News Release

ECONOMIC CRISIS MAKES “RUBINOMICS” IRRELEVANT

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON – Responding to concerns that President-elect Obama’s new economic leadership team is dominated by people who played a role in creating the current crisis, Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said that deepening economic emergency makes “Rubinomics” irrelevant. Borosage said that today’s announcement is a key step toward enacting a bold economic recovery plan.

Many progressives are concerned that the president-elect’s economic team is dominated by allies of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who opposed the regulation of derivatives and other measures blamed for the economic crisis. Rubin is senior counselor and director of Citigroup Inc., which has just received a $20 billion cash infusion and hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees from taxpayers.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOROSAGE
It's not the personnel, it's the policy. And on this, Obama has been clear. He's announced a massive recovery plan based on putting people to work with public investment in areas vital to our future.

The crisis we face makes Rubinomics irrelevant. Deficit spending must go up, finance must be re-regulated, trade imbalances must be reduced and manufacturing can no longer be scorned.

Obama is choosing experienced hands for the crisis, trusting that their experience does not impede the new thinking needed to get us out of this hole. He'll set the direction. And so far, he’s on course.

# # #

**NOTE: To schedule an interview with Borosage, please contact Jennifer Ettinger at jettinger@ourfuture.org or 202-587-1614.**

PROGRESSIVE LEADERS BEGIN PUSH FOR MAJOR PUBLIC INVESTMENTS TO FUEL ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND GROWTH

Jennifer Ettinger — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:46:05 -0500

WASHINGTON – Congressional and progressive leaders kicked off a major effort on Capitol Hill today to push a long-term investment program that could fill a staggering public infrastructure deficit cited in a new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future.

The need for a bold public investment initiative was detailed at today’s conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future at the Library of Congress. Members of Congress, economists and labor and business leaders agreed that the times demand an aggressive program to fuel our economic recovery and growth, both in the short- and long-term.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage opened the conference by noting that the need for substantial, strategic and sustained public investments is rapidly increasing as economic conditions worsen.

“Our challenge is not finding the money,” said Borosage. “Our challenge is finding the political will to respond boldly to the economic crises before us. We will not have a moment like this again in our lifetimes. In the deepening recession, the first task is to put people back to work by rebuilding America. In the long term, we need a sustained expansion of public investment in our future.”

Conference participants included Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Progressive Caucus co-chairs Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. They discussed new strategies for public investments from modern infrastructure and new energy to lifelong education, laying out ways to finance sustained economic growth.

Rep. DeLauro said we need to get our economy back on track with a new approach of investing in large infrastructure projects.

“We need a solution that moves beyond left or right,” said Rep. DeLauro. “We need a solution that creates jobs and strengthens our economy with significant and substantial resources in our infrastructure. We have the moment and the will now for a national program."

Rep. Woolsey agreed with Rep. DeLauro, noting that our collapsing infrastructure needs immediate attention.

“The most important need is our crumbing infrastructure,” said Rep. Woolsey. “We must invest in our public infrastructure. We must do it once and for all. It will take the leadership of the federal government and the partnership of our businesses.”

Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also called for a strong and competitive public infrastructure.

“Business and labor will fight about many issues in the years ahead, but one place where we’re on the same page in investing in infrastructure,” said Kavinoky. “We’re falling behind to maintain what we need to do on public investment. We’re driving investment to the top of our agenda.”

In his keynote address at the conference, University of Texas professor and economist James Galbraith called for a national infrastructure investment fund for capital projects.

“Building capital assets and infrastructure shouldn’t be subject to pay-go,” said Galbraith. “A revolving fund could be on the president’s desk on day one to move large scale public investment projects and rebuild America. With a new fund, states wouldn’t have to cut services, eliminate police officers or fire fighters or close parks.”

The Campaign for America’s Future report, “The Investment Deficit in America,” outlines deficiencies in transportation, energy, Internet and education projects where public investments are needed the most. The total long-term investments discussed in the report would cost about $2.5 trillion over the next several years. If instituted, these investments would pay dividends over time. They’d create good jobs that stay in America and construct infrastructure that would never leave. The investment would help hire teachers, train engineers and strengthen our workforce.

# # #

**NOTE: To view a video of today’s conference and PowerPoint presentations or to obtain an electronic copy of the Campaign for America’s Future report, please visit http://institute.ourfuture.org/investinamerica.**

POST-ELECTION POLL: PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY PROVIDES MANDATE FOR BOLD CHANGE

Jennifer Ettinger — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:02:45 -0500

WASHINGTON – The 2008 elections saw the consolidation of a progressive majority providing a clear mandate for bold change, according to an extensive post-election poll released today by the Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps. The poll shows that President-elect Obama and the new Democratic majorities in Congress have broad support for bringing the Iraq war to an end, revitalizing the economy and moving on health care and energy.

The poll, conducted on Election Day and Wednesday, surveyed 2,000 voters and drew on a decade of previous surveys. Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage joined Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg at the National Press Club today to discuss the results.

Borosage said President-elect Obama’s victory spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea change election, marking the end of a conservative era.

“The consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform makes this a sea change election,” said Borosage. “Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, isolated, regional party, increasingly in the grip of its dwindling base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.”

Greenberg said voters want to give the new president some space to carry out needed reforms.

“They want to give their new president a honeymoon to make big changes, with a new politics, and without overreaching,” said Greenberg. “In a second wave election in a row, progressive winds are shaping the country.”

# # #

**NOTE: Post-election poll materials and a statement by Robert Borosage is available at http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2008114507/change-election-2008.**

PROGRESSIVE MANDATE IN A SEA-CHANGE ELECTION
Prepared remarks of Robert Borosage, Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future

Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea-change election. It marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics since 1980, and the beginning of a new era of progressive reform, driven by an emerging progressive majority.

The scope of the victory itself reflects the desire for change. Obama’s historic and unlikely candidacy won a majority of the vote, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to accomplish that. Democrats in the House and the Senate gained seats in back-to-back elections for the first time since the Great Depression.

The repudiation of George Bush and the Republican Congress and the conservatism they championed is clear.
But what marks this as a sea change election is the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform for Obama and Democrats. Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, monochromatic, largely regional party, increasingly in the grip of its evangelical base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

The Emerging Progressive Majority

With voters overwhelmingly looking for change, Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 virtually across the electorate, with the exception of the older white voters. He narrowed the margin in rural areas significantly; he did better among white men; he made gains among professionals; he consolidated support in the suburbs and exurbs. But what is striking about this election is his ability to consolidate an emerging strong majority coalition.

Young voters – 18 to 29 – represented about 18 percent of the electorate and supported Obama better than two to one. This is the third straight election in which this new generation has voted for Democrats in large numbers. And in this election, they can rightfully lay claim to having propelled the Obama candidacy from the start, playing an instrumental role in his victory in the primaries.

African-American voters came out in great numbers – representing 13 percent of an expanded electorate – and voted, needless to say, overwhelmingly for Obama. Latinos, the votes that some said he might not be able to win, constituted 10 percent of the electorate and voted two to one for Obama. Single women voted 70 to 30 Obama. Union households constituted almost one in five voters, and voted 65 to35 percent for Obama. And Obama, as his predecessors, consolidated support among professional Americans with advanced degrees, by 60 to 39.

The Emerging Progressive Movement

This majority is propelled by a progressive movement of increasing capacity and sophistication. This election represented the largest mobilization of that capacity. Obama, of course, ran a truly remarkable campaign, rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He set new ground in using the Web to build a community of volunteers and activists, to raise money, to communicate to voters. He devoted more resources to a ground operation. That built upon work done by Moveon.org, by the vibrant progressive blogosphere, by the Dean campaign four years previously.

He also benefited from growing capacity of progressives on the ground. Labor and Working America were on the front line of the debate with working people, and delivered, particularly in key battleground states. Women’s Voices Women Vote expanded its capacity to register and mobilize single women. America Votes helped coordinate an expanded effort by citizen groups on the ground. The Obama campaign, aided by groups like Acorn, expanded voter registration efforts, particularly among the young and in African American communities.

Our poll shows the result. Voters -- particularly independent voters -- report greater contacts from the Obama campaign in every area of campaigning -- more ads on TV, more contacts by volunteers, more ads on lie, more people at the door, more emails, more cell calls. Only in the area of mail was McCain competitive. Even in the contacts of the last days—the vaunted area of the Republican 72 hour plan—the Obama campaign and its allies were far more effective.

The Mandate for Progressive Reform

Not surprisingly, the economy was the overwhelming priority of voters. Nothing else really came close. The argument about the economy – about what Obama described as the “failed philosophy” of trickle-down economics, or what McCain described as a choice between economic growth and socialist redistribution – was the center of the debate between these candidates.

Obama’s agenda was grounded on issues that were championed by progressives: Investment in new energy and conservation as a jobs and growth agenda. Affordable health care for all paid for by raising taxes on the affluent. Investment in education and infrastructure. Empowering workers to organize through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Holding corporations and banks more accountable. Ending the war in Iraq. Promising no more NAFTA-type trade agreements, and to repeal tax breaks for companies moving jobs abroad.

McCain largely defended the verities of Reagan era conservatism, founding his campaign on more tax cuts, on freezing spending and stopping earmarks, and continuing corporate trade policies. His health care plan featured a tax credit for those negotiating their own plan. He favored Bush’s privatization of Social Security. He began the election committed to less regulation, but adjusted as the unregulated shadow banking system collapsed. The maverick stayed true to the core of the conservative agenda.

Obama won by large margins over McCain on every economic issue. On the economy generally, 51-38. On education, health care, the financial crisis, the energy crisis, Medicare and Social Security. He even won the debate about taxes 51-42.

When asked why they voted for Obama, the leading reasons were his proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq, cutting middle class taxes first, providing affordable health care, and his commitment to invest in education and make college more affordable. When those who voted for Obama were asked about their doubts about McCain, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin led the list, but fear that he would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations came in second, followed by the notion that he would continue Bush’s policies.

For voters, Obama should give greatest attention to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving. That is followed by investing in alternative energy and getting us off foreign oil and changing the health care system. Given a choice on priorities, ending the war in Iraq, ending dependence on foreign oil, fixing health insurance, regulating the banking system all ranked high.

In this the divide between independents and Republicans was clear. Independents gave Obama double-digit margins over McCain on the economy, education, health care. They have him a margin of 9 percent on taxes Only on government spending, Iraq and national security, did they favor McCain over Obama. Self-described moderates also favored Obama by double digits in economic issues. They sided with McCain only on national security.

This mandate was true down the ballot as well as on the top. Bernie Horn and Alex Carter of the Campaign for America’s Future completed a report – Congressional Elections Deliver a Progressive Mandate – looking at Democrats who won House or Senate seats previously held by Republicans. This report is available on our web site at www.ourfuture.org

We measured their position on six core progressive economic issues:

• Social contract: support for quality health care for all, as opposed to the McCain type plan
• Progressive taxation: support for raising taxes on the rich and tax breaks for the middle class
• Fair trade: Opposition to NAFTA-style agreements
• Investment: Focus on investing in clean energy sources over “drill baby drill”
• Worker Empowerment: support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which business spent $20 million attacking in this election
• Social Security: Opposition to the privatization of Social Security.

Of the 25 Democrats that won U.S. House seats previously held by Republicans, 15 campaigns on all six of these issues; another 8 supported the progressive posture on five of six. Of the six Democrats who have thusfar won US Senate seats held by Republicans, 5 supported the progressive position on all six issues; the other supported five of six.

Candidates up and down the ticket campaigned and won on a progressive agenda.

A Center-Left Nation

After the election, we’ve heard a repeated mantra about how this is basically a center-right nation. Obama is warned to curb his agenda. He’s warned not to succumb to pressure from the liberal wing of the party. Conservatives and Republicans take solace in the notion that by a return to conservative principles will help win back a majority.
After this election, there is no greater testament to the triumph of conventional myths over reality.

It is true that by addition, one can argue this is a center-right nation. There are more self-described conservatives than liberals. Add them to moderates and you get a center-right majority by simply addition.

But that addition disappears with any analysis about attitudes. The reality is that on basic values, on core ideological choices, on core issue debates, this is increasingly a center-left nation. And Republicans are increasingly isolated from the majority of Americans.

Worried about trade accords not protecting workers or the environment enough or about putting too much of a burden on trade? Democrats say protect by 37, Independents by 31 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20. Liberals worry about worker protections by 56; moderates by 8. Conservatives go the other way by 4.

Should gays be accepted or should their relationships be discouraged? Democrats say accepted by a 50 percent margin; Independents by 23 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20 percent. Liberals accept by 65 percent; moderates by 32 percent; conservatives discourage by 32 percent.

Does government regulation do more good than harm? Democrats say more good by 53 percent; independents by 12 percent. Republicans say more harm than good by 23 percent. Again conservatives are isolated from liberals and moderates on the issue.

Are you more worried that Obama will put minorities first or that McCain will put the rich and big corporations first? Democrats, not surprising worry about McCain and the rich by 51 percent. But so do independents by 28. Republicans worry about Obama and minorities by 35 percent. Liberals worry about McCain by 61 percent; moderates by 23 percent; conservatives the other way by 16 percent.

There is only one area—and it is a critical one—where independents and moderates still side with conservatives. That is on government spending. Clearly, years of conservative misrule have made people skeptical of the ability of government to act effectively. That will surely be where Republicans try to reassert themselves in the coming days. But the test on that will not really be about spending – it will be about effectiveness. The challenge – and it is a monumental one – is reviving the government to work effectively once more. That isn't a contradiction to the progressive project; it is at the center of it.

This has clear implications for the debate going forward. Republicans will find that their conservative base is increasingly out of step with a growing majority of Americans.

So for example, we asked voters if Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his policies, or, since his policies will lead us “down the wrong path,” Republicans should oppose them. By nearly three to one – 71 to 24 – voters thought they should support Obama’s policies. They’ve elected him to change things and they want that mandate respected. Independents agreed by a nearly 40 percent margin. Republicans by 40-33 said Republicans should oppose.

We asked people should Obama try to reach across the aisle to gain Republican support for his agenda, or should he compromise his agenda to gain Republican support. Voters chose 54 to 39 that he should try to bring Republicans to his agenda, not compromise it. Independents agreed 48-43. Republicans thought he should change his plans by 63-31.

Our poll asked: did Republicans lose because they were too conservative or not conservative enough? By a twenty point margin, voters chose too conservative. Independents agreed by a 21 point margin. Republicans disagreed by an 11 point margin Moderates when with liberals as too conservative by 41 percent.

The Progressive Mandate

Obama and the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate inherit the desert – an economy plummeting into recession, two wars, and an increasingly dysfunctional government. They have a clear mandate for bold change – for bringing the Iraq war to an end, for getting the economy moving, for reforming health care, on energy, on holding corporations and banks accountable, on progressive tax reform.

They face a public clearly skeptical, after years of conservative misrule, about the capacity of Washington to get anything done. That will be our test. If progressives succeed in providing Americans with at least some of the change that they so desperately need, a new and potentially enduring majority for progressive reform is there to consolidate.

NEW AD ASKS AMERICANS TO REMEMBER WHO WE ARE, DEFINE OUR OWN LEGACY

Jennifer Ettinger — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:57:12 -0400

WASHINGTON – With the American economy sinking and the global downturn deepening, a new ad today’s New York Times proclaims an emerging era of progressive reform. It calls on Americans to remember the legacy of previous generations who rose above the Great Depression. The ad, sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future features an image that merges that generation with the new and says, “Remember Who We Are.”

The ad is the sixth and final in a series sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future that encourages Americans to demand a real debate focused on major crises facing the nation.

Institute for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said our job as Americans is clear, if we’re to define our own legacy.

“We need bold reforms, big enough to address the problems we face. We have to choose new leaders and then hold them accountable to the promises that have been made, and the agenda that the country needs.”

Those who say that, despite the catastrophes, despite the election, this is still a conservative country, simply don’t get it. “It is not enough,” Borosage said, “to kick start the economy, bail out Wall Street and return to business as usual. We need a dramatic change of course. New public investment in energy and conservation and infrastructureto generate jobs here and now. Affordable health care for all. An end to the war in Iraq. Revival of our global reputation and alliances. A new national strategy in a global economy that works for working people. Empower workers and hold banks and corporations accountable. Investment in education from pre-K to affordable college. Call Americans to public service, asserting the common good over the private interest.

We have this in us, because the new majority today are the children and grandchildren of the generation that faced the Great Depression, and responded with bold and persistent experimentation. They empowered workers and held banks accountable. They built America to provide jobs. They empowered workers to organize. They established Social Security. Now, once more, we face an economic crisis at the end of a failed conservative era. Once more we need an era of bold and persistent reform. And now is the time to act.

The Institute for America’s Future is urging people to bring the ads with them to public meetings, church groups and civic associations – and to discuss them on the internet – building the growing citizen demand a debate on real issues, not personal attacks or irrelevant smears.

Other ads in the series outlined how the American dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families; targeted corrupt robber barons behind the Wall Street meltdown; looked at our spending priorities with the nation mired in massive military expenditures; addressed the imbalance in our trade relationships with countries across the globe; and examined the fragile state of the health care system.

The full text of this week’s ad follows:

Remember Who We Are
#6 in a series
A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble

We are the children and grandchildren of the people who confronted the Great Depression, and beat it.

When we look back at what our parents and grandparents did in a dozen short years, it takes our breath away.

They brought big business to public account. They empowered government to address the needs of working people. They organized labor unions. They created Social Security. They rebuilt the nation’s public infrastructure. They vastly expanded the numbers of the “we” in “We the People.” Then they fought and defeated fascism, making much of the world more democratic and free.

And they came to understand, as their president said, “There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.” It is founded on jobs for all who can work, security for all who need it, freedom and opportunity for all to enjoy the fruits of scientific progress.

But now after three decades of conservative misrule it’s as if those principles were mysteries after all. We’ve got in the habit of letting public good be subordinated to corporate greed. We’ve let our economy be run into the ground. We’ve let bankers practice larceny on a catastrophic scale. We’ve let labor unions be attacked and our entire middle class be trampled. We’ve let religion and patriotism be harnessed to the pursuit of power.

And we have barely survived an ignorant presidency marked by an illegal war in Iraq, an icy indifference after Katrina, a brazen attack on our liberties and a bald complicity in torture.

Still the democratic impulse that our parents and grandparents handed down to us is alive. It tells us what we must do: We can choose new leaders and hold them accountable. We can take on the big lobbies and the small minds that stand in the way of progress. We can restore our civil liberties and respect for human rights; enact universal health care; protect a worker’s right to organize; invest in renewable energy; end the endless wars; regain America’s standing in the world as a model of freedom.

And we can build a new prosperity, from the bottom up.

That is the “true patriotism” President Roosevelt urged upon our parents and grandparents.

We know what must be done. The time to do it is now.

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
For more go to www.ourfuture.org

# # #

NEW AD QUESTIONS FINANCIAL BAILOUT WITHOUT CONDITIONS

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON – With people across the country calling for greater oversight of the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial markets, a new ad in The New York Times and on several blogs today asks pointed questions that need to be answered before Congress hands the administration massive amounts of taxpayer money and unlimited power.

The ad features an extortion note with cut-out letters that read, “Give us $85 billion or the economy gets whacked.” The ad goes on to expose the latest reality in the financial crises: “It turns out that last week’s emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses.”

The ad, called “Banksters Run Amok,” is the second in a seven-part ad campaign series sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future that encourages Americans to demand a real debate focused on “seven national crises that won’t wait.” This week’s ad focuses on the Bush administration’s “fast track” proposals in response to the possible meltdown of the U.S. financial system triggered by the mortgage crisis.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said that the real heist occurred decades ago when conservatives in power deregulated the financial system.

“Americans deserve a full accounting of how we got into this financial mess,” said Borosage. “Conservatives destroyed commonsense rules of the road allowing financiers to make billions playing with our system. These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could’ve been used to make America better.”

The ad raises three basic concerns surrounding the bailout. It points to the need for oversight in return for rescuing the banks. It also raises questions about the corruptive influence of Wall Street money on our politicians and justification for bailing out bankers rather than spending valuable taxpayer dollars on helping average Americans who need it most.

Each ad in the series seeks to provoke widespread discussion of major challenges facing the country. Leaders of the Institute are urging people to take the ads to public meetings, church groups and civic associations – to demand the debate the country needs.

The first ad outlined how the American dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families. Other ads in the series will focus on our soaring global debt, broken health care system, collapsing public infrastructure, the looming global warming challenge, increasing robber baron corruption and the seemingly endless occupation of Iraq and the war on terror.

The full text of this week’s ad follows:

BANKSTERS RUN AMOK
>#2 In A Series
A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble

“Give us $85 billion of the economy gets whacked.”

It turns out that last week’s emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses.

And like AIG, Bear, Fannie and Freddie, their brink of disaster plea is conveyed to the Feds as a dire threat, almost a ransom note: “Save us or we’ll take everyone down with us! We’re too big to fail!

These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could have been used to make America better—fix a broken health care system, end our addiction to oil, rebuild a country that’s falling apart. Instead we’re forced to bail out the banks to keep a credit meltdown from laying waste to the real economy.

Finance is too important to be left to the bankers. Our grandfathers learned that lesson in the Great Depression. But over the last thirty years Wall Street money and market fundamentalism took over Washington, disarming the cop on the financial beat. Now we’re paying the price for that folly.

3 Basic questions for the debate

What serious regulation of Wall Street banking practices must we demand in return for rescuing the banks?

Wall Street is a monster donor to both major parties. How can we trust any promise to crack down on these miscreants from politicians who compete for their contributions?

Rather than just bailing out bankers, shouldn’t we be helping the folks they victimized – freezing home foreclosures, renegotiating mortgages, reviving usury laws to cap predatory interest rates, investing public money in the real economy and putting people to work?

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
>for more go to www.ourfuture.org

# # #

**NOTE: To obtain an electronic copy of the “Banksters Run Amok” ad, background information and additional resources, please visit www.ourfuture.org.**

NEW AD CAMPAIGN CHALLENGES CANDIDATES, MEDIA TO "GIVE US A DEBATE WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION IN TROUBLE"

Toby Chaudhuri — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON – A major new advertising campaign will begin running this week to focus the national debate on important issues at stake in this year’s elections. The ad campaign, sponsored by the Institute for America's Future, challenges candidates and the nation's media to "give us a debate worthy of a great nation in trouble," encouraging Americans to demand a real debate focused on "seven national crises that won’t wait."

The first in a seven-week series of provocative "op-ed" print ads will appear on Tuesday facing the editorial page of The New York Times. Each ad seeks to provoke widespread discussion of major challenges facing the country. Leaders of the Institute are urging people to take the ads to public meetings, church groups and civic associations - to demand the debate the country needs.

A full-page ad announcing the campaign will appear this week in the main news section of The New York Times and on Tuesday, the first issue ad on how the American Dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families will run on the op-ed page. Other ads in the series will focus on our soaring global debt and financial crises, broken health care system, collapsing public infrastructure, the looming global warming challenge, increasing Robber Baron corruption and the endless occupation of Iraq and the "war on terror."

Institute for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage said the campaign is designed to change the tone of the debate surrounding the presidential elections.

"These issues are simply too important to be lost in the media frenzy and amid political distractions," said Borosage. "It is time to shelve the gotcha politics and the horse-race journalism of the past. We're urging the candidates to confront the major challenges facing our country and the debates to focus on them."

An electronic copy of the first ad on "reviving the dream" is available online at http://tinyurl.com/american-dream. Text of the ad follows.

REVIVING THE DREAM
#1 In A Series
A Debate Worthy Of A Great Nation In Trouble

"Is a dream a lie if it don't come true. Or is it something worse."
--Bruce Springsteen, The River.

The American Dream is on life support. It is not expiring of old age. It is being killed off by calculated policies hostile to working people.

"The fundamentals of the economy are strong," says the President. The fundamentals of that statement are bunk. Yes, for entrenched corporations, for the rich and for some other privileged souls, this economy works. But for tens of millions of working families, life in 2008 is a hard slog and getting harder by the day.

Costs of living keep rising. Wages don’t keep pace. Savings vanish. Debt builds up. Poverty spreads. Those are the joys of what they told us are "good times." Now as the economy sours, home values plummet and job losses spread, it will get worse.

And inequalities scream out for change. A typical worker works a whole year to earn what her CEO takes home in one day. A hedge fund billionaire pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The old deal between the people who own the country and the workers who make it go has been busted. It’s time to cut a new one. Here are three places to start:

Over the last seven years profits and productivity soared. But workers didn’t see the benefits. This is a question of power. It’s time to empower workers to organize at the workplace and crack down on employers who trample their rights.

Corporations are shredding promises they made on health care and pensions. It’s time to forge a new social contract - health care, paid vacation and sick leave, pensions and a decent minimum wage - and enforce it.

When the economy is at full employment, workers can demand a fair share of prosperity. Make full employment the central target of our economic policies, with government acting, when necessary, as employer of last resort.

What do you think? Don’t stay silent. Join the debate at www.ourfuture.org.

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
For more go to www.ourfuture.org.

# # #

**NOTE: To obtain an electronic copy of the “Reviving The Dream” ad, please visist http://tinyurl.com/american-dream. For background information and additional resources for each ad, please visit www.ourfuture.org.**

NEW JOBLESS NUMBERS PUSH MISERY INDEX UP TO 11.7 PERCENT

Toby Chaudhuri — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON -- The misery index hit the worst level since May 1991, according to a new analysis released today by the Campaign for America’s Future. New jobless numbers jumped to a 5-year high of 6.1 percent, pushing the misery index to 11.7 percent. The index hit double digits in June 2008 for the first time since 1993.

“Honest people who work hard for a living are struggling to make ends meet,” said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “The misery is felt at the gas pump and the grocery store and it’s getting worse, not better.”

The misery index is a gauge of economic well-being widely used by economists for decades. It represents the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. Since unemployment and inflation are undesirable, the lower the index, the better.

The misery index played a role in the 1980 presidential election when President Reagan reminded voters that stagflation increased it to more than 20 percent. With unemployment and inflation on the rise, the misery index is important again.

# # #

KEY ECONOMIC FIGURES

--Unemployment rate: 6.1 percent

--Inflation rate: 5.6 percent

--Misery index: 11.7 percent

[SOURCES: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt; ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt; http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp]

SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION COULD FORCE THOUSANDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY INTO POVERTY

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Social Security privatization, embraced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would cut guaranteed benefits for thousands of future retirees by thousands of dollars, according to a new state-specific report released today by the research arm of the Campaign for America’s Future. Today’s report shows that more than 8.6 million older Americans would have a greater risk of falling into poverty, each losing more than $240,000 over the course of their lifetimes, by the time a privatization plan like the one supported by Sen. McCain and President Bush is fully implemented.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey, whose organization has worked to defend and strengthen Social Security for more than a decade, said the popular program is at risk again.

“Social Security is very popular across the country, but its guaranteed benefits are in the national crossfire again,” said Hickey. “Sen. McCain has been very clear about his plans to push privatization again despite the public backlash President Bush faced when he pushed his scheme a few years ago. The conservative ideologues just won’t stop trying to privatize Social Security.”

48.5 million Americans depend on their earned Social Security benefit every month, according to the Social Security Administration. Thousands of businesses and state governments also depend on the program. More than $580.5 billion flows into the U.S. economy from Social Security each year.

Diverting a portion of payroll taxes into risky private accounts could force many people below the poverty line. More than 36.4 million Americans currently live in poverty, according to the U.S. Census. Meanwhile, 7.9 million individuals depend on their guaranteed Social Security benefits for 90 percent or more of their income. The average Social Security check for individual retirees is $1,088 per month; it takes $867 per month to stay above the federal poverty line. These Social Security recipients would be close to the edge and vulnerable to rising food, housing and energy costs.

# # #

**NOTE: Media representatives interested in copies of today's state-specific Social Security reports should visit www.ourfuture.org/privatization. **

SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION
STATE-SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN

(State; number of beneficiaries; average Social Security benefit; statewide income from Social Security; number of people living in poverty; number of additional people who could be forced into poverty with privatization; total benefit that could be lost with privatization)

--Alabama; 934,000; $1,041; $10.5 billion; 742,000; 194,000; $162,000
--Alaska; 68,000; $1,031; $774.1 million; 70,000; 7,000; $249,000
--Arizona; 959,000; $1,102; $11.8 billion; 857,000; 130,000; $204,000
--Arkansas; 588,000; $1,013; $6.5 billion; 471,000; 107,000; $117,000
--California; 4,571,000; $1,076; $54.4 billion; 4,690,000; 970,000; $312,000
--Colorado; 616,000; $1,062; $7.3 billion; 556,000; 94,000; $262,000
--Connecticut; 592,000; $1,179; $7.8 billion; 280,000; 78,000; $391,000
--Delaware; 157,000; $1,143; $2 billion; 91,000; 17,000; $286,000
--Florida; 3,477,000; $1,074; $41.7 billion; 2,226,000; 668,000; $180,000
--Georgia; 1,305,000; $1,056; $15.1 billion; 1,333,000; 217,000; $229,000
--Hawaii; 207,000; $1,067; $2.5 billion; 116,000; 20,000; $184,000
--Idaho; 240,000; $1,054; $2.8 billion; 180,000; 51,000; $118,000
--Illinois; 1,921,000; $1,117; $23.8 billion; 1,539,000; 354,000; $286,000
--Indiana; 1,097,000; $1,135; $13.6 billion; 777,000; 145,000; $183,000
--Iowa; 558,000; $1,076; $6.7 billion; 316,000; 82,000; $140,000
--Kansas; 457,000; $1,104; $5.6 billion; 330,000; 87,000; $157,000
--Kentucky; 827,000; $1,024; $9.1 billion; 693,000; 143,000; $158,000
--Louisiana; 735,000; $1,007; $7.9 billion; 793,000; 192,000; $147,000
--Maine; 280,000; $1,000; $3.1 billion; 165,000; 62,000; $141,000
--Maryland; 786,000; $1,097; $9.6 billion; 428,000; 104,000; $282,000
--Massachusetts; 1,080,000; $1,087; $13 billion; 620,000; 179,000; $363,000
--Michigan; 1,802,000; $1,165; $22.9 billion; 1,331,000; 237,000; $264,000
--Minnesota; 814,000; $1,088; $9.9 billion; 491,000; 149,000; $254,000
--Mississippi; 559,000; $1,000; $6 billion; 592,000; 111,000; $96,000
--Missouri; 1,089,000; $1,063; $12.7 billion; 769,000; 202,000; $190,000
--Montana; 176,000; $1,027; $2 billion; 125,000; 38,000; $87,000
--Nebraska; 295,000; $1,062; $3.5 billion; 197,000; 59,000; $137,000
--Nevada; 362,000; $1,085; $4.4 billion; 253,000; 71,000; $203,000
--New Hampshire; 231,000; $1,114; $2.9 billion; 102,000; 39,000; $235,000
--New Jersey; 1,388,000; $1,190; $18.4 billion; 741,000; 154,000; $366,000
--New Mexico; 327,000; $1,010; $3.6 billion; 353,000; 70,000; $137,000
--New York; 3,097,000; $1,137; $38.8 billion; 2,662,000; 548,000; $383,000
--North Carolina; 1,587,000; $1,064; $18.6 billion; 1,261,000; 318,000; $184,000
--North Dakota; 116,000; $1,004; $1.3 billion; 69,000; 24,000; $95,000
--Ohio; 1,992,000; $1,090; $23.8 billion; 1,486,000; 332,000; $207,000
--Oklahoma; 657,000; $1,038; $7.5 billion; 587,000; 121,000; $125,000
--Oregon; 643,000; $1,087; $7.8 billion; 480,000; 105,000; $199,000
--Pennsylvania; 2,456,000; $1,111; $30.1 billion; 1,448,000; 379,000; $230,000
--Rhode Island; 193,000; $1,080; $2.3 billion; 114,000; 30,000; $215,000
--South Carolina; 822,000; $1,066; $9.6 billion; 656,000; 184,000; $145,000
--South Dakota; 144,000; $999; $1.6 billion; 102,000; 36,000; $92,000
--Tennessee; 1,139,000; $1,058; $13.1 billion; 952,000; 197,000; $182,000
--Texas; 3,102,000; $1,050; $35.4 billion; 3,868,000; 718,000; $236,000
--Utah; 290,000; $1,087; $3.5 billion; 265,000; 53,000; $154,000
--Vermont; 117,000; $1,075; $1.4 billion; 62,000; 19,000; $160,000
--Virginia; 1,180,000; $1,071; $13.9 billion; 708,000; 181,000; $250,000
--Washington; 982,000; $1,122; $12.2 billion; 736,000; 133,000; $265,000
--West Virginia; 424,000; $1,065; $4.9 billion; 307,000; 79,000; $125,000
--Wisconsin; 980,000; $1,108; $12.1 billion; 591,000; 169,000; $181,000
--Wyoming; 84,000; $1,075; $1 billion; 46,000; 18,000; $130,000

# # #

NEW VIDEO CALLS HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S BLUFF

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON – The health care industry is blatantly failing to deliver on its promise to listen to people’s ideas about how to create high-quality care for every American, according to a new Internet video produced by the Campaign for America’s Future for a coalition of hundreds of groups working to fix our nation’s broken health care system.

As part of the insurance industry’s new “listening tour,” the industry-funded Coalition for An American Health Care Solution launched a hotline for individuals to share ideas about how to improve and expand the health care system. Unfortunately, calls to the hotline go straight to an answering machine. In response, the Internet video asks, “What else would you expect from the health care industry?”

The video was produced for the Health Care for America Now coalition, which was launched last month. Between now and Election Day, the groups plans to spend $25 million in paid media and have 100 organizers in 45 states.

# # #

**NOTE: To view the Internet video, please visit http://tinyurl.com/6o6fep.**

“CALLING THEIR BLUFF”
Internet Video - 50 sec.

ONSCREEN: The health insurance companies say they want to hear from you… They’ve even launched a hotline for you to share your input… Call now! 1-800-289-1136. They say they want to listen to your thoughts on health care. [Dial tone, phone dials number.] Oh Really?

MESSAGE MACHINE: Thank you for calling the Coalition for an American Health Care Solution. No one is available to take your call right now, so please leave your name phone number and a short message.

CALLER: Hey, this is Bob from Detroit. This is the fifth time I’ve called you today. I’ve heard you’ve started some listening tour. But if you really want to listen, pick up the phone.

ONSCREEN: What else would you expect from the health care industry? Fight Back. HealthCareForAmericaNow.org Produced by Campaign for America’s Future.

# # #

Economic And Energy Issues, Ending War In Iraq, Top Netroots' Concerns

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

AUSTIN, TEXAS – Progressive bloggers and activists are most concerned about solving basic economic problems and our country’s energy crisis as well as ending the war in Iraq, according to a straw poll of participants at this year’s Netroots Nation conference conducted by the Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps. Those polled also believe that ending the war in Iraq and solving our energy and health care crises should be top priorities for the next president.

“This straw poll was designed to help us understand a little more about who our netroots activists are and where they stand,” said Toby Chaudhuri, communications director for the Campaign for America’s Future. “There’s a sea change happening in American politics and it’s growing on the Internet. Progressives are gaining popularity, strength, capacity and political sophistication, far outpacing conservatives online.”

The straw poll helps describe the progressive netroots’ increased involvement in politics, which 68 percent say is because of the Internet.

Nearly half of those who participated said they contributed more than $200 to political campaigns in the last year (47 percent), with about a third saying they had given more than $400 (32 percent). Two-thirds also donated to political campaigns at the federal level (65 percent) and state and local level (67 percent).

Those who responded clocked lots of hours working on campaigns too. Although two-thirds said they don’t work in politics professionally (66 percent), the average blogger spends the equivalent of a part-time work schedule on political activities, averaging 24 hours of work every week.

Although it is widely understood that bloggers are young political beginners, about half have been active in politics for more than a decade (48 percent), with more than three-quarters active for more than 5 years (78 percent). Fifty-two percent have volunteered for state and local campaigns while 41 percent have done so for federal campaigns. Nearly 70 percent said they are 30 or above and about half (46 percent) said they are more than 40.

# # #

**NOTE: Complete straw poll results are available at www.ourfuture.org and www.democracycorps.org.**

NETROOTS NATION 2008
STRAW POLL FQ
Conducted By
Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps
Thursday, July 17 to Sunday, July 20, 2008
Austin, Texas

ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Of the list of concerns below, please indicate which one of these is your top concern at this time.

Energy and global warming - 19%
The growing gap between the rich and the poor - 17%
Loss of constitutional rights - 15%
The war in Iraq - 11%
Corruption and special interests running Washington - 10%
Lack of affordable health care - 9%
The federal deficit and government spending - 3%
High gas prices - 2%
Lack of equal rights for gay and lesbian community - 2%
Terrorism - 1%
Making education more affordable - 1%
Increased debt owed to foreign nations - 0%
Increased taxes and more spending - 0%
Illegal immigration - 0%

Now, please indicate which of the concerns listed below is your next top concern at this time.

The war in Iraq - 17%
The growing gap between the rich and the poor - 12%
Loss of constitutional rights - 12%
Lack of affordable health care - 10%
Energy and global warming - 9%
Corruption and special interests running Washington - 9%
Illegal immigration - 4%
High gas prices - 4%
The federal deficit and government spending - 3%
Lack of equal rights for gay and lesbian community - 3%
Making education more affordable - 2%
Increased taxes and more spending - 1%
Increased debt owed to foreign nations - 1%
Terrorism - 0%

Now something a little different, of that same list of concerns, please indicate below which one of these you feel should be the top priority for the next administration.

The war in Iraq - 23%
Energy and global warming - 20%
Lack of affordable health care - 15%
The growing gap between the rich and the poor - 12%
Loss of constitutional rights - 7%
Corruption and special interests running Washington - 6%
The federal deficit and government spending - 3%
Increased debt owed to foreign nations - 3%
High gas prices - 2%
Making education more affordable - 1%
Illegal immigration - 1%
Terrorism - 0%
Increased taxes and more spending - 0%
Lack of equal rights for gay and lesbian community - 0%

Now, please indicate which of the concerns listed below you feel should be the next highest priority for the next administration.

Lack of affordable health care - 17%
Energy and global warming - 17%
The war in Iraq - 16%
The growing gap between the rich and the poor - 12%
Loss of constitutional rights - 10%
Corruption and special interests running Washington - 8%
The federal deficit and government spending - 4%
Making education more affordable - 3%
High gas prices - 3%
Increased debt owed to foreign nations - 3%
Terrorism - 1%
Illegal immigration - 1%
Increased taxes and more spending - 0%
Lack of equal rights for gay and lesbian community - 0%

CONGRESS

Overall, how much do you think Congress has accomplished this term, that is since January 2007: a great deal, a good amount, not too much, or nothing at all?

Not too much - 68%
A good amount - 16%
Nothing at all - 12%
A great deal -2%

[If 'Nothing at all' or 'Not too much'] On the scale below please indicate who you feel is most to blame for the lack of accomplishment in Congress?

Democrats in Congress are to blame (1) - 5%
2 - 1%
3 - 2%
4 - 2%
The Administration and Republicans and Democrats in Congress are to blame equally (5) - 29%
7 - 17%
8 - 15%
6 -11%
9 -3%
The Administration and Republicans in Congress are to blame (10) - 15%

VICE PRESIDENT

Please choose the statement which comes closer to your view, even if neither is exactly right:

Obama should pick someone politically similar to himself, reinforcing the dynamic nature of his candidacy and the urgent need for change, and keeping true to his liberal roots - 72%

Obama should pick someone more toward the political center in order to help balance the ticket and make him more electable - 25%

INVOLVEMENT

How long, would you say, have you been active in politics?

10+ years - 48%
5-10 years - 30%
3-5 years - 18%
0-2 years - 7%

Do you yourself post or contribute to a political blog?

Yes - 68%
No - 30%

[If 'Yes'] How long have you been posting or contributing to a political blog?

4-5 years - 23%
3-4 years - 24%
1-2 years - 27%
Less than 1 year - 14%

Please indicate below in what ways you are currently active in state and local politics and campaigns. Please check all that apply.

Donate money to a political campaign at the state or local level - 67%
Volunteer for a political campaign at the state or local level - 52%
Write for a political blog focusing on local or state politics - 26%
Work professionally for a political campaign at the state or local level - 19%
Write for an online publication other than a blog focusing on local or state politics - 12%
Produce other media or "mashups" focusing on local or state politics - 8%
Write for a print publication focusing on local or state politics - 6%

Now, please indicate below in what ways you are currently active in federal politics and campaigns. Please check all that apply.

Donate money to a political campaign at the federal level - 65%
Volunteer for a political campaign at the federal level - 41%
Write for a political blog focusing on federal politics - 30%
Work professionally for a political campaign at the federal level - 12%
Write for an online publication other than a blog focusing on federal politics - 8%
Produce other media or "mashups" focusing on federal politics - 8%
Write for a print publication focusing on federal politics - 3%

Approximately how much money have you contributed to political organizations or campaigns over the past 12 months.

$400 or more - 32%
$300-$400 - 5%
$200-$300 - 10%
$150-$200 - 9%
$100-$150 - 9%
$50-$100 - 12%
Less than $50 - 10%
$0 - I haven't contributed - 11%
Prefer not to answer - 1%

Do you work with a political organization, campaign or other such entity as part of your occupation?

No - 66%
Yes - 32%

Approximately how many hours a week do you devote to a political organization, campaign or website?

(Mean: 23.5, Median 12.5)

Had it not been for the advent of the internet, do you think your level of activity in politics would be more, less, or about the same as it is now?

Less - 68%
About the same - 25%
More - 6%

DEMOGRAPHICS

What is your gender?

Male - 58%
Female - 40%

What year were you born?

18-29 - 27%
30-39 - 23%
40-49 - 22%
50-64 - 22%
64+ - 2%

Please choose the term that best describes how you think of yourself in political terms.

Progressive - 47%
Liberal - 40%
Moderate - 12%
Conservative - 0%

# # #