Call me a crazy liberal, but I find it difficult to argue with the success and the good things that came out of the WPA. This article on Brainpicker got me thinking–while I agree with the idea of the stimulus, maybe we should’ve structured it a little more like we did way back when. Problem is, something like that would never happen today. It’s too much government power, it’s taking power away from the private sector. I can see conservatives now–they call Obama socialist already! What if he passed a package like this?

And of course that’s regardless of the results. There’s no doubt in my mind that a renaissance of the WPA to help us tackle the current crisis would’ve helped us recover more quickly than almost any other solution. But conservatives will be conservatives, and they would never in a million years even dream of support such a “radical” solution.

That’s not even to mention the cultural and artistic brilliance that came out of the era. Brainpicker said it best:

We just wish the political powers of the day would consider investing in such art-driven efforts the way the WPA did. What would $7 billion be, adjusted for inflation? Roughly $160 billion. And how does that compare to what today’s government is investing in war? As the kids say, just sayin’.

I couldn’t agree more. Check out some of the amazing posters on this Flickr set.

What do you think? Would you like to see this? Is it too “socialist” for you? I’m curious.

Four Years. Go., at first, might seem like another re-hash of the same tired theme. Time is running out, climate change is going to kill us all, yada yada yada. It’s not. Not at all, and even from this very brief introduction I’ve seen to their campaign, I can tell it’s different and it lifted my spirits like none other tonight.

For weeks now we’ve been watching the tragic oil spill in the Gulf. And every single time I see an image, hear a story, watch another failed attempt, or see more of BP’s bullshit (not to mention professional bad) public relations attempts, it makes me want to cry. Watching the video below reminded me that we can still have hope. Sure, time is running out, but if we set a realistic goal–like four years–it gives us a realistic chance of meeting, or even exceeding that goal.

So here’s the basic premise: we’re setting a goal of four years. It’s not four years to get to carbon neutral, or to decrease carbon emissions by X%, or to reduce crime rates and war in developing countries… it’s all those things–it’s to make the world better. It’s a global call to action, by activists, organizations, politicians, students, and everyday people, to just work a little harder to make our planet a better place. To save the next 1,000 years by stepping up our game in the next four years. Buy a car with better gas mileage. Get to know your neighbors. Learn about issues abroad, donate to a worthy cause, or start a rally in your town or city.

I’m thrilled to have signed up tonight. I’m thrilled to watch this movement come to life, and I’m thrilled to hopefully play a role in it–no matter how small. Check out the video below, and go to their website and check out all the details and sign up.

Congratulations, Democrats. You’ve got a lot to be proud of. Significant health care reform has finally become a reality for the United States after a year of contentious debate. But moreover, the political tides have clearly shifted in your favor.

While we have won this battle, we have not won the war, that war being the rest of President Obama’s ambitious agenda.

Many may be tempted to say, let’s take it easy. We can back off major legislation, and press on in 2011 with the 112th United States Congress.

For God’s sake don’t do that.

This year presents enormous opportunity for passing more than just health care reform, all the while improving our chances of winning in November. You just have to play the cards right, and at the right time.

Dear President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid:

As the key figures setting the legislative agenda, the cards are in your collective hands. Combatting the 24/7, conflict-addicted, Tea Party-obsessed news cycle will not be easy, but by timing your messages right, I’m pretty confident you can get not just one more reform done this year, but three.

First, tackle education reform. Everyone knows education is a politically safe topic. Few are opposed to it, and most on both sides of the aisle recognize the abysmal failure that was No Child Left Behind. In addition, few politicians are willing to raise the same kind of ruckus for education as they did for health care. It’s for the kids, after all.

If you pass a bill by the middle of May, you can even tie your message to the end of the school year. Imagine the headlines: “American students celebrate summer; America celebrates a new era of high-quality education.”

Secondly, duke it out for the climate bill. One version has already passed the House, and there is bipartisan support in the Senate. It will still be a tough fight, but the climate — the weather, not the political climate — will work in your favor.

Remember the ignorant skepticism of global warming because of the unusual snowfall in Washington this past winter? That same mentality applies in reverse, too. As the temperatures increase so will belief in global warming.

As more Americans travel and the economy improves, gas prices will rise, sparking more demand for energy reform and investments to reduce our dependence on oil. Nobody likes paying $4 a gallon for gas.

On top of that, hurricane season kicks off on June 1, and with it, the approaching five-year anniversary of the devastating Hurricane Katrina. Scientific evidence shows a correlation between global warming and hurricane activity, and fear of another Katrina will be just one more factor adding to popular support of a bill to combat climate change.

Finally, wrap up the year with immigration reform. Activists are already demanding it — although their rally on March 21 was largely drowned out by the health care debate.

As holidays approach, Americans will be more sympathetic to immigrant families being torn apart due to unfair immigration policy. In addition, the myriad of holidays celebrated serves to underscore the diversity in America, providing an excellent backdrop for the immigration debate.

The media won’t mind either. Passing a bill by Christmas would mean more heartwarming tales of immigrant families together for the holidays. Let them have that story.

Need we say anything else? Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (@presssec) agrees:

- The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

- The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

I honestly don’t know what to say about this debate except that it’s absolutely ludicrous and it’s making the United States look foolish. By literally rewriting history to fit some radical conservative ideals, the state of Texas is making the U.S. look as if, instead of governed by a Democratic supermajority, governed by a strange group of radical right-wing nutcases.

Removing Thomas Jefferson from history books? HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?

What is the Coffee Party? From their Web site, Coffee Party USA:

…aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America’s political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology.  We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good.  It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

Their Web site attracted more than 170,000 fans in its first week. Its Facebook page has already surpassed the numbers of the Tea Party, despite its much shorter existence so far. This isn’t a fringe group–these are rational people.

The “Coffee Party movement” is about embracing differing opinions, without screaming and going crazy. It’s about embracing diversity and empowering everyone. It’s about utilizing our government and elected officials to enable the people to achieve and succeed, but also curbing that influence before it gets out of hand. It’s about using our country’s wealth to rescue us from economic collapse–done!–and now pulling back and forming a hard and fast plan for reigning in the ballooning deficit. It’s about basic human rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.

This is mainstream America. I firmly believe we are no longer a center-right country. The right just so happens to be the loudest–because they will scream, shout, and sometimes even lie to get their beliefs (whether right or wrong) across. This movement is, I hope, something much stronger and more civil than that. It’s about using the facts, theory, ideas and innovation of the American people to make a difference. It’s about looking at our government and deciding who’s doing their job right, and who’s holding us back. Who is looking ahead to the future, and who is stuck in the 19th century.

That said, I think it’s a stupid name. As my friend Dan pointed out, it leaves itself easily open to attack–”stale,” “bitter,” etc. Ah well, we’ll see what happens. I’m not gonna sign up just yet, but I’ll be watching it closely.

I’m kind of excited. The national kick-off for the Coffee Party is tomorrow.

The full column is below the cut. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Democrats aren’t doing half bad right now. So far 2010 actually isn’t looking nearly as dire as it was just after pseudo-Republican Scott Brown won the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts.

If Democrats keep up the hard work and continue to ignore tea partiers—radical conservatives and ultra-liberals like they have been—they might just survive this year. Nevertheless, here’s a little advice.

Dear Democratic Strategists,

You’re doing alright. Behind all the tea party crazy talk and “Washington is broken” nonsense, the news cycle seems to be trending your way.

Predicting the news cycle is a difficult thing to do. Sometimes it’s rough for Democrats, sometimes it hits the GOP where it really hurts.

This is supposed to be a rough year for Democrats. President Barack Obama’s policies haven’t sailed through as smoothly as we hoped. Hardly anyone’s happy with Congress, and it consists mostly of Democrats. So it’s all bad news for the Democratic Party, right?

I’m not so sure. Look at the news from Tuesday just this week, for example.

The leading headline in the Wall Street Journal was “Deal Near on Banking Rules,” one of the Democrats’ key policy items. Point for us.

Let’s look at others. “Tea Party Holds Risks for GOP.” Minus one for Republicans.

“Fed Void Clears Path for Obama,” “Manufacturing Shows Strength,” “Bailout Update: AIG’s repayment means U.S. is close to getting back half of its IOUs.” Point, point, point for Democrats.

And then there’s darling Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., holding up unemployment benefits for millions of Americans.

“One Senator Holds Up Bill, in New Level of Gridlock,” proclaims the WSJ. And then Tuesday evening: “Deal Reached to End Senator’s Holdout.” Point.

“Well that’s just one paper!” conservatives might protest (never mind the fact that the Wall Street Journal typically leans right). Sure, but The Washington Post’s headlines tell the same story.

Oh, and see that cover story in the Metro section? It exposes Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia as the hypocrite he is, lobbying for education funding from the Recovery Act he’s been lobbying against since last year. Point.

So the media momentum has shifted left a bit. But we can’t just sit back and be passive, can we? “We can’t let Republicans control the agenda and the message!” say paranoid political strategists on the left.

Well, maybe not completely. But lately they’ve done a good job digging themselves into a hole without your help, Democrats.

So, let ‘em talk.

The Tea Party is a joke. Every time Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck opens their mouth, people ridicule them across the political spectrum. Ron Paul? Not much of a threat when the Republican establishment still loathes him. Let them talk.

The “Party of No” is still just saying “no,” as evidenced by Bunning’s ignorant protest of the unemployment bill. If all the public hears is “no,” let ‘em talk.

Finally, the stimulus bill is working, the economy continues to improve and Obama is working hard to find solutions to our debt problem.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to pan his economic proposals, as if they weren’t going home to hypocritically take credit for the stimulus. Let ‘em talk; it’s only hurting them.

So Democrats, for now I think you should just ride the wave. Let the Republicans screw up their own messaging—you just focus on getting things done. The people will notice. You act, let them talk.

To talk about college this way may sound élitist. It may even sound philistine, since the purpose of a liberal-arts education is to produce well-rounded citizens rather than productive workers. But perhaps it is more foolishly élitist to think that going to school until age 22 is necessary to being well-rounded, or to tell millions of kids that their future depends on performing a task that only a minority of them can actually accomplish.

Well, he’s right on that first point. It does sound élitist. It does sound philistine. But the sheer gumption of saying it’s élitist to encourage kids to get a college education? That’s absolute insanity.

The author seems to subscribe to the viewpoint that people are born with certain abilities. That some people are just destined for greatness, while others will be trapped in the lower-class culture of our society. He’s simply wrong.

I grew up in rural Kentucky. I come from an upper-middle class, pretty average family. I’ve been blessed–and a fair bit lucky–but one of the primary reasons I have been as successful as I’ve been is thanks to my education and my college experience so far, at American University.

And it’s not just me. I’ve seen friends from lower-class, lower-middle class, and even upper-class go from unsavory circumstances to college, and they’re achieving greatness as we speak. Will they be CEOs, Senators, Presidents or entrepreneurs? Not necessarily. But their advanced education is giving them the knowledge they need to keep pushing our country forward.

Let’s look at it from a macro-level. Look at the United States in comparison to Asian countries’ performance in math, statistics, engineering, and the sciences. We lag behind–sometimes by a significant margin. Sure we’ve got the economic advantage, the legacy of being the world’s largest superpower, and a fair bit of innovation under our belts, but who says that will last forever? And at the rate countries like China and India are growing, progressing, and, in many ways, catching up to us, shows that more advanced education is the only argument we should be making.

The bipartisanship on the need for education is one of the few bright spots of cooperation you can find in our government right now. Who in their right mind could argue against that?

Ponnuru is missing the point. Sure, there are some people in college right now who might not be able to handle it. But is the answer to just give up, an stop sending them to college altogether? Is the answer just to let them stop learning, to go work on the farm, to grab a job collecting garbage or clerking grocery stores? No, no, no, no and NO.

The solution to this problem is obvious. Ponnuru even says it flat out in his article: “We could probably increase the number of high school seniors who are ready to go to college — and likely to make it to graduation — if we made the K-12 system more academically rigorous.” But then he goes on to refute his own point, dismissively saying “college isn’t for everyone.”

College isn’t for everyone now because our high schools aren’t doing their job. College isn’t for everyone because our education system is up to par for the greatness of America. College isn’t for everyone because idiots like this are writing articles arguing against it, with absolutely zero rational, empirical, or substantiated points to base their argument on.

Hence, the title of this post: is 56 is the new 60? If the Democrats can keep 56 of their own seats in the new Senate — which will be a bit tough, but is far from out of the question — then they may frequently be able to cobble together a coalition between the 56 Democrats and the four moderate Republicans — Brown, Collins, Snowe and Castle. There are other Republican whose votes might be in play on particular issues — Linsday Graham on climate change, Dick Lugar on foreign policy stuff — but those the Snowe/Brown/Collins/Castle block should be up for grabs on almost every issue.

I have a couple points I want to make here.

First, it’s absolutely appalling that there are only four serious contenders to qualify as “moderates” for the 112th Congress. Two paragraphs down in his post, Silver even says, “That’s about it, though — most of the Republicans running for office are conservatives.” The radicals conservatives and the tea party are in control. We’re witnessing a literal coup d’état of the Republican party.

Despite the potential benefits this may have for Democrats–particularly in the long run–this just isn’t a good thing. Sure, if Obama’s initiatives succeed in the next two years, Democrats will come out looking like moderates as the country shifts to the left, while Republicans wither away as the radical group in American politics. That’s good for me and my views, but is it good for democracy? I don’t think so. The idea of a purity test for a political party, particularly one of the two parties in our strictly two-party system, is just sad.

Secondly, and more to the point of my title, why are we talking about 56 as the new 60? We should be talking 50 as the new 60.

The filibuster rule is in shambles. It’s been used and abused by both parties for two decades now–although much worse in the past year by Republicans than ever before–and it’s tearing away the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s remember how Congress used to work. To pass a bill, it was required to pass the House and earn a majority of votes from the Senate. Simple definition from google:

majority /mədʒ’ɒrɪti/ /-dʒ’ɔːr-/ US

1. The majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them.

So let me ask you this: how the hell is passing a bill with 51+ votes “undemocratic?” That’s the very definition of a majority-based system, and conservatives have flipped the messaging to make 51 votes seem like not enough people agree with it to be the “will of the people.”

Ezra Klein made an excellent point about the filibuster and it’s ridiculousness in a post from February 19th:

When 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population can block legislation, that’s not a democratic state of affairs, no matter the issues involved.

How can conservatives actually argue against eliminating the filibuster? Now let me be clear, I recognize that Democrats have done this in the past too, and, should they become the minority at any point in the future while the filibuster still exists, they’ll likely do it again. But I don’t agree with it. And, were I a Senator, I absolutely, positively would not take part in it.

Anyway, enjoy the links, let me know what you think. Is the filibuster guaranteeing the “rights of the minority?” Or is it holding back our democracy and tearing away the very system that used to keep our government running (at least semi-) smoothly?

I think it’s time for a change. I think we need more moderates. I think we need a system where 51 votes passes a bill, because that’s a majority of what the people elected. But hey, what do I know.

The full column is below the cut. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Congress is in trouble. And it’s not just Democrats, either.

In fact, the 2010 midterms are the least of Congress’ problems. They’re in trouble as an institution of democracy. As the largest and arguably most important elected body of the U.S. government, they’re suffering a communications crisis of epic proportions.

Really, it’s even more than a crisis. They’re on the brink of a communications catastrophe.

The cause is simply public perception. Believe it or not, the 111th Congress has already accomplished larger, more significant legislative victories than almost any other Congress in history. But the public perceives them as a failure, because they haven’t communicated it well.

Let’s see, they kicked off the year by granting equal pay for equal work. Pretty reasonable. Then they expanded health insurance for millions of needy children. They’ve also protected about two million acres of American wilderness, expanded national service programs like AmeriCorps, broadened power to enforce financial fraud, protected credit card consumers, regulated tobacco, created the successful Cash for Clunkers program and granted emergency aid to Haiti.

Oh, and they rescued the U.S. economy by passing one of the most comprehensive and successful spending bills in history.

So, why does everyone still hate them?

Their polling numbers are literally at rock bottom. Only a meager 18 percent of the country approves of their work, while 78 percent disapprove. Here’s some advice:

Dear Congress,

This isn’t going to be some minor fix. You’re not just “in a rut.” You won’t be able to weasel your way out of this one, and regardless of the outcome of this November’s election, these problems won’t just go away.

I think you need to do three things.

First, make President Barack Obama’s “question time” with Republicans a regular event. Make it law. Or make a resolution. Either way, make it happen. Often.

See, question time didn’t just allow Obama to score points (although he certainly schooled House Republicans). It allowed for an open, unobstructed, rational and civil debate between our president and our legislators. This communication needs to happen more often, and the public needs to be able to see it.

Transparency builds trust. Question time is transparent. Thus, question time builds trust. See the connection here?

Second, campaign on your own accomplishments, not someone else’s.

Look at the stimulus bill. Numerous Republican members of Congress are out bragging about the new infrastructure and jobs that “they” have created, then coming back to D.C. and railing against the very stimulus bill that created those opportunities—and that they voted against. Hypocritical much?

For that matter, campaign on your own accomplishments and not on other’s supposed “failures.” Bad-mouthing your opponents doesn’t make you look good; it makes you look petty. And that’s part of what’s keeping Congress painted in such a negative light.

Finally—and this is a real revelation, folks — learn to communicate. Whether it’s staffers, your press team, or all you Congressmen yourselves, you’re doing an absurdly bad job at talking to us, the people you represent.

Send us letters. Get online. Explain, objectively, what bills are about (and if you don’t know, get someone who works for you to do it). Take 30 minutes a day and answer your office’s phones yourself, instead of giving it to an intern. Never, ever use ghost tweeters or ghost bloggers.

Does all that sound hard? It’s not. You’ve got it easy, while millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills.

Work harder. Do better. Communicate.