Journalism and Government Corruption

                           

By Reginald Johnson

                       BRIDGEPORT ---- It was good to see the Connecticut Post recently published a long, front-page story detailing the many crimes of former mayor Joseph P. Ganim during his time running this city in the 1990s, before law enforcement officials finally nailed him and sent him off to prison.

     Ganim --- who was released from jail in 2010 and is now campaigning to be mayor again ---  ran a pay-to-play scheme in City Hall, steering contracts to favored developers, and taking bribes and kickbacks in the process.

  The corruption cost the city dearly, with millions of dollars in public money being either stolen or wasted and opportunities for development and job growth squandered.

 The Ganim years were a big setback for Bridgeport, a one-time industrial powerhouse which has been struggling to remake itself following the exodus of factories like GE, Remington and Westinghouse.

   The Post laid it all out clearly in the October 11^th story, when the corruption began,  who the players were, the amounts of money involved, and what happened to them.

  The article, entitled “Legacy of Greed” was a nice piece, authored by veteran reporter Bill Cummings.

   But what the Post didn’t focus on, and is not likely to, is how the corruption went on for many years unnoticed and unchecked.

  Municipal corruption can take place anywhere, it’s not just limited to Bridgeport.  In New England alone, we’ve seen city corruption cases in Danbury, Waterbury and Providence, R.I. in the past several decades.

   But corruption is more likely to get started and flourish where those institutions that are supposed to be ‘minding the store’ are not doing their job. In Bridgeport, as in most cities, the watchdog role falls on the local legislative body, or city council, and on the local newspaper.

Bridgeport City Hall. Voters in Connecticut's largest city will go to the polls Nov. 3 to determine who will be their next mayor.

    The local council and newspaper are the ones that on a steady basis are in a position to monitor what’s going in city hall, how money is being spent, who’s spending it, whether there’s any irregularities, etc.  A local states attorney or police department may occasionally get involved in municipal corruption investigations, but for the most part, they’ve got their hands full handling property crime, street crime and acts of violence.

   In Bridgeport, both the city council and the Post failed to adequately monitor what was going on in the Ganim administration with respect to contracts and financial expenditures.

    Both institutions, you could say, were asleep at the switch when Ganim and his henchmen were playing their games.

   While some members of the council during the Ganim years tried to raise questions about issues related to multi-million dollar contract proposals that came before them, many of them did not. As a result, things like the sewage treatment contracts for the PSG firm pushed by Ganim got approved in the end.

  Federal officials later investigated those contracts, and found that Ganim had been given kickbacks and bribes as part of the deals.

  But the Post --- and this was the only print media in town --- did even less than the council in watching city government. This writer, who was employed as an editor by the Post during the 1990s, had a pretty good view of what was going on in the newsroom in terms of Bridgeport news coverage.

   To put it simply, there wasn’t much of it. During the mid and late 1990s, there literally were only 1-2 reporters actively covering City Hall. This was in a city of 135,000 people, with operating budgets of $100 to $200 million.

   Basically, city reporters hit the highlights, and that was it. Major announcements, key council actions and commission meetings were covered, but not much else. There wasn’t time to do anything in-depth, because the limited resources wouldn’t allow it.

  So a lot of unanswered questions or subjects that deserved to get a second look, didn’t get it.

   A little background here is in order. There hadn’t always been a shortage of reporters at the Post. In 1989, under the old Post Publishing Company, there were about 15-20 reporters covering the city, working for either the Post or the Telegram, which was the morning paper. But that same year, the family that owned the Post decided to sell out to media giant Thomson Corporation of Canada, reportedly for about $240 million.

   Thomson immediately dispatched a lawyer/hatchet man to the Post to begin downsizing. First there were buyouts, the Telegram was shut down and staff was cut by one-third. Staff numbers were further reduced through attrition --- as people left for other jobs, they weren’t replaced.

  City staffing was weakened again when the new management  --- believing that Bridgeport no longer provided a lucrative circulation or advertising base --- moved reporters into more suburban and regional coverage,

  It wasn’t for lack of money that the Post was short on staffing. When I was there, we were told at an annual meeting in the late ‘90s  that the paper was doing well and had made over $2 million in net profit the previous year. Management had the money to hire more; they just didn’t want to.

  The company’s penny-pinching also meant that top editors didn’t want to encourage time-consuming investigative projects. 

 I think some people still on the city staff and others sensed that something was amiss with the Ganim administration, and wanted to investigate certain areas, but didn't get much backing. It seemed that editors at the time felt there just wasn't the time or the personnel to do city investigations, and Bridgeport was longer the focus.

 So things that should have been gotten dug into, like the PSG contract, the delays on a $1 billion harbor development project and Ganim’s continual favoritism of the United Properties firm as a developer (United Properties was owned by Al Lenoci, Sr. and his son Al Lenoci, Jr, who both were later convicted for their role in city corruption) were never investigated by the Post.

    It took some complaints to the FBI and then a wide-ranging investigation by that agency that finally uncovered the morass of corruption that was going on in Bridgeport. When all was said and done, Ganim and ten of his cohorts were indicted, convicted and sent off to the prison for their crimes. Ganim was found guilty of 16 felony counts and spent seven years in prison.

   There’s an obvious lesson in this story for today. A city council and the local media have to hold municipal officials accountable for the job they’re doing. It’s not enough for a local council to just rubberstamp what a mayor wants without asking questions. And it’s not enough for a paper or television station for that matter to just churn out stories about accidents, shootings, announcements by the mayor and votes by boards together with a few light features. There has to be more.

   Cities large and small are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in public money and it’s imperative that that money be used wisely. In Bridgeport alone, between the city budget and Board of Education budget, more than $500 million in public funds are being spent this year. (It should be noted as well, that Bridgeport raises a lot of that money by hitting its residents with one of the highest property tax rates in the nation.)

    There’s a lot of programs and contracts out there and opportunities for not only money to be wasted, but unfortunately, for some money to be stolen.

   A local paper has to hire enough reporters to be able to go out and really follow what municipal officials are up to, how money is being spent, who’s benefiting from contracts and spot any troubling patterns. If red flags pop up, a paper has to respond.

  If they don’t, it’s not journalism.

  I don’t want to hear this talk about how ‘we don’t have money.’ It is true that papers are not as strong as they used to be financially, and some have floundered in recent years. But an awful lot of papers, such as the Post and the Hartford Courant (Tribune Company) are owned by large, diversified corporations. They are making money.

   Hearst Corporation, which now owns the Post, earned $10.3 billion in revenues in 2014, a more than 6 percent advance over the previous year, according to a business article in the New York Post.

  Hearst has the money to hire more reporters and editors at the Connecticut Post. The paper now has --- like the 1990s ---  one or two reporters covering Bridgeport City Hall on a daily basis. That’s not enough, even though the staff that is there is doing a good job. The paper, to its credit, now has an investigative team that from time to time will do regional or Bridgeport stories. But more staff is needed to really follow what’s going on in the city on an active basis.

  Next week Bridgeport will hold municipal elections. Joe Ganim, who now admits his wrongdoing, is trying to make a comeback. He won the Democratic Party nomination in a September primary, and may well win the election. Also running are Republican Enrique Torres and Independents Mary-Jane Foster and Charles Coviello.

  It will be critical that in the years ahead, the local media, principally the Post, closely follow whoever becomes mayor and watch how public money is being spent.

  Bridgeport can’t afford a repeat.

 

 

    

  

    

   .   

      

Ganim Stuns

                                       

By Reginald Johnson

  BRIDGEPORT ---- I’m sorry. This is hard to comprehend.

  Joe Ganim, he of 16 felony convictions for corruption during his time as mayor in the 1990s and an alumni of federal prison, has won the support of a majority of Democrats voting in a primary to be their standard bearer in the general election for mayor in November.

   Huh? Is this incredible or what?

  Ever since Wednesday night when it was becoming apparent that Ganim was going to beat out incumbent Mayor Bill Finch and businesswoman Mary-Jane Foster for the Democratic Party nomination, I’ve been trying to figure this out. It hasn’t been easy.

  I saw the vote totals come up on the board on Channel 12 and I saw Ganim ahead with well over 5,000 votes. Finch also had over 5,000, but was behind by about 200-300. Then I saw the joyous people at the Ganim election party --- at Testo’s Restaurant of course --- people smiling, laughing and hugging Joe Gamin. Ganim had just declared victory.

   I thought, are these people delusional? What are they thinking?

  What is it about Joe Ganim or what did he do or say in his campaign that is so compelling that people would just wipe away his outrageous record as mayor --- being involved in one of the worst municipal corruption scandals in New England history --- and decide to back him?

  I went over in my mind the various possible reasons. Angst over high taxes. Yes, that’s a reason to be upset with the incumbent, though taxes weren’t exactly low during the Ganim years. Another is Finch’s personality.  Finch can be spiteful and sometimes arrogant, which showed during the Board of Education takeover plan. His persona turned a number of people off.

 And then there’s the police union. Police were upset over contract cuts and staffing shortages in the Finch years. OK, those are reasonable complaints, too. That’s a lot of votes there, between union members and their spouses, brothers and sisters.

 But here’s the $64 question. Why, if you’re upset with Finch for those reasons, would you make the leap and go for someone so tarnished by corruption as Ganim, when there’s a viable alternative in the race, in Mary-Jane Foster?

  Foster was a good candidate, no political baggage, and a proven executive and business person.

   Why would so many people just pass her over, and opt for Ganim?

  I don’t know for sure, but I think there probably two key factors.  First is, a lot of the people going for Ganim were angry over having lost something during the Finch years, something they had in the Ganim years. A job, a position, a title, a program that was lost. A good number of people are in this category and some of them had legitimate beefs. It looks as if these folks were willing to set aside the memory of Ganim’s corruption, because Joe was the guy that was going to make things right, because he did it before, not Foster. This was the guy that was going to float their ship.

  The other thing at work, I believe, was that Ganim pandered successfully to the black community, making lots of promises and glossing over his record. He got a lot of votes from the African-American community. He demagogically played on the public safety issue, blaming Finch for crime in black neighborhoods, when actually crime rates in the city are down. Ganim of course conveniently didn’t tell people that violent crime rates were much worse during his years as mayor. (Remember the “Phoenix Barriers”?)

  He also wasn’t about to tell people that his record on affordable housing  --- another issue very important to many blacks --- was terrible. In the Ganim years, hundreds of units of housing were torn down, with minimal replacement.

    Many blacks were apparently sympathetic to Ganim’s plea for redemption. ‘I did wrong, I served my time, now I want a second chance.’ I think blacks related to that because possibly they knew someone who went to jail, and then came out, and needed a second chance to right themselves. During interviews I did around the city, I heard “he deserves a second chance” several times from black residents.

   There may be other reasons that factored in the primary result, some possibly that could come out from investigations. We’ll just have to see.

  In meantime, it’s shaping up for the general election as Joe Ganim, Democrat, versus Rick Torres, Republican, and Bill Finch, who said he will stick it out and run on a third party ticket, and possibly Foster and others on independent tickets as well.

   Ganim, now the Democratic nominee, has to be favored in this city which usually elects the Democratic Party nominee for mayor.

   Whatever Finch’s flaws, I think the city was basically headed in the right direction the last few years. What happened yesterday was a step backwards.


MEDIA NOTES

   A few thoughts on media coverage of the primary race. Basically, it wasn’t very good.

  The Connecticut Post, the main vehicle for coverage, did a fairly good job with breaking news on the campaign. Brian Lockhart is a good reporter, though he tends to over featurize his stories. Everything reads like a column. But overall, not a bad job on regular campaign news.

   My chief complaint is where the paper placed stories related to the campaign and Finch’s administration, and not doing some larger stories on the race. I don’t know whether the paper was bending over backwards to look impartial, or whether they were just teed off at Finch over transparency issues, but they wound up underplaying some news stories that happened to make Finch look good.

  

Recently, the Hampton Inn chain announced they were going to build a Hampton Inn at Steel Point. This is a major development. A top hotel coming to town --- the first in about 30 years --- well, that’s a big story. It deserves Page 1. But instead it was placed inside the paper. Why?

Downtown developer Phil Kuchma also had a major announcement recently that he was beginning a Phase II in his downtown development. That’s also big. But the Post ran it inside.

 I didn’t get every single paper over the last six months, so maybe I missed this. But there should have been a large, blow-out piece on Joe Ganim. He was mayor for 12 years, and so much happened in this period. The Post should have detailed what he did, both legally and illegally, both the good and the bad. The controversial zoning cases, the demolitions, the fight over the Juvenile Detention Center, the construction of the Bluefish stadium and the Arena, the secrecy of his administration, and finally the corruption cases themselves.

 People who weren’t around needed to be informed, and others needed to be reminded.

But as far as I know, no such a piece ever appeared.

  Also, the Post created the feeling in this race that the real battle was just between Finch and Ganim. Foster got second fiddle. There should have been more equal coverage all the way around.

  Finally, the Post should have dug into some of the claims of irregularities going on during the campaign --- issues about questionable petition signatures, absentee ballots, and so on. The Post, owned by the huge Hearst Newspapers Corporation, could have put the resources into play to do this, but they didn’t. Instead, they left it to state investigators to probe the complaints, and there will be no results for months. When results are announced, the election will have come and gone, and the issue will be a moot point for most voters.

  That's too bad, because voters should get critical information about verified wrongdoing before an election, not after.

Bridgeport Primary Battle

 By Reginald Johnson

    

    BRIDGEPORT --- The most hotly-contested Democratic mayoral primary in years will be decided this Wednesday, and by all appearances the vote may be very close.

    Incumbent Mayor Bill Finch, the party-endorsed candidate is trying to fend off a strong challenge from the city’s former mayor, Joseph Ganim, and businesswoman and University of Bridgeport executive Mary Jane Foster.

    Finch has been mayor for eight years and is seeking a third term; Ganim was the mayor for 12 years from 1991 to 2003, and then was forced out following his conviction on corruption charges; Foster is trying for a second time to be elected mayor following her defeat at the hands of Finch in 2011.

    The biggest story in this election has clearly been the comeback bid by Ganim and his attempt to oust Finch, a one-time ally when Ganim was mayor and Finch was a state senator representing part of Bridgeport.

 For someone with such a tainted record, Ganim has shown surprising strength. Ganim has raised over $200,000 for his campaign in a short period and fell just a few votes short of landing the Democratic Town Committee endorsement for mayor in July.

   But Finch has countered with a substantial fundraising effort of his own, amassing over $500,000 for his reelection effort. He also has won the support of the city’s business community and backing of high-ranking state elected officials, like Gov. Dannel T. Malloy.

  Foster has raised about $70,000 for her campaign, far less than her opponents. But she is waging a determined campaign and may be getting some traction with her pledge that she will bring integrity to City Hall, which has been rocked by so many corruption and ethics scandals over the years.

    Whoever wins the primary will be the favorite to be Bridgeport’s next mayor --- given the Democrats’ huge edge here in voter enrollment --- although City Councilman Rick Torres, the Republican candidate for mayor, will certainly have something to say about the outcome of the general election.

  This reporter drove around the city and conducted some random interviews to try to get a feel for how this contest is going.

  The first thing that jumps out is that, despite his prison past, Joe Ganim has significant support. Joe Ganim lawn signs have sprouted in every neighborhood. People who own the homes where those signs are located, particularly black residents, say the former mayor did a lot of good things for the city and shouldn’t be remembered just for his illegal acts.

    “He paid his dues. He deserves a second chance,” said Janet Adams, who is black and lives on Anton Street.  “All politicians do it,” said Adams of Ganim’s illegal activities. “He just got caught.”

   

A Joe Ganim lawn sign near Testo's Restaurant on Madison Avenue. The restaurant is owned by Democratic Town Committee Chairman Mario Testa.

 

    Echoing the sentiment of forgiveness was Jeanette, a black resident on Hughes Avenue in the West Side. “He’ll be on his best behavior,” she said of Ganim, should he be elected.

   The West Side resident said in addition to rolling back high taxes, she wanted a mayor who will be tougher on crime. “Safety means a lot to me,” she said, noting that her boyfriend is a city police officer.

   The Bridgeport police union, angered over contract cuts and staff shortages under Finch, has endorsed Ganim.

   Mark, a white resident of Golden Rod Avenue also thought Ganim would never try any tricks this time because “everyone will be watching.”

  Standing near a “Stop Raising Taxes – Vote Joe Ganim” sign in his front yard, Mark added, “Finch has raised taxes every year since he was elected.”  He also credited Ganim with “getting the city moving again.”

  But the tour also showed considerable support for Mayor Finch. “Bill Finch” lawn signs are as widespread as Ganim’s. People say that Finch deserves credit for finally getting the Steel Point development off the ground and building new schools.

  “For Steel Point alone, he deserves to be re-elected,” said Dennis Scinto, a homeowner on Madison Avenue, about the mayor.

   Scinto, a Democratic Party district leader and city sheriff, rebutted those who say Finch has raised taxes too much. “Taxes haven’t gone up that much. They go up everywhere. I was in Stratford the other day and people are complaining over there about higher taxes,” he said.

Bill Finch, Bridgeport's incumbent mayor, is facing a strong challenge in Wednesday's Democratic primary.

  Scinto, a one-time member of the city council during the Ganim years, refrained from harshly criticizing Ganim. All the same, he said he’s still upset over what happened with the Stop and Shop Supermarket. That store, now an empty hulk, was built in the 1990s opposite his house on the other side of Madison Avenue, in the middle of a residential zone.

  Despite bitter opposition from the neighborhood, the Planning and Zoning Commission under Ganim awarded a special permit to Ganim’s favored developer, Al Lenoci (who later went to jail), to break the zone and build the store. The store lasted about 12 years.

   “Whenever I open my door in the morning, I look out and see this empty building,” said Scinto. “That’s Joe Ganim.”

  John Soltis, a long-time Democrat who lives in Black Rock, said he backed Finch because “he’s done a good job, and he’s the best candidate.”

  

   Soltis, a city employee, said Bridgeport will suffer from a “perception problem” if Ganim becomes mayor again.

  “If you’re a developer and you have a choice between Norwalk and Bridgeport, and Ganim is mayor, where are you going to go?” Soltis said.

   Ed Gomes, a state senator from Bridgeport and a veteran political and labor activist, is backing Foster.

   “Mary Jane Foster has integrity and honesty. She has the best interests of the people of the city of Bridgeport,” Gomes said.

Mary Jane Foster is stressing integrity in her campaign to win the Democratic Party mayoral primary in Bridgeport.

   Finch has failed in some key areas and Ganim is unsuitable as a mayoral choice, due to his record, he said.

   “Finch promised a $600 tax break when he started. It never materialized. The he raised taxes four separate times,” said Gomes.

   He also said that Finch is unduly taking credit for the Steel Point and school-rebuilding program. The groundwork for those projects was done over many years by a lot of different people, Gomes said.

   On Ganim, Gomes said, the former mayor does deserve an opportunity to turn his life around. “But there’s other ways for him to restore his life besides being mayor,” he said.

   “Foster will restore trust in our city government,” he said.

 

   

   

Pushing Blumenthal on Peace Deal

                               

 By Reginald Johnson

   

    HARTFORD ---- Grassroots activists around the country are working feverishly to line up as many Democrats as possible to support President Obama’s proposed nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, and say no to Republican efforts to scuttle the deal.

   People from groups like Moveon.org, Democracy for America and others rallied on Wednesday outside congressional offices in 250 cities, hoping to put pressure on Democrats still undecided on the agreement.

   One of the undecided is U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and more than 80 activists showed up at his office near the old State House to demand that the first-term senator get off the fence and back the deal. Blumenthal is the only member of the seven-member congressional delegation in Connecticut (all Democrats) who’s still holding out.

   Chanting slogans like “Give Peace a Chance” and “Peace Yes and War No!” the ralliers formed a circle at the entrance to the building where the senator’s office is located, holding petitions with the names of some 10.000 people in Connecticut who want Blumenthal to back the deal.

 

   Speakers blasted Republicans and others, such as former Senator Joseph Lieberman, who claim the agreement isn’t tough enough on Iran, and are lobbying Congress to reject it.

  “I’m confident Senator Blumenthal will do the right thing and join with us and five other countries and President Obama and say no to Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman and more war. They were wrong on Iraq, they are wrong on Iran. Peace now!” shouted Tom Swan, of the Connecticut Citizens Action Group.

  Henry Lowendorf, of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, said the agreement is a “good agreement, a peace agreement.”

  He said the deal calls for Iran to “continue to not build nuclear weapons, in return for an end to sanctions.”

   “People who want the United States Congress to reject this agreement have been calling for war with Iran for decades. That is their solution, their alternative,” he said.

 

    One of those who stood in the circle with a petition was Bruce Corbett of Avon, who came to the demonstration with his wife, Ruth Ellen. Corbett, a retired history teacher, said the events surrounding the Iran deal reminded him of when former President Woodrow Wilson following World War I was trying to get the country to support the Treaty of Versailles and formation of a League of Nations, to help prevent future war. That effort failed amid Republican opposition.

  A League of Nations was formed, but was ineffectual without the United States. Partly as a result of that “we had the rise of Hitler and World War II,” said Corbett.

   To the surprise of some, towards the end of the rally, Senator Blumenthal showed up on the way to his office. He went up and down the line shaking hands and smiling. As he headed towards his office, the group gathered around him, and Lowendorf handed over the petitions. In brief remarks, the senator said he was still weighing his decision, getting input from both sides, listening to constituents and hearing from experts.

  He called the issue “immensely complicated.”

  “I’m going to be listening to the people of Connecticut as I make my decision,” said Blumenthal. “But for me, more importantly, I’m going to decide what is the right thing to do for the United States of America. That’s my job,” he said.

  “What about what’s right for the world?” one person shouted.

  As Blumenthal headed for the door, the crowd chanted “Just Say Yes!” “Just Say Yes!”

  Blumenthal is expected to make his decision sometime in the next ten days, his office said.

   A congressional vote on the Iran agreement is expected sometime in September. 

  

  

 

Time Running Out

By Reginald Johnson

                Christiana Figueres, climate chief for the United Nations, said recently that time is running out for reaching an international agreement on dealing with global warming.

         Referring to the climate conference in Paris at the end of the year, she told the Associated Press, “We are at five minutes to 12 and Paris is the 12 o’clock strike of the clock.”

      Failure to reach a global, binding agreement on curbing carbon emissions --- the key driver of rising temperatures and climate change --- would mean “we are going to be playing with fire,” said the UN official.

     Figueres couldn’t be more correct in her assessment.  NASA testing shows that the average global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now 400 parts per million. That’s a full 50 points higher than the 350 ppm that is considered by scientists to be the maximum sustainable level of atmospheric carbon. Beyond that level, the viability of human life in the long term could be threatened by sharply rising temperatures and catastrophic climate impacts.

  Already temperatures have been rising. Last year, 2014, was the hottest year ever recorded.

  And dramatic climate impacts are taking place. We are getting more and more violent, killer storms, like Super Storm Sandy in 2012; more powerful tornadoes, wreaking incredible devastation; brutal droughts in the American west and in other parts of the world; and terrible forest fires, also in the western U.S., which are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland.

  Experts believe that the extreme weather is linked to changes in the atmosphere caused by greenhouse gases.

   It’s imperative that we move quickly to massively cut back on carbon emissions, as well as the emissions of other global warming gases, like methane.

   But have world leaders been moving to take decisive action to blunt climate change?

  So far, the answer to that question is, no.

  The United States obviously has a leading role to play in any international effort to fight climate change. For most of his presidency, President Barack Obama has not made climate change a major priority, despite his claims to the contrary. He has never once made a nationwide speech in prime time about the danger of climate change and the absolute necessity that we all work together to fight it. Former Vice President Al Gore called the fight against climate change a “planetary emergency.” He’s right. Obama could have said the same thing. He could have laid out all the awful scenarios that will befall us if we do nothing to control climate change, and really scared people. They need to be scared. This is an existential threat --- far more than anything posed by al-Qaeda, the Islamic State or other extremists.

  At the same time Obama could have urged people, particularly young people, to get involved in a national effort to educate everyone about the dangers of global warming and the imperative of moving away from carbon-producing fossil fuels. That national address could have been followed by a series of speeches around the country.

  A major campaign like that could have put the climate skeptics back on their heels and prompted a strong public demand that Congress pass laws that both control carbon, lessen the use of fossil fuels and put major funding into renewables.

 But no such public campaign was undertaken. Obama has not used his bully pulpit to get the nation moving on climate change.

 In general, Obama has given out conflicting messages about how serious he is about tackling the central problem of limiting carbon emissions. While his administration worked to get some things done, like improving auto fuel efficiency standards, the president gave the go-ahead for more Gulf oil drilling, even after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Recently, he gave the green light for Arctic oil drilling by Royal Dutch Shell, despite widespread protests.

  Everyone knows we have to move away from fossil fuels to control climate change. Why is Obama approving more oil drilling?

  Last week, six years into his presidency, Obama announced a new “Clean Power Plan” which plots an outline for tackling climate change. He laid out some steps for curbing carbon emissions from power plants --- which contribute the most CO2 to the atmosphere --- and moving to renewables like wind and solar power.

 That’s fine, as far as it goes. But it’s late. We’re now past 400 ppm of carbon in the air. Why didn’t he announce this plan five years ago?

  The administration behind the scenes has done some good work getting preliminary agreements from other major industrial nations like Brazil and China (two nations which previously had been reluctant to work out a deal on climate change) on the need to reduce carbon emissions and move to renewables. The recent talks set the stage for reaching some meaningful agreements at the Paris summit later this year.

   One possible idea that could be discussed in the Paris talks is setting up a system to impose a world-wide carbon tax. That would mean that the production, distribution and use of all carbon fuels --- coal, oil or natural gas --- would be hit with a special tax. As the price of carbon fuels rose, it would make the market move more rapidly to the development of non-carbon sources --- wind, solar and geo-thermal.

  Whatever specifics emerge for any carbon reduction plan, it’s clear that a strong, binding international agreement on slowing climate change is desperately needed --- now.

  It’s five minutes to midnight.

  

 

  

    

          

Ganim over Finch? Really?

   Opinion           

   

    By Reginald Johnson

      

   BRIDGEPORT --- It’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this city that a lot of people are so dismayed with incumbent Mayor Bill Finch that they are supporting ex-mayor and ex-con Joe Ganim to become the city’s next chief elected official.

     A Monday article in the Connecticut Post said that the contest for the endorsement from the Democratic Town Committee for the Democratic mayoral nomination was now a “dead heat” between Finch and Ganim. The DTC holds its endorsement session Tuesday night.

   This is incredible. The idea that Joe Ganim could secure the Democratic nomination and then be the odds-on pick to be elected as mayor of Connecticut’s largest city (due to the overwhelming Democratic Party edge in enrollment in Bridgeport) is mind-boggling.

  Let’s be blunt. Joe Ganim cheated this city, badly.  In the 1990s, he ran a sickening “pay to play” scheme in City Hall, was convicted for his crimes, and spent seven years in prison as a result.

  Contrary to a widely-held view that, despite the corruption, Ganim got the city moving again with the construction of the Bluefish stadium and the arena, Ganim actually held the city back. Because of his conniving, favoring certain developers and turning off others, a lot of development that could have taken place, did not.

  Remember that the 1990s, unlike now, was a much better time economically. There was more money available from the state, and more money to leverage with banks for different projects. A lot of that potential was squandered.

   Ganim also ran an administration that ran roughshod over people in the neighborhoods. Public housing was torn down in the South End --- worsening the city’s affordable housing stock --- to make way for the stadium and arena. The plans for those projects were rushed through and the public had little input.

  Going businesses were rudely forced out of their downtown locations, in the name of some future development, development that never came.

   Zoning principles were violated in the North End, when an application by favored developer Al Lenoci to construct a Stop and Shop in the middle of a residential neighborhood, was rammed through the planning and zoning commission. (That store is now closed, and sits as an empty hulk off Madison Avenue).

  I could go on, but you get the point. There’s a lot on the negative side of the ledger when it comes to Joe Ganim as mayor.

  If  Joe Ganim has “found religion” since his incarceration, I’m not aware of it. I am not even sure if he apologized for his crimes, if he ever showed contrition. If he did, I missed it.

 This is not to back-handedly paint Bill Finch as some kind of saint. He’s not. He also has a sensitivity issue, not listening to people and turning on those who oppose him with a vengeance.  

  

 His drive for mayoral control of the school board was a sorry chapter and I think turned a lot of people off. That plan, plus the support for more charter schools, is bad educational policy. But it should be noted that the idea of overhauling public schools and moving to more charters is something that is being pushed nationally by the leaders of the Democratic Party. Finch didn’t cook up this idea on his own.

    Finch has done some good things environmentally, such as supporting fuel cell development in the city. But there’s the bad, too. Community gardens --- which are thriving in cities like New Haven --- are languishing here, due to lack of funding and lack of direction.(By way of disclosure, I am a member of one of the gardens).

  Finch this year brought in a firm from Westport to oversee the gardens, but not much is happening. It was a slap in the face to Bridgeporters that an out-of-town group had to be brought in to tell us how to manage gardens. The head of the Westport firm reportedly gave a donation to Finch’s campaign.

   It’s clear that Finch has some real issues as mayor, and I don’t blame people for being upset for different reasons.

  But to be so upset to the point of backing someone who cheated the citizens of this city, engaged in illegal acts and hurt Bridgeport badly, I don’t get it.

  Joe Ganim? Come on.

 This may be one of those years, and they don’t come along very often in Bridgeport,  when a Republican should get a look for mayor. While I have little use for GOP policies nationwide, sometimes a local Republican can do a good job here. Leonard Paoletta, who ran the city very well in the 1980s, comes to mind.

  Enrique Torres anyone?

    

  

Germany's Double Standard on Debt

                               

 By Reginald Johnson

              

              It was good to see Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras yesterday rebuke the representative of Germany in the European Parliament over the issue of Greece's debt.

          Germany, France and other members of the Euro Zone have been acting indignant over Greece’s inability to pay back loans made by Euro Zone members, as well as banks and the International Monetary Fund.

   German officials in particular have been insisting that the debts must be repaid, despite the harsh austerity Greeks have been enduring in recent years. They say that the Greek demands for debt reduction and more favorable repayment terms are out of line. In a referendum last weekend called by Tsipras, Greek voters decisively rejected plans for more austerity in return for more loans from the EU.

  German EU member Manfred Veber accused Tsipras of having misled Greek voters, destroyed trust in Europe, and insulted other leaders.

    In a speech seen on Euro News, Tsipras responded,  “I want to remind you, Mr. Veber, that the strongest moment of solidarity in Europe was in 1953 when your country came out indebted and looted after two world wars and Europe and all European countries showed the greatest solidarity in a 1953 London agreement and they decided to write off 60 percent of the German debt and agreed to a growth plan. That was the greatest moment of solidarity in recent European history.”

   Tsipras, other Greek officials, as well as some notable economists such as Thomas Piketty and Richard Wolff, have recently been pointing out the German hypocrisy on the issue of Greece’s debt. In fact, Greek officials said earlier this year, that Germany had still not paid Greece for the agreed-upon debt from World War II. Under the Nazi regime, Germany invaded and occupied Greece during the early 1940s.

   Piketty, who rose to prominence last year with a book on inequality, told the German magazine Die Zeit: “When I hear the Germans say they maintain a very moral stance about debt, and strongly believe debts must be repaid, then I think, what a huge joke! Germany is the country that has never repaid its debts. It has no standing to lecture other nations.”

  Greece now owes in the neighborhood of 350 billion euros, on loans made by governments, private banks and the International Monetary Fund. In return for bailout money, Greece agreed to an austerity program involving wage and pension cuts and service reductions. The nation’s economy has gotten worse and Greece is virtually bankrupt.

  Following the referendum on Sunday, Greek and EU officials have been meeting to try to arrive at some sort of agreement where Greece will get more bailout funds and possibly a long-term debt reduction, or “haircut.”

  Even IMF leaders said in a recent report that the terms of debt for Greece had been too harsh, there had been negative results, and that a debt reduction is now needed.

   But German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t budging, saying on Thursday that debt relief was out of the question.

  If an agreement can’t be reached, Greece would be forced out of the Euro Zone and credit would be cut off. The nation would then have to print its own money.

  Greek banks reportedly only have enough money to last until Monday.

 James S. Henry, an economist, lawyer and senior fellow with Columbia University’s Center for Sustainable International Investment told the CounterPoint radio show on WPKN that it was time for officials of the EU and the European Central Bank to stop being so hard-headed about Greece, and work out a more favorable deal for that nation.

 

  “Any settlement has to contain debt relief from an objective standpoint. The current debt level is not serviceable,” he said. http://btlonline.org/2015/seg/150717af-btl-henry.html