National

Foster Comments On FISA Vote

Josh Kalven — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:47:10 -0700

After taping his upcoming response to President Bush's Saturday radio address at WBBM's studios in Chicago this morning, Bill Foster took questions from the media, including one from Public Affair's Jeff Berkowitz about proposed reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Specifically, Berkowitz asked him about his recent vote against a bill originating in the Senate that offered immunity to those telecom companies who cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. In response, Foster explained how he instead voted for the House compromise bill, which proposed that the phone companies be able to defend their actions in a secret court, rather than receive blanket immunity:

FOSTER: [Y]ou know, this was an important vote. And, I do not believe in blanket immunity for telecom companies or anyone else that may or may not have violated basic privacy understandings. I believe there is a huge difference between a scenario in which data was turned over in the immediate aftermath of September 11, with a clear understanding that people in the Administration thought that this was truly legal and data that may have been turned over under other circumstances.

And, I think the compromise that came out of the House Bill, which essentially established a secret court that allowed the telecoms to defend themselves, using the letters that they may or may not have received from the Administration, provides a very good intermediate compromise for the purposes of determining the civil immunity or non-immunity of these telecoms. So, I am a bigger fan of the compromise that came out of the House than the compromise that came out of the Senate and I voted that way.

(More after the jump ...)

BERKOWITZ: You said a “secret court,” coming out of the House Bill. Is that separate from the FISA courts?

FOSTER: Yes, yes. As I understand, there was a mechanism to provide—to allow the telecoms—the ability to present letters that they may or may not have gotten from the administration, encouraging them to turn over data. These are letters that, if they exist, would be protected under state secrets provisions by the Administration and the Administration currently would prevent [the telecoms] from presenting in open court. And, so, they are in a situation where the law says very clearly that, you know, you are immune if you got a letter saying certain things with certain assurances from the Administration. But, since [the telecoms] can’t present those letters in open court, then, for civil purposes, they can’t actually defend themselves and so the House Compromise provides a mechanism for them to present those letters, not in open court, but in a secret proceeding.

Equity After The Bear Stearns Bailout

Adam Doster — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:26:03 -0700

In a nice editorial published today, the State-Journal Record describes what's so frustrating about the Federal Reserve's bailout of Bear Stearns:

No doubt the 2 million people now in or facing foreclosure would like a net to catch them, too. But for those folks, President Bush last Friday criticized several plans before Congress, including a change to bankruptcy code that would not risk one tax cent. They, of course, get to pick themselves up by their unraveling bootstraps. Meanwhile, the administration moved heaven and earth to keep Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy because it was deemed “too big to fail.”

Of course, it's possible that if the Fed left Bear Stearns to reap what it sowed, instead of extending the bank more credit, it could have spurred greater financial instability. But what about equity for the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill for a company that aggressively peddled what we now know were predatory loans? Harold Meyerson, in a thoughtful Washington Post column yesterday, asks the same question:

This solution doesn't look to be a great deal for the American public. It looks even worse when we recall that other governments -- including those of China, Abu Dhabi and Kuwait -- have also been bailing out our banks, through sovereign wealth funds, while getting shares in those companies in return. Can't the American people get as good a deal as the Chinese when our government bails out a major American bank? At minimum, some public representation on the bank's board?

There's no reason why not. But until needed financial regulation is put in place, it seems unlikely.

A Band-Aid For No Child Left Behind

Adam Doster — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:54:12 -0700

Backing down slightly from its unrelenting support for No Child Left Behind, the Bush Administration announced today that it is willing to relax the law’s provisions for some states, allowing education officials to distinguish schools with a few problems from those that need a large-scale overhaul.

As it stands, the law's strict accountability system, called Adequate Yearly Progress, divides students into subgroups—all ethnic/racial groups present in the school, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency—and requires that each subgroup in a school reach state-determined levels of proficiency on standardized tests in math and reading. If one subgroup fails, the entire school fails. And to her credit, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings recognizes that some schools don't need surgery, "just triage":

Under the new program, the federal Department of Education will give up to 10 states permission to focus reform efforts on schools that are drastically underperforming and intervene less forcefully in schools that are raising the test scores of most students but struggling with one group, like the disabled, for instance.

Illinois Board of Education superintendent Christopher Koch is excited about the plan and said he is hoping our state qualifies for the flexibility:

"This allows us to develop a more nuanced system of distinguishing between schools. I would love, for example, to recognize districts or schools that are showing progress, even if they are not meeting the NCLB goal."

Like Koch, educators and legislators will herald the change for easing some of NCLB's most punitive pressures. But in the end, it's a Band-Aid on a law that was not only poorly executed, but fundamentally flawed from its inception. Our national education policy needs to be rethought if we're serious about giving our children the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed as engaged, global citizens.

Moving The Center

Josh Kalven — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:10:43 -0700

The conventional wisdom in many Democratic circles stipulates that in order to win the White House and form a governing majority, the Party must shift away from decidely progressive values and towards a more moderate platform. In other words: if we want to win that 50-plus-one percent of the vote, we must take just enough issues off the table.

In a column posted here today, Bob Creamer offers an alternative to this tired line of thought:

An historic opportunity exists for progressives to create a generational political realignment in America of the sort that happened in 1932 with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and once again in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. Illinois could lead the way.

Realignments of this type involve two major components. On the one hand, they require the creation of a replicable electoral majority. On the other, they require a shift in the value frame for political debate – a shift in what is considered political “common sense.”

Fundamental political realignment does not require us to move to the center. It requires that we move the center in a progressive direction.

The Democratic establishment must remember this Election Year that abandoning forceful positions on so-called "hot button" ideological issues only serves the interests of the Right. They can't forget that there are certain voters who, precisely because of Democratic candidates' hestitancy to take strong stances on such issues, simply haven't been exposed to convincing progressive arguments. But just because they haven't heard such views, doesn't mean they can't be swayed.

Moreover, there is a large swath of swing voters in this country who cast their ballots on issues of character and will, rather than policies and platforms. Embracing a truly progressive platform -- rather than diluting one -- actually helps to attracts these voters.

One example that always comes to mind is Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lonely vote in 2001 against the Patriot Act.

At the time, shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, it seemed to many that Feingold was committing political suicide by casting that vote, that he had abandoned all "common sense." But even in the crucible of the national security debate in the years that followed, that one vote continued to resonate with many Wisconsin voters. In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, I canvassed for the League of Conservation Voters in rural Wisconsin and repeatedly encountered voters who were adamantly supporting Bush, but also planned on voting for Feingold's reelection. When I pressed them on this, they would often cite the Patriot Act vote. Ideology and policy differences aside, they respected the strength of Feingold's stand.

But Feingold didn't just earn the respect of many Wisconsin swing voters. He also took the first step in "moving the center." Indeed, when the Patriot Act came up for renewal in the Senate four years later, Feingold once again opposed the measure. This time, however, he was joined by a bipartisan group of Senators opposed to the bill's most extreme provisions. Standing up to the Bush Administration's infringements on civil liberties had suddenly become "common sense."

The fact is, while the media and Beltway establishment may not have realized it yet, we live in a progressive country. Last year, a report by Media Matters for America and the Campaign for America's Future documented this fact using years of issue-based polling data. But in order to turn this popular majority into a governing majority, Democratic candidates need to put issues on the table, not take them off.