With the Houston area still soggy from Hurricane Harvey, and with Hurricane Irma making its destructive path across the Caribbean and expected to hit South Florida this weekend, and with Congress in the middle of budget and debt ceiling negotiations -- it's time to rethink the overall inadequacy of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Based on an excellent article by Christopher Flavelle in Bloomberg Businessweek, I have gleaned the following understanding.
Repetitive flooding in certain areas makes flood insurance either unaffordable for homeowners or unprofitable for insurance companies. So, in 1968 the federal government set up the National Flood Insurance Program "to make sure that homeowners in flood prone areas could get affordable insurance."
But here's the problem. By subsidizing, and thus making inexpensive flood insurance available, the NFIP has had unintended consequences, although in retrospect they are predictable. Rather than putting certain land off limits for building by zoning regulations, NFIP simply required that to obtain a mortgage to build, or buy, in an area designated as a 1-in-100 year flood area, one must carry flood insurance. The subsidies effectively leveled the playing field between swampy land and solid ground.
The obverse of that good (though now inadequate) requirement is that it has encouraged rebuilding in flood-prone areas where the land is cheaper. A Pew Charitable Trust study has found that 1% of the 5 million properties insured have
produced almost a third of the damage claims and half the debt. This is the so-called "flood-rebuild-repeat" model. NFIP records show some individual homes having been flooded, and filed claims, 30 or 40 times.
And there's one other problem: Congress has woefully underfunded the program, so that it is now reportedly $25 billion in debt -- and that's before the Hurricanes Harvey and Irma claims come in. Congress did a major overhaul of NFIP five years ago to better reflect what insurance actually costs. Insurance premiums went up, people complained, and two years later, Congress gutted the reforms to lower premiums -- resulting in the $25 billion federal debt.
The flooding after Harvey has shown the failure of our flood-rating system. It seems no longer meaningful to limit the flood insurance requirement to 1-in-100 year areas, when Houston has had -- in the last three years, 2015, 2016, and 2017 -- three 1-in-500 year level floods, the last of which, Harvey, was of course actually rated at 1-in-1000 year.
Another problem with this program is that people continue to rebuild in the same place where storms have repeatedly destroyed their homes. Dauphine Island, off the Alabama Gulf Coast, is a prime example. It is 14 miles long and home to 1,300 people. The island gets flooded, year after year, whether there are hurricanes or not; --- and repairs and rebuilding are paid for, year after year, largely by American taxpayers.
The NFIP program is set to expire on September 30th, unless Congress acts to continue it. Some sort of fix and continuation is almost certain now in the wake of Harvey and Irma. But even before, there was growing concern over the multiple examples of repetitive flooding, like Dauphine Island, that don't make the national news but that chronically drain NIFP resources.
While many areas that depend on subsidized flood insurance are poor, "the overwhelming majority of buildings on Dauphine Island's most vulnerable beaches are vacation homes and rentals." Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling had been effectively arguing against "single mothers being forced to pay for insurance [through taxes] for some millionaire's beachfront vacation home."
The House just approved an $8 billion authorization for assistance to the Texas and Louisiana areas affect by Harvey [and the Senate upped it to $15m]. In the next couple of weeks, they will likely be asked for more to help Puerta Rico and Florida. And also decide in the next three weeks the fate of NIFP. Obviously, in the wake of Harvey and Irma, Congress can't refuse to at least reauthorize NFIP -- but it needs to be completely reconceived.
A comprehensive study of the problem and negotiated regulations and allocations of funds on disaster relief demand attention. And Congress already has too much on its agenda with only 15 more days in session in September.
Rather than concentratimg just on money for rebuilding and more realistic premiums for flood insurance, the problem needs a task force to study zoning regulations for new building or rebuilding in flood plains, better municipal plans for flood water management, and general preparedness.
Other than providing immediate relief, however, does either Congress or the White House have the capacity to add this to the crisis with North Korea, the crisis over debt ceiling, the crisis over DACA, the crisis over health care, the crisis over border security -- and the overall crisis of the Trump presidency? Including possibly impeachment proceedings in the coming year.
The answer seems obviously No. Meanwhile, the problem will only get worse, as we also fail to do what is needed about global warming that is making the hurricane and flooding problem worse, year by year.
Ralph
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Friday, September 8, 2017
Senate passes aid bill for Harvey victims
On Thursday, the Senate voted 80-17 to authorize a $15.3 billion aid package for victims of Hurricane Harvey. This was almost double the amount that President Trump had requested and what the House had already approved. Now it goes back to the House for a vote on the Senate version.
Trump stunned Republican leaders when he quickly agreed to Democratic leaders' (Churck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi) request to raise the debt ceiling for a 3 months period, instead of the 18 months Republicans asked for. This was coupled with the disaster relief in a single bill.
The significance of this is that they will have to do the must-pass debt ceiling vote again at the end of December, giving Democrats another chance to make demands in exchange for their votes -- if they choose to play politics, as Republicans would certainly do themselves.
So what's this new alignment of Trump with Democrats? Is it a strategy, or is he just mad at McConnell and Ryan? Probably the latter. Who knows?
Ralph
Trump stunned Republican leaders when he quickly agreed to Democratic leaders' (Churck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi) request to raise the debt ceiling for a 3 months period, instead of the 18 months Republicans asked for. This was coupled with the disaster relief in a single bill.
The significance of this is that they will have to do the must-pass debt ceiling vote again at the end of December, giving Democrats another chance to make demands in exchange for their votes -- if they choose to play politics, as Republicans would certainly do themselves.
So what's this new alignment of Trump with Democrats? Is it a strategy, or is he just mad at McConnell and Ryan? Probably the latter. Who knows?
Ralph
Don, Jr. meets with Judiciary Committee
Donald Trump, Jr. may be in a heap of trouble because of that June 2016 meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower. He has given so many different stories about the meeting -- and now he has to tell the truth, or else be vulnerable to perjury charges.
Thursday, Trump, Jr. met for 5 hours in a closed interview with staff and some senators of the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning about this meeting. When the meeting first became known about, Don, Jr. released an email chain exchanged with a public relations representative of Russian friends of the Trump family.
The email from the Russians requested a meeting with Don, Jr. in New York with a Russian lawyer who. it said, had evidence of dirt on Hillary Clinton. The contact also said that it was part of the Russian government's efforts to help his father get elected. Now why Don, Jr. ever voluntarily made that public is one of the mysteries. It was so baldly incriminating that I first thought it had to be a plant in some nefarious scheme to fool the media.
The meeting did take place, and the names of the attendees were dribbled out a few at the time -- again raising suspicions. Ultimately, there were eight names revealed: Don, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, the Russian lawyer, the PR friend who arranged the meeting, a Russian-American Washington lobbyist, a Russian businessman with Kremlin connections, and a translator.
The story then changed -- and Donald Trump, Sr. had a hand in the changes -- saying that the meeting was just a discussion about adoption of Russian children by U.S. families, trying to get the restrictions lifted. Of course, even if that were the real reason, that would be about lifting the sanctions against Russian oligarchs which led Putin to put an end to American adoption of Russian children.
But what about the original stated purpose -- dirt on Hillary Clinton? The above is nothing new -- just background for this. Thursday, before meeting with the committee, Don, Jr. put out a prepared statement in which he now claimed that, yes, the email did mention "dirt" on Clinton, but that his reason for agreeing to the meeting was so that he could determine from this "dirt" whether Clinton -- his father's opponent in the presidential race -- was "fit" to serve as president. He claimed it was his patriotic duty to get information, if it was offered, that would let the public know if there were reason to doubt Clinton's fitness to be president. And he would have consulted his lawyer, if such came from the Russians.
How ironic -- since fitness to serve had been an ongoing narrative about Trump himself all during the campaign. This whole story Trump, Jr. is telling is so unbelievable as to be laughable. No prosecutor is going to buy it, especially in the context of this campaign and this family.
So that's now at least four different stories about the "why" and "what" of this meeting. It answers no questions and only raises more.
Chris Hayes had a former CIA operative on to discuss Russian tactics in testing out sources and potential assets. He said that this meeting was quite consistent with their methods. He thought it was plausible that this was a "testing of the waters," to see if the Trump campaign was open to working with them. Don, Jr.'s first response to the initial email -- "If this is what you say I love it" -- told them that they were open to dirt on Clinton. Then they further tested by not bringing the "dirt," If it was a set up to trap the Russians, then there was no evidence against them.
And then the timetable of the release of the hacked emails by Wikipedia occurred fairly soon after this meeting. And it all fits, timewise, with the events described in the controversial dossier compiled by the former MI-6 spy in England.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who sat in the meeting with the staff, told reporters afterward that Don, Jr. didn't really help the case and that his testimony raised more questions.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee want to have an open hearing, with Don, Jr. under oath. Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley has not committed himself yet. The Senate Intelligence Committee chair has said that his committee wants to interview some of the others that were in the meeting before interviewing Don, Jr. The strategy there is: there were eight people in the room. If their stories don't match, then someone is lying. Who? and Why?
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Thursday, Trump, Jr. met for 5 hours in a closed interview with staff and some senators of the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning about this meeting. When the meeting first became known about, Don, Jr. released an email chain exchanged with a public relations representative of Russian friends of the Trump family.
The email from the Russians requested a meeting with Don, Jr. in New York with a Russian lawyer who. it said, had evidence of dirt on Hillary Clinton. The contact also said that it was part of the Russian government's efforts to help his father get elected. Now why Don, Jr. ever voluntarily made that public is one of the mysteries. It was so baldly incriminating that I first thought it had to be a plant in some nefarious scheme to fool the media.
The meeting did take place, and the names of the attendees were dribbled out a few at the time -- again raising suspicions. Ultimately, there were eight names revealed: Don, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, the Russian lawyer, the PR friend who arranged the meeting, a Russian-American Washington lobbyist, a Russian businessman with Kremlin connections, and a translator.
The story then changed -- and Donald Trump, Sr. had a hand in the changes -- saying that the meeting was just a discussion about adoption of Russian children by U.S. families, trying to get the restrictions lifted. Of course, even if that were the real reason, that would be about lifting the sanctions against Russian oligarchs which led Putin to put an end to American adoption of Russian children.
But what about the original stated purpose -- dirt on Hillary Clinton? The above is nothing new -- just background for this. Thursday, before meeting with the committee, Don, Jr. put out a prepared statement in which he now claimed that, yes, the email did mention "dirt" on Clinton, but that his reason for agreeing to the meeting was so that he could determine from this "dirt" whether Clinton -- his father's opponent in the presidential race -- was "fit" to serve as president. He claimed it was his patriotic duty to get information, if it was offered, that would let the public know if there were reason to doubt Clinton's fitness to be president. And he would have consulted his lawyer, if such came from the Russians.
How ironic -- since fitness to serve had been an ongoing narrative about Trump himself all during the campaign. This whole story Trump, Jr. is telling is so unbelievable as to be laughable. No prosecutor is going to buy it, especially in the context of this campaign and this family.
So that's now at least four different stories about the "why" and "what" of this meeting. It answers no questions and only raises more.
Chris Hayes had a former CIA operative on to discuss Russian tactics in testing out sources and potential assets. He said that this meeting was quite consistent with their methods. He thought it was plausible that this was a "testing of the waters," to see if the Trump campaign was open to working with them. Don, Jr.'s first response to the initial email -- "If this is what you say I love it" -- told them that they were open to dirt on Clinton. Then they further tested by not bringing the "dirt," If it was a set up to trap the Russians, then there was no evidence against them.
And then the timetable of the release of the hacked emails by Wikipedia occurred fairly soon after this meeting. And it all fits, timewise, with the events described in the controversial dossier compiled by the former MI-6 spy in England.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who sat in the meeting with the staff, told reporters afterward that Don, Jr. didn't really help the case and that his testimony raised more questions.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee want to have an open hearing, with Don, Jr. under oath. Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley has not committed himself yet. The Senate Intelligence Committee chair has said that his committee wants to interview some of the others that were in the meeting before interviewing Don, Jr. The strategy there is: there were eight people in the room. If their stories don't match, then someone is lying. Who? and Why?
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Trump didn't want to end DACA
According to reporting from the McClatchy Washington Bureau news service, President Trump really didn't want to scuttle the DACA program after having understood who these young people were. As he realized that they were brought here as children, and as he thought about his own children and grandchildren . . . well, apparently that is the one way to get through to Trump's emotions that involve someone other than himself.
Although he had promised since the beginning of his campaign that he would issue an executive order on Day One, ending this DACA "amnesty" program, now he wanted to find a way to avoid deporting them. What to do?
The weeks became months, and still Trump hadn't kept his promise. Inside the White House, he was getting pressure from both sides. Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions urged him to end DACA; but others, like Reince Priebus and Ivanka and Jared, were opposed. The president kept delaying a decision.
Aboard Air Force One on the summer trip to Paris, Trump told reporters: "It's a decision that I make and it's a decision that's very, very hard to make. I really understand the situation now. I understand the situation very well. What I'd like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet."
Then more pressure came from outside, and the president could delay no longer. Ten states' attorneys general were filing a lawsuit, calling Obama's executive order establishing DACA an unconstitutional over-reach of executive power. As Attorney General, it would fall upon Jeff Sessions to defend it in court.
According to the McClatchy article, Sessions told the president flatly that he would not defend DACA in court because he could not make the case that it is constitutional. Sessions wanted Trump simply to get rid of the program. Trump felt at that point that he had no choice.
Then Chief of Staff Kelly began working on a compromise: set a date to end it, which meets the campaign promise; but give Congress time to fix it. Even if they don't come up with a solution, it then will be on them rather than on Trump himself. Kelly got on the phone, lining up support from members of congress.
And, it seems, that's what Trump decided to do . . . and what he allowed Sessions to announce on Tuesday.
Except . . . . this is Donald Trump. And chaos must reign.
In an unscripted moment before cameras himself, later in the day, Trump was asked about what this is going to do to the DACA young people. He responded with several statements about how his "great love for the Dreamers" and how terrific they are. And, rather than repeating his campaign rhetoric denouncing "amnesty," he called on Congress to "do something and hopefully come up with something good. I think it's going to turn out all right."
He couldn't stop there though. He had to add later in a tweet: "Congress now has six months to legalize DACA. . . . If they can't, I will revisit the issue!"
Does anyone, including Trump himself, know what he meant by that? Obviously, he and Sessions are not in agreement. In 2010 the House passed the Dream Act, but it died in the Senate, with Sen. Sessions leading the opposition. Trump campaigned against anything that linked "Obama" and "immigrants" in the same sentence; but now he seems to have had a change of -- dare I say? -- heart. His last comment sends a signal that he will work to make sure the DACA kids are never deported. But that is today. We can't predict where his heart will be in six months -- or even whether he will still occupy the Oval Office.
Ralph
PS: After some reflection, and even though it seems like a risky thing to say, I'm going to say it. For the first time, I believe we're seeing a Trump decision be based on a moral principle, or at least a feeling for other people. We may never see it again, but I think that's what we're seeing at this moment.
Although he had promised since the beginning of his campaign that he would issue an executive order on Day One, ending this DACA "amnesty" program, now he wanted to find a way to avoid deporting them. What to do?
The weeks became months, and still Trump hadn't kept his promise. Inside the White House, he was getting pressure from both sides. Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions urged him to end DACA; but others, like Reince Priebus and Ivanka and Jared, were opposed. The president kept delaying a decision.
Aboard Air Force One on the summer trip to Paris, Trump told reporters: "It's a decision that I make and it's a decision that's very, very hard to make. I really understand the situation now. I understand the situation very well. What I'd like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet."
Then more pressure came from outside, and the president could delay no longer. Ten states' attorneys general were filing a lawsuit, calling Obama's executive order establishing DACA an unconstitutional over-reach of executive power. As Attorney General, it would fall upon Jeff Sessions to defend it in court.
According to the McClatchy article, Sessions told the president flatly that he would not defend DACA in court because he could not make the case that it is constitutional. Sessions wanted Trump simply to get rid of the program. Trump felt at that point that he had no choice.
Then Chief of Staff Kelly began working on a compromise: set a date to end it, which meets the campaign promise; but give Congress time to fix it. Even if they don't come up with a solution, it then will be on them rather than on Trump himself. Kelly got on the phone, lining up support from members of congress.
And, it seems, that's what Trump decided to do . . . and what he allowed Sessions to announce on Tuesday.
Except . . . . this is Donald Trump. And chaos must reign.
In an unscripted moment before cameras himself, later in the day, Trump was asked about what this is going to do to the DACA young people. He responded with several statements about how his "great love for the Dreamers" and how terrific they are. And, rather than repeating his campaign rhetoric denouncing "amnesty," he called on Congress to "do something and hopefully come up with something good. I think it's going to turn out all right."
He couldn't stop there though. He had to add later in a tweet: "Congress now has six months to legalize DACA. . . . If they can't, I will revisit the issue!"
Does anyone, including Trump himself, know what he meant by that? Obviously, he and Sessions are not in agreement. In 2010 the House passed the Dream Act, but it died in the Senate, with Sen. Sessions leading the opposition. Trump campaigned against anything that linked "Obama" and "immigrants" in the same sentence; but now he seems to have had a change of -- dare I say? -- heart. His last comment sends a signal that he will work to make sure the DACA kids are never deported. But that is today. We can't predict where his heart will be in six months -- or even whether he will still occupy the Oval Office.
Ralph
PS: After some reflection, and even though it seems like a risky thing to say, I'm going to say it. For the first time, I believe we're seeing a Trump decision be based on a moral principle, or at least a feeling for other people. We may never see it again, but I think that's what we're seeing at this moment.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Trump kicks the DACA can down the road
If Donald Trump's presidential campaign had one basic platform, it was the anti-immigrant stance he took as he rode down that gilded escalator into the glitz-on-steroids lobby of Trump Tower. And now that problem has come home to haunt the now President Trump, because of his own campaign promise to end DACA, Obama's program to defer deportation for young people who were brought here as children.
To clarify, the self-named "Dreamers" are young people, mostly young adults now, who came here as young children or babies with their parents who arrived in this country without authorization. Their parents, if still here, are considered to be here illegally. Their younger siblings, who were born in the U.S., are citizens, with every right to stay.
But these Dreamers had no choice and no responsibility for the decision of their parents; they are considered here illegally, but personally innocent. In addition, they have grown up knowing no other home but the U.S. They have gone to school, gotten jobs, served in our military. This is the only life they know. To them, they are Americans. For some, English is the only language they know. Deportation would not mean being sent "back home," but to a foreign country whose language they may not speak.
With Congress unable to pass immigration reform, President Obama responded to this dilemma with compassion -- creating, by executive order, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Under the DACA program, deportation decisions would be deferred indefinitely for these "innocents," at least as a stopgap measure until comprehensive immigration reform could fix the problem. In addition they would be allowed to get work permits, develop productive careers, and ultimately have pathway to citizenship.
Like so many things he didn't understand, Donald Trump campaigned hard against this plan; to him, it was part of the "immigrant problem," and he railed against the DACA program, calling it "amnesty for illegals."
That was his position, until he met in the Oval Office with a group of these young people, heard their stories, and finally understood the humanitarian issue. His feelings began to change; the Dreamers became "terrific," and Trump wanted to find a solution. On the other hand, he had Attorney General Jeff Sessions and advisers Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller, telling him that the program is unconstitutional, reminding him of his campaign promise.
In addition, Trump was under pressure, if he wanted to keep DACA, because six states, including Texas (pre-Houston) were about to enter a law-suit challenging the legality of DACA as an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power.
Trump has said that this was the most difficult decision he has had to make -- but he promised to announce s decision this week. Most Democrats support the reprieve as part of the anticipated immigration reform; and even some Republicans have joined in, arguing for time for them to "fix" the problem.
President Trump ducked the responsibility of announcing it himself. Yesterday, he passed it off to Attorney General Sessions, who held a news conference, read the statement, and took no questions.
The essence of the decision, as I understand it at this point, is that DACA will be phased out, giving Congress six months to come up with legislation that will find a way to do legally what DACA has been doing in the gray area. Ideally, it would be part of a comprehensive reform of immigration law; but that's not going to happen in today's political climate. Let's just hope that this divided Congress can craft a simple plan that will get bipartisan support to keep DACA.
Some 800,000 young immigrants have been involved in the deferment plan. Each person had to meet eligibility requirements, such as age of arrival in the U.S., plus education or military service requirements and be free of any criminal record or threat to national security. If approved, they were granted a two year deferment from deportation, a work permit, and the possibility of applying for a renewal for another two years.
The phase-out plan is specific: Anyone eligible for DACA, who has not already applied, can no longer apply. Any pending applications will continue to be processed and granted as before. Those already enrolled in a two-year term that ends before March 5, 2018 may apply for one more two-year term. Those whose current terms end on or after March 6, 2018 may not apply for another term. If Congress does not fix it, that's how the whole program will eventually be phased out -- within two years of the March 6, 2018 end, all deferments would have expired and not renewed.
Perhaps AG Sessions did regard the announcement as an opportunity for him, because, as a group of Vox.com reporters have shown, he made a vigorous case for ending the program -- and, in doing so, told at least four big lies about the program. There seemed no doubt that he was relishing the opportunity to stand up and denounce the dastardly thing, something he's been wanting to do for a long time.
Perhaps President Trump was not just a coward, as some have suggested, but instead had a little bit of heart after all. If he had also had the political capital, he might have also pushed for a comprehensive immigration reform; but he has no political capital. So what he has done, apparently, is to just hand it over to Congress, saying: "Here, you fix it." And then he let Sessions trash talk it. OK, that's pretty weak . . . if he really did have a change of heart about the DACA young people.
But that's the problem with Trump. You can't believe anything that he says . . . ever, no matter whether it's good or bad. The determining factor for Trump, at any time, is what will make him look good . . . or make him win.
Ralph
PS: President Obama had said that he would make an exception to his plan not to comment on decisions by his successor, and that he would speak out if DACA were cancelled. And he has done just that. Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama called the decision to phase out DACA "cruel" and "contrary to our spirit, and to common sense." Calling it a "political decision and a moral question -- and one of basic decency," he also called it "self-defeating, because they want to . . . contribute to the country we love."
To clarify, the self-named "Dreamers" are young people, mostly young adults now, who came here as young children or babies with their parents who arrived in this country without authorization. Their parents, if still here, are considered to be here illegally. Their younger siblings, who were born in the U.S., are citizens, with every right to stay.
But these Dreamers had no choice and no responsibility for the decision of their parents; they are considered here illegally, but personally innocent. In addition, they have grown up knowing no other home but the U.S. They have gone to school, gotten jobs, served in our military. This is the only life they know. To them, they are Americans. For some, English is the only language they know. Deportation would not mean being sent "back home," but to a foreign country whose language they may not speak.
With Congress unable to pass immigration reform, President Obama responded to this dilemma with compassion -- creating, by executive order, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Under the DACA program, deportation decisions would be deferred indefinitely for these "innocents," at least as a stopgap measure until comprehensive immigration reform could fix the problem. In addition they would be allowed to get work permits, develop productive careers, and ultimately have pathway to citizenship.
Like so many things he didn't understand, Donald Trump campaigned hard against this plan; to him, it was part of the "immigrant problem," and he railed against the DACA program, calling it "amnesty for illegals."
That was his position, until he met in the Oval Office with a group of these young people, heard their stories, and finally understood the humanitarian issue. His feelings began to change; the Dreamers became "terrific," and Trump wanted to find a solution. On the other hand, he had Attorney General Jeff Sessions and advisers Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller, telling him that the program is unconstitutional, reminding him of his campaign promise.
In addition, Trump was under pressure, if he wanted to keep DACA, because six states, including Texas (pre-Houston) were about to enter a law-suit challenging the legality of DACA as an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power.
Trump has said that this was the most difficult decision he has had to make -- but he promised to announce s decision this week. Most Democrats support the reprieve as part of the anticipated immigration reform; and even some Republicans have joined in, arguing for time for them to "fix" the problem.
President Trump ducked the responsibility of announcing it himself. Yesterday, he passed it off to Attorney General Sessions, who held a news conference, read the statement, and took no questions.
The essence of the decision, as I understand it at this point, is that DACA will be phased out, giving Congress six months to come up with legislation that will find a way to do legally what DACA has been doing in the gray area. Ideally, it would be part of a comprehensive reform of immigration law; but that's not going to happen in today's political climate. Let's just hope that this divided Congress can craft a simple plan that will get bipartisan support to keep DACA.
Some 800,000 young immigrants have been involved in the deferment plan. Each person had to meet eligibility requirements, such as age of arrival in the U.S., plus education or military service requirements and be free of any criminal record or threat to national security. If approved, they were granted a two year deferment from deportation, a work permit, and the possibility of applying for a renewal for another two years.
The phase-out plan is specific: Anyone eligible for DACA, who has not already applied, can no longer apply. Any pending applications will continue to be processed and granted as before. Those already enrolled in a two-year term that ends before March 5, 2018 may apply for one more two-year term. Those whose current terms end on or after March 6, 2018 may not apply for another term. If Congress does not fix it, that's how the whole program will eventually be phased out -- within two years of the March 6, 2018 end, all deferments would have expired and not renewed.
Perhaps AG Sessions did regard the announcement as an opportunity for him, because, as a group of Vox.com reporters have shown, he made a vigorous case for ending the program -- and, in doing so, told at least four big lies about the program. There seemed no doubt that he was relishing the opportunity to stand up and denounce the dastardly thing, something he's been wanting to do for a long time.
Perhaps President Trump was not just a coward, as some have suggested, but instead had a little bit of heart after all. If he had also had the political capital, he might have also pushed for a comprehensive immigration reform; but he has no political capital. So what he has done, apparently, is to just hand it over to Congress, saying: "Here, you fix it." And then he let Sessions trash talk it. OK, that's pretty weak . . . if he really did have a change of heart about the DACA young people.
But that's the problem with Trump. You can't believe anything that he says . . . ever, no matter whether it's good or bad. The determining factor for Trump, at any time, is what will make him look good . . . or make him win.
Ralph
PS: President Obama had said that he would make an exception to his plan not to comment on decisions by his successor, and that he would speak out if DACA were cancelled. And he has done just that. Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama called the decision to phase out DACA "cruel" and "contrary to our spirit, and to common sense." Calling it a "political decision and a moral question -- and one of basic decency," he also called it "self-defeating, because they want to . . . contribute to the country we love."
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Hard choices to fix repetitive flood areas
photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56480841/841346486.0.jpg)
Is there any more to be said about Houston's flooding? Yes, actually, quite a bit needs not just to be fixed, but rethought. Because the truth is that this is getting to be a habit, and -- as much as Americans pride ourselves on rising up to take care of fellow American in time of disaster -- much of the damage demands long-term, comprehensive solutions that will involve taxpayers.
Comprehensive solutions will demand rational thinking about land use, zoning, climate change, mortgage and other government regulations, as well as preparedness. Some of this post will be repetitive from several ShrinkRap blogs over the past several days, especially "Floods -- a man-made disaster" on Sept. 2.
Since I wrote that, however, I have read such a clear and informative set of two articles in Bloomsberg Businessweek that I want to share some of their thinking, with the focus on why our response must be more comprehensive than just fixing damage from a "1-in-1000" year storm.
Many people look at that "1-in-1000" years and think: now that it's happened, it can't happen again for 999 years, so let the next century worry. That is so wrong. Having a hurricane gives no immunity to having another the very next year. In any year, there is an equal, 1-in-1000 chance. In fact, Harvey is the third 1-in-500-year flood in Houston in the last three years. So the whole system, including ratings and predictions, must be rethought.
Bloomsberg Businessweek presents general news in addition to business news; and I've come to value it's lucid, concise style, without partisan or hyped-up appeal. The authors of these two articles are: Peter Coy and Christopher Flavelle for "Hard Rain, Hard Lessons" and Christopher Flavelle for "Flood Insurance Had Problems Before Harvey." This post presents excerpts from the first article. A subsequent one will discuss the flood insurance program.
Is there any more to be said about Houston's flooding? Yes, actually, quite a bit needs not just to be fixed, but rethought. Because the truth is that this is getting to be a habit, and -- as much as Americans pride ourselves on rising up to take care of fellow American in time of disaster -- much of the damage demands long-term, comprehensive solutions that will involve taxpayers.
Comprehensive solutions will demand rational thinking about land use, zoning, climate change, mortgage and other government regulations, as well as preparedness. Some of this post will be repetitive from several ShrinkRap blogs over the past several days, especially "Floods -- a man-made disaster" on Sept. 2.
Since I wrote that, however, I have read such a clear and informative set of two articles in Bloomsberg Businessweek that I want to share some of their thinking, with the focus on why our response must be more comprehensive than just fixing damage from a "1-in-1000" year storm.
Many people look at that "1-in-1000" years and think: now that it's happened, it can't happen again for 999 years, so let the next century worry. That is so wrong. Having a hurricane gives no immunity to having another the very next year. In any year, there is an equal, 1-in-1000 chance. In fact, Harvey is the third 1-in-500-year flood in Houston in the last three years. So the whole system, including ratings and predictions, must be rethought.
Bloomsberg Businessweek presents general news in addition to business news; and I've come to value it's lucid, concise style, without partisan or hyped-up appeal. The authors of these two articles are: Peter Coy and Christopher Flavelle for "Hard Rain, Hard Lessons" and Christopher Flavelle for "Flood Insurance Had Problems Before Harvey." This post presents excerpts from the first article. A subsequent one will discuss the flood insurance program.
* * * * *
"Hard Rain. Hard Lessons"
Peter Coy and Christopher Flavelle
"Houston has been wet since birth. . . .an endless swamp, [as one early explorer described it] . . . . But Houston never let itself be hampered by its hydrology. It spent billions patching together a mess of dams and draionage projects as it grew and grew. It's [now] the fourth biggest city in the U.S. . . . The consolidated metropolitan statistical area . . . is larger than the state of New Jersey.
"Harvey is a devastating reminder to Houston that nature will have its due. . . . No city could have withstood Harvey without serious harm, but Houston made itself more vulnerable than necessary. Paving over the saw-grass prairie reduced the ground's capacity to absorb rainfall. Flood-control reservoirs were too small. Building codes were inadequate. Roads became rivers, so while hospitals were open, it was almost impossible to reach them by car.
". . . . Above all, Harvey is a humanitarian disaster. . . . Residents will return to damaged homes, vulnerable to the spread of mold. Much of the damage, which could run to $100 billion or more by one estimate, is uninsured. . . .
"Sprawling Houston is a can-do city whose attitude is grow first, ask questions later. It's the only major U.S. city without a zoning code. . . . Voters have repeatedly opposed enacting a zoning law. . . . Houston is suffering now from the lack of an effective plan to deal with chronic flooding. . . .
"The homebuilders demonstrated their power again this year, when President Donald Trump reversed an Obama initiative restricting federally funded building projects in flood plains. . . . [However] There's a glimmer of a possibility that Harvey could lead to a detente between environmentalists and Trump administration officials in charge of disaster response. . . .
"[New FEMA Administrator Brock Long] expressed support for an Obama administration proposal to spur more local action on resilience, such as better building codes, if states want to keep getting first-dollar disaster relief from Washington. States that didn't reduce their risks would have to cover a deductible before qualifying for federal aide. 'I don't think the taxpayer should reward risk,' Long told Bloomberg. . . .
"Over the past decade, the federal government spent more than $350 billion on disaster recovery. Much of the money has gone to homes that keep getting damaged; 1.3 million households have applied for federal disaster assistance money at least twice since 1998 -- many of them in the same area hit hardest by Harvey. . . . [a Texas state legislator agreed that] 'We need to take a look at where structures are being built.' . . .
"However important it was in the past to come to grips with flood control and construction codes, it's essential in this era of climate change. , . . The contribution from global warming . . . . [according to meteorologists is that] the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases about 7% for each 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature. . . So: warmer air, more water, bigger storms. The temperature of the ocean is rising, too,. Heat from the Gulf of Mexico is what fueled Harvey. . . .
"Climate change could also explain why Harvey hovered over Houston, dropping rain on it for days instead of moving on. Global warming tends to cause subtropical high pressure systems to expand, pushing the jet stream northward. . . . The winds that might have pushed Harvey somewhere else were largely absent. . . .
[There is not yet conclusive data to prove that climate change is making storms and flooding worse. But, the authors point out, lack of proof that it is causative is not the same as proof that it is not causative. We may just not have the data yet.]
"If climate change is a hoax, as President Trump has said, then Houstonians just got 50 inches of hoax dumped on their soaking wet beds. They don't want to live through this again [but, if something isn't done, they will undoubtedly.] . . . .
"Houston's clay soil doesn't absorb water quickly, so when a hard rain comes, much of it runs off to pool elsewhere. Authorities have made matters worse by allowing developers to pave over much of Harris County and beyond; it's spent its flood-control budget on culverts, canals, drains, levees, berms, pumps, and other "gray" (as in concrete) infrastructure to flush the water away -- but that hasn't been enough. It builds new roads with curbs and gutters designed to channel water away from buildings. Roads make good sluices in an ordinary storm, but in Harvey they couldn't shed their water fast enough and became rivers. . . .
"The acreage of metro Houston that can't soak up rainfall increased by 32% from 2001 to 2011 . . . . The political difficulty of green solutions is that they require buying up and ripping out stuff that's already been built, which is expensive, or protecting existing green spaces from development, which means foregoing property tax revenue. . . . That's especially so in Texas, which relies heavily on property taxes, since there's no state income tax. . . .
"Making a city more resilient isn't easy. . . . One obvious solution is to curb the emission of the gases heating up the planet. But even if countries get a lot more serious about slowing climate change, we're still going to have catastrophes. Mitigation of the conseuences will have to be part of the answer."
"Making a city more resilient isn't easy. . . . One obvious solution is to curb the emission of the gases heating up the planet. But even if countries get a lot more serious about slowing climate change, we're still going to have catastrophes. Mitigation of the conseuences will have to be part of the answer."
* * * * *
So, unless Houston wants to continue being pummeled by future Harvey's, it's going to have to make some very hard, politically hard, decisions. No more can development and growth be the primary motive. They need a lot of remedial work that will be horribly expensive. It will take strong, committed leadership -- and they should start right away, while Harvey is still on everyone's mind.
First of all, they must adopt some zoning codes that stop development and home building in areas prone to flooding. No longer can 1-in-100 years be considered acceptable as a place to build. Second, they have to cultivate hundreds of acres of green ground space for water absorption, instead of concrete paving. It's a great opportunity for some new parks. hiking and nature trails, woodlands. And third, like all the rest of us, they've got to take global warming seriously.
Houston's position right on the Gulf coast, in such low, wetlands, puts them at a disadvantage no matter how well they manage all the rest. Miami, are you listening?
Ralph
First of all, they must adopt some zoning codes that stop development and home building in areas prone to flooding. No longer can 1-in-100 years be considered acceptable as a place to build. Second, they have to cultivate hundreds of acres of green ground space for water absorption, instead of concrete paving. It's a great opportunity for some new parks. hiking and nature trails, woodlands. And third, like all the rest of us, they've got to take global warming seriously.
Houston's position right on the Gulf coast, in such low, wetlands, puts them at a disadvantage no matter how well they manage all the rest. Miami, are you listening?
Ralph
Monday, September 4, 2017
Hurricane relief shifts political landscape
Hurricane Harvey has "forged a new reality for President Trump and the Republicans governing Washington," writes the New York Times reporter Carl Hulce. "The storm has utterly transformed the federal fiscal picture."
Impossible now is the "confrontational talk" of a government shutdown over Trump's wall or the brinksmanship over the debt limit. Shutting down government in a time of such a disaster is unthinkable.
A longtime chief budget adviser to Senate Republicans, G. William Hoagland, says: "This is going to change the whole dynamic for September and, quite frankly, for the Republican establishment for the remainder of the 115th Congress.” Instead of money to build a wall on the Texas border, they have to come up with money to rebuild the shoreline in Texas.
Impossible now is the "confrontational talk" of a government shutdown over Trump's wall or the brinksmanship over the debt limit. Shutting down government in a time of such a disaster is unthinkable.
A longtime chief budget adviser to Senate Republicans, G. William Hoagland, says: "This is going to change the whole dynamic for September and, quite frankly, for the Republican establishment for the remainder of the 115th Congress.” Instead of money to build a wall on the Texas border, they have to come up with money to rebuild the shoreline in Texas.
Carl Hulce, however, points out that this may provide Mr. Trump and congressional leaders with the "common cause that has proved so elusive after their failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act." This is Trump's first big test in dealing with a natural disaster, and he is eager to be seen as a competent manager.
"At
the same time, a huge relief program tacked on to the federal deficit could
undermine the claim by the president and his party that they are stewards of a
leaner, more efficient federal bureaucracy."
Hulce continues: "Republicans who had
been bracing for a September showdown over how to fund the government are
rapidly changing course. While they await potentially staggering damage
assessments, they are pledging to do whatever it takes to help those flooded
out along the Gulf Coast."
So shutting down the government and building the border wall are likely to be the first to go. And it will be more difficult for Trump to fulfill his promise of a broad crackdown on illegal immigration.
Beyond fiscal considerations, ending the DACA program, for those brought here as children and have known no other home, would seem especially cruel right now, given that such a large number of those affected live in Texas.
"The debate over
migrant labor could also be influenced, because repairing or replacing huge
numbers of homes and restoring damaged infrastructure will require thousands of
construction workers, who were already in short supply around the country.
Immigrant labor, both documented and undocumented, proved critical in the rebuilding effort that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005."
Even more directly related is the House Republicans' planned vote next week on a spending bill that would have taken nearly $875 million away from the FEMA budget. Instead, they're faced with the necessity of significantly increasing money for disaster planning and relief.
One solution being considered is to pass a stopgap measure to keep the government open and postpone the toughest spending decisions to the next quarter at the end of December.
The one thing that is clear is that Republicans, already struggling to manage ordinary government operations, despite control of the White House and both houses of Congress, has now been given a major challenge that requires shifting both fiscal and political priorities in order to survive. It makes even more difficult their uphill struggle to prove that they are a party that can unite enough to perform the tasks of governing.
Ralph
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Another Houston Harvey hazard
The Houston area presents another hazard not present in most hurricane/flood aftermaths: the profusion of oil refineries and the related petrochemical industrial sites.
I'm not talking about rising gasoline pump prices due to gasoline shortage from refineries being shut down; that is temporary and so far not extreme. Rather, it's the toxic chemicals that may cause explosions and fires (as has already happened in Crosby, TX) -- but, even more dangerous, is the risk of harmful chemicals getting spilled into the floodwaters and, eventually, into ground water and drinking water.
The chemical plant that has now caused explosions and fires at least twice now resulted from a kind of substance that has to be kept below a certain temperature. Two levels of control failed to keep the cooling system operating: first, electrical power to the area was lost; then a backup generator was swamped by rising flood waters. There was apparently nothing further that could be done -- but wait for the inevitable results. An area of 1.5 miles surrounding was evacuated. And eventually the temperature rose enough that raging fires emitted thick, densely black, toxic smoke.
That kind of danger is relatively circumscribed. Far more widespread and insidious is the contamination of water -- not just from toxic chemicals actively being used in industry -- but from numerous toxic waste storage sites. For these, nothing like rising temps and fires -- just the seepage of water into the waste dumps, often buried in the ground, then carried out into the general flood waters and into homes and playgrounds.
All while we have a presidential administration that has been busy slashing budgets and cancelling programs to take care of such dangers and the regulations that mitigate the dangers. For Director of the EPA, President Trump choose Scott Pruitt who, as former Oklahoma Attorney General, holds the record for number of lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency for doing its job. He came into office determined to gut the place, perhaps even shut it down.
As of six days into this epic flood, the EPA had not yet been to the scene to inspect and test for toxic contamination. Perhaps that is better done a bit later, but it doesn't look good. I believe President Obama would have had his EPA Chief on site as soon as possible, if for nothing but to reassure people that his department was on the job of protecting them and their environment.
Ralph
The chemical plant that has now caused explosions and fires at least twice now resulted from a kind of substance that has to be kept below a certain temperature. Two levels of control failed to keep the cooling system operating: first, electrical power to the area was lost; then a backup generator was swamped by rising flood waters. There was apparently nothing further that could be done -- but wait for the inevitable results. An area of 1.5 miles surrounding was evacuated. And eventually the temperature rose enough that raging fires emitted thick, densely black, toxic smoke.
That kind of danger is relatively circumscribed. Far more widespread and insidious is the contamination of water -- not just from toxic chemicals actively being used in industry -- but from numerous toxic waste storage sites. For these, nothing like rising temps and fires -- just the seepage of water into the waste dumps, often buried in the ground, then carried out into the general flood waters and into homes and playgrounds.
All while we have a presidential administration that has been busy slashing budgets and cancelling programs to take care of such dangers and the regulations that mitigate the dangers. For Director of the EPA, President Trump choose Scott Pruitt who, as former Oklahoma Attorney General, holds the record for number of lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency for doing its job. He came into office determined to gut the place, perhaps even shut it down.
As of six days into this epic flood, the EPA had not yet been to the scene to inspect and test for toxic contamination. Perhaps that is better done a bit later, but it doesn't look good. I believe President Obama would have had his EPA Chief on site as soon as possible, if for nothing but to reassure people that his department was on the job of protecting them and their environment.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
