. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
"It's the Unemployment, Stupid! (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Washington's corruption of our economic recovery efforts is painful, embarrassing and so obviously benefiting the rich while ignoring the poor and middle class that it's coming to be as depressing emotionally as it is economically.
Yesterday Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" program from WBUR offered one more example in, "The Housing Wild Card," October 20, 2009. Guests included Diana Olick, real estate correspondent for CNBC; Karl Case, Wellesley College professor of economics and co-author of the Case-Shiller Home Price Index; Thomas Lawler, housing economist and founder, Lawler Economic & Housing Consulting; and Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com.
The show provided just one more example of corporate greed and a Congress favoring America's wealthiest -- and most generous campaign contributors.
Housing is where a lot of our current economics problems began. Remember?
It's like the story of the doctor who asks, "Have you ever had this before?" The patient nods, and the doctor provides the diagnosis: "Well, you've got it again."
We're about to get it again.
(1) While we took our eyes off of the Federal Reserve last March they went and put another $1.25 trillion into the housing market. ("To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the [Federal Open Market] Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of these securities to up to $1.25 trillion this year . . ..") Press Release, Federal Reserve, March 18, 2009.
(2) Add to this the mortgage interest deduction that constitutes a $69 billion subsidy to help boost home sales -- a subsidy enjoyed by only 23% of taxpayers, and a disproportionate share of which goes to the wealthiest 1%, given that it applies to homes worth as much as $1 million.
Note that this means that Congress is willing to spend twice as much subsidizing housing for the wealthy as it's willing to spend on low income housing for the poor -- a program it says "we can't afford." Danilo Pelletiere, "Mortgage Interest Deduction," National Low Income Housing Coalition, May 6, 2009. ("In FY08, the Joint Committee on Taxation calculated the cost of the [MID] subsidy to be $67 billion. Though developments in housing markets may put downward pressure on the trend, the cost of the MID is expected to increase to as much as $112 billion by 2012.").
(3) Not satisfied with that largess, the housing profiteers got Congress to give them enough taxpayers' money to provide an $8000 cash subsidy to potential "first time buyers" -- some 355,000 individuals as it turned out who are sufficiently well-off to even contemplate buying a home at a time like this. It can fairly be assumed many of them would have bought homes without this additional $3 billion designed to further help the housing industry. Now the program is about to expire, so they're back with their hands out demanding it be extended, increased to a $15,000 subsidy per buyer, and opened to all (not just first-time) home buyers. And while most economists oppose the plan as folly at best and wasteful corruption at worst, the housing industry may well get its wish.
But where are all these houses coming from? Why, foreclosures, of course. So more of the unemployed, those facing bankruptcy because they've lost their health insurance, or those otherwise too financially strapped to pay their mortgages, will be out on the streets.
And how is this "housing program" going to help our recovery when 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending? It won't, of course. But we will have wealthier real estate brokers and mortgage lenders, just as we have wealthier Wall Street bankers enjoying million-dollar bonuses as a result of our generosity.
The Wall Street Journal quotes Thomas Lawler's analysis as to why this level of subsidization is folly: "Of course, in the current environment home prices have . . . in most areas of the country, finally adjusted back down to more 'normal' levels . . .; the government is providing massive resources to ensure that mortgage rates remain low; and the biggest obstacle to a rebound . . . is the job outlook. The housing tax credit is an enormously inefficient use of government resources, and it does not really focus on what the economy needs: more job creation, and a return to “normal” growth of households." Nick Timiraos, "Weigh In: Should Congress Extend the First-Time Buyer Tax Credit?,"Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2009.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert agrees about the need for jobs:
[I]ncreasingly important is the idea of direct government job creation. The recession has absolutely crushed employment opportunities for unskilled, undereducated young people — not just in big cities and rural areas, but in suburban communities as well. Without direct government intervention, the recession is never going to end for them.
During the first half of this year in Illinois, to take one wretched example, just one in four black men in the age group of 20 through 24 had a job.
Nationally during that period, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, “the employment rate of males 16-19, 20-24, and 25-29 were at their lowest values over the past 61 years for which national employment data are available.” That’s for men of all ethnic groups.
“The past,” as William Faulkner told us, “is not dead. It’s not even past.” The lessons of the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s are right in front of us, ready to be studied, analyzed, updated and applied to the present-day needs of the country.
My own view -- buttressed by [reports regarding] (1) the automobile industry (especially General Motors), (2) retail sales, and (3) unemployment -- is that the best interests of the business community, as well as the American people, will be served by providing public jobs programs, and economic support to the unemployed, rather than continuing to pour billions of dollars into failed and failing businesses. . . .
[A] major part of GM's problem is that laid-off GM workers, and the 10 million other unemployed Americans, don't have the money to buy anybody's cars right now . . ..
Enabling auto executives to have tens of billions of additional dollars to spend at their discretion in postponing bankruptcy doesn't strike me as a solution to anything . . ..
Another problem with Washington's willy-nilly giveaways, aside from the fact that they are unfair, don't work and will ultimately bankrupt our nation, is that they are irrational. . . .
[I]f Obama is looking for economic sectors to which to transfer taxpayers' money, wouldn't the one that represents "two-thirds of the nation's economic activity" make more sense in a recession/depression than bailing out the one that makes $30,000 new vehicles? . . .
Why We Need a Jobs Program
Look at the numbers. There are now over 10 million unemployed. Unemployment stands at 6.5 percent, and is projected to go to 8 percent next year -- 22 percent of whom have been out of work for more than six months, something we haven't seen for a quarter-century. The rates are increasing. Of the 1.2 million jobs lost this year 284,000 were in September and 240,000 in October. [These are, of course, the numbers from a year ago, when this blog entry was written.]
In the 1950s over 50 percent of the unemployed received benefits; today, because of various restrictions, only 32 percent qualify -- more unemployment, more holes in the safety net. . . .
[T]he answers seem, to me, rather obvious.
You can't improve business (profits, returns to shareholders, executive compensation) without improving retail sales; you can't improve retail sales without putting money in the hands, and confidence in the heads, of potential consumers; and unemployed consumers don't have money unless they are provided either unemployment compensation or wages from a public sector job (in an economy with a shrinking private sector). . . .
[E]ither makes more sense than trying to turn an economy around with "trickle down" -- whether tax cuts for the rich, or bailouts for the rich.
[If he was still in the wall poster business,] James Carville, the political consultant who once famously tried to keep presidential candidate Bill Clinton "on message" with the wall sign, "It's the economy, stupid!" . . . , I suspect his wall sign for President Obama might well be, "It's the unemployment, stupid!"
We did this in the 1930s and called it the "Works Progress Administration" and "Civilian Conservation Corps" -- the creations of which we are still enjoying to this day (for example, in our state parks).
Why are we not doing it today? Your guess is as good as mine. But my suspicion is that it has more to do with the big money corruption of our political system than with some new, Nobel-prize-winning insight into the mysteries of economic theory.
We may be Number 37 in the world in health care, but by golly we're Number 1 in greed and economic stupidity. ____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
By any standard one of the biggest issues ever confronting the State of Iowa and its state universities is the handling of the past, present and future budget cuts occasioned by the current Wall Street created economic crisis. Here are some earlier blog entries on this subject, followed by today's comments about "waivers."
Consistency, Hobgoblins and Waivers (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
For the most part I agree with Emerson's observation that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance,"Essays: First Series (1841). Among my concerns and complaints about administrators generally, and educational administrators in particular, is what he called "foolish consistency," the lack of the imagination or will to, as Robert Kennedy put it, "Dream things that never were and say why not."
But we must also reflect on Emerson's qualifier. It is not "consistency" that rides on the back of hobgoblins, as he is so often quoted as having said, it is only "foolish consistency.
I recall an occasion when, as an FCC commissioner, I was pleased to be able to vote with my fellow commissioners in announcing a new policy. Alas, I cannot now remember the policy, nor do I have the time or inclination this morning to try to track it down. It may have had to do with the joint ownership of TV stations and newspapers in the same city. In any event, I thought it a good policy; one that would not be popular with the big media owners, but was nonetheless in the best interest of the American people.
But I was not so pleased with what the Commission did thereafter. My recollection is that in something like the first 11 cases to arise under the new rule my colleagues listened to the pleas of these major corporations and agreed, not to repeal the rule mind you, but to "waive" it in the case before them. This necessitated my return to my much more comfortable role as a dissenting commissioner. The waivers were, in my judgment, neither adequately justified by the parties or commissioners, nor warranted.
In short, the "consistency" I was calling for was necessary if there was to be any rule at all. There was nothing "foolish" about it.
I was reminded of that experience yesterday while reading B.A. Morelli, "U of I Health adds official in face of budget trouble,"Des Moines Register, October 18, 2009. And see B.A. Morelli, "UI Health Care adds new position at hospital,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 17, 2009 ("A Press-Citizen review last year found that UI spent about $1 million on four new senior positions in 2008, and the university created three new vice president positions. . . . 'I can't think of any justification for adding any position while these cuts are being made that can't draw down more (grant) dollars or doesn't save lives,' said Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton. 'I can't believe they've gone this long and they are adding it into a half-time position -- and that couldn't wait? Even if it is $45,000, I don't care if it is $5,000, it sends a message to people at the bottom of the organization. I just don't understand it right now,' he said.").
Here we are, confronting a budget crisis. The Board of Regents has put a freeze on hiring, voted for a halt to construction (until they voted against it), is considering a mid-year tuition increase, layoffs, cuts in salaries and benefits, has at least nodded in the direction of fairness in all of this, and what does the UIHC do?
Morelli reports that it, "filled a newly created position of chief medical information officer last week -- the same day university officials were instructed to consider temporary and permanent layoffs and a tuition surcharge" (an emphasis in the Register's story and headline that doesn't appear in the Press-Citizen's version).
And why is this position necessary? Because it accompanies a $61 million investment in a new computer system -- an amount that exceeds the cuts being asked of all the Regents' institutions combined. (The same can be said of the Regents' decision to go ahead with the $47 million modification of the Carver Hawkeye Arena, following its earlier decision to halt all construction.)
And who is to fill this position? Someone who already has a couple of what one would think are full time jobs -- practicing medicine while providing administrative services to a major division of UIHC.
So this new title of "chief medical information officer" -- whatever that may mean -- is designated as only a half-time job.
And what is this new position, during a hiring freeze, going to cost us? $46,000.
Well, that's only about the average for an Iowa family. Not much for a doctor, right? Not until you consider that this is on top of the $245,030 he already earns, bringing the total ($291,494) to well over $300,000 with benefits.
Now it's long past time that I acknowledge I have no inside information about this decision. Had I been involved in the process I might well agree with Morelli's report of Regent Bob Downer's view of the matter: "Bob Downer, a member of the Iowa state Board of Regents who leads the hospital oversight committee, backed the position. Hospital finances have been improving, and the position was viewed as essential, Downer said." (But see, "How Many Administrators Does It Take? Administrators Are Multiplying & Sucking Us Dry," July 16, 2009, with its link to Miles Weinberger, "Rethink priorities in UI hospital layoffs," Des Moines Register, July 11, 2009.)
So I'm not arguing that this was necessarily a wrong decision, that our new "chief medical information officer" is not worth all he's being paid and more, or that the new $61 million investment could be equally well handled by those already in place.
All I'm suggesting is that if the budget cutting process is to be perceived as fair and just for all (see "How to Cut Iowa's Budget; Fairness, Justice and Leadership by Example," October 15, 2009) -- not to mention be effective in creating any meaningful savings -- there is going to have to be some consistency in holding to the rules. The exceptions are going to have to be very, very few and far between and very well publicly justified.
This is especially the case with the high profile, powerful and relatively highly paid positions.
If every time the rules that should apply to their construction projects and purchases, new positions and promotions -- not to mention their own pay and benefit packages -- they are successful in getting those rules waived as to themselves, we're also going to be either waiving goodbye to savings or imposing even more of the pain on those least able to bear it.
Much of Americans' anger toward Wall Street, the Administration and Congress at this time comes from the perception that the bailouts and stimulus packages are going to Wall Street (and the firms on the verge of paying their executives multi-million-dollar bonuses once again) not Main Street. Support for the housing sector goes to developers, contractors, brokers and those wealthy enough to consider buying a new home -- not those who are being forced out of their homes through foreclosure. There are no meaningful government job programs of the kind we had in the 1930s.
The same reactions can be fueled by the way we handle this statewide budget crisis if we're not careful. Giving $61 million to the hosptial, $47 million to the Athletic Department, and an additional $46,000 to a state employee already earning $245,000, while asking low paid state employees to accept layoffs, furloughs, and cuts in pay is bad symbolism at best.
As Ms. Davey reports, it is not going down well with North Dakotans that the construction costs of a new home for the University's president and his wife have gone from an already excessive $900,000 budgeted to now over $2 million, or that it turns out his wife is getting $50,000 a year as an "ambassador" for the University.
As the Bismark Tribune has editorialized, it's all “so far outside the values of people of the state [of North Dakota that] it will become a grandiose symbol of excess and arrogance.”
I'm not saying we have precisely that problem, or that the amounts spent on our University president's home are on Iowans' radar at the moment. But I do think we need to guard against actions that the Bismark Tribune characterizes as a "symbol of excess and arrogance" -- not to mention "unfairness."
On a more positive note, Provost Wallace Loh's "first year seminar" program stands as a symbol of what can be done creatively in these times. I have joined some 110 other Iowa faculty members in offering to teach a small section of entering first year undergraduates. It's been a pleasant experience -- at least for me, and my students don't appear to be in rebellion. All of us are volunteers; no one is getting paid for this effort. It costs the University nothing; it costs participating faculty nothing but some additional time; and if it achieves its purpose it will improve the quality of entering students' academic experience at Iowa and hopefully improve our retention rates in the Big Ten. And best of all, it has not -- at least so far -- been accompanied with anyone having to take a pay cut.
There are, of course, those who say this is a terrible idea; that faculty should never agree to teach for free. I disagree. I think these are times in which we all have to be willing to give something -- if not time, then money (and it may very well turn out to be both).
So long as it falls fairly on all, so long as there is not the perception, as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," I'm willing to do my share and I suspect others are as well.
But it's fragile. Once we start showing favoritism to the most highly paid and powerful, once the pain is not appropriately shared, a communitarian spirit of cooperation can disappear like the morning mist.
It is only foolish consistency that comes with hobgoblins. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Other current, hot topics: Hancher-Voxman-Clapp Relocation. Five-part series on relocation and rebuilding; see Part V, with its links to the prior four, and its "update" analysis of the October 12 forum's "third option" and proposal to raise Hancher, plus a link to the UI Facilities Management Website with streaming video and Power Point slides from the July 9 and October 12 public forums at McBride Auditorium, and "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009 (commentary about the relocation decision making process).
Fairness, Justice and Leadership by Example (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
When public budgets need trimming it can be done in ways that produce anger, resentment, and painful hardship -- or in ways that can build morale, a sense of community, and loyalty.
It's pretty simple really.
Will the widespread perception be that those who used their power and position to take more than their share when times were good have now continued to use their power and position to keep more than their share when times turned bad and cuts had to be made? Or will the perception be that those in administrative and protected positions are willing to give more than their share, to carry more of the burden, than those who will suffer the most from layoffs and reductions in pay?
Whatever financial and other burdens we will be asked to bear at this time in Iowa's history need to be compared with those of World War II. Soldiers were drafted (although far more volunteered than these days). Men went off to war, and women went off to build ships in shipyards. The rich got a tax surtax, not tax cuts. Even grade school children were expected to use their allowance to buy "savings stamps," ultimately to be traded in for an $18.75 "war bond." Everything was recycled for the war effort, from bacon fat to newspapers. There was no "cash for clunkers" -- just lots of clunkers and no cash. The auto companies weren't building cars; just jeeps and tanks. Food was rationed, as was gasoline. Once you'd exchanged your ration coupons you just did without. We grew our own food in "victory gardens."
Today we fight our wars on the cheap. No one gets drafted. The rich get tax cuts. There's no rationing. The stores are full. Video of our killed and injured fighting men and women is, by consent, kept out of our living rooms. And best of all, we don't have to pay for our wars. We just pass the cost, in the form of multi-trillion-dollar debt, on to our grand children. And when we run out of money we just print more, or borrow from the Chinese, and operate the federal government with a $1.4 trillion deficit. Meanwhile Wall street executives pay themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses with taxpayers' money, the Dow-Jones goes back to 10,000, and it looks like millions of Americans are going to continue to find adequate health care beyond their reach.
So what does this bit of nostalgia and political commentary have to do with Iowa's budget cuts?
World War II, with all its sacrifices, built a stronger sense of community, what it meant to be an American, a sense of pride, of communitarian spirit, than I have ever seen since.
How could that have been possible? My opinion, and that's all it is, is that at least a part of what made it possible was the perceived sense of fairness. The rich took more of the financial burden, not less. We were all in it together.
This morning's papers carry the news that Governor Chet Culver has cut his own salary by 10%. That $13,000 won't do much toward a $600 million deficit. But it will do a lot toward creating the sense of fairness so essential to a successful budget-cutting. Jennifer Jacobs, "Culver to cut his own pay by 10 percent,"Des Moines Register, October 14, 2009 ("Iowa Gov. Chet Culver will cut his salary by 10 percent, as will all department directors, the governor announced today. The governor’s salary is $130,000. A 10 percent cut would amount to $13,000.").
I earlier proposed a variation of that for the Regents' universities presidents: the similar (important symbolic, but less significant substantively) benefit of their telling the Regents they want the possibility of bonuses for themselves (for this current academic year) taken off the table -- as Iowan and University of Connecticut President Mike Hogan has done. "A University's Strategic Communication; A Modest Proposal to the Regents' University Presidents," October 7, 2009.
I'm truly sorry they did not do this on their own before I wrote that, or at least shortly thereafter. That's how, and when, it would have had its most powerful impact. But, as is so often the case, better late than never. I'm still waiting -- and prepared to praise them when they do.
So while University of Iowa personnel will be undergoing the pain associated with yet another $25 million budget cut a $47 million refurbishing of the Carver-Hawkeye Arena will continue without review. Steve Batterson, "Carver renovations on pace to begin in fall,"Quad City Times, October 3, 2009 ("In a timeframe now measured in weeks instead of months, Iowa director of athletics Gary Barta expects work on the $47 million renovation of Carver-Hawkeye Arena to begin this fall . . . 'and we are on schedule to make that happen,' Barta said during an appearance at the Scott County I-Club dinner on Thursday"); and Tom Witosky, "Budget woes might stall U of I arena's renovation,"Des Moines Register, October 11, 2009 ("The regents records . . . show that [the UI] athletic department receives $882,000 from the university general fund . . ..").
For those who will say, "Ah, Nick, but that money comes out of a different fund," I respond, "bull feathers," or perhaps "pig wings!" (1) We're talking here about appearances. For these purposes it makes no difference where the money is coming from; those who are already perceived as favored will be seen to be getting more while the rest of us are getting less. (2) The Iowa City Community School District is proposing to "borrow" from its construction funds to cover its operating expenses (an approach, incidentally, I do not support). It may very well be that, contrary to the usual "that's a different fund" mantra, there really would be a way that construction funds could help with the UI's current problems. (3) And, even if not, there would be useful substance as well as symbolism to at least temporarily postponing some of these construction projects (in spite of what I acknowledge are always costly disadvantages in doing so).
Will the most administratively powerful, and highest paid, University employees take a disproportionately larger cut in pay, suffer a disproportionately higher percentage of unfilled positions, layoffs and early retirements? Or will the burdens fall equally -- or worse still, with less impact -- on them as on those who will suffer the most from a cut in pay or unemployment?
As for increasing students' tuition both mid-year and again next fall, see Nicholas Johnson, "Free College, or Let Students Cover it All?,"Des Moines Register, October 2, 2002, p. 11A. (Ironically, while students may be the least able to bear the coming financial burden, and are looking at not one, but the possibility of two, tuition increases during the next 12 months, "UI Student Government President Mike Currie said . . . 'This is definitely a university-wide sacrifice [in which] the real issue is to make sure we [the students] are making . . . no more and no less than anybody else.'" That, like Culver's action, is another example of what I mean by budget-cutting leadership. Emily Busse, "$24.7 Million; UI President Sally Mason has two weeks to target hefty budget cuts; Tuition increase, layoffs on the table,"The Daily Iowan, October 15, 2009, p. A1.
These are some of the the subjects this blog will be watching and reporting on over the days and weeks to come: examples of fairness, justice, and leadership by example as the State, and University, execute their budget cutting responsibilities. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Hancher-Voxman-Clapp Relocation. Five-part series on relocation and rebuilding. Part V, with its links to the prior four, and its "update" analysis of the October 12 forum's "third option" and proposal to raise Hancher, plus a link to the UI Facilities Management Website with streaming video and Power Point slides from the July 9 and October 12 public forums at McBride Auditorium, and "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009 (commentary about the relocation decision making process).
A few more porta-potties and trash cans would be nice. Everyone's pleased with the dramatic on-field record of the Hawkeye Football team this season. At least I am.
Even off the field -- unless the police aren't arresting and the papers aren't reporting -- there seem to be a whole lot fewer crime reports about the players this year.
But it's no secret that the program does impose some costs on those whose tiny residential locations are turned into staging areas for the 70,000 troops before and after those games. These photos give some idea of the number of cars and individuals we host on those occasions.
In dealing with this, unfortunately we haven't always had the cooperation we would have liked from the University, City, and Athletic Department in our efforts to make this as pleasant an experience as possible for fans and neighbors alike.
Individual neighbors' experiences, and responses, differ. Some have the misfortune to live next to party houses that generate excessive noise, excessive alcohol consumption (much of it illegal), boisterous behavior, property damage, obnoxious taunts, and lots of public urination. Personally I rather enjoy watching students and fans having a good time. And we're blessed with some very responsible student and other neighbors across the street (which has not always been the case). Putting more than our neighborhood's share of the 70,000 into a residential area designed for a couple hundred at most does create some congestion on the streets that could be a problem if there were a need for fire trucks or ambulances.
But aside from that, the adverse impact on me is primarily limited to the very public urination on our lawn and the trash that is thrown under bushes (rather than merely dropped, where I could pick it up). This picture shows a sampling from the game last Saturday. (Note the empty half gallon of vodka, the toilet paper, the Bud cans in the Hawkeye colors, and in the center the broken beer bottle -- apparently, next to watching football, there's nothing quite as exciting as throwing a beer bottle into the air and watching it crash into shards on the sidewalk.)
So far as I'm concerned a few additional porta-johns and trash containers would solve the primary problems I have with the football crowds this season -- though many of my neighbors are not so lucky.
In any event, for all of these reasons it was a very pleasant surprise to see Athletic Director Gary Barta's op ed in the Press-Citizen recently [Photo credit: Iowa City Press-Citizen]:
[T]here is something that has bothered me and that I've wanted to address for some time. . . . I am discouraged, and sometimes downright disgusted, by a small minority of alcohol abusers who ruin the gameday experience and give Hawkeye tailgating a bad name.
Each week, we deal with hundreds of fans who abuse alcohol to the point of embarrassment -- and in many cases endanger themselves and others around them . . . dozens of people who drink so much they can't stand on their own, pass-out, are under age, throw up on the fans around them, urinate in public, etc. . . .
I am not comfortable with allowing those who abuse this privilege to ruin the experience for the rest of us.
In advance of Saturday's homecoming game, I want to thank the overwhelming majority of Hawkeye fans who tailgate responsibly, . . . and respect the private property of our friends in the neighborhoods that are adjacent to our wonderful football stadium. . . .
I want to ask that very small number of fans who choose not to behave in a responsible, positive way on game days to consider raising their personal standards.
I thought this was a nice thing to do. Best case, it might actually have an impact on some fans and help with our neighborhood problems (although I suspect that few of those fans ever read it). Worst case, it was a thoughtful and appreciated gesture.
Unfortunately, the good will from that op ed column was offset a bit by Barta's emailed suggestion to one of my neighbors that they brought the neighborhood problems on themselves by choosing to live where they do, and that, by implication, the only effective remedy would be for them to move out of the neighborhood. (E.g., "many of your concerns and complaints will never be able to be eliminated. By choosing to live next to campus . . . you endure the inconveniences associated with a football game that attracts more than 70,000 people. . . . [T]here are no assurances we will be able to do what you suggest. [T]he challenges you experience . . . come with the choice of living next to the stadium.")
This was not, I should note, an email to me, nor was it a rejection of a request for more porta-johns and trash containers (since that had not been requested by that neighbor in that email exchange).
One would hope that a University could work toward a neighborly compromise, offering residents a little more creative and compassionate option than (1) shifting the full brunt and cost of the unpleasant aspects of hosting 70,000 uninvited guests onto the neighborhood's home owners, for what is a revenue-generating activity for the University, or (2) suggesting local residents simply abandon their homes and move elsewhere.
For its own sake, I would think the University would want to make the Myrtle Street Parking Lot (on the east end of the neighborhood) -- university property -- into an alcohol-free tailgating area, as I believe it has with other University-owned lots. This would not necessarily help the neighborhood, because it might well just shift the binge drinking onto more of the party house properties closer to the neighbors. But, without checking sources, it's my belief that what is now going on is a violation not only of Iowa law but of the University's own regulations, and could conceivably impose legal liability on the University for the property damage, personal injury (and worse) that might result from that alcohol consumption (especially by those who are under age and violating the law for that reason as well). Just a thought.
I would hope that at least my rather modest request for more porta-johns and trash containers in the neighborhood might be met. It would involve a rather insignificant expense for a multi-million-dollar-generating football program, and might actually reduce some of the cost of the post-game cleanup that either the City or Athletic Departmet is providing -- for which I thank whoever is resposible. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Looking for commentary about the Oct. 12 Hancher relocation forum? Click here. Looking for the entries about the University, and Iowa's, budget cuts? Click here and here.
Rodney Dangerfield made a career out of the line "I can't get no respect."
What was funny coming from Dangerfield is not so funny coming from those Republicans today who seem to have chosen ad hominem attacks on the President as their primary political strategy.
Is this anything more serious than a very, very thin plank in what they offer as their political platform? I fear so. As Jon Stewart once said to the "Crossfire" hosts, I say to these Republicans: "You are hurting America."
1. "You lie!" "[T]he House held that by shouting 'You lie' during the president’s speech Mr. Wilson [Congressman Joe Wilson], a South Carolina Republican, committed a 'breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.' . . . The outburst . . . made Mr. Wilson . . . an embarrassment and symbol of Republican disrespect to the president . . .." Carl Hulce, "House Rebukes Wilson for Shouting 'You Lie,'"New York Times, September 16, 2009, p. A14.
2. Break Obama. The Republicans' strategy is revealed most nakedly in their attacks on health care reform.
"Last week, in a variety of television appearances, Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina said he'd like to see the health care reform push slow down. DeMint proceeded to tell a conservative conference call what he really hoped to accomplish: 'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.'
"Today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele endorsed this approach.
"At the end of the address he was asked by the Huffington Post whether he agreed with Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) assessment that health care reform could be Obama's Waterloo -- a chance for the Republican Party to break the president politically. 'I think that's a good way to put it,' he [Steele] responded." Steve Benen, "Reform Opponents Can't Do It Alone,"Washington Monthly, July 20, 2009.
Sadly, Iowa's own Republican Senator Charles Grassley has joined in these efforts:
"Mr. Grassley also cited policy objections to the Baucus legislation. He criticized its costs, though Mr. Baucus has proposed offsetting savings, and he objected to its mandates that individuals have insurance, though Mr. Grassley previously has said health insurance should be mandatory just as auto insurance is for drivers. He said the bill would not do enough to guard against aid going to illegal immigrants and for abortions, and complained that it would not limit malpractice awards.
"For Democrats, Mr. Grassley’s list only reinforced their belief that he never would have compromised no matter how much time he had.
"Democrats wrote off Mr. Grassley in August, when at his meetings with Iowa voters he seemed to affirm conservatives’ claims that Democratic proposals would create government death panels to 'pull the plug on grandma,' and when he vowed in fund-raising appeals to lead the opposition to health care legislation." Jackie Calmes, "G.O.P. Senator Draws Critics in Both Parties,"New York Times, September 23, 2009, p. A22.
Although I'm unable to find the link at the moment, my memory is that Senator Grassley along with other Republicans also earlier supported a bill that would have created Medicare funding for the end-of-life counseling that the Republicans are now calling "death panels." That Bill, "Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act of 2007," S. 466, was introduced into the 110th Congress by Senator Rockefeller [D-WV], two other Democrats, and three Republicans: Senators Collins, Isakson and Lugar. Others presumably signed on later, possibly including Grassley, but the Bill never passed.
So the "anti-death-panel" Republicans are not only deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the currently pending legislation, engaging in obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism that they hope will "break" the President, but willingly engaging in some considerable hypocrisy as well -- fear-mongering a proposal that their fellow Republicans once introduced.
For President Obama to be the third sitting president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize is as much a tribute to America, and the Americans who elected him to their highest office, as it is for him alone. Here is a report of some of the world's reaction:
"'Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,' the [Nobel Prize] committee said. 'His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.' . . . President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the award marked 'America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,' while Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said . . . 'In a short time he has been able to set a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue.'" Steven Erlanger and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts,"New York Times, October 10, 2009, p. A1.
Those sentiments from abroad are no mean accomplishment given where America's prestige had fallen during the last administration. And they do constitute, in fact, when multiplied by the number of the world's people who now share them, a significant element in creating a more peaceful world.
So what was the Republican response?
On Saturday, October 10, Michael S. Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman, sent the Party faithful an email under the subject line, "Nobel Peace Prize for Awesomeness." It succeeded in not only dissing the President but the Nobel Committee as well, and began:
"I'm sure you've heard the news -- Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It's a stunning, if not truly surprising, indication of just how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become. What has President Obama actually accomplished? . . . Even the normally fawning media have expressed shock at the clearly political and unmerited award. . . ."
The email concluded: "Help us remind the Democrats that trendy slogans and international esteem don't create new jobs for Americans, reduce the national debt, or keep our country safer in a dangerous world . . .."
In the same spirit, and to no one's surprise, the Republican Television Network, Fox, also trivialized the Prize. The Times reports, "On the Fox News show Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade, one of the hosts, said: 'This arguably could be the third person to win the award for not being George Bush.'"
The point is, Republicans don't have to take this stance. The story continues, Senator John McCain, President Obama's rival in the 2008 election, while not unrelievedly enthusiastic about the President and his new honor, at least had the decency to add, "as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” Kate Phillips and Maria Newman, "Blog Talk: Perceptions of Obama's Prize,"New York Times, October 9, 2009.
"President Can't Swim," indeed.
Could anything be worse than trying to disparage an American president's receipt of the Nobel Peach Prize?
Yes.
4. Cheering America's loss of the Olympics. President Obama, like other heads of state, went to Copenhagen in an effort to win an Olympics bid for America -- Chicago 2016.
He was unsuccessful.
So how did the pit bull conservative Republicans (with and without lipstick) respond? They cheered! They cheered the fact that America had lost in its effort to host the Olympics. Why? Because it was a further achievement in their campaign to disparage and trivialize President Obama, their efforts to make sure he "can't get no respect," to "break him."
"'The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama,' echoed Rush Limbaugh.
"'For those of you ... who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy,' Limbaugh said. 'Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me.'" Rachel Slajda, "Conservatives Revel In America's Olympic Defeat,"Talking Points Memo, October 2, 2009.
OK, Limbaugh is just a talk show host -- albeit one who is rabidly anti-Obama and pro all things Republican.
But take a look at this Rachel Maddow video.
Rachel Maddow, "Conservatives Applaud Chicago's 2016 Olympics Loss," October 2, 2009, includes some of the audio and video of conservatives cheering Chicago's loss (and presumably their perception of conservatism's gain from any misfortune that comes President Obama's way) along with statements from a broad spectrum of the attack dog anti-Obama conservatives:
But what you also saw, if you watched this YouTube video, is President Bush's much more genuinely patriotic view of a Chicago Olympics, starting about 1:50 into the video: "But really it's coming to America. And I can't think of a better city to represent the United States."
Here again, the point is both that (1) Republicans don't have to be hateful to be successful, and (2) it's a little hypocritical to cheer an American loss that the Republicans' last president clearly hoped would be a win.
Where do we go from here?
It was not always thus. In 1932 a court upheld the old Radio Commission (predecessor to the 1934 FCC) in its denial of a license renewal to Reverend Dr. Shuler of the Trinty Church in Los Angeles, licensee of station KGEF.
Based on the record in the case it would seem that his speech was no more inaccurate, mean spirited and hateful than what is coming from some Republicans today or passes for talk shows on Fox or Rush Limbaugh. The court, while upholding Shuler's First Amendment rights to hold and speak his views elsewhere, drew a distinction in terms of his right to use a station licensed to serve "the public interest" for such purposes. Judge Groner wrote:
[If broadcasters are permitted to] use these facilities, reaching out, as they do, from one corner of the country to the other, to obstruct the administration of justice, offend the religious susceptibilities of thousands, inspire political distrust and civic discord . . . and be answerable for slander only at the instance of the one offended, then this great science [of radio broadcasting], instead of a boon, will become a scourge, and the nation a theater for the display of individual passions and the collision of personal interests. This [restriction on a broadcaster's speech, in this case resulting in the Commission's refusal to renew Shuler's license] is neither censorship nor previous restraint, nor is it a whittling away of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, or an impairment of their free exercise.
Appellant may continue to indulge his strictures upon the characters of men in public office. He may just as freely as ever criticize religious practices of which he does not approve [which were Roman Catholicism].
He may even indulge private malice or personal slander -- subject, of course, to be required to answer for the abuse thereof -- but he may not, as we think, demand, of right, the continued use of an instrumentality of commerce for such purposes, or any other, except in subordination to all reasonable rules and regulations Congress, acting through the Commission, may prescribe.
Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Commission, 62 F.2d 850, 852-53 (C.A.D.C. 1932). [First described in this blog in Nicholas Johnson, " Externalities: Hawkeyes' Football, Obama's Safety," September 21, 2009.]
Still earlier in our nation's history we had a law making it a crime to "write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing . . . against . . . the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . the said President, or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . the hatred of the good people of the United States . . .." "An Act for the Establishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States," July 14, 1798 (expiration date March 3, 1801), Statutes at Large, 5th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 596.
The crime described is what was called in England, and in this country 210 years ago, "sedition."
I hasten to assure the reader that I am not advocating either the re-enactment of an American sedition law (the 1798 law expired in 1801) or a return to the FCC's monitoring of programming content represented, and upheld, in the Trinity Methodist Church case.
For I do not challenge the legal, indeed the constitutional, right of Republicans to savage our, and their, president in their effort to deny him, and the office he holds, the respect most Americans would say is rightfully his.
Respect for the President, and the Office of the President, is no longer required as a matter of law or FCC regulation. But it is still required as a matter of patriotism, effective and constructive governing, and civility in the discourse of a democracy's effort at a people's self-governing.
This does not mean agreement of the kind urged upon us during the first years of the latest Iraq War, in which "support the troops" became shorthand for "support the president." Throughout these blog entries can be found a good deal of criticism of members of both political parties in general, and some of the policies, personnel, and procedures of President Obama in particular -- but all, hopefully, with a respect for the person and office of the presidency.
I applaud those Republicans who have stood up to their colleagues in "the Party of 'No,'" and who, while not abandoning their values, are continuing to participate constructively and with civility in the legislative process.
I simply ask of the "give-the-President-no-respect" Republicans today what attorney Joseph Welch once asked of the red-bating Republican Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Joseph McCarthy, during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, June 9, 1954.
In the middle of the hearings Senator McCarthy chose to pin the "communist" label on a young lawyer in Mr. Welch's firm, a Republican who was neither a member of the communist party nor a potential witness in the hearings -- nor a member of Mr. Welch's team attempting to defend the U.S. Army from McCarthy's accusations.
Mr. Welch responded, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
"Senator McCarthy: I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.
. . .
"Mr. Welch: Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir. . . . Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could ask -- could have asked me about [him]. . . . [I]f there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. . . ."
I happened to have watched that exchange live, on television, was moved by it, and wrote Joseph Welch of my admiration for him -- along with a request for a photo. He replied that he was nowhere nearly as great as I thought he was but that he was good enough to send me the signed photo that is today framed and hanging in my law school office.
To those Republicans who today attack the person and office of the presidency, who seek to "inspire political distrust and civic discord," to "excite against [the President] the hatred of the good people of the United States," I say with memories of Joseph Welch, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
With the protection we afford them, with the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, and the FCC's non-regulation, all we can do is to point out the harm in their strategy -- as I have attempted to do here. We must trust in the good sense of the American people whose parents ultimately turned their backs on McCarthy, said "shame, that's not nice; it is you, sir, who are 'anti-American.'"
We can hope, to paraphrase Joseph Welch, that "[I]f there is a God in heaven, disrespecting the President will do neither the pit bull members of the Party of 'No' nor their cause any good." _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Times are tough, and they're not likely to get better soon -- certainly not so far as unemployment is concerned, now heading into double digits. And even these numbers fail to take account of those who have given up looking for work, are no longer receiving unemployment benefits, the former full time employees now holding part time jobs, those who have jobs but are under-employed at low skill jobs paying a fraction of what they earned before, those who have taken a significant cut in pay or no longer have health care or other benefits, or those whose medical bills leave them no option but bankruptcy.
Nouriel Roubini is one of the few economists to have predicted, early and with some considerable precision, the magnitude of the financial crisis that has now played out before our eyes. He says there's more to come, including an additional 10% drop in home prices once demand from first-time buyers dissipates. (Among a great many other things, the $8000 first-time-buyer credit program expires November 30. Recall the precipitous decline in new car sales following the expiration of the "cash for clunkers" auto industry subsidy). What's worse, he notes, is that "The stress is moving from residential mortgages that are still in deep trouble, to commercial real estate, where they [banks] are just starting to recognize that they're going to have massive, massive losses" -- from some $2 trillion in questionable commercial real estate loans. He continues, "Most of these losses are not [yet] recognized because they're keeping the loans at face value on their books." Walter Brandimarte, "US housing market not bottomed-economist Roubini,"Reuters, October 8, 2009.
Worse, as Elizabeth Warren noted on yesterday's "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook, Congress has essentially turned over the writing of the regulatory reform legislation to the lobbyists for the very guys who created the problems, are already back to business as usual, and are rapidly leading us into an even more severe financial catastrophe on down the road. "Creating Jobs in a Jobless Recovery,"On Point, October 8, 2009. (Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren is chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel charged with monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP.)
Also on the program was Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and now a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He advocated, as I have over the past year, a re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act. First enacted in 1933, it limited bank speculation. In our headlong rush to the promised land of deregulation its prohibitions on bank holding companies owning financial companies were repealed in 1999. (Glass-Steagall also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.) Notwithstanding the rather persuasive, multi-trillion-dollar evidence we now have of its necessity, there is little to no enthusiasm in Washington for its return.
Nor is there support for the logical mantra, "If it's too big to fail, it's too big." By turning trillions of taxpayers' dollars over to the Wall Street banks, while ignoring the Main Street banks, the 100 that have failed are simply gobbled up as the big get even bigger. There's no movement to bring them to manageable size, nor to curtail their risky behavior, and the rewards in bonuses that result. Banks are calling the shots, telling the taxpayers, "Heads we win, tails you lose." Congress is content to let them continue to speculate with depositors' money, secure in the congressional promise that if they profit from their risky investments they get to keep the profits, and if they lose Congress will cover their losses with taxpayers' money. A sweet deal indeed, with no signs it's about to change.
So not only is it bad and getting worse, the odds are good -- given elected officials' disinclination to alienate their most generous campaign contributors -- that the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on an onrushing train of even more serious financial disasters for Main Street, brought to us courtesy of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
When I was in Washington we had reasonable Republicans one could work with, and even admire -- while disagreeing over the details of policy. Nor am I today a partisan "anti-Republican." I am bi-partisan in my disgust with both parties' willingness to sell out the best interests of their constituents, especially those least able to fend for themselves, for the campaign contributions that enable them to be a member of Congress for life.
I would welcome a return of a constructive, civil and rational Republican "loyal opposition." It's not good for the Republican Party, and certainly not for the nation, for them to fashion their positions solely on their effort to "crush Obama" -- for example, recently cheering the news that his Copenhagen effort to bring the Olympics to Chicago had failed, or to stand in a solid phalanx of opposition to whatever he proposes as an obviously necessary health care reform. In the final analysis I don't think the American people are looking for "the Party of 'No.'"
Meanwhile, back in Iowa we have an especially urgent need to put partisanship behind us at this time, to come together, to put selfishness and greed behind us and focus on a shared sacrifice.
So I was disappointed to see on the Iowa House Republicans' Web site the reaction of their leader, Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha), to the current State budget crisis: "'Today the governor raised property taxes,' said Paulsen. 'The result of this across the board cut is higher property taxes for Iowans. A tax increase that could have been avoided by better management of the state budget. The governor is pushing his out-of-control spending problem on to the backs of Iowans.'”
This is a time of testing of our moral values. As the late AFL-CIO President George Meany once explained it to me, "Nick, it's all about who gets the beans and who gets the pork chops." In his time workers could afford not only pork chops, but homes and college education for their kids. Ultimately, with "trickle down" economics, more were reduced to eating beans and limiting their kids education to high school. And that was in "our best of times."
We are heading into "the worst of times." How will we allocate the pain? Will those best able to absorb it accept a little more? Or will the wealthy, the CEOs and other administrators, continue to assume an entitlement to a continuation of a lifestyle that is multiples of what others can enjoy?
There is an issue of tough, serious, specific substantive decisions here.
_______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
A Modest Proposal to the Regents' University Presidents (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The University of Iowa wants "strategic communication" and is searching for someone to provide it. "The Vice President for Strategic Communication reports to the President and is the chief communication officer responsible for conveying the University’s mission, vision, and values internally and externally. ""Position Description, Vice President for Strategic Communication Search," University of Iowa.
Until we find someone to fill this post, with its lengthy and intimidating Position Description list of responsibilities, I have a modest suggestion for how we -- and the other two Regents' universities -- might "convey the University's values."
These are tough economic times.
Tuition was increased 3.2% last year, 4.2% this year, and at least one Regent is advocating increasing it 5-6% next year. Out of state tuition for our professional schools is becoming less distinguishable from that of the most expensive private schools. Our so-called "public universities" are PINO universities -- public in name only. The free higher education California once offered, the nearly free in Iowa, the $25 a semester I paid elsewhere as an undergraduate, or tuition-free programs like the GI Bill after WW II have become truly ancient history. Stacy Hupp, "Tuition Increase Likely, Regent Says,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2009.
A "construction moratorium," that is, except for athletic facilities? Watch this space and see. "In a timeframe now measured in weeks instead of months, Iowa director of athletics Gary Barta expects work on the $47 million renovation of Carver-Hawkeye Arena to begin this fall . . . 'and we are on schedule to make that happen,' Barta said during an appearance at the Scott County I-Club dinner on Thursday." Steve Batterson, "Carver renovations on pace to begin in fall,"Quad City Times, October 3, 2009; and Tom Witosky, "Budget woes might stall U of I arena's renovation,"Des Moines Register, October 11, 2009: "The regents records . . . show that [the UI] athletic department receives $882,000 from the university general fund . . .."
Successful budget cutting, always a bummer, requires the appearance as much as the reality of fairness. Layoffs, reductions in compensation, "a hiring freeze and a construction moratorium" from which the football coach's salary and the basketball team's construction program are exempt does not have the appearance of fairness -- regardless of the rationale that may be offered for the exemptions.
The Board of Regents has held the universities presidents' salaries level and failed to award any bonuses for last year's performance.
However, "the university presidents still could receive bonuses for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2010. . . . If U of I President Sally Mason meets her performance goals, she would be eligible for an $80,000 bonus. ISU President Greg Geoffroy could receive a $50,000 bonus, and UNI President Ben Allen is eligible for a $25,000 bonus." Brian Morelli, "No pay raises for presidents of universities,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2009.
Some Iowa legislators questioned the symbolism, and economics, of even holding out the possibility of such bonuses in these economic times. "Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, Rep. Chris Hagenow, R-Windsor Heights, and Rep. Annette Sweeney, R-Alden, released a joint statement saying bonuses [totalling $155,000] should not remain a viable option this year . . .. 'This is hardly a pot shot,' Kaufmann said. 'It is amazing to me they continue to have these conversations out loud. It’s amazing to me they talk about tuition increases and performance bonuses of tens of thousands of dollars in the same meeting.'" Brian Morelli, "Dvorsky Backs University President Bonus Plans,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 29, 2009.
All of this creates a bit of a problem. Students, who are graduating with significant debt, are understandably upset about their ever-increasing tuition. University employees are understandably concerned about layoffs, and increased work for decreased pay. Legislators, no doubt reflecting their constituents' feelings, are criticizing the Regents for making bonuses possible. And the Regents would be understandably reluctant to appear to be backing down to legislators' pressure.
The public is justifiably outraged over the bank bailouts being funded with their taxpayer money -- and their great grandchildren's increased share of the national debt -- being used to pay the guys who caused the problem million-dollar bonuses.
President David Skorton once said, when some questioned whether he was being paid enough, "When the median family income in Iowa is around $45,000 and I make over $300,000, it’s hard to argue that is not a lot of money. It’s very generous." [Quoted in "Pricey Presidents Added Cost," below.] Many Iowans share his candid assessment, and probably consider bonuses on top of what is now much more than $300,000 a year to be Iowa's equivalent, with Iowa taxpayers' money, of what's going on nationally with Wall Street executives.
So what can be done? Here's an example from what was actually a much less stressful time over a year ago.
Iowa is not the only state dealing with the consequences of our Wall-Street-created economic disaster. Connecticut confronts similar pressure. Notwithstanding those stresses, Iowa's own Mike Hogan, now the very popular president of the University of Connecticut, was awarded a $100,000 bonus for his "exemplary services."
What did he do with all that money?
With no pressure on him to do so, or public objection to a bonus payment for such a popular president, he made the personal decision to not accept it.
Former UI Provost Michael Hogan, who was denied the UI presidency in 2006, this week turned down a $100,000 bonus for exemplary service as the president of the University of Connecticut. . . .
Hogan declined the $100,000 bonus because of the state and school's struggling economic situation, and he asked that the money be given to the university's graduate program, the Associated Press reports.
Lauren Sieben, "Regent: No 2nd Thoughts,"The Daily Iowan, September 26, 2008, quoted and discussed in Nicholas Johnson, "Hero Hogan; Mike Hogan Is Alive and Very, Very Well," October 1, 2008. [The third comment to this blog entry, below, comes from a "UI Emeritus" and reports that this year, "Before the board in Connecticut even discussed his evaluation (which once more was reported to be exceptional, outstanding, extraordinary), he [President Hogan] asked them not to even contemplate a raise or bonus, in light of the economy and the struggles everyone is facing."]
[Graphic credit, and see, "PresRelease" -- a combination Web page, blog, photo album and Facebook-like location that University of Connecticut President Michael J. Hogan self-describes as "my own little page where I can share items of interest, celebration, or concern with my University colleagues."]
We're not talking much money here; $155,000 will scarcely be noticed one way or the other in the multi-million-dollar cuts the University of Iowa has made, and will have to continue to make. Moreover, the presidents are not guaranteed this money anyway. The Regents left open the possibility the bonuses would not be granted next year for the same reason they were not granted this year: the economy.
So the presidents wouldn't even be giving up all that much to agree to forgo them.
But I think it would make a huge difference in appearances if they were to say, either individually or in chorus: "We don't want bonuses next year even as a possibility, regardless of how well we -- and the economy -- may do between now and then."
If Iowa values can be exhibited in Connecticut, the presidents of Iowa's universities certainly ought to be able to muster up the courage to display them here in Iowa as well.
It might help soothe the legislature. It would get the Regents out of an awkward position. It could calm the anxious and angry students -- and their parents. It might make Iowans less hostile toward what they perceive as unnecessarily generous compensation for university administrators in these times. And it would communicate to the faculty and staff a little better sense of "we're all in this together."
You want a relatively cheap strategic communications way to "convey the University's values internally and externally"?
This is my modest proposal. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Did you read today's blog headline as a typographical error, an Olympics equivalent of the Chicago Tribune's headline following the 1948 election, "Dewey Defeats Truman" -- a triumph of hope over reality?
Not at all. It is the reality.
The fact is that, most of the time, winning an Olympics bid, like many other efforts at local boosterism, turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
There may be the equivalent of a Bernie Madoff here and there, promoting various community projects in an effort to make a personal profit. But my assumption is that most community cheerleaders, like modern day George Babbitts [Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt (1922)], with confidence and pride in their town truly believe that their idea -- whether an indoor rain forest, the world's largest ball of string, or hosting an Olympic event -- really will "put their city on the map," while bringing tourists and their tourists' dollars to town. Who needs a business plan when "everyone knows" what a great idea it is?
We hear it now from the restaurant and bar owners in Iowa City -- and the elected officials who promote their causes -- who are proposing to shoehorn the Hancher Auditorium replacement into a downtown Iowa City laid out 170 years ago, in 1839.
All too often the construction money can't be found, or the project is built but it turns out that "build it and they will come" only works in the movies. Or enough public debt is incurred that it is, with the declining revenues that could have been predicted but weren't, the death knell for the project and then -- like paying for a dead horse -- takes years, if ever, to pay off.
But there is no effort at community promotion for which there is a greater disparity between the promised economic benefits and the ultimate disappointment than Olympic venues (with the possible exception of the games held at this, the first venue for the games). Consider the following examples:
o The $2.7 billion debt following Montreal's 1976 Olympics was not paid off until 2005.
o Atlanta's 1996 hope of riches provided few if any increases in retail sales, hotel occupancy or airport traffic during the games. As economist Andrew Zimbalist reports, "The only variable that increased was hotel rates — and most of this money went to headquarters of chain hotels located in other cities."
o The excess costs in Sydney in 2000 were over $2 billion.
o Athens' budget in 2004 was $1.6 billion. The ultimate cost? $16 billion.
o An increase in tourism? As is often the case at Olympic events Athens suffered a 10% decline -- as those who would otherwise have visited at that time but wished to avoid Olympic crowds simply stayed away. A 2002 Utah survey indicated that 50% of the usual non-resident tourist skiers were planning to stay away during the winter games for that reason.
o The newly built facilities not only cost billions to build, they take valuable real estate -- and may involve the removal of those left with no housing -- only to sit unused, or underutilized, after the lights dim and the athletes depart.
o Rio is already projecting a cost of $14.4 billion, and it will be another seven years, and uncounted millions or billions more, before anyone will be saying "let the games begin" in 2016.
It's kind of like second prize is that your city gets to spend billions of dollars hosting the Olympic games for a few days and first prize is that you don't have to.
Or, otherwise put, Chicago can spend billions on the Olympics and feed visitors for a few days, or it can have a sensible business plan to bring midwesterners to Chicago by rapid rail and feed them for a lifetime.
And that's why, I think, Chicago won the bidding in Copenhagen.
[Source for data: See Andrew Zimbalist, "Not a Rosy Picture," in "Room for Debate: Do Olympic Host Cities Ever Win?" New York Times, October 2, 2009, and Andrew Zimbalist, "Economic impact of Olympic Games rarely adds up to much gold," Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal, August 1, 2005, p. 21. For Athens' $16 billion estimate see also "Montrealers identify with Athens' challenges," Canadian Press, CTV, August 5, 2004.] _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Supreme Court Day, and "Master Harold . . . and the boys" (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
At the University of Iowa College of Law it's Supreme Court Day. At 1000 movie theaters across America it's "Capitalism: A Love Story." In the bookstores is Ralph Nader's new book -- are you ready for this? -- a novel, or as he calls it a "practical utopia," and a big one in physical size, imagination and scope: Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.
And if you haven't seen it yet, tonight and tomorrow night (October 3 and 4) are the last nights for the must-see local Dreamwell performance of "Master Harold . . . and the boys," 7:30 at 10 South Gilbert (although otherwise unaffiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist Church). Not only is this play brilliantly written, acted and directed, it has a message for America in general, and Iowa City in particular, as we continue to struggle with the remnants of racism in our midst, as much as a post-apartheid South Africa once did.
Moore's new film has been called "moving beyond words" (New York Times), a "magnum opus" (Time), "scathing, effective and hilarious" (Bloomberg), "warmly received" (AP), "quintessential Moore" (USA Today), "classic" (Los Angeles Times), "one of his best films" (Variety; Jay Leno said it's not just "one of" it is "his best"), a "fireball of a movie [that] could change your life" (Rolling Stone), "rousing and entertaining" (The Independent), playing to what The Guardian says has been "tumultuous applause."
There will again be those with a different view, who will complain that this is not a true documentary. Well, of course not. He never said it was. His is a new genre of film: docu-tainment. Go and enjoy it. Millions do. If you learn something along the way, so much the better.
Ironically, Ralph Nader is not an anti-capitalist. He is, if anything, trying to save the capitalist system from itself in order than it may continue with a little more positive impact on the people than now. (For all we know Michael Moore, down deep, may be doing the same. After all, he's done all right financially in this economy. But if he's truly an ideological capitalist it's less obvious from his films so far.)
And here is Ralph Nader's explanation of his "practical utopia" on WNYC in New York on September 23 of last week:
During the 1970s, Ralph Nader could fairly be credited with more progressive legislation than any individual U.S. Senator. He has been one of the most creative thinkers regarding the organization and funding of citizen movements, such as his "Public Interest Research Groups" ("PIRGs") and "Citizen Utility Boards ("CUBs"). He's been generous with his time, money, and willingness to give others the credit -- creating the innovative idea, implementing it, attracting others to run it, spinning it off to them, and funding its beginning.
During the 1980s and beyond he became increasingly discouraged with the democratic possibilities under our two party system, as both parties grew ever more dependent on the funding from corporations and other special interests. The differences between them existed in some areas, but they were not very noticeable when it came to corporate subsidies and tax breaks or the military-industrial-complex's Pentagon budget.
We are witnessing as I write this a real disconnect; the distance has become ever greater between Washington and the rest of the country. While a majority of Americans (along with some very candid generals) think a "military win in Afghanistan" is an oxymoron, those politicians funded by the military-industrial complex think sending more troops there is a really terrific idea. The NRA is able to trump the 80% of Americans who think our gun laws may have something to do with our nation's highest-in-the-world deaths from handguns. Big Pharma is invited to the White House for a closed-door deal that will prevent negotiating down their excessive prescription prices. A clear plurality-to-majority of Americans want universal-single-payer health care -- and it's now touch-and-go to unlikely they're even going to get a "public option." Instead of creating government jobs, like FDR did in the last "Great Depression," Congress and the President chose to fund corporate CEOs and bankers -- profits over people, corporations over constituents.
For Nader's entire 20th Century career he rebuffed the pleas of Americans that he run for office. He felt, correctly, that he could get more done during those years as a "Public Citizen," as he called his role, than with the perceptions of conflict of interest that accompanying public office.
But as "pay to play" increasingly became the accepted norm in Washington, the parties grew closer to each other in their support of the special interests that were their largest contributors, and Nader relented. The days of 1970s-style reform were over. Someone with his passion for making America the best that it could be realized that something new had to be tried.
He agreed to run for president, to see if the threat of a third party might -- as it had in America's earlier years -- move the parties' leadership closer to their constituents' best interests. His efforts contributed to the progressive movement in many ways. But those efforts also produced a venomous response from those Democrats who put re-election of Democrats, and unquestioning party loyalty, ahead of the public policy benefits for all the people for which Democratic presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and others had fought so hard.
After all, said the Democrats, candidates need money to win elections (although Senator Bill Proxmire managed to run statewide in Wisconsin for $30 -- the cost of postage to return the unsolicited campaign contributions), and if Democrats have to sell their souls to the company store to get that money, well, so be it. After all, think of the alternative: ugh, Republicans!
Whether he's totally abandoned running for president remains to be seen. But what does seem obvious is that this brilliant, dedicated and innovative reformer has now imagined and seen a new light once again: the literature of utopia. In the video clip, above, he speaks of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward: 2000-1887 -- obviously at least a part of the motivation for Ralph's choosing his new utopian road "less traveled by."
Why fiction? he's asked. Because non-fiction, he has come to see, makes dreaming difficult. Like Robert Kennedy, Ralph Nader also dreams of things that never were and asks, "Why not?"
He offers us his latest dream in Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.
May it inspire the dreams of all of us -- including those young law students from America, India and China who will be gathered for dinner with Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady at my home on this Supreme Court Day at the University of Iowa College of Law. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
