Evening Exchange; Black Male Study; 1992 Election; Mayor Kelly; California Budget.

No more IOUs for Californians the state finally has a budget. Governor Clinton still dogged with questions about his draft status. And in our newsmaker segment a study of black males in Baltimore reveals some truly startling statistics. It's all next on evening exchange. And a very good evening to you. James Adam sitting in for Kojo Nnamdi welcome to evening Exchange. A disturbing new report about black males in Baltimore indicates that more than half more than half of the city's young black men were in trouble with the law in 1991. In fact according to the National Center on institutions and alternatives 56 percent of Baltimore's black men between the ages of 18 and 35 were either in jail on probation on parole on any given day last year. Baltimore's Mayor

Kurt Schmoke has verified the findings of the study and noted that the report describes not just a local problem but obviously a national tragedy. Joining us to discuss this report is Dr. Jerry Miller president of the National Center on institutions and alternatives. Welcome to the show. Thank you. Last year conducted a study on the district and I believe it showed what some 42 percent 42 percent of black males between 1835 under criminal justice supervision on any given day. That's right. In Baltimore you're saying 56 percent and I recall district officials said hey wait a minute we can't buy into these numbers. Why should we buy into the Baltimore numbers. Well it's interesting because the mayor of Baltimore we gave him this study many days in advance to look it over and he verified it. He had his own staff look into it in the district. I think perhaps because the mayor was caught unawares by and I think had we to do it again we would have we would have run it by her

ahead of time. She was asked I think by a news person just on the street almost What do you think of this. And her immediate response is that it couldn't be true in a very small little article in The Washington Post about three weeks later Walter Ridley head of the Department of Corrections confirmed that in fact we were pretty accurate. He had done a study there. When one looks at those numbers and that 56 percent One can almost say that there is a conspiracy underway. Orchestrated by someone against black males when you have 56 percent under criminal justice supervision on any given day. Well I think I think that's a very easy conclusion to come to. I I don't know whether it's a conspiracy but there's clearly something happening that has a purpose to it. And there is a pattern there that's very clear. I don't think incidentally that this is confined to the District of Columbia or Baltimore. I think it's true in every major city in the country with large minority populations either

black or Hispanic. Right after the L.A. riots for example the deputy city attorney went on TV and he said to the first a thousand arrestees 400 had criminal records and then he went on to just to draw the conclusion that this was not a good guys versus bad guy thing. This was bad guys taking advantage of a situation. Well in fact had he gone at random down the street and pick people looting or not looting of males black and Hispanic males at least 40 percent would have criminal records in the city. It doesn't mean much. The criminal records don't amount to much. They're small time things but it means that a large segment of young men are being dragged off to jail are being arrested are being run through this whole ritual of Criminal Justice and it's time you have to get payback is the tie. Drugs and is the national war on drugs a war targeted. At African-America I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think that's clearly where it's all been

targeted. Every study we're aware of that anyone is aware of as far as I know says that drug usage in various ethnic or racial groups pretty well approximates their representation in the population. About 77 percent of drug users are white. About 15 percent are black. That's about what their representation as the population is. But then if you look at the arrests in the drug war you get Columbus Ohio with for example 90 percent of the drug arrests were black people even though they only make up 15 percent of the population of that city in New York City 92 percent are either black or Hispanic. In Jacksonville Florida 90 percent. You see this across the country and I don't think there's any doubt that the drug war has been focused virtually totally in terms of arrest and imprisonment in the in the black community. What is the effect on a community when. The contact that they have most likely have at least 50 percent 6 percent of the people have contact with the criminal justice system as opposed to a government

contract contact that might improve their life in some way. I think it's a very demeaning and destructive thing. Almost a century ago a very great American social psychologist by the name of George Meade at the University of Chicago said that we should view the criminal justice system as a hostile procedure that in fact it is and that it it produces unanticipated consequences. Now it may stop crime at a particular point but when it is used so massively to deal with such a wide range of problems you begin creating the very thing you claim to be stopping or treating what I think one sees as a pattern of arrest and harassment and of young people particularly for relatively minor things and in an escalation of hostile handling violent semi violent handling. I mean it's not a simple thing to be assume the position be handcuffed be thrown on the ground be mug shot be dragged off to jail even though nothing may come of the charge. And that's the case in most of this most of these criminal records are not records of

great convictions or anything. It's a systematize dealing with people and it's our view that it's become a rite of passage in this country for a young black male not an African-American teenager to go to jail or prison. I mean that is what the larger society says this is how we confirm you as a man in our society who we confirm you as trash in this white society. Twenty years ago African-American leaders might have said this is because we have too many white police officers. We have white government leaders. We have a white state and federal government and they are insensitive to our communities. Kurt Schmoke is black. Mayor Kelly is black. Yeah there is substantial black representation on both cities police forces. Can we not say that. These that the color of a government has little to do with these contacts. Well I've seen it and there is there's a there's a certain element of that but I think that very often the leaders do not have a hold on all the handles to control the system. They

are saddled with laws for example that I think are racially biased in their outcome. Certainly prosecutors very often are mostly white and are involved in this. But in many ways very honestly the black leadership has mimicked the worst of the white leadership with reference to this particular problem. I think there has been a a widespread acceptance of what we view to be as unwarranted an acceptance of shibboleth or of a myth that that young black teenagers are these days are qualitatively different than they were in our time and they are much more violent across the board et cetera et cetera. I don't think that's particularly true but I think one begins to accept that. And there's always as there is in the white community there's always a great class difference here as you go up the socioeconomic class you get less acceptance of our study. When we talk to people on the street and people involved they all say sure that's my experience that's what's

happening. And perhaps that's that at issue here too. But when people do propose alternatives certainly Kurt Schmoke has proposed some interesting alternatives with reference to the drug war he suggested to be handled more as a public health problem there should be much more going into treatment and prevention and then the legalization issue early on. That's right. And he got his plastered when he when he started talking about everyone who went after him for it. But these are the kinds of things that need to be discussed. And I think you know I'm not talking necessarily about legalization at this point but I think one needs to discuss whether the criminal justice system is the best way to deal with this wide variety of problems and I don't think it is. I think if one dealt with it as a public health problem then we'd get much farther. The irony is that we're willing to spend billions they spend. You know everyone is yelling and screaming about welfare and AFDC Well they spent 12 billion on the drug war last year a billion more than was spent on all welfare in the in the nation in terms of AFDC. And where has it gotten this other than a lot more people in prison in jail. And that comes with it's payback. You

don't go back to prison in jail even for a day or two without coming out a bit more alienated a bit more angry and hostile. Sure. And I think that what we're seeing now on the streets is very often what you see in a prison subculture. The idea for example of drive by shootings they make no sense to me or you but they make great sense if one is trained in a prison subculture in prison you don't mouth off to someone without being able to deliver immediately with violence. Otherwise you are a victim. And we're seeing these ethics of the maximum security prison or Reform School start to become the ethics of the street. And I think we should expect that because we're we're subjecting so many young people to this violent society we call prison or jail and it either there's nothing good about it you can mitigate the amount of harm done perhaps but there's nothing useful about it. But what are the alternatives to. Incarceration. What do you do with that. That teenage male who has a couple of bags of crack in

his pocket he is breaking the law. He is peddling death Sure. What do you do if you don't incarcerate him. I think you do a lot of thing first all first obvious thing is you offer a lot more other opportunities employment opportunities in a place other places in this society. But I think there are a wide range of things that one could do but our particular emphasis is on de-escalating the criminal justice response. I think Lee Brown who unfortunately what does that mean. Well Lee Brown the former commissioner of police commissioner in New York City who I think it's just a tragedy. He resigned recently for personal reasons I think because of an illness of his wife but he was starting. Take New York the direction I think most cities need to go. He had gone. He disbanded the narcotics tactical squads that go in and at random grab people and throw him up and arrest them and you know surprise dealers et cetera et cetera. Everyone thinks that's great. In fact the effect of it is very very destructive. He abandoned them knocking on doors and rushing in and grabbing out people in front of wailing

children and upset wives. I mean it just an awful thing that you see routinely now on TV. And he went to neighborhood policing and began to get police into the neighborhood with the new the community who walked the beat who had some feel for what's going on and made judgments about whether we should indeed arrest because there are a lot of times when by by law one could arrest. But you don't do it it just isn't appropriate given the circumstances of these people's lives at this time in this place given a particular family or a particular young kid. And I think that he had moved things particularly in that sort of useful direction. Well what you saw within six months was a very dramatic drop in the number of people going to Rikers Island and in the prisons fell from 120 percent of capacity and 92 percent of capacity for the first time they weren't crowded. Well then the immediate response is Well look that doesn't make sense because he's simply not arresting criminals on the street he's letting him get by. But in fact reported crime went down in New York City during the same time. And it's our contention that so much saturation of the community

with this law enforcement machine in the community particular on the drug war creates as much crime as it solves. Now I'm not suggesting that the big drug dealers should be overlooked or that violent crime should be overlooked. No there is and no one is suggesting that at all. But at a certain point when it becomes such a pattern I would I'd suggest if this were being done in the suburbs This way you would hear a hue and cry that would stop it immediately. There's no way we would allow in the suburbs what goes on in the inner city in terms of police breaking down doors and dragging people out and running around with tactical squads breaking down the city in many ways aren't black males in suburban areas even. More likely to become targets. Sure. Sure they are but not in the concerted way it's done in the city unless there is a black community somewhere and suburb you can be darn sure that's going to be focused on. There's no question of that. And virtually all of the research developing these days despite the objections of the Justice Department

clearly shows that this system is biased from the point of arrest all the way through. Oh I just finished reading a study made available last week in Florida the habitual offenders act which means these are supposedly the really hard core so that we want to be sure we give them a life sentence or whatever. What they found is that there are three and four times more likely to be charged under that statute if you were black even if you had the same criminal history as a white guy. So that it is there at every level. This system is biased and the the models that the president's proposing as an option are laughable. I mean this so-called Weed and Seed program is I think it's disgusting. First off you refer to people as weeds and secondly that all the money's going to go into the so-called Weeting very little is going to go to seeding and you don't. If it is going to go to seeding which is to build up the community why on earth we would give that task to a prosecutor particularly a white prosecutor from the suburbs. I'd like to wonder well where are we going with that you even have in many stable black communities in

Baltimore Washington Columbus wherever residents who tire of the gunfire who tire of the crowds on the street corners residents who simply want these people off of their streets and yet ask a lot of them they'll say bring them and arrest them and bring them in. Throw away the key. But if we were spending as much money on alternative ways of dealing with this we would we wouldn't have the kind of congregating on the street we have. If there were adequate programs if there were people working with families working with individuals I mean we're willing to spend easily 20 25 thousand for example in D.C. to lock someone out a lot and we're willing to spend $60000 a year to send them up to Oak Hill or cedar knoll if we were willing to spend that much had we identified those kids who are that much at risk or who were that much involved. You give me 60000 or you 60000 which is to 200 dollars a day to keep that kid out of trouble. I'll do very well with a large percentage. Now you may get down to a hardcore who are still a

problem on the street and I'm not going to argue about the need to incarcerate violent offenders. They should be incarcerated but we are making violence. We are creating violence when you have 40 50 percent of a particular age group of young African-American males going off to jail and prison routinely. There's something very very wrong in this society. All right Dr. Drew Miller want to thank you very much for dropping by. Fifty six percent of black males in Baltimore between the ages of 18 and 35 under some sort of criminal justice supervision on any given day last year in Baltimore. When we come back we'll meet our journalists and talk about some of the other hot news items of the week. Stay with us. Welcome back. President Bush has promised to rebuild the Homestead Air Force Base

that was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew and he's also promising to expand production of the M1 tank and sell planes to Saudi Arabia as well as Taiwan. And critics are charging that the president is clearly and this is what his critics are saying that he is engaged in election year politics and is totally ignoring promises to cut spending. But before we get to that more let's meet some of our journalists was in fact bonnier Bay NBC Radio look like election year politicking to you. Or does the president have a good case. Of course it looks like you want to enter politics. I don't think there's any question but it's bipartisan election year politicking because Bill Clinton says that he would do the same thing Clinton visited homestead this week and said listen I'm not here you know for as a campaign stop I do want people to know that I would you know be taken care of things as well. And he didn't bash the president as he could have as he does frequently on Bush's other policies because he didn't want to come off as if he were playing hardball in the middle of a major you know natural disaster. But clearly I mean homestead was on the list of

bases that were considered for closure by the commission that didn't close quite a number of bases earlier this year late last year and there is the commission has meaning again in 93 and again in 95 and most of the people who have dealt with this issue tell me that even though homestead acts escaped closure Latin the last go round the base was just about sure to be shut down in the next go round so this is pure election politics and it's and it's a lot of largesse on the part of the president that is very uncharacteristic. Independent journalist Brenda Wilson good to see you here. But you know regardless of what the president does he's going to be blamed with election year election year politics. Let me put it to you this way inflate not inflation but the jobless rate is terrible and some of the states that will be affected by these military contracts. Florida certainly needs the shot in the arm isn't considering the economy the lack of jobs the injection of cash and the signing of these contracts. Something that's going to help some local economies.

The question is how long they're going to help the local economies and whether in fact they're going to take the pressure off of the areas where he's really having problems. I mean there were some pretty awful statistics that came out was the fall of the dollar the the U.S. dollar against European currency that was really bad. And in spite of that you didn't see the U.S. trade deficit getting any better in spite of the fact that you saw sort of leveling off maybe of unemployment statistics. Most of that was based upon essentially jobs that the president another form of his largest handed out after the L.A. crisis and a certain sense what he was doing in Miami. It's hard to fault him. I mean I think you could fault him for choosing the homes choosing to rebuild the homestead base instead of doing something clearly. That town is going to need something put in place of the base. The question is since that base strategically and tactically is no longer essential. Why not use this as an opportunity to put something long term in place. I mean he could satisfy the needs of that community in the long run rather than just

simply just make it appear or essentially give it a quick fix which it essentially does need. But he's got a lot of other problems. And the question is whether all of this generosity is going to take everybody's mind off of problems. I mean the poverty rate I mean you have all these awful statistics coming out this week. He had to do something to try to deflect attention from those other ugly statistics and Jeanetta bears from the Washington Times. I guess the other obvious question of the question a lot of military analysts are asking where are these decisions decisions that are in the best interest of national security that are should we be looking at long term national security goals as opposed to using the national security or the defense apparatus as a social welfare program to keep people working. I think that's a good question. I think the average American is asking the same question because what happens is the country has always had a military economy. I mean the Millot the the war has driven the economy now there's no war what would we

do. And I think what's happening is that we're beginning to become the military salesman for the rest of the world as a way to to kind of spur our economy to keep our economy going which is which is a terrible thing to do in. If you look at what's happening in Iraq and and what we're paying for with with respect to helping to sell arms to to the Iraqis or helping to build up their arms cache and then when we look at Panama and what happened in that situation with helping Manual Noriega. And it just seems as though the American government has not learned from its failed policies of providing weapons all over the world and then having to deal with what happens after the fact. Two things come to mind Bonnie. First the European response to the sale of these F 16s to Taiwan. And secondly the jeapordizing if you believe it will jeopardize the the GATT talks in Uruguay

with the subsidy to U.S. farmers. These are certainly issues of national security economic and military. Is the president moving propitious Lee when he's making these decisions. Well first of all I mean there's a larger issue in my mind which stands out and that's our relations with China which are not in great shape anyway. But this was clearly served to further alienate what would what we were a country we were trying to become friendly with. Although you know there are plenty of people who say that Taiwan was our ally before we started trying to get close to China on sale and we sort of dumped Taiwan as soon as it looked like relations with China were thawing and that this is something that we owe to the Taiwanese. There are also other people who say we shouldn't be in the business of selling arms to countries that have obvious enemies and that may be using them. And of course those are the only countries that would want them. So we shouldn't be fomenting distress in the world which of course the

sale of military weapons and technology is fomenting distress and you know the possibility of war or at least fighting. But you know as Tip O'Neill said all politics is local. The F-16 is built in this country we have a you know really distressed defense contracting industry particularly in California not where the F-16s that are built per se but you have unemployment in California. That's about 10 percent at this point President has real big problems in states where defense contractors are facing cutbacks. And I think it was Michigan right. Exactly. Ohio Texas Texas. These are all local decisions essentially. I mean I think what the what the president said here was you know what you've seen happen since Jim Baker came back and took over the campaign as the president selling himself as somebody who's already done a job on the world. And now he's turning his attentions to local issues. So I think this decision was made much more in terms of the domestic politics and what the international ramifications are going to look pretty desperate.

I mean don't you think it looks essentially desperate. I mean I was listening to someone earlier today and they were saying that essentially pretty much written off of it written off California. But you know states like Texas I mean he's got to do whatever he can. Does he try to hold on to Texas to be able to run against any report in Florida by the voter I mean if I'm if I'm sitting in Texas and the president comes by and says we're going to keep you working by by pushing these contracts. I don't know that that's desperation that's awfully real to me. Well I mean if you if you are losing ground you know too or if you're not gaining on you know the challenger. I mean what do you do. Do you sit there and do you take the high road do you take the high ground or do you pull out all the stops and try your best to kind of push those points up. I mean Texas is important too. So is Florida. I mean and given what happened to him initially in Florida he could take a really serious fit there given the response initially to the impact of Hurricane Andrew and the fact that they were so slow in responding to it initially. I mean anything he can do to

shore up a really bad public relations image there. I mean you know he's going to tell the tale. Clinton do to shore up his image. I mean this draft thing just won't go away. His uncle Raymond now deceased apparently worked in a major way or tried to work in a major way to have his induction pushed back or altered or changed in some form or fashion. Bonnie this will this won't go away. Well I mean I think largely in fact it already has gone away. I think that you know the Republicans can keep leaking information and they can sort of take a nip and tuck here. But the story has largely been diffused and it doesn't seem to you know it certainly didn't hurt Clinton when he was at his worst to the point where he wasn't able to gain the nomination. I don't think I think that what is hurting Clinton a lot more is that the president has gained the offensive in terms of you know the Republicans are once again shaping the campaign at this point. They have you know managed to put take out of the public's mind

the issue of the economy which is which is Bill Clinton's strongest suit blaming Congress for it. I think the president has been rather successful at that. And I think what you know what a bigger issue for him is that if he needs to keep the gain and build the gain that he's made in the polls since the Republican convention he needs to be more on the attack and less on the defense. Now wouldn't it be that he essentially has been able to take the public's mind off of the economy. I mean I think I think that going to remember how bad things are in this country at all economically I think that Baker has done a damn good jamming with getting with getting Bush down into Florida with making him look like he's giving out all this money and and you know taking care of the I mean what do you think it is that they are presenting the question is whether the public is buying less and I don't think the public is buying it. I think it is on the other hand when we look at the entire issue of patriotism draft and I served in a war the president clearly is trying to appeal to the world we're one World War II Vietnam veteran.

And here we have a baby boomer candidate and Clinton and for individuals perhaps 18 to 35 military service or constrict construction is less important. Is that whole. I think for a lot of people it's less important quite frankly. I mean if you think about the service in Vietnam what person didn't I mean some people were drafted. Those people who could avoid the draft usually tried generally tried to avoid the draft. That was all I can remember. I was in Mississippi in the late 60s and there was there were busloads of people coming to Washington D.C. to protest the war. I don't think I think what's on the minds of American people now. The economy is certainly critical. Health care is critical. And as long as Bill Clinton can keep those issues at the forefront and can challenge in and stand up to Bush on those issues and allow and present to the American people that these short term

policies and programs that he's coming up with the sale of military weapons the homes that all of these are short term solutions to a very large problem. And that's what Bill Clinton has to do. He has to let the American people see that this is just a short term solution. But veterans of World War One and World War. But you know what veterans of World War One are worried about it and what is down there in Florida trying to deal with them as well. I mean he was down there talking about Social Security Justice. The Republicans are going to beat up on the issue of taxes and the Democrats. The Democrats are going to play that old buzzword Social Security because Bush still has not answered the question of how he's going to both cut taxes and cut the deficit. So he's using that. You are the only ones left. I mean you know the defense you know here he's talking about spending money on defense. Where is he going to get all this money that he's talking about subsidies all of it. He's got to come after your money. He's not telling you this now. But I mean watch I mean he's playing the trust card as well.

Whether it will work or not I'm not willing to gamble and say it will but it has generally worked a lot more successfully for Democrats doesn't it boil down to what Bonnie was saying earlier that the Bush campaign appears to be able to frame this discussion this. I mean I think that there's always that but there's always a way when you are trying to say See we've just begun to see it this week. And I think you know I heard one of the political consultants interviewed on one of the morning talk shows recently and he said this week actually and he said you know the next step of the campaign is you know so far. Bush has sort of been trying to highlight what he's been doing that has been beneficial to the country and what some people would say what little he's been doing and it's been beneficial for the country. But the next step is OK. The economy is not where it should be. But does the other guy have the solution. And I think Bill Clinton's biggest job is still convincing the voters that you know the voters are clearly sick of what's been going on. You know we've seen this anti-incumbency mood and clearly this president has not been a leader

on economic and domestic issues I don't I don't think even the White House would tell you that that you know that he's been that or they may tell you that. But clearly it's not the case. But I think that what they will now say is OK we're going to try but at least we're tried and true product and things may not be where they should be but they could be a lot worse. They were a lot worse under Carter financially and the other guy much as you may want anybody but Bush in office if you look at the actual policies of the other guy he's not going to be any better for you economically. I think the power of the incumbency is always something that a challenger has to deal with and clearly that's what Clinton will has to have to deal with throughout the campaign. Bush is going to pull out every every thing he can pull out to use and I mean this is just the beginning. The wheat subsidies the sale of the arms the homestead. We believe there are going to be other things. And Clinton is just going to have to deal with that to show that these are only short term solutions to a serious

economic problem in this country and it's not going to be solved with selling you know a hundred and fifty six 16s or 15s abroad. That's not going to solve the problem. But will it win votes. That's the key issue. They don't have to take a break. We'll be back in just a moment. There. Was. A.

Welcome back if you're just joining us once again James Adams sitting in for Kojo Nnamdi. He's getting a little R and R in and we're talking with journalist Brenda Wilson bonnier Bey and Jeanette embarras. Big headache for mayor. KELLY It just doesn't seem to want to go away. Her housing finance agency director Emil car star often has been fired. Most recently it seems with each week another revelation regarding misspending salary increases parking tickets and I think we should in all fairness point out if I'm correct

here that the board which supervises that agency was appointed by the mayor what are your feelings on the booth. What is the problem in this case. I mean I think it was the individual who heading the agency who's the problem. What it suggests to me is the problem of insider politics because essentially what had happened was the director of the housing agency which loans money to developers to build low income housing or helped finance those kinds of loans essentially bought and her version is different from the board. But she essentially bought tickets to the mayor's birthday party which was a political fundraiser using money from the agency. Well then I forget H.R. Crawford who returned the money that was sent to him and there were some other council members that was suggested including Mayor Kelley herself. It seems received Black Caucus 33 culture of money as well. But I mean I'm saying the problem was for the director herself who was the one who it seems signed off on these.

She said that she was told to do this by the board itself that in at least one instance they requested tickets for themselves which she paid for using the agency's budget. I mean what I don't quite understand is that she reported this spending. I mean it was not something that was necessarily hidden. So the question you have to ask yourself is why didn't she know that this was wrong. And you know that there was a conflict of interest and that this didn't look good and that it was not all right for her to do this. I mean it was not actually it wasn't essentially hidden. And she seemed to think that this was her right. Bonnie I know you like to be reimbursed for tickets to the mayor's birthday party which was a political fundraiser wasn't there. There are two instances here. And one time she wrote a check and was reimbursed Another time a second said I think of $2000 you know for tickets or whatever $500 ahead. She actually wrote a check from the agency. It seems fairly elementary to me. I mean I'm not a politician I'm ever served in office I've never run for

office. I've never been appointed to a political office. But it seems fairly elementary to me. And you would think everybody would know that you don't use government money to buy tickets to political fundraisers. It is a no no. I mean there are people who pay taxes that make up the money that flows. It's also a sign budgeting I clearly so obvious that not only did it seem hidden to you did it seem like something that why. I don't think it's I think that's the main it was on the report and so I mean that's what that's what I'm saying how come she didn't know that. You're not supposed to do not. I can you know know I'm saying is that it was wrong. And I hope it goes a little further regionality you make one hundred twenty nine thousand dollars a year for the next 10 years and vote yourself $36000 to get there when you want to join. I think that's part of what many people are saying to just what was going on at this agency at that salary level. How could she just give her self with board authorization that kind of a raise and and I think it raises a lot of questions with respect to oversight oversight and just who was watching the store down there that you know.

Well you know the Times has been doing quite a bit of reporting on it. So from what we've seen in terms of trying to filter through the same thing the same kind of questions you've been asking we've been trying to for. It seems as though the burden lay on both sides of the fence with the director in terms of her not having sufficient knowledge about the the laws of the district in terms of there being a law in the district and a federal law that prohibits these kinds of contributions. And at the same time the board not having any system in place to to do any prior approval of checks that basically they gave the the director carte Blash in this in this agency and up until now she's done a very fine job. But at least as far as the record show they're still investigating that. But also I'd say at least as far as the records show. But but the fact is is that there was a five member board. That's why you have

boards of directors to provide oversight. I don't care who appointed them. Three of the members were appointed by Barry two of the members have been were appointed by by Kelly since she's been in. It doesn't matter who appointed them the question is. The problem is is that the board which charge Wheatly oversight and developing policies and helping to put systems in at this agency didn't do that. And and clearly they are equally to blame for the mess that's here. Let's talk about the one board member it turns out was a consultant on one of the projects which they had find. But let's step back for a second and talk about I mean you brought up the subject of blame. I mean what I see as I don't cover district government I cover the Supreme Court. But as somebody who's you know keeps tabs on what's going on when I see evolving in the District government is a mayor who has had several you know fairly serious ethics problems a mayor who doesn't seem to know where to draw the line between what is proper and what is not proper and a lot of them are you know there are

small things. I mean 2004 a thousand dollars worth of tickets to a fundraiser that she's throwing is not in the in the political scheme of things. A lot of money but you put that on top of the fact that she took honoraria from companies that were doing business with with the government that she had she and her husband had a free trip on Jack Cook's plane and stayed as a guest at a hotel to see the Super Bowl at a time when she was negotiating for a new stadium. I mean there are all these kinds of public relations and ethical problems. And what that tells me is that this woman at least when it comes to ethics and drawing a boundary between what is ethical and what is not ethical is in over her head. Well see I think I think it points up another problem because what concerns me in all of this and that's something that I think the stories may have missed at least that I for it up until now. So what kind of job the housing agency was doing because it is a very serious mission. The question is it's supposed to be helping develop low income housing and instead of I don't see people

coming in with that mission I see people coming in who have really close ties to the Mayor who are really in on the political system making seem to believe that the way to work your way through the system is to work within the system is to make sure that members of the city council get taken care of. Members of the board get taken care of and I keep imagining I could be completely wrong. These people constantly going to birthday parties political fundraisers you know taking care of themselves. And I'm wondering about what in the world that agency is supposed to be helping to do something about housing in the district is essentially doing I mean where is their sense of mission. Their mission seems to be to serve themselves and to me that really is a serious problem because I think a lot of that perhaps we haven't heard of any misspending with respect to what their mission is that they're there isn't this problem. What about the fact that you know for example Carstares and herself you know she's clearly a well-educated lawyer she clerked for a federal D.C. Court of Appeals judge a very prestigious post to get when you graduate from law

school. This woman is no dummy and I can't believe that she was ignorant of the law but by the same token I mean when you go into sort of a public service kind of a job I mean she had a background in finance and there's this there are clearly some very technical aspects to her job but in a position where you're supposed to be raising money to help build housing for people who are too poor to afford it themselves should she really be making. And making a hundred and twenty nine thousand. Why can't you pay $2000 for a political fund raising ticket yourself. I mean if this is your investment in your career why can't you it up. Well I I certainly I certainly agree with that. I mean she could have paid for it herself and surely whomever got the other four tickets that were in question could have paid for those four tickets given the salaries that are paid at the at the agency. But I think there's a question here that that sort of keeps coming up and Bonnie kind of hit on it. And that is that this is a relatively young government. The laws of this government are relatively new. Now you've got a new

team coming in who's been in the private sector don't know anything about running a government. I tell you. And so. And so they don't they don't know what some of the laws are in this city and they are just learning what some of those laws are there. And and people are being appointed to boards constantly without any kind of training without any even here are some flyers they will tell you what the laws are in the city. No training at all. So these people aren't are just thrown into the hands of a lousy you know about. No they know about the area. Each board member each of those five board members no housing they don't know the city's campaign finance laws. And that's where the problem is not not in their ability to provide housing but see the thing that bothers me whether they know the law or not. The one thing they do seem to know even when they're relatively well off themselves they know how to take care of themselves. I mean that's the one clue to what they all seem to be

focused on either you know being in the center where whoever happens to be in charge whether it's Barry or Kelly. The other thing that's important though in terms of housing there's a federal government oversight role here too. And it's interesting the is not the only city which has had problems because with housing development what you're talking about is large sums of money that are large as hijackings forth between developers. And so the you know a number of agencies and cities all across the country have had to be put under the aegis of the Housing and Urban Development the federal department because there have been so many instances of corruption of people sort of giving contracts and loans to friends instead of you know making sure that that money is getting closer to home. So there are really serious problems in the housing area even closer to home. You had a D.C. council that should have provided adequate oversight and should have been looking at the spending long before now. Now everybody's got there everybody sending their own personal investigator in on this.

But I understand that sending the ice rink Smith says that that is difficult to micromanage and micromanage but to exercise oversight responsibility over some of these agencies because they simply don't have to provide the. That is bull. That is just bull. I mean he has called the Public Housing Department. And even though this is not an independent agency he's called the public housing department in every month since he took over housing. He has yet to call D.C. housing finance in every month. These I mean these people are providing a similar kind of role. Equally as important as public housing is. Is is middle class and low income ownership in this city especially since it's trying to stabilize its tax base. So he has not taken on the task of attempting to secure this information. A council member has subpoena power. If they wanted to they could have used it if if he has a hearing and he's

asking for information that an agency director is failing to present. He can always use his subpoena power. Nothing stops him from that. Well noted unless there's something that flags his attention mean well that's going to have to go looking for something wrong. I think for them to have noticed this. I honestly don't. Well you don't have to go looking for $33000 that appeared in an audit where the auditor said it seemed to be an appropriate spending which is what often Anderson firms said about the thirty three thousand dollars that was spent for the Congressional Black Caucus. But Mr. Smith didn't know about that. Well they went looking for money out in California to do. Not too long ago and apparently they found it. They've got a budget deal out there. Folks still took it and that it was a soft kind of way is as this drug on and on. But I really have the feeling that when some of the cuts and some of that package comes into play you're going to have an awful lot of upset Californians.

Oh definitely. I mean first of all the heaviest cuts are coming in in the state school system which has been in and the California State Higher education system is a model for the rest of the country it's really you know there may be some you know public colleges will be offended if I say this but it's it's just about the best public school system in the country it's been the model for many others it was started in the 20s and 30s. And first of all tuition is going up pretty dramatically. Doug Levitt community college yeah it's going up. Well I don't know about doubling but it's going up. What they say in the unity colleges it'll it'll double significantly rise at other state races and some 200000 students perhaps will not be able to afford the education they once could have. Right exactly. And I think that there will also be not only will there will be people who cannot go to it cannot afford to go to school but there will also be people who just won't bother to apply or people who are there will have to drop out temporarily and work before they can go back. And a lot of Californians have come to expect this excellent educational

system and now you know it's time to ante up a lot of teachers are going to be laid off. They're shrinking the number of teachers and and enlarging the size of classes so not only will those who can afford to go anymore be locked out but the people who are there will be getting less of a quality education. I think the larger question here or maybe what you want to bring it back home is California symptomatic of what we're going to see happening in state and local governments throughout the area of the metropolitan area. Let's take a look at Maryland. They're talking about 150 right now we're not at the point that California is but they don't have the jobs and when the jobs are generated then the tax revenues aren't there. Severe cuts. This has got to hurt. You think California is just a harbinger of what we're going to see throughout the nation. I don't know I mean everyone has sort of been saying that as California goes so goes the rest of the nation. I think it gets set at half an item. I mean I'm not willing to extrapolate to that point. I'm not familiar with every part of the country to that degree. But looking at California I

think what it is is the chickens coming home to roost so to speak. I mean this is the legacy of years of conservative politics under you know a former conservative Republican administration. They they've had the experience of a conservative governor now for quite some time. I think maybe there was a period a respite there with Mr. Brown but I think it was less about I think it was coming out of brown that you got Proposition 13 where they said we don't want our taxes raised. And for some reason I mean people expect government to still provide services and they don't want to pay for it. I mean it's an it can't happen. And so that they are now having to look back and ask themselves Is this the kind of state they want to live in. I I'm willing to bet you that most of the most hard bitten souls will still hold onto you know keeping those property taxes down they don't want to get increased no matter how much unrest no matter how much dissension that it causes in the state. I'm willing to bet you most of them don't see a connection between that and the tension in L.A. and the way that

some people must live in the state as a result of decisions that are made that impact in a much more far reaching way I think that people actually think about sometimes. You know it's really interesting because I don't I think that California is probably the extreme of what will happen in other states. If you look at it you could say OK Will 50 percent of what's going to happen in California will happen say in Maryland in California. I think it is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. I don't know whether you can blame the conservatives for it though. But you can clearly blame the taxpayers in California for some of the problems when you have a proposition 13 when you have other proposition this when you when you you're forcing city government funds to go to education government funds to go through this. It's a lot of voter participation in California and that's probably part of the problem that that we're having a count by midnight when I respond to your last call. Let me just let me just let me just let me just finish this point. But I think that what will

happen in terms of the taxes though in terms of hitting Social Services hitting education those are the kinds of things that we're going to see all over the country because the tax dollars just aren't producing enough to be enough revenues to carry the level of social services the level of entitlement programs. Clearly California was the max on entitlement programs. So I think in response to your question about whether we're going to we are going to see other states follow California's lead. I think the federal government is already there. I mean the one difference you have this Republican president who can't get along with the Democratically controlled legislature at least in the assembly in California and in Congress you have a president a Republican president who can't get along with the Democratically controlled Congress. They have stalemates they have fights all the time. There's one major difference between California and the federal government which is they have to constitutionally balance their budget and the federal government does not. But I mean I think if we had a balanced budget amendment in effect nationally you would say exactly these kinds of fights going on between the president and Congress.

All right we have to take a break we'll be back in just a moment. Stay with us. I. Want to thank everyone for joining us and thank our journalists as

well. Also our newsmaker wish everyone to have a Wishing everyone a great holiday weekend and we hope to see you again next week. And. Tomorrow. Evening Xchange depends on your contributions. Please send your donation to W H m m TV 22:22 Fourth Street Northwest in Washington DC 2 0 0 0 5 9