Viewsday

The buzz on Hofstra

2008-10-15T19:27:08Z

Hofstra University is closed today for a televised event to be aired later tonight, but it's creating a bit of a buzz online. Here are some excerpts, with links to the full entries: Roschelle Nelson, on the blog Sagacious Rambling, meets the term 'Hofstra':

Well....here we go again! The much anticipated and highly overrated FINAL debate. Tonight Senators McCain and Obama will meet in Long Island, New York at Hofstra University...(never heard of it!).

Jamie Frevele, on Huffington Post, is giddy that Hofstra is not the Montauk Monster:

As it happens, I work down the street from Hofstra (talk about coming full circle), so while I haven't been privy to campus goings-on, I can tell you that Long Island, let alone Hempstead, is just tickled that we're going to be the center of attention for something other than the Montauk Monster, Billy Joel and sub-par American Idol contestants. Plus it's fun seeing all the out-of-towners referring to "New York's Long Island," or saying "in Long Island" instead of "on." (It's a good thing the debate is in Hempstead and not Hauppauge, Massapequa, Copiague or Quogue.) For one night (well, really, a few news cycles), all eyes are on us as we host our two presidential candidates and watch them duke it out face-to-face for the last time. This is it! The last face-off before Election Day! This is the one that's going to get really nasty, and it's going to get nasty at my alma mater. While everyone else is worried about the traffic advisories and security, I'm feeling like having Chris Matthews on my old stomping grounds is like knowing Santa is in the vicinity and my presents are coming soon. This is our moment.

]]> M.C. Valada, an alumna in California, on Out of the Darkroom, links Hofstra with a joke from the pre-Internet age:

Like many people of my age and older, I first heard of Hofstra University when I listened to Bill Cosby's routines about going to Temple University and playing football. Hofstra would beat Temple 900 to nothing. It's a very funny routine and can be found on one of Cosby's first L.P.s (remember those?) The Hofstra I attended was no sports powerhouse . . .

Jerry Beach, on the blog Defiantly Dutch, demands federal aid for Hofstra:

Both of you [candidates] have promised to provide tax breaks and other assistance to small businesses. Along those lines, there are 3,000 journalists watching this debate right now from a few feet down the road in a building that has been empty of a professional sports team for well over a decade. So what, particularly, will you do to help the United States Basketball League resume operations this year with a Long Island franchise that employs Hofstra alums, plays its home games at the Physical Fitness Center and infuses the Hofstra economy with dozens of dollars every summer?

The final debate: don't hold your breath

2008-10-15T19:18:58Z

The electoral map seems to be solidifying, but could the last debate change the landscape? Slate's John Dickerson grimly gauges McCain's chances of a comeback:

"If McCain wants to take his destiny into his own hands, he has to knock Obama back. The problem for McCain is that pulling off an effective attack in a debate is like making a soufflé in a highway median. (The honking alone makes it very difficult.) It's hard to be aggressive in a debate because the format is so regulated and the risk of coming off as a brute is so high.... "Even if McCain could overcome history and avoid Obama's effort to portray him as intemperate and erratic, he also has to overcome his recent ineffectiveness. According to the most recent Washington Post/ABC poll, as McCain has increased his attacks on Obama, two poll numbers have also increased: McCain's negatives and Obama's positives."

But the big loser in the final debate might be the debate system itself, which has been criticized as woefully uninspired, narrow and scripted. Citing a grassroots reform initiative, the Open Debate Coalition, Dave Bollier at Onthecommons.org calls for a liberation of the debates from the Beltway establishment:

"Right now, the 'debates' use a format that is deliberately designed to minimize actual debate, maximize positive PR for the candidates, and deflect any criticism of the debate format away from the two major parties. It's time to open the closed debate structure to citizen voices and a more open format."

]]> uninsightful moderators. If he were running the debate, he'd shortlist Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman, evangelical leader Pat Buchanan, and evergreen also-ran Ralph Nader to facilitate the discussion. While it's unlikely that the debates will be radicalized any time soon, various political insiders are offering advice on making the most out of tonight's event, however constrained: At a Politico.com forum, Chester Crocker, professor of Strategic Studies at Georgetown, suggests to Bob Schieffer:

"Ask the candidates how each of them -- once elected -- would speak credibly to the American people about the tough choices that lie ahead. The really tough ones -- on national security, on domestic spending and entitlements, on priorities. You cannot promise everything to everyone. What Are those really tough choices? And are the American people ready for some real, candid leadership?"

John Pitney Jr. on National Review presents a list of "debate ommissions"--culture war buzzwords in need of probing: Abortion; Stem Cells, Cloning; Gun Control; Supreme Court; School Prayer, Evolution, Creationism; Immigration; race, affirmative action. Adam Bonin, chairman of Netroots Nation, proposes a simple question to juice things up:

"John, you keep saying in your ads that you don't know who Barack Obama really is. I'm right here. Is there anything you'd like to ask me?"

How would you like to see the debate play out tonight? Post a comment below. This forum will remain live during the debate as well.

Our money's worth

2008-10-15T16:41:24Z

Over the past few days, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has abruptly switched gears in his bailout plan, turning toward a European-style recapitalization program and moving away from the much-maligned proposal to sop up Wall Street's toxic assets. He has since won some qualified kudos from liberal critics for finally coming around to the advice of many economists . But even with a better framework for addressing the financial meltdown, it's still unclear--to economic experts and even policymakers themselves--what the public will get for its money. The current, more popular plan starts with acquiring equity through preferred shares, tied to a five-percent return. Various experts point out a certain well-connected tycoon got a better deal.]]> the Journal:

"the Treasury has taken a sensible broader view -- in leaving more for banks' other shareholders and creditors, it has taken a major step toward restoring confidence in the global financial system."

But Mark Thoma at Economist's View isn't so sure about putting shareholders first :

"[The plan] means that Treasury has very little economic upside. No matter how well the banks perform, the best that Treasury can do is get a 5% return.... Warren Buffet was able to get 10% from Goldman Sachs. Why isn't Treasury getting the same deal? (And how fast do you think Goldman will use 5% Treasury dollars to buy back Buffett's 10% stock...?) "Second, by making an economic loan, but doing it in the form of preferred stock, Treasury has functionally subordinated itself to the bondholders and other debt obligations of the banks. That is a HUGE boon for the bondholders, because it functions a lot like a government guarantee of their positions. It also benefits the common shareholders by making sure that they won't be taken to the cleaners like WaMu and Lehman shareholders."

The bailout plan's executive compensation restrictions will do little to keep corporations in line, critics argue, since the legislation gives CEOs ample wiggle room. Nomi Prins, former Goldman Sachs managing director and a frequent op-ed writer for Newsday, examines the fox-henhouse dilemma that seemed to crystallize after Paulson huddled with insiders to craft the plan:

"The outcome of Monday's meeting included no request for more stringent banking regulations going forward. ... "The meeting did not provide a much-needed disclosure of the dangers that still lurk on the books of these firms, in a painfully transparent manner that will illuminate future losses, a move that would help alleviate the uncertainty that has been dragging down the market and freezing corporate and consumer credit alike."

At Angry Bear, the forecast is that the huge capital injections are about as fail proof as botox.

"The reason the bail-out won't succeed, like Iraq, is that it doesn't address a real problem. Banks going under is not a problem. Bankers having incentives to make risky decisions is a problem, and this bail-out will do nothing to stop it.... "The bigger problem, that there was a housing bubble, and that home prices cannot and should not stay as high as they have been is not addressed by the bail-out. If it ever does get addressed, it will be addressed in a counter-productive way. "The even bigger problem, that the American public has been stretched thin financially for years now and can't afford the sort of consumption that makes up about two-thirds of the economy is also not going to be addressed by the bail-out."

Now that Wall Street is crying out for a rescue, the government has gained the political currency to make its money talk. But is Washington asking the right questions?

Hey big spender

2008-10-14T19:09:32Z

Now that the Treasury has gotten the gears turning on its Wall Street "rescue" with a $250 billion infusion to recapitalize banks, many are anticipating a new, expanded role for government in other arenas, with a focus on the bottom rungs of the economy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rolled out a $150 billion economic stimulus plan that includes infrastructure investments, an expansion of unemployment benefits, and some relief for families facing foreclosure. Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect, who participated in a panel on the legislation, said that while the initial rescue package was for Wall Street, the new package "needs to be entirely a rescue for ordinary people" to protect them from economic decline and budget cutbacks. While some conservatives worry about a big government takeover, others, like economist Noureil Roubini, argue the government can pump the economy in areas in which the private sector has proven useless. Perhaps the biggest test of Washington's newfound generosity would be the ultimate symbol of "big government": universal health care. ]]> threatening healthcare programs in many states, including New York. Meanwhile, the cost of care and erosion of employer-based coverage are getting steadily worse. Maggie Mahar at the Century Foundation’s Health Beat predicts that in the coming years, lawmakers will probably shelve their more ambitious reform goals, as “most of the taxpayer dollars we invest in domestic projects will have to go into sectors where we can create jobs. Health care reform will not create jobs." But Congress can take less ambitious steps, she says, like expanding children's coverage and demanding fairer costs and accountability from the healthcare industry:

“In the tough economic times ahead, Congress may be willing to stand up to the lobbyists on each of these issues. But voters will need to make it clear that we can no longer afford corporate welfare for the healthcare industry….” “We’re entering a new period of belt-tightening. But austerity also could lead to some clear thinking.”

Still, politically speaking, if the feds can afford to resuscitate Wall Street investors, isn't it hard to argue for leaving ordinary people to waste away in Main Street emergency rooms? Envisioning the Washington landscape that an Obama administration would face, Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic counters, “The case for Obama's spending agenda hasn't suddenly become weaker. If anything, it's actually grown a bit stronger. Since Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security could shred federal finances within a few decades, he argues, overhauling health care makes economic sense:

“[T]he culprit behind the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid is the overall price of medical care, which the federal government currently has limited power to control. Ultimately, the only hope lies in a comprehensive reform of health care--one that reduces expensive over-treatment while creating a unified system in which it's possible for the government to exert more pricing power.”

In the Chicago Tribune, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel of the National Institutes of Health has a bright prognosis for post-bailout healthcare reform due to two factors: a sense that government intervention is sometimes needed to address social needs, and a sense that good health care is essential to stability, which struggling households are now craving more than ever.

“The phenomenal failure of Wall Street dramatically changes the appetite of the country for regulation and for shoring up the safety net. With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security, and health care is a critical element of that. ”This financial crisis also means Americans may be more willing to forgo gold-plated comprehensive insurance that covers everything with few restrictions. Under the threat of losing everything, Americans may feel content with the guarantee of a decent plan that covers cost-effective treatments with some restrictions on choice and services to save money. This should enhance the chances for a bipartisan deal on health care. ”With politicians and regulators committing $700 billion in a single week, spending a few hundred billion to make the health-care system cover everyone more efficiently and at higher quality begins to look like chump change.”

It’s hard to predict what kind of precedent the Wall Street bailout will set for Washington's attitude toward helping ordinary people. But whether the new policies end up boosting or curtailing spending, they are already forcing lawmakers to rethink the country's social priorities.

Individuals are left holding the bag on risk

2008-10-14T19:03:11Z

One of the most insightful comments on where our country is headed came from a recent "Doonesbury" cartoon. In response to the U.S. Treasury bailout of banks, one character noted that America is privatizing wealth and nationalizing risk. In other words, people at the top are extracting riches from the financial system, while the taxpayers hold a safety net under those same institutions when they fail. They're "too big to fail," right? These days, we middle-class householders seem too little to succeed. The trend has all been toward handing us more risk for our own financial futures -- and that became all too clear last week as the Dow plummeted. A story today from the Associated Press explains that college savings funds -- the New York State 529 plans -- have been hit by the recent wallop on Wall Street. Over the past two decades, secure company pension plans have mostly been replaced by 401(k) retirement savings -- which have also ridden the ups and mostly downs of the stock market. If President George W. Bush had had his way in 2005, the nation would have privatized Social Security as well. Imagine tens of thousands of people waiting until the stock market recovers so they can retire, because both their 401(k) plans and privatized Social Security benefits were bottoming out in a bear market.]]> "Supercapitalism," over the past 40 years or so, we have gone from a nation of beneficiaries to a nation of investors. And we have taken on all the risk that implies. Now, if only Americans can figure out a way to time college readiness, aging and death to coincide with the appropriate phase of the market, this 'investor nation' idea just might work. This timing thing matters a lot to the middle class, which has very little cushion. But surely it matters far less to people who are rich enough to be insulated from market swings. The president is one wealthy person who has lost touch with middle-class reality.

Tonight: Frontline on the presidential race

2008-10-14T18:49:56Z

The PBS series Frontline has done some excellent journalism over the years on a wide variety of subjects, including presidential-year profiles of the candidates. Tonight at 9 PM on WNET, Channel 13, Frontline takes an in-depth look at John McCain and Barack Obama. We haven't seen an advanced version of the show. But it's safe to say this: In an election this important, this promises to be a wise investment of two hours.

The "decent" Arab

2008-10-13T20:40:15Z

John McCain has tried to tone down the anger surrounding his campaigning in recent days, but some of his efforts have opened new avenues for criticism over his--and the country's--handling of issues of race and ethnicity. Last week in Ohio, a woman at a rally expressed fear of Obama and called him "an Arab," McCain shook his head gravely and said "no, ma'am" and again defended Obama's character: "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with." Some in the crowd booed when McCain said respectful words about Obama, revealing that his portrayal of Obama as "risky" may be unleashing deep-seated fears and resentment in ways the campaign might not have intended. It also shows the burden he faces in trying to respond spontaneously to the anger that his messages have stirred. Juan Cole at Informed Comment took issue with the divide implied in McCain's comment--between the Arab ethnicity and the American idea of "decency”:

"McCain should have said, 'there would be nothing wrong with being an Arab, but Obama is not.' The way he put it strongly implied that he had a low opinion of Arabs."

]]> "Mr. McCain, Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans are decent, family-oriented citizens. The only thing wrong with calling Obama by either of these modifiers is that it would be incorrect. He is not an Arab ethnically, but rather northern European and Luo (Nilotic). He is not a Muslim but a Christian. "McCain's insinuation that 'Arabs' (whether he and his friend actually meant 'Muslims' or not) are not decent and not family-oriented and not citizens is obscene." James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute, criticized McCain's defense of Obama as discrimination by inference:

"From the beginning of this campaign there have been those who have used Muslim and Arab in an effort to smear Barack Obama. This exploitation of bigotry and the stoking of racist fires to forward an agenda is reprehensible. This is not only offensive to the Arab Americans, but to all Americans."

The Ohio incident marked neither the first nor the last time the "Arab" and "Muslim" labels have turned up as political contraband in the presidential race. While trying to parry baseless "terrorism" accusations, Obama, too, has run into tensions in keeping a cautious distance from the Arab-American community. Character attacks are par for the course in political races. But the racial and ethnic divides revealed by McCain and Obama campaigns will leave a deeper impression on the American psyche than any ordinary mudslinging would. The next president will have no choice but to confront the cultural rifts this election season has laid bare.

Phantom voters

2008-10-13T18:38:37Z

With only a few weeks left in the presidential race, there's just enough time to stir up doubt about the integrity of the country’s voting system. Amid the various stories of fraud and purges, voters are left wondering whether, come Election Day, their ranks will be wrongfully inflated, illegally shrunken, or just right. ACORN, a left-leaning community organizing network, admits it has collected registration forms with erroneous information (like celebrity names), but insists the flaws are isolated problems and not an orchestrated attempt to manipulate the election. The group says the forms, which make up less than 1 percent of the 1.3 million new registrations, were mostly identified by the group itself, in compliance with federal election law. ACORN's defenders say the GOP is just trying to suppress a groundswell of fresh votes from the working class and communities of color, which could lead to a Democratic landslide. Besides, the Washington Independent contends, since the issue here is botched registration forms collected by the group's workers, not actual illegal voting, the main victim of fraud at this point seems to be ACORN itself, as an employer.]]> perennial target for conservative attacks, but the group’s ties to Barack Obama have given the right extra fodder. According to news reports, Obama once helped litigate a polling access lawsuit on the side of both ACORN and the federal government; he put in a few hours to help with a leadership training program; and the Obama campaign donated money to an ACORN affiliate for voter mobilization activities. In the same tone used to drum up concerns about Obama's ties to William Ayers, the McCain camp is suggesting that an Obama-ACORN conspiracy is at work:

“Given ACORN's recent efforts to engage in voter fraud and to disrupt our political system, Obama's affiliation with this group raises serious questions about his judgment and ability to lead this nation.”

But while the fraud charges have riled up right-wing commentators and spurred investigations in Nevada and Ohio, media probes have yielded scant evidence of a plot to undermine the election. Liberals hope the ACORN controversy doesn't distract the public from a more troubling pattern of possible electoral misconduct. A recent New York Times investigation noted systematic scrubbing of voter rolls in key states, including Ohio and Nevada. Though bureaucratic incompetence appears to be the main culprit, the report has stirred worries that wrongful disenfranchisement could lead to another 2000 Florida-style fiasco. ACORN has confronted fraud complaints from Republicans previously, and in some cases, the attacks have backfired. In the U.S. attorney firing scandal, the public learned that New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias was removed after resisting pressure to do the GOP's bidding by cracking down on the group. Finally, there is the question of what impact voter registration “fraud” actually has on an election's outcome. After all, with new voter identification laws in place, it's probably a lot easier to fill out a registration form for "the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys" than it is to cast votes on their behalf at a local polling station. Loyola law professor and election law expert Richard Hasen is critical of ACORN's quality control efforts, but argues that the election's outcome won't be impacted. Rather, he warns, official backlash could do far more damage:

“So even if Mickey Mouse is registering, he is not showing up on election day to cast ballots, and so far as I am aware, there have been no cases of phony voter registrations leading to the casting of votes in any election that have been on any large scale -- much less affected the outcome of elections. So we should all agree that those who submit fraudulent voter registration forms should be punished criminally, but that such activity is not going to affect the outcome of the presidential election: Obama is running way ahead in the polls, and if he wins in a landslide it is not because Donald Duck has voted thousands of times in key swing states. “But cries of voter fraud allow for harsh purging of voters from the rolls. Because of decentralization of election authority and a lack of administrative competence or will, the rolls are inaccurate in many states. Careless purging—driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud—can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls.”

In other words, a crisis of confidence on Election Day could lead to a solution worse than the problem.

Fields and borders

2008-10-10T21:27:05Z

American farms have long been tended by foreign hands. The H-2A farm worker program is the vehicle that shuttles thousands of temporary workers to U.S. fields, and as we noted on our editorial page, it is failing both workers and employers. Earlier this year, the Bush administration pushed to loosen the program’s regulations, easing requirements that the employer make an effort to fill job openings with nonimmigrant workers first before trying to hire through H-2A. But United Farm Workers, a pro-immigrant labor group, argued new rules would hurt workers on both sides of the border by driving down labor standards. Meanwhile, employers seem to be finding ways to exploit cheap labor outside the law: The estimated number of undocumented farm workers far exceeds the number of workers authorized under the federal government's program (78,000 last fiscal year). ]]> sued a labor contractor on behalf of Mexican H-2A workers alleging “unpaid wages, damages for filthy housing, inadequate meals, fraud and breach of contract.” Immigration reform groups have rallied around the AgJobs bill, which would give undocumented workers a new legal avenue to a green card while strengthening labor and wage protections. There is also the Emergency Agricultural Relief Act, a narrower proposal to maintain the H-2A workforce and avoid a farm labor shortage. Nonetheless, this election season is unlikely to bear fruit for immigration reform. Though foreign-born Americans are a strong electoral force, and shifting demographics tie into the economic challenges at the center of the presidential race, the immigration issue, for now, is stuck in a deep freeze.

Anger management

2008-10-10T18:34:18Z

People looking for something to be angry about these days needn't look hard: The economy is tanking, housing and health care costs are crippling, and jobs are vanishing. Yet the McCain campaign has in recent days, deliberately or not, begun distilling that frustration into something more vague and volatile: sheer projectile rage hurled at Obama, Democrats, the Weathermen, socialists, terrorists and other assorted enemies. “Get them” seems to be a recurring theme. As in, “He's a damn liar… Get him. He's bad for our country,” as one woman cried at a Pennsylvania rally. Or: “It's time that you two represent the rest of us. So go get 'em,”—the task one man laid out for the McCain ticket at a feverish Wisconsin gathering. The McCain camp has generally stood by as the angry atmosphere has intensified on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, various liberal outlets accuse the McCain team of provoking bigoted fear and hatred out of desperation, and even mainstream voices like CNN have have warned of race-baiting.]]> Michelle Malkin attributes accusations of racism to a pro-Obama "witch hunt": "Wink, blink or think critical thoughts about Obama? You're a bigot!" But former McCain campaign adviser John Weaver told Politico.com that the low road could ultimately sink the Republicans’ brand:

“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”

Not to say it couldn’t be useful for McCain, according to Diana West. The chances of McCain winning the election at this point, she argues, hinge not on his qualities as a candidate, but simply the degree to which a reactionary public demonizes Obama as a radical. But to Tim Fernholz at the American Prospect’s TAPPED, whether it works or not, the right might have no choice but to capitalize on "guilt by association":

"Liberal policies are mostly popular, reasonable, and increasingly feasible in relation to the larger world around them, while the last six months have seen conservative rhetoric have less and less to do with reality, particularly in the economic realm. It's very hard for conservatives to say that Obama's ideas are dangerous and be taken seriously. So all that remains is convincing themselves — and likely only themselves — that Obama's rhetoric is vague enough to impute a future rife with left-wing plots straight out of Reagan's bad dreams, instead of what responsible reporting indicates will be pragmatic center-left policies. Well, whatever gets them through their long, dark night of the soul."

Still, viewing the anger through YouTube frames abstracts it from its social underpinnings. George Packer’s New Yorker article on working-class Ohioans reveals that such raw antipathy, while it might strike others as backward or bizarre, has roots in very real, and often forgotten, hardship and alienation.

“Working-class whites, their fortunes falling, began to embrace the anti-government, low-tax rhetoric of the conservative movement. … the Democrats fundamentally lost the white working class because these voters no longer believed the Party’s central tenet—that government could restore a sense of economic security. “Such a change in party allegiance across a vast section of the electorate takes decades to achieve, and to undo. But this year should mark the beginning of a reverse migration. When will the class war ever finally drown out the culture war, if not in 2008?"

Drowning out one war with another could shift the electoral map, but it won’t steer the country off of a political collision course. Post-election, averting a crash will require uprooting deep resentments that have long been building beneath the surface.

Bloomberg forever

2008-10-10T10:38:27Z

It's not surprising that hard times can strengthen the gravitational pull toward an incumbent politician. But to stay in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg must walk a delicate line as he tries to dismantle New York City’s voter-backed term limit system. Despite the Mayor's popularity and the economic uncertainty besieging the city, his plan to extend his regime has already ignited intense controversy. Chafing at his backdoor power brokering and the disruption of city government dynamics, critics—from the grassroots and the political inner sanctum—fear an end-run around the democratic process, (“an attempt to suspend democracy,” as one opponent put it.) The New York Times editorial page, on the other hand, calls term limits "profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad." And certainly, even people opposed to the Mayor's political maneuvering on the issue want to get rid of term limits, too. But does Bloomberg really deserve a shot at another four years in Gracie Mansion?]]> classic narrative of demagoguery:

“[T]his mayor of mediocrity, enemy of trans fats who lets killer cranes crush people and buildings on a regular basis because of lax enforcement, the mayor who hasn't managed to get a 9/11 memorial off the ground in seven years (yes, I know there are other entities involved, but that basically says he's too weak to knock heads together and make it happen), suddenly this self-inflated suit looks in the mirror and decides: ‘The city cannot live without me.’ “The excuse being given is that in this time of crisis we need a steady hand at the helm. And, of course, he was so prescient about the magnitude of the current crisis. You remember all those speeches he made in the past seven years about the potential market instability that subprime mortgages threatened? He was a lone voice crying in the wilderness. What's that, you say? You can't remember those speeches? Well, neither do I, but he must have made them because that might qualify him to say he is a better candidate than the other bungling billionaires who have wrecked our economy to protect our city from the consequences. Of course, Bloomberg had no access to detailed financial information. Oh, wait ... “Anyway, here is the insultingly disingenuous way he turns the fact that the bill he sought to turn his power grab into some kind of virtue: ‘The mayor maintained he was still a supporter of term limits,’ according to the Times. ‘You're not taking away term limits,’ he said. ‘You're simply going from two terms to three terms.’ “And then, if he feels like it, maybe three terms to four terms. Just ignore the law the same way. It's such an insult to the intelligence that it alone should disqualify him.”

This concept of “Bloombergian entitlement,” Rosenblum says, reflects the raw opportunism occasioned by catastrophes like 9/11 and the financial crisis now unfolding before the newly empowered Treasury Secretary. Bloomberg as dictator? A stretch perhaps, though stability and familiarity carry a high premium in times of uncertainty. But how much are New Yorkers willing to value experience above change?

The registration clock is ticking

2008-10-09T17:23:19Z

In an editorial earlier this week, we mentioned that Friday is the deadline to register to vote. So why are we saying it again? Two reasons: 1) In this pivotal election, it's well worth repeating. 2) Online, we have more room to explain your options and to give you some useful links. Let's start with folks who have not yet registered. You can go to the Nassau County Board of Elections in Mineola or the Suffolk County Board of Elections in Yaphank. But the easiest solution is to mail in a registration form. It must be postmarked no later than Friday. You can get the form at post offices and libraries, but you're already online. So there's no need to burn gas. Just download this form, fill it out and mail it. If you somehow miss this deadline, both boards are holding local registration sessions at various locations around the Island on Saturday. Call your local board to find out where. But, really, there's no reason to miss the deadline.]]> this site, maintained by the New York State Board of Elections. Just type in your name and other information. If the site shows you as Inactive, or has no record of you, it's time to call your Board of Elections. Even if you show up as Active, though, that's no guarantee that you are registered. If you have any doubt at all, call the Board of Elections. We don't want to weigh the boards down with extra calls. But better now than on Election Day. If you show up at the polls and the poll workers tell you that you're not registered, you can still file what they call an affidavit ballot. It won't be counted immediately, but it may later be counted, depending on whether you are found to have been properly registered. In any case, the turnout for this election figures to be huge. So, if there are a lot of affidavit ballots on Election Day, that will slow the process and add to the confusion. The bottom line: It's too vital an election to sit on the sidelines. So do what you have to do, to make sure you can vote.

Ask not…

2008-10-09T17:19:26Z

Tuesday night’s debate tested a key presidential skill—the art of avoiding saying what people don’t want to hear. Both Barack Obama and John McCain deftly deflected one of the evening’s trickier questions: “[what] sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?” Addressing sacrifice in in mathematical terms, McCain referred non-specifically to "some programs that we may have to eliminate," the predictable demons of waste and earmarks proverbial GOP boogeyman, to liberal critics) and a broad spending freeze for everything except "vital programs" (seemingly at odds with his spontaneous mortgage rescue plan). Obama rolled out generic tips that seemed more suited for a public service announcement than the Oval Office: weatherizing your house, getting involved in community service. Doesn't sound so bad, does it? That's the problem, according to Eric Black at MinnPost:

“Tell me who, other than the defense contractors who might want to defraud the Air Force on a tanker deal, will have to sacrifice under either President Obama or McCain, according to this answer.”

]]> skirted the message of shared struggle:

“A truly great leader, with the leadership character of a Lincoln or a Kennedy, would have to look into the next decade and call out those challenges that can only be met by inspiring Americans to set aside their personal comforts and make deep sacrifices for the common good….

Easier said than done, but Colvin pitches a few ideas:

“Paying for the war in real time. We cannot keep fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without paying for it now. To pay for the war in Vietnam at the time it was happening, the rich in America paid an income tax surcharge and Lyndon Johnson sold off Fannie Mae. George Bush, incredibly, has reduced taxes for the wealthy and paid for the war with deficit spending…. “Delaying retirement. All signs point to the fact that my generation, born after 1945, will have to keep working longer and retire later, due to the drop in value of our 401(k) and other retirement plans.…. “No more easy money. Wealth did not trickle down during the years of Republican administration, but lots of credit did—subprime mortgages, credit cards, companies issuing junk bonds, states and counties borrowing, bizarre unregulated derivatives and hedge funds. A house of cards, collapsing on us now. We will have to spend less and save more, and the financial self-discipline will be a painful adjustment.”

Dan Rather, whose journalistic career was sacrificed during a media brouhaha in the last presidential race, argued that the mainstream press fosters a political culture that devalues straight talk about tough times:

“as the press and punditry wring their hands over a political environment in which neither candidate is ‘willing to level’ with the American people about the hard choices facing the next president, perhaps these media actors could take a moment to consider what they have done to create this environment. “Because I'm willing to bet the trailer money that, had either McCain or Obama sacrificed a major pillar of his domestic or foreign-policy agenda on the altar of budgetary restraint, the press would have pounced. … “the real gotcha journalism is that which, when it comes to truth-telling on hard choices, offers a choice of damned if you don't, damned more if you do.”

Rebecca Powell at New West bypassed the media spin and penned a letter to the candidates:

“See, we think the times are pretty serious, that the problems are pretty big, bigger than slashing a few budgets and skipping a trip or two for ice cream. We think the problems will require the effort and sacrifice of the individual, not just the maneuverings of government. When you had a chance to cast a grand vision, a vision that strikes at what it means to be in a democracy, of what it means to value the contributions of the individual, you both balked, as if you are not sure our individual actions matter in the face of large problems. … “Do not tell us government will take care of us. Do not tell us our actions [are] inconsequential. Ask us for something substantial, something beyond our tax dollars. Do not be scared to ask us to sacrifice. We do it every day. We sacrifice for our families, our marriages, our careers, our communities. We know something worth having is worth a sacrifice and we think the future of the country might be worth quite a bit. Do not underestimate us, nor our own love and belief in this country.”

So far, neither candidate has presented the public with concrete demands, let alone calculated the cost of those challenges. But more Americans are already figuring out how to do more with less--from scrimping on heating bills to pulling back on retirement saving. The unspoken question about sacrifice in this election season is not about whether to make it, but how to share it.

Putting off the ritz

2008-10-09T16:48:31Z

Our legislators in Albany are always fighting against the misperception that Long Island is a wealthy suburb that gets more than its share of state aid. So Forbes’ list of the country's 100 most expensive ZIP codes, which includes 10 from Nassau and Suffolk, isn’t exactly welcome -- particularly given the state's and region's current fiscal crisis. Yes, Long Island has its Gold Coast enclaves. And the Hamptons, which are funded primarily by New York City dollars. But the glare coming off these glitzy districts shouldn't blind anyone to our struggling communities. Don't expect Forbes to come out with a list of those, though.

American sunset

2008-10-08T21:33:04Z

With financial markets in turmoil, the country's once-solid economic footing is slipping fast and possibly bringing the rest of the world down with it. Critics have long anticipated the end of the American empire, but could the current crisis finally mark the end of U.S. global dominance? The German magazine Der Spiegel recently declared that the financial meltdown has brought our proverbial chickens home to roost:

"This is no longer the muscular and arrogant United States the world knows, the superpower that sets the rules for everyone else and that considers its way of thinking and doing business to be the only road to success. "A new America is on display, a country that no longer trusts its old values and its elites even less: the politicians, who failed to see the problems on the horizon, and the economic leaders, who tried to sell a fictitious world of prosperity to Americans. "Also on display is the end of arrogance. The Americans are now paying the price for their pride."

But are others paying for our pride as well? According to new international polling data from the Pew Research Center, the vast majority of 23 nations surveyed perceive the U.S. economy as greatly impacting their own, and a large portion see this influence as negative.]]> will steadily deteriorate:

"Already this crisis has seen not just our enemies but even some of our closest allies wondering whether we are at the beginning of the end of both American-style capitalism and of American supremacy."

But a regime change doesn't mean defeat, writes Zachary Karabell at the Wall Street Journal:

"For now, even with the breakdown of Wall Street, the U.S. remains vital to the global economy. It is the largest market, with a dynamic consumer culture, innovative companies, and is deeply enmeshed in the international system. But it is not the alpha and the omega; it is not the center; and the crisis hitting Wall Street is leading the rest of the world to form bonds that bypass the U.S. "Not all of this need be an absolute negative. In a truly interconnected world, more affluence and activity globally can be a universal benefit. U.S. companies operating outside the United States and Europe have already been reaping the rewards. But failure to accept the new reality will lead to the worst of all worlds."

Peter Archer at the Sydney Morning Herald is holding out some hope, or at least sympathy, for this aging superpower. Pointing out that America maintains huge economic clout and remains technologically competitive, he looks forward to Election Day:

"the blunders that have put the US into diabolical difficulty are not predestined by history. They are the result of political and policy error. That means they can be solved by political and policy wisdom. America is being tested, and we will see the wisdom of its choices."