A blog about politics, poetry, sports and music.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Green grows the legislation
Suddenly, thanks to the change in administrations, we have a surfeit of environmental legislation. Oh, green blooms in a new spring.
DISPATCHES: Using public money
to buy access to public's representatives
This week's Dispatches is on the state comptroller's report on government agencies and lobbying firms.
Runner's diary, Tuesday
My legs are still sore from this morning's run, which is a good thing, I suppose. I ran three miles in about 26 minutes (probably about 25:50) and then did crunches.
iPod: Joe Strummer, Streetcore
iPod: Joe Strummer, Streetcore
Monday, March 30, 2009
One-hit wonder?
Political candidacies -- like tables and chairs -- need more than one leg to stand upright. Chris Christie, the Republican frontrunner in the race for governor, may be about to learn this first hand.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Spring hopes eternal
It's been a long offseason, thanks to collapse redux, a Phillies title and a Yankees spemding spree, but the new bullpen looks good and the starting pitching has serious potential (though it remains a question mark to some degree because of age and inconsistency).
The lineup is the issue, more specifically the back end with the anemic Brian schneider and Luis Castillo batting in front of the pitcher. I'd almost rather seem Santana and No. 5 starter Livan Hernandez hit seven.
But it is spring and in spring hope springs eternal -- even for the Nationals.
And I just may have to buy this toddler Mets cap for my niece, Jocelyn (maybe they have it in pink). Have to give her the proper direction, after all.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Obama's Afghanistan policy:
Different but still the same
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
First, there will be more troops and advisers. So, war remains the answer in Afghanistan, even if the Obama administration is bulking up diplomatic efforts.
Second, there is the rhetoric -- which Rachel Maddow last night showed was similar, sometimes word for word, to the language used by President George W. Bush.
It is true that the strategy is a break from the Bush administration's, but it is a falsehood to say that the war in Afghanistan was not one of choice as we are hearing from some. Afghanistan may have been the home to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but a full-out war was not necessarily something that had to follow 9/11. A narrower approach was still possible back in October 2001, one that could have resembled a police raid on a drug-manufacturing house -- a coordinated effort that would not have resulted in the kind of indiscriminate actions that have poisoned our relationship with the region and now appears to imperil Pakistan.
Tom Hayden is correct:
The Obama plan instead will accelerate any plans Al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The alternative for Al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A terrorist attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan. The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir.Or as another Nation writer, editor Kristina Vanden Heuvel, said not too long ago,
Escalating the occupation will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies and negate our improved image in the Muslim world prompted by our withdrawal from Iraq. Escalation will not increase US security or secure a better future for the Afghan people--indeed, more troops will certainly mean more dead civilians.We need a much greater break with Bush policy than what President Obama is offering.
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
The first real damage
I guess it was just a matter of time. Exhaustion takes hold and we miss the signs.
Consider the last couple of days, as we still tried to keep them calm after their surgery, when all of their puppy energy gets pent up without an outlet. They run around the house like crazed and headless chickens on a sugar rush, tumbling maniacally. The result, as I wrote earlier, was a little issue with Rosie's incision, but nothing major.
They are not listening particularly well, however, which is probably our fault. And we are failing to pick up the signs.
There have been the pee issues of late -- Rosie, for some reason, has taken to relieving herself on the rug shortly after coming in from outside. Not that she hasn't attempted to tell us -- she has. It's just that our frustration and her constant requests to go outside -- and her less-than-clear signals (she gets antsy but not in a specific way that distinguishes it from other behavior, unlike Sophie who will ring the bells by the door) -- have gotten the better of us.
All of this culminated early this morning in the latest damage: a hole in our den couch. Sophie has chewed through a laptop power cord -- not great, but not irreplacable. The hole in the couch, however, is a major problem. Our couches are an unusual green with tan piping and a pillow top attached to the main cushion. We can't just sew it and turn the cushion around or over; we have to get it repaired and/or live with the obvious damage. Who knows what it will cost (laptop cord was $100), but it is money that we do not have.
It happened around 6 or 6:30 -- they began bugging us at 4 and Annie let them out. Sometime after that, closer to 6, they began bugging us again. We failed to listen -- exhaustion, aggravation -- told them to lie down and fell back to sleep. They knocked over the gate that keeps them in the bedroom and hallway and were loose for a while.
Bad dogs, for sure, but bad owners, as well. We've now learned a valuable lesson: When they start bugging us like that, we have to get up.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hightstown grudgingly plays
governor's pension game
Hightstown is going to take advantage of the state pension holiday -- but only because the state is holding towns like the borough hostage.
The state has tied the pension deferral to extraordinary aid, the pot of money the state sets aside for cash-strapped towns. The aid is designed as tax relief, but requires towns essentially to exhaust all other means to bring their tax rates down.
The aid, however, functions like an addictive drug that forces them to keep coming back for more every year.
Consider what happens to municipal surplus use. Towns are forced to use 95 percent of their surplus balance as revenue in their budget to qualify for the aid. When towns do that, they often find themselves scrambling the next year if it cannot find enough revenue to offset the amount of surplus used. That forces towns to repeat the mistake, to go back to the state for aid and spend down their surplus again, creating a never-ending downward spiral.
Towns can only reverse this trend by hoping the state provides them with more money than they have received in the past (fat chance) or by experiencing ratable growth. The problem is that many of the towns that seek extraordinary aid are built out like Hightstown or Jamesburg, leaving them with few opportunities to expand their ratable bases.
The pension deferral will only exacerbate this problem next year. Hightstown estimates that the pension deferral will save it $159,000 this year, which then has to be repaid over 15 years at 10 percent interest beginning in 2012. That means the borough is facing a minimum spending increase next year of $159,000 and then another hit in excess of $40,000 in 2012 when repayment of the deferral hits.
That's a lot of cash, but it is understandable why Hightstown would go down this road. Not doing so would cost the borough $200,000 this year -- money that would be impossible to replace in the budget. Plus, Hightstown is not alone. Manville also is deferring its pension payments, primarily for the same reason.
While Plainsboro Mayor Peter Cantu says that, because of the current economic climate the program makes sense, it is just another example of the state's dysfunction when it comes to budgeting. After nearly four years of criticizing past practices that essentially kicked fiscal problems down the road, the state is doing the same and asking municipalities to join in the fun.
The state has tied the pension deferral to extraordinary aid, the pot of money the state sets aside for cash-strapped towns. The aid is designed as tax relief, but requires towns essentially to exhaust all other means to bring their tax rates down.
The aid, however, functions like an addictive drug that forces them to keep coming back for more every year.
Consider what happens to municipal surplus use. Towns are forced to use 95 percent of their surplus balance as revenue in their budget to qualify for the aid. When towns do that, they often find themselves scrambling the next year if it cannot find enough revenue to offset the amount of surplus used. That forces towns to repeat the mistake, to go back to the state for aid and spend down their surplus again, creating a never-ending downward spiral.
Towns can only reverse this trend by hoping the state provides them with more money than they have received in the past (fat chance) or by experiencing ratable growth. The problem is that many of the towns that seek extraordinary aid are built out like Hightstown or Jamesburg, leaving them with few opportunities to expand their ratable bases.
The pension deferral will only exacerbate this problem next year. Hightstown estimates that the pension deferral will save it $159,000 this year, which then has to be repaid over 15 years at 10 percent interest beginning in 2012. That means the borough is facing a minimum spending increase next year of $159,000 and then another hit in excess of $40,000 in 2012 when repayment of the deferral hits.
That's a lot of cash, but it is understandable why Hightstown would go down this road. Not doing so would cost the borough $200,000 this year -- money that would be impossible to replace in the budget. Plus, Hightstown is not alone. Manville also is deferring its pension payments, primarily for the same reason.
While Plainsboro Mayor Peter Cantu says that, because of the current economic climate the program makes sense, it is just another example of the state's dysfunction when it comes to budgeting. After nearly four years of criticizing past practices that essentially kicked fiscal problems down the road, the state is doing the same and asking municipalities to join in the fun.
Government-to-government graft
Several years ago, South Brunswick paid consultants to lobby the state and federal governments in an effort to win grants for its SMART bus and to get the widening of Route 1 moving.
The township in 2005 hired Cavarocchi, Ruscio and Dennis of Washington to take advantage of the firm's influential ties to the power-holders, looking to cut through year's of indifference by higher-level officials and get the township's goals accomplished.
The cost was $120,000. The result, money for the bus line and some federal money for Route 1 and state interest in the widening. Money well-spent? Maybe, but only if you consider the issue from the narrowist of perspectives.
Considered more broadly -- within the context of a story in today's Star-Ledger -- the money is part of a questionable trend that drains public coffers by privatizing the interaction between government agencies.
The story focuses on a report from the state comptroller that found that 74 government entities spent $3.87 million to lobby state government -- a figure that the report acknowledges may understate the amount spent because it only includes self-reported spending and also does not include money paid in dues to organizations like the state League of Municipalities. It also does not take into account money spent to lobby the feds, which cost $1.9 million.
The government agencies included ran the gamut from municipal and county governments to school boards to independent authorities, with some spending as much as $536,000 over the two-year peeriod. And the lobbying issues included both general and specific issues --
The Mercer County Improvement Authority hired a lobbyist (for $136,000) to monitor legislation and work with NJ Transit, while Montgomery paid a lobbyist $17,000 to aid in the purchase of the North Princeton Developmental Center.
The report raises two questions -- whether public agencies should be allowed to hire lobbyists and what kind of disclosures are necessary to ensure that citizens know what is going on in their names.
Five states ban the hiring of lobbyists -- legislaton on which the comptroller neglects to take a position. Better disclosure, however, is absolutely necessary, he says.
That's the least we can expect.
The township in 2005 hired Cavarocchi, Ruscio and Dennis of Washington to take advantage of the firm's influential ties to the power-holders, looking to cut through year's of indifference by higher-level officials and get the township's goals accomplished.
The cost was $120,000. The result, money for the bus line and some federal money for Route 1 and state interest in the widening. Money well-spent? Maybe, but only if you consider the issue from the narrowist of perspectives.
Considered more broadly -- within the context of a story in today's Star-Ledger -- the money is part of a questionable trend that drains public coffers by privatizing the interaction between government agencies.
The story focuses on a report from the state comptroller that found that 74 government entities spent $3.87 million to lobby state government -- a figure that the report acknowledges may understate the amount spent because it only includes self-reported spending and also does not include money paid in dues to organizations like the state League of Municipalities. It also does not take into account money spent to lobby the feds, which cost $1.9 million.
The government agencies included ran the gamut from municipal and county governments to school boards to independent authorities, with some spending as much as $536,000 over the two-year peeriod. And the lobbying issues included both general and specific issues --
The Mercer County Improvement Authority hired a lobbyist (for $136,000) to monitor legislation and work with NJ Transit, while Montgomery paid a lobbyist $17,000 to aid in the purchase of the North Princeton Developmental Center.
The report raises two questions -- whether public agencies should be allowed to hire lobbyists and what kind of disclosures are necessary to ensure that citizens know what is going on in their names.
Five states ban the hiring of lobbyists -- legislaton on which the comptroller neglects to take a position. Better disclosure, however, is absolutely necessary, he says.
"It makes no sense to permit public entities not to disclose information that private companies are required to provide about the hiring of lobbying firms," State Comptroller Matthew Boxer said. "Given that we’re talking about a use of taxpayer dollars that some would deem controversial, public entities should in fact be held to a higher standard of transparency than private companies."He adds that
the public is certainly entitled to information from government entities hiring lobbying firms as to why such expenditures are necessary, whether steps have been taken to reduce costs and, in the end, what public benefits were derived."
That's the least we can expect.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
New Wilco coming soon
Wilco is in the studio (above) finishing up a new album that has a June release date. I can't wait.
Call him Timothy "Get-tough" Geithner
OK. The headline's meant ironically, of course, but if the Treasury secretary fills in the details of today's financial industry regulation plan with some real teeth, we might just want to start calling him that.
Here is what The New York Times is reporting today based on Geithner's testimony before the House Financial Services Committee:
On first blush, it seems shockingly strict given how Geithner has been dithering on this up until now (not to mention that his dangerous public-private bailout plan could cost us far more than we should have to pay for this mess).
Geithner has, until now, been far too worried about what the bankers and pseudo bankers had to say, too concerned that the people who gambled like drunken cowboys would get angry with us.
More from the Times:
The plan also calls for the government to
Privately traded derivatives -- "like the credit-default swaps that were used both to hedge against and to speculate on high-risk mortgage-backed securities" -- also would come under scrutiny, the paper said:
As I said, we have to wait for the details, but this looks a lot better than I had been expecting.
Here is what The New York Times is reporting today based on Geithner's testimony before the House Financial Services Committee:
Mr. Geithner, in his opening statement, called for “comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”
Under the administration proposal, hedge fund, private equity and venture capital fund advisers would for the first time have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They would be required to provide the government — on a confidential basis — information on how much they borrow to leverage their investments as well as information about their investors and trading partners. The S.E.C. would then share those reports with a new “systemic risk regulator.”
On first blush, it seems shockingly strict given how Geithner has been dithering on this up until now (not to mention that his dangerous public-private bailout plan could cost us far more than we should have to pay for this mess).
Geithner has, until now, been far too worried about what the bankers and pseudo bankers had to say, too concerned that the people who gambled like drunken cowboys would get angry with us.
More from the Times:
The plan outlined in broad strokes by Mr. Geithner would require Congressional approval. It would give the government new powers over “systemically important” banks and other financial institutions that are so big that their collapse would jeopardize the economy as a whole.
The plan also calls for the government to
The government would have the power to peer into the inner workings of companies that currently escape most federal supervision — insurance companies like A.I.G., multibillion-dollar hedge funds like the Citadel Group and private equity firms like the Carlyle Group or Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts.Geithner apparently envisions something like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "created during the Depression after a wave of bank failures, insures customers’ deposits and can take over failing banks."
If regulators decided that a company had become “too big to fail,” as was the case with A.I.G. in September, they would subject it to much stricter capital requirements than smaller rivals and much closer scrutiny of its borrowing levels and its trading partners, or counterparties.
(T)he most striking new proposals, and the ones that may provoke the most heated opposition from the industry, would regulate so-called private pools of capital — hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds — and the gigantic market in financial derivatives, including instruments like credit-default swaps, the insurancelike instruments that allow investors to hedge against bond defaults.
Privately traded derivatives -- "like the credit-default swaps that were used both to hedge against and to speculate on high-risk mortgage-backed securities" -- also would come under scrutiny, the paper said:
The administration would require that all standardized derivatives be traded through a regulated clearinghouse. Traders would be required to provide documentation on their collateral and borrowings. They would also be subject to new eligibility requirements, and their trading and settlement practices would be subject to new standards.
As I said, we have to wait for the details, but this looks a lot better than I had been expecting.
CJ Radio podcast: Age-restricted housing changes
This week's podcast focuses on legislation that would ease the way for developers to take approved senior housing and change it into regular housing provided they offer affordable housing as part of the package.
Listen here.
Listen here.
Runner's diary, Thursday
I didn't run. I just didn't have the motivation to do it. But I did get to the gym and busted my hump during a workout that included upper-body weights, the elliptical trainer and the rowing maching. I am wiped. I guess sometimes you just need to change things up.
iPod: Arctic Monkeys, Favourite Worst Nightmare
iPod: Arctic Monkeys, Favourite Worst Nightmare
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Rosie's trip to the vet
I posted from my mobile phone yesterday as I waited with Rosie at the vet because her stitches had come apart. She had been spayed last week and developed some swelling of the abdominal area under the stitches.
We called the vet and he told us it was fairly normal in female dogs, but that we had to keep them quiet to allow the healing to complete itself. The swelling was a fluid pocket that would eventually go away as the fluid was reabsorbed.
That didn't happen, however. Without going into the gory details, the fluid leaked from the incision, which apparently opened slightly. I called the vet and they told me to come in, which I did.
The upshot was that she's OK -- nothing to worry about -- and the vet resealed the incision with some wound glue and Rosie is none the worse for wear. She's still tumbling and wrestling with her sister, something we apparently are powerless to stop. So we have to keep an eye one her.
But all is well in the Kalet kennel.
We called the vet and he told us it was fairly normal in female dogs, but that we had to keep them quiet to allow the healing to complete itself. The swelling was a fluid pocket that would eventually go away as the fluid was reabsorbed.
That didn't happen, however. Without going into the gory details, the fluid leaked from the incision, which apparently opened slightly. I called the vet and they told me to come in, which I did.
The upshot was that she's OK -- nothing to worry about -- and the vet resealed the incision with some wound glue and Rosie is none the worse for wear. She's still tumbling and wrestling with her sister, something we apparently are powerless to stop. So we have to keep an eye one her.
But all is well in the Kalet kennel.
The 'S' word
The Republicans need to find themselves a calendar. After all, it is not the 1930s or the 1960s, Communism is dead and the deregulation mania of the last 30 years has proven not to be worth the cost of an espresso at Starbucks.
And yet, the GOP continues to run against historical boogeymen that most people have little memory of. From Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in response to an alternative budget being crafted by the Democrats, we get this:
The problem is not the New Deal or the Great Society. It is the legacy of the last eight years.
And yet, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindahl, touted as a future Republican presidential candidate, offers this:
Huh?
Moyers used these comments to lead into a segment with Mike Davis, the great socialist historian, who pretty much debunked the entire socialism meme as utter nonsense -- Moyers called it "partisan poppycock," and a word that "lost its meaning long ago." Davis, in the interview, offers a rather compelling notion of what a vibrant socialism -- or at least socialist movement -- might create in the United States. He said that
He cited the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation -- which was created to "buy up the abandoned apartments and homes and then (sell) them at fire sale to private interests."
While the Obama administration is pushing what is for the most part a progressive agenda -- investing in human needs, modernizing, reforming health care, dealing with climate change -- he has not raised fundamental questions about power relations. In fact, on the financial crisis, his ultimate goal is to salvage the status quo, to maintain Wall Street power but to regulate it.
If he succeeds in everything he sets out to do, the lives of average Americans will be better and our politics will be more civil, but the basic power structure that has ruled America will remain unchanged.
That's why I agree with Davis when he says that
We need a "radical critique" and a political and economic "imagination that goes beyond selfishness and principles of competition." And we need people who are willing to stand up and loudly offer it.
And yet, the GOP continues to run against historical boogeymen that most people have little memory of. From Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in response to an alternative budget being crafted by the Democrats, we get this:
"With this budget, the president and the Democratic majority are attempting, very quickly and rather openly, nothing less than the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He referred to the programs of Democratic presidents Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.So, let me get this straight: Republicans are still runnRunning against the New Deal? I mean, FDR has been dead nearly 65 years. LBJ -- the man who won a huge re-election victory on the strength of public support for the Great Society -- is dead about 37 years.
The problem is not the New Deal or the Great Society. It is the legacy of the last eight years.
And yet, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindahl, touted as a future Republican presidential candidate, offers this:
"We believe that an endless series of government expansions, bailouts, stimulus packages and bloated budgets will take our country down the very path that European socialism has already stumbled. And we believe that is a dangerous path that would harm the very promise of America."And there are these comments, thoughtfully collected by Bill Moyers on his PBS show, Bill Moyers' Journal on Friday. As Moyers said, "Newt Gingrich, reincarnated once again as himself, sounds as if Obama ate his Contract with America for lunch and coughed it up as 'European Socialism.'" Gingrich, of course, is not talking about the return of "those great American radicals Eugene V. Debs or Norman Thomas." It is "Stalin, Marx and Lenin (who) have risen from the grave, stalking our highest officials" -- at least according to the GOP and conservative TV.
JIM CRAMER: We're in real trouble. We're in real trouble between what is happening in the world economy and our president, who seems to be taking his cues from. Guess who he is taking his cues from? No, not Mao! Not Pancho Villa, although I had lunch with him today. No he's taking cues from Lenin! And I don't mean the all we need is love Lenin. I talking about we will take every last dime you have Cramericans Lenin!
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Liberal democrats and the drive-by media are speeding down the highway, implementing Socialism as fast as they can.
FOX & FRIENDS: Some economists say the stimulus plan that President Obama just put into law moves us closer to Socialism.
FOX COMMENTATOR: One small step for fixing the economy or one giant leap towards Socialism in the United States?
PAT BUCHANAN: That is Socialism pure and simple.
Huh?
Moyers used these comments to lead into a segment with Mike Davis, the great socialist historian, who pretty much debunked the entire socialism meme as utter nonsense -- Moyers called it "partisan poppycock," and a word that "lost its meaning long ago." Davis, in the interview, offers a rather compelling notion of what a vibrant socialism -- or at least socialist movement -- might create in the United States. He said that
the role of the Left or the Left that needs to exist in this country is not to be to come up with a utopian blueprints and how we're going to run an entirely alternative society, much less to express nostalgia about authoritative bureaucratic societies, you know, like the Soviet Union or China. It's really to try and articulate the common sense of the labor movement and social struggles on the ground. So, for instance, you know, where you have the complete collapse of the financial system and where the remedies proposed are above all privileged the creditors and the very people responsible for that, it's a straightforward enough proposition to say, "Hey, you know, if we're going to own the banking system, why not make the decisions and make them in alliance with social policy that ensures that housing's affordable, that school loans are affordable, that small business gets credit?" You know, why not turn the banking system into a public utility? Now, that doesn't have to be in any sense an anti-capitalist demand. But it's a radical demand that asks fundamental question about the institution and who holds the economic power. You know, why isn't the federal government taking a more direct role in decision making?
He cited the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation -- which was created to "buy up the abandoned apartments and homes and then (sell) them at fire sale to private interests."
For a year or two it had the means of resolving much of the housing crisis, you know, in the United States. Why shouldn't the federal government basically turn that housing stock, into a solution for people's housing needs? Sell them directly to homeowners at discounts you know, rent them out? In other words, the role of the Left is to ask the deeper questions about who has power, how institutions work, and propose alternatives that seem more common sensical in terms of the direct interest of, you know, of satisfying human needs and equality in this society.
While the Obama administration is pushing what is for the most part a progressive agenda -- investing in human needs, modernizing, reforming health care, dealing with climate change -- he has not raised fundamental questions about power relations. In fact, on the financial crisis, his ultimate goal is to salvage the status quo, to maintain Wall Street power but to regulate it.
If he succeeds in everything he sets out to do, the lives of average Americans will be better and our politics will be more civil, but the basic power structure that has ruled America will remain unchanged.
That's why I agree with Davis when he says that
We need more protests. We need more noise in the street. At the end of the day, political parties and political leaderships tend to legislate what social movements and social voices have already achieved in the factories or the streets or, you know, in the Civil Rights demonstration.
We need a "radical critique" and a political and economic "imagination that goes beyond selfishness and principles of competition." And we need people who are willing to stand up and loudly offer it.
Time to move on from Abbott
A state judge has ruled that Gov. Jon Corzine's school funding reforms, which tie aid to students and not districts, are constitutional -- a move that experts say could spell the end of special status for many of the state's urban school districts.
The Record is reporting that Superior Court Judge Peter E. Doyne in Bergen County issued a 280-page opinion today that the state's
That was what Gov. Jim Florio had attempted in 1990, when he pushed his massive income and sales tax increases. That plan included what seemed like a radical redistribution of school aid -- not only into Trenton and Newark, but into Manville and other working-class districts, as well.
The decision is likely to create a showdown between advocates for urban districts and others with high concentrations of at-risk students, primarily because the state's educational funding pie is too small, especially when you consider the non-school problems that urban educators face.
Consider: There is a higher concentration of homelessness and hunger in the state's cities, a larger number of students who do not speak English, more pollution and crime. These may be outside the purview of the schools, but they have their impact in the classroom.
Rather than reducing aid to urban schools, a new formula should be targeted to address these issues and more general educational concerns. Plus, the pot of money available for school aid needs to grow significantly.
While the governor has increased aid to schools over the last two years, the reality is that the total amount the state spends -- as opposed to what is raised locally -- does not go far enough. If we are going to spread the money around to more districts, we need more money -- money, of course, that does not exist at the moment.
The only way to do that is to shift the responsibility for school taxes from local property taxes to the state.
The Record is reporting that Superior Court Judge Peter E. Doyne in Bergen County issued a 280-page opinion today that the state's
new method of distributing state aid among New Jersey’s 600-plus school districts secures “the thorough and efficient education so desperately needed for the development of our youth.”The decision appears sound, though I admit I have yet to read it (280 pages?!?), because it takes into account all students -- giving smaller communities with large populations of poor students a leg up that they otherwise would not get.
The new school funding formula “represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the State of New Jersey, and not only those who by happenstance reside in Abbott districts,” he wrote.
That was what Gov. Jim Florio had attempted in 1990, when he pushed his massive income and sales tax increases. That plan included what seemed like a radical redistribution of school aid -- not only into Trenton and Newark, but into Manville and other working-class districts, as well.
The decision is likely to create a showdown between advocates for urban districts and others with high concentrations of at-risk students, primarily because the state's educational funding pie is too small, especially when you consider the non-school problems that urban educators face.
Consider: There is a higher concentration of homelessness and hunger in the state's cities, a larger number of students who do not speak English, more pollution and crime. These may be outside the purview of the schools, but they have their impact in the classroom.
Rather than reducing aid to urban schools, a new formula should be targeted to address these issues and more general educational concerns. Plus, the pot of money available for school aid needs to grow significantly.
While the governor has increased aid to schools over the last two years, the reality is that the total amount the state spends -- as opposed to what is raised locally -- does not go far enough. If we are going to spread the money around to more districts, we need more money -- money, of course, that does not exist at the moment.
The only way to do that is to shift the responsibility for school taxes from local property taxes to the state.
Jamesburg wants homeowners to be in the know
The housing crisis affects nearly all of us, driving down resale prices, drying up credit, creating employment instability and leaving everyone vulnerable to foreclosure.
Jamesburg officials, who have little authority to address the issue, are doing what they can. The borough will host a Mortgage Crisis Forum on Saturday that will bring together a panel of experts to address homeowner concerns.
Brenda Deans, borough councilwoman and chairwoman of the Homeowner Relations Committee, the chief organizer, views the forum as a chance to make sure borough residents know what kind of help is available should they run into problems.
Information, she said, is key.
Makes sense to me.
The forum will take place March 28, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., at Borough Hall, 131 Perrineville Road.
Jamesburg officials, who have little authority to address the issue, are doing what they can. The borough will host a Mortgage Crisis Forum on Saturday that will bring together a panel of experts to address homeowner concerns.
Brenda Deans, borough councilwoman and chairwoman of the Homeowner Relations Committee, the chief organizer, views the forum as a chance to make sure borough residents know what kind of help is available should they run into problems.
”There are people at their end, where they don’t know what to do,” she said. “The object is to get people out there, to see what’s out there for help.”
Information, she said, is key.
”You’ve got folks that are filing for bankruptcy, and maybe they have to and maybe they don’t,” Ms. Deans said. “I just want people to be educated. At least if they know, this will get them in the right direction.”
Makes sense to me.
The forum will take place March 28, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., at Borough Hall, 131 Perrineville Road.
Runner's diary, Wednesday
Another day, another run. Four miles in a little more than 35 minutes. My right knee bothered me a little early, but felt much better as I went along.
iPod: TV on the Radio, Dear Science
iPod: TV on the Radio, Dear Science
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Irony at its best
William Greider's piece in The Nation needs to be read. That's all I'm going to say about it.
Words, words, words
I started watching the presidential press conference until it became clear that the Washington press corps has yet to understand just what we are facing.
This has nothing to do with what I think of President Barack Obama. What I am talking about is the focus on what I can only call the political tropes of the past.
The questions assumed a rather conservative mindset, questioning the need for increased government authority (i.e., regulation), asking for sacrifice from Americans who have already sacrificed (OpenLeft's Tweet on this was priceless), worrying about deficits when the deficit should be placed on the backburner as we deal with the cratering economy.
That said, Keith Olbermann is not exactly taking a critical look at what President Obama had to say during the press conference -- an hour of talk that, in the end, is meaningless, as David Sirota points out. It is, in his words, a manufactured event.
This has nothing to do with what I think of President Barack Obama. What I am talking about is the focus on what I can only call the political tropes of the past.
The questions assumed a rather conservative mindset, questioning the need for increased government authority (i.e., regulation), asking for sacrifice from Americans who have already sacrificed (OpenLeft's Tweet on this was priceless), worrying about deficits when the deficit should be placed on the backburner as we deal with the cratering economy.
That said, Keith Olbermann is not exactly taking a critical look at what President Obama had to say during the press conference -- an hour of talk that, in the end, is meaningless, as David Sirota points out. It is, in his words, a manufactured event.
And really, why when every media figure is Twittering away telling us how much they are preparing for this press conference, do I not care all that much what President Obama says? Why am I just not buying the whole manufactured hullaballoo about another presidential speech, and instead find myself with the urge to watch an 80s movie on TNT? Indeed, why am I just nauseated by the desperate - and rather pathetic - attempt to Hollywood-ize and celebrify Washington, D.C. press conferences? Does that make me stupid? Or does that make me tired of listening to words and watching officialdom's elaborate stagecraft, and only interested in actual concrete actions?
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Rosie goes back to the vet
She's her normal self, of course -- not happy to be at the vet and not crazy about having to ride in the car. but otherwise the picture of health.
We're just waiting on the vet and crossing my fingers and toes.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Power to the people?
Question: Were Congress to hand the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve "broad new government authority to regulate or even take control of financial institutions other than banks," who would be the beneficiary?
The answer might lie in this description of the plan on The New York Times web site:
The administration -- because of its ties to Wall Street via its financial team -- has been too cautious in dealing with the financial sector, playing to accepted cliches that no longer apply (not that they ever did). Those ties raise questions, as David Sirota points out, about whether the administration would have used the authority it is now seeking.
The answer might lie in this description of the plan on The New York Times web site:
The government has such authority for banks; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has power to step in to clean up a bank’s books and alter business practices like executive compensation. There is no such federal authority for non-bank entities, like A.I.G., that in recent years have become bigger players in the financial system. Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.I.C., has said she believed such authority was necessary.
The administration -- because of its ties to Wall Street via its financial team -- has been too cautious in dealing with the financial sector, playing to accepted cliches that no longer apply (not that they ever did). Those ties raise questions, as David Sirota points out, about whether the administration would have used the authority it is now seeking.
However, if the populist pressure out there is making them demand this authority, then that's a good thing. Once they have this authority, they will have a harder time pretending they can't do anything to stop the kleptocracy.
Runner's diary, Tuesday
It seems like forever since I laced up the running shoes, though it's only been about a week and a half. Again, I can make excuses -- the latest being the dogs -- but I have no one to blame for not getting on the treadmill or the road but myself.
So today's run was a grind, three miles in 26:20, and some ab work.
I have to set some goals, I guess, if I want to find my running groove.
iPod: Wilco, Kicking Television
So today's run was a grind, three miles in 26:20, and some ab work.
I have to set some goals, I guess, if I want to find my running groove.
iPod: Wilco, Kicking Television
Monday, March 23, 2009
Doughnuts and the holes
There are a lot of towns out there that are not going to be happy with municipal consolidation legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, but someone had to put this issue on the table.
The reality is that we cannot continue to function in a state as small as New Jersey, with 8 million people and a badly busted fiscal situation unless we reduce the number of towns. There are 566 in New Jersey, 611 school districts, 21 counties and numerous other tax districts. Many do not need to exist.
The reality is that we cannot continue to function in a state as small as New Jersey, with 8 million people and a badly busted fiscal situation unless we reduce the number of towns. There are 566 in New Jersey, 611 school districts, 21 counties and numerous other tax districts. Many do not need to exist.
Fiscal failures lead to local budget woes
State budget woes have ramifications beyond the state budget, not only affecting state services, taxes and fees, but local taxes and services. Here are some headlines offering evidence of New Jersey's failure to address its fiscal failures:
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Sophie learns table manners
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Geithner faces problems -- should he go?
Timothy Geithner can probably be described by three words/phrases -- smart, competent and out of touch? Eugene Robinson asks whether the Treasury secretary ultimately is up for the job:
Obama's job would be much easier if Geithner were more effective at communicating with the public about what happened to the economy and what the administration is doing to fix it. As things stand, Obama has to do all the explaining himself. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect Geithner to be both a financial whiz and a silver-tongued orator. He does speak the language of Wall Street, though, and one of the nonnegotiable requirements in his job description should be to make the men and women who run our financial institutions understand that their behavior has to change.
The basic strategy for handling the crisis, begun under the Bush administration and continued by Obama, is to hook up a fire hose to the Treasury and shower irresponsible and greedy financial institutions with money until the fire is put out. In political terms, to put it mildly, this is a hard sell. It becomes an impossible sell when Wall Street displays not gratitude but arrogance, reminding us how emotionally satisfying it would be -- if ultimately counterproductive and even disastrous -- to stand back and let the fire burn.
The vast amount of money poured into Wall Street has bought American
taxpayers the right to say that business-as-usual practices such as the AIG
bonuses are over. Geithner needs to deliver this message. If he can't or won't,
Obama should find somebody who can and will.
Empty rhetoric in the race for governor
Chris Christie appears likely to become the Republican nominee for governor in June and, according to the most recent polls, possibly the state's next governor.
If this is to occur, it appears that it will be based on three things: an inflated reputation as a corruption buster, Gov. Jon Corzine's inability to connect with voters and convince them that hte pain he is peddling is necessary and the general disrepair in which we find our state government.
It certainly won't be because he is offering legitimate alternatives. He isn't.
Consider Al Doblin's column in The Record, which takes a look at what Christie has been saying in recent weeks:
I have covered local governments -- and local elections -- for the last 19 years and it always has driven me crazy when challengers would come in to our office and respond to questions about budgeting, taxes and local programs by saying a) I'm not in office, so I don't have the information, b) my opponent is making the wrong decisions and I'll do things differently (but I won't or can't tell you how) or c) I'll go through the budget with a fine tooth comb and eliminate all waste.
Sounds real good, I guess, but it is completely meaningless, a copout. The budget is a public document that offers as detailed an outline as one can find of what public officials believe are important. Candidates have a responsibility to read it. They have a responsibility to formulate specific criticisms and offer a sense of what their budgets would look like.
Which brings me back to Chris Christie and Doblin's column. From Doblin:
Just as importantly, what is it that Christie believes is important? Gov. Christie Todd Whitman called herself an environmentalists, but gutted the Department of Environmental Protection, making it more difficult for the DEP to do its job. She also did away with the public advocate and created a business ombudsman post -- two moves that summed up her philosophy fairly well.
What of Christie? Well, he is playing the political game and avoiding saying anything that might anger any part of the electorate.
If this is to occur, it appears that it will be based on three things: an inflated reputation as a corruption buster, Gov. Jon Corzine's inability to connect with voters and convince them that hte pain he is peddling is necessary and the general disrepair in which we find our state government.
It certainly won't be because he is offering legitimate alternatives. He isn't.
Consider Al Doblin's column in The Record, which takes a look at what Christie has been saying in recent weeks:
Last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie went on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Christie isn't happy with Governor Corzine's budget. He wants Corzine to go after waste, fraud and abuse. Christie said that he if were governor, he wouldn't be increasing taxes and that Corzine has offered New Jerseyans "false choices" in what has to be sacrificed to retain other services.That, of course, is too easy. The fact is that Christie, were h to become governor, will have to make difficult choices. He has a responsibility at least to outline the philosophy he would use when determining what he would do.
Christie is skillful with a sound bite. Snap, crackle and pop, he has. Details are another issue.
Lehrer repeatedly asked Christie to name specific programs he would cut as governor. While Christie hammered away on waste, fraud and abuse, Lehrer countered that there are not billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse in the state budget. He wanted specifics.
Christie explained that wasn't his job. His job as a candidate was to critique Corzine.
I have covered local governments -- and local elections -- for the last 19 years and it always has driven me crazy when challengers would come in to our office and respond to questions about budgeting, taxes and local programs by saying a) I'm not in office, so I don't have the information, b) my opponent is making the wrong decisions and I'll do things differently (but I won't or can't tell you how) or c) I'll go through the budget with a fine tooth comb and eliminate all waste.
Sounds real good, I guess, but it is completely meaningless, a copout. The budget is a public document that offers as detailed an outline as one can find of what public officials believe are important. Candidates have a responsibility to read it. They have a responsibility to formulate specific criticisms and offer a sense of what their budgets would look like.
Which brings me back to Chris Christie and Doblin's column. From Doblin:
The state budget is all about choices. In his budget, the governor laid out his priorities. He wants to keep funding for education, health care and seniors intact as much as possible. And he is willing to raise some taxes and cut funding from other programs to accomplish that.
Massive layoffs of state workers sounds like an easy budget fix. Christie seems to indicate that he would do that as governor – reduce the state's workforce. State employees have a right to know whether a Christie administration would make an across-the-board cut that would throw many of them onto unemployment rolls. Many state employees would be laid off according to their seniority in the system. The people left may not be the best-suited for the jobs they have the seniority to fill. That would impact the quality of services provided by the state.
Just as importantly, what is it that Christie believes is important? Gov. Christie Todd Whitman called herself an environmentalists, but gutted the Department of Environmental Protection, making it more difficult for the DEP to do its job. She also did away with the public advocate and created a business ombudsman post -- two moves that summed up her philosophy fairly well.
What of Christie? Well, he is playing the political game and avoiding saying anything that might anger any part of the electorate.
Free choice for workers
Frank Askew offers a powerful rejoinder to the corporate folks who are opposing the Employee Free Choice Act:
The result, he says, has been the steady decline of unions and the wages of all workers.
Hence the need for EFCA:
But as the renowned Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once reminded us, the life of the law is not logic, but experience. And experience has demonstrated over the past many years, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which allegedly guarantees workers the right to organize unions, is irretrievably broken.
I speak with some personal experience in such matters. I spent the 95th Congress (1977-78) as special counsel first to the House labor-management committee and then the Senate labor committee.
What was even then apparent to any open-minded observer was that national labor law was nothing but a hunting license for employers to prevent union organizing. All they had to do was harass union organizers, fire union supporters and drag out elections forever, all with the help of highly paid and skillful anti-labor consultants.
Of course, those tactics were all illegal, and eventually the employers would pay fines, sometimes even large fines, but that was small change compared with having to sign a union contract. They might even have to rehire some of their fired employees years down the road, but by then the wind had been removed from the sails of the organizing drive.
The result, he says, has been the steady decline of unions and the wages of all workers.
Hence the need for EFCA:
The National Labor Relations Act, a major component of FDR's New Deal, by permitting union organization of major U.S. industries, provided an important stimulus to the economy in the late 1930s and post World War II era. That was before employers discovered the many tactics to avoid the law. Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act could again provide a stimulus to the economy as the nation struggles to emerge from its current financial crisis.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Does populist rhetoric equal populist action?
The anger outside the Beltway has forced the House of Representatives to act. But the question is just how much our federal representatives understand the depths of this simmering anger and what it really means.
The House today -- by a wide and bipartisan margin -- approved a 90 percent tax on bonuses for executives that received at least $5 billion in federal bailout money. The tax would be retroactive so that it applies to AIG, which has sparked the latest outrage because of the $160 million in bonuses the company has handed out.
The question is whether this is anything more than a symbolic action or whether the federal government will actually recoup the bonus money. Critics say the tax is unconstitutional, while some Republicans were pushing an alternative plan they say would recoup all the cash. There also are questions about whether the plan will make it through the Senate.
And while everyone in the lower chamber wore their populist armbands on their sleeves, I doubt that more than a few truly understand the anger and where it stems from. Both parties have spent the better part of the last three decades cozying up to Wall Street, even as they talked up their connections to workers and small business. And now, as the economic crisis continues to rage -- and not just in the financial sector -- we are witnessing the beginnings of a revolt.
At the moment, Barack Obama has some political capital, but he needs to turn hard left in his policy proposals, focusing all of his attention on efforts to aid working people, homeowners and the dispossessed. To be fair, he has put a number of these efforts on the table, but they are nowhere near what is needed and should be expanded.
I mentioned the bipartisan support -- nearly as many Republicans voted for the bill (85) as voted against it (87) -- because Republican leaders on cable are attempting to may politican hay from it. But four of five New Jersey Republicans -- including Central Jersey Reps. Chris Smith and Leonard Lance -- joined all eight New Jersey Democrats in voting yes.
The House today -- by a wide and bipartisan margin -- approved a 90 percent tax on bonuses for executives that received at least $5 billion in federal bailout money. The tax would be retroactive so that it applies to AIG, which has sparked the latest outrage because of the $160 million in bonuses the company has handed out.
The question is whether this is anything more than a symbolic action or whether the federal government will actually recoup the bonus money. Critics say the tax is unconstitutional, while some Republicans were pushing an alternative plan they say would recoup all the cash. There also are questions about whether the plan will make it through the Senate.
And while everyone in the lower chamber wore their populist armbands on their sleeves, I doubt that more than a few truly understand the anger and where it stems from. Both parties have spent the better part of the last three decades cozying up to Wall Street, even as they talked up their connections to workers and small business. And now, as the economic crisis continues to rage -- and not just in the financial sector -- we are witnessing the beginnings of a revolt.
At the moment, Barack Obama has some political capital, but he needs to turn hard left in his policy proposals, focusing all of his attention on efforts to aid working people, homeowners and the dispossessed. To be fair, he has put a number of these efforts on the table, but they are nowhere near what is needed and should be expanded.
***
I mentioned the bipartisan support -- nearly as many Republicans voted for the bill (85) as voted against it (87) -- because Republican leaders on cable are attempting to may politican hay from it. But four of five New Jersey Republicans -- including Central Jersey Reps. Chris Smith and Leonard Lance -- joined all eight New Jersey Democrats in voting yes.
Obama at the precipice?
Two posts from David Sirota that are worth reading, one on the Obama administration's unexpected tin ear on the AIG fiasco and the other on the odd respect still accorded to the Federal Reserve despite its very public failure of oversight.
The first post outlines the mixed messages that are coming from the administration -- with his chief of staff and chief political advisor downplaying public anger while the president himself acknowledges it -- and points out the potential damage to its credibility this could create:
And, make no mistake, the Clinton reference is apt because the Clinton presidency was a failed presidency, his third way nothing more than moderate conservatism dressed up in Democratic stylings, his social liberalism a smokescreen for fiscal policies friendly to big money as opposed to working people.
The second post focuses on Barney Frank's oversight plan, pointing out the basic problem:
The first post outlines the mixed messages that are coming from the administration -- with his chief of staff and chief political advisor downplaying public anger while the president himself acknowledges it -- and points out the potential damage to its credibility this could create:
I get that nobody in Establishment Washington genuinely cares that taxpayers are being ripped off, and I get that the super-wealthy political class from millionaire investment banker Emanuel to millionaire consultant Axelrod to millionaire banker Tim Geithner gives much of a shit that our taxpayer dollars are being used to make new millionaires on Wall Street. But their boss, President Obama, is right: The majority of Americans, most of whom are not millionaires, is really angry and has a right to be angry.I'm expecting that, given the president's words, the administration will unify its message and reclaim the populist mantle on the economy -- especially because I am fairly confident that Obama understands the dangers of ceding it to the Herbert Hooverites in the Republican Party. He can't afford to waste his high approval ratings and let the GOP up off the floor, creating a possibility of a rerun of the 1994 anti-Clinton backlash.
These latest mixed messages are yet another indication that a the White House is creating a major economic credibility gap for itself. On the biggest economic issues of the day, the administration is saying contradictory things, and if it doesn't get out of the tone deaf D.C. echo chamber and get back on message, my bet is that very soon Republicans' faux populism that portrays Democrats as part of the problem is going to start getting traction.
And, make no mistake, the Clinton reference is apt because the Clinton presidency was a failed presidency, his third way nothing more than moderate conservatism dressed up in Democratic stylings, his social liberalism a smokescreen for fiscal policies friendly to big money as opposed to working people.
The second post focuses on Barney Frank's oversight plan, pointing out the basic problem:
Seems to me that if a secretive regulatory agency falls down on the job and then proceeds to waste trillions of dollars on no-strings-attached bailouts, Congress might want to look to better, more publicly accountable agencies to become the chief regulator.
More ticket-price shenanigans
I've been attending concerts since freshman year in high school (Bad Company at the Spectrum in 1976 was my first), but it wasn't until this summer that I'd made my way to the PNC Arts Center for two shows -- for John Mellencamp w/Lucinda Williams and The Police w/Elvis Costello. The facility, which seats more than 17,000, is a nice outdoor ampitheater, with good sightlines and a far more relaxed atmosphere than you find at the arenas.
As nice as PNC is, it has what I would consider a major flaw -- an apparent curfew that forces musical acts to shut down by 11. Both Mellencamp and The Police put on great shows, but both had a feeling of being abbreviated -- just 17 or so songs each when many concert-goers (I, for one) have come to expect 22, 23, 24 songs from long-established acts -- even though we paid the same prices we would have paid at venues without curfews.
That makes this news seem a bit unfair, at the very least:
While the folks at PNC -- which is owned by the state and run by LiveNation -- say the fee is really not new (if you believe that...), the perception is that the venue is pushing up prices and creating a disincentive for carpoolers and others seeking to minimize traffic into the facility.
If LiveNation wants to charge more, let it work to eliminate the curfew -- or extend it -- so that musicians can give us our money's worth.
As nice as PNC is, it has what I would consider a major flaw -- an apparent curfew that forces musical acts to shut down by 11. Both Mellencamp and The Police put on great shows, but both had a feeling of being abbreviated -- just 17 or so songs each when many concert-goers (I, for one) have come to expect 22, 23, 24 songs from long-established acts -- even though we paid the same prices we would have paid at venues without curfews.
That makes this news seem a bit unfair, at the very least:
The PNC Bank Arts Center will institute a $6 "parking fee" per ticket for the upcoming season. That's right -- per ticket, not per car, as most major concert venues charge. That means it will cost $6 to park if you drive alone, but $24 to park if you carpool with three friends. And you will pay for parking whether you walk, drive or take a shuttle bus.
While the folks at PNC -- which is owned by the state and run by LiveNation -- say the fee is really not new (if you believe that...), the perception is that the venue is pushing up prices and creating a disincentive for carpoolers and others seeking to minimize traffic into the facility.
If LiveNation wants to charge more, let it work to eliminate the curfew -- or extend it -- so that musicians can give us our money's worth.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Puppies behaving badly
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
The GOP's hypocritical oath
You have to love this: Congressional Republicans -- all but three of whom voted against the stimulus and nearly all of whom have signaled that they have no intention of going along with the Obama administration on its economic plans -- are criticizing the president's apparent willingness to use "budget reconciliation" to avoid a filibuster on his health and energy plans.
Reconciliation may not be the best approach, but the president cannot continue to seek bipartisan support from a political party that refuses to play ball unless it can pick the ball and set the rules.
Reconciliation may not be the best approach, but the president cannot continue to seek bipartisan support from a political party that refuses to play ball unless it can pick the ball and set the rules.
Good question: Why didn't Geithner think of it?
From Truthdig:
The reality is that this mess is wonderfully (sarcasm alert) bipartisan -- a bailout negotiated by the Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and exemptions for AIG and others pushed by the Obama financial team has created federally subsidized bonuses for bad behavior. What should happen now is that the Obama administration should step up and take responsibility for its role in the AIG fiasco, work to recoup the bonuses and put tough rules in place to prevent it from happening again.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has sent Congress an explanation of his plan to deal with the AIG bonus fiasco. Essentially, Treasury will dock the $165 million in bonuses from AIG’s next bailout payment. Here’s a question: If AIG can do without that $165 million, why were we giving it to the company in the first place?This question, in the end, is the operative one -- and one that could damage the Obama administration's credibility with the American people. The AIG debacle has ignited a firestorm that could engulf Obama and his economic advisers.
The reality is that this mess is wonderfully (sarcasm alert) bipartisan -- a bailout negotiated by the Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and exemptions for AIG and others pushed by the Obama financial team has created federally subsidized bonuses for bad behavior. What should happen now is that the Obama administration should step up and take responsibility for its role in the AIG fiasco, work to recoup the bonuses and put tough rules in place to prevent it from happening again.
Negotiating a budget
Leading, reacting? Does it matter if the policy that results is a good one? The fact is that the development of a state budget has to be a conversation among many parties -- the governor, the Legislature, the state's citizens, the business community and its advocacy groups. The document, which is the single most important policy document any government can craft, outlines priorities and assigns dollar amounts to allow the state to put them into practice. The process, which begins with the governor's budget address and unveiling of his budget, only works when everyone speaks his or her mind and is willing to compromise.
A healthy piece of news
The New York Times is reporting today on the unusual cooperation between House committees on health care -- which could mean real progress toward reform.
This would appear to be good news, though I am concerned that by taking single-payer off the table we are starting from a weak position, creating the likelihood that the reforms that end up being crafted will fail to accomplish what should be the ultimate goal: universal coverage at a reasonable price that includes incentives for preventative care.
Such agreements, while no guarantee of success, could help build momentum for a bill. A united front could make it harder for lobbyists to derail legislation. White House officials welcomed the prospect of cooperation by House leaders, saying it increased the chances of passing a bill to expand coverage this year, a top priority for Mr. Obama.
Many issues, including the question of how to pay for it, are unresolved. But the House chairmen said they had informally agreed to plow ahead on the assumptions that individuals would be required to carry insurance and that most employers would be required to help pay for it.
This would appear to be good news, though I am concerned that by taking single-payer off the table we are starting from a weak position, creating the likelihood that the reforms that end up being crafted will fail to accomplish what should be the ultimate goal: universal coverage at a reasonable price that includes incentives for preventative care.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday Poetry Podcast:
The Risen Bursting Flower is an Explosion of Color
Today's podcast is a poem I wrote a while back that is unlike most of my work. It is called "The Risen Bursting Flower is an Explosion of Color."
Mika makes Matthews look good
Chris Matthews is infuriating, as we all know. But watching the truly awful Mika Brzezinski sub for him today, is like watching a train wreck. She's awful.
The great apologist
You can always count on Richard Cohen to come to the defense of the media when they've failed at their jobs. Consider his hit against Jon Stewart and the Daily Show's takedown of Jim Cramer. Stewart's smackdown made for good television and, despite Cohen's attempts to let the financial press off the hook, contained a level of uncomfortable truth.
The problem with Cohen's interpretation of the Stewart-Cramer match is that he attempts to boil it down to the standard what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it meme, ignoring that Stewart was attacking the press corps for its more general obsequious behavior.
.
Military budget busting
I received a flier this morning from NJ Citizen Action announcing a march and vigil to take place Thursday in New Brunswick calling for the military budget to be cut by 25 percent and for that money to be used to help struggling families.
The march, which is being organized by 30 social justice groups, including NJ Citizen Action and NJ Peace Action, is timed to play off the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War to dramatize the war's cost and the cost of the American military overall.
The vigils will take place at "seven symbolic locations" to "highlight the need to cut the military budget and increase investment in health care, housing, education, jobs, social services and infrastructure," the release said.
The march, which is being organized by 30 social justice groups, including NJ Citizen Action and NJ Peace Action, is timed to play off the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War to dramatize the war's cost and the cost of the American military overall.
The vigils will take place at "seven symbolic locations" to "highlight the need to cut the military budget and increase investment in health care, housing, education, jobs, social services and infrastructure," the release said.
“With America continuing to struggle from a deep recession, the 6th Anniversary of Iraq is the perfect opportunity to illustrate Washington’s need to shift priorities. American’s know that the security of our families does rest on wasteful military spending nor obsolete Cold War weapons – our security instead depends on Washington making real investments that will Rebuild & Renew America Now,” said Atif Malik, New Jersey Citizen Action.I'd like to get to the vigils, but I'm kind of stuck at home this week with a couple of recuperating dogs.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Helping homeowners go green
The Assembly today passed legislation that has the potential to jump-start the solar industry in New Jersey, even if it doesn't go nearly far enough.
Here is a description of the bill -- sponsored by local legislators Linda Greenstein and Bonnie Watson-Coleman -- from a Democratic majority release:
True. But what about subsidies and incentives for those of us in older housing, which is far less energy efficient? I know the state is basically broke, but interest-free loans (and grants to low-income homeowners) for conversion to alternate fuels, for conservation measures, etc.? Consider how much energy we might save if we could upgrade some of the older housing in Trenton and how much money those homeowners could save?
California and several other states already are doing some innovative things, including allowing towns to help homeowners by using special assessments:
There are critics who say such a solar plan is not cost-effective, that we should focus on efficiency -- but that's too small-bore given the problems we face (both in terms of energy use and cost). We have to find ways to do both.
Here is a description of the bill -- sponsored by local legislators Linda Greenstein and Bonnie Watson-Coleman -- from a Democratic majority release:
The measure (A-1558) would require a developer of a residential development of 25 or more units to offer to install a solar energy system when a prospective owner enters into negotiations, provided installation of such a system is technically feasible as determined by the Department of Community Affairs in consultation with the Board of Public Utilities.
“We must reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive fossil fuels by making use of renewable energy resources that can save consumers money and ensure our precious natural resources,” said Watson Coleman (D-Mercer). “By using solar energy for heat and electricity we can significantly reduce the emission of dangerous greenhouse gases.”
True. But what about subsidies and incentives for those of us in older housing, which is far less energy efficient? I know the state is basically broke, but interest-free loans (and grants to low-income homeowners) for conversion to alternate fuels, for conservation measures, etc.? Consider how much energy we might save if we could upgrade some of the older housing in Trenton and how much money those homeowners could save?
California and several other states already are doing some innovative things, including allowing towns to help homeowners by using special assessments:
The goal behind municipal financing is to eliminate perhaps the largest disincentive to installing solar power systems: the enormous initial cost. Although private financing is available through solar companies, homeowners often balk because they worry that they will not stay in the house long enough to have the investment — which runs about $48,000 for an average home and tens of thousands of dollars more for a larger home in a hot climate — pay off.
But cities like Palm Desert lobbied to change state laws so that solar power systems could be financed like gas lines or water lines, covered by a loan from the city and secured by property taxes. The advantage of this system over private borrowing is that any local homeowners are eligible (not just those with good credit), and the obligation to pay the loan attaches to the house and would pass to any future buyers.
The idea of public financing for home solar systems began two years ago in Berkeley. While it took months to untangle the legislative knots at the state level and get banks lined up to back the project, the concept took on a life of it own.
Cisco DeVries, who developed the program for Berkeley but has since moved on to a company that administers and finances similar programs for many towns, said: “I’ve never been part of something like this where the power of an idea has grabbed so many people so quickly. It is viral.”
In California, about a half-dozen cities including San Francisco and San Diego are already committed to their own solar programs. And outside of California, at least a half-dozen states, including Arizona, Texas and Virginia, have introduced bills to allow municipal financing. Colorado has already passed a version of the law, and the City of Boulder is on the verge of beginning a program.
Municipal financing comes on top of other government supports. California residents receive a straight rebate for about 20 percent of the cost of a solar power system. In addition, a federal income tax credit for 30 percent of the cost of installing solar panels was extended to participants in the municipal loan programs as part of the economic stimulus bill passed by Congress. And there are efforts to change the federal tax code further so that cities can borrow the money to lend tax free.
There are critics who say such a solar plan is not cost-effective, that we should focus on efficiency -- but that's too small-bore given the problems we face (both in terms of energy use and cost). We have to find ways to do both.
Back to school
This piece of legislation seems an innovative way to turn a negative in a positive: create incentives to encourage those recently unemployed in two of the state's most important industry -- Big Pharma and finance -- to become teachers. This would create jobs for people who need them, filling a need in the public schools for science and math teachers.
Enemy territory
We've stopped at an IHOP in Berlin on Route 73 to grab a quick bite and it's clear from the conversation at a nearby table that I'm square in the middle of Phillie nation, or whatever it is they call it here.
Cole Hamel and his elbow were the prime concern -- along with the United States suffering a humiliating defeat in the World Baseball Classic (a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm lying low and trying to withold my potential glee over the Phillies possibly losing their ace starter for any length of time.
That's petty, I know, but all's fair when you'}E a baseball fan.
----------
Sent from my Verizon Wireless LGVX9900 device.
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Breaking in the backseat
We just left pups at the Animal Welfare Association in Evesham, where they'll be getting spayed. It's a hike for us, but the spay appointment was part of our adoption agreement and fee.
So, we were up at 4:30 and out the door by 6 to get to the vet by 7:30.
It was an uneventful ride -- some overt agitation on the puppies' part -- Rosie managed to hop the backseat into the hatch after one unsuccessful attempt, while Sophie attempted to sneak into front seat (in particular, onto my lap as I drove).
It wasn't until we got there that we realized that Rosie christened the seat with a variety of, well, waste. To use the most technical the most technical of terms, she did a "one" and a "two"; she also vomited.
So, now we're in WalMart looking for cleaner and then we'll be off to find a laundromat.
What a way to start my week off.
----------
Sent from my Verizon Wireless LGVX9900 device.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
Graduation day from dog training
The puppies are done with training and, while we don't always realize it, they're doing fairly well. They are a smart pair -- and any problems we are having are really our fault. We're pushovers.
In any case, the trainer, Pat, dressed them in caps and gowns -- a goofy thing that I wasn't crazy about (dogs, after all, never seem all that comfortable in clothing and I find all those goofy photos I see on the Web and elsewhere a bit, well, goofy). But they were cute in their red caps and gowns, as you can see from the photos, and Annie really enjoyed it.I like the red, myself. It reminds me of my Rutgers graduation -- I was in black and the female grads were in red, like my female pups.
What I find interesting is that they seem to have the same expression on their faces as I did when I had to wear the cap and gown during my Rutgers graduation -- a mix of happiness, finality and utter annoyance at the officiousness.But then, I'm probably reading way too much into it.
Are we bringing back Harry and Louise?
Taxing employer-provided health benefits -- by removing considering them as income -- was a bad idea when Republican John McCain proposed it during the presidential campaign and it remains a bad idea now.
And yet, here it is:
During the early post-war period, when health care first became a political issue, the medical industry wielded the socialism canard -- socialized medicine -- to defeat a single-payer system, forcing unions to fight for health insurance for workers. As health care costs have continued to rise, however, employers started cutting back on coverage, pushing costs back onto employees, with the end result being a hodge-podge of plans, unevenly distributed and administered, with far too many people lacking needed insurance.
Fixing the system will require more than the mandates President Obama has called for, more than the various piece-meal approaches being tossed around on Capitol Hill. It will require radical change.
Such change, however, is considered by the political people to be politically untenable, so the political people -- who fund their political campaigns with political contributions from the insurance industry and others with connections to health care -- fiddle with bureaucratic plans that can only result in political failure.
Hasn't anyone learned anything from Harry and Louise?
And yet, here it is:
At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”The fact that this has come up -- and that some universal health care advocates are willing to consider it -- shows that the various maneuvers needed to provide full coverage short of a single-payer system are not likely to work.
Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic
Council.
They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits encourage what Mr. McCain called “gold-plated” policies, resulting in inefficient and costly demands for health care and pressure on employers to hold down workers’ pay as insurance expenses rise. And, they say, the policy discriminates against those — many of whom are low-income workers — who do not have employer-provided coverage.
When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from
Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.
During the early post-war period, when health care first became a political issue, the medical industry wielded the socialism canard -- socialized medicine -- to defeat a single-payer system, forcing unions to fight for health insurance for workers. As health care costs have continued to rise, however, employers started cutting back on coverage, pushing costs back onto employees, with the end result being a hodge-podge of plans, unevenly distributed and administered, with far too many people lacking needed insurance.
Fixing the system will require more than the mandates President Obama has called for, more than the various piece-meal approaches being tossed around on Capitol Hill. It will require radical change.
Such change, however, is considered by the political people to be politically untenable, so the political people -- who fund their political campaigns with political contributions from the insurance industry and others with connections to health care -- fiddle with bureaucratic plans that can only result in political failure.
Hasn't anyone learned anything from Harry and Louise?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The college cost shift
This is a good and important post -- and one that should remind us that the eight-year Clinton administration has a lot to answer for in terms of our current national plight.
But it wasn't just he loans. You need to go back to the early days of the Reagan administration to understand the full breadth of the conservative antipathy toward broad access to college. It was under Reagan that federal aid for students was first slashed, forcing more students to seek loans.
Long story short: The Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) was established as a government-sponsored enterprise in 1972, and was privatized as part the bipartisan neoliberalism of Clinton's second term, starting in 1997, and concluding with full privatization in 2004, and whopping bonuses all around. It's a perfect example of how a program conceived within the liberal welfare state model was repurposed to serve conservative welfare state ends.
But it wasn't just he loans. You need to go back to the early days of the Reagan administration to understand the full breadth of the conservative antipathy toward broad access to college. It was under Reagan that federal aid for students was first slashed, forcing more students to seek loans.
A snapshot of the economy
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Whose idea is this?
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Religion in the public eye
The intersection of faith and public morality too often is derided or, at the very least, cast on the shoals of the church-state debate.
Let me say, first off, that the wall Jefferson wrote separating religion from government is one of the most important constructions devised by the founders. It protects religious minorities amd the irreligious from the majority and the state and, avoid unnecessary and dangerous entanglements, while creating space for religion to grow and prosper.
That is why the religious culture of the United States is healthier and more diverse than in most European nations. There is no war on religion, despite what Bill O'Reilly and his neandethal brethren say, (I would argue, in fact, that if anyone is doing harm to religion in the United States, it is folks like O'Reilly and the American Taliban).
The Constitution prohibits government involvement or endorsement -- which I read to include religious holiday displays on government properties -- but not public involvlement. Churches and synagogues and mosques and all other religious groups are free to display their symbols publicly -- as the Chabad does in South Brunswick, with its massive menorah on its Route 130 property.
More importantly, religious congregations, clergy and parishioners are free to engage in the political debates of the day (though specific churches and denominations cannot endorse because of their status as nonprofit entities).
Religion, as the banner hanging from the Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church in Princeton makes clear, has a lot to say about the issues of the day. In this case, the "Torture is wrong" is proclaimed.
There is the clergy component of the battle against poverty in the state, the clergy letter condemning the death penalty, the Catholic Church's "Just War" theory, the civil rights movement and so on. We don't need to agree with every decree -- the Catholic Church is wrong on homosexuality and abortion is a private matter best left to individual women to wrestle with -- but we should acknowledge the role religion can play in the debate.
I write this not in response to any specific news event, but because I saw the banner on the church as I walked from by office to a downtown deli. It hit me that, while there are people like Christopher Hitchens who see the religious as superstitious nits, the reality is that the mass of believers out there is a rather complex and diverse lot that reflects who we are in all of our imperfections.
What makes our democracy work is the cacophony of voices, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, and the miraculous music it can make when each voice is willing to make room for the other.
Where do these guys come off?
Lies, damn lies and the war in Iraq
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I'm not a big fan of Chris Matthews. While I think some of the criticism he takes is overblown -- he didn't support the war in Iraq, for instance -- he does tend to be a blowhard who is overly concerned with the game of politics and not the policy.
That said, I was lying in bed last night unable to sleep and uninterested in the overnight sitcoms, so I tuned him in just in time to catch his slapdown of Ari Fleischer and the bizarre exchange between Mother Jones' David Corn (a great journalist) and Frank Gaffney.
Gaffney, a former defense department official, still lives in the neocon fantasy land and apparently believes that facts are pesky little things that are no different than opinions. His argument -- and he made it loud and continuously, rarely leaving more than a second of dead air into which Corn could jump -- was essentially that the intelligence supported George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, even though it didn't. It was strange to see him make his case -- and Fleischer making his case -- for war six years on and well after the public has turned away from the various lies and half-truths pushed to get things started.
I think that any television executive watching last night who still considers Gaffney a useful guest should find another line of work.
Runner's diary, Friday
I did my three miles today on the treadmill at the gym in a cool 24:03 -- why I couldn't shave the three seconds is beyond me. So a good run followed by some weights and I'm a happy guy.
I forgot to post the running yesterday -- three miles in 25:12.
iPod: The Beatles, Rubber Soul and Revolver
I forgot to post the running yesterday -- three miles in 25:12.
iPod: The Beatles, Rubber Soul and Revolver
Thursday, March 12, 2009
'Wham'-boozled
(Plus a podcast)
CJ Radio podcast on the budget can be heard here.
We had a few friends over tonight and the talk turned to the Corzine budget and the NJ101.5 "analysis" -- which comes straight from the Republican talking points -- of a so-called "double-whammy" that is supposed to cost middle-class taxpayers oodles of cash.
The double-whammy -- the loss of property tax rebates for families making more than $75,000 and the one-year elimination of the property tax deduction -- is not something that will be easy to swallow. But it's not the apocalyptic policy that the Republicans are making it out to be.
Consider these statements from Assembly Republicans. Assemblyman Peter Biondi, who represents Hillsborough, Manville and Montgomery, said the budget would "drive more people out of our state."
That said, as Charles Stile points out in today's Record, the chances "the Double Whammy will spark the middle-class revolt ... or deliver a deadly a political blow" appear somewhat slim:
Does this make the plan a good one or the best one under bad circumstances? It's too early to tell. Let the debates begin.
We had a few friends over tonight and the talk turned to the Corzine budget and the NJ101.5 "analysis" -- which comes straight from the Republican talking points -- of a so-called "double-whammy" that is supposed to cost middle-class taxpayers oodles of cash.
The double-whammy -- the loss of property tax rebates for families making more than $75,000 and the one-year elimination of the property tax deduction -- is not something that will be easy to swallow. But it's not the apocalyptic policy that the Republicans are making it out to be.
Consider these statements from Assembly Republicans. Assemblyman Peter Biondi, who represents Hillsborough, Manville and Montgomery, said the budget would "drive more people out of our state."
Republicans warned that families should hold onto their pocketbooks, and we weren’t surprised by his plan. The average family would lose approximately $1000 by this budget, not counting the impact of reduced municipal aid.Monmouth County Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon was equally extreme:
“Property taxpayers, who yesterday heard that their property tax bills will skyrocket with cuts to municipal aid, loss of the tax deduction and elimination of rebates, have learned all too well that while the governor speaks, his tax men creep.”And then there was Alex DeCroce, the Assembly Republican leader:
“For New Jersey taxpayers who are already saddled with the highest property taxes in the nation and are in danger of losing their homes and jobs during the worst recession in generations, Corzine’s budget is the equivalent of a knockout punch. I don’t consider anyone who would do this to families struggling trying to survive a friend of the middle class.”Now, $1,000 is a lot of cash, but the question is whether it is enough of a hit to recreate the anti-Democrat backlash of the Florio era -- especially given that most people have come to understand how bad off the state is fiscally.
That said, as Charles Stile points out in today's Record, the chances "the Double Whammy will spark the middle-class revolt ... or deliver a deadly a political blow" appear somewhat slim:
For one thing, Corzine's rebate plan is not an across-the-board cut. It would affect about 500,000 tax filers, or 20 percent fewer than in 2008, officials said.The program has been narrowed over the years, he says, with most of the upper-income voters having lost their rebates a long time ago. At the same time, the plan "preserves rebates for sacrosanct senior voters and his lower-middle-class Democratic base."
The second part of the whammy — scrapping a provision that lets homeowners write off the first $10,000 of their property taxes — is also not as politically treacherous as it sounds.
Officials said Wednesday that it could cost taxpayers, on average, $219. But tax filers can still take the deduction this year on their 2008 tax returns. That means the loss of the deduction won't be felt until they or their accountants fill out their taxes in spring 2010, which in Trenton's political terms, is an eternity.
Does this make the plan a good one or the best one under bad circumstances? It's too early to tell. Let the debates begin.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama's school plan offers wrong reforms
American schools need help.
Once among the leaders in educational success, the United States generally falls in the middle of most educational rankings on math, science, graduation rates, etc., putting it behind such economic powers as Estonia, Liechtenstein and Slovenia.
It is a problem that demands attention -- and a significant increase in spending.
The Obama administration has made education one of its three priorities (along with health care reform and the environment), including $46.7 billion in its proposed fiscal year 2010 spending plan for schooling, a $500 million increase. The stimulus plan also includes $81.1 billion for education to prevent teacher layoffs and help fund school construction projects, according to press reports.
That is a nice down payment, but doesn't go nearly far enough to address the disparities that plague our educational system or the difficulty we have in attracting and retaining teachers.
The president, in a speech on Tuesday, reiterated his commitment to education, promising to increase spending on early-childhood schooling and teacher recruitment -- which is good news for schools.
At the same time, however, President Obama bought into a dangerous fallacy, one that has been public policy for quite some time and that was enshrined in the failed No Child Left Behind legislation early in the Bush administration.
He said his administration plans to "finally make No Child Left Behind live up to its name by ensuring not only that teachers and principals get the funding that they need, but that the money is tied to results."
I admit, the proclamation has a nice ring, but it really doesn't move the reform ball down the field. Rather, it makes clear that the Obama administration is not ready to abandon the high-stakes testing that is at the center of current federal education law.
NCLB was sold to the American public as a way to heighten standards for students and accountability for teachers and administrators. The argument was that American schools were in decline because we no longer expected much from our students or staff.
The legislation required a massive testing regime and tied results to aid, with under performing schools being penalized and the most creative classroom work being replaced by what critics call a "drill and kill" approach to teaching.
Linda Darling-Hammond, an education professor Stanford University, writing an assessment of the law in The Nation magazine in May 2007, said the law "misdefined the problem."
It assumes that what schools need is more carrots and sticks rather than fundamental changes.
She believes that, to effectively reform the educational system, we need to address "an educational debt that has accumulated over centuries of denied access to education and employment" that has "reinforced by deepening poverty and resource inequalities in schools." Reform also would encourage creativity, rather than rote learning, and would return teachers and parents to the center of the educational process.
This not only will take money, but a commitment to restructuring schools -- especially in a state like New Jersey, where the explosive growth in expensive suburban housing has created a de facto segregation based on race and class, with poor blacks and Latinos centered in the cities and older suburbs.
The newer suburbs, which also have attracted a lot of the corporate growth in recent years, tend to have larger tax bases and a greater ability to fund innovative programs and attract better teachers. City schools, lacking these ratables, are forced to rely on the state and often get by with the basics.
We can do as the president says and institute merit pay for teachers, raise expectations for students, test, test and test some more, but none of this will matter if we are unwilling to pump a significant amount of federal cash into our schools to address the core problems.
Barack Obama: A man of action (figure)
Osama bin Laden? Child's play -- let's see George W. Bush take on Darth Vader.
Apparently, there is a Japanese toy company marketing a Barack Obama action figure that comes with an American flag, several different hands, two ties, a microphone and a stool (I think -- the site is in Japanese).
This was too weird not to post.
Goal: 20 miles a week plus two days of weights by summer's end. (You'd think I'd learn that setting goals only leads to disappointment.)
iPod: The Gaslight Anthem (from New Brunswick -- dig the Melody Bar reference!), The '59 Sound
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Doggie diary: The story of Rosie and Sophie
From depression to joyous exhaust
It's amazing the transformation in our mood. The nearly three months between the death of our beloved Honey girl and the arrival of our new prides and joys were marked by a low-grade depression, a sense that things were disrupted, that our world was incomplete.
The last two months, by contrast, have featured a great deal of joy -- and a good measure of aggravation. But that was to be expected, even if we didn't prepare ourselves properly for the stress.
So, we've gone from depression to exhaustion. When do we get to make up for the lost sleep?
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Nothing surprising about these responses
to Corzine budget address
The responses to the governor's budget address fell within the range of accepted opinion, with Democrats praising Jon Corzine for making tough decisions and Republicans calling him out for increasing taxes.
Here is what the GOP had to say on its site:
Jon Corzine introduced his budget proposal for the coming year and…Surprise…he wants to raise your taxes again! Our Republican legislators have drawn a line in the sand. They sent a clear message today: “We’re with the taxpayers. We’re not supporting any budget that raises any taxes on anyone. Period.”Interesting take. But I have a question: Given the constitutional requirement to balance the state budget and the massive deficit created by governors of both parties -- $7 billion, according to Corzine -- what would the Republicans do differently? They have a list of cuts -- most of which are unrealistic, or directly target New Jersey's poorest (in the urban areas).
The Corzine $1.5 billion tax hike plan:
Raise property taxes $500 million by eliminating rebates for anyone who earns over $75,000 a year.
Raise property taxes ANOTHER $400 million by eliminating the property tax deduction from NJ Income Taxes (by the way, Obama wants to eliminate the deduction from your federal tax too!)
Raise income taxes $380 million
$400 million tax hike by eliminating the property tax deduction
$80 million in increased business taxes
$48 million tax hike on cigarettes, alcohol and wine
$30 million in increased motor vehicle fees
We’re in the midst of the worst recession since World War II. Economics 101: You don’t raise taxes in a recession!
Republicans understand this and are standing strong and firm. After 7 years of tax increases (more than 100), a 50% increase in state spending, and a TRIPLING of state debt, it’s time for all of us to draw a line in the sand and say “Enough!”
Former Gov. Christie Whitman made it clear that budgets are policy documents, the places where elected officials walk the walk. In this case, the GOP reform plan would cut money targeted toward municipal consolidation, urban schools, the City of Trenton (which gets money because of the revenue it loses to state buildings) and urban aid. There are positive elements in the plan -- some of the process reforms make sense, though the two-thirds rule on tax increases would dangerously tie the state's hands (states that have enacted this rule have run into massive budget problems with some overturning the rule by public referendum).
I give the state GOP credit, though. The national party has offered nothing.
As for the Democrats -- they are saying what one might expect them to say, given that most of them helped created this mess in the first place. Yes, tough decisions have to be made. But is anyone prepared to make them?
All this talk is nothing more than talk. We have three and a half months to pass a budget. Does anyone really believe it will look like the one Jon Corzine unveiled today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)