Posted by Tara Greco

In this economic climate, it is an interesting question to ask yourself. 
If your company started instituting furloughs to cut costs or balance the budget, how would you react?

At first, I would probably be relieved that my company isn’t laying off employees—and then I’d have to think about what I’d do with those days.
Do I spend money to go somewhere on a vacation? I may have more time, but I’d also have less money, so I would probably not leave town.
Should I do something more economical like a “stay-cation?” We do have some great free museums here in D.C.…

I’m guessing that I would most likely follow the lead of these people, highlighted in a USA Today article this week.
Many furloughed workers are using that bonus time to help others by volunteering with local nonprofits, education programs and even disaster-relief efforts.

It helps to take the sting out of the situation if you’re not dwelling on what you’ve lost and focusing instead on supporting someone else who is encountering difficulty.

If you find yourself in this predicament, or even if you’re looking for a pick-me-up to your regular routine, consider volunteering.
You can go to VolunteerMatch to find opportunities near you.

Or, if you’re at a nonprofit seeking more hands and minds to help you meet your goals, consider following the business news in your town to learn about companies and/or government entities instituting furloughs.
You can provide an opportunity for those employees to use their time productively.

Posted by Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D.

I recently presented some thoughts on health reform at an APCO-sponsored lunch and discussion. The event got me thinking: where is this debate headed? There is no simple answer. But the one certainty is that regardless of whether Democrats send a bill to President Obama’s desk this year, there must be more health reforms in the very near future.

Next year’s top agenda item will be deficit reduction. And any debate about deficit reduction must address entitlement reform, including Medicare payment reform, delivery reform, care coordination and chronic-disease management – all of which would save money and cut the deficit. These reforms would also improve the quality of care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

These important issues are not going to disappear if comprehensive health reform fails. And even if reform passes, there will still be much work to do as the current proposals only begin to scratch the surface of what needs to be done on these particular issues. So regardless of whether Democrats win or lose on health reform this year, there is no doubt health reform will continue. It will simply take a new form, be presented in a new format, and be framed in terms of cost – not access.

As far as passing a health reform bill this year, I do remain hopeful. There are important policies in the President’s bill that are supported by both Republicans and Democrats. For example, the most recent legislation would improve workplace wellness, build healthy communities, advance science-based nutrition and prevention education, fund community-based primary prevention, and increase preventive services to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. These are policies that can make a real difference to Americans, and policy-makers should move forward with them.

However, if the recent White House “fix” doesn’t work, then we’re probably finished considering health reform for the remainder of the year. Starting from scratch is not appealing to congressional committee leaders (let alone their staff!), and the current political environment is not conducive to it as moderate Democrats may face tough reelection campaigns.

But that doesn’t mean health reform is over. It will be revisited next year in the context of deficit reduction. Of that I’m certain.

Posted by Bill Pierce

- Here’s my recent post from The Daily Caller about the health care debate. -

In the runup to the health care summit, no one thought a bipartisan bill was going to emerge. Instead it was all about the politics and who would gain the upper hand in the debate. Part of that question is easy to answer. No bipartisan bill is going to emerge.

What about the other question? Who won? It was a draw. And in a draw, Republicans win.

Going into the event, President Obama and Democrats clearly had the upper hand. As he demonstrated at the Republican retreat last month, the president is an excellent debater. He knows how to speak to large crowds and gain the upper hand, which he did at the GOP retreat. Democrats in Congress hold all the cards in that they have the majority and had already passed legislation and are on the verge of passing a bill for the president to sign.

But television is not so much about the spoken word as it is about visuals and tone. What do you sound like in your presentation and how do you look while doing it? Recall Al Gore in his debate with George W. Bush and his sighing? It didn’t go over very well. It made him look inpatient and arrogant.

Having Lamar Alexander lead off for Republicans was a good idea. He is an even-tempered speaker with a reputation for bipartisanship and a former governor. He set the tone for the GOP and the rest of the team followed.

The president, on the other hand, wasn’t at his best. At times he sounded and looked inpatient and he was a bit snippy in responding to the GOP. The most glaring incident was his dismissal of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In his initial remarks, Sen. McCain brought up the various deals cut in the Senate. He also raised the point that in the election both ran on a promise to change the way Washington works. The president dismissed him with a rhetorical wave of his hand. Not only was it disrespectful, but a significant part of the public’s anger over the health care debate is about the fact that deals were cut and what they were. To dismiss this line of argument was wrong and more importantly bad politics.

On a very positive note, it was a fairly good debate on policy grounds, especially for policy wonks, but also for everyone. Each side did a good job presenting their positions and why they supported some ideas and why they opposed others. Perhaps the aftermath and lasting impact will be to use this format for other issues. The one change I’d make, do this at the beginning of the process because one thing is true, regardless of the outcome of this summit, Democrats are not going to start fresh nor incorporate any of the core GOP issues into the legislation. And I don’t think there was ever any intention to do so.

So in the end, like the presidential debates, the ultimate question is who met expectations and who exceeded them. In that regard Republicans exceeded expectations and Democrats failed them. They didn’t advance the ball, while the GOP clearly held their own. And for Democrats, their one objective was to build momentum so they could pass the President’s plan using reconciliation.

I’m not sure they did that.

By Ben Steele, APCO London

A vote for the Green Party in a General Election has long been considered a wasted one. All this could change when the polling stations in Brighton Pavilion open on 6^th May. Standing for the seat is Caroline Lucas, MEP for the South East England region, and the leader of the Green Party. The party has been treading the path to Westminster for many years now, but at their recent spring conference, Lucas talked about making a “truly historic breakthrough”. Her intentions are quite clear.

The Greens should be confident but not complacent.  A recent ICM poll for the Brighton Pavilion seat put the Greens on 35%, with the Conservatives in second place on 27%. They already have 13 councillors in Brighton, equal with Labour, though some way behind the Conservatives (25). At the European elections in 2009, they also received over one million votes. With their support base clearly growing, the announcement to stand down by the Labour incumbent, David Lepper MP, appears to have left the door open to the Greens.

Internal changes have played a role in increasing the Green Party’s credibility and its popularity.  In 2008, the party elected its first ever leader, Caroline Lucas. In the past the party had two principal speakers. This confused many, and worried more that thought it lacked leadership and direction. With this resolved the party has also started to broaden its policies beyond traditional green issues. It was the NHS, not the environment that was the main focus of Lucas’s speech at conference. Convincing the electorate they can hold their own on major political issues has previously been a sticking point for the party.

History tells us that the Greens can expect a surge in media interest in the run up to the election in Brighton Pavilion. Independents and minority parties have enjoyed extra attention where they have a realistic chance of winning, and when they have an axe to grind. The ‘Battle for Tatton’ in 1997 saw Martin Bell hailed as a champion against sleaze in politics. Similarly, the Greens who launched a ‘Clean Campaigning’ pledge ahead of the European elections last year may be seen as an alternative to those tainted by the expenses scandal.

Realistically the Greens can only hope to win one seat in Parliament, and a coalition is unlikely even in the event of a hung Parliament. Some will argue that this will mean their ability to make a difference is severely limited, Lucas who has insisted they “are not going to sit impotent”, clearly disagrees.

In order for the Greens to influence and affect the political debate they must look to become a touchstone for the future government’s policy on the environment – ie the government should be ready for support or strong rebuke depending on whether policies match up to Green expectations. Voicing opinions in the media and in the Commons will be crucial to this. Their ability to influence this debate will be greater still should they find a seat on the Environment or Energy and Climate Change Select Committees. In this case, they will certainly be viewed as a respected, perhaps even an expert voice on these issues.

If the Greens can achieve success in Brighton, the party will face the truest test of its credibility. If they can build on this success and make their voices heard in Parliament they may become a feature of Westminster for years to come, should they falter and prove themselves to be way out of their depth, it could be a quick return to political obscurity. Either way, Lucas is set on only one course: “We are going to Westminster to make a difference. We will prove ourselves worthy of victory”.

Posted by Tara Greco

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released volunteerism numbers for 2009.

For the second year in a row, volunteering is on the rise.
One-and-a-half million additional people volunteered in 2009, which is pretty incredible considering the economic climate last year.

The Corporation for National and Community Service will have a more in-depth analysis of this data in the coming months on  www.volunteeringinamerica.gov

Posted by Bill Pierce

The president painted a clear picture to the public. He said all the right things, using phrases such as “Take another look,” “Don’t walk away,” and “Come together.” But to Congress, especially to his own party, the picture was much less clear.
 
What remains unanswered from his speech is how he is going to get health insurance reform back on track and passed. The rhetoric he used about asking Republicans for their ideas are the same words he used last year, and neither side acted on them. The GOP didn’t really try to engage, and neither did Democrats. So what is different now?
 
The House version cannot achieve the 60-vote threshold required by the Senate, making the Senate version the only viable option, yet the Senate bill does not appear to have anywhere near the 218 votes needed for passage (recall the House bill only passed the House with 220 votes). Complicating this calculus is the fact that it is also unclear whether there is enough support for proceeding with the companion tactic of using reconciliation to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills.
 
The president was clear that he is not prepared to quit the fight, but few thought he would.
 
So the answer to what’s next is: stay tuned.