• Jonathan Bernstein on counting House votes for health reform: “What I do think is worthwhile is thinking about the general situation, which remains about the same: there are about fifty Members of the House whose preferred outcome is bill passes, they vote no, and whose second choice outcome is probably to have the bill pass with their support.”
• Clive Crook on ideas to raise tax revenues: “There are countless stupid ways to raise more tax revenue but really just three intelligent ways. First, introduce a carbon tax; second, broaden the base of the income tax; third, design a national sales or value-added tax.”
• The NRDC on California’s leadership on energy efficiency: “California has shown once again that it’s faster, cheaper, and cleaner to save energy than to produce it.”
• William Galston on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget: “Despite drastic reductions in both discretionary domestic spending and entitlement programs whose wisdom and political viability is questionable at best, the roadmap contemplates budget deficits of 5 percent as late as 2037 and produces its first balanced budget in 2063.”
• Nate Silver on Charlie Crist’s political future: “Few politicians have had a rougher twelve months than Florida’s Charlie Crist, who began the period as the popular governor if America’s fourth-largest state, and now finds himself, as Public Policy polling’s Dean Debnam put it, as someone who ‘[couldn't] win a Republican primary for Dog Catcher.’”

But beneath this storyline, some odd and counterintuitive things are going on. In three Deep South states, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, Democrats have a decent chance of retaking long-lost governorships, in part because of infighting among Republican candidates, and in part because Republican rule in those states has not been terribly successful or popular. It’s far too early to make predictions, but it’s possible that we’re in for a repeat of the astounding gubernatorial Trifecta that Democrats pulled off in those same three states in 1998. That event confounded widespread assessments that the South had become a one-party GOP region, and it could happen again, in even more unlikely circumstances.

Our own appraisal begins in Georgia, with one of the surprise winners of 1998, former Governor Roy Barnes. Barnes lost his reelection bid in 2002 to Sonny Perdue, a party-switching state senator, despite the power of incumbency and a huge financial advantage. Since then, Barnes has regularly admitted his mistakes. And, amazingly enough, in the latest Georgia gubernatorial poll, he’s running ahead of every single Republican candidate.

Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans, who have dominated state politics since 2002, are having some serious problems with their own gubernatorial bench. The consistent frontrunner in the polls, longtime insurance commissioner John Oxendine, is awash in ethics allegations about contributions from the insurance companies that he is responsible for regulating. His record is so blatantly bad that none other than Erick Erickson, the Georgia-based proprietor of the nationally influential, hard-core conservative web site RedState, has said he’d vote for Barnes if Oxendine is the GOP nominee.

Rather pathetically, the alternative to Oxendine and the favorite of some party insiders is Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia’s Ninth District (like Perdue, a party-switcher), who recently said he would resign his congressional seat after a health care vote to concentrate on his gubernatorial campaign. As it happens, Deal’s resignation managed to short-circuit a House Ethics Committee investigation into a no-bid state auto-salvage contract that was awarded to a company which Deal controls. The insider buzz in Atlanta is that Deal was motivated to resign, in part, because of panic among Georgia Republican pooh-bahs who worried that Oxendine would walk away with the gubernatorial nomination on name ID alone.

The rest of the Republican gubernatorial hopefuls are struggling as well. The entire party, and several of the gubernatorial candidates, were tainted by association with disgraced former House Speaker Glenn Richardson, who was forced to resign after a lurid sex-and-lobbying scandal. The one candidate who seems ethically starchy, Secretary of State Karen Handel, has struggled to raise the money necessary to win, and also suffers from the perception that she’s the unpopular Sonny Perdue’s chosen successor.

All these Republican problems could eventually fade, and Roy Barnes must also navigate a Democratic primary against Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a law-’n-order conservative who is one of the nation’s longest-serving African American statewide elected officials (as well as two other lesser but credible opponents). Nevertheless at present, Barnes—or Baker, if he could somehow upset Barnes—looks entirely viable for November.

Next door in Alabama, you’d think that the Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner, Congressman Artur Davis, wouldn’t stand a chance. He’s a member of the much-hated United States Congress; he’s African American; he’s a close personal friend of Barack Obama; and he’s frequently been tagged, like the president, as an Ivy League-educated, twenty-first-century–style black politician. But the sparse public polling available shows Davis in a very strong position for the general election, assuming that he dispenses with a primary challenge from state agriculture commissioner Ron Sparks, who’s been struggling to raise money. Davis, who has long nursed gubernatorial ambitions, carefully tailored his congressional record to Alabama public opinion: He voted against health care reform in the House, and he was also the first Congressional Black Caucus member (and, for that matter, the first one on the Ways and Means Committee) to call for Charlie Rangel to step aside from his powerful chairmanship.

Meanwhile, there is no real frontrunner in the Republican gubernatorial primary, which bids fair to become an ideological flame war. Back in 2002, the “establishment” candidate, state Senator Bradley Byrne, made the fatal mistake of voting for a-tax reform initiative that was soundly defeated in an emphatic expression of Alabamians’ mistrust of government. Tim James, son of former conservative Democratic and Republican Governor Fob James, was one of the main opponents of that initiative, and he will bring it up constantly. Meanwhile Christian Right warhorse Roy Moore, the famous “Ten Commandments Judge,” is actually running second to Byrne in early polls. All of the dynamics in the race will pull the GOP candidates to the hard-right, while Artur Davis continues to occupy the political center; and his candidacy will almost certainly boost African American turnout to near-2008 levels. That means anything could happen in November.

South Carolina is often thought of as the most Republican of Southern states. But Mark Sanford, the disgraced incumbent governor, has complicated his party’s prospects. Meanwhile, an ideological civil war is brewing that reflects the growing tension between the state’s two Republican senators, right-wing bomb thrower Jim DeMint and the more moderate Lindsey Graham (Graham, long suspect among home-state conservatives for his friendship with John McCain and his occasional bipartisanship, has recently been formally censured by two of South Carolina’s county GOP organizations for a variety of sins). As in Georgia and Alabama, the Republican gubernatorial field is a mess: Nobody is a frontrunner and all the candidates are stampeding to the hard right. And I do mean hard right. In a sign of the times, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, who has few friends in the state’s Republican establishment, delivered a speech comparing recipients of subsidized school lunches to “stray animals” who should no longer be fed unconditionally. While he took a few shots from fellow Republicans for his indiscreet language, nobody disputed, and some praised, his basic premise that any form of public assistance corrupts its recipients and should come with some sort of reciprocal obligation.

The frontrunners in early polls are Bauer and Attorney General Henry McMaster. Upstate Congressman Gresham Barrett, who must overcome the opprobrium of voting for TARP, is close behind. Meanwhile, Sanford’s protégé, state Representative Nikki Haley (who was even endorsed by the governor’s ex-wife), is trying to push the campaign hard right by opposing any expenditure of federal stimulus dollars in this high-unemployment state. At a recent candidate forum, when the rivals were pushed to call themselves “DeMint Republicans” or “Graham Republicans,” Bauer and Haley flatly identified with DeMint, while McMasters and Barrett dodged the question.

On the Democratic side, a Rasmussen poll in December showed the front-running Democrat, State School Superintendent Jim Rex, actually beating Bauer and running within single digits against other GOP candidates. (State Representative Vincent Sheheen is also a credible Democratic candidate). Again, anything could happen, but the assumption that Republicans have a lock on this state’s elections is as dubious as the same assumption back in 1998.

So, at a time when Democrats are despairing of good news, it’s important to understand that the donkey isn’t quite dead, even in the Deep South. There are consequences to Republican extremism and malfeasance in office. And, when GOP candidates battle for first place on the crazy train of contemporary conservatism, it’s Democrats who stand to benefit.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

The idea is seductively simple: The only way to restrain deficit spending in Washington is to make it unconstitutional. That’s how the states keep their books balanced, and there’s no reason the federal government shouldn’t do the same.

In fact, there are several. Consider that today’s federal deficit is about 12 percent of GDP. It’s going to go down as the economy recovers, but the spending and tax adjustments that would have to be made to get it all the way down to zero would be unduly draconian and disruptive. Also, unlike state mandates, a federal balanced budget amendment for accounting reasons would not distinguish between capital investment and consumption. But government borrowing to invest in public infrastructure or higher education, for example, makes economic sense, because it will generate more economic activity and amortize itself over time.

What’s more, the federal government acts as the nation’s fiscal safety valve, or strategic reserve. During severe economic downturns, the only way many states can provide services while preserving their fiscal virtue is to get counter-cyclical assistance (or revenue sharing) from Washington. A constitutional ban on deficits could prevent Washington from responding to emergencies of all kinds.

In truth, we don’t need a balanced federal budget — we need a disciplined federal budget. Congress would be better off adopting Sen. Mike Bennett’s (D-CO) sensible suggestion that federal deficits be held first to four percent, then to three percent of GDP each year. At that level, they’d be gradually whittled down by economic growth, and the government could borrow without swelling the national debt.

A balanced budget amendment, moreover, is a blunter instrument than we need to deal with overspending and undertaxing in Washington. It doesn’t hone in on the real problem, which is the automatic and unsustainable growth in entitlement spending. A better idea, from the Brookings-Heritage Fiscal Seminar, is to bring Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on budget, which would require Congress to periodically reconcile income and spending to keep the programs solvent.

Finally, a balanced budget amendment is just too damn difficult to enact. Congress has to approve Constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote, well nigh inconceivable given how hard it is to muster the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Then three-fourths of the states would have to approve an amendment.

Demanding a balanced budget amendment thus is more of a symbolic gesture than a real solution to America’s fiscal crisis. Recall that it was a key plank in the GOP’s 1994 Contract with America, but Republicans quickly lost interest once they won control of Congress. Nonetheless, Newt Gingrich has endorsed the amendment in a bid to recapture the old magic for this year’s midterm elections.

Unlike the Republicans, of course, the Blue Dogs have real street cred when it comes to fiscal rectitude. They fought successfully to resurrect “pay go” rules that require Congress to offset new spending with tax hikes or budget cuts. And key Blue Dog leaders like Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) have led the charge for a bipartisan commission to get entitlement spending under control.

It’s vital, though, that progressive deficit hawks not let the holy grail of a constitutional amendment deflect them from the gritty, day-to-day battles in Congress to get America’s exploding deficits and debts under control.

The poll digs much deeper than most polls, which traditionally lump in questions of national security with a slew of other issues. But this one is a full psychoanalysis of the country’s mood on our safety, and the results are more of a mixed bag than a downright nightmare for progressives. The president maintains stronger national security numbers than his overall approval rating (47 percent), with 58 percent approving of his handling of Afghanistan, 57 percent positive on “leading the military,” and 55 percent liking that he’s “improved America’s standing in the world,” among other similarly positive numbers.

Furthermore — and this is great — the poll continues to confirm that the public rejects accusations by Dick Cheney that Obama’s policies have made the country less secure. Oh yeah, and five percent believe Obama is doing a better job than George Bush against terrorists.

To sum up, the public approves of the commander-in-chief, but they’ve again become skeptical of generic Democrats. Or as the authors put it:

While ratings for the president may be softening, his party is facing an even more troubling trend. When the questions move beyond the president to Democrats generally, we see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges.

How do we firm this up? Basically, grab the ol’ bull by the horns, just like I’ve been blabbering on about. Seriously — Dems have a good record, now they just have to relay it through effective story-telling that connects with voters’ emotions. Progressives have been sheepishly responding to conservative attacks with wonky facts. But conservatives don’t care about facts — they painted Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, as unpatriotic. Now that progressives have the facts behind them, they need to get aggressive about telling voters that we’re strong and smart on national security.

No, the U.S. is having a genuine long-term jobs crisis, one which stems from a deeper problem: The Great Innovation Machine of the American economy seems to have broken down. With a few notable exceptions (think Apple and Google), this has been a period when companies have found it remarkably hard to turn promising breakthrough innovations into commercial breakthrough products. The list of “big-idea” innovations that seem tantalizingly close to market, but not quite there, just keeps getting longer and longer. Some examples: After 20 years of research, no human gene therapy has yet been approved for sale by the Food and Drug Administration; electricity generated from solar cells is still far from price-competitive with electricity from coal or natural gas; and biotech has not yet fulfilled its promise of speeding the discovery of new drugs.

The jobs crisis, in my view, is the direct result of the innovation shortfall. Since the 1990s, both Democrats and Republicans have expected the “jobs of the future” to come from the innovative, technologically advanced industries. Computers, semiconductors, internet companies, pharma, biotech, communications: all seemed to have enormous potential to create new jobs. What’s more, innovation seemed to be the only way that the U.S. could compete against low-cost producers abroad.

Many regions designed their economic development strategies around attracting biotech and infotech jobs to replace the “old-line” factory positions that had fled overseas (do a Google search for ‘biotech initiative’ and see how many hits you get). The desire to bring in pharma jobs is the reason why New London tore down homes and businesses to make room for a Pfizer research facility in 2001.

But the sad truth is that the innovative sector of the economy hasn’t generated many jobs recently. Let’s be very specific here. From the bottom of the job market in 2003 to the so-called peak in 2007, technologically advanced industries such as semiconductors, communications equipment manufacturing, and telecommunications lost thousands of jobs. Across the same period, the industry that the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “Internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals” — a catch-all category that includes Google, Yahoo! and all the high-profile Internet firms — added only 6,000 jobs.

Life sciences didn’t do much better. From 2003-2007, employment in pharma was stagnant, and biotech added only 16,000 jobs. Indeed, Pfizer recently pulled out of New London, leaving behind a lot of hard feelings. (For more on the jobs shortfall in the innovative sector, see my blog at www.southmountaineconomics.com.)

Turning Innovation into Jobs

So what has happened here? A big part of the jobs crisis stems from a simple fact: Commercializing innovation has taken a lot longer than people expected. Across multiple areas, from biotech to alternative energy to advanced materials to the private uses of space, both large and small companies have faced fundamental scientific and engineering problems. The best example is the sequencing of the human genome, which was announced to great fanfare in 2003. But turning that initial breakthrough into commercial products has turned out to be far more complicated and difficult than many thought. (For more on the innovation shortfall, see my June 2009 cover story, “The Failed Promise of Innovation in the U.S.,” for BusinessWeek.)

In today’s global economy, innovation makes up the main comparative advantage for the U.S. If we are not generating jobs in the innovative industries, it’s no surprise that we have a jobs crisis.

Addressing the innovation shortfall has to be a cooperative project between business and government. How? Here are three low-cost ways to foster a better climate for innovation and jobs:

• Elevate innovation to the top of the policy agenda. President Obama needs to publicly give higher priority to innovation. In the latest Economic Report of the President, innovation is relegated to the very end of the report, and does not even get a whole chapter to itself (the chapter is called “Fostering Productivity Growth through Innovation and Trade”).

  Why is a public emphasis on innovation important? Government is much better at stopping breakthrough products and services than creating them. New ideas, by definition, are threatening to the status quo. That’s why the president has to give a clear signal to the entire government bureaucracy that innovation is important.

  On the one hand, this shift in public priorities can be done right now, without any additional funding, so Obama wouldn’t have to fight Congress. On the other hand, Obama might have a big struggle to get support from his own economic advisors, some of whom don’t seem to place such high value on innovation.

• Broaden out government funding for R&D beyond healthcare. To maximize the chances for innovation-related job growth, we want a broad and diverse program of federal support. However, in recent years, federal funding for R&D has increasingly focused on healthcare. Obama’s proposed FY 2011 budget continues that trend, with federal spending on health R&D projected to exceed spending on nonhealth civilian R&D by more than 30 percent. The result: Other areas of R&D are being starved for funds.
• Improve measurement of the innovative sectors of the economy. Innovation is not as tangible as, say, a new building or a new truck. We are great at counting construction and vehicle production, but horrible at keeping track of innovative activities.

  And as management consultants say, you get what you measure. For example, we know virtually nothing on business spending on R&D in the U.S. during the downturn — a key piece of information for understanding where the economy is going. The good news is that the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the National Science Foundation have made some progress in this direction. However, a relatively small amount of money could accelerate the upgrading of the statistics, with a big impact on policy.

These proposals will not guarantee that the U.S. will suddenly experience a surge of innovation-related job growth. There’s nothing that anyone can do to ensure that commercially viable innovation will arrive on a particular schedule. But to raise the odds of good jobs in the future, we need to make innovation a priority today.

Download the PDF version.

• Christian Wolmar on the administration’s flawed high-speed rail plan: “Yet the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail in his 2009 stimulus package, split among 31 states, includes only two genuine high-speed rail projects — in Florida and California. And even that money will do little more than kick-start the schemes.”
• Resources for the Future has a new study (PDF) on cost estimates on environmental regulation: “We found that EPA and other regulatory agencies tend to overestimate the total costs of regulations; their estimations of the per-unit of pollution eliminated by regulations tend to be more accurate, however.”
• Dan Yurman on building grassroots support for nuclear loan guarantees: “By the time Congress gets around to voting on the new $36 billion in loan guarantees, the 2010 mid-term elections will be fast approaching. This is a big enough item that grass roots groups have an opportunity to ask candidates for office where they stand on the measure.”
• Peter Beinart on the Iraqi elections: “The crucial statistic about the future of Iraqi democracy is this: On Election Day 2010, Iraq hosted 90,000 American troops. By law, the next time Iraqis hold a national election that number will be zero.”
• Truman National Security Project’s Rob Diamond on Glenn Beck and the Special Operations Warrior Foundation: “The Special Operations Warrior Foundation is now serving as a financial front man for the right-wing, Fox News demagogue that is Glenn Beck.”

The memo and today’s revision have to do with a bit of Clean Air Act (CAA) arcana: which polluters have to get preconstruction permits to build new plants or modify existing ones? This question seems superficially to be interesting to only the most pedantic of CAA wonks, but the answer has real effects for the cost and effectiveness of policy.

These permits are a big deal. They are expensive and time-consuming to get and require facilities to install the “best available control technology” (BACT). Since the EPA will very shortly regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions, the question has pressing relevance. The EPA’s controversial “tailoring rule” is aimed at minimizing the impact of these permit requirements (called PSD in CAA lingo) by restricting them initially to larger sources. But the even more immediate question of when those large sources have to get permits is determined elsewhere in the Johnson Memo. (For more on how these pieces fit together, see the chart here.)

The EPA has traditionally required only emitters of pollutants subject to actual control under the CAA to get PSD permits. This means that emitters of pollutants that are only reported, not regulated, don’t have to get permits. It also means that emitters don’t have to get permits until regulation actually forces action; regulation just being announced isn’t enough. The Johnson Memo, released in 2008 by the Bush-era EPA and named for then-EPA Administrator Steven Johnson, confirmed this traditional approach.

Now that the EPA is about to regulate GHGs, the agency is reopening this issue. If you thought that the 19-page Johnson Memo was a comprehensive treatment, get ready for the 77-page reconsideration. In the proposed version of reconsideration (released last year), the EPA claims its preferred option is to stick with the traditional approach. This would probably result in permit requirements for GHGs beginning in January 2011, according to Administrator Lisa Jackson’s letter to Congress last week. But the proposed reconsideration mentions alternatives, such as a permit requirement when an endangerment finding for a pollutant is made, or even when reporting is required. If one of these options is chosen by the EPA in the final reconsideration, emitters will require permits now (since GHGs are subject to reporting in 2010 and an endangerment finding was made in December).

As Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell & Giuliani discussed at RFF’s Clean Air Act event last week, this timing issue really matters for emitters. If an emitter has a new plant or modification awaiting a permit, whether a permit application is processed before or after GHGs become part of the BACT inquiry is very important. Uncertainty makes planning difficult. Combined with the uncertainty surrounding the tailoring rule, GHG emitters are unsettled and unhappy. Unsettled and unhappy industries tend to sue agencies and lobby Congress. Environmentalists also care about timing. They want GHGs to be a part of the permit process as soon as possible, and are likely to exert pressure of their own.

Since the Johnson Memo and the new reconsideration of it are EPA interpretations of its own statutes, they are very hard to challenge in court (they are entitled to Chevron deference). This makes pressure on the agency directly (through the comment process) or indirectly (through Congress) the most likely avenues of attack from either side.

Since the proposed reconsideration confirms the existing approach, I think it will be relatively unchanged in its final form. If the EPA does pursue a change in this policy, however, the effects will be large. This is just one of countless illustrations of how, in Washington as much as anywhere, the little things matter.

This item is cross-posted at Weathervane.

Romney’s discussion of health reform is, from a partisan perspective, comically off-message. (How could he know what today’s GOP message would be? He probably finished writing the book months ago.) Remove a little anti-Obama boilerplate and Romney’s views become indistinguishable from the president’s. They even rely on the same MIT economist! At the Massachusetts bill’s signing ceremony, Romney relates in his book, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., quipped, “When Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy are celebrating the same piece of legislation, it means only one thing: One of us didn’t read it.”

Noah goes on to mix up some Obama and Romney quotes on health care reform, and challenges the reader to say which is which. Can’t be done.

Back in January, I predicted that Romney’s sponsorship of health care reform in Massachusetts might turn out to be a disabling handicap in a 2012 presidential race, given the shrillnesss of conservative rhetoric about features in Obama’s proposal that are also in Romney’s–most notably, the individual mandate.

Something happened since then, of course, which has been of great value to Romney in protecting his highly vulnerable flank on health reform: Scott Brown, another supporter of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, became the maximum national GOP hero and set off to Washington to try to wreck Obama’s plans. That meant that not one, but two major Republican pols would be promoting ludicrous distinctions between RomneyCare and ObamaCare as though they were actually vast and principled.

But I can’t see this illogical brush-off as working forever. If the Mittster does crank up another presidential campaign, fresh media attention will be devoted to his record and “philosophy” on health care. And more importantly, Romney’s rivals in a presidential race won’t for a moment give him a mulligan on the issue the GOP has defined as all-important. Mitt’s “socialism” in Massachusetts will eventually re-emerge as a big, big problem for him, and arguments that it was just state-level “socialism” won’t quite cut it in a Republican Party that’s moved well to the Right since the last time he ran for president. Before it’s over, they’ll make it sound like he’s the reincarnation of Nelson Rockefeller, money and all.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Mandated by Congress in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act and signed into law by President Clinton, the DADT policy targets for expulsion from the armed services those who have a propensity for, display behavior associated with, or commit acts of homosexuality. It’s important to note that DADT prevented baseless initiation of investigation into a service member’s orientation, which the military’s former policy allowed, and was, in fact, the compromise policy that emerged from President Clinton’s original proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Opinions and conjecture aside about this compromise in 1993, DADT is plainly in need of repeal now — and support for such a move is rock solid. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and former Secretary of State General Colin Powell have recently joined other active and retired high-ranking military and Defense Department officials in calling for its end.

The support for repeal among military brass underscores the pragmatic value of doing away with the policy. For one thing, the policy has inarguably done harm to our national security efforts. Under DADT, almost 800 “mission-critical” troops have been discharged in the last five years, including at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists. These unnecessary discharges create additional challenges and risks for our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, our military continues to face an overall recruiting crisis. DADT unnecessarily limits the pool of potential recruits, including some of the best and brightest young minds we need to win the war on terror and run our military in the decades to come. According to recent estimates, some 4,000 service members each year choose not to re-enlist because of the policy, and 41,000 gay and bisexual men might choose to enlist or re-enlist if the policy were repealed.

Under DADT, more than 13,500 gay soldiers have lost their jobs and medical, educational and other benefits. Many of those discharged are young Americans who enrolled with the promise of a college education and a better life. Others given the boot have served for decades and have lost more than a job — their entire careers have been wiped out, too, because of their sexual orientation.

And then there’s the financial downside of the policy. It costs up to $43,000 to replace a discharged service member. Add at least $150,000 more to that figure for officers and $1,000,000 for Navy and Air Force pilots. If you consider inflation and the cost of additional required training for service members to fight the war on terror, you can imagine the average price tag on this policy has increased — and will continue to increase — significantly over time.

With 75 percent of Americans, including 64 percent of Republicans, calling for an end to DADT, the political risk to overturning this policy is minimal. In fact, when one considers the size of the pro-equality voting bloc, which includes an overwhelming majority of young Americans, one could argue the benefits greatly outweigh the costs of action on this reform.

Rather than approaching DADT as strictly a cultural or social issue — which is how our conservative opposition would like to define it to inject homophobia in the debate and divide Americans — progressives should also frame DADT as a matter of national security, civil service and fiscal responsibility. Taking up this policy challenge under these terms would reflect our progressive values and “third way” approach — to cut wasteful government spending, focus our national security to fight global terrorism and the wars of the 21st century, reduce unemployment and reward work, and promote national service.

Stubbornly defying terrorist bombings and official incompetence, they turned out in force to vote in national elections over the weekend. Although the outcome isn’t yet known, the elections confirmed Iraq’s status as the Middle East’s most important, if precarious, experiment in democracy.

The process hasn’t been pretty, but there’s no denying that something like a normal, pluralistic politics is emerging in a society brutalized by a sadistic tyrant and scarred by the sectarian violence that followed the U.S. invasion. The big question now is whether Iraqis will continue along the path of power-sharing and representative government, or give up on democracy and opt for some form of authoritarian rule, which is the norm in their neighborhood.

It’s easy to be pessimistic about Iraq, so let’s start with the positive side of the ledger. First, al Qaeda has been defeated. Though it still perpetrates atrocities against Iraqi civilians, it has scant popular support and cannot stand up to Iraq’s army and police. Sectarian strife also has subsided, at least for the moment; the Economist reports that civilian casualties are at a six-year low.

Second, politics is becoming less sectarian as communal groups splinter and forge cross-cutting alliances. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has broken with the main Shia groups, which failed to field their own candidate for his post. Also expected to do well is former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a nationalist whose coalition includes Shia and Sunnis. In the north, a reform movement called “Change” has broken with the two dominant Kurdish parties on the issue of local political corruption. And in pointed contrast to Iran, Iraq’s Shia clerical establishment stays out of politics.

On the other side of the ledger, Iraq’s emerging political order faces several enormous challenges. One is a fatal combination of governmental weakness and corruption. The central government still cannot supply basic infrastructure, including electricity. Rampant bribery and cronyism are giving democracy a bad name and feeding popular sentiment for strongman rule. It’s not hard to imagine Iraq moving toward a “soft authoritarianism” like Egypt’s or perhaps the even more stifling models of Syria or Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi economy is in shambles. Unemployment is pervasive and private industry is weak; government is the employer of first and last resort in Iraq. Although the country has enormous oil reserves, there’s a real danger it could use them to foster dependence on state subsidies rather than private sector work.

Finally, there’s the question of what happens when U.S. troops are no longer around to backstop Iraq’s political evolution. Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Bush administration and Baghdad, all U.S. forces must be out by the end of 2011. As Peter Beinart warns, this deadline may not allow enough time for the consolidation of democracy in Iraq. The United States plays a quiet but vital role in mediating sectarian conflicts and helping Iraqis set up nonpartisan governing institutions. In our absence, civil war could flare up again, Iran might escalate its internal interference in Iraqi affairs, or there could be a military coup in reaction to public anger over the chaos and incompetence of civilian government.

Of course, the United States cannot unilaterally change the Status of Forces Agreement. But Obama should be vigilant and open to a request from the Iraqi government to do so should that become necessary. We have come too far, at enormous expense to both Iraqis and Americans, to give up now on Iraq’s struggles to build a decent government that rules by popular consent.