How the Irish See It

Hillary was on CNN awhile back claiming she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. Seems as that isn’t quite the case. From The Belfast Telegraph columnist Lindy McDowell. Make sure you read the last part of the op/ed. Heh.

The comedian Spike Milligan once published an autobiographical work about his Army service in World War II entitled Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall. Spike, it goes without saying, was playing for laughs.

Not so Hillary Clinton, who as part of her current campaign for the Democratic nomination in the US has staked her own claim to fame in the always contentious field of foreign conflict resolution.

The Northern Ireland Troubles: My Part in Sorting Out That Lot.

As Hillary herself put it during a recent interview on CNN: “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.”

Beat that Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton – Ireland’s Dalai O’Lama.

The role Hillary played in our peace process was, it seems, low-key, so low-key, in fact, that David Trimble, who jointly won the Nobel Prize for, er, helping bring peace to Northern Ireland can’t quite remember it.

Lord Trimble, as he now is, says that frankly she had no direct role in the process and that she is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating her input.

Scathingly he adds: “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”

Ouch!

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Lord Trimble’s fellow Nobel winner John Hume has countered: “She played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.” The thing is – “visiting Northern Ireland”, “meeting with very many people” and giving “very decisive support” – just about every touring celeb and his or her granny could claim that.

In fact, I can’t recall a single visiting head of state, spouse of visiting head of state, pop singer, actress, potential investor or fading soap star who dropped in during that period, who did not show ‘very decisive support’ for peace. Let’s face it, they were unlikely to argue against it.

Hillary, however, would seem to infer she went a bit beyond mere cheerleading.

In her autobiography she describes a meeting at a cafe on the Lower Ormeau hosted by the late Joyce McCartan and attended by representatives from women’s groups from both sides of the community.

Nothing new there, of course. Contacts between such groups have long been the norm here. Although an outsider mightn’t guess that, the way Hillary tells it €

“I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other … “

I know. Don’t laugh.

I remember the visit to the cafe (town hall!) well. It was what’s known in the business as a photo opportunity. Something to keep the presidential spouse occupied while the actual office bearer was getting down to business.

It was a short, staged event ‘pulled together’ by local organisers. Amid all the security men and Press photographers it was hardly conducive to real business.

Instead, a bit like David Beckham’s recent trip to Africa to play footie with small children thus raising the awareness of UNICEF’s role there, the point of the cafe visit was to underline the good work already being done here. Cheerleading just about sums it up.

Ironically, drawing attention to past Clinton visits, only raises the spectre of an episode Hillary might prefer to forget.

When Bill arrived here in 1998 it was claimed in some quarters that the trip had rather conveniently helped him escape media attention back in the US where L’Affaire Lewinsky was then at its height.

If she’s what really drove him here, shouldn’t Monica also be eligible for peace-processing honours?

It’s no less tenuous than Mrs Clinton’s claim for credit.

Your piece in our peace?

As the intern might have said, you were close Hillary…

But no cigar.

Can that family ever tell the truth about anything?

Why Worry When You Have Taxpayers? Part II

The “geniuses” in Senate are going to put their housing bill on the floor on Tuseday April 8. It won’t do much for the housing market but will make homebuilders and local politicos erupt with glee. The Wall Street Journal points out some of the highlights.

Like 1990s’ dot-coms that went public with nothing more than a concept, federal programs today can triple their budgets with a single word: housing. But unlike the tech craze, the taxpayer investment in this project will not be voluntary.

Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bipartisan “housing stimulus package” hits the Senate floor on Tuesday afternoon, and what it proves is that, whatever their other differences, both parties can agree to throw good money after bad. The bill is a $15 billion list of subsidies that won’t do much for housing markets but will please the homebuilders, local politicians and other influential lobbies.

Among the largest items is $4 billion for notorious Community Development Block Grants. The money is intended to purchase and redevelop foreclosed properties. It’s hard to think of a less promising vehicle than the CDBG program, which is managed – after a fashion – by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A February 2008 report from the White House budget office calls the program “ineffective,” which is putting it mildly. On a 100-point scale of achieving results, CDBG scored a 27. In 2005 and 2006, the Government Accountability Office recommended more oversight and better methods of targeting grant recipients.

In June 2006 Senate testimony, HUD Inspector General Kenneth Donohue summarized the results of recent audits: “CDBG-related reports identified over $100 million in questioned costs and funds that could be put to better use. During the same time period, the HUD OIG indicted 159 individuals, caused administrative actions against 143 individuals, had 5 civil actions, 39 personnel actions, and over $120 million in recoveries . . . ‘Improper use of funds’ is the largest repeat audit finding in our CDBG reviews.”

Another finding is what HUD euphemistically calls, “Lack of policy or adequate management.” Reported Mr. Donohue: “The East Meyer Community Association of Kansas City, Missouri, squandered nearly $800,000 of its CDBG money on company picnics, Christmas Tree lighting ceremonies, luncheons, gifts and bonuses.” Remember, this program theoretically exists to counter urban blight and rebuild neighborhoods. Mr. Donohue found more than $2.6 million in management fees providing little or no benefit in a single loan program at the Los Angeles Community Development Bank.

To put it bluntly, this may be the worst-run program in Washington. So why are Senators making it a centerpiece of this week’s housing splurge? Because just about every dollar of the $4 billion will not remain at HUD, but will instead be routed to state and local governments, which can then share the wealth with “nonprofit” (i.e., politically favored) organizations. And while state and local pols will get the money ASAP – within 90 days of the bill’s enactment into law – there is less urgency to address the housing crisis once these recipients cash the checks. They don’t have to buy the foreclosed properties for another 18 months.

Senator Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), mindful of the program’s appalling history, was able to secure a partial rewrite of the bill last week. Any profits from the resale of homes bought in foreclosure must now be recycled back into buying other foreclosed properties. What remains unclear is exactly how much of the $4 billion will stick to the various fingers touching these dollars along the way.

This CDBG fiasco is consistent with other provisions in this stinker of a bill. The main Republican contribution (thanks to Georgia’s Johnny Isakson) is a $7,000 tax credit for those buying homes out of foreclosure. This means that Americans who behaved responsibly and paid their mortgage but are now trying to sell their homes will have to cut their offering price by $7,000 to compete with foreclosed properties nearby. Thus does the Senate contribute once again to tax fairness and personal responsibility.

There’s also a new property tax deduction for non-itemizers, plus authority for states to issue another $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds. The bonds will fund – of course – subprime mortgages. Having witnessed this disaster for investors, states will now run the experiment again, except with taxpayers eating the losses.

Previous government efforts to subsidize housing did nothing but encourage the real estate bubble. The best that can be said of the Senate’s ideas is that they may be more feckless than destructive.

So let me see if I have this straight. Congress is holding hearings because of the lending practices of companies that underwrote lousy mortgages. At the same time they’re going to give money to the states to do exactly the same thing. After all, why should Congress worry? The taxpayers will foot the bill for this crap, just like they always have.

Thanks for nothing.

.