This is Mike Nutter, both talking about the specifics of the Chaka Fattah plan to lease the airport, and his philosophy on using Philly resources to fight poverty (from The Next Mayor):
Another candidate has proposed leasing the Airport as a funding mechanism to fight poverty in Philadelphia. This proposal is flawed in both theory and practice. In practical terms, the experimental leasing program authorized by the FAA is slow (the only lease obtained took 34 months to approve and it was for the airport in Newburgh, New York!) and uncertain (if Midway Airport in Chicago receives its expected lease approval, then federal legislation will be needed to allow a second “major hub” lease, which is now prohibited.) But beyond the practical limitations, generations of experience has shown that confronting social challenges like poverty requires the resources of the state and federal governments. It is simply misguided public policy to use limited local resources to meet the responsibilities of higher governments. Democrats since FDR and LBJ have understood that it is wrong to ask orphans to build their own orphanages, and that it is just as wrong for cities to spend down their limited assets to provide limited help for the nation’s poor.
Read again the last three or four sentences, and you see real, fundamental differences in the philosophy of Mike Nutter and Chaka Fattah. Nutter believes that even if Fattah's program to lease the airport could work, it is simply wrong to do anyway, because cities should not be spending their assets on programs for poor people.
I am not going to get into a big flame war by saying, uh, "that doesn't sound so progressive." I will just say it doesn't sound so hopeful to me, or particularly ambitious. Yes, we need more resources from the State and Federal Government. But, if we don't get them, or don't get enough of them, Nutter is basically saying a lack of solutions will not be his fault, because that ain't the city's job.
Again, whatever you want to call it, that is a pretty big difference in two candidates.
More accurately, I think,
More accurately, I think, Nutter believes that unfunded mandates are a drain on the City's finances. Cities should have a rol in helping their poor, but the relative advantage enjoyed by Philly's suburbs in terms of service costs right now is almost exclusively a result of the City's unfunded federal mandates and its costs in dealing with unions.
Its my impression that Nutter's stance is that the Federal government should should some of the responsibility for its decrees. I concede that his delivery needs work, but I think he has a point, not merely for Philadelphia, but cities in general.
The way I understand it, he is trying to be politically realistic while trying to benefit the City as a whole. Does he need a better plan to help deal with poverty in a society with widening income disparity? You bet. Is he biased toward the upper middle class? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, but who did the Rendell tax cuts favor? We all know the middle class shoulders the cost of most city services. What happens when they all leave for Bryn Mawr?
I don't think anyone
I don't think anyone disagrees with this:
Legislative Committee Did Not Recommend Airport Sale or Lease
I served on a legislative committee established by John Perzel in 1998 or 2000 to look into the sale or lease of the Philadephia Airport. The argument was that Philadelphia had too few passengers for its size, and that private enterprise could run the airport better and pay the city $1 billion to $2 billion for the privilege.
When placed under a microscope, however, the wisdom of the plan did not seem very great; no committee consensus was reached; and Perzel eventually dropped the idea. The relatively low passenger totals at the Philadelphia airport could be explained by the fact that there are so many other airports within a short drive of many potential fliers. Philadelphia then had plans--which since have been executued--to increase its capacity and its menu of flights.
Further, Philadelphia's interest in having a strong airport is faar more constant than any contractor, who may, at any given time have other priorities or conflicts of interest.
Airport costs are almost entirely paid by the federal government and the airlines, so there is virtually no savings to Philadelphia taxpayers. But the city gets to employ many people at the airport--paid for by the airlines and the federal government--so that generates considerable wage tax revenue as well as sales tax revenue, car rental tax revenue, and liquor by the drink tax revenue, and Parking Authority revenue. Allowing the airport manager to lay off better paid workers and hire lower paid workers would likely lower the quality of services provided and certainly would reduce the tax revenue to the City of Philadelphia.
$1 to $2 billion in payment sounds like a money. It is undoubtedly considerably more than the net worth of all the message board posters here combined. But over a 99 year period--the period of the suggested lease--it is not very much to solve seriousl social problems.
Even if it was all to be paid immediately, the best possible but unlikely scenario, it should be kept in mind that total ANNUAL budget of the city and school district combined is now more than $6 billion. Taking the most optimistic proposal as fact--that we would get $2 billion to put in the bank for the long haul--we could get only about $80 million a year in interest assuming a 4% annual return. That would amount to an increase in spending of about 1%. That will not end poverty in Philadelphia, or even seriously curtail it.
Whoever proposes sale or long-term lease of the Philadelphia airport, it is a bad idea that denies the city of Philadelphia of full use of a major asset, if indeed the the vast regulatory hurdles that have to be crossed for it to take effect could be overcome.
I agree it isn't exactly a
I agree it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement on how to help the poverty issue, but both sides of the coin can be seen.
On one end he is saying we don't have the resources to wage a war on poverty, by ourselves. You mentioned yourself that the pension issue is a grave concern, and we all know infrastructure and schools need dire help. So, is he being heartless or a realist? Although it would be nice to hear some sort of targeted plan, it isn't completely unreasonable to say "we need help".
The other side we have Fattah. He has a variety of plans targeting poverty. The problem is, to fund his promises, it is involving a revenue stream that currently we are not going to get. It would be nice if he had a a "Plan B" for his promises if the airport is a no-go.
Some, one of the similarities is that they both are putting their poverty plans on the shoulders of the Federal government. Nutter wants the State and Feds to step in more and handle it and Fattah wants the Feds to legalize a revenue stream.
So, when it comes to the poverty issue, based on what I have read, I think they both are not properly addresing the point. Neither has a realistic plan for helping poverty. No one has a plan that can start being implemented the day they take office.
Talking about a plan is nice, but it doesn't count if you can't implement it.
Another difference
With my perspective as someone who grew up in the suburbs and still has family in Delaware and Montgomery Counties, I was encouraged to see this part of the plan:
It's been a long time since I've heard any Philadelphia politician talk about what the city can actually offer to its neighbors and the state as a whole. It seems that most of the time, they talk about going to Harrisburg to get what's coming to the city without bringing anything to the table themselves.
That said, the skeptic/cynic in me thinks that Philadelphia could offer Independence Hall, The Liberty Bell and Citizens Bank Park to the suburbs and they still wouldn't want to cooperate. The divisions of race, class and politics (though the 'burbs are trending bluer all the time) are still pretty deep. It may take someone far more charismatic (dare I say, messianic?) than Nutter or anyone in the field to bridge that gap. In that way, a plan that depends on regional cooperation may be just as unlikely to happen as one that depends on federal and state funding or federal permission to lease the airport.
Ain't it great to hear them all talking about this stuff, though?
Street hasn't talked about
Street hasn't talked about it. But Rendell talked about it all the time. He then had to promptly shut up about it when he ran for Governor, because the idea of regionalization was so unpopular in the 'burbs. So, while yeah, it is good to hear them talking about it, I am not confident Nutter could do it. In fact, in a sort of Nixon to China thing, we might need some sort of really popular suburban official who could be the person to do it (of course, with the county divisions, even that is hard).
Maybe the leverage he talks about will work, but I am skeptical. I will tell you though, after spending 4 years in Minnesota, having a metro area that thinks regionally really does make a big difference.
Moving beyond talking about it
You're right. They all talk about it to some extent. Apparently, Wilson Goode actually used to have breakfast meetings with all of the county commissioners from the suburban counties. Then his popularity took a nose dive and regionalism got pushed aside. I'd love to know what he could have accomplished if MOVE hadn't happened.
As for other examples, Chicago and Denver also show what can happen when regional cooperation is the norm. We're working on a short video based on what we learned about regionalism when we went to Chicago as part of the Greater Philadelphia Leadership Exchange (attended, by the way, by Nutter and Evans). The Economy League of Greater Philadelphia is bringing Denver's mayor, John Hickenlooper, to town on April 18th to talk about what he's learned. He's a very interesting story and happens to have grown up in the Philly suburbs. We (The Next Mayor Project and WHYY) hope to provide some coverage of that too.
So, let me get this
So, let me get this straight? You are claiming Nutter is not "Progressive" because he is unwilling to mortgage Philadelphia's future to achieve a short-term fix? So because Nutter is not willing to screw the next generation of Philadelphians, you think he is not Progressive?
That makes complete sense.
Dan, can you explain to me how you can on one hand criticize pay-day and sub-prime lending and on the other hand support Fattah's plan hock the airport?
This site is quickly becoming a joke.
______________________________
Phillyville
Down stalker boy, down.
Down stalker boy, down.
The point is that there is a clear difference in their philosophies, in terms of the role City government should play in terms of getting people out of poverty.
Or is it a matter of
Or is it a matter of realizing that, on the local level, there are significantly less resources and assets to mortgage?
I think a reasonable criticism of Fattah's plan is that it is short sighted and, perhaps not all that well developed. Like I have said before, it is not either or. You original post is much more absolutist than this comment above.
A little Different
No, I mean, I get that on the local level we have a lot less resources.
But, again, if Nutter just said the airport plan would not work, that would be one thing. But, again, this was a purposeful answer in a paper put out by his campaign where he laid out a pretty clear philosophy: Even if it could work, the City shouldn't do it, because funding programs for the poor is not the job of Philadelphia.
I guess I don't get though what in his position I am misreading? Many people have the basic philosophy that Nutter is talking about- that the job of a Mayor is to efficiently provide services, period. That doesn't mean he is a bad person, but it does pretty clearly show a difference between his and Fattah's philosophies.
Your Fattah-Colored Glasses
Funny how good Dan is at applying the principles of statutory interpretation when it comes to getting Brady knocked off the ballot. But when it comes to Nutter, Dan settles on an interpretation that is completely nonsensical.
For the sake of my sanity, I'll refrain from further comment.
DeWitt, I am gonna send you
DeWitt, I am gonna send you a couple pictures of me for your office, so I can be with you more often. Headshots? Rowing? What do you prefer?
Who's the absolutist?
Let's look at this quote yet again:;
That is a very strong statement of political philosophy, is it not? The only ambiguity there is in the expression "spend down." What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that a city can't divert revenue from other vital services in order to fight poverty? Does it mean that a city can't divert any revenues into povery-fighting programs?
I would assume that the answer lies somewhere in between those two positions, but given the possibility that Nutter is an idealogue who sees good policies for Philly as being synomous with policies recommended by the Chamber of Commerce, reading such a quote is disturbing. I say that as someone who is seriously considering voting for Nutter.
Spend Down Is . . .
"Spend down" in this case means selling an asset and using the proceeds from the sale for operating or program expenses. When you have an asset like the airport that is producing positive cashflow and is well performing and increasing in value, and you sell it and use the proceeds on operating costs or programs, you have a number of economic problems, such as:
1. It does not solve underlying budget problems and is a temporary solution to funding operating costs or programs at the expense of losing a asset, which has value and can produce revenue in excess of expenses for an extended period of time (as in the case of the airport).
2. Once the revenue from the sale of the asset is used up you either need to find new funding to pay for the operating costs or programs funded by the sale of the assets or cut operating costs or programs.
3. Once you sell (or do a long-term lease of) an asset you lose all or some control over the asset, and in the case of the airport its operations. This is not to say that the party buying or leasing the asset will do a worse job running the asset, but you still do lose control, which can have an impact on the level or types of service, especially in the case where certain aspects of the operation that have a public benefit may be unprofitable or undesirable to the new owner.
The issue is not on spending more money for anti-poverty programs. It is who pays and how to pay for it; and in this case the position against having the City pay for anti poverty programs by selling an asset is a prudent position.
deleted
oops! My post was obviously wrong.
I agree with DeWitt here
not in tone, but in substance -- I think you're misreading your bolded sentence to mean that he doesn't care about the poor, where as I read it, it seems like he thinks the suggested solution is short-sighted and would not only be a bandaid (where really blood infusions are needed) but would cripple the city in a way that kept it from continuing to help later. I think that's the right assessment.
I feel the same way about the turnpike lease idea -- you're talking about giving up a small revenue stream for a burst of cash, which is a reasonable plan if you have short-term physical plant needs, but not just because your overall budget needs more operating funds (because you're inherently losing money on the deal or else nobody would be willing to lease). a thumb in the dike, but one that actually deepens the water on the other side. not good.
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Wooh!
Yes, a clear read of Dan's post shows it's not so much about the airport and more about what each candidate thinks about the City's role in addressing poverty. Nutter effectively said that the city shouldn't use its resources in a major way to do it. That's a very strong statement.
It's fair to read Nutter's quote as saying "airport money or otherwise."
---
BradyDale OnLine
The R.I.I.C. Blog
The Philadelphia Unemployment Project
not so sure
I disagree that "it's fair to read Nutter's quote as saying 'airport money or otherwise.'" while it might apply to more than airport money (e.g., selling off Fairmont Park would fit), I think he's talking quite specifically about using assets for cash, rather than finding real, lasting sources of cash-flow to deal with real long-term problems. sure, he'd prefer that the state and country step up to help with poverty, rather than leaving poor cities to find money for poor people (as stupid as expecting homeless folks to cure homelessness), but I don't get the impression *at all* that his problem is with cities dealing with poverty as much as they can, just with sacrificing important assets (assets, physical properties, not money) for funds that don't really fix the problem and leave you with less thereafter.
I don't disagree, nor do I see this as in any way incompatible with a progressive outlook. selling your house to buy groceries may get you through the month, but it's not going to get you through the year -- that's just bad finance, and cities should have better ways of keeping their people fed.
acm
But what about the first five words
in this sentence from Nutter: "BUT BEYOND THE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS, generations of experience has shown that confronting social challenges like poverty requires the resources of the state and federal governments." (I capitalized because I couldn't figure out how else to give emphasis.)
Don't those words make clear Nutter's not merely arguing against capital sales but saying too that fighting poverty as a general rule requires specific targeted funds from other governments? They do to me. Otherwise he wouldn't single out poverty-fighting programs as needing help from other governments. We're quite overwhelmed financially in any number of other areas, but he doesn't say we can't deal with those without state or federal aid.
Furthermore the truth is that you can't deal with "normal" urban issues without dealing with poverty. If police, trash and fire spending is truly local in nature, they're wasted expenses unless we deal with poverty. We will have unsafe, unsanitary and dangerous streets and buildings -- and more and more of them -- unless we build our human capital. These "normal" expenditures will, and already are, getting well out of hand. So the distinction between normal city spending and poverty spending is weak at best and, I fear, only serves to build additional wedges between the classes in our City.
And what about spending for health centers which mainly serve the poor? Is that poverty spending or spending for public health? If we have to choose between hiring more cops or more doctors and nurses with local money, how does Nutter's comment help us choose?
Because I think it requires
Because I think it requires a balance. I think people have to keep in mind that every citizen isn't an idealistic person.
At what point is the poverty threshold too much? At what point is it acceptable to cannibalize other services? I took his point as saying that cities do not have the resources to effectively combat poverty, let alone with a 25% rate, without sacrificing quality of life for others as well - in the form of more taxes and/or less services.
As stated, we have a 20%+ poverty rate. On estimation, how much a year do you need to spend to "solve" the problem? Let's say the poverty rate is only 20% and Fattah manages to get $130 million a year. That is about $464 per person under the poverty line per year. I think we can assume that isn't going to solve the poverty problem (or else the US would have won the war on poverty back in the 70s).
So now with coming budget problems, as mentioned with the school and pension, where does the money come from?
Raise taxes? How far can you go on taxes before you alienate the rest of the populace and destroy the local economy?
Cut other services? What is worth cutting? Parades throughout the year? They are just frills. Layoff municipal servants? That just adds to the unemployed and poverty rate.
I think it is the city's job to "sustain" the poor, but the City does need to other help to aid in elevating them without raising taxes or cutting services.
I think the gist of it is, a local municipality has the first priority of supplying services necessary for the city to function and benefit all residents - i.e. schools, police, health inspections, transit, building inspections, some level of culture and entertainment (museums, public festivals) ,etc.
If the city can raise revenue above those needs, then I am all for more targeted programs.
It all comes down to, what can a local municipality solve on its own without sacrificing the rest of its residents.
And as Ray keeps pointing out, we have a huge poverty problem ... that makes it even more evident that the City needs help. 25% is a staggering number.... a staggering number that grows while the other tax paying base is leaving the City.
It comes down to tough choices that benefit the whole city and allow it to prosper while still doing what it can to help the less fortunate.
My point, and the point Ray makes is
you don't have to be an "idealistic person" to care about poverty. Poverty ruins cities. The services that "are necessary for the city to function" include those that take down the poverty rate. Unless you think poverty doesn't impact the quality of life for everyone. Personally, as a nonpoor person, it's not cool for me to have to worry about what parts of the city are, or are not, equivalent to a war zone. To have a quarter of the population or more, without the essentials of life means there's a lot of desperation out there that I may come face to face with. The non-idealistic approach to that, I guess, is to say that we'll just lock up that problem and put it out of sight. But we know we can't do that. The prisons -- which we have to pay for -- are teeming. And sucking up tons of money. It's not an optional goody for us to find a way to deal with poverty; it's part and parcel of what we have to do to have a functioning, fiscally sound, city.
So from a strictly *nonidealistic* standpoint, it's strategically inept to think fighting poverty can be separated out from the rest of what a successful City government needs to do.
But a local municipality can
But a local municipality can deal with poverty in ways that benefit more than just the poor.
We have all agreed that education is a HUGE aide in fighting poverty. So what is wrong with, instead of a new poverty targeted program, you invest in the school infrastructure? It is probably one of the best long term solutions to poverty, distinctly within the jurisdiction of the City and not going to get people to argue against it.
Public transit funding helps everyone, but the savings are a bigger percentage of a poor person's wage than the middle and upper class.
Why not concentrate on services that directly benefit the whole city, but have a higher rate of return for the poor?
My "idealistic" reference is to some that think everyone is willing to be taxed at Canadian rates to fight poverty. Everyone is not like that, not even the majority of people (whether you find it unfortunate or not).
We do have a poverty problem, but people have to realize that the middle class is struggling too and any cut services or raises in taxes hurts a group of people able to up and leave and tax their tax stream with them.
Like I said, it requires a balancing act and unfortunately one that can't adequately be done without other help.
What have we already done with the airport?
Philadelphia can't wait for help from outside any longer to solve its own problems.
The airport has been steadily generating revenue for the city of Philadelphia since its inception. It brought about $271 million in last yearbut it cost $267 to operate the airport (which includes purchases, personnel,and debt service). So that's a net profit of $4 million a year or .1% of the city's annual budget.
So, it's great to hear all of this talk about the airport as an asset, but it's not one we've been taking full advantage of for some time.
And, at the end of the day, this conversation is a lot bigger than just the airport: Fattah has come up with a plan to halve poverty because he thinks it's not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do for a city that is trying to remain solvent now and into the future.
What would median real estate values be if you cut the poverty rate in half? How would all of our daily lives improve and how much better would city services be if we significantly reduced poverty here?
Fattah has a plan. What is Nutter's? What is Knox's? What is Evans'? What is Brady's?
If your candidate has a plan to reduce poverty in a serious way, cool. Tell us what it is. If your candidate doesn't, and you don't care, because you don't think significant reduction of poverty is a top goal, that's cool too--but be upfront about it and stop conflating very distinct positions.
Lastly--Nutter is totally right--the state and the feds need to step in and provide us with funds to deal with poverty reduction. But that does not mean that the city can't do a lot more to come up with its own streams of revenue to address this issue--what I consider a core issue--too.
WHAT IS THE PLAN?
As best I can tell, Fattah has a plan to have a plan, which isn't really a plan, is it?
Yes it is an asset and what
Yes it is an asset and what confuses some people is "what would a private investor do to be able to give us $130 million a year when we only generate $4 million a year off of it"?
You need to be fair Ray. On one end you trash the idea of privatizing PLCB because it will get rid of good middle class jobs for the sake of lowering alcohol prices. Well, wouldn't that be exactly the same case with the airport? Where do you think a private investor is going to net cost savings to justify their ownership? Wouldn't you be sacrificing middle class jobs to fund poverty programs? It sounds like a bad Robin Hood story of "robbing from the not so poor to give to the poor". Not exactly an efficient redistribution of wealth.
So how about this. We privatize the PLCB and the licenses the State sells for stores goes into poverty programs and the alcohol tax funds the current PLCB programs. Would that be sufficient justification for you to sell out the middle class jobs you covet?
In a nutshell, this is what I am getting at and what people seem to be overlooking. We currently have 25% poverty. It was 22%. Total pop is dwindling. This would indicate we have a problem of middle class getting poorer and/or they are leaving the city. Ignoring issues of the middle class is just as bad as not helping the poor, if not worse because that 4% wage tax is the brunt of the tax base to fund the City.
As for other candidate plans, I don't have a candidate. It is true Nutter has my vote as of this moment, but there is over a month left in the election. My choice is not final until I punch my card.
And you say Philly can't wait for outside help. That is also another problem I have. Evans and Fattah are the people to help! But not as mayor. They can bring us money right now. Hey, if in the next two weeks Fattah comes out and says "I secured $40 million a year from the government to fund X poverty programs for Philly." I would be happy and Fattah would shoot up my list because he put his money where his mouth is and fought for Philly poverty at his current job and delivered.
So, with pressing budget issues and a struggling poor AND struggling middle class, I think the best thing for the city is to concentrate on what it can fix and I think the #1 overwhelming way to help the middle class and poor is to give us at least average grade schools for the masses. Increase the quality of the schools and the poor become more educated and can help break the poverty cycle. Increase the quality of the schools and the middle class doesn't need to spend $5-10K a year on private school per child and that can go into disposable income, college and retirement.
Dump the money into what is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to help everyone, ESPECIALLY the poor.
Schools.
read the plan
Go to Fattah's policy center and read the plan. Here's what it says about the airport:
As for you other points, Fattah's plans do not only benefit the 25% of people who live below the federal poverty line. You are getting confused. His plans benefits every middle-income family who wants better city services, an improved environment, or illegal guns taken off the streets.
Most importantly though, the Fattah plan's centerpiece is education. I am glad i convinced you to support Fattah since you made his point pretty clearly:
Sounds a lot like the opening salvo in Fattah's Opportunity Agenda, doesn't it?
Again, how is it expected
Again, how is it expected that someone can afford to give the city $130 million a year if there isn't anything they can rally cut and why isn't the City currently doing it?
And then, without the airport, where is Fattah getting the money for all his plans? If I recall correctly, a lot of his plans involve funding non-profits for other new programs as well, correct?
I would honestly be more inclined to Fattah if I felt he had anything concrete to show he could support his plans in a sustainable manner.
Hoping for the airport is not sustainable.
Response on Fattah Airport plan
Fattah is pretty confident about his airport plan. It's not a plan to fund city government; it's a plan to leverage an asset to make an investment.
You clearly would not pay the city of Philadelphia to run an airport, but there are private firms who would. It's been done it in other cities.
Why would a private firm run an airport? They think that they can do two things better as a private enterprise with expertise running airports:
1- get more concession contracts (more deals with Burger King, more ads on walls, etc.) to generate revenue.
2- get people in and out more efficiently and thus use more gates (and fly in more planes).
We make $ 4 million off the airport now because we run it as a public service--but there are private firms who think they can make a lot more and I am not sure I agree with you that labor force or wage cuts are where the profit comes from.
If Fattah sells a company on this plan, and he is pretty confident that he will, the city would get an upfront payment from the private firm.
This lump sum gets invested in the Philadelphia Opportunity Fund (which is basically an investment fund, just like any foundation uses to invest their money--in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. This Fund would then generate $150 to $160 million per year.
That money is used to accomplish what you said should be the number one priority of the city:
Like I said previously, this is Fattah's plan. It is pretty detailed, and it's been done in other places. Voters will have to decide:
a- if they think it's a good idea
b- if they think investing in education to reduce poverty makes sense.
Well, I say pay us $135
Well, I say pay us $135 because even though we are generating money off interest, it is money they aren't using in other ventures.
And thank you for stating why Fattah believes a private investor would be interested.
What and Where
Ray - where have governments monetized public assets and used them for new programs? I am very familiar with this practice and yes, it's being done all over the place (for toll roads, parking garages, etc.). But where has it been used to fund new programs that are in no way related to the asset being leveraged?
Like I said
Airports have been leased. Have any been leased to fund an investment in ending poverty?
Jeff, I don't know and I don't care. You keep skirting my question:
Should we make investing in reducing poverty our top priority?
I get the feeling you think the answer is no. That's fine, but on May 15th, voters who think that halving poverty and ending generational cycles of poverty is the smartest thing to do to grow Philadelphia know who to vote for.
No Skirting
Ray - I think that one of the jobs of the mayor of our City is to juggle myriad competing interests. I want a Mayor who has a number of "top priorities" and then works to accomplish them. I couldn't possibly pick a top priority out of public education, public safety, poverty abatement, sustainability, and effective/efficient public services. They're all so important.
As somebody who is concerned about government effectiveness, I do care to know whether a government has leveraged a public asset to fund new programs unrelated to the asset being sold and you should too. Here's why - the airport - or any other asset that can be monetized - has tremendous capital maintenance and infrastructure needs. That's why governments lease these assets out...to get up front payments to fund deferred maintenance and capital projects. If you take all that up front money and spend it on something unrelated, where are you going to get the money to take care of the asset?
Priorities
So Jeff, I hear you and i think you are confusing rhetorical passion with a cut and dry list of priorities.
Fattah has listed a number of "priorities" that he will enact via policy changes and through the legislative process with Council. These include public safety, public education, sustainability and efficient, ethical and transparent delivery of public services, and many more. Go to www.phillyforfattah.com, go to the policy center and you will see a list.
But Dan's original post said let's ID some key differences between the candidates.
The biggest difference between Fattah and everyone else is that he said he would:
a- use the airport as leverage for investments (something no one else had said prior.
b- that he would use the money gained from a lease of the airport to invest in a significant reduction of poverty.
The airport currently brings $4 million a year into city coffers--that's .01% of the city budget.
The lease deal that Fattah has proposed would take all day to day maintenance decisions about the airport and put them in the hands of the private firm.
Long-term and bigger dollar capital investments traditionally come from federal sources anyway, but there's no reason that some of the money that is invested in the new Opportunity Foundation could not be set aside for capital needs.
Rhetorical Passion
Ray - I hear you too. But for "b", there's really no plan, just a plan to have a plan.
haven't we already had this conversation?
Jeff, I always enjoy debates with you. For those who are unacquainted, I will respond to Jeff's points, and then he will respond and say "that's not really my point, instead what will you do about X?" So, I may not have enough time today to play that whole scenario out with him. So far, Jeff has said, "I don't want to lease the airport for poverty. It's too risky to give up income needed to maintain the airport."
I answered that. Now he's saying, he doesn't like the plan.
Fattah has a lot of good ideas to reduce poverty--including putting all of the proceeds of expired ten year tax abatements into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, not to mention his entire workforce development plan which talks about focusing economic development monies on industries with growth potential.
But, to specifically address your point that Fattah only has "a plan to have a plan" to end poverty, I thought I would just reprint the Opportunity agenda here which is specifically focused on using dollars from the lease of the airport to reduce generational poverty in Philadelphia:
Meanwhile, Jeff skirts the issue again. Fattah wants to invest a lot of money in reducing poverty. He has other priorities, but this is the one he thinks will truly guarantee Philadelphia's sustainability over the long run.
If you don't agree, don't vote for him. But out of curiosity's sake, what would your candidate do to make Philadelphia sustainable?
Fighting poverty does benefit more than just the poor
The more effective it is, the more it helps everyone. Improving schools is definitely part of it, but so is job-training, public service jobs, anti-recidivism programming, expanded child and after school care, etc. But getting back to the original post, none of these programs readily divide themselves, as far as I can tell, between those that must be funded by other governments or the City. And the primary ones on your own list, education and transportation are themselves jointly funded. So again, Nutter's post, at best, makes pointless distinctions which only exacerbate class tensions. Particularly between the middle class and the poor, because this contrast that he draws feeds on the notion that it must be the middle class that funds spending on poverty alleviation, not the rich corporations who are busy impoverishing us all. And that effect of Nutter's formulation is the only real thing about it.
Cities need help from the state and federal governments. Help with schools, transportation, police, criminal justice, job-training, child care, all of it. Period. That should be the common bottom line.
Yes, they do. But as stated
Yes, they do.
But as stated we aren't getting the money, so you have to prioritize.
this is exactly right
"Why not concentrate on services that directly benefit the whole city, but have a higher rate of return for the poor?
That is a critical component of improving the lives of the poor.
Clean everyone's streets. Fix their lights and sidewalks.
Improve everyone's elementary education (actually we should start with good pre-schools.)
Provide good transit for everyone.
Reduce crime for everyone.
Provide rec centers for everyone.
Provide support for new businesses for everyone.
Everyone benefits, but the poor benefit far, far more because they rely on these services. And they don't just benefit as individuals People spened more time on the streets. Communities get stronger. Businesses start arriving.
This is not the whole story, but it is a critical path to reducing poverty.
Marc what are you doing?
Marc what are you doing? Don't you know people aren't supposed to agree with me here? ;)
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
This is from The Next Mayor
This is from The Next Mayor blog:
I also heard that Ray Murphy also recently used the Philadelphians Against Santorum mailing list to send out a Fattah campaign advertisement, despite the fact that the user agreement for the list states that it will not be used for anything other than PAS communications.
could someone verify?
Clarification
That's from a commenter on the Next Mayor blog.
The former is true; he sent
The former is true; he sent out an email for Fattah. (When you have a blog, you get on every damn listserv there is.)
I don't know if that's what the EULA for Philadelphians Against Santorum said, however. I skimmed the PAS privacy policy and didn't see anything in it, however.
Update: Er, wait, nevermind: "These addresses will only be used by our organization to send out Philadelphians Against Santorum, a campaign of PA PAC for Progress communications (for example, the Philadelphians Against Santorum, a campaign of PA PAC for Progress newsletters)."
I was surprised as well
it was carefully couched as an invitation, not an advertisement -- "if you haven't made up your mind, here's an event where you can hear Chaka's ideas" and so forth -- but it did seem a bit surprising to me. of course, PAS was also set up as a subsidiary of a different group (forget the name -- Progressive Philly?), which obviously intends to reincarnate as something else at some point. (probably not a campaign in a primary though.)
Context
Nutter's putting poverty abatement into a broader policy context that includes having the Commonwealth and Federal government playing a strong role in ameliorating poverty. This very point has been consistently made by many on this site; that the Federal and State governments must do more for the City. Why is it that when Nutter says it it triggers off your "he's not a progressive" alarm?
No one disagrees that we
No one disagrees that we need more from the State and Feds. It is the rest of it that statement that I think shows a real difference.
The appeal of Nutter is that I suspect he will be a very skilled administrator of the City. For example, I suspect more more than any other candidate, he will save money where it can be saved.
The appeal of Fattah to me (forgetting the campaign finance for a sec) is more that I think many of his basic instincts are the same as mine. The question is whether you think it is achievable or not.
But, there is a basic difference in their appeals.
Sure, There's a Difference
I would have bolded this section:
"But beyond the practical limitations, generations of experience has shown that confronting social challenges like poverty requires the resources of the state and federal governments. It is simply misguided public policy to use limited local resources to meet the responsibilities of higher governments."
I'm concerned with how the next mayor will perform as the CEO of a public corporation with 23,000 employees, a $3 billion dollar budget, and a socio-economically diverse citizenry that wants/needs a broad array of public services. Skilled administration sounds terribly unsexy, but if you examine the characteristics of the most successful American mayors in recent history, they have been focused on fiscal discipline and effective management. Making sure that local government focuses on its core mission (good public services, most importantly public safety) creates the kinds of economic and social opportunities that we all dream of. Again, unsexy stuff, but it is what works.
I'm with Dan on this
Having expressed my disappointment with all the candidates, Nutter's statement highlights what's wrong with his campaign. The problem with City finances is that there's not enough money to cover City needs. Period. Therefore all programs are in jeopardy unless money is found through increased funding or increased efficiencies. But Nutter's statement identifies what should be sacrificed if those economies or increases can't be found: i.e., programs for the poor. In the grand scheme of things without looking at esoterica such as who should fund what, why would anyone suggest that in this City the needs of the poor should be the first to go if funding can't be found. That's a) heartless and b) a disaster for all of us since we are all impacted badly when upwards of 25% of our residents go without the necessities of life.
And, btw, it's not true that other governments are especially likely to use their scarce resources to fund social services. At the federal level these days, war spending is by far the chief discretionary priority. And state government loves to fund big capital projects at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, i.e., convention centers, commuter tunnels, stadia, etc. Then it likes to serve other interests of the powers that be like a) sheltering them from taxes, b) privatizing as much as possible, and c) regulating land use for their benefit. On social services for the poor in recent years, we mainly get buck passing. And that's what we're getting from Nutter.
Spinning with Stan
Good spin Stan, but that's not what Nutter's saying (did he say to stop funding poverty abatement programs? No.) and that's not what his record indicates, notwithstanding your recollections of his evil doings :)
Where's that spin, Friedman?
From Nutter, quote: But beyond the practical limitations, generations of experience has shown that confronting social challenges like poverty requires the resources of the state and federal governments. Unquote. What about this did I spin? This doesn't suggest that he's punting on poverty alleviation funding to other governments? If he said confronting pension shortfalls "requires the resources of the state and federal governments" what would that say to you about who he thought should pay for pension shortfalls?
Spinmeister Stan
When it comes to Nutter, you love to jump to absurd conclusions about the darkness of his soul. Your spin? You really are that biased, aren't you? No, I don't think he's punting. I think that he's saying that poverty abatement is something that needs to be addressed at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. I think he saying that poverty abatement - like a lot of other issues - needs to be a collective effort.
Friedman, colorful wordmeister
You: Darkness of his soul. Me: Misplaced priorities.
Substance?
And in the hopes that we might have a substantive conversation about this - taking it beyond a political discussion - do you (or others) know of other cities in America or elsewhere that have successful abated poverty primarily using their own resources? Have any other cities in America sold major assets (like airports) to fund successful poverty abatement programs? Is this a pragmatic approach? Has it worked elsewhere?
And Further
I've never heard Nutter suggest that we should be reducing funding resources to the multitude of City and City-related agencies that provide poverty abatement (and related services). Have you?
My point: enlarge the pie
My point is this: all opportunities for increasing city funding, for all programs, should be explored and fought for tooth and nail. There was a time when there was such a thing as revenue sharing which sent (largely) unrestricted funds to cities. There was also a time when the feds paid for a public jobs program called CETA. Currently the state is constitutionally obliged to send money to the City to pay for the Courts, but doesn't do it.
A wholistic budget should be developed which deals with all the City's needs, poverty-related and not. Then we need to find funding for it on whatever theories we can come up with, program by program, or based upon the overall programmatic notion that it's not in the interest of the nation or state for its major cities to die.
The Pie
Grow it and make sure that the pie is cut the right way. Do we agree? Weird!
Seems to me there's a big difference
Seems to me there's a big difference between questioning the city's ability to devote scarce resources to vastly expand programs aimed at alleviating poverty or the utility of that strategy and suggesting that "the needs of the poor should be the first to go."
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
The Commonwealth
Don't know what state you're talking about, but in Pennsylvania nearly 40% of the budget and 25% of the employees work for the Department of Public Welfare.
Regionalism
I would also add that - in Mike Nutter's comments - I hear an implicit reference to regionalism, a theme that he has brought up many times during the campaign. With hundreds of municipalities in the metro region, we need a Mayor who understands that we're inextricably linked together. We need to work collectively on a whole range of issues, including transportation, sustainability, and poverty abatement.
Dan, I agree that you stated
Dan, I agree that you stated an example of their differences.
I think what people are getting edgy about is that it looks like you were trying to paint Nutter as an "anti-poor" guy.
The Real Difference
Well, well. So much for talking up what's good about your candidate rather than trashing the other guy. The stink is off that rose.
When it turns out that Chaka Fattah's old treasurer's firm commited bank fraud for Ali, Dan says it isn't a big deal, and Ray Murphy wants to talk about how the federal government caused poverty. Now that Michael Nutter says that he wants the federal government to do something about poverty, and Dan thinks it's a very big deal, and that Michael Nutter wants to let poor children starve.
With this kind of willful misreading of what Nutter said, I don't see how he can win, on this issue, in this blog.
Let's suppose that Nutter had just said that Fattah's plan was unfeasible, for all the reasons he gave. Doesn't say anything about poverty. Then Dan and Ray and Stan would say, "That's Nutter for you -- all numbers, no heart. He doesn't care that Fattah's trying to help poor people."
Let's suppose he does say something about fighting poverty, but doesn't mention a way to pay for it, only that leasing the airport isn't it. Then Dan and Ray and Stan would say, "This is why I don't like Nutter -- he proposes these programs, but there's no way he can pay for them."
Instead, he lays out why Fattah's airport plan will not happen, why it will not work even if it did, and why it's a bad idea in the long-term even if it could be made to work in the short term. Then he endorses the spirit of Fattah's proposals, and gives a perfectly legitimate source of funding for anti-poverty programs, which he's said over and over again he wants to pursue, also for SEPTA, etc. And the message Dan and Stan take away from it is, "Nutter doesn't think the city should do anything to fight poverty."
Total bullshit. The major source of funding for anti-poverty programs in the city of Philadelphia, administered by the city of Philadelphia, has always been the federal government. As I pointed out back in February, as recently as 2005, "Philadelphia received almost $350 million, or 10% of its total revenue, from the gov't. In 2006, that dropped to $200 million. Almost all of this came out of a 130 million dollar cut in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), also known as welfare." How in the world is Philadelphia providing for its families on welfare? And those numbers have dropped further, year by year, as Washington has defunded programs it doesn't have the political will to eliminate -- anti-poverty programs first. The state has cut back its funding, too, from SEPTA, from the schools, from everything else. That's why we have a budget crisis, and particularly a budget crisis when it comes to funding our anti-poverty efforts.
If revenue from the wage tax or the BPT had dropped by almost 50%, people on this blog would be calling for Michael Nutter's head. (We now get twice as much revenue from the BPT as we do from the federal government -- it used to be the other way around.) But the federal support of Philadelphia gets cut in half, and nobody notices. John Street isn't working with Washington or Harrisburg to get it done. Neither is Bob Brady, Allison Schwartz, or Chaka Fattah. And this is still true -- even with Democratic control of Congress and the legislature.
Why doesn't Chaka Fattah propose his anti-programs on the floor of Congress? Why doesn't he start up a national program, with Philadelphia as the pilot city? Why can't Bob Brady get the deal done to fix our budget and help Philadelphia's poor people? When the Republicans were running things, there was always an excuse, but now? The only reason why Philadelphia wouldn't be able to get state and federal funding is because our representatives in Congress and Harrisburg seem to have their heads firmly up their own asses when it comes to how Philadelphia gets its revenue. With Democratic control and competent representatives at the state and federal level, we should be able to get it done. Shit, it's in Fattah's, Brady's and Evans's own interest to get it done. Why aren't each of them putting forth some crazy windfall for Philadelphia right now, so they can say "This is what I'm doing and will continue to do for the people of Philadelphia." Is it because they can't actually make it happen?
Nobody else is talking about the shortfall in state and federal funding for city programs because directly or inadvertently, they're each responsible for them. Michael Nutter is talking about it. And he's being roasted over the coals, because he doesn't want to sell the airport or the highway or raise the sales tax or put in casinos or do everything that everyone has proposed to actually try and do what they're supposed to do. Michael Nutter is actually giving the big picture -- the long view that Ray Murphy called on everyone to express here on this blog. And he's anti-progressive. He doesn't want to help poor people.
The truth is that Michael Nutter has nothing to sell to poor people. Increasingly, Fattah's airport proposal looks like snake oil. The numbers are shaky, the legality is almost definitely not there, which makes an already bad idea worse. Half of what Fattah wants to do with the money just looks like photo opportunities. The real stuff -- preschool, college scholarships, etc. -- are honest-to-goodness federal programs, which either already exist and should be expanded or should exist. He should be pushing these things through Congress -- not selling off the airport to pay for them.
Fattah still has no idea what kinds of decisions he needs to make as the mayor of this city. He's avoided every one, using the airport and lofty language about poverty as a smoke screen. I don't need to dig up every piece of dirt to see that he has no integrity.
And, I've become convinced, neither do the webmasters of this blog. So, that's the last thing I have to say.
Wow. Buddy... They have a
Wow. Buddy... They have a basic philosophical difference about the role of Philly government. I am quoting him from his own policy statement. It doesn't mean he is a bad dude, it means he is selling himself as a different package.
I didn't realize saying that you vote for Nutter if you want someone who is more of a skilled administrator of the City (see Jeff's statements), and vote for Fattah if you think Philly government can take a much more ambitious role in ending poverty was exactly controversial.
And, you are blaming Fattah for the Republican Revolution?
I'm not Dan
For the record, Short, you won't find anything that i have written negatively about Nutter since I started working for the Fattah campaign.
i don't think what Dan said about Nutter was negative, but it is fair to ask if there are real differences between the two.
And seriously, Nutter
And seriously, Nutter people, please relax.
Its like that last time someone said I was biased because I talked about Nutter Butters. I am quoting him, and drawing a basic, real difference between the two of them. If your response is Fattah is unrealistic and Nutter is realistic, then go for it. That is a real argument to have. But, guys...
Was it not a Nutter supporter
Was it not a Nutter supporter who asked the following above?
I have not seen any answers to these substantive questions. If anyone has answers that demonstrate that Fattah's proposal is reasonable and realistic, I would honestly like to hear them.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
And, that is a valid
And, that is a valid question- examining what each City in the country does, and has aimed to do.
I don't think there are any
This I guess to me why Fattah stands out above all others: I don't think there are other examples of cities using their own resources--like the lease of an airport--to fight poverty. That doesn't means its automatically unrealistic--to me, it's visionary.
Vision?
If there was a real poverty abatement plan attached to the airport leasing concept, I'd be intrigued. There isn't. There is no detail. There is not baseline assessment. Just a promise to do something. That's not enough.
I'm not baiting you
But did we read the same plan? Have you read Fattah's proposals?
I understand that you may really believe what you say, but I honestly see it so differently, and have read the papers, I wonder if you are not just over generalizing to make a point.
I've read every single
I've read every single Fattah proposal. They sound nice.
I think however, Alinky would have understood that bureaucracies don't change systemic problems; they reinforce them. Furthermore, $170 million is a drop in the bucket and we've see before what happens to those who do budget projections--a la NTI. Cost overruns galore.
Actually, I'm not competely against selling the airport for a worthwhile cause...the problem is that so much of Fattah's ideas put the cart before the horse or suggest that we should just shoot the horse because it's hopeless to design neighborhoods and government that actually function properly. Furthermore, the more bridges you burn between Philly and the region--the more likely the airport is going to be confiscated--i.e. the parking authority.
I Don't Think You're Baiting Me...
And I actually do believe what I say. No, I haven't read all of Fattah's proposals but I read the opportunity agenda. I didn't get it. There was no mention of current poverty abatement and educational efforts in the City. The over $3 billion and 30,000 people the City currently dedicate to poverty abatement and educational activities weren't referenced. There was no mention of all of the non-profits that currently work in these area. I suppose it's good politics if it gets him some votes, but I cannot tell what the policy would actually be.
That's where we differ
Without a much higher level of detail with regard to 1) why he believes the airport would fetch $3 billion under the terms and conditions (with regard to city control, employment policies and length) he sets for the lease and 2) what specifically he, through his new opportunity foundation, would do with the $150 - $160 million a year he proposes to spend and 3) how those policies he would implement would specifically impact poverty and the poor, I will continue to believe his plan is unrealistic.
I know the plan lays out a lot of ideas, but there is little detail about cost, spending priorities or effects.
I see it as another example of Fattah expecting us to just take his word for it and I'm unwilling to do that. By the way, I don't think that visionary and unrealistic are mutually exclusive terms.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
And, um
You realize Democrats have yet to be in control of a single budget process? Think you might be expecting a little much?
But the point remains
that Nutter hasn't demanded that the justice system be funded by the state, although the PA Supreme Court said it's constitutionally required to, nor that revenue-funding should be restored, which would cover all city functions, nor that Clinton's cop funding program be restored which would pay for law enforcement. In fairness, none of the other candidates have either (as far as I know, confessing I haven't read every detailed proposal of every candidate), and that's too bad.
It's not just poverty programs that need to be funded by other governments, it's cities.
Which alludes to my issue
Which alludes to my issue with some of our candidates.
Like you said, we all agree we need more funding from federal and states sources. The people to do it for us are willing to abandon the positions of power that would accomplish it.
Evans could fight to have the state pay for our justice system.
Brady and Fattah could fight to get those cop and other poverty programs restored as well as allow airport leasing.
It all comes down to motives. If they really wanted to truly do the best for Philly instead of for themselves, why would they fight to be mayor instead of fight for Philly where they are at? Just with Evans and Fattah, so much money is in their control ... and nto just for Philly, but for anti-poverty programs across the state and nation.
Mr. Schrift
What do you make out of this statement?
Stan's point is valid. Is it wrong for cities to spend down their limits to educate kids, to pay for police, to collect the trash?
Why does Nutter specify poverty abatement as being an inappropriate target for city spending? The fact that he does so is disturbing.
I dunno
it might be the *readers'* priorities that are at question here. where I read the emphasis is "spend down their limited assets" -- that's a short-term solution that makes long-term problems worse. a bad idea. that he thinks it's the wrong solution for poverty seems less about his feelings on poverty than about the fact that that's what Fattah is linking to the airport suggestion. I'd bet that if Fattah had said "let's lease a capital asset to collect the trash," Nutter would also have been dubious, and rightly so -- and, in fact, you'd have agreed without thought. the problem here is the same, however much more noble the goal of poverty reduction. if you tap your last resources to help a tiny bit, what do you do for those needs the next day? better to have been spending your energies on that question to start with.
acm
I'm not sure about the airport idea
as a whole. It may not be realistic, it may not be legal, it may not be capable of raising a lot of money, but I think using funds raised for poverty reduction is different than using them for trash reduction. It's true that you don't want to sell capital assets to meet ongoing operating expenses. That would cover such things as trash collection. But hopefully poverty reduction doesn't require recurring expenditures; poverty is something you can actually end. So spending to reduce poverty is arguably a capital investment, a human capital investment. Selling one capital investment for another is not per se a bad thing; it's merely an asset exchange. Personally I would rather have a high functioning citizenry than an airport; I like that exchange if we could actually make it happen.
context
ACM, your points are worthy of consideration but I challenge you to contextualize this statement:
A politician who talks about treating people with kindness and respect is putting out a "noble" goal. Halving poverty is an economic intervention designed to boost the city's long term resources by reducing the pull on its human services while simultaneously increasing revenue by creating higher-wage earners.
Also, whether you agree with the airport plan or not, or whether or not you support Fattah, he is without peer in making poverty reduction the centerpiece of his campaign for Mayor--who else has made poverty the centerpiece of an electoral campaign? LBJ? Nelson Mandela? Maybe John Edwards? Not many people...
Ending poverty
Even Fattah isn't talking about ending poverty. The goal I have heard is to reduce the poverty rate by half.
Can you give me one example of any government at the country, state, or municipal level that has ended poverty? Do you really think that spending $160 million a year over the course of 20 years will end poverty in Philadelphia?
Let's look at the numbers.
25% (poverty rate) of 1.4 million Philadelphians = 350,000 (probably a low number)
Amount Fattah proposes to spend a year = $160 million
$160 million/350,000 = $457/year/person living in poverty.
If you believe (with no supporting facts or figures) that Philadelphia can lease its airport for $3 billion within the first two years of a new Fattah administration and you believe that $457 per year, per person living in poverty will lift 175,000 Philadelphians out of poverty over any time frame at all, then Fattah is your candidate.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
thanks for this frame, Stan
Selling one capital investment for another is not per se a bad thing; it's merely an asset exchange.
I guess I hadn't thought of it that way. I have to agree with others here that "ending poverty" isn't going to happen, or even cutting it in half, but for sure if you can push a substantial number of [unemployed poor] out of need (that takes further support) and into self-sufficiency (that actually contributes back to the city), you are indeed building an asset (as well as doing a clear good). It does make the distinction between "trash-collecting" and "poverty-reduction" more stark (i.e., practical as well as idealistic). Still not sure you can make that trade, but I'm willing to consider it as a reasoned consideration, at least.
:)
acm
You're welcome, ACM
We do need to find frames that put the lie to the notion that, in essence, poor folks are a special interest whose welfare doesn't affect the rest of us. Aside from compassion and altruism, we all benefit when poverty is lifted, when a strong and decent society is built. We benefit in very demonstrable, visible ways. Among them, is that it becomes that much harder to create divisions between the underclass and the working class, to the benefit entirely of those who laugh all the way to the bank.
I thank you too Stan....
But I really hope that you don't think that you had to strenuously make the case that helping poor people goes beyond altruism. Of course it does! As I've told you before Stan - old guard liberals such as yourself don't own compassion for the less fortunate. I assume that most people who read (or are addicted to) this blog feel that way. Heck, it's why I live in the City in the first place...I don't want my tax dollars going for deer and goose mitigation programs out at some development's man-made lake in the suburbs. I want to share, be communal, and help others less fortunate. What I also want is government that recognizes the socio-economic diversity of the City and endeavors to serve the broader public, making some attempt to see that needs (and to some extent wants) of every community are met.
Old guard liberals
Now there's a phrase drawn straight from Republican lexicon that's very likely to unite us all in campaigns to come. What exactly is an "old guard liberal"? Is that the same as a "bleeding heart liberal" or a "tax and spend" liberal, or a "cut and run" liberal? Just what about "old guard liberalism" should I be very, very careful to avoid associating myself with? Social security? Medicare? Medicaid? Civil rights laws? Environmental laws? Consumer protection? Who actually fought and accomplished those things? Are you, who is not an "old guard liberal," apparently, against those things?
Does it make me an "old guard liberal" because I think that reducing or eliminating poverty would help the rest of us? Is that something a "new guard liberal" would disagree with? Or whatever it is you would categorize yourself as?
I spent 20 years plus working with a great "old guard liberal" who everyone not on his shit list came to love, David Cohen. He would revel in the label "old guard liberal". And, I confess . . . you dragged it out of me . . . he was my hero. But I guess I was wrong about that, wasn't I Friedman. There's no way on Earth he would have agreed that as long as we pick up the trash, we can let somebody else deal with the problems of the poor. And then we can cut taxes, to boot.
As to the need to make the point that poverty hurts us all, it's not at all clear that everyone on this list agrees with that when push comes to shove; i.e., when it comes to prioritizing what it is that City government should do. See lots of posts above.
My Gift to YPP Readers
I will do everybody a public service and not engage in a lexicon war with Stan about what an "old guard liberal" is.
What a pity
I think you could have saved souls.
do young people call about poverty?
I have many times asked what it means to be a "progressive." What I have probably