Are you getting Smart with me?

I really think Barrack Obama is trying to be a “smart” President. It may be the way he approaches the world, and, given the law of unintended consequences, it may not work, but it is interesting to watch. A couple of examples:

If you asked Americans on September 12th, 2001, what should the government do now, the response would have surely been to get Osama Bin Laden by any means possible. It would have been ok to strike a deal with the Taliban, or fine to invade Afghanistan and get him that way. "Just get him" was the operative theme.

A few Americans might have mentioned Saddam Hussein in passing. But I think no one would have thought Saddam was a primary threat.

So we went after Osama bin Laden, and spectacularly failed to get him. And a year and a half later we went after Saddam Hussein, not having got Osama bin Laden. We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration made the case that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would soon be in the hands of terrorists, or Iraqi intelligence operatives pretending to be terrorists, and America would suffer a more devastating attack. Later we would be told that a democratic Iraq would be a catalyst for democracy throughout the Middle East (including the Palestinian territories, where they clearly don’t understand democracy, having elected the wrong people).

So Obama wants to focus back on Afghanistan. Although it has not been mentioned, it appears Obama might be willing to accept a dictator or at least a much less democratic Iraq than what the Bush administration seemed to have in mind (to they extent they had a plan at all). Since it seems Iraq is evolving in that direction anyway, what I am really saying is that the Obama administration appears ready to accept reality in Iraq. But in Afghanistan, there is still room to expand democracy a bit, and more importantly maybe we can yet get Osama Bin Laden. That would be a popular, and therefore smart thing to do.

Meanwhile, on the domestic side, if you ask people what they would like the economy to be like, if you asked them to fantasize and think of the time they were most happy (economically speaking), you would probably get a bunch of hunh’s and wishing doesn’t make it so (I am assuming Americans are an unimaginative bunch, by and large). I suspect if they got the question, a slim majority would say they wished it was 2006 all over again, with growing home values and growing 401k’s. I suspect Obama realizes this, and realize he needs to make the stock market “happy” again, to make a majority of voters happy. What I mean is that Obama realizes he needs to have the widely recognized symbol and barometer of how the American economy is doing start going up again. Then a given subset of Americans will automatically give him some credit for being responsible for America having a good economy (like many of us blame Bush for the opposite).

But how do you make the stock market happy? Well, you start by not firing any of their CEO’s. You continue by continuing to give investment companies and banks (or bank holding corporations) lots of taxpayer money.

The problem with that is that some ordinary Americans blame the investment companies and banks (or bank holding companies) for our current financial mess. So there is a tension between make/keep the financial market happy and satisfying ordinary taxpayers desire to see someone punished for our financial mess. The solution? Fire an executive in a different industry. To use a basket ball term, throw an elbow. In this case, a symbolic elbow at Rick Wagoner of GM. I think the subtle message to the financial industry is “look, I am trying to keep you happy, but see what I am capable of; now how about that re-regulation?” Will that work, and will Americans be satisfied with Rick Wagoner as a sacrificial lamb? Probably not, but it is early days yet, and there are other heads that can go on the chopping block if the financial industry complains or resists re- and new regulations (too bad John Thain is already gone, although maybe he could be prosecuted at some point).

So Obama is trying to do the smart thing in foreign and domestic policy. Which is probably confusing to a lot of people: pundits, Washington insiders, ordinary voters, etc. Maybe we will get used to it or maybe the midterms will turn Congress back over to the Republicans.

Gone Baby Gone

Via Bram's Comet, we find out from Jeremy Boren that tonight's debate is at least postponed, possibly cancelled. Too bad, in a way, it would not be bad to see the candidates responded to stressful news. No word on when the debate might be rescheduled to.

A true tragedy ...

Since it happened roughly six blocks from my house, I feel more compelled to say something about the killing of the three police officers than I might otherwise. Except there really isn’t much to say beyond what has been said. It was truly a senseless killing. One co-worker (I did my second job yesterday) remarked that Poplawski’s life is over, while someone else suggested he would get the death penalty. I think if he doesn’t get the death penalty, it will be life in prison and I would hope he would never be paroled.

A couple of thoughts do occur to me that I would like to remark on. First, Poplawski’s back story reads like the poster child for tougher gun control. Dropping out of high school, joining the marines and then being dishonorably discharged during basic training (apparently to chase a girl), having protection from abuse orders in his past history; this is a person that should never have been allowed to buy an AK-47 or a concealable handgun. I remember last summer, during the debate about the election, how gun enthusiasts commenting on the Burgh Report were claiming that gun control makes countries less safe, and linking to web sites that used statistics purporting to prove that. Now, the shooting yesterday is just one anecdote, but, when I think about it, the gun crimes I hear about are a series of anecdotes where guns are almost never used by innocent parties to successfully defend themselves against criminals. Instead it is drug gang violence, or some drunk carrying a pistol into a bar, pulling it out over some random argument and shooting several people, or just recently three senseless bouts of shootings including the Poplawski affair.

At the very least, I hope and also suspect Congressional Democrats will bring back the assault weapon ban. I believe they will get it passed too; there is talk about using an obscure rule/tactic in the Senate that I have not looked into yet (but I believe is called reconciliation) that nullifies the need for the 60 vote super majority. I can see that being used here because the assault weapon ban is actually popular among Americans. Not that I believe one party rule is good for us, and I strongly suspect the Democrats will soon collapse under their own weight, and find a way to fritter away their majority. Frankly, House Democrats seem determined to do just that as soon as possible.

Anyway, back to the topic of this post; the last thought that occurred to me was that this issue might show up in the Mayoral race. Obviously the Mayor would have nothing bad to say about the police department. It’s hard for me to think of any local ordinances that could have even the remotest chance of preventing or minimizing an incident like this in the future. Since I believe that’s true, I hope Pat Dowd does nothing more than join the Mayor in offering condolences to the families of the slain police officers. The debate tomorrow will undoubtedly be colored by this tragedy.

How debatable ...

The Post Gazette has the news, currently in their breaking news section online. There will be three debates between the Mayoral (Democratic) candidates, including a live one Monday at 7:00pm on PCNC. The other two will also be at 7:00pm, taped on KDKA on April 15 and again live on April 20 on WTAE.

As we may all remember, Obama was behind right before the debates. By being cool and very reasonable sounding, and because McCain was cranky and less reasonable sounding, Obama pulled ahead and never looked back. For Dowd to score a similar result, the Mayor would have to be less on his game than he was with DeSantis. For that to happen, Dowd will have to challenge the Mayor the first time he doesn’t answer a question. Also Dowd will have to be somewhat dismissive when the Mayor lists achievements, and Dowd will have to suggest that the City’s financial achievements are the result of ICA or Act 47 team guidance, while the City's missteps are the Mayor's own fault. Finally Dowd will have to be charitable to Carmen Robinson, to avoid seeming a bully.

Blogging gets as bad as everything else.

This is very disturbing to me. (local) Bloggers have a habit of picking up clever videos made by campaigns or other “interested” parties and posting them on their blogs. I don’t think I ever have, except for that animated thing, and I don’t remember how I did that (I followed some sort of instructions). And several of us have produced those little animated things (myself not using much of its capabilities) with our own words. Bram started with Ravenstahl’s words, I used (mostly) a post I had put up, and then Matt Hogue and Bram created some scripts.

But what I have just seen is different. You may remember that Matt Hogue had a post about Franco “Dok” Harris (the Mayoral candidate) that had an impressive amount of internet research and a nasty tone. The level of research was so impressive that at least a couple of people voiced the opinion that the Mayor’s office or campaign had written the post. Personally I don’t know what to believe. College students famously have a lot of spare time, but Matt seems more interested in the West End Council race. In fact now he is Anthony Coghill’s campaign manager.

This is all leading to the video on Matt’s blog “What will Patrick say next to get elected?”. This is essentially an anti Pat Dowd commercial. Matt doesn’t source it in the post, but a click on the You Tube link reveals it was created by someone who calls themselves “pghrebel”. I am willing to believe that is probably not Matt. This is the only video they have uploaded, although their favorite videos are listed, mostly they seem to have to do with males lifting weights. The video itself has no credits, although it does put text on the screen several times. Now I assume it has not hit the television airwaves, although I suspect it will soon.

What makes the video interesting is the amount of access this person has. Maybe I am naïve, but I wouldn’t know how to lift the PG’s video. I certainly wouldn’t know how to lift the City’s Council video. I recently heard a discussion about how the City wants to put the Council video on the web, but has not done so yet. So how would you get access to that video, unless you were either a City IT employee, or a high level City employee?

Even the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth identified themselves. This video cites no campaign, no 501c. It is does not let voters know it’s producer’s agenda. Seems to me this surely bends if not breaks campaign laws. And its on Matt’s blog.

If we waste money, how can we expect anyone to offer us more?

From a link on a comment on Bram’s Comet, to an extended video of Pat Dowd’s event about waste in City government on Mark Rauterkus site, I caught an interesting comment. Someone asked about federal stimulus money. Dr Dowd’s response was “if we don’t have a pattern and a culture of showing we know how to use our money, why should we expect more people to give us money down the road”.

Right now Pittsburgh is one of a hundred cities with their hands out. We are in better shape than some in that a lot of the jobs here aren’t so dependent on trade with other parts of the country. We have healthcare (some people come to us, and we have lots of built in patients right now, and for a few years to come), education (again, some people come to us) and a bit of financial, although our banks didn’t have as many houses to sell at bubble prices. But we are also in worse shape in many ways, with a shrinking tax base and debt that is only getting worse in this financial climate. We are going to need outside financial help.

But consider who would help us. The Feds? They will send some money our way, but their priorities are jobs, and our unemployment isn’t that bad. Helping us with debt isn’t as interesting as creating a thousand jobs in Charlotte.

I read a lot on blogs that people feel we have to force the State to help us. Go to Harrisburg and demand the State legislature give us all the money we want. How has that worked out for us so far?

Maybe if Onorato is governor, maybe. But he’s not there yet and may never get there. Is there anything else we can do?

Well, yeah, the whole idea of running government like adults. I mean, I hope Dowd is that adult. I am pretty sure Ravenstahl is not.

So if we set a standard, if we introduce transparency to government in a big way, if we have serious ethics and campaign finance reform, if we tighten our belts in a responsible manner and try to spend our money in the wisest fashion possible, maybe we can attract some State help, if only so they don’t have to deal with an endless Pittsburgh Act 47 saga.

Experience and the man

Matt Hogue likes to tell us that Mayor Ravenstahl has matured in the job, that he has more experience now and has benefited from it. I suspect Matt may be right. Early in the Mayor’s term, the stories the media was willing to print about him involved his interactions with celebrities and his acceptance of inappropriate gifts. But now the stories are about the Mayor’s use of campaign contributions to travel to the Super Bowl and for some meals during his trip to Europe, and how those contributors are getting lucrative contracts from the City. The Mayor has learned how business is done.

Ethics reform has resurfaced as an issue, as City Council turns its attention to it. But as far as the Mayor is concerned, that ship has sailed. Mind you, if someone offers the Mayor tickets to the Steelers, I’m sure he wouldn’t mind too much. But what the Mayor really wants is the cash as a contribution, which the Mayor can use to buy the tickets and shake a couple of hands at the game. Then it is all perfectly legal.

Campaign finance reform is also working its way through Council right now. The reform proposed by the Mayor and the County Executive would slow them down some on fund raising, but not by much. Of course the Mayor’s ace in the hole is his promise that if City and County Council’s final bills differ even a smidgen, the Mayor will again veto the bill. Even if the two Councils should find a way to agree, the Mayor could still veto their compromise bill if it differs from the original bill. Or because he feels like it. And the Mayor still likely has enough allies on Council that his veto would stand.

I’m hoping Pat Dowd won’t turn out to be Pittsburgh’s John Kerry. Still, we might all remember that though John Kerry was annoying at time, if elected in '04 he probably would have pushed for more regulation and oversight of the financial industry. In 2004 things weren’t so far gone that some cold water thrown on the housing finance industry and the credit default swap business would not have had a positive effect. We let that get away from us, because we were willing to believe Bush when he said that we needed him to keep us safe. Ravenstahl will say something similar, that we need a Democrat from the Bob O’Connor tradition, not some pointy headed professor type. But we get to make up our own mind what we need.

Are we ready?

I could do another short animation thingie using Dr Dowd’s “administration for sale” text as the script, or the pieces in the PG on the connections between contributions and City/Authority contracts. Once again the media is putting some instances of questionable behavior by the Ravenstahl administration out there for the public’s consideration. TV news reports will be vague and short, and few people will read the newspaper accounts. But they will be there, and they should rattle around the back of people’s minds.

Now, Pat Dowd is not an unknown. I would bet that at least 8 out of 10 voters would recognize his name, but I doubt many could say much about his background or what he stands for. I think it is even money that those who did have something to say about his past would have a negative impression (John Thompson, Schenley). Dr Dowd can claim the reformer mantle, but it may not stick.

So can Dr Dowd knock off the Mayor this time, with a low intensity Anyone But Luke sentiment simmering and a loose claim to a reformer/progressive mantle (with Al Gore … I mean Bill Peduto standing in the wings)? Bram thinks there is (maybe) a grassroots groundswell against Ravenstahl looking for an outlet. I think maybe.

I want to say something about Obama and Geithner (sp?), and the AIG bonuses that are really more income floor payments, but I am out of time and energy. Maybe later.

My own little short ...

I notice Bram, Matt and Chris have all created these new little animation movies, competing with each other and advancing their agendas. Of course, I am hardly immune. I have created my own little movie. The text is from my post "History", my list of the Mayor's ethical lapses (I emblished for the sake of clarity here and there). As far as I can tell you can't add written text to these little animations yet. When you can I will add the links I had in "History". Until then, go look them up yourself.

What's the score?

So how’s the primary going? Pat Dowd raised the question of a refinancing deal the Sewer and Water Authority got into, where the mechanism for determining the payments we have to make looks awful risky, and the extra hundred million raised has to be kept in the bank to defray the higher than expected payments. So there is another 400 million the City could be on the hook for, but alas (for Dr Dowd) we won’t find out till June.

Meanwhile, Mayor Ravenstahl called for a war on potholes. It is a pity Mayor Ravenstahl wasn’t in the White House instead of George Bush from 2001-2009 (the youngest President of a major country!). All of Mayor Ravenstahl’s wars, and there seem to be at least a few, are bloodless wars. Most bloggers and newspaper columnists would say they are in fact sham wars, but they seem to play ok with voters. Better than Droopy Dog Paul Tsongas-like bad news from Dr Dowd (sorry Pat, couldn't resist).

By the way, Did anyone catch not this past Sunday’s, but the Sunday before’s 60 Minutes. There was a story on how a particular financial arrangement between transit agencies and banks involving buying light rail cars using borrowed money from banks, then selling the cars to the banks using the same money, then leasing the cars and letting the banks take the tax write for the depreciation, well those deals are in trouble because the insurer, AIG, is no longer truly solvent. It was pointed out to me (by Chris Briem) that Chris Briem had linked to a blog post back in the fall that listed the Port Authority (of Allegheny County) as one of the transit agencies that did these deals. So let’s see, that’s 300 or 400 million for PWSA and who knows, maybe 30 or more million for PAT. Who says Pittsburgh’s better off than the rest of the country. Our bad news seems to be in suspended animation, but it looks just as bad or worse than everyone else’s.

Ruth Ann today

I happened to catch a bit of Meet the Press this past Sunday. David Frum, who had written a piece for Newsweek (which I read part of) explaining why Rush Limbaugh should not be allowed to be the de facto voice of the Republican party, was trying to defend Michael Steele’s comments that allowed for the possibility that abortion is part of a woman’s right to choose. Tavis Smiley was sitting right next to Frum, saying the Republicans can not simply put a colored face on TV and expect black voters to respond. Frum tried to differentiate between a colored face (bad) and a different face (good).

The Republicans are treading carefully now. The politicians know that the minute they criticize the Democrats, they will have to endure a lecture on the last eight years. They believe that Congressional Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship (and they are probably right), but the Republicans are not convincing making this case because they also wanted to punish the President for not giving them more on the stimulus bill and so not one Republican representative voted for it. Because the Republican politicians are currently paralyzed, the commentators like Rush Limbaugh are leaping into the vacuum. Rush can say whatever he wants on his show (I guess maybe there are callers, probably taped so that callers challenging Mr. Limbaugh’s views can simply be deleted).

Ruth Ann Dailey is also jumping in, carrying on the theme that the Democrats are communists. She gives us a mock letter from communists to Ed Rendell about the PLCB. Now, let me say up front that I would prefer liquor stores to be private. There is no reason why the State should control liquor sales, except to gouge citizens. But I don’t think Ruth Ann’s column was entirely about the LCB.

As I say, Ruth Ann’s letter is listed as from “Marx, Engels, Keynes & Krugman -- "Economists for a Better Tomorrow"”. In other words, she wants to link the Obama administration to communists, and Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist. Yes, Krugman is mostly a cheerleader for the Obama administration, but I defy Ruth Ann to show one credible shred of a link between Obama and communists. As for whether the Obama administration is pursing even slightly communistic policies, they have resisted stating that they are nationalizing the banks or any other industry. The government’s handling of AIG, despite having installed the current CEO and owning most of the stock, still has them saying they do nothing about the contractually mandated bonuses. The Obama administration knows it has to keep the current system running and so has to keep bankers and other financial professionals somewhat happy.

Meanwhile Ruth Ann lobs this comment at us: “Since the real estate bubble burst, triggering the economic meltdown, we've worked diligently to deflect attention away from Clinton-era mandates on lending standards and to pin responsibility for the disastrous economic fallout on the Bush administration.”

I will certainly admit that some of the mandates to loosen controls came from a Republican Congress during the Clinton years. Clinton may well have expected Al Gore to be elected President (he was, actually) and that Gore could have kept watch and stepped in if the loosened mandates proved problematic.

But the Republicans are being incredibly disingenuous when they complain about legislation from the Clinton era. We all know, for example, that the Democrats quickly came to dislike the Patriot act, but have never been able to do much of anything about it. Yet Republican commentators claim the Democrats prevented reform in the financial sector. That is bullshit. I would buy the notion that neither the Bush administration nor the Republicans in Congress nor the Democrats in Congress wanted to change things or restrict bad mortgages because the housing bubble was very popular (and I suspect the credit swaps were creating enough wealth to cause some better than average campaign contributions). The incentives were likely perverse, but still I bitterly resent Republicans blaming Democrats for something when they spent at least four years and possibly as much as eight years reaping the benefits and therefore doing nothing about the coming financial mess.

As an aside, Jim Cramer claimed, on the Dailey Show, that the financial meltdown was a one in million thing, despite the fact terms like housing bubble have been around for years. Later Cramer said that the 35 to 1 leveraged mortgages were considered realistic in a world that gave 30% returns year after year. That lster statement might explain why everyone turned a blind (and stupid) eye towards a clearly inevitable downturn.

Ruth Ann is clearly reverting to Republican code phrases and innuendo to slam the Democrats. Which is a sham, since she rails against the liberal media for doing that to Republicans. We are all still waiting for a legitimate Republican criticism of the current administration, and some hint they are interested in bipartisanship.

More questions than answers (mostly opinion)

I have attended a couple of workshops for PittPoint, a citizen journalist project of the Public Square Project. I don’t know where that will take me, if anywhere. I might have to give up this blog to establish and maintain some semblance that I can be objective, but there are lots of other issues (like having a day job) that come into play here. I plan to blog on this in the future (realizing the irony there).

But I mention that now to establish a framework for meta-analyzing (I think I made that word up) the PWSA issue that has popped up this week (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_615251.html, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09069/954383-53.stm). The PittPoint workshops have stressed the importance of trying to be fair and balanced (not like Fox News) and present both sides of an issue. In this case I think both Pat Dowd and Luke Ravenstahl are condescending to us, but both hope that they are doing it in such a way that we will think even worse of their opponent. Actually, I think both are doing it in a purely reflexive way, but I think what that says about their instincts in instructive.

(Enough foreplay) When Mayor Ravenstahl complains that it is unfortunate that Pat Dowd is “politicizing” the PWSA problems, he seems to be saying that this is not an issue he should be judged on. After all, Council (including Dowd) voted on this, and anyway, it is what voters hired Ravenstahl for, to make the tough calls. Nothing (much) has happened yet, a paltry extra three million paid, and the City is in negotiations with new insurers. I am assuming, by the way, that you have read stories and blogs on this, that you are up to speed on the role of insurers (you may know more than me on this). The administration is handling the issue, voters don’t need to be unnecessarily frightened by Dowd’s grandstanding and the only thing Dowd can accomplish here is to distract officials from doing their job.

Meanwhile, for Dowd’s part, he did vote for PWSA deal (as did the other eight on Council) back last April. He says he spent last weekend reading the 2000 page document of the debt package. Which is funny, Chris Briem put, on Null Space, a two hundred page document concerning the package, as well as other interesting links (like a document on the SEA debt). Not to say the 2000 page thing doesn’t exist, but maybe reading the 200 page might have got the job done. Dowd does say the document he read was the most difficult and opaque thing he has read, and why can’t these documents be written in plainer language. I am pretty sure Pat Dowd understands the importance of using precise technical language agreed upon by financial professionals, but there could also be a plainer summary that could be agreed upon by the parties to the deal.

Still, there is a subtext to Dowd's complaint that the PWSA entered into a risky deal and it should not have. Even the Trib points out thousands of cities and other public institutions and entities used the “interest-rate” swaps to finance (or in this case re-finance) debt. Should the PWSA have used a fixed rate refinance? It would not have gotten the extra hundred million (which is has since put in an interest account to pay the higher than expected rates) on the refi. Which is the problem. I don’t know who even came up with this deal, whether it was the administration or the PWSA or who. Michael Lamb and Eckert Seamens (as noted by The Pittsburgh Comet) criticized the deal at the time. Should government always take the safest, most conservative path? Doing so will mean in general that citizens will have to pay higher taxes, if they want an ambitious government. In specific in this case, it would mean the PWSA would have gotten much less than the extra hundred million in the refi. On the other hand the PWSA could have actually used the lesser amount; right now it is has the hundred million in savings until the situation sorts itself out.

On the third hand, Dowd complaint that the details of the debt package was not easily accessible to PWSA’s ratepayers does have some teeth. Maybe it is only my projection, but one thing that Pat Dowd has remained consistent about since even his days on the school board is his commitment to the idea of transparency of government. Even though there is a digital divide, and even though most people who do have high speed internet probably aren’t interested, the government has an obligation, as it spends our tax money and incurs ever increasing amounts of debt on our behalf, to share the details of what it does, in painful detail. We should get to know not only the Controller’s audit on street maintenance, but the Public Works department reports on what potholes in plans to fix and how it will spend it money (sealing cracks or re-paving). Since Public Works says it has no way to track how many potholes are fixed in a day, the citizens of Pittsburgh should be invited to make suggestions (such as the PDA’s the GOP issues for it’s door knocking operations during campaigns) on how to address that problem.

Dowd may be trying to make unfair political points by accusing the Mayor of having made a bad decision when many other Mayors and other public officials were making similar decisions across the country at the same time. But Dowd’s instincts on transparency seem dead on to me. And Ravenstahl’s seeming reflexive inclination to deny and conceal when challenged are just more evidence to me that he is a poor choice for Mayor.

Other really important stuff

I forgot one link to add to the list I had yesterday: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07080/771206-53.stm. It is maybe my favorite piece of reporting on the Mayor’s ethical problems. It is ostensibly about the trip on Ron Burkle’s jets, but it is really about the Mayor’s attitude, in March 2007, towards disclosing items given to him. I mention the date because Matt Hogue likes to say the Mayor has matured; I say he has discovered that if the gifts are campaign contributions he can spend the money during trips to Europe and on paying for a trip to the Super Bowl for himself, two (I believe) brothers and a couple of bodyguards.

But all that may not be the most important story right now. Pat Dowd spent last weekend reading a couple of thousand pages of a debt package that the Water and Sewer Authority entered into last summer. He called the thing "one of the most opaque and complicated things I have ever tried to understand." (the PG mentions that Dowd has a doctorate and taught at high school level, they do not mention that the doctorate is in history; still more than I have). As I understand it, the debt package involved making continuous swaps to keep the interest rate low. It’s hard to see how this would not involve transaction costs that would not eat up any savings, but in any event apparently the stock market drop and bank issues have caused problems and we are in fact paying more than we were supposed to. To further complicate things, the insurance firm that is guaranteeing this package wants out at their earliest opportunity, which is next June, which would adversely affect our situation (anyone see sixty minutes on Sunday?). Two Political Junkies and the The Pittsburgh Comet have already commented on this, I can only echo that this appears to be an important issue, one that is worthy of our attention. The Mayor, of course, criticizes Dowd for releasing sensitive information, and also says that no one could have known there was a problem with the banks last summer.

Because Bear Sterns hadn’t collapsed last spring. Oh wait …

History

Matt H lays out, for your consideration, several pieces of information about Franco “Dok” Harris Junior. The implication, to my mind, is that Mr. Harris is a drinker, opposed to publicly funded AIDs organizations, and in general is not a serious person. Now, I certainly would say that Mr. Harris has never held political office, and therefore is absolutely inexperienced in politics. But he has two graduate degrees, including an MBA from the highly regarded Tepper school. And his undergraduate work was done at Princeton, where he was active, apparently, in student government.

Now, Matt admits, in comments to this Pittsburgh Comet post to having biases. Fair enough, I certainly do too. In fact, I have worked on this, on and most off, for a little while. This is a list of the issues the Mayor has been involved in. It was supposed to be one page (like resumes are), but the addition of links pushed it further. This is what I have so far, maybe all I will ever have:

Halloween 2005: Steelers game: Council President Ravenstahl is cuffed but then released; influence used? (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_489262.html)

“Late” 2006: Dinner meeting between Pat Ford and Liberty Pacific media executives to agree to violate billboards zoning rules, Ravenstahl stops by, later receives 25,000 in campaign contributions from these executives. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08108/874136-53.stm)

March 2007: Trip to NYC on Penguins owner Ron Burkle’s jet instead of attending scheduled community meeting. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_498601.html)

April 2007: Oakmont: Gate crashed private American Express event with Tiger Woods even though he was told not to, approached Tiger Woods even though he was told not to. (http://kdka.com/topstories/Luke.Ravenstahl.Tiger.2.379852.html)

May: 2007: Approved promotion of four police officers, three of whom have had domestic violence related issues. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07181/798369-53.stm)

June 2007: Instead of attending Council hearing on domestic violence issues in the police force, plays golf for two days paid for by Pittsburgh Penguins and UPMC (to the tune of $27,000 for a package for three), claims he received nothing of value and was conducting City business. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_515982.html)

August 2007: Uses Homeland Security bought police SUV to go to Toby Keith concert, spills barbecue sauce in SUV. (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/14260422/detail.html)

August 2007: Appearance before Ethics board. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_523359.html)

December 2007 – January 2008: Energy two-bid contract. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07087/772999-53.stm)

December 2007: Supports UPMC attempt to exempt itself proactively from taxes. (http://thebusmansholiday.blogspot.com/2007/12/upmc-side-agreement-on-pittsburgh.html)

January-March 2008: Lamar downtown LED billboard. (http://thebusmansholiday.blogspot.com/2008/04/billboard-back-story-brewing.html)

June 2008: Vetoes Council proposed campaign finance reform. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_571986.html)

?-August 2008: Pat Ford scandal, accepting gifts, resignation with vague allegations. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08240/907303-100.stm)

January 2009: Club Pittsburgh issue unfolds. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09015/941926-53.stm)

January 2009: Proposes (with Onorato) campaign finance reform.(http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_606786.html)

February 2009: Trip to Super bowl paid with campaign cash (and parts of trip to Europe) and the parade. (http://thebusmansholiday.blogspot.com/2009/02/snoop-dogg-mayor-luke-power-of.html), (http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59195)

February 2009 $1000 trash cans, with Ravenstahl’s name on them (free campaigning?).
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_612717.html

Covering the point spread ...

A bit more on the 11 points (God could only manage ten commandments).

Ravenstahl says "I know that not everybody will agree with my plan,". Well, yes and no. I mean, those points do basically cover all the things (vaguely) that you might want to see happen in the City. Who can argue with “Solve Our Legacy Costs Crisis”, for example?

Of course, who can explain exactly what that means, and how it is going to happen? Shouldn’t Ravenstahl explain that, or more accurately have explained it already? Further, if Ravenstahl means that he is going to work on all those 11 points all at once (like the Obama administration is trying to take on all our national problems at once), then yeah, some may question how a city in Act 47 status is going to do all that at once. Are the 11 points/goals ranked in the order they will be addressed? Why is greening the City so far down, then?

But basically disagreeing with Ravenstahl’s 11 points is like disagreeing with someone who says “don’t kick puppies”. Which is Ravenstahl’s intention. Voters will say to Dowd “why don’t you want to solve our legacy cost crisis?” or if Dowd agrees with Ravenstahl, then why is he running against him?

If it were me, I would have made each of the 11 points on Ravenstahl’s campaign web site clickable. They would have been hyperlinked to a detailed description of what Ravenstahl has done on this particular point and what he wants to do if re-elected. But that’s why I’m not a campaign person, because I think of stupid ideas like giving the voting public more information.

11 points ... no, wait, ...Franco?

It was actually a fairly big day in local politics. Luke Ravenstahl released a 11 point plan for a Pittsburgh Renaissance III and upgraded his website. But that was quickly overshadowed by the announcement that Franco Harris’s son, Franco “Doc” Harris, is getting in the race as a independent. Harris could garner quite a few votes, especially since Franco Harris is arguably the most popular former Steeler ever. If Doc Harris had run in the primary he might have siphoned off enough African-American votes to give Dowd a chance. Which is why it is clever of him to run as an independent (IMO). He might get enough Republican, progressive and African American votes in the general to win.

But I actually want to talk about Ravenstahl’s 11 points (which I have not memorized any of yet). This appeared on his website sometime in the recent past (maybe today, timed to coincide with the announcement). There is a certain amount of genius in these eleven vague statements, and apparently Luke has already given general answers when asked about what he has done specifically done already on any one of these points, or what he plans specifically to do to achieve these goals. Luke doesn’t do specifics, but the average voters love him for it. He’s not as boring as a lot of those DC politicians. Instead Luke is (still) like a college kid, smart and earnest but also someone who knows how to have a good time.

(devil’s advocate mode) To the average voter, these eleven points look like a lot of specifics. Just them being there makes it sound like Luke has done a lot of homework, and then explained it better than that Mark DeSantis ever did. DeSantis rambled on about micro-loans and letting workers rush out of the City. Luke told him, not gonna sell da city down da river (or up da river, or whatever). Luke is good at explaining things with just the right amount of details, so the average guy gets it. Let the brainiacs take a job in Luke’s administration, pushing pencils around. Meanwhile, Luke can make the big decisions the City needs. (/devil’s advocate mode)

You thing I’m wrong about the average voter? Wait till the primary. Pat Dowd needs to grab the attention of the average Joe soon, or all will be lost.

Party Wars IV: A New Hope

I remember last year smug conservative local blog commenters, who, right after smugly asking liberal blog posters whether they have a degree in business or economics or own a company, would then extol the virtues of Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. They are supposed to be smarter and more disciplined than their Democratic counterparts (read: Obama).

Except that now we have seen Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal up close. We have seen Michael Steele attempt to wrest control of the Republican party away from Rush Limbaugh by pointing out (quite rightly) that Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer, and his primary concern is ratings. If the conservative audience dwindles, Limbaugh would turn liberal like that. Not to say that most politicians don’t blow in the wind as well (e.g Arlen Specter, moderate Republican and Zell Miller, conservative southern Democrat), but entertainers almost by definition need to be able to change their philosophy or they will relegated to having a cult following (e.g. Ed Begley Jr).

And Bobby Jindal’s Republican reaction to the non-State of the Union address by President Obama was painful. His delivery reminded Jon Stewart of Fred Rodgers, and his rhetoric was simply to call once again for tax cuts. Why should we believe that the Republicans don’t want to follow Grover Nordquist’s philosophy of shrinking government to a size where it could be drown in a bath tub?

National talking heads have started to observe more and more that a sizable fraction of the population on the low end of the income scale not only does not pay tax but gets money back from the government. I see this as I prepare taxes for the poor at a VITA site, that they get three, four, five or even six thousand back in a tax return, including as much as forty eight hundred in earned income credit, and a refundable part of child tax credit up to a thousand dollars a child. So in addition to retuning federal taxes with-held, the feds give people thousands of dollars in additional income, to help them out for the year. Now, this is a matter of giving a single mom with two or three kid an extra five thousand dollars a year so, to stretch her income from $20,000 to $25,000, hardly giving her an opulent lifestyle.

My point in mentioning this is that these are the people who will see their assistance cut. Tax cuts are not going to hit rural red districts and rural red states. Conservatives who talk about cutting taxes one minute start talking about how defense is being cut too much the next, that our troops can do anything if we give them enough money (and out of work poor people to chew up). It’s head start and the earned income tax credit that conservatives are still gunning for. And if Mitch McConnell can turn around Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, even for one vote, then the Republicans (in the Senate) can demonstrate that the minority still controls the fate of this country. They may not be able to enact their own plans, but they would be able to keep the country from recovering from the recession that they caused. If they did that. Any bets that they would like to try (hint: did Rush Limbaugh say he would like Obama to succeed)?

What's in a gallon ... (about 20% more in England)

As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, I probably was a bit hasty in reporting the fantastic mileage of the cars on Top Gear on Thursday. I sorta knew there was something called an "Imperial Gallon" (aproximately 4.5L, as compared to approximately 3.8L for a US gallon, according to wikipedia). So the MPG the Top Gear guys quoted has a bigger G. If I use imperial gallons for my mileage, I think I am up around 50 MPG highway, and around 36 combined. Not bad.

Still, that VW Polo diesel is pretty impressive.

Our mileage does vary ...

I am a big fan of the Television Show “Top Gear” on BBC America. If you are not familiar with the show, it is three guys presenting (as they say in the UK) a program about cars. They review horribly expensive performance cars that no one will ever be able to afford, they put a celebrity guest in a Daewoo Nubria (actually the English Chevrolet model of the Daewoo) and have them race around their track and the have humorous challenges for the three presenters. It might be to spend 1000 pounds on a used car and turn it into a police car (complete with secret weapons), and then test out how well they did, or to have one them race a parachutist with a flying squirrel suit who has jumped from a helicopter, or to put to various challenges two luxury cars from the seventies (a Rolls and A Mercedes) that would have been the type to have been used by Elton John or Idi Amin. I hope you get the idea.

Anyway, the other night the challenge on the program was a race (not surprisingly). There is a resort town in England called Blackpool (the subject of a different series) where apparently they have a light turning on event every year (maybe this episode was near Christmas, I have no idea). They invite a celebrity to flip the switch, this year it was the Top Gear presenter’s turn. But the producers of top Gear decided to turn it into a race, where the three would start from a point in Switzerland and drive to Blackpool, 750 miles away. They could choose their own type of car. Whoever got there first would flick the switch. But the twist was they could only use one tank of gas.

So one fellow chose a Suburu diesel economy model that has a pretty big gas tank, one chose a Volkswagen mini type diesel car with a smaller gas tank, and one chose a Jaguar diesel touring sedan, because he reckoned the challenge was impossible and he wanted to run out of gas near his home (which is near London, a couple of hundred miles from Blackpool).

The segment was fun to watch and interesting, but what struck me was the gas mileage they reported as they were going along. They, of course, have cars that report real time gas mileage (I think many American cars also now do this, but probably not as many models as European car companies have that do). So the Volkswagen was getting 75 miles per gallon, the Suburu was getting 70 and even the Jag was getting 50 some miles per gallon.

This really pisses me off. All the Americans who say we need to drill off the coasts and in Alaska, so we can put fuel in the SUV’s that make under twenty MPG on the highway. Engine technology got better over the last thirty years, and the Europeans used that technology to make their cars more efficient and we used it to make our cars more powerful. We made heavier and less stable SUV’s that have the speed of a muscle car and the handling of a panel van. At under twenty miles per gallon.

I hope Obama gets serious and arranges to get some efficient cars imported over here, or even better sets up a plant in Pittsburgh to make them here. 75 MPG. Although your mileage may vary.

Actually getting something done ...

So on Thursday I complained that the Mayor (and the challenger Pat Dowd) had not updated their campaign websites in the last couple of years. Both have now done so (and I am confident that I had nothing to with that, I just spoke too soon, as I often do).

http://www.lukeformayor.com/

http://www.dowdformayor.com/

Well, both are in the process of doing so, both sites are under construction. Mayor Ravenstahl’s campaign site immediately adopts an informal tone when you type in the URL “Luke for Mayor”. By contrast, Pat Dowd’s uses the same phrase, but with his last name. Dowd’s has working widgets for joining the mailing list, becoming a volunteer or making a donation, and nothing else. Mayor Ravenstahl’s site has a widget for emailing the Ravenstahl campaign and a phone number, and nothing else. So the broke Pat Dowd is once again showing much more internet acumen than his competitor. But neither of them is offering us their assessment of where the City is, or where they think it should go. ‘cause voters wouldn’t be interested in that (a statement I make tongue in cheek, but in fact is probably all too accurate).

It still appears that Pat Dowd is not interested in going after Mayor Ravenstahl’s little mis-steps (Tiger Woods, the SUV, the Lemieux tournament, etc), although he does end up talking about trash cans and where the City is going (at least, that is what I took away from this post on the Pittsburgh Comet).

Meanwhile, the Mayor has a new campaign slogan “Getting it done”. I pointed out, on the Comet, how that made me think of Larry the Cable Guy’s line “Git’er done”. I like a Mayor who does not hold himself above the rest of us and all, but this Mayor seems to be actively pushing the idea that he doesn’t need to explain his plans or history to us, that it is enough that he says he has made accomplishments, compared to his predecessors. In fact, his democratic committee endrsement letter (http://matth614.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-seeking.html) indicates that before he took over, the City was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Before he took over … during Bob O’Connor’s brief tenure?

The eternal Luke for Mayor

Matt Hogue was kind enough to show the letter the Mayor sent around to Democratic Committee people asking for their endorsement. At the bottom of the letter he listed his campaign website, so I had to look (of course). It still says copyright 2007. I believe the Mayor (or his staff) is putting some effort into the Mayor's facebook page, or some kind of facebook campaign site, but then why not put that into the endorsement letter, instead of the neglected campaign website. Now, I always thought the Mayor's campaign website at once played to the Mayor's strengths by having streaming video of the Mayor talking about issues and also insulted the intelligence of voters, by having video of the Mayor talking about issues. Which is to say that the Mayor gives no real details about his plans or his accomplishments. Sad to say that plays well with Pittsburghers. Well, you can fall in love all over again with the Mayor like you did two years ago, because as far as I can tell the videos have not been updated (I will feel silly if they have been). The Mayor has a million freakin’ bucks in his campaign war chest and hasn’t updated his web site. I can understand why Pat Dowd hasn’t, he has no money (and it’s not like people are raising money for him over the internet …oh).

Anyway, we can see how seriously candidates take the internet in this town. As an interactive medium, it looks like we still have a ways to go.

And you were expecting ...

What did you think of Obama’s speech? I thought it was good but not great. It didn’t hit rhetorical highs, and it had to navigate through the selective madness that is the government’s role in regulating the free market, 2009 edition. I believe the speech was intended to serve a particular purpose, and I believe it probably achieved that purpose (at least mostly achieved).

Obama is not trained as an economist, but there are a bunch of people at the White House who are. I suspect they told Obama about the importance of expectations in economics, how if people believe the economy is improving soon they should start spending now (to take advantage of those great bargains out there), and if enough people start spending it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy (the economy does improve because all that buying improves the unemployment picture). Obama’s intention was maybe a bit more subtle, something closer to what he achieved in the debates. Before the debates, people believed that McCain’s experience made him more qualified than Obama to be President. After the debates, I think a majority of Americans (who had watched the debates) thought McCain was a tried and yet angry old man, and that Obama was in command of the facts, calm, rational and reassuring. That is what Obama was trying to achieve last night, to remind Americans that no matter how childish or foolish Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) might seem when giving sound bites or droning on, on those Sunday morning chat-fests, it is the calm, smart and reassuring guy who is in charge.

Bobby Jindal’s Republican response should have been more compelling, it must have seemed that way on paper. It was pretty simple and clear. But his smile looked like a comedian parodying a politician, his half apology for the last eight years was not convincing and his prescription – put money in our hands with tax cuts, was the central prescription that didn’t work for the Bush administration. He kept saying Americans can do anything, in slightly different formats, but (I say) it probably doesn’t seem like that to the guy looking for work. As an introduction to a national audience, it was not a good moment for Jindal, let alone the Republicans as a whole.

What do you call a nation that doesn't want to speak about race?

I finally got a chance to read Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards” speech. Contrary to popular opinion Mr. Holder showed a fine sense of the history of the Civil Rights movement (it was down near the bottom, while his “cowards remark was near the beginning, so readers could be forgiven for not noticing Mr. Holder’s actual remarks). I have been struck by something, though. Mr. Holder suggested that we do not now have a quality discussion about race. The comments I have heard about his speech certainly validate that proposition. People have said it is not appropriate for the Attorney General to make these remarks. People have complained about the Clinton administration record on the discussion of race. Tony Norman called Mr. Holder’s remarks “hamfisted”. Chad Hermann complained that Mr. Holder did not give credit to Union Soldiers who died to free his ancestors or to civil rights pioneers (except that Mr. Holder did, but not early enough in his speech to suit Mr. Hermann, who chose to ignore that he had done it). All this commentary on how Mr. Holder spoke, but not much on what he said.

Except for Michelle Norris on Meet the Press, who talked about how there are two dialogues on race in America. The white dialogue, as I mentioned above, is very focused on how race is no longer an issue. African Americans have to take responsibility for themselves now, white America has given them an education and access to jobs, and African America doesn’t try hard enough. Except that the education has been about as low quality as they come, and the jobs are not accessible by bus and rarely open to African Americans anyway. I believe she said the African American dialogue is much more of how some African Americans have gotten ahead, a few have succeeded, but most are still struggling. The struggle for civil rights is far from over, but white America no longer wants to talk about it.

A tale of two blogs

So a couple of blogs used a bit of what I said in Dowd versus Goliath, in very different ways. Actually, neither mentioned the name of my blog, but one linked to me and the other didn’t.

So, first of all, “a local blog that fancies itself a source of thoughtful political punditry”. Um, I have never said that I think my blog is a source of thoughtful political punditry. Because saying it doesn’t make it so. If my readers don’t think I am interesting, they won’t read my blog (clearly). To me, this is a way for me to write letters to the editor anytime I want, and I am not pretending that it is anything else. I certainly don’t go around talking about how people are urging me to write this blog.

So I asked a throwaway question, how did we get on what seems, to me, to be a weird schedule for electing Mayors. And Chad Hermann was caused to laugh out loud, that Ed Heath would be so stupid as to have forgotten the death of Bob O’Connor. Except that we already had a special election, with Mark DeSantis and his team defeated by Luke Ravenstahl, and Mayor Ravenstahl won the right to serve out O’Connor’s term. The timing of the next Mayoral election has nothing to do with the death of Mayor O’Connor. Period.

The other blog that mentioned me was Chris Potter’s Slag Heap (at the City Paper). He had a link to my post and a paragraph he thought apropos to a point he was making. No slam about whether I fancy myself a pundit, just a point to make. The paragraph he quoted supported his thought, but it was also one of my favorites from that post. So I am very happy for it to stand or fall on its own, as a representative of my thinking.

trash cans ... with lights?

So Bill Peduto announced a while ago that he was not going to run for Mayor. As did Doug Shields, then he repeated himself (to some fanfare) a little while ago. And Pat Dowd (or someone on his Council campaign) had said he wouldn’t … never mind (I doubt I can find the quote). But Bill has done a couple of small things that made him seem like better Mayoral material. There were the racks for parking meters to clip bikes to, which would have advertising on and so would not cost the City a cent. And of course, a few weeks ago there were the LED street lights he would be getting in for the City. They would be just as bright, whiter than the old street lights, use a fraction of the electricity, and by the way the initial cost would be free. Peduto had found some saps … er, fund, that would give us the money to change all our street lights. And all was happiness and celebration in the city of Pittsburgh (well, that might have had to do with some football game).

Uh, …

The Mayor has just announced the City will accept bids for companies to change all of our street lights.

?

!

Dowd Versus Goliath

This is nuts. The mecurial Mr Dowd is going to announce? I think it might be worthwhile to put on our Chris Briem hats and try to speculate what will happen.

First, which Pat Dowd will show up to campaign? The earnest door knocker who listens to each constituent? Or the guy who stands up at the Council table and argues that other Council members should not get paid for their legal bills (even though they were helping Dowd out with that Lamar sign appeal) because they didn’t ask for money ahead of time?

Second, I am worried that the one thing Dowd won’t do is attack Ravenstahl on his record of personal ethical mistakes, that Dowd will run a high minded, clean campaign as far as this goes. Remember, voters were much more worried about whether Obama was/is a communist Muslim pointy headed professor-type than whether we actually need to enforce banking regulations.

Third, $2000 against $800,000?

And finally, and here is where we need to put on our Briem caps, does anyone remember the special election in Council District 7 that occurred when Ferlo went off to Harrisburg as a State Senator? The one that first put Len Bodack into Council? There was a special election and a primary shortly there after, and multiple candidates in at least one of those. Bodack, I believe, had the ACDC endorsement and his father had been a State Senator for a long time. Still, Bodack only won a plurality, but that was enough to propel him into office. For the current race, Dowd could (theoretically) win the DeSantis vote for the primary, which is to say Oakland, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill and some progressive corridor of Highland Park. Carmen Robinson could split the African American vote with Ravenstahl (or even take it all). If Ravenstahl takes everything else, that will be enough. Two candidates running against the Mayor means the “Anyone but Luke” vote, to the extent it exists, could be split. Maybe Shields or Peduto will campaign for Dowd (although I suspect the have reason not to like him), but in doing so they would only cut their own throats politically.

When is the next Mayoral election after this one, in 2013? How’d we get on such a weird schedule? Anyway, could Dowd be positioning himself for a future run? Only if Ravenstahl moves into Onorato’s spot as Onorato moves into Rendell’s spot. But Dowd could lose his Council seat in the meantime. Remember that he beat Bodack by only 80 some votes last time (and received a call from Howard Dean for his effort, a sort of dubious endorsement). Bodack could run again, pointing out that Bodack had never abandoned District 7 to run for Mayor (although District 7 abandoned Bodack).

Public Works: Bridging the Chasm

Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize in economics and I have bupkis. And I trust his assessment on a lot of issues. Still, in today’s column in the NYTimes, he states that the CBO’s judgment is that “over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce”. I have no idea what growth numbers they are thinking of, but Krugman goes on to say “$800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm”. I have to wonder if he wants bridge the chasm or fill it in with money. If we borrow $2.9 trillion, we would have all that money, but how would we ever pay it off (how will we ever pay off $800 billion, for that matter).

Meanwhile, Krugamn also complains that since Obama wanted a bipartisan stimulus bill and compromised with the Republicans, he didn’t get everything he wanted. Um, I’m pretty sure if I look up the definition of compromise, it will say something about giving up some things you want to get support from rivals (in this instance, anyway). I’m pretty sure the Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted, or even much of anything they wanted. Except that if, as Krugman predicts, the stimulus bill is not much of a success, then the Republicans can say it’s not their fault, that they helped get the bill through the closely divided Senate. But, the Republicans can say they were right all along, the stimulus, as the Democrats wanted it, was the wrong idea.

So we have learned the Republicans might be intending to continue to play the game they started a couple of years ago, with some modification. We will have to see if the Republicans can block a vote for cloture on a less important bill, which would mean that Specter and the Senators from Maine would have to vote with their Republican comrades. If that happens, it will be a long two years of blocked votes. Regardless, look for whatever RNC money there is to come into Pennsylvania, and look for a strong conservative to run against Specter in the primary.

Cognitive dissonance everywhere ...

On the national side: Barack Obama says we need to grow up. We need to stop acting childish and trying to spend our way to prosperity. But when the Republicans push more tax cuts as the answer to our problems, what do the Democrats say? Well, people might only save the few extra pennies per paycheck in reduced payroll taxes, and where’s the stimulus in that? I guess we are supposed to stop spending tomorrow, meanwhile just like Bush said after 9/11, it is our patriotic duty to keeping spending.

On the other side from the Democrats, Michael Steele says the jobs the government pays for are not real jobs and only temporary. Um, I assume this recession is supposed to only be temporary too.

Locally, Doug Shields looked at the recent history of local races for Mayor, his own history in city wide races, Ravenstahl’s war chest and his own, and decided that staying President of Council is not such a bad move. I remember a few months ago Ravenstahl accused Shields of being the race, and Shields said “hunh?” (I paraphrase). Pat Dowd has yet to announce he is in the race for sure or not, he has only said he is thinking about it.

We in the Burghosphere want someone to run. Dowd would be a good candidate for us because he has tried to do the populist thing, running and winning first school board and then a Council seat by knocking on doors and talking to people. I know personally he was willing to talk about issues, I suspect if I had tried to talk about potholes he would have given me a mix of practical advice (here’s who you call) and some policy stuff about the city’s debt and smart ways to fill potholes.

But there are a couple of limitations. First, has Dowd done a good job in Council? The fact I can ask the question at all is sort of a problem. Second, do the qualities of a good legislator translate into those of a good city executive? We mostly don’t think (in the Burgosphere) that Ravenstahl is a good Mayor, but would Pat Dowd be? Thirdly (and kind of importantly), how hard do we want to fight this? I myself have argued that someone running against Ravenstahl needs to go for the jugular, needs to highlight all the Mayor’s indiscretions, all the sweetheart deals, and pound the lack of progress on dealing with the City’s real problems. But doing that puts the Mayor’s supporters in a bad light. It makes the ACDC look bad for endorsing him, all the politicians at the City, County and State level who support him look kind of bad. How are City Democratic voters going to feel about a bloody fight? Maybe if Dowd runs (kind of dirty) as a sacrificial lamb, and then the Republican candidate finishes the job. Then we might decide Luke wasn’t so bad after all, compared to a Republican.

Then again, I have to say I think the only influence the Burghospere has is with maybe a small part of the local progressive blob. We have even less influence than the PG.

I thought stuff was supposed to get better after Obama got elected. And I didn’t even say anything Geithner apparently having his voice crack at his bailout rollout, or how he was apparently laughed at.

They're just not that into you ...

Paul Krugman, in the NYTimes today, is still spouting doom and gloom about the stimulus. He is unhappy, and with good reason, that parts of the bill that helped poorer Americans have been cut out of the Senate version, like direct aid to states and money for unemployment insurance, food stamps and rebuilding schools. Meanwhile, the aid to first time homebuyers was doubled. This was done to please maybe three Republican Senators, just enough to get the thing passed. Maybe food stamps isn’t a classic stimulus item, but it would get spent.

Krugman points out the Obama tried to lure Republicans with the initial bill by adding in a lot of tax cuts. For his trouble, he got no House Republicans and apparently maybe three Senate Republicans. After the bill goes to Conference there would be two possibilities. The Democrats could achieve a hollow victory by sticking to their principles and restoring some of the cut items, in which case Senate Republicans would defeat the Conference bill. Or the Democrats could cave and say screw you to the poor, just to get three Senate votes.

Krugman likes to say the Republicans were in charge for the last eight years. Barney Frank said six on Meet the Press and I like to say just four. Still, four years with majorities in Congress, a Republican president and a friendly Supreme Court. You would think the Congress would have passed a balanced budget law, or removed all the Clinton laws about lending money for houses to the poor or added a line item veto. I guess Congress thought they had time for that, that they could get around to it. Even now, Republican Congresspersons and conservative commenters say that when Republicans wanted to reform the banking sector and get rid of those bad mortgages, “they” wouldn’t let them. I have, God’s Truth, no idea who “they” were. We all should remember that when the Democrats wanted to filibuster to prevent some four Bush judicial appointees from being confirmed, the Republicans talked about removing the ability to filibuster (now, in the last Congress, Republicans set a record of threats to filibuster resulting in bills being pulled). The sum point of which being that the Republicans had four years to fix things and did nothing, actually, with tax cuts, they probably made things worse.

The title of that current movie “He’s just not that into you” probably sums up my view of the Republicans. The day after the inauguration conservative pundits and Congresspersons were singing the praises of Obama. Now, they have turned on him. Turned out the romance was pretty short lived, and they are not that into Obama.

Did Bill Murray get bit?

Hmm, today is Groundhog day.




Hmm, today is Groundhog day.



Hmm, today is Groundhog day.




Hey ...

Steelers win

Rah.

What's that line from the Simpsons? "Happy fans will be looting and turning over cars in Pittsburgh tonight?" Well, they use the name of what ever city is in the Super Bowl.

Stimulus Redux

So I watched “Face the Nation” this morning, which had Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer on. I don’t particularly like either man, which is neither here nor there (and of no consequence to either). McConnell was complaining about the stimulus bill, complaining about it’s size. 150 million for honey bee insurance and 600 million for government employees to buy (American) cars, he said. Well, actually, we do know that bees are in trouble, although I am not sure that bee insurance will help the bees themselves much.

But it is likely the Republicans will assert themselves, as I suggested in my last post. Maybe it will be smooth sailing in the Senate, maybe not; I doubt the Republicans want to be left holding the bag of blocked stimulus, so to speak. I think the Republicans will vote to help pass something, possibly a much smaller bill, and then it will go to conference. That could be where the real fun starts.

Now my memory is that NPR ran stories about how from January 2003 to December 2006, the Republicans increasingly kept Democratic Congressmen out of conference committee negotiations. I don’t know if the negotiations were done in formal meetings or informal get togethers, but I remember the end result was that the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats in Congress (something Mitch McConnell today specifically said can’t happen). So the question still is, will Harry Reid grow a pair, or at least a backbone? Will he force Republicans to speak forever? In reading the Wikipedia article on conference committees, it says that when the bill goes back to the Senate, it could still be filibustered. So it is possible to imagine that this process could drag on for a while.

A couple of stimulus issues that Republicans like to complain are support for education at all levels, and alternative energy industry support. I think both are actually pretty important and should be funded through the stimulus. Putting money into the pockets of construction workers to rehab old schools and hopefully improving the education of students is as good as have workers test bridges or repave highways (not better, but just as good). And investing in our future can hardly be a bad thing. Pretty much ditto for money for research and alternative power. Both may yield possible future benefits, in addition to the money (from wages) those employees would spend. I have a feeling the Senate Republicans will try to kill that finding where ever it shows up, which is a general shame. But republicans could admit that investing in the future is a form of stimulus, maybe America a better bet for that future.

Jack Kelly’s column today was interesting. He was saying something I have said myself (although not here, I think), putting more troops in Afghanistan won’t work. I was quoting someone who might have been on the News Hour, and who referenced the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. Interestingly, neither the commenter I remember nor Mr. Kelly had an alternative suggestion. Kelly, at least, I think just wants to keep criticizing everything Obama does.

Now comes the hard part?

I, um, don’t know how the Senate’s procedures work, exactly. Personal holds? Votes to cloture, with a flip side of a threat to filibuster?

Now that the stimulus package, with all its warts, has passed the House, will the Senate take up the same exact bill (that would make things simpler) and maybe amend it, or introduce a new bill? But the vote in the House worries me. All the Republicans in the House voted against the stimulus. That’s a bad precedent. Now, if even a single Republican in the Senate breaks ranks, he or she might as well change parties for all the crap the Republicans will drop on him or her.

But does the Stimulus have to endure a vote to cloture? Because as I remember if no Republicans agree to break ranks, then it won’t make it. The Democrats have enough votes to pass the thing, but not enough to insure debate is closed (or whatever the frack cloture means). If ever there was a time for Harry Reid to grow a backbone or grow a pair, this is it. Make Mitch McConnell stand for 12 hours or more. If the country is not going to get a stimulus package, make the frickin’ Republicans suffer a little. The bankers took our tax money and gave it to themselves as this year’s bonus. Some economist (Martin Feldstein?) on the news hour whined that the bankers have gotten huge bonuses for years and if a bank didn’t give its executives bags of money, the executives would get petulant and leave and take their obviously superior skills elsewhere (a. we have seen have talented our bankers are as the stock market dropped a full fucking third, unemployment is shooting up because of massive layoffs and the banks are hoarding money, refusing to loan it out to anyone because then it wouldn’t be in the banks to award as bonuses to bank executives, and b. the other economist on the News Hour said ‘good, let the executives leave, they can be replaced by long time middle managers who might have a long range view).

Anyway, now I am worried. When does the Senate take up this thing?

Firemen in "Luke" warmed water ...

So there was apparently a “solar” seminar yesterday on the South Side. Would have been cool (so to speak) to go to, but I do actually have to work. Maybe some private sector businesses and residential homeowners made some plans or signed some contracts.

Mayor Ravenstahl committed to setting up a solar water heater on a firehouse in the north or the west in the fall. Woo, we’re a “solar” city (as designated by the Feds); we have a solar water heater (Jimmy Carter put up a solar panels to heat water at the White House about thirty years ago, Reagan promptly took them down).

It’s not so much that we have a “smart grid” as a Luke-warm grid.

Ethics n'at...

The Pittsburgh Comet brings up the issue of sporting event tickets and politics once again, and once again I get pretty pissed off. I remember the issue from when the Mayor was first filling out the sheet that reported his debts and gifts that had been given to him. This was back maybe two, three years ago (it was a Rich Lord story, I am too lazy to chase it down once again). The Mayor I believe listed his mortgage, but not an outstanding line of credit for home improvements. He did not list any tickets for sporting events because they were all under $100, and so were under the reporting requirements. Except that they are not supposed to be over $250 cumulatively for the year, or they all need to be reported (actually, I believe they are just not supposed to be over $250 for the year, but let’s be generous here). Now there is the whole issue of the Mayor, the County Executive and the Governor going to the Super Bowl.

I think that Obama should step in, and have Congress pass a local ethics law that stadiums around the country should set up special politician seats. Not a box, not even very good seats (because they aren’t going to be paid for them). A seat for a Mayor and wife, for a Governor, for maybe City Council persons and maybe one other (County Executive?). Also maybe a couple of seats for visiting politicians (this probably wouldn’t work for the Super Bowl, BTW, where a stadium might have to bite the bullet and have seats for three sets of local politicians, plus maybe some for a visiting President and secret service). And that would be it. Have it this way all over the country. So if a sports franchise wanted to get an amphitheatre built with public money, they would have to influence the Governor or whomever the old fashioned way: money and possibly a championship game ball. Go Steelers.

I’ve started working on taxes again, so I will probably go back to posting less here. But hey, I am doing the work of the IRS, so the karma balances.

Harrisburg's parking garage lease is ... well ... parked

So Harrisburg was one of two cities that Mayor Ravenstahl mentioned when he advanced the idea of leasing away Pittsburgh's City parking garages. Turns out that idea faltered in Harrisburg. The union representing garage employees didn't like the idea, and then the plan faltered and finally died in a conflict between their Mayor and city council. Sound familiar?

Bram and the Huddler(?) both talk about this idea a bit. I personally would feel a lot better about this idea if we had a Mayor I thought we could trust. Who would our Mayor be likely to pick, a civic minded firm that would hold only raise parking rates a dollar or two, to ensure a reasonable profit, or a firm that contributes to the Mayor's campaign? Parking rates would go up, just when people are feeling nervous about their jobs.

Meanwhile, what firm would commit to a seventy five or ninety nine year lease. Are we still going to be using cars in twenty five or fifty years? Even if we are, will downtown, knowledge based employees be going into an office every day, or will they be telecommuting, tele-meeting and maybe having a coffee with a client in a Squirrel Hill coffee shop?

I don't want to just opposed everything the Mayor proposes, but so far, he has given me little reason to do otherwise.

What 100 days?

Commenters to my last post picked up on my closing thought, that if Obama has not fixed things soon, people will be very disappointed ("throw the bum out"). I expressed that thought because expectations for Obama seem abnormally high. Were they this high for Clinton in January of '93? Is that why the Democratic Congress seemed to quickly refuse to support him (this is my vague recollection)?

I skimmed through the comments in the New York Times by speechwriters to Presidents. The speechwriters themselves were from more Republican administrations than Democrat (starting with William Safire), and they all complained that the inaugural address had no overarching theme. I suspect if Obama had hammered a single theme, they would have accused him of ignoring the complexity of America's problems. Still, all of them said it was a good speech (talk about damning with faint praise). I guess that fact that God himself did not send a sign of blessing was a let down for Obama's supporters (and something his detractors could pick up on).

Inaugural address:

I didn’t hear it, (the streaming video on my work PC at noon was fitful), I printed it out and skimmed the text online. I suspect it will be held up as one of the great speeches of the modern era, but in any event I was impressed with what I read and how it was written. It captured much of how I feel about things, although not the kind of indigestible moral ambiguity that I think exists in reality. So, for example, when Obama said that we should not give up our ideals for expedience’s sake, well, we always have in the past. But Obama wants to lift our eyes, to a higher vision. Fair enough, I would be disappointed if he didn’t. And much of the rest of the address was spot on, in my opinion.

Now, if he hasn’t changed and fixed everything by next Wednesday, throw the bum out.

On the local side ...

Congratulations to the Steelers for winning the AFC championship. I will admit that I almost prefer they would have lost, only because I hate to see die hard fans spending their money to go to Tampa Bay (which is where I believe the Super Bowl will be played this year). Some of them may not be able to afford it. But, hey, I don’t want to be the Grinch here. Go Steelers!

Well, another thing that bothers me about the Steelers win and if they win the Super Bowl is that Ravenstahl will be that much more popular going into the primary. I renew my musing that Carmen Robinson might be able to pull both the African American and the progressive vote. Being a lawyer and an East End resident, she has a couple of the prerequisites already. A couple of things would have to happen. First, Shields and Dowd would have to drop out of the race soon. Maybe not this second, but soon enough that if they threw their support behind Robinson, it would help. Second, Robinson would have to get out there to progressive places. Taza d’Ora (however it is written), the Quiet Storm, the Unitarian churches in Shadyside and the North Side, some thing in Squirrel Hill and some sort of event on Pitt’s campus. These are the places where she could reach out to progressives. She would need to find a progressive patter, even if it was just something about encouraging State support for solar, an Oakland downtown connector and human rights for all. The more she said, the better, of course, but there is still a strong ABL contingent out there among progressives, if the blogs are any indication.

Mind you, I haven’t met Ms. Robinson (or perhaps she prefers Mrs.). I don’t know if she is even a reasonable candidate. This is all by way of speculation. But I do believe she is the one current candidate that has a chance to cobble together a coalition that might beat the current Mayor. There is more she would have to do, of course. Dredge up and repeat the Mayor’s various escapades. Punch hard on the debt and the under funded pension funds. Find ways to encourage voters from the South Side, the North Side and the West Hills to at least stay home because they would be embarrassed to vote for Ravenstahl. All that would give her a chance to be the Democratic candidate for Mayor, which would make her a likely shoe-in in November.

The Sunday Before ...

Barack Obama can do nothing until he is officially in office. Yet already there is a timetable for US troops to leave Iraq and the Israeli’s and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire. The bailout of the economy is already in full steam. Conservatives have been mollified and there is talk Obama will reverse the bitter cold gripping the country and in fact global warming itself just with the power of his smile. OK, maybe not that last (David Brooks has a line about how Obama was offering, at his dinner with conservative pundits, to change water into wine and asking what grape and vintage the diners wanted).

There does seem to be a huge sense of anticipation right now. A lot of high expectations, including, quite frankly my own. I think most people who have these expectations for Obama think he will miraculously create good jobs and better schools (yes, they are likely to be disappointed). My expectations are somewhat more modest and at once perhaps rather higher. Obama has a reputation as someone who does bring in people who should have different views than his own. He also has a reputation for being able to make the big speech. I am hoping both of those qualities combine to make him a more successful President. I am hoping that the Congress will pass Obama’s key proposals with only minor modification, because some key Republicans will sign on as individuals. And I hope he vetoes an appropriations bill that has been too laden down with Democratic earmarks (throws an elbow, as they say in the NBA), to establish he won’t go along with a measure just because the party wants it.

I do want to make an observation. Obama has (probably intentionally) allowed several parallels to be made between himself and Lincoln. I think if Doris Kearns Goodwin hadn’t written “Team of Rivals”, someone would have invented the term. Actually, I don’t know the origin of the title of her book, so maybe it had already been invented. Anyway, with one key appointment, Obama has decidedly reinforced the comparison to Lincoln.

In the first century of the country’s existence, the office of Secretary of State was probably the second highest office in the land (and no surprise it is number three in the line of succession). In 1860 William Seward was one of the most important figures in the Republican party. He might well have been the nominee for President in 1860, but might have been too strong an opponent to slavery. But when Lincoln chose him for Secretary of State, people thought it was a risky move, especially in time of war. Seward might have dominated the government, pushed the country bumpkin Lincoln aside. Instead Seward gradually was impressed by Lincoln, and in the matter of a year of so became his closest friend and biggest supporter.

Choosing Hillary Clinton is, for Barack Obama, a means of duplicating Lincoln’s big gamble. Of course, Secretary of State is not the same office it was then. But it is a chance for the ambitious Clinton to make a mark on history. And while she is not actually an expert on foreign policy (despite her own claims) or even much more experienced than Obama, she will work hard, perhaps harder than anyone else in the nation would, to find a way to make a mark on history. I think she will prove to be a brilliant choice because I think that if it looks like she is going to fail, she will work that much harder and find ways to salvage even a measure of victory from defeat. That sense that she will work superhumanly gives me hope that Obama will unleash her on the Middle East or on Sudan, and she will succeed where so many others failed.

A new lease on life for the pension funds ...

Several bloggers (http://pghcomet.blogspot.com/, http://pghisacity.blogspot.com/, http://matth614.blogspot.com/ ) are asking why Mayor Ravenstahl’s proposed plan to lease City garages, and possibly surface lots and parking meters, is a bad one. I have to say, Chicago has done it (I don’t know how successfully) and Harrisburg is in the process. Ravenstahl proposes using the revenue from the leases for our underfunded pensions. On paper this seems like a good idea.

Still, I can think of some issues/questions. First, if we are just looking for money to catch up our pensions with a big payment, why not sell the garages? The articles makes it sound like the new operator would pay the lease up front, and apparently this was done in Chicago (500 some million for a 99 year lease, maybe). Once they are leased, there might be some efficiencies in operation the new operator can achieve, but I think that would be limited. The operator would need to make more money than the City did, and since lots are usually pretty full on weekdays (at City and private lots, I gather), the new operator would likely just raise rates. I’m sure the justification would be that now that the lots are privately operated, they should reflect the rates of other private garages.

The problem with that is that I am sure the lower City rates currently exert a downward pressure on private parking rates. All rates would probably increase downtown, near Station Square and on the North Side by a couple of dollars for the whole day within a couple of years (more than they would have). This wouldn’t have a huge effect on downtown except that it would slow any new retail growth there. It is possible the Port Authority might increase their fares as well, leveraging the effect of the new parking rates. Downtown would become even more deserted at night.

The other thing I worry about is that Ravenstahl and his administration have already demonstrated their willingness to show favor to campaign donors. From Lamar to Club Pittsburgh, the Steelers to CLT Technologies, the City has given preference for City contracts to firms that are either politically connected or donate money. Might they do the same sort of thing with the City’s apparently valuable garages? What’s to stop them? City Council, which showed promise with the election of Kraus, Burgess and Dowd to ally themselves with Peduto and Shields, has instead taken itself off the field with it’s own bitter internal squabbles. The Ethics Bard is a joke, and the County and the State offer no recourse. Ravenstahl remains largely untouchable.

That’s why Ravenstahl’s proposal is troubling.

Legacy

George W. Bush has latched onto the idea that his major legacy is that no new attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11. Never mind the not unreasonable charge that the President could have done something to stop 9/11. It strikes me that the way Bush kept terrorists from attacking on US soil was by sending a whole bunch of targets over to Iraq.

Anonymous comments redux

I was recently involved in something of a comment skirmish (flame war) over at Bram’s Comet. This was the situation: Bram did a post about the upcoming Mayoral Campaign. The first comment, from an anonymous commenter, suggested that Bram’s opinion was incorrect (fair enough) and then asked whether Bram had any educational background in or experience in politics. Now, I think anyone who doesn’t see the huge irony in an anonymous commenter asking for more information from Bram is either hugely irony-impaired or doesn’t understand things in general. When Bram responded, a few comments later, he laughed off the request for information and then made some other point. Meanwhile, later another anonymous commenter also asked Bram the same question about his background.

So I had an opinion about the post, and after I expressed it I mentioned my own very old education and and pretty limited experience in politics, mostly as a joke. My intention with the joke, though, was to point out that I am pretty sure most commenters on any blog are not actively involved in politics, for a variety of reasons. I think it is also a safe assumption that most anonymous commenters don’t publish their own blog. I say that since one reason to comment is draw attention to your own blog (if you comment intelligently), IMO.

I got back an anonymous immediate comment: “A 25 year old pol sci degree and a 6 month stint as a coffee boy are not "credentials" Ed. They are more like glossed over line items on your resume.”

Ok, maybe I took that the wrong way. I know how I come off sometimes (if not all the time). If the commenter had not been another anonymous commenter …

Anyway, my immediate response was to ask what the anonymous commenter brings to the table. I assume anyone would understand I was asking why they thought they could “dis” my experience, what makes them better than me?

There was some more unrelated back and forth, some of it clearly in support of Bram. When the anonymous commneter responded to me, the response to (s)he brought to the table was “The painfully obvious”. I assume it was the same anonymous commenter (no way to be sure).

Now, maybe this is just the way this person talks. Maybe they are used to saying this stuff and no one ever calls them on it. And again, I know how I can come off.

Still, … at this point I was pissed. To my way of thinking, this person was hiding behind an anonymous label and claiming that I am full of shit. And making the claim not because they said I had said something stupid about politics, but because I had listed my education and experience. And I had only done that because frickin’ anonymous commenters were pestering Bram about his experience. I wrote a lenghty (surprise) comment in response.

So this went on for a while. The anonymous commenter used phrases like “pompous bragging” and claimed (s)he “was just pointing out the facts”. I made a statement wondering if some commenters used being anonymous as a license to be rude and insulting (exhibit A: a bunch of comments on posts on Pittsburgh Hoagie). I said that what was being pointed out was not facts but opinions. I also tried to explain Pat Dowd’s argument that anonymous commenting makes political discourse on blogs impossible. The anonymous commenter made the reasonable point that if you are not anonymous, you might be subject to reprisals. They also said “I am a bit more private, I don't want people knowing about my 2002 Hyundai or my folding bike. This is a political blog. It's big boy time.” Yep, tell someone they are being infantile, that is always persuasive. And yes, I am writing this post, so I may not be doing the anonymous comments justice.

Look, I know anonymous commenting is not going away. Even though anonymous comments aren’t allowed here, I suspect someone could find a way to end up commenting as Anonymous. But I think if you are commenting anonymously, you lose the right to ask about some other poster or commenter's past, or to make other personal attacks. Or as the old saying goes, simile if you’re going to say that. Because I can take a joke or even a reasonable put down. I draw the line when you all but say you are a better person than me or that my opinion is somehow forfeit because I don’t comment anonymously.

Some little asides ...

I noticed a story in the PG that stated that the number of take home cars for City employees has crept back up, to 42. The Public Safety Director mentioned that a zone commander (essentially a police captain) had to call an officer to get a ride to a crime scene. How's does this commander get to work normally? Never the less, the cars went back to the zone commanders. Then back to public works supervisors. The Mayor had vetoed legislation on limits to take home cars, but promised to go ahead and limit them. And we see the result.

A lot of people are worked up over the thought of Iran with a nuclear weapon. they could smuggle it into the US and blow up Heinz Field (and the rest of Pittsburgh). But I think that if the Iranians get a working nuke, they will put it on a boat and sail over next to Israel. Even if they also wipe out the Gaza Strip, I suspect the Iranians would see it as worth it.

The Mayor lucks out (again)?

I’m not sure if Mayor Ravenstahl should be relieved or insulted. After all, when the owners of Club Pittsburgh needed a political favor, they did not go to Ravenstahl. They went, first, to Doug Shields and then later to Yarone Zober. Shields, according to Shields but largely backed up by the owners of Club Pittsburgh, sent them away saying there was nothing he could do. But Zober put them in contact with George Specter, who wrote a letter cancelling the BBI letter (and order) that had been issued saying that Club Pittsburgh had to stop the activities like Live Nude Male Go-Go Dancers.

So on the one hand, the owners of Club Pittsburgh did not involve the Mayor directly in this pretty clearly illegal activity of rewarding a powerful donor with the ability to continue improperly zoned activities (which the Mayor has declared not illegal, apparently ending any investigation). The Mayor’s hands are currently clean, although he is pretty clearly on the wrong side of this issue (the right side would be to publicly reprimand Zober and Specter, and order the club closed immediately until it is either rezoned or in compliance with its current zoning). On the other hand, the owners of Club Pittsburgh did not go to Ravenstahl, perhaps because he gives off a strong anti-gay vibe. I can just about see the Mayor being upset about that. For us, maybe we can take some solace (a quantum of solace, perhaps) that our Mayor may be, currently, slightly smarter than Rod Blagojevitch. Or maybe not, since Illinois is on the way to getting rid of Governor Rod.

Finances not here, but for the whole country ...

Weren’t there “rags to riches” novels at the turn of the last century and through the twenties? That’s my vague understanding, that as business tycoons prospered, common folk dreamed of winning some kind of life lottery. It seems to me like we are still playing that game, but with more players, at least until recently. The thing is, there are more people getting rich now, so much so that newspaper articles talk about absurd new distinctions, such as the merely rich and the super rich.

I remember that during the nineties, when we had the internet bubble, people who knew how to make web pages could be hired for silly amounts of money. More recently, during the housing bubble, flipping houses was al the rage, either done by skilled craftsmen who bought dilapidated houses for little money and provided the “sweat equity”, or by the wealthy as a kind of sport. In both instances the government played along, allowing people to become quite wealthy based on abstract ideas (not found in nature). Politicians found it convenient and useful to allow people to make short term profits. This extended, not surprisingly, into the financial sector.

Michael Lewis and David Einhorn have written a couple of essays for the NYTimes on what happened in the financial market (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em) and what should be done (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em). Personally I think the first essay is the better. They identify several problems in both the financial markets themselves and in the government’s attitude toward regulation. First, they point out that right now there are complex pressures towards maximizing short term profits. This should be obvious when you consider that when firms lay off “non-essential” people, such as HR and support staff, the companies’ stock inevitably goes up. Actually, I should say that layoffs are apparently always (these days) seen as unambiguously good. Obviously in the long term a company will suffer, but layoffs will mean a higher profit this quarter. Companies that do not lay off people, or do not participate in what ever financial scheme (or scam) is popular right now will find that its managers will feel pressured by stockholders to explain why they are not making more profit right now. The pressure is considerable for managers to throw common sense to the wind.

The government regulators also have perverse incentives, according to Lewis and Einhorn. Most if not all of the top enforcement people at the SEC come from, and then later exit to, Wall Street. Which makes sense, you need to be able to understand complex profit making schemes to be able to decide how the might be illegal. But an aggressive regulator might find that when he wants to re-enter Wall Street several doors are closed to him or her.

Politicians also do not want to be the wet blanket that tells people they need to place less emphasis on short term gain. They don’t want to tell lenders that they need to tighten requirements for lending to either poor (risking charges of racism) or the rich (risking campaign contributions). Lewis and Einhorn go into much more detail than I am capturing here about the pressures on Wall Street and the government, and their perverse inter relationship. I recommend at least the first essay.

Blagojevich and Burris

Jack Kelly, this past Sunday, declared that Rod Blagojevich had outsmarted all the Democrats in Illinois, if not the country, by appointing Roland Burris to fill Obama’s seat. I am not seeing the outsmarting part, but I will concede that Blagojevich has handed the Illinois State Legislature a considerable problem. They are going to find it difficult to impeach Blagojevich in this situation.

By appointing Burris Blagojevich can claim that was his intention all along. He can say he always had an Illinois trailblazer in mind. As for the wiretapped phone calls, well, (as Jack Kelly suggested) Blagojevich knew the Feds were listening in, and he was a-just funnin’ with ‘em (as they probably never said in the South).

I assume the Feds have some additional evidence against Blagojevich, or they have so many damning phone call tapes that Blagojevich can not wriggle out of an eventual federal conviction. But it is funny; Blagojevich said he would not give his appointment power away for free, and he hasn’t. Burris may not have gotten Blagojevich a political appointment or anything, but Burris does give Blagojevich cover, something currently much more valuable to the Illinois Governor.