I suspect this is the case outside New York, as well:
The New York City Police Department needs to be restrained. The nonstop humiliation of young black and Hispanic New Yorkers, including children, by police officers who feel no obligation to treat them fairly or with any respect at all is an abomination. That many of the officers engaged in the mistreatment are black or Latino themselves is shameful.
Statistics will be out shortly about the total number of people who were stopped and frisked by the police in 2009. We already have the data for the first three-quarters of the year, and they are staggering. During that period, more than 450,000 people were stopped by the cops, an increase of 13 percent over the same period in 2008.
An overwhelming 84 percent of the stops in the first three-quarters of 2009 were of black or Hispanic New Yorkers. It is incredible how few of the stops yielded any law enforcement benefit. Contraband, which usually means drugs, was found in only 1.6 percent of the stops of black New Yorkers. For Hispanics, it was just 1.5 percent. For whites, who are stopped far less frequently, contraband was found 2.2 percent of the time.
The percentages of stops that yielded weapons were even smaller. Weapons were found on just 1.1 percent of the blacks stopped, 1.4 percent of the Hispanics, and 1.7 percent of the whites. Only about 6 percent of stops result in an arrest for any reason.2. Budget distractions
The Obama administration’s 2011 budget comes on the back of good economic news: the economy grew by an annualised 5.7 per cent in the last quarter, with manufacturing activity at its strongest in five years. Yet the mood is more siege mentality than triumphalism. As deficit dread sweeps the country and hence Washington, the focus is on short-term medication of the deficit rather than two altogether more important tasks – strengthening the recovery and securing lasting fiscal health.
For fiscal 2010, which ends in September, the administration predicts a record deficit of $1,556bn or 10.6 per cent of gross domestic product – the largest since the second world war. Faced with the steepest fall-off in demand in an equally long period, it did the right thing in relaxing the fiscal stance further than previously planned.
Sadly, reckless politicians have persuaded voters that runaway deficits threaten their livelihoods more than a renewed slowdown. This makes the administration sound a bit like a small European country eager to reassure Brussels: it wants to cut the deficit to 4 per cent of GDP within three years.
Such a large swing is fine if growth proves robust, but dangerous if it does not, which is far from unlikely. Unemployment is likely to stay above 9 per cent into 2011. The last growth spurt reflects a one-off boost from restocking. Households’ return to thrift (Americans now save 4.8 per cent of disposable income, more than double the average of recent years) means consumption remains sluggish.
Deficit-reduction noises may be no more than that: what matters politically is to be seen to care about the deficit but not do anything painful to shrink it. Besides, the US can afford a few more large deficits: net public debt, now just over half of GDP, is manageable.3. Treasury Removes Embarrassing Line From Mortgage Modification Report
I was working on a post about the Treasury's new mortgage modification rules (to soon follow) when I noticed something kind of amusing. Last month, I noted that its mortgage modification program was doing incredibly badly in terms of providing permanent modifications to struggling homeowners who requested assistance. In fact, it had a mere 1% success rate through November. Looking at this month's report, I suddenly realized that I couldn't make that calculation any more: the Treasury removed the denominator of the ratio from the report.
I looked throughout the rest of the report, and I couldn't find this statistic included. On one hand, I can't blame the Treasury. It was really embarrassing. If no one can calculate the program's success rate, then that should eliminate some of the negative news stories plaguing the program, like those with headlines such as "1% Success Rate For Obama Administration Mortgage Modification Program." On the other hand, this isn't the kind of transparency the President promised when criticizing the Bush administration's opaqueness during the campaign.4. Our Incredible Shrinking Democracy
I wish we’d all worry more about our incredible shrinking democracy.
It seems as if more and more decisions that should be made democratically are being shunted off somewhere to a few people who make them in back rooms. Which programs should be cut, which entitlements pared back, and what taxes raised in order to reduce the long-term budget deficit? Hmmm. Let’s convene a commission and have them decide.
Commissions are a default mechanism when politicians want to hand off difficult issues to “experts.” But reducing the long-term budget deficit has almost nothing to do with expertise. It’s about our nations’ values and priorities. Nothing could be more central to the democratic process.
Democracy requires at least three things: (1) Important decisions are made in the open. (2) The public and its representatives have an opportunity to debate them, so the decisions can be revised in light of what the public discovers and wants. And (3) those who make the big decisions are accountable to voters.
But these principles are in retreat, and I say this not just because of the proposed deficit commission.
Even if the economic emergency justified such secrecy – and it’s hard to see exactly why it would – the emergency is over, and yet closed-door decision making continues. Will Treasury use what’s left of TARP to help stimulate more jobs and, if so, how? Will the Fed stop buying mortgage-backed securities? No one knows.
The same pattern is evident on other issues. Congress can’t decide whether or how to limit the pay of financial executives. So where does the issue end up? The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed both say they’re going to look at whether pay levels are appropriate. The House and Senate can’t agree on what to do about climate change. Who decides? The Environmental Protection Agency concludes it has authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The debate over health-care reform looked like democratic deliberation until you realize the key negotiations that framed the deal occurred behind closed doors, between the White House and Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The Administration promised these industries some thirty million new paying customers. In return, they agreed not to oppose the plan. Big Pharma even placed a firm limit on how much it would cut its costs over the next ten years – $80 billion, and not a penny more. How do I know this? Not because this crucial deal was made in public, but because it was leaked to the press.
Personally, I want the government to limit the pay of financial executives, regulate greenhouse gases, and reform health care. And no one wanted a financial meltdown. But I’m appalled by the process that’s been used to reach these objectives.5. Graph of the Day:
No comments:
Post a Comment