Subject: Re: Readout of upcoming Glenn Thrush piece
From: "Ann O'Leary" <[email-masked]>
To: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
Cc: Joel Benenson <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 14:02:29 -0700

Thanks, Brian.  This is really helpful and sounds like it will be a
positive story

I agree with you that it would be good to get in the mix that she is not
just talking to the usual suspects on econ policy in our circles (e.g.
Larry, Neera, Gene), but has sought out ideas from a range of people - some
with big national reputations, some with progressive workhorse
reputations.  For example:

   - In terms of "new" thinkers, I would say she has been most moved by Raj
   Chetty and his work on social mobility; Roland Fryer on his work on how to
   infuse evidenced-based practices from high quality charters into
   traditional public schools as part of our human capital strategy to
   economic development
   - Heather Boushey, President of the Center for Equitable Growth, has
   been a constant present in our early meetings and helped shape her thinking
   on the underpinning of policies that lead to equitable growth
   - Katie Porter, who is a law professor at UC Irvine and was the
   Independent Monitor of banks for the California Mortgage Settlement met
   with her and gave her great insight into what the fallout from the housing
   crises looked like from the ground up
   - Eduardo Padron of Miami Dade College came to talk to her about college
   opportunity, as did Heather McGhee, President of Demos
   - She also has been very interested in and has been reading materials
   from Isabelle Sawhill at Brookings and Robert Putnum from Harvard - as she
   thinks about the impact of family structure and community on social
   mobility and economic growth (both invited to meet with her but timing
   didn't work)

So - I guess my bottom line here is that his premise is right that she is a
real wonk and digging deeply into these issues, but that she doesn't look
at it from a narrow economic growth perspective, but rather with a wider
lens to human capital development and social mobility as key components of
economic growth - and that is why she will leave room in her budget for big
investments in college affordability, child care, paid leave

Happy to talk to him on background if that would be helpful - or get on
with Maya - whichever is best

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Glenn Thrush is doing a deep-dive story for late Thursday or Friday on
> HRC’s economic policy development activities. The story is premised on the
> notion that she is a true wonk who likes to dive deep into policy, gorging
> on briefing memos and attending meetings with experts and always asking
> lots of questions. She has been engaged in thinking through her platform
> for the last several months, with an eye on using the summer to roll out a
> bunch of proposals in key areas of economic policy. These rollouts will go
> beyond box-checking exercises of putting her on the record on issues of
> interest to primary voters, but rather will comprise the raison d’etre of
> her campaign. These policy announcements have the potential to go beyond
> motivating the base, and speak to a general election audience. Thrush views
> her ability to stake out suitably bold positions on these issues—and most
> importantly, to project how deeply in her bones she cares about confronting
> these issues—as the key to HRC’s electoral success. And, if she wins, this
> agenda could usher in a Roosevelt-ian moment (here, he will note the fact
> of the launch taking place in Four Freedoms Park) where the Democratic
> party uplifts a generation of middle-class Americans into prosperity in a
> way that Obama, whose job was to stop a recession and whose energies were
> sapped by other distractions, never could.
>
>
> That’s the lofty setup. In sketching this out, he is seeking info on who
> she is talking to during the policy development process, what policies she
> is developing ideas on, and what the political tripwires are.
>
>
> WHO SHE IS TALKING TO
>
> Thrush rattled off these names: Summers, Sperling, Tanden, Stiglitz,
> Gensler. With Summers, he said he is unaware of him directly speaking with
> HRC, but believes he has def spoken to WJC and to Podesta. His sense is
> that Summers very badly wants to be involved/heard out, but Glenn is unsure
> of any specific ideas that Summers is directly pushing or to what extent
> the campaign truly considers him an adviser versus just another voice in
> the mix. On Gensler, he intends to note that he is a darling to the Warren
> wing, but it is unclear how involved he will be on policy involvement.
> Beyond these names, he will invoke the CAP report on inclusive prosperity
> and Roosevelt report as the two big tomes currently influencing the
> conversation.
>
>
> WHAT ISSUES SHE IS DEVELOPING IDEAS ON
>
> He mentioned college affordability, pay equity and family leave as things
> he expects her to do announcements on, but he is most obsessed in where she
> is leaning on Wall street reform and tax reform. This leads to …
>
>
> POLITICAL TRIPWIRES
>
>
> TAXES. He said he is hearing that she is definitely interested in stuff
> like expanding the EITC, but mostly, he says he assumes she is not going to
> lean big into tax increases on the individual side (or at least, certainly
> not an increase in the individual rate) and that she is wary of trying to
> tackle corporate tax reform as well. His theory here rested on two
> premises: (1) She does not want to be tarred as a traditional tax-and-spend
> liberal, and (2) it would be inauthentic for her because, though she has
> long championed government programs as a mechanism for social change, she
> has not viewed the tax code in similar terms. I tried to muddy the waters
> here. I did not over-do it and hint that she would be putting a major tax
> increase at the heart of her agenda. But I said there was still political
> space to pursue revenue raisers to pay for stuff, and pursued that way
> (everyone doing their fair share in order to give everyone a fair shot, as
> opposed to soaking the rich for its own sake) would not at all be untrue to
> her record.
>
>
> CORPORATE GOVERNANCE/EXECUTIVE PAY. He has heard she is developing a plan
> on this. He does not know what it will include, but his instinct is that
> this will be a tough one for her to navigate. He suspects there will be
> some stuff in the Roosevelt report that she will just not want to
> entertain. Specifically, he said he doubts she will endorse reforming the
> performance pay exception. She will not want to provoke Wall St too much.
> In fact, he went so far to say he suspects HRC will try to copy what he
> thinks Schumer has always tried to do when it comes to navigating the
> demands of the left with Wall St being his backyard: that is, endorse a
> little pain for Wall St, while simultaneously trying to justify it to the
> industry as something more fair-minded than the alternative,
> pitchfork-style proposals coming from the far left. I said I didn’t think
> her approach needed to be that cynical. There is plenty of space for
> policies that both restore fairness/accountability and that even
> business-minded folks believe is smart and savvy. To this, he said, you may
> be right, and invoked Steve Rattner as an example of someone to whom HRC’s
> hypothetical proposals on corporate governance could appeal.
>
>
> BOTTOM LINE: I think his starting premise is good. But I think Glenn
> believes that despite our ambitions to put these bold, progressive economic
> issues at the heart of HRC’s campaign, we will necessarily bump up against
> some limits of what HRC personally believes and/or could seem inauthentic
> in advocating. I think we should try to dissuade him of this point by
> suggesting that there is plenty of running room in these policy areas for
> HRC to be both bold/aggressive and true to herself/not pandering. I also
> think we should consider throwing some more progressive names out at him in
> terms of experts we’ve consulted in order to ensure the names he checks in
> the article gives off the right vibe.
>
>
> NEXT STEPS: Joel has agreed to talk to Glenn. He has also reached out to
> Dan in recent days, but he has understandably been busy with the speech. I
> think it would be good if either Maya or Ann would talk to him on
> background.
>

-- 
Ann O'Leary
Senior Policy Advisor
Hillary for America
Cell: 510-717-5518