Shane Goldmacher of the LA Times reports today on Carly Fiorina’s attempt to reach out to Latinos in her bid to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer. Fiorina pandered to the right in order to secure the Republican nomination by expressing her support for Arizona’s immigration crackdown. Now she is resorting to tired cliches about Latino perspectives on the environment to dig herself out of hole:

One issue Fiorina is seeking to exploit among Latinos is the fallout from environmental restrictions. Water deliveries have been severely cut to Central Valley farmlands by the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the Delta smelt, a small fish. Fiorina wants to carve out an exemption to the landmark environmental law to increase the water flow; Boxer does not.

“Tens of thousands of Latinos lost their jobs,” Fiorina said of the effect of the water cutbacks, one of several times she mentioned the issue. “Fish are not more important than families.”

In March, I asked likely general election voters in the Central Valley which statement they agreed with more: “We need stronger environmental laws with vigorous enforcement to protect the quality of our air and water” or “Overzealous environmental regulation to protect air and water quality drives up consumer prices, hurts the economy and costs jobs.” As the chart above shows, nearly 60 percent of Latino voters support stronger environment laws even in this very conservative part of the state where water issues are of great concern.

Jobs are indeed the highest priority for Latino voters, but they also care about clean air and water. Using racist rhetoric in the primary and then in the general setting up false dichotomies about jobs versus the environment is not the way to win Latino voters. Even if Fiorina sets up the dichotomies in Spanish. After all, most Latino voters speak English.

The family of one my USC students and the LA Times combined to do a question and answer session about health care reform well worth reading.

I am frequently asked if I think that Obama’s impending health care success will dramatically improve prospects for Democrats in November. Unfortunately, I fear that it won’t. Health care reform is totally the right thing to do, but back in the primaries Dems got trapped into framing the reform effort as universal health care. Voters, the majority of whom already had health care, interpreted this as meaning that they were going to have to pay more to insure the uninsured without seeing any actual improvement in their own plans. Republicans just played on that fear. If we had been smart, we would have framed the debate as cost containment and job creation, showing how that would have a short-term (if not exactly immediate) benefit for voters. It’s too late for that now.

So, come November, voters will be assessing whether their health care is better now than it was in January. The Kmiec/Times piece hints at the answer:

Q.: Specifically, what if anything will change when I visit the doctor’s office or require hospital care?

A.: That’s hard to say. The most obvious change may be that your doctor won’t ask you for a co-pay for preventive care, although that perk may not kick in until 2018 for people covered by an employer plan. The bulk of the changes sought by the bill, such as coordinating care better among service providers, promoting wellness and giving doctors better information about which treatments are most effective, are more subtle and less certain in their impact, particularly for patients with private insurance coverage.

In other words, voters are going to see little if any improvement by November. There is still lots of time for Dems to stem the nearly meritless momentum of the Party of No, but I don’t think health care reform will be the vehicle.

Today, I attended a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer at the house of Laurie David headlined by Vice President Al Gore. Senator Boxer told of the tough words she had for Senator Lisa Murkowski on the Senate floor as the Alaska Republican commenced an effort to use parliamentary tricks to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. The irony here, Senator Boxer pointed out, was that even the George Bush Supreme Court recognized the EPA’s regulatory authority.

Here’s the back story.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant:

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks.

That wasn’t the answer the Bush Administration was looking for, so they decided to ignore the EPA:

Agency scientists were virtually unanimous in determining that those gases caused such harm, but top Bush administration officials suppressed their work and took no action.

But then President Obama took office:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.

…

The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said: “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low-carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation.”

…

In his first days in office, Mr. Obama promised to review the case and act quickly if the findings were justified. The announcement Friday was the fruit of that review.

According to the E.P.A. announcement, the finding was based on rigorous scientific analysis of six gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — that have been widely studied by scientists. The agency said its studies showed that concentrations of the gases were at unprecedented levels as a result of human activity and that it was highly likely that those elevated levels were responsible for an increase in average temperatures and other climate changes.

Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

Neither President Obama, Senator Boxer nor Administrator Jackson wanted to use EPA regulation rather than cap and trade legislation, but it was better than nothing. Until Senator Murkowski got involved last month:

In a speech to Congress, a Republican senator from Alaska announced she would use an obscure and rarely used measure to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a dangerous pollutant.

“We cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations,” Lisa Murkowski told the Senate in prepared remarks. Murkowski’s motion of disapproval, though unlikely to become law, is widely seen as a barometer for the chances of getting a climate change bill through the Senate this year.

…

The Alaskan’s resolution would overturn the EPA’s finding last month that greenhouse gas emissions were a public health threat. The so-called endangerment finding compelled the agency under the Clean Air Act to introduce regulations for the pollutant.

Murkowski’s strategy hinges on using the Congressional Review Act, a law used for the first time in the early days of the George Bush era to throw out new ergonomic standards for workplaces passed under Bill Clinton. The measure would require only 51 votes for passage and the Senator is confident of signing up all 40 Republicans as well as some Democrats.

…

According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Murkowski, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, has received $244,000 in campaign funds from oil and gas companies since 2005, and consulted two energy industry lobbyists before launching today’s proposal.

So Boxer (and others) let Murkowski have it:

The move by Murkowski brought a furious response from Democratic leaders and a coalition of environmental, business and religious organisations. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat said blocking the EPA was a radical move that would expose Americans to public health risks from global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists said it was an assault on science, and California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wrote a letter asking his fellow Republicans to let the EPA do its work.

While Senator Murkowski tries to work coal black magic in the legislative branch, it was reported today in the Wall Street Journal the United States Chamber of Commerce is taking the fight to the courts:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Friday filed a petition in a federal court of appeals challenging an Environmental Protection Agency decision that triggers regulation of greenhouse gases across the economy.

The Chamber–which believes regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act could cause serious harm to the economy–said it wouldn’t test the science of EPA’s decision to find greenhouse gases a danger to public health and welfare, but rather the agency’s process.

“The Chamber’s legal challenge will focus specifically on the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation,” Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the Chamber, said in a statement.

Whether it’s filibusters, the Congressional Review Act or the federal courts, I can’t help but feel that their side is taking advantage of the rules a little better than we are. Recess appointments, anyone?

Below is my post in today’s Politico | Arena. The question is “Will Citizens United alter American campaigns and if so, how?”

Water finds it way downhill; corporate money finds it way into campaigns. McCain-Feingold was not an effective bulwark against corporate money. It was simply the election lawyer full employment act.

One of my favorite examples of the ridiculousness of McCain-Feingold had to do with the prohibition on coordination between candidate campaigns and independent expenditures. I worked for firms that were doing consulting work for both the candidate and the IE in the same election. But, the lawyers told us, that was OK as long as a “firewall” existed in the office that kept information from being shared between the two sides. In other words, the law said, as long as you give the appearance of your right hand not coordinating with your left hand, you’re fine.

In my mind, the impact of Citizens United will be less about the maximization of institutional money in campaigns and more about its overtness. Before, the money made its way downhill through subterranean chambers. Now, it’s going to be like a dam broke above ground. The question to me is whether the public will be so outraged by the houses and trees being washed away that the Congress is forced to pass new legislation. I worry that the public will survey the damage with abject resignation and say, “Well, at least now it’s out in the open.”

In 2004, Senator Reid got a majority of the white vote (58 percent) against a weak opponent (Richard Ziser). Senator Kerry, on the other hand, only got 43 percent of the white vote in Nevada. Given that whites were 77 percent of the 2004 electorate, Reid won (61 percent to 35 percent) and Kerry lost (48 - 51).

By improving performance and turnout among black and Latino voters, Barack Obama was able to overcome the fact that he, like Kerry, lost the white vote in Nevada (45 - 53). African-Americans were 10 percent of the Nevada electorate in 2008 compared to 7 percent in 2004, and Obama got 94 percent of the African-American vote compared to 86 percent for Kerry. Latinos went from 10 percent to 15 percent of the electorate and Obama received 76 percent of the Latino vote. My September 2008 polling for the Obama campaign showed that registered Latinos who had never voted before were his strongest supporters. The post-election poll I did for the Annenberg Public Policy Center drove home that the campaign delivered those voters.

A Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll conducted late last summer highlights Senator Reid’s challenge. Against Sue Lowden, Reid was only getting 34 percent of the white vote - barely half the percentage of the white vote he got in 2004 and 9 points lower than Kerry got in his losing cause. The Kos poll also had Reid getting 58 percent of the black vote, 28 points lower than Kerry. Nate Silver correctly observes that “as someone whose best-case scenario probably involved cobbling together 51-53 percent of the electorate, turning off even a small fraction of black voters could be highly injurious.” Finally, the Kos poll had Reid getting 58 percent of the Latino vote - 2 points less than Kerry and 18 less than Obama.

Getting back to the high fifties with white voters is extremely unlikely; it will take the Reid campaign a lot of work to get to the 45 percent that Obama earned. Black voters may again be around 10 percent of the electorate but Reid wasn’t going to get in the nineties with African-American voters even prior to the release of his unfortunate comments about the president. To get enough voters to win, Reid needs to get back to the polls the many Latinos for whom November 2008 was the first election in which they had ever voted.

[Update 1/13/2010] A recently completed poll has Reid at 36 percent of all voters.

A key part of the Republican strategy to hold the governor’s office and the state house in Texas is to keep African-American and Hispanic turnout at manageable levels. For example, Republicans think that the fact that Barack Obama is not on the ballot in HD 133 will help them defeat Kristi Thibaut. But it’s not just hope that gets voters to the polls. It’s also anger. Hispanic turnout and performance nationwide didn’t increase in 2006 because Latinos were excited about the Democrats on the ballot. Instead, they were mad the about nasty immigration debate and the way Republicans were making United States citizens of Hispanic descent feel like something less than real Americans.

By appealing to the tea baggers he needs to win his primary, Governor Rick Perry (helped out by Attorney General Greg Abbott) may find himself incurring the wrath of African-American and Hispanic voters alike. Back in April, Perry hinted at secession and endorsed a non-binding resolution in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment. Cowed neither by the law nor the fact that Texas has more uninsureds than any other state, Abbott jumped on board — ostensibly to block health care reform but really to score points with the extreme elements of the party.

Problem is, the 10th Amendment is more than just the refuge of today’s tea baggers. Throughout our country’s history, it has also been the preferred constitutional strategy of those who had no interest in letting non-whites sit at the table. In his book, The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty, University of Arkansas Law Professor Mark Killenbeck writes:

Alone of the 10 amendments that, by some reckonings, the Bill of Rights comprises, the Tenth Amendment has a sordid past. In the mid-nineteenth century, it served to shield the institution of slavery, and on the eve of secession Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi rested his defense of the rights of slave states on the Tenth Amendment. When, in the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress sought to safeguard the liberties of the freedmen, the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as “repugnant to the Tenth Amendment.” By these holdings, as Jesse Choper has pointed out, the Court “largely thwarted the political branches’ efforts to insure racial freedom and to advance the civil liberties of the politically underprivileged. These causes, as a consequence, were blocked for nearly seventy-five years.”

In more recent times, the Tenth Amendment became the mainstay of racists seeking to preserve Jim Crow. A Texas Democrat charged that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s World War II edict on fair employment practice violated the Tenth Amendment, and the Mississippi governor, Fielding Wright, who was Strom Thurmond’s running mate on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948 grounded his opposition to Harry Truman’s civil rights program on the Tenth Amendment. In 1960, the president of the Southern States Industrial Council, calling attention to “its opposition to the encroachment of the Federal Government into the area of authority reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment,” single out the attempt “now being made to enact a so-called ‘Civil Rights’ bill” as “the culminating effort to denude the States of all power.” During the mobilization of Freedom Summer in 1964, southern white students, led by six Delta State College undergraduates, formed the Association of Tenth Amendment Conservatives to defend “the time-honored and history-proven custom” of racial segregation against the “impending invasion” of Mississippi by northern college students. In like manner a year later, Congressman John Bell Williams of Mississippi, a white supremacist firebrand, told a Natchez constituent that he favored legislation “reaffirming the limitation of powers imposed on the federal government by the Tenth Amendment.”

With the immigration debate, Republicans counted on Hispanics not holding their rhetoric against them. That Obama got two-thirds of the Hispanic vote shows how well that worked. In Texas, Republicans are betting that the history of the Tenth Amendment doesn’t get held against them. Given that Texas recently became a majority-minority state, that may not be a very good bet.

Whoever said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result was probably thinking about the California initiative process. We keep on putting initiatives on the ballot thinking it will solve all our problems and we keep getting the same results: either the initiatives don’t pass or the problems get worse.

Initiatives Tend to Lose
Earlier this year, Governor Schwarzenegger spoke of a day of reckoning and California voters reckoned they would reject 5 of the 6 budget-related ballot measures in the May special election. The fact that voters defeated all four of his government reform ballot measures in 2005 didn’t keep the governor from trying again. It’s a state of mind shared by many who would wield power in California: more than 50 ballot initiatives have qualified for the ballot this decade. Yet less than 30 percent passed.

Loss of Trust
Just because these initiatives didn’t pass doesn’t mean that Schwarzenegger was wrong about the critical condition in which California state government finds itself. What was wrong was his treatment program: insiders gathering in smoke-filled rooms (or tents), deciding what they think is best for the people of California, putting it on the ballot and then waging million dollar media campaigns against the insiders who were never invited in the tent in the first place or who were there and didn’t like what came out. Voters have completely lost any trust in the incestuous politico-corporate complex that plays an endless game of self-enriching tug-of-war in Sacramento. If insiders are proposing it, consulting real people only when the deals are cut and the initiative is on the ballot, then the voters are against it.

But the insiders are at it again. A whole new set of initiatives is being proposed by California Forward and Repair California. Others have written intelligently about the merits of their proposals. I’m just here to say that I’d be willing to wager that none of their initiatives will pass. Both organizations have polls that say I’m wrong. But a Field Poll last February showed that voters supported all 6 of the measures in the May special, too. To quote a dear friend and top-notch strategist, California voters are “incredibly pessimistic but, rather than angry, numb and therefore risk averse, rather than open to bold new initiatives.” I couldn’t agree more. And the revolution didn’t start with numb voters.

The Convention of 1879
Robert Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies wrote about our constitutional convention in 1879:

The convention met for 127 days, deliberating as 30 separate standing committees, and created a document that consisted of 22 articles. Then, after a spirited campaign that saw “constitution” and “anti- constitution” clubs spring up all over the state, the pro-ratification forces prevailed by a popular vote of 77,959 to 67,134—a margin of more than 7 percent.

Historians generally agree that the 1879 Constitution left much to be desired. As Pepperdine University professor Gordon Lloyd observes, “the 1879 Constitution is an excellent example of what a constitution should not look like. [It] constitutionalized the politics of class and race and was less inclusive and liberal than the first.”

Is It Real if Prop 13 and Supermajorities Are Off the Table?
I think a spirited campaign would be the best possible spin anyone can put on the upcoming campaign to get a constitutional convention on the ballot. So much of what ails California relates to how we finance our government. To truly address the question, there needs to be an honest discussion of Proposition 13 (the cap on property taxes passed in 1978) and supermajorities (passing a budget in the legislature or raising taxes requires a two-thirds vote). Yet some observers have pointed out that “[a]s written, neither of the major reform packages aimed at the 2010 ballot leave much room for changing Prop. 13.”

Supermajorities, apparently (and appropriately) are open for discussion. Yet even that discussion, in the context of an initiative campaign, will make 1879 look like a gentleman’s debate. A recent poll by the Unruh Institute of Politics showed that a majority of voters (53 percent) supported keeping the supermajority even when told that “[some] people say that this gives too much power to the minority, creating gridlock and allowing a small number of legislators to vote down the will of the majority.” Only 35 percent of voters wanted to change to a straight majority. The poll was taken just a few months after the state was required to issue more than a billion dollars in i.o.u.’s because the Republican minority had blocked any tax increases for months.

The poll respondents are the same voters who are going to be asked to pass initiatives to fix these problems, including two that will relate to a constitutional convention. I think voters will do what California voters did when asked to vote on a convention in 1898, 1914, 1928, and 1930. They will vote no.

Treating Californians Like Adults
Instead of the same old program — insiders dictate an initiative and spend millions of dollars to dumb it down on TV — I believe that changes as sweeping as California government requires a different approach. Instead of insulting the intelligence of voters with the usual 30 second spots, I think that the well-intentioned proponents of change would benefit from treating Californians like adults.

What if reform advocates went a year without putting something on the ballot and instead had a conversation with Californians about California state government and how it works? The second that something is on the ballot, voters are rightly concerned that somebody is trying to sell them something they don’t want. But if nothing is on the ballot, then maybe voters will lose some of their numbness. Some may passively listen. Some may actively process. And some may even fully engage.

Where Does the Money Go?
USC professor John Matsusaka wrote an op-ed in 2008 asking “where does it all go? California is spending 40 percent more than four years ago, but on what exactly?” What, if for the first time ever, we spent a year talking about on what exactly? Matusaka writes:

One possibility is that we simply do not notice all of the valuable services we receive. A national 2007 survey by William G. Howell at the University of Chicago and Martin R. West at Brown University found that respondents underestimated spending in their school district by 60%; on average, they believed spending was $4,231 per student when in fact it was $10,377. They also found that Americans underestimated teacher salaries by 30%. How many Californians know that public school teachers in the state earn an average of $59,000 a year, essentially tied with Connecticut for the highest average pay in the country? Likewise, perhaps we don’t notice the repaired roads or new buses and trains that take us to work.

On the other hand, maybe these billions of dollars just do not translate into services that are valuable to us.

Public Education First, Initiative Later
Have we as a state ever had a discussion about these matters without it being tarnished by partisan politics or initiative ideology? We all would learn so much from a public education effort that started with TV commercials, websites and social networking all devoted to the task of explaining where it all goes. How much goes to education? How much to transportation? How much to health care? How much to state parks? How much to prisons?

Some voters will gain a newfound appreciation for how their taxpayer money is being spent. Some will be horrified. Some will be bored. But the discussions that ensue will be more about policy than politics. Around water coolers and kitchen tables would be many more discussions about our government than there are today, many beginning with exclamations of insight, like “Did you know that…” The goal here would be to lay a foundation. Voters can’t be expected to be a partner in building a new state government if they don’t understand the one they have.

The next step in the program will be an actual exchange between the public and the parties with a specific interest in reforming state government. The constitutional convention advocates deserve credit for holding town halls, but I believe that more voters can be harvested if the field is plowed first. After 6 months of multimedia education about state government, voters would feel like they knew enough to express an opinion on how to make government work better.

Feinstein vs. Schwarzenegger
Imagine, once voters are warmed up, town hall meetings that were not centered on a ballot initiative but rather on the whole range of ideas that could make California work. Imagine that we brought out all of California’s most compelling personalities to increase interest in the town hall meetings. Since the town halls would not be for or against anything on the ballot, participation wouldn’t mean anybody was taking sides yet; it would just mean they were being part of the statewide discussion. Imagine a series of town hall meetings featuring a discussing between Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They could have a “debate” on all the tough issues but they wouldn’t be playing gotcha the way campaign opponents do; instead, they would simply be drawing on their vast experience and their place on opposite sides of the aisle to explain the spectrum of proposals on everything from Prop 13 to term limits.

Of course, some would say we can’t wait that long before we fix California. To which I would bet them we’re going to have to wait that long or longer anyway: I don’t believe the reform initiatives will pass. And then where will we be?

Getting Voter Buy-In
Fixing California will require the buy-in of voters. Today’s frustrated, numb voters are in no mood for bold new initiatives. Getting them in the mood will require educating them on what California state government does and how it might do those things better without the demagoguery inherent in political advertising. The foundations funding California Forward and the corporations bankrolling Repair California would do better to invest in a multimedia public education program drawing on the wealth of star power (political and otherwise) that would be willing to talk about the issues outside of the context of a vote. The public would truly work with policymakers to decide what should be on the ballot. That’s the only way the kind of ballot initiative we desperately need (whether a constitutional convention or something else) can pass in today’s political climate.

Foundations and corporations spending millions of dollars on another government reform initiative (or three) in 2010 is very risky if not insane. Spending it on public education first would not only be a gift and an end in itself, but it may also prove a strategic model for improving local and state government around the country.

To the extent that the immigration debate gets any coverage in the media these days, it seems to be about the way the proponents of human rights are shouting past the xenophobes and vice versa. Meanwhile, Europe and Japan both are giving serious consideration to what it will do for their economies as the number of residents older than 65 rises relative to the working age population.

The U.S. Census recently released projections for the U.S. population in 2050. The projections included what the population would be if the U.S. experiences a lot of immigration between now and then (”High Immigration”) and if the U.S. experiences no immigration. I took those numbers and calculated the number of working age (18-65) residents divided by the total population (including children and seniors). The number is intended to be a rough approximation of how many people each taxpayer’s contribution to the system needs to support.

Last year, there were 1.59 people in the U.S. for each working age adult. In 2050, if we allow many immigrants, that number will jump to 1.76. Even higher, however, is the number if we allow no net immigrants: 1.81. In the “No Immigration” scenario, the percentage of Americans 65 and older will double between now and 2050.

If we don’t pass sensible immigration reform soon, who will do the work in 2050? And how much more will they be paying in taxes?

Update [12/30/2009]: My good friend Eddie Aldrete makes the same point and more with great eloquence in Latino Magazine. Here’s a highlight:

The U.S. has a demand for 500,000 to 600,000 low-skilled workers each year, yet the federal government only issues 5,000 visas for that category. The arbitrary visa cap and the byzantine immigration process are the encouragement to enter illegally. California farmers are moving some of their operations to Mexico to overcome the shortages of farm workers. Our strict limits on high-skilled workers are driving U.S. companies to locate or relocate in Canada. During a recession, why are we exporting low-skilled jobs to Mexico and high-skilled jobs to Canada?

Today, Politico asked, “What does Obama gain by calling bankers ‘fat cats?’” Here was my response:

When I was Deputy Corporations Commissioner for the State of California, I learned that if there was one thing that our licensees wanted from their financial regulator, it was consistency. The number of players and moving parts in the financial game is nearly infinite, the companies were saying, so all we ask from you is to resist the temptation to keep changing the rules.

By calling bankers “fat cats,” President Obama is of course scoring political points. A recent Democracy Corps poll showed that nearly half of the less than perfect voters that Democrats will need to prevent a midterm bloodbath are upset about “Big banks and Wall Street getting handouts while nothing is done for working Americans.” The president is demonstrating he feels their pain.

But I hope that he is also doing something more. One doesn’t have to view the big banks as evil to understand why they support the status quo - they were built to function under the existing regulatory structure (e.g., the primacy of the Federal Reserve). As political adversaries, the big banks are formidable, able to drop big bucks into the campaign coffers of nervous legislators. Using rhetoric like “fat cats” is the right thing to do if the goal is to overcome the banks’ natural resistance and set up a regulatory structure that responsibly addresses all the tough issues, from banks too big to fail to the conflict of interest inherent in credit agencies.

Big financial institutions will adapt to whatever becomes law. The best way to make this a win for everybody is to pass comprehensive, effective reform that will stand the test of time. The financial institutions will operate with the confidence that the regulatory scheme won’t shift beneath their feet; consumers will know that someone is minding the store. If sound bites like “fat cat” help motivate voters to push their representatives towards real reform, then President Obama is making productive use of his bully pulpit.

As complicated as the issue is (or maybe because of it), this could be a case where good politics and good policy converge.

Politico has an on-line debate called “The Arena,” a place where they ask political professionals about the day’s news. Today, they asked me and others about the meaning Obama’s declining approval ratings (chart above). Here was my response:

The predictive value of Obama’s declining job performance numbers is not deep. All the numbers say is that if the Dems don’t deliver on the issues that matter most to voters, like the economy and the war in Afghanistan, Dems will suffer serious losses in 2010. What the numbers can’t predict at all is whether credit will come unstuck or Afghanistan’s army will rise to the occasion. Next year’s tallies of jobs created at home or American lives lost in Afpak are the numbers that will truly predict the midterms, not Obama’s approval today.

Others had a much different view. Check out “The Arena” if you want to see more.