Everyone Agrees: Time to Freak Out About Democrats Losing the Senate. It's Avoidable:

The Beltway punditocracy is in near-universal agreement now that the Democrats will almost certainly lose control of the Senate this fall. Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, and Robert Gibbs have all declared it is evident that this result is, if not inevitable, at least extremely likely. The crazed hype surrounding these predictions notwithstanding, it is important to note that the Democrats' Senate majority is tenuous at this point. Several of the Democratic Senators up for reelection this year represent deep red states where President Obama is not only extremely unpopular but in which he also lost in November 2012, when he was at the peak of his national popularity. Further, the rollout of Obama's signature health care law, combined with the "you can keep your plan" controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act, has not only hurt Democrats' standing nationwide but it has also not been helpful to Democratic senators running for reelection. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted for Obamacare, including the conservative Democrats up for reelection this year, so they are already facing political attacks from the right for their votes for the ACA. However, the analysis that is being done now as we examine Senate Democrats' chances fails to take into account several key factors.

For one, though Senate races are increasingly nationalized in nature, local factors are still vital, as Tip O'Neill would tell us. For instance, Mark Begich remains well-liked in Alaska, Mary Landrieu has a famous family name in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan may benefit from the liberal uprising known as the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina. Second, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has proven adept at fending off GOP efforts to retake the Senate in the previous two election cycles as they recruited stellar candidates in open seat races, protected incumbents well, and exposed Republican rivals for their ultraconservatism. In 2010 and 2012, observers and pundits of all political persuasions predicted that a GOP takeover of the Senate was not out of the realm of possibility. Instead, Harry Reid and Michael Bennet retained their seats in 2010, the Democrats had a net gain of seats in 2012 thanks to wins like Elizabeth Warren's victory in Massachusetts, and those same pundits reacted with surprise the morning after the elections. Third, the Democrats actually are in a good position to potentially win back two GOP Senate seats in Kentucky and Georgia. In these states, the party has fielded exceptional candidates in Alison Lundergan Grimes and Michelle Nunn, both daughters of political heavyweights in their state's Democratic parties, and their GOP rivals (Senator McConnell and the litany of inane Republican congressmen Nunn may face) are not very popular. Public opinion polls are surprisingly showing statistical ties in these states.

Nevertheless, it is crucial that Democrats stay alert this year, show up to vote, and be mindful that a lot is at stake here. The final two years of Barack Obama's presidency will be crucial in determining his legacy as he seeks to remake the federal judiciary, now that the filibuster for presidential appointments is gone, and in order to do that, he needs a majority in the Senate to approve his nominees. If the Republicans take over control of the Senate, dysfunction in Washington will only worsen. In 2010, when millions of Democratic voters failed to show up to the polls, the result was devastating as we've now seen what GOP control of the House, various state legislatures, and a majority of governorships has done to the country: imposed painful austerity that has weakened the recovery from the recession while states enact a plethora of laws restricting civil rights in an array of issues. The Democrats would be wise to employ the following pieces of advice if we wish to avoid another disastrous midterm:

1. The party should emphasize the genuinely popular, populist ideas and policies that President Obama and the party has advanced and championed this year. These include an increase in the minimum wage (as well as highlighting Obama's move to raise the wage to $10.10 for federal contractors), reforms to overtime pay, boosting anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance, protecting the social safety net, and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. Public opinion polling finds that these progressive policy prescriptions are enormously popular, even among GOP voters in red states. Smart candidates are already capitalizing on these issues to boost their chances, such as Grimes, who is underscoring her support of a minimum wage increase and equal pay for equal work for women in Kentucky. On the other side of the country, Senator Begich was wise enough to be one of 16 Democratic Senators to sign a letter to the President urging him to avoid proposing unpopular cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in his budget. Polling shows that Grimes and Begich have benefited from these moves while in Arkansas, Senator Mark Pryor came out against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and the evidence does not point to any boost for his campaign after making this announcement. The fact of the matter is that economic populism is both good public policy and good politics. Undertaking these issues as core elements of a candidate's agenda will help vulnerable Democrats because these policies can attract Independent voters who are concerned about the economy and will excite the base that typically does not turnout in midterm races as much as they do in presidential years.

2. Tie the GOP candidates in your races to unpopular congressional leadership, expose their unpopular ideas for what they are, and follow them carefully to catch any gaffes. This kind of effort is a must because the last two cycles have proven that when weak, extremely conservative Republican candidates in swing Senate races are revealed for what they really are, they lose steam from their initial seeming inevitability. In 2010 and 2012, this was the case for candidates like Ken Buck and Todd Akin, respectively, as their gaffes and repulsive ideas regarding women's issues sunk their campaigns. The Democratic candidates in tough Senate races this year ought to relentlessly shed light on their GOP rivals' seriously unpopular ideas like cutting social safety net programs and repealing even well-liked parts of the Affordable Care Act. They would further be wise to employ talented and energetic opposition researchers who can pound on the weaknesses of Republican candidates in order to make clear that these races are not referenda on the state of the country but rather choice elections. Beyond that, Democratic Senate candidates would be smart to associate their rivals with GOP congressional leadership, given that Congress is extremely disliked. This is quite easy for some candidates, such as Grimes who is conveniently running against the Senate Republican leader - an unpopular figure nationally and in his own state.

3. If you are an incumbent, demonstrate real work you are doing in the Senate on behalf of your constituents. History has shown that voters reward workhorses, not show-horses in Senate races. For example, Senator Al Franken appears in solid shape for reelection in Minnesota, despite the President's declining popularity in this state he carried easily twice, in large part because of his impressive record of legislative efforts and achievements. On the other hand, in 2006, when Senator Rick Santorum failed to win reelection in Pennsylvania, one element of his loss was undoubtedly his showmanship as a national GOP social conservative hero which overshadowed any kind of other legislative work he was undertaking. Therefore, Democratic Senators who are running for reelection ought to highlight their efforts in the Senate to achieve legislative accomplishments on behalf of their constituents. By doing so, they will show that constituents in their states will be sorry to lose them.

In the end, Democrats have reasons to be worried this cycle but it doesn't mean that they can't employ wise political strategy to avoid losing our fragile majority.

Why the Oscars Matter, the Case for My Favorite Film of the Year, and My Predictions

Despite losing a significant chunk of viewership amongst the key demographic of 18-49 year olds, the Academy Awards are still a culturally significant, exciting, and important celebration of excellence in film. In the United States, our mastery of movies, acting, and the thriving nature of the Hollywood industry has fueled economic productivity, livened our culture, and has made us a beacon of free expression and art in the world. Further, the films that are recognized at these ceremonies are ones that capture our imagination in the most inspirational, heartwarming, tragic or enlightening ways. They are the best of the best -- movies that, in some cases, can reshape our thinking and understanding of life. For these reasons, the Academy Awards are still very much relevant, important, and worth our attention.

This year's films are among those movies that inspire us, challenge our thinking, and boggle our minds. 12 Years a Slave reminds us of the horror of slavery and why we should never forget, dismiss or understate the brutality and gruesomeness of America's greatest sin. American Hustle makes us laugh at the comedic nature of the corruption of the ABSCAM scandal while making us cognizant of the dangers of pay for play politics. Her dares us to imagine the unthinkable possibilities of a future of constantly expanding technology. Of all of these films though, the one that deserves Best Picture, and the one for which the lead actor deserves Best Lead Actor, is The Wolf of Wall Street and Leonardo Dicaprio.

The criticisms of the film are understandable - mainly, that it glorifies the excess and bad behavior of Jordan Belfort and that there are sexist undercurrents in the portrayal of the characters involved. Perhaps I am biased towards liking the movie only because I saw the film with my best friends on my birthday but I don't think that explains my belief that it is worthy of Best Picture.  Far from glorifying Mr. Belfort's despicable actions, the film vividly illustrates the dangers of his way of life, the heartache and misery his decisions cause for his family and for so many working individuals he duped along the way, and the horrible consequences of greed.

Beyond that, The Wolf of Wall Street is an incredibly timely film, a movie that tackles head on many of the most pressing issues of economic justice that have dominated our national dialogue in the years since the financial crisis. It superbly demonstrates the deranged yet self-serving mechanisms, motivations, and mindset of the worst of Wall Street financial titans whose desires and decisions are entirely driven by their own well-being. The film shows these actions are wrongs, as seen in its demonstration of the pain that these decisions cause for many, many people, while indicating that justice is attainable. The final scene, in which the FBI agent on the subway appears satisfied and content looking at the faces of middle class Americans he looked out for in going after Mr. Belfort, encapsulates the movie's overriding message that levers of power, in this case that of the government's, can be utilized for good to squash power that is used for bad and that, ultimately, justice can be served. Further, the film also includes extremely talented acting on the part of Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill, both of whom deserve the respective awards tonight for which they are nominated. They electrify the screen, brilliantly capture the spirit and personalities of their characters, and have a rapport in the film that is masterful and wonderfully orchestrated. These actors, combined with the compelling nature of the story, make for a truly great film that, despite being three hours long, keeps you excited, alert, and involved for the entirety of its duration. It is a film like The Wolf of Wall Street  - relevant, entertaining, and defined by skilled acting - that makes watching the Oscars still an important annual ritual.

Now, for my predictions:

OSCAR HOST: Ellen DeGeners will do a fantastic job as emcee of the Academy Awards. She is extremely funny, down to earth, and virtually universally well-liked. She'll do a better job than Seth MacFarlane, without question, though it remains to be seen if she'll top her own 2007 hosting performance for which she won an Emmy.

BEST PICTURE: 12 Years a Slave

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club)

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE: Judi Dench (Philomena) 

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Frozen

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Gravity

BEST DIRECTING: American Hustle

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: The Act of Killing

BEST FILM EDITING: American Hustle 

Happy Presidents' Day!

This post was originally written for Presidents' Day 2014 but now includes updates added on Presidents' Day 2021:

Ever since I was little, I've been fascinated by the office of the presidency of the United States. The institution of the presidency is an incredible one because it is an awesome force that can be used for incredible good or incredible bad. There is tremendous power over the globe centralized into the hands of one individual.

Our country's best presidents were those who utilized this power to maximize good for citizens around the world, whether it was Abraham Lincoln, signing the Emancipation Proclamation and ultimately backing the abolition of slavery, or FDR, marshaling through Congress the New Deal and leading the U.S. to an Allied victory in World War II. The worst presidents did precisely the opposite: using the powers of the office for personal satisfaction or being terribly incompetent in management of the executive branch. These include Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's horrid successor who opposed the constitutional amendments that outlawed slavery and advanced equal protection, and notably, our current self-obsessed president, Donald Trump.

For better and for worse, the power of the presidency has only expanded over time, in both domestic and foreign affairs. In the domestic arena, the president's authority to sign executive orders, faithfully execute federal laws, and set the agenda through the power of the 'bully pulpit' gives them enormous advantages over the other branches of government. In foreign affairs, the president's expansive power as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, combined with their stature as the representative of the United States to the global stage, is continuously growing.

Given these realities, it is incumbent upon a president to use this awesome power for good. Exercising such a mission should mean fulfilling one of the core promises of the preamble of the United States Constitution: using the power of the federal government to "promote the general welfare" of the people. In the end, this notion is tied to the question that presidents should ask themselves upon leaving office: how did I use the power when I had it?

It is a privilege to wield the unimaginable power of the presidency and it should be the duty of each president to be able to answer that question in a way that indicates they did what they could to sizably, materially improve the lives of Americans, and people around the world, for better.

It is often debated whether presidents make history or whether history makes the president. Those presidents who have used the power of the office to maximize good, and to expand opportunity and prosperity, have been the ones who have helped shape and make history. Those presidents, the ones who exceeded observers' expectations, are the truly great presidents.

These presidents that go above and beyond the call of duty in "promoting the general welfare" are the ones historians ought to hold in high esteem. Consider FDR's example as he was elected in 1932 to enact emergency, temporary public works spending and even campaigned on deficit reduction. Roosevelt though decided he wanted to change the course of history and fundamentally reshape the social safety net. He created Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board, among a slew of massive progressive reforms that continue to define our domestic social welfare structure. FDR recognized that history's call beckoned him to show boldness that would have a lasting effect for generations.

Lincoln, similarly, acted beyond his mandate to demonstrate necessary, transformative leadership in the country's most perilous hours. When Lincoln was elected, there was no expectation that he would ever endorse the abolition of slavery. During the 1860 campaign, he advocated merely for halting the  expansion of slavery; he was even, at one time, a supporter of the racist American Colonization Society which called for black Americans to be sent to Africa. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln, despite a difficult reelection campaign in 1864, endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery and he helped see this goal through in 1865. He rose to the occasion when the moment called for it and set the stage for the emergence of a fairer and more democratic country.

It should go without saying that none of these displays of presidential leadership would be possible without the persistent activism of an engaged citizenry. It is also incumbent upon us, as participants in a vibrant democracy, to use our own tremendous power as voters and as activists to demand courage from our leaders.

Ultimately, we are a better country today because of these past successes. We need bold, activist leadership from the presidency and engagement from the public for the sake of the prosperity of all. In the long run, both the country, and the legacy of a president who answers the call for using power for maximum good, will be stronger because of it. Happy Presidents' Day!

MY RANKINGS:

TEN BEST PRESIDENTS (starting with the best):
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Barack Obama
6. Lyndon B.  Johnson
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John F. Kennedy
9. Harry Truman

10. Dwight Eisenhower

TEN WORST PRESIDENTS (starting with the worst):
1. Andrew Johnson

2. Donald Trump

3. James Buchanan

4. Franklin Pierce

5. Millard Fillmore

6. George W. Bush

7. Warren G. Harding

8. Calvin Coolidge

9. John Tyler

10. Herbert Hoover

The Cultural Significance of The Beatles

February 9 marked 50 years since The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show in front of 73 million American TV viewers and forever changed the history of music. The Beatles though, in that performance and beyond, changed more than just music. They and their brand were far more significant in their impact on American culture and public life. The Beatles served as the perfect transition between the structural, ordered nature of the 1950s and the counterculture heyday of the late 1960s and the 1970s.

Their embrace of love, lyrical tributes to the beauties and disappointments in relationships, and seemingly out of this world hairstyles and unique live performances that brought girls to their knees (literally) were part of a much needed cultural jolt. The music, style, and attitude of The Beatles liberalized the culture, enthused young Americans with newfound energy, and celebrated free expression and artistic creativity. Perhaps it is not so surprising that I have this feeling since not only I am a huge Beatles fan but I am also a Democrat and as President Clinton perfectly put it a decade ago, "if you think the 60s were a bad time, you're probably a Republican; if you think the 60s were a good time, you're probably a Democrat."

In the process, The Beatles also helped Americans cope with the struggles, sadness, and sorrow of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who perished just three months before the Fab Four appeared on Ed Sullivan's stage. As young Americans lost an icon who connected to them in a deeply personal and fundamental way, they then found in The Beatles new icons with whom they could easily identify. This generation yearned to be free-spirited, rebellious, and emotionally charged. John, Paul, George, and Ringo gave them that chance more than anyone else in the public eye at the time.

Further, as protests against the Vietnam War grew in the late 60s and much of the youth of America turned to sex, drugs, and countercultural attitudes that offended Richard Nixon's so-called "silent majority," The Beatles led the way and reflected those feelings. Both in their songs and in their appearance, they shifted to a more psychedelic nature, best seen in the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album, that essentially communicated to this generation that they should embrace and expand their freedom to be who they are without fear.

Ultimately, The Beatles did not just launch a revolution in the music industry. They also helped fundamentally transform and reshape American culture more broadly. Paul McCartney himself acknowledged this reality in a recent CBS Grammy tribute to the band as he told the audience that so many Americans told him personally that the Ed Sullivan appearance changed their lives. Cheers to The Beatles.

In Enthusiastic State of the Union, Obama Seeks to Cement Legacy of Effective Progressive Activism

Stymied by dysfunction in a Congress led by a Republican House majority which shut down the government and continually threatens to default on our debt, President Obama conveyed understandable frustration with the logjam in Washington but demonstrated an enthusiasm for rising above that gridlock to enact good public policy on his own. Utilizing the rhetorical loftiness, inspirational oratory, and empathetic earnestness that made him appealing as a candidate in 2008 and 2012, the President demonstrated the confident and concerned leadership for working people that public opinion polling indicates Americans are seeking in him. Further, Obama's robust defense of the ability of government to work for the interests of working families, instead of standing in their way with pointless exercises such as voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, was a welcomed embrace of progressivism that indicates an understanding from the White House that this year is the last best chance for the President to leave behind a firmly activist legacy.

It's true that Obama has already achieved a tremendous deal in his first several years in office. He shed light on some of those accomplishments in his address, including, most notably, the patient protections and expansion of health insurance in Obamacare. However, he still needs to do more to both protect the accomplishments of the first term while also paving the path for a truly sustained economic recovery that lifts the economic well-being of working class and middle class families. After all, the latter is arguably the reason why Barack Obama was elected president in the first place, defeating John McCain amid a financial crisis that threatened to plunge the country into a second depression. The administration is seemingly aware of this fact as Obama told The New Yorker's David Remnick that he wanted to be judged on whether he increased ladders of opportunity for the middle class. Political pundits lamented though that President Obama sounded defeated, tired, and downtrodden in Remnick's piece about the prospects of his final years. If anything, tonight's address should have put those doubts to rest.

The President appeared keenly aware that this moment is the perfect chance to seize the opportunity to be the happy warrior for American working families that someone like Hubert H. Humphrey was. The State of the Union address was a spirited manifesto of progressive principles such as lessening income inequality, protecting voting rights, expanding educational opportunities, and reforming the immigration system. Progressives have yearned for Obama to focus on these issues and in emphasizing these subjects tonight, the President implicitly nodded to his base that he wants to make their signature issues the core of his legacy. On policy and political grounds, Obama is on firm footing here. Despite President Obama's lackluster job approval rating, the policies he pushed during his address are enormously popular thus increasing the likelihood that members of Congress facing reelection this year will support them. In terms of the impact of these policies on the broader economy, scores of economists have recently come out for increasing the minimum wage, a broad range of research indicates immigration reform would boost job creation while reducing the deficit, and law enforcement, education reform advocates, business leaders, and other groups have all come together to support universal pre-K as a necessary downpayment for future economic productivity. In order for Obama to both regain his credibility with the public as an effective champion for working people and leave behind a legacy of popular progressive activism, it was crucial that he make a confident case for these policies.

Further, reestablishing trust with the public that Obama can be a strong leader who cares about middle class people and seeking to establish a productive, progressive legacy -- both of which are fronts on which voters have been losing faith in the president -- are goals that the President did his best to achieve tonight in one key way: immediate executive action. On many levels, executive actions like the ones he outlined tonight are a wise route to take. Recent public opinion polling showed 52 percent support for taking executive action if Congress is unproductive, the President had been losing points on showing strong leadership, the areas in which the White House announced new executive action were ones in which it was increasingly clear Congress was unwilling to take action, and, unlike what some conventional wisdom demonstrates, the executive actions might actually ratchet up pressure on Congress to take legislative action on those issues because the President will seem productive vs. a lackluster legislature. As such, President Obama took the initiative on several issues on his own, most notably raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour; the broader effort to raise the minimum wage for all Americans to that level is extremely popular, and economically effective according to recent studies of the Economic Policy Institute, so Obama is on solid ground here. Ultimately, that's where he was throughout the night, demonstrating the optimistic, energetic, and aggressive leadership that the public wants and needs. Now is not the time for timidity and the President seems to agree.

Follow My Roommate's Blog

Since today is National Compliments Day, it is only fitting that I offer a compliment to a friend. My roommate since August 2012, Kyle Menyhert -- a fellow brother of Sigma Nu and someone I've been friends with since the very beginning of our time at GW -- recently launched a blog of his own, entitled Mind of Menyhert, that is quite good. The blog posts he's published so far are intelligent, diverse, insightful, and entertaining. I highly recommend Kyle's blog as he takes a look at various issues, from sports to politics, and does so in a fair, nuanced, and honest manner. His blog can be read here: mindofmenyhert.blogspot.com. Happy reading...and happy Friday! The photo on the left by the way is of Kyle, President Obama (sort of), and me. In our view, it very accurately reflects our respective attitudes towards the President. As for my opinion of Mr. Obama, why wouldn't it be positive when news like this is in the headlines. Oh, and, that's another compliment for National Compliments Day. Well done, Mr. President.

The War on Poverty Worked

Fifty years ago this month, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty in America." In his January 1964 address to Congress, LBJ underscored his fervent desire to "build more homes, more schools, more libraries, more hospitals," to drastically reduce unemployment, and to provide strong safety nets for the elderly, the disabled, and the nation's poorest citizens. President Johnson's proposals were certainly ambitious given the fact that a vote on Medicare, for instance, had failed during the Kennedy presidency in 1962 by a narrow margin in the Senate. Indeed, much of the agenda Johnson ran on in the 1964 campaign was stymied by southern conservative Democratic senators during his predecessor's tenure. Then, Johnson won in an overwhelming landslide, crushing Barry Goldwater with the largest national popular vote percentage total in modern history: 61 percent of the vote. LBJ had a clear mandate to enact a sweeping agenda of progressive change that would fundamentally reshape American social policy. The domestic legal framework of our social welfare system would never look the same as LBJ sought to launch an aggressive war on poverty. Five decades later, despite the assaults on these efforts from President Nixon and President Reagan and the conservative movement, by almost any metric, the war on poverty has proven a success.

As The History Channel correctly noted in its The Presidents documentary special, LBJ's war on poverty "cut the percentage of those who lived in poverty by half" by the end of his tenure in 1969. It was not until the enactment of Richard Nixon's policies of block-granting, partly dismantling, and devolving federal anti-poverty programs did poverty begin to worsen again. After the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who blasted the New Deal as having its origins in "fascism," a deemphasizing of the importance of social welfare in public policy led to an increase in income inequality, higher homelessness, and less aid to impoverished areas of the country. Therefore, it is particularly rich to see modern day Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan declare that the war on poverty was a failure when it is the policies of their own party that led the war on poverty to become less successful. When politicians pull the rug out from under people struggling to make ends meet, the result is not that they suddenly bounce to joyous financial prosperity. Instead, what happens is that these families spiral into even more abject poverty, their children fall behind as opposed to their more financially stable peers, and the broader economy suffers as some of the minute wealth of these Americans disappears.

On the other hand, when elected officials choose to invest in robust anti-poverty programs that seek to lift people out of hard times, give them a chance to a fair and decent life, and help the economy by giving these individuals the chance to become part of a broader middle class, poverty is reduced, families are ultimately better off, and the country benefits from the success of these Americans. The evidence that this has been the case in the war on poverty is overwhelming. SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that is otherwise known as "food stamps," became what we know it as today during LBJ's tenure. Consequently, according to the most recent Census studies, as many as four million Americans were lifted out of poverty because of SNAP in 2012 . Further, the Recovery Act's 2009 increase in SNAP allocations resulted in a much-needed jolt to the then-suffering economy. Medicare and Medicaid, also creations of the war on poverty, have boosted the livelihoods of millions of senior citizens and low-income families, respectively, who rely on these crucial lifelines to provide for their health insurance which, if these programs did not exist, would be in limbo thanks to the egregiously, historically high costs of private health insurance in the United States. Thanks in part to Medicare, the elderly have gone from being among the most likely groups to fall into poverty, five decades ago, to now being the least likely group. This outcome was a core goal of LBJ and it appears to have been met. Finally, for all the criticisms Head Start has earned, the "bottom line" is, according to a thorough Washington Post analysis early last year, that the LBJ-launched program "produces modest benefits including some longer-term gains for children." Those gains are part of a crucial federal investment in early childhood education which has proven to be key in fostering the cultivation of successful, productive members of society who contribute proactively to economic growth.

Those who dispute these findings are the very same individuals who propose budget blueprints and policy proposals that aim to destroy these programs and, in turn, their ideas do not really reduce poverty as they claim but instead result in making rampant poverty a permanent fixture of American life. That's not the vision LBJ had and thankfully, because of the efforts he and the Democratic Congress of his time launched, even in the face of attacks on this anti-poverty framework, the success is evident in the statistics. "The federal government," The New York Times noted recently, "has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher...[and] a broad range of researchers...[have] stressed the improvement in the lives of low-income Americans since Mr. Johnson started his crusade." We must recommit ourselves to Lyndon Johnson's cause if we want to take a serious stab at reducing the outrageous levels of income inequality we see today. Thankfully, it appears that President Obama is interested in undertaking that effort. His expansion of SNAP, unemployment insurance, and various tax credits as part of his 2009 federal stimulus law -- though many of these benefits are now expired thanks to recent congressional inaction -- showed he is willing to commit himself and seek out success in fighting poverty. Further, he has even overseen an expansion of Medicaid thanks to his Affordable Care Act and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program early in his presidency; both of these policies are helping reduce poverty as we speak. This year though, if the President wants to live up to the LBJ legacy of aggressively fighting an "unconditional war on poverty," he must be bold in his State of the Union address like Johnson was 50 years ago and he must follow those words with actions similar to those Johnson took. Indeed, that's the only thing that's ever worked.