Thursday, January 29, 2009
CONSERVATIVE DISARRAY
The massive 825 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives without one Republican vote. The Senate is now considering a similar bill that, at best, will be supported by a small number of Senate Republicans.
President Obama campaigned on the importance of bipartisan politics, stressing that the economic crisis had to be faced, without regard to ideology or preconceived policy dictates from the right or the left. We were all invited to pull together in the face of the worst economic news since the Great Depression. The new President met for hours with the House Republican leaders. They said that they found him very interested and respectful of their views, and then they voted en masse against his proposals.
They accused their Democratic opponents of pushing a Big Government agenda, spending huge sums in new programs in education, healthcare and infrastructure – a quintessentially liberal response to the crisis. Instead, they advocated for tax cuts for businesses and individuals. They also said that they could not justify the massive borrowing that the Democratic plans entailed.
The Republicans have a major problem in putting forward conservative solutions. They will, surely, hear the advice often given to people whose ideas are not consistent with the way they live: Talk louder because your actions are shouting you down!
George Bush came into office in January, 2001, promising limited government, low taxes and fiscally responsible policies. For six of his eight years in the White House, he had a Republican majority in the House and the Senate. They invited us to watch conservatives in action!
Well, we did. They inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton, but when President Obama took over eight years later, he found a projected deficit of a trillion dollars, not only for 2009, but for every year until 2018! President Bush cut taxes, especially for the rich, promising that, by some magic, this would result in continuing surpluses every year. Contrary to his promises, he also increased spending in nearly every government department from 2001 until he left office. Furthermore, he invaded Iraq and borrowed the hundreds of billions required to fight that war.
The Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed him all the way. The one absolute rule with present-day Republicans is that taxes must never – ever – be increased. They regularly attack their opponents as “tax and spend” Democrats.
Big deficits mean that future generations will have to pay for this Republican profligacy – the very antithesis of the conservative philosophy. Serious Republican theorists of the past, like the late William F. Buckley, would have considered leaving big bills for our grandchildren to pay as completely reckless and definitely un-conservative.
So, today, when the Republican leaders in both Houses trot out the old shibboleths about cutting taxes and reducing spending as a way out of the present crisis, they have a real credibility problem. Democrats are correctly pointing out that it was the so-called conservative Bush policies that got us into the mess in the first place.
Not that voters have embraced the liberal alternative. Indeed, it was very noticeable that the main contenders for the Democratic nomination, including Barack Obama, never identified themselves as liberals. It seems to be a noxious word that voters associate with soft-headed do-gooders who have a government solution for everything.
Democrats have learned to talk about the issues that concern people everywhere – healthcare, employment, education and retirement benefits. Their approach in all these issues is indeed a liberal one, involving hefty government involvement, but please don’t use that “L” word.
The Obama/Democratic proposals surely constitute a liberal response to the present economic crisis. The focus is on creating millions of jobs and enhancing the country’s infrastructure, which, they argue, will improve the chances of long-term, sustainable economic growth.
If the Democratic plans succeed, then we can look to a long period of that party in government. If they don’t turn the economy around, the people will reject the liberal approach, as they now reject conservative thinking.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
BLAGOJEVICH'S TRIALS
At the start of the Illinois Senate hearings, on Monday, about the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich, the presiding judge, Thomas R. Fitzgerald, asked the senators in the chamber, “Is the Governor present?” The answer was negative, because Blago, as he is now commonly called, dubbed the senate gathering a kangaroo court, motivated by political vendettas.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obama Needs Luck
President Obama is a thoughtful, cool, reasonable person – the epitome of the Renaissance Man. His policies are well-researched and documented. His campaign was guided by a strong commitment to the logical analysis of all policy issues. His selection of Joe Biden as vice-president provides a good example of this ordered approach. Senator Biden emerged as the chosen one only after months of systematic assessment of various other possible candidates. By comparison, his opponent, John McCain chose Sarah Palin on a gut feeling, after two conversations.
Most people are impressed by this kind of deliberative approach to problem-solving, used by Obama and his advisors. However, history points to a major weakness in this approach: most historical events are driven, partly, at least, by emotion and tribal convictions, which are often not amenable to thoughtful analysis. Shakespeare was a devoted exponent of the rational approach to life, but, he fully realized its limitations. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There are two major areas of concern for the new President, which, to a great extent, operate outside the ability of planners to control. If either one goes against him, then his whole presidency will be in serious trouble.
First, his economic stimulus plan is largely a shot in the dark. The new President was advocating last week for the additional 350 billion dollars, part of the Bush bailout plan, to stabilize the banking and insurance industries. Yet, there has been no accountability for the first half of the huge Bush payouts. The bankers took the money and continued on their merry way, following the same policies as before.
Homeowners struggling with mortgages continue to get foreclosure letters, despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to these financial institutions. Now, even if the Obama administration insists on changes in this regard before the second 350 billion is disbursed, there is still no great confidence among independent economists that this money will solve the credit crisis. What happens if they want a few more hundred billion in the fall?
The wider almost-trillion dollar stimulus package that the new President is himself proposing is also fraught with danger. They expect that this money will create about three million new jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by about 2%, very worthy goals. Furthermore, the resulting improvement in the nation’s infrastructure will certainly have very positive long-term economic effects.
However, some democratic leaders, including the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Conrad, consider that these employment predictions by the Obama team are very rosy. The powerful Senator expressed the view that maybe half the projected new jobs is a more realistic figure. What happens if the unemployment rate keeps rising, despite the stimulus package? Is the capitalist system so broken, after the collapse of banks, insurance companies and the auto industry – the commanding heights of the economy – that a whole new economic model will have to be developed?
The scale of the borrowing required is astronomical. Apart from the stimulus packages, we are told that for the next ten years the US Treasury will have to borrow one trillion dollars a year. Add in about one and a half trillion for stimulus packages, and we get some idea of the frightening extent of this problem. Will the Chinese bankers stop lending to us or demand repayment for the money already owed? Surely Socialists must be smiling at the United States depending on Chinese money to keep going!
I don’t know enough about how currencies operate, but I am reading that a lot of economists are very concerned about the impact that all the borrowing and printing of new money will have on the stability of the dollar. The unintended consequences of this kind of mega-borrowing on the strength and stability of the American currency are another major concern for the Obama team.
The new president is really in uncharted waters, and he is doing his utmost to find a scientific answer, a new formula that will, somehow, jumpstart the economy and halt the precipitous climb in unemployment numbers. Nobody seems to understand the dynamics of the present crisis, the worst since the hungry 30’s, but, if, despite his best efforts, the economic situation continues to worsen, the President will be gradually abandoned by his friends and allies in the Democratic Party, and his poll numbers will move in the direction of the last White House incumbent.
The second major concern is a new terrorist attack. President Bush and his supporters point to the fact that the homeland has not been hit since 9/11. They argue that it was his stern policies which kept the country safe.
Many on the other side see this safety issue very differently. They say that the Bush policies, especially the invasion of Iraq, have drawn the anger and heightened the resentment of Muslims everywhere. In this perspective, America is more likely to be hit again by extremists because of the Muslim perception that the United States is hostile to their culture and their interests.
The President-elect is committed to closing Guantanamo and outlawing torture. The American people support these moves right now. However, in the event of another serious attack, this would likely change as people would blame the “soft” policies of Obama for the new tragedy. The tough, militaristic, Bush approach would be lauded then as the only way to deal with terrorists.
Part of the reason that President Clinton had a successful presidency was that he had more than his share of luck, especially in the area of the economic growth of the nineties. President Obama will also need the gods to smile on him for his economic stimulus package to work, and so that there won’t be another serious attack on the homeland.
President Obama is a thoughtful, cool, reasonable person – the epitome of the Renaissance Man. His policies are well-researched and documented. His campaign was guided by a strong commitment to the logical analysis of all policy issues. His selection of Joe Biden as vice-president provides a good example of this ordered approach. Senator Biden emerged as the chosen one only after months of systematic assessment of various other possible candidates. By comparison, his opponent, John McCain chose Sarah Palin on a gut feeling, after two conversations.
Most people are impressed by this kind of deliberative approach to problem-solving, used by Obama and his advisors. However, history points to a major weakness in this approach: most historical events are driven, partly, at least, by emotion and tribal convictions, which are often not amenable to thoughtful analysis. Shakespeare was a devoted exponent of the rational approach to life, but, he fully realized its limitations. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There are two major areas of concern for the new President, which, to a great extent, operate outside the ability of planners to control. If either one goes against him, then his whole presidency will be in serious trouble.
First, his economic stimulus plan is largely a shot in the dark. The new President was advocating last week for the additional 350 billion dollars, part of the Bush bailout plan, to stabilize the banking and insurance industries. Yet, there has been no accountability for the first half of the huge Bush payouts. The bankers took the money and continued on their merry way, following the same policies as before.
Homeowners struggling with mortgages continue to get foreclosure letters, despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to these financial institutions. Now, even if the Obama administration insists on changes in this regard before the second 350 billion is disbursed, there is still no great confidence among independent economists that this money will solve the credit crisis. What happens if they want a few more hundred billion in the fall?
The wider almost-trillion dollar stimulus package that the new President is himself proposing is also fraught with danger. They expect that this money will create about three million new jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by about 2%, very worthy goals. Furthermore, the resulting improvement in the nation’s infrastructure will certainly have very positive long-term economic effects.
However, some democratic leaders, including the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Conrad, consider that these employment predictions by the Obama team are very rosy. The powerful Senator expressed the view that maybe half the projected new jobs is a more realistic figure. What happens if the unemployment rate keeps rising, despite the stimulus package? Is the capitalist system so broken, after the collapse of banks, insurance companies and the auto industry – the commanding heights of the economy – that a whole new economic model will have to be developed?
The scale of the borrowing required is astronomical. Apart from the stimulus packages, we are told that for the next ten years the US Treasury will have to borrow one trillion dollars a year. Add in about one and a half trillion for stimulus packages, and we get some idea of the frightening extent of this problem. Will the Chinese bankers stop lending to us or demand repayment for the money already owed? Surely Socialists must be smiling at the United States depending on Chinese money to keep going!
I don’t know enough about how currencies operate, but I am reading that a lot of economists are very concerned about the impact that all the borrowing and printing of new money will have on the stability of the dollar. The unintended consequences of this kind of mega-borrowing on the strength and stability of the American currency are another major concern for the Obama team.
The new president is really in uncharted waters, and he is doing his utmost to find a scientific answer, a new formula that will, somehow, jumpstart the economy and halt the precipitous climb in unemployment numbers. Nobody seems to understand the dynamics of the present crisis, the worst since the hungry 30’s, but, if, despite his best efforts, the economic situation continues to worsen, the President will be gradually abandoned by his friends and allies in the Democratic Party, and his poll numbers will move in the direction of the last White House incumbent.
The second major concern is a new terrorist attack. President Bush and his supporters point to the fact that the homeland has not been hit since 9/11. They argue that it was his stern policies which kept the country safe.
Many on the other side see this safety issue very differently. They say that the Bush policies, especially the invasion of Iraq, have drawn the anger and heightened the resentment of Muslims everywhere. In this perspective, America is more likely to be hit again by extremists because of the Muslim perception that the United States is hostile to their culture and their interests.
The President-elect is committed to closing Guantanamo and outlawing torture. The American people support these moves right now. However, in the event of another serious attack, this would likely change as people would blame the “soft” policies of Obama for the new tragedy. The tough, militaristic, Bush approach would be lauded then as the only way to deal with terrorists.
Part of the reason that President Clinton had a successful presidency was that he had more than his share of luck, especially in the area of the economic growth of the nineties. President Obama will also need the gods to smile on him for his economic stimulus package to work, and so that there won’t be another serious attack on the homeland.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Dealing With the Dropout Problem
When I worked as an English teacher in a Westchester high school in the seventies, nearly all the students graduated, and most went on to earn degrees in college. Today, my daughter, Brenda, teaches in a similar school district, and the same situation prevails. These students’ parents are mostly well-educated and successful. Stories and reading are part of the child’s life from an early age. Many will have some experience of cultural events at home and abroad as they grow up. Their friends are likely to come from similarly ambitious and successful families. Educators talk about a positive family and community as the infrastructure that breeds educational success, and these kids are blessed to grow up in such an enhancing environment.
Most of my professional life I worked in inner-city high schools. In Dublin, I was employed for ten years as a guidance counselor and teacher in Ballymun, which was a very poor area in the north of the city. The huge tower blocks were mostly used as a dumping ground for all the problem families of the city. The movie The Committments was filmed in Ballymun and gave a fair picture of the chaotic life there for young people. For the last twenty years, I was employed as a guidance counselor in a high school in the South Bronx. The students mostly came from the surrounding apartment blocks. Many were recent immigrants whose first language was Spanish.
The Ballymun and South Bronx communities had much in common. In both cases the people were poor and felt marginalized. In the South Bronx, most of the kids came from one-parent families; while this was somewhat less of a problem in Dublin, it was still a common feature of family life there too. Poverty was a dominant factor in both communities. Many mothers worked in low-paying jobs, with little or no male support, barely paying the bills. Fast food from local take-aways often provided the staple diet. Drug and alcohol abuse heightened the misery in many families on both sides of the Atlantic. In a word, the infrastructure for success in school was lacking in both places.
The correlation between socio-economic status and educational achievement is well established. The existence of a large minority of unschooled, almost illiterate, children and adults provides a huge challenge in all Western countries. These are often alienated people, unemployed or working in poor-paying jobs, who draw heavily on the social welfare system. They are also far more likely than their middle-class counterparts to be in trouble with the law, and statistics show that the vast majority of people in jail do not have a high school diploma.
It is a major challenge for political leaders to devise policies that would diminish this problem. The record so far is very discouraging because policy makers are trying to remedy not one problem, but a whole complex of issues. The school dropout programs that I have participated in or read about have a low success rate. With the best of intentions, the teachers and counselors who run these after-school or weekend programs find themselves swimming against a strong tide of failure and indifference. There are some success stories, but, unfortunately, the dynamics that created the problem do not subside after school.
There is certainly no one solution to the complex dropout problem. The following three proposals are not novel, but taken together, I believe that they would be helpful in reducing the level of school failure.
Early Childhood Education: Studies of early education programs are very encouraging. A major review of a program in Chicago, carried out over a long period of time, showed that children, who had the benefit of ECE did much better in later education and employment than a comparable group of deprived students who did not have the benefit of ECE. The thinking behind these programs makes eminent sense: replace some of the negative home influences for three-year olds with a positive and supportive school environment and you can expect good results. President-elect Obama, who surely knows plenty about this issue from his years as a community worker in Chicago, has promised a national pre-school program during his first term as president.
Class Size: The number of students that a teacher faces in the classroom makes a big difference to the learning process. To give individual attention, a teacher should not have to deal with more than about twenty pupils at a time. It is really ironic that the size of classes in inner-city schools in New York is significantly higher than in middle-class school districts in the suburbs. This is an issue of funding and it reflects the priorities that are driving political decisions, so this situation can be addressed and remedied in Albany and City Hall.
Quality of Teaching: How do we encourage the best and the brightest teachers to work in the most challenging schools? Salary is an issue, and it is not helpful that many good teachers are enticed away from New York City to jobs in the suburbs that pay as much as 20% more. However, monetary compensation is not the main inducement for teachers, and, certainly, the idea of merit pay, where one teacher in a school earns more than a colleague, would be disastrous for school morale and should not be considered for that reason. Teachers will stay in a school where they are respected and dealt with fairly. Many school administrators seem far more worried about their own image than promoting a teacher-friendly environment. The ability of administrators to collaborate with teachers should be a primary consideration in selecting school leaders.
When I worked as an English teacher in a Westchester high school in the seventies, nearly all the students graduated, and most went on to earn degrees in college. Today, my daughter, Brenda, teaches in a similar school district, and the same situation prevails. These students’ parents are mostly well-educated and successful. Stories and reading are part of the child’s life from an early age. Many will have some experience of cultural events at home and abroad as they grow up. Their friends are likely to come from similarly ambitious and successful families. Educators talk about a positive family and community as the infrastructure that breeds educational success, and these kids are blessed to grow up in such an enhancing environment.
Most of my professional life I worked in inner-city high schools. In Dublin, I was employed for ten years as a guidance counselor and teacher in Ballymun, which was a very poor area in the north of the city. The huge tower blocks were mostly used as a dumping ground for all the problem families of the city. The movie The Committments was filmed in Ballymun and gave a fair picture of the chaotic life there for young people. For the last twenty years, I was employed as a guidance counselor in a high school in the South Bronx. The students mostly came from the surrounding apartment blocks. Many were recent immigrants whose first language was Spanish.
The Ballymun and South Bronx communities had much in common. In both cases the people were poor and felt marginalized. In the South Bronx, most of the kids came from one-parent families; while this was somewhat less of a problem in Dublin, it was still a common feature of family life there too. Poverty was a dominant factor in both communities. Many mothers worked in low-paying jobs, with little or no male support, barely paying the bills. Fast food from local take-aways often provided the staple diet. Drug and alcohol abuse heightened the misery in many families on both sides of the Atlantic. In a word, the infrastructure for success in school was lacking in both places.
The correlation between socio-economic status and educational achievement is well established. The existence of a large minority of unschooled, almost illiterate, children and adults provides a huge challenge in all Western countries. These are often alienated people, unemployed or working in poor-paying jobs, who draw heavily on the social welfare system. They are also far more likely than their middle-class counterparts to be in trouble with the law, and statistics show that the vast majority of people in jail do not have a high school diploma.
It is a major challenge for political leaders to devise policies that would diminish this problem. The record so far is very discouraging because policy makers are trying to remedy not one problem, but a whole complex of issues. The school dropout programs that I have participated in or read about have a low success rate. With the best of intentions, the teachers and counselors who run these after-school or weekend programs find themselves swimming against a strong tide of failure and indifference. There are some success stories, but, unfortunately, the dynamics that created the problem do not subside after school.
There is certainly no one solution to the complex dropout problem. The following three proposals are not novel, but taken together, I believe that they would be helpful in reducing the level of school failure.
Early Childhood Education: Studies of early education programs are very encouraging. A major review of a program in Chicago, carried out over a long period of time, showed that children, who had the benefit of ECE did much better in later education and employment than a comparable group of deprived students who did not have the benefit of ECE. The thinking behind these programs makes eminent sense: replace some of the negative home influences for three-year olds with a positive and supportive school environment and you can expect good results. President-elect Obama, who surely knows plenty about this issue from his years as a community worker in Chicago, has promised a national pre-school program during his first term as president.
Class Size: The number of students that a teacher faces in the classroom makes a big difference to the learning process. To give individual attention, a teacher should not have to deal with more than about twenty pupils at a time. It is really ironic that the size of classes in inner-city schools in New York is significantly higher than in middle-class school districts in the suburbs. This is an issue of funding and it reflects the priorities that are driving political decisions, so this situation can be addressed and remedied in Albany and City Hall.
Quality of Teaching: How do we encourage the best and the brightest teachers to work in the most challenging schools? Salary is an issue, and it is not helpful that many good teachers are enticed away from New York City to jobs in the suburbs that pay as much as 20% more. However, monetary compensation is not the main inducement for teachers, and, certainly, the idea of merit pay, where one teacher in a school earns more than a colleague, would be disastrous for school morale and should not be considered for that reason. Teachers will stay in a school where they are respected and dealt with fairly. Many school administrators seem far more worried about their own image than promoting a teacher-friendly environment. The ability of administrators to collaborate with teachers should be a primary consideration in selecting school leaders.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Romance with Barack Obama
The pundits and editorial writers of all political persuasions seem to be in love with Barack Obama. Maybe "in love" is the wrong phrase, but I am struck by their willingness to make all kinds of allowances for him, for instance, for his extravagant plans to revive the economy. In this uncritical stance, they are following a broad societal consensus that the country is in such dire straits that we must pull together and support our new leader. The romantic eye that cannot see the faults in the beloved is an apt analogy.
There is hardly a peep from Republican leaders about borrowing approximately another trillion dollars on top of all the Bush borrowing. There are vague promises from the president-elect that sometime in the future we will have to pay our way again. In the meantime, we hope that the communist bankers in China will continue to believe that we will pay them back – sometime in the future. This kind of thinking is often associated with liberals, who will usually support substantial borrowing for capital projects, but here we have the hard-headed businessmen, the financiers and the tycoons, all devout conservatives, pleading with Mr. Obama for bailouts and, yes, more and more borrowing.
The problem with the conservatives is they have very little credibility. President Bush and his financial advisers, all of whom classify themselves as conservative or neo-conservative, came into office, after eight years of Bill Clinton, with a budget surplus. They then proceeded to give big tax cuts to the rich, assuring us all that that this would result in a higher budget surplus – that by giving away huge sums of money to the rich in various ways, by some conservative magic, we would end up with more money in the tax coffers. A corollary to this economic approach is called the "dribble down" theory. This thinking assures us that by the rich getting richer, those in the lower echelons will also benefit with better wages and working conditions.
Well, these theories were tested over eight years, and the results are clear and indisputable. We have ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, and the living standards of the American middle-class have declined. In addition, the number of people living in poverty increased significantly during the Bush years. I don’t claim to understand all the dimensions and intricacies of the present economic crisis, but common sense tells me that if a society, no less than a family, is way off in balancing the books, in paying its way, year after year, then a serious day of reckoning will inevitably come.
Conservatives like to portray themselves as people who espouse traditional virtues. They stress the importance of thrift, of saving for the rainy day, of husbanding resources for possible future emergencies. Above all, it is anathema for any true conservative to run up bills that his family ends up having to pay. Well, guess who is going to pay for the reckless profligacy of the last eight years of conservative rule! Yes, our children and grandchildren. That is a disgrace and it is surely immoral by any ethical standard.
The American people got tired of the conservative humbug. It is not that that they suddenly embraced a liberal ideology, but on nearly every issue they rejected the conservative approach. Obama ran an anti-Bush, anti-status quo campaign. He argued for a tax break for the middle class, for a version of universal health care and for spending tax money on infrastructure at home, not on roads and bridges in Iraq. He made his case very eloquently, and the people rejected McCain as offering a continuation of the Bush policies. In September when the banks and insurance companies creaked, Obama remained very cool and argued that this new crisis strengthened his case for radical change, while McCain seemed flustered and showed uncertain leadership in the new situation.
Since then, the economic situation has worsened – unemployment has increased dramatically, mortgage foreclosures have multiplied and the stock market averages have become a tale of woe. The people and the pundits have no confidence in President Bush solving anything; instead, they have turned to the president-elect for leadership. Their mood is uncritical because they feel that they have no other place to turn.
They know that Obama is very bright and very serious about tackling the daunting problems in the country. He promises to launch a massive spending program that will create three or four million jobs. In addition, he says that he will make universal health care available to all Americans. We believe him because we need some new hope. In addition, he is somehow going to deal with the awful humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not to mention the challenges – to put it mildly – of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And, of course, he has promised an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
We expect so much from him; high expectations are part of any romance. Can he deliver or are the negative forces that he is facing so formidable that we are bound to be disappointed?
The pundits and editorial writers of all political persuasions seem to be in love with Barack Obama. Maybe "in love" is the wrong phrase, but I am struck by their willingness to make all kinds of allowances for him, for instance, for his extravagant plans to revive the economy. In this uncritical stance, they are following a broad societal consensus that the country is in such dire straits that we must pull together and support our new leader. The romantic eye that cannot see the faults in the beloved is an apt analogy.
There is hardly a peep from Republican leaders about borrowing approximately another trillion dollars on top of all the Bush borrowing. There are vague promises from the president-elect that sometime in the future we will have to pay our way again. In the meantime, we hope that the communist bankers in China will continue to believe that we will pay them back – sometime in the future. This kind of thinking is often associated with liberals, who will usually support substantial borrowing for capital projects, but here we have the hard-headed businessmen, the financiers and the tycoons, all devout conservatives, pleading with Mr. Obama for bailouts and, yes, more and more borrowing.
The problem with the conservatives is they have very little credibility. President Bush and his financial advisers, all of whom classify themselves as conservative or neo-conservative, came into office, after eight years of Bill Clinton, with a budget surplus. They then proceeded to give big tax cuts to the rich, assuring us all that that this would result in a higher budget surplus – that by giving away huge sums of money to the rich in various ways, by some conservative magic, we would end up with more money in the tax coffers. A corollary to this economic approach is called the "dribble down" theory. This thinking assures us that by the rich getting richer, those in the lower echelons will also benefit with better wages and working conditions.
Well, these theories were tested over eight years, and the results are clear and indisputable. We have ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, and the living standards of the American middle-class have declined. In addition, the number of people living in poverty increased significantly during the Bush years. I don’t claim to understand all the dimensions and intricacies of the present economic crisis, but common sense tells me that if a society, no less than a family, is way off in balancing the books, in paying its way, year after year, then a serious day of reckoning will inevitably come.
Conservatives like to portray themselves as people who espouse traditional virtues. They stress the importance of thrift, of saving for the rainy day, of husbanding resources for possible future emergencies. Above all, it is anathema for any true conservative to run up bills that his family ends up having to pay. Well, guess who is going to pay for the reckless profligacy of the last eight years of conservative rule! Yes, our children and grandchildren. That is a disgrace and it is surely immoral by any ethical standard.
The American people got tired of the conservative humbug. It is not that that they suddenly embraced a liberal ideology, but on nearly every issue they rejected the conservative approach. Obama ran an anti-Bush, anti-status quo campaign. He argued for a tax break for the middle class, for a version of universal health care and for spending tax money on infrastructure at home, not on roads and bridges in Iraq. He made his case very eloquently, and the people rejected McCain as offering a continuation of the Bush policies. In September when the banks and insurance companies creaked, Obama remained very cool and argued that this new crisis strengthened his case for radical change, while McCain seemed flustered and showed uncertain leadership in the new situation.
Since then, the economic situation has worsened – unemployment has increased dramatically, mortgage foreclosures have multiplied and the stock market averages have become a tale of woe. The people and the pundits have no confidence in President Bush solving anything; instead, they have turned to the president-elect for leadership. Their mood is uncritical because they feel that they have no other place to turn.
They know that Obama is very bright and very serious about tackling the daunting problems in the country. He promises to launch a massive spending program that will create three or four million jobs. In addition, he says that he will make universal health care available to all Americans. We believe him because we need some new hope. In addition, he is somehow going to deal with the awful humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not to mention the challenges – to put it mildly – of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And, of course, he has promised an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
We expect so much from him; high expectations are part of any romance. Can he deliver or are the negative forces that he is facing so formidable that we are bound to be disappointed?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Crisis in Gaza
The Crisis in Gaza
Right now, the people in Gaza are enduring a heavy pummeling from air, sea and land. There are about a million and a half of them, already living in poor conditions, before being attacked by a well-equipped army. Now, the water supply system in the city is ruined; the hospitals are barely functioning; the place is under daily siege by a very efficient Israeli army, navy and air force.
The Israeli Government argues that they are only responding to rocket attacks from Hamas. Surely, their spokesmen say, nobody can argue with their right to defend their citizens from attack. It seems that the rocket attacks have been getting worse every month, creating fear and terror in some of their towns. Also, the rockets are getting more sophisticated, reaching farther into Israel and creating more destruction.
There is a cold logic to revolutions and wars. For Hamas there are old scores, going back to 1948, to be settled, and all the accumulated hatred against what they see as an occupying force. Their logic is summed up by a Shakespeare quotation from Macbeth: “Things ill begun make strong themselves by ill!” Thus, they argue that only the destruction of the State Israel deals with the core of the problem.
The rocket attacks on their people justifiy the Israeli position. You started it – we will end it! Tit for tat! You attack us and we will show you what a powerful response is. All the political leaders in Israel seem to accept and support the logic of this war.
Yet, the killing on both sides will solve nothing; in fact, I would argue that it will exacerbate the situation. Most of the casualities are on the Arab side because Israel has far superior weaponry and the means to deliver it. The hundreds of deaths, including the inevitable killing of women and children, will certainly breed hatred of the oppressor. Will they blame Hamas for drawing the violence on their homes? No, the finger will be pointed at Israel and at the United States, which supplies the sophisticated armaments. The children who are being terrorized now will surely be the terrorists ten years from now.
In a famous speech, after the death of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy asked a profound question: “What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet. Violence breeds violence. Repression breeds retaliation.” Will the Israeli attacks, the daily bombardment of populated areas, somehow break Hamas or make Jewish towns and cities safer? Not likely! Instead, young people will respond by swelling the ranks of Hamas and other similar organizations. In Northern Ireland, during “TheTroubles,” the military actions of the British army were the biggest recruiting agent for the IRA. The same dynamic applies in Gaza. Furthermore, the news reports say that the number of rocket attacks by Hamas has increased since the sea and air bombardment began.
Hamas is a revolutionary movement. They know that the escalation of violence by their enemy is just what they want. It inevitably enhances their position. Martyrs create more martyrs. The center gives way and violent actions are more and more accepted as somehow normal and even appropriate.
In 2006 Israel decided to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in an effort to have two of their soldiers, who were being held by Hezbollah, released. Their bombardment of Lebanon resulted, not in the freeing of the soldiers, but in Hezbollah becoming part of the government of Lebanon – not to mention the inevitable hatred that such actions elicit.
I hope that the new Obama administration will make a peaceful settlement in the Middle East a top priority. The outlines of an agreement are well known, based on UN resolutions and the Oslo negotiations. The Palestinians must have a viable homeland and Israel must be guaranteed secure borders. It is possible to achieve such a lasting peace, if only because the Gaza war shows the serious limitations of the military approach.
Right now, the people in Gaza are enduring a heavy pummeling from air, sea and land. There are about a million and a half of them, already living in poor conditions, before being attacked by a well-equipped army. Now, the water supply system in the city is ruined; the hospitals are barely functioning; the place is under daily siege by a very efficient Israeli army, navy and air force.
The Israeli Government argues that they are only responding to rocket attacks from Hamas. Surely, their spokesmen say, nobody can argue with their right to defend their citizens from attack. It seems that the rocket attacks have been getting worse every month, creating fear and terror in some of their towns. Also, the rockets are getting more sophisticated, reaching farther into Israel and creating more destruction.
There is a cold logic to revolutions and wars. For Hamas there are old scores, going back to 1948, to be settled, and all the accumulated hatred against what they see as an occupying force. Their logic is summed up by a Shakespeare quotation from Macbeth: “Things ill begun make strong themselves by ill!” Thus, they argue that only the destruction of the State Israel deals with the core of the problem.
The rocket attacks on their people justifiy the Israeli position. You started it – we will end it! Tit for tat! You attack us and we will show you what a powerful response is. All the political leaders in Israel seem to accept and support the logic of this war.
Yet, the killing on both sides will solve nothing; in fact, I would argue that it will exacerbate the situation. Most of the casualities are on the Arab side because Israel has far superior weaponry and the means to deliver it. The hundreds of deaths, including the inevitable killing of women and children, will certainly breed hatred of the oppressor. Will they blame Hamas for drawing the violence on their homes? No, the finger will be pointed at Israel and at the United States, which supplies the sophisticated armaments. The children who are being terrorized now will surely be the terrorists ten years from now.
In a famous speech, after the death of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy asked a profound question: “What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet. Violence breeds violence. Repression breeds retaliation.” Will the Israeli attacks, the daily bombardment of populated areas, somehow break Hamas or make Jewish towns and cities safer? Not likely! Instead, young people will respond by swelling the ranks of Hamas and other similar organizations. In Northern Ireland, during “TheTroubles,” the military actions of the British army were the biggest recruiting agent for the IRA. The same dynamic applies in Gaza. Furthermore, the news reports say that the number of rocket attacks by Hamas has increased since the sea and air bombardment began.
Hamas is a revolutionary movement. They know that the escalation of violence by their enemy is just what they want. It inevitably enhances their position. Martyrs create more martyrs. The center gives way and violent actions are more and more accepted as somehow normal and even appropriate.
In 2006 Israel decided to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in an effort to have two of their soldiers, who were being held by Hezbollah, released. Their bombardment of Lebanon resulted, not in the freeing of the soldiers, but in Hezbollah becoming part of the government of Lebanon – not to mention the inevitable hatred that such actions elicit.
I hope that the new Obama administration will make a peaceful settlement in the Middle East a top priority. The outlines of an agreement are well known, based on UN resolutions and the Oslo negotiations. The Palestinians must have a viable homeland and Israel must be guaranteed secure borders. It is possible to achieve such a lasting peace, if only because the Gaza war shows the serious limitations of the military approach.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Blago Again
If Governor Blagojevich is feeling persecuted these days because of the way he is being treated by politicians and commentators, his reaction can scarcely be deemed paranoid. One time, people shouted "unclean" when an unfortunate leper came into view. Poor Blago must have similar feelings of rejection because he is certainly getting the leper treatment. Patrick Fitzgerald, the chief prosecutor, denounced him publicly for behavior that, he said, was so reprehensible that Abraham Lincoln was turning in his grave in disgust. Yesterday’s New York Times editorial, normally a place for sane and balanced judgment, talked about the "crass rantings" of a "discredited blowhard." Even President-elect Obama and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, have rejected out-of-hand the Governor’s choice of a distinguished former Illinois attorney general, Roland Burris, to fill the vacant Senate seat because, in their view, he is tainted by dealing with the Governor.
What did Blagojevich do to merit such obloquy, such utter condemnation? Why has he been consigned to a corner of the politicians’ hell below Richard Nixon? Did he murder somebody or, at least, arrange for some opponent to be maimed? We hear that Chicago politics is notoriously rough, but, as far as we know, Blago has not laid a finger on anybody. Have he and his family enriched themselves, because of his powerful office? Has his bank balance – or his wife’s – grown dramatically during his years in Illinois politics? Is there money missing from some public funds? Were contractors persuaded to do renovations on his home for special low rates? Again, there seems to be no suggestion of personal monetary gain. Now, these two areas, bribery and bullying, are the two main indications of political corruption, so why is this man in such trouble?
There is no doubt that construction and consultancy companies were expected to contribute to his campaign funds. It seems that he, or, more often, his hirelings, made very clear and exorbitant demands for contributions at various fundraisers. Unfortunately, these kinds of shakedowns are common throughout the United States – and beyond. Of course, if there was any threat made, or if the awarding of a contract was directly tied to monetary contributions, then the line would have been crossed to illegal behavior. Fitzgerald did not assert that Blago or his cronies crossed that line.
What then about the Senate seat? What went on there? It is clear that about six people were being considered by the Governor. It is also clear that he knew this was a big appointment that could add substantially to his political coffers – half a million dollars and even more was talked about. However, only one of the possible six was at all interested in discussing the monetary possibilities here. Large sums were talked about between some rich supporters of Jesse Jackson Jr. and some of the Governor’s aides. Blagojevich himself may have been involved; certainly, they have him on tape ruminating about the financial possibilities here. However, Jackson has adamantly refuted any suggestion that he or his staff had a discussion about any deal.
To establish illegal behavior by the Governor, Fitzgerald must establish that a quid pro quo was established between the awarding of the job in the Senate and payment of money. Vague delusional talk about possible payola has no legal standing. Towards the end of Synge’s great drama "The Playboy of the Western World," Pegeen Mike makes a memorable statement that is very apropos here: “There is a big difference between a gallows story and a dirty deed.”
Of course, there are ethical considerations in this whole, sorry episode, and in this area, Blagojevich fares very poorly. He seems to only consider the monetary implications for his campaign in his decisions. He is a cad who treats his staff very curtly. Blago is not a nice man, but nobody so far, and certainly not the hyperbolic Fitzgerald, has shown me where he broke the law.
Will the Governor’s senate nominee, Mr. Burris, be seated in Washington? Can Harry Reid and Barack Obama veto his choice? I am not a lawyer, but I have read the debate about it, and I feel certain that Blago’s appointment is legal and will be upheld by the courts. We will see in the next few weeks.