I am a little late on this, but this headline about Bank of America, Ciitgroup, and Goldman-Sachs now making significant profits gives me pause. We were told that these groups needed bailouts because without them the economy would collapse and by helping them we will help the economy get back on track. But as the banks seem to be more than back on track, the economy is still declining. I cannot help but feel angry as people who made bad decisions are again reaping huge profits because of government help yet the rest of the economy is still struggling. Maybe that bailout money would have been better spent providing a bigger cushion for those affected by the economy - those losing their jobs or having their hours cut.
Granted, I should try to be more reasonable. The bailout likely prevented a serious economic collapse. But it just feels wrong that the banks are back to doing so well while everyone else is still struggling. That those who need the money the least are once again making it, while those who need it the most have yet to get back on track.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
NYS Senate - Conclusion
So the fiasco in the New York State Senate concluded itself, at least for now. What was the solution? Well, for those of you who were not paying attention to this, the person who left the Democrats to help the Republicans become the majority, came back to the Democrats as Majority Leader. Now, that title is apparently different than it is in the US Senate, as the state senate has someone different who is the conference leader and a different president of the senate. So Espada's title may be symbolic. But it is not a very good symbol. Espada is accused of ethics violations and may not actually live in his district.
I am more appalled at the way this situation was wrapped up than I was when it was ongoing. Beyond the injustice inherent in rewarding someone who tried to leave the party simply to get a better position, it is just bad politics. This makes the Democrats look bad in the short term for rewarding him. But it will make them look horrible if and when his ethical transgressions cause his downfall (the same goes for Senator Monserate, who has been given his committee chairmanship back despite facing assault charges).
There is a question about whether voters will remember all this a year from now. But if Espada's troubles come to light later on, they may not have to remember. However, this poll in the Daily News suggests that voters believe they will remember this. (By the way, the blog I linked to is now my favorite blog for up to date NYS news.)
If you think this is the end of the Senate's appalling behavior, you are wrong. After the Senate spent a month doing nothing but arguing over who really holds power, they passed the bare minimum of bills. So of course they did nothing on rent regulation reform or marriage equality. Worse though, they did nothing on Mayoral control of the NYC schools, which expired June 30. Now, I can understand people wanting to negotiate and take some power away from the Mayor (although I don't agree). But doing nothing while the bill expired, then walking away until September because you did not get what you wanted at the last minute is ridiculous.
It is just enraging that these people are adults but yet have not learned the shame that others were taught as kids. You have a responsibility to do your work in a timely manner. If you passed up on the opportunity to participate in a debate until it was too late, you lose the chance to give your input. They should feel ashamed to hold up the process because now, after having months and years to make changes, they want to make changes.
Since my senator is one of the ones now fighting for changes to the NYC school control bill (and one of the ones who welcomed back Espada), I am completely resolved not to vote for him next year. I really hope that survey was right and that everyone else does the same. Otherwise I will lose all hope in state government.
I am more appalled at the way this situation was wrapped up than I was when it was ongoing. Beyond the injustice inherent in rewarding someone who tried to leave the party simply to get a better position, it is just bad politics. This makes the Democrats look bad in the short term for rewarding him. But it will make them look horrible if and when his ethical transgressions cause his downfall (the same goes for Senator Monserate, who has been given his committee chairmanship back despite facing assault charges).
There is a question about whether voters will remember all this a year from now. But if Espada's troubles come to light later on, they may not have to remember. However, this poll in the Daily News suggests that voters believe they will remember this. (By the way, the blog I linked to is now my favorite blog for up to date NYS news.)
If you think this is the end of the Senate's appalling behavior, you are wrong. After the Senate spent a month doing nothing but arguing over who really holds power, they passed the bare minimum of bills. So of course they did nothing on rent regulation reform or marriage equality. Worse though, they did nothing on Mayoral control of the NYC schools, which expired June 30. Now, I can understand people wanting to negotiate and take some power away from the Mayor (although I don't agree). But doing nothing while the bill expired, then walking away until September because you did not get what you wanted at the last minute is ridiculous.
It is just enraging that these people are adults but yet have not learned the shame that others were taught as kids. You have a responsibility to do your work in a timely manner. If you passed up on the opportunity to participate in a debate until it was too late, you lose the chance to give your input. They should feel ashamed to hold up the process because now, after having months and years to make changes, they want to make changes.
Since my senator is one of the ones now fighting for changes to the NYC school control bill (and one of the ones who welcomed back Espada), I am completely resolved not to vote for him next year. I really hope that survey was right and that everyone else does the same. Otherwise I will lose all hope in state government.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Is Religion Bad?
I have had numerous debates about whether religion in itself is bad. There are many atheist liberals that feel religion is a scourge - a source of problems that delivers few benefits. For a while, before the 2006 and 2008 elections, that group seemed to dominate the Democratic party. Thankfully, that has changed, at least for now. But those people are still out there.
In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.
The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.
The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.
Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.
I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.
One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.
In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).
You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)
What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.
Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.
In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.
The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.
The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.
Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.
I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.
One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.
In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).
You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)
What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.
Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.
Powell as Foil
I just finished reading Reputation, the next posthumous book by Marjorie Williams. This book is just a collection of her political profiles. Her ability to analyze a person and really get to their flaws and strengths - to really see the entire person - was amazing. It is one of the many qualities she had that the world is now deprived of. Unfortunately, only some of the people were really interesting, which made the book good, but not great. By far the best profile was the last one - Colin Powell. Her profile of him, before he had decided not to run for President in 1996, is probably the best analysis of him I have ever seen.
In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.
The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.
The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.
This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.
Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.
So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.
In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.
The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.
The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.
This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.
Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.
So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Gender Issues
The different ways people choose to respond to real problems always amazes me, especially when they are poorly thought-out and counter productive. This story of a family that is keeping the gender of their child a secret for the first few years of their life is one of these times. I definitely agree that there are extreme pressures to conform to gender stereotypes in our society. We would be much better off if we were more accepting and open to differences and uniqueness.
However, this is clearly the wrong way to respond to these pressures. Teaching your children to act in ways that make their gender unclear is only a different way of preventing people from acting in ways that are natural to them. The ideal response to these pressures is to allow your child to be themselves and constantly teaching them against the stereotypes they will find in life. Fighting stereotypes is important, but we must do it in ways that achieve the right ends.
However, this is clearly the wrong way to respond to these pressures. Teaching your children to act in ways that make their gender unclear is only a different way of preventing people from acting in ways that are natural to them. The ideal response to these pressures is to allow your child to be themselves and constantly teaching them against the stereotypes they will find in life. Fighting stereotypes is important, but we must do it in ways that achieve the right ends.
Blame the Pollster, Not the Respondent
Remember all those articles about polling results in elections where one candidate is a person of color and another is white? Well, this post takes a very different view - namely that pollsters should not blame the respondents for inaccurate results even though it is more convenient. Instead, poor results can often be blamed on poor survey design.
Kruman on Health Care
Krugman has a really good column about health care reform. I would not advise taking it as truth without doing your own research, since Krugman is notoriously partisan and sometimes not very objective. However, it does lay out some good arguments. Check it out.
About Palin's Exit
There has been a lot of talk and analysis about Sarah Palin's sudden resignation. I think this post by Stanley Fish, someone I rarely agree with, is the best I've read. I think he is mostly right that she resigned for the reasons she stated - that the intense attacks have distracted from the normal affairs of Alaska. I am not saying this was the right decision (after all, Clinton did not resign), but I can understand it. The only caveat I would add is that she was somewhat cryptic about her future plans, which has lead to a lot of the speculation.
This post by The Politicker is similarly critical of the all the analysis and is pretty fair.
The new conservative columnist at the times also wrote about Palin. His column though makes a common false claim about the way people perceive Palin. He, and others, claim that Palin was attacked for not having the right education. I find this absurd. True, her education was frequently mentioned, but the problem was not her education itself, but her lack of competence and thoughtfulness. Her education was used as evidence of these concerns, instead of the requirements for being a good public official.
I have always believed, and I think the country mostly agrees, that there are no educational requirements for public service. But being thoughtful and smart is required.
This post by The Politicker is similarly critical of the all the analysis and is pretty fair.
The new conservative columnist at the times also wrote about Palin. His column though makes a common false claim about the way people perceive Palin. He, and others, claim that Palin was attacked for not having the right education. I find this absurd. True, her education was frequently mentioned, but the problem was not her education itself, but her lack of competence and thoughtfulness. Her education was used as evidence of these concerns, instead of the requirements for being a good public official.
I have always believed, and I think the country mostly agrees, that there are no educational requirements for public service. But being thoughtful and smart is required.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
So Few Leaders
The NY Times has a good piece on the situation in Albany:
But there are not, as the article shows, for two reasons. First, the leaders wield too much power, so rank and file are unwilling to cross them lest their plan fails. And second, no matter how embarrassed they are, they know they will be re-elected.
I have decided to vote against my Senator no matter who is running against him in the next election. (And I am going write him a letter telling him this.) While I hope many more people do the same thing, I know that the elections are over a year off, by which time people will have forgotten. And I know most people probably do not blame their own senator.
Albany needs a change (although some of the ideas have been stupid - Lazio - and show that the person does not actually understand the problem), but it is unlikely to get it.
Albany, as the spectacle of the deadlocked Senate has shown vividly over the last month, is afflicted with many problems: lawbreaking leaders, feuding factions and powerful special interests.This whole time I had thought there would eventually be a revolt by a group of rank and file Democrats and Republicans, forming a coalition and tossing out their leaders. After all, there has to be at least 32 senators that are tired of this nonsense and realize how bad they are looking. And there have to be 32 senators between the Republicans and Democrats that want nothing to do with Espada, that do not want Dean Skelos to be their leader because he has tied the Republicans to Espada, and that do not want Smith to be the leader because of how badly he led before and how desperately he is clinging to power now. There have to be 32 senators that want to dump these leaders and get some business done.
But for those wondering how Albany could have sunk to the level it has, with the State Senate unable to function, one good answer is the extraordinary comfort among the state’s legislators that comes with knowing that they will almost never be voted out of office.
Many people inside and outside state government agree that such a comfort level has bred a kind of arrogance among the legislators about the costs of even profound embarrassments.
But there are not, as the article shows, for two reasons. First, the leaders wield too much power, so rank and file are unwilling to cross them lest their plan fails. And second, no matter how embarrassed they are, they know they will be re-elected.
I have decided to vote against my Senator no matter who is running against him in the next election. (And I am going write him a letter telling him this.) While I hope many more people do the same thing, I know that the elections are over a year off, by which time people will have forgotten. And I know most people probably do not blame their own senator.
Albany needs a change (although some of the ideas have been stupid - Lazio - and show that the person does not actually understand the problem), but it is unlikely to get it.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Some Ideas from the Atlantic
This month's Atlantic Monthly had some interesting stuff in it. They called it the ideas issue, and the first three of the "Quick Fixes" were actually pretty good (the rest, not so much): Allow foreclosed owners to stay in their homes as renters, allow the UN to pay private soldiers to act as peacekeepers, and a more flexible attitude about installing democracy in Afghanistan.
I think only the last of the three, no democracy in Afghanistan, is likely to happen. Some big lenders may allow foreclosed owners to stay on, by I think few will and there is no will to impose that.
And although I do not think it would happen, the private UN peacekeepers is an interesting idea, although not a terrible new one. In fact I think my brother might have mentioned it one time. And it is possible that I dismissed it. But now that I consider it more, I do think it makes sense. It seems to me that the private troops could be more accountable, through contract renewal, than some of the country-sent troops, which have been accused of crimes and abuses themselves. And this way, only funding would stand in the way of peacekeeper deployment, and not the lack of willingness to send troops, which is more common.
I think only the last of the three, no democracy in Afghanistan, is likely to happen. Some big lenders may allow foreclosed owners to stay on, by I think few will and there is no will to impose that.
And although I do not think it would happen, the private UN peacekeepers is an interesting idea, although not a terrible new one. In fact I think my brother might have mentioned it one time. And it is possible that I dismissed it. But now that I consider it more, I do think it makes sense. It seems to me that the private troops could be more accountable, through contract renewal, than some of the country-sent troops, which have been accused of crimes and abuses themselves. And this way, only funding would stand in the way of peacekeeper deployment, and not the lack of willingness to send troops, which is more common.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Policy Towards Iran
As the election situation in Iran continues, it is important I think to take a step back and think about how Iran fits into the Middle East. There was an interesting, although overly simplistic, article in the Atlantic this month about the interplay between Iran, Sunni Arab nations, Shiite nations, Palestine and Israel. The author of the article suggests that we can use the threat of a nuclear Iran to unite Arabs and Israelis and achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.
The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.
Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.
But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).
The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.
The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.
Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.
But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).
The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.
NYS Senate - ANGER!
Each day the situation in the NYS Senate hits a new low. I will not drag you down with me by giving you a blow-by-blow. Suffice it to say, the best thing you can do for your sanity is to tune it out until they finally come to an agreement. But do not allow your ability to ignore the situation to dispel your anger. We should be furious that the situation has devolved as far as it has - that each person participating in the drama manages to recognize how absurd it is but find ridiculous ways to blame it on somebody else. (While I have not been a fan of Paterson lately, I think he is doing a decent job of shaming the Senate - which is why they are so angry at him. Granted a more deft leader might have been able to accomplish more, but I think he has been performing fine.)
The bottom line is that each side is content to play chicken with the other - to refuse to make a deal and get to work until they are recognized as the leaders. And each side is betting that the other side looks worse (or they assume that voter apathy is enough to prevent real repercussions). To be fair, they are probably also wise to the fact that voters have a habit of giving low approval ratings to the legislature (be it US Congress or the states) while high approval ratings for their own legislator. So most if not all of these clowns will be re-elected.
What angers me the most though is the recognition that if they finally do reach an agreement, they will only deal with the real necessities and then leave for vacation. And all the serious bills that deserved consideration will be left until next term. If there ever is a next term.
The bottom line is that each side is content to play chicken with the other - to refuse to make a deal and get to work until they are recognized as the leaders. And each side is betting that the other side looks worse (or they assume that voter apathy is enough to prevent real repercussions). To be fair, they are probably also wise to the fact that voters have a habit of giving low approval ratings to the legislature (be it US Congress or the states) while high approval ratings for their own legislator. So most if not all of these clowns will be re-elected.
What angers me the most though is the recognition that if they finally do reach an agreement, they will only deal with the real necessities and then leave for vacation. And all the serious bills that deserved consideration will be left until next term. If there ever is a next term.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran Elections
I am sure everyone is aware of the situation in Iran - the country has seen protests, and then violence against the protesters, following unbelievable presidential election results. There is a lot of reason for suspecting fraud, including the really short time it took the government to announce the results, the huge margin of victory for Ahmadinejad despite polling data (and previous election results) that would predict a closer election, and the fact that some districts had more votes than registered voters (not unexplainable, but definitely suspicious).
There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).
What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)
While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:
Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.
But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.
The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.
But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.
There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).
What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)
While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:
A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s — has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Before we get carried away - either by the prospects of a new election won by Mousavi or Rafsanjani as Supreme Leader (the prospects of a complete change away from the religious democracy / theocracy are absurdly slim) - let's realize that either will still leave challenges for foreign policy. A new leader in either place will not necessarily move Iran away from seeking nuclear weapons or animosity towards Israel (in other words, we need to learn more about these two before rooting too hard for them or expecting too much).
Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.
But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.
The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.
But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
State Senate Nonsense
I don't know whether the events in Iran make the situation in the New York State Senate unworthy of a post, or if the selfishness and smallness there juxtaposed to Iran mean I should highlight it. Since I have gone two weeks without writing about it, I obviously feel the latter.
First, I should admit that the first week of the gridlock in the state senate provided some terrific drama and during that time I was obsessed with tracking the developments. But now I find the whole situation disgusting. And let me be clear, everyone is to blame.
The main culprit is definitely Senator Espada. He doesn't like his district enough to make it his primary residence and he feels that he is above filing campaign finance documents. But the worse thing is that his main concern is his own power. He will stop at nothing to be state senate pro tempore. While doing so, he uses every argument he can think of to justify it - reform, promoting latino advancement, trying to get certain bills passed that wouldn't otherwise have been passed, etc. But really, he just wants leadership.
As a side note, it is interesting to see how identity politics can be both a positive force and a really negative one. Witnessing Obama's election or watching Speaker Christine Quinn speak at a pride event, you can feel the emotion when someone that represents groups that are / were repressed rises to a position of power. However, with Espada, you can see how it can be hollow and used only as a way to attempt to achieve power.
Anyway, the next culprit is the Republican leadership. They decided that they wanted to be in power so bad that they would promote someone as slimy as Espada, and then continue to stand by him even if it means turning down possible power sharing agreements that do not include Espada.
Of course, Senator Monserate has his share of the blame. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that he is clueless - not wise to what will happen when he makes decisions. Somehow he thought that as a liberal democrat he could give power to the Republicans but that would further his causes. And he thought he would be able to do so without getting beat up and likely voted out. (Maybe he figured it was okay since he is likely to be convicted of felony assault.)
Then there is Tom Golisano. All I need to say about him is that he orchestrated this mess for the sole purpose of repealing the millionaire income tax increase (despite his claims that his goal was reform of senate rules - really, a billionaire is going to spend huge sums of money to change how the senate allocates its staffing resources).
The Democratic leadership is just as guilty. I don't know what deals they struck with Espada when the session began, but it apparently did not work to satisfy him. Worse though, they have no claim on the high ground because they refused to take tough steps in the face of the investigations into Espada and Monserate, but now are acting horrified at their alleged crimes. To top it off, now they are boycotting votes with the hope of staying in power. What they could have done is simply given in at some point but used their pulpit to really beat on the Republicans for propping up such a shallow and amoral senator.
Finally, the rank and file are also to blame. The best solution for everyone would be for the rank and file of both parties to come together with a power sharing deal that would make to sure to throw all previous / current leaders out. A deal where Skelos, Malcom Smith, and Espada are given no leadership nor committee assignments. And then they could let all bills come to the floor for votes (or at least all with a certain amount of support).
This is a sign though of how broken Albany is. The solution is clear - that the split is too narrow (32-30 in favor of registered democrats, but now 31-31 for the caucus) for real party control so power sharing is necessary. But power sharing is only possible when people put aside ego. Unfortunately, those in power are unwilling to do so, and those not in power are unwilling to throw them out.
So now we look at who suffers the most. Well, of course that is the people of New York, as cliched as that sounds. Seriously though, Albany puts off most of its votes until the end of the term - and this is especially true of the closely divided state senate. Granted, many of us Democrats were especially excited about certain items on the liberal agenda that looked like they might pass, including rent regulation reform and gay marriage. But there are countless other bills that were more moderate, that are good fixes, that will not get looked at because the Senate does not have the time. Once they do finally come into session, they will likely take up only a few big issues (mayoral control, etc).
I have modest hopes going forward. First, I hope that the state senate reconvenes eventually and votes on and passes a few big things - most important to me is the marriage equality act. Second, if there is justice in the world, both Espada and Monserate will have to face their crimes (Espadas campaign finance and Monserate's domestic violence). If not, we can at least hope they get voted out next time.
(Sorry I didn't include any links - I don't have the energy right now. Plus, the stories are splashed all over the Times, Post and Daily News.)
First, I should admit that the first week of the gridlock in the state senate provided some terrific drama and during that time I was obsessed with tracking the developments. But now I find the whole situation disgusting. And let me be clear, everyone is to blame.
The main culprit is definitely Senator Espada. He doesn't like his district enough to make it his primary residence and he feels that he is above filing campaign finance documents. But the worse thing is that his main concern is his own power. He will stop at nothing to be state senate pro tempore. While doing so, he uses every argument he can think of to justify it - reform, promoting latino advancement, trying to get certain bills passed that wouldn't otherwise have been passed, etc. But really, he just wants leadership.
As a side note, it is interesting to see how identity politics can be both a positive force and a really negative one. Witnessing Obama's election or watching Speaker Christine Quinn speak at a pride event, you can feel the emotion when someone that represents groups that are / were repressed rises to a position of power. However, with Espada, you can see how it can be hollow and used only as a way to attempt to achieve power.
Anyway, the next culprit is the Republican leadership. They decided that they wanted to be in power so bad that they would promote someone as slimy as Espada, and then continue to stand by him even if it means turning down possible power sharing agreements that do not include Espada.
Of course, Senator Monserate has his share of the blame. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that he is clueless - not wise to what will happen when he makes decisions. Somehow he thought that as a liberal democrat he could give power to the Republicans but that would further his causes. And he thought he would be able to do so without getting beat up and likely voted out. (Maybe he figured it was okay since he is likely to be convicted of felony assault.)
Then there is Tom Golisano. All I need to say about him is that he orchestrated this mess for the sole purpose of repealing the millionaire income tax increase (despite his claims that his goal was reform of senate rules - really, a billionaire is going to spend huge sums of money to change how the senate allocates its staffing resources).
The Democratic leadership is just as guilty. I don't know what deals they struck with Espada when the session began, but it apparently did not work to satisfy him. Worse though, they have no claim on the high ground because they refused to take tough steps in the face of the investigations into Espada and Monserate, but now are acting horrified at their alleged crimes. To top it off, now they are boycotting votes with the hope of staying in power. What they could have done is simply given in at some point but used their pulpit to really beat on the Republicans for propping up such a shallow and amoral senator.
Finally, the rank and file are also to blame. The best solution for everyone would be for the rank and file of both parties to come together with a power sharing deal that would make to sure to throw all previous / current leaders out. A deal where Skelos, Malcom Smith, and Espada are given no leadership nor committee assignments. And then they could let all bills come to the floor for votes (or at least all with a certain amount of support).
This is a sign though of how broken Albany is. The solution is clear - that the split is too narrow (32-30 in favor of registered democrats, but now 31-31 for the caucus) for real party control so power sharing is necessary. But power sharing is only possible when people put aside ego. Unfortunately, those in power are unwilling to do so, and those not in power are unwilling to throw them out.
So now we look at who suffers the most. Well, of course that is the people of New York, as cliched as that sounds. Seriously though, Albany puts off most of its votes until the end of the term - and this is especially true of the closely divided state senate. Granted, many of us Democrats were especially excited about certain items on the liberal agenda that looked like they might pass, including rent regulation reform and gay marriage. But there are countless other bills that were more moderate, that are good fixes, that will not get looked at because the Senate does not have the time. Once they do finally come into session, they will likely take up only a few big issues (mayoral control, etc).
I have modest hopes going forward. First, I hope that the state senate reconvenes eventually and votes on and passes a few big things - most important to me is the marriage equality act. Second, if there is justice in the world, both Espada and Monserate will have to face their crimes (Espadas campaign finance and Monserate's domestic violence). If not, we can at least hope they get voted out next time.
(Sorry I didn't include any links - I don't have the energy right now. Plus, the stories are splashed all over the Times, Post and Daily News.)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Cheney Actually Debating Bush
The Cheney / Obama dueling press conferences got a good amount of coverage. And although I am tempted to spend more time dissecting Cheney's argument, I think moderate conservative columnist David Brooks did a better job than anyone.
The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.Of course, this doesn't fit in with the media's love for conflict. But it is the more accurate assessment of the situation. If the press covered this aspect, the American public would be much better informed.
The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.
By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period.
[Edit]
When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.
[Edit]
What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Book Report: Development as Freedom
I set out to read the popular books on development, with the goal of forming my own view on what needs to be done. At the time, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom was not on that list. But, as can happen in New York, someone on the C train noticed I was reading The End of Poverty and told me I should read Development as Freedom also. As he explained the book, I agreed to check it out, but thought I wouldn't like it so much. I didn't see what freedoms had to do with development and I thought the book sounded too liberal for me. I was wrong.
Development as Freedom has drastically changed my world view and is now probably the book that most formed my view on development. The only book I have yet to finish in this series is Muhammad Yanus' Creating a World Without Poverty, which is good but I think its application is more narrow than the other books.
Sen's main point throughout the books is that the goal of development is to create a situation in which all people have basic freedoms / rights / capacities, among which include the freedom from starvation and malnutrition, freedom from preventable death, the right to be literate and numerate, the right to participate in your government, and the right to employment and / or a living wage.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up Sen's argument: "Poverty must be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than a lowness of income."
However, the efforts of development, and the metrics used to measure success focus almost entirely on GDP or income. While income is one way to help people achieve their basic freedoms, it is not enough, and more importantly one income level will not ensure the same freedoms for all people. Instead of focusing on one of the many means to achieve the ends of freedom for all people, we should be focusing on the ends and all the different ways we can achieve them - or conversely all the ways that people are currently deprived of these capabilities to achieve their freedoms.
This may seem obvious enough, but after reading the other books, this is actually fundamentally different than the other books out there. Now, this book was not easy to read, which is probably one reason why it isn't among the popular books on development right now. However, slogging through it pays off. Sen shows many of the ways countries can and have expanded the freedoms / rights / capacities of their people. He then shows how expanding these freedoms improves individual lives but also leads to GDP growth.
Sen shows why countries should expand access to education before GDP growth (which can then create conditions for growth). He articulates how increasing women's agency also increases money spent on the family and improves child mortality, and especially improves the treatment of girls. He articulates the importance of democracy, especially that famines do not happen in democracies. (In fact, his analysis is that famines are a result of people losing the ability to buy food more than an actual lack of food. Therefore governments can subsidize incomes to prevent famines, and democracies will do that because the politicians will want to avoid losing their jobs.)
The book also contains great analyses of human rights, markets and of social choice. He takes on arguments that human rights are pre-legal rights (and therefore meaningless) and that they do not apply in the East. In his analysis of markets, he argues that people have a basic right to trade in the market (which is denied in communist governments), but governments have a responsibility to educate people so they can participate in markets and to create a system where markets are are fair and efficient. And finally, he looks at, and tears down, the argument that we cannot improve situations through government action because there are always unintended consequences that will thwart our efforts.
As you can see, the book is thorough - and far more so than I am even showing. There is little if any argument against his case that he has left out or left standing. If you have the time and the interest, this book is a must-read. I think it will fundamentally change how you think about development (even here in the US, where Sen compares freedoms and capabilities like mortality and literacy, instead of incomes, of African-Americans and others in developing countries), as it did for me.
Development as Freedom has drastically changed my world view and is now probably the book that most formed my view on development. The only book I have yet to finish in this series is Muhammad Yanus' Creating a World Without Poverty, which is good but I think its application is more narrow than the other books.
Sen's main point throughout the books is that the goal of development is to create a situation in which all people have basic freedoms / rights / capacities, among which include the freedom from starvation and malnutrition, freedom from preventable death, the right to be literate and numerate, the right to participate in your government, and the right to employment and / or a living wage.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up Sen's argument: "Poverty must be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than a lowness of income."
However, the efforts of development, and the metrics used to measure success focus almost entirely on GDP or income. While income is one way to help people achieve their basic freedoms, it is not enough, and more importantly one income level will not ensure the same freedoms for all people. Instead of focusing on one of the many means to achieve the ends of freedom for all people, we should be focusing on the ends and all the different ways we can achieve them - or conversely all the ways that people are currently deprived of these capabilities to achieve their freedoms.
This may seem obvious enough, but after reading the other books, this is actually fundamentally different than the other books out there. Now, this book was not easy to read, which is probably one reason why it isn't among the popular books on development right now. However, slogging through it pays off. Sen shows many of the ways countries can and have expanded the freedoms / rights / capacities of their people. He then shows how expanding these freedoms improves individual lives but also leads to GDP growth.
Sen shows why countries should expand access to education before GDP growth (which can then create conditions for growth). He articulates how increasing women's agency also increases money spent on the family and improves child mortality, and especially improves the treatment of girls. He articulates the importance of democracy, especially that famines do not happen in democracies. (In fact, his analysis is that famines are a result of people losing the ability to buy food more than an actual lack of food. Therefore governments can subsidize incomes to prevent famines, and democracies will do that because the politicians will want to avoid losing their jobs.)
The book also contains great analyses of human rights, markets and of social choice. He takes on arguments that human rights are pre-legal rights (and therefore meaningless) and that they do not apply in the East. In his analysis of markets, he argues that people have a basic right to trade in the market (which is denied in communist governments), but governments have a responsibility to educate people so they can participate in markets and to create a system where markets are are fair and efficient. And finally, he looks at, and tears down, the argument that we cannot improve situations through government action because there are always unintended consequences that will thwart our efforts.
As you can see, the book is thorough - and far more so than I am even showing. There is little if any argument against his case that he has left out or left standing. If you have the time and the interest, this book is a must-read. I think it will fundamentally change how you think about development (even here in the US, where Sen compares freedoms and capabilities like mortality and literacy, instead of incomes, of African-Americans and others in developing countries), as it did for me.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
One Budget Lesson
So I have spent roughly six years now as a budget analyst (and have now moved away from that to work on policy). If I could teach one lesson about government budgeting, it is this: You cannot close budget gaps by eliminating waste. I understand that it sounds good - that the public eats it up. But it just isn't true. The only way to close significant budget gaps is to cut services.
I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.
And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.
I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.
And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.
At Last - Talking About Affordable Housing and Homelessness
I'm not sure who noticed, but for almost three years now, there have been two topics that I have not written about at all: affordable housing and homelessness. That would be particularly curious since during that time, those were the two policy areas I was working on at the NYC Independent Budget Office. Of course, the reason was that at that time I did not want to provide my political opinion at night on subject matters that during the day I was providing objective and non-partisan analysis (never opinions however). The reputation of the Independent Budget Office depended on people seeing us as non-partisan.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Kindergarten Education
Before I met my fiance, I completely supported standardized testing, even at early ages. Now, while I still think that in general it is useful to have broad measures to compare students and schools to each other, I have learned that these tests at an early age are misguided.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)