'Is ObamaCare destroying the Democrat Party?' Democrat favorability under Obama has fallen to record low of 36% per Gallup. Cook: ObamaCare central issue in Democrat losses over 6 yrs.-NY Times Op-ed, Thomas Edsall

.
"In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party had fallen to a record low of 36 percent....Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote...and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters."...
. 
12/2/14, "Is Obamacare Destroying the Democratic Party?" NY Times, Thomas B. Edsall, op-ed

"Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has forced a debate over fundamental party priorities out into the open. Should Democrats focus primarily on the problems of the poor or should they first address the economic struggles of the working and middle classes?

It’s not often that a politician provokes conflict within the ranks of his party’s core supporters. Schumer did just that in a National Press Club speech on Nov. 25, three weeks after devastating Democratic losses in Senate, House, gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

According to Schumer, President Obama and his party suffered defeat last month in large part because of the strategic decision to press for enactment of the Affordable Care Act soon after Obama won the presidency. In 2009, with Democrats in full control of Congress and the White House, Schumer said,

"Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform. The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make; Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care. This makes sense considering that 85 percent of all Americans got their health care from either the government – Medicare or Medicaid – or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it didn’t really affect them."

Schumer analyzed Obamacare in terms of pure political calculation:

"Only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. In 2010 only about 40 percent of those registered voted. So even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely did not, we would still only be talking about only 5 percent of the electorate. To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, the Democrats are not paying enough attention to “me.”"

There were also adverse political and policy consequences to the emphasis on enactment of Obamacare:

"Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s health care crisis."

Schumer’s remarks set off an explosion.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House leader, responded in a written statement: “We come here to do a job, not keep a job.”

Former Obama administration staffers took to their Twitter accounts to voice their outrage.

Tommy Vietor, who served as a spokesman for Obama during the period that health care reform was enacted, put it in more compressed form in a Twitter post: “Shorter Chuck Schumer — I wish Obama cared more about helping Democrats than sick people.” Jon Lovett, a speechwriter for Obama during the president’s first term, tweeted: “What exactly does Chuck Schumer believe was the error? Does he believe that the goal of winning office is winning office?”

In a more detailed critique, Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist, wrote:

Schumer gets the positive impact of the legislation wrong, he gets the politics of it wrong, and he displays a shocking ignorance of the problems facing the American middle class.

Hiltzik argued that the legislation fixed the problems of a “system of tying insurance to employment and pricing non-employer insurance out of reach, often because of pre-existing medical conditions.” In addition, according to Hiltzik, the legislation will

outlaw limitations that were creeping into employer plans,” which will in turn create more opportunity for middle-class workers by removing barriers for those “stuck in unrewarding jobs simply for the health coverage.

Wendell Primus, a top policy adviser to Pelosi, disputed Schumer’s characterization of Obama’s health care initiative. In an email to me, Primus contended that some of the economic benefits of Obamacare do flow to the largely white middle class, that 8.3 million seniors on Medicare have benefited from expanded prescription drug coverage by an average of $1,443 per person, for total savings of $12 billion, and that Obamacare has contributed to a sharp reduction in the growth of Medicare Part B premiums. From 2000 to 2008, Primus noted, these fees rose 112 percent, from $45.50 per month to $96.40 per month, while through the subsequent eight-year period, premiums are expected to rise by only 10 percent, from $96.40 to $106.50 a month.

The views of Democratic advocates of Obamacare notwithstanding, public opinion has generally sided with Schumer.

A United Technologies/National Journal Congressional connection poll of 1,013 adults in mid-November 2013 found that by a 25-point margin, 59-34, respondents said that the health care law (which includes a major expansion of Medicaid to cover anyone up to 133 percent of the poverty line, and subsidies for the purchase of private insurance for those between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line) would make things better for the poor. But respondents also said, by a 16-point margin, 49-33, that the law would make things worse for “people like you and your family.” 

White respondents were even more critical, with 58 percent saying that Obamacare would make things worse for people like you and your family, and 63 percent saying it would make things worse “for the middle class.”

Exit poll data from 1994, after President Clinton’s failed bid to pass health care reform, as well as from 2010 and 2014, provides further support for the Schumer argument. In each of those three midterm elections there were huge white defections from the Democratic Party; in 2010 and 2014, there were comparable defections of senior voters. 

The loss of white supporters of House Democratic candidates can be seen in the data. In 1992, white voters split 50-50 between Democratic and Republican House candidates; in 1994, after the Hillarycare debacle, they voted Republican 58-42. By 2010 and 2014, whites voted for Republican House candidates by a 24-point margin, 62-38. The defection of seniors is most striking when comparing exit poll data from 2006 and 2010. In 2006, seniors of all races voted 52-48 for Democratic House candidates; in 2010, they voted 58-42 for Republican House candidates.

The only way for Democratic Party leaders to stop the hemorrhaging, in Schumer’s view, is to take on the task of using the government to intervene in the private sector, pushing to raise wages and revive job opportunities for working men and women.

“Large forces – technology, automation and globalization – are not inherently malign forces,” Schumer said, but the burden is on Democrats “to figure out ways for the middle class to adapt to these new forces – to be able to thrive amidst these forces.” The only counterweight “that can give you the tools to stand up to the large tectonic forces, that can mitigate the effects that technology creates on your income, is an active and committed government that is on your side.”

Standing in the way of activist intervention is the fact that “the American public is so cynical about government that a Democratic, pro-government message would not be immediately successful.” To restore credibility, Schumer argued, the “first step is to convince voters that we are on their side, and not in the grips of special interests.” He specifically suggested the prosecution of bankers for “what seems, on its face, blatant fraud” and tax reform designed to ensure that C.E.O.s paid higher rates “than their secretaries.” In effect, he said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”

The ability of the Democratic Party to convince middle-class voters that it is on their side is by no means guaranteed. In mid-November, 2008, just after Obama first won election, 55 percent of voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party  

had fallen to a record low of 36 percent.

During a September pre-election panel discussion on the continuing political repercussions of the Affordable Care Act, Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Report, put his finger on the health care problem facing Democrats when he pointed out that the public perception of the party has been indelibly imprinted by Obamacare.
.

The Affordable Care Act has “framed where the Democratic Party is,” Cook said. “If I would sum up my assessment, it was huge, it did play a central role in framing everything.” By 2014, health care reform “lost a little bit of its oomph, but it still is more important in setting things up than any other issue was over the last six years.”

By shifting the public focus to the party’s pro-work and pro-wage policies, Schumer wants to transform the negative association of the Democratic Party with Obamacare. Even as his speech has provoked an intraparty rift, Schumer’s argument has won support from some surprising quarters.

A spokesman for Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters that Warren “agrees with Senator Schumer that there was an urgent need in 2009 and 2010 to help middle-class families who were struggling to get by, and that more should have been done.” Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told Politico: “I agree with Chuck that the A.C.A. was essential, as our health care system was unjust and spinning out of control. I also agree that if we could have done more infrastructure first it would have connected more with working Americans, and our sales job was less than stellar.”

A Brookings Institution analysis of the winners and losers from Obamacare found that the program redistributes costs to the top 80 percent of the income distribution in order to provide benefits to the bottom 20 percent. The analysis, shown in Figure 1, reports that 

"incomes in the bottom one-fifth of the distribution will increase almost 6 percent; those in the bottom one-tenth of the distribution will rise more than 7 percent. These estimated gains represent averages. Most people already have insurance coverage that will be left largely unaffected by reform." 

Those who gain subsidized insurance will see bigger percentage gains in their income.

Of the 60 Democratic senators who voted for Obamacare in 2010, 28 are no longer in office. Of course, not all of the retirements and defeats can be attributed to the advent of Obamacare, but the numbers are striking. The electoral scorecard suggests that Schumer may have less opposition than anticipated to his bid to shift the central concern of the party to more overtly economic issues.

Insofar as Democrats try to reduce hostility to Obamacare, they face two problems. The first is a Republican Party unwilling to support any legislation making the A.C.A. more palatable. The other is the danger that tinkering with any of the provisions that have provoked the strongest opposition could eviscerate the legislation. Among the provisions that have stirred opposition are the requirement that most Americans get coverage, the tax on medical devices and the excise tax on expensive, high-quality private health coverage. Removing existing provisions would require replacing lost funding with new revenue sources, which could provoke anger from multiple constituencies.

As if Democrats do not already have enough trouble, data released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that many, if not most, of the seven million people who purchased insurance through the A.C.A. will either have to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles, or submit themselves to the complex process of switching plans.

Democrats have a lot going for them in presidential years. Nonetheless, at the moment you’d have to say that they have their work cut out for them.

Even though midterm elections favor Republicans, the 2014 results show middle- and working-class dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party rising to dangerous levels, which threatens the party’s growing demographic advantages.

Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, their highest percentage since Republicans rejected immigration reform in 2005, and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters, who had been moving decisively in the Democrats’ favor. Asian-Americans and Hispanics are crucial to future Democratic presidential victories.

In combination with the growing Republican allegiance of whites, these trends raise the possibility that the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious.

Whatever you think of Senator Schumer, you begin to understand why he spoke out as forcefully as he did."

Image/chart: "The Affordable Care Act will improve the incomes of Americans in the bottom two-tenths of the income distribution. Credit Courtesy of The Brookings Institution"

==========================

Comment: The Brookings Chart shows ObamaCare costs are assigned specifically to those who can afford them the least, beginning with the lower end of the middle class. The richest are assigned only a tiny percent. As they say, do you need a picture?  Much of ObamaCare isn't even about insurance or health but rather creating massive, new government bureaucracies. The United States was transformed by attacking the already struggling middle class, protecting the richest and rewarding the poorest. Schumer shouldn't worry, the GOP Establishment despises the middle class. You'll get them back.

.

While GOP fat cats fret and do studies on how to 'grow' the Republican Party, Chris McDaniel is actually doing it. McDaniel got 4300 more votes in Jones County on 6/3/14 than Republicans got in 2012 primary there-NY Times

.
McDaniel got 4300 more votes in Jones County in 6/3/14 primary than Republicans received in the 2012 primary, per NY Times:

6/4/14, "Democrats Shouldn’t Dream in Mississippi, Where a Runoff Looms," NY Times, Nate Cohn

McDaniel supporters, 6/3/14

"After a night of surprising regional shifts in voter turnout Tuesday, neither Thad Cochran, an incumbent Republican senator in Mississippi, nor Chris McDaniel, a state senator backed by Tea Party groups, appeared to reach the 50 percent necessary to avoid a runoff in Mississippi’s Republican Senate primary.

Mr. McDaniel held 49.6 percent of the vote after a stupendous hometown turnout, which surged far ahead of the turnout for the 2012 Republican presidential primary and gave him a lead over Mr. Cochran, who is at 48.9 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting."...

Per NY Times: "*Huge* turnout for McDaniel in his home, Jones County: 13000 votes destroys 8663 in 2012." 10:38pm

(continuing): "The contest is expected to be decided in a runoff election on June 24, assuming that the final votes, mainly in Rankin County, a suburb of Jackson, don’t break decidedly and unexpected toward Mr. McDaniel.

Democrats dream that a McDaniel victory would give them a chance of a surprise victory in one of the nation’s most conservative states. But they shouldn’t get their hopes up.

At first glance, President Obama’s strong performance in Mississippi, where he lost by just 11.5 percentage points in 2012, might suggest that the state is within striking distance for a strong Democrat against a Republican who may have weak appeal in the general election, like Mr. McDaniel. And Democrats have a potentially strong nominee, the former congressman Travis Childers.

But there is no state more polarized than Mississippi. Eighty percent of voters are black or white evangelical Christian. And the problem for Democrats is that they’re on the wrong side of the ledger. In 2012, 50 percent of voters were white evangelical Christians, and they voted 95 percent for Mitt Romney. They form a nearly unbreakable bloc, and they’re augmented by the state’s deeply conservative non-evangelical white voters. Over all, Mr. Obama barely exceeded 10 percent of white voters, if at all.

The complete absence of persuadable voters was on display in 2008. Then, Democrats believed they had a shot in an exceptional Democratic year, when a former Democratic governor, Ronnie Musgrove, fought for an open seat against Roger Wicker. Yet in defeat, Mr. Musgrove inched only two percentage points ahead of Mr. Obama, to 45 percent of the vote. There just might not be a road to victory for Democrats in Mississippi.

Nor is there a serious third-party challenge to split the G.O.P. vote. The filing deadline was March 1, and the only third-party candidate appears to be Shawn O’Hara, a reform party candidate who runs for office just about every year. He received 1 percent of the vote in the 2012 Senate race. Mr. O’Hara is not exactly positioned to siphon off moderate Republicans: He has said that abortion is like “giving the middle finger to God.”

Mr. Childers is an experienced candidate who even represented northern Mississippi, which is probably where there are the most persuadable voters. But he is not a former governor who has won statewide, like Mr. Musgrove. Mr. McDaniel may be a flawed candidate — he is generally thought to be gaffe prone — but 2014 will not be 2008, a fantastic Democratic year. Mr. Childers probably won’t benefit from historic black turnout, either.

Mr. Childers would probably need a historic drop-off in Republican turnout, allowing black voters to rise to a larger share of the electorate than in 2012. Then Mr. Childers would need to run a flawless campaign, and cross his fingers. Because even then, he might not have a pathway to victory."

Image above: 6/3/14, "On election night in Hattiesburg, Miss., supporters cheered Mr. McDaniel, who forced a runoff in the Senate primary. Credit George Clark/Associated Press"  

"Pictures don’t lie. The photo of the McDaniel’s supporters shows a vibrant crowd of young Americans eager to take back our country. This movement is far from dead. It is just beginning. In Mississippi, the Red State Strategy of bringing real conservative challengers to the campaign has worked."
  

.

In 1997 Pres. Clinton met with 'overwhelmingly white' tv weatherpersons hoping they'd influence public opinion in favor of giving taxpayer dollars to millionaires and billionaires in the climate scare industry. Weathermen 'appreciated being treated as something other than airheads,' said Clinton Press Sec.

.
"The assembled broadcasters, who were overwhelmingly white, male and shorter than they appear on television."...

10/2/1997, "Clinton Nudges TV Forecasters On Warming," NY Times, James Bennet

"It was cloudy and cool outside the north portico of the White House this morning....

Mr. Clinton invited more than 100 national and local television forecasters to the White House today for a chat with him and Vice President Al Gore and for briefings on climate change from Government experts.

The Administration hopes that the forecasters will influence public opinion on climate change more than the journalists on the evening news; Clinton aides complain that they pay scant attention to the issue.

''You, just in the way you comment on the events that you cover, may have a real effect on the American people,'' Mr. Clinton said this afternoon to 

the assembled broadcasters, 

who were overwhelmingly white, 

male and shorter than they appear on television.

Playing host to the nation's television weather forecasters was the most innovative step in a White House campaign to rally public support for new binding global targets for restricting greenhouse gases....

''I don't ask for you to advocate or do anything outside of whatever your own convictions are,'' Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, as the skies cleared and the East Room brightened. ''But I do think it's very important, since you have more influence than anybody does on how the American people think about this, that at least you know what you believe and how you think we should proceed.''...

Some were careful to distance themselves from the White House's arguments.

Global warming is ''a theory that is widely accepted, but it's still under debate in the scientific community,'' Cecily Tynan told viewers of WPVI in Philadelphia. ''Judging by the P.R. event that was orchestrated here, it's certainly become a very hot topic in the Clinton Administration.''

But other forecasters confessed to their viewers that they were thrilled to be there. ''To be honest with you, I'm just like a little kid,'' said Bob Kovachick of WNYT in Albany. After the camera stopped rolling, Mr. Kovachick, like many of the other meteorologists, said that he intended to return to the subject of global warming in broadcasts later tonight and on Thursday....

Craig Allen, the CBS morning weatherman, said he felt ''absolutely honored'' to be invited to the day's session....

Calling the day a success, Michael D. McCurry, the White House press secretary, said that the weathermen ''appreciated being treated as something other than airheads.'''
 
 Mr. Clinton, who is planning to hold a conference on climate change at Georgetown University on Monday, is not expected to reveal his proposed emissions targets for another two or three weeks....

''We really haven't heard what it is they expect us to give up or change in our habits,'' Mr. Gaidica said. ''I mean questions as simple as can we use the barbecue today or can we use the Waverunner anymore.''"...via Rush Limbaugh


 
 

No scientific evidence that California drought caused by global warming-NOAA scientist Hoerling, NY Times op-ed

.
3/8/14, "Global Warming? Not Always," NY Times, by Martin P. Hoerling, Boulder, Colorado

"CALIFORNIA is now in the midst of the third year of one of its worst droughts on record. As our planet gradually warms from our rampant burning of fossil fuels, it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change has played in California’s troubles.

The answer is this: At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.

The drought has many attributes of historical droughts over that region — in particular, a lack of storms and rainfall that would normally arrive from the Pacific Ocean with considerable frequency. It resembles the droughts that afflicted the state in 1976 and 1977. Those years were at least as dry as the last two years have been for the state as a whole.

In short, the drought gripping California has been observed before. And it has occurred principally because of a lack of rain, not principally because of warmer temperatures. Indeed, it should be quite familiar to anyone who lived in California in the mid-1970s, as I did. We can also say with high confidence that no appreciable trend toward either wetter or drier conditions has been observed for statewide average precipitation since 1895. This drought is not part of a long-term drift toward reduced precipitation over the state.

What’s different this time, however, is that the demand for water has greatly increased in the state, and it may very well be that the current stress created by the failed rains is more severe than for similar rainfall deficits 40 years ago. It is at least intuitive that growth patterns, population increases and the rising value of the state’s agricultural sector have increased California’s vulnerability to drought and reduced its resiliency — that is, the state’s ability to adapt and cope with less precipitation.

Other indicators and aspects of rainfall behavior could also be conducive to drought. These include the gap between rainy days, the intensity of rains when they do occur and the effects of warming temperatures in California and for the planet as a whole. Even if the average seasonal rainfall isn’t changing, changes in these other factors could alter the risk of drought. What is the evidence there?

One way of accounting for the combined effects of rainfall and temperature on drought is to examine soil moisture. Long-term soil moisture observations are not readily available, but have been estimated using sophisticated models. The 2012 report on extreme events by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change examined the evidence for regional changes in soil moisture since 1950, and made the following assessment for western North America:

“No overall or slight decrease in dryness since 1950; large variability; large drought of the 1930s dominates.”

The team of 42 scientists who made that assessment assigned it a rating of “medium confidence” that they were correct. The report also assessed the scientific evidence for how drought over western North America will change in the 21st century, finding an “inconsistent signal in consecutive dry days and soil moisture changes.”

A 2013 report by the I.P.C.C. reaffirmed that finding and concluded: “Recent long-term droughts in western North America cannot definitively be shown to lie outside the very large envelope of natural precipitation variability in this region, particularly given new evidence of the history of high-magnitude natural drought and pluvial episodes suggested by paleoclimatic reconstructions.”

Thus, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that human-induced climate change has played any appreciable role in the current California drought.

But that is not to say that a warmer climate cannot and will not act to decrease soil moisture and amplify the severity of future naturally occurring droughts. It simply reminds us that the current drought, like its ancestors, continues to be strongly driven by shifts in the location of storm tracks that may or may not deliver rains to the narrow strip of the West Coast.

Why should we care about what caused this drought, or for that matter, other extreme events like this winter’s severe cold over the Midwest or last year’s floods in Colorado? An accurate interpretation of the cause or causes can provide a preview of the future. It can help us understand whether the current experience is normal, or may instead foretell a new normal. The diagnosis is key to the prognosis.

Both answers have critical implications for how we assess risk and develop strategies to mitigate future problems and dangers. This is particularly true  in the West, where we have built expensive and complex water resource systems to provide drinking water and support agriculture and industry. And it is also important for the energy infrastructure in the Midwest and the East Coast to protect against frigid winters and hot summers.

The bottom line is, the correct diagnosis matters."

-------------------------------

"This article is adapted from Andrew Revkin’s blog, Dot Earth.

Martin P. Hoerling is a research meteorologist, specializing in climate dynamics, at the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 9, 2014, on page SR12 of the National edition with the headline: Global Warming? Not Always." 


.

The Karl Rove thing is out, the Koch thing is in, says a Republican donor-NY Times

.
3/1/14, "Big-Money Donors Demand Larger Say in Campaign Strategy," NY Times, Nicholas Confessore

"Americans for Prosperity, executives of which met with a number of top Freedom Partners donors at the January (2014) conference, has spent roughly $30 million on advertising against Senate Democrats in recent months. Groups that played a major role in previous cycles, including Crossroads and the American Action Network, have spent a small fraction of that amount.

“The Karl Rove thing is out,” said one donor, who asked for anonymity because he did not want to offend Mr. Rove. “The Koch thing is in.”" (end of article)

===================

Comment: This article was mostly about the Kochs. From the headline and big picture of a Democrat billionaire at the top I thought it was going to be about both parties. Since it's the NY Times, I should've known. The quote about Rove made it worthwhile.

.

Forced urbanization in China features ghettos, misery, and suicide. Few youth have jobs, elderly must do menial work. Due to corruption, buildings are shoddy, ceilings leak, no hot water, ‘uninhabitable in winter’-NY Times

.
11/9/13, “New China Cities: Shoddy Homes, Broken Hope,” NY Times, Ian Johnson

“Three years ago, the Shanghai World Expo featured this newly built town as a model for how China would move from being a land of farms to a land of cities. In a dazzling pavilion visited by more than a million people, visitors learned how farmers were being given a new life through a fair-and-square deal that did not cost them anything.

Today, Huaming may be an example of another transformation: the ghettoization of China’s new towns.

Signs of social dysfunction abound. Young people, who while away their days in Internet cafes or pool halls, say that only a small fraction of them have jobs. The elderly are forced to take menial work to make ends meet.

• Neighborhood and family structures have been damaged.

Most worrying are the suicides, which local residents say have become an all-too-familiar sign of despair.

As China pushes ahead with government-led urbanization, a program expected to be endorsed at a Communist Party Central Committee meeting that began Saturday, many worry that the scores of new housing developments here may face the same plight as postwar housing projects in Western countries. Meant to solve one problem, they may be creating a new set of troubles that could plague Chinese cities for generations.

“We’re talking hundreds of millions of people who are moving into these places, but the standard of living for these relocatees has actually dropped,” said Lynette Ong, a University of Toronto political scientist who has studied the resettlement areas. “On top of that is the quality of the buildings —

• there was a lot of corruption, and they skimped on materials.”

Huaming is far from being a dangerous slum. It has no gangs, drug use or street violence. Nearly half the town is given over to green space. Trees line the streets that lead to elementary, middle and high schools.

But the new homes have cracked walls, leaking windows and elevators with rusted out floors. For farmers who were asked to surrender their ancestral lands for an apartment, the deterioration adds to a sense of having been cheated.

“That was their land,” said Wei Ying, a 35-year-old unemployed woman whose parents live in a poorly built unit. “You have to understand how they feel in their heart.”

The sense of despair and alienation surfaces in the suicides, a late-night leap from a balcony, drinking of pesticide or lying down on railroad tracks.

“I have anxiety attacks because we have no income, no job, nothing,” said Feng Aiju, 40, a former farmer who moved to Huaming in 2008 against her will. She said she had spent a small fortune by local standards, $1,500, on antidepressants. “We never had a chance to speak; we were never asked anything. I want to go home.”

The situation in these new towns contrasts with the makeshift housing where other migrants live.

Many of those are created by farmers who chose to leave their land for jobs in the city. Although cramped and messy, they are full of vitality and upward mobility, said Biao Xiang, a social anthropologist at Oxford University who has studied migrant communities.

“These migrant neighborhoods in big cities are often called slums, but it’s the new resettlement communities that will be harder to revive, partly because they are not related to any productive economic activity,” Professor Biao said. “And the population tend to be homogeneous, disadvantaged communities.”

Addressing ‘Disorder’

The idea behind Huaming was radically different. In 2005, Huaming Township was chosen to be a demonstration for successful, planned urbanization. A township is an administrative unit in China above a village but below a county, and Huaming had 41,000 people living in 12 small villages dotted across 60 square miles, most of which was farmland.

For northern China it was unusually fertile because water was plentiful. On the outskirts of one of China’s largest cities, the port of Tianjin, it was well known for its local handicrafts, such as decorative paper-cutting, and, especially, its vegetables that were easily sold in the big city.
City planners, however, saw it as a major problem.

“The naturally formed villages had undergone disorderly developments resulting in low building density, in disarrayed industrial space and layout,” according to a publication explaining the need for change. (Officials refused requests for interviews, but have published copiously on the project, allowing insights into their thinking.) The villages had no sewage treatment, and were “dirty, messy and substandard.”

The idea was to consolidate the villages into one new town called Huaming that would take up less than one square mile, versus the three square miles that the dozen villages had occupied. A portion of the remaining 59 square miles could be sold to developers to pay for construction costs, meaning the new buildings would cost farmers and the government nothing.

The rest of the land would stay agricultural, but worked by a few remaining farmers using modern methods. This would achieve another aim: not reducing the amount of arable land — a crucial goal for a country with a huge population and historic worries about being able to feed itself.

Construction started in March 2006, and was finished just 16 months later. The town is made up of six- to nine-story buildings divided into gated compounds of a dozen or so buildings each.

Commercial space is officially limited to two streets, making the rest of town a quiet residential area centered on the new public schools. An attractive park and lake are given over at night to dancing and socializing.

The biggest selling point in official literature is how space was to be allocated. Farmers would able to trade the living space in their farmhouse for the same-size apartment in the new town. Even the yard around the farmhouse figured into the equation.

What happened was more complicated. Most families got 322 square feet per member. That is 22 square feet more than the average per capita living space in the city of Tianjin, but most of the new units were just 800 square feet, so a typical family of three would not get their full allotment. In theory, they could use the remaining allotment and spend their own money to purchase another unit, but most ended up with less floor space than they had on the farm.

Some were still happy to take up the offer. In interviews, those most happy about the new plan already had nonfarming jobs and saw this as a way to get a modern apartment.

“It’s survival of the fittest,” said Yang Huashuai, a 25-year-old electrician and gypsy-cab driver who said his family got three apartments. “If you don’t work hard, you don’t deserve to make it.”
.
But many others did not want to leave their land. By 2008, the government’s offer had met limited success, with only half the population choosing to move. Already, though, government propaganda was extolling Huaming as a success, and officials planned to feature it at the world’s fair in two years’ time.

“They said if we didn’t move, it would affect the World Expo,” said Jia Qiufu, 69, a former resident of Guanzhuang Village. “They said it had to happen by 2009 because the Expo was the next year.”

The local government used intense pressure to force farmers out of their villages. It tore up roads and cut electricity and water. Even so, thousands stayed on. As a final measure, the schoolhouses — one in each village — were demolished. With no utilities and no way to educate their children, most farmers capitulated and moved to town.

Losing the Jobs Competition

Besides dissatisfaction over the amount of space they would receive, farmers were most concerned about jobs, a common worry in other resettlement projects. In the official literature, Huaming had that taken care of. Compared with relocation projects in remote rural areas, such as southern Shaanxi Province, Huaming is next to a major transportation corridor, the Beijing-Tianjin Expressway. It is also adjacent to Tianjin’s massive airport logistics center, which is expanding and adding thousands of jobs.

Many farmers said, however, that they were not qualified for these jobs.

“We know how to farm, but not how to work in an office,” said Wei Dushen, a former resident of Guanzhuang Village now living in town. “Those are for educated people.”

Almost uniformly, Huaming residents say the only jobs open to them are in dead-end menial positions, such as street sweepers or low-level security guards. These jobs pay the equivalent of $150 a month.

Even so, competition for them is fierce. Poor migrants from other parts of China are willing to work for even less, often because they have lower living costs. Almost all the gardening in public spaces in Huaming, for example, is done by workers from the inland province of Henan who come for a short time and leave. Workers pruning bushes in the town’s beautifully manicured park, for example, said they were paid $100 a month and were happy for it.

“Compared to Henan it’s good work,” said Zhuang Wei, 58, who said he lived in a room with five other men and ate simple canteen food offered by the company that had brought him to Huaming. “I’ll stick around here for a few months and then head back.”

Other migrants, mostly from Shandong Province, dominate Huaming’s taxi industry because they have teams of experienced mechanics, drivers and dispatchers.

“You can’t really compete with them,” said one local driver, Wei Zhen. “They’re professionals who have been doing this for years.”

Retraining was supposed to have allowed Huaming villagers a chance to get skills to compete. According to official literature, $1,500 was allotted for each resident. However, it was impossible to find any who had received retraining or had heard of anyone who had.

For young people, the problems are especially acute.

Even when they can get the well-paying menial jobs of $150 a month, residents overwhelmingly said this barely allowed them to make ends meet. Day care costs $100 per month per child, which would take a third of an average couple’s salary. Unlike in the villages, many families do not live near one another, making it hard to leave children with their grandparents.

Costs are also high. Inflation has nearly doubled the price of rice, something the residents find especially galling because in the past they grew it themselves.

Many young people seem to have given up trying to find work. Internet cafes are packed with them playing games. Although the cafes are supposed to be limited to the commercial streets, they are found in converted apartments in many housing blocks.

In one, 28-year-old Zhang Wei said he had invested $4,300 to renovate an apartment and install computers. The unit’s former living room was packed with young people hunched over screens, many of them playing games like World of Warcraft for money.

“They’re all unemployed local people, but without qualifications, what can they do?” Mr. Zhang said.
In a nearby unit, Liu Baohua, an unemployed 62-year-old farmer, said the buildings were almost uninhabitable during the winter. “These buildings look modern outside, but they’re not,” Mr. Liu said. “It’s the worst quality.”

Mr. Liu’s apartment leaks water from the ceiling, which he said maintenance crews told him they could not fix. Windows were double-glazed but the quality was bad and seals broken, causing them to mist up with condensation. Radiators, he said, had almost no hot water. He also showed work bills from maintenance visits in January confirming that his north-facing bedroom was 55 degrees.

“We need to buy space heaters to survive here,” Mr. Liu said. His wife works as a street sweeper and the couple get the equivalent of welfare for an additional $60 a month.

For many, the disappointment leads to suicides. Recently, residents said, a 19-year-old man ill with cancer flung himself off the family’s third-floor balcony at 5:30 a.m. and landed on the parking lot next to two vans serving breakfast. His father dead and his mother living on welfare, the family was too poor to afford further cancer treatment. The story could not be verified with the authorities but was repeated independently by residents.

The Good Earth

More common are stories of old people who cannot get used to the new lives and quickly die of illnesses. One term that residents repeatedly use is “biesi” —

 “stifled to death” in the new towers. 
 
“I’m tired, I’m so tired,” said an elderly woman who would give only her surname, Wei. In the past, Chinese farmers wanted sons because they lived at home, whereas daughters married into other families. Now, this is reversed because of the burden of having to help a son find a home or job.
Mrs. Wei said her son had bought a car with the family savings but was losing money driving it. The family’s savings now almost exhausted, she said she did not know what to do.

“It’s tough having a son,” she said, quietly weeping. “I wish I had a daughter.”

Some residents wonder why they went through these travails when so little development is visible. Outside the town, most of the former township lies empty. Some hotels and office blocks have been built next to the airport logistics center. But mostly, one is confronted by mile after mile of empty lots — once farmland, now lying fallow, sometimes blocked from view by endless sheet-metal fences painted with propaganda about prosperity and development.

“Look at the empty fields,” said Wei Naiju, formerly of Guanzhuang Village. “That’s good earth; you could really plant something on it.”

Driving through the demolished villages with former residents is especially poignant. Some of the streets are still serviceable but mostly one is surrounded by a gutted, bombed-out landscape of foundations overgrown with scrub and small trees.

Given all the fallow land, claims that agricultural production would not suffer do not seem possible. Official propaganda material shows greenhouses that produce vegetables. Many greenhouses have indeed been built, but dozens were empty during a visit in June. Doors swung wildly in the wind and the clear plastic used to let the sun in was torn and flapping. Two greenhouses seemed to be functioning; local residents said they were used to make gifts of produce to visiting leaders as Potemkin-like proof of the still-vibrant agricultural sector.

Back in town, the life that once existed in the township has been memorialized in a museum. It is rarely open to the public, but its front door was ajar one day this past summer. Filled with full-scale dioramas of village homes and human figures, it was a re-creation of the old village life, accurate down to the dried corn hanging from the eaves. An introductory plaque explained: “Time goes by, and things change.””

.
.