Published for Time Magazine Ideas, January 12, 2012

No Child Left Behind turned 10 this week, and former President George W. Bush, who led the effort to enact the landmark federal education law, marked the anniversary with an exclusive interview with TIME education columnist Andrew J. Rotherham. Bush discussed the law and its legacy, criticized both parties for trying to walk away from its hard-nosed accountability efforts and called on President Obama to resist “the temptation to take the easy path.”

Mr. President, 10 years in, what’s your take on No Child Left Behind?

First of all, I am extremely proud of the effects of No Child Left Behind. For the first time, the federal government basically demanded results in return for money. It started by saying, We expect you to measure [student performance]. As a result, there has been a noticeable change in achievement, particularly among minority groups. And I’m proud of that accomplishment and proud of the fact we were able to work with people from both parties to get it done.

When I think back about No Child Left Behind, it’s one of the really positive things our Administration accomplished along with Congress. So on the 10th anniversary, it’s time to celebrate success, but it’s also a time to fight off those who would weaken standards or accountability. I don’t think you can solve a problem if you can’t diagnose it, and I don’t think it is fair for parents or students not to be informed of how their schools perform relative to other schools and how their children perform relative to other children. So I’m pleased with the progress and concerned about efforts from people in both political parties to weaken it.

Full article here

Published for www.new.citi.com, January 11, 2012

President Obama’s decision to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and “recess appoint” three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during a Congressional pro forma session has set off a firestorm in Washington. Whether you believe a Congressional pro-forma session is a recess or not, five key questions now linger:

1. How will this impact other nominees? Has the White House decided they can live without their Treasury, FDIC, and OCC nominees? Early general consensus inside the Beltway seems to be that these individuals will not be confirmed any time soon.
2. To what extent will litigation impact the effectiveness of the CFPB and NLRB? Legal challenges to the appointment are likely to come from every quarter – from individuals to community and labor groups to possibly even Congress. How quickly will litigation be resolved and what impact will it have on the decisions handed down by these bureaus in the intervening periods? Will the rules, regulations, and proposals coming out of the Bureau be stuck in limbo for the foreseeable future and what impact will such uncertainty have on those who must decide how to comply with their rulings?

Full post here

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Published for Time, December 15, 2011

George W. Bush is writing a sequel to his big education act. The No Child Left Behind law was signed almost a decade ago, with overwhelming approval from Congress (384 to 45 in the House and 91 to 8 in the Senate). Now, amid a bipartisan effort to gut its accountability measures, the former President is quietly pushing new education-reform initiatives aimed at improving and empowering school principals, who too often lack the training or authority to effectively run their schools. And once again, he’s approaching this massive education problem by blurring political lines.

I was invited in my role as TIME’s education columnist to sit in on a small meeting this week that Bush organized in New York City, and I was struck by the roster of advisers he had assembled to guide the George W. Bush Institute’s education work. The group included some big names in the education non-profit world as well as leaders of traditional public schools and charter schools. But by my informal count, most of the 10 people around the table were Democrats, including Clinton and Obama administration alums. “He cares about education deeply, and he gets it,” one staunchly Democratic education consultant, who now works with the institute, told me. The former President has already recruited officials from his administration as well as liberal stalwarts like Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust and Democratic education leaders like former North Carolina Governor James Hunt.

Education has long been a personal priority for Bush, who has said he ran for Texas governor in large part to improve the schools there. Now his institute is fighting hard against America’s complacency about our schools. This fall, for instance, it released a Global Report Card showing that even the wealthiest districts in the country, including Palo Alto, Calif., and the suburbs surrounding Washington, score no better on math, science and reading tests than average schools in 25 developed countries. The institute is looking at complicated and controversial issues such as education finance, teacher pensions and middle schools. These are genuine — and generally overlooked — problems.

Full Post Here

Published for the Dallas Morning News, December 9, 2011

George and Laura Bush returned Monday from Zambia, Tanzania and Ethiopia, where the former president and first lady launched a Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon campaign to fight cervical and breast cancer in Africa. The George W. Bush Institute, the State Department, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and others are involved in the public/private effort, which follows an initiative Bush started as president to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa. The former president sat down Thursday with Points to discuss his trip and why Africa is a cause for him.

What got you interested in Africa? Most people will associate you with Iraq, Afghanistan and Mexico.

When I first got going, Condi Rice and I had a discussion at the Governor’s Mansion about the importance of Africa. What got me interested was the AIDS pandemic. I didn’t want to look back at a presidency that did nothing about a pandemic that was destroying a generation. When I got into office, the devastation was becoming so real that to have done nothing about it as president of the wealthiest nation would have been immoral.

9/11 also taught a lesson. You have to ask yourself why a group of basically coldblooded killers can recruit people. It has to be because they’re hopeless. There is nothing more hopeless, it seemed to me, than to be a child who watched their mom and dad die of AIDS and nobody helped. So, it was a national security concern as well. That’s what got me thinking hard about what to do in Africa.

You’ve written that combating suffering in places like Africa is in our national interest. That doesn’t seem the way people think about national security.

There are two aspects of national interest. One is national security. After 9/11 we had to reassess threats and potential threats. A potential threat is a group of hopeless children that could be recruited. And East Africa was an active place for al-Qaeda.

The other aspect is economic. Trade, markets and commerce with Africa are in our national interest.

Of course, there is the moral aspect. We’re a better nation when we help deal with a catastrophic crisis. And we did. Americans should take great pride in that millions are living because of our generosity.

Bono told Time that Africa is for you what China was for Nixon. That you were opening a big market for America by making a counterintuitive move. Republicans hadn’t always been associated with fighting
AIDS in Africa. How do you see this?

Bono is a wonderful man. He is the real deal and genuinely moved by suffering.

Some people, I wouldn’t say Bono although I probably surprised him by my passion for the issue, hear the word “Republican” and think we don’t care about human suffering. I’ve always felt the individual matters. Life is precious.

There are so many problems that face a president. You have to set priorities. And there’s no question that a major priority had to be putting a plan in place to save lives. We were witnessing a generation being wiped out in Africa.

You do sometimes think as president about your standing in history. Could you imagine what people would have said about a president who did nothing about the pandemic or did something halfhearted?
I think it surprised Bono that not only were we in, we were all in. Not only monetarily. We had a strategy that was goal-oriented and created a partnership with African nations. The purpose was not only to
save lives, but to leave behind a health delivery infrastructure. That’s happening.

You were just in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia. How would you describe the fight against AIDS there?

Progressing unbelievably. The results are staggering compared to 2008 and, definitely, 2003.

How so?

The infrastructure is much more developed. The number of antiretroviral drugs delivered is profound. The cost for those drugs is way down. The attitude has changed, too.
Let me tell a story from our trip. We visited a Christian ministry in Zambia that was in a ghetto. A woman with AIDS stood up and told how she once was shunned by her family because of the stigma. She told of finding love in this ministry and developing a skill and how she made enough money to feed her child — and enough to feed those who shunned her.

The reason I tell you that is the stigma has changed. Yes, people are still shunned, but a lot fewer.

You’ve launched a Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon Initiative to combat cervical cancer in Africa. Why cervical cancer?

Women with HIV are four to five times more likely to get cervical cancer. I don’t think it’s acceptable to save a woman from AIDS and watch her die from cancer.
Fortunately, it’s easy to treat. So we will be doing early screening. This is a way to save a lot of lives and make a measurable difference.

You’re big on accountability. How will you assess the progress of this campaign?

Lives saved. Clinics opened. Nurses trained.

What needs to be done next to fight AIDS in Africa?

Continue to fund it. The danger is that, because of budgetary constraints, we’re not going to step up as much.

How would you persuade Americans that we should make that investment?

Because people will die.

But we’ve got a big debt.

I understand big debt, but you set priorities and spend money on what works. This works. It’s a proven system.
No question we have problems here. But there’s no greater priority than funding an effective system where you can prove to the taxpayer that, as a result of your generosity, somebody lives.

But there are thousands of miles between here and Africa. Why shouldn’t we attend to our own problems?

I understand. That’s part of the problem.

The purpose of the trip was to announce the initiative, but also to remind our fellow citizens that, through their generosity, people now live. And if they die, it could create a national security issue. It certainly would create a moral issue.

Although I’ve been loath to be involved in the political arena, I do want to talk about the importance of the United States taking the lead on such issues as health and democracy, for our own sake.

There’s a national security issue, which we talked about, and there’s a humanitarian issue. I think we’re a better nation being involved. When somebody volunteers in a neighborhood to teach a child to read, not only is the child better off, but so is the mentor.

I feel the same way collectively about this as a nation. And I feel very strongly about it.

Published for new.citi.com, December 12, 2011

With nine Appropriations bills not yet passed, a Continuing Resolution (CR) that expires December 16, extended unemployment benefits and a payroll tax holiday on the brink of expiration, as well as the so-called “doc fix” – Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors – looming, many will be surprised to learn that Congress will likely check off its list long before DC observers get through their own holiday shopping.

It looks as though the majority of the Appropriations bills will be dealt with in the form of an omnibus spending bill, leaving unemployment, the doc fix, and payroll to deal with. With unemployment hovering at 8.5 percent, Congress will be hard-pressed to let unemployment benefits or the payroll tax holiday expire. Analysts predict that expiration could reduce GDP growth between 0.7 – 1 percent in 2012. In this fragile economy every little bit helps, and Members cannot be seen as doing anything to impede economic growth. Moreover, Members may not want to return home to millions of constituents whose unemployment checks ran out during the holidays.

The good news is that leadership on both sides and the White House seem to agree on the benefits of extending the payroll tax break. The bad news is that neither side has been able to agree on how to foot the bill.

After competing bills to extend the payroll tax failed in the Senate, House Republicans introduced a bill that extends the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix. This legislation will be paid for through limiting benefits to wealthy Medicare recipients, increased fees on mortgage lenders, and freezing salary increases for federal employees.

While this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate in its current form, it is viewed as a substantive offer and therefore a jumping off point for a real negotiation. Ultimately, a final bill may require a large number of House Democratic votes to offset the possible defection of conservatives who either do not believe the economic benefits of the payroll tax are significant or oppose an extension of unemployment benefits.

All signs point to Congress checking off its list and delivering presents – not coal – to American taxpayers this holiday season. Should Congress head home without acting, we expect pressure from constituents will push Members to extend both provisions when they return in January. At this point, however, we are holding out hope to add “bipartisanship” to our list of holiday miracles.

Post Published Here

Published for The Wall Street Journal on December 1, 2011

On this Dec. 1, World AIDS Day, the promise of progress against the disease has never been more vivid—or more fragile.

Just a decade ago in Africa, infection rates were soaring, millions faced the certainty of a wasting death, and whole nations were on the brink of despair. All this was taking place even though effective AIDS treatments were common in the developed world. The suffering of Africa was both vast and unnecessary.

The creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis in 2002, and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar) in 2003, tested the proposition that large-scale treatment, prevention and compassionate care could be done in nations with weak health systems. Some were skeptical, particularly about the possibility of treatment. That skepticism has now proved unfounded.

In 2003, there were just 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa on antiretroviral therapy to suppress HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Today, more than 4.7 million people receive AIDS treatment through Pepfar and the Global Fund. At least 450,000 children have been born HIV-negative due to Pepfar’s diagnosis and treatment programs that prevent mother-to-child transmission.

In the process, we established a new, more rigorous model of foreign assistance. The leadership of Pepfar was given sufficient resources and authority—and then held accountable for measured outcomes. Focus countries were treated as full partners. Government worked closely with private and religious groups. The U.S. government, local governments and private donors worked toward a single, coordinated, emergency response.

Full post here