Benchmarking the Consent Agreement. Show me the progress.

[Wesley Mouch]

..., this is what you get -- chaos and confusion.

You only get 'chaos and confusion' because of the bizarre resistance to OUR government [[state level) and the expected hope that the gravy train can continue to run, spilling money into everyone's pockets.

[Detroitnerd]

I don't think those opposed to the imposition of outside rule on Detroit are necessarily opposed to rooting out corruption.

If corruption is the issue, then the issue is crime, and I think we're all for get-tough federal investigations of boobs like Monica Conyers or Sam Riddle or Kwame Kilpatrick.

The wheels are finally coming off the McNamara machine, and I don't think I heard any calls for the state to come in and impose order and law on Wayne County, even now as Ficano fights for his political life.

It keeps boiling down to this new idea that democracy is for communities that can afford it. Wealthy communities will be "democratic" -- but poor communities and communities of color will have to face austerity, and be yoked to the banks to furnish profits above all else.

And even if you don't agree with that, you should probably take note of it -- if at all you hope to persuade those in the city who may see things more my way...

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
It keeps boiling down to this new idea that democracy is for communities that can afford it. Wealthy communities will be "democratic" -- but poor communities and communities of color will have to face austerity, and be yoked to the banks to furnish profits above all else. ...snip...

As good posts do, your post made me think.

I think they have democracy. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What they don't have is the collective ability to fund 'essential' services. Don't people have rights to those services? If so, is that right more important than the right of a pensioner to pay less than the average for their health care, for example?

The problem Detroit faces is money. How do you propose we fund the current city services that appears to be your idea of democracy in action? Should the state [[and feds) fund every city that's in trouble? And if so, why would any city do anything except spend?

[Detroitnerd]

As good posts do, your post made me think.

I think they have democracy. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What they don't have is the collective ability to fund 'essential' services. Don't people have rights to those services? If so, is that right more important than the right of a pensioner to pay less than the average for their health care, for example?

The problem Detroit faces is money. How do you propose we fund the current city services that appears to be your idea of democracy in action? Should the state [[and feds) fund every city that's in trouble? And if so, why would any city do anything except spend?

Well, that prompts a broader, deeper question about what is "essential" to our lives as Americans, I think.

For instance, nobody ever says the Pentagon is going to go broke. We pay about $3 trillion a year for the total costs of war right now and barely a peep about that. Through various programs, the government pays trillions to keep the banks afloat, and even though the government is essentially printing money under the guise of QE, nary a peep uttered about that; nobody worries about the Fed going "broke."

But when it comes to social services for actual human beings, the mantra is incessant: Social security could go broke. We don't have money for "entitlements." It seems our priorities, on every level, are solidly in favor of aiding the forces of power, and not in aiding the education, nutrition, livelihood and dignity of our people.

I'm not advocating "throwing money at problems" -- esp. because I don't like it when it happens with the banks and corporations and military. But why are paying trillions to "bring democracy" to places like Afghanistan while we strip democracy from a place like Detroit to impose dollar-based austerity?

Something big and deep and probably indefensible is behind all this. We may be the richest country in the world right now, but our wealth is and always has been our people. If we aren't willing to invest in ourselves, here's betting we'll find all the other wealth will slip through our fingers ...

[Lowell]

Well stated Detroitnerd.

I came across this the other day when hearing how the US is going to deploy the bulk of its naval forces to the Pacific.

We have 11 aircraft carriers in service with two more on the assembly line - the rest of world has 9, China has none although they are building one. Each aircraft, a city in itself, also requires a fleet of support vessels.

It seems that we have plenty of money for that 'welfare', which produces nothing but war debts yet we must close schools, lay off public safety officers, and let our cities decay here.

This is why when solutions for Detroit are offered, I want to see them benchmarked and measured.

[Wesley Mouch]

Well stated Detroitnerd.

I came across this the other day when hearing how the US is going to deploy the bulk of its naval forces to the Pacific.

We have 11 aircraft carriers in service with two more on the assembly line - the rest of world has 9, China has none although they are building one. Each aircraft, a city in itself, also requires a fleet of support vessels.

It seems that we have plenty of money for that 'welfare', which produces nothing but war debts yet we must close schools, lay off public safety officers, and let our cities decay here.

This is why when solutions for Detroit are offered, I want to see them benchmarked and measured.

Lowell: I understand the argument you, Nerdlee, and others make. Take all that money, and fund Detroit, why don't we.

1) Money has not proven to solve anything. In fact, it seems to hurt. See [[Syria/Saudi Arabia/any oil-rich country here).

2) At the risk of sounding like my father...Do you think that its impossible for China to descend into chaos? It think its incredibly unlikely. I also though Tienanmen Square was unlikley at the time. China is not a plodding democracy. Its a dynamic dictatorship, controlled by an oligarchy shroweded by communist propaganda. I do hope it finds its way to properity. But I don't think its irresponsible for the US to be prepared. Yes, a military is expensive. And ours is massively wasteful, often does stupid things, and is given misguided tasks. I can agree all day long with errors in our foreign policy. We've done such stupid things. And we need much more peace efforts like the aid to tsunamis in Southeast Asia than we need more bullets. I can easily accept reductions in military spending. But I don't believe for a moment that the world would be better without American hegemony.

What does this have to do with Detroit. Well -- nothing. And so does the argument you've making that somehow we could take military money and support entitlements. We can support our entitlements without military spending cuts. Both can and should be judged on the basis of their value. Its not either/or.

This debate should be back to your original post. What's the way to measure success. Not why don't we toss money at our problems instead of considering reasonable reforms and better ways to run our cities, states, and government.

Detnerd's idea of 'investing in people' is a great thought. Great idea. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with government. If you want to invest in people. Support your alma mater. Government has very little to show for massive investments in 'entitlements', imo.

[[Great forum, btw. Good to think. Good to share.)

[mwilbert]

Government has very little to show for massive investments in 'entitlements', imo.

Your opinion is not supported by the facts. The major entitlements are Social Security and Medicare, and they have been very effective in doing what they were intended to do, which is to massively reduce the rate of poverty among the elderly and to provide them with health care. The next largest entitlement is Medicaid which was intended to provide health care to the poor, and it does that, but most of its spending goes to nursing care for the elderly as well.

Now some people might favor different spending priorities, but that doesn't mean that the current spending is not effective.

Also, the kind of "investing in people" that could be accomplished by giving money to your "alma mater" is investing in people who are already fairly far up the food chain. The people who most need an investment made in them are little kids who aren't going to get proper support from their families or their dysfunctional local educational institutions. Certainly private money can help with that, and has in some cases, but it isn't going to do it systematically because the scale is simply too large for private philanthropy--there are just a whole lot of kids at risk, and the required interventions aren't cheap. And it is possible they would still be ineffective, because while you can cure poverty for most people by giving them money [[that is what Social Security does--works great) giving people education or discipline or grit isn't nearly as simple or reliable.

[Wesley Mouch]

Your opinion is not supported by the facts. The major entitlements are Social Security and Medicare, and they have been very effective in doing what they were intended to do, which is to massively reduce the rate of poverty among the elderly and to provide them with health care. The next largest entitlement is Medicaid which was intended to provide health care to the poor, and it does that, but most of its spending goes to nursing care for the elderly as well.

Now some people might favor different spending priorities, but that doesn't mean that the current spending is not effective.

Also, the kind of "investing in people" that could be accomplished by giving money to your "alma mater" is investing in people who are already fairly far up the food chain. The people who most need an investment made in them are little kids who aren't going to get proper support from their families or their dysfunctional local educational institutions. Certainly private money can help with that, and has in some cases, but it isn't going to do it systematically because the scale is simply too large for private philanthropy--there are just a whole lot of kids at risk, and the required interventions aren't cheap. And it is possible they would still be ineffective, because while you can cure poverty for most people by giving them money [[that is what Social Security does--works great) giving people education or discipline or grit isn't nearly as simple or reliable.

I don't see the results. In fact, I see the process destroying people.

I don't mind socialism. But its like an antibiotic. It shouldn't become the only solution. We think we can engineer social results. I don't think it works.

SS & the Med's are decent programs. My socialist side wants them to become progressive taxes, not regressive. How silly that there's a cap in place on SS today when the program is much more than a retirement program. The cap should be blown away. SS Tax under $110k could drop from 15% to 10%. Incomes over $110k could be increased from 0% to the current 15%. [[Don't be greedy, or the 'rich' will find ways to hide their ill-begotten gains.)

[mwilbert]

I don't see the results. In fact, I see the process destroying people.

I don't mind socialism. But its like an antibiotic. It shouldn't become the only solution. We think we can engineer social results. I don't think it works.

SS & the Med's are decent programs. My socialist side wants them to become progressive taxes, not regressive. How silly that there's a cap in place on SS today when the program is much more than a retirement program. The cap should be blown away. SS Tax under $110k could drop from 15% to 10%. Incomes over $110k could be increased from 0% to the current 15%. [[Don't be greedy, or the 'rich' will find ways to hide their ill-begotten gains.)

This is not a logical response. You say you don't see the results of entitlement programs. I point out those results. You then assert that the programs destroy people, but then say that SS and Medicare and Medicaid [[the main entitlement programs) are decent programs and propose minor funding changes. That makes no sense. How can they be decent programs and destroy people?

What I suspect is actually the case is that you think there are other entitlement programs for people of working age, that don't work well or are actively counterproductive. That may well be, but that doesn't mean that the big entitlement programs aren't effective. The problem is finding a good substitute for the ones that are less effective, which I would agree would be a good idea, but fixing broken people and making them productive is a hard and expensive thing to do, and if you can't fix them then the alternative is to provide them with some kind of support, as we haven't yet reached the point where we have a societal consensus to let the indigent live in the street, begging or stealing, not that there isn't more of that than I like to see.

In my opinion, the best way would be universal high-quality and extended day child care and education starting at a very young age [[to break the cycle of dysfunction at the only place it can be broken) and mandatory full-time public service for people receiving assistance [[to get some kind of work done, and to make this option as unattractive relative to normal work as possible). I see minimal support for that, so I expect we will continue the current policies which keep people alive and usually housed but don't produce any reliable path out of dependence and multigenerational poverty.

[Wesley Mouch]

This is not a logical response. You say you don't see the results of entitlement programs. I point out those results. You then assert that the programs destroy people, but then say that SS and Medicare and Medicaid [[the main entitlement programs) are decent programs and propose minor funding changes. That makes no sense. How can they be decent programs and destroy people?...
...In my opinion, the best way would be universal high-quality and extended day child care and education starting at a very young age [[to break the cycle of dysfunction at the only place it can be broken) and mandatory full-time public service for people receiving assistance [[to get some kind of work done, and to make this option as unattractive relative to normal work as possible). I see minimal support for that, so I expect we will continue the current policies which keep people alive and usually housed but don't produce any reliable path out of dependence and multigenerational poverty.

Glad we agree on need to re-tool social assistance entitlement programs. 'Alive' and 'usually housed' is not much of an accomplishment. We can do better. And more taxes spent as we have been just isn't the solution it seems.

[Novine]

"Its hard to believe, but, no, neither the Council, the Mayor or the Law Department knew that the consent agreement actually violated the portion of the Home Rule Cities Act [[and the City Charter) that prohibits Michigan cities from contracting with an entity that has defaulted on a previous contract."

Sorry but this is a ridiculous argument. If you accept it as true then the city has to void all agreements it has with the State of Michigan. Everyone of them. If that's true, then the Law Department has failed for years because these claims didn't come to light yesterday. How are we supposed to believe that the same Law Department that has missed this point for years and suddenly discovers it in the past week?

[Wesley Mouch]

"Its hard to believe, but, no, neither the Council, the Mayor or the Law Department knew that the consent agreement actually violated the portion of the Home Rule Cities Act [[and the City Charter) that prohibits Michigan cities from contracting with an entity that has defaulted on a previous contract."

Sorry but this is a ridiculous argument. If you accept it as true then the city has to void all agreements it has with the State of Michigan. Everyone of them. If that's true, then the Law Department has failed for years because these claims didn't come to light yesterday. How are we supposed to believe that the same Law Department that has missed this point for years and suddenly discovers it in the past week?

Very good and obvious point.

Also odd that the word 'contracting with' is used. Sounds a lot like a vendor relationship. Where you buy and good or service. This isn't that.

Whole fight is fishy.