequences of our inaction on climate change will really come to bear.

Ballot boxes all over the country felt pretty lonely on Tuesday.
Sure, they had election workers tending to them and making sure ballots were fully stocked. And, of course, older voters predictably made their way to the polls. But young people were largely missing on Tuesday.

In Iowa City and in several key elections all across the country, the youth turnout was abysmal.

One year ago, youth — those aged 18-29 — fueled the election of the nation’s first black president.

Beginning with the Iowa caucuses, young people not only voted in greater numbers, they volunteered, took off school to work on the campaign, and donated money.

Before 2008, how many candidates created Facebook pages or sent out important political information via text message? Now every candidate running for political office — whether for governor or dogcatcher — has a Facebook page, a website, and would love to get your cell-phone number. In 2008, youth were an absolutely critical component, a major piece to the puzzle in the election of Barack Obama.
Young people transformed politics.

One year later, we have to ask ourselves, “What happened?” It’s not only Iowa City student precincts that performed poorly. Youth turnout barely registered in New Jersey and student-saturated Virginia. There are some locally and nationally who will look at Tuesday’s results and argue that students are simply apathetic. To them, 2008 was an aberration — no Obama to vote for, no youth turnout.

It’s easy to make such an argument, but it’s too simplistic and not entirely correct. Yes, too many students are apathetic. Many are uninterested and disengaged from politics. Youth turnout since 2004 has been increasing and in 2009 there were several young candidates elected to local office.

The truth is that in many instances young people are engaged. Yet, it’s also true that youth are too often are completely absent when they don’t feel a direct connection to an issue. And it’s true that in elections that don’t spike a high level of interest and excitement, young people sometimes don’t bother to vote.

While Iowa City’s City Council elections are nonpartisan, a lack of youth turnout contributed to Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Democrats are increasingly reliant on young voters and youth turnout. Not only did Obama win the youth vote by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, youth made up a greater share of the overall electorate in 2008. When young people don’t vote, it’s more difficult for Democrats to win.

According to available exit poll data, 18-29 year olds were only 10 percent of all voters in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. In 2008, youth made up 21 percent of the electorate. In 2008, Obama received 60 percent of the youth vote in Virginia and became the first Democrat to carry Virginia since 1964. In 2009, the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, received 44 percent of the youth vote. Deeds actually lost voters under 30 to the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell.

While Deeds was far from perfect, his campaign never made young voters a priority. The result: anemic youth turnout in Virginia and a defeat. You don’t have to act like Obama, talk like him, or even look like him to inspire young voters. You do, however, have to talk to youth, ask youth for their votes, and give them a reason to vote for you.

There’s no excuse for the lack of student turnout in Tuesday’s City Council election. With two students on the ballot, student turnout should have been greater.

But let’s be careful not to give up on young voters in 2010.
For Democratic candidates, youth turnout will be critical to their success. And candidates running in 2010 who want youth to turn out have to go out and make a compelling case for them to do so.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Iowan on November 5th. The Daily Iowan is the student newspaper at the University of Iowa. The author Simeon Talley is a columnist for the paper.