BF2S Forums Detroit in Ruins...

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

American government is so fucking incompetent. In every other country, its fine lol.

But fuck corrupt unions, its about the same as a company with unlimted power.

It's not that our federal government is that incompetent.  The problem is that we're such a large country that some local governments are really shitty.  The variance in the quality of our state and local governments is pretty astounding when compared to lower level governments within other First World countries.

For example, you don't see such a wide variance in Canadian provincial governments.  Some are still better than others, but the differences are less stark there.

Poe probably hit on an important point in another thread when he said something to the effect of... "your country is too big."  For the most part, this is probably true.  If we split America into multiple pieces, each piece could be better managed from separate federal entities much better than it currently is under one large federal government with 50 states under it.

It's harder to keep an eye on things from the fed level when you have 50 states to take care of.  When you've got only 10 or so, it's much more effective.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not that our federal government is that incompetent.  The problem is that we're such a large country that some local governments are really shitty.  The variance in the quality of our state and local governments is pretty astounding when compared to lower level governments within other First World countries.

For example, you don't see such a wide variance in Canadian provincial governments.  Some are still better than others, but the differences are less stark there.

Poe probably hit on an important point in another thread when he said something to the effect of... "your country is too big."  For the most part, this is probably true.  If we split America into multiple pieces, each piece could be better managed from separate federal entities much better than it currently is under one large federal government with 50 states under it.

It's harder to keep an eye on things from the fed level when you have 50 states to take care of.  When you've got only 10 or so, it's much more effective.

Cough... States rights... Cough...

We don't NEED a strong federal government...

States rights are not violated by having a smaller overall set of countries as opposed to one large one.  Having a more active federal government among each of these smaller entities could be seen as doing so, however, it's clearly apparent that the quality of governance when depending on local governments is often much worse than having a stronger fed.

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
OpinionJournal Related Stories:

Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution

The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the state legislatures demand it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers of this process: "[W]e may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."

What the Framers did not anticipate, however, was the profound reaction to their own "runaway" convention in 1787. By junking the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new Constitution, they gave us strong and stable government. They also showed exactly what constitutional conventions can do. As a result, no similar body has ever been assembled, and even suggesting a new convention can freeze the marrow in constitutional lawyers.

The answer is to amend the Constitution to permit two-thirds of the states to propose amendments directly. To do so, of course, means that the states would have to first call for a constitutional convention—at which they could propose such a change.

What about the risk of a runaway convention? We think that risk is very small. In the first place, the Constitution is not the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified only six years before they were replaced.

By contrast, the American people are profoundly attached to the Constitution. It cannot and will not be replaced by an amending convention. In any event, nothing proposed at such a convention—including a change to the current amendment process—could be adopted without three-fourths of the state legislatures agreeing.

Even to propose such a course might seem imprudent—but then again, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought the balance of powers between states and the federal government would ever get so profoundly distorted. James Madison dismissed claims that the new federal government could displace the states as "chimerical fears," assuring his readers in The Federalist Papers that "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." Indeed, the Framers considered a "vertical" separation of powers—between federal and state authority—just as important as guaranteeing the success of liberty as the "horizontal" separation of powers between the president, Congress and the courts.

True enough, re-establishing a proper balance—where, as Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, Washington is responsible "principally [for] external objects" and the states for "all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people"—will not be easy.

The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.

Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."

Opponents would have no fig leaf. They would have to openly argue that any effort to limit Washington's reach is a bad thing. And that is an argument they are likely to lose.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cough... States rights... Cough...

We don't NEED a strong federal government...

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cough... States rights... Cough...

We don't NEED a strong federal government...

Why do you see your country as a collection of states rather then a unified country?

SenorToenails wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cough... States rights... Cough...

We don't NEED a strong federal government...

Why do you see your country as a collection of states rather then a unified country?

Because that's what it is...?

Since the 1860's, the Federal government has been claiming more and more power for itself at the expense of the states.  States can, and should, be able to provide better services to their residents without excessive federal mandates.  What's good for California isn't always good for Maine, and allowing states to manage themselves mitigates that problem.

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cough... States rights... Cough...

We don't NEED a strong federal government...

Why do you see your country as a collection of states rather then a unified country?

Cybargs wrote:

Kick out California you'd see the budget being better.

Dave Bing has just signed on to four years of maybe the most futile and thankless job in America: mayor of Detroit. What in the world was he thinking?

"I wouldn't have taken this job if this wasn't doable," he tells me. "I finished basketball in 1978, then went into my own business in 1980 and did it for 29 years. . . . Now I get to the end of that career and probably should have retired. But there was a calling greater than anything that I ever envisioned, and that was to help bring this city back."

In November, 57% of the Detroit voters bought into his tough-love reform agenda. Mr. Bing replaced the disgraced Kwame Kilpatrick, who went to jail earlier this year for spending city funds on his girlfriends—just the publicity boost the city already flat on its back didn't need.

The mayor's office is in the heart of downtown Detroit, which has shrunk to about an eight-block radius of high rise office towers, upscale restaurants and stores. Yet everything in Mr. Bing's office, including the furniture, is, in the words of his press secretary, "spartan." There's no money to be wasted on redecorating, the mayor tells me. He's not taking a salary. At 66, with his horn-rimmed glasses, graying hair and tailored business suits, Dave Bing looks ready for business.

His highest priority is balancing a budget that is swimming in red ink. "We have a $325 million deficit, and 2010 doesn't look any better. Right now revenue growth is still negative. We're taking in less money each year. We can't rebuild this city by constantly cutting, but in the short term, we don't have an option," he says.

How much has to be chopped? The major says that at its peak Detroit had a $3.6 billion budget. He hopes to get it down to $2.9 billion, almost a 20% real cut.

Dave Bing is no Milton Friedman when it comes to economic solutions. He's praying for lots of federal aid to help the city pull out of its ditch, he wants to borrow against future tax revenues, and he hasn't ruled out tax increases "if they have a sunset" to pay the city's bills. He believes it's a core responsibility of government to help people.

Yet Mr. Bing is a realist, something Detroit hasn't had at the helm for a long time. "We've been paralyzed by a culture in the city of Detroit, and maybe the state of Michigan, of entitlement," by which he means ever-rising union wages. "Our people, I don't believe, truly understand how dire the situation is. There are ugly decisions that need to be made and I'm surely not going to be popular for making them. But I didn't take this job based on popularity."

One group that surely isn't a fan is the public employee unions. He grumbles that there are 17 unions with over 50 separate bargaining units. "I can give you a data sheet that will show you we've got several of those bargaining units with less than 100 people, and each one of them has a president that's paid by the city to negotiate against the city," he says. "Coming from the private sector, I find that insane."

Mr. Bing's gladiator-like brawls with the union bosses have drawn national attention. Earlier this year, he forced nonunionized city workers to take a 10% pay cut and unpaid furloughs. Now he's demanding the same pay concession from the unions. At one point the union got so fed up with Mr. Bing's refusal to buckle to their demands that they asked the courts to toss him in jail for violating their contracts. That didn't happen, but the unions did win a court challenge when the mayor refused to collect union dues out of city paychecks.

"Today in the city of Detroit," he tells me, "our union employee benefits cost 68% of what their base wage is. I don't think that happens in any other place in the country." To give a sense of how excessive those pay packages are, he adds: "When you look at one of the most dominant labor unions in the world, the UAW, they're nowhere close to what we give our city workers."

The mayor is quick to remind me that he is not antiunion. He joined the NBA players association in the late 1960s and hired a mostly unionized workforce at his firm, Bing Steel. But for months he has been locked in tedious negotiations and the aggravation is starting to show.

"The problem for the most part," he argues, "is poor union leadership. I think the rank-and-file aren't being told the truth. And I'm not going to B.S. anybody. I'm going to tell them the truth. They can't continue to ride this gravy train forever."

He poses this question to the city workforce: "Are you better off having a job and making 90% of what you're at today or having no job at all? To me, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to say I'll take that 90%."
***

Could Detroit be the first major city in America to actually declare bankruptcy, I ask hesitantly. His honesty surprises me: "I hope not, but I wouldn't rule it out if we don't get concessions from the unions." He may be using the threat of bankruptcy, which is a poison pill for unions, as a bargaining chip. "This would void all the city contracts," he insists. "That means workers have to make a decision: Do you want to start with zero, or do you want to start from where you are and give up just a little bit? Under bankruptcy you start with zero." Mr. Bing is a hardliner.

After he retired from the NBA, Mr. Bing started a steel company with $250,000 of his own money. He lost half of it in his first year, 1980, the worst steel recession of the 20th century. Bing Steel eventually grew into a $60 million enterprise.

How important is his business experience in running Detroit? "A city is a business," he replies. "It's a $3 billion plus business. The past administrations didn't understand that, and I think that's got us where we are." Voters realize that private "businesses create jobs," he says. "That's where wealth is come from, and for too long we've treated them like enemies."

He wants to make the city "more business friendly," but how? "Take the licensing and permitting process that people have to go through," he explains. "I've heard nothing but war stories. So I'm focusing on how we can help businesses cut through the red tape in city government. As an entrepreneur, if you have to spend all of your time trying to get licensing and permits . . . guess what you do? You're going somewhere else. We've got to make Detroit a place where businesses can make a profit again," he says hopefully.

Mr. Bing is brimming with other ideas to make Detroit more livable. One challenge he faces is how to successfully downsize. "We have a city that still has a footprint from when we had almost two million people. In the 2010 census, we'll be lucky if we've got half of that population with the same footprint and infrastructure."

He wants to tear down buildings and dilapidated homes and convert thousands of acres to "parks and greenspace." He also wants to privatize public services to save money and create a new cosmopolitan environment that will attract middle-class and affluent families that have fled to the suburbs.

"We have to be honest with ourselves and say we're no longer going to be the motor capital or the manufacturing capital of the world," Mr. Bing says. "But I think we can be the entertainment capital of the Midwest. We have casinos, great hotel accommodations, great restaurants, we're one of the few cities that has every professional sports team.

"We're one of the only cities in the country that has an international waterway—so there's Detroit and then across the river, there's Windsor, Canada," he says pointing out the window to the tall buildings across the border. "We're losing a lot of our young talent who graduate from our top universities, because they don't see the opportunity for jobs in the future here. That's got to change."

He has a clear prescription of how to bring the middle class back: "I think public safety is number one. A productive school system is number two. Because without either one of those being effective and efficient, you can forget everything else." It sounds like a plan right out of the Rudy Giuliani playbook. He has brought in a new police chief and early results look encouraging.

Still, Detroit has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. The public schools are disastrous, with almost two of three inner city Detroit teenagers failing to earn a high school degree.

Mr. Bing believes the solution lies in improving public schools, but also investing in parochial and charter schools. "I'm for more choices. Getting families into the best educational system for their young people is critical." Schools aren't under his command; they are run by a school board that is dominated by the teacher's unions. "One of my goals is to have mayoral control" of the school system, he says.

Mr. Bing also feels passionately about the value of sports in the lives of young people. Before he became mayor, he donated and helped raise money to keep high school sports programs in Detroit.

"I think sports are critical," he says. "I don't care whether it's in the inner city or not, if the only thing that we prepare young folks today for is classroom activities they lose a lot. There's so much you can learn in sports that you don't learn from academics. It's understanding how to get along and communicate with people. Being part of a team. Sports gives you a sense of what it's like to win, and how you handle losing and setbacks, which life is full of."

Many people don't know that Dave Bing faced—and improbably overcame—major adversity of his own on the road to stardom. "When I was a five-year-old kid," he retells the story, "I had a nail stuck in my eye. So I had poor vision. The injury affected my depth and peripheral vision."

It is nothing short of a miracle that a man could become a world-class shooter with that kind of disability. And then in his fifth year in the NBA he was poked in the eye, which caused a detached retina. The doctors said he was done with basketball. "I played another seven years after that." Then he becomes philosophical: "So you know, it's easy for people to have problems and feel sorry for themselves, and quit. That just wasn't in my nature."
***

I can't resist asking Mr. Bing about one of the few decorations in his office: a large photo of 50 of the greatest NBA players of all time. There gathered are Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor, Elvin Hayes and, yes, Dave Bing. "I was and still am friends with many of those guys," he says. How would they have done against the current crop of players? "Oh there's no doubt that today's players are far superior athletes and leapers. But now it's an individual sport. Back then we played together as a team. That's why we might have beaten them," he chuckles.

Mr. Bing reminds me that he was the No. 2 player taken in the 1968 NBA draft, after starring at Syracuse. His first salary was just $15,000. Today, the No. 2 pick in the draft earns close to $15 million.

So what made Dave Bing so great at basketball? He's not that tall—6'3"—though he does have big hands, the trademark of a great hoops star. "I think one of my best attributes was intelligence," he explains. "In a lot of cases that is what truly separates the superstars from the rest. That and I had a good work ethic."

Then he seems to be thinking back to the glory days and adds: "I also had good jumping ability, I mean I didn't seem to fall. I could slash to the basket and score. And I wasn't afraid to take the winning shot."