Recent Comments
- J Murray said “lmcshane, agreed. The solution is to limit their access to our money.” on On Trust
- lmcshane said “Blah, blah, blah...Congress in three words. The piggybank is broken, so when do we stop ...” on On Trust
- mike gesing said “I only got to know Ed in the last 9 months when we met during ...” on RIP Ed “Citizen” Hauser
- J Murray said “Rick, the Fourth Estate more broadly, would include citizen bloggers and informed citizens generally. The ...” on On Trust
- Rick Pollack said “Jonathan, thanks for the thoughtful response... I agree with you that the rules don’t work ...” on On Trust
- About BDP Comments
Blogroll
-
Meta
Ed Morrison · Pittsburgh’s convention center continues to sink
October 3rd, 2008
Adding capacity in a mature, slow growth market has consequences…
The SEA estimates that convention center expenses will outstrip revenues by $3.8 million next year, in part because of charging below market rents to attract conventions and out-of-town tourists. The SEA is getting $1.7 million a year from state slots revenue to help cover the deficit, but Ms. Conturo has said that won’t be enough to eliminate it.
Convention center looking for cuts as deficit looms
Forecast: Business travel is decreasing…increased use of teleconferencing and tighter budgets. Read more.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
There is no mystery here: convention centers are sources of civic pride into which taxpayers pour money–except for the lucky few like the Javits Center in New York, the Moscone Center in San Francisco, and the San Diego Convention Center, which are in cities people want to go to anyway. The also-rans all have the same business plan–”we’ll be the one to grab market share from everybody else and, presto, like magic, we’ll be profitable.” Then they cut price to gain market share and fill empty space–”we’ll lose money on every one but make it up on volume”–and there they are, sucking on your wallet.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Stop the presses, I’m agreeing with Jonathan 100%.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sorry folks, but a first-class convention center is simply a necessary part of the baseline infrastructure of being a major American city, really no different than having a stadium for your major league sports franchise and an efficient, modern airport to ferry business and personal passengers in and out of the city. If Cleveland wants to continue to be a major American city, it has to find a way to have this. The only real question of course is how to pay for it. I happen not to like how the sales tax was rammed through without putting it to the voters. That’s an outrage that should have gotten the entire county commission recalled by voters. But that doesn’t change the fact that without getting this done somehow, Cleveland will continue to slowly, or perhaps not so slowly, decline as a place to do business. And that will effect everyone in the region.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Ed,
There is something that I’ve been curious about for a long time. Seeing as you make your professional home at Purdue, which is one hour outside Indianapolis, are you an outspoken critic of that city’s obsession with real estate-focused economic development and sinking money into convention business? Considering the high school graduation rate in Indianapolis is even worse than Cleveland, I thought this might be a major focus for you.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
As a matter of full disclosure, I must confess that I was early and eager supporter of a new convention center and medical mart (“CC/MM”). My opinion hasn’t changed, and I am still very much in support of a new CC/MM. However, I am just fed up and very concerned about the process being utilized to make the project a reality. Could our elected leaders and business leaders, and I use the term “leaders” loosely, be more blatantly obvious that there preferred location for the CC/MM is nothing more than a bailout for a struggling Tower City?
For example, (1) if there was even a real debate about the location, why didn’t the Greater Cleveland Partnership (“GCP”) site selection committee included architects, engineers and urban planners. Why not members of the community?
(3) If soil instability is a concern about the current convention center site, how come soil instability isn’t a concern about the Tower City site? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Tower City site require them to build the new convention center on the banks of the Cuyahoga River? Doesn’t that pose the same problem, maybe even a greater problem than building on the current site? Haven’t there been stories lately about soil instability potentially cutting off shipping on the river? Yet, there are no concerns about building a 300,000 square foot facility on the banks of the river.
(4) How could the GCP site selection committee not want the input of the big convention planners when determining the best site for the CC/MM?
(5) How can they refuse to release to the public any proposed drawings concerning what a renovated CC and new MM would look like?
(6) How come other downtown business leaders and interests (Zaremba’s Avenue District, Minshall Stewart’s Galleria, Marriott at Key Center, Crown Plaza Hotel, etc.) haven’t objected to the Tower City site? It seems to me that the selling point of “connectivity” runs counter with their interests. The GCP’s example of the out-town traveler flying into Hopkins, catching the train and riding into Tower City, checking into his or her hotel, and attending his or her convention proves the point in my opinion.
This back room process and dismissive attitude of certain elected officials when questioned about the project does not inspire the confidence that this project will be done correctly and in the best interests of the entire region. I hope other people will realize that this is once in a lifetime opportunity to get it right, but the way its going I am not crossing my fingers.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I believe a Convention Ctr should stay on our ‘to do’ list. But our economy doesn’t support a first rate, new location Center at this time. I agree John, but I think we have more pressing infrastructure issues to deal with first. The laying of a solid foundation means more here than just a literal translation.
Personally I think we should just ask the Feds for a trillion and be done with it.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Sorry, I was watching a blip of John McCain on the news and said John instead of J Murray! Aack! lol
October 4th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Jonathan:
I agree with your points.
Tom:
Downtown Indianapolis works. Downtown Cleveland is broken. Big difference. (Maybe the County Commission should be asking why, before they start committing $400 million.)
On dropouts: Indianapolis has a higher rate, that’s true. Detroit, Indy and Cleveland are at the bottom of the pack, among the 50 largest cities. This is a big problem: See Ed Week, the Gates Foundation, or Colin Powell’s America’s Promise:
http://www.americaspromise.org
Whether the graduation rate is 31% (Indy) or 34% (Cleveland) is immaterial.
The big difference between Cleveland and Indy: The Indy chamber recognizes the issue and is focusing on it. (Common Goal, the Indianapolis Chamber’s high school graduation rate initiative: http://snurl.com/427sq )
I’m unaware of anything from the GCP that puts a priority on reducing drop-outs.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jonathan:
I agree with your points, (although I am not as surprised as Mark).
Tom:
Downtown Indianapolis works. Downtown Cleveland is struggling. There’s a big difference.
The business and political leadership in Indianapolis understands the sophisticated dynamics of public-private partnerships. In my view, the business leadership in Cleveland does not grasp these dynamics.
(Or, more accurately, ever since the Browns Stadium, the promising dynamics of partnership in Cleveland have gotten into trouble. Now, the dynamics for the past five years have been driven by efforts to rescue one unsuccessful project: Tower City with casinos, convention centers and an untested concept of a Medical Mart.)
Turing to the schools, Indianapolis, like Cleveland, has a major dropout problem. The difference (a 31% versus 34% graduation rate) is immaterial. (See: See and http://snurl.com/42j7z for an overview. Cleveland, Indianapolis, Detroit and Baltimore all have graduation rates under 35%.)
The real difference between Indianapolis and Cleveland is that the Indianapolis leadership is focused on an initiative to address the issue. See: http://snurl.com/42j96 for example. And the Chamber is engaged: See their drop out prevention initiative, Common Goal. http://snurl.com/42jb2
Unless I’m missing something, the Greater Cleveland Partnership has been spending its energies on real estate projects, casinos and convention centers.
Big difference.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Sorry for the double post on the comments. The perils of posting late a night.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
John, okay, what is your plan for subsidizing a brand-new but money-losing convention center for the next decade? What other spending priorities should we sacrifice to have this emblem of civic pride?
October 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Carole’s right. We have considerable infrastructure issues.
The most traveled bridge in Ohio is falling apart. That takes way more priority than the Convention Center. If you don’t think so, you must not take the Innerbelt bridge.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Here is a follow-up to the article Ed Morrison originally cited in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Crain’s Cleveland also has two relevant articles:
1) One notes the original Post-Gazette story.
2) The second includes a discussion of an MMPI analysis of the riverfront and the current convention center’s site as possible locations for a new center. MMPI concluded that the two have “‘comparable prices’ [...] — meaning the company believes at this point that there is not a significant cost difference between the potential locations.”
October 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jonathan, calling it an “emblem of city pride” is utterly at war with the thrust of my comments that it’s simply a piece of essential civic infrastructure, like a regional airport or bus system. If we want to stay a vibrant city, we simply have to do it in some form. Just like we have find a way to build and repair roads if we want commerce to move and thus the economy to prosper. I would have voted for the half-percent county sales tax increase on that basis.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Here’s another article on the situation in Pittsburgh:
Read more.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
John, okay, forget my characterization of the convention center. Let’s accept, for the moment, that “it’s simply a piece of essential civic infrastructure.”
Now can you answer my questions which were, to reiterate: What is your plan for subsidizing a brand-new but money-losing convention center for the next decade? What other spending priorities should we sacrifice to have this (essential civic infrastructure)?
October 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Sorry, but I don’t assume, as you do, that it will run an on-going deficit. The Pittsburgh center was too big, ours may not be. Ours will be niched toward a strong core sector–medicine, biotech and biomed, where we have some sustainable competitive advantages over other regions. That’s a different feature than other convention centers I’ve heard and read about.
Besides all that, we have a deeper difference of opinion. You don’t believe that the public sector should support much infrastructure at all. I believe it should. If we stop forever heaping tax cuts on the top 5-10% of earners in this country, there’s enough money to do these essential things.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
The information on the public meeting for the Medical Mart Convention Center that will be held in Cleveland tomorrow is as follows:
ADDITIONAL MEDICAL MART FORUM SCHEDULED
Cleveland – Cuyahoga County Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones will host a fourth public forum to discuss the proposed Medical Mart/Convention Center project.
The purpose of the forum is to share as much information as possible about the Medical Mart and Convention Center projects with the public. The forum will be:
6:00 p.m.*
Wednesday October 8th
Center For Families and Children
4500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland
*Registration to speak begins at 5:30 p.m.
The Center provides free parking in a lot off East 46th Street.
GCP officials will attend the forums to share preliminary designs and plans for the development, and answer questions about the site selection from the public.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
John, come on, be serious. Find me one recently built convention center that didn’t run a deficit, and I’ll find you five times as many that have. What is it that makes you think that Cleveland, Cleveland, come on, can solve the problem that every city in America is trying to solve and be the one, or one of the few, to get it right? You’re living in dreamland.
As to philosophy, you have mischaracterized my position dramatically. It is assuredly and centrally government’s role to provide infrastructure to facilitate commerce. That’s as true now as it was when the Erie Canal or the railroads were built. So we don’t differ philosophically at all, just about the probabilities of a convention center in Cleveland being able to pay for itself during our careers, and perhaps lifetimes.
As to “tax cuts,” may I remind you again that there is a difference between marginal tax rates and tax collections. Since the Bush reduction in marginal tax rates went into effect, the highest earners have paid an increasingly greater proportion of government tax collections. You’re just wrong when you say we have heaped tax cuts on the highest earners. They are paying more of the total burden now than ever before, and more than when marginal tax rates were higher in the past. At least educate yourself and get the facts straight. Your tiresome political slogans are factually incorrect.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I won’t bother engaging with the silly argument about marginal tax rates. That whole absurd notion propounded by the right about the Laffer curve has been thoroughly discredited already. Anyone who is serious about the evidence understands that the highest 5-10% of earners have gotten away with murder under Bush. Which is why there will be a giant groundswell to change that with the new Congress and the new presidential administration. So I would encourage you to set aside a little more for your federal taxes in the next few years.
And we’ve had this conversation before about “deficits” for things that many people, including me, would consider must-haves. By your definition, regional bus systems run deficits, but highway systems don’t. That’s merely a matter of accounting. These things are necessary investments, and they can’t be handled by the private sector, so we do them under the aegis of the public sector. That will always be the case.
As a society, we’ve decided we need both highway systems and bus systems. And strong regions need a convention center. It’s merely a matter of how big, how expensive and what kind. Not whether or not we should have one. Healthy cities and regions simply don’t have the option to get out of that business since other cities are also competing for conventions. If you want to be a major city, you need it, just like you need major league sports. And to retain those franchises, you need national-class stadia and arenas, or the teams will go elsewhere. That’s simply a cost of doing business in the 21st century.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:17 am
John, nice side-stepping on the tax issue. Please provide the evidence that the “argument” about marginal tax rates is “silly” and that it has been discredited. You can’t; that’s just political rhetoric masquerading as fact. You don’t know it, but your just articulating a belief system.
In today’s OpinionJournal.com, Andrew Biggs and Kent Smatters (”The Rich Pay Their Fair Share”) point out the facts: “The top fifth of earners pay 67% of all federal taxes–including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, corporate taxes and death taxes. The top 1% of earners pay 26% of all federal taxes.” Etc. etc. etc., but I know you’re not interested in the facts, because your belief system is predicated on the political rhetoric you are spewing above.
And, I’ll point out, you still haven’t answered my questions: how do you propose that we pay for a money-losing convention center? What other priorities do we sacrifice instead?
I think I know your answer, though you’re not being honest about it: You want to raid the incomes and assets of “the wealthy” to subsidize a money-losing convention center that you “believe” is necessary. You don’t want to sacrifice any other “spending” for the convention center; you just want to add to the load on taxpayers.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:23 am
John:
What’s missing right now is the business case for a convention center/Med Mart.
If the business leaders can make the case, put it in a business plan. Thusfar, I don’t see one.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:28 am
I agree Ed. The ball is in their court in that regard.
Jonathan, you perhaps have a mild reading comprehension problem, because I’ve already said twice that I simply don’t agree that the convention center will necessarily run deficits. I don’t know how else to say that so that you’ll understand. You’re proceeding from a different assumption than I am.
And I didn’t remotely sidestep the tax issue. You’ve framed this in a laughable fashion, though one necessitated by the facts that even you can’t avoid: by trying to focus on the percentage of taxes paid by the very wealthy, and not on the actual rates. Because of the tax policies of Bush & Co., the income disparity between the richest and the poorest in America is now at its highest since 1929. That’s a fact. There’s been an explosion of wealthy people at the top of the curve, so obviously the tax payments (and everything else) are skewed in that direction. That’s the whole problem. The unjust tax policy has largely caused that imbalance, and it’s one that no civilized society should countenance or can long endure.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:10 am
The lack of private investment in the CC/MM indicates that it will be a failure.
Poor Tower City - developers are willing to buy EPA brownfields in order to unload it on the county for a new courthouse, but no private money is willing to take a chance on the “jewel” of Cleveland. All this even after cracking down on black teens in Tower City so as not to scare off white suburbanites.
Convention delegates are going to wander off from their unattended exhibits, buy an overpriced burger, stare at the Dollar Stores and laugh.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
John, you’re just wrong. The growth in income of top earners has little to do with tax policy, or tax rates. It has a lot to do with innovation and entrepreneurship. Throughout the American economy, top performers are earning an increasing percentage of income. This is true in basketball, where the Lebron’s of the world earn $20 million a year and the rest of the team earns $1 million, in Hollywood, where top stars earn $10-20 million per movie and other actors earn much less, and in business, where entrepreneurs like Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Google earn hundreds of millions of dollars for the value they have created for customers while average employees, who have added less value, earn less. None of this has anything to do with tax policy, but with fundamental economics.
The facts are that during the Bush years the wealthy have paid a higher proportion of all federal taxes than at any previous time in history.
As to your slavish focus on “tax rates,”–for other readers, John is talking about the putative percentage of income that individuals or corporations pay on earnings. The rates are higher for higher earnings. You know, 35% for income above $150,000, etc. However, the putative rates have little relationship to what people actually pay. That’s because high earners have many deductions (think home mortgages) and the ability to shelter assets and income from taxes (trusts, etc.). One of the best arguments for a flat tax is that it would eliminate the myriad deductions that lobbyists bribe Congress into implementing, but that most Americans can’t use to advantage.
History clearly shows that when tax rates are high, “the wealthy” remove their capital from productive use and place it in vehicles and locations where it can’t be taxed. During the Depression, for instance, many owners of capital chose to retain corporate earnings in companies, rather than sell those companies and be subject to high capital gains tax rates. Amity Shlaes has described the Depressions as a period when capital went on strike.
What results from high tax rates is reduced capital mobility. Capital gets locked up in nonproductive uses, such as trusts and companies that aren’t growing, and isn’t thus free to be invested in emerging technologies, companies, and industries. High tax rates, thus, penalize capital and prevent it from being used efficiently. But they penalize society even more, by limiting capital investment in tomorrow’s growing industries.
John and his ilk would have you believe that “tax rates” are about fairness. If it’s fairness what you want, you should look at the facts, which are that the wealthy free up their capital, take capital gains, and voluntarily pay taxes when tax rates are low. All of the history of this subject supports that.
On John’s side of the argument is an unproven and incorrect theory, with no supporting evidence. No matter what marginal tax rates have been, throughout U.S. history, government COLLECTIONS have remained about the same: 18-20% of GNP. And that’s a fact.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As I think you know, “John and his ilk” now comprise the vast majority of Americans, who have given your side about 28 years to prove the efficacy of their theories, which have collectively brought the world’s economy basically to its knees, and which we will all now have to rescue y’all from for the second time in 75 years. This is a particularly absurd time to be shopping that crap, Jonathan, and on some cognitive level, I think you must recognize that.
I’ll point out just a single item (one of many) in which you’ve ignored a stark fact in front of your nose: those earning above $90K pay not a cent of Social Security tax on any earnings above that level. Just another way in which our tax system is unfairly rigged against the have-nots.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
J Muray writes: “The top fifth of earners pay 67% of all federal taxes–including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, corporate taxes and death taxes.”
I will bet that the top fifth of earners own way more than 67% of the assets in this country and therefore, are undertaxed. If he and I were to go into business together, and I own 75% of the company, I would expect to pay 75% of the taxes on the profits.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for making my point better than I did, Wayne. Yes, the top fifth owns well into the 90% range of all assets in this country. So to make the argument that Jonathan does means, among other things, that you’d have to be innumerate. I don’t think he is (nor is the hard right which he represents). They’re actually quite bright. They merely think the rest of us are too stupid to do basic math and understand basic logic.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Wayne, first of all, I was quoting an expert in the article I mentioned. Second, and more importantly, taxes are paid on INCOME, not ASSETS. Assets are the accumulation of prior years’ income or capital gains, which was taxed at the time it was earned.
Taxing assets on which income or capitals gains taxes have already been paid makes no sense, and is profoundly unfair. (If you remember, Ohio used to tax business assets, which contributed to the flight of capital and businesses to other states, but former Governor Taft changed that a few years ago).
Relative to your second statement, yes, but when the company was sold, you would also receive 75% of the capital gains on the sale of the business. You would pay capital gains tax at that time, and put the rest away in savings. You would then only pay income tax on the earnings generated by that capital (with plenty of tax-free vehicles, like municipal bonds, into which you could invest and avoid paying taxes). You would not be taxed a second time on the capital itself, which would represent the savings you accrued over years by investing your sweat and toil in the company.
It is critical in understanding tax policy to clearly understand the distinction between income, assets, and capital. A key to job and economic growth is attracting capital to an economy. You can’t do this with punitive tax policies on companies and high earners. The U.S. is in the process of becoming uncompetitive in attracting capital investment, and the Ettore’s of the world would have it become more so. Then jobs will be exported overseas (such as in the financial services industry) and Ettore and Sherrod Brown will be blaming corporations and CEOs for sending jobs overseas when tax policies are the real culprit.
So please, I beg you both, educate yourselves about what happens in the real world, not the utopian political constructs of our mediocre politicians.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
John, to your prior post, you and your ilk are not educating yourselves about the true causes of the current financial markets problems, but are believing the pap spewed by politicians and the media.
The U.S. government caused this crisis in two ways: Congress by empowering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize the issuance of mortgages to uncreditworthy borrowers with improper loan procedures; and Congress by requiring the Federal Reserve to focus equally on economic growth and price stability. Consequently, the Fed kept interest rates too low, creating a credit bubble.
Both of these actions, which are the main direct causes of the current financial market problems, are contrary to the philosophies in which I believe and which the people whose work I follow believe. These mistaken actions were taken to appease those on the left, and the result is both the problems we see, and a false understanding of what caused them.
It saddens me greatly that you and a great number of people like you refuse to educate yourselve about what is really going on, and instead accept the political slogans of those who will always complain until we are a European socialist state.
Relative to Social Security, your comment fails to recognize the original intent of Social Security: to provide all citizens with a safety net in old age based on their contributions to the system. It was never intended as a system to take from the better-off to provide others with a subsidized retirement that they didn’t earn. In fact, it was specifically stated that it was not intended for that purpose. You would have it that the better off should subsidize retirment for everyone else. Your more of a raving socialist than I thought.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:36 am
[...] signing up to do a new convention center. And yes, I had to insert my two cents as well at times. Here is one post by Ed Morrison on BFD that started out about Pittsburgh’s Convention Ctr. and wound up, in part, discussing where [...]
November 1st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Sorry, J Murray, but no sale. My point holds if we’re talking strictly income as well. The top 300,00 in income in the U.S., which comprise less than 1% of the population, has as much income as the entire bottom half of the population, but this top 1% isn’t taxed accordingly. The income disparity alone is horrible for economic success, as relatively few people any more can afford goods and services, creating a downward spiral of layoffs, lower incomes for the middle class, less ability to purchase, more layoffs, etc.
As far as educating myself, I’m way ahead of you there. I religiously read Ben Stein and Paul Krugman. Krugman has a PhD from MIT and recently won the Nobel prize in economics. I learn much from this enlightened individual, who 2 to 3 years ago successfully predicted the financial collapse based on the housing bubble. He has a great track record. Both he and Stein agree that the wealthy in this country are undertaxed, and Stein is a Republican. J Murray, when your credentials are the equal of Krugman’s, I’ll respect your opinion equally.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Wayne, what world do you live in? The vast majority of Americans live better today than all people in the history of mankind. They regularly purchase goods that were once luxuries for the elite, such automobiles, airplane travel, and excess calories (a doctor friend of mine points out that America is the only country in history in which obesity is a problem of the poor.) Nearly anybody can afford a mobile phone. Clothing is cheap compared with nearly any period in history.
Reading Stein and Krugman is not an education. It’s an exercise in reinforcing beliefs you already hold. Read Arthur Laffer if you want to learn something new. He has a Ph.D., too, though I don’t hold it that academic credentials necessarily make someone worth believing.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Do you want to know which world I live in? Here’s the United States I live in:
The least wealthy 60 percent of Americans have less than 5 percent of the wealth in the U.S. but pay more than 14 percent of federal taxes.
The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.
If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple.
*Source: Congressional Budget Office and United for a Fair Economy
It’s a shame that wealth is so unfairly concentrated in this country. It’s a shame that the wealthiest are the largest beneficiaries of tax dollars. It’s a shame that we let this happen. The poor are obese because the cheapest foods are dense in calories. Fresh vegetables and fruits are hideously expensive, and out of reach to the poor. Is the overall standard of living better than it was 60 years ago? Probably, but it’s depressing when we have millions of uninsured or underinsured but can talk about using tax dollars to pay for palaces for the rich (sports stadiums, convention centers) that return little to the community. I actually would have preferred that our tax money went to build a convention center instead of Cleveland Browns stadium, which benefits nobody but the team owners and the people who can afford to buy tickets, and should really be renamed “Taxpayers Stadium.” You do realize that lifting the people who occupy the bottom rung of the socioeconomic scale will improve the economy as a whole, since two thirds of our economy is consumer driven. If we have a bottom half with less purchasing power, it weakens those in the top half as well. And make no mistake, real wages have declined the past 8 years. In fact, it was the first time in history that real wages declined despite an exapnsion (although er are now in recession, so wages will look even worse when the data are reported).
We’ll have to disagree on what constitutes an education. If learning from a Nobel Prize winner isn’t an education, then I don’t know what is (short of enrolling in a class that he teaches). If reading Ben Stein, a self admitted conservative, isn’t opening myself to a different philosophy, then I don’t know what is.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
J., obesity among the poor in this country is in some part due to subsidized food products, sugar and high fructose corn syrup for example, that inundate store shelves. Particularly in low income neighborhoods where fresh fruits and vegetables are scarce, poor quality and very expensive. I invite you to travel between grocery stores in the hood and the Heights here in Cleve and check expiration dates and the selection of products available. Now factor in the limits of cash and assistance programs, which aid and abet inner city grocers’ dumping practices. And then you are shopping for a large household that includes children abandoned by at least one parent. Psychological effects of “comfort food” begin to play a role here.
The biggest welfare queens are ADM and Cargill.
We need to return vast tracts of abandoned land in urban areas to farming produce, with youth employment/ intervention programs aligned. Also reduces urban heat island effect.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Phil, I don’t have a problem with that; city farming and produce-rich diets make a lot of sense to me. I also agree that processed foods play a significant role in obesity, but so do lack of education about nutrition and lack of self-control.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Agreed, J., and I’ll still press for more recognition on the part of people who have never really experienced ghetto life that a certain mindset prevails, nihilistic yet needy and hopeless, in a way those of us, Blacks and Latinos included, who grew up in homes guided by competent parents cannot fully comprehend. I’m not condoning or excusing hood mentality and thug life, far from it, but it is pernicious and debilitating to a young mind. The hood is in fact a physical reflection of the mindset of many of the residents, the slumlords, who are pure market capitalists, and the cabal of government leeches that profit from it. Democrats and Republicans inclusive.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Phil, that’s a bit of a conspiratorial view of poverty, in my mind. I think if you step back and think about it, nobody really says “the persistence of poverty and ghettos is a good thing.” Or that “I want poverty to persist.” Or that “we should have policies that cause poverty to persist.”
I think the true structural issues are broader and deeper, and that they include some things that are beyond human control. (I know in this age of human willfulness that this will be an unpopular, if not apostate point-of-view). There are many well-intentioned people who are just wrong about what policies will actually work to alleviate poverty, and many well-intentioned policies that assuage the guilt of the policy-makers and their supporters but do not achieve the desired result.
There is also a of hopefulness that good intentions can overturn Nature’s limitations, in the face of clear evidence that only so much can be achieved. For instance, you can’t take a person of limited intellectual capacity, based on genetic potential, send them through an education system focused on college preparation, water down testing standards and college admissions so that that person can be admitted to college, and expect anything other than high dropout rates at the secondary and college level.
There has got to be a better understanding of what is possible for that person, and what path would take that person’s gifts, whatever they may be, and find a way for those gifts to contribute to society.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
J: Some links to research, articles, etc. sure would be helpful.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Rick, sorry. On this one, I’m in essay, not research mode. The failure of schools is well-documented.