This week there was a story in the NY Times about the Schiavone Construction Company. It turns out they are still under the influence of “the mob.” The key word here about Sciavone is “still.” It is as if somehow over time the mob sort of goes away, then shows up again. Periodically we have Gangbusters like Tom Dewey or Rudy Guiliani who proudly make announcements such as, “these arrests will deal the death blow to organized crime in this city.” Horns and trumpets should accompany these declarations as they are meant to assure the public that the District Attorneys have once and for all rid us of the scourge of the mob.
Until Schiavone was sold to a Spanish conglomerate last year, it was headed by Raymond J. Donovan, who was Secretary of Labor in the Reagan Administration. In 1987 he was indicted for stealing 7.4 million dollars from a subway contract. He was finally acquitted of the charges, but in the course of the trial a key witness testified that the Schiavone Construction Company was part of the Genovese Crime family. The present indictment charges them with setting up ghost organizations that are supposedly owned and run by women as part of affirmative action on Federal Contracts. As I read this stuff I wondered if we will ever learn that the mob business will never ever go away as long as there are ready and willing corrupters.
In massive construction contracts, such as the new fresh water filtration plant that is being built 10 stories down in the bedrock under Van Courtlandt Park, the price is now figured at about 3 billion dollars having started at 660 million. Hows that you ask? Quite simple. Every truck load of waste from the project is to be dumped in New Jersey. And guess what. It costs the project an extra 40 bucks per truck to get “yard clearance” in Jersey. The price starts to escalate.
In the Reagan years I was at the Ford Foundation. My major responsibility at Ford was employment. That inevitably lead to regular meetings in the Labor Department. It was during Donovan’s term at Labor that he invited me to a meeting in Virginia on minority employment. Because of my concern regarding his ties to organized crime, I figured I better check with my bosses Mike Sviridoff and McGeorge Bundy as to the advisability of my attending. As I said to them,”We have got enough problems being accused of stirring up Blacks with our voter registration drives. I don’t think we needed to be seen as connected to the mob.” Bundy laughed and thought he would trust my judgement as to what I might commit us to. Anyhow off to the meeting I went.
I was used to fairly regular meetings with Labor Secretaries in the Johnson and Carter Administrations, but I was never given the reception I received from Mr. Donovan. He wanted to make sure I was satisfied with the accommodations, and assured me, emphasizing “if you needed anything, anything at all, don’t hesitate to ask.” It seemed apparent to me that he was looking for the imprimatur of respectability from the Ford Foundation. And most likely more. It reminded me of my dealings with the Mafia in the Labor Movement, who also had a way of assuring someone who they wanted as a friend with, “If you need anything, just let me know.” I knew they weren’t just being polite.
After the meeting in Virginia I received my first Diploma from a government official simply for attending a meeting. Donovan couldn’t help being forever grateful that I even came to his meeting. My point of this story is simply to tell how corruption will never go away until there are no corruptees to accept the payoffs from the corrupters. Those will only be people who are motivated by something else besides making money. How do we achieve that?
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Cool It on Obama
I have received a number of concerned emails from friends regarding Obama’s slide to the right. Being a political animal I have often been caught up in delirious enthusiasm for a candidate who seemed to be the “saviour” I was looking for. And yet in the course of the campaign I watched my saviour slip into the the robes of just another politician. Why does this happen?
I believe it reflects where the country is at at the time of the election. As suggested by Hamlet, people overwhelmingly want to stay with the troubles they know rather than move on to others that we know not of. What then makes for real change? When faced with a serious crisis that effects our everyday lives we begin to accept the notion of serious change. Our present day health care crisis is an example of a universal problem effecting an overwhelming number of citizens. But even the health crisis might not be enough to get us to accept the idea of a singular government-run system.
Obama made it plain for all to see that he was not going to lead a Nadar type campaign that might make some of us feel good, but not be electable. Now there’s the rub. Would we rather have a candidate say all the right things that the left would like to hear, or would we prefer that he or she get elected and then see how far one can push a left of center political agenda?
I remember FDR’s efforts at pushing a left of center agenda. What he learned early on was the need to prepare the country for changes to come. His fireside chats were his bully pulpit from which he tried valiantly to move his agenda forward. When the Supreme Court started to nullify some of the New Deal legislation, FDR tried to increase the number of judges. It became known as “packing the court.” It failed to win popular support. FDR gave up that idea, but continued his effort for change.
What is severely missing in our nations thinking is a program on the left that countervails the impact of the right wing juggernaught that has been in control for most of the last 25 years. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, and unfortunately with it the idea of socialism, there has not been serious discussion regarding an alternative to the present idea of Global Capitalism. I think this is what makes any serious discussion about alternatives to the present system untenable. This is why Obama has to walk on eggs in order not to appear as though he is a little to far left of center. As a candidate he can talk of “Change” until the cows come home, but here’s the rub. When it comes to having to cast his vote as a Senator, he has to get real. What does getting real mean? It means will his constituents, not just Illinois but the whole country, be willing to accept his position. His decision on wire tap legislation was probably to show that he is not a wimp when it comes to terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush Rove Fox News crowd still have the electorate scared stiff over the terrorist threat. The latest bombardment is the Iran WMD Missile testing fever.
My paranoia does get the best of me at times like these. Just as the Iraq war seemed to be dying down a bit, a new “scarem” seemed to be needed. Here comes Israel with a fly by exercise in the Mediterranean as a warning to the Iranians. “Heah, we got the stuff to reach those nuclear sights.” Now the Iranians comeback with, “Oh yeah, watch our missiles fly over the sea.” We are once again being treated to the harem scarem formula to win an election. Obama has to walk a real tightrope in order not to look weak in the face of serious threats.
It is still a little early to see how this will play out on election day four and a half months from now. Lots of things are going to happen between now and then, some of which might even checkmate the WMD scarem stuff. Remember, we are a country that primarily reacts to “the economy stupid.” The home foreclosures, gas and food prices, bank failures, and G.M. stock at 10 bucks a share may very well take precedent over Iranian scarem with WMD stuff.
Okay, so this is the field that Obama is running in. Lets just all admit that it “ain’t gonna be easy.” At every turn there are minefields. That requires Barack Obama to be “Jack be nimble. Jack be quick. Jack jump over the candlestick.” Barack be nimble, Barack be quick, can not come across as weak on terrorists. Lets just hang in there with him as he makes his way through the minefields.
The last Blog asked for additional comments on what the next President will be confronted with. In case you missed them, here they are:
- Global climate change
- Structure, funding and delivery of universal health care
- Afganistan
- Food crisis, stemming in part from population growth
- Energy crisis
P.S. Can you believe the Bush administration folks asking the Congress to pass some laws regulating the banking industry? Good example of how things change in face of fiscal crisis.
Thank you Kate. N.H.W.Y.
I believe it reflects where the country is at at the time of the election. As suggested by Hamlet, people overwhelmingly want to stay with the troubles they know rather than move on to others that we know not of. What then makes for real change? When faced with a serious crisis that effects our everyday lives we begin to accept the notion of serious change. Our present day health care crisis is an example of a universal problem effecting an overwhelming number of citizens. But even the health crisis might not be enough to get us to accept the idea of a singular government-run system.
Obama made it plain for all to see that he was not going to lead a Nadar type campaign that might make some of us feel good, but not be electable. Now there’s the rub. Would we rather have a candidate say all the right things that the left would like to hear, or would we prefer that he or she get elected and then see how far one can push a left of center political agenda?
I remember FDR’s efforts at pushing a left of center agenda. What he learned early on was the need to prepare the country for changes to come. His fireside chats were his bully pulpit from which he tried valiantly to move his agenda forward. When the Supreme Court started to nullify some of the New Deal legislation, FDR tried to increase the number of judges. It became known as “packing the court.” It failed to win popular support. FDR gave up that idea, but continued his effort for change.
What is severely missing in our nations thinking is a program on the left that countervails the impact of the right wing juggernaught that has been in control for most of the last 25 years. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, and unfortunately with it the idea of socialism, there has not been serious discussion regarding an alternative to the present idea of Global Capitalism. I think this is what makes any serious discussion about alternatives to the present system untenable. This is why Obama has to walk on eggs in order not to appear as though he is a little to far left of center. As a candidate he can talk of “Change” until the cows come home, but here’s the rub. When it comes to having to cast his vote as a Senator, he has to get real. What does getting real mean? It means will his constituents, not just Illinois but the whole country, be willing to accept his position. His decision on wire tap legislation was probably to show that he is not a wimp when it comes to terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush Rove Fox News crowd still have the electorate scared stiff over the terrorist threat. The latest bombardment is the Iran WMD Missile testing fever.
My paranoia does get the best of me at times like these. Just as the Iraq war seemed to be dying down a bit, a new “scarem” seemed to be needed. Here comes Israel with a fly by exercise in the Mediterranean as a warning to the Iranians. “Heah, we got the stuff to reach those nuclear sights.” Now the Iranians comeback with, “Oh yeah, watch our missiles fly over the sea.” We are once again being treated to the harem scarem formula to win an election. Obama has to walk a real tightrope in order not to look weak in the face of serious threats.
It is still a little early to see how this will play out on election day four and a half months from now. Lots of things are going to happen between now and then, some of which might even checkmate the WMD scarem stuff. Remember, we are a country that primarily reacts to “the economy stupid.” The home foreclosures, gas and food prices, bank failures, and G.M. stock at 10 bucks a share may very well take precedent over Iranian scarem with WMD stuff.
Okay, so this is the field that Obama is running in. Lets just all admit that it “ain’t gonna be easy.” At every turn there are minefields. That requires Barack Obama to be “Jack be nimble. Jack be quick. Jack jump over the candlestick.” Barack be nimble, Barack be quick, can not come across as weak on terrorists. Lets just hang in there with him as he makes his way through the minefields.
The last Blog asked for additional comments on what the next President will be confronted with. In case you missed them, here they are:
- Global climate change
- Structure, funding and delivery of universal health care
- Afganistan
- Food crisis, stemming in part from population growth
- Energy crisis
P.S. Can you believe the Bush administration folks asking the Congress to pass some laws regulating the banking industry? Good example of how things change in face of fiscal crisis.
Thank you Kate. N.H.W.Y.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Paul Krugman Wake Up!
It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to read people who I thought were pretty smart and then watch them get dumb. Krugman, in the Times June 30th ’08, is asking whether Obama can outdo Ronald Reagan as a President of change? He sets up what my research professor called a “banana onion comparison” and, guess what, it didn’t compute. That is exactly what Krugman is doing in comparing what Reagan or Clinton had to confront on becoming the President with what Obama will be looking at.
Both Clinton and Reagan had a waltz compared to what Obama will face if elected. Clinton was preoccupied with “moving to the center.” Reagan was concerned with introducing the “new conservatism.” Okay, so in case you forgot what the next President will be confronted with, let me start with my list. All readers are invited, no encouraged, to add their favorites to what might be called “the list from hell.”
The Iraq war and how to bring our troops home
The Iran nuclear weapons crisis (Bush, Cheney, and Israel cooking up a “bomb’em” solution.)
The mortgage crisis and how to stabilize the housing market
The energy crisis, including the $5.00 a gallon gasoline and home heating oil
The Medicare prescription crisis that is doubling and tripling in yearly costs
The Social Security crisis with millions of Baby Boomers about to retire (The SS trust fund has been raped in order to pay for the billion dollar a day Iraq war.)
The economic downturn as a result of the loss of consumer spending (That was Bush’s idea of how to support the war effort. Now you got to admit that was original. This will also start to effect the various State Pension Plans which, guess what, are underfunded by millions of dollars?
The three trillion dollar national debt that President Bush will leave his successor
Our crumbling infrastructure like bridges, roads, levees, fire problems, subways, sewers, just to name a few.
These problems are exactly the type of socio-economic issues that can lead to massive social unrest. So honestly Paul Krugman, what are you talking about? The last President to face this kind of general crisis was FDR; not Reagan, Clinton, Carter or Nixon.
I want to remind my readers to add to “THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S CRISIS LIST.” Click “Comments” at the end of this blog. Type your comments in the “Leave you comment” box. If you have trouble with Google sign in, put your name in “Leave your comment” box (if you want) and hit “Anonymous” under the “Choose your Identity column. Then hit “PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT”. Or just send us an email and let us know if you would like us to put it on the blog for you.
Thank you Kate. N.H.W.Y.
Both Clinton and Reagan had a waltz compared to what Obama will face if elected. Clinton was preoccupied with “moving to the center.” Reagan was concerned with introducing the “new conservatism.” Okay, so in case you forgot what the next President will be confronted with, let me start with my list. All readers are invited, no encouraged, to add their favorites to what might be called “the list from hell.”
The Iraq war and how to bring our troops home
The Iran nuclear weapons crisis (Bush, Cheney, and Israel cooking up a “bomb’em” solution.)
The mortgage crisis and how to stabilize the housing market
The energy crisis, including the $5.00 a gallon gasoline and home heating oil
The Medicare prescription crisis that is doubling and tripling in yearly costs
The Social Security crisis with millions of Baby Boomers about to retire (The SS trust fund has been raped in order to pay for the billion dollar a day Iraq war.)
The economic downturn as a result of the loss of consumer spending (That was Bush’s idea of how to support the war effort. Now you got to admit that was original. This will also start to effect the various State Pension Plans which, guess what, are underfunded by millions of dollars?
The three trillion dollar national debt that President Bush will leave his successor
Our crumbling infrastructure like bridges, roads, levees, fire problems, subways, sewers, just to name a few.
These problems are exactly the type of socio-economic issues that can lead to massive social unrest. So honestly Paul Krugman, what are you talking about? The last President to face this kind of general crisis was FDR; not Reagan, Clinton, Carter or Nixon.
I want to remind my readers to add to “THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S CRISIS LIST.” Click “Comments” at the end of this blog. Type your comments in the “Leave you comment” box. If you have trouble with Google sign in, put your name in “Leave your comment” box (if you want) and hit “Anonymous” under the “Choose your Identity column. Then hit “PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT”. Or just send us an email and let us know if you would like us to put it on the blog for you.
Thank you Kate. N.H.W.Y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
