The first step toward being an effective communicator in DC might sound painfully obvious, but its importance can’t be overstated: You have to know what you’re talking about. To help shape a conversation, being attuned to policy must be constant – understanding the in-depth arguments for and against a certain proposal, knowing what legislators and stakeholders are saying, analyzing how the public feels, and determining which questions have been left unanswered.

One of the wonkier, ongoing policy discussions generating renewed interest of late involves how best to allocate federal program funding to states. For things as varied as food stamps, housing assistance, and disaster assistance loans, many lawmakers are proposing the use of block grants. So, are block grants an effective and efficient way to inject much-needed funding in hard hit areas? Or are they simply a band aid that covers more systemic issues?

A block grant is a capped amount of federal funds given to state governments for broad-purpose use to dispense at each states’ own discretion. The U.S. currently uses a block grant structure for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the federal housing assistance program, and Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP). Because block grants give greater freedom and power to the states, it’s no surprise they’re typically favored by Republicans. In the past few years, we’ve seen presidential candidate Jeb Bush and former House Speaker Paul Ryan propose “opportunity grants” to consolidate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and President Trump called for block granting Medicaid in his Fiscal Year 2020 budget.

Even more recently, Tennessee asked the administration to allow it to become the first state with a Medicaid block grant, and they might have an answer soon – just today the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began review of the Trump administration’s plan to let states change the structure of their Medicaid programs to follow a block grant model.

In talking about the Tennessee bill, its co-sponsor state Sen. Paul Bailey (R) said, “we need the flexibility to determine what is best for our citizens instead of continuing down the path of a one-size-fits-all program from Washington, D.C.”

While most in red states would argue that flexibility allows states to create more tailored approaches to meet the unique needs of their populations, a blue state politician likely thinks that’s just code for “funding cuts” and “no oversight.” New research from the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality (GCPI), a leading economic think tank, found that because flexibility is often paired with only modest oversight and little corrective action, block grants can be less accountable. GCPI would say it is too easy to use block grants as a short-term budget trick, diverting funding away from the area of greatest need. In the process, the research showed, this can exacerbate inequalities, particularly for racial minorities, women, and people with disabilities.

To understand the full scope of the challenge beyond the arguments for and against, look no further than Puerto Rico, where NAP funding’s inability to flex in accordance with the added need brought forth by Hurricane Maria and the financial crisis has led to tense negotiations on Capitol Hill and families nervously pinching pennies throughout the Commonwealth. About 1.35 million low-income Puerto Ricans experienced a sharp decrease in food assistance this March after funding ran out, and Congress was unable to quickly approve a package for additional funding.

Wrote Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo in a letter to Congress at the time, “Failure to approve the additional $600 million in NAP disaster relief for Puerto Rico would force us to reduce the program enrollment and decrease monthly benefit levels to a level below those in the states.”

As of now, an agreement on disaster relief funding has yet to happen.

You’ll remember the U.S. block grants NAP, but not SNAP – the mainland version of food assistance. Some economists have said that SNAP is more effective because it functions quite unlike a block grant. For example, in the last recession, TANF barely responded to the increased need for housing assistance. Funding had a capped limit that would have required a vote to raise, and some states had already diverted TANF funding to unrelated areas of their budgets. Meanwhile, the countercyclical nature of SNAP allowed rolls to expand much more easily.

Despite having many detractors, the idea of block granting is becoming increasingly popular across the U.S. So, how can either party win this argument once and for all? From a messaging standpoint, Republicans and their allied groups need to demonstrate the need for independence in crafting solutions that address the specific needs of one state, not all fifty. They should also be prepared to explain how a capped amount is sufficient to meet the needs of their populations, even and especially during turbulent times.

Across the aisle, Democrats should frame the debate from the perspective of those who are losing – the injustice of low-income families that can’t access a basic standard of living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world – while also doing more to demonstrate how this could harm states as a whole, not just people in need.

Realistically, this is a debate that will largely happen outside the public sphere – it’s a little too in the weeds for many conversations. But it will be interesting to see how the battle to frame block grants makes its way into statehouses and media if proposals like the one in Tennessee become more common. Might we see this evolve into a whole new communications challenge – winning the public on a wonky issue – or are block grants too drab for a bigger arena?

Time will tell.

The column below originally ran in Roll Call which can be viewed here.  

OPINION — Two developments in the last month signal potential new life for a long-popular policy idea: creating a national paid family leave program.

First, two prominent Democrats — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut — reintroduced the FAMILY Act, which would provide working Americans up to 12 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a new child; to care for a sick loved one; or to recover if an injury or illness requires an extended absence from work. The bill has wide-ranging support among Democrats, but this is the seventh year in a row it has been introduced without a Republican co-sponsor.

Second, a handful of prominent Republicans — including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Mike Lee of Utah, along with presidential senior adviser and paid family leave advocate Ivanka Trump — met to discuss how to move forward on this topic.

It would be easy to look at these developments as another example of the parties retreating to their corners and touting competing solutions, and perhaps in today’s Washington a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate.

But to do so misses three key insights. First, the sheer fact that a handful of Republicans are meeting to work together on this issue is a milestone.

Second, federal policymakers across the political spectrum support the concept of a national paid family leave program. In fact, in the last Congress, a record 207 members signed on to some form of paid leave legislation, and this Congress is already on track to beat that number.

Third, and most importantly, the policy solutions are starting to sound more and more similar. While not trying to sugarcoat real differences, it’s time to celebrate the attention being given to this critical issue and areas of policy agreement that might pave the way toward bipartisan support for action.

Specifically, here is where we see Republicans and Democrats beginning to agree:

Gender equity

Most caregivers are women, but there is broad agreement that gender equity is key. Both parties now propose maternity and paternity leave, a dramatic shift from conversations that solely focused on moms.

Duration

The current federal policy, the 25-year-old Family and Medical Leave Act, offers 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Many plans are now considering up to 12 weeks of paid leave. Past proposals have been far skimpier.

Focus on working families

Democrats and Republicans alike are proposing policies designed to reach Americans who struggle to make ends meet. There is agreement to prioritize policies that focus benefits that are accessible on low- and middle-income families.

Any national plan is going to have to answer some essential questions: Who will be covered, what will the benefit be, how will the program be structured, and how to pay for it? But on some of these, common ground already exists. It’s time for collaboration and compromise to fill in the gaps.

Why make this push now? The real-world need of America’s workers is beginning to align with political benefit and political will for both parties in a way that makes action possible.

America simply can’t wait any longer. As an Axios report detailed last week, women now outpace men in educational achievement, yet their participation in the workforce is stagnant or even declining. And young people are waiting longer to have children, citing economic insecurity and lack of paid parental leave as key reasons. At a time when only 15 percent of American workers have access to a paid leave benefit, and very few hourly-wage workers receive paid leave, we are beyond asking why.

What’s more, Americans want national paid family leave. A recent poll found 84 percent of voters support a national policy. Instituting paid family leave will support economic growth, foster family formation, and keep America globally competitive. It’s a political winner.

We have momentum toward making a monumental difference for working families through some type of national paid family leave program. The only ingredient missing, and maybe not for long, is bipartisan collaboration.

In addition to her work at FTP, Adrienne Schweer is a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center focused on paid family leave. She is also the founder of the nonprofit organization Family Leave Works and a former chief of protocol to the secretary of Defense. 

As the nation’s governors gather this week for their annual meeting in Washington, much of the talk, as usual, will focus on health care. Democratic governors, in particular, are putting forward proposals to make health care more accessible and affordable, specifically for those who still lack coverage. While Washington remains in gridlock, state leaders are moving ahead by using the tools available to them under the existing health care system.

Recent headlines have focused on Democrats’ move to the left. While the political rhetoric in health care revolves around terms such as “single payer,” “Medicare for all,” and “public option,” the reality of the situation is much less dramatic, but nonetheless significant. The substance of the proposed policies in the states consist of achievable and implementable measures that do not require additional federal legislation or creation of new federal programs. Rather, these proposals build on the policies and programs put in place in recent years, including the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and do not disrupt current forms of coverage that almost 92 percent of Americans currently rely on.

Despite gains over the past several years, there are still over 30 million individuals without health insurance [Exhibit 1]. Already in 2019, state and local leaders are taking actions that directly address segments of the remaining uninsured population. Taken together, they offer a range of solutions that could be implemented locally and cover the vast majority of the remaining uninsured.

With these new policy proposals, state leaders are directly addressing challenges, so all Americans have access to coverage. While at the federal level a stalemate persists on any new action on health care, these leaders are demonstrating significant progress can continue to be made today. And despite a flurry of new terms and charged rhetoric around health care, these proposals highlight the opportunity to make significant, demonstrable progress in access to coverage utilizing existing policies and programs.

2019 promises to be a busy legislative year since all 50 states will convene legislative sessions (as opposed to 46 in even-numbered years). As sessions get underway across the country, most usually commence with the governor’s State of the State address. They say you campaign in poetry yet govern in prose, and these State of the State addresses will be a balance between the two. These addresses are the first big opportunity for the 20 newly elected governors to make their mark and outline clear policy priorities.

While much focus is always placed on what can, or cannot, get passed at the federal level, states are the laboratories of democracy and often lead the nation with their legislative activity. State of the State addresses are messaging exercises just like the State of the Union but governors’ legislative priorities often have an easier route to becoming a reality. In the 43 addresses that have taken place thus far, two big themes have emerged regardless of which political party is in control: Improving education and solving the opioid crisis.

Education

On the heels of high-profile teacher strikes in Arizona, Oklahoma, and West Virginia last year, 42 of the 43 governors who have given their speeches addressed education. Governor Doug Ducey (R-AZ) touted his 20 percent raise for teachers and said, “To anyone out there considering using these resources somewhere else, I have one message – don’t even think about it. These are raises teachers earned and they are raises we are going to fulfill and protect.”

Ducey oversaw the strike in his state last year but was able to put the matter behind him and easily win reelection. Clearly, Ducey wants to start his new term off on a positive note with teachers.

Newly sworn-in Governor Jared Polis (D-CO) lamented the teacher shortage in Colorado, especially in rural areas, and proposed an idea of offering student loan relief for those teaching in those places.

Even in deep-red Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) noted competitive teacher pay is a priority of his and pointed to his budget, which included a $3,000 permanent raise for teachers.

Opioid Crisis

As the opioid crisis continues to inflict pain in communities across the nation, each governor has the responsibility to try and combat the epidemic in their states as best they can. Twenty two of the 43 speeches have mentioned the opioid crisis, including Governors Eric Holcomb (R-IN), Laura Kelly (D-KS), Tom Wolf (D-PA), and John Carney (D-DE).

Holcomb stated that while prescriptions are down and more data is available than ever before, there is still a long way to go. One of his suggestions was improving access to medication assisted treatment (MAT) and better services for pregnant women who are suffering from opioid use disorder.

Governor Kelly, who won as a Democrat in a deep red state, hailed the findings of a task force headed up by her predecessor Governor Jeff Colyer (R). The task force recommended easing the burden on the criminal justice system but did not further elaborate.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Wolf also made clear his budget prioritizes the fight against the opioid epidemic and took executive action last year to remove prior authorization for MAT.

Lastly, Governor John Carney touted his state’s Behavioral Health Consortium, which administered naloxone over 3,000 times in Delaware. While there is much work still to be done, it is a positive development that the issue is receiving a lot of attention across the states.

With so much activity in the states, monitoring action at both the legislative and executive level is vitally important. Failing to do so means missed opportunities, or worse, getting caught off guard and under attack. It’s imperative to be prepared.

This week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) is hosting its 87th Annual Winter Meeting. Mayors from across the political spectrum, representing big cities and small towns alike, will descend upon Washington, D.C. They come here to strengthen federal and municipal relationships, promote policies that help America’s cities and the diverse populations that call them home, and create a forum for local leaders to share ideas, policies, and best practices on how to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing issues.

As political gridlock continues to consume Capitol Hill, mayors from around the country are crafting and implementing innovative solutions that address the challenges faced by their constituents. In particular, mayors are leading the way when it comes economic opportunities, public health, and combating addiction.

Providing Economic Opportunity

Public and private partnerships are a staple of American public policy, helping to provide critical services and economic opportunity. Following the Great Recession of 2008, federal and local lawmakers have looked for innovative ways to spur economic development in some of America’s most distressed rural and urban communities.

As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Congress included a bipartisan provision that established a new community development program intended to encourage long-term investment in America’s low-income rural and urban areas: The Opportunity Zone program. The program provides tax incentives for the investment of unrealized capital gains into Opportunity Funds that are dedicated to investing in real estate development and businesses located in designated low-income areas. To encourage long-term support for these communities, investors will realize the tax incentives at five years, with the highest rate of return starting in year ten and beyond.

Today, mayors are leading efforts to transform their communities and provide economic opportunities for everyone. Mayors Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky (D) and David Holt of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (R) are at the forefront of utilizing Opportunity Zones to improve their cities.

Louisville is one of the most advanced cities in this space and has 19 different areas designated for investment. A couple of the projects currently on track for completion include:

In light of Oklahoma City’s recently released investment prospectus, Mayor Holt and the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City has eight neighborhoods selected for investment. Specifically, the city is committed to continuing the development of the Central Business District, the Oklahoma City Indian Cultural Center, and furthering its role in the medical innovation space, among other projects.

These projects, under the guidance of Mayor Fischer and Mayor Holt, seek to provide responsible economic development that create a social impact by partnering with local residents who can benefit from the wealth created.

Fighting Childhood Obesity for Healthier Communities

Over the past three decades, childhood obesity rates have tripled, with the greatest impact felt in communities of color: 40 percent of children in African American and Hispanic communities are overweight or obese. As rates continue to climb, mayors are taking action to combat the epidemic.

The current USCM President and Mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, Steve Benjamin (D), is at the forefront of creating healthier communities. Columbia was recently awarded a Childhood Obesity Grant by USCM and the American Beverage Association due to Mayor Benjamin’s leadership through the program “Project GNF (Gardening, Nutrition, and Fitness).”

The initiative seeks to make gardening, nutrition, and fitness fun for families, and offer healthy food alternatives for those who live in food deserts through urban farming and community gardens. The grant provided to the city helped redesign and increase the size of each garden plot, increase the level of youth and community involvement, and partner with a local university to teach young children the science behind growing fruits and vegetables.

Studies have shown that obesity is associated with job absenteeism, costing approximately $4.3 billion annually, nationwide. By prioritizing the health of the children of Columbia, South Carolina through community gardens, Mayor Benjamin is creating a foundation for a stronger future and taking an innovative approach that could be a part of a national strategy. 

Combating the Opioid Epidemic

In 2017, nearly 50,000 Americans died of an opioid overdose, with the number of opioid-related deaths doubling in the last five years alone. Today, you are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a motor-vehicle accident.

The City of Dayton, Ohio held one of the highest opioid death rates in the country for almost a decade. In 2018, however, the city reversed that trend, lowering opioid overdose deaths by half compared to the previous year. Mayor Nan Whaley (D) has been at the forefront of combating the epidemic and undertook a new strategy to help save lives.

The city implemented a collective impact model that relies on data to help inform public health decisions. Mayor Whaley and community leaders took an all hands on deck approach that brings together law enforcement, public health officials, non-profit, municipal and county leaders, as well as the private sector to help reduce deaths.

In addition, the Mayor and her administration have implemented tactics such as greater access to naloxone and a needle exchange program; compassionate policing focused on prevention and support for addiction, rather than criminalization; increasing access to addiction treatment; and, developing a community of recovery and support.

Mayor Whaley’s holistic approach is helping the residents of Dayton as they grapple with one of the deadliest health epidemics in American history. Her leadership and ground-breaking strategy offers insight into one way a city has successfully saved lives. 

Local leaders have a long history of playing a pivotal role in our nation’s policy. The aforementioned highlights are just a small snippet of the incredible work mayors are focused on around the country. Mayors will continue to lead the policy conversation and address issues not only prevalent in their communities, but also pressing for the entire nation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2018

LEADING REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST STEPHANIE GENCO JOINS FORBES TATE PARTNERS
FTP Continues to Grow, Announces New Partner and New Analysts

WASHINGTON – Forbes Tate Partners (FTP) today announced that Stephanie Genco, a longtime Republican strategist and former Deputy Policy Director for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), has joined its strategic communications and public affairs practice as Partner. Genco joins FTP as the firm’s public affairs practice continues to grow, bringing her expertise on coalition work and crisis communications to our clients.

 As Partner, Genco will use her decade of experience on Capitol Hill to inform thoughtful strategies and craft effective full-service advocacy campaigns, from grassroots and media engagement to state legislative monitoring and event management. She will also help lead the firm’s public affairs team as it continues to grow, both broadening and deepening its policy expertise. Prior to joining FTP, Genco ran coalition efforts and created innovative public affairs campaigns that spanned industries and policy areas from tax and trade to energy and tech policy. Her political experience includes serving as the Deputy Policy Director for the NRCC during the 2016 cycle, where she tracked legislative policy impacting Republican incumbents, challengers, and targets. Before that, Genco served as then Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam’s (R-IL) Communications Director and also as Communications Director for Congressman Diane Black (R-TN).

“FTP is known around town for its deep understanding of policy and winning advocacy,” said Genco. “I am thrilled to join such a dedicated, bipartisan group and bring my communications and campaign experience to bear on behalf of FTP’s clients.”

“We couldn’t be happier as our team continues to expand, especially as we add communications veterans and policy experts like Stephanie,” said Founding Partner Jeff Forbes. “Stephanie has been a go-to strategist for dozens of House candidates and leading companies and coalitions. Her experience leading advocacy campaigns makes her a welcomed addition to FTP’s growing bipartisan team and for our public affairs clients.”

Also joining FTP’s public affairs practice are Kate Jahries and Elizabeth Kapolka, both as Analysts. Jahries joins FTP from The Campaign Workshop where she advised political campaigns, advocacy organizations, and statewide coalitions as a fellow. Before FTP, Kapolka interned at Weber Shandwick where she monitored media landscapes and maximized clients’ digital footprint in real time.

About Forbes Tate Partners:

Forbes Tate Partners is a bipartisan, integrated full-service public affairs consultancy specializing in government relations, communications, grassroots advocacy and third-party coordination, coalition management, and business development. The firm develops and implements strategies and campaigns related to tax, health care, financial services, trade, energy, telecommunications, appropriations, outdoor recreation and natural resource management, and agriculture. Longtime strategists Jeff Forbes and Dan Tate, Jr. founded the firm in 2012.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 8, 2018

FORBES TATE PARTNERS’ GOVERNMENT RELATIONS TEAM CONTINUES TO GROW
Representative Cummings Alum Announced as FTP’s Newest Vice President

WASHINGTON – Forbes Tate Partners (FTP) today announced that Francesca McCrary, who most recently served under Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07) on the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, has joined the firm as Vice President. McCrary joins FTP as its government relations practice continues to expand and deepen relationships across both parties and chambers.

“We’re really excited to have Francesca join us and strengthen what is already an incredibly strong House Democratic team,” said Founding Partner Jeff Forbes. “Her relationships and insight into large portions of the Democratic Caucus will be an immediate help to our clients.”

In her previous role, McCrary was responsible for the Committee’s health care portfolio. To that end, she worked closely on Medicare Negotiation Bill H.R. 4138, was the lead investigator for the Committee’s Multiple Sclerosis Drug Price Investigation, and also managed the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee. Prior to her work on the Committee, she served in multiple roles on Congressman Cummings’ staff and advised the congressman on energy, environment, science, and technology issues.

“Forbes Tate Partners is known on and off Capitol Hill for their dynamic, client-centered work,” said McCrary.“I am excited to be a member of a team who has time and again demonstrated subject matter expertise, reliably addressed their clients’ needs, and proven their commitment to diversity and inclusion. I look forward to joining the firm and contributing to Forbes Tate Partners’ good work.”

About Forbes Tate Partners:

Forbes Tate Partners is a bipartisan, integrated full-service public affairs consultancy specializing in government relations, communications, grassroots advocacy and third-party coordination, coalition management, and business development. The firm develops and implements strategies and campaigns related to tax, health care, financial services, trade, energy, telecommunications, appropriations, outdoor recreation and natural resource management, and agriculture. Longtime strategists Jeff Forbes and Dan Tate, Jr. founded the firm in 2012.

While it is not garnering the same amount of media coverage the battle for the U.S. House is, 36 governors’ races are set for this November and of those, 26 (72%) are currently held by Republicans. According to RealClearPolitics (RCP), this November will be a competitive one as there are eight toss up races, seven races rated as ‘Lean Democrat’ and three races rated as ‘Lean GOP.’

Regardless of how the contests turn out, it’s important to know that more than a third of the state capitals will have new leadership, with 17 states guaranteed to elect a new Governor. Of the 17, 16 are either term-limited or retiring and one incumbent, Governor Jeff Colyer (R) of Kansas, was defeated in a tight primary by Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Takeaway 1: This primary season, GOP candidates endorsed by President Donald Trump had a lot of success. On top of Kobach’s victory noted above, President Trump-backed candidates won the GOP nod in open seat races in California, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, and Nevada. Though President Trump did not make an endorsement in the Minnesota primary, Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), who has been critical of President Trump, lost to a far more pro-Trump candidate in Jeff Johnson (R) in his attempt to reclaim his old office. Longtime GOP megadonor and investor Foster Friess (R) of Wyoming was the only Trump-backed candidate that ended up losing his primary. President Trump also endorsed incumbents who were facing a primary challenge in Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, all of whom ended up advancing to November.

Takeaway 2: Governors’ races in traditionally red states like Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, and Kansas, along with traditional battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all won by President Trump, are rated as toss-ups for November.  But, blue state Republican governors appear to be safe as Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont are all deemed so by RCP polling.

Takeaway 3: Two Democratic candidates who have garnered a lot of attention and are in close races are Andrew Gillum of Florida and Stacey Abrams of Georgia. Both Gillum and Abrams have been endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders (D) and defeated more establishment candidates to qualify for the general election by energizing the party’s progressive base. The matchups in each state feature a pro-Trump candidate against a Sanders-backed candidate and have received a lot of publicity.

If you are looking for more information, you can find the breakdown on the gubernatorial races here and a downloadable version here.

Ernest Hemingway and Walt Whitman – both preeminent American authors – could not be more different in their writing styles. Whitman is known for his flowery, elegant, and poetic prose. Hemingway’s storytelling is recognizable by his direct, unadorned approach. Each are widely imitated and celebrated in the world of literature. But for today’s public affairs professionals, Hemingway’s style is the one to emulate.

Press flacks, consultants, and executives should recognize the news cycle is too fast – and the attention of readers too short – to issue lengthy, overexplanatory statements. They would do well to keep these announcements simple and concise, improving the odds a reporter will read it, and include that statement in a broadcast or article.

Take the topic of truth. Here is how Hemingway describes it in “For Whom the Bell Tolls”:

“There’s no one thing that’s true. It’s all truth.”

The opening of Whitman’s “All is Truth” puts it a more elaborate way:

“O me, man of slack faith so long! Standing aloof – denying portions so long; Only aware today of compact, all-diffused truth; Discovering today there is no lie, or form of lie, and can be none, but grows as inevitably upon itself as the truth does upon itself, or as any law of the earth, or any natural production of the earth does.”

Same message, completely different delivery. Only one of these quotes would likely be used in a broadcast or news article, and the choice is clear.

The need for brevity is not limited to public affairs professionals. The Wall Street Journal recently reported “the average length of a published economics paper has more than tripled over the past four decades,” and one MIT professor lamented the “logorrhea of our current state of scholarship.” In fact, the American Economics Association is attempting to stem the problem by launching a journal “dedicated to publishing only concise papers – nothing longer than 6,000 words, or about 15 double-spaced pages.”

Let’s consider a political example. This statement was issued by a candidate for U.S. Senate after the President announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Iran deal:

“President Donald Trump showed great courage and leadership by pulling the United States out of the Iran Nuclear Deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He campaigned, in part, on the promise to take the United States out of the JCPOA. Today, he has kept that promise.

“In 2016, Americans chose a new path. When voters elected Donald Trump, they rejected the feckless foreign policy thinking of the past when being firm with our enemies was regarded as reckless while appeasement was considered acceptable. The President must not remain trapped by the failed policies of the Obama administration, which demonstrated a lack of American resolve and emboldened the regime.

“Since entering the JCPOA, Tehran has amplified its regional aggression, advanced its missile program, and flaunted its military strength. Making matters worse, Iran’s leaders continue their calls for Israel’s annihilation. And despite assurances to the contrary, Tehran has exercised an unabated pattern of deception when dealing with the international community.

“Iran is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. President Trump has rightly declared that Iran will not attain nuclear weapons nor the means to deliver them. A nuclear Iran will never be acceptable.

“Moving forward, a comprehensive approach should press the IAEA to strengthen and expand its inspection of Iran’s nuclear program; oppose Iran’s regional aggression and support for terrorism, including any permanent Iranian military presence in Syria; toughen sanctions against those supporting Iran’s missile program, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah; and ensure that Israel has the means and flexibility to defend itself against the growing Iranian threat.

“President Trump is right: the Iranian people deserve a safe, prosperous and free Iran. Getting out of the JCPOA was not only a promise kept, but a concrete step towards peace.”

This statement was written to appeal to a conservative audience, which it does adequately enough. But the author missed the mark for media consumption and the general public. First, the statement should have ended after the first paragraph; the last five are repetitive and certainly not as strong as the lead. Second, the additional material gives reporters options for quotes to use in their article, instead of steering them to the one the author wanted. Third, when issuing statements on widely-discussed topics of the day – such as the Iran deal – the use of background information on the issue is not always needed, especially when being used within a direct quote. In this case, less is more.

There are plenty of times when this is done right. For example, Sanofi, a pharmaceutical manufacturer that produces the sleep medication known as Ambien, found itself in the middle of a social media firestorm not of its own making. Roseanne Barr, the outspoken and controversial actress, laid the blame on her Ambien medication for racist, insensitive, tweets. The next morning, the company hit back with this statement:

“People of all races, religions and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world. While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.”

In a moment of crisis, Sanofi defended its company and its products, and condemned Barr’s racist comments with two short sentences. The quote was quickly and widely disseminated, enabling the company to cut through the ‘noise’ and get its entire message to the public unadulterated.

Effective communications – political, corporate, academic, or otherwise – requires insightful, succinct, and informative messaging. Don’t use five paragraphs when one will suffice. Be informative, but don’t give away the farm. Know your audience, and tailor the message accordingly.

Above all: more Hemingway, less Whitman.

For years, FTP’s own Adrienne Schweer has been working to build political momentum for paid family leave.

A personal passion turned into a professional effort, her work aims to change the fact that only 15 percent of Americans have access to a defined paid family leave policy – maternity, paternity or family leave.

Adrienne recently became a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) to help with their Task Force on Paid Family Leave.

Lasting policy starts with bipartisan agreement – and for paid family leave, momentum exists on Capitol Hill but has yet to turn into bipartisan legislation. To elevate the discussion and forge consensus, last week Adrienne and the BPC team brought current and former policymakers from both sides of the aisle together for an event.

White House Advisor Ivanka Trump joined BPC to talk about why the White House has been working towards a national paid family leave policy. During the conversation, moderated by Adrienne, Trump discussed why a national paid family leave policy that supports American working families could happen today:

“Momentum is now occurring on the Hill to pass a paid leave policy…and conversations like this and bipartisan gatherings like this are instrumental in keeping that momentum going and driving solutions.”

Later in the program, Adrienne moderated a fireside chat with former Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) – both BPC Task Force members – to hear their perspectives on solutions and policies around paid family leave. Dodd and Santorum, both well-steeped in the political issues surrounding paid leave and why a national law has yet to take hold, addressed why they believe a bipartisan national policy is possible now.

As author of the 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in the Senate, Dodd discussed the need to capitalize on today’s political and public momentum for a national paid leave policy:

“When you get the kind of general agreement that we’ve now reached a point where paid leave is important…if you don’t grab those moments to try and get it done, you can wait another half a generation to deal with it – so my hope is that we won’t miss this opportunity.”

An opponent of FMLA 25 years ago, and now a supporter of a national paid leave policy, Santorum discussed the need for curbing the health and financial issues incurred by the current lack of a policy, especially given the changing American family and workforce:

“I look at it from the standpoint of a society that says, ‘if we’re going to continue, we need to have stable families for children to be raised in,’…There are all sorts of demographic reasons, social science and health science research that really does point to a need to rescue the family situation in America today that did not exist in such stark terms 25 years ago.”

In the coming months, Adrienne will be working with Dodd and Santorum, along with other BPC Task Force members, as they develop paid family leave policy recommendations.

But in the meantime, Adrienne will take a well-deserved break to focus on her next great work: Delivering and raising Schweer baby number four. The FTP family wishes Adrienne and her family all the best as they welcome their next child. After she comes back from paid maternity leave, we cannot wait to see what this hard-working mother will achieve!

Ready to change Washington?

Join Our Team.

View Career Opportunities