Here's a topic that hasn't received the attention it deserves in the ongoing battle over the future of the Wake County public school system: magnet schools. This is surprising since, in many ways, the accomplishments and prevalence of Wake County's magnet schools have been synonymous with the system's national reputation as a beacon of progress and success.

But what are they? Why do we have them? What will happen to them if the new board follows through with its plan to re-segregate the schools? These basic questions seem to have been frequently shunted to the side in the current process.

The basics

The basic idea behind magnets is pretty simple and straightforward: 1) identify a struggling public school - usually in a less desirable neighborhood with an older physical plant, 2) add some additional resources that make its curricula attractive to families in more affluent neighborhoods, and 3) open enrollment and provide transportation so that some of the comparatively well-off children can attend. Boom: instant (or at least relatively quick) and voluntary socioeconomic and racial integration on significant scale.

Even more importantly, the influx of families of higher incomes sets a chain reaction of events into motion that strengthens the school's overall culture. Because some of the new parents are more likely to have at least some time and resources on their hands, more people start participating in PTA. This, in turn, builds connections with the broader community - leveraging resources (volunteers, tutors, gifts) that further strengthen the school. Schools (and, often, the neighborhoods around them) become healthier.

Meanwhile, the opportunity to explore different subjects and the overall invitation to innovate draws many good and creative teachers. Before too long, what was once just a struggling school in a tough neighborhood has been lifted up. As an added bonus, as magnet school teachers, administrators and graduates gradually fan out into traditional schools, they take many of the ideas and innovations with them. Non-magnets benefit by a kind of osmosis. Finally, because of the demand to attend, magnets tend to run at full capacity - thus making them more cost efficient than schools running at less than 100%.

Of course, magnets are not a perfect solution. To keep them desirable, enrollment must be limited. In an ideal world, of course, all schools would have all the resources they could possibly want. Moreover, the tendency toward socioeconomic segregation within the magnet school can often be a real challenge.

But, of course, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be widespread socioeconomic segregation and large numbers of low income families to begin with. As for in-school segregation, it's clear that magnets do far better than so-called "neighborhood schools" in promoting interaction between various groups. The bottom line: As a practical matter, magnets are a proven and cost-effective way to meet numerous, critical pedagogical and societal objectives.

The Wake County situation

The success and overall cost-effectiveness explains why magnets have been an important part of the Wake County schools for three decades. At last count, there were 33 magnet schools in Wake County - roughly one out of five. Here are some other key numbers:

29,609 - Student enrollment in magnet schools

10,353 - Number of magnet students (i.e. kids who attend magnets that are not their natural "base" school.)

8% - Magnet students as a percentage of total student enrollment

9,213 - Number of magnet applications in the spring 2009

40% - Percentage of applications accepted

100% - Average membership/capacity of magnet schools

92% - Percentage for Wake County as a whole

35% - Percentage of students in magnet school eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRL)

28% - Percentage for the system as a whole

17% - Average percentage point reduction in magnet school FRL

41% - Average percentage increase in magnet school membership/capacity

In short, Wake County magnets have been extremely successful - so successful that they have become a model to school systems all over the country. Retired Wake County magnet program director Caroline Massengill told a gathering of concerned parents at a Great Schools in Wake Coalition meeting earlier this month that whenever she attended magnet conferences and other such events around the country she was often besieged by those who wanted to learn more about Wake's record of success and how they could copy it.

Federal dollars at risk

Proof of the acclaim and effectiveness of the Wake County magnet program can be seen in its repeated success in attracting federal Department of Education grants. Over the last two-plus decades, the program has brought in $36 million in Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) funds. According to Massengill, this means that Wake was successful in the extremely competitive nationwide grant program six separate times - nearly every time it applied. The most recent success came in 2007 when Wake pulled in a three-year, $8.3 million to help upgrade Southeast Raleigh High School, Garner High School and East Garner Middle School. It was the fourth largest grant in the nation out of 41 that were awarded. The next round of grant applications is actually due in April.

Unfortunately, this important source of funding and national acclaim for Wake County schools could well be in jeopardy in the future if the new Board carries through with its threat to remove socioeconomic diversity as a school district priority. Here is the opening sentence of program description of the federal MSAP:

"These grants assist in the desegregation of public schools by supporting the elimination, reduction, and prevention of minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools with substantial numbers of minority group students."

The description goes on:

"Magnet programs aim to eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening students' knowledge of academic subjects and their grasp of marketable vocational skills. The special curriculum of a magnet school attracts substantial numbers of students from different social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds and provides greater opportunities for voluntary and court-ordered desegregation efforts to succeed."

In other words, if Wake County moves to abandon its longstanding commitment to socioeconomic diversity, it's hard to see how it will have much chance of future success in a competitive federal grant process based on that very principle.

This fact, in turn, raises fundamental questions about the future of magnets, generally. While some of the members of the new school board majority have professed support for "magnets," it doesn't appear that their vision is congruent with the basic premise behind the concept. How can one be for magnets and against an intentional commitment to promoting socioeconomic diversity? It's like being for roads and against ending traffic congestion. Such a position is oxymoronic - unless, that is, what you're really for is a narrow and cramped view of magnets (or roads) that's actually about getting a bigger piece of the public pie for your neighborhood and constituents rather than benefitting the community as a whole.

Going forward

One of the toughest lessons for any newly elected public official - especially those elected on an anti-government platform - is to discover that governing is a heck of a lot tougher that campaigning. It's easy to rail against things, but to actually make a complex public system work - to make the trains (or school buses) run on time and to do so in such a way that benefits the entire community - is a tough task. Let's hope that learning some of the hard truths about magnet schools will have that effect on the new members of the Wake school board. Once they learn how hard and important it is to build a system that works, maybe they'll be less inclined to tear the existing one down.

One of the most common problems for those involved in contentious policy debates is a lack of historical perspective. For those with little or no memory of the events that led up to present-day controversies, it's often difficult to see the forest for the trees. Lacking an understanding of how the present circumstances came about, they often act as if there were no precedent for solving the problems at-hand or, worse yet, act to undo important accomplishments.

The ongoing controversy surrounding North Carolina's public schools and the headlong drive to end socioeconomic integration is one such issue. While some of the people behind that misguided effort are simply driven by a repugnant ideology, many others have gone along with the effort simply because they didn't understand how we got where we are today. These folks don't necessarily share the goals of the conservative ideologues, they're just worried about themselves and their kids and are either too young or too new to the issue (or too new to North Carolina) to understand what's really at-stake.

Fortunately, there are ways to remedy this problem. Last week, for example, North Carolinians were given a gift that will, if they accept it, help to cure the widespread amnesia and lack of knowledge that afflicts the debate over the schools. The gift was a history lesson in the form of a lecture delivered by a special man, Dean Jack Boger of the UNC School of Law.

The talk ought to be required reading for anyone who wants to take part in pubic education policy debates in our state. And happily, we've been able to post the entire transcript on the N.C. Policy Watch website. You can read it by clicking here.

In the talk, Boger explores the history of public education ("common schooling" as it was originally known) in the United States and explains how the current debates over socioeconomic integration that are causing such a hubbub in North Carolina today may well serve as bellwethers for its very survival.

Here are just some of the highlights of what you'll find in this rich and powerful document:

The commitment to "common schooling"

After tracing the history of American "common schooling" to the work of a Massachusetts reformer (and the nation's first state schools superintendent) named Horace Mann, Boger turns to North Carolina:

"In North Carolina, it was Calvin Wiley, a lawyer and legislator who was appointed this State's first state school superintendent in 1852, who traveled the Old North State tirelessly. ‘With infinite labor, by travel, speeches, and writings,' an historian wrote in the 1964 Peabody Journal of Education, ‘Wiley overcame opposition to and popularized public schools. The North Carolina system was the best in the South in 1860….' Notably, in his 1860 report to the State, Superintendent Wiley cautioned ‘that there is as much danger from prejudice between the rich and poor as between master and slave.' ‘The peace of every social system,' he wrote, ‘depends upon a just recognition of the mutual dependence of every rank on the other and of the mutual obligations which this imposes . . . . And all attempts . . . . to widen the breach between classes of citizens are just as dangerous as efforts to excite slaves to insurrection.'

That was in 1860, a year before the Civil War. One hundred and fifty years later, it seems, we are again testing, in our two largest metropolitan school districts, the wisdom, or the folly, of Superintendent Wiley's warning."

Modern applications

Most of Boger's lecture is taken up with an explanation of the 56 years that have followed the Supreme Court's landmark school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education. In it, Boger documents the tortuous history of desegregation in North Carolina, including the famous Swann case that helped integrate the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, as well as his own role in the work.

Perhaps most striking in this discussion, however, is Boger's description of his work in the state of Connecticut in the early 1980's where, as counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the then-young North Carolinian learned some of the hard facts about school integration. Boger explains how Connecticut, a very rich but very segregated state was failing to solve the problem of low achieving inner-city schools despite determined efforts and the infusion of huge resources.

"Thus for every State dollar sent to a suburban school where a middle-class child was doing well, Connecticut sent literally 50% more, toward schools that were educating each low-performing, lower income children. In addition, the Connecticut legislature had adopted many special grant programs-remedial assistance, dropout prevention, health services-that strongly favored either low-wealth districts or districts with poorer and low-achieving students, or both. Under these combined state aid programs, the Hartford school district regularly received nearly three times as much State funding, per pupil, as did suburban districts. Only one minor problem remained: none of it was working to improve educational performance in Connecticut's largest urban districts."  

In effect, like Charlotte's re-segregated schools of today, Connecticut was attempting to "throw a lot of money over the wall" in an effort to solve the problem of low-achieving schools without taking the step of true socio-economic integration. This, of course, is what has been proposed for Wake County by some members of the new, conservative school board majority.

It was in the work to grapple with that situation that Boger and his colleagues rediscovered the research of social scientists who had found that the solution to such situations was not more money, but more integration. He quotes a 1965 Congressional study that found that:

"Attributes of other students account for far more variation in the achievement of minority group children than do any attributes of school facilities and slightly more than do attributes of staff."   

When this realization dawned on Boger, he says he remembered thinking "thank goodness that southern school desegregation had already done its work." Little did he know, of course, that determined conservative advocates would continue to do their worst to roll back the progress that so many had fought to achieve.

Where we are and where we're going

At the end of the lecture, Boger ties the Connecticut experience to what's going on in North Carolina today. He quotes a meticulous 2008 study from two North Carolina academics that confirmed, yet again, the simple and undeniable truth that integration is essential:

"Even after taking into account these effects of individual student characteristics, higher concentrations of poor and minority students within a high school reduce average EOC scores. In other words, low-income students perform worse on EOC exams when they are in schools with high percentages of other low-income students. . . . The combined effects of students' individual characteristics and the overall composition of a high school's student population are extremely powerful influences on the average level of academic performance in that school…. [L]ocal school districts have the best chance for improving academic performance in North Carolina's high schools by undertaking the following actions. [first] reducing [the] concentration of students with low entering skills and from low-income families, [second] increasing spending on regular instruction, [third] improving teacher quality, and [fourth] improving principal leadership."

In short, what's going on in Wake County right now is a misguided effort to repeal the use of the one tactic that's done more than anything else to make our schools work for all children. As Boger puts it:   

"In other words, Wake County committed itself self-consciously to Horace Mann's ideal of ‘common schools,' designed to bring together children from all socioeconomic backgrounds,, and they likewise assured parents that the percentage of low-performing students in their child's school would be capped, so there would be no low-performing school, no ‘academic genocide' [Judge Howard Manning's term for the state education's system's failings in many places] underway in Wake County."

Though ultimately hopeful, Boger's conclusion features a warning in the form of a 1974 quote from the late, great Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall:

"In the short run, it may seem to be the easier course to allow our great metropolitan areas to be divided up, each into two cities - one white, the other black - but it is a course, I predict, our people will ultimately regret."

Marshall was right, of course. Let's hope the people of North Carolina rediscover his and Jack Boger's wisdom on the matter before it's too late.

The connection between prominent political leaders and the causes they stand for (or, at least, the causes they come to be associated with) is often very strong in the minds of the members of the general public. Sometimes, it's as if the political leader and the stands he or she takes are indistinguishable. It's hard to think of New Deal, for instance, without thinking of Franklin Roosevelt (and vice versa).

For those who champion a particular cause, however, these kinds of automatic connections are frequently a two-edged sword.

On the one hand, one charismatic person's personal popularity can almost singlehandedly elevate a cause or issue well-beyond the heights to which it would have otherwise risen. Think of Ronald Reagan's sunny charm and the way it helped advance what was really a pretty dark and pessimistic ideology about government and human nature.

The downside to these kinds of connections is that when one individual leader's career flames out as the result of some peccadillo or other personal transgression unrelated to the actual issues he or she stood for, it can often wreak undeserved havoc with the cause. Whatever the substantive strengths or weaknesses of conservative Christianity, for example, its ultimate success or failure as a philosophy ought not to be byproduct the fact that some of its most prominent spokespeople have proved to be corrupt hypocrites.  

Of Easley and Edwards

Right now, in North Carolina (aka "Corruption Central") we're seeing plenty of examples of this kind guilt-by-association politics. With the absurd self-destructions of sometime-progressives, Mike Easley and John Edwards, it seems as if all who have ever held positive feelings about the men or any of the issues they championed are on the defensive.  

To make matters even more confusing, illogical and unfair, sometimes a flawed leader's fall can inflict damage upon a cause that wasn't really even his or hers to begin with. This is especially common when cynical and opportunistic political opponents try to conflate the two.

To witness this kind of cynical opportunism in action, one must look no further than the work of North Carolina's various conservative blogs, radio talking heads, commentators and think tanks of late as they've done their worst to link the political self-destructions of Easley and Edwards to the ideological debate. Scarcely a day goes by when Easley or Edwards (or Jim Black for that matter) isn't derided by one of these ideologues as a "liberal" or "big government" Democrat - as if shady, insider deal-making and marital infidelity and narcissism were somehow a function of where one stands on the political spectrum.

Some of this is to be expected, of course. The two men were the most prominent Democratic officeholders in the state at one time. That they are now disgraced under such ignominious circumstances was sure to inflict at least a little collateral damage on their political party and some of the causes it sometimes champions.  

But, for the most part, this is a ridiculous result for at least two reasons that have been widely ignored of late in the public debate.

"Buy-partisan" corruption

The first and most obvious flaw in the effort to link corruption to progressives is the disputable fact that political sleaze is, as local good government advocate Bob Hall reminded us on the Democracy NC website this week, a "buy-partisan" matter:

"The head of the Republican Party in North Carolina is excitedly claiming the GOP will make corruption in Raleigh a big enough campaign issue to win majority control of the General Assembly. NC GOP Chair Tom Fetzer is fond of saying the "culture of corruption has risen out of a century of one-party dominance in state government." He was in the news again today, chastising Gov. Bev Perdue for not forcing Democratic fundraiser Lanny Wilson off the NC Board of Transportation and NC Turnpike Board as soon as it became known that he used his insider influence to get environment permits for the coastal developments of Gary and Randy Allen.

Fetzer may want to be careful where he points. One of those developments, Cannonsgate, is becoming well known because of the waterfront lot purchased by former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley and because of its central role in the indictment of Ruffin Poole (see Jan. 22 entry below). Now Jack Betts of the McClatchy chain has a column that traces the Cannonsgate mischief back to the days when Republican Gov. Jim Martin was in charge and the original developer of the Cannonsgate property, GOP fundraiser E. Steve Stroud of Raleigh, was using his influence to gain favored treatment from Martin's environment officials. Betts' column names the secretary of Gov. Martin's environment agency, Tommy Rhodes, but he doesn't name one of the department assistant secretaries: Tom Fetzer. Fetzer was later a chief deputy secretary in Gov. Martin's Department of Transportation, which provided so many favors to GOP political patrons that it merited an investigative series by ace reporter Barry Yeoman in the NC Independent called "Highway Robbery." Political corruption is buy-partisan."

In other words, North Carolina conservative activists and political types ought to be careful when they attempt to turn malfeasance by public officials into a partisan or ideological issue. There are plenty of conservative Republican crooks and philanderers out there - both in North Carolina and elsewhere.

The real source of the problem

The truth of the matter, of course, is that the real sources of corruption (and probably even a lot of marital infidelity) are power and greed - power because one usually has to have some in order to have something to "sell" and greed because one has to be willing to puts one's own self-interest ahead of the public good when one does it.

This last point about greed highlights another interesting fact. If there is a popular modern ideology that is more closely connected to (and used to self-justify) greedy behavior by politicians, it is the "me-first," "every person for him or herself" ideology of modern, market fundamentalist capitalism.

This is not to say that more conservative politicians are corrupt. Rather, it is to point out the obvious fact that we live in a time in which the conservative, hyper-competitive, market fundamentalist, "greed is good" ideology is ascendant in our culture. Politicians are people too. They watch television. They see the way modern America celebrates the individual entrepreneurs and giants of industry who "make something of themselves." Not surprisingly, many of them identify with that approach to life and view their public service as, at least in part, connected to their personal rise up the ladder.    

Unfortunately, the conservative, "greed is good" ideology has come to so permeate our culture that it's almost impossible for any officeholder who's not already extremely wealthy - whatever his or her party - to escape its tug. These people get elected to office and see the money and other perks being thrown around by corporations and other moneyed interests and find it impossible to resist. Pretty soon they're looking in the mirror each morning and telling themselves that their greedy behavior is just part of "how things work in America."  

Sadly, they may be right. But it hasn't always been this way. No matter what the conservative propaganda machine says, there have been periods in our country in which the common good was widely elevated over the personal acquisition of wealth and in which, as a result, fewer politicians fell prey to temptation.

Let's hope that in addition to boosting new and tougher state ethics laws, the Easley and Edwards episodes can also be used as a part of a general effort to push back against the influence of the "greed is good" ideology in our culture.

Perhaps more people will come to see that while conservatives may be leading the charge in attacking the misdeeds of Easley and Edwards, in many ways they're just reaping what they themselves have helped sow.      

Are you smarter than (or at least as smart as) a fifth grader? If so, you probably know the difference between "weather" and "climate." In case, however, you find yourself having a senior moment and wouldn't mind a little refresher, here's a brief one courtesy of good ol' Webster's New World College Dictionary:

weather (weth' er)  n. 1 the general condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place, with regard to the temperature, moisture, cloudiness, etc.

climate (kli' met) n. 1 the prevailing or average weather conditions of a place, as determined by the temperature and meteorological changes over a period of years.

Oh, and one more:

global (glo' bel)  adj. 1 round like a ball; globe-shaped 2 of, related to, or including the whole earth; worldwide.

Why the science refresher course? Well, in addition to serving as a useful primer for any readers who might be contemplating a tryout for the popular TV game show hosted by comedian Jeff Foxworthy, a review of these definitions might just provide a little assistance to some state lawmakers who recently made the mistake of attempting to speak out on an important subject without first checking their old elementary school text books.

The lawmakers in question are State Senator Andrew Brock of Mocksville and his House colleague, Representative John Blust of Greensboro, and the subject is global climate change. Brock, among other things, runs the borderline extremist website, "Wake Up America" and is the Senate's up and coming prince of malapropisms. Blust is a conservative lawyer and loyal water carrier for the market fundamentalist cause who, to his credit, retains a sense of humor and a willingness to try and engage in serious debate on occasion.

This past week, in an apparent (but failed) attempt at humor and pseudoscience, the two men sought to use the recent cold snap that has affected parts of the U.S. as grounds to urge Senate President Pro Tem Basnight and House Speaker Hackney to disband a House-Senate study group known as the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. 

Open mouth, insert foot

Here is Brock's original email:

"From: Sen. Andrew C. Brock
Sent: Wed 1/6/2010 2:29 PM
To: @All Exchange Users
Subject: Dismissal of commission

Speaker Joe Hackney and President Pro Tem Marc Basnight,

Hope you are staying warm as we are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record. I will add with new discoveries that information used in Global warming studies were altered for false representation of climate data.

At this time in our state's economy it is imperative that we be wise stewards of the Taxpayers' money.  With that being said, I call for the immediate dismissal of the Global Warming Commission.  It has not produced any reports or information during its four years of existence, only costing taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money.

Thank you,

Andrew"

To which, Blust quickly added:

"From: Rep. John M. Blust
Sent: Wed 06-Jan-10 4:23 PM
To: Sen. Andrew C. Brock; @All Exchange Users
Subject: RE: Dismissal of commission
 
Can the global warming commission provide any advise (sic) for staying warm and for how I can pay for my humongous heating bill?"

And finally, Brock again:

"Also can a commission that was passed into Legislation as Global Warming Commission legally change its name to Climate Change Commission? 

For NC, please cancel the meeting schedule next week before the taxpayers have to pay all these people (many of which do not take mass transit) to travel to Raleigh.

Senator Andrew C. Brock"

Setting the record straight

First of all, it's not clear what Brock is talking about when it comes to his beef about the name of the Commission.  The legislation that created it in 2005 dubbed it the "Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change" and that's what it appears to be called today.   

Regardless of such details, however, the Brock/Blust emails will undoubtedly be dismissed by Senator Basnight and Speaker Hackney as the drivel and lame attempts at humor that they are. Indeed, if that were all there was to this story, they wouldn't even deserve any further attention. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that these emails are symptomatic of a bigger and more dangerous problem - namely, that many people (some in positions of power) actually think this way!

From Fox News to the market fundamentalist think tanks, the notion that that short-term incidents of cold weather somehow disprove the phenomenon of global warming and climate change continues to rear its ugly head. It's a brand of "logic" that's as scary as it is shallow.

Remember, the point of Brock's and Blust's emails is that North Carolina should halt its study of the issue. This is like calling for an end to public studies of child abuse because the number of cases in one jurisdiction dropped for a few weeks.

Of course in fairness, unlike child abuse, Brock and Blust see the recent cold weather as proof that climate change and global warming aren't even taking place.

So, one more time, for the lawmakers' benefit (and anyone else whose attention may have wandered), here's a quick and useful refresher from the website "UN Dispatch":

"Weather is the conditions in the atmosphere in a certain place during a certain time. Weather is always changing.

Climate is what the weather is generally like over long periods of time, such as years or decades in a particular area. A place that has little rainfall has a dry climate, and a place that has high temperatures has a hot climate.

Climate, obviously, is what the scientific community is worried about…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988, and, ever since then, they've published periodic reports that represent the consensus view of thousands of climate scientists. These are some of the most peer-reviewed papers in scientific history. Everyone in their right mind believes these reports. In fact, they receive a lot of flak for being too conservative, as they tend to be quite cautious in their findings and predictions (as scientists are wont to be).  

The most recent IPCC report came to these conclusions:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades…. In short, the last IPCC report signals that the scientific debate is over and has been for quite a while. We have changed our planet, and that change will have dire consequences. 

…We are already beginning to see the consequences of a lack of action — rising sea levels, droughts, increased storm activity. The list goes on.  We can't yet say with 100 percent certainty that these are a direct result of increased global temperatures, but we do know for sure that we'll be seeing more of the same in the future if we don't turn the corner. People will die because of something that these people are using as a yuk-yuk one liner. And, if you don't care about that, it will devastate the world economy, as the Stern Review makes plain."

In other words…

There are at least three facts worth taking away from the discussion of this matter:

1)    Despite overall planetary warming, it will still get cold in winter.

2)    The reality of human-caused global climate change and the need to study it and do something about it ought to be clear to anyone as smart as a fifth grader.

3)    Maybe it's time to send some people in positions of authority back to school.   

Forty-nine years ago this month - the time in which most Americans gorge themselves on the fruits of the nation's incredible agricultural bounty - legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow hosted one of the most acclaimed documentaries in the history of television. The program was entitled "Harvest of Shame" and it explored the largely hidden scandal of American agriculture: the treatment of the nation's farmworkers.

Here's Murrow opening statement from that program as the camera panned a group or workers being recruited for "picking" work:

"This scene is not taking place in the Congo. It has nothing to do with Johannesburg or Cape Town. It is not Nyasaland or Nigeria. This is Florida. These are citizens of the United States, 1960. This is a shape-up for migrant workers. The hawkers are chanting the going piece rate at the various fields. This is the way the humans who harvest the food for the best-fed people in the world get hired. One farmer looked at this and said, ‘We used to own our slaves; now we just rent them.'"

The program went on to document the abysmal conditions in which vast numbers of farmworkers subsisted. At the time, it was thought by many that the program would have a galvanizing effect on the nation - that most Americans would be shocked by what they saw and demand policy changes that would, at least over time, put an end to the scandal. Sadly, despite the passage of nearly a half-century, much remains the same.

Murrow's closing statement of the documentary seemed to presage the lack of action that has followed:

"The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck."

The scandal continues

Over the last half-century, progress for farmworkers has been spotty, at best. Most still struggle for meager wages and subsist in living conditions that would appall average, middle class Americans. A 2008 congressional hearing explored the ongoing existence of virtual slavery in the tomato fields of south Florida. Child labor remains a huge problem.

What little progress that has occurred is mostly attributable to the tireless work of unions/advocacy groups like the United Farm Workers and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee and the complementary efforts of a scattered collection of legal aid lawyers, faith groups and other activists. These groups and individuals struggle to keep the spirit of "Harvest of Shame" alive in an era in which economic uncertainty and soaring income inequality have combined to leave most Americans in an uncharitable state of mind.

Add to this reality the fact that American agribusiness remains enormously powerful, well-connected and one of the most uncompromising and reactionary political forces in the nation and it's a wonder that farmworker advocates haven't found themselves having to defend against efforts to repeal the 13^th Amendment.

The "guestworker" program

Of all the policy debates related to America's treatment of farmworkers (pay, pesticides, toilets, the "short-handled hoe," housing, healthcare, education) none has drawn more attention in recent decades than that of foreign workers. In general, agribusiness interests consistently seek to assure that the barriers to hiring foreign workers (often referred to as "guestworkers") will be as low as possible.

This makes obvious economic sense for growers. Foreign workers are willing to work for a pittance and constitute an easily controllable workforce. Complaints about pay or working conditions are usually few and far between when workers know they can be fired and deported at the drop of a hat.

Farmworker advocates, in contrast, argue that there would be much less need for importing foreign workers in the first place if agribusiness were simply required to provide American workers with decent pay and treatment for such grueling and dangerous work.     

The battle over this issue is often joined in the debate over rules concerning what is known as the "H-2A visa" program. As a general matter, Congress has required the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that there are not enough domestic workers to do the available work - even at a pay rate slightly above minimum wage (a rate known as the "adverse effect wage rate") - before agribusiness will get the okay to ship in H-2A workers from Mexico or other countries. Not surprisingly, agribusiness has fought hard to keep the wage rate very low.

In recent years, the bar has moved back and forth a few times. During the waning days of the Bush administration, the Department of Labor did its best to slash the requirements on agricultural employers. As a practical matter, these changes lowered the wages for U.S. workers (and, thereby, foreign H-2A workers) substantially - by as much as $2 per hour. The New York Times called this action "a cheap shot at workers."

Earlier this year, the Obama Department of Labor began to take action to reverse the Bush administration's wage-slashing rule changes and to return standards to where they had been for years before - a level that was still absurdly inadequate, but that at least raised the standard of living of both foreign and domestic workers.

N.C. congressional delegation: doing the bidding of agribusiness

Earlier this week, in a discouraging bow of subservience to the agribusiness lobby, almost the entire North Carolina congressional delegation (progressives and conservatives alike - with the sole exception of Congressman David Price) penned a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis questioning her efforts to restore worker standards to where they had been prior to the Bush administration's big cuts. (North Carolina imports more H-2A workers than any other state in the country).

Congressman Bob Etheridge, an apparent leader of the effort, even claimed that the Department of Labor standards would result in higher grocery bills for consumers and somehow harm workers!

As the Department's detailed and lengthy explanation of its proposed changes makes clear, however, such arguments are make no sense at all. First of all, wages for workers have fallen dramatically under the Bush administration rules and are currently almost 19% below where they will be under the new rules (and would have been had the Bush rules never been adopted - see page 45927).  When this fact is combined with all of the other worker burdens that the new rules would repeal (the Bush rules, for instance, made guestworkers pay more of their own travel expenses) it becomes clear that the delegation is either disingenuous in its professed concern for workers or badly misinformed. 

As for the claims about grocery bills rising under the return to the old regimen, this might be marginally persuasive if there were any evidence that agribusiness passed on the Bush-imposed wage cuts to consumers in the form of lower grocery bills. Anyone noticed their grocery bills going down lately? Even if this were true, though, is that what Americans really want - to force our most vulnerable workers to accept below-poverty-level wages so that we can save a few cents at the check-out line?

Going forward

In 2008, the experts at a national advocacy group known as Farmworker Justice published a report entitled "Litany of Abuses: More - not fewer - labor protections needed in the H-2A guestworker program."  It ought to be required reading for all members of the North Carolina congressional delegation and their staffs (except perhaps for David Price).

And after that, perhaps they could check out an old copy of "Harvest of Shame." Better late than never.

Here's a question to ponder the next time you buckle yourself into a seat in a commercial airliner: which approach would you rather see the United States take toward air carrier safety - the free market fundamentalist approach (in which airline safety would be left up exclusively to airlines responding to "consumer demand") or the regulatory approach in which a public watchdog is charged with enforcing a basic set of safety standards? How about when it comes to restaurant inspections? Hospital licensing? Stock exchanges?

That you, like any sane person, answered "regulatory approach" to these questions does not, of course, make you a "socialist." What it makes you is an average American with a measure of common sense. By acknowledging the need for government regulation of the market in order to protect consumers, you are not arguing for its abolition. Rather, you are arguing for a structure that makes it work better and, in many important ways (e.g. with fewer deaths) more efficiently.

Despite having popularized the term "invisible hand," Adam Smith was in fact an adherent to the regulatory approach.

Here's modern economist Joseph Stiglitz on Smith:

"Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.

Whenever there are "externalities"-where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated-markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have been long understood-environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, will produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, will also produce too little basic research. (Remember, the government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and most of the advances in bio-tech.)"

Financial transactions

Few areas of the economy lend themselves more naturally to consumer protection regulation than financial transactions. If ever there was a field in which one side of most transactions (and sometimes both) have imperfect information, this is it. One need look no further than the recent economic meltdown, which was in large measure, precipitated by the widespread deregulation of home mortgage financing and the spread of ridiculously complex and poorly understood (much less regulated) investments like "mortgage-based securities," "derivatives" and "credit default swaps," to see what happens when the Wild, Wild West meets Wall Street.

This reality is plainly apparent to any American consumer who thinks for even a minute about any number of their basic daily transactions. Consider, for instance, that credit or debit card that currently resides in your purse or pocket. Who among us is truly conversant with all of the terms of the contract that accompanies it? How many average consumers are actually up to speed on how the interest rates and late fees will be calculated and under what terms they can be amended? What about the mandatory arbitration clauses?

Now, if you're lucky enough to own (or be buying) a home, think about all of the terms that one agrees to and what's at-stake for one's economic future. Is this really a matter in which an average consumer can really approach, say Bank of America, on equal terms?

The fact of the matter, of course, is that Americans have long understood and acknowledged that effective government regulation is essential when it comes to consumer financial transactions. This is especially true when it comes to transactions that target people of lower income who, by and large, tend to be less economically sophisticated and, often, even functionally illiterate. The classic recent example of this kind of regulation in North Carolina was the General Assembly's wise decision to ban the making of so-called "payday loans" - an almost invariably predatory product that harmed a huge percentage of the borrowers who made the mistake of getting involved with it.

Restoring a balance

One of the best things that's occurred in recent months in Washington has been the slow but steady movement to revive a federal commitment to strong consumer protection laws in the world of finance. During the Bush years (and to a lesser extent the Clinton years as well), such laws were regularly ignored and weakened. President Obama, in contrast, is taking important steps to restore some semblance of balance.

This past week, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper weighed in to support one of the most promising of the Obama proposals - the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Currently, authority to regulate the dizzying array of consumer financial transactions that occurs in the American economy is spread across a wide variety of agencies. In many instances, lenders have so much leeway that they can actually choose the federal regulator that oversees them. Many experts lay the blame for a good share of our recent economic troubles on this scattering of authority.

Under the Administration's proposal, the new agency would have the power to rein in the current free-for-all and establish some measure of uniformity and consistency when it comes to governing mortgages, real estate, credit cards, debit cards, consumer loans, payday loans, credit reporting agencies, debt collection, stored-value cards, investment advisory and financial advisory services, and selected other businesses. Moreover, as is noted in this Los Angeles Times article,

"The agency would write the user-safety rules for virtually all consumer financial products and would have the legal firepower to levy huge fines — tens of thousands of dollars a day per violation in some cases — and prosecute lenders, brokers and others who break the rules."

According to Cooper, who has established a national reputation for helping to make North Carolina both pro-consumer and pro-business, such a change would be an extremely welcome development. He notes that given the exclusive federal jurisdiction over many of these issues, there's little his staff can do for most of the consumers who complain to his office in this area. This has been particularly frustrating in recent years (during which consumer complaints to his office have tripled).

If such an office is established (and rest assured, market fundamentalists will fight it tooth and nail), it will have plenty to do. In addition to consolidating and streamlining oversight of a daunting variety of traditional products, it will also need to act fast to get a handle on a number of new and potentially abusive products that lenders have been rolling out in recent years.

Tops on this list will be the explosion in hidden bank fees for overdrafts (most typically applied to debit cards). As was detailed last week in a powerful report from the Center for Responsible Lending, banks and credit unions collected nearly $24 billion in overdraft fees in 2008 - 35% more than they collected just two years previously. A huge proportion of these fees were collected from consumers automatically and with little, if anything, in the way of notice.

Setting the record straight

In the market fundamentalist view of the world, the economic "invisible hand" is the cure-all for just about every problem. If each individual pursues his or her own self-interest and government stays out of the way, goes the logic, the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Like a lot of fundamentalists, however, the free "marketeers" have misread their original texts and ignored the reality before their eyes.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this is that in their absolutist zeal, they have helped grievously wound the very institution they profess to cherish most. As in the era following the Great Depression, it appears it will be up to pro-regulation progressives, to restore the health of the market economy.   

Reactions to this week's announced closure of Dell Computer's incentive-inspired, Winston-Salem manufacturing facility are already coming fast and furious. Incentive opponents have been swift to display the "we told you so" banner and with some justification. In today's light speed world of commerce, the idea that any state would realistically expect to create decades' worth of jobs in one company - especially one that didn't even exist that many years ago - always seemed fanciful. Anti-incentive crusaders like the conservative Institute for Constitutional Law can thus be forgiven if they're crowing a little in the aftermath of Dell's downsizing.

Incentive supporters, however, are not about to wave the white flag. As many have already noted, Dell will not receive all the money that state and local governments committed as part of the deal and will even have to pay some back. For incentive stalwarts like the state Department of Commerce and their pro-business supporters in the General Assembly, these facts will be touted as validation of their "nothing ventured-nothing gained" approach to business recruitment and development. When they look at the gains that did occur in Forsyth County (at least a few years of decently paid employment for a not insubstantial group of people and some new infrastructure) these people will conclude that North Carolina has no choice but to keep taking part in the great incentives "buffalo hunt."

And much as the two sides will differ over the meaning and significance of the Dell decision, it's a safe bet that they'll continue to take opposing positions on the broader question of government's role in the field of economic development.

Hard line incentive opponents on the anti-government right seem certain to adhere to their longstanding position that government's only task when it comes to growing business is to "stay the heck out of the way."  From this perspective, about all that public institutions should do to help the economy is to cut taxes and regulations to the absolute minimum and leave things up to the "invisible hand."

In contrast, business-friendly government officials and less-ideologically pure conservatives will continue to defend the idea that state and local governments "have no choice" but to play the incentives game. These forces will continue to defend direct subsidies and incentive "deals" as a pragmatic acknowledgement of "the way the world works" and deride the absolutists on the right as hopelessly naïve and unrealistic.

A better way?

What both sides fail to understand or acknowledge, however, is that (as is so often the case in public policy) neither hard line position has a monopoly on the truth. In fact, there is a third and better approach to economic development that embraces the best of both sides' arguments and that could, if implemented, spare North Carolina from future Dell disasters while still permitting public officials to play a very active, engaged and high impact role in the world of economic development, job creation and business preservation.

That solution lies in a renewed commitment to what many experts refer to as "high road economic development." In this approach, North Carolina would avoid a "race to the bottom" predicated on giving giant out-of-state corporations virtual blank checks, but would also reject the simplistic and obsolete "cut and deregulate" approach in which public institutions and officials have no role at all to play in advancing the private economy.

In the high road approach, North Carolina would follow the lead of some of the more prosperous and progressive American states and First World economies in which it is acknowledged that the real challenge is not merely to create or save any job at all, but to discover and implement creative ways to combine increased competitiveness with better jobs and a higher quality of life.          

As a practical matter this has two general implications for state policy:

1)    North Carolina should dramatically overhaul the way it handles business incentives. As one of the nation's best thinkers on the subject, Durham-based Bill Schweke of the think tank CFED has explained, this would mean asking several tough questions about state business subsidy policies, including:

• Does the incentive strategy encourage private investment in areas that are either chronically disadvantaged, or being hit hard by economic restructuring, layoffs, and dislocation?
• Does it improve the reemployment prospects of displaced workers?
• Does the state's incentive "toolkit" help state businesses and sectors compete successfully on the basis of innovation, productivity, timeliness, flexibility, and quality in the new economy?
• Do development strategies help to ensure that the state doesn't overbid?

On most of these questions, Schweke gives the state's current approach a below-average grade. Much of this, it seems, is the result of the state's stubborn adherence to the traditional "good ol' boy" approach to incentives. With this approach, state officials do their best to act like business big shots by wining and dining prospects in search of "the big deal." Usually this means wooing some big, out-of-state multinational with secret negotiations that resemble the hiring of a high profile college sports coach. The only role for most other state and local officials (and the public at-large) is to stand by and hope for the best. As Dell proved, this is a high-risk model.

2)    North Carolina must "do" economic development in a much more holistic fashion. This means that in addition to changing its approach to incentives, the state must have a lot more than incentives (reformed or otherwise) in its toolkit. Ultimately, no business recruitment wizardry - however well-conceived and executed - can take the place of an economic development strategy that emphasizes long-term investments in human and physical infrastructure.

For North Carolina to develop a truly robust and sustainable new century economy that will last, it simply must do more than curry favor with giant corporations (however progressive or well-intentioned). Rather, it must invest huge new resources in building the kind of state that can produce and retain the Dells and Googles (and SAS's) of the future.

The path to real prosperity lies not with lassoing buffalo from elsewhere but with producing a critical mass of smart, modern, homegrown inventors, entrepreneurs and workers and in building a state in which they'll want to live and stay. This means new and significant investments in K-12 and higher education, public transportation, sustainable energy solutions, environmental protection and all of the cultural amenities that make a community worth inhabiting.

In short, to "do" economic development in a truly effective and lasting way, it must be dramatically transformed and elevated - from a niche activity conducted by a small cadre of "recruiters" into a central, overriding function of state government. Good ol'boy deal-making must be replaced with serious, wonkish, long-term policy thinking that produces a host of societal improvements.    

Setting the record straight

In the days ahead, as the aftermath of the Dell decision continues to shake out, North Carolina policymakers will hear much about the need for change in the state's approach to economic development. As they consider this discussion, let's hope they avoid the temptation to be constrained to a narrow debate between the usual suspects over incentives. Yes, incentives reform is important, but it is ultimately only small part of what is needed. The true lesson of the Dell deal is not that we need less or more of the same; it's that we need a lot more of something very different.   

Not that it ever went very far away, but the issue of ethics in state government is back in the news these days. The main hubbub this week surrounded the disclosure that officials of the state Division of Motor Vehicles and Division of Air Quality accepted all sorts of goodies from the corporate behemoth Verizon Business. That would be the same Verizon Business that received a no-bid state contract worth more than $50 million.

The DMA/DAQ disclosures prompted swift action by Governor Perdue, who issued an executive order on Thursday expanding the coverage of the general statutory ban on gifts from contractors to state employees in certain decision-making roles. Under Perdue's order, the gift ban now applies to all state employees under her direct supervision (some employees of other Council of State officials do not report to the Governor).

The latest news comes on the heels of word earlier this week that the State Board of Elections would hold investigatory hearings into the much reported controversy surrounding former Governor Mike Easley and his acceptance of free travel and other perks from private individuals during his tenure in office.

An ambiguous ban

In addition to provoking a new round of public frustration and outrage, both of these recent developments served to highlight a major problem with North Carolina law. Despite the laudable effort that occurred in 2006 to tighten state ethics rules in the aftermath of the Jim Black scandal, the fact remains that the job is still only half-complete - especially when it comes to a gift ban. Here's why:

When Governor Perdue issued her executive order this week, what she actually did was to extend the applicability of a state law that regulates "gifts and favors" provided by "contractors for public works." At first blush, it would appear that the ban is airtight. The opening paragraphs of the relevant section (G.S. 133-32) state plainly that "it shall be unlawful" for any of a number of specified contractors to "make gifts or to give favors" to any of a number of specified state officers or employees. So far, so good.

The problems and ambiguities arise when one reads a little further in the law down to Section (d) of G.S. 133-32. There one finds the following language:

"This section is not intended to prevent a gift a public servant would be permitted to accept under G.S. 138A‑32, or the gift and receipt of honorariums for participating in meetings, advertising items or souvenirs of nominal value, or meals furnished at banquets."

The reference to 138A-32 is critical because it is a link to the State Government Ethics Act that was the subject of the 2006 law changes. That section of the law contains another long list of exceptions to the ban on gifts from lobbyists to specified public officials.

Some of these exceptions are genuinely trivial and make sense. It's okay, for instance, to give public officials "informational materials" relevant to their duty like a fact sheet or a brochure. It's also probably harmless that officials are allowed to receive "a plaque or similar nonmonetary memento recognizing individual services in a field or specialty or to a charitable cause."

Many of the rest of the exceptions, however, raise real red flags and run the risk of swallowing up a lot of the gift ban rule.

For instance, there are exceptions for:

• "Reasonable actual expenditures…for food, beverages, registration, travel, lodging, other incidental items of nominal value, and entertainment" connected with various specified meetings;
• "…food and beverages, transportation, lodging, entertainment or related expenses associated with the public business of industry recruitment, promotion of international trade, or the promotion of travel and tourism…";
• "Gifts given or received as part of a business, civic, religious, fraternal, personal, or commercial relationship…" provided certain criteria are met; and
• Food and beverages "for immediate consumption" at a number of specified types of events.

In short, though carefully drawn and a lot better than the old law that had allowed pretty much any kinds of gifts to lawmakers and other officials so long as it was about developing "good will" and not (wink, wink) about lobbying for or against a particular bill or proposal, the current gift ban remains chock full of significant loopholes.

Under current law, for instance, Verizon Business is free to bestow trips, hotel stays, sumptuous meals, and tickets to sporting events and concerts on a variety of public officials so long as it is for purposes of attending a number of specified meetings related to the officials' duties.

Why should this be so?

The explanation often provided by defenders of such a giant loophole is that it should be state policy to encourage lawmakers and other officials to attend and present at official gatherings like the National Conference of State Legislatures. After all, goes the argument, it's good for the state if lawmakers have an opportunity to learn from their peers in other states and to represent North Carolina on various national stages.

To which reform proponents would likely respond: "True enough, we want our officials to travel and learn and represent the state, but why should that be paid for by Verizon Business (or Google or Blue Cross Blue Shield or any other private entity)? If attendance at such events is truly in the best interest of the state, why shouldn't the state pay for it?"

Crafting better laws

While Governor Perdue is to be commended for bringing a lot more people under the general gift ban rules, it's clear that the "ban" itself needs a good deal more work. If North Carolina is serious about making absolutely clear that its employees and elected officials have absolutely no conflicts of interest (or even the appearance of one) it simply will not do to continue to allow wealthy private interests to bestow gifts upon them that they would never provide to ordinary citizens.

Ironically, one important overarching solution for many of these problems (especially for lawmakers) would probably involve the appropriation of more public funds to significantly boost compensation and reimbursement. Such a change would send a message that North Carolinians would rather pay their officials more and cover more of their expenses than let them go begging (or be beholden to) private corporations.      

In addition, these are not the only ethics law changes that remain on the state's "to do" list. As has been explained repeatedly by the good folks at the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, similar additional tightening is required of the statutes that govern:

• the so-called "revolving door" in which individuals flit between public jobs and high-paid private employment in the same field,
• the disclosure requirements placed on appointees to major boards and commissions - right now we have scant information about the political contributions that may have led to their appointment; and
• so-called "pay to play" rules that would bar many political contributions by state contractors.

Setting the record straight

In short, despite important progress, North Carolina's journey toward ethical excellence in state government remains a long way from complete. Governor Perdue's actions this week represent a good interim step, but only that. In 2010, she and the General Assembly should finish the job.       

It's probably human nature to concoct fanciful conspiracy theories. Whatever one's political persuasion, there's something almost irresistible about the idea that some powerful entity somewhere is engaged in a diabolical plot to undermine one's interests. Sometimes conspiracy theorists are motivated by sincere belief and/or delusion. Other times it's simply a matter of political opportunists building a mountain out of a molehill. Often both phenomena are involved.

Whichever the case, it's extremely rare that conspiracy theories contribute anything useful to the public discourse. Whether it's the crazy allegation that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had something to do with the 9/11 attacks or the half-dozen nutty notions advanced of late by some health care reform opponents ("death panels," plots to impose "socialism" on the U.S., etc…), the main impact of most conspiracy theories is to misinform and poison the public discussion. When allowed to fester and carried to extremes - as with the anti-Semitism that afflicts so many cultures past and present - conspiracy theories can lead to disastrous results.

One obvious explanation for the appeal of conspiracy theories is that they're a lot more appealing than the most common alternative explanation for flawed human behavior - sloth and incompetence. This is especially true for groups and individuals who find themselves out of power. The idea that one's opponents on "the inside" are cooking up all sorts of brazen schemes can actually be a kind of comfort to the "out crowd" because it reinforces the illegitimacy of their exile. We've all experienced this brand of reasoning: "See, it's not our fault that we're not in power, it's the fact that those other guys are a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels."

The latest ACORN controversy

As we've noted previously in this space, the community service and organizing group known as ACORN is a frequent and easy target for conspiracy theorists. The group has always attracted the wrath of conservatives because of its record of success at serving, energizing and empowering poor people and people of color.

The idea that someone might successfully engage masses of people who tend to be both not particularly happy with their lot in life and willing to speak loudly (many of them black and brown) is always guaranteed to send a shudder down the backs of the conservatives. Now add to the mix the fact that conservatives have somewhat less power than usual, that President Obama cut his professional teeth doing the some of the same kind of organizing work that ACORN specializes in and that ACORN has received federal dollars at times to provide community services and you've got a big fat political softball for the right to swing at. Now add a dash of genuine malfeasance by a few boneheaded ACORN employees (as happened recently when a couple of workers were apparently duped into giving unlawful advice by a pair of scammers with a camera) and, BOOM! The next thing you know you've got a feeding frenzy for right-wing pundits and out-of-power conservative politicians screaming about a vast and monstrous conspiracy.

Here's one of the far right's most prominent media screamers, Glenn Beck:

"Everybody has this story wrong. While it obviously involves ACORN, it's not about, ACORN…. We're not talking necessarily about Marxism, but we're now expected to believe and accept that the way to help people in the inner cities and to set them on a path of growth and education is to support with tax dollars an organization that has demonstrated its corruption over and over again.

Currently arrests have been made in 14 states - many of them led by state Democrats - for fraud, voter registration fraud, corruption, and the tapes that we've shown you that involve tax fraud, the selling of illegal immigrants into the sex trade, and just good old fashioned prostitution.

Now, the government will make speeches and throw you a bone about cutting off funding or access here and there, but until Republicans and Democrats rise together and demand a full, independent, rigorous investigation that doesn't concentrate just on the local level, but goes all the way to the top - to the power brokers at the highest levels of ACORN and in our own halls of Congress and administration - it will all be a sham."

And here's the somewhat less insane, but even more opportunistic House Minority Leader, John Boehner:

"It is evident that ACORN is incapable of using federal funds in a manner that is consistent with the law. Simply put, ACORN should not receive another penny of American taxpayers' money."

Setting the record straight

All of this conspiracy-mongering around ACORN is of course simply ludicrous. Has ACORN hired some bad apples over the years? Certainly. Have a few ACORN employees made stupid mistakes and violated the law at times? No doubt. It's difficult to imagine any organization that employs thousands of people doing hard work at the margins of society over a period of decades that wouldn't have.

But as North Carolina ACORN leaders Pat McCoy and Melvin Whitley noted in a letter to Raleigh's News & Observer recently, the mountain of conservative attacks is so out of proportion to the actual molehill of improper activity (activity that ACORN has not tried to hide from) as to be laughable:

"Though still waiting to view the complete tapes for the full story of what happened in those offices, we do not defend in any way what is shown, or shift blame elsewhere. ACORN condemns the actions of these employees, who now have been appropriately fired for their conduct.

Significantly, no tax, loan or other forms were completed on this couple's behalf. In addition, ACORN has taken immediate steps to review our service programs to ensure appropriate service in the future. These steps include suspending intake of all new clients pending review of our intake, training and supervision systems. We will also retain an independent auditor to lead this review and make recommendations for improvement.

There will likely be external inquiries into our work, as well. We support all steps that will restore full confidence in our ability to go forward with the effectiveness and integrity that has characterized 99.5 percent of ACORN's work for almost 40 years."

Salon.com contributor Joe Conason put it even more succinctly in an essay this week:

"To claim that the stupid behavior of a half-dozen employees should discredit a national group with offices in more than 75 cities staffed by many thousands of employees and volunteers is like saying that Mark Sanford or John Ensign have discredited every Republican governor or senator. Indeed, the indignation of the congressional Republicans screaming about ACORN and the phony streetwalker is diluted by the presence of at least two confirmed prostitution clients — Rep. Ken Calvert and Sen. David Vitter — in their midst. Neither of those right-wing johns has been even mildly chastised by their moralistic peers. Nobody is cutting off their federal funding."

Indeed, though Conason's idea of cutting off federal funding to prostitute patrons in Congress is made mostly in jest, it highlights another startling hypocrisy amongst ACORN conspiracy crazies that was noted this week by Chris Fitzsimon on The Progressive Pulse - namely that if we're really serious about cutting off federal funds to entities who've violated the law, there's a very long list of corporate and institutional bad actors (many with far more egregious violations) that ought to be well-ahead of ACORN in the line for such treatment.

But, of course, such an approach wouldn't fit into the midnight fantasies of the current crop of out-of-power pundits and politicians. For these folks, it's more comforting and useful to make hay out of the stupid mistakes of some small-time community organizers than to worry too much about Lockheed-Martin, Boeing or Humana Corporation.

It's so crazy and inconsistent that it's almost enough to make you think there's some kind of conspiracy afoot.