Who Thought That Was A Good Idea?

When natural disasters strike, it's sometimes hard to grasp the magnitude of the disaster, whether it's a forest fire, earthquake, or hurricane.  Sometimes a single photograph can perfectly capture the scope of the disaster.  Like this one, a photo published in the Chicago Tribune on 4/20/13 showing a flooded neighborhood in Des Plaines, IL, a Chicago suburb (north at the bottom).

 

In this neighborhood, the river forms a tight loop and the street of houses inside the loop are completely flooded.   Towards the bottom of the photo, you can see an area which is a spillway into a lake, presumably to give the river a place to go when the water gets high.   In this case, the spillway was no match for the river.

This is a google maps image of the neighborhood (north at the top):

So, here's the question: who on earth thought this tongue of land surrounded on three sides by a "flat" river that often overflows was a good place to build houses?  These are not vacation homes, they're year-round homes about 8 miles from O'Hare International Airport.  I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but was it a good idea to build houses there?  Really?  And undoubtedly repair or rebuild them over and over?  Really?

This river is one of several in Northeast Illinois that are flat, meandering rivers that don't have much in the way of river banks to hold them in their channels.  For many years, anytime there's a significant rainfall, these rivers tend to fill up and overflow, although not as badly as was caused by last week's 6-7 inches of rain in 24 hours.  So if the "weird" weather patterns of the past several years is any indication of what's happening climate-wise, we might expect that flooding is going to get more frequent.  

I suspect that we ought to be having a discussion about moving residences away from flood-prone rivers as well as from coastal areas that are repeatedly hammered by hurricanes, and hillsides prone to mudslides.   But I doubt that we'll have that conversation.

Riverboat Gambler On The Fed?

It's clear that investment banking is nothing more than riverboat gambling with suits.  We shouldn't have riverboat gamblers on the Fed.  

Here's a petition to demand Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase either resign or be removed from the New York Federal Reserve Board of Directors.

 

Throw Them All Out

Over the years I've found politics in general to be fascinating and positive, but in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the political process in this country.   Our nation's current inability to adjust the debt ceiling, the latest of a long series of governmental paralyses, is truly frustrating and apparently never-ending.

The people who are arguing ad nauseum in Washington, D.C. over how to raise the debt limit, have one thing in common with the politicians who find ways to also justify their personal peccadilloes.  Like Congressman Joe Walsh (no relation to the great Eagles guitarist) who has been ranting and raving that President Obama is a "liar" and that there are lots of ways to fund the government's programs without raising the debt limit.  He has accused the "other" party of mismanaging the economy and recklessly spending our money.  He was elected by about 300 votes in 2010.

Now we have news that the Congressman is arrears more than $100,000 to his ex-wife for child support.  He has dismissed the reports as a political hatchet job, but the court records and extensive "negotiating" with his ex-wife, as well as other reported financial problems he seems to have had, tend to lead me to the conclusion that he is just another politician who is a hypocrite and hack.

I've come to believe that the major cause of our political paralysis is because so many (all?) of our politicians and so-called "leaders" are egomaniacs convinced that they have all the answers.  This world-view means that they are unable to even consider that someone else might have some insight on a particular subject and that it would be in the national interest to actually negotiate with them to reach a compromise.   In fact, the very notion of a compromise is anathema to them.  To reach a compromise is admit they didn't have all the answers.

And this is why we have the Speaker of the House walking out of discussions with the President and frantically trying to pull his House majority together, including the Tea Party zealots, to make a symbolic, but meaningless (because it has no chance of passing the Senate), effort to raise the debt ceiling by further debilitating the middle class.  The Republicant Party has sold itself to the Tea Party egomaniacs and corporate interests and can't reach out to actually negotiate. 

While I think the Republicant Party has made egomania and hypocrisy an art form, politicians of both major political parties seem to believe they are the font of all knowledge.  We need to throw them all out.

These are very scary times we live in. 

The Mob Mentality

I recently came across an essay broadcast on the Bob Edwards week-end radio program.   It is part of his "This I Believe" series and it put my thoughts into words very nicely.   The essay is about why the author doesn't participate in demonstrations and marches - mostly because she doesn't feel her opinions are more valid than anyone else's opinions.   I've blogged about this a bit (10/17/10, 8/24/10) regarding the flood of solicitations I received for political donations for far-away elections.  I said I was uncomfortable with the notion that "people around the country think they know what's best for other people around the country."  This discomfort is present even if I happen to agree with the candidate or group.

The author starts off by describing how she is uncomfortable about participating in a peace march in Washington, D.C.:

But the thing that made me uneasy wasn’t just the number of people gathered there. It was the mob mentality of a large group of people who feel they are right, even if I agree with them. It was the absolutism lurking in the liberal ideals. To me it felt just as scary as any other kind of intolerance

Anyway, the essay can be found here and it's worth reading or listening to the podcast.

Local vs Global - Part Deux

In my August 24, 2010 post, I wrote about the increasing requests for political donations for candidates for office where I don't live.   It makes me uncomfortable to, in effect, tell people thousands of miles away that I know what's good for them better than they do.


It recently occurred to me that one possible reason for the increasing requests could be corporate involvement in political campaigns.   Based on last Winter's Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate funding of campaigns, it's clear that companies are not hesitant to flood large amounts of cash into the system (often anonymously).   Since that's the equivalent of someone possibly thousands of miles away telling me who to vote for (or against), perhaps it's natural that individuals are being asked to respond by donating cash to far off campaigns.


It still makes me uncomfortable. 

Local vs Global

In the past year or so, I have been flooded with both email and snail mail requests from a variety of groups, all wanting me to donate money to various political candidates.   This is not unusual, of course, since our political system seems to live and breath via fund-raising.   What makes these requests note-worthy is that they are for candidates who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from where I live.   Many times, these requests involve Congressional primaries and elections.


Groups such as "Emily's List" and "MoveOn.org" all compile lists of what they consider "progressive" candidates involved in election campaigns around the country.    The groups then solicit funds from hopefully like-minded citizens from throughout the nation.   This first issue I have with this, is I don't really appreciate it when "outsiders" attempt to influence my local elections, and I think it would be inconsistent of me to turn around and send money to candidates in other time zones.


Another issue for me is that often the solicitations contain the most superficial description of the various candidates.   I know from experience that many times I don't agree with all positions a candidate makes, but I may decide to support the candidate based on overall platform.


I have no idea if others have objections to this type of "long distance" fund raising, but I suspect that most people do not.   I'm guessing that these organizations wouldn't be sending out this kind of solicitation if they didn't produce results.  It's like spam email: if a few people didn't respond and make purchases of stuff, the spam email sent to millions of people wouldn't produce financial gain.


Still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that people around the country think they know what's best for other people around the country.

The Dwindling Colorado River

When one of my buddies announced plans to move to Arizona after retirement, the first thought that occurred to me was that I'd read a lot of articles about water shortages in the Southwest in general, and Arizona in particular.   He told me that "everyone" he'd spoken to in Arizona said water was not a problem, despite the fact that much of the population growth was in what had previously been desert.

Map from USGS.gov

Turns out that the water supply in the Southwest is getting scarcer, and so far, the place that's suffering as a result is Mexico.  The Colorado River begins in Northern Colorado and winds through Utah, Arizona, and California before entering the Mexican State of Sonora and the Gulf of California.   Only these days, not much water is left in the river by the time it arrives in Sonora and that's primarily because of the diversion of the water in the above-mentioned States.  Some of it irrigates the crop growing areas of California and some of it provides water for the growing populations in Las Vegas and Phoenix, as well as other areas in the parched Southwest.  The lack of water that reaches Mexico has caused farm failures in that country which some say has fed the migration of Mexicans into the U.S. in search of jobs.

Marketplace.org ran a story ("Downstream, Death of the Mighty Colorado") on July 23 about a photo essay of the Colorado River, documenting the deterioration of the river's flow and the impact on people.   It's worth reading (or listen to the podcast) to see what part of the cost of the huge increase in population of the Southwest has been.  The story consists of an interview with a photo-journalist who has published a book about the river.  His concluding observation is chilling:

Yeah, this thing has a lot to do with money... the majority of this water is siphoned off before it gets to our southern neighbor, and it's siphoned off in order to help feed places like Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Without this water source and without the power and agriculture it provides, these economies would not be booming the way that they are. That many people should not live there. There is no way that area can ecologically support that population. Unfortunately, that might mean that this problem isn't going to go anywhere.

Talk, Talk, Talk

Ever wonder why our Congress gets so little done?   One of the reasons is the misuse and overuse of the filibuster (more here) by Senate Republicans, The Party of No (PON).

It seems that for the PON, there is no issue too small for a filibuster.  I think I may have to  start maintaining a list of filibusters that make the news, because every day it seems there's another legislative measure that the PON seeks to block by never-ending "debate."   So the government that is supposed to be operated by majority vote (51 in the Senate) seems to almost always require 60 votes.  The PON filibusters mean that the Senate is unable to end debate and conduct votes on the merits of the legislation.  So much for majority rule. 

Here's the latest: As a result of the infamous Supreme Court decision in January 2010 that confers personhood on corporations, political contributions by companies are now practically limitless.   As a result, we can expect to be absolutely buried by political ads this Fall by anonymous corporate special interests.  The Congress has a bill to place limits on this corporate political spending which the PON has filibustered to prevent a vote.   The Senate attempt to end debate failed 57-41 on this week.

Earlier in July, another filibuster from the PON prevented the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 from reaching a vote.  An effort to end the filibuster failed 58-38 in early July 2010.  Previous attempts to invoke cloture failed 57-41 and 56-40 June.  This bill included provisions to extend unemployment compensation.   Cloture was finally invoked and the bill passed later in July after a new Senator from West Virginia was sworn in to replace the late Sen. Byrd, providing a 60 member majority.

Even Senate efforts to reform filibuster rules and lower the votes needed to end debate on legislation from 60 to (perhaps) 55 can't get past the PON filibuster.

One of the most galling aspects of Senate "modern" filibusters is that the filibustering Senators don't even have to actually stand up and speak the entire time the Senate has a quorum.  They don't have to actually break a sweat to prevent the Senate from acting on a bill.  Under Senate rules, the Senate Majority Leader (Senator Reid) has the ability to require an actual "traditional filibuster," but Reid doesn't seem to want to do anything to make the PON really, really angry.  How could they be any less cooperative?

What's a democracy to do when it's held hostage by the minority party?

Taking the Pledge?

I received a fairly clever email recently in which the unknown author (if you know who wrote it, I'll be happy to attribute it) deflates the Right-wing rhetoric which disparagingly refers to the recent health care reform as "socialized medicine."  The email is in the form of a pledge to avoid a lengthy list of other "socialist" services (the email is at the end of this post).

In the US, the term "socialized medicine" came into common use in the late 1940s as part of the American Medical Association's opposition to President Harry Truman's health-care initiative. The original use of the term referred to health care systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care providers, such as the British National Health Service.  More recently, the term has been expanded to refer to virtually any publicly funded health care system.  It's clearly used as a derogatory term, playing on the irrational fear of "socialism" in the US.  And it was part of the successful defeat of efforts to expand health care to a broader segment of the US population for decades.

I found the email humorous because it pokes holes in the socialist "boogie man" -  as pointed out by Wikipedia:  "Most industrialized countries, and many developing countries, operate some form of publicly-funded health care with universal coverage as the goal. According to the Institute of Medicine and others, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care."   The term "socialized medicine" has become a ridiculous pejorative because it considers that shared responsibility and shared support is somehow bad.   That is, public funding of health care is bad because it is based on some sort of "socialist" model in which citizens pool resources (taxes) to provide health care to all citizens, rather than the capitalist approach of "every man for himself."

The fact is, shared resources and shared benefits are part of daily life of most Americans, but we don't think of them that way and we don't call them socialist. It seems clear that most Americans wouldn't consider such shared benefits as indoor plumbing attached to working public water and sewer systems a bad thing.   And Medicare.   And products of National Public Television like Sesame Street.  And highway rest areas.  And police, fire, and emergency services.

At any rate, here's the text of the email; see how many of these shared activities and benefits you're willing to forego.

I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Public Subways and Metro Systems
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
Rest Areas on Highways
Sidewalks
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects. This means every single road that is not a toll road is off limits to my use.
Public Drinking Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
Public and State Universities and Colleges
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Sesame Street
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Public Museums
Libraries
Public Parks and Beaches
State and National Parks
Public Zoos
Unemployment Insurance
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government grant or research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape, heart monitors/defibrillators and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops that were grown with, fed with, raised with or that contain inputs from crops grown with government subsidies.
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forgo my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care.
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of free-admission/taxpayer subsidized socialist locations, including but not limited to:
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
The socialist Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Jefferson Monuments
The government-operated Statue of Liberty
The Grand Canyon and all national/state/regional/local parks, forests and monuments
The socialist World War II, Korean and Vietnam Veterans Memorials in every town
The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC. This also includes Post Offices, fire departments, police departments, public schools, libraries and zoos.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR 2010

SIGNATURE:

Watching Our Schools Crumbling

The State of Illinois is currently imploding financially and the politicians of both major parties seem unwilling to actually deal with the problems.   They persist in pointing fingers at the "other" party and sticking their heads in the sand.   For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have trumpeted "no tax increase" and convinced the public that State government (including all that it supports such as public schools) is bad and fat.   The result is that Illinois has one of the lowest and most regressive income taxes in the nation (3%) and a $14 Billion dollar deficit.   Schools throughout the state are now laying off teachers for next school year (some estimates say the layoffs may reach 17,000 teachers or more), and social services organizations are closing their doors because the State hasn't made payments due this fiscal year.  To put the deficit into perspective, if the State fired every State employee right now, that would amount to $4 Billion, leaving us with a $10 Billion hole.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune a couple weeks ago, but neither has printed it.   I am publishing it here in the hope that a few people will find it of interest and use.  It's a little long, but IMO it addresses the core issues.

Put Pressure Where It Belongs-Springfield

In recent weeks, many people have become aware of the financial difficulties being faced by school districts around the State.   In many cases, the Districts are confronted by huge revenue shortfalls and are considering draconian cuts to staff in order to meet these changes.  As a Board Member of a District directly impacted by the State of Illinois' deadbeat status, I'd like to offer several observations.

1. The budget shortfalls currently facing most Districts is directly related to the unwillingness of Illinois legislators to meet the State's financial obligations.

2. The underlying weakness causing the immediate financial problems in public education is an over-reliance on property taxes.  As the basis for public education, property taxes cause huge inequities between Districts which have lots of commercial property and those that do not.   Those that are forced to rely on homeowners as the major source of property taxes tend to have higher tax rates and tax burdens on individual homeowners.  Commercial properties bring revenue into school districts without adding students.

3. The State legislature has repeatedly refused to change the funding of public education from property taxes to the income tax over the past couple of decades.

4. When legislators wring their hands over the potential bankruptcy of public education, and say "we understand the problem, but we just don't have the money" they are being disingenuous, at best.   If the State of Illinois doesn't "have the money" it's because the legislators have refused to deal with reality and alter the State's ridiculously low and regressive income tax in order to fully meet the State's responsibility for funding education.

5. The public is rightfully concerned about the potential long-term damage to our schools, and the resultant long-term damage to our children's education caused by the current financial melt-down.

6. State legislators of both major parties should be held accountable by the public for their refusal to work for the "greater good" and ensure that all our public schools are fully funded. 

7. Local school board members have remarkably little control over how to respond to the current financial constraints.   If their Districts do not have enough revenue coming in, they have no choice but to cut staff.

8. If the public wants to effect meaningful change, it must put unrelenting pressure on its elected State representatives to deal with reality and stop finger-pointing and political posturing.   The public needs to tell our State legislators that it is well past time for Illinois to actively support public education and fund it accordingly.

Until State legislators of both major parties in both the House and Senate feel like there is a political consequence to ignoring the State's financial plight, nothing will change.   Your child's classes will inevitably get larger, and the elements of a well-rounded education, such as exposure to the arts, will become rarer.  If you truly care about your children, and equally importantly, the children of your neighbors, you need to express your outrage to your State representatives.

Public education is about the education of everyone, including your child and the children of your neighbors.  Just as we all benefit from good roads and bridges, we all benefit from good public schools.  And, one way or the other, we will all pay for the destruction of public education in Illinois.

What Makes One Curmudgeonly?

I've been an elected member of our local elementary school board since 1988 and throughout those years, we've been faced with serious underfunding issues. In Illinois, public education is funded primarily by property taxes at the local level. Without getting really detailed and boring, that system was workable up to the first half of the 20th century, but it's hopelessly maxed out now. Schools are subject to the same kinds of increasing costs (mostly related to salaries and benefits for staff which may consume 80% of a School District's budget) as the rest of the world, but property tax revenue is pretty much tapped out. In addition, as an early effort to pander to the voters, Illinois placed property tax limitations on schools in the Chicago suburbs years ago, so school districts are left with nowhere to go for necessary funds. Oh, did I mention that Illinois has a 3% flat income tax, one of the lowest in the nation? The State itself is now going broke itself with an estimated $11 billion deficit.

There are a lot of other reasons for our financial problems (like too many districts, too many local government units, etc), but IMO the biggest problem is our political leaders' inability to actually lead. Rather than suggest to us what we should do to solve societal problems, our so-called "leaders" devote their energy to telling us what they think we want to hear.

This is a leading cause of curmudgeon-ness (at least for me). No matter what political party is in power (and right now the State legislature and executive branch is controlled by Democrats), 99% of the politicians in Illinois are unwilling or unable to actually provide leadership. The pandering to the public is mind-numbing and relentless ("Taxes are too high," "Cut waste in government before we raise taxes"). The result has been gridlock. And don't get me started on our ex-Governor Blago; he was the King of Pandering. He's (in)famous for handing out free rides to everyone in the State over the age of 65 on public transportation (without providing any cash to the transit systems, of course). Well, that's only one of the things he's (in)famous for...

What politicians won't tell the public is that while Illinois has made graft, waste, and cronyism an artform) most of the State's budget issues are related to human services (education, health care, senior citizen care, highways, and the like). Citizens are all for cutting services that benefit someone else, but not so keen on cutting something that might affect themselves. And that's the underlying problem, for which we can maybe thank Ronald Reagan. We have lost that concept that there is a "public good" and that we as a people do things for the benefit of the many, not just for the benefit of the few. This was pretty much assumed back in the 1950s, but no more. As a society, we're preoccupied with "not in my backyard" and "what's in it for me?"

To quote Ashleigh Brilliant: "I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem."