New York Gay Rights Foe Sees Nuance in His Stand
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and JEREMY W. PETERS
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/nyregion/10marriage.html?th&emc=th
ALBANY — Every Sunday morning, the deep, melodious voice of State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. rumbles across the congregation at his Bronx church. On weekdays, it echoes across the Senate chamber as he rails against Medicaid cuts or abortion. Earlier this year, it enthralled thousands at a boisterous rally against same-sex marriage.
Rubén Díaz Sr., a New York state senator, has argued that a bill legalizing gay marriage should not be allowed to come to the floor.
But ask him about the gay people in his own life, and Mr. Díaz’s voice grows quiet. His smile vanishes.
Two of his brothers are gay, he murmurs, one of them recently deceased. So is a granddaughter. There is an old friend who works for him in the Senate. And a former campaign aide.
“I love them. I love them,” says Mr. Díaz, who grew up one of 17 children in Puerto Rico. “But I don’t believe in what they are doing. They are my brothers. They are my family.”
His voice rises again. “So how could I be a homophobe?”
For those fighting to expand gay rights, Mr. Díaz, a Pentecostal minister, represents the most outspoken and unpredictable of foes. He was forced to resign from the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board years ago for suggesting that the Gay Games would encourage homosexuality and spread H.I.V. In 2003, he sued the city to shut down a high school for gay and transgender students.
As advocates push for a vote on same-sex marriage in the State Senate on Tuesday, Mr. Díaz is again speaking out, arguing that last week’s election results show that the tide has turned against allowing gay people to wed.
And, given the Democrats’ fragile majority — the party has 32 senators to the Republicans’ 30 — Mr. Díaz’s stubbornness often yields results.
“The people of the nation don’t want gay marriage,” Mr. Díaz said in an interview Monday. “They didn’t want it in California; they didn’t want it in Maine. And the people of upstate New York, after what happened to the candidate in the 23rd Congressional District, they sent a message they don’t want gay marriage. Forget about it. People don’t want it.”
Mr. Díaz argued that the bill legalizing same-sex marriage should not be allowed to come to the floor, saying the Legislature has more important issues to attend to.
And some of his colleagues on Monday, while avoiding his provocative language, appeared to be moving to that position, worried that the political climate is too tense and the state’s fiscal crisis too urgent for the issue to be taken up now. On Monday evening, it was not clear whether the Senate would consider the measure.
The fight over same-sex marriage has thrust Mr. Díaz, 66, back into a familiar role — dissenting from and exasperating Democratic Senate leaders and some of his colleagues.
Earlier this year, he and three other Democrats initially refused to back Malcolm A. Smith, the Senate’s top Democrat, for majority leader, throwing the Democratic caucus into chaos until Mr. Smith offered them perks and committee chairmanships.
Mr. Díaz is also the Senate’s most outspoken opponent of abortion, and he once likened the harvesting of stem cells for research to Hitler using “the ashes of the Jews to make bars of soap.”
“He always comes into conference or onto the floor with his mind made up, ready to argue,” said Senator Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents Manhattan and the Bronx. “And he loves to argue.”
But to Mr. Díaz and his friends, the senator’s steadfast opposition to same-sex marriage seems at times incongruous.
Christopher R. Lynn, Mr. Díaz’s chief counsel, who is gay and lives with his partner in Queens, said that he has undergone three back operations, and that every time he goes into the hospital, Mr. Díaz has been there.
“He is a true believer in Christian values, in treating people the way you want to be treated,” Mr. Lynn said.
Mr. Díaz describes Mr. Lynn as “my brother.” They often double-date with their respective better halves. Mr. Lynn has not been able to move Mr. Díaz on the issue of marriage.
“He said to me, ‘For me to accept this, I have to turn my whole value system upside down,’ ” Mr. Lynn said.
Mr. Díaz, whose South Bronx district is the second-poorest in New York, also raises his voice loudly on behalf of the poor, leaving some liberals in the Capitol reluctant to criticize him for his social views because he has been a reliable ally on economic issues.
“I see people looking at me, like, ‘Look at this guy,’ ”Mr. Díaz said, rolling his eyes. “And in the end, I get what want.”
In many ways, Mr. Díaz seems conflicted. He relishes the role of the lonely dissident, sometimes practically taunting Democratic leaders to throw him out of the party. Still, the senator resents those who brand him a bigot for his views, and seems to plead for understanding.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A Squeeze on Customers Ahead of New Rules
A Squeeze on Customers Ahead of New Rules
By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10rates.html?th&emc=th
Banks are struggling to make money in the credit card business these days, and consumers are paying the price. Interest rates are going up, credit lines are being cut and a variety of new fees are being imposed on even the best cardholders.
One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.
“I think it’s outrageous they pursue such a policy,” said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday’s daughter, who pays her mother’s bills. “That rate is shocking under any circumstances.”
While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday’s, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry — the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards’ profitability.
Banks began raising interest rates and pulling back credit lines about a year ago as delinquencies crept upward and regulators discussed reforms. As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February.
On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.
A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were “unfair or deceptive” and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.
In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect.
Whatever the starting date, the law makes it much harder for banks to change interest rates on existing balances, and requires more time and notice before a new rate can go into effect.
In their defense, banking officials say they have no choice but to raise rates and limit credit. Because of the new rules and the prolonged economic malaise, they say it is now far riskier to issue credit cards than it was just a few years ago.
“We sell credit; we don’t sell sweaters,” said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the American Bankers Association. “The only way to manage your return is through the price of the product or the availability.”
The nation’s largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.
Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.
Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.
Still, even consumer advocates have said that the banks were too quick in the past to give out credit. “You know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep borrowing and borrowing in order to consume now, eventually you crash and burn,” said Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending. “That’s what we’re facing.”
In the 12 months that ended in September, the number of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card accounts in the United States fell by 72 million, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. There are 555 million accounts still in the marketplace, he said.
In roughly the same time period, banks lowered credit limits by 26 percent, to $3.4 trillion, from $4.6 trillion, according to an analysis of government data by Foresight Analytics.
Interest on credit card accounts, meanwhile, has increased to an average of 13.71 percent, up from 11.94 percent a year ago, according to federal records.
As to credit card charge-offs — industry lingo for uncollectible balances — the number tracks the unemployment rate and, therefore, is hovering at around 10 percent.
For the banks, this is uncharted territory. In the modern financing era, credit cards were long a profit center, producing tens of billions in annual profits with a default rate that hovered around 4 percent until the recession.
“We know we are going to lose a lot of money next year in cards, and it could be north of $1 billion in both the first quarter and the second quarter. And that number will probably only start coming down as you see unemployment and charge-offs come down,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in an earnings call last month.
Banking officials said that because the new law limits their ability to reprice credit as a customer’s risk profile changes, they will instead have to price for future risk at the start, when a cardholder applies for a new card.
That means fewer applicants will be approved for new credit cards, and those who are accepted will increasingly be charged annual fees or variable interest rates, rather than fixed rates. Currently, about 20 percent of credit cards charge annual fees, a percentage that is rising, said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com. Current cardholders, too, will be affected.
Asked to explain its rate increases, Citibank issued a statement saying the “actions are necessary given the losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk.”
Ms. Holaday Schumacher did not accept that explanation. She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother’s bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.
“How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about,” she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.
Still, many of the nation’s banks are trying to repair their tarnished reputations with consumers.
American Express and Discover Financial, for instance, have vowed to stop charging fees when cardholders exceed their credit limits. JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.
And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.
Andrew Rowe, Global Card Services strategy executive at Bank of America, said the new products represented a sea change in the bank’s attitude toward consumer products. Instead of benefiting from consumers who displayed risky behavior by penalizing them with fees, the bank is now trying to help them break those bad habits, he said.
“We succeed if our customers succeed,” he said. “That’s the paradigm shift.”
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, for one, said he would welcome consumer products that were simpler and less risky. But, he added in an interview with the PBS documentary program “Frontline”: “It’s a bit of a late conversion. It would have been nice to happen earlier.”
Edmund L. Andrews contributed reporting.
By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10rates.html?th&emc=th
Banks are struggling to make money in the credit card business these days, and consumers are paying the price. Interest rates are going up, credit lines are being cut and a variety of new fees are being imposed on even the best cardholders.
One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.
“I think it’s outrageous they pursue such a policy,” said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday’s daughter, who pays her mother’s bills. “That rate is shocking under any circumstances.”
While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday’s, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry — the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards’ profitability.
Banks began raising interest rates and pulling back credit lines about a year ago as delinquencies crept upward and regulators discussed reforms. As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February.
On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.
A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were “unfair or deceptive” and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.
In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect.
Whatever the starting date, the law makes it much harder for banks to change interest rates on existing balances, and requires more time and notice before a new rate can go into effect.
In their defense, banking officials say they have no choice but to raise rates and limit credit. Because of the new rules and the prolonged economic malaise, they say it is now far riskier to issue credit cards than it was just a few years ago.
“We sell credit; we don’t sell sweaters,” said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the American Bankers Association. “The only way to manage your return is through the price of the product or the availability.”
The nation’s largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.
Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.
Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.
Still, even consumer advocates have said that the banks were too quick in the past to give out credit. “You know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep borrowing and borrowing in order to consume now, eventually you crash and burn,” said Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending. “That’s what we’re facing.”
In the 12 months that ended in September, the number of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card accounts in the United States fell by 72 million, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. There are 555 million accounts still in the marketplace, he said.
In roughly the same time period, banks lowered credit limits by 26 percent, to $3.4 trillion, from $4.6 trillion, according to an analysis of government data by Foresight Analytics.
Interest on credit card accounts, meanwhile, has increased to an average of 13.71 percent, up from 11.94 percent a year ago, according to federal records.
As to credit card charge-offs — industry lingo for uncollectible balances — the number tracks the unemployment rate and, therefore, is hovering at around 10 percent.
For the banks, this is uncharted territory. In the modern financing era, credit cards were long a profit center, producing tens of billions in annual profits with a default rate that hovered around 4 percent until the recession.
“We know we are going to lose a lot of money next year in cards, and it could be north of $1 billion in both the first quarter and the second quarter. And that number will probably only start coming down as you see unemployment and charge-offs come down,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in an earnings call last month.
Banking officials said that because the new law limits their ability to reprice credit as a customer’s risk profile changes, they will instead have to price for future risk at the start, when a cardholder applies for a new card.
That means fewer applicants will be approved for new credit cards, and those who are accepted will increasingly be charged annual fees or variable interest rates, rather than fixed rates. Currently, about 20 percent of credit cards charge annual fees, a percentage that is rising, said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com. Current cardholders, too, will be affected.
Asked to explain its rate increases, Citibank issued a statement saying the “actions are necessary given the losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk.”
Ms. Holaday Schumacher did not accept that explanation. She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother’s bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.
“How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about,” she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.
Still, many of the nation’s banks are trying to repair their tarnished reputations with consumers.
American Express and Discover Financial, for instance, have vowed to stop charging fees when cardholders exceed their credit limits. JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.
And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.
Andrew Rowe, Global Card Services strategy executive at Bank of America, said the new products represented a sea change in the bank’s attitude toward consumer products. Instead of benefiting from consumers who displayed risky behavior by penalizing them with fees, the bank is now trying to help them break those bad habits, he said.
“We succeed if our customers succeed,” he said. “That’s the paradigm shift.”
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, for one, said he would welcome consumer products that were simpler and less risky. But, he added in an interview with the PBS documentary program “Frontline”: “It’s a bit of a late conversion. It would have been nice to happen earlier.”
Edmund L. Andrews contributed reporting.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Rep. Deb Mell may be off re-election ballot
Rep. Deb Mell may be off re-election ballot
Posted by Greg Hinz
Copyright by Crain's Blogs Chicago Business
11/9/2009 3:49 PM CST on Chicago Business
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost:302ff3a4-5c01-4cc1-9ea0-af10afd2bbed&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com&seenIt=1
Another big piece of bad news is hitting Chicago's Mell/Blagojevich political clan.
Northwest Side State Rep. Deb Mell may have screwed up her nominating petitions, with a real risk that she'll be knocked off the February Democratic primary ballot.
A challenge filed Monday afternoon by an attorney for Joseph Laiacona, the only other remaining candidate in the 40th District race, contends that Ms. Mell is not registered to vote at her apparently new address. By law, all candidates are supposed to be registered at the address they use for their nominating petitions.
Ms. Mell -- the sister-in-law of ousted Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the daughter of Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) -- was not immediately available for comment. Her father, Ald. Mell, said the family's lawyers are not concerned about the challenge.
But the challenge was filed by Richard K. Means, one of the best election-law lawyers in the business. And he says the law and the case against her are "very clear."
"While Deborah L. Mell may reside at said address (on West Melrose Avenue), she was not on the day she swore to and signed" the official statement of candidacy that is filed with nominating petitions, the challenge states. "Because Deborah L. Mell is not a duly registered voter at the address from which she seeks to be a candidate, the nominating petitions are invalid in their entirety."
If upheld by the State Board of Elections, the challenge would be doubly ironic.
For starters, Mr. Mell's political organization has challenged any number of political foes through the years for messing up on a state petition law that is filled with arcane provisions.
Then there's the fact that Ms. Mell is one of only two openly gay members of the Illinois General Assembly. But Mr. Laiacona, too, is openly gay.
Since Chuck Hogan, the third candidate in the Democratic primary, withdrew on Monday, the heavily Democratic 40th District is likely to keep a gay legislator however the challenge is resolved.
*** 5:30 update: Ald. Mell's theory that his daughter does not have to be a registered voter to run for office apparently is based on the lack of any such requirement in the Illinois Constitution.
But Mr. Means replies that the Illinois Supreme Court as recently as last year upheld legal requirements for office above and beyond the narrow limits laid out in the Constitution.
Should be a good legal fight between Mr. Means and Ms. Mell's attorney, Mike Kasper.
Posted by Greg Hinz
Copyright by Crain's Blogs Chicago Business
11/9/2009 3:49 PM CST on Chicago Business
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost:302ff3a4-5c01-4cc1-9ea0-af10afd2bbed&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com&seenIt=1
Another big piece of bad news is hitting Chicago's Mell/Blagojevich political clan.
Northwest Side State Rep. Deb Mell may have screwed up her nominating petitions, with a real risk that she'll be knocked off the February Democratic primary ballot.
A challenge filed Monday afternoon by an attorney for Joseph Laiacona, the only other remaining candidate in the 40th District race, contends that Ms. Mell is not registered to vote at her apparently new address. By law, all candidates are supposed to be registered at the address they use for their nominating petitions.
Ms. Mell -- the sister-in-law of ousted Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the daughter of Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) -- was not immediately available for comment. Her father, Ald. Mell, said the family's lawyers are not concerned about the challenge.
But the challenge was filed by Richard K. Means, one of the best election-law lawyers in the business. And he says the law and the case against her are "very clear."
"While Deborah L. Mell may reside at said address (on West Melrose Avenue), she was not on the day she swore to and signed" the official statement of candidacy that is filed with nominating petitions, the challenge states. "Because Deborah L. Mell is not a duly registered voter at the address from which she seeks to be a candidate, the nominating petitions are invalid in their entirety."
If upheld by the State Board of Elections, the challenge would be doubly ironic.
For starters, Mr. Mell's political organization has challenged any number of political foes through the years for messing up on a state petition law that is filled with arcane provisions.
Then there's the fact that Ms. Mell is one of only two openly gay members of the Illinois General Assembly. But Mr. Laiacona, too, is openly gay.
Since Chuck Hogan, the third candidate in the Democratic primary, withdrew on Monday, the heavily Democratic 40th District is likely to keep a gay legislator however the challenge is resolved.
*** 5:30 update: Ald. Mell's theory that his daughter does not have to be a registered voter to run for office apparently is based on the lack of any such requirement in the Illinois Constitution.
But Mr. Means replies that the Illinois Supreme Court as recently as last year upheld legal requirements for office above and beyond the narrow limits laid out in the Constitution.
Should be a good legal fight between Mr. Means and Ms. Mell's attorney, Mike Kasper.
Chicago Tribune Editorial: It's our money
Chicago Tribune Editorial: It's our money
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
November 9, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1109edit1nov09,0,6184823.story
Desperate times call for desperate measures. To bridge a $520 million deficit in the 2010 budget, Mayor Richard Daley says he'll cut 220 vacant jobs, require city employees to take unpaid furlough days and tap into the reserves set aside in last year's parking meter lease deal.
At the same time, Daley is quietly moving forward with plans to spend hundreds of millions of property tax dollars on projects he refuses to discuss publicly.
The city's 160 tax increment financing districts, or TIFs, have generated more than half a billion dollars in property taxes in each of the last two years -- money that's off-limits when it comes to balancing the budget. The average taxpayer isn't particularly sympathetic to the legal explanation for that, especially in hard times. Our property taxes are going into a mayoral slush fund while the city can't afford to pick up the trash?
TIFs are meant to revitalize blighted areas that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to developers. By designating an area a TIF district, the city lays claim to the new tax dollars generated by rising property values there. Those dollars are supposed to be reinvested in the district to promote growth.
TIFs are one of the better redevelopment tools available to local governments. But Chicago has gotten carried away, creating a vast redevelopment wonderland controlled by the mayor. More than a third of the city, including the LaSalle financial district and most of the Loop, now falls within TIF districts. Though it stands to reason that an area that raises hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes is no longer blighted, if it ever was, the Daley administration insists the TIFs are needed to keep those skyscrapers from falling into disrepair.
Daley's refusal to account for TIF spending feeds the complaint that he's maintaining an off-the-books piggy bank, doing favors for his friends and financing his own pet projects. Even the City Council isn't privy to the complete TIF budget, though Daley officials recently shared parts of it with individual aldermen, who in turn shared them with the Reader's Ben Joravsky and Mick Dumke.
When the reporters asked for a copy of the whole document, city officials >told them it was exempt from the state's open records law because it's based on estimates, "not final or official projections," they reported.J oravsky and Dumke point out that this also is true of the "real" city budget.
Whenever Daley is questioned, he stresses that the TIF funds pay for feel-good expenses such as libraries, parks and schools -- and leaves out the ones that might require, at the very least, a stronger sales pitch. The documents shared with the Reader show, for example, that the city plans to spend at least $28 million and perhaps much more to rehab the privately owned Willis Tower, which is in the LaSalle Central TIF district. They also show that Daley plans to tap the Calumet-Cermak TIF funds, in the South Loop, for $38 million to build a new Green Line station and $40 million to rebuild a high school -- both outside the district.
The law allows TIF district money to be spent in an adjacent district, or one that's adjacent to one that's adjacent, etc., giving the mayor even more room to do as he pleases with the money.
That has included some basic infrastructure fixes like sidewalks and streetlights that would normally be handled through more open channels.
Thanks largely to Joravsky's and Dumke's reporting, aldermen are starting toagitate for more say in how those dollars are spent. There's talk about >using them for things like low-income housing, job training and the sort of ward improvements that traditionally fall to Streets and Sanitation. There's a lot of mission creep going on, in all directions.
It makes a strong case for greater transparency, which would no doubt lead to a lot of criticism and unsolicited input from citizens and their aldermen, which Daley doesn't want. But it's not his money. Open the books, Mayor. Put everything out in the open so taxpayers can see how their dollars are spent.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
November 9, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1109edit1nov09,0,6184823.story
Desperate times call for desperate measures. To bridge a $520 million deficit in the 2010 budget, Mayor Richard Daley says he'll cut 220 vacant jobs, require city employees to take unpaid furlough days and tap into the reserves set aside in last year's parking meter lease deal.
At the same time, Daley is quietly moving forward with plans to spend hundreds of millions of property tax dollars on projects he refuses to discuss publicly.
The city's 160 tax increment financing districts, or TIFs, have generated more than half a billion dollars in property taxes in each of the last two years -- money that's off-limits when it comes to balancing the budget. The average taxpayer isn't particularly sympathetic to the legal explanation for that, especially in hard times. Our property taxes are going into a mayoral slush fund while the city can't afford to pick up the trash?
TIFs are meant to revitalize blighted areas that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to developers. By designating an area a TIF district, the city lays claim to the new tax dollars generated by rising property values there. Those dollars are supposed to be reinvested in the district to promote growth.
TIFs are one of the better redevelopment tools available to local governments. But Chicago has gotten carried away, creating a vast redevelopment wonderland controlled by the mayor. More than a third of the city, including the LaSalle financial district and most of the Loop, now falls within TIF districts. Though it stands to reason that an area that raises hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes is no longer blighted, if it ever was, the Daley administration insists the TIFs are needed to keep those skyscrapers from falling into disrepair.
Daley's refusal to account for TIF spending feeds the complaint that he's maintaining an off-the-books piggy bank, doing favors for his friends and financing his own pet projects. Even the City Council isn't privy to the complete TIF budget, though Daley officials recently shared parts of it with individual aldermen, who in turn shared them with the Reader's Ben Joravsky and Mick Dumke.
When the reporters asked for a copy of the whole document, city officials >told them it was exempt from the state's open records law because it's based on estimates, "not final or official projections," they reported.J oravsky and Dumke point out that this also is true of the "real" city budget.
Whenever Daley is questioned, he stresses that the TIF funds pay for feel-good expenses such as libraries, parks and schools -- and leaves out the ones that might require, at the very least, a stronger sales pitch. The documents shared with the Reader show, for example, that the city plans to spend at least $28 million and perhaps much more to rehab the privately owned Willis Tower, which is in the LaSalle Central TIF district. They also show that Daley plans to tap the Calumet-Cermak TIF funds, in the South Loop, for $38 million to build a new Green Line station and $40 million to rebuild a high school -- both outside the district.
The law allows TIF district money to be spent in an adjacent district, or one that's adjacent to one that's adjacent, etc., giving the mayor even more room to do as he pleases with the money.
That has included some basic infrastructure fixes like sidewalks and streetlights that would normally be handled through more open channels.
Thanks largely to Joravsky's and Dumke's reporting, aldermen are starting toagitate for more say in how those dollars are spent. There's talk about >using them for things like low-income housing, job training and the sort of ward improvements that traditionally fall to Streets and Sanitation. There's a lot of mission creep going on, in all directions.
It makes a strong case for greater transparency, which would no doubt lead to a lot of criticism and unsolicited input from citizens and their aldermen, which Daley doesn't want. But it's not his money. Open the books, Mayor. Put everything out in the open so taxpayers can see how their dollars are spent.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
U.S. Knew of Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric
U.S. Knew of Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
WASHINGTON — Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings.
But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted, government officials said Monday.
Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.
Counterterrorism and military officials said Monday night that the communications, first intercepted last December as part of an unrelated investigation, were consistent with a research project the psychiatrist was then conducting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington on post-traumatic stress disorder.
“There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack at all, or that he was directed to do anything,” one senior investigator said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying the case was under investigation.
The officials said the Departments of Defense and Justice had decided Major Hasan would be prosecuted in a military court, an indication that investigators believe he acted alone. Government lawyers had said his case might be tried in civilian court if he were believed to have conspired with nonmilitary defendants.
In a statement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said, “At this point, there is no information to indicate Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot.” The statement concluded that “because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else was found,” investigators decided “that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning.”
Officials said the F.B.I. and the Defense Department would be reviewing their earlier assessment of Major Hasan to determine whether it was handled correctly.
Given the radical views of Mr. Awlaki, however, the conduct of the F.B.I. and the military is likely to come under intense scrutiny from Congress. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, on Monday asked intelligence and law enforcement officials to preserve all records of their dealings with Major Hasan.
The communications provide the first indication that Major Hasan was in direct communication with anyone who espoused militant views. On Monday, Mr. Awlaki praised Major Hasan on his Web site, saying that he “did the right thing” in attacking soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The officials said the communications did not alter the prevailing theory that Major Hasan acted by himself, lashing out as a result of combination of factors, including his outspoken opposition to American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and his deepening religious fervor as a Muslim.
Major Hasan, who was shot by a police officer, has regained consciousness at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and is able to talk, though he declined on Sunday to speak to federal investigators about the shooting rampage. “He is critical but stable,” said a hospital spokeswoman, Maria Gallegos.
Ms. Gallegos added that Major Hasan had come out of a coma on Saturday and had been conversing with his doctors ever since. A lawyer for Major Hasan told The Associated Press on Monday that he had asked investigators not to question his client and expressed doubt that he could get a fair trial. The lawyer, John P. Galligan, a retired Army colonel, said he was contacted by Major Hasan’s family on Monday and was traveling to San Antonio to consult with him.
The imam whom Major Hasan made contact with is an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. He wrote on Monday on his English-language Web site that Major Hasan was “a hero.” The cleric said, “He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”
Mr. Awlaki added, “The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Awlaki was quoted as disapproving of such violence and was portrayed as a moderate figure who might provide a bridge between Islam and Western democracies. But since leaving the United States in 2002 for London and later Yemen, Mr. Awlaki has become, through his Web site, a prominent proponent of militant Islam.
“He’s one of the most popular figures among hard-line, English-speaking jihadis around the world,” said Jarret Brachman, the author of “Global Jihadism” and a terrorism consultant to the government.
Mr. Brachman said Mr. Awlaki was especially appealing to young Muslims who are curious about radical ideas but not yet committed. “He’s American, he’s funny, and he speaks in a very understandable way,” Mr. Brachman said.
In 2000 and 2001, Mr. Awlaki served as an imam at two mosques in the United States frequented by three future Sept. 11 hijackers. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attended the Rabat mosque in San Diego, where Mr. Awlaki later admitted meeting Mr. Hazmi several times but “claimed not to remember any specifics of what they discussed,” according to the report of the national Sept. 11 commission.
Both Mr. Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, later attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., after Mr. Awlaki had moved there in early 2001. The Sept. 11 commission report expressed “suspicion” about the coincidence, but said its investigators were unable to find Mr. Awlaki to question him.
Major Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque, but it is not known whether they met there.
Mr. Awlaki, who is in his late 30s, had returned to Yemen with his family as a child. He received a religious education in Yemen and later earned degrees in engineering at Colorado State and in education leadership at San Diego State, according to his Web site.
His writings urge Muslims to dedicate themselves to defending Islam, including pursuing “arms training,” in such works as “44 Ways of Supporting Jihad.”
At Fort Hood, the Army erected walls of gray containers around the headquarters of III Corps in advance of a memorial service Tuesday for the 13 people killed when, the authorities say, Major Hasan opened fire in a center where soldiers get vaccinated before being sent abroad.
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, are expected to attend the ceremony, and the president will speak to a crowd that will include the survivors of the attack and the families of the victims.
James C. McKinley Jr. contributed reporting from Killeen, Tex.
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
WASHINGTON — Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings.
But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted, government officials said Monday.
Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.
Counterterrorism and military officials said Monday night that the communications, first intercepted last December as part of an unrelated investigation, were consistent with a research project the psychiatrist was then conducting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington on post-traumatic stress disorder.
“There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack at all, or that he was directed to do anything,” one senior investigator said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying the case was under investigation.
The officials said the Departments of Defense and Justice had decided Major Hasan would be prosecuted in a military court, an indication that investigators believe he acted alone. Government lawyers had said his case might be tried in civilian court if he were believed to have conspired with nonmilitary defendants.
In a statement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said, “At this point, there is no information to indicate Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot.” The statement concluded that “because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else was found,” investigators decided “that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning.”
Officials said the F.B.I. and the Defense Department would be reviewing their earlier assessment of Major Hasan to determine whether it was handled correctly.
Given the radical views of Mr. Awlaki, however, the conduct of the F.B.I. and the military is likely to come under intense scrutiny from Congress. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, on Monday asked intelligence and law enforcement officials to preserve all records of their dealings with Major Hasan.
The communications provide the first indication that Major Hasan was in direct communication with anyone who espoused militant views. On Monday, Mr. Awlaki praised Major Hasan on his Web site, saying that he “did the right thing” in attacking soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The officials said the communications did not alter the prevailing theory that Major Hasan acted by himself, lashing out as a result of combination of factors, including his outspoken opposition to American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and his deepening religious fervor as a Muslim.
Major Hasan, who was shot by a police officer, has regained consciousness at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and is able to talk, though he declined on Sunday to speak to federal investigators about the shooting rampage. “He is critical but stable,” said a hospital spokeswoman, Maria Gallegos.
Ms. Gallegos added that Major Hasan had come out of a coma on Saturday and had been conversing with his doctors ever since. A lawyer for Major Hasan told The Associated Press on Monday that he had asked investigators not to question his client and expressed doubt that he could get a fair trial. The lawyer, John P. Galligan, a retired Army colonel, said he was contacted by Major Hasan’s family on Monday and was traveling to San Antonio to consult with him.
The imam whom Major Hasan made contact with is an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. He wrote on Monday on his English-language Web site that Major Hasan was “a hero.” The cleric said, “He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”
Mr. Awlaki added, “The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Awlaki was quoted as disapproving of such violence and was portrayed as a moderate figure who might provide a bridge between Islam and Western democracies. But since leaving the United States in 2002 for London and later Yemen, Mr. Awlaki has become, through his Web site, a prominent proponent of militant Islam.
“He’s one of the most popular figures among hard-line, English-speaking jihadis around the world,” said Jarret Brachman, the author of “Global Jihadism” and a terrorism consultant to the government.
Mr. Brachman said Mr. Awlaki was especially appealing to young Muslims who are curious about radical ideas but not yet committed. “He’s American, he’s funny, and he speaks in a very understandable way,” Mr. Brachman said.
In 2000 and 2001, Mr. Awlaki served as an imam at two mosques in the United States frequented by three future Sept. 11 hijackers. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attended the Rabat mosque in San Diego, where Mr. Awlaki later admitted meeting Mr. Hazmi several times but “claimed not to remember any specifics of what they discussed,” according to the report of the national Sept. 11 commission.
Both Mr. Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, later attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., after Mr. Awlaki had moved there in early 2001. The Sept. 11 commission report expressed “suspicion” about the coincidence, but said its investigators were unable to find Mr. Awlaki to question him.
Major Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque, but it is not known whether they met there.
Mr. Awlaki, who is in his late 30s, had returned to Yemen with his family as a child. He received a religious education in Yemen and later earned degrees in engineering at Colorado State and in education leadership at San Diego State, according to his Web site.
His writings urge Muslims to dedicate themselves to defending Islam, including pursuing “arms training,” in such works as “44 Ways of Supporting Jihad.”
At Fort Hood, the Army erected walls of gray containers around the headquarters of III Corps in advance of a memorial service Tuesday for the 13 people killed when, the authorities say, Major Hasan opened fire in a center where soldiers get vaccinated before being sent abroad.
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, are expected to attend the ceremony, and the president will speak to a crowd that will include the survivors of the attack and the families of the victims.
James C. McKinley Jr. contributed reporting from Killeen, Tex.
Washington Post Editorial: Health-care reform, GOP-style - The minority party, too, comes up short.
Washington Post Editorial: Health-care reform, GOP-style - The minority party, too, comes up short.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Monday, November 9, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110817875.html
COMPARING THE House Republican and Democratic health-care bills is like comparing a mouse to an elephant. The two measures are different in ambition and therefore in size: The newly released GOP bill is deliberately modest and has an accordingly modest impact.
Where the House Democrats' bill would expand coverage to an estimated 36 million of the uninsured, the Republican alternative would cover only 3 million, leaving the same proportion of the population uninsured as now. And while it's fair to criticize House Democrats' legislation for not doing enough to control the growth of health costs, the Republicans' version does even less and takes some steps in the wrong direction. For example, it would repeal a new entity, created by the stimulus bill, to coordinate comparative effectiveness research. And it would do nothing to address the runaway costs of Medicare; indeed, the bill trumpets the fact that Medicare benefits would be untouched.
The primary focus of the Republican measure is to lower premiums, especially in the individual and small-group markets. Individuals would be allowed to purchase insurance in any state, not just the one in which they live. Small employers could join together to purchase insurance without having to comply with state rules. Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums in the individual market would fall by an average of 5 to 8 percent; those in the small-group market would be reduced by 7 to 10 percent; and those in the large-employer market, which accounts for 80 percent of premiums, would be trimmed by zero to 3 percent.
Lowering premiums, however, isn't always a measure of success. The bill takes the smart step of promoting automatic enrollment of workers in employer-sponsored plans and extending coverage to dependents up to age 26. But the bill's new State Innovations Fund, which would provide $32 billion over 10 years to states that reduce the number of uninsured or that lower premiums in individual and small-group markets, could have the perverse impact of making it harder for older, sicker people to purchase insurance. As the CBO points out, if states responded to the new incentive by making it easier for insurance companies to vary premiums based on age, premiums would tend to go down, but "the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law."
The Republican proposal attempts to address the problem of these essentially uninsurable individuals by expanding state high-risk pools. But the reality is that these pools cover a small number of people -- just 200,000 nationwide -- at a cost that is still high, generally at least twice the average premium in the individual market. The $25 billion that the Republican bill devotes to these subsidies hardly seems adequate to the task of making this coverage affordable.
Finally, the proposal would change the medical malpractice system -- a good idea, but done in the wrong way. The measure would limit damages for pain and suffering to $250,000, along with imposing limits on punitive damages. This would save money, primarily by driving down malpractice insurance rates and "slightly reducing," according to the CBO, the practice of defensive medicine. There are better approaches to tort reform than replacing an arbitrary and irrational system with arbitrary and irrational limits.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Monday, November 9, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110817875.html
COMPARING THE House Republican and Democratic health-care bills is like comparing a mouse to an elephant. The two measures are different in ambition and therefore in size: The newly released GOP bill is deliberately modest and has an accordingly modest impact.
Where the House Democrats' bill would expand coverage to an estimated 36 million of the uninsured, the Republican alternative would cover only 3 million, leaving the same proportion of the population uninsured as now. And while it's fair to criticize House Democrats' legislation for not doing enough to control the growth of health costs, the Republicans' version does even less and takes some steps in the wrong direction. For example, it would repeal a new entity, created by the stimulus bill, to coordinate comparative effectiveness research. And it would do nothing to address the runaway costs of Medicare; indeed, the bill trumpets the fact that Medicare benefits would be untouched.
The primary focus of the Republican measure is to lower premiums, especially in the individual and small-group markets. Individuals would be allowed to purchase insurance in any state, not just the one in which they live. Small employers could join together to purchase insurance without having to comply with state rules. Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums in the individual market would fall by an average of 5 to 8 percent; those in the small-group market would be reduced by 7 to 10 percent; and those in the large-employer market, which accounts for 80 percent of premiums, would be trimmed by zero to 3 percent.
Lowering premiums, however, isn't always a measure of success. The bill takes the smart step of promoting automatic enrollment of workers in employer-sponsored plans and extending coverage to dependents up to age 26. But the bill's new State Innovations Fund, which would provide $32 billion over 10 years to states that reduce the number of uninsured or that lower premiums in individual and small-group markets, could have the perverse impact of making it harder for older, sicker people to purchase insurance. As the CBO points out, if states responded to the new incentive by making it easier for insurance companies to vary premiums based on age, premiums would tend to go down, but "the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law."
The Republican proposal attempts to address the problem of these essentially uninsurable individuals by expanding state high-risk pools. But the reality is that these pools cover a small number of people -- just 200,000 nationwide -- at a cost that is still high, generally at least twice the average premium in the individual market. The $25 billion that the Republican bill devotes to these subsidies hardly seems adequate to the task of making this coverage affordable.
Finally, the proposal would change the medical malpractice system -- a good idea, but done in the wrong way. The measure would limit damages for pain and suffering to $250,000, along with imposing limits on punitive damages. This would save money, primarily by driving down malpractice insurance rates and "slightly reducing," according to the CBO, the practice of defensive medicine. There are better approaches to tort reform than replacing an arbitrary and irrational system with arbitrary and irrational limits.
Paranoia Strikes Deep
Paranoia Strikes Deep
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?ref=global
Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.
The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.
True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”
What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.
The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?
But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.
When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.
Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.
But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.
Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election.
Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.
In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?ref=global
Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.
The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.
True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”
What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.
The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?
But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.
When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.
Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.
But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.
Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election.
Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.
In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
