Politics

Live Chat: Barack Obama, Pragmatist or Ideologue?

Troy K. Schneider — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:24:00 -0500

Whether the issue is health reform, Afghanistan or gays in the military, progressive supporters of President Obama are dismayed by the pace of change -- while critics continue to warn of radical ambitions being cloaked by moderate talk.

Andrés Martinez, director of New America’s Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program, will be here at noon ET / 9am PT today to discuss the true nature of our president -- and the implications of policy decisions he's made to date.

New America Foundation: Andres Martinez

* * *

Past Chats

Previous New America/Politico chats have their full transcripts archived:

Schwartz Fellow Dayo Olopade on the Obama Administration's faith-based initiatives
Education Policy Program staffers Lisa Guernsey and Christina Satkowski on the future of Head Start
Health Policy Program Director Len Nichols on the current state of health reform
Energy Policy Initiative Director Lisa Margonelli on the prospects for real progress with climate policy legislation.
Schwartz Fellow Nicholas Thompson on Cold War lessons for Afghanistan
Global Assets Project Deputy Director Jamie Zimmerman on savings as a path out of poverty

No Clear Victory for Early Education in the Virginia Governor’s Race

Maggie Severns — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:16:00 -0400

On November 3, voters in New Jersey and Virginia head to the polls to select their states' next governors--the only two states with major statewide elections this year. Earlier this week Early Ed Watch took a look at early education in the New Jersey governor's race. Today we turn to Virginia.

The latest poll in Virginia's gubernatorial race shows Democratic former state senator Creigh Deeds trailing Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell by 12 points.

Early education has been trailing in the Virginia election as well. In a race that has been dominated by debate over transportation, taxes, and social issues, education has been relegated to the background. This may be because neither candidate has taken a polarizing stance on education issues. Both Deeds and McDonnell would like to raise teacher salaries—which average $48,655—to the national average of $54,170. Both favor charter schools. And both would like to increase spending on education.

But calling for better education is an easy (and popular) stance to take in an election. What is difficult (and, at times, unpopular) is deciding how to make improvements to the school system, and with what funds. Deeds has managed to secure the endorsement of the Virginia Educators Association. He is also the only candidate to release a detailed plan for improving early education—a plan that predominantly builds off of current Gov. Kaine's Virginia Preschool Initiative. Deeds says he would set a goal of having 90 percent of all children enter kindergarten school-ready (currently, that number is at 85 percent) and expand the current preschool system to reach more 4-year-olds.

McDonnell has not specified his views on VPI funding or expansion, though he did vote in the legislature for legislation that established the program. Rather, McDonnell's education platform focuses on his plan for financing educational investments from within the existing education budget, rather than increasing total education spending through tax raises. McDonnell promises to increase the amount of education spending that goes "to the classroom" and to teachers from 61 to 65 percent by decreasing the funding for education-related administrative costs. But he has provided few details about how he will accomplish this or what specific expenditures should be cut.

An editorial in the Washington Post last month criticized both candidates for lacking more substantive plans to improve education in Virginia, saying, "neither [candidate] has fully developed proposals that he is really pushing."

Despite the economy, Virginia was one of 13 states that increased funding for early education in the 2010 fiscal year. According to yesterdays' Pre-K Now report, this 17 percent increase in funding is estimated to serve 5,5417 more children next year, bringing the total number of children enrolled in the Virginia Preschool Initiative to 21,072. These changes are a testament to current Governor Kaine and to the Virginia legislature's commitment to Pre-K. Unfortunately, neither candidate's platform on education tells us much about how early ed will be handled during the next administration.

Salam: Sarah Palin and the Appeal of Quitting

Reihan Salam — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:31:00 -0400

Sarah Palin’s makes perfect sense to me. Though I wouldn’t exactly be surprised if she turned blue, sprouted several additional arms, and decided to become America’s chief advocate of a forceful Hindutva politics, I tend to think she really wants to leave politics behind and perhaps became the evangelical Oprah. One wonders if she’d do well as a radio talk-show host, a difficult and demanding job but one that requires her ease and natural charm.

Constitutional Convention: What History Teaches

Steven Hill — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:11:00 -0400

from the Sacramento Bee, www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1717487.html

A constitutional convention has been proposed by some California business leaders as a vehicle to fix the Golden State's deeply entrenched political and economic woes. While a convention offers the hope of a new beginning, it also inspires understandable fear that hard won rights may get trampled in the horse-trading. The state's leadership in recent years has hardly inspired confidence. Why should we imagine that it could match the brilliance of James Madison, George Washington and the other Founders, and chart a new course for our state?

The first thing to recognize is that the Founders were not as brilliant as the mythmakers would have us believe. Their initial design of government -- the Articles of Confederation -- was a timid attempt at national governance, more dysfunctional than California's government today. To their credit, once they realized their design had faltered, they were bold enough not merely to tinker around the edges. They had the courage to fix their eyes on a new horizon, completely redesigning their existing governmental structures to create Version 2.0, which became an inspiration to the world.

But birthing a new form of government did not occur without labor pains. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, scholars such as Yale University's Robert Dahl have shown, the Constitution was hashed out by delegates who were thoroughly confused and at times beyond their depth. The meandering trail of proposals for electing the president, for example, revealed a divided and fumbling body.

Starting in mid-May 1787, the delegates debated several different methods for months, changing their minds incessantly and finding no consensus. On three occasions during July, the delegates voted for the selection of the president by "the national legislature" -- what we know today as a British-type parliamentary system.

But apparently this proposal didn't satisfy, so over a hot, muggy August, other proposals from subcommittees were thrust forward and defeated. As late as August 24, despite mounting pressures to complete their work and return home, the delegates still had not settled upon a final proposal for electing the president. Running out of time, the delegates turned the dilemma over to yet another committee.

By Sept. 4, this committee recommended a solution the delegates already had rejected - that the executive be chosen by electors appointed by state legislatures. Two days later, they tweaked the proposal yet again, so that instead of the state legislatures automatically appointing the electors, legislatures were allowed to choose the method for selecting the electors - the practice we still use today.

Finally the weary delegates, who had been meeting by that time for nearly four months away from hearth and kin, adopted this compromise with nine states in favor and two opposed. Ten days later, the Constitution was signed and the convention adjourned.

To observers like Dahl, what the torturous record of proposals and counterproposals suggests is a group of baffled, confused, even floundering men who settled on a solution more out of desperation than confidence. Like the formation of the Senate, the American method of choosing the president was not founded on constitutional theory, high principle or brilliant design. The Founders simply ran out of time and ideas.

It's important to emphasize the confusion -- rather than the brilliance -- that reigned at the Constitutional Convention for a few reasons. One, it shows that designing a new system involves uncertainty and a degree of bewilderment, no matter how talented the people in the room. If we overeulogize the Founders and make them seem so brilliant and California's "new Madisons" so dim by comparison, it's kind of a setup for saying a constitutional convention in California will probably fail.

Second, if we recognize that the Founders were not so brilliant after all, or at least were quite confused amid their brilliance -- yet they plunged forward anyway -- that is a far more powerful message for us to ponder. It means they courageously embarked on substantive overhaul of their key institutions despite their lack of clarity and consensus over what the final product would be. They didn't just tinker around the edges because they had the certainty that the status quo was no longer acceptable.

That should give Californians the fortitude to know that, while we may not be completely clear on where we are going, like the Founders, we can be clear that we must push forward nonetheless. We should be emboldened to think outside the usual boxes, putting on the table substantive reforms like proportional representation, a unicameral legislature, lowering the two-thirds threshold for enacting budgets and taxes, and more.

While it may not be obvious right now who are California's Madisons, Adamses and Jeffersons, it would be a mistake to underestimate what California's leaders might be capable of producing if we dare to try.

Steven Hill is director of the Political Reform Program of the New America Foundation and the author of "10 Steps To Repair American Democracy" (www.10Steps.net).

Study shows "top two" could elect more extremists, not moderates

Steven Hill — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:00 -0400

Here is some brand new analysis from Washington state results that might shed light on the efficacy of the top two primary, which many are promoting as a good thing for CA. It is especially directed at whether the top two would elect more moderates -- or more extremists? This evidence below suggests it's a bit of a crapshoot, the top two primary could as easily elect more extremists as elect more moderates.

In taking a look at official WA state election results at http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx? for last year's primary, you can see there are basically four categories of results for the 98 house races and 25 senate races.

In the first category, which has by far the vast majority of races, one candidate (usually an incumbent) is either uncontested or is so far in the lead with anywhere from 53 percent to over 70 percent of the vote and a huge enough lead that it's obvious they will win in the general (November) election as well. That includes 24 races uncontested in the primary, and 3 with only token write-in opposition. The practical impact in those races is no different from what we have now in CA, as I outlined recently in my Los Angeles Times oped.

In the second category, there were FIVE primaries that were extremely close with only two candidates (one D, one R) in both the primary and general elections. Not a huge number of close races for 123 races.

In the third category, there were TEN primaries with 3-5 candidates, where the front runner had between 40-50 percent of the vote, and in 7 of those races the expected thing happens -- the front runner has a fairly solid lead and wins by picking up votes from the supporters of those eliminated, since most of those districts have a pretty clear partisan tilt. In two of those races the second place candidate comes from behind and wins, but that's completely expected since the third place candidate is from the same party in a district that is tilted toward their party. And in one race, a clear swing district in which the frontrunning Dem has 50.4 percent to 37.5 percent for the frontrunning Rep, with another Rep in third with 12 percent, the Rep eventually wins with 51.6 percent (beating a conservative Dem). A little sizzle there, but that's only one race in a swing district. And in all of the races, these results also would not be any different than what we have now in CA.

It's in the fourth category where things perhaps are most interesting. These races illustrate why a split field may result in EXTREME candidates advancing to the top two, not moderates. In this category, there are 5 primary races -- out of 123 races -- where there are multicandidate fields of 4-7 candidates where the front runner has less than 40 percent in a pretty split field.

For example, if you look at District 7, Position 1 you see there were 5 candidates, ALL REPUBLICANS, and the top two in the primary had 26.7 percent and 26.4 percent. In such a situation, with the top two having such a low percent of the vote, it's very possible that one or both of those candidates may not be moderate at all, they could be extremist. Yet one of them will win in the general election, since it was a heavily GOP district.

In the District 40 Senate race, there are 7 candidates, 6 Dems and 1 Rep. The Rep finishes first with 37.8 percent and a Dem is second with 28.3 percent. That Dem could easily be non-moderate, could be a far left Dem with such a low percent of the vote. But in the Nov election the Dem wins with 58.6 percent of the vote, since most Dem voters of course fall in line and vote for the "brand," i.e. the Democrat.

Here's another, District 14, Position 1: seven candidates, 6 Reps and 1 Dem, Dem finishes first with 30 percent with the highest Rep having 22 percent -- with such a low percent, that Rep could easily be an extreme candidate. Then that Rep went on to win in November, since it's a Rep district, with 53 percent of the vote.

District 8, Position 1: 5 candidates, one Dem and 4 Reps, Dem finishes first with 38.2 percent, the top Rep has only 19percent -- extremist or moderate? Then the Rep wins in Nov with 53percent.

This kind of "split vote" dynamic is reminiscent of the strategy Tom DeLay followed for years, providing enough money and firepower to help his extreme Rep candidates win a low plurality victory in the primary over more moderate Reps. And then that candidate would easily win the November election in a heavily Rep district.

It's also a reminder of how David Duke, a former top Ku Klux Klan leader, got into the top two in the 1991 Louisiana race for governor with only 32 percent of the vote. It's also how Jean-Marie Le Pen, a far right politician in France, got into the top two in a recent French presidential election with only 18 percent of the vote. Split votes are a common occurence in plurality elections, and the top two uses a plurality election to determine the top two finishers.

So when I look at these results, I don't see that very much was gained in WA from use of the top two. First, most races are still vastly noncompetitive and predictable, as they were before WA had the top two (and like CA has now). And second, in the five races where you have some real voter "choice" going on, with multiple candidates and a wide open field, the final results are a crapshoot with candidates getting into the top two with low plurality vote totals that can just as easily be reached by extreme candidates as by moderates.

The Call of a Constitutional Convention

Mark Paul — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:57:00 -0500

My old friend Bill Cavala has metamorphosed into such a creature of the Legislature –– “a veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento,” his blog taxonomy trumpets –– that the only explanation he can muster for those who believe Californians can bypass the Capitol to call a constitutional convention is that the reformers are “slow.”

It’s an odd charge coming from someone 98 years behind the times.

According to Cavala, the only legal path to a convention leads through the Legislature. Against all the lawyers who have opined that voters can give themselves the authority to put a convention call on the ballot, a power currently reserved to the Legislature, Cavala offers up the uncited authority of Joe Remcho, the famous political lawyer. Remcho, alas, is no longer around to tell us that approach would be struck down by the California Supreme Court as an impermissible “revision” of the constitution.

Not being a lawyer, I won’t join Cavala in making firm predictions about how the court would rule on that question. But as a historian and a long-time watcher of California politics and law, I do feel comfortable pointing out that, when the voters have horned in on the Legislature’s powers, the courts have almost always looked the other way.

It started, of course, in 1911, when voters approved the initiative, referendum, and recall. They amended the constitution to reserve “to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same, at the polls independent of the legislature.” Though they graciously bowed in the direction of the Legislature, vesting in it “the legislative power of this state,” they left no doubt who wears the pants in this family. The 1911 measure specified that, henceforth, the enacting clause of every law would read: “The people of the State of California do enact as follows.”

Talk about your revision of the constitution. As Sen. Leroy Wright wrote in opposition to the measure in the 1911 ballot pamphlet, “it is so radical as to be almost revolutionary in its character. Its tendency is to change the republican form of our government and head it towards democracy…” But the California courts did not balk at this far-reaching revision (and reduction) of the Legislature’s role as the central law-making body of the state. (Perhaps they had their eyes on another measure on that 1911 ballot, passed by a far larger margin, which authorized voter recall of judges.)

And so it has gone for the last century. Time and again the voters have hacked away at the Legislature’s once-central constitutional role: limiting lawmakers’ terms; taking away their power to set their own salaries; capping the size of the Legislature’s budget; imposing supermajority vote requirements in the Legislature for spending and tax increase bills; specifying how money lawmakers must budget for schools and other programs.

And time and again the courts have stood aside. Only once, in 1984, in a pre-election challenge, did the California Supreme Court block an initiative impinging upon the Legislature as an illegal revision of the constitution. That measure would have required the Legislature to pass a resolution calling on Congress to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. The legal rule seems to be that the people can pretty much do what they like to the legislative branch except put words into its mouth.

Right now, the path to a new state constitution has six steps:

1) The Legislature puts the question to voters whether they want to call a convention.

2) The people approve it.

3) The Legislature provides for electing delegates to the convention.

4) The people elect the delegates.

5) The delegates debate and draft a revised constitution to put on the ballot.

6) The people vote it up or down.

It’s possible the court would rule that allowing the people to put the question to themselves in Step 1 of a process that the people dominate would amount to “a substantial alteration of the entire Constitution,” the court’s definition of a revision. But how likely?

“All political power is inherent in the people…,” the state constitution says, “and they have the right to alter or reform” their government “when the public good may require.” Perhaps there are four justices on the court who will look at that language and then rule that the people have all political power to reform their government but only if the Legislature agrees to let them do it.

I may be “slow,” but given the court’s hundred-year-long record of letting voters shrink the Legislature’s constitutional role, it doesn’t seem to me the smartest way to bet.

Should California Take the Party Out of Politics?

Mark Paul — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:39:00 -0500

Steven Hill’s excellent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times usefully corrects sloppy media descriptions of the “gang” primary measure that Sen. Abel Maldonado extorted out of the Legislature as the price of doing his budget duty. I would go one step further: this measure would end the idea of “party primaries” as we know them.

A little history: Primary elections were one of the first flowerings of big government. Alarmed by the strength party machines, whose captains and bosses controlled the selection of candidates for election, Progressive reformers succeeded in many states, in the first decade of the 20th century, in getting government to regulate the selection of party candidates for office.

The primary election was a key instrument of that change. It took the power to select a party’s nominee out of the party caucuses and nominating conventions and put it in the hands of voters at the polls. It thereby reduced the power of party activists and machines.

But at the same time, the primary––along with the switch to the Australian ballot in the 1890s (before that, voters carried their own, often party-printed, ballots to the polls)––cemented the party system into law and practice. For a century, general elections have been contests among the nominated candidates of the parties that meet the government’s qualifications to be on the ballot.

The Maldonado gang primary would take a big step toward extinguishing the role of parties in elections. General elections would no longer be among candidates offered by each party but between two individuals selected in the "voter-nominating primary." As Steven Hill points out, except in extraordinary circumstances, third-party candidates would disappear from the general election ballot. In some elections the ballot would offer voters candidates from only one party, as in the days of cross-filing, abolished in California a half century ago, when candidates often ran, and were sometimes nominated, in both party primaries. Party organizations, and their registered voters, would no longer have any official role in putting candidates before the voters. And it’s not hard to see the next step; a couple of legislative candidates in the November election advocated moving to nonpartisan elections for state office.

Americans have long been ambivalent about political parties. The Founders denounced the spirit of faction and party, then set about creating a party system and an expanding democracy linked to it. In practice Americans have always given in to the reality, recognized around the world, that political parties are an essential component of large democracies. But the other-worldly idea that we ought to approach politics as unattached citizens, making all our voting choices with only reason and the public good as our guides, has never died.

There may be a modern case for further weakening the already enfeebled role parties play in California politics. But so far the proponents of the gang primary have yet to make it effectively. Instead, holding a shotgun to the head of the whole state, they pushed their idea onto the ballot in the dead of night, without any public discussion or debate, in brazen violation of anyone’s notion of good government or democracy. It was not an auspicious beginning.

Salam: Watching Trapped in the Closet with the Salams

Reihan Salam — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:50:00 -0500

Last night, I was talking to a friend about national sentiment on the left and the right.

To what extent is left patriotism — the kind of enthusiastic patriotism we saw during the Obama inauguration — fundamentally oppositional, i.e., defined in opposition to a cultural and political mainstream defined as narrow and intolerant? And if left patriotism is oppositional, is it sustainable? One idea in common currency on the left is that left patriotism is aspirational: America can achieve its founding ideals through struggle, and a critical engagement with the persistent failures of our culture and our governing institutions. A related notion is that right patriotism, or nationalism, is of a “right or wrong,” atavistic and chauvinistic character...

Primary Watch: Barack Obama's Early Education Agenda

Sara Mead — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:49:00 -0400

Yesterday we explored Senator Hillary Clinton’s early education agenda. Today, we’re taking a look at Senator Barack Obama’s early education proposals.

Focusing on Zero-to-Five

The centerpiece of Barack Obama’s early education agenda would be a new program of Early Learning Challenge Grants, which would provide states with funding to support quality child care, early education, and other services for pregnant women and children from birth through age five. States could use Early Learning Challenge Grant funds to support voluntary, high-quality preschool programs for three- and four-year olds, but universal pre-k is not the central focus of Obama’s early education strategy. Instead, states would be given flexibility in how they choose to expand quality pre-k and other early education programs.

In order to receive Early Learning Challenge Grants, states would be required to: match new federal funds, meet quality and accountability standards, develop public/private partnerships, ensure that parents receive valid information, and provide support for both early learning and family support services (such as nurse home visiting). Although Senator Obama’s plan refers to high-quality early childhood care and pre-k, it does not describe the quality standards states would be expected to meet.

The proposal draws from the work of the Illinois Early Learning Council, which Obama helped create as a state legislator. The Illinois Early Learning Council works to support a seamless system of early learning and care in Illinois for young children from before birth through school entry--something Obama's proposals are intended to help other states do as well. Obama would also establish a Presidential Early Learning Council, modeled after the Illinois Early Learning Council, to promote collaboration among various federal agencies that support programs for young children, and to encourage states to better coordinate services across multiple federal early childhood funding streams.

Obama’s plan includes several other steps to expand quality early education, including:

Quadruple Early Head Start: The Early Head Start program provides services to low-income children ages 0-3, and evaluations of the program have produced very positive findings. Early Head Start currently serves about 61,000 children.
Increase Head Start Funding, which has stagnated under the Bush administration. The plan does not include specific targets for funding increases or numbers of additional youngsters served.
Improve Head Start Quality: Provide $250 million to create or expand regional training centers to help Head Start centers implement successful models.
Increase funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which has stagnated under the Bush administration, resulting in the loss of services for 150,000 children. Obama would double quality funding within CCDBG, and would encourage states to use their quality set-aside funding to develop strategic plans that better coordinate all birth-to-five services.
Support Nurse-Family Partnerships: Provide Nurse-Home Visitation for 570,000 new mothers annually. This model, in which nurses visit at-risk mothers during pregnancy and for the first 18 months of their children's lives to provide support, health services, and education, has been shown to be effective in improving children's and mothers' outcomes.

Obama has proposed spending $10 billion annually to support these early education investments. He has also proposed making the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable, so that low-income families can receive up to a 50 percent tax credit for their child care expenses. Currently, the tax credit is non-refundable and covers only 35 percent of the first $3,000 in child care expenses ($6,000 if a family has two or more children). It’s not clear whether the cost of this proposal is included in the $10 billion or not.

Supporting Work-Family Balance

Senator Obama has also proposed several work-family balance proposals that could affect young children’s learning and development:

Expand Paid Family Leave: Create a $1.5 billion fund to help states with start-up costs for paid family leave programs and offset costs for employers and employees.
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employers with 25 workers (it currently applies only to employers with at least 50 workers).
Provide Afterschool Programs to 1 Million More Children: Double funding for the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers program, the federal government’s primary afterschool investment (currently funded at $1 billion).
Promote flexible workplaces: Create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of workplace flexibility and help them set up flexible work arrangements. Increased federal incentives for telecommuting. Make the federal government a model for workplace flexibility.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have laid out ambitious early education agendas. Next week we’ll raise some questions that voters and the media should be asking about these proposals and discuss their potential to be enacted into law under a Clinton or Obama administration. We’ll also look at what Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is—or, more importantly, is not—saying about early education on the campaign trail.

If you’d like to learn more about Senator Obama’s views on education issues, check out his full PK-12 education plan, or read about his higher education proposals on our sister blog, HigherEdWatch.org.

Photo by flickr user Brian Finifter used under a Creative Commons license.

Primary Watch: Hillary Clinton's Early Education Agenda

Sara Mead — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:44:00 -0400

Yesterday, we asked why there hasn't been more attention focused on early education issues so far in this election cycle, noting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have released detailed and ambitious early education agendas. Today we'll explore Senator Clinton's early education agenda. Tomorrow we'll look at Senator Obama's early education plan.

Supporting High-Quality Universal Pre-K

The centerpiece of Senator Clinton's early education agenda is her Universal Pre-k Plan, which her campaign rolled out nearly a year ago as her first major education policy proposal and one of her earliest big policy releases. Senator Clinton's plan would provide grants to states to establish high-quality pre-k programs. In order to receive funds states would have to:

Ensure that state pre-k programs meet high quality standards, including:
- Teachers with a bachelor's degree and training in early education
- Age-appropriate curriculum
- Small class sizes and teacher student ratios
- Safety and health monitoring.
Provide pre-k at no cost to four-year-olds from low-income homes and English language learners
Develop a plan to make voluntary pre-k universally available for all-four-year-olds in the state.
Include community-based providers in their pre-k system. (The pre-k bill Clinton has introduced in the Senate would require 25% of funds to go to community-based providers.)
Match federal investments dollar-for-dollar.

Once state pre-k programs meet high quality standards and serve all low-income and ELL four-year-olds, they could use federal pre-k funds to serve higher income students, serve younger students, raise teacher salaries, or other activites that expand and improve pre-k. Clinton has proposed providing states with $5 billion in grants to support universal pre-k in the first year and ramping up to $10 billion over the next five years.

Zero-to-Five
More recently, Senator Clinton's campaign announced a broader "Zero-to-Five" agenda that includes their Universal Pre-K program as well as the following elements:

Nurse-Home Visitation: Senator Clinton's plan would provide Nurse-Home Visitation for all at-risk mothers. This model, in which nurses visit at-risk mothers during pregnancy and for the first 18 months of their children's lives to provide support, health services, and education, has been shown to be effective in improving children's and mothers' outcomes.
Triple Early Head Start: The Early Head Start program provides services to low-income children ages 0-3, and evaluations of the program have produced very positive findings. Early Head Start currently serves about 61,000 children.
Expand Head Start to serve 160,000 more children: This would be an almost 20 percent increase above the 833,516 children Head Start currently serves.
Increase funding for the Child Care Block Grant, which has stagnated during the Bush administration, and support the following to improve child care quality:
- Help states improve and enforce child care licensing and safety standards
- Support public-private partnerships to increase the supply of affordable, high-quality child care for working families.
- Promote and support state quality rating systems for child care
- Support workforce initiatives to improve child care workers' training
Allow qualified low-income parents to receive Child Care and Development Block Grant funding to stay home with their children. Right now, low-income parents can only receive CCDBG funds if they place their children in childcare. This proposal would let low-income parents receive payments to care for their children at home.

Clinton has also said she supports reform of the Dependent Care Tax Credit, but hasn't offered specifc policy recommendations for how it should be reformed.

Supporting Work-Family Balance
Senator Clinton has also offered several work-family balance proposals that could affect young children's learning and development:

Expand Paid Family Leave: Senator Clinton would support a variety of initiatives to help parents care for new babies, with the goal of having paid family leave for employees in all states by 2016:
- $1 billion State Family Leave Innovation Fund to providing matching grants to help states start paid family leave programs using a variety of funding strategies,
- Paid maternity/paternity leave for federal workers (they currently have none)
- Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employers with 25 workers (it currently applies only to employers with at least 50 workers)
Support workplace flexibility and telecommuting: Senator Clinton would create a "model workplace" program to highlight business that establish innovative workplace flexibility models, would promote telecommuting for federal workers, and would provide $50 million annually in incentives for state and local telecommuting initiatives.

Senator Clinton also has a history of supporting and advocating for early education and quality childcare. As First Lady, for example, she hosted the White House Conference on Early Development and Learning, which expanded public awareness about early childhood development and helped raise the national profile of early education issues. Early Ed Watch is pleased to see that she's continuing to support programs for young children on the campaign trail.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about Senator Barack Obama's early education proposals, and next week we'll raise some questions about both candidates' agendas. If you're interested in learning more about Senator Clinton's other education policy proposals, check out the education page on her website, or read our sister blog HigherEdWatch.org's coverage of her college proposals.

Photo by flickr user wausaublog used under a Creative Commons license.