Politics and Society

Status of Gay Marriage

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0800

By Ange-Marie Hancock

The results of election day were mixed for same-sex marriage advocates: The Question 1 measure to repeal the same-sex marriage law in Maine was successful, while Washington State voters approved additional rights for same-sex couples with R-71. Advocates had hoped not simply for victories in both states, but for the election results to point explicitly in one direction — go forward with repeal efforts in California and other states, or to wait a few more years. They didn’t receive a clear answer to that dilemma.

Maine: The Power of Advertising

Same-sex marriage advocates still haven’t found an answer for the effective advertising targeting swing-voting parents of small children. Nearly identical campaign ads were run in California in 2008 and Maine in 2009, claiming that small children in public schools would be taught that same-sex marriage is acceptable. Despite rebuttals from state superintendents and other public school officials, these ads remain effective.

California: Timing Strategy

There was a strong consensus that a win in Maine would encourage same-sex marriage advocates in California to go back to the ballot in 2010. The USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll this week revealed that while there is now narrow support (51 percent) for same-sex marriage in the state of California, a majority (60 percent) don’t want to vote again on the issue in 2010. Now same-sex marriage advocates must decide whether they can craft a winning message that avoids alienating weak supporters and swing voters, whom they must depend on to eventually repeal Proposition 8.

Waiting until 2012 carries the risk of another presidential election taking up the money, time and most talented campaign strategists for national efforts outside of California. As well, if Congress successfully repeals “don’t ask, don’t tell” in late 2010, national momentum could shift toward a future effort to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In that case, many strong supporters who would otherwise engage fully with a statewide campaign might choose to shift some or all of their energies to the national level.

Ange-Marie Hancock, associate professor of political science at the USC College, is an expert on California’s Proposition 8 and gay marriage, as well as political psychology and engagement. Contact her at (213) 740-3297 (office), (310) 994-5563 (cell) or ahancock@usc.edu.

New Poll: Californians Short on Hope

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0800

Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, analyzes the findings from a new statewide public opinion poll. For more information on the first USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll, click here. To download the full survey results, click here.

Sometimes it’s better to light a candle; sometimes it feels better to curse the darkness. But California voters seem to be willing to simply sit in the dark — with neither curses nor candles — increasingly convinced that the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, and increasingly uncertain that their state’s leaders can get them there.

Californians are unhappy, according to the inaugural USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll. But unlike voters in other parts of the country, who are furious at their elected representatives and willing to vent that rage toward anyone and anything that wanders into their crosshairs, residents of what they no longer consider to be a Golden State are less angry than depressed, disappointed in their political leaders, and doubtful that a range of prescribed policy solutions will have much impact on the state’s budgetary and economic problems.

The poll showed that some 80 percent of California registered voters believe the state is headed in the wrong direction — the highest reported level since immediately before the 2003 recall election. But what’s most noticeable about these results is the lack of emotional energy behind them. The wrath that voters exhibit in other states is barely noticeable here, replaced by a quiet resignation and despondence as to their state’s future.

One reason for this may be that we tried anger not too long ago. The recall election gave Californians a chance to vent their outrage in a very tangible and visceral way. But six years later, the candidate who brandished a broom on the steps of the state capitol, vowing to sweep out the special interests, is a year away from leaving office, having made no noticeable difference in the way state politics and governance are conducted. While Arnold Schwarzenegger can rightly point to substantial achievements in the areas of workers’ compensation, environmental protection, redistricting and, most recently, water policy, the public still feels largely shut out of the process. Indeed, 24 percent of respondents said that the influence of special interests was the primary reason for the state’s decline, a proportion outpaced only by the percentage that believes state government overspending is the worst culprit.

As the field of candidates who will vie to replace Schwarzenegger begins to take shape, Californians are doubtful that a new governor can bring about necessary change. The overall electorate was almost evenly split on this question, while the self-described independent voters — who decide most state elections — are convinced, by a sizable margin, that Schwarzenegger’s successor will not be able to make a significant difference.

At this early stage of the race, Attorney General Jerry Brown has benefited from high approval ratings, almost total name recognition and, perhaps most importantly, the possibility of an uncontested path to the Democratic nomination now that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has decided to leave the race. This will allow Brown to marshal his resources, raise great sums of money, and begin to position himself toward the political center, while the Republican contestants throw javelins at each other for the next several months. While many candidates benefit from the seasoning of a primary campaign, an experienced politician like Brown is probably less in need of spring training in order to prepare for next fall’s general election.

The three Republican candidates — former Rep. Tom Campbell, State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman — are still relatively unknown at this point. The nominee who emerges will almost certainly have overcome that challenge, and all three face another potential difficulty as they attempt to navigate the tricky waters of a GOP primary. Each candidate combines a fundamentally conservative approach to economic and public safety issues with a more moderate grounding on social and cultural matters. For the last 20 years, this is the ideological mix that has been required to elect Republicans to the governor’s office. But the party’s activist base leans heavily to the right on abortion, stem cell research and other socially charged issues, and it is only the financial resources that Poizner and Whitman bring to the campaign that have discouraged more traditional culturally conservative candidates from joining the race. All three candidates will strongly emphasize their economic agendas, but it remains to be seen whether unmotivated GOP regulars will turn out in great numbers in the fall. One year before the next election, Brown should be considered an early front runner. But his challenge — like that of his Republican opponents — will be to light a fire under California voters who feel like they’ve been burned far too many times.

Ballot Initiative Results

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0800

The Initiative & Referendum Institute’s Ballotwatch: Election 2009

Only 26 propositions were on state ballots this November, far below the 153 in November 2008, but there was no shortage of heated contests. Gay rights and tax limits were in the spotlight, following recent trends. Overall, voters approved 19 of 23 new laws (initiatives and legislative measures), and agreed to repeal one of three existing laws that were put to a referendum.

Gay Rights

The year’s most high-profile issue was Maine’s Question 1, which asked voters to repeal a May law legalizing same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage advocates were victorious, by a 53-47 margin. Following in the footsteps of California’s Proposition 8, this marks the second successive repeal of a same-sex marriage law by voters. Campaign spending on Question 1 was estimated to exceed $6.5 million, a large sum for Maine.

Gay marriage has now been rejected in 33 out of 34 ballot propositions (the only exception, in Arizona, was reversed two years after the initial vote). Gay marriage has been a hot issue since February 2004, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts found a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, setting off a backlash across the country; citizen groups and legislatures rushed to place constitutional amendments on the ballot to head off similar rulings by courts in their states. (See the October 2008 Ballotwatch report Same-Sex Marriage: Breaking the Firewall in California?) So far, the only victories for gay-marriage supporters have come from courts and legislatures. The electorate continues to reject the idea of gay marriage.

Gay-rights supporters fared better in the state of Washington, where an attempt to repeal a state law that grants same-sex domestic partners essentially the same rights as married spouses (R-71) failed, with voters supporting the existing law 53-47. Supporters spent about $2 million during the campaign, while opponents spent only about $500,000.

Tax Limits

Voters in Maine and Washington decisively rejected propositions that would have limited the growth of taxes and government spending by state and local governments, and would have required voter approval of future tax increases.

Maine’s Question 4, dubbed TABOR II, was rejected 40-60. The proposition was modeled after Colorado’s controversial Taxpayer Bill of Rights measure, approved in 1992. Question 4 would have restricted the growth of government spending to the rate of inflation plus the growth rate of the population (the state’s current spending limit is linked to income growth, which typically allows for a faster growth of spending). Revenue collected in excess of the limit would have been channeled to a rainy day fund (20 percent) and returned to citizens in the form of tax relief (80 percent). Maine voters rejected a similar measure in 2006, with 54 percent voting against.

Washington’s I-1033, also a TABOR-type measure, was rejected 45-55. It would have limited the growth of state and local government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth, and required voter approval for tax increases. Revenue collected in excess of the limit was to have been returned in the form of property tax relief. Opposition to I-1033 was led by public employee groups, but also included Microsoft Corporation and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The initiative’s supporters were heavily outspent by its opponents, with $3.5 million spent on the “no” campaign and $600,000 spent on the “yes” campaign.

Attitudes Toward Spending

Rejection of spending limits in the Maine and Washington hint that voters may not be overly concerned with growth in government spending, despite a huge expansion in federal spending over the last year. In addition, voters in Maine, New Jersey and Ohio approved bond propositions, which were also popular in November 2008. The electorate continues to be willing to borrow despite the ongoing economic recession.

Important Facts

Two of five initiatives approved. Seventeen of 18 legislative measures approved. Referendums: one of three laws repealed.
Headline issues: gay rights, and tax and expenditure limits
Total for the year: 32 propositions, including five initiatives and three referendums
367 initiatives for the decade 2000-2009, short of the record 379 for 1990-1999; still the second-busiest decade ever

State-by-State List

Following is a list of statewide ballot propositions and preliminary election results. An initiative is a citizen-sponsored law that is placed on the ballot by petition. A referendum is a proposal, placed on the ballot by petition, to repeal an existing law.

Maine
Questions 1 and 3 are referendums; 2, 4 and 5 are initiatives; and 6 and 7 were placed on the ballot by the legislature. All are statutory except for Question 7, a constitutional amendment.

Question 1. Same-sex marriage. Referendum asking voters to repeal a new law permitting same-sex marriage. APPROVED 53-47
Question 2. Car tax. Cuts taxes on newer and alternative-energy cars. FAILED 26-74
Question 3. School district consolidation. Referendum asking voters to repeal a 2007 school district consolidation law. FAILED 41-59
Question 4. Tax and expenditure limits. Limits state and local spending, requires voter approval for exceptions and tax increases. FAILED 40-60
Question 5. Medical marijuana. Expands medical use of marijuana, and allows state-licensed dispensaries. APPROVED 59-41
Question 6. $71.25 million bond issue for transportation projects. APPROVED 65-35
Question 7. Initiative and referendum. Allows officials more time to certify petitions. FAILED 48-52

New Jersey

Public Question. $400 million bond issue to acquire land for parks and conservation (legislative). APPROVED 52-48

New York
Both propositions are constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature.

Proposal 1. State forest preserve. Allows sale of state forest land for power lines. APPROVED 67-33
Proposal 2. Inmates. Allows inmates to work for nonprofit organizations. APPROVED 68-32

Ohio
Issues 1 and 2 were placed on the ballot by the legislature. Issue 3 is an initiative. All three measures propose to amend the constitution.

Issue 1. $200 million bond issue to pay stipends to veterans. APPROVED 72-28
Issue 2. Livestock Care Standards Board. To create board to regulate treatment of farm animals. Opposed by animal rights groups. APPROVED 64-36
Issue 3. Casinos. Authorizes casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. APPROVED 53-47

Texas
All 11 measures are constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the legislature.

Proposition 1. Land near military bases. Allows tax-financed acquisition of open space near bases by local governments. APPROVED 55-45
Proposition 2. Property tax. Property tax on residence to be based only on value as residence. APPROVED 68-32
Proposition 3. Uniform standards for property tax appraisals. APPROVED 66-34
Proposition 4. University research. Establishes fund to support research at state universities. APPROVED 57-43
Proposition 5. Board of Equalization. Authorizes single board for adjoining appraisal entities. APPROVED 62-38
Proposition 6. Veterans Land Board bonds. Allows state to issue replacement bonds without voter approval. APPROVED 66-34
Proposition 7. Office holding by military. Allows state militia to hold civil offices. APPROVED 73-27
Proposition 8. Veterans Hospitals. Allows state to contribute to veterans hospitals. APPROVED 75-25
Proposition 9. Guarantees public access to certain beaches on Gulf of Mexico. APPROVED 77-23
Proposition 10. Emergency service districts. Extends terms of board members from two to four years. APPROVED 73-27
Proposition 11. Eminent domain. Prohibits use of eminent domain to transfer land to private entities, promote economic development, or increase tax revenue. APPROVED 81-29

Washington

I-1033. Revenue limits. Initiative statute that limits government spending growth to inflation plus population growth, with excess revenue used to reduce property taxes. FAILED 45-55
R-71. Domestic partners. Citizen referendum that asks voters if they want to uphold a law granting same-sex domestic partners the same rights as married spouses. APPROVED 53-47

Previous Propositions

The following propositions were decided by voters in an election held May 19.

California
All six measures were placed on the ballot by the legislature as part of a budget agreement. 1A, 1B and 1F were constitutional amendments, 1D and 1E were statutes, and 1C was an amendment and statute.

Proposition 1A. Rainy day fund. Complicated and difficult-to-interpret proposition that, among other things, increased the state’s rainy day fund and imposed modest limits on spending. If the measure had been approved, certain emergency taxes would have been extended for several years. FAILED 35-65
Proposition 1B. Education. Required supplemental spending on education after the end of the budget crisis. FAILED 38-62
Proposition 1C. Lottery revenue. Allowed state to borrow against future lottery revenue. FAILED 36-64
Proposition 1D. Tobacco tax revenue. Allowed state to divert tobacco tax revenue dedicated to early childhood development programs. FAILED 34-66
Proposition 1E. Mental health revenue. Allowed state to divert revenue dedicated to mental health services. FAILED 34-66
Proposition 1F. Elected officials’ salaries. Prohibited increase in legislature salaries if state has a deficit. APPROVED 72-26

For more on USC’s Initiative & Referendum Institute, go to www.iandrinstitute.org or call (213) 740-9690. To download a PDF version of this report, click here.

John G. Matsusaka, president of the institute, can be reached at matsusak@usc.edu.

Please direct media inquiries to Gilien Silsby, director of Public Relations, at (213) 740-9690 (office), (213) 500-8693 (cell) or gsilsby@law.usc.edu.

Swine Flu and Pregnancy

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:00:00 -0800

Why expectant mothers should get the swine flu vaccine — a new study shows that the H1N1 pandemic in 1918 affected the subsequent health of babies in utero.

People exposed to an H1N1 strain of influenza A while in the womb were significantly more likely to have cardiovascular disease later in life, according to research published in the Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease.

“Our point is that during pregnancy, even mild sickness from flu could affect development with longer consequences,” says senior author and University Professor Caleb Finch of the USC Davis School of Gerontology.

Finch, USC Davis School professor Eileen Crimmins, lead author Bhashkar Mazumder of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Douglas Almond of Columbia University, and Kyung Park of the University of Chicago looked at more than 100,000 individuals born in and around the time of the 1918 influenza pandemic in the United States.

After first appearing in the spring and all but disappearing in the summer, the 1918 pandemic “resurged to an unprecedentedly virulent October-December peak,” the researchers write. The outbreak of H1N1 subtype influenza A killed 0.6 percent of the total population. Most people experienced mild “three-day fever” with full recovery.

“The 1918 flu was far more lethal than any since. Nonetheless, there is particular concern for the current swine flu, which seems to target pregnant women,” Finch says. “Prospective moms should reduce risk of influenza by vaccination.”

The researchers found that males born in the first few months of 1919 — who were in the second or third trimester during the height of the epidemic — had a 23.1 percent greater chance of having heart disease after the age of 60 than did the overall population.

Among women, those born in the first few months of 1919 were not significantly more likely to have cardiovascular disease than their peers; this points to possible gender differences in the effects of flu exposure. But females born in the second quarter of 1919 — who were in the first trimester during the height of the epidemic — were 17 percent more likely to have heart disease in later life.

The researchers also examined heights from World War II enrollment for 2.7 million men born between 1915 and 1922. They found that average height increased every successive year, except for the period coinciding with fetal exposure to the flu pandemic.

According to the study, men who were exposed to the H1N1 flu in the womb were slightly shorter on average than those born just a year later or earlier.

“Prenatal exposure to even uncomplicated maternal influenza can have lasting consequences later in life,” Crimmins concludes.

Technology Links Young and Old

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:00:00 -0800

Not long ago, there was a stigma attached to wearing hearing aids, despite their indispensability for millions of Americans. Everything was done to camouflage the clunky flesh-colored or clear plastic pieces that wrapped around and inside the ear.

Yet today, millions of cell phone users walk around with brightly colored metallic ovals dangling flamboyantly from their ears.

“There has been a shift in our thinking about technology, so that it is everywhere,” says Maryalice Jordan-Marsh, director of the Nurse Social Work Practitioner Program at the USC School of Social Work.

Jordan-Marsh sees this embrace of technology as a potential sea change in the interaction between generations.

“Cybertechnology has reinvigorated the potential engagement between young and older adults,” she adds.

Jordan-Marsh, who began her research decades ago in pediatrics and recently has been studying gerontology, merged her two interests as she has started developing “exergames,” which can help obese children, or senior citizens who need to get into shape after surgery.

She is partnering with professors at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and staff at the USC School of Cinematic Arts to explore how interactive video games can be designed to improve players’ health behaviors and outcomes. They are studying the effectiveness of games and online social networks in promoting lifestyle changes that result in greater physical activity.

Jordan-Marsh sees video games as an opportunity for grandparents and grandchildren to play together.

“In the United States, there has been some lost respect for older adults,” explains Jordan-Marsh, whose book, Health Technology Literacy: A Transdisciplinary Framework for Consumer-Oriented Practice, is due out in 2010. “Cybertechnology levels the playing field.”

For example, phones can be set to display the caller’s photo — a convenient memory aid. Universal design standards make it easier to navigate the Internet. And smart homes are on the verge of leveraging technology to make living spaces a part of daily health care. Jordan-Marsh notes that while these advances help everyone, they are especially helpful for older people.

Clinton, Newsom and Revenge

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:00:00 -0800

By Sherry Bebitch Jeffe

“Don’t get mad, get even” — that’s the political mantra of longtime California Democratic leader Carmen Warschaw. However, too often in today’s charged political atmosphere, the thinking goes: “First get mad, then get revenge.”

There was a whiff of revenge in former President Bill Clinton’s endorsement of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for California’s gubernatorial Democratic primary.

Clinton came to Los Angeles last week to woo Latinos (who are not a big Newsom constituency) and to hit the Southland fundraising circuit with the San Francisco mayor. The intervention of a former president in California politics, so visibly and actively, was unprecedented.

So what was Bill Clinton thinking?

Yes, Clinton wants Democratic voters to know that he thinks Newsom is the best-qualified candidate... and that may be the sum of his message. But the political media and some pundits — and, quite frankly, political history — suggest that loyalty and political payback drove Clinton’s support.

Here’s the loyalty part: According to the political blog Calbuzz, the Clinton-Newsom alliance goes back to at least 2003, when the former president stumped for Newsom during the mayoral run-off election in San Francisco. Five years later, Newsom endorsed and worked for Hillary Clinton in her race for the presidential nomination, becoming a national co-chair of her campaign. The endorsement of Newsom became a slam-dunk for Bill Clinton when L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, another strong Hillary supporter and national co-chair, announced that he wouldn’t run for governor next year.

Polls suggest that among Latinos, Villaraigosa’s exit will likely help Newsom’s all-but-official opponent for the Democratic nomination, former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose Latino political ties go back to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers’ movement in the 1970s.

However, Clinton’s endorsement of Newsom may succeed in attracting Latino voters to the San Francisco mayor. As former California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres points out: In the 1992 Democratic presidential primary, Bill Clinton beat Jerry Brown in California by seven points, then beat President George H.W. Bush by 13 points in the general election; and in last year’s presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by a 67-to-32 margin among Latinos.

That’s where the “getting even” part comes in. Clinton didn’t dive into California gubernatorial politics merely because Brown — unlike Newsom — stayed neutral in the 2008 Democratic primaries. The bad blood between Clinton and Brown goes back to 1992, when Brown kept beating up on Clinton, the last candidate actually standing in the Democratic presidential race, distracting Clinton’s political operation from gearing up for the general election. Brown used the candidates’ debates to slam Clinton and his wife.

The Clinton-Brown grudge isn’t the only feud in play. Just days before Clinton came to California, DreamWorks founders and Hollywood powerhouses Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen endorsed Brown for governor and announced plans to host a mega-fundraiser for him.

Why? As Andy Spahn, their political consultant, told Variety, the three believe that Brown “is the best-qualified candidate to fix the mess in Sacramento.” They also contributed to Brown’s attorney general campaign fund.

Yes, but... could the trio’s endorsement have something to do with the rift between Geffen and the Clintons, which widened when Geffen hosted a fundraiser for Obama in late 2007? Those certainly weren’t healing words that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd quoted Geffen as saying: “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

How will Clinton’s endorsement affect the calculus of the governor’s race here? Maybe a little more than it did in the Virginia governor’s race this year, where Clinton’s candidate, Terry McAuliffe, lost the Democratic primary. (Clinton is more popular in blue California than he is in purple Virginia.)

McAuliffe wasn’t dependent on Clinton’s fundraising prowess; Newsom needs it desperately. (In the first six months of 2009, still-undeclared candidate Brown far outpaced Newsom in fundraising. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Brown reported $7.4 million on hand at the end of June, well above the $1.2 million banked by Newsom.”)

Beyond a possible spike in campaign money and media coverage — neither of which is chopped liver in a California campaign — it’s not clear what Clinton’s endorsement will bring to Newsom as the primary race unfolds.

We do know that, until Clinton weighed in, there wasn’t much attention being paid to the Democratic campaign. Brown hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet (he’s only established an “exploratory committee” to raise money) — and he is still viewed by the media and most polls as the front-runner.

That’s one reason the early timing of Clinton’s endorsement was important for Newsom. It gave the mayor a touch of staying power when he really needed it.

One the other hand, the buzz is that Newsom’s campaign is looking to emulate the strategy that led Obama to victory over Hillary Clinton (Newsom’s youth and change vs. Brown’s establishment). How does Bill Clinton’s embrace of Newsom affect that?

Whether or not Clinton’s involvement in the California race boosts Newsom’s candidacy, it sure makes the campaign a whole lot more interesting.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, senior fellow at the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development and political analyst for NBC News, is an expert on United States and California politics.

Fueling the Future: No Magic Bullets

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:00:00 -0800

A host of contradictory messages surround the topic of energy, both inside and outside the Beltway. Some warn that we are in danger of running out of affordable fuels, while others emphasize the dangers of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

“We have no magic bullet solutions to the energy problems we face,” says Paul Ronney of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. “We can have convenience, economy, and environmental protection — but we have to choose any two.” He notes that many proposed solutions, like electric cars, carry hidden costs.

On the subject of energy shortages, Ronney is optimistic. “We have been 40 years from running out of fuel for more than a century and half,” he points out, adding that new sources continually present themselves. Enormous amounts of petroleum remain in existing, known deposits, and can be extracted simply through improved methods, he explains. And if the price of oil goes over $100 a barrel, we can convert abundant coal into liquid fuel using well known industrial techniques.

But the problem of CO₂ emissions is much more intractable, and involves complicated trade-offs. Electric vehicles are a classic example of the difficulty, according to Ronney. “You wouldn’t believe how much energy we spend to save a little fuel.”

The production of electric vehicles involves large financial costs in mining and manufacturing components, environmental costs in mining lead, and energy costs in mining copper. Cars that rely on battery systems have a shorter life than fuel-powered vehicles, and the energy used to recharge them adds to the greenhouse burden, particularly if it comes from coal-fired plants.

The solution is basic conservation, based on understanding of all elements of the fuel cycle, Ronney says. And some answers may be extremely low-tech. He explains that the best and cheapest way to store electrical energy is to use water and gravity: pumping it uphill in low-demand periods, allowing it to run downhill when power is needed.

Ronney concludes that there is an unavoidable bottom line: “We can use alternative forms of energy, but it will cost more and it will be less convenient. But that will have to happen if we’re going to have significant reductions in CO₂ emissions.”

Paul Ronney, professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, is an expert on fuels, engines and combustion. He is qualified as an astronaut and has had numerous experiments conducted at the International Space Station.

Look Ahead: The Next Supreme Court Session

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:00:00 -0800

On October 5, the USC Gould School of Law will hold the second annual symposium “U.S. Supreme Court: A Preview,” featuring distinguished legal scholars Theodore B. Olson, former U.S. solicitor general; Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School; and Professor Rebecca Brown of the Gould School.

The panelists, moderated by Gould School Professor Elizabeth Garrett, will mull over the new Supreme Court term, which begins that day. They will look at the dynamics of the court, the addition of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the court’s future.

Olson, Karlan and Brown will examine several high-profile cases involving criminal law, juvenile sentencing and First Amendment rights. They will also consider intellectual property, securities and other business issues.

“We are very fortunate to have two outstanding Supreme Court advocates on the panel this year, both of whom will argue cases before the court this term,” Brown says. “They will offer insights from a special vantage point regarding the issues coming up and the various factors that will influence the court as it begins the new term.”

The program, co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society and Federalist Society student organizations, will be held at the University Club on October 5 at 6:30 p.m., with a reception at 5:30 p.m. For information on attending, contact Gilien Silsby at (213) 740-9690 or gsilsby@law.usc.edu.

The Etiquette of American Politics

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:00:00 -0800

South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson has been admonished for yelling “You lie” during President Obama’s health care speech, an outburst that startled many Americans and which others connected to this summer’s rowdy town hall behavior. However, in the United Kingdom the political process is routinely more raucous. Is American the land of polite politics... and is that changing?

“There are differences in style between U.S. and U.K. political discourse,” says Thomas Hollihan of the USC Annenberg School, an expert on political communication. “In the U.K. the prime minister is essentially the first among equals. Because prime ministers are selected by the peers as party leaders, they are accorded less deference. (One would not imagine, for instance, that the ceremonial head of state, Her Royal Majesty, would be heckled in the House of Commons.) In the U.S., on the other hand, the president is the head of state and is elected directly by the citizens.

“Furthermore, due to the separation of powers doctrine, it is assumed that the president will respectfully address the legislative and judicial branches of government and that they in turn will accord him a hospitable greeting,” Hollihan notes. “To be invited to the Congress and then insulted is unacceptably rude behavior, akin to inviting someone to your home for dinner only to attack them.

“The heckling by Rep. Wilson was way over the top, and it should be condemned if for no other reason than that it sends a terrible message to other citizens about how a deliberating democracy should respect political differences and seek to win agreement on important and controversial issues,” Hollihan adds.

“It is, sadly in my opinion, a reflection of the increasingly partisan and counterproductive tenor of our times,” Hollihan concludes. “Fed by extremists on talk radio and Internet blog sites, too many of our citizens are losing their manners and their good judgment.”

Thomas Hollihan, professor of Communication at the USC Annenberg School, is an expert on political discourse, debate, and arguments that shape public policy. He is the author of Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age (2001) and Arguments and Arguing: The Products and Processes of Human Decision Making (1994).

Health Care Proposals: Pros and Cons

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:00:00 -0800

What’s right and what’s wrong about the health care plans currently before Congress? Michael Cousineau and David Goldstein of the Keck School of USC and Joel Hay of the USC School of Pharmacy take the legislation’s temperature.

Pro

David Goldstein and Joel Hay: Access to health care for America’s 47 million uninsured

JH: Positive changes for the 15 percent of the population that doesn’t currently have insurance

Michael Cousineau: Employer mandate for large businesses, and individual mandate — everyone must have health insurance or be penalized

MC: Guaranteed issue — individuals can’t be denied health insurance due to their health status

MC: Higher-quality care, as providers focus more on patients and less on dealing with insurance complications

MC: Government health plan option, if it forces private plans to reduce premiums and invest more in patient care, disease management and prevention

Con

MC: Government health plan option, if it provides reimbursements that don’t match costs, triggering cost shifting

MC: Inadequate subsidies to help families and businesses meet the health insurance coverage requirement

JH: Lack of cost containment measures

JH: The 10 percent payroll tax for those who lack qualified employer health plans — a drag on small businesses that will increase the unemployment rate

JH: Negative changes for the 85 percent of the population that does currently have insurance

JH: The $250 billion cut from the Medicare budget, which will hurt quality

JH: Expansions in Medicaid access, which will force states to raise taxes or cut other programs, like education

JH: The plan’s unpopularity, particularly with seniors on Medicare, which could lead to Republicans retaking Congress and revising plan

DG: Lack of provision for the extra primary care doctors and nurse practitioners who will be needed to care for all the new patients

How To Fix American Health Care

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:00:00 -0800

By Jeffrey McCombs

Why is health care so expensive? Why are the costs of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid out-of-control and resistant to cost-containment efforts? Can health care reform be structured to reduce costs, improve quality, promote electronic medical records and increase prevention, or are President Obama and Congress simply pouring gasoline on the fire?

The answers to these questions are remarkably simple, once you understand the pathology behind the symptoms that plague America’s current health care system. Put simply, traditional indemnity health insurance plans and the Medicare and Medicaid programs are based on a three-party system consisting of the patient, the care provider and the insurance company/government program. The physician and patient make the decisions that determine the amount of care to be paid for, and the insurance company/government program pays the bills. In this situation, when we get sick, we want the “best” care possible, regardless of cost, and the physician has no incentive to balance the benefits of the treatment decision with its costs. Patients have little incentive to object to high unit prices, because they are paying only a fraction of the total bill. This fee-for-service health care system is resistant to cost containment, because that would require the insurance company/government program to “poke its nose” into the clinical interaction between patient and provider to ration — or rationalize? — treatment decisions. Only the treating physician has the knowledge and information to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. On the price side, the insurance company/government program has more leverage; it often reduces the price paid per unit of service by fiat. This administrative approach to setting health care prices is rarely accurate, and it forces physicians, hospitals and other providers to increase the prices charged to other patients (a practice known as cost shifting). Thus any health care reform plan that simply increases the number of people covered by fee-for-service-based insurance will simply fan the flames.

So how well do the reforms under consideration in Congress cure the dysfunction in the U.S. health care system? A government-run, single-payer approach (Medicare for all) must continue to pay for health services using a fee-for-service payment system; there are no alternatives. Cost containment in this environment would interject government into the medical decisions of physicians and patients. Decisions on rationing would be political and would be quickly controlled by providers to their benefit, and thus would fail to rein in use of services or cost per unit. One need only look at the sad history of Medicare’s efforts to institute competitive bidding systems to see how providers resist efforts at cost containment. Imagine the morass that would be produced by bureaucratic systems designed to control day-to-day medical decisions.

The government could run the health care system directly, as the United Kingdom does in a system that resembles our Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) services. Physicians would be salaried government employees, with no direct incentive to provide high-quality care at a reasonable cost. Under either the “Medicare for all” or “V.A. for all” approaches, citizens wouldn’t be able to select a different plan unless they had sufficient resources to pay both their health care taxes and the cost of outside health services. We run our public schools this way, and what do we have? Low quality, and well-to-do families opting out of the system entirely.

Fortunately, there is a third option, which shifts the insurance responsibility to the physicians: the HMO. Under HMOs, the physician group is paid a flat fee per month and has to balance the cost of medical decisions against the benefits received by the patient. If they fail to balance costs and benefits, they won’t have sufficient resources to treat other patients or to pay salaries and bonuses. Some people fear that in this type of system physicians will skimp on care and pocket the extra money, but there are a few factors that prevent this from happening. First, if physicians don’t provide necessary services and a patient’s health declines, the doctors must pay the cost of the bad outcomes. Second, if an HMO pursues this strategy, it will lose subscribers, because patients have other options. Consumers will reject poor performance and high premiums in the open market — a choice not available to them under the “Medicare for all” and “V.A. for all” proposals.

There is abundant evidence that HMOs in the U.S. perform in the best interest of enrolled patients. Research that compares the relative performance of HMO systems and fee-for-service insurance shows clearly that HMOs emphasize prevention, use electronic medical record systems, ration care to those patients for whom the benefits justify the cost, and save considerable money, all without outside intervention or regulation. It is consumers who regulate HMOs, once a year when the open enrollment period comes around. HMO dis-enrollment rates tend to be very low.

The current proposals for health care reform largely build on competition between health insurance plans. For an example of this strategy at work, look at the Medicare Part D drug coverage program, which allows beneficiaries to enroll in a long list of alternative plans. The actual cost of the program turned out to be well below estimates. (When was the last time a new government benefit came in below budget?)

The health care debate really boils down to the government option that is proposed in most Democrat-sponsored approaches. This is a poison pill to health care reform, for several reasons. The government option must be based either on a fee-for-service payment system (Medicare for all) or on a government-run delivery system (V.A. for all). Either will fail if required to compete against private plans. Though ideally the consumers who picked the government option would pay the full cost of the government program, that is unlikely to happen; thus the government would subsidize the government option with the tax money of people who selected private plans.

So what is the bottom line? Health care reform really isn’t that hard to figure out. Provide U.S. citizens with the resources to purchase a basic plan on the open market, allowing consumers to buy better coverage out-of-pocket if they wish. If there is a government option, make it collect premiums sufficient to cover its costs. There are hurdles to be crossed, but at least this approach won’t interfere with the decision process that is at the heart of the physician-patient relationship.

Jeffrey McCombs is associate professor of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, Gerontology and Public Administration at the USC School of Pharmacy, as well as senior research associate in the Division of Policy and Services Research at the Andrus Gerontology Center’s Gerontology Research Institute. He is an expert on health care reform, medication pricing and HMO performance.

Clinton in North Korea: Stealth Diplomacy

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:00:00 -0800

By Clayton Dube

The ties between the United States and North Korea have always been complex. The North Koreans have always wanted direct negotiations with the U.S., and the U.S. has preferred to involve others — the South Koreans, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Russians. Years ago, the North Koreans described the South Koreans as American puppets and refused to directly deal with them, insisting that they wanted to talk with the decision-makers. This changed with the 1997 South Korean election of Kim Dae-jung, who initiated the cooperation-focused Sunshine Policy and ultimately met with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang. A few years before, the Clinton administration had managed to forge better — but still not good — ties with North Korea. Former President Jimmy Carter, then Representative Bill Richardson, and then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright all visited North Korea during the Clinton years.

The two central North Korean issues haven’t changed over the course of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. The U.S. wants North Korea to halt its own nuclear weapons program, and to stop supplying nuclear technology and missiles to other countries. Each administration has encouraged China to use its considerable leverage to pressure North Korea into agreeing to disarm in exchange for economic aid, including help in meeting energy needs. Naturally, the Chinese government appreciates being needed, but its interests and America’s don’t always coincide. So it has sometimes pushed hard to get North Korean agreement and sometimes elected not to push at all. It does the Chinese government little good to be seen as executing a plan drafted in Washington.

However, in general it is in the interest of both China and America to a) reduce the danger posed by these weapons and limit the proliferation of missiles, b) ensure food security for North Koreans, so as to reduce the threat of mass starvation and the great social dislocation that would entail, and c) avoid creating a climate of fear in Japan that might cause that country to develop nuclear weapons and expand its missile defense work, possibly touching off an East Asian arms race.

Beijing and Washington already have too much to worry about, so neither side benefits from instability on the Korean peninsula. While there’s little likelihood that China and the U.S. would opt to join a conflict there, both sides know that Korea is the one place where Chinese and American soldiers fought each other (just a few short years after they had battled together against Japan). Neither government wants problems in North Korea to drive their bilateral agenda, which is focused on economic recovery, fighting climate change and mitigating security threats such as North Korea.

Introducing individual Americans into the situation always complicates diplomatic work. This is partly because audiences — and thus the news media — focus much more intensely on an issue when it can be humanized through focus on a particular person and story. We saw this in the case of the Americans taken hostage in Lebanon. The Reagan administration made drastic moves, including supplying weapons to Iran, in an effort to free the hostages (and finance the Contras struggling against the Nicaraguan government). Politicians know that Americans want their government to act when and where it can. So Richardson’s trips to North Korea — one of which yielded the release of detained civilian Evan Hunziker — brought him acclaim.

North Korea’s leaders value the attention, in large measure because it bolsters their standing at home. It’s not that Kim Jong Il has to worry about slipping poll numbers. It’s that the standard message to the North Korean people is confirmed by evidence and not just repetition: that North Korea has to stand tough and tall in a dangerous world, and that it knows how to get even the mightiest power to come to the table and deal.

I’m certain that when Bill Clinton arrived in Pyongyang, the North Koreans wanted to talk about core disputes between the two countries. They knew that Clinton, as a former president, gets regular intelligence briefings, and, of course, that his wife now heads the U.S. Department of State. Of course the American government is going to deny that anything substantive was discussed, and officials are going stress that Bill Clinton is a private citizen, not a representative of the government. At the same time, all have been told that President Obama asked Clinton to make this humanitarian journey.

The U.S. will continue to push for the six-party approach, but ultimately these are talks between America and North Korea.

Some Republicans will criticize the trip, and some will suggest that secret promises were made. They’ll note that the journalists worked for a network created by Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore. Some will decry this as celebrity diplomacy and complain that it coddles a dictator. But ultimately, most people are delighted the journalists have been released, and they won’t seriously mind the North Korean government painting a picture of the giant power coming to meet their terms. Bill Clinton’s trip can only have moved things forward, by establishing a tiny amount of good will and signaling clearly that both sides hope to move forward — though the sides understand “forward” in very different ways.

Clayton Dube, associate director of the USC U.S.-China Institute, is an expert on Sino-American relations and economic and political change in China.

Reviving the Republicans: What the GOP Must Do To Take Back the Presidency

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:00:00 -0800

Conventional wisdom has the Grand Old Party on political life support, with its media profile dominated not by ideas and policy but by sideshows: infidelity distractions in South Carolina and Nevada, and a soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska threatening a conservative revival tour of the Lower 48. Dan Schnur of the USC College, who led communications for McCain 2000 and now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, believes that there is a way out of the wilderness. It involves three major steps:

1. Create a new economic agenda.
2. Stop the infighting.
3. Pursue swing voters with fresh thinking.

“The most diplomatic way to say this is that the Republican Party circa 2009 has massive potential for growth,” Schnur states. “However, the party has much deeper problems than can be solved in a four-year or even eight-year period.”

He points to the long years the Democratic Party spent in the wilderness during the 1970s and 1980s: “Those Democrats were struggling with whether to abandon the economic principles of Franklin Roosevelt or to cling to them.”

“It took a lot of years until a very smart guy called Bill Clinton came along and said the answer isn’t to abandon those principles, but it’s not to cling to them mindlessly either; it’s to update those principles for a different set of challenges than those that existed in the 1930s,” Schnur says.

Just as it took Democrats a long time to figure out that they needed to update the party’s ideas, the Republican Party is heading toward a similar crossroads.

Step One: The Economy

Republicans should admit that they have a major problem, Schnur says. “Their economic framework was developed more than 30 years ago, at a time when Detroit was the economic engine of this country.

“After the Wall Street meltdown last September, it was painfully clear that there really wasn’t a lot being said that was much different from what leading Republicans had been saying in 1990... or in 1980,” Schnur notes. “Voters understood intuitively that the Republican Party was offering once-successful yet dated solutions for an entirely new set of problems.”

Schnur believes that the first step in a Republican rebound is for the party to take a close look at its existing set of economic principles, then revise them to meet the challenges presented in a technology-driven, global economy.

Step Two: Build a Bigger, More Inclusive Tent

Next, the party must stop the infighting, and build tolerance of differences on social and moral issues.

“Republicans are in for a period in the immediate future where there really is a pitched fight about whether to be an inclusive party,” Schnur observes. “Absent the presence of a unifying economic agenda, it becomes much easier to sit around and argue about abortion, stem cell research and same-sex marriage.

“That kind of intramural infighting is going to continue until there is someone to remind party members there are more important principles that unite them than these issues which are dividing them,” he adds.

“Both parties — Democrats on issues such as same-sex marriage, or Republicans on issues such as abortion rights — tend to do better when they allow room for disagreement within the party on social and cultural issues, and unify around a common economic agenda.”

Step Three: Focus on Cultivating Swing Voters and New Demographic Groups

A shrinking party base raises the stakes for persuading undecided voters, Schnur says.

He feels the two most difficult demographic challenges for Republicans right now are Latino voters and young voters. Cultivating these groups will require changes in thinking.

For example, Hispanic Americans may see immigration reform as an ethical and moral issue that must be addressed, Schnur says. And he notes the “Will & Grace-ification” of young voters, who are demonstrably more accepting of same-sex marriage than are older voters.

At the basic level, what voters want from a party or candidate “is a very specific vision of how individuals and families will succeed and thrive if that party and that candidate are put into power,” Schnur explains. “Broad and gauzy rhetoric isn’t enough. Voters need tangible answers to their problems before they’ll be willing to give Republicans their trust again.”

Honduras and the Obama Approach

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:00:00 -0800

The military coup in Honduras is a real test of the United States’ commitment to what USC College professor Abraham Lowenthal calls “the Obama Approach” to Latin American relations.

“In the past, one U.S. administration after another has trumpeted a new policy, but more often than not, these new approaches have faded away,” Lowenthal says.

President Barack Obama has focused on improving U.S. relations in the hemisphere by strengthening partnerships with Mexico and Brazil and moving carefully to build a mutually respectful relationship with Cuba, Lowenthal notes. The administration is pragmatically improving relations with populist regimes on a case-by-case basis, and taking responsibility for the U.S. sources of some regional difficulties.

Lowenthal considers Obama’s strategy an improvement over those of previous administrations, because it acknowledges the significance of Latin American and Caribbean nations to the United States, and seeks to build cooperative solutions to shared problems.

Honduras was a stumbling block once before, in 1963, when the elected president was overthrown, Lowenthal says. The Kennedy administration had announced it would not recognize governments established by force. However, though there was an initial suspension of diplomatic relations, ties were restored less than two months later. This sequence of events contributed to the so-called Mann Doctrine, which dropped the American insistence on democracy.

Lowenthal wonders whether the administration will abandon its early positive steps, because, once again, the Honduran case is a difficult one.

Even before the coup, the Obama Approach was being tested, Lowenthal says. Though the U.S. respects the right of Latin American countries to diversify their relationships, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern about the increasing presence of China and Iran in the region. In addition, Obama’s promise that comprehensive immigration reform would be a first-year priority became just a commitment to hold consultations on the topic. And though the administration first agreed on the need to regulate small-weapons exports from the U.S. to Mexico, the president then suggested that this was politically unrealistic.

To follow through on the Obama Approach, Lowenthal believes that the president needs to support multilateral and institutional processes — relying on the Organization of American States and its Inter-American Democratic Charter — and encourage Latin American leadership.

“The Honduras crisis provides an opportunity to reaffirm the Obama policies in the Western Hemisphere,” Lowenthal offers.

Uighur vs. Han: China’s Ethnic Violence

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:00:00 -0800

In early July, Uighurs and Han Chinese clashed in China’s Xinjiang region, and the violence and crackdown that followed left more than 180 dead.

Two USC experts examine the simmering tensions that led to the unrest, the strategic importance of the region, and the Chinese government’s efforts to quell the riots with measures that included suspending cell phone and Internet access.

Migration and Suspicion

Population changes and geographic factors set the stage for this outburst. According to the USC U.S.-China Institute, Muslim Uighurs made up 75 percent of Xinjiang’s population in 1953, but they have dwindled to 45 percent as an influx of Han Chinese moved to the area. The capital, Urumqi, is now 70 percent Han.

“There is a lot of resentment among the leaders of Xinjiang, about migration of Han Chinese into the province, which has been quite extensive, particularly in the capital city,” says Stanley Rosen of the USC College, director of USC’s East Asian Studies Center. “There are a lot of religious issues, because the Uighurs feel their culture is being destroyed.” Chinese is now the main language taught in area schools, restrictions have been placed on mosques, and the Chinese government has razed old buildings in its zeal to economically improve Xinjiang, Rosen notes.

“This region has long been a source of immense worry for the government,” adds Clayton Dube, associate director of the USC U.S.-China Institute. “The region is enormous and borders Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. The government’s decades-long effort to establish firm control over the area ... has required the movement of large numbers of soldiers and civilians into the region from other places in China.” He explains: “The effort has been undertaken for strategic and economic reasons. China’s nuclear weapons program, its space program and military have important installations in the area.”

But many Uighurs haven’t benefited as much as the Han from the region’s economic advances, Dube says. “There’s not much informal interaction across ethnic lines, and as a result suspicion and prejudice flourish.”

The Power of Internet Rumors

The spark that ignited all this tinder came from elsewhere in China, Rosen notes. Uighurs from Xinjiang had been sent south in large numbers to do factory jobs, and a Han worker in Guangdong spread a rumor that an Uighur had raped Han women, triggering an attack that claimed the lives of some Uighur workers.

“One thing that exacerbates things now is the Internet, where rumors can spread,” Rosen says. Because the Chinese government clamps down on information, and the information it does release tends to be distrusted, rumors are particularly potent, he explains.

The Guangdong government didn’t act quickly enough, in the opinion of Uighurs in Xinjiang. “It’s easy for the Uighurs thousands of miles away to think it’s a case of discrimination, the government is doing nothing to protect us,” Rosen says. This set off rioting in the north, which prompted the Chinese government to send in paramilitary police.

“The government has put forward an explanation of what started the trouble, putting the blame on [expat Uighur activist] Rebiya Kadeer and the World Uyghur Congress. Chinese authorities say the WUC is a separatist body, seeking to dismember and weaken China,” Dube notes. “Kadeer and other expatriate Uighurs have put forward a quite different account, accusing the police of killing unarmed Uighurs who were peacefully protesting the government’s failure to protect Uighurs working in other regions of China.”

A Measured Response?

Dube and Rosen place the Chinese government’s response to the riots — employing both law enforcement action and a suspension of cell phone and Internet access — in the context of past events.

“This essentially follows the pattern seen in Tibet in March and April of last year,” Dube says. “Knowing how the regime sees text messaging and other communication from the U.S. and other areas as the source of its problems or at least aggravating its problems, it’s no surprise those links were cut. Even if it doesn’t actually improve security, it fits the image of a government in command and taking care of the crisis.”

However, Rosen notes that this time the Chinese government brought in some reporters, something it didn’t do with Tibet. The government led the journalists on guided field trips, Dube adds, but those trips were interrupted by protesters who were decidedly “off message.”

This was an effort on the government’s part to publicize its restraint in handling protesters, according to Rosen. By opting for tear gas and moving in decisively, the government may have prevented mass retaliation against the Uighurs. “The paramilitary police have done a good job, because it could have been a complete massacre, considering the number of Uighurs and how they are outnumbered by the Han Chinese,” Rosen concludes.