OlsonOnline

DeFazio: "71 percent of Republicans" would pay more taxes for ...infrastructure!

So said Peter DeFazio Wednesday evening on the Rachel Maddow Show, referring to a poll taken by Republican Frank Luntz.

(Actually, it was 74%, which astounded even Luntz.)

In response to Rachel's reminder that the American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that, in order to bring the country's infrastructure up to code, "we need to spend about $2.2 trillion... over the course of the next five years", DeFazio said the current stimulus bill falls waaaaay short of that.  In the House bill, said DeFazio,

"Transportation and infrastructure [amount to] about $43 million, and the most generous interpretation of the infrastructure in this bill around $100 billion, which is a pretty small fraction of $1 trillion."

Indeed.  (Although I think he meant $43 billion, not million.)

Or as Rachel said on Friday's show, tax cuts make up a third of the stimulus bill.  Infrastructure?  Less than a fifth.

And about those tax cuts, which Republicans love and were stuck into the bill to curry their favor, which didn't work (zero votes for, remember?)  DeFazio had this to say:

"What‘s this $300 billion of tax cuts about, we know that tax cuts don‘t work.  We tried them with Bush."

And with Reagan before Bush.  It was called "supply side economics", or "let's-make-the-rich-even-richer-with-taxpayer-money-and-bankrupt-the-government-in-the-process."

You see where that's gotten us.

You gotta love Pete DeFazio.  Maybe he should come back home and run for governor.

And here's another economist who doesn't like tax breaks as stimulus

That's Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy.  He says that one such tax break in the federal stimulus bill, bonus depreciation, will cost Oregon money at the worst possible time:

"[Bonus depreciation] is a business tax break recognized as an ineffectual economic stimulus. Because Oregon automatically follows the federal definition of taxable income, ...the extension of bonus depreciation by the federal government will further shrink Oregon’s tax revenues. OCPP estimates that the measure could cost Oregon roughly $67 million over two years... ."

How?  Without getting all bogged down in economic intricacies, suffice it to say that, like any tax break, bonus depreciation decreases the taxable income of Oregon businesses, thus reducing tax revenue to the state.  Sheketoff argues that now is not the time to further hamper the state's ability to spend money on vital state services. 

Sheketoff cites Moody's Economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi's estimate that bonus depreciations yield only 25 cents on the dollar, while "each dollar spent mitigating state budget shortfalls could yield $1.38 in increased economic growth."

What can Oregon do?  Simple.  Decouple the state's definition of taxable income from the federal tax code.

Will state legislators do that?  You'd think that with sizable Democratic margins in both the state House and the Senate, it would be a slam dunk.  But then again, it's Oregon Democrats we're talking about here. 

Rachel and Pete step up!

In other political news (ignoring the local hysterics surrounding Portland's Mayor Sam), Rachel Maddow rocks.

And so does Oregon's Peter DeFazio, who appeared on Rachel's show last Friday to bemoan Obama's partial caving to Republicans on the economic stimulus package. 

How does Rachel rock?  She holds Barack Obama's feet to the fire anytime he strays from progressive policy.  Like on the stimulus bill.

Rachel wants direct government spending on infrastructure, not tax cuts.  So do I, along with most economists who aren't named Larry Summers or are otherwise associated with either Reagan/Bush or the University of Chicago.  But what do we get instead?  A bill that is heavily tilted toward tax cuts, which makes Rachel very unhappy, so much so that she was inspired to utter this:

"And yet, Democrats and President Obama appear to be letting the technically-powerless Republican minority dictate the terms of the stimulus bill and dictate terms that don‘t get us what we need—loading it up with tax cuts and slashing spending on projects that could actually create jobs and do right by the country."

What then happened?  The House version of the stimulus bill -- "a watered down" version, in Rachel's own words-- was passed yesterday without a single Republican vote.  So much for bipartisanship.

The bill as passed was indeed watered down.  DeFazio on Friday put it this way:

"I mean, this—what‘s in this bill is like one half of one year‘s deficit in our infrastructure spending.  That‘s nowhere near what we need for current deficits, let alone, you know, a new 21^st century infrastructure system.

"China is spending $600 billion over the next two years.  We will spend 1/15 of that in this bill."

(DeFazio was on last night's show as well, but the transcript isn't up yet.)

On a related note, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz --he's one of those along with Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman who want a bigger stimulus bill-- has proposed nationalizing some of our banks to force them to start lending the money the taxpayers gave them, ala Sweden.  

How many Republicans you think would back that idea?  I would guess at least as many as voted for the stimulus bill.

Who is Kirsten Gillibrand, and why did New York's Paterson appoint her to the U.S. Senate?

Governor David Paterson of New York, who inherited the position after the Eliott Spitzer sex scandal, is legally blind.  I say that he's also legally dumb.

How else to explain the perplexing appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate?  I mean this woman is a Democrat In Name Only if there ever was one.  She's a Blue Dog through and through.

How is this woman supposed to help usher through the Senate the supposedly progressive legislation that Obama has promised?

I mean, Gillibrand proudly touts her conservative voting record.  She even supports a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. 

John Nichols thinks that the appointment, which Jonathan Tasini called "an affront to the people of New York", is all about politics.  David Patterson wants to hold on to the job that he stumbled into.  To do that, he thinks he needs the support of the more conservative upstate New York voters.  Thus he gives us ...Kirsten Giilibrand, a darling of the National Rifle Association.

And you thought Rod Blagojevich was bad.

Here's hoping that both Patterson and Gillibrand get thumped in their upcoming election bids.

U.S. media breaks silence on Israel - Palestine

The surprising breakthrough happened last night on CBS' 60 Minutes.  In a candid report from Israel on the prospects for peace and a two state solution, correspondent Bob Simon got the mayor of a West Bank Jewish settlement, Daniella Weiss, to admit the truth:

"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality."

Despite the reassurances of Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, that all the existing West Bank settlements will be removed, by force if necessary, Weiss says that the settlers will remain:

"She says that she and the settlers are immovable. 'We will stay here forever.' "

According to Simon, the reality is this:

"Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution. That is no longer the case.  Meron Benvenisti used to be deputy mayor of Jerusalem. He told Simon the prospects of the two-state solution becoming a reality are 'nil.' "

" 'The geopolitical condition that’s been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg,' he explained.

"Asked if this means the settlers have won, Benvenisti told Simon, 'Yes.' "

Simon also brought up the word that caused Jimmy Carter so much grief in his recent book on Palestine --apartheid.   It came up in the context of the options available to Israel, absent a Palestinian state, to deal with the growing Arab population, none of them "good" --ethnic cleansing, giving Palestinians the vote, which would effectively end the dream of a 'Jewish' state,  or ...apartheid.

For West Bank Palestinians, apartheid is already a reality on the ground, what with the security fence, highways reserved for the exclusive use of Jewish settlers, the uneven distribution of water, and check points galore. 

Jimmy Carter was right.  It's gratifying to see his views corroborated, at long last, by the American mainstream media. 

Pete Seeger for Nobel Peace Prize?

So suggests Peter Dreier, calling Seeger a "troubadour for social justice in the U.S. and human rights around the world."

Peter Rothberg, over at the Nation, echoes Dreier's praise:

"Seeger has been an inimitable ambassador for peace, social justice and the best kind of patriotism over the course of a remarkable lifetime."

Here's a video of Pete Seeger remembering the 1949 Peekskill race riot.

Inaugural high point --"This Land Is Your Land" with original lyrics restored

Everyone knows Woody Guthrie's  "This Land Is Your Land".  But few know that some of the original lyrics may have been censored to make the song less "political". 

Enter Pete Seeger, who performed the song with Bruce Springsteen at Obama's inaugural festivities, original lyrics restored.  The earliest known recording at the Smithsonian includes this verse:

"There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;

Sign was painted, it said private property;

But on the back side it didn't say nothing;

That side was made for you and me."

And this one:

"Nobody living can ever stop me,

As I go walking that freedom highway;

Nobody living can ever make me turn back

This land was made for you and me."

So who does this land belong to?  The poor and the disenfranchised, not just the rich and powerful.

Trudy and the Flynn-Blackmer audit

In a recent post, I suggested that school board member Trudy Sargent ignored testimony presented by John Wilhelmi and Sara Allan about the reality of school segregation in Portland.  Trudy's comments would lead us to believe that the neighborhood school assignment system was responsible for the increasing concentration of poor and minority kids in all but four of Portland's high schools.

She also ignored the audit of PPS' transfer policy prepared by Suzanne Flynn and Gary Blackmer.  The audit stated quite bluntly:

"In addition, we found that the District’s schools were less diverse in terms of low income and minority representation than would be the case if all students attended their neighborhood schools. We concluded that the transfer system has not increased diversity in schools, but actually reduced it."

If you believe Flynn and Blackmer when they say that, "if all students attended their neighborhood schools", schools would be far less segregated by class and by race, then you might think that a discontinuation of neighborhood to neighborhood school transfers would be a good thing, not only for diversity, but as a stabilizing influence on school enrollment.

Trudy concluded quite the opposite.  God knows how many of her board colleagues, wedded to school choice, agree with her.

I bring this up again because the Tribune has an interview up with Gary Blackmer, who just announced his retirement as Portland's city auditor.  The interview doesn't mention Blackmer's audit of the school district.  But fortunately, my pal Lynn Schore reminded readers of Blackmer's PPS connection in a lengthy comment to the article:

"For example, more than $10 million in taxpayer dollars were spent for the auditor to perform three audits of Portland Public Schools. The most critical of those three was Blackmer's audit of the PPS Transfer System, and his trenchant analysis of the segregation which results from it."

The Flynn-Blackmer audit, Lynn continued, "...proved what parents always knew: that our neighborhoods are much more integrated than our PPS schools, because of the PPS transfer policy."

On a related note, Lynn sent along this map of neighborhood housing affordability.  It appears from the map that one of the least affordable and most "gentrified" neighborhoods in inner Southeast Portland corresponds to the attendance area of the popular Sunnyside Environmental School.  Sunnyside Environmental is one of Portland's focus option schools. 

Most of the spots --80%-- at such focus options are reserved for neighborhood residents.  It appears that, rather than chancing the transfer lottery, many well-off parents are moving into the neighborhood, thereby driving the cost of housing up.

One might justifiably conclude, then, that another of the unintended consequences of school choice is neighborhood gentrification, and the further demographic stratification of Portland's schools.

Two worth reading: Chomsky and Buchanan on Gaza

As a Jew and former Kibbutzer, it's difficult to justify calling Noam Chomsky an "anti-semite", even  though his criticism of the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinian Arabs has invited the epithet.  

It's a different story for Pat Buchanan, whose anti-immigrant rants render the "anti-semite" label more plausible.  Like Chomsky, Buchanan has long been dismissive of Israeli policies. 

Both have recently written, critically, about the Israeli incursion into Gaza.  Buchanan, in a piece entitled "Olmert's Poodle", questions whether the American knee-jerk acquiescence to Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians will survive the passing of the Bush administration:

"With Olmert, Rice, and Bush departing, and Obama and Hillary taking charge committed to talking to Iran, can the old intimacy survive the new friction and colliding agendas?"

That remains an open question.

In a much lengthier piece, Chomsky indirectly provides an answer to Buchanan's question.  He suggests that the timing of the cessation of the "assault" on Gaza was carefully planned

"...to minimize the (remote) threat that Obama might have to say some words critical of these vicious US-supported crimes."

The key word in Chomsky's assessment is "remote", intimating that Obama may be no less sympathetic to Israeli militarism than Bush.  Obama reiterated today "...that Washington would continue to support Israel's right to defend itself."

How will that lead to a lasting peace between Israel and the bifurcated Palestinian government?  

Both pieces are worth reading.  

Also worth reading (for Obama, from yesterday's 25 recommended books) is Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall, which recounts the history of the Zionist movement. 

A couple of more things: Books and student 'engagement'

It's worth pointing out that Sara Allan, in her presentation to the school board on high school redesign, emphasized the importance of student engagement in reducing the drop-out rate.  Allan listed "frequent low student engagement" as perhaps the most important "challenge" facing the high school system.

"We fundamentally believe that if we can increase student engagement that many of our other problems are solved, graduation rate, we could increase achievement ...we could decrease boredom of students.  We believe it's a key ingredient in the success of our high school system."

Sounds like a no-brainer, but coming from Sara Allan (I've been misspelling her name), originally a fellow from the neoliberal Broad Foundation, that's a step forward.  Business oriented outfits like Broad usually stress academic rigor over relevance.  As I've argued before, if you want to keep students in school, it's a good idea to make the school experience more "engaging" --and less boring.

One way to do that, and to improve student achievement learning, is to give students good books to read, ones they can actually relate to, books they may actually enjoy reading.

Speaking of books, that's the other thing I wanted to mention.  The Washington Monthly has an article up recommending 25 books President Obama should read. 

Most, as you would expect, are non-fiction, including one by the man my brother said nobody paid attention to anymore --Howard Zinn.  The book?  A People's History of the United States.

The fiction category includes Graham Greene's The Quiet American (about Vietnam), and, thank goodness, THE Great American Novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  One would assume that Obama has already read the Twain classic, but it never hurts to re-read great novels. 

I have, probably at least four times.  Huckleberry Finn, that is.