Callous Mike

Among the many kinds of emails I receive from readers is the assumption that I live in a blue liberal paradise in New York City. Typically, these emails will come from readers living in states like Texas or Alabama who feel alienated from neighbors who talk unabashedly about seceding or openly refer to Obama as “that nigger president.” Thankfully, I’m not exposed to that nonsense living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan.

Nonetheless, New York City is not a liberal panacea and Mayor Mike Bloomberg's administration is no champion of the poor. On May 9th, the Associated Press reported that city officials are charging homeless families for living in shelters. Hat tip to my Facebook buddy Terri DiMatteo for posting about this. According to the AP:

“The policy applies only to shelter residents who have income from jobs.

They could be expected to pay up to half their earnings.

Some shelter residents say the new rule will ruin their chances of saving enough money to get an apartment.

One single mother living in a Manhattan shelter tells The New York Times [NYT] she got a letter saying she had to give up $336 of the $800 she makes each month as a cashier.

The city says it is only charging people who can afford to pay.

About 2,000 families are expected to be covered by the new rule.”

One obvious flaw with this punitive measure is that it’s a disincentive to remain employed. As it is a working mother may be reluctant to leave her kids alone in a shelter to earn a pay-check. Now the Bloomberg administration is penalizing her for it!

I know many liberals in New York City who support Bloomberg. Whenever I talk to them I’m struck by how clueless they are. Bloomberg’s urbane and he’s been a pioneer in the information economy professionals like them have thrived in and still do even after Wall Street’s meltdown last fall. Also, Bloomberg supports the liberal position with respect to guns, abortion and the environment and the concerns of people living in shelters is not on their radar screen.

Bloomberg is certainly an improvement over his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. He’s been forward thinking with respect to the environment and transforming New York City to combat global warming. In many ways Bloomberg is an effective technocrat. But this isn’t the first time his administration has been callous towards the most vulnerable in our society. Sadly, he appears poised for a third term coronation this November without a vigorous challenge or critique of his record.

Bloomberg is already spending millions on advertising while candidates such as Comptroller William Thompson are restricted in order to remain compliant with the Campaign Finance Board and receive matching funds. And Bloomberg continues to coast without worrying about serving the needs of wage earners and tenants who can’t afford to live here.

Does anyone care that New York City’s mayor is allowed to be a commissar for plutocrats in a gilded age? Is there anyone who can mount an effective challenge and at least compel Bloomberg to be cognizant of city residents who don't thrive in his world? Will the fact that the working poor living in shelters are being penalized while Bloomberg caters to the rich during the worst economic climate since the Great Depression even be an issue this campaign?

I Want Receipts!

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that,

“After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it.”

The AP actually contacted twenty-one banks that received at least $1 billion and none could specify how they had spent it and for what! Yet a single mother who suffers a medical calamity and is forced to declare bankruptcy will have to endure an excruciating accounting process. Indeed, it is banks who lobbied Washington to make it damn near possible for such a person to satisfactorily itemize their assets and liabilities in order to qualify for bankruptcy.

Yet our political culture which is conditioned to excoriate that single mom for not pulling herself up by her boot straps will likely give the banks a pass. Meanwhile, small business owners are struggling to make their payrolls, as banks remain tight fisted with credit and jobs disappear.

I want receipts from these people! If the TARP funds are not properly allocated to minimize job losses Americans are entitled to know. And if it turns out the banks are stealing then the Obama Justice Department should make an example of them.

Clinton Stands Tall On Gay Rights

As regular readers of this blog know, I don’t want Hillary Clinton to become my party’s nominee for president. She enabled President Bush’s illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Hell, she even echoed many of Bush's false arguments about al quaeda and Iraq. Both Clinton and John McCain are guilty of not reading a ninety page National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 which contained evidence undermining Bush's rational for war and we still don't know if Clinton learned from her mistake.

I’m also offended by the subtext of Clinton's efforts to persuade the super delegates that Barack Obama can’t win in November because he’s black. No matter how you slice it, that's what "he can't win" means.

However, I must give credit where it is due. Nedra Pickler reported in the Associated Press earlier this evening that Clinton promised to be a strong advocate for gay rights. Noting how both Massachusetts and New Jersey have expanded rights for gay couples, Clinton said,

"and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that.”

Clinton also deserves credit for making a point of opposing a measure in Pennsylvania to ban gay marriage. Keep in mind that Clinton’s core constituency in Pennsylvania is older more culturally conservative working class voters and their high stakes primary is just nineteen days away. Nevertheless, the Associated Press quoted Clinton as saying,

“I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen,"

I was especially gratified that Clinton told the Associated Press she would be “very strongly outspoken” against foreign governments that execute gays and use America’s economic and diplomatic leverage to prevent such atrocities. As I wrote in a post two years ago, gay rights are human rights. To believe anything else is immoral. Clinton assertively putting this issue front and center is a reminder of why I vote Democrat.

I remain a Barack Obama supporter. However, if Clinton can be a positive voice of conscious on such issues and in turn constructively push Obama, then perhaps she can earn back a measure of good will. Sadly, it’s impossible to reconcile someone who is so passionate advocating for gay rights while simultaneously telling skittish inside the beltway white elitists that America isn’t ready for a black president.