Ann Davison

Advice to the President on Jobs

The Obama Administration is bickering with House Republicans on when he might drive down Pennsylvania Avenue and talk about jobs, and I'm sure they will sort that out. But what will the President say?  This was the subject of a distinguished panel at the Brookings Institute today. 

The panel discussion included experts on the economy, employment and tax policy and each gave not their prediction but advice on what the President should be saying. One specific suggestion which all supported was to secure authorization and funding for transportation infrastructure programs.  Obama must have been listening as he arrived moments later in the Rose Garden panel asking Congress to do just that.

I was particularly compelled by the suggestions of Adam Loooney who spoke to the importance of investing in education and training. This is a theme that resonates within the middle class across party lines and in corporate America.  Looney made a compelling argument on the ROI of these investments, but I was left wondering who exactly could provide this training.

Community colleges and even employers are an obvious go-to, but I propose we look at the Defense Department.  The Armed Services do an excellent job of taking young people with limited experience and education and providing them with valuable training and talent development. From flight instruction to procurement management, cooking to coding, the men and women of our military leave their service of duty with hard skills that can be used in the civilian sector.

So, if you are listening President Obama, how about proposing a program where DOD spends just 10% of its training budget for unemployed civilians.  And while it's tempting to start with the young people, I'd ask you consider looking at the 45 and older crowd.  People say it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.  But this demographic has done it's part in paying taxes and contributing to the economy for 20+ years, and frankly it needs some new tricks if it is to continue being a contributor.  We use DOD dollars to build sustainable democracies abroad. Why not in America? 

The Morning After

Last night President Obama delivered his second #SOTU. (His first appearance before Congress in January 2009 was considered simply an address as he had just been sworn in and, I suppose, wasn’t expected to know much about the state of our Union yet.) Before reading what all the pundits and pollsters have to tell me about the event, here’s what I heard with my own two ears…and what I didn’t.

The Prez wants us to know he is patriotic and firmly behind the “made in America’ brand. But we’ve got to do some hand-to-hand combat with some unexpected competitors (i.e. India and China) if we are going to continue to rule the global economy. This theme has implications for education and trade policy.

He’s a little obsessed with South Korea, which my husband says is about the size of Rhode Island. Policy implication? Perhaps the White House plans to hit hard at North Korea in the next two years and is looking to start building American sympathy for our allies in the South. If that weren’t the intent, his speechwriters should have dropped a reference or two.

I don’t recall hearing a Democratic President take on frivolous medical malpractice in a #SOTU before, but it’s not a shocking position for a man trying to move right. Oil companies and credit card issuers got a slap on the wrist, but I don’t see the value or likelihood in any legislative or regulatory action that would impact these two industries that are central players in our economy as we hobble back to a standing position.

The absence of a few high profile topics from the President’s remarks also helps read the policy agenda tea leaves. No mention of bailouts or additional economic injections. No mention of guns. No direct mention of climate change. (All his talk about alternative energy should not be interpreted to mean another pass at capping carbon emissions, at least not legislatively.)

At the end of the day, the #SOTU is political theater. Much attention was given to the pairs of Democrat and Republicans sitting together as opposed to across the aisle, which clearly tempered the usual partisan responses. The environment of “forced” civility for one hour was a tad bit amusing – like siblings forced to sit quietly at the grown-up table for Thanksgiving.

Act II of this theatrical production, the President’s budget, is planned for release on Valentine’s Day. How sweet.

If you can't say something nice...

One of the jobs I've imagined pursuing in my second life is that of social studies teacher.  I am a strong believer in being actively engaged in civil life in large part because I was encouraged to political involvement at a young age.  I grew up writing my Congressman, going to rallies and volunteering in campaigns. 

Today, after a raucous summer of health care town hall debates, Tea Parties and a Member of Congress calling the President a liar on national TV, I'm not so sure how well I'd do inspiring 9th graders to get involved in our democracy. Of course, finger-pointing and name calling is not new. And it is by no means is confined to Republicans or Democrats. 

If I had to stand in front of the classroom Monday morning and say something to a roomful of students , I'd start with the admonishment, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."  Honestly, when robust political debate over ideas is reduced to name calling, that is pathetic.  No high school debate coach would allow his or her student to get away with what some in Washington  - including party leaders on both sides - have resorted to in attempts to further their point of view.

Let's send Congress home to cool down a bit and invitethe state winners of high school debate teams spend a week in Washington reminding us how to make a compelling argument without looking foolish.