jackiedoherty.org

When it comes to this presidential election, I’m not objective. As much as I would have preferred a woman topping the ticket, just any woman will not do. (In other words, Sarah Palin ain’t our girl.) Thursday’s vice-presidential debate may not have had a clear loser—Sarah Palin did not make a fool of herself as some had expected (hoped?)—but it was patently obvious that she does not have the knowledge, the gravitas, or the substance to be our second in command. Aside from a winning smile that often felt out of place given the seriousness of the subject and an exceptionally pleasant television demeanor (after all, she had a former career in broadcasting), she was so lacking in substance it would have been laughable, if it wasn’t so scary: “Diplomacy is hard work by serious people,” said Palin with a kindly smile in response to the question about how a McCain-Palin ticket would win back international good will squandered by the Bush administration. In fact, most of her answers had that same rehearsed meaninglessness. The problem is, the delivery was so sweet and folksy, the language so tied into what people want to hear, such as “getting rid of greed and corruption on Wall Street” that I’m afraid some may not look beyond the veneer of her pretty face to hear the shallow words or contemplate what these policies will mean to our future. For instance, Palen talked confidently about “energy independence” as the solution to our current oil crisis. In her world, drilling in Alaska and everywhere else in the U.S., regardless of the environmental impacts, should be our focus to bring jobs and oil to the American people. Well, like most of us, I don’t like spending billions on foreign oil either, but the solution to the problem is NOT rampant drilling here: It is conserving now and investing heavily in research and development of alternative forms of energy that are environmentally sound. The nation that commits to energy R+D and solves this problem will be not only truly “energy independent” but the economic leader of the world. That happening on a McCain-Palin ticket is highly unlikely, and it is only one of many views these two promote which will have us continuing down the wrong path. (more on issues later) During the debate, Sarah Palin was pleasant to watch, likable, and a good performer, but given she’s on the ticket to be our number two leader—that just makes her one dangerous pretty face.

Yesterday’s Globe had an article entitled A Crash Course in Credit that shows how the woes of Wall Street end up on Main Street. A seriously in-debt homeowner and two businesses are profiled, showing how hard it is becoming to get loans. The homeowner, already “awash in mortgage and credit card debt” is an example of the easy credit problems that led us to this point. The fact that he wants to borrow more money is a little scary; however, the pendulum is swinging too far the other way, illustrated by the two business owners who are also finding it hard to get credit and are putting projects on hold, scaling back and just trying to hold on. To quote the subheading of the article:

When lenders are afraid to lend, the economy stalls and uncertainty grows.

That was yesterday. Today, with Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan bailout plan (which their leadership helped to craft), there’s no deal. No one was 100% thrilled with the plan; however, this stalling and playing politics isn’t doing anyone any good. As I heard on Morningstar.com this morning, it should be called a Main Street Safety Net rather than a Wall Street Bailout. Why? Because if the big banks who hold the toxic loans aren’t stabilized with an infusion of cash and more importantly, confidence, the credit that fuels our economy becomes harder to get. Morningstar’s Pat Dorsey likens credit to the oil that keeps the engine running and without it, the financial markets, like an engine without oil, will seize up. Many businesses, such as the two mentioned above, rely on short-term loans for inventory, day-to-day operations, crafting deals, etc. Without these funds, they will grind to a halt, increasing business risk for themselves with a ripple effect out to consumers, employees and other organizations. Credit has been tightening since the subprime crisis began almost a year ago; but now we’re about to find out what happens to an economy when there is no credit. We might like the poetic justice of letting Wall Street twist in the wind, but we’re all going to feel the pain.

Earlier this week, I tuned into UML Sunrise to hear Michael Goodman, of the UMASS Donahue Institute with his thoughts on the scary economic situation (I’m getting sick of the technical jargon and decided to call it how it feels, and that’s scary). Goodman is the Director of economic and public policy research at the Institute, and he was “shocked” that, as others have noted, the planned bailout of Wall Street has no oversight built into it. Apparently, though, Paulson is now admitting that oversight is needed for the $700 billion handout to failing corporations. It’s hard to keep up as the situation is changing by the hour! The conversation with Goodman also included a discussion of how Wall Street’s woes will affect Main Street: (1) businesses can’t get loans and only consumers with perfect credit scores and 20% down will be able to access capital, (2) as the government overspends to buy up the bad debt on Wall Street, the value of the dollar will continue to shrink, which affects each of us every day, (3) in Massachusetts, where the financial services industry is a big part of the economy, there could be shrinking employment, (4) the state also depends heavily on capital gains for revenue; with shrinking stock prices, this money will also dry up. Hopefully, the podcast will be up soon while this information is still relevant. Last week, UML Professor of Economics, Ravi Jain was on with a calm and logical survey of the scene which still provides valuable insights. His point about the bailout is that these companies gambled and to be bailed out because they lost the bet is not setting a good precedent. Some of these so-called experts were leveraging $30 to $1. The moral hazard is that companies may not learn a lesson and be encouraged to repeat the behavior. As host, Christine Dunlap, asked, referencing the dot-com boom and the last real estate boom, ‘why don’t we learn?’ Co-host and Head of the English Department at UML, Melissa Pennell, had the final word: “Maybe we need a psychology professor.”

Last year as the first wave of foreclosures was hitting the news, people were blaming homeowners who didn’t read the fine print or those who speculated that real estate prices would keep going up; next in line were the subprime lenders who were handing out adjustable rate/no-money down loans, often without any discretion whatsoever (no income, no problem!). Further up the food chain, we find the big money financial institutions like Merrill Lynch and Lehman and others, the ones who bought the risky loans and repackaged them as securities with attractive rates selling them to investors and holding them in their own portfolios and for awhile earning nice returns. Earlier this week, a Wharton School of Business Professor, Jerry Siegel, wrote in the Wall Street Journal (“The Resilience of American Finance,” September 16, 2008) that the cause of the downfall of these giants was “leveraged risk.” He adds that

Their demise was caused by bad risk management, and a failure to understand the high risks of an overheated real-estate market, the root cause of our current problems.(my bold)

(Gee, sounds a bit like the hapless homeowners everyone was blaming last winter!) Siegel adds:

So, Siegel traces everything back to the overheated real estate market, and certainly home prices rose to giddy levels in recent years, but that is like a rapist blaming the victim for being too attractive. The rise in home prices (fueled, I believe, by low interest rates) attracted those who wanted to make money off of the boom, and they found a way to do so through sub-prime lending and the following securitization of the loans. As Barney Frank said in April “It was not just the housing bubble,” said Frank. “People made housing loans that shouldn’t have been made.” (The blog Civic Boston has an insightful account of Frank’s appearance last April at the JFK Library).

You still have those who blame the consumers, those who tried to buy homes they couldn’t afford (was anything affordable in recent years?). Some are calling for mandatory financial education for potential homebuyers; but until we have mandatory ethics classes for corporations, let’s let the government protect us, not just from terrorists, but from greed and the ravages of the too-free market as well.

This morning dawned bright and crisp, similar in many ways to Sept. 11, 2001, a day forever etched in our hearts as a national tragedy. This morning, we remembered 9-11 together in a moving ceremony in the courtyard at Lowell High School led by the Jr. ROTC Honor Guard with accompaniment from the high school’s show choir, students, staff and school administrators. As the superintendent noted in her remarks, most high school students were in elementary school when those jets slammed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, but the adults remember exactly where we were when we learned of the attacks. We remember this day as we do other days that have marked our national consciousness—from the assassinations of beloved leaders to the bombing of Pearl Harbor—because it is important to recognize the sacrifice of others as a way to appreciate the gifts we live today. Yesterday, the Boston Globe ran an op ed that noted a different kind of remembering—one that also resonated with me because it spoke of hope and moving forward: “On Sept. 12, 2001, America’s tragedy elicited sympathy from all over the world, including places as unlikely as Tehran. Thousands of Iranians spontaneously lit candles in solidarity with the families of victims and the American people.”

Perhaps we have squandered that goodwill as the authors claim. Perhaps our current administration’s tendency to rattle the sword rather than sit at the table of diplomacy has not made us safer, instead fueling those who hate and would destroy us, and leading us down a slippery slope of ongoing battles. As we look toward new leadership this fall, I hope voters will remember the attacks of 9-11, not as an impetus for revenge or fear, but as a tool to bring reasonable people together worldwide to create a new kind of international community—one that recognizes the mutual benefits of peace.

While teen pregnancy took center stage nationally with the news that GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s unwed 17-year old daughter is expecting, it is also an issue that is hot in Lowell these days. At its curriculum subcommittee meeting on Monday, Sept. 15, the Lowell School Committee will explore offering comprehensive sex education to its students as opposed to the program in place since 2003 when district budget cuts and federal funding mandated abstinence-only programs.  It is no secret that teen pregnancies directly correlate to dropout rates and poverty. What is debatable, however, is the role schools should play and the impact these programs have on teen behavior. As these responses (100+ comments) to an Aug. 21 article in the Sun show, sex education is controversial and fraught with misconceptions. The subcommittee meeting on Monday (2^nd floor, 155 Middlesex Street at 7 p.m.) is open to the public and should shed some light on the issue. It’s also important to remember, as this Globe article notes, many teen parents do not come from financially secure, supportive families as Palin’s, and of the 100 or so teen parents currently attending LHS, most struggle with basic living expenses and being able to attend school. Although some GOP supporters want to make Palin and her daughter heroines, I can’t help but see the irony of her family’s situation given her own and her party’s positions on sex education, contraception, and a women’s right to choose. The reality is most unwed teens continue a cycle of poverty they themselves were born into; it is only through education that we can stem that tide.

I’m one of those Americans who love my country, the ideals on which it was founded, and especially my right to criticize its leaders. But I do not always love my government—particularly the current administration and its eight years of misguided policies. (That’s why we vote.) When I heard about Michelle Obama’s comment last February, “for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” I knew where she was coming from and I was okay with it. I was okay with her being proud of how momentous this presidential primary is in the history of our nation, and I was okay with her not being proud of other moments from our past. It was a comment, however, that caused quite a stir in conservative GOP circles, and perhaps brought some angst to Barack Obama’s campaign.  For me, it snapped into humorous focus the other night when Jon Stewart quipped on the Daily Show: “Democrats have to prove they love America… as opposed to Republicans—who everyone knows love America—they just hate half the people living in it.” 

This morning I overheard a comment that the government is spending a billion dollars every eight hours and 20 minutes, and it could cost a trillion to bail out the failing banks. Numbers this large are difficult to fathom, so I thought I’d share an interesting email sent to me by my brother Dan:

A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age. A billion days ago, no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

Now consider that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D) has asked Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans. That means, if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child), you each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

The Democratic Convention was held on June 7- a beautiful, hot Saturday. I spent the whole morning shivering in the air-conditioning, listening to speeches, waiting to vote and especially waiting to see Jackie graduate from the Emerge program. (Emerge is a program to educate, support and inspire Democratic women who want to run for elected office.) Jackie and her fellow-graduates, including one other from Lowell, were recognized for their seven months of workshops and seminars they attended and for successfully completing the Emerge curriculum which includes trainings in public speaking, fundraising, media skills and networking. From what I could tell, it was a rewarding experience for all involved. By this time, we were ready to get out into the sunshine, but were literally halted in our tracks by the final speaker, Van Jones. He is a man with a message and since I had been thinking about the connection between high school dropouts and our prison population, I was particularly interested in his call for a solution to social inequality as well as environmental destruction (reminds me of one of Karla Baehr’s “twofers”). He founded an organization, Green for All to “help build an inclusive, green economy.” His slogan is “green-collar jobs, not jails.” He has had some success in building support for his mission: in 1996, he co-founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights which promotes alternatives to violence and incarceration; in 2007, he worked with Democratic leaders to pass the Green Jobs Act of 2007, while at the local level, he helped the City of Oakland, California create a “Green Jobs Corp.” I’ll be waiting to hear and see more of this guy!

I almost didn’t attend the June meeting of the Non Profit Alliance of Greater Lowell, but I’m glad I did as the presenters brought some disturbing facts to light concerning Lowell’s high school dropout rate and the prison situation in Massachusetts.   These are not new issues, nor are they unrelated. Just think about where many high school dropouts are heading when they disappear off the radar of the school system. Victoria Fahlberg, the Executive Director of OneLowell, the highly-effective, yet woefully underfunded agency that works with Lowell’s highly-truant students in the middle schools and at the high school, tackles this problem every day. The statistics that she presented were startling:  Lowell’s graduation completion rate is 70%; this means that 30% of our incoming freshmen drop out of high school.  Even worse, the dropout rate for Hispanic students is 52%.  According to this study, funded by the Asian American Legal Defense and Eduation Fund, the rate for Asian students is 42.9%. (Hispanic students comprise 22.4 % and Asian 28.9 % of Lowell students.)

The prison issue is also not a new one.  We know about ‘three strikes you’re out’ and mandatory sentencing, but have we thought about the results?  Mark Hemenway of New England Prison Ministries, a faith-based group that works to help released prisoners establish a life and stay out of jail, spoke us about our current culture of incarceration.  Some facts:  the United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world.  The cost has been estimated at $40,000 to $50,000 per year per prisoner, with a rate of recidivism that may be as high as 75%.  According to Hemenway, we now spend more on our prisons than on our public universities (as someone pointed out, that’s not saying much; Massachusetts is near the bottom for spending on public higher education).  We constantly hear that there is no money for the schools or for other local services, but where is all the money going – to fund wars and prisons. It’s time to rethink our priorities as a society and direct our spending accordingly.