Politics, Government & Public Policy: September 2010 Archives
Read Tim Cavanaugh's evisceration of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles and then multiply by 100 to understand why California is falling apart.
They say failure is an orphan, but they’re wrong. Everything the CRA touches generates a new class of illegitimate parents, as participants blame each other for the debacle. McClendon’s complaint above is characteristic, but there are other hobgoblins. Eli Sasson, a developer who spent his own money to assemble several blocks of land for a development at Vermont Ave. and Manchester Ave., was denounced by Janis and other CRA officials in preparation for an eminent domain proceeding against him in 2008. Two years later, the status of the Vermont/Manchester project is cloudy, but the status of the project area is quite clear: Like almost all CRA areas, it is a vacant lot.No less a figure than legendary Lakers point guard Magic Johnson served as a CRA scapegoat in 1999, when the itinerant local politician Mark Ridley-Thomas (then a city councilman, now a county supervisor) dumped him from the Marlton Square project in favor of the shady Chris Hammond. Then again, Magic is at a disadvantage in this game: He actually gets things built.
But the CRA, the Moriarty of public organizations, is the culprit at the scene of every crime. A bloated, self-perpetuating organization that turns poverty into penury; that could solve the budget deficit and revitalize the economy just by selling off its holdings and putting itself out of business; that elevates process over progress and political speech over any actual accomplishment; and that occasionally grabs the credit for successes private operators achieved in spite of the agency’s interference: The CRA is more than just an L.A. problem. It’s the perfect government agency.
If California ever throws off the shackles of Leftism there will be huge opportunities there for growth and productivity. Decades of left-wing rule have turned the Golden State into a burgeoning wasteland, but that decay could be quickly reversed by adventurous capitalists if they were free to act.
Victor Davis Hanson explains why President Obama is so sensitive.
All that matters for the country is that the current president of the United States seems surprised that as our chief executive he is earning scrutiny not previously accorded him — and that he finds that demand for accountability both exasperating and abjectly unfair. Thus this week’s latest “like a dog” whine.For some reason, Obama believed that those who expected after his campaign promises a real upturn in the economy, or fiscal responsibility, or inspired foreign policy would be satisfied, as they had in the past, merely with soaring rhetoric and superficial reassurance. When they were not, and voiced such displeasure, as ingrates they had supposedly reduced Obama to canine-like status.
There is no need to add that abroad an Ahmadinejad, Assad, or Putin does not care a bit for the supposed personal chemistry or ethnic profile of Obama. Whether he was “clean” or not would be an absurdity to them. We sense only that those authoritarian sorts seem so far to like the idea that Obama speaks ambiguously about his country’s past and future, and appears more comfortable in pondering alternatives than making decisions.
Given all that, it is understandable both why America is very worried about what it has wrought — and why Barack Obama is miffed and lashes out.
You would too if both accountability and criticism were novel experiences at 49.
I largely blame the media for allowing Obama's history to go almost completely unexamined.
Larry Sabato has consulted his crystal ball and released some predictions for November's mid-term election.
Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. ...In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). ...
The statehouses will provide the third leg of the Republicans’ 2010 victory. We have long suggested the GOP would gain a net +6 governorships. We now believe they will win +8. This boon to the GOP for redistricting will be enhanced by a gain of perhaps 300 to 500 seats in the state legislatures, and the addition of Republican control in 8 to 12 legislative chambers around the country.
Increased Republican control of the impending redistricting process could move as many as 20 House seats into the GOP column for the next decade.
1. Don't get cocky.
2. Don't forget the Tea Partiers who are poised to put you back in power.
