Denis McDonough '92 -The Adviser at the Heart of National Security

The Adviser at the Heart of National Security
By HELENE COOPER
Published: July 9, 2010






Denis McDonough '92, the National Security Council's chief of staff, is so close to the president that colleagues often do not make a major move without checking with him.

Nadav Kandar for The New York Times

Denis McDonough, the National Security Council's chief of staff, is so close to the president that colleagues often do not make a major move without checking with him.

They should have checked first with Denis McDonough, the National Security Council’s chief of staff. “I don’t think that’s where the president is on that,” Mr. McDonough informed his higher-ups, according to two administration officials.

A couple of months later, when state officials in Florida tried to halt medical evacuation flights from Haiti, Mr. McDonough, on the ground in earthquake-stunned Port-au-Prince, got on his BlackBerry, which is never far from his side. Within a few hours, as other officials tell it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acted to keep the airspace open.

Forget Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. When it comes to national security, Mr. Obama’s inner circle is so tight it largely consists of Mr. McDonough, a 40-year-old from Minnesota who is unknown to most Americans but who is so close to the president that his colleagues — including his superiors — often will not make a move on big issues without checking with him first.

“He is the keeper of the president’s flame,” said Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff. Brian Katulis, a foreign policy expert who is a good friend of Mr. McDonough, said, “When the president needs to pick up the phone and call someone on national security, that someone is Denis.”

When Mr. Obama got word of the Rolling Stone article that would lead to his firing of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as the top commander in Afghanistan, Mr. McDonough was one of about a half-dozen people he immediately summoned to the Oval Office.

Mr. McDonough is intensively protective of the president, and is well known for picking up the phone — or his BlackBerry — to take people to task, from reporters to Washington talking heads to other Obama officials who go off message. He spent the entirety of his bike ride home to Takoma Park, Md., from the White House late one recent night arguing on the cellphone with a reporter who he believed had mischaracterized an internal administration debate over Iraq policy.

He has berated some of the Democratic Party’s most distinguished foreign policy dignitaries when they have dared to critique Mr. Obama publicly, leaving a miffed Washington establishment in his wake muttering — off the record, of course — about just who this guy thinks he is.

His e-mail messages are legendary across Washington, and usually appear right after a critique hits the Web. When David Rothkopf, a national security expert and Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, wrote a column for The Washington Post last August that praised Mrs. Clinton — and notably, not Mr. Obama — as overseeing “profound changes” to American foreign policy, the first e-mail message Mr. Rothkopf received came from you-know-who.

“Interesting choice for a profile,” Mr. McDonough wrote.

“Political figures like to have people who are watching their back,” Mr. Rothkopf said in an interview. “I understand why people are bugged by McDonough; they’re jealous of his access to the president. But the president deserves to have someone like him.”

Mr. McDonough declined to be interviewed for this article.

Mr. Obama arrived in Washington six years ago as a political outsider, a Chicago novice with no historical ties to the Democratic foreign policy establishment. Early on in the presidential campaign, Mr. McDonough signed up with Mr. Obama.

A foreign policy adviser to Senator Tom Daschle before Mr. Daschle’s 2004 election defeat, Mr. McDonough was then at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization.

HE was all over the country for Mr. Obama during the campaign. Mr. McDonough shoveled the driveway and sidewalk of a Davenport, Iowa, couple as part of an unsuccessful effort to woo them into caucusing for Mr. Obama instead of Mrs. Clinton. He spent so much time canvassing his assigned precinct that by the night of the Iowa caucuses he was greeting most of the caucusgoers by name, prompting his colleagues to start calling him the town mayor. (Mr. Obama won five of the seven delegates in the precinct.)

Mr. McDonough looks more like a Town & Country cover model than a Washington foreign policy wonk. At 6-foot-3, he weighs himself regularly in the White House doctor’s office to make sure he does not go above 200 pounds.

But early on during the campaign, Mr. McDonough took on the role of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy guru. “Foreign policy was always the high wire for us on the campaign,” one administration official said. President Obama, he said, “trusted Denis to get the job done but not sand down his views.”

After the Democratic debate in South Carolina in 2007, when Mr. Obama called “ridiculous” the notion of not talking to America’s enemies, Mr. McDonough and Mr. Obama mulled the ensuing furor in the candidate’s bare Massachusetts Avenue campaign office. Mr. McDonough, according to a former campaign official, “told the president, ‘You have nothing to walk back on your position. You don’t need lectures on foreign policy from the Democratic foreign policy establishment.’ ”

The bond they forged during the campaign sealed Mr. McDonough’s role as Mr. Obama’s most trusted foreign policy aide in the White House. Today, many of the old Democratic rivals are in the Obama cabinet, deciding Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran policy. And Mr. McDonough is far closer to the president than they are.

AT both the Pentagon and the State Department, officials report being chewed out by Mr. McDonough when he believes they have leaked something before the White House is ready. In recent months, Mr. McDonough has mellowed, his colleagues say. In fact, he began 2010 telling reporters that he was going to make an effort to be nice, and now routinely mentions that he will not blow up during his almost nightly phone calls to dispute articles.

At the White House, Mr. McDonough presses the East Wing to make sure that junior members of the National Security Council staff are invited to receptions and parties.

In an interview, General Jones said he could not recall when Mr. McDonough told him and other officials that their evolving consensus on Afghanistan policy was not where Mr. Obama wanted to go. But “as a generic anecdote, I’m not bothered by that; it’s what I expect him to do,” he said.

“It’s a big asset for all of us to have Denis, who has known the president for so long,” General Jones said. “He knows how he thinks about issues.”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 10, 2010, on page A6 of the New York edition.

James Read, Professor of Political Science delivered the Alpheus T. Mason Address at Princeton University...

James Read, Professor of Political Science and Joseph P. Farry Professor of Public Policy, delivered the Alpheus T. Mason Address to the James Madison Program at Princeton University on March 23. The title of the talk was "The Only True Sovereign of a Free People? The Problem of Majority Rule in Madison, Calhoun, and Lincoln." It described how in Lincoln's view, the Civil War was a test of the moral legitimacy of majority rule, in contrast to Calhoun who rejected majority rule in favor of state nullification of federal law. Both Calhoun and Lincoln claimed to be followers of Madison. A video recording of the address is posted at http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/calendar/flash/Read.html

It takes more than politicians to make good policy

By Eric Schubert
Updated: 03/27/2010 04:00:18 PM CDT

Most Minnesotans don't leave to live elsewhere. For the most part we stay because we like it here. So how do we make Minnesota even better as our relatively small world grows smaller and more competitive? How do we keep our most talented people at home, attract others with valuable skills, and move Minnesota forward? The answer lies in using our most abundant and valuable resource - human capital - differently.

The more we draw from the deep reserves of what Minnesotans know and aspire to, the better off we'll be, on everything from public policy to business climate to civil society. As we consider how to apply our strengths to the challenging times ahead, here are a few things that I think would help.

Credible Data: Since Minnesota's Planning Department was eliminated, we've had no shared, go-to research source measuring threats and opportunities. Game planning without a scouting report is difficult. Minnesota Compass, funded by nine foundations and run by Wilder Research Center, could change that. But unless leaders of our civic spokes - foundations, for-profit and non-profit businesses, chambers of commerce, unions, faith communities, media, think tanks - coalesce as hubs to engage Minnesotans to act - a Compass just points.

Safe Harbors for Ideas: The Legislature wasn't designed to be a research and development center. But too often we expect it to be that and more, relinquishing our own civic responsibility. Minnesota has smart people and a multitude of public policy groups, including the Citizens League, Humphrey Institute, Chambers of Commerce, foundations, Growth and Justice, Center of the American Experiment, and others. But too often quality gets lost in quantity.

For example, it feels as though hundreds of groups work on "improving" education. Yet noise seems to overpower shared momentum. Imagine if we had really robust safe harbors for ideas, where people check their preconceptions at the door, share knowledge, focus and collaborate on solving specific problems and seizing new opportunities. The Citizens League is convening such a group to work on long-term-care financing, but we need safe harbors working daily. Technology could increase their citizen participation and move ideas from paper to advocacy to implementation. We implore government to work smarter and better together, but what about us?

A Shared Voice: Many commissions have studied taxes, making us the Land of 10,000 White Papers. But where is statewide discussion and understanding of those ideas? Why should only so-called "experts" discuss and examine taxing options? After all, we all pay taxes. It would take discomfort for some, untraditional collaborations, and leadership for our foundations, businesses, non-profits, think-tanks, and others to reach common ground on taxes and then rally Minnesotans to it. The "tax-the-rich!" vs. "no-new-taxes!" fight is too shallow for good governance and a barrier to a smarter system. A broader discussion - one not framed by partisans inside the Capitol - could empower us to make sound statewide decisions.

Venture Fund: A void of CEOs as civic catalysts is often lamented. But Minnesota has 19 Fortune 500 companies (33 in the Fortune 1,000), plus many foundations and philanthropists. Collaboration outlined above could be supported in part by a Minnesota Innovation Venture Fund seeded by those desiring better for our state, which I assume includes many companies, foundations, philanthropists and others. It would challenge citizens, foundations, universities, think tanks, special interests and others to submit proposals on how they'll engage a wide range of people - not just special-interest partners - in creating new approaches to public challenges. Funding could be awarded in phases. Each milestone triggers dollars supporting the next phase. Everyone works smarter. The winner: us.

Civility: Minnesotans are known for friendliness. But let's not rest on precedent. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) and Minnesota Public Television are skilled at keeping discussions on combustible issues civil. Interestingly, MPR was founded by Benedictines at Saint John's University, whose tenets include civility and the common good. Recipients of public dollars, MPR and Minnesota Public Television could convene statewide discussions on approaches grown from the Minnesota Innovation Venture Fund. Discourse also would benefit from media outlets following MinnPost.com's requirement that message board commentators use their real name. At public water coolers, transparency is a much-needed moderator.

In 1858, people began working together to build Minnesota. We can build much higher if we turn to each other.

Eric Schubert, Inver Grove Heights, a former Humphrey Policy Fellow at the University of Minnesota, helped found the Eugene J. McCarthy Lectureship at St. John's University, which this year featured former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Visitors from Minnesota get surprise visit from Obama

February 4, 2010, 9:54 am by Albert Eisele

Proving once again the adage that it’s not what you know but who you know in Washington, the presidents of two Minnesota private colleges got an unexpected surprise Wednesday when they were ushered into the Oval Office to meet President Obama.

The Rev. Robert Koopmann of Saint John’s University and MaryAnn Baenninger of the College of Saint Benedict were having lunch in the White House Mess with Denis McDonough, the Saint John’s alumnus and chief of staff of the National Security Council, and Jim Dwyer of the Saint John’s University development office, when McDonough informed them they were going to meet Obama.

“He said we better hurry because we have an appointment with the president,” Baenninger said after she and Fr. Koopmann spent about five minutes with the president, who posed for photographs with them while Vice President Biden cooled his heels outside the Oval Office.

“He was very personable and friendly, and talked about the importance of higher education,” said Baenninger, who has headed the Catholic women’s college since 2004. “And he was taller than I expected.”

Fr. Koopmann, the Benedictine priest who became Saint John’s 12th president last July after the death of his predecessor, Br. Dietrich Reinhart, said Obama praised McDonough as “one of the good choices I made.” And he noted that Obama put his arm around him as they posed for photographs.

Koopmann and Baenninger, who were in Washington for the annual meeting of private Catholic college presidents, were accompanied at the White House meeting by Dwyer.

McDonough, a 1992 Saint John’s graduate from Stillwater, was scheduled to join Fr. Koopmann and Baenninger at an evening reception on Capitol Hill for alumnae of the two colleges, but had to cancel because of a last-minute meeting of the National Security Council.

Matt Lindstrom, who heads the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at Saint John’s, announced the creation of a Washington Fellows program for students of the two colleges, which is named after former Republican Sen. David Durenberger, an alumnus of Saint John’s University.

Panel Discussion: "1968, Stars and Stripes Forever or Never?"

View the video of this panel discussion!

The last summer-Reflections from an undergraduate intern

Published in: Envision Minnesota, Newsletter of 1000 Friends of Minnesota -Fall 2009


By Ashley Ver Burg

As Minnesotans, we all feel the excitement that comes with the last snow bank melting away and the first 70 degree day; summer is on its way, bringing evening barbeques with friends and weekends up north at the lake. Each year, warmth and rain drops sneak back into our lives, and we all can appreciate the change of pace. While this time of year is simply a change in seasons to most working adults, summer has an entirely different meaning to students across the state. For us, summer signifies a three month break from chaotic routines of class, homework and commitments. Summer is a time to do exactly what we want: enjoy time with friends, read books we don’t have to, make money for school and live in the moment. As a junior undergraduate at the College of Saint Benedict, I was fully aware that 2009 would mark my last summer as I knew it. Luckily, during the spring of ‘09, I landed a Jackson Fellowship from St. Ben’s that allowed me to complete a summer internship with civic engagement components. So I began my search for the perfect place to spend my last summer, and it was not an easy task. As an environmental studies major looking to experience the nonprofit sector, I was astonished by the quality of environmental nonprofits in the state. My mind was spinning with possibilities, while sunshine and hummingbirds were quickly approaching. Then I came across 1000 Friends of Minnesota as I was doing research for a class on the Building Sensible Communities bill, and John Bailey’s work prompted me to research the organization. I was impressed. 1000 Friends of Minnesota was working toward everything I believed in, and I wanted to join the efforts. After a phone conversation and two meetings with Lakes Region Program Director Phil Hunsicker, I knew exactly where I wanted to spend my last summer.

From the end of May to the beginning of August, I spent my days working alongside Phil in the Brainerd office to “help Minnesota grow without wrecking the place.” This took the tangible form of developing conservation design scorecard outreach and education materials and jumpstarting a “Voices for the Lakes” essay contest.

I had the opportunity to work with groups like the Crow Wing County Lakes and Rivers Alliance, the Brainerd Area Environmental Learning Network and the North Central Lakes Collaborative, which taught me an extraordinary amount about the environmental efforts being made in Minnesota. In particular, the Community Growth Options program struck me as a significant contribution to helping Minnesota manage its growth, and Randall Arendt’s visit in June sticks out as an exceptionally impactful summer highlight. The experience I gained this last summer could not have been better, and the insight shared by 1000 Friends of Minnesota staff proved to be invaluable. In the end, I learned the power of altruistic dedication and sincere relationship building. If you are devoted to your work and invest in the people around you, then you can spend all your days doing exactly what you want to do. With this knowledge, I return to St. Ben’s for my senior year of college, and I look forward to savoring another year leading up to the melting of a last snow bank and a first 70 degree day. For 2009 marked not my last summer, but my first summer doing exactly what I want to do.

2009 McCarthy Lecture Speaker Appointed by Obama as Co-Chair the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

McCarthy Lecture Follow-up: Senator Chuck Hagel

The 2009 McCarthy Lector and former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (Neb-R) has been appointed by President Obama as Co-Chair of the Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board (or PIAB). The PIAB aids the President by giving advice on matters pertaining to intelligence. During Hagel’s lecture at St. John’s University, Hagel focused his speech upon a renewal in the transparency of government. Hagel also called for the revival of civil discourse and open discussion. This advisory board is precisely what Hagel advocated during the lecture. The PIAB is a non-partisan team dedicated to the protection of freedom. In the words of President Obama, this board, “improves the collection of intelligence, ensures that analysis reaches senior decision-makers in a timely way, and provides strong oversight to ensure that our intelligence activities are consistent with our democratic values and the rule of law.” The McCarthy Center would like to congratulate Senator Hagel on his appointment and wish him luck as he continues to serve his country with leadership, honesty, and patriotism.

Follow the link below to view the YouTube presentation:

President Obama Welcomes Senators Hagel and Boren to Intelligence Team...

St. Benedict forum to host GOP candidates

November 7, 2009

St. Benedict forum to host GOP candidates

Times staff report

ST. JOSEPH — Five Republican gubernatorial candidates are expected at a forum Nov. 17 at the College of St. Benedict.
The forum will be at 6:30 p.m. at Alumnae Hall, Haehn Campus Center. It is free and open to the public.

Candidates who have confirmed they will participate in the forum are State Reps. Tom Emmer of Delano and Marty Seifert of Marshall; former state auditor Pat Anderson; Bill Haas, a former state representative; and Phil Herwig, an activist from Milaca.

Each candidate will briefly present his or her platform before the group takes questions from the audience. Audience members also will be able to meet candidates before and after the forum.

The forum is cosponsored by the College Republicans at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University and the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at CSB/SJU.

Catch-22's Inherent in Today's Welfare System Block Pathways to Prosperity

By Bob DeBoer and Anna Schumacher

"Catch-22” is a commonly-used phrase in American culture. Coined in the 1961 novel of the same name by Joseph Heller, Catch-22 describes a no-win situation or a double bind. Two years ago, the Citizens League began examining its institutional history on poverty and gathering additional information through community meetings and interviews and research. The resulting project, New Pathways to Prosperity, is intended to reframe the issue of poverty in a way that can produce new ideas and new policy approaches.

So far, our efforts have convinced us that the current policies and conflicting incentives in place to address and alleviate poverty today often create a series of Catch-22s for the people living in poverty. For example:

• Current policies on poverty actually penalize people for earning more.

• The bureaucratic maze of agencies and requirements set up to address poverty waste the valuable human capacity of both those who administer the programs and those who benefit from them.

• Programs designed to help the poor fail to offer clear pathways out of poverty.

These conflicting incentives are difficult to address, but it is essential we understand them in order to develop new solutions to address poverty and the ways it contributes, both as a causal agent and negative outcome, to many other public policy dilemmas, including:

• dysfunctional families and generational cycles that increase crime and violence

• poor educational outcomes and disparities based on race and income

• poor health outcomes and disparities based on race and income (including criminalization from sexual exploitation)

• lack of mobility and access to job opportunities.

Since we began this inquiry in September 2008, the Citizens League, working with the Public Policy Project, has sought to broaden the conversation about poverty and its causes and impacts by applying a civic policy approach to the issue. Part of that approach has included convening conversations between community leaders and people directly impacted by policies on poverty. A working document available on the Citizens League website details the first phase of the New Pathways to Prosperity project. The findings and conclusions presented in that work provide the foundation for a committee to develop policy recommendations this fall.

THE WELFARE WALL AND DISINCENTIVES TO EARN

There is a cultural assumption that many Americans hold, and some assume is translated into public policy: If you hold a job and work hard, you should be able to work your way out of poverty. Yet, it is clear that our current policies and the major programs and tax structures created to address poverty make it difficult for people to climb out of poverty without extraordinary effort. Government policies and programs actually penalize people for improving their economic situation.

For those receiving government assistance, working more and earning more usually results in losing more economically than they gain, except for those able to make an astounding leap in income. “Disincentives to Earn,” a 2007 study by the Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research, reveals the conundrum: For a single parent with two children, an increase in annual earnings from $12,800 to $44,000 would result in a significant reduction in monetary resources when all the program eligibilities, tax credits,and deductions are factored in. That single parent would:

• take home $23,600 more in wages
• lose $30,600 in tax benefits and wage assistance.

This is the scenario for someone whose earnings jump from $12,800 to $44,000. The disincentives can be even greater for those who make more modest gains. If that same single parent’s earning grew from $33,000 to $34,000, the family would lose $2.50 in monetary resources for each dollar earned. These structural disincentives to earn are more commonly referred to as the “welfare wall.”

While it may seem that an increase in income would create positive change for a family, for those up against the welfare wall the outcomes are more complicated. For someone relying on government help for food, housing, or child care, each decision can lead to a serious Catch-22 that might mean the difference between working or not, having a place to sleep or not, or putting food on the table or not.

There is another important element to the welfare wall. Families and individuals receiving assistance are also discouraged or often prohibited from accumulating capital in the form of cash or assets. Without a financial cushion, people living in poverty are ill-equipped to face even the smallest financial mishap. A working mother who attended one of our convening sessions explained how this impacted her family. At one point, she earned too much to receive medical coverage for herself and her oldest child (her youngest child was covered by Medical Assistance), so she spent years paying off a bill for an emergency room visit for her oldest son while trying to work her way out of poverty. A number of things happen to a family when income rises. A parent may lose health coverage, for example, but one of the most consequential losses is the loss of a child care benefit. Child care, or the lack thereof, is one of the biggest barriers to employment faced by those living in poverty. Under the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), child care is one of the last benefits phased out as income rises. But, proportionally, it represents the biggest benefit, due to the extremely high cost of childcare. When presented with the opportunity to work, many parents will choose to work even if it means losing medical coverage. But losing the child care benefit is often an insurmountable barrier to employment. A parent can work while uninsured, but cannot work if there is no one to take care of the children. Forced to choose, some people leave their children with relatives, friends, or others who may not be equipped to provide appropriate care.

HUMAN CAPACITY WASTED NAVIGATING THE LINE

Efforts to alleviate poverty in Minnesota and the United States have evolved into a fragmented and often contradictory system that relies on sanctions and punitive regulation to control individual behavior and choices. The choices that do exist are fraught with Catch-22s and require those receiving assistance to navigate a maze of agencies and requirements that siphon off large amounts of human capacity in efforts that often do not offer clear pathways out of poverty—even for those individuals who successfully navigate the maze.

The need for recipients to report to different agencies is just one example of the fragmented nature of the welfare system. Eligibility for various programs and tax benefits are determined by a complex set of equations, and even if an individual is eligible to receive benefits, he or she may not receive those benefits for any number of reasons. Inconsistent practices and regulations between and within county systems present another time consuming set of challenges.

One example that illustrates this dynamic takes place around nutrition and health care eligibility. Recent changes in income requirements for the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program caused a number of women to lose their benefits. However, a clause in the regulation states that women can retain their WIC benefit if at least one child receives Medical Assistance(MA). One of the organizations we interviewed reported numerous referrals from clients who were instructed to apply for MA in order to maintain WIC benefits. Clients may not have needed or wanted MA, but both parties still had to expend human capacity in the application process just to comply with the rule change.

A very important issue to note in the area of health care coverageis that the application and renewal processes were designed andare mainly administered by people with generally stable lives toserve an economically unstable and highly transient population.

The result is a system that is often not well designed to meet the needs of those it serves.

Postal Service: The welfare system relies on permanent addresses, which are generally difficult for poor people to get and keep. All application and renewal activities are conducted via the postal system. That means the system relies upon a person’s permanent address to deliver important and time-sensitive information regarding eligibility, acceptance, denial, and penalties or sanctions. Backlogs in county systems can delay important notices and the variance in grace periods make reinstating medical coverageafter a sanction difficult and time consuming. Imagine a woman in an abusive relationship who takes her children to live with a relative. If her name is not on the mailbox, she can lose her benefits and have to reapply.

Proof. Proof. Proof: As noted before, a person may be eligible for benefits but still be denied. MA and MinnesotaCare require recipientsto turn in every pay stub and renew coverage every six months or annually. Many people in poverty do not have steady employment, but instead receive cash payments for odd jobs and seasonal or temporary employment. Failure to provide proof of this income results in denials or a termination of benefits.

The 50% Rule: At a certain income level, welfare recipients become ineligible for MA and are referred to MinnesotaCare, a health coverage plan that charges discounted monthly premiums based on ability to pay. But an individual is only eligible for MinnesotaCare if his or her employer does not provide medical insurance and pay at least 50 percent of the monthly premium. If the employer does offer coverage, that individual becomes ineligible for any public medical assistance, regardless of income and regardless of whether they can afford employer-based insurance. Those who can’t often chose to work without insurance. There is also no assessment of the coverage provided by employer-basedplans, so workers who do buy employer-based insurance may incur significant out-of-pocket costs and receive poor coverage.

CATCH-22s AT EVERY TURN

People in poverty who try to “do the right thing” are often confronted by a system riddled with Catch 22s. At one community meeting, a young woman shared this story: She had worked to attain her associate’s degree for three years and then lost her childcare benefit the day she graduated, leaving her with no one to care for her children while she tried to find a job with her newly acquired skills. This and other systemic Catch 22s waste huge amounts of human capacity and resources when people who work to improve themselves are then unable to compensate for the immediate loss of benefits that results from their improved situationand return instead to poverty and dependency.

A particularly vicious Catch-22 circles around the dynamic of those in poverty trying to keep stable housing, a requirement that must be met in order to keep custody of children and maintain benefits. That requirement gives landlords extraordinary economic power over impoverished tenants. If a woman cannot pay rent on time, there are predatory landlords who will settle the debt by accepting payment in other forms, most often sexual favors. Most often it is women and their children who are targeted for these “payments”. Because eviction can permanently ruin the family’s ability to find and keep housing, a woman can feel pressured to accede to such payments. If she does, she can be prosecuted if she refuses future sexual demands and seeks help. Prosecution can result in the loss of child custody and benefits.

SEEKING A NEW FRAMEWORK

The ideas presented in this article are an attempt to reframe poverty in a way that we hope will spur new ideas and new approaches. They are part of a working document available on the Citizens League website.

This fall, a Citizens League committee will take the New Pathways to Prosperity project to the next level, developing policy recommendations to resolve the Catch 22s that make it difficult for people living in poverty to climb out of poverty.

The committee’s work will be guided by our civic policy agenda and two assertions that we think will push the discussion to thenecessary policy level:

• Systems designed to support people when they are poor shouldnot keep them poor.

• Policies should not encourage family breakdown or penalize families trying to stay together.

These two statements will be tested broadly as the Citizens League seeks policy solutions that move us forward. If you are interested in participating on the committee, visit us online at http://www.citizensleague.org/.

•Bob DeBoer is the Citizens League Director of Policy Development. He can bereached at 651-293-0575 ext. 13 or at bdeboer@citizensleague.org.

Anna R. Schumacher is a senior at the College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’sUniversity where she received the first John Brandl scholarship. She interned at the Citizens League over the summer.

Krebs column: Is journalism dying? It depends on who you ask...

November 1, 2009

By Randy KrebsTimes opinon editor

I’ve been a professional journalist for almost a quarter century, and I (willingly) followed my father — who followed his father and mother — into journalism and the newspaper business.
I tell you that because when I say “I’ve heard my entire life that newspapers and journalism are dying,” you know I speak the truth. And yet the industry is still here. More importantly, and according to the latest buzz, 70 percent of these operations are profitable.
Yet Wednesday I attended a panel discussion, “Newspapers, Internet, And The Future Of Democracy,” featuring some knowledgeable journalists and educators, all of whom seemed so convinced that newspapers and journalism are dead that, well, I wondered if I should show up for work the next day. (I did — and we even printed a paper, put information on the Web, helped people express their views, etc.)
The event was part of a bimonthly series of informal discussions on issues related to public policy and politics, sponsored by St. John’s University’s McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement. It featured host and political science professor Jim Read; Kathleen Hansen, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota; Katie Johnson, Communication Department at St. John’s/College of St. Benedict; and Nick Coleman, senior fellow, McCarthy Center, and award-winning columnist.
As much as I respect their opinions, I must say these panelists made perhaps the most unforgivable journalistic sin: They didn’t check out all sides of the obituary — I mean story — before they wrote it.
Indeed, from what I heard them say, none of them have researched — much less worked in — the world in which I work, the world of small daily and weekly newspapers.
Don’t get me wrong. I certainly see and agree with some of their broader points.
Yes, the digital age is changing journalism. (I’d argue those are good changes, but that’s another panel discussion.) Yes, the traditional newspaper model needs to change. (It is changing; see www.sctimes.com.) And most certainly, the biggest newspapers and media companies in America are facing serious financial and journalistic challenges.
Yet to hear the panelists tell it, the struggles of the Star Tribune and a handful of other major metro newspapers make it certain that all other newspapers will die. And soon. After all, if The New York Times can’t make enough money to keep its Israel bureau open or if the Strib has to cut its Washington staff, well, that can only mean one thing: The St. Cloud Times and weekly newspapers will go under, too.
Sorry, but at the least, I call that conclusion arrogant. More so, though, I question its accuracy. (Last I checked, the Strib emerged from bankruptcy and still is among the best and biggest newspapers in the Upper Midwest.)
More importantly, from the Minnesota Newspaper Association: Of the 3,133,857 Minnesotans receiving newspapers, only 27 percent (873,249) are receiving a daily newspaper. That means 2,260,608 are receiving a paper that is not printed daily. Additionally, only 17 percent receive the Strib or St. Paul newspaper.
The reality is newspapers are like any industry. The parts that make up “the industry” all vary — in size, product, mission, technology, customers, profitability, etc. Those individual parts either evolve or they die. When hasn’t that been the case?
And while I fully acknowledge that the industry is in perhaps its biggest time of change, I can’t stress enough that it’s an industry built not on the printed word, but on providing news and information — two things more in demand today than at any other time.
So while it is troubling that some big metro daily papers are caught up in a recession while battling massive debt, from where I sit — the newsroom of a small daily newspaper — I don’t see those struggles dragging down the other 70 percent of the parts that are still profitable.
Sure, at some point your news and information might not come in the form of ink and dead trees. But you still will want that product. The challenge for the industry is to determine how to gather and deliver it in a profitable way.
That’s very different than declaring newspapers and journalism are dead just because a few of the biggest trees might be falling.
This is the opinion of Randy Krebs, St. Cloud Times Opinion Page editor. He can be reached at 255-8762 and rkrebs@stcloudtimes.com.