Needed: A Safety Net for Entrepreneurs

Writing on the website Consulting Crossing,  Morris Panner urges policymakers to focus on a fast-growing group of workers:  “lone wolf” entrepreneurs, who are starting their own businesses at an astonishing rate. Panner rightly points out that although over 2300 Americans start new businesses everyday, our current political debate ignores this important constituency in favor of rhetoric to “create ‘incentives’ for businesses to ‘retain’ jobs in the U.S. or to ‘create’ jobs in industries hard hit by global competition.”  As any entrepreneur knows, starting a businesses is fraught with risk, and yet the potential economic benefit to the community at large can be great.   As entrepreneurs are forced to cobble together their own benefits, many forgo even the most basic needs (like health care plans) in order to pour all of their available resources into their dream.  As we’ve mentioned before in this blog, there are some nascent support networks for non-traditional workers and entrepreneurs out there, but  policies are needed at the national level to establish more secure safety nets.  I’m willing to bet that such efforts would be well worth the returns, as would-be entrepreneurs wouldn’t need to risk it all to start their own business.

Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

New Debate: Civil Rights for Youth?

The Washington Post article “Age is Just a Number: Youth Right Advocate Tries to Break Down Barriers to Adulthood” chronicles the efforts of Alex Koroknay-Palicz, executive director of the National Youth Rights Association, to advocate for what he deems as a civil rights issue, the rights of youth. The five-page article will inevitably generate discussion about the issue among readers.  That this 26 year-old has always had a mission to challenge the law and advocate on behalf of his beliefs is laudable.  After all, don’t we want more youth involved with government, especially around advocating for more opportunities for themselves?

However, although I am intrigued by Alex’s ambition, I do not agree with his overall mission.  Alex believes that a youth should have the same rights as an adult if he proves he is mature (although what defines “mature” is open to interpretation).  At the end of the day, he wants the barriers to age limits on working, voting, drinking, driving, smoking, etc. lifted, asserting that youth have the right to make decisions on their own. Alex refers back to a fight he had with his parents when he was a teenager that ignited his fire for the cause.  It seems to me he was just tired of being told “no” by his parents.  Doesn’t this happen to every child during those years?  It is surely not cause for a civil rights movement to allow youth to do what they want!  Lowering the age limits on the above activities would only wreak havoc.  There are numerous reasons why youth are disciplined and why rules exist. Does he know how many teens die in car accidents every year?  How many drink and drive? These prohibitions are not true cases of civil rights violations, as he claims.

Although I don’t agree with his mission, I do think we should channel this same effort and intensity into policy areas that really affect a youth’s life.  Alex and his supporters believe that youth should have a voice and be given a right to choose what they want to do.  I agree, they should have a voice but it should not be about lowering age limits, it should be about questioning the opportunities that are available to them.  For example, is my school offering the best education, and will I be prepared for college and the workforce?   If youth are ready to act like adults, especially in the policy arena, then their focus should not be on lowering the drinking age or driving age – after all these things would just decrease a youth’s opportunity of living a good life.  Instead the focus should be on how to increase their opportunity in succeeding in life, and tackling the social and economic gaps that limit them.
-Courtney Haynes | Hope Street Group Fellow

Class and Opportunity

James Hannaham’s “Fantasies in Black and White” (Salon.com, 11/28/07) shines a light on the state of class-related discrimination in America today.  While the nation used to focus its angst by equating race with all under-achievement, it seems we have now entered an age in which poor = lazy.  Hannaham does a good job of making the case that institutional conditions make it more difficult for the poor to achieve at the same levels as the middle and upper class.  Certainly not every kid in the ghetto can get to Harvard with some gumption; certainly not every suburban kid has a trust fund to dip into.  Still, we are suffering some collective denial if we think a color-blind world is all it will take to ensure everyone has the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

-Lonny Stern | Communications and Outreach Director

Who’s Rich?

This discussion of what it means to be “rich” in America in this Washington Post article bears some consideration. Certainly, two income households could find themselves bringing in more than $200,000 a year, especially if both partners are professionals. This article brings up some interesting questions: Is a person rich if s/he makes more than $97,000 a year? After all, the median HOUSEHOLD income in 2006 was $48,200. Would your answer change if that person lived in San Francisco,CA or Temple, TX? Would your answer change if that person owned a yacht, owned a second home, was paying for a prolonged hospital stay, or was putting kids through college? How do we make these distinctions between rich, upper middle class, and middle class in America? Where does our median household ($48,200/yr) fall? And, how do we make sure our tax policy encourages all earners to save for their futures?

-Lonny Stern | Communications and Outreach Director

What is the American Dream, Anyway?

As an American, we think we know exactly what “The American Dream” means, since we have heard it hundreds of times in our lives. Wikipedia says: “In general, the American Dream can be defined as being the opportunity and freedom for all citizens to achieve their goals and become wealthy and renowned if only they work hard enough.”

What goals are the providence of all Americans? What would you achieve if given the opportunity?

-Lonny Stern | Communications and Outreach Director

The Debate’s Not Really About “Immigration”

The current political debate is quickly becoming about the past, rather than the future. There is a depressing parallel between policymakers who are arguing about who did or didn’t vote for the war in Iraq instead of what to do in Iraq, and the debate about securing the border to prevent the arrival of immigrants who are already here. Focusing on 9/11, the authorization of war in Iraq, and the past positions of candidates on immigration is backward-looking and facile. A much more difficult–and much more productive–debate on foreign and domestic policy would focus on what to do now. In terms of immigration, the massive demographic shift occurring in the U.S., involving legal and illegal immigrants as well as their children, has already taken place. Immigration already happened. However, ideology is distorting the debate, and the dominant political discourse makes it politically costly for politicians to try any clear-eyed problem-solving.

We cannot afford to let our emotions cloud the very important task of determining what we should do about the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants that are within our borders. The fate of so many people will have long-term ramifications for our schools, our communities, our economy, our identity as a nation of immigrants and yes, for our political parties (see this Wall Street Journal article for more on how immigration policy could have an impact on how immigrants vote in the future).

If we haven’t even started the primaries and the immigration debate is already so debased, you can be sure that no matter which of the many sides you are on when it comes to immigration, what you won’t see in the coming months is anything resembling a solution.

-Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

International Reading Assessment Lost

It is hard to believe and quite unacceptable that an international exam administered in 56 countries to test standards of math, reading and science was recently found to be flawed.  No, not tests in the other countries, but tests in America administered by the Department of Education and printed by a consulting firm.  It seems that the reading portion of the test was inaccurately lined up with correct page numbers, questions and texts.  Education organizations across the board are thoroughly upset about the issue that could have easily been caught if anyone in either the Department of Education or the consulting firm proofread the test.

This international exam is administered every three years to assess and compare students across the world.  It is highly important that the results are accurate to provide our country and others with their next steps in education policy.  What is disheartening is the fact this type of error has been done on various standardized tests including the SAT’s and the state math and reading tests under NCLB.

To me this is a prime example of why American education has fallen behind other countries in the past years.  It is because of the inconsistent and almost careless acts of education officials who seem to take data and research way too lightly.  We need data to understand where American students are, how they can learn better and where they can possibly end up.  So why are these mishaps and proofreading errors happening?  Shouldn’t a handful of people be tasked with making sure the tests are consistent?  With the importance that weighs in on these tests, it does not seem too much to ask.

You can read about this story here.

-Courtney Haynes | Program Associate

What the Legacy of Slavery Teaches Us About the Importance of Homeownership

The literary historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. recently wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he reported on some startling findings he believes could explain the current wealth gap among African Americans. In studying the ancestral backgrounds of 20 of the most successful African Americans in America, he found that the majority—15 out of 20—come from lineages of former slaves who were able to secure property by 1920. Gates goes on to argue:

“The historical basis for the gap between the black middle class and underclass shows that ending discrimination, by itself, would not eradicate black poverty and dysfunction. We also need intervention to promulgate a middle-class ethic of success among the poor, while expanding opportunities for economic betterment…for the black poor, real progress may come only once they have an ownership stake in American society.”

That owning a house (or property) creates economic stability and promotes social cohesion should not come as a surprise.  As Gates points out, wealth is more important than income in determining prosperity.  As an extension, it should not be shocking that the subprime crisis, which is disproportionately affecting African American and Latino homeowners, is threatening the social fabric of entire communities by stripping families of their equity. As Gates succinctly puts it, “People who own property feel a sense of ownership in their future and their society. They study, save, work, strive and vote. And people trapped in a culture of tenancy do not.” This alone should be the greatest argument for our policymakers to move aggressively in remedying the fallout from the crisis.

-Amanda Levinson | Director of Policy Programs

Healthcare’s Glass Ceiling

Talk about a human interest angle!  In “It’s Not Just the Uninsured,” (NY Times, 11/17/07), Bob Herbert cuts to the quick in the health insurance debate by focusing on the really important question: what about annual benefit limits?

In his article, he discusses the story of the Hightowers, who discover when trying to save their daughter from a particularly pernicious cancer bout, that their annual maximum benefit on a $3 million policy was only $75,000 per year.  So, in trying to treat the cancer, the family reached their annual max and were forced to take on incredible debt.

With every Democratic candidate pointing to their health care plan as the very best the nation has seen, it is surprising that none have really addressed this issue.  This past week, in Austin, the Travis County Health Care District was discussing an effort to provide a Small Business Owner Health Insurance Risk Pool, with a $200,000 annual maximum per employee.  Everyone sitting round the (very large) table seemed to think this was a reasonable cap, but now that I give it some real thought I must admit that I have no idea what is a reasonable annual max.  I suppose that answer would be different for a single male in his 20s, a 35 year old woman considering in vitro fertilization, or a retiree with diabetes and a weak hip bone.  It seems that any one of these health care consumers could face serious debt with one serious hospitalization because of too low an annual maximum.  At what point does health insurance debt reach the same level of national crisis in the public mind that subprime mortgage bankruptcies now commands?

-Lonny Stern | Communications Director

Time to Focus on Health Care Costs

Access to health care is one of this nation’s greatest and most urgent public policy concerns, and unfortunately skyrocketing costs of care per patient are contributing to the political barriers that could expand coverage.  The growing divide between Democrats and Republicans in promoting access to health care is for the time being focused on the level of government intervention, the role of private providers and the rate of expansion of health insurance.  However, the question of access cannot be seriously addressed without a thorough evaluation of the ballooning cost of health care, which is reducing predictability for businesses who offer coverage to their employees.

It is not surprising that presidential candidates are shying away from directly addressing health care costs, especially given the political repercussions they risk facing by scrutinizing a highly profitable industry that includes pharmaceutical companies among others.  However, this supply-side can still be streamlined by simplifying and increasing transparency of the benefits, formats, standards and screening processes, which should eventually generate large financial savings.  In the meantime though, we cannot continue to spend a disproportionate amount of energy on analyzing who should be providing health care and how without critically evaluating the cost of what is being provided.

-Arian Hassani | Program Associate