A Wolfenotes “Explainer”
Ironies and Echoes of Nixon Go Way Beyond Corruption
With corruption and scandal breaking out all over the place, I must say I’m amazed at how little grasp the media has in the underlying historical, ideological, policy, and administrative causes of the problems and how little good analysis is being presented to the public.
Don’t get me wrong, the multiple scandal investigations and coverage are terrific – but the governing and policy issues have been ignored.
Perpetuation of that cycle will assure that we learn exactly nothing from the many mistakes now being made and that no real reforms will even be considered.
In the latest episode, today, the NY Times – building on the work of WNYC and the Bergen Record – lays out another scathing indictment of David Samson and Governor Christie, see:
At the same time, the Star Ledger editorializes about the latest Port Authority scandal, see:
So, in this context, it is rather shocking that NJ Spotlight’s Scott Gurian weighs in with an ahistorical and uncritical “Explainer” of the Sandy funding programs, see: EXPLAINER: WHERE SANDY AID MONEY COMES FROM AND HOW IT WORKS
The HUD CDBG program is like the crack cocaine of scandal and abuse.
The Gov.’s plan for use of that CDGB money creates several “slush finds”, with poorly defined objectives, no regulatory safeguards, lack of transparency , no public involvement, and no specific projects identified (e.g. take a peek at the $220 million “Energy Resilience” program – which Gurian should be all over because he wrote about a similarly screwed up $25 million program).
So, I fired this comment off, which I assume will be deleted:
A Wolfenotes “explainer”:
1. The media is just beginning to understand what “discretion” means with respect to allocation of public funds –
(lots of money) + (lots of discretion) + (little public oversight) = lots of political abuse and corruption.
That’s the story coming out of the Port Authority and related scandals.
The Star Ledger openly calls the result a “political slush fund”.
2. The HUD CDBG program was designed to maximize the discretion of the State Gov., while minimizing federal oversight and abandoning the radical 1960’s concept of “maximum feasible public participation”.
That is a simple historical fact of the CDBG program, established in 1974, at the direction of the Nixon Administration (but signed by Ford after Nixon resigned).
The CDBG program was a Republican driven reaction to the Johnson Administration’s multiple individual entitlement programs of the Great Society.
Those programs operated under federal formula, were subject to federal oversight, and were distributed directly to cities, typically under the control of Democratic urban machines. Citizens were provided “maximum feasible participation” in the administration of these programs.
Conservative Republicans hated ALL of that.
They viewed Johnson’s Great Society just as they do today’s remainder of the New Deal and welfare state – as undeserved entitlement for dependent freeloaders.
They hated a strong federal role and wanted state control.
They hated “bureaucratic regulations” and demanded discretion.
They hated democratic grassroots participation and wanted authoritarian control.
They hated urban america and they wanted more money allocated to suburban and rural areas.
Lots of racism operated in motivations.
So here we are.
And that’s the kind of explanation that can lead to real change.