policy

USA Today/Gallup released results of a poll this morning showing support for health care reform remains steady among Americans – 49 percent to 46 percent, an increase of 4 percent since April -- while support among young Americans (18-29 years old) has increased.

From the poll:

Say Congress passing Affordable Care Act was a Good Thing:

• 57 percent of young adults age 18 to 29 – up 7 percent since April; 40 percent disagree
• 51 percent of Americans age 50 to 64 – up 7 percent since April; 44 percent disagree
• 49 percent of Americans age 30 to 49; 43 percent disagree.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein concludes that "it does seem we're looking at a trend…it does show support rising and opposition falling."

And the Republicans want to repeal this? Bad move.

Over the last several months, I have noticed a discrepancy emerging among commentators regarding whether or not Millennials prefer suburban or urban living. Examining such a conflict is important given the size and growing political influence of the Millennial generation in today's society.

In their most recent piece, Morley Winograd and Michael Hais use the Brookings Institution's "State of Metropolitan America" report and some polling conducted for thinktank NDN to argue that as the Millennial generation comes of age, America will move to an exclusively suburban society.

While suburban living was once seen as the almost exclusive preserve of the white upper-middle class, a majority of all major American racial and ethnic groups now live in suburbia, according to the newest report on the state of metropolitan America from the Brookings Institute. Slightly more than half of African-Americans now live in large metropolitan suburbs, as do 59% of Hispanics, almost 62% of Asian-Americans, and 78% of whites. As a result the country is closer than ever to achieving a goal that many thought would never be achieved—city/suburban racial/ethnic integration. This is particularly so in the faster growing metropolitan areas of the South and West.

The trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. A majority of Millennials live in the suburbs and 43% of them, a portion higher than for any other generation, describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live.”

Winograd and Hais use this to further argue that policymakers and developers should not resist this movement to the suburbs, but instead embrace it by passing legislation that safeguards our children, strengthens schools, and brings jobs to the suburbs. In their mind, this would play to the heart of the 21st Century electorate.

A recent piece in the Atlantic by Christopher Leinberger contradicts Winograd and Hais's claim, arguing for better urban transit systems and walkable neighborhoods. Leinberger explains that with housing's ability to lead us out of recessions, one should note the gradual increase in lost values as one moves away from urban centers.

But housing hasn’t cratered everywhere. According to Stan Humphries, the chief economist of Zillow, an online housing-research firm, if you plot changes in home values within a typical metro region on a satellite map, the result “looks like an archery target, with the outlying areas having experienced substantially higher total declines in home values” than areas closer to the central city.

Zillow data for metropolitan Washington, D.C., for instance, shows that housing prices on average have declined 33 percent since the peak. But this average masks big differences. In densely built inner suburbs, like Arlington, Virginia, and in the walkable, urban neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, prices typically dropped about 20 percent. Housing on the suburban fringe, on the other hand, lost about half its value. Many exurban homeowners who had purchased or refinanced in the mid-2000s are now well underwater.

Leinberger uses this data to make the claim that policymakers and developers should instead focus on using transit and biking infrastructure to re-develop urban neighborhoods into walkable, navigable areas.

Urban-style housing in walkable neighborhoods—including those in the inner suburbs—is what’s in demand today. And for a variety of reasons, that demand will intensify in the coming years. Only by serving it can the country kick-start growth in an enormous and essential part of the economy.

Yet the creation of new, attractive urban spaces is slow and difficult, and becomes all but impossible without substantial new infrastructure. Most of all, it relies on good transit options—especially rail links—around which walkable neighborhoods can develop. Rail, biking, and walking infrastructure is the backbone of urban development, and as a country we’ve for the most part neglected to build it in recent decades, in favor of new roads for new suburbs farther and farther away from metropolitan hubs. To support growth in the next decade, we need to change that dynamic—and nourish our walkable urban spaces and neighborhoods. Complicating matters, in these cash-strapped times we need to find a way to do so on the cheap.

I've argued for something similar to Leinberger's vision in the past. Part of the appeal of Leinberger's contention is that it aligns with Millennial values. Urban living leads to leaving less of a carbon footprint and a more sustainable lifestyle. Not only this, but real estate surveys yield data disputing the numbers cited by Winograd and Hais above. 75 percent of Millennials actually prefer to live in an urban core, emphasizing the importance of convenience, connectivity, and "environment" when selecting a place to live. Though Winograd and Hais argue that organizers and politicians should go to the suburbs to find Millennial values, Leinberger's piece and the accompanying data supports a continued investment in re-developing urban areas. Such a focus is not mutually exclusive from good schools and the other quality of life issues Winograd and Hais discuss.

A New York Times piece published this morning sheds light on the generation gap present in views on immigration.

In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain’s offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.

This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was “about right” (as opposed to “going too far” or “not far enough”). Boomers were also more likely to say that “no newcomers” should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a “welcome all” approach.

This makes sense given what we know about the diversity in the Millennial generation. The New Politics Institute's 2007 Report, "The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation," cites Census data showing that nearly 40 percent of Millennials do not identify as being white. "[A]bout 62 percent of Millennial adults are non-Hispanic white, 18 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian," the report notes. What sharpens the debate is that many of the areas having the most diversity among youth also have fairly homogeneous white Boomer/Silent populations.

Given their demographic diversity, Millennials hold progressive opinions about immigration compared to the rest of the population. The Times piece, for example, provides some anecdotal evidence ensconced in the opinions and stories of youths Meaghan Patrick and Nicole Vespia.

Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”

[...]

Nicole Vespia, 18, of Selden, N.Y., said older people who were worried about immigrants stealing jobs were giving up on an American ideal: capitalist meritocracy.

“If someone works better than I do, they deserve to get the job,” Ms. Vespia said. “I work in a stockroom, and my best workers are people who don’t really speak English. It’s cool to get to know them.”

Her parents’ generation, she added, just needs to adapt.

“My stepdad says, ‘Why do I have to press 1 for English?’ I think that’s ridiculous,” Ms. Vespia said, referring to the common instruction on customer-service lines. “It’s not that big of a deal. Quit crying about it. Press the button.”

The stories are backed up by data on Millennials. In his 2008 book/project Generation WE, Eric Greenberg cites data revealing Millennials' open attitudes on immigration.

Generation We also has an open and positive attitude toward immigration, much more so than older generations. In the Pew Gen Next poll, 18- to 25-year-olds, by 52 to 38, said immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talent, rather than are a burden on the country because they take our jobs, housing, and healthcare, compared to very narrow pluralities in this direction among Gen Xers and Boomers and 50–30 sentiment in the other direction among those 61 and over. In a 2004 Pew survey, 67 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Millennials thought the growing number of immigrants strengthens American society and only 30 percent believed this trend threatens our customs and values—again, much stronger positive sentiment than among any other generation.

Unfortunately, most Boomer-run news outlets do not pay attention to Millennial opinion on this issue. With older Americans voting at higher rates than young people, the age and views of Congress and other officeholders reinforce the fear-driven status quo. Just like many other issues, to change this reality, youth must vote in higher numbers, be willing to run for office themselves, and pair this with some organized, non-traditional resistance to mount a strong opposition.

It might be convenient to take a John Mayer approach and wait for the world to change, but how many hard-working families who already embody American values will suffer in the meantime? This is yet another issue on which we must begin making change now.

Catherine Rampell, from the New York Times blog Economix, suggests an alternative to the conventional wisdom that youth aren't insured (and don't care about reform) due to their invincibility.

Rampell constructs her argument using some Gallup data released last week. First, she confronts the idea that young people, assumed to be healthier than the rest of the population, would rather risk not buying health insurance, thus leading to higher costs for the rest of the pool. In fact, Rampell finds that young people are actually less willing to take risks than you might think:

Three-quarters of those 18-29 year-olds describing themselves as healthy still purchased health insurance. As Rampell explains, one can dig deeper into this data, inquiring about variables like income. Rampell does that and finds something.

Perhaps people who are likely to have health insurance are also likely to be healthy for an independent reason: It costs money to buy health insurance, and it costs money to maintain a healthy lifestyle. In other words, perhaps it is money, not perceived risk of getting sick, that determines whether young people get insurance.

As it turns out, people who can afford health insurance are much, much more likely to get it:

Among young adults, 86 percent of those in the top third of the income distribution (people earning $48,000 or more annually) have health insurance. In the middle third (those earning between $24,000 and $48,000), 72 percent have health insurance. And in the bottom third (those making less than $24,000), just 58 percent are on a health plan.

It appears to be affordability, not recklessness (or even rational cost-benefit analysis of health risk), that is driving young people away from insurance policies.

Though reporters and pundits might think something is true, that doesn't mean there aren't other unseen or unmentioned possibilities or factors affecting the phenomenon. Thanks to Catherine Rampell for digging deeper.

Young Invincibles has put together a review of the Baucus health care reform bill in the Senate as it applies to young people. I thought I'd share that with everyone:

The “Young Invincible” Plan
A “young invincible” plan would be offered as an option in the State Health Exchanges for individuals 25 years or younger, offering catastrophic coverage where policy holders would pay up to the current Health Savings Account limit for care ($5,950 for individuals), but exempting prevention benefits from the deductible.

Young Adults Will Be Required To Purchase Insurance
Beginning in 2013, all individuals would be required to purchase health insurance coverage (“individual mandate”).

Fees Will Apply for Those Young Adults Who Fail To Buy Coverage
$750/year/individual in fees for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty line ($10,830 - $32,490 in 2009).
$950/year/individual in fees for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is above 300% of the FPL.

Exemptions Will Allow Some Young Adults To Avoid the Mandate
Individuals are exempt from the mandate if the lowest cost premium available exceeds 10% of their adjusted gross income, or if they are at or below 133% of FPL.

Low-Income Young Adults Will Receive A Tax Credit To Reduce Costs
Starting in 2013, individuals with incomes between 134% and 300% of the FPL (expanding to 100-300% in 2014) would receive a tax credit in order to purchase health insurance from a health exchange, with the credit level set so that premiums for those at 100% of the FPL would cap at 3% of income while those at 300% of the FPL would have premiums capped at 13% of income.

I don't mean to pick on a friend here, but this is a meme that deserved a quick death well over a decade ago, and lies at the root of many bad stereotypes and even worse campaign decisions about reaching young voters. From Tech President (emphasis mine):

We're a bit late in the game on this, given that happened way back last week, but the Republican New Media Caucus has gone and gotten itself a starter website. The GOP is eager to not let new media get away from it like blogs did. They want to win on Twitter, win on Facebook, win on YouTube. The added bonus is that being savvy on those mediums comes across to voters as being somewhat hip and with it, which isn't a bad thing for Republicans as they attempt to win young voters and build a youth base for a party that is worried about its next generation.

Somewhere along the way - probably in the mid 1990s, well after Madonna helped Rock the Vote make a splash in the political arena but during a period in which they all but stopped doing any field outreach - the idea arose that reaching young people for political purposes required being hip. That in turn forced a focus on celebrity culture as a key to youth organizing.

There is zero data supporting the claim that hipness or celebrity equates to effective youth outreach and party building. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests that it is traditional field work, complemented by new media, and a substantive approach to youth issues that matter most in building youth support.

Yes, Obama had celebrity, but he also had a solid youth outreach operation and spoke consistently to the concerns of young people. The quicker activists, organizers, candidates, staffers, and political committees realize this, the more success they will have with young voters and the healthier our Democracy will be.

This just hit my inbox. Good to see the dialogue. Wish it had come a whole lot sooner.

Hopefully they can drum up a lot of press and help push back against the ridiculous meme that young people don't care about health care "because we're invincible." Try un/under-employed and up to our ears in school debt.

For Immediate Release

August 25, 2009

CONTACT:
Doug Thornell – 202-225-0227
Bridgett Frey – 202-225-5384

Van Hollen to Discuss What Health Care Reform Means for Young Americans

Will be Joined by Rock the Vote, United States Students Association, YouthBuild Alumni Council, and U.S. PIRG

Washington, D.C. – Tomorrow, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Assistant to the Speaker, will join Rock the Vote, United States Students Association, YouthBuild Alumni Council, and U.S. PIRG to discuss why health care reform is vital for young Americans. President Obama’s plan for reform will provide quality, affordable health care for all young adults, ensuring lower costs and greater choices for a group who too often does not have access to care.

WHO:

• Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
• Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement, Rock the Vote
• Abby Berendt Lavoi, U.S. PIRG
• Gregory Cendana, President, United States Students Association
• Nina Saxon, YouthBuild Alumni Council

WHAT: To Discuss What Health Care Reform Means for Young Americans

WHEN: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 11 am

WHERE: Speaker’s Dining Room; H-122

One of the major reasons we've had the government-subsidized, Family Federal Education Loan program for so long is that the corporations who benefit from the program spend a lot of money lobbying higher education institutions to keep or adopt the program. Once a school is in the program, it's kind of hard to get them out. Administrators get taken out on corporate junkets every year, and what administration would want the headache and red tape of switching over to another program?

Turns out, the transition process is pretty painless. Over at the Student Lending Analytics blog, they are reporting on a new survey by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators indicates that the transition process is pretty smooth. This is good news as it will likely mean less resistance from colleges who take part in the FFEL program (a majority, I think, but don't quote me).

• Ease of implementation: 73% of the institutions that have switched from FFEL to DL in the last year said the switch to Direct Lending was easier than they thought
• 4% said it was more difficult
• Resources to assist in implementation: 84% said the Department of Education was helpful in providing assistance for the conversion and 88% said other schools were also helpful
• Administration of DL program: 61% said the burden of administering the DL program was less than the FFELP program; 24% said it was the same; 14% said it was greater.
• Staffing requirements of Direct Lending: 84% said they neither had to increase nor decrease the number of staff to administer the DL program.
• Greatest difficulty: Working with software developers and in-house IT staff
• 10% said software developers were unhelpful
• Time to convert: 80% able to convert within four months
• 14% indicted that it took longer than seven months

There are a few caveats about the sample size, diversity, and response rate in this survey. So take them with some grains of salt, but overall very good news.

Happy lazy Sunday. On this day of large newspaper reading, I wanted to point out two stories on serious policy issues that prominently feature some of the bigger youth coalitions working in DC, and across the country. First up:

Disillusioned Environmentalists Turn On Obama as Compromiser:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama used forceful and direct language on climate change, calling carbon emissions from human activity an “immediate threat” to the climate. His environmental critics say they miss that urgent tone.

“He was far too quiet during the House debate,” said Jessy Tolkan, the executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth group in Washington that campaigns for clean energy. “He needs to live up to the promises he made to us when we poured our heart and soul into electing him.”

Ms. Tolkan said that her organization was hoping to take that point home to the Democratic Party before the midterm elections. “Those who played a leadership role in weakening this bill will feel the wrath of youth political power across the country,” she said. “2010 is not that far away.”

Kudos to Jessy and Energy Action for muscling youth into the climate policy discussion in the paper of record, and I think her point about the midterms is a smart one. Youth have turned up at the polls three elections in a row, but we are still not adequately represented at the policy table. With the possible exception of student loans/debt issues, which has seen some encouraging movement recently, I don't really see our concerns being met by action on the Hill. If groups like Energy Action can turn a few congressional races (or better, primaries) in 2010, that will do a lot for our credibility as an electoral threat, which will make for a louder voice in DC policy wrangling.

Next up, College Grads Face IOUs, Worst Job Market in Years:

The Class of 2009 finds itself in the worst job market in 25 years. Unemployment for all 20- to 24-year-olds is more than 15 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Just 20 percent of this year's graduates who applied for a job have one, down from more than 50 percent two years ago, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

The average student graduates with about $22,000 in debt, according to the Project on Student Debt, a Berkeley, Calif., nonprofit.

There is an estimated $700 billion in outstanding student loan debt — enough to merit its own bailout, some say.

Student groups applaud the changes, but say they do not address what they view as the underlying problem: tuition gone wild.

"What happens if you raise the loan limits is the colleges raise their tuition," said David Smith, 29, founder and chairman of mobilize.org, a Washington-based group focused on college affordability.

Mobilize.org, in turn, is a leader within 80 Million Strong, a new grass-roots advocacy and lobbying coalition dedicated to addressing high youth unemployment, high student loan debt, credit-card lending practices and health insurance.

"We are seeing some very unreasonable tuition increases," Mr. Smith said. "In many states that are getting into financial problems, they often balance their budgets on the backs of students.

"What it ends up doing is increasing the cost of education significantly, forces students to take another job, another loan or drop out of school," he said.

This is a great article on the debt burden placed on college students trying to earn a place in the middle class, and it is dominated by quotes from people working with the 80 Million Strong Coalition. Great press in advance of next week's summit.

My friend Ezra Klein, Millennial heath wonk wunderkind, takes a shot at the question, "What will happen with health reform?"

He sets up the answer as an analogy to the jobs recovery bill and concludes:

The result will probably be a historic win when compared to the status quo, but I doubt it's going to feel like that for supporters of the initiative.

There is no small irony here. A major progressive thought-leader on healthcare reform is saying that he thinks we'll secure a major victory but that many progressives will not embrace it.

Reading Ezra this morning (whose sentiments I think are spot-on), I remembered another recent conversation I had with another Millennial leader whose work is mostly outside the youth-engagement community. He understood the frustrations of his many Boomer and Xer compatriots upset at the Obama Administration over some footdragging, but thought that his older friends didn't really "get it." The Obama Administration got handed one of the biggest piles of shit in history and are cleaning it up as quickly as they can and lots of different things: global warming, getting out of Iraq, equal rights, voting reform, etc., have taken a temporary backburner while we try to fix the economy and get our healthcare system sorted out. We're still in Year One of an Administration and major things are happening.

This same divide is one I've witnessed with Forward Montana's grassroots healthcare work in Montana. Our efforts come under fire by many of our traditional advocacy allies because we aren't demanding single-payer, but we repeatedly go back to the 18-30 year-olds who comprise our base and ask what they care about and single-payer has yet to come up in one of those conversations. Support for Max Baucus's white paper actually runs pretty high among our crowd.

Now, I should say that I'm not sure who is right: the older activists or my Millennial peers. But these different viewpoints highlight something else we've all long suspected about our younger activists rising through the ranks -- we are far more comfortable with working within institutions and accepting the defenses of elites than our predecessors in the activist world.

There are, of course, exceptions. Young activists don't just mimic Jane Fleming Kleeb, we also have David Sirota in our ranks. And it is also possible that this divide simply mirrors long-running divides between the young who would go into elected office and the young who are better situated to raining criticism down on the powers that be. To some extent, of course, we need both.