Republicans

Oops... So yesterday I talked about the outreach Karl Rove is doing or says the GOP should do to young voters. Turns out that the GOP program that works to get young donors in it is filled with "young guns" in their 50's...

Maybe age is just a state of mind - or an arbitrary number. If you feel young, if you feel there are songs to be sung... or even better if you're a previous member of the GOP's Young Egles program and you like to go to bondage strip clubs then the Young Guns is for you - just bring your checkbook...

Via the Daily Beast:

In fact, the current crop of the 22 Young Guns looks very much like the old generation of conservative leaders. These upstarts together average an age of 49.6 years old — two months shy of the average age of new members who joined Congress in 2008. And those current reps are no spring chickens themselves. According to one analysis, the 111th Congress is the oldest, on average, of any since 1907.

More than half of the Young Guns, having celebrated the big 5-0, are already eligible for an AARP membership. Only two of the group’s designated candidates– Martha Roby, who is running for Alabama’s 2nd District, and district attorney-cum-reality-television star Sean Duffy, who is running for the open seat in Wisconsin’s 7th District — are under the age of 40.

Brandon Griefe at U.S. News and World Report wrote a piece yesterday arguing that the Republicans have an opportunity to make amends with young, Millennial voters given the "genuine fear" created by Democratic spending.

With such a large and active base of young supporters it would appear Democrats have their Republican opponents nearing checkmate. But a closer look at the chessboard reveals neither party is in good strategic position to topple the other’s king.

The Republicans’ problem has been their inability to connect with youth and minorities. Only recently have they begun to deemphasize the socially conservative aspects of their platform that have polarized voters since the culture wars of the 1960s. A recent Pew Research poll found that young adults are “clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and…are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition.” These and other social issues are not major concerns of young adults, a fact that is slowly being realized as Republicans seek to broaden their voting base.

But Democrats’ recent legislative priorities show they’ve also done a poor job at setting the board up for success. Enormous debt and deficit spending to fund a variety of new programs has created a dire fiscal future that is creating genuine fear among young adults. Then-Sen. Barack Obama said it best in 2006:

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

The rhetoric of 2006 has not translated into reality come 2010. The failure of leadership now continues under his watch with trillions in new debt obligations. Young adults will not be able to ignore the red ink that fills the nation’s ledger forever. Unless Democrats act quickly to reverse the growth of the government’s deficit they will poison the well of Millennial support that carried them to historic victories in 2008.

Griefe's analysis is faulty and disingenuous for three reasons.

1.) I don't believe I saw anything from Griefe or anyone else about deficit spending when George W. Bush was in the White House. When Bush entered the Oval Office, Bill Clinton handed his administration a surplus. When he left, we were trillions of dollars in debt. Two major tax cuts and two wars did quite a bit of damage:

Obama's stimulus package accounted for only .07/$1.00 of the national debt when he signed it into law. Nearly 90 percent of the debt was created under George W. Bush.

To clean up the mess Bush left, Obama has to spend more.

2.) The message about the national debt does not carry any water with Millennials, especially since they are encountering the worst youth unemployment rate since World War II. Our friend Karlo tackled this conservative talking point last year, aptly comparing someone climbing a hill to one's life-long relationship with government.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to traverse a hill. The hill represents how much taxes you expect to pay over your lifetime. One end of the hill is the start (the beginning of your life), the top of the hill is middle-age, and the other end of the hill is, well, six-feet-under. At both ends of the hill, you pay relatively little in taxes, and the top of the hill is when you pay the most in taxes. This is what tax-paying looks like throughout the course of one's life. For some generations, traversing this hill was made easier (but not faster), because the government helped invest in the well-being of the tax-payer very early on in life.

This is not the case with Millennials. The rising cost (PDF) of college and beyond has not resulted in a proportionate increase in services or resources. When you place this fact of rising costs into the context of rising college attendance, the effect is magnified. The share of young people that have attended college has increased 21 percentage points from the 1970s to the present (PDF, pg. 5). What's more is the fact young people with post-graduate degrees on are on the rise, too. What all this amounts to is a more difficult (but not slower) journey over the hill. It's almost as if Millennials have to carry a heavy backpack (read: student debt) and still keep pace with everyone else. Now add to that the fact that the end of the hill for Millennials is much farther away than it is for previous generations due to longer life expectancy.

In addition to this, Millennials themselves tell National Journal that they think Obama's spending has been a good thing.

A plurality of Millennials say they believe that the president's agenda will increase rather than diminish opportunities for their generation (41 percent to 27 percent). More respondents say that his policies averted an even worse economic crisis (44 percent) than believe that Obama ran up the national debt without doing much good (36 percent). By 46 percent to 31 percent, they also say that the comprehensive health care reform bill Obama recently signed into law is a good thing for the country. Just one-fourth believe that the country is worse off because of the president's policies; the rest feel that his efforts have significantly improved conditions (16 percent) or are beginning to move the nation in the right direction, even if they haven't yet produced major gains (43 percent).

Given the toxic economy the Bush policies gave Millennials as they have come of age, making the figurative hill even steeper, the government must invest in the youngest generation to ensure they have a chance of getting over the top, and thankfully, it is.

3.) Griefe comically cites a list of GOPers including Rand Paul and Bob McDonnell as smartly handling social issues in order to keep the focus on the fiscal matters at hand.

This is pretty simple.

Rand Paul doesn't think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should have passed.

Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia issues a proclamation for Confederate History Month in the commonwealth, failing to mention trafficking of human beings and the consequential brutal decades of Jim Crow.

I'm not sure whether Griefe had a brain lapse here or what. Griefe is right that if the GOP can't get social issues right, they won't have any shot at Millennials period. Justin Miller at The Atlantic notes this, describing Millennials as the generation least tolerant of racism. The list of Republicans Griefe provides, though, is laughable. Their clumsy navigation of social issues has provided Democrats with several opportunities to beat back any Republican momentum.

The generational theft argument sounds good, but it doesn't play with young people. It plays even less with Millennials when it's shrouded in social issues.

Nice effort. Back to the drawing board.

As Democrats approach the end of their first year of the 21st century in control of both Congress and the White House, we are reminded of a hard truth: progressive change is much more difficult than conservative retrenchment.

Throughout history change has always faced an uphill battle against the seductive forces of fear, hatred, dogma, and tradition. In fact, major progressive change is so difficult and occurs so infrequently that such victories are historical outliers. As Mike Lux points out, only four or five decades in the history of the United States have proved to be fertile ground for such change.

Some believed that the 21st century would be different, that the proliferation of technology and the internet would be a panacea. However, this view ignored those aspects of this century that make change more difficult. While it is true that the internet has enabled more public participation and government transparency and allowed people to compete with the media power of corporate television and radio, it also allowed people to self-select their news, information, and facts. No longer can a Walter Cronkite turn the tide of American public opinion against a war with a single statement. The internet is a value-neutral platform and it spreads conservative messages just as effectively as progressive ones. Life expectancy is dramatically longer than in the past, slowing generational change and keeping old prejudices and fears alive (this is where conservatives will convince themselves that I am arguing for death panels as a progressive conspiracy). Change today will be just as difficult as it has been in the past.

Also extinguished a year in is the naïve belief in bipartisanship, that we can convince Republicans to join with Democrats to do the right thing for the American people. Bipartisanship only exists when there is a Republican in the White House, and such bipartisanship has had devastating consequences (see Iraq War, Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, deregulation).

Republicans view government as a zero-sum game. Health care is not a service for the American people but a battle to be fought for political gain. Helping the uninsured and those who have had the American dream shattered by health care costs is nothing compared to the potential to recreate Waterloo. The conservative platform is dogma, with their evangelists castigating those who do not show proper devotion to the faith. To them, legislation is but a chessboard where black and white move their pieces through amendments and procedures to ultimately topple the opponent's king.

Change takes time. The Presidency, control of the House, and a 20 member majority in the Senate is not a sufficient condition. Democrats need candidates that are not just electable but also effective, as well as the courage to believe that standing firm for our ideas can actually be a winning strategy. We need to enlarge the electorate by putting serious effort into engaging Millennials and minorities. Progressive victories have proved us to be on the right side of history--ending slavery, universal suffrage, the New Deal, and Medicare--and we need representatives that will make the right decision now and not worry about whether history will move fast enough to prove them right before the next election.

Change requires sacrifice and effort, new strategies, more profiles in courage, and a dream that will never die.

Over at New Majority, a youth conservative site similar to Future Majority, Rachel Hoff argues that there is an opportunity present for the GOP to make inroads with young voters. All they have to do is stay on message and talk about what young voters want to discuss: jobs and the economy.

And yet, President Obama still gets his strongest support from young Americans, with 60 percent of people under 30 still approving of the job he is doing. But the recent economic and public opinion trends provide a huge opportunity for Republicans to make up some ground with the youngest generation of voters. The GOP’s challenge, however, is to stay on message as they sweet talk young Americans.

[...]

A survey by the Young Republican National Federation at the beginning of this year showed that 23 percent of Young Republicans wanted their party to focus on job creation and the economy. Only 6 percent of these young party activists thought the GOP should focus on social issues. (And social conservatives were well represented in the survey.) For young voters of all social stripes, it seems it is a matter of priorities.

Recession or no recession, young Americans care most about jobs. And if Republicans take advantage of this opportunity to talk competently and confidently about the economy, the party has a chance to break young America’s love affair with Obama and win these voters back to the GOP.

It's great that young conservatives have so much optimism. But here are a couple realities that can't simply be pushed aside:

1.) Young people don't like the GOP. In the most recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, only six percent of 18-29 year olds rate the GOP favorably, while 79 percent favor President Obama. I'm not sure where Hoff's 60 percent figure originates, but youth clearly side and trust Obama on these issues.

2a.) Social issue junkies run the GOP, and they can't kick the habit. Yes, it might be exciting for Republicans to think they can force the breakup between Obama and young voters, but those who might share Hoff's correct view that youth want to talk about the economy are outnumbered by those who celebrate Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, and crazy teabagging parties. God, guns, and gays still consume too much of the GOP's attention for any kind of substantive discussion of quality of life issues to take root. As long as this is the case, young voters aren't seeing red.

2b.) As long as the GOP is talking social issues, youth aren't going to agree with them. The most diverse generation in American history simply does not agree with the GOP's backward-looking views on most social issues.

OUCH! This morning's new swanked up GOP website launched. But Ben Smith at Politico notes the the "Future Leaders" page has an unfortunate omission.

Leadership is key, not that the Democratic Party is much better... a little better... but not by much. Their saving grace is the many non-partisan progressive groups and indeed the Young Democrats doing everything they can to develop youth leadership. Hopefully, some day, that will translate into the DNC reaching out to these youth to take leading positions in legislative offices and campaigns, and eventually run for office.

(Note - I changed the title of this post for accuracy.)

I'm late in getting to this, but on Monday, conservative (and Millennial) New York Times columnist Ross Douthat published an interesting article noting that the conservatives have made strange bedfellows in the health care debate, siding with seniors in favor of continuing government subsidized health care in the form of Medicare:

Conservatives have marshaled various briefs against the Democratic health care proposals. They’ve argued that the plans will be too expensive, that they’ll cramp innovation and raise premiums for the already-insured, that they’ll encourage employers to drop coverage and discourage them from hiring.

These arguments have been effective, up to a point. But they aren’t nearly as effective as warning senior citizens that Barack Obama wants to take away their health care.

That’s why Republicans find themselves tiptoeing into an unfamiliar role — as champions of old-age entitlements. The Democrats are “sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare,” Mitch McConnell declared. They want to “cannibalize” the program to pay for reform, John Cornyn complained. It’s a “raid,” Sam Brownback warned, that could result in the elderly losing “necessary care.”

Douthat notes, rightly I think, that while this maybe a politically savvy move in the short term, it not only flies in the face of bedrock conservative principles of smaller government and greater fiscal conservatism. As the population continues to age, it will make any conservative attempts to reform Medicare nearly impossible.

What Douthat misses, though, is that while older voters may be scared of "the government touching their Medicare," young people are the most supportive of reforming the health care system. Millennials are pragmatists. They don't care about ideology - they just want an efficient government that works for people. Right now, Republicans are not only disingenuously courting seniors (Mediscaring, as Douthat says), they are openly obstructing any good faith attempt at reform. Whether or not reform passes, that's not going to play well with youth. The Republican strategy for winning the short term political argument is another nail in the coffin or their long-term health as a viable national party.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health care plan? That is the choice." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Charleston Gazette, 6/25/2009

Sen. Rockefeller's framing of the choice should be instructive for his fellow Democratic senators (whether they listen is surely up in the air).

In a way, the problem Rockefeller speaks of here is the opposite of something we often see among our lawmakers. Usually, lawmakers refuse to cooperate, often turning the process into an ideological battle that holds good policy hostage, resulting in little progress. Unfortunately, since we've gotten control of the Congress in 2006, Democrats are obsessed with making sure the GOP is happy with any legislative victories we might achieve. Yet, Republicans couldn't care less about what Democrats feel. So we face a different outcome, though still frustrating -- policy IS passed, but it's nothing but mush, or Republican-lite.

Here we are, debating health care, faced with yet another opportunity to pass critical and historic legislation, this time with a Democratic president in the White House, and too many Democrats are afraid of hurting the Republicans' feelings.

Repeat after me: PARTISANSHIP IS NOT A BAD THING. Yes, the arguing and ideological tactics can produce a toxic political process. But just as well, empty legislation can produce toxic policy, still leaving millions of Americans without health insurance, while handing the GOP a bone. The fact remains that Democrats have nearly 60 percent of the seats in both chambers, having won the majority of congressional races in 2008 despite the Republicans' frequent attempts at linking the party and its presidential candidate with socialism. The presidential candidate ran on "change" and won. People want to see something different.

What's more, the American people in poll after poll trust the Democrats to handle nearly all issues, with health care being one of the issues the public trusts Democrats with the most. A large Washington Post poll released this week produces similar results, though the poll pits Obama against the Congressional Republicans instead of both parties. Obama won big. Borrowing from Greg Sargent's post on the Post's poll at The Plum Line:

• On health care, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 26% trust GOPers in Congress.
• On the economy, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 31% trust the GOP.
• On the budget deficit, 52% of indys trust Obama, and 30% trust the GOP.

Even though Barack Obama is on record as supporting a public option as a part of health reform, the majority of independent voters still support him -- twice as many than the number supporting Republicans.

Youth are relying on the Democratic Party to produce some results after supporting them by a 2-1 ratio in 2008. We're waiting for good policy (read - health reform WITH a public option) that's passed and signed into law because we WANT and NEED it to be passed, not because we want to make sure the Republicans aren't mad and don't hold a grudge.

If the GOP wants to work with Democrats in good faith, fine. If not, Democrats have marching orders from Americans. And they don't include kissing the feet of the GOP.

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais have an interesting post up at their blog, Millennial Makeover. Winograd and Hais argue that MTV is finally understanding that the youth of today look and act nothing like the youth of yesteryear, er- 1981.

The network, long known for cynical and vapid content, has suddenly understood the importance of being earnest. Booze and bikinis are out. Do-good singers and hard-working art students are in.

MTV acknowledged that its programming had become out of step with the progressive, service-oriented values of today's youth, the Millennial Generation. "It was very clear we were at one of those transformational moments, when this new generation of Millennials [born between 1982 and 2003] were demanding a new MTV," a channel executive explained.

Winograd and Hais examine the differences between the Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials through the lens of movies that were popular during the time period in which each generation came of age. (The Devil Wears Prada is a far cry from The Graduate.)

The point Winograd and Hais make and that I've echoed for a few months now is that the Republican Party won't have a presence in national politics for decades to come unless it stops seeing youth as inconsequential and unworthy of a long-term investment; such a view restricts the GOP from understanding the general attitudes and values inherent in Millennials, who will continue to deliver a major shock to the political process over the next twenty years. And while this GOP extinction might seem great for progressive activists like us, a lack of Republican competition would actually relieve the pressure on Democrats to continue funding and supporting innovative youth outreach programs well into the future.

We're running out of ways to say it. But some poll results released by Democracy Corps this week yield perilous signs for the GOP's relevance to today's youth. The poll analysis diagnoses the problem.

Republicans struggle among young people for a very specific reason. At a time when young people are paying close attention to politics and when so many are struggling economically, even more so than older generations, the Republicans simply do not speak to the reality of their lives or to the issues important to them. This perception stands in marked contrast to their reaction to Barack Obama. Nationally, voters’ opinion of the President may have cooled slightly—and inevitably—in recent weeks, but among younger voters, he has never been more popular. They strongly support his economic policy and are confident that he will make a difference in their lives.

As Winograd and Hais might say it, the GOP is stuck in the idealist era, when the nation could afford to entertain a divided government. In an idealist era, "bipartisanship" means finding the lowest common denominator between two ideological extremes. With the way Washington is, that process takes a while. And with voters handing the executive branch to one party and the legislative branch to the other over decades of time, they put their seal of approval on this arrangement. Until now.

But in 2008, America moved to a new political era and everything changed, including the meaning of bipartisanship, as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression pushed the country into another civic era. In this environment, the American public, which had preferred divided government during the previous idealist era, now endorses unified government. A CNN survey conducted immediately after the 2008 general election indicated that a clear majority (59%) favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38 percent said that one-party rule was a bad idea. The public used a clearly civic era rationale to explain its changed attitude, telling Wall Street Journal pollsters that when the same party controls both the presidency and Congress, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done." A recent CBS/New York Times survey confirmed the desire for decisive action across the institutional lines of a newly unified government. A clear majority (56%) wants President Obama to pursue the policies he promised in the campaign rather than working in a bipartisan way with Republicans (39%). By contrast, an even larger majority (79%) wants congressional Republicans to work in a bipartisan way with the President rather than sticking to Republican policies.

What do young voters have to do with this? Well, they form the backbone of the new civic era. From a Winograd and Hais Washington Post op-ed piece in February 2008:

Unlike the young baby boomers, millennials want to strengthen the political system, not tear it down. According to a study last year by the Pew Research Center, most millennials (64 percent) disagree that the federal government is wasteful and inefficient, while most older Americans (58 percent) think it is. A 2006 survey by Frank N. Magid Associates indicated that millennials are more likely than older generations to believe that politicians care what people think and are more concerned with the good of the country than of their political party.

It also showed that millennials, more than their elders, believe that U.S. political institutions will deal effectively with concerns the nation will face in the future.

Given the public's disapproval of both Congress and President Bush, we're going to need all the optimism and change we can generate to overcome those challenges. Luckily, the millennial generation, like its GI generation forebears, is arriving right on time to deliver just what America needs.

In the Democracy Corps poll, we see that today's youth strongly agree with the president on issues, most importantly, his economic stimulus plan.

Young people support the stimulus package convincingly (68 percent favor, 20 percent oppose) and in much higher numbers than older Americans. Young people doing well financially are only marginally less likely to support the plan (65 percent favor) than young people overall and even among Republicans, only 47 percent oppose.

Young people believe the stimulus plan will work, not only in improving the economy overall, but also in improving their own lives in particular. A 71 percent majority describe themselves as confident the stimulus plan will work overall, 68 percent are confident it will improve their own situation, including 68 percent of those who describe their personal economic situation as just fair or poor.

We also learn that youth, like never before, are closely watching the events in Washington.

Young people are paying attention to Washington. Nearly half (45 percent) of young people watched the President’s prime time address on February 24th and 75 percent describe themselves as following the Obama administration closely. Even among young people who are not registered to vote, a 60 percent majority say they have watched the Administration carefully.

And what are Millennials, who strongly support President Obama, watching so closely?

The above is a perfect example of a Republican Party that is stuck on sideshows from the idealist era, and can't problem-solve or make a legitimate effort to pursue the common good in its politics. No figures were offered in their budget proposal; instead, the GOP leadership attacked the other side.

As long as young people and their opinions are ignored, no amount of tweeting or other desperate attempts to use technology will matter. The GOP treats youth as irrelevant, and young voters consequently view Republicans the same way.

If you've been listening to the Republicans lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that Democrats are nothing more than socialists in capitalist clothing, looking to steal bacon-flavored lollipops from babies and redistribute that candy to appease pork-hungry interest groups.

What else are we to make of these statements by prominent conservative pundits and Republican party leaders? (emphasis mine)

Michelle Malkin:

Barack Obama has dubbed his behemoth fiscal stimulus proposal the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." But if truth in advertising were required of White House plans, only one title would fit the trillion-dollar-plus-and-growing bill: The Generational Theft Act of 2009. [...]

Moreover, despite Obama's earnest-seeming pledge to block all earmarks, there will be an inevitable lard-up of the stimulus. When has there not?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled openness to the plan over the weekend as long as the GOP gets nominal input and kabuki hearings. The lard-up will guarantee that future capital is diverted to superfluous pork projects ("green jobs") and away from productive private enterprise. Instead of basic roads and bridges, infrastructure spending will go to bloated unions overseeing pie-in-the-sky construction projects like the $30 billion-plus high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, which California officials fully expect to be funded.

Minority Leader Boehner:

Between the “stimulus” spending package and other spending ambitions held by the Democratic Party, “it seems likely that the deficit for this year will approach $1.7 trillion,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett notes. “If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future [as a result of the additional borrowing by Congress] add up to about $14,000,” Mr. Hassett says.

The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren. This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.

George Will:

It is said that the negligible Republican support for the stimulus legislation means that bipartisanship is dead. But what can "bipartisanship" mean concerning legislation that concerns almost everything?

John McCain probably was eager to return to the Senate as an avatar of bipartisanship, a role he has enjoyed. It is, therefore, a measure of the recklessness of House Democrats that they caused the stimulus debate to revolve around a bill that McCain dismisses as "generational theft."

John McCain:

While I'm touched by the GOP's new-found concern for our youth, I'm curious as to why such concerns never materialized over the last 8 years as a Republican President turned record budget surpluses into the worst deficit in American history. President Bush achieved that legacy - aided by Rep Boehner and Senator McCain - by failing to invest in American infrastructure, turning a blind eye to the self-destructive practices of Wall Street and the banks, and championing massive tax cuts for the rich such that economic disparity in America is now greater than it has been at any time since The Gilded Age. Forgive me if I find it disingenuous that two figureheads of the party that turned a blind eye to Bush's tax cuts and spending policies, and enabled this new "Gilded Age," are now crying "generational theft."

Of course, such claims also ring hollow for historical reasons. About a decade ago - right before Bill Clinton started to create record surpluses in the budget - Republican lawmakers and conservative activists issued a similar war-cry on behalf of future generations:

The story of "generational conflict" begins with a handful of strategists and their organizations, the media sources for the myth of Generation X. The first of these was Americans for Generational Equity, or AGE, an organization that demonstrates that with proper funding, it's possible to launch an unsubstantiated idea and see it turn into the standard media view.

AGE had three adept founders and leaders: executive director Paul Hewitt, who continues to direct campaigns to privatize Social Security from his base at the right-wing National Taxpayers Union; research director Philip Longman, who recently published an anti-entitlement tome called The Return of Thrift; and Sen. Dave Durenberger (R.-Minn.), who later pled guilty to theft of public funds.

AGE was the first organization to put political muscle and public relations clout into promoting the notion of "future intergenerational conflict." Their thesis was two-fold: resources devoted to the elderly come at the expense of children; and young people will eventually mobilize against the elderly to reclaim their share of the pie. They immediately found media willing to cover these claims (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 1/13/86).

As we all know, the 8, 9, and 10 year-olds on whose behalf they claimed to speak cast their first ballots last November, and they resoundingly rejected such conservative philosophies.

The facts of the matter are simple. We're facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the question on the minds of most economists isn't "how big will the deficits be," rather, it's "will the stimulus be big enough to plug the gaping holes in our economy." The economic recovery package isn't $800 billion in pork or wasteful spending, rather it is a stop-gap to save jobs, and a mid- to long-term investment in the future our citizens, our infrastructure, and our economy.

In its final form, the stimulus package will:

• Modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. The plan will also double American renewable energy-generating capacity over three years.
• Make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized, reducing medical errors and saving billions in health care costs.
• Equip thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
• Expand broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
• Enact the largest investment in America’s crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems since the creation of the national highway system.
• Invest in high risk-high reward science-based research and innovation, and bring it to market—to invent the technology the world uses, and prevent and cure deadly and costly diseases.

As for the economic well-being of "future generations," as my coblogger Karlo ably described in his post earlier today, there are plenty of provisions in the final package that will help give today's youth, and tomorrow's, a leg-up: providing them with more education and employment opportunities, a cleaner environment, a more efficient health care system, and less personal debt as the price of entry to a middle class life. Here's a look at just a few such provisions:

• $19 billion, including $2 billion in discretionary funds and $17 billion for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology (IT).
• $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and the HHS Office of the Secretary to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.
• $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $39.5 billion to local school districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8.8 billion to states for high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education and for modernization, renovation and repairs of public school facilities and institutions of higher education facilities.
• $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
• $12.2 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
• $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500. This aid will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.
• $3.95 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth).
• $4.5 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology.
• $11 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid.
• $6.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.
• $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
• $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.
• $2 billion in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States.
• $6 billion for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects.
• $1 billion for other energy efficiency programs including alternative fuel trucks and buses, transportation charging infrastructure, and smart and energy efficient appliances.
• $21 billion in COBRA premium assistance provides a 65% subsidy for up to nine months to help workers who lose their jobs keep health coverage.
• Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide quality child care services for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high cost of day care.
• Head Start & Early Head Start: $2.1 billion to allow an additional 124,000 children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school.
• $555 million to expand the Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) during the national mortgage crisis.

To be sure, this will not be the last time we hear Republican's express concern about "future generations." This will come up again when we begin to debate Social Security and Medicare reforms, and conservative activists already used this meme to make a play for young voters during the election. We're going to continue tracking how the GOP uses this meme throughout the year.