Random, Insane Rants

Is anyone else sick of seeing Joe the Plumber talk all day about Joe the Plumber while politicians fawn over Joe the Plumber?

2009-02-26T19:40:00.002-05:00

Really.

Stimulus Away

2009-02-17T20:17:00.007-05:00

It's almost certain that the White House had this timed to coincide with the signing of the stimulus bill by President Obama, but it is refreshing to see at least one promise project actually underway.

Associated Press

Mo. bridge project touted as first under stimulus

TUSCUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Construction crews have started working on a replacement for a rural Missouri bridge within minutes of President Barack Obama's signing the $787 billion stimulus package.

Officials expected the Missouri bridge project would be the first in the nation to get started under the stimulus plan.

As Obama signed the bill Tuesday in Denver, Missouri transportation officials met at the bridge and quickly approved construction of its replacement.

The 1,000-foot-long bridge being replaced spans a Missouri River tributary about 30 miles southwest of the state Capitol in Jefferson City. It was built in 1933 but was closed to large trucks in 2007 because of structural concerns.

The state also planned to begin work Tuesday on three other highway projects.

It's fantastic political theatre. Hopefully more of the promised projects for needed infrastructure as well as tax relief will be in the pipeline soon as well. After all, it is law now.

However, there still could have been at least 48 hours to review the compromise stimulus package before shoving it through Congress. Was the administration afraid that it would not pass had that been the case?

The pertinent point comes 1:05 from the start.

Do we know what our government is doing?

Obama Hates Struggling Americans!

2009-02-16T20:08:00.003-05:00

If it hasn't been used already, some partisan hack will use it eventually.

But it is funny, that, with the rush to pass the compromise stimulus bill through Congress on Friday, President Obama will not sign it into law until tomorrow.

From The Business Review:

President Barack Obama will sign the $787 billion federal stimulus package into law in Denver on Tuesday.

Obama will sign the bill at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

It sounds like good theatre and a nice political show, especially after nearly every Republican in Congress refused to play ball. However, could we, and Congress, have not gotten the weekend to review the compromise stimulus bill? It would still have been ready for the president on Tuesday.

If we need it right now, without delay, then why the delay?

Hopefully, there is something in this bill that will help. We will find out as we find what's actually in this bill and what the results of these provisions will be. We can view the bill now, and its provisions, but it has already passed and will be signed into law. This kind of review should have come after the release of the compromise and before the votes that passed it through Congress.

Future Generations to US Leadership: Thanks a Trillion

2009-02-14T01:52:00.000-05:00

Whether one thinks the stimulus package is urgently needed or not, there should have been a little extra time for Congress, and the public, to review the bill as it came out of conference committee. No matter how many "shovel-ready" projects and immediate tax cuts there may be, they will not magically be underway in the morning. Surely, a little time to better understand all that is in this massive bill could have been given. The size of this bill alone demands it. The size of the coming deficits on top of the current public debt strengthens that case. After all, were we not promised greater transparency? If not for this bill, then where does it begin?

Even in better times, deficits mounted. While there were some very needed items included, this accumulation of debt has made it harder to take on additional debt, for needed items, for pork projects, for tax cuts, for anything. The additional debt securities that would have to be issued would have to be bought. Even if (or when) that happens, the country will face difficult decisions.

Servicing this debt will become more expensive as the debt increases. This will take more funds away from other priorities. Also, this debt will someday have to be paid. This could be done with the government's revenues or by issuing more debt. Either way, this will further erode resources and maneuverability on the country's other priorities. Combine this with the prospect of exploding entitlement programs and.... The situation in the decades ahead is looking nightmarish.

As the parties in DC form skirmish lines and play the predefined roles assigned to them based on which party is in power, who will foot the bill? Not those presently in power. The toughest decisions will come in the next several decades unless the current leadership chooses to make tough decisions now. After all, as massive and painful as this bill is, it would have been relatively less painful had it not been a cup of salt on a deep and old wound. Whether it would have meant a better and more efficient bill is an entirely other matter, however.

But for painful decisions punted to a future that is drawing ever closer, to the leaders that brought us here, thanks a trillion...or ten.

The Race for in the White House

2008-03-18T18:38:00.001-04:00

Whatever one may think about Barack Obama's decision to address the nation on race in the United States, there is no disputing that such an action had to be done. Throughout the whole campaign, the issue of race was ever present, albeit not on center stage, until his pastor's Sunday Morning Rantings were replayed over and over again on the political talk shows, on television and radio.

Although Obama should have spent time on this sooner to try to quell those background whispers, it is possible that the speech would have been said as pure politicking had he done so while he was still playing second fiddle to Hillary Clinton.

We need an honest discussion about race and an honest discussion about policies directed by race (such as Affirmative Action). We must have this so that they no longer remain the domain of people like Al Sharpton, who only set back progress and keep people suspicious of others. The Obama speech likely will not lead to that honest discussion, since he did not fully confront the issues and problems to the extent that he could have. But if he's all about hope, then we have to hope that this discussion does take place.

We Paid $42 Million and All We Got Was This Lousy Letter

2008-03-15T21:31:00.001-04:00

The government has some fantastic news but the only way to tell you that is to spend $42 million to mail out letters to 130 million households. These letters tell you that the fantastic economy stimulus checks that will be arriving right to your door will be arriving not now but in the late spring.

From the Associated Press:

That works out to about 32 cents to print, process and mail each letter. It doesn't include the tab for another round of mailings planned for those who didn't file tax returns last year but may still qualify for a rebate.

So that $42 million sticker price will not be the final cost.

Keith Hennessey, director of the president's National Economic Council, said the letters are being sent to explain how the tax rebates will work.

"Any time you do something as a government tens of millions of times, there is ample room for people to get confused. And so if you're going to have tens of millions of taxpayers getting checks, you want to get the information out so that you have as few people as possible confused about what's happening, they understand what's coming, and it reduces the number of incoming requests that IRS and Treasury have to figure out how to deal with it," said Hennessey.

"Dear Taxpayer," the letters will begin, going on to say the IRS is pleased to inform the recipient that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a plan that will provide payments of up to $600 for individuals who qualify or $1,200 for married couples filing jointly. The rebates are the centerpiece of a $168 billion economic stimulus package.

The actual rebate checks are scheduled to go out starting in May, after the IRS has finished separately mailing out routine refunds for the 2007 tax year.

Why couldn't the IRS simply send a receipt stating the reasons why the recipient received what they received, according to their tax returns. It would save the cost of an additional mailing and surely setting up a hotline to take questions from the population would not cost $42 million by the end of the summer or even the fall.

Unless this was just the IRS's way of doing their part to stimulate the economy.

Again, from the AP story:

Democrats accused the Bush administration of wasting time and postage.

"There are countless better uses for $42 million than a self-congratulatory mailer that gives the president a pat on the back for an idea that wasn't even his," Sen. Charles Schumer said Friday, arguing the IRS could more effectively spend the money to catch tax cheats.

Considering that the Democrats in the Senate overwhelming shot down the proposed one year moratorium on earmarks, including Senator Schumer, this argument rings quite hollow, especially since those earmarks cost far more than $42 million.

Of course, it may just be that it may be seen as giving credit to President Bush. In which case, don't legislators spend quite large amounts of money when using their franking privileges to tout themselves to their constituents?

This cost is unnecessary, but let's not blind ourselves to the fact that it is far from the only place where belts could be tightened.

Resolving the Democrats' Primary Problem

2008-03-14T23:10:00.000-04:00

The national Democratic Party carried out its threat to strip the delegates of any states that moved their primaries ahead of any of the four approved contests for January. Michigan and Florida tested those waters and the national party acted. The Republican Party, for their part, will accept only half of the delegates from those two states, as part of their own policy.

But, with most of the states having already voted and the Democratic nomination still being contested, there would be a major PR problem if the Democrats go to convention and no delegates from those two states take part.

Although the complaining from Democratic bosses in those states is immensely irritating, there will have to be a plan that leads to delegates from Michigan and Florida sitting in the convention.

Simply put, merely letting the results from the January contests stand can not happen. Barack Obama was not on the Michigan ballot for that vote and did not campaign in Florida (Hillary Clinton did her best to come as close to campaigning in Florida as possible). Further, it would validate those results as the voters expressed in January. If those results are validated and the delegates from that vote are seated, then what exactly was the punishment to those two states?

Having the states pay for new elections only punishes the average voters, whom, even if they were Democrats, had no say in where their elections were placed.

Thus, new votes must be done and paid for by the state Democratic parties. However they get the funds is up to them, but they must pay for it. Surely, people would rally to that cause.

The votes must also happen after every other primary and caucus has taken place. Therefore, the chances of the votes in these two states would become turning points for the campaign is limited. There would also be no punishments to the other states (and territories) by being placed behind these two states. Additionally, the chances of one candidate or another taking a lead large enough to prevent a disputed convention is greater. With Obama being ahead by approximately 150 pledged delegates, the chances of Clinton catching up are slim, due to the way delegates are apportioned in the Democratic Party.

These last two contests should also take place between one week and two weeks following the final contests, so that campaign attention does not drift too far away from the last contests nor would there be too large a gap exist such that there would be long, intense campaigning in Michigan and Florida.

It would be ideal if both states would only have half the delegates admitted to the convention, as is still the case with the Republicans. However, it might still be too much of a PR problem if that were the case if (or when) there is no clear-cut Democratic winner as there is for the Republican Party.

This deal should be made immediately. Not only so that the state parties could raise the money for the new votes, but also so that this bickering can finally cease. For two months, there has been nothing but griping from these two states. It is even threatening to rival the griping that comes from Holy Iowa and Holy New Hampshire when anyone even thinks that they shouldn't have their divine rights to vote first. This has to be ended.

A Disgrace in the Senate

2008-03-14T14:56:00.001-04:00

The Senate voted overwhelmingly against a proposed moratorium on earmarks for the 2009 budget. It wasn't even close. Seventy-one senators voted against versus twenty-nine that voted for the one-year ban.

If we cannot get the Senate to give up their pork barrel projects for even one year, what hope could we have?

The three Senators still in the running (Clinton, McCain, and Obama) for President voted for this ban. It may be politically calculated, but at this point, should we really care about such political motives so long as they support the ban?

The amendment to the bill was submitted by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) with fifteen cosponsors. Those cosponsors are listed below:

Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 3/13/2008
Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] - 3/13/2008
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 3/13/2008
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 3/13/2008
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 3/13/2008
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/13/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 3/13/2008
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 3/13/2008
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/13/2008
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 3/13/2008
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 3/13/2008
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/13/2008

The roll call vote shows which senators supported this effort.

YEAs ---29
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Obama (D-IL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)

NAYs ---71
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

What a shock it is that Ted Stevens, the king of the "Bridge to Nowhere" piece of pork is against this. Also a shock that the Senate can unite in a bipartisan fashion, against the ban that lets them take public funds to boost their own future campaigns.

Also of note is that more Republicans (23) than Democrats (6, including Joe Lieberman) voted for this moratorium. Whether it was out of individual stands (after all, more Republicans voted against than for this moratorium in the end) or because they'd like to stick it to the majority party, they should be applauded for their votes.

The 71 Senators that voted against this ban disappointed America, even though we should expect nothing more from them. Yes, this was only a proposal to ban it for one year, but it is a start. It's better than having nothing at all.

A Perfect Plan for 2010?

2008-03-13T19:33:00.000-04:00

The conventional wisdom states that Lieutenant Governor, and, on Monday, New York Governor David Paterson was betting on a Hillary Clinton administration starting in 2009, thus paving the way for Eliot Spitzer to appoint him to the vacancy in the United States Senate.

Although the chances of Mrs. Clinton becoming President, or Vice President, are falling, the timing for Paterson seems to favor him. The current gubernatorial term, which Paterson will serve, will end in 2010. So will the current term for New York's senior Senator, Chuck Schumer. These two men could simultaneously campaign for the other's job.

Of course, there are things that have the potential to derail this plan. These two men do not exist in a bubble and the ambitions of others cannot be ignored. Suppose that Andrew Cuomo would want another opportunity to become Governor in 2010. Or that Tom Suozzi would like to take another shot at the top. Suppose that Michael Bloomberg would like to continue his public life after all. Or that the GOP could recruit a candidate much better than the sacrificial lambs they offered in 2006 (no offense to long shots like Chris Callaghan that truly fought for the offices they sought). Suppose that members of New York's congressional delegation would like a promotion to the Senate.

The potential pitfalls to this switch are many. There is a chance that each man may want to continue in his current job. This could be especially true for Schumer, who has become a big man in the Senate with the opportunity to be included in a potentially larger Democratic caucus after the 2008 elections. But it isn't as if running for Governor would be an idea out of left field for him.

However, both Schumer and Paterson could find themselves in very strong positions by the 2010 campaign. Schumber is very popular in New York. His smashing of Howard Mills in the 2004 Senate race shows it clearly. Paterson could boost his own stock if he performs well as Governor for the next two-plus years. His first tests come quickly as the state budget is due on April 1st and state approval for New York City's congestion pricing plan is needed this month in order to receive federal aid for the program. If he can handle Senate Majority Leader (and to-be-Acting Lt. Gov.) Joe Bruno (R) and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D), his stock can only rise. His gains for the Democratic minority in the State Senate during his tenure as Minority Leader show promise that he can handle Bruno as Governor. If he backs a strong Democratic campaign that yields the party control of the Senate, for the first time in decades, he can boost his cause even more.

There is no reason why this plan would not have a good shot of succeeding, as things stand now. Both Schumer and Paterson have the skills to make it happen. They can certainly raise the funds to campaign, especially if they work together for 2010. And this switcheroo would be much better than another repeat of Al Vann and Annette Robinson swapping seats between the City Council and the State Assembly to get around the term limits on Council members. Schumer and Paterson could benefit immensely. If they are committed to fixing Albany, New Yorkers may benefit as well.

Of course, there is still plenty of time to see what will happen and how these men do. After all, two years ago, "Mr. Clean" was on his way to his coronation as Governor on the promise of fixing Albany starting from Day One. Since then, we've learned quite a lot, haven't we?

Deja Vu All Over Again

2008-03-11T13:59:00.002-04:00

Suddenly there was a flashback to an earlier time.

At this time, there is still no announcement on Governor Spitzer's plans to either resign or fight it out. The Republicans are seeking to put pressure on him to resign, by stating that they will seek to impeach the Governor if he does not resign in approximately 48 hours. I don't know if such a procedure would be able to go through, but it certainly shows Spitzer that there will be a fight if he tries to stay on as Governor. Although sheer determination has helped Spitzer in his career thus far, if he applies it here, it will only damage him and continue to prolong the pain for his family. We do not need another Alan Hevesi-type battle to remain in office.

Eliot Spitzer's Ruined Governorship

2008-03-10T17:20:00.005-04:00

Only fifteen months after he rode a wave of public support as the Sheriff of Wall Street to change Albany for the better on "Day One" as the newly-elected Governor, Eliot Spitzer has fallen so far, so quickly.

The latest scandal broke today, as he admitted his link to a prostitution ring earlier today. He has since apologized, during an announcement this afternoon, to his family and to the public for failing to live up to the standards he set, though he did not discuss the allegations.

Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved.

But a person with knowledge of the governor’s role said that the person believes the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.

The governor’s travel records show that he was in Washington in mid-February. One of the clients described in court papers arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, the Emperors Club VIP on the night of Feb. 13.

Mr. Spitzer appeared on a CNBC television show at 7 a.m. the next morning. Later in the morning, he testified before a Congressional committee.

An affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan in connection with that case lists six conversations between the man, identified as Client 9, and a booking agent for the Emperors Club.
-From the New York Times article as posted at around 3 PM thus afternoon

More so than his fighting with Republican leaders over the past year, this will likely shatter any effectiveness he has left in guiding state policy and would render his term, even if he somehow recovers in public opinion, as a lame duck governorship. Therefore, whether it will be proved that he breached the law or not (and forget about the salacious details that will likely be plastered all over the media, since that will distract from the potentially worse details stemming from this investigation), ethics and his usefulness (or lack thereof) in office after this dictate that he should resign and transfer the office to Lieutenant Governor David Paterson.

Eliot Spitzer must resign. For the good of this state.

Why I Hate Iowa

2008-01-03T16:20:00.000-05:00

His biggest pitch to supporters: Be sure to vote, and get others out there with you. "Call your friends," Romney said. "Get 'em out to the caucuses and make that difference. People are going to be listening to what Iowa has to say."

"I'd like to win them," Romney said of the early contests in Iowa and next week in New Hampshire. "But if I don't win, coming in second in these states is a strong statement."

Former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., capping a 36-hour marathon campaign swing, shifted from his stump speech attacking corporate power to urging his supporters to turn out at the caucuses.
Source for above lines

Iowa, Iowa, Iowa.

Can someone remind the candidates and the press that these people are running for the President of the United States and not President of Iowa?

In several hours, we will know the results of the Iowa caucuses, kicking off the first official votes towards selecting presidential nominees this year. In several hours, we will hear from our Iowan overlords who to vote for President.

"Altogether, 120,000 to 150,000 people are expected to come to the Democratic caucuses and 80,000 to 90,000 to the GOP meetings." (USA Today)

More people turn out for some of the contests in New York City than will show up to vote for Presidential nominees tonight in Iowa. And yet, somehow they set the tone for the rest of that. While other states wanted to get in on the action, people in Iowa (and New Hampshire) bitterly complained, as if this was their birthright. And all the meanwhile, candidates looking for national office pander to Iowans for months, up to a year or more.

Aren't the candidates looking to be President of a country "from sea to shining sea," not "from Dubuque to Sioux City," or was I wrong?

The candidates have camped out, even moved their families in with them, for most of the past year and especially the past several months. They may be able to qualify to run for Governor of Iowa, if they really want to stay there that long.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) dared to briefly go to Los Angeles to tape an episode of "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) attacked Huckabee for having the sheer audacity to go to any place out in the other 49 states of the Union!

“Frankly my focus is on the caucuses here in Iowa,” Romney said at a press conference at a middle school here, as he was flanked by about 50 mostly younger supporters. “I think Mike is more concerned about the caucus in Los Angeles.”

- Scott Conroy on the CBS blog "From the Road"

The horror! How dare he disrupt the birthright of Iowa, granted to it by God Himself! That's not America!

Beyond that, the campaigns are providing luxurious services at great cost to their campaigns to entice more Iowans to vote. Everything from car rides to baby-sitting to food, these Iowans get perks nobody else in the nation enjoys just for going to their caucus location. Will a person in New York with two jobs or children to look after be able to get such services in order to go vote in the primary on February 5th? Only perhaps if local organizations provide it. But that won't be money spent from presidential campaign coffers.

The people in Iowa and New Hampshire demand the candidates camp out in their states as if nothing else in this nation of three hundred million matters. They demand that the candidates meet them face-to-face in restaurants, house parties, schools, and more to talk about "Iowan values," as if they're something separate from those in the states surrounding Iowa. What do the rest of us get out of the candidates? Nothing more than an ad or two. If we even want to see them live and in the flesh, we may have to find a rally, but we won't be able to get within the two feet of space that an Iowan can. Can this really be the best way to select presidential candidates?

Luckily there are a few out there that really do see this strange world as a problem. Reuters reports on some of the editorials that call out this bizarre process as just that, bizarre.

Jeff Greenfield, political correspondent for CBS News, wrote in the online magazine Slate.com that the caucuses, in which Iowans gather to discuss and vote for their party's candidate in the November 2008 election, "violate some of the most elemental values of a vibrant and open political process" - the secret ballot and the principle of one person, one vote.

In the Wall Street Journal, Iowa resident and freelance journalist Michael Judge complained that the caucuses encouraged candidates to pander to Iowans, 90 percent of whom were unlikely to show up at caucuses.

"Even if you're a died-in-the-wool (sic) Democrat or Republican, you have to be a certain kind of person to do the caucus thing," he wrote.

The caucuses kick off the state-by-state process by which Democrats and Republicans will select their nominees to face off in the November presidential election. Fewer than 250,000 people are expected to take part in the voting on Thursday.

The winners can expect a tremendous wave of publicity and flood of contributions that can boost their campaigns for the next, crucial stage of the nomination battles.

Those who do badly could be out of the race within days. Both major parties' nominees are expected to be selected by mid-February.

(One note about caucuses: There is no absentee option. So if you're working, have to be elsewhere, have to care for someone, or are in the armed forces deployed elsewhere, too bad. You don't get to have a voice.)

Reuters also reports on a common Iowan rebuttal to all those nasty people wanting to have a crack at their birthright:

Defenders of Iowa say the state's citizens take their role in winnowing the presidential field extremely seriously and force the candidates to do on-the-ground, personal campaigning instead of relying on television advertisements.

"Sorry, but that's not good enough," the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in an editorial. It noted that the state's largest city of Des Moines had a population less than half the size of Oakland, California.

"The system favors enthusiasts with the time to attend a caucus for several hours, a process that screens out those with family duties, conflicting work hours, travel plans or disabilities," the newspaper wrote.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins agreed:

"The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors."

Washington Post columnist David Broder joined the attack, saying the peculiar procedures in Iowa favored conservative Christian and anti-abortion groups among Republicans and organized labor among Democrats who were best organized and able to get their members to the caucuses.

The result, he wrote, was "a double distortion mirror."

In other words, their defense is that they take their choices seriously, not like the rest of those people elsewhere in the country. Additionally, those candidates only do face-to-face campaigning with people in Iowa and New Hampshire. It can't happen anywhere else because no other place gets to host the candidates for twelve months prior to the vote. So what good is it if candidates do everything possible to get a few thousand Iowans to vote at the expense of millions elsewhere?

Is this jealousy? You bet it is. Having to watch the candidates essentially all become Iowan residents for the year prior to voting in the primaries are justifiable grounds for jealousy. There is no sensible reason why Iowa (and New Hampshire for that matter) must always be the grand filter for the rest of us. Sure, many people would love to have the politicians as far away from them as possible. Yet when it comes to making sure we elect whom we want, having them in some of the other places in this great country would be beneficial. Besides, it's not as if our fantastic filters in Iowa and New Hampshire have given us the best choices.

The results of the caucuses tonight will be, as always, interesting. But they shouldn't be a cue to the rest of us that these are the picks. We must utilize our own power at subsequent primaries and caucuses to inject our own voice into the process. At the end of the day, all Iowans will have done is send a few delegates to the national conventions this summer. That's it. The rest belong to the rest of us. We have to take them back.

The Partisanship Trap

2007-10-14T22:38:00.000-04:00

Throughout this decade, there has been much coverage of the intense partisan fights that have become the standard in Washington, D.C. and in many other places throughout the country. As nearly every single issue becomes a political football for politicians to fight over, observers wonder what happened to those "good old days" where the parties often worked together and even stayed in the capital to meet socially and come to compromises.

However, one must realize why these sides engage in bitter fights at every opportunity. The fact of the matter is that both sides have much to lose if these partisan battles become less frequent.

Consider the massive amounts of money raised for presidential campaigns. Is all this money being donated because the candidates are just that popular? Perhaps some contribute out of sheer admiration for a candidate, but even Hillary Clinton, who is not particularly popular with much of the Democratic base, is making a mint for her campaign every quarter. It is not because so many people out there view her as the ideal candidate but because she has the Clinton brand and is politically smart enough to have a good shot at being at least barely acceptable to 50% of the electorate. Democrats are eager to take back the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, thus they are donating in record numbers. The unpopularity of Bush combined with much anti-Bush rhetoric on the campaign trail leads to massive amounts of money.

Although Republicans have not been raising as much as Democrats, they too are fueled by the motivation of keeping the other side from the Oval Office. Rudy Giuliani's major draw is that he too could be seen as somewhat acceptable to a very slim majority of the electorate. Should Clinton be the Democratic nominee, even more funds would be donated as the prospect of another Clinton presidency will put most Republicans in line with the Republican nominee.

This extends to the outside groups (527's as called by their line in the tax code) that place themselves on the front lines of the partisan battle. This is why such groups (like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) send out advertisements and announcements proclaiming that those evil bastards on the other side are a threat to your "values" (whatever such "values" may be), so give money to the cause of defeating their attempts.

Besides, what would happen if both sides did get together much more often to hammer out agreements? A sharp rise of criticisms that "those Washington politicians are all the same" would result. This gave rise to candidates that focused their rhetoric on "cleaning out Washington" or ranting about "those Washington insiders," even as they themselves became entrenched Washington insiders. Not surprisingly, such talk quickly went to "those evil Washington insider bastards are a threat to your values."

But even while there is that campaign angle, politicians do often brag about "bipartisan" agreements. Given how rare such things happen, it must surely take a person of unique skill to reach out and get those evil Washington insider bastards to screw their heads on straight and agree to whatever proposal was on the table. If such bipartisanship were the norm rather than the exception, such a statement of pride would be nothing special.

Just like there is the liquidity trap for interest rates that are so low, due to a lack of investment, rates stay low, there is the partisanship trap for politics so entrenched that there would be too much to lose for participants to scrap the partisan fighting. However, as bad as things may seem these days, there are still chances to turn it around, though it may take politically courageous people to call a cease-fire and meet. This is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Intense partisanship prompted violent outbursts in our country's history (such as when Republican Senator Charles Sumner was caned in the Senate chamber by Democratic congressman Preston Brooks after Sumner ridiculed Brooks' uncle, Democratic Senator Andrew Butler, for a speech impediment caused by his heart condition while blasting away proponents of the Fugitive Slave Act, with Brooks being one of the Act's authors) and fueled much of the motivation for Southern states to secede due to irreconcilable differences (no matter how wrong they were in such views concerning slavery), leading to the Civil War. There is not yet evidence to suggest such a thing is likely today. But a bit of peace and quiet every once in a while would be nice. We may even then solve some of the country's biggest persistent issues. Until the next battle, anyway.

The Electoral Vote Scheme that Lets State Legislatures Decide the Presidency

2007-10-14T21:00:00.000-04:00

An effort underway in California would change the way that state would pick its choice for President. The plan would be to scrap the current system that awards all 55 of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner to a system where the winner in each of the state's congressional districts would be awarded one electoral vote for each district carried while the remaining two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

Forget that this scheme would be a major benefit to the Republicans (who would gain 19 electoral votes from the Democrats if their presidential candidate won the vote in each district that currently has a Republican representative) if only California adopted this plan (though Nebraska and Maine currently employ this way of awarding electoral votes). What would happen if this were the method adopted by all 50 states?

Although many voters cast split ticket votes, with their vote for president being of one party and their vote for the congressional representatives being from the other, as well as votes for "their guy" for Congress regardless of the presidential vote, the probability that the party that takes the congressional district would also take that district's vote for President is fairly high.

The probability of such a thing happening is even greater with the many congressional districts that are gerrymandered into place along partisan lines. Therefore, the battles over redistricting every ten years become even more intense as the prizes, congressional seats and then electoral votes, become greater.

Thus, there is a great chance that the electoral votes for President will be dependent on the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Only 103 (50 statewide winners plus Washington, D.C.'s 3 electoral votes) of the 538 total electoral votes would be independent from the House results and gerrymandering. The House is to only determine the President should no candidate receive the majority of electoral votes and even then, only the existing House decides, not the new one voted in on Election Day. Further, the presidency should be independent of the Congress as the head of the executive branch and not beholden to the House of Representatives nor the state legislatures (which themselves are often gerrymandered) that determine congressional districts.

Additionally, if presidential candidates only mainly focus on swing states currently, what is to happen when candidates focus more on swing districts? Although this will include more time spent in more states with swing districts, the efforts to turn out statewide votes will be diminished as they only win two electoral votes per state instead of all of each state's votes. The presidential election then becomes focused on even fewer potential voters than before. At best, in close elections, swing states and areas with numerous swing districts would be targeted and the far majority of seats that are safe one way or the other would be ignored unless the state's remaining two electoral votes are critically needed.

Simply put, this would be a poor substitute for the current way electoral votes are awarded. Not only would the far majority of electoral votes be dependent on gerrymandering, but the national election would be reduced to certain districts with even less emphasis on certain states as it is today.

The Campaign for President of 9/11 is Underway

2007-10-09T01:11:00.000-04:00

Much has been made about Rudy Giuliani's blatant use of the September 11th attacks in his campaign for the Republican nomination for President. Giuliani has thrown around 9/11 so many times that the satire that is The Onion declared "Giuliani To Run For President of 9/11."

Yet it seems that he will have a tough time ensuring that he has a monopoly on 9/11 as another presidential candidate has laid claim to the title. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently released an advertisement to Iowa and New Hampshire that not only establishes that "I was there, too," but does so in a very vivid commercial regarding health care.

"Stand by Us" from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Clinton's commercial shows some footage of the first responders at Ground Zero and also shows a shot of her donning a breathing mask in case the point was not clear enough. This is a clear challenge to Giuliani's supposed ownership of the event.

What ever happened to the promises that politics will change after 9/11? How is this any different from other people trying to profit off the attacks?

Just because Giuliani has spent a campaign reminding us that he happened to be Mayor on that day does not mean that it's right for Clinton to join in. The public should send a message to these candidates that this is not acceptable. The road to the White House should not run through the ashes of Ground Zero.

Yet it's obvious that such tactics work. Perhaps that is a statement about the American electorate.

Debate what should be done with the site in the future, debate over our nation's course in reaction to the attacks, but do not parade all over it. Is it truly that much to ask?

The September 11th Decision: Why a Rebroadcast Should Not be Aired (Plus an Open Rant on Our Behavior)

2007-09-11T00:27:00.000-04:00

The sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 is upon us. Once again, those that were impacted through loss and/or those in the areas near where the attacks took place will have to remember the day and try to go about their lives again. As usual, the networks will have their own special programming on the morning of September 11th.

From personal observation, I have noticed that the NBC network has been running commercials over the past several days announcing their plan for the MSNBC cable news network for this morning. MSNBC will replay the broadcast from NBC's Today that ran on September 11, 2001. The announcement of this replay brings up one very important question: Is this right?

Thankfully, the people that have lost loved ones on that day will most likely be at a memorial or otherwise away from the television as will be most of the rest of us who are heading to work, class, or other engagements (if not a memorial) this morning. However, would the rebroadcast of the September 11, 2001 show be a fitting memorial or would it be disrespectful to those that lived and suffered through that day, regardless of how many may or may not come across the MSNBC replay?

Although any stray viewer will likely come across this rant after MSNBC has already replayed the broadcast, my views and the discussion that should be had over such a decision remain just as relevant for next year and beyond as it does this year. That said, it is my view that this replay definitely should not take place in this fashion on this morning of September 11th.

Such broadcasts are now best left to the history books, history channels, and special programs on networks away from the time slot given to cover the memorials and other news about this anniversary. Not only does each anniversary memorialize the day and the losses (and not just what many people saw through their televisions) as well as how we are moving on with our thoughts and as a society as we still struggle to rebuilt from that day six years ago.

What reason could there be to replay the September 11, 2001 broadcast, complete with some of the images burned into our memories and our hearts? Would it be to memorialize the day by replaying the day and opening wounds that are just beginning to heal? What purpose would it serve to replay that day and continue looking only backward and never forward?

Would the replay serve as a tool to "remind" us all about what happened on that day? How many such reminders would it take and how do we know when people have truly remembered that day?

September 11, 2001 has become such a political football that people routinely use "Have you forgotten?" as a blunt instrument to win an argument and cast their opponent as the type to be asleep at the wheel with a "pre-September 11th" or a "September 10th" mindset, both terms also firmly ensconced in the public mind as a political weapon. Surely there are some that do operate as if nothing changed and the world has not transformed since the fall of the Soviet Union, but is it necessary to throw that charge against any and all opponents?

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why are we still stuck with people using catchphrases about that day as a way to run up the scoreboard in the shouting match "debates" that are a favorite of cable news shows and as a way to capture that perfect sound bite so that it may be played over and over for their advantage?

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why do we rush to label each subsequent horrific and barbaric terrorist attack as "so-and-so country's 9/11?" If we're to claim our loss as devastating and unique, then why do we call other people's tremendous sufferings as "another 9/11" as if 9/11 were a brand to be exported? Not only does it appear that we render the losses of others in such attacks as not significant enough to be remembered for its own day, but it renders our own catastrophic experience as much less unique if we rush to label attacks as "another 9/11," regardless of the scale of the attacks. Or "have we forgotten?"

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why is it still a struggle for places like New York City to get the funding it needs to keep all these vital areas safe? Yet, some elected officials are more concerned about building bridges to nowhere and officials in the Department of Homeland Security (created in the aftermath of September 11, 2001) are concerned with making sure a bean festival is receiving Homeland Security funding.

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why must we go back and show those scenes again and again, without considering how some people may take to seeing those images over and over. If we were all for supporting those that lost on that day, how could we possibly shove those images of the impacts or the collapses, showing again and again their loved ones perishing in those attacks?

Is it for education? Yes, there are now children in grade school (as well as some older children that were likely too young to grasp the meaning of the day when it happened six years ago) that need to learn this history. However, tapes could be made to show those children all about that day. Not only will they be learning that recent history, but they will also be witnesses to what is happening and what will happen as those who came of age around September 11, 2001 inherit the country and the world's situation.

This generation (and I am a part of that generation, having been 16 years old at the time) will have some monumental tasks ahead of us. We will have to lead the country into this new world and if current leaders end up doing a poor job handling this war and our recovery, those tasks will only be harder. That is the burden placed upon this generation and hopefully we will accept it and work with it for the good of this country and the world.

We "have not forgotten" September 11, 2001 (and yes, there are always exceptions, but hopefully nobody will turn to them to lead). Although we will likely be accused of forgetting by current and near-future leaders (of any and all political parties) that may disagree with us, we must take it in stride and not throw away even more time engaging in such pointless battles. NBC does not need to provide us with a lesson. Not on this.

We've learned more about the world than perhaps any generation had before us by our age (with great thanks to technological advancements). Hopefully, that will mean that we will be able to set a sensible plan that works and works well. Some of us may need to snap out of our youthful political extremism, but there must be a few among this generation that can lead such a path to a better world and victory over those that see the slaughter of civilians as a just cause or politics by other means.

So, who benefits from this replay on MSNBC? It won't serve as much of a "reminder" to the country. It will not be of much use to anyone that's suffered directly or indirectly. It will not serve to educate those that were too young to properly digest the meaning of September 11, 2001 (not in this setting, anyway). And it will not be a useful guide for the generation that has September 11, 2001 burned into our collective conscience.

There is most likely great value in leaving the replays of broadcasts to historical specials. However, there is no value that can be had by playing this as the memorials for that day are underway. However, we must always remain thankful that we do live in a place where we could choose to produce or view such rebroadcasts as we wish and for people to express their opinions to anyone willing to listen. Above all, we must know that we have to maintain such rights or risk losing them for a very long time. With that said, this rant won't make a difference for this morning, but it is definitely worth considering as we move ahead.

Bloomberg's Counting

2007-08-01T02:08:00.000-04:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) once again rejected any notions that he would run for the presidency in 2008. As reported in The Hill, Bloomberg again laid out his publicized plan to remain mayor of New York City until December 31, 2009, when the term ends, then start his journey in philanthropy.

Bloomberg also minced no words in ruling out a bid for the vice presidency. When asked if he would consider running on another candidate’s ticket, Bloomberg flatly replied “No.

“I've got a job and it's a great job. And I'm going to finish this job and then my next career is going to be in philanthropy.”
Bloomberg, a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent, said his recent travels around the country were made to raise awareness on issues about which he cares. He added that many are reading too much into these trips.

“I think it's interesting, people assume you are running for president when you just say, ‘Look, these are issues that I care about. These are issues that are important for my daughters and for the world that I’m going — that they're going to be part of that I'm going to help leave them,’” he said. “Why should only presidential candidates focus on that? I think we all have an obligation.”

Of course, the best line from Bloomberg is one that has been often recycled and is up to the minute every time he says it.

“I have 890 days left in my term, but who's counting?” Bloomberg said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I plan to finish out my term as mayor of the New York City and then go into philanthropy.”

Apparently, Bloomberg's been counting. Ever since his announcement in Los Angeles that he would be a registered Independent, Bloomberg has kept track of how long he has left in his mayoral term, even estimating the time left down to the hour that day in Los Angeles in June.

So why the constant countdown? Is it a reminder that his plans are etched in stone or is he looking for a way out? We'll find out by the end of 2008 which is the case. Until then, Bloomberg will certainly continue to be at the forefront of America's mayors in voicing his opinions and concerns across the country and about the country.

A Foreign Policy Blunder by Barack Obama

2007-07-26T17:43:00.000-04:00

Perhaps one additional positive outcome from the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate on Monday night is the battle between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps regarding the answers that each candidate gave in response to a question asking them if they would meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela without preconditions (and this qualifier is key).

From the CNN/YouTube debate:

Note that Obama took a stance that he would expect to gain him the support by taking a somewhat unpopular Bush administration policy (not engaging some of our enemies). The problem was, Clinton pulled the rug out from under him by placing some qualifiers that would have to happen before such high-level meetings were to happen, thereby making Obama look quite foolish in terms of foreign policy by appearing to want to jump right to the table.

Also note that John Edwards piggybacked on Clinton's answer and repeated her response as close to verbatim as one could get during a debate. Whether Edwards had that answer in mind already or shifted to hug Clinton's answer after she knocked that pitch out of the park is uncertain, but it did have the effect of isolating Obama as a person that does not fully understand how a President would deal with certain foreign relations.

Since then, Clinton and Obama have traded words on the issue.

From The Caucus:

Senator Clinton said yesterday that Senator Obama was “irresponsible and naïve” for suggesting during Monday night’s debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations. Senator Obama fired back that it was irresponsible and naïve of her to vote to authorize the Iraq war.

After Clinton continued to press the case, Obama had no choice but to fight back, since he could not change his position (at least, not this quickly):

“I think what is irresponsible and naïve is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know, I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue,” Mr. Obama said today during an NBC News stakeout outside of his Senate office.

...

“We have a difference,” Mr. Obama told our colleague, Jeff Zeleny, as he walked from the Senate floor. “Unless Senator Clinton wants to define what her nuanced perspective is.”

Indeed, Mr. Obama suggested that he had no intention of changing the
subject.

“It goes to the heart of whether or not we’re going to have a fundamental
change in how the Bush administration has conducted foreign policy,” Mr.
Obama said, “or we’re going to have a version of Bush light.”

Of course. Not changing the subject at all. Obama is trying to go to his strong point, his claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the start (never mind that he was not in Congress at the time of the votes, making it much easier for him to say this without having had to face the decision) and attack Clinton's weakness in many eyes within the Democratic Party, her cautious straddling between opposing the war and attempt to look tough on defense by talking tough on Iraq. Additionally, Obama invoked the Bush name in an attempt to at least loosely tie Clinton to the president, something that would cause her support to drop not just in the Democratic Party, but throughout the electorate, if the latest poll numbers on President Bush are to be believed.

Regardless of how wise it might be to go on the attack instead of having to modify one's remarks so soon after the debate, in this case, Senator Clinton is right! If these dictators even want to talk with us, we cannot simply rush in and promise to fly over there on January 21, 2009. If we were to try to construct some kind of dialogue anyway, we would have to start with lower level talks. Merely throwing our leader at theirs is not going to do the trick.

For some additional support:

The campaign also issued a statement from Richard C. Holbrooke, the ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. “As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years,” he said, adding that “she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.”

Additionally, Obama spoke of "responsibilities" that Iran and Syria would have in Iraq. Should we withdraw (as Obama supports), why would we trust the future of Iraq to these two countries? Pursuing such a strategy could alter the course of the whole Middle East as Iran may gain even more power in the region, sparking a rivalry between Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni countries of Arabia, many of whom have significant Shi'ite minorities by their oil fields. Obama's campaign is smartly not bringing up this point again, as they would exacerbate their current losing streak by doing so.

Barack Obama was simply wrong all around. Hillary Clinton definitely won this round.

Courtesy: Cox & Forkum

Can a Person Really Sue For This?

2007-07-24T15:09:00.000-04:00

Not long after the Con Edison steam pipe explosion at Lexington Avenue and East 41st Street, the New York Post reports that a woman "filed a $400,000 negligence suit against Con Ed yesterday, saying she thought she was going to die - the way her sister did on 9/11."

I think nearly everyone can sympathize with her loss on that terrible day, but the question is: Can she actually sue for this?

Nevermind that anyone could probably file a suit against Con Edison for nearly any reason they want and that it's merely a question of whether it will get thrown out of court or not. But what grounds could she have to sue Con Ed on this basis?

From the Post:

"I can still see death," said Francine Dorf, whose sister, Maria LaVache, died at the World Trade Center. "I believe she was my guardian angel. She was there with me, but it wasn't my time to go.

"I can't sleep, I can't eat," added Dorf, 52, who works at a law firm on East 42nd Street. "I can see the smoke and I can see those people running and I think of my sister over and over again."

LaVache, 60, died at the World Trade Center. Her remains have never been found.

Dorf, who filed her suit in Brooklyn Supreme Court, said she is suffering from posttraumatic-stress disorder because of last Wednesday's blast at East 41st Street and Lexington Avenue.

Ms. Dorf may have a legitimate case against Con Edison if she were hit by debris from the explosion or if she later learned that she inhaled asbestos at the scene. There, she may have a case that Con Edison was negligent in keeping their system in good condition, if it is found that Con Edison had indeed been negligent. However, how could Con Ed possibly realize that someone who had lost a family member at the World Trade Center would be suffering (in her words, so far) PTSD from this accident? How could the coincidence between her loss and her being at the scene that day be Con Edison's fault? Was Con Edison somehow supposed to delay the explosion until she was out of the area?

This is the first of what may be many lawsuits against Con Edison, so surely we will hear more of it in the future. If Con Edison is found to be negligent, how would this impact this case that is based on those grounds? Certainly, we will find out in due time.

However, it seems that if Con Ed was negligent, they would have to worry about those injured by the explosion and the asbestos as well as the businesses affected before trying to determine how responsible Con Ed was in this person's harmful memories.

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy? Part III

2007-07-24T13:10:00.000-04:00

So now that the actual format of the CNN/YouTube debate has been beaten around in talk shows and on the Internet in the hours since, how did the candidates take advantage of this new format? Did they use this opportunity to make themselves seem more accessible, more down-to-earth?

Well, like the other debates between the Democratic candidates, most of those on the stage again failed to use this opportunity to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack, even when challenged to do so by the selected videos.

A large part of the reason why a candidate wouldn't break out of the pack would be that they dodged the question completely. The most glaring example came at the very end of the debate, when each candidate was given a chance to speak out about the candidate next to them. Aside from Mike Gravel, the other candidates either stated that they could not find one thing they disliked about their competitor (not even on policy) or used the opportunity to make a light-hearted joke (Biden being jealous of Dennis Kucinich's wife, who's approximately half the age of both candidates). What would have been a perfect opportunity to state why the primary voter shouldn't vote for the other guy and seal that statement in the memories of those watching at the very end was passed up.

Another chance to take charge of a subject was presented to Hillary Clinton, though this question was not one of policy.

From the CNN/YouTube debate transcript, Part I:

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I'm from Irvine, California.

I have a question for Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

COOPER: So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say "progressive."

Unfortunately for Clinton, this is one of the issues that has dragged down her campaign, even as she's taken a solid lead in the horse race. Instead of either telling people that you're going to take the "L-word" back or why she'd be a better "progressive" than anyone else on the stage, she took a pass. The netroots are probably very angry at her for this today.

Next came Joe Biden and John Edwards:

QUESTION: Hello. This question is for all of the candidates. Partisanship played a major role in why nothing can be done in Washington today. All of you say you will be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test. If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?

SEN. JOE BIDEN: At the risk of hurting his reputation -- and it will hurt him -- but I would pick Chuck Hagel, and I'd consider asking Dick Lugar to be secretary of state.

And I do have -- I do have a record of significant accomplishment. The crime bill, which became known as the Clinton crime bill, was written by Joe Biden, the Biden crime bill. That required me to cross over, get everyone together, not -- no one's civil liberties were in any way jeopardized.

We put 100,000 cops on the street. Violent crime came down.

The Violence against Women Act, what we did in Bosnia, and so on. So I have a track record of being able to cross over and get things done.

And by the way, if you want to end all this money, support my effort to pass public financing of all elections.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: All right. Stay on the topic.

Senator Edwards? Any Republicans?

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: Actually, I think Chuck Hagel is a good choice. But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?

And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.

I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.

If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them...

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: ... over and over and over.

It's a very successful hit job on Hagel if he wanted to pursue a future in Republican politics, as perhaps a member of a Republican administration. However, neither candidate answered why they would consider Senator Hagel or Senator Lugar. Yes, the question didn't ask why the candidates would choose who they chose, but neither candidate offered reasons for why working with such a Republican would be beneficial. John Edwards tried to channel the frustration against Republicans in his answer, but did not successfully articulate how he might have to put up with an uncooperative Congress.

And although Bill Richardson has been my frontrunner thus far in the nomination process, here's one from him:

COOPER: Governor Richardson, what are you going to do? Would you commit American troops?

RICHARDSON: I was at that refugee camp. And there was a refugee, a woman who came up to me. She'd been raped, her husband had been killed and she said, "When is America going to start helping?"

This is what I would do: It's diplomacy. It's getting U.N. peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It's getting China to pressure Sudan. It's getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It's called leadership.

A no-fly zone, I believe, would be an option. But we have to be concerned about humanitarian workers being hurt by planes, being shot.

The answer here is caring about Africa. The answer here is not just thinking of our strategic interests as a country, as oil and Europe and the Middle East. It should be Africa, Asia and Latin America, doing something about poverty, about AIDS, about refugees, about those that have been left behind. That's how we restore American leadership in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: You say U.N. troops. Does that mean American troops?

RICHARDSON: United Nations peacekeeping troops, and that would primarily be Muslim troops. We need a permanent U.N. peacekeeping force, stationed somewhere.

If we get U.N. peacekeeping troops authorized for Darfur, there's some already there, it'll take six months for them to get there. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region.

America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.

First of all, the Muslim janjaweed militias as well as the Arab government in Khartoum are the ones making those advances in Darfur. Thus, putting in more Muslim soldiers, even under UN banners, would not help the situation. However, it could be chalked up as a simple mistake in response.

Richardson waffled on what America's commitment would be in the region. Simple diplomatic gestures to get more African Union and United Nations soldiers in the area without adding in some kind of aid from the United States would likely not get very far. Though Richardson spoke out on the need to help, he declined to state exactly what he thinks he could do as President to help the situation.

One other area where the candidates bogged themselves down during the debate came when it was time to answer how they would withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Different timetables, ranging from six months to a year, were presented as realistic estimations of how long it would take to withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Yet, unless they truly believed that the Senate could find the sixty votes needed (and the senators on stage offered no solutions as to how they would try to get those needed votes while on Capitol Hill) to overcome the Republican filibusters, they have to answer what they would do at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2009, since President Bush has said repeatedly that the next President will have to deal with this situation. It's easy to be for withdrawing the soldiers by March 2008 when you're one of 100 Senators. Tell us how you would do it when you become the one President.

Maybe this is just another example of a group of politicians debating very early in the nomination process refusing to take stands on issues or draw differences between themselves and their opponents. However, this format of debate can only be truly useful if the candidates decide to take on the challenges presented to them in several, if not many, of these submitted questions. The Republican candidates may well act the same way on September 17th when it is their turn to tangle with this format, but hopefully they will not.

As for all the attention given to the CNN/YouTube venture, although it may not be on the "historic" proportions claimed by everyone at CNN promoting their own event, but it is potentially another step in the evolution of presidential politics, much the same way that the Internet as a whole brought changes to the 2004 presidential race. If we are to draw more people into the process, as candidates love to declare that they want to do, they have to step up and evolve with these changes. Nobody is expecting them to be perfectly upfront all the time or even half of the time. However, with some of the questions being more direct than those asked by moderators, the candidates do have to paint with broad strokes at this time. Deflecting most of the questions and trying to have the same nuances as everyone else on the stage will not win a whole lot of votes nor will it expand the electorate. Taking the opportunity to engage just might do the trick. Until then, there may just be more of those silly videos up on YouTube for the candidates and then the format would truly become a mockery of democracy. The opportunity is still there to show that it won't.

See you in September, CNN/YouTube.

Part I
Part II

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy? Part II

2007-07-24T00:20:00.000-04:00

The CNN/YouTube debate between the Democratic candidates for President has ended and more important than analyzing whether there might be a change in the horse race was the performance given by CNN and YouTube for this new format of debate.

The CNN/YouTube format will have another chance to redeem itself when the Republicans enter the arena on September 17th. That said, a lot of work should be done to improve this format if it is to be a serious and viable form of debate in the future.

The biggest fear brought up in the first CNN/YouTube debate post was that a substantial portion of the debate would be devoted to some rather silly or humorous videos for the purposes of entertainment. That was not the case. However, it would be fair to say that there were still some of those kinds of videos that made the cut. As such, one has to wonder whether a viewer was distracted by the entertainment value from these several videos and did not fully pay attention to the subject at hand. Additionally, a couple of those music videos featured people holding up signs to voice their message. Perhaps my eyesight is severely lacking, but those signs were incredibly hard to read on the TV. CNN should find a way to better present such footage if they indeed decide to take more of those videos when the Republicans come to bat in September.

Another problem highlighted by this format was the introduction of a few subjects that perhaps had no business being presented in a presidential debate. One, arguably, was the question asking if the Democratic candidates supported giving reparations to African-Americans. Aside from the merits of this subject (which is a whole other topic, for another time), this topic, even if it were supported by a large portion of the African-American community, is simply a very little issue nationwide. That said, Dennis Kucinich promptly killed his own presidential campaign by coming out in support of reparations.

The other topics brought up by people submitting videos included:

- Whether race was the reason why FEMA messed up dealing with the crisis following Hurricane Katrina.
- If Barack Obama was "black enough" and if Hillary Clinton was "feminine enough" to be acceptable.
- Who the candidates' favorite teachers were.
- Whether the candidates sent their children to public or private school (hopefully knowing full well that no candidate will ever say that they took their child out of public school [or never sent them in the first place] because the public schools in their areas were terrible).
- Whether the attention given to Al Gore hurt the feelings of the other candidates.
- If the candidates would ever work as President for minimum wage (who would ever flat out say "no" without the qualifier "I'm not worth all that much anyway" or "The salary the President gets now is too small for the amount of work involved"?)
- What "In God We Trust" meant to the candidates.
- And, finally, for each candidate to state one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the guy next to them (only former Senator Mike Gravel took up that challenge and John Edwards made a remark about Hillary's coat, which might well get him slammed by some on the Internet as attacking a woman).

Taxes were not well covered in this debate, as one question was given in the form of some music video and the other was essentially a person stating "Democrats always raise my taxes! Answer that!"

The issue of guns was not discussed in any depth as the person submitting the video was worried about his "baby," which turned out to be an assault rifle.

On the positive side, Anderson Cooper did try to keep things on track (with the challenge of dealing with eight candidates in only slightly over two hours) during the debate and also tried his best to come up with quick follow-ups or his best interpretation of what some of the fantasy moderators tried to ask the candidates.

Also positive was the showing of campaign videos from each of the candidates, even though the lower-tier candidates did not get as much time as the top three (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) and Bill Richardson did not get enough time as the fourth candidate. Additionally, a few of the questions did cut to the heart of a matter, without adding in all kinds of premises or qualifiers, including questions regarding gay rights/marriage, the Iraq war, and a couple of the health care questions.

To the credit of both CNN and YouTube, since not even half of the questions were completely silly in nature (even if there were quite a few that should have nothing to do with the campaign), they did an adequate job of making sure that serious questions and issues were raised in the debate.

The videos used for the debate can be seen at YouTube's website and presumably, the entire debate can be watched from there as well.

So, with everything said, the CNN/YouTube venture probably had enough positive things going for it that it should continue to try its new format when the Republicans walk onto the stage in September. The concerns brought up prior to this debate are still valid for the September episode, however, a couple of the fears have been addressed and the joint venture has its work before them with the upcoming debate. We will see how CNN and YouTube, as well as the candidates for the Republican nomination, will fare in a little under two months.

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy?

2007-07-23T14:51:00.000-04:00

The eight Democrats currently running for the party's nomination for President meet tonight in South Carolina for a debate hosted by CNN and YouTube. The biggest draw to this debate, according to CNN and YouTube, is that the questions directed to the candidates will be from your average person, via recorded videos submitted to the CNN/YouTube venture.

There is little question that YouTube has already had an impact on American politics. One only needs to ask former Senator George Allen about how much potential clips on YouTube could bring to politics.

However, given the promotions for the debate seen thus far and given the recent performances by moderators at this year's debates, chances are fairly good that there will be a substantial portion of debate time devoted to people acting silly, or asking provocative questions with little value, or asking questions on those little issues that have no real impact on the platform of a candidate or their ability to govern if elected. Simply put, the temptation to go for sheer entertainment value will be greater than never before.

So, will this debate turn out to completely mock the democratic process by providing little or no value to the voters?

Although there will also likely be some very well researched questions that give the candidates the chance to articulate their positions on issues important to America, how could there be a true follow-up to a question if the candidate gives a non-answer answer or to further probe their position if the questioner will not be present? Even if a moderator pounces on the chance to give a follow-up, it may not mesh with the intentions of the person who asked the original question. (Edit: Turns out Anderson Cooper will ask the follow-ups, as stated in Chris Cillizza's column, but the same concern about staying true to the intent of the question remains.)

Still, it's not as if moderators are incapable of asking silly questions. Take the example of Brit Hume during the second Republican debate who essentially asked the candidates if they supported the use of torture on the given premise that only torturing someone would prevent an American city from being blown apart.

Here, YouTube comes to the rescue as someone's montage not only highlights the question, but also shows how Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) falls for mixing entertainment with policy when he said he wants Jack Bauer to save the day.

Furthermore, will this mixture of entertainment and policy harm politics in America? If the electorate begins to expect candidates to answer to someone recording a question while wearing a hockey mask, will this detract from the larger message the candidates try to send to the entire American electorate? Will this encourage more people to vote in the upcoming elections? If they do vote, will they even know what they're voting for?

Maybe it's time to give this CNN/YouTube venture a shot. Either it'll do much better than the recent performances from handpicked moderators or it'll fall flat on its face. We'll know whether this kind of debate format is good for American democracy or makes a mockery of it.

Ethics? Who Needs That? Not Some Democrats

2007-05-25T19:10:00.000-04:00

A couple of key decisions made by Congressional Democrats this week have shed light on where the leadership truly stands on ethics in our government. Though many Democrats campaigned on the case that they would return ethics to Capitol Hill after the Republican leadership had thrown it out, now that the Democrats are in the majority, some are starting to like those ill-gotten perks that Republicans enjoyed for quite a while.

Although some top Democrats are pushing to install ethics reforms in Congress, some members of Congress have said that such reforms go too far. The New York Times outlines the divide that has shown that not all Democrats are eager to tackle ethics reform.

The Democratic leadership was forced to scrap a plan that would extend the length of the ban on former congressmen from lobbying after leaving Congress from one year to two.

One of the congressmen opposed to that reform, Michael Capuano (D-MA), nominated himself for Crybaby of the Month in his defense to keep the ban at one year. Given his language, it looks like he would favor doing away with the one-year ban altogether, greasing the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street.

Others say they do not see the point of doing more. “I didn’t make any of those campaign promises,” said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who questions the bundling disclosure proposal and also opposed the extension of the so-called “revolving door” ban on lobbying by former members.

“I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official,” Mr. Capuano said, explaining his position. “I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, ‘Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.’ ”

Surely if Mr. Capuano were able to make that career change 20 years ago, there isn't a reason why he could not make another change now if he were to retire (or be fired) from Congress. Since members of Congress often vote on measures that deal with tax law, there is no reason to believe Congressman Capuano could not re-qualify himself as a tax attorney. Furthermore, leaving Congress does not make a person "completely unqualified for anything else" and the claim that there is no line of work that a former Congressman could enter except for lobbying is patently ridiculous. Congressman that "give it their all" are not supposed to be doing that while salivating at the offices on K Street. If Capuano is "completely unqualified for anything else," one has to wonder how the hell he's qualified to actually be in Congress.

Apparently, Capuano is of the mind that people would only go to Congress to get a crack at becoming a lobbyist down the road. He must be speaking from his own experiences.

From a Boston Globe editorial:

Representative Michael Capuano of Somerville, who is close to Pelosi but opposed the revolving-door prohibition, told a Washington Post reporter in a moment of breathtaking candor that preventing politicians from becoming lobbyists -- even if only for 24 months -- would discourage good people from seeking office. "What you are telling me is I cut off my profession," he said. Funny, we thought Capuano's profession was public servant, not lobbyist-in-training.

Capuano's statement was puzzling because Pelosi is counting on him to deliver on another reform promise; she appointed him to chair a task force aimed at creating an independent new entity to enforce ethics rules on House members. "I love the speaker," Capuano said in an interview yesterday, "but I can respectfully disagree with her."

It's a damn shame that the chair of a task force to create an independent entity to enforce ethics has come out against ethics.

That bundling disclosure proposal did manage to pass the House (and was already passed in the Senate). Now, lobbyists are required to disclose the campaign contributions that they collect and deliver to politicians, and act known as "bundling." Such disclosure would show how much sway the lobbyists have over members of Congress (say, by showing that they're able to collect $500,000 in donations for Congressman X), though this new mandate does not actually curtail such activities.

Opposition to this proposal came from members pressed to meet their fundraising dues for the Democratic Party.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, supported the proposal:

“We laid down a marker and said we want to change the way business is done in Washington,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a main sponsor of the rule requiring disclosure of “bundling” by lobbyists. “Now we need to follow through and take the next step of passing a strong lobbying reform bill.”

However, although Congressman James Moran (D-VA) supported the proposal, he voiced the complaints of those that opposed the measure:

Others grumbled that Mr. Van Hollen, whose Democratic campaign committee duns each member for contributions, was pushing a measure that would make it harder to tap the easiest sources of such money — lobbyists.

“We have dues that we are supposed to raise of several hundred thousand dollars, and in the same breath we are informed that this is something we will have to vote for,” Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said. “I don’t know what we are supposed to do, except cold call all the people in the phone book in our districts.”

Mr. Moran expects to vote for the disclosure rule because, he said, after his party campaigned on ethics reform “we have to be holier than Caesar’s wife.”

There is a solution that could come to that problem uttered by Congressman Moran. However, it would require politicians to not just look tough but to actually be tough. Instead of complaining about the system forcing you to bend the rules of ethics to raise funds, now that you're in the majority, why not try to change the system so that members of Congress don't have to spend half their time downing cocktails with lobbyists to meet the fundraising quotas from the leadership?

As the Times said in its editorial page this morning:

Voters should still keep in mind the House Democrats’ refusal to slow the revolving door by requiring former lawmakers to wait two years — rather than the current one — before they can cut out the middleman and become lobbyists themselves. That self-interested failure is one more reminder of why the House still needs to create an independent agency to help enforce the promised ethics reforms.

There is but one more issue this week that has led to a defeat for ethics in Congress.

From the Times:

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill. House Democrats voted along party lines on Tuesday to block the censure of one of their most powerful members, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. He was accused of violating a new ethics rule that prohibits lawmakers from swapping pork for votes.

Murtha, well known for having bent ethics rules to the point of breaking them during his long tenure in the House, gained stature as he declared himself in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. He ran, and lost, in the race to be the House Majority Leader against Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer after the 2006 election.

From the Times:

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, filed a motion accusing Mr. Murtha of threatening to punish him for trying to delete a $23 million earmark for a drug intelligence center near Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Murtha’s home base.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha, chairman of the military spending committee, had tried to intimidate him by promising that he would not receive any military earmarks “now and forever.”

Mr. Murtha did not dispute the accusations but said in a statement that the Appropriations Committee considered all requests fairly. Famous as a political horse trader, he has boasted of his skill at doling out or withholding earmarks to prod lawmakers into passing legislation.

When Republicans ran the House, however, they were just as adept at dispensing federal projects as a tool to keep their members in line. Mr. Rogers has sought and received his share. And on Tuesday even some Republicans wondered at his professed shock at Mr. Murtha’s tactics.

“Earmarks are part of the process around here,” Mr. LaHood, the Illinois Republican, said. “That should be no secret to anyone.”

There is no reason for the Democrats to play the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" card on this matter. At least an investigation on the accusations should have been done, even if Murtha would face no censure. However, the problem facing the Democrats if they took action against Murtha is that he has become a darling for the very liberal wing of the party since he came out forcefully in favor of withdrawal. With the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party at odds with the liberal base over various issues, including how to handle the war in Iraq, taking action against Murtha would only gain them more enemies amongst their own party. It may be politically smart to protect Murtha, but it does not help them look as if they were serious on cracking down on unethical behavior.

The Democrats remain the best hope for reforming Congress and increasing its standards for ethics. Why? Because we've already seen how the Republican leadership behaved in previous years and their attempts to cover up all unethical behavior or even support it in the open. Unless the Republican leadership has fresh faces that could speak credibly on ethics reform, they cannot hope to realistically challenge the Democrats on that platform. Not with their track record. Not with Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Jack Abramoff, and all the rest. That and the Democrats still have a year and a half in the current 110th Congress, so there will be no change in Congressional control until 2009 at the earliest, so hope can only be placed in the Democrats' hands right now.

The hope in the Democratic Party lies within their newly-elected members, many of whom campaigned fiercely on ethics reform and provided the Democrats with crucial pickups in Republican-held districts that paved the way for the change of control on Capitol Hill.

Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) nails it:

Some newly elected Democrats say they worry about potential perceptions that their party has failed to deliver its promised cleanup. “Many of the freshmen ran on a campaign of, as Speaker Pelosi would say, ‘draining the swamp,’ on ethics and ethics enforcement,” said Representative Ed Perlmutter, a first-term Colorado Democrat.

Although their record on ethics reform is mediocre at best, toothless at worst, it is still more than the Republicans have offered when they enjoyed free reign in Congress. It is extremely disappointing to see the Democrats throw away this opportunity and the comments from some Democratic lawmakers in opposition to ethics reform are just plain outrageous and scandalous. However, the Democrats have approximately 17 months to clean up their act (and the act of Capitol Hill as a whole) before the November 2008 election.

Nancy Pelosi, it is time to support those new representatives that allowed you to become Speaker of the House. Support them with ethics reform. "Drain the swamp."

Soldiers Asked to Pinch Pennies While Serving Our Country

2007-05-18T20:59:00.000-04:00

Although this country has suffered multiple years with hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits adding to our debt burden, a modest request for a pay raise for our soldiers is simply a few pennies too much, according to the Bush administration as reported in the Army Times on May 16th.

According to the article:

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

So the administration is objecting to an addition pay raise of half of one percent yearly.

But that's not all.

In addition to the pay raise, the bill contains other personnel initiatives that are drawing White House opposition, such as a prohibition on further conversions of medical jobs held by military members into civilian positions.

“This will eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use civilian medical personnel for jobs away from the battlefield and at the same time use the converted military billets to enhance the strength of operating units,” the policy statement says.

A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints.

This includes giving the Veterans Affairs Department control over the Reserve GI Bill, a program now run by the Pentagon. GI Bill supporters say this step is needed to set the stage for increases in reserve benefits that have been kept low by the military because it views the program as a retention incentive rather than a post-service education program.

The White House also complained about lawmakers refusing to approve increases in Tricare fees for many retirees and their families, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care costs.

So while the administration has been openly complaining publicly that the Democrats are denying funding to our soldiers as part of the public opinion battle over the war in Iraq, they have been quietly complaining to Congress that they're giving our soldiers too much money.

No matter what one thinks about the war in Iraq or what one's party affiliation is, if any, nearly every single person in this country agrees that soldiers sacrifice their livlihoods and some sacrifice life and limb in service to this country. While they're putting their bodies and lives on the line for this country, their pay is far from ideal for what most of the rest of us would consider before entering into such a career, if ever.

Meanwhile, our soldiers have been called up to fight this war in Iraq, to fight in Afghanistan, and to serve in numerous bases in countries around the world as well as here at home. They've been convenient backdrops every time politicians want to look exceptionally good for the cameras when making some kind of announcement. Their families bear much hardship when their beloved soldiers are called to duty.

Yet the administration has often played up any and all reasons to say that they support the military, that they take care of our soldiers, and that they're the ones holding the line while those vile Democratic congressmen seek to have our soldiers walking around without guns, ammunition, and armor. Yet they've claimed that they will reach to the ends of the earth to give our soldiers their proper due, to ensure them that we're as committed to them as they are to us, and that they stand behind them 110 percent.

There is not even an argument about fiscal responsibility. There is only the claim that a few dollars here and a few dollars there to take care of our soldiers is simply far too much. If our soldiers are really fighting in Iraq to prevent terrorists from attacking us at home, as has been often claimed, then why not commit to provide for them all the benefits and care that defenders of this country deserve?

Or are they just props for political gain? Which is it?

The Democrats would be politically wise to use this to attack the administration with all its might. This combined with the scandal at Walter Reed and reports that VA hospitals are far from decent would only serve their cause in Congress. While it would be beyond reprehensible to use the soldiers as a political football, even on this point, they must do their best to ensure that this bill passes the Congress and forces President Bush to either sign it or veto it. And those in Congress that trip over themselves praising the troops on camera and in campaign literature yet fail to ensure that they are given pay raises only slightly above the rate of raises given to civilians and perhaps give an incentive to boost sluggish recruitment numbers must be called out for their vote against the troops.

This isn't an issue over whether to fund the war, bring the troops home, have them fight on, or anything of a partisan or divisive nature. This is simply about caring for those that stepped forward and volunteered to serve. Many of them have served two, three, four tours of duty and their families haven't seen much of them since 2003. It wouldn't be fair to deny them a slight compensation for those hardships and hopefully to help them keep their households in order.

As it stands now, the administration has voiced an opinion that can only be a slap in the face to our soldiers. This is not a bill for some expensive weapons system. This is for the people that provide us with the manpower needed for our defense. This pay raise must pass.

Given the administration's acceptance for thousands of pet projects, this shouldn't be a problem. If they're really concerned about pinching pennies, then surely a few Bridges to Nowhere could be spared.

Romney's Mormonism and You: It Doesn't Matter! Stop the Attacks!

2007-02-28T18:40:00.000-05:00

SALT LAKE CITY - While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Stop the presses! This is news that will surely affect the country in 2008! Does this mean that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper against his whole family? We must know!

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

In yet another case of journalists having a severe case of boredom (or having to put something in for the deadline) and how ridiculous this never-ending presidential campaign has become, this story, written by the Associated Press and carried by Yahoo! News, will undoubtedly become fodder for the orgy of Mormon-bashing surrounding former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's (R) run for President.

As if the piles of mud flown in all directions weren't bad enough during the middle of a campaign season (or a tool of the trade in the campaign industry), this report is just the latest example of reporters scrambling for something, anything, that will generate buzz and contribute to this never-ending campaign.

Inexcusably, in this case, the drive to get a story resulted in a patently unfair attack on Romney.

The article then proceeds to divulge the marriages of Romney's ancestors since the founding of the Mormon church in 1830. Essentially, this is a scorecard of Romney's family chronicling which of his direct ancestors, back to his great-great-grandfather, were polygamists and those who were not.

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hardy added: "Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life."

One question: Why the hell does this matter?

The "Romney family life" that held polygamy as an "essential principle" vanished decades before Mitt Romney was even born.

Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney's father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney's stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines.

Oh, right, the never-ending obsession about a candidate's spiritual life and the quest to damn Romney for the sins of his ancestors and others.

If these insinuations about Romney were not enough, the story provides two more slaps to Romney's face. First is the mention of the HBO television series, "Big Love," that follows the life of a Mormon with three wives. Second is the mention of Warren Jeffs, the leader of a breakaway/rogue "Mormon fundamentalist" group that practices polygamy and is facing felony charges for sex crimes involving underage marriages and all sorts of sexual crimes against minors.

Both items were linked to Romney in that "polygamy remains a part of current events."

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Polygamy has already done great damage to at least one member of Romney's family. Now, with polygamy being a thing of the distant past in the family, the subject is now used as a blunt object to attack Mitt Romney today.

It is very easy to condemn the authors of this report, Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson. However, given the ravenous hunger for anything remotely related to the presidential campaign, there would have been other reporters writing this same story.

Just as it is wrong to condemn a person of a faith because of the actions of the few or the actions of days long past, it is just as wrong to condemn Mitt Romney for the actions of Mormons from another era or the actions of an outlaw when it is clear that he rejects those practices.

Exploring this area in the name of reporting and raising questions on Romney's faith only gives another opportunity for those that wish to bash Mormons to do so with abandon. If it were ever a question that Americans just had to ask, Romney has made it clear that he is no part of those activities and crimes.

There are plenty of reasons to foist Romney into the spotlight and have him try to answer for his positions, especially when it seems that he has taken some positions for political expediency and not because of his personal positions or of a genuine change of mind. That is all fair game. But to drag Romney through the mud on something such as this is wrong. It's just plain and simply wrong.

Sharpton's Blood May Flow Through the Prominent Dixiecrat

2007-02-26T14:07:00.001-05:00

Fairly humorous but at the same time deals a stark reminder to the legacy of slavery in this country, Al Sharptongue may be a distant relative of the late longtime Senator, Dixiecrat, and fierce defender of segregation with a sharp tongue of his own, Strom Thurmond.

Although this provided yet another opportunity for Sharpton to meet the cameras, it wasn't one of the patented rants of his that have let him become a well-known name in New York and across the country.

"I have always wondered what was the background of my family," he said. "But nothing - nothing - could prepare me for this."

And later in the piece:
"You know for real that you are three generations away from slavery," Sharpton would later remark.

As was explained to Sharpton:

"Julia Thurmond Sharpton's grandfather and Strom Thurmond's great-great-grandfather, William Thurmond, are the same man," Smolenyak explained. "Julia Thurmond Sharpton is Strom Thurmond's first cousin twice removed."

At the end of the article, Sharpton offered this remark:

"You have opportunities that they didn't have," he added. "It gives you a sense of obligation."

Hopefully he will keep those lines in mind in the future.

Sharpton is seeking to verify the link to Thurmond with a DNA test and also said a few words to the press that, although promoting himself (yet again), does highlight how far the country has come since Thurmond's 1948 run for President.

"It's important for America, because in the story of the Thurmonds and the Sharptons, there's the story of the shame and the glory of America," Sharpton told reporters and camera crews jammed into the lobby of The News.

"The shame is that people were owned as property, and the shame is that every time I write my name now, I will think about how I got that name. The shame is that I am the heir of those who were property to the Thurmond family," Sharpton said, with his daughter Dominique at his side.

"But the glory is that Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948 on a segregationist ticket. I ran in '04 on a ticket of racial justice," Sharpton continued. "I got 10% of the vote in South Carolina. I beat [former Vermont Gov.] Howard Dean and [retired Army Gen.] Wesley Clark in South Carolina.

"I wonder what my great-grandfather would have thought about that."

Whether Sharpton is indeed related by blood or not, hopefully he does keep the progress made in America (especially that since Thurmond's presidential run nearly 60 years ago) firmly in his mind.

Ten Months Before Primary Season, A Candidate Becomes a Casualty

2007-02-24T11:01:00.001-05:00

With over ten months before the Iowa caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential primary season, the campaign of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D) has already been claimed.

Vilsack attributes the end of his campaign for President solely to one cause: a lack of money.

"This process has become to a great extent about money, a lot of money," Vilsack said during a late morning news conference at his campaign headquarters in Des Moines.

"And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain, not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, but a campaign across this country," he said. "So it is money and only money that is the reason we are leaving today."

The majority of the blame for the lack of ability to raise funds resides with the fact that polls in Iowa show former Senator John Edwards and current Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ahead of Vilsack and that he is much less known outside of Iowa, especially compared to those three aforementioned opponents.

Vilsack said it had been difficult to tell potential donors "that you're not the prohibitive favorite in the caucus process."

Vilsack got a head start on other contenders for the Democratic nomination when he announced his candidacy on November 9th, a full three months before the much-publicized formal announcement of Obama's candidacy and a decent amount of time ahead of other candidates. The campaign has raised over $1 million, although the majority of those funds came from a fundraiser in Des Moines, Iowa during the week he launched his campaign.

When the 2008 presidential campaign is expected to be a billion-dollar industry (yes, something this dragged-out and massive can qualify as an industry instead of merely a campaign), a fundraising sum of $1 million, even this far before the first votes are cast, would not be enough to sustain a candidacy. Additionally, looking ahead to only four states that will vote early in the primary season, as his "state pages" show (although there is a link for the "50 State Campaign), will most likely not be able to launch Vilsack's candidacy nationally.

It is obvious that Vilsack hoped to use home-field advantage and win the Iowa caucuses, launching him into contention in following states and pulling off an upset over his rivals.

With his candidacy now over, Vilsack's endorsement and advice will be a valuable tool to whichever candidate he may support. Vilsack did offer a piece of advice aimed at the other candidates, especially the frontrunners:

But he advised the still large field of candidates organizing in Iowa to avoid blockbuster campaign events and meet party activists one-on-one.

"Here's my hope and my prayer, that you understand that it isn't just about large crowds. It isn't just about the cameras," he said, speaking to the Democrats who remain in the race. "It's about ordinary folks in living rooms, and kitchens and church basements, who genuinely care about this country who need to be listened to and need to have an opportunity to interact with candidates."

If only voters in other states were so lucky as to be able to vet each candidate so elaborately. But the early primary and caucus system is for a different discussion.

Vilsack called for serious consideration for a national public financing system that would have allowed candidates such as Vilsack to have an opportunity to be on a more level playing field with those candidates that rely on star power for fundraising and name recognition.

Vilsack said public financing for campaigns would have put him on a more level playing field with his better-financed rivals.

"I think we have to have a real debate about public financing and the ability for the primary and caucus process to be about ideas," he said.

Perhaps he is right, especially his suggestion that the campaign be about concrete ideas and less about party juggernauts. A public financing system, with restrictions on fundraising, is an area worthy for debate. However, given that presidential campaigns have become an industry of its own, the chances that the industry will voluntarily dismantle itself are very little.

Tom Vilsack's candidacy was struggling from nearly the start and although it could be said the loss of his voice in the campaign (especially this early) is lamentable, his campaign was not on a level to give strong competition to other candidates (even though, again, ten months from the first votes cast is still extremely early). This does not mean that his call for a debate on public financing is merely the little guy crying to have a seat with the big boys. There should be a debate on this matter. However, that debate likely won't come until after this presidential cycle, perhaps much later.

Until then, Vilsack could still be a possibility to be on the ticket as a vice presidential nominee, to provide an executive portfolio (the frontrunners for the Democrats are all current or former Senators) and to give representation to the Midwest on the ballot. We will see if he is tapped to be the nominee in a year or so from now.

And I for one hope that his dominant V used for his campaign signs stays around since it will likely kick the ass of all other letters in the campaign (with the exception of the almightly D and R).

The Urge to Ban Takes the State Senate by Storm

2007-02-24T08:34:00.000-05:00

In the latest installment of absolutely stupid laws that make a person laugh hysterically until he/she realizes that these legislators are serious, a bill was introduced into the New York State Senate that, according to the title, will prohibit "the use or sale of hubcaps which contain parts designed to continue moving when the motor vehicle to which they are attached is not moving." In other words, spinning hubcaps will be banned in the State of New York should this bill come into law.

One more for the pile of garbage generated by representatives that somehow have nothing better to do.

The justification as stated in the Sponsors Memo is as follows:

JUSTIFICATION: This legislation is intended to prevent automobile
accidents caused by hubcaps that are designed to deceive other motorists
into believing the vehicle is moving, or traveling at a rate of speed
different than the actual speed of the vehicle. While the design and use
of devices known, as "spinners" is benign, the use of these devices on
public roads can cause accidents resulting in serious injury or death.
The sole purpose and design of spinners are to provide the illusion of
movement of the vehicle's wheels and to thereby deceive persons into
believing the vehicle is moving at a rate of speed greater than the
actual speed of the vehicle, including when the vehicle is stopped.
Unfortunately, this otherwise innocent deception can result in other
motorists misjudging the rate of speed of the vehicle equipped with
"spinners", and can result in the other motorist taking actions based on
the perceived but misleading speed of the other vehicle.

(The entire text of the bill can be found here. Just type in the bill's number "S1640" to search and then check all boxes after you search to bring up all sections of the bill.)

First, where are the statistics showing accidents caused by spinning hubcaps?

Second, if this is such a serious concern, then why are the punishments limited to fines? Persistent dangers to the road should eventually be given a tour of their local prisons, right?

Third, how would authorities find the shops providing these hubcaps and how will they determine how many such hubcaps were sold (as the fine is $150 for each hubcap sold)?

Fourth, wouldn't the shops or individuals selling the hubcaps be accomplices to the dangers and should also be treated to an all-expense paid vacation to their nearest prison eventually?

Fifth and last, isn't the fact that the driver paid for these silly hubcaps and that they look incredibly ridiculous punishment enough? For God's sake, you can't even see the flashy new toys from the driver's seat unless you play tricks with the side mirrors.

This bill carries the name of Senator John D. Sabini (D-13th Senate District, Queens) given his status as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation, to which the bill was referred. However, as the text of the bill says, there are additional sponsors of the bill:

Introduced by Sens. SABINI, CONNOR, DIAZ, DILAN, DUANE, GONZALEZ, SAMP-
SON -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be commit-
ted to the Committee on Transportation

Not to be undone, bill S1643, seeks to ban not just parts of motorized scooters, but the entire scooter itself.

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in
relation to prohibiting the sale of motorized scooters

PURPOSE: To prohibit the sale of motorized scooters in an effort to
protect consumers and residents of New York from the dangers associated
with operation of motorized scooters.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Defines motorized scooter: the term "motorized
scooter" shall mean a device with a narrow board having a set of two or
more wheels mounted under it, with or without handlebars, designed to be
stood or sat upon by the operator and is powered by an attached motor,
either with a gasoline engine or electric engine that is capable of
propelling the device without human propulsion.

Prohibits the sale of motorized scooters. Authorizes the police to seize
and detain motorized scooters.

The actual text of the bill stipulates that the sale of a motorized scooter will be a Class A misdemeanor.

If the bill itself did not generate enough laughs and/or fears, the justification will grant even more:

JUSTIFICATION: Currently it is illegal to operate gas powered skate-
boards on public sidewalks, streets or highways in New York State,
because they are incapable of being registered with the department of
motor vehicles.

So because gas powered skateboards are illegal, therefore motorized scooters must be as well. Of course, the difference between a gas powered skateboard and a motorized scooter (of any type, as stated in the bill) is not explained. If there is no difference, then why is this bill even being introduced? If there is a difference that requires another bill, then why would motorized scooters need to be banned? Apparently, nobody was able to take ten minutes out of his/her life to write that into the bill and explain the pressing public need to ban motorized scooters or why such scooters (or those of a certain type, such as those with seats and handles) could not be registered with the DMV. Whatever the outcome, this bill is extremely vague (even in the actual text of the bill, searchable as S1640 was) and is out and out a bad bill.

There is absolutely no need for these bills to become law. If it happens, these will merely be some of the those crazy laws that bites someone badly when a person finally enforces those laws. It will then be the basis of a quick debate or a soft news story before it vanishes into the forgotten depths of state laws once more. And this comes after Senator Carl Kruger (D-27th Senate District, Brooklyn) set the early standard with his proposal to ban the use of iPods, other music players, and cell phones while crossing the street.

Surely, state senators could find a few more important issues to contemplate in the entire state. Then again, given that it is the New York State Legislature, silly bills like these could distract the lawmakers before they do real damage.

The 110th Congress is Now in Session

2007-01-05T13:20:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, the Democrats took their position as the controllers of both houses of Congress. The first item on the agenda for the House was to elect the new Speaker of the House. As expected, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was elected as the first woman Speaker in the history of the country. John Boehner (R-OH) was offered up as the other candidate for Speaker as a formality. Pelosi was elected perfectly along party lines, 233-202.

The Senate was sworn in by the President of the Senate (also known as the Vice President of the United States), Dick Cheney.

With the beginning of the new Congress, the House will begin on its "first 100 hours" campaign that will take place over the next couple of weeks, according to the first 100 legislative hours, remarkable in its size considering January is normally a quiet month for Congress (lobbyist scandals such as last year's Jack Abramoff blowup not included).

The 100 hours' plan, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office:

Tuesday, January 9 - Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations

Wednesday, January 10 - Increase the Minimum Wage

Thursday, January 11 - Expand Stem Cell Research

Friday, January 12 - Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Wednesday, January 17 - Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans

Thursday, January 18 - End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy

The House passed a new package of internal rules changes last night that, according to the Washington Post, "prohibit House members or employees from knowingly accepting gifts or travel from a registered lobbyist, foreign agent or lobbyist's client. Lawmakers could no longer fly on corporate jets. In addition, congressional travel financed by outside groups would have to be approved in advance by the House ethics committee and immediately disclosed to the public."

The changes passed by a vote of 430-1, with Dan Burton (R-IN) being the only vote against, making him the frontrunner for Douchebag of the Week.

Today, the House will attempt to rein in earmarks/pork-barrel spending and implement the Pay-Go system, restricting new spending and changes to tax measures that increase the federal deficit.

The Senate will spent its opening days tackling ethics and lobbying reform as well as the proposal to increase the federal minimum wage. Additionally, they will need to deal with the measures that come out of the House, especially given the blitz of legislation that is expected to come through this month.

The celebration of the new Congress was interrupted shortly after Nancy Pelosi took the gavel from John Boehner and was sworn in as the new Speaker when Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) addressed the Congress to verbally establish that the swearing in of Florida Republican Vern Buchanan to the Congress does not prejudice against the challenges by the Democratic candidate, Christine Jennings, in the extremely close race to replace Katherine Harris in the House. Buchanan was called the winner of that race by a margin of only 369 votes. However, some 18,000 votes in the congressional district had no votes recorded with many of those ballots having other votes recorded.

Holt's comments elicited several boos from other people in the chamber. Guys, can we at least wait until next week before the fighting begins again?

An Early Disappointment

2007-01-03T13:47:00.000-05:00

It does not come as much of a shock to learn this, but perhaps that fact alone is proof of how far quality has slipped at Capitol Hill. Reported in yesterday's Washington Post (free login may be required) by Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin (who wrote about the collapse of civility and quality in Capitol Hill in Fight Club Politics), the Democrats will begin the 110th Congress tomorrow afternoon by taking some pages out of the previous Republican playbooks. As the new majority settles into their new role with new legislation, they are preparing to sideline the Republican Party in Congress, reminiscent of the strategy employed by the Republican leadership, especially in recent years.

This is the stategy to be employed by Democrats as they seek to install new laws in the first 100 hours of their majority. Although many of these laws, such as raising the federal minimum wage, new ethics regulations, and cutting interest rates on student loans, will have support from much of the country and perhaps quite a few Republican lawmakers, the Democrats seek to claim quick legislative and political victories and prevent the Republicans from engaging in prolonged debate as well as proposing amendments that would make the Democratic proposals less appealing.

From the Post:

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

Congressman Van Hollen is asserting that a constructive effort on the part of the Republicans is a "my way or the highway" proposal. Congressman, isn't that exactly the same argument Republican leaders used to stifle the Democrats in recent years?

This is clearly a pre-emptive move to try to preserve the momentum of the new majority Democrats and to demonstrate that they have the power to accomplish their goals. But, are goals accomplished by any and all means possible truly the best route? It did not seem to work for the previous Congress.

Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."

I'll grant them the benefit of the doubt that these bills have been debated to death and the time for action is now.

However:

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

Obviously, all the hype surrounding the "first 100 hours" was for campaigning. However, just like Eliot Spitzer's "Day One" mantra, the expectation is that the way business is conducted is changed now, not six months from now, without any kind of foolproof guarantee that the "test" won't suddenly change to the first year instead of the first six months.

Things are looking better in the Senate, where the Democrats hold a slimmer lead and because the Senate grants more powers to individual members than does the House. That and the Republicans can use the good old filibuster in the Senate and not in the House.

Luckily, new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will allow Republican input and amendments right from the start, with the first measures seeking ethics and lobbying reform.

This does not mean that the House of the 110th Congress will be like that of the 109th. House Democrats, including New York Representative Louise Slaughter, incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, are seeking ways to be more inclusive. Whether those wishes extend to the leaders atop the House of Representatives remains to be seen.

In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In the new Congress, the panel -- which sets the terms of debate on the House floor -- will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful of reporters.

"It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate."

At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said.

For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

"We're going to make an impression one way or the other," said one Democratic leadership aide. "If it's not positive, we'll be out in two years."

Tactics like those proposed for the first 100 hours may well win the Democrats another term as the majority party in the House, as bills will be passed and Republicans could be plastered as "obstructionists" (hey, where have we heard that term before?), but the voters are growing weary of the trench warfare on the Hill. If the Democrats want to retain the majority past 2010, they will have to show that they deserve it.

Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.

"If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."

"The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very, very strong," he added. "It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal."

Hope does spring eternal.

Eliot Spitzer's Day One Address

2007-01-02T11:32:00.001-05:00

Yesterday marked the first day for the Eliot Spitzer administration in New York State. Anticipation has been growing for the day and the Spitzer team has helped the hype grow as throughout the campaign as well as the months leading up to the inauguration, they promised that on "Day One, everything changes."

Well, Day One came yesterday. Although Spitzer's inaugural address kept the lofty ideals brought to you courtesy of Eliot Spitzer and his administration, it was lacking in details as to what exactly would change in New York beyond Day One. Perhaps that is for the best, as Spitzer laid out his vision for New York, with some of the details revealed during his transition period (covered in parts one and two) and hopefully more will be revealed in the upcoming State of the State Address.

Here is the text of the speech, taken from Governor Spitzer's website:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 1, 2007

Remarks of Governor Eliot Spitzer

Inaugural Address
Monday, January 1st, 2007

Happy New Year and thanks to all of you -- intrepid New Yorkers and friends -- for joining us on this glorious, gray January day.

I want to thank Governor Pataki for joining in this time-honored tradition as the reigns of state government pass from his careful stewardship. Thank you Governor and Mrs. Pataki for 12 years of service.

We are honored by the presence of former Governors Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo and the great grandson of Governor Al Smith. They represent the august tradition of New York leadership.

We are honored by the presence of New York’s esteemed senior Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Charles Rangel and the entire Congressional delegation.

And of course, my colleagues in state government. Speaker Shelly Silver and Senator Joe Bruno and the members of their respective chambers.

A warm welcome to our great friend the esteemed Judge Kay and all the members of the Court of Appeals. A warm welcome to all those joining me in being sworn in today. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and my partner, Lieutenant Governor, David Paterson.

My deepest thanks are to my Parents; my Wife Silda and our three wonderful daughters.

Today, we come together to mark a pivotal moment in our state's history, a day that in the rhythm of democracy marks a transition and a new beginning.

It is with profound humility about the task that lies before us and filled with great hope for what I know we will achieve, that I stand before you to announce that Day One of our time for change has arrived.

As we step outside on this first January morning of two thousand and seven, the light of a new day shines down on the Empire state once again.

The opportunity at the heart of this day is unique to our times, but not new to our history. As the writer Russell Shorto has aptly noted, New York created the model for the kind of society that would be duplicated throughout the country and around the globe: Our state was born as an island at the center of the world.

What began as a babble of dialects and peoples struggling to find a way to live together, searching for balance between chaos and order, liberty and oppression, became a symphony of democracy.

Under the shadow of liberty’s torch, generations of weary travelers have sailed into New York harbor believing that of all the places on Earth, this was the land where people could come and find the chance to make their world anew.

That no matter how great the hardship, no matter how daunting the challenge, the promise of our democracy makes it possible to overcome the greatest odds so that we -- individually and as a society -- may arrive at a greater good.

And so it was for those first immigrants who came with little and worked long days to give their children a better life.

For the bold governor, Dewitt Clinton, who ignored the warnings of the skeptics and cynics and built an Erie Canal that so many had said was wasteful, impractical, and impossible.

For the reformers of Teddy Roosevelt’s day who dared to take on the political machine and inbred corruption in order to give government back to the people.

For the suffragists and union members and civil rights heroes who organized and marched on our streets to win their chance at the American dream.

For the inventors, artists and entrepreneurs who have turned our state into a beacon of hope, ideas, and opportunity.

And so it must be for us. Like all who have come before, we have arrived at this moment on this day because we have demanded a different and more vibrant future for our children.

Because we know that New York is the state where the depth of our talent and the breadth of our skills and the reach of our culture have forever changed America and the entire world – and because we know we can do it once more.

This election was not about electing one person as governor. Rather it was about what we the people collectively elected for the future of our state.

We chose pragmatism and ethics over partisan politics and disfunction, and we demanded an end to gridlock.

So I pledge to toil each and every day so as not to disappoint the hard working people of this state who have placed their trust in this future -- a future which rekindles hope and restores growth.

Today we stand in the midst of a global revolution that has transformed the way we live and the way we work. Creativity and prosperity travel wherever the brightest minds and most innovative economies can be found.

Over the last decade, we have seen what can happen when our government stands still in the face of great challenge and inevitable change.

We’ve seen it in the burdensome property taxes and the health care we can’t afford; in the jobs that have disappeared from our upstate cities and the schools that keep failing our children; in a government that works for those who hold office -- not those who put them there.

Like Rip Van Winkle, the legendary character created by the New York author Washington Irving, New York has slept through much of the past decade while the rest of the world has passed us by.

Today is the day when all of that changes – when we stop standing still and start moving forward once more.

And while I wish I could tell you that either a single election or a different party or even a new governor alone is enough to do this – I cannot. While I wish I could tell you that change will be easy – I don’t believe that you elected me to do what’s easy.

Easy is spending your tax dollars without consequence or sacrifice. Easy is saying yes to supporters and no to opponents. Easy is looking the other way while costs rise, debts mount and families lose ground. Easy is what we’ve had, but easy is not where we need to go.

Let us remember the lessons of two great governors, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt instructed, "It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage that we move on to better things."

And Franklin Roosevelt advised us to be, "bold," and to recognize that people demand "action, and action now."

I have no doubt that we can move on to better things in this state – that we will find ourselves on the winning side of history once more.

But to be number one again, we must be one New York again.

And so in order to return to policies of opportunity and prosperity, we must change the ethics of Albany and end the politics of cynicism and division in our state.

If ever there was a time that called out for introspection by those in government, it is now. Lincoln spoke of listening to "the better angels of our nature." Indeed, those of us who work in the great building behind me must hear and heed the serious responsibility that public service demands and rise to this moment and show the public in words and in deeds that we understand that our responsibility is to the people of New York.

The reform we seek is substantial in size and historic in scope.

It will require a new brand of politics – a break from the days when progress was measured by the partisan points scored or the opponents defeated. No longer can we afford merely to tinker at the margins of the status quo or play the politics of pitting one group against another. We must replace delay and diversion with energy and purpose in the halls of our capital.

What we needed now more than ever is a politics that binds us together, a politics that looks to the future, a politics that asks not what is in it for me, but always what is in it for us.

We must embrace a progressive vision of government once more – a vision that upholds the values of individuality and community; of entrepreneurship and opportunity; of responsibility and fairness. No one any longer believes in government as a heavy hand that can cure all our ills, but rather we see it as a lean and responsive force that can make possible the pursuit of prosperity and opportunity for all -- by softening life’s blows, leveling its playing field and making possible the pursuit of happiness that is our god given right.

It is both tempting and understandable for each of us to focus on the problems and concerns within our own neighborhoods, our own cities, our own regions, and our own businesses. But for any one of us to succeed, we must succeed as One New York.

A state that is not urban or rural, upstate or downstate, Republican or Democratic, but first and foremost New Yorkers – striving together, reaching together, working together towards our common dream.

And so, together, we must strive to build One New York through a politics that operates on the principle that we rise or fall as one people and one state.

We will succeed not because we point fingers or refuse to budge, but because we compromise enough to find principled consensus, and because we listen enough to find wise solutions.

Not everyone will agree with this vision and some will not support these solutions. Indeed we will make mistakes. But progress we will have -- measured by our core values.

Our purpose is not reform merely for the sake of reform, but to restore fairness and create opportunity and redefine the very fabric of our community.

Some may feel anxiety over changes that seek to make businesses more competitive, but all will benefit from an Innovation Economy that attracts young people and new businesses in every part of New York.

Some may express skepticism over a school system that demands more accountability from students, teachers and parents, but all will benefit from an education that rewards excellence and gives every child the best possible chance in life.

Some may feel threatened by health care reforms, but all will benefit from a system that finally puts patients first at a cost that all families can afford.

Some public officials may not want to face stricter ethics rules and more competitive elections, but all citizens will win when we finally get a government that puts the people’s interests, openness and integrity first.

With most of these reforms, there will be those who say we can’t, we shouldn’t, and we won’t.

They will peddle the politics of cynicism that we must now make the politics of yesterday. Because if we band together and succeed in our efforts, our future will mean a New York that values the dignity of each person -- and once more offers opportunity for all.

Every policy, every action every decision we make in this administration will further two overarching objectives: we must transform our government so that it is as ethical and wise as all of New York, and we must rebuild our economy so that it is ready to compete on the global stage in the next century. The simplicity of articulating these principles belies the complexity of the task. But victory will be ours, as it must be.

And so on this day of unbridled hope and possibility, I ask you to think not only of the challenges and aspirations that you hold in your own hearts, but of those that are held in the collective heart of New York.

This One New York includes Chris Kelder and his family, who have farmed their land in Ulster County for more than two centuries, passing their dreams on to each succesive generation.

It includes today's immigrants whose lips speak the languages of Spanish, Chinese, Korean, French and an infinite array of dialects from all over the world.

Today's immigrants enrich our state with their vitality and their vision, in the same way as the immigrants of the last century. All these different tongues translate into the incomparable work ethic of New York.

And it includes the brave immigrants who came through Ellis Island over the last century in search of a better life, one of whose grandsons stands here in front of you today the embodiment of their dreams.

Each of us comes from a different place and from a different background. Each has faced their own tests and trials along life’s journey.

But throughout the history of New York, what has always united us as a people is the recognition that we are all on this journey together, and if we’re willing to catch each other during our stumbles and look out for one another during the tough times, we have it in our power to remove any obstacles in our path and walk toward that brighter day.

No matter how great the challenge – no matter how impossible the odds – our destiny will never be a path to follow, but always a trail to blaze.

And so on this new day of a new year, I ask not just for your support, but also for your cooperation, your patience, and your participation in making our dream real once again.

As New York’s former Governor Theodore Roosevelt once remarked, there can be no great progress without first entering the arena.

My fellow New Yorkers: join me in that arena.

Lend your sweat, your toil and your passion to the effort of building One New York of which we can all be proud.

My fellow New Yorkers. Our moment is here.

Day One is now.

Together, let’s build that One New York. Let’s walk toward that better day.

Thank you, and God Bless.

Although Spitzer spoke of coming together, as "one New York (Larry Littlefield's comments on the speech on Room Eight), he did throw in this little gem:

“Over the last decade, we have seen what can happen when our government stands still in the face of great challenge and inevitable change.

(snip)

Like Rip Van Winkle, the legendary character created by the New York author Washington Irving, New York has slept through much of the past decade while the rest of the world has passed us by.

Today is the day when all of that changes – when we stop standing still and start moving forward once more.”

(Quote courtesy of Capitol Confidential's coverage of the day.)

It looks to be a shot off the bow towards Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno, warning that their days of ruling personal fiefdoms in Albany are over. The two downplayed the remark and offered praise to Spitzer on his first day, reports Azi Paybarah of The Politicker. Rest assured that the two will remember those comments when it comes time to govern the state. Although I expect resistence either way, this may make it more likely that the two will block Spitzer's attempts at reform, especially at the cost of their own domains.

All in all, this speech served a purpose. It might have been an opportunity to set a more detailed tone coming into Day Two, but it also allowed Spitzer to extend his idealistic momentum at least a couple more days. It may prove useful once budget negotations begin and when Spitzer introduces those bills and reforms he had promised to give.

For now, we must all wait to see what happens. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither should we expect Day One to be the birth of a completely reformed state government. Time and pressure must also play their roles as we move ahead into the new administration.

2006: The Ending, the Beginning, and the Continuing

2006-12-31T18:09:00.000-05:00

It is interesting to take note of where things stand now compared to where it was one year ago, when my 2005 year-end post was written. Some things were predictable and went on as planned. Other things have since come and delievered us surprises that not one person could have dreamed were possible.

The end of this year and the beginning of the next may well be more monumental than the previous one due to the changing of many guards, not just in New York, but across the country and on Capitol Hill. With these changes, we must forge onwards and take things in stride as we deal with this new reality.

As I said the previous year:
So here we are, ready to turn the counter once more for the year column. Some things may be coming to an end, still others are about to begin, and because life is never that simple, yet more things will transfer from this year to the next.

What is ending:

Governor George Pataki during an interview on the December 24, 2006 edition of NBC's News Forum
The era of Governor George E. Pataki. Of course, this was fosrseen one year ago when he decided against seeking a fourth term (with Eliot Spitzer in the rearview mirror already picking out the drapes for the Governor's Mansion; Sorry, Tom Suozzi...I did work on your campaign, but the Spitzer camp was in coronation mode from "Day One"). As I said last year, Pataki had already become a lame-duck Governor well before the election. With that future clear cut, Pataki spent the past year visitng areas vital to New York State such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Iraq. He's been in presidential exploratory mode for the year, what ends at midnight tonight is his official title.

Okay, even if the past year was quiet on the Pataki front as far as New York is concerned, it is still the end of twelve years as Governor, which was the longest tenure for a Governor in the United States. It began with his overthrow of Democratic juggernaut Mario Cuomo, who himself occupied the Governor's mansion for twelve years, and continued through the events that have shaped New York's recent past and much of its near-term future. He was Governor while Wall Street took a beating from the stock markets, other markets, business scandals, et cetera. He was also the Governor when a hole was torn in New York's skyline on September 11, 2001. He oversaw a drive for New York to be more environmentally conscious. Whatever one thinks of Governor Pataki's performance as Governor, there is no question that his tenure will be one of the most historically significant in New York State history.

The New York Times also contemplates Pataki's legacy in office:

The George Pataki Era
Published: December 31, 2006

Most politicians are fortunate if they’re remembered for one good thing. In the case of Gov. George Pataki, that will almost surely be his work for the environment. Mr. Pataki has earned his badge as an environmental governor by protecting wilderness, adding riverside parks, creating coalitions for cleaner air and alternative fuels and, most recently, announcing the fulfillment of his pledge to add one million acres of land to the public estate.

That is no small legacy. But beyond the environment, Mr. Pataki’s dozen years in office have produced mixed results. In many critical areas, his best efforts bump up against disappointing failures. What follows is an attempt to catalog the Pataki record at the end of his three terms. It is an early assessment, one that is bound to change over time.

Reform

There is a reason so many candidates ran for office this year promising reform in Albany: under Mr. Pataki, reform was a talking point, not a doing point. He had co-conspirators in the State Legislature. But failure began at the top. When Mr. Pataki assumed command in January 1995, he promised a full-throated revolution in state government. Instead, Albany suffered little more than a hiccup.

The year 2002 provided a disheartening example. Every decade, New York’s governor has one golden opportunity to effect change in a major way. That is when he is called upon to give his approval to redistricting and decide whether state legislators should be forced to compete for their jobs or be allowed to create weirdly shaped districts whose only purpose is to protect incumbents. Mr. Pataki could have demanded a fairer system. Instead, he signed another incumbent-protection plan, guaranteeing 10 more years of governmental dysfunction.

Mr. Pataki’s preference for confining his reform impulses to the realm of oratory was perhaps most pronounced when it came to campaign finance reform. Every year, he demanded restrictions on the power of big-money special interests to buy favors at election time; every year, the effort fizzled. By 2005, public and media pressure had inspired a few, first step reforms. But even then, Mr. Pataki wound up lagging behind the outcry, not leading it.

It’s not easy to remember, but this was a governor who came into office promising a new day and an open door. He left a system so hard to penetrate that his quarters in the State Capitol were known as Fort Pataki.

Health Care

Here the record is better. Mr. Pataki expanded Child Health Plus and created Family Health Plus, important entitlement programs offering care for many who could not otherwise afford it. He also pushed for the deregulation of hospitals.

While the governor did not have the power to reduce the size of an unwieldy health care system himself, he and others in Albany came up with a good end run, creating a commission whose recommendations would automatically become law unless the Legislature actively rejected the whole package. The result was a plan to close, merge and downsize hospitals and nursing homes.

Crime

Mr. Pataki puts crime-fighting at the top of his own bragging list. He pushed over 100 bills that toughened laws and lengthened prison sentences. New Yorkers will be arguing for years about whether these laws actually led to lower crime rates. New York’s crime rate has dropped and New York City is now ranked as the safest big city in the country. At a minimum, Mr. Pataki will have to share the credit with others — mainly New York City’s mayors and police.

Budget

Mr. Pataki came into office vowing to cut taxes, and on this he delivered. But as we have seen in Washington, it is fairly easy to persuade legislative bodies to cut taxes as long as they are not forced to restrain spending, too. Mr. Pataki may have wished for such restraint but he had neither the skill nor political muscle to achieve it. New York State’s budget has almost doubled on his watch, from about $62 billion in 1995 to over $114 billion this year. Long-term debt has almost doubled as well, soaring to $50 billion, and budget gaps of $3 billion to $4 billion a year could confront the next governor.

Mr. Pataki has also allowed the state to commit a fiscal conservative’s top mortal sin: borrowing to pay for continuing operating costs. These are the kinds of numbers that opponents will have a field day with if he moves into the presidential scrum.

Consolidating Power

Much of Mr. Pataki’s tenure was spent in budget fights with state legislators of both parties who, despite partisan differences, were united in a common desire to lavish money on their own favorite causes. In the end, a frustrated Mr. Pataki used a court ruling to seize control over the budget — and thus most of the state’s business — from the Legislature. Mr. Pataki and his staff have so whittled away the Legislature’s budgetary powers that even those who approve of a strong governor have begun to recognize a case of overkill.

Lower Manhattan

The prime example of the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Pataki’s executive style is the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan after Sept. 11.

The governor chose excellent leaders for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. But he did not feel compelled to follow their advice. When the decision came down to one of two first-rate master plans being considered for ground zero and the area around it, Mr. Pataki demanded Daniel Libeskind’s and won the day.

A second veto was less admirable. He melted in the face of criticism from a few vocal members of the victims’ families and their supporters and killed off plans for an International Freedom Center, bowing to concerns that the center’s mandate to encourage discussion might lead to debate about controversial ideas. Most troubling of all was the way Mr. Pataki’s focus on the city’s emotional rebuilding seemed to ebb and flow. He was not always there when he was needed. As criticism mounted, he would eventually appear and often do the right thing. But the lag times hurt.

Towards the end, Mr. Pataki pushed for tangible evidence that he had made his mark on ground zero. On Dec. 19, 12 days before leaving office, he celebrated the first column of the Freedom Tower with an emotional declaration that the steel “rises from the ashes of September 11.” If there was a sigh of relief in the Pataki household that something was finally happening at the World Trade Center site, there must also have been a sigh outside as well.

At moments when leadership was needed, this was a governor whose performance was always adequate. It is hardly the kind of summation that makes for a political legend, but New Yorkers are well aware that it is possible to do worse.

Also ending is the political career of former State Comptroller, Alan Hevesi. Hevesi pled guilty to a felony and admitted that he did not plan to reimburse the state for the time and duties of a state employee to be a caretaker and chauffeur for his ill wife. Although this kept him from prison, the deal forced Hevesi to give up any dreams that he would be able to retain his post as Comptroller. It does not seem likely that Hevesi would be able to find work as a lobbyist as other politicians would not want to touch him with a hundred-foot pole. What he does from here on out is his own business and his time stiffing the state's taxpayers is finally over.

Hevesi's mug shot.

The GOP's control of Congress is also finished, at least for now. The scare surrounding South Dakota's Senator Tim Johnson subsided along with chances that the Republicans would be able to control the Senate in the 110th Congress through a Republican replacement appointment and Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

This brings to end the corruption, the spending, the earmarks, and the scandals surrounding the Republican Congress and its leadership. Whether the corruption, spending, earmarks, or scandals disappear when the 110th Congress is open for business remains to be seen.

Finally, the mess between the MTA and TWU Local 100 that was very much up in the air one year ago has finally ended with a contract. The rest from the transit labor wars is much appreciated.

What is beginning:

"Day One" begins. Already on Eliot Spitzer's plate as the incoming Governor will be to work with the Legislature to fill the vacant Comptroller's seat. There will definitely be changes as soon as the Spitzer Administration takes hold. Hopefully, for all of us, those changes are not merely different faces doing the same things.

Perhaps this is the beginning of the end of State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno's influence over Albany. With the investigation over his target="_blank">ties to horse racing advocates/lobbyists and the decline in GOP power statewide, many in the party are looking to clean house. Bruno, now the top Republican in the state, could find that he is a target by those who want to change the way the Republican leadership does business and also present a fresh face that may set the party back on track to win power.

The Democrats go to Washington and take Capitol Hill. Bipartisanship will likely not be on the menu by mutual agreement from both parties. Will the Democrats manage to stay true to the promises made during the camapign? We will see how quickly the honeymoon lasts. I expect the battle to begin very shortly after the Democrats begin the 110th Congress.

Also, the jockeying begins. Now that elected officials are not on the campaign trail stumping for their favored candidates, they can devote their attention towards exploring runs for other offices and fundraising. It has already begun very visibly for President and for various electeds citywide looking to 2008 and 2009. Expect even more people to join the fray. As the vast majority of the New York City government is term-limited out of office, the scramble to look for opportunities in the State Legislature, Congress, the Borough President offices, Public Advocate, City Comptroller, and Mayor. The coming year will only hold special elections for offices vacated, but there will be plenty of action behind the scenes in preparation for the couple of years after.

What is continuing:

Although I thought the City Council would make a move to try to extend or eliminate term limits, that did not happen in 2006. However, it can never be out of the question. The local media will be scrambling for stories in the coming year now that a lot of the election talk will not be on the air in this off-ear. It may well provide a perfect opportunity for the Council to make its case, if it were to go that route. We shall see.

The World Trade Center area is still in work. There is finally work underway towards building the Freedom Tower. There have also been searches for remains as some have been found recently by the western edge of the area. Hopefully there will be good progress here.

The city government is going to run as it has for the past year. Worrying about things like banning trans-fats aside, there has been remarkably little conflict between the Council and Mayor Bloomberg. Dare I say things are quite peaceful at City Hall. There is always work to be done. Hopefully the peace will continue.

The federal government remains a mess for now and it will now fall to the Democrats to look after it. Deficits, earmarks, and lobbying are still unfortunately par for the course.

The state government also remains in its shape until things actually change.

The war in Iraq continues. Some things have changed, including the end of Saddam Hussein's life, but the war is less popular now than it was a year ago. It will be a huge issue nationally in the coming year, just like it was in 2006.

But thinking of the new and old problems can wait until tomorrow, as I said one year ago. Tonight, we celebrate the arrival of a brand new year with brand new hopes. Wish us all good luck in this coming year, in our endeavors, in our lives, and with each other. For anyone reading this, do think about the new opportunities arriving with the new year.

Now is the time to celebrate! Have a very Happy New Year!

What's Under the Tree?

2006-12-30T10:31:00.000-05:00

Many gifts were exchanged throughout the country as millions of people celebrated this holiday season. Many of these people, either due to conflicts in schedules or just because they felt like it, exchanged those gifts early. Politicians and other important figures are no exception. Sorry, some of the gifts are non-returnable!

Alan Hevesi:

Of course, Hevesi had to do some of the legwork to receive the gift. But all he had to do was admit to a felony and vacate the State Comptroller's office.

Eliot Spitzer: Alan Hevesi's head on a platter.

The "Day One" Express is now pushing full-steam ahead now that Hevesi's mess has been removed from the tracks. Spitzer will also have the opportunity to mold the future of the Comptroller's office. While it is possible that he will butt heads with Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver, it is also likely that Spitzer can use his momentum to sway enough representatives in the merged State Assembly (for the purposes of confirming a new Comptroller) to pass his choice and undermine Silver's power.

Sheldon Silver: Alan Hevesi's head on a platter.

Hevesi's resignation places Silver in a commanding position when the time comes to install a new Comptroller. The State Assembly and Senate will merge to confirm the potential Comptroller, with each representative on equal footing, regardless of the chamber of the Legislature in which they were elected to office. Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and his Senate Republicans are marginalized as Silver's Assembly Democrats consist of by far the largest faction.

This scenario gives Silver a path to reassert his power on the state government and prove that he is still very much a part of the Three Men in the Room.

The outcome of the selection will determine whether Spitzer or Silver is the victor and if they received the actual head on the platter, instead of the plastic fake.

Joe Bruno: An investigation into his ties with groups involved in horse racing and those that might have given him far too many perks in return for favors from the powerful Bruno.

From the Times' article:

The trip, which included three aides to the senator and a veterinarian who has been close to Mr. Bruno for years, would become a catalyst for investigations into the business activities of Mr. Bruno, a thoroughbred enthusiast who has long raised horses on his farm in Brunswick, N.Y., northeast of Albany.

The trip to Kentucky was arranged by two officials at the Friends of New York Racing, a short-lived advocacy group formed by racing fans and executives intent on overhauling the Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga tracks, the centerpiece of an industry that generates $1.4 billion a year in economic activity in New York State.

After producing a 20-page report in December 2005, the group dissolved this year amid infighting, with many of its top directors and staff members joining a consortium that is now vying for the state’s lucrative horseracing franchise.

In recent months, the advocacy group and one of its founding directors, Jared E. Abbruzzese, have emerged as central elements of separate investigations by the state lobbying commission and a federal grand jury.

The lobbying commission is examining whether Mr. Abbruzzese, a businessman and longtime friend of Senator Bruno’s, violated state law by giving free or discounted flights to the senator.

Federal authorities are examining, among other things, whether substantial payments by Mr. Abbruzzese to Mr. Bruno’s private consulting firm were part of an effort to influence the senator, who is likely to have a major say over who gets the racing franchise.

The authorities have also issued a subpoena to Wayne R. Barr Jr., a lawyer and business associate of Mr. Abbruzzese’s, who helped arrange Mr. Bruno’s trip to Kentucky.

The person behind the Friends of New York Racing was Timothy G. Smith, a former executive at the P.G.A. of America, the golf association, and at the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.

The new group was formed in late 2004 in response to the economic threat that video lottery terminals and casinos run by Indian tribes posed to the New York and national horse racing industries.

The trip is referring to a trip to Lexington, Kentucky that included a visit to a racetrack and auction and concluded with a fundraiser for Bruno's Senate Republican majority.

Michael Bloomberg: A very good year.

Aside from the Sean Bell incident and the ten-day Queens blackout in the summer (two large asides), Michael Bloomberg has had a pretty good year. Whether he runs or not, the speculation that he would run an independent bid for the White House in 2008 is keeping him popular.

Democrat State Senator Efrain Gonzalez: An indictment to match the previous one.

Republican State Senator Mike Balboni: A nice job with the Spitzer administration.

New York Democrats: Not only do they receive much-needed aspirin to treat a case of Hevesitis, but they also have the chance to pick up Balboni's seat and move one closer towards taking the State Senate.

New York Republicans: Not a very good holiday for them. However, Governor Pataki's reign at the top is ending. With complaints that Pataki did not maintain a strong Republican Party in New York State that led to the trouncing of most Republican candidates around the state, this is a chance to clean house.

New York City Council: Pay Day!

New York Residents: More of the same in the state governemt? That's Mickey Carroll's prediction.

Residents Surrounding the Atlantic Yards: Not quite what a lot of you wanted.

The plan to build office towers, the arena for the New Jersey Nets basketball team, et cetera, cleared Shelly Silver's possible objection and can proceed.

President George W. Bush: Well, he did get his new Defense Secretary through....

The New Democratic Congress: Lots of work.

Unfinished spending bills will have to go through for the current fiscal year to keep the government running. The Democrats are talking about ending the rule of the earmark on Capitol Hill, but with the Republicans opting to punt, the Democrats will have some tough battles ahead as individual representatives will fight to keep their projects, whether they are worthy or not.

Saddam Hussein: Death.

The Fox News story and their picture from last night.

The New York Daily News.

The New York Times.

Obviously big news, especially given the timing, coming at dawn on the day of a Muslim holiday, Eid ul-Adha. Historic as it is, KipEsquire warns not to overindulge in any celebrations. Hussein's fate was sealed once he was captured. However, his death does mark the end of an era in Iraq (whether you believe the new one is a good one or not) and the healing from his tyrannical rule can begin.

These are but the many gifts, whether they're good or not, that were found under the tree for many of the people that affect our lives daily.

As it is still within the Twelve Days of Christmas, Merry Christmas to all, and to all, Happy Holidays. Sorry, Bill O'Reilly, there are more holidays out there.

Picture of the 2003 Christmas Tree at the Capitol.

President Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006)

2006-12-27T08:48:00.000-05:00

The 38th President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford, passed away on Tuesday, December 26, 2006. He was 93.

Ford was, to date, the only person to have served as President without having been elected as President or Vice President. His path to the top of the executive branch was ushered by the resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon. Ford was confirmed as Vice President on December 6, 1973 and was sworn in as President on August 9, 1974. Ford then survived a strong challenge within the Republican ranks by Ronald Reagan and was the Republican nominee for the 1976 election. He was defeated in a close election by Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Prior to his tenure in the executive branch, Ford led a distinctive career in the House of Representatives. First elected in 1948, Ford went on to win 12 re-election campaigns and served as the House Minority Leader from 1965 until his tenure in the House ended with his confirmation as Vice President.

Ford also served in the US Naval Reserve during World War II and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

Ford's biography comes courtesy of C-SPAN.

Additional reading is provided by The New York Times (free login may be required).

Whether one agrees or disagrees with some of Ford's decisions during his tenure, including the pardon of Richard Nixon and his decision not to give financial assistance to New York City as the city government faced bankruptcy (though he later guaranteed loans to the city in exchange for fiscal restraint), there is little doubt that Ford is seen in a better light today than he was three decades ago. A large factor contributing to such views is his pardon of Nixon and how far his decision to keep the Nixon scandals out of lengthy legal battles helped the country heal itself and prevented the erosion of trust in the government.

The famous New York Daily News headline following Ford's decision regarding New York City.

Certainly, on balance, Ford performed admirably during a particularly crucial time in American history and American democracy. While people may argue what direction the United States would have taken had Ford not stumbled during the election and had defeated Carter in 1976, there does not seem to have been a better person capable of taking on the role of the presidency following Nixon. Additionally, and a point that should not be overlooked, Ford was one of the most honest politicians, certainly more honest than most of the politicians of today.

Hopefully, the remembrance of Ford's presidency and his legacy will inject a renewed commitment to integrity as we face Democratic control of Congress and the continuation of the Bush 43 presidency as well as the campaign ahead for 2008.

Rest in peace, Mr. President.

Merry War on Christmas!

2006-12-27T07:48:00.001-05:00

Belated it may be but the greetings and well wishes of the season should always be welcome. Therefore, hopefully everyone has had, or continues to have, a very Merry Christmas, a very Happy Chanukah, and/or a very wonderful holiday season.

Whether one is on the side of Bill O'Reilly and believes that there is a conspiracy of anti-Christmas jihadists schemeing to undermine Christmas in the name of atheism or secularism or Communism or whatever dark side is behind the War on Christmas, or you're actually one of the Christmas War gladiators, or you believe the War on Christmas is just a way to fill up time and use up stored outrage and that Christmas is too commercial anyway, the spirit behind Christmas should apply to everyone, regardless of whether they celebrate the day or not.

For once, bitter partisan politics were cast aside and people renewed their faith in humanity. People wished others of different political affiliations, of different races, and of different religions well for the holiday. Nearly everyone extended those wishes to American soldiers stationed overseas, especially those engaged in combat.

That atmosphere will not last long after the new year. Already, there are news stories covering current and upcoming partisan battles. Such is the way of life these days but there is nothing wrong with trying to retain the spirit of Christmas even as we push ahead into those battles. Perhaps if everyone tried to retain that spirit, even the most partisan and pitched battles will not take such a toll on the morale and civility of the combatants and the observers.

With that said, another year has come and gone while Christmas survives once more. O'Reilly may tout this as a victory, but the spirit and goodwill of people across the country made the charm of the season possible.

Merry Christmas to all. And Happy Holidays as well (take that, O'Reilly!)

Now we can get on to the next campaign in the Culture Wars: The War on Orthodox Christmas.

A Ceasefire in the Transit Wars

2006-12-18T18:40:00.000-05:00

The arbitration panel that was given the task to settle the impasse between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Transport Workers Union Local 100 imposed a contract on both sides. (Also mentioned here.) The contract, which expires in January 2009 (I'm assuming the contract is retroactive to December 2005, as the contract is also said to be 37 months in length), calls for provisions not unlike those agreed to by the MTA and TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint at the end of December 2005, days after the three-day strike called by Toussaint had crippled the city during the lucrative holiday season. The union rejected the contract the following month by an ultra-slim margin of seven votes out of more than 20,000.

Another vote by the union overwhelmingly accepted the contract and Toussaint called on the MTA to accept the vote and place the contract in effect. Toussaint explained that union members did not have accurate information by the time the first vote was cast. Additionally, factions within the union still bitter at Toussaint, over the fact that he had ended the strike without a contract and with fines against the union for violating the Taylor Law, were campaigning against the negotiated contract, which had given the union far less than it originally sought.

The MTA rejected Toussaint's plea and called for arbitration to settle the matter.

The new contract grants workers raises averaging 3.5% per year during the life of the contract. Additionally, workers will receive a pension refund of up to $12,000 each. Finally, Martin Luther King Jr. Day will be recognized as a paid holiday. However, employees will have to contribute 1.5% of their salary towards their health insurance. The last item was a major point of contention as, previously, there were no contributions made from employees' paychecks.

Considering that the MTA could have decided that the union was not willing to play ball, especially since the MTA and Toussaint had already agreed on a contract, the MTA could have decided to let the union employees continue to work without a contract, this ruling from the arbitration panel is a small victory for the union. The union could have tried to go on strike once more if the MTA did not return to the table, but it would have happened during a less important time, when businesses were not so dependant on holiday sales and tourism. Such a move could have bankrupted the union as more fines would have been levied and longer jail sentences would have been dealt. Even though the MTA had hoped to deal the union a defeat via arbitration, the MTA had to have known that the panel would have been likely to use the negotiated deal between the MTA and Toussaint as the default position. If the MTA were not at least somewhat willing to walk away with this contract in place, then it would have used its resources to wage a true full court press on the union. The union could also have appealed for arbitration, but there is no guarantee that the panel would have come to the same conclusion as they had in this case. Would they be have been willing to risk the gains they had made in the MTA-Toussaint talks in search of greater rewards?

Thankfully this contract will expire after the prime holiday season. However, it would be nice if it could end at a time when there isn't a chance of walking in 20 degree weather.

With that said, we can put our transit labor worries away for another two years. What comes in the days leading up to the contract's expiration will be known only when we reach that point. This ceasefire is more than welcome.

Not Quite Enough

2006-12-13T17:45:00.001-05:00

An editorial appearing in today's New York Daily News written by Richard Clarke and Rob Knake outlines five ideas that the incoming Democratic 110th Congress should include in their plans to overhaul homeland security. Four of those ideas seem reasonable, at least as proposed. However, there is one proposal that, although it is an improvement over the current system, is not quite adequate in providing funding for anti-terrorist defenses.

The fourth idea proposed by the duo reads as thus:

"Homeland Security Funding: Quit the bickering over 'risk-based formulas' and distribute funds at the state and metropolitan level based on population. Under this scheme, each state would get $5.30 per resident with California getting $180 million, New York $100 million and Wyoming $2.6 million. Under the current formula, California and New York each receive about $2.50 per resident, with Wyoming raking in $15 per resident."

This would definitely decrease the ridiculous amount of money per capita that states like Wyoming receive from the funds. However, this formula of providing $5.30 per capita to every state would still provide an overabundance of funds in some areas and an inadequate amount in others.

For instance, New York City has a risk that would be greater than the population of the city would suggest. Certainly, the task of protecting the citizens becomes far greater during an average work day when millions of people from outside the city pour in to conduct their business. Funding only for the population of New York City and nothing else would shortchange us for when we must deal with the extra people that commute into the city.

We also have a large amount of very important targets, both in symbols and in vital infrastructure. Those targets would have to be protected as well and such security does come at a price.

Finally, there is no guarantee that money doled out to New York State would necessarily find its way in adequate amounts to New York City. As much as the previous schemes of funding national homeland (why can't we simply call it "domestic" instead of "homeland"?) security provided a free-for-all in pork projects that demanded such money, it is entirely possible that funding provided to the state would fall victim to the same acts.

Additionally, this idea seems to be at odds with the other ideas proposed by the duo, which include a call for funding security to protect the chemical plants of the country and also to fund better communications equipment for first responders. Important targets may not necessarily reside in the largest population centers and those areas would also find themselves stretched thin trying to protect those targets. Although it appears that the editorial states that such funds would come from outside the main homeland security funding bill, such additional funds may also fall prey to pork demands and lack of oversight.

The problem obviously is that placing all funding inside one overall Homeland Security bill would put the funding at greater risk to partisan bickering and pork project demands. However, it will be easier to find any flaws in the bill if it is all in one place and not scattered in several pieces of legislation.

Much as the two write about the bickering over a risk-based funding formula, that bickering must continue until there is sufficient coverage for the protection of the targets within this country. There will be continued bickering and those in Congress that fight to protect their pet projects should be known for their attempts to undermine the defense of the country's targets. Perhaps only once those officials are made publicly well-known and are publicly rebuked for their attempts will the bickering decrease. There will still be a fight over whether this New York City target is at greater risk than this Los Angeles target, but at least the chances of both targets being sufficiently funded increase and the chances of the Annual Pork Project Funding Carnival will be funded with Homeland Security dollars will decrease.

Clarke and Knake's piece is a start in the right direction, but more work has to be done to ensure that our vital targets are well-protected.

Charles Barron Calls for Racial Warriors

2006-12-12T18:09:00.000-05:00

It was only a matter of time before Charles Barron ended his flirtation with inciting a race war in New York and started openly calling for violence in the streets. That declaration came during the December 6th protest against the shooting of three unarmed men in Queens on November 25th, including the death of Sean Bell. Flip Pidot captured Barron's speech to the crowd in Downtown Manhattan (though Barron is from Brooklyn, not Queens, as the video states):

Later during the protest, as seen on the video, there was also an explosion against a man that took pictures of the protest. Why express rage in the fact that people were taking note of the protest by capturing the moment on film?

As for Barron, he has spent less time serving in his role as City Councilman and more time trying to build an army to combat those he has declared as enemies.

In case anyone could not completely hear Barron's words on video, Flip provided a transcript for digestion:

NYC Councilmember Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn)

Brothers and sisters, Kelly must go. Kelly must go. Kelly must go. Kelly must go.

What we need here is a regime change. What we need here is a radical, up, down, turn upside down – this police department is out of control.

Any time, in any institution in America, racism permeates every institution in America. And the police department is no exception. And we don’t care whether the shooters were Black, Latino, because the Negroes who were in – the house Negroes during slave time, they were Black too. But slavery is still racist. So just because we got some house Negroes that will shoot us at the behest of their masters, once some of those police officers joined the police department, White, Latino or Black, they all turned blue. And because the victims are Black, we are under a racist, out of control police department.

I don’t care what they say about me. They say Charles, you’re a [undecipherable] radical. Charles, if you call for an explosion, that I’m the one that’s calling for violence. Let me tell you something. We need to let the system know that they have to fear us. They have no fear for us. And once you put the fear into some people’s hearts, whether it’s politically, economically, or physically, they will leave you alone.

So brothers and sisters, I want to say to you today, just as we said over and over again, if we don’t get justice in this case, don’t ask us to demonstrate again. If we don’t get justice in this case don’t tell us to be cool, to be calm.

Don’t blame me, as a social forecaster, for forecasting an explosion, just like you don’t blame the weatherman for forecasting the storm.

We’ll let everybody know that we’ve had enough. Enough is enough is enough. We’re fired up. We won’t take no more.

And just because the shooter’s skin color is like yours, the racism is that the victim’s skin color is always ours. If those were three white guys, they’d be alive today. Enough is enough.

Brothers and sisters, forward ever, backward never, we’ve got to stick together. Forward ever, backward never. Thank you very much.

Not content merely with desiring to slap a white person for his mental health, Barron has dropped not-so-subtle hints that he will not be satisfied until more people have shed blood. Three of Barron's highlights soon after the incident are featured on Alarming News.

"We're not the only one who can bleed."

If that isn't a call to arms, I don't know what is.

"Don’t blame me, as a social forecaster, for forecasting an explosion, just like you don’t blame the weatherman for forecasting the storm."

Cut the crap, Charles. Calling for violence in reaction to the shooting and killing that early morning then trying to hide behind his own disclaimer that he should not be held liable for any violence that may occur, for he is merely making an observation...and then repeating that observation over and over, each time louder than the last.

It's akin to a weatherman reporting a 60% chance of rain while performing rainmaking rituals during the report. Don't blame the weatherman even though he is actively trying to force a certain outcome.

His disclaimer gives him the perfect excuse not to take a hand in the fighting he created. We will not see Barron on the front lines of the war he started because he will be too busy inciting it further while denying his own involvement. Should anyone act on Barron's call to arms, Barron should be charged as an accomplice, at the least.

"And we don’t care whether the shooters were Black, Latino, because the Negroes who were in – the house Negroes during slave time, they were Black too."

"House Negroes" like incoming Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and City Councilman Tom White? Not content to lash out against his perceived racial enemies, Barron has also attacked those who would rather wait for the facts of the case to be presented before waging a crusade against the authorities.

""People like Malcolm Smith and Tom White, who we don't normally see on these issues, are now trying to provide leadership and they could misguide our community if they don't listen to those of us who are veterans of this."

Except that these representatives were elected by their communities. White is on his second stint serving in the City Council, having been term limited in 2001 and coming back to defeat incumbent and successor Allan Jennings in the 2005 primary. Given their public office records, how are they not "veterans of this" as well? Issues of this type did not surface only recently.

White, while wanting to avoid a public feud with Barron, did suggest that Barron return to finding solutions to make life better in his own district, where he was elected, and which has a high crime rate.

As for the police officers involved in this shooting, if there is some indication that the officers were trigger-happy because of the race of the victims, then by all means, prosecute and push for a reformation of thought and tactics in the NYPD, if need be. If this is merely a case of police officers acting recklessly and with, as it definitely seems, excessive force, then prosecute.

Justice will not erase the events of that early morning nor will it bring Sean Bell back nor will it undo the injuries suffered by the two others. But justice is not calling for the blood of other innocents to be shed. More than eight million people in New York City had no hand in this act and surely the far majority of them do not approve. There is absolutely no reason to call for the blood of those people to be shed to satisfy delusional dreams of a racial war. There is work to be done and that will not be accomplished, nor will the conditions of his community improve, nor will crime decrease in Barron's district, or any other, if Barron is focused on making repeated calls to arms.

Charles Barron: Public and Personal Advocate

2006-12-05T14:15:00.000-05:00

Nearly two hours ago, Rock Hackshaw at Room Eight posted that City Councilman Charles Barron (D-42nd Councilmanic District) is considering a run for Public Advocate in 2009. Certainly this presents a choice for Barron as he ponders his political future.

Barron could choose to make another run for Congressman Edolphus Towns' seat (NY-10) in 2008. His showing in the three-way race could deter other potential challengers from entering the race, giving Barron a one-on-one campaign against Towns (or his son, Darryl, if Towns decides to give up his seat and allow his son the chance to promote himself from the State Assembly). Ed Towns' weak showing in the 2006 Democratic primary could give Barron hope that he would win two years from now, especially if he gains a larger campaign warchest.

However, running for Public Advocate in 2009 may be a more attractive option for Barron. First, this will give him another year in the City Council, where he can shore up his base, and also another year advancing his causes and beliefs in the manner he has done with the recent killing of an unarmed man and the wounding of two others in Queens at Thanksgiving weekend (and Barron's role will be covered in an upcoming post). Additionally, as Hackshaw points out, running for Public Advocate will qualify Barron for the city's matching funds program to help out with his weak fundraising. His warchest in 2006 was dwarfed by the reserves of Ed Towns and his attempt at running for Mayor in 2005 was cut short due to lackluster fundraising. Running for Public Advocate will let Barron steer clear of heavyweights that are eyeing the Mayor's office and will let him claim funds possibly quintupling his campaign warchest, if all his donations qualified for the 4-to-1 matching funds.

There will be obstacles for Barron to overcome should he run for Public Advocate, however. He will not be without opponents. City Councilmembers that are facing term limits (unless the Council extends the limit or eliminates it completely) will look to this office. Additionally, early mayoral candidates that decide to drop out of that race may look instead to Public Advocate. If people such as Tony Avella look like they will be crushed in the primary for Mayor, it won't be a stretch to see them settling in for this race, which is still a citywide post. Like Barron, his opponents will be drawn to the Public Advocate's office since they will be better able to craft the office to fit their own causes and needs. Furthermore, many media outlets and opponents to Barron himself will seize this opportunity to campaign against him, making this an uphill battle even if it is not the Mount Everest that the 2005 mayoral primary turned out to be for him.

Even if the chances for Charles Barron do not look good now, setting his sights on 2009 may be a smart move for him with potentially huge rewards. Should he win, he will have a citywide platform to stand on. He could then use this to further speak out, with the air of a citywide elected official around him. It will give him opportunities to expand his contacts and networks for future runs, whether it would be for Mayor in 2013 or 2017 or a return to the 10th Congressional District (or whatever it will be numbered in the next decade, if it changes) to replace Ed or Darryl Towns.

Perhaps Charles Barron should think harder about running for Public Advocate. For himself, it could do a world of good. It would definitely be in his interests to consider it and to prepare for that race.

Perhaps, if he is elected, it will moderate him and we will see progress to address the problems that do exist in New York City. Without the fancy rhetoric and with results.

Spitzer Unilaterally Disarms...Somewhat - Part 2

2006-12-05T13:15:00.000-05:00

The rest of the proposals from Spitzer's Transition Office:

The release then goes on to address the partisan nature of appointments and certain employments:

Prohibit any hiring or contracting official from inquiring about the political affiliation of a prospective employee or contractor

The Civil Service Law currently prohibits inquiries regarding the political affiliation of positions under the Civil Service Law. This same rule will now be extended to higher-level “exempt” positions, and also to individuals seeking government contracts. The only exceptions will be positions on those boards and commissions where the number of appointees in a particular party is limited.

If a prospective employee has experience working in politics, especially for campaigns, then the affiliation of that person will show in the resume without having to specifically ask for partisan affiliation.

Still, this should help to recruit the best people for whichever job comes up, regardless of their political ties.

The loophole that comes with the appointments to boards and commissions that restrict the number of appointees from a party is addressed in the next item.

End the practice of having individuals change their party affiliation to meet the requirements for appointment.

Several state boards and commissions (such as the Civil Service Commission, State Investigation Commission and PERB) are intended to be “non-partisan,” and the Legislature sought to implement that intent by limiting the number of board members who can be from the same party. However, that intent has been subverted by recent practices, in which individuals have been asked to change or drop their party affiliation in order to avoid violating the statute. That practice will end.

The problem with closing this loophole is that it might deter the recruitment of the best people for those boards, simply because the board has already had its fill of a certain party affiliation. Still, this loophole can be used for partisan purposes in packing the board with party faithful that agree to change their party affiliation for the sake of working for the board.

Perhaps the truest way to avoid this problem would be to make such boards truly non-partisan and not require a certain number of people from each party while not requiring the appointee to disclose their political ties. The problem is obviously that the board could be packed with partisan members without restriction.

In this situation, perhaps the suggestion to keep the bi-partisan boards with restrictions but disallowing changes of affiliation for the purposes of appointment is the best solution.

The release goes on to address the budget woes that have plagued the state for many years.

Bring both houses of the Legislature into the budget making process as early as possible, and share with them as much information as possible about both expected revenues and plans for spending.

One of the best ways to ensure enactment of an on-time budget is to start the process earlier. By starting the process sooner and facilitating a free flow of communication, we will more quickly learn about disagreements, and will be better equipped to address them.

This seems reasonable. If nothing else, it will help try to avoid a late budget simply by getting the budget fights out of the way earlier.

Seek to reach a quick consensus with both houses on revenue projections, and if no consensus can be reached, agree to be bound by the projections issued by the Comptroller's Office, whose non-partisan professionals are widely recognized as issuing reliable estimates of State revenues, uninfluenced by politics.

One of the main causes of delay every year is the inability of the Governor, Assembly and Senate to agree on the amount of revenue that is available to be spent. It is impossible to agree on how to spend money until you agree on how much can be spent. We will try to reach that consensus sooner, and if we are unable to do so, we will agree to be bound by the revenue projections of the professional staff of the Comptroller’s Office.

Again, this seems reasonable. Perhaps the Comptroller's Office (Hevesi's thefts notwithstanding) should release those projections from the beginning for the Governor and the Legislature. Of course, such a move would only lead to yet more fighting as each side will claim that their projections are different and the Comptroller's Office has this or that agenda.

Require that all member item appropriations be set forth as separate line items in the budget

Traditionally, “member item” appropriations have been set forth as separate line items, so that the public could see the specific spending proposals before the budget bills were voted on. More recently, however, the Governor and the Legislature have agreed to enact large “lump sum” appropriations, with the understanding that after the budget is passed, each side would be able to parcel out its share of the funding to its favored projects. We need to end these secretive practices, and instead require that the budget specify each recipient of such “member item” funding.

This looks like a good idea. Let's take it a step further and make such information availiable easily on the Internet through a searchable database.

The release then outlines a few ideas that aim to "promote openness."

Hold regular news conferences and media interviews, both to ensure that the public is informed, and to promote a vigorous public debate on the issues

The public has a right to know about the activities of the government, and the best way to achieve that goal is to make sure that the press has frequent access to the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

A good idea, though such conferences may end up becoming nothing more than attempts to promote themselves or to put down the Legislature (which may or may not deserve it). After the self-imposed restrictions on things such as not appearing in "I Love NY" commercials citing that it would give the Governor-Elect and the Lieutenant Governor-Elect an advantage for the next campaign, that restriction may be paid back by the press conferences and interviews that the Governor-Elect and Lieutenant Governor-Elect plan to hold.

Still, such invitations to the media and the public have great potential in shedding light on the government, in good times and bad. Furthermore, it could crush attempts by the Legislature (or the other two men in the room) to keep unattractive facts and fights from the public eye.

Have an open-door policy for all members of the Legislature, so that they have the opportunity to discuss the concerns of their local constituencies

Providing easy access for individual legislators of both parties to meet with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and their staffs will help restore the public’s confidence that their concerns will be considered and addressed.

This seems reasonable. It leaves the question as to how many members of the Legislature would take advantage of this opportunity, especially those that sit in the minorities of the Assembly and the Senate, and whether the leaders of the Legislature will try to restrict such activities from taking place. Should that happen, it may be wise for the Governor-Elect to provide political cover for those representatives, especially now when he is wildly popular.

Make the Executive Mansion and State Capitol more accessible, while still maintaining security.

The Executive Mansion and the State Capitol belong to the people, but unfortunately have become barricaded symbols of an unresponsive government. There should be a full assessment of ways that these buildings can be made more accessible without compromising security, with a special emphasis on facilitating access for members of the press.

Again, this seems reasonable. Still unanswered is what kind of access the public and the press will enjoy. Walking the halls of the Executive Mansion and the State Capitol is wonderful, but it is useless if relevant activities are simply kept behind another closed door.

Expand the use of the Internet to communicate with New York's residents, including by making meetings of the MTA, the Public Service Commission and other State entities available on real-time webcasts

New York has an “Open Meetings Law,” but the vast majority of New Yorkers don’t have the time or the money to travel to Albany to attend such meetings. So instead, we will bring the meetings to the people, by having real-time webcasts of the meetings of major public boards and commissions.

Yet again, this seems reasonable. Such webcasts should also be made availiable for those that cannot watch the meetings in real-time and some of the meetings should be held at times when more members of the public can attend.

Lastly, the release has a couple of proposals that the incoming Spitzer administration hope will "institute accountability."

Institute regular and rigorous evaluations of the Executive agencies, including requiring that agencies adopt performance measurements, establish goals, and track their performance over time.

Measuring performance is a routine practice in the business world, because business leaders know that you cannot improve the bottom line if you do not have established performance goals. The State government should adopt these same practices, so that we can make government more efficient and cost-effective, thereby reducing the need for additional taxpayer dollars.

Hopefully there will be disclosures on how such performances will be measured and real, tangible action that will be taken depending on the outcome. This process should be accessible by the public and perhaps made with input from the public as well.

Appoint a first-rate Inspector General, and give that office the resources it needs to pursue corruption in government without fear or favor.

The State Inspector General is one of the most important officials in State government, because the IG is responsible for investigating corruption, fraud and waste throughout the Executive Branch of government, including the power to appoint deputy inspectors general assigned to individual agencies. No administration can claim that it is serious about reform unless it is willing to give the IG’s Office the resources needed to do its job effectively.

Again, this should be a wide open process that the public can view. The role of the Inspector General should be as far-reaching as possible and there should be oversight on the activities of the IG, though not so much as to put a damper on any and all investigations the IG may launch. Perhaps the information made public should be made easily accessible through the Internet.

There are some proposals in this release that give hope that perhaps everything will change on "Day One." Although this release is light on details, such details should be made public either before or right at the start of the Spitzer administration. The government must be more availiable and open to the public and we are all depending on the incoming Spitzer administration to make it possible.

However, there are many items on this release that appear to have little or no effect. It seems that many times the Spitzer administration will restrain itself on various issues, such restraints can easily be made because there are political victories or other advantages to counter those restrictions.

Perhaps I have become very cynical about New York's government. But here's to hoping that Day Two will bring even more changes and that the new Spitzer administration will keep its promises to make government more open to the public and the media.

Spitzer Unilaterally Disarms...Somewhat - Part 1

2006-12-05T01:00:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, Governor-Elect Eliot Spitzer unveiled his plan to reform how the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and employees of the executive agencies will conduct their business and the self-imposed barriers that Spitzer will place around the executive branch in an attempt to rid corruption from the branch.

The plan can be found at Eliot Spitzer's Transition: New York website.

So what are the plans from the Spitzer camp to curb corruption? All items come directly from the Transition Office's release.

Prohibit all at-will employees of the Governor's Office, the State agencies and the public authorities from receiving any gifts with more than nominal value.

Under current law, State employees may receive gifts up to $75. The proposed action will eliminate all such gifts. The only exceptions will be gifts of nominal value (e.g., a cup of coffee or a ceremonial plaque), and traditional non-politically related gifts (e.g. wedding gifts) where there is no appearance of an attempt to influence the employee.

Even if the $74.99 specials do not have much effect in greasing the wheels of the government in a person's or group's favor, the removal of such allowances gives the perception to the public that the government is cleaning itself up. Politically wise but the final verdict remains to be seen.

Prohibit former Governor’s Office employees from lobbying any Executive Branch agency for two years

The current two-year ban only prohibits a former State employee from lobbying the specific agency where the employee worked. Thus, an employee of the Governor’s Office who leaves State service can immediately begin to lobby any other Executive Branch agency, even agencies that the employee dealt with frequently while serving in the Governor’s Office. This proposed action will end that practice, and will ensure that Governor’s Office employees do not lobby any Executive Branch agency for two years.

It's a start. However, there is nothing preventing a lobbyist from taking a job in the executive branch (even though there have to be more people migrating from the public sector to lobbying). Also, this does not prevent any executive branch employee from becoming a lobbyist to the Legislature. Since the branches do work together, it's not impossible that an employee in the executive branch of Albany, especially a senior employee, would have ties to people in the Legislature and/or their staffs. Such connections are the foundation of high-profile lobbying. It may be that such barriers to the latter may have to be written into law, like rules preventing former representatives from registering as lobbyists for a certain period of time.

Again, it's a start. It does take out the most obvious and closest transition from public employee (in the executive) to a lobbyist working with that branch.

Neither the Governor nor the Lieutenant Governor will appear in any taxpayer-financed commercials

State commercials (such as “I Love NY” ads) featuring elected officials create the appearance that taxpayer dollars are being spent to benefit the political career of the elected official. This practice will end.

This will have minimal effect, if any. Sure, the appearance of the Governor or other elected officials may help a little in the name recognition polls, but it also shows their support for New York's tourism industry. Although this decree will only apply to Governor-Elect Eliot Spitzer and Lieutenant Governor-Elect David Paterson, their appearances (especially Spitzer's) in the chain of people stating "I Love NY" will only add power to the ads. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what the new round of "I Love NY" ads will feature.

Perhaps outgoing Governor George Pataki will continue to appear in them as he desperately looks for a state that will give him more than 1% of the vote in the presidential primaries.

Neither the Governor nor the Lieutenant Governor will accept fees to give speeches

It is inappropriate for State officials to receive “speaking fees” at events. Invitations to give speeches invariably are made because of the individual’s official position, and State employees should not be utilizing their government position for personal gain.

Sounds good. Though one could argue that any speeches given, whether they were paid or not, would be for personal gain given future political considerations. But then the only speakers at these events would be retired politicians and entertainment stars. And that's not very appealing.

Prohibit agency commissioners and other high-level personnel from running for state or federal office while serving as State employees.

When high-level State officials run for office, it creates the appearance that they may be taking positions or actions in their official capacity for the purpose of benefiting their political campaign. Any agency commissioner or other high-level appointee who wishes to run for state or federal office will be asked to resign or take a leave of absence.

The contradiction to this reform is that already elected officials, including in the executive branch, can use their official capacities to help their campaigns. In a perfect world, that is how it should be, as high performance in office will keep you in office. However, the powers of the office also grant free media and the ability to stage events that will indirectly help a campaign, whether it is for re-election for that office or in a campaign for another.

The loophole here is that it appears possible for an employee to lay the foundations for a campaign while still acting in official capacity. The only difference would be that formally entering a campaign for office would be put off while the employee retains his or her position.

Don't be surprised if someone seeking an office argues that such a policy actually hinders their efforts to win office as they may not be able to return to their jobs and that other potential candidiates that work elsewhere in government have no such restrictions. That person will not be looked upon in the best light, but such is life in politics.

The Spitzer team also announced in this release that they will place self-imposed campaign finance restrictions.

The Governor and Lieutenant Governor will voluntarily restrict the campaign contributions that they receive, by agreeing to the following limits:
- No contributions from individuals, partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), unions, PACs or other non-corporate entities over $10,000
- No contributions from corporate subsidiaries if the parent company has already contributed the $5,000 maximum; and
- Applying the partnership pass-through rules to LLCs, thereby prohibiting LLC contributions where the individual or entity controlling the LLC has already contributed the maximum amount allowed.
New York State’s campaign contribution limits are among the highest in the nation, and should be lowered significantly. Individuals, partnerships and other non-corporate entities can currently contribute up to $50,100 to candidates for statewide office. Subsidiary corporations can currently contribute separately from parent corporations. Finally, some LLCs have been created for the sole purpose of allowing individuals and corporations to exceed the contribution limits.

These limits should be in place throughout the state, as the loopholes render such restrictions meaningless for those that are able to set up such connections and puppet organizations.

This is politically easy for Spitzer and his team to install. Spitzer is wildly popular in the state and can point to such restrictions as proof that he is committed to campaign finance reform by applying restrictions to himself and his lieutenant governor. Even if the romance fizzles between the Spitzer administration and the public, this move will be a feather in his cap in the re-election, especially if the Legislature fails to reform the campaign finance laws.

Finally, as has been mentioned in the comments section of the Capitol Confidential post that summarized the "disarming," Spitzer's family is very well off financially and Spitzer will be able to lean on those resources even if fundraising is lackluster in the next campaign. Should Spitzer remain popular as Governor, though, he should have no problem eliciting contributions large and small from the people of New York and the Democratic base.

Prohibit campaign contributions from at-will State employees to the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor

Whenever State employees make campaign contributions to their superiors, it creates the impression that they are required to do so in order to retain their government jobs. As a result, neither Governor-Elect Spitzer nor Lieutenant Governor-Elect Paterson will accept campaign contributions from at-will State employees.

This will clear that impression that does exist when employees give campaign contributions to their superiors. However, there may be a clash if such employees actually support their superiors for office.

Like the previous reforms outlined thus far, it's politically easy for Spitzer to do.

Neither the Governor nor the Lieutenant Governor will hold or participate in any fundraisers within the Capitol Region during the legislative session

Numerous political fundraising events are held in the Albany area during the legislative session. Lobbyists and others seeking to influence legislation can make campaign contributions to elected officials at these fundraisers, and then meet with these same officials, requesting favorable treatment on legislation. This creates at least an appearance of the undue influence of money over government decision making, and neither Governor-Elect Spitzer nor Lieutenant Governor-Elect will hold any such fundraisers in the Capital Region while the Legislature is in session.

There is one huge loophole to be found here. Although participation in fundraisers will not be permitted within the Captiol Region, it's not hard at all for either the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or surrogates to participate in fundraisers outside of Albany and its environs. One could participate at an event and be back in Albany well before the day is done.

Also, what would stop an ally of Spitzer from showing at a fundraiser in support of his political campaigns? There are countless opportunities for Spitzer's political machine to raise funds and spend during the 2008 and 2010 elections.

This one looks like it's all show and no function. Still, this can potentially be a feather in Spitzer's political cap.

The rest of the Spitzer propositions will be following.

Councilman Lew Fidler's Holiday Bonus

2006-12-01T17:55:00.000-05:00

"I am proud to be a member of the City Council, and if I could and I had to, I would do it for nothing. But I can't get Ithaca College to give my son room and board for nothing, I can't get Sunoco to give me free gas, and I can't get my mortgage company to waive my mortgage."

--Quote provided by Gotham Gazette, said in the November 15th New York City Council's "Stated Meeting." (The City Council Votes Itself a Raise)

"I am not in the luxurious position that Mayor Mike Bloomberg is in, to be able to do his job for $1 a year."

--Quote provided by The New York Times (Council Votes to Raise Pay of Top Officials, November 16, 2006)

--City Councilman Lewis A. Fidler (D-46th Councilmanic District) on paying his bills by voting himself a $22,500 raise.

Because it's not like being a City Councilman is officially a part-time job and Councilman Fidler isn't also making between $90,000 and $260,000 above and beyond the Council salary and his stipend as Assistant Majority Leader...right?

Although this is already half a month old, with the coming of December and the holiday season (and Bill O'Reilly's horror that I used the word "holiday") upon us, this is an opportune time to revisit the hefty bonus the City Council voted for itself. Upon seeing the quote from the Gotham Gazette's report of the Stated Meeting, this is a good time to address Lew Fidler on his actions.

According to Citizens Union, states the Times, Fidler did indeed report an additional income that is between one and three times the base salary from the Council. Including the $15,000 stipend awarded by the Council, this means that Fidler made between $195,000 and $385,000. This is based on the previous base Council salary of $90,000. The new $112,500 base salary was retroactively applied to begin on November 1, 2006. With Fidler's stipend, his Council earnings alone, given a full year, would amount to $127,500.

A chart provided by Gotham Gazette shows Fidler's total income, including various other salaries and bank accounts and his Council salary and stipend, amounts to "at least $179,000" for 2004.

This does not mean that Fidler is sitting in the lap of luxury the way top athletes, executives, and Mayor Bloomberg enjoy. However, for Fidler to suggest that he is struggling with his bills and thus deserves a 25% raise on his part-time Council salary is in extremely poor taste and only makes him look like a man stuffing his pockets with no oversight, which, many would argue, he is.

Most of the residents in the 46th also struggle to make ends meet and ensure that their families are given the care they need. However, since they do not have the luxury of being able to vote for their own 25% raise just in time for holiday shopping, they have to find other ways to stretch their paychecks to pay their bills. Instead of arguing that he needs a pay raise, Fidler could have paid those bills by cutting expenses.

Fidler seems to have been in a position to be able to have saved for his son's education. However, if he was unable to do so, like many families, he could have looked for scholarships with his son or have taken loans to finance his son's education. The downside of the loans, as those who take them find out, is that they cost more money in the long run. This is the price for not being able to pay for college up front. But, it is a worthwhile investment, from someone that is currently taking heavy loans to finance an education.

Instead of paying Sunoco money for gas, Fidler can instead take mass transit, as many in the 46th do. He would find out that it is normally a pain in the ass to commute from most parts of the 46th to Manhattan as there is a lack of mass transit options available. The best options from the 46th are the several express buses formerly operated by the Command Bus Company, although the trip from deep within the district takes one hour or more one-way on most days. It would be a great incentive to lobby for an expansion of mass transit options for the people residing in the 46th Councilmanic District.

To pay for housing, assuming he has already taken advantage of the low mortgage rates in the years past, a move might be in order. Whether it is to a cheaper home or even to a rental, many people do have to move to cut back on expenses. It does not seem like Fidler would need to move into an apartment like the two-room postage-stamp sized apartment that I have, but such a move would mean savings on monthly expenses and also on property taxes.

When there's a will, there's a way, especially considering all of the options that Fidler could choose from given his combined incomes. I did intern for Fidler's office briefly and I still do consider him one of the finer members of the Council. I'm even disappointed that my apartment sits on the wrong side of the border cutting through this street and has locked me into Kendall Stewart's 45th District. However, this act and his less-than-classy comments are very disappointing, to say the least.

Since the act has already been done and there is no way to review and possibly revise, the only thing that Fidler must do now is to be a leader and to help his constituents and New York City residents reach a position where they can worry about paying bills on the level that he has to worry about them. Many people are truly struggling and much work remains to be done.

Malcolm Smith Looks to Stuff His Wallet This Thanksgiving

2006-11-22T16:16:00.000-05:00

Capitol Confidential posted some highlights from State Senator Malcolm Smith's first address to Senate Democrats, who formally elected him to be Senate Minority Leader when the new term begins on January 1st. Aside from stating that neither he nor Senate Democrats will comment on whether the Senate should put Comptroller Alan Hevesi on trial, Smith did note that he thought the 25% pay raise the New York City Council voted for itself was a top notch idea and should be imported to the state level as soon as possible.

The reasons Smith gave for his support for such a measure were that state lawmakers were hardworking and that there has not been an increase in eight years.

The $79,500 yearly salary for all members of the state legislature, both Assemblymen and Senators, has been in place for quite a while, thus, Smith's assessment on that matter is correct. It's a fact but that alone does not mean that these lawmakers deserve a raise.

However, Senator Smith's claim that members of the Senate are by and large hardworking falls flat on its face. New York's legislature is notoriously known as a body that has been driven to the ground. An army of lobbyists have found fertile ground in Albany, thanks to the Legislature. The Democrats and the Republicans have agreed to master the art of gerrymandering (via computer programs that perfectly slice and dice New York into Assembly and Senate districts) so that state lawmakers essentially have guaranteed employment for life. A state lawmaker is more likely to retire, die, or be indicted than be voted out of office. The Democratic wave that swept across the statewide offices and ushered in a Democratic Congress dislodged a grand total of one Republican State Senator. Government watchdog groups call for the legislature to pull itself into some sort of working order and transparency.

Certainly some measure of the dysfunction in Albany falls under the domain of outgoing Governor and wannabe President George Pataki, who forms one-third of the infamous "Three Men in a Room" system that handles much of policy and pork of the state government. However, the other two men in that room, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R), have been directly responsible for the mess in the Legislature. And a majority of the lawmakers in both chambers have been happily letting the Legislature throw itself down the drain. As long as they maintain their jobs-for-life with the least strenuous work schedule possible.

The question for Senator Smith is "Working hard or hardly working?"

As thin as the case for the City Council was, the act that Smith is trying to pull is ridiculous. The case that each member of the Senate or the Legislature is a hardworking servant of the people of the State of New York doesn't even have a leg to stand on. Smith, instead of outlining a vision to fix Albany, used his first words as the incoming Senate Minority Leader to call for a larger paycheck.

This is not to say that every member of the Legislature is a sack of crap or that all members do not care about New Yorkers. There are exceptions, perhaps quite a few. Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer should provide cover for these lawmakers as part of the campaign to change everything starting on "Day One." Hopefully, such plans are in the works.

Malcolm Smith, for his part, should use the prospect of a pay raise to rally Senate Democrats to work and work hard. He should back up his words with action. His next words should call for a more efficient and more transparent state government. Whatever he has said already about fixing state government must now be repeated, especially to members of the Senate Democrats. After letting his hopes for a raise be known, he should be prepared to work for it.

Of course, since all it would take to get a pay raise is an agreement with Senate Republicans over lunch and a conversation about the joys of incumbent-friendly districts, hoping that Smith (or the rest of the Legislature for that matter) will back up his claims with true action is more than likely a futile exercise, no matter what is said about reform.

It is now up to Malcolm Smith to prove that sentiment wrong.

The Retreat of the GOP

2006-11-14T02:13:00.000-05:00

An elected official from the Northeast flying the GOP banner is a rare sight these days. The defeat of Republicans in the Northeast on Election Day, the Yankee Republicans, as are labeled in this AP report, has spurred commentary regarding the fate of the party in the area.

The defeat of those Republicans has worried some analysts, party supporters, and elected officials, including Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who said in the report that the defeat of those like Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) was a "serious reversal."

Is this the inevitable result of the direction that the national party took? Or was it simply the result of the Democratic wave having a greater impact on those Yankee Republicans?

The Yankee Republicans held positions such as keeping the federal spending in check, holding a balanced budget, which are positions held, at least in title, by national Republicans. However, the Yankee Republicans also were for environmental safeguards and held positions on social issues that were more liberal than their national Republican counterparts.

There are several causes for the decline of the Yankee Republicans.

First, the national party has been stressing party loyalty recently, especially to combat the possibility of moderates siding with the Democrats on key votes. The national party's platform is under the control of the more socially conservative Republicans, leaving Yankee Republicans between a rock (or Iraq in Chafee's case) and a hard place. Without "loyalty," support from the national party drops. That situation that the Yankee Republicans find themselves in so often on Capitol Hill is a large cause for the decline of the faction.

Second, which is tied to the first, is that there is little effort at building the party in the Northeast. And why would they? The candidates that would come up would likely be of the Yankee Republican mold after all. And if they recruited candidates that were more in line with the national Republicans, the chances of their success dwindle. Further, if the other state GOP machines did as little as the New York Republican leaders have done building the state party, then it would account for a good portion of the retreat from the Northeast.

Third, the tenuous hold that the Yankee Republicans had in their offices was shattered in the Democratic wave. When voters are looking for a change in leadership, and Yankee Republicans supported the recent congressional leadership. On Election Day, if voters are looking for a change at the top of Capitol Hill, party labeling becomes more important than whether the views of the Yankee Republican up for election are closer to the views of the electorate than not. As such, many of those Yankee Republicans were ousted on Election Day.

Lastly, Democrats have turned to campaigning on a fiscally responsible, more socially liberal, and environmentally strong platforms. The Democrats have spent quite a while trying to get that message out, especially in light of the Republican Congress that has ruled Capitol Hill for the last several years. In doing so, the Democrats have taken space on those platforms away from the Yankee Republicans. And the voters are responding. If a Democrat and a Yankee Republican are closer on issues like these than not, why would those voters support the national Republican leadership by giving their votes to the Yankee Republican?

These causes are all built on one another and the end result is the scattering of the Yankee Republican faction. It is not and will not be extinct, but its potency has been removed.

What will it take for the Yankee Republicans to regain their former territory? It will definitely take a Republican leadership that is more tolerant of the faction's standing within the greater Republican fold.

Or, for a more far-fetched scenario, they can simply become Democrats and join the ranks of Democrats that would be in line with the Yankee Republicans. And for an even more far-fetched scenario, those Yankee Republicans could become a cornerstone for the Northeast portion of a greater Centrist Party.

It looks like the Yankee Republicans are going to be in the political wilderness for at least a little while. It might be the Republican version of the scattering of the Dixiecrats. Regardless of comparisons, the defeat of the Yankee Republicans may just be a sign of the partisan wars dominating national politics right now. If the newly-elected Democrats follow through on their plans for bipartisan governing, then they may have lost a good portion of the Republicans that would work with them more often than not.

The New Front at Capitol Hill

2006-11-14T01:20:00.000-05:00

So the Democrats won the Battle of Stirling. What now?

It's very likely that the war at the Capitol will rage onwards after a brief truce. With only a meager two years before the next Battle of the Ballots, will the Democrats go ahead and win their Battle of Falkirk as well?

As much as the election proved that the people of this country were tired of the way the Republican congressional leadership ran the nation, it does not mean that the Democrats can look forward to enjoying rule over Capitol Hill for at least as long as the Republicans enjoyed their rule.

The slate of Democrats that won key races included candidiates that were not cut from the usual Democratic cloth. Although the public is clamoring for resolutions to issues such as the Iraq war and the corruption problems that afflicted the outgoing Republican majority, there are other issues important to the people that have been left unaddressed by the departing 109th Congress. The promises that the Democrats have made must be kept. All of America is watching.

The Democrats have promised to raise the federal minimum wage. As soon as the 110th Congress is in session, the Democrats must pass this bill. The opinion of the American people has been made clear on this issue. Minimum wage raises were approved in several states on Election Day and now over half of the nation's states have minimum wages higher than the $5.15 federal minimum.

The Democrats have also promised to cut the interest rate on student loans. It is critical that this is passed.

With the cost of college already rising at exceedingly high rates due to tuition hikes that far outpace the rate of inflation, why penalize the middle and lower classes further for wanting to get ahead? Republicans have complained that although the economy is growing at a steady pace, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is rising through the roof, and unemployment rates are below average, many people across the country do not have a sunny outlook on the economy. This double whammy that makes college much more expensive is but one reason that many Americans are not feeling so well on the economy.

The Democrats must also be willing to work with the Republicans. An important appointment up for confirmation will be coming while the 109th Congress conducts its lame duck session before becoming a product of history. Former CIA Director Robert Gates is up to be confirmed to the post of Secretary of Defense. After years of clamoring for Donald Rumsfeld's ouster, the Democrats finally have their wish, with the added bonus of it not happening during the year's election season, when it could have swayed some voters to vote Republican.

Gates needs to have a confirmation hearing where Democrats offer tough questions and allow Gates to clearly state how he wants to execute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats should also let it be known that they will involve themselves in the process, providing the political backing needed for new plans for these wars, especially for Iraq. After that, it would be wise to confirm Gates as the new Defense Secretary. It would not only show that the Democrats can work with the Bush Administration, but that it will be deeply involved in the direction that hopefully charts our involvement in Iraq towards a better conclusion than the current "stay the course" plan is working now. If there ever comes a time when the United States needs to withdraw some, most, or all of its soldiers in Iraq if there is no way that an effective Iraqi government can take hold of the country, then the Democrats must be willing to work with the Administration and the Pentagon to ensure that the United States leaves on the best possible terms.

There is no doubt that the public expects the new Democratic Congress to stand up to the President and his Administration. However, fighting for the sake of fighting and grandstanding will not play well with the public and will endanger the Democratic hold on Congress in only two years' time. As the Battle of Falkirk approaches and politicians are looking to 2008, the Democrats need to show that they can govern and not simply bicker.

The American people are trusting them to take the country in a new direction, a direction different from that offered by the Republican leadership in both the White House and on Capitol Hill. The Democrats can only help themselves by fighting strategtically on important issues and governing and reaching out the rest of the time. The Democrats can use this approach of moderate government while fighting the good fights when they need to be fought to improve their chances in 2008, regardless of the direction the Republican Party takes after its upcoming leadership fight.

Whether the Republicans choose to work with the Democrats or fight them every inch of the way, the Democrats can win their Battle of Falkirk by showing Americans that their trust and their hopes were not misplaced.

Santorum Already a Casualty, Projections Report

2006-11-07T20:58:00.000-05:00

Stick a fork in Rick Santorum, projects MSNBC, which has been my network of choice thus far tonight. Even if the Republicans retain control of the Senate (and they will need only 50 seats, given the Vice Presidential tiebreaker), the loss of their third-in-command is a definite blow to the Republican leadership.

Election Day 2006: Finally, All Those Attack Ads are Paying Off!

2006-11-07T20:04:00.000-05:00

With the first polls already closing (it's only 7 PM, what gives?), candidiates across the country are awaiting the results of this year's election. Although there is a profound lack of competitive races citywide and statewide (close congressional and state legislature races aside), politicians have been on the move campaigning for political allies and pushing themselves in considerations of future races. Even with the lack of competitive races, there is one statewide race that is providing fireworks and fixes for political junkies across the state: the campaign for Comptroller.

This race was one the quietest among the statewide campaigns this year. Alan Hevesi, the incumbent Democrat, was quietly cruising to a second term and his Republican challenger, Christopher Callaghan, was launching a futile campaign with next to zero attention from the press.

Alas, it was found that Hevesi took the word "cruising" a little too literally as everyone learned that he used state employees and state vehicles to drive his ailing wife. Hevesi, certainly no man that is struggling financially, reimbursed approximately $83,000 to the state.

Callaghan pounced on this revelation, though he broke this story only with information from an anonymous source and at the time, he did not know whether this allegation was true. Perhaps this is excuseable given that he was trailing Hevesi by 30 points. Still, quickly throwing around the mud is not an admirable trait, even in campaigns such as these.

Nevertheless, late in October, many newspaper editorial boards threw their endorsements behind Callaghan, including the New York Times. Still, it seems that the chances of a Hevesi victory were better than even.

However, Hevesi was found to owe $90,000 more to the state, in addition to the money already paid. Not only did Hevesi make a serious lapse in judgment by raiding the cookie jar he was supposed to protect, but he tried to quiet the story by making a payment, but not the full amount.

Callaghan may not have the credentials needed for this office. However, he is the best hope for ousting Hevesi. Hevesi has been on the offensive down the final stretch, launching attack ads against Callaghan and promoting himself as the race quickly tightened and Hevesi's re-election is far from assured.

Additionally, Hevesi ran an ad apologizing to New York voters and said that if they trust him with their votes, he will only be beholden to them and to no other interests. Such talk leads to the conclusion that Hevesi will proclaim a mandate and forgiveness from the voters should he be re-elected and thus will not resign his post. Therefore, hopefully, the voters of New York State made that decision for him and have decided to throw him out.

My support, although it called for a little bit of nose-holding, was for the Republican, Chris Callaghan.

Governor:

No contest here. Eliot Spitzer will defeat John Faso by a landslide. My vote has been for Eliot Spitzer on the hope that (perhaps naively), a greater mandate will allow Spitzer to tell Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to shove off on "Day One," as his campaign has said since Day One. We are trusting you with our votes, Eliot. Let's hope that "everything changes on Day One."

US Senate:

Again, no contest here. Hillary Clinton will retain her seat and John Spencer will complain to his mirror tomorrow morning. Whatever aspirations she holds for President were not considered in this election and supporting her increases the chances of better representation for New York in the Senate. That and John Spencer's comments, his latest blunder was his shooting his mouth off about Clinton's appearance, were certainly no help to his cause. After a brutal primary to be the Republican nominee, Spencer killed any chances of rallying Clinton opponents behind his banner. Although that by itself would not win election, it appears that Spencer has failed to do even that.

Attorney General:

Jeanine Pirro provided Exhibit A in how NOT to run a campaign. After screwing up her candidacy for the Senate (even though she would have done much better than Spencer), she decided to go for the consolation prize, the office which she claims she is naturally suited for due to her career, Attorney General. Marital scandals later showed that she might not be the one to be the chief prosecutor of the state, as she came under investigation for possibly violating the law in asking that champion of ethics Bernard Kerik to eavesdrop on her husband and find out if he was cheating on her...again.

Andrew Cuomo also is going for the consolation prize after aborting his gubernatorial campaign too late in 2002 and allowed George Pataki to coast to his third term. His career raises serious doubts that he has the experience or expertise necessary to be Attorney General, especially for filling Spitzer's big shoes.

Since neither candidiate really wanted this office, they must not have really wanted my vote for this office. I chose neither.

House of Representatives: New York's 9th Congressional District:

This election brought me the wonderful choice as voting for Anthony Weiner on the Democratic line or voting for Anthony Weiner on the Working Families line. Shoving comparisons to Saddam Hussein winning 99.9% of the vote in Iraq aside and thinking Weiner is a better-than-average Congressman, I voted for Weiner on the Democratic line.

(Watch, if Weiner runs for Mayor again in 2009, someone will dig up this entry as a legitimate comparison of Weiner to Hussein. I can see the attack ad already.)

Judges:

Hoping that more information about the candidiates would be availiable to the voters next time around and strategically voting on the basis of party control, these votes were for Democrats down the line.

State Legislature:

Both Carl Kruger (27th Senate district) and Helene Weinstein (41st Assembly District) have proved rather underwhelming, not to mention the horribly outdated websites for them in this Internet age (and since I'm not an elected official, I can get away with not having anything in over a month, much less several, like the office websites of both representatives) and with both seats not in danger of reverting to Republican control (though I would not care so much in the Assembly, where Democrats hold an overwhelming advantage), I voted for none of the above.

Races on the Radar Screen

New York's 13th Congressional District:

Abandoned by the party and running a shoestring campaign, it is amazing how far Steve Harrison has come. One would think that given the not-insurmountable margin of victory that Vito Fossella delivered in 2004 that the Democratic Party would target this district with funds. Alas, that is not the case. Still, hopefully Harrison manages to pull it out and send the "Independent Fighter," that is about as independent as Tibet is from China, back home.

Pennsylvania Senate:

It looks like Rick Santorum will be shown the door. However, the campaign by both Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey Jr. left a bitter taste in many mouths. If it weren't so critical and if I lived in Pennsylvania, I'd be tempted to send my vote elsewhere.

Montana Senate:

What does it mean that corrupt Conrad Burns still has a shot to win this race? It can't be that Montana is so Republican; after all, Burns is only the second Republican Senator from Montana in its history. But Burns does have a fair amount of seniority in the Senate. However, with him being the largest recipient of Jack Abramoff's Dirty Money, he has to go. Jon Tester is the solution here and hopefully enough Montanans see that fact.

On a final note, why are there polls starting to close as early as 7 PM Eastern Time? Although it looks like there will be very high turnout for an off-year election, the fact that the polls close so early is not helping. With someone living in the suburbs or even a reverse commuter in the New York City area, it can be easy to not be able to vote by the time the polls close, even though the polls close here at 9 PM. It will take some greater resources, but why not hold the polls open for the 24 hours of Election Day? Perhaps the TV commentators will come to my door to kick my ass for suggesting this, since it means someone will have to be awake to cover the election in the very early morning, but it certainly could not really hurt to leave them open longer. Or if not 24 hours, then at least push back the closing time by a couple of hours or even to midnight.

Just a thought.

And now, the results are already pouring in. Let's see how the people voted. I am pulling for a Democratic victory in both chambers of Congress. It's not like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have that much power with the gridlock that will take place!

With the problems that have blown up in the Republicans' face, especially considering the ethics issues plaguing their leadership, it would be hard to say the Republicans didn't deserve a loss this time around. Does that mean the Democrats deserved to win? Not necessarily, but if they do win control, we will find out if they deserved it and if not, 2008 is just a hop, skip, and a jump away.

Two Cheers for Misguided Ethics!

2006-09-20T17:00:00.000-04:00

Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio may serve up to 27 months in prison but that will not stop Ney from being able to collect on his Congressional pension, according to a story posted in the Columbus Dispatch.

According to the Dispatch:

Ney, R-Heath, has agreed to plead guilty to federal charges that he accepted free trips, meals and drinks from now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and gambling chips worth thousands of dollars from a Syrian businessman.

To his credit, Ney did support a bill that would have banned pensions for members of Congress that were convicted of felonies relating to their official duties (the bill was not put into law since the House and Senate could not agree on a final version of the bill), he must have only given his support to the bill because he did not figure he would be caught in his wrongdoings.

There have been small strides towards making Congress a more ethical place. However, one may wonder how far such efforts to reform the House will go if the two houses of the Congress cannot even agree on a bill to prohibit people like Bob Ney from receiving their taxpayer-funded pensions.

The only things preventing Ney from receiving his full pension (up to 80% of the salary, how lucrative is that?) is that he cannot begin to collect on his pension until 2010 and he will receive a reduced amount of his pension if he begins to collect before he reaches the age of 62, ten years from now.

Will we see that culture change by November? It looks very doubtful.

Ray Nagin: Idiot Extrodinaire, Part 2

2006-09-01T17:10:00.000-04:00

Ray Nagin visited New York City in an effort to lure more investment into New Orleans as it tries to rebuild and renew in the second year of the Hurricane Katrina recovery. While in New York, Nagin tried to mend any torn fences caused by his 60 Minutes remark about the state of Ground Zero.

However, Nagin thought it best to not go as far as apologize while in New York.

Although Nagin did previously apologize before arriving in the city, one while being IN New York should have been offered.

From the New York Times:

Under fire for having referred to ground zero as “a hole in the ground,” Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans said today that he recognized that the place where nearly 3,000 people died on Sept. 11, 2001, is a “sacred site,” although he stopped short of an explicit apology.

“What I will never do again is refer to the site as ‘a hole in the ground,’ ” Mr. Nagin said in a news conference today in Tribeca. “It’s a sacred site that is presently in an undeveloped state. And I’ll leave it at that.”

Later in the article:

“I want to make sure that everyone in New York understands I love New York City,” he said. “I’ve been here on many occasions. And I think that we as New Orleanians and New Yorkers understand what tragedy is all about and we understand the difficulty in trying to recover from a tragedy.”

Fine, but why not be man enough to say you stepped way over the line with your comment?

Deputy Mayor Dennis Wolcott took the high road and stated that city officials had already moved on from Nagin's inflammatory remark.

Hopefully, New Orleans would not be penalized for Nagin's streak of idiocy.

The problem is, any rebuilding, especially if it really takes off and New Orleans becomes a vibrant city, Nagin would get the credit. Maybe some of it would be deserved if he works hard at this effort. However, people must remember that his case of political insanity and downright human idiocy have placed the rebuilding project in peril by possibly driving away business and investment.

Although Nagin was re-elected earlier this year, the people of New Orleans should not and must not be victims to Nagin's streak. Thankfully, it appears that this has not been the case as of yet.

A Curious Reason for a New York Times Endorsement

2006-08-27T02:16:00.000-04:00

The New York Times released its endorsement for Governor of New York and there is little that distinguishes the two Democrats running for Governor in the editorial until the Times states its reason for why it was supporting Eliot Spitzer over Tom Suozzi:

The attorney general is running for governor with a national prestige and statewide popularity that could give him extraordinary power to impose change on the backward and recalcitrant State Legislature. Mario Cuomo and George Pataki both came into office with the intention of being a reformer in some important way, but neither man arrived with the independent political strength that Mr. Spitzer could bring to the job.

Spitzer is more well-known and thus should be Governor? Are there not other reasons the Times could have come up with than that? How does this promote debate and challengers if the message to lesser known candidates is "don't bother"?

Spitzer may have more political capital at this point, but there is the chance he could fall to the same "three men in a room" deals, especially given the support he has from the Democratic machine, which has been salivating at the chance to take the State Senate.

Suozzi would be able to continue his Fix Albany campaign and threaten to run candidates against entrenched politicians if they don't straighten up and fly right. Being Governor would only add more resources to that cause.

And curiously enough, the article reads almost like an endorsement for Suozzi until it mentions that it backs Spitzer due to his popularity. The article even mentions how Suozzi has influenced Spitzer:

By forcing Mr. Spitzer to defend his record and to elaborate on crucial issues like taxes and health care, Mr. Suozzi succeeded in making the attorney general an even more compelling candidate. With regard for Mr. Suozzi, we nevertheless endorse Mr. Spitzer in the Democratic primary on Sept. 12.

So instead of backing someone that is responding to the campaign of Tom Suozzi, why not back the original?

The Times may have more reasons to support Spitzer, but its published reasoning is very flawed and encourages the stifling of challengers and of public discourse.

Edit at 12:30 PM: Larry Littlefield further explores this "endorsement" (even though it spends most of its time praising Tom Suozzi) on Room Eight.

The Tom Suozzi Show

2006-08-26T01:15:00.000-04:00

It's rather amusing, especially when most politicians are stiffer than stale bread. Tom Suozzi was interviewed by Gawker and they have come up with a couple of fake advertisements based on Suozzi off the cuff.

Alternatively, the direct video links are here:

Library Jokes
It's in the Bag
Too Serious for Gawker

Now if only Gawker would release a video of the entire interview. Joking aside, there are serious issues that were discussed in the interview and I'm sure that some would like to see it, even if Gawker claims otherwise.

Besides, what other candidiates would want to reach out to Gawker if they know that they won't bother putting up the interview?

Ray Nagin: Idiot Extrodinaire

2006-08-26T00:20:00.000-04:00

Is Ray Nagin trying to shove support away from New Orleans?

One could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that he is, given his attack on New York City, to be aired on this Sunday's edition of 60 Minutes.

From the CBS News article:

On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. "That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

So in a response to questions about how long the cleanup of some of New Orleans' less fortunate areas, Nagin decides to attack New York for how long it's taking to rebuild a site that was strewn with debris and dust everywhere, but was cleaned up quickly.

If these were independent comments from Nagin that had not come in response to questions about his city's efforts and were taking swipes at politicians for not coming to a quick consensus about what to do with the World Trade Center site, Nagin would have hit the nail on the head.

But this was an attack to draw attention away from the fact that large swaths of New Orleans have remained untouched. Nagin may have further insisted that it was a legal problem, of having to seek the permission of the owners who may no longer be in New Orleans, or, possibly, may no longer be of this world.

The entire nation has shown its support for the people of New Orleans and has shown its outrage at the government for its continued incompetance in dealing with the situation.

By attacking the people of a city that has not only shown its support but has also been the victim of incompetant government actions (or inactions), Nagin is only hurting his own city. Instead of asking for more assistance from Americans that care, Nagin attacks them.

"Let's be fair?" Fine, let's be fair.

Delays have come at the hands of the slow process of the politicians and the political wrangling over what should be at the site. Not to mention that there has been many, many opinions come forth from the people of New York about what to build there, if anything. These processes take time, especially since we want a lasting solution that can satisfy public needs and public desires. Security concerns also have to be addressed as well as financial, further slowing the process.

The political fighting over the site has dragged out this process longer than it should have and that is a perfectly valid criticism to make on its own merits.

The question posed to Nagin was one concerning the lengthy cleanup effort of large parts of New Orleans. So let's compare the cleanup that led to this "hole in the ground" to the efforts to clean up New Orleans.

New York wasted no time in cleaning up the site. It was a process that lasted through nearly a year, but it was done. Although questions about dust still continue, the massive pile of rubble and much of the dust has been cleaned and the site was prepared not only for the restoration of PATH train service, but also in preparation for the rebuilding effort.

Meanwhile, one year after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin is interviewed in front of a collapsed house, seemingly untouched in the year since the hurricane and the flood.

The area that needs to be cleaned is larger than the debris and the dust that came from the three collapsed towers in New York covered.

However, the New York cleanup effort also had overlapped onto the private properties of many and had disrupted a major part of the area. Yet it was done.

When Nagin is asked about the destroyed cars and buildings that encroach public property, he does not explain why there have been delays. He does not make appeals for help if the city's resources cannot handle the cleanup in a timely and safe manner. Instead he attacks and compares apples and oranges while doing so.

What happens if some people are so turned off by Nagin's antics that they do not further support the efforts of the city? Will Nagin attack them further for retreating in response to his jihad to everyone but himself?

How can Nagin claim to be serving the people of New Orleans if he is attacking those that are helping?

Perhaps Nagin never thought about such questions. Perhaps he thinks that by attacking New York, he can win support for himself and his efforts.

With his cries of divisive policies playing a role in the catastrophic response from the government, how can he claim to be any better when he is biting a hand that is feeding the city?

Here's a suggestion to Ray Nagin: Come up with a solution to expedite the cleanup and the eventual rebuilding. Then, with your spare brilliance, come and rebuild the World Trade Center site and plaster your name in giant letters to tower above Downtown Manhattan.

Unfortunately, there may be some that will be turned off to further spending their time and money on New Orleans because of Ray Nagin. And the people of New Orleans can list his name at the top of the list of officials that failed them.

More Debates, Now!

2006-08-25T17:02:00.000-04:00

Last night, the Democratic candidates vying to win the primary and thus (almost certainly) win the seat from the 11th Congressional District debated each other on Inside City Hall.

The nearly hour-long debate, moderated by Dominic Carter, touched upon some things that should be aired on the public stage. However, due to time constraints and trying to fit in the bigger headlines surrounding the race into the debate, the talk about the issues pertaining to the residents of the 11th CD was curtailed.

There is only one logical conclusion: There must be more debates. There must be more opportunities to hit upon all the issues of the district, as well as air all the dirty laundry and baggage that the candidiates carry with them.

This should apply to all the races.

While the issues of race in the 11th CD contest are best left out (and was not so, as City Councilman David Yassky tried to defend his candidacy as the only white candidate), questions pertaining to the motives and credibilities of the candidates were covered during the debate. Unfortunately, it left little time for issues outside of those pertaining to the candidates themselves.

For instance, each of the candidates were asked to name what they thought were the top three issues in the 11th CD. However, few issues were touched upon to any further (although still shallow) during the debate. The issue most discussed in some detail was the Atlantic Yards project that has received an opinion from nearly everyone in the area.

From the NY1 article on the debate:

"Beyond the controversies, the candidates did discuss the issues. They all agreed that affordable housing, immigration and healthcare are the most pressing issues facing the district, but when the proposed Atlantic Yards development Project came up, Owens was the fiercest critic. Yassky said the buildings proposed were too large, while Clarke and Andrews supported the plan."

This is not necessarily the fault of NY1 or Dominic Carter that these issues were only lightly touched upon. The only thing that is needed is more time.

The same can be said of most, if not all, races throughout New York. For instance, the Democratic candidates for Governor have only had one debate, on July 25th, at a time when not as many people were aware of the race.

Although it was wonderful that the debate explored many of the issues that were critical to New York City (and some to downstate New York), there also has to be more attention being paid to the issues of upstate voters, much as I'd love New York City issues being in the spotlight.

The upcoming Town Hall meeting, featuring Democrats Tom Suozzi and Eliot Spitzer as well as Republican John Faso, will likely help to alleviate that deficit, with three audiences upstate as well as one in Pace University. However, to fully explore the differences and the issues, there will still be a need for more time to be devoted to the subject, especially for the Democrats as the primary is rapidly approaching.

NY1 and the other news organizations that have been promoting the debates and Town Hall meetings thus far have been valiant in their efforts to promote debate between the candidates, there is still more that needs to be done.

BCAT is also getting in on the action with another debate between the candidiates for the 11th CD that was recorded and will be aired multiple times over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, a good number of the voters of the district will be able to watch this debate as well, moderated by Errol Louis of the New York Daily News.

This should be a starting point for future election years. Next year will not see much action, but this should be a model to build upon for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010. We need more debates. Let the conflicts, the soundbites, the back and forth between the candidiates that we have witnessed this summer grow. No longer should any debates be so contained and scripted as they have been so often in the past. The clashing and the direct confrontation has provided some of the best moments during the campaign trail this summer.

Let it grow. Let it expand. More debates, now!

The Department of Homeland Security Comedy Hour

2006-07-13T13:52:00.000-04:00

The stream of news showcasing the incompetance of the Department of Homeland Security has enough material to make an uninformed observer think the reports are merely scripts for episodes of a new sitcom called "Homeland INsecurity," featuring a troupe of clumsy and incompetant employees of the DHS, featuring DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff as Himself.

Unfortunately, this is not the case and the antics of the DHS folks have real implications for those seeking to enhance the security of high-risk targets. This morning, a new episode of "Homeland INsecurity" was featured in an article by the New York Times.

The inspector general of the DHS released a report yesterday that highlights the flaws in the federal antiterrorism database known as the National Asset Database, used by the DHS to assist in the division of antiterrorism grants (totalling many millions of dollars) each year, including the program that was responsible for cutting antiterrorism funds for New York City and Washington, D.C.

The report may be accessed here (PDF).

An editorial by the New York Daily News describes the idiocy of the department:

Every year, Columbia, Tenn., holds Mule Day, which is not merely a day but "an almost week-long celebration of the mule." This year, it began with a canasta tournament, ended with a concert of gospel music and in between featured "pickin' and grinnin'," a knife auction, ham and biscuit breakfasts and a liars' contest.

Surely a good time was had by all, and perhaps, verily, the Mule Day festivities are indeed in danger from Islamic terrorists. But somehow we doubt it.

Nevertheless, Mule Day is listed as a potential target in the Department of Homeland Security's National Asset Database, along with, to name a few: a Bean Fest, the Groundhog Zoo (which best we can tell, is a tank at the Punxsutawney, Pa., public library), something called Trees of Mystery, Mail Boxes Etc., a landfill and - even more mysterious than the trees - a "Beach at End of [a] Street."

Yet one of the characters of "Homeland INsecurity" defends the agency from an outbreak of common sense:

“We don’t find it embarrassing,” said the department’s deputy press secretary, Jarrod Agen. “The list is a valuable tool.”

The Times:

In addition to the petting zoo, in Woodville, Ala., and the Mule Day Parade in Columbia, Tenn., the auditors questioned many entries, including “Nix’s Check Cashing,” “Mall at Sears,” “Ice Cream Parlor,” “Tackle Shop,” “Donut Shop,” “Anti-Cruelty Society” and “Bean Fest.”

Surely, Osama bin Laden is salivating at such inviting targets, especially those bastions of Western decadence like the "Anti-Cruelty Society" and the "Beach at End of Street."

The Daily News:

All things being possible, Osama Bin Laden could, at this very moment, be sending his minions to destroy the "Beach at End of [a] Street," provided he has figured out which beach and which street. But somehow we doubt that, too.

Chances are that such inviting targets may be found in Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Montana, the clear front lines in the United States and this War for the Liberation of the Bean Fest and the War on Terror (which might very well be applied to certain people who ingest enough beans).

The Times:

The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.

In addition to Indiana's surprising first-place finish, Wisconsin was the first runner-up, as the state with the second-most places that al-Qaeda hates. Nebraska came in 7th and Montana finished 16th.

This graphic that accompanies the Times article shows the states and territories of the United States, ranked by population, and the amount of assets each has in the database:

The Times also reports:

New York City officials, who have questioned the rationale for the reduction in this year’s antiterrorism grants, were similarly blunt.

“Now we know why the Homeland Security grant formula came out as wacky as it was,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Tuesday. “This report is the smoking gun that thoroughly indicts the system.”

New York, for example, lists only 2 percent of the nation’s banking and finance sector assets, which ranks it between North Dakota and Missouri. Washington State lists nearly twice as many national monuments and icons as the District of Columbia.

Montana, one of the least populous states in the nation, turned up with far more assets than big-population states including Massachusetts, North Carolina and New Jersey.

Later in the article:

The inspector general recommends that the department review the list and determine which of the “extremely insignificant” assets that have been included should remain and provide better guidance to states on what to submit in the future.

Mr. Agen, the Homeland Security Department spokesman, said that he agreed that his agency should provide better directions for the states and that it would do so in the future.

The problem goes beyond the DHS providing poor guidelines outlining what could be placed in the database. The problem comes from the states as well. While providing poor guidelines, some states have made grabs for federal money by listing every single building in the state to be part of the database and possibly including entries such as "Stray Dog at Beach on End of Street" as part of the assets deemed to be threatened by an attack from terrorists. Maybe landlocked states like Nebraska also placed "Oceanfront Property" on the database as well.

Until DHS tells the states to stop with the stupid bullshit, this will only continue. As it is, the inspector general's report states that assets deemed not nationally significant outnumber those that do by 3 to 1 (page 13 of the PDF file, page 9 of the report).

And there is yet to be an effort by the DHS to reform this system, only an opinion from Mr. Agen.

Even those in the states benefitting from such behavior are baffled. The Times ends the article:

One business owner who learned from a reporter that a company named Amish Country Popcorn was on the list was at first puzzled. The businessman, Brian Lehman, said he owned the only operation in the country with that name.

“I am out in the middle of nowhere,” said Mr. Lehman, whose business in Berne, Ind., has five employees and grows and distributes popcorn. “We are nothing but a bunch of Amish buggies and tractors out here. No one would care.”

But on second thought, he came up with an explanation: “Maybe because popcorn explodes?”

The new target that could threaten Americans and bring the downfall of Western civilization.

When is the series finale of "Homeland INsecurity"?

Conspiracy Theorists Unite!

2006-07-11T23:47:00.000-04:00

I realize the keys are next to each other, but I expect the conspiracy theorists of the world scrambling to release statements of a typo on the New York Times' N.Y. Region news website. It's since been fixed, image captured only a few moments ago:

Whoever posts the stories on the website does need to take three extra seconds and proofread. But it happens to us all.

And apparently, this person doesn't get it. And this one isn't fixed or even followed up with a "my bad," as the first two posts on this blog demonstrate. Humorous, yet troubling at the same time. One wonders how long before such thinking becomes the standard of such debates.

Is there a full moon tonight?

Rays of Sunshine Penetrate the City Council

2006-07-11T13:23:00.000-04:00

Queens City Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D) will introduce a bill to require the disclosure of members of the City Council that are responsible for the "member items" that are added to the budget each year. These appropriations, numbering in the hundreds each year, are inserted by council members right before budget megotiations with the mayor end. These items come with little explanation of the purpose of each item, nor are there total figures or year-by-year comparisons.

Although Monserrate may be introducing the bill to build his bona fides in challenging fellow Democrat State Senator John Sabini for his seat this year, this is nonetheless a good proposal.

This is but one of the proposals put forth this year to reform the Council.

Earlier this year, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn introduced three bills to overhaul the lobbying regulations in New York City.

Gotham Gazette describes the bills:

Intro 190 would require that the City Clerk educate lobbyists on existing regulations and undertake random audits to ensure that lobbyists who also raise money for candidates or serve as political consultants are reporting their activities properly.

Intro 191 would outlaw any gifts from lobbyists to elected officials. Currently, officials are allowed to receive gifts valued at up to $50. Violators would be subject to a fine of up to $30,000.

Intro 192 would change the city's campaign finance law so that contributions from lobbyists can no longer be matched with public funds. Currently, contributions are matched $4 to $1.

All bills passed the City Council by a vote of 49-0 on May 24th(Dennis Gallagher and Miguel Martinez were excused) and signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg on June 13th. Anyone may look at the status of those bills by visiting the New York City Council website.

With all the problems passing reform legislation in Congress and in the State Legislature, however small the reform may be, it is refreshing to find some ideas taking root in the New York City Council. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

Terrorist Plot Against NYC Uncovered, Washington to Fine City $50 Million for Success

2006-07-08T14:51:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, a news conference was held by the leading law enforcement officials for New York City, including Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as well as representatives from the Port Authority and the FBI, to officially announce a success in thwarting a possible attack on the PATH train tunnels between Manhattan and New Jersey, although the Holland Tunnel was also an option for a band of wannabe terrorists.

The plan was to flood the tunnel and Lower Manhattan by exploding holes into the tunnels, according to the officials.

The New York Daily News reported that experts have noted that the flooding of Lower Manhattan would be impossible in the case of a successful attack on the tunnels because the island is above the river level.

Why it took multiple experts to figure that out has not been disclosed.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly noted that this is further proof that federal funds should be given based on need, according to the Daily News:

"We said continuously that when you catch a terrorist and look at the map in his or her pocket it is always a map of New York. Not a map of some other place," Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday.

"New York City, Washington, D.C., a handful of other large cities in the country remain the targets for terrorists because they symbolize America," the mayor said.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the threat showed "New York still remains in the cross hairs of the terrorists."

In response to this success and the uppity comments of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is at an undisclosed location deciding an appropriate punishment for New York City. Last month, New York City received a 40% cut in funding from the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps because the city had the audacity to conduct its own operations to make sure there is not another attack on the city.

However, sources close to Homeland Security said that New York City should be fined at least $50 million, to be taken from the DHS grants, for its behavior.

Mark Mershon of the FBI, Mayor Bloomberg, Samuel Plumeri, Jr. of the Port Authority, and Commissioner Kelly. The sad faces are due to the imminent punishment from the DHS.
(Picture by Marilynn K. Yee of the New York Times.)

The move to fine New York City may be the initial move taken by a possible new federal agency stranegly called the Urban Defense Credit Program, in which fines (taken from homeland security dollars) are levied on urban areas that have stopped possible terrorist activity without ensuring that the federal government is seen as having done 100% of the work and receiving 100% of the credit for the successes.

No press conferences by New York City officials to blast the federal government have been planned yet.

May Day! May Day!

2006-05-01T04:16:00.000-04:00

The "Day Without Immigrants" is at hand. By the end of the day, we will know how much support there was for this general strike and how badly, if at all, the streets of America's cities were clogged with protestors.

There are a few things that are lost in the debate (if there ever was one) concerning the illegal immigrants in the USA:

-There's one side that says "Kick them out" without realizing it's damn near impossible to find over 10 million illegals and have them dumped off to wherever they came from.

-Then there are some talking about how they aren't criminals. They're not violent criminals but their first act on American soil was a violation of the law.

-Then you have people thinking the proposed "amnesty" is amnesty when it isn't. There will be penalties (mostly monetarily) imposed over the next decade.

-Then you have people wailing for a wall to be built without remembering that plenty of people got through the Great Wall of China and not coming up with plans of where to get the needed manpower.

-Then there's a curious thing over why there doesn't seem to be talk of a crackdown on businesses and people that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

So while Congress walked off the job for two weeks just after a compromise fell through, the shouting match got worse. And protestors clogged the streets of New York and many other cities for a day. And meanwhile, there still does not seem to be an honest debate that overpowers the rhetoric.

And having this May Day strike and/or protest will not help things.

For instance, the MSNBC article cites Mike Nava, the director of a day labor center in California:

In Pomona, Calif., about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, dozens of men who frequent a day labor center voted unanimously to close Monday, said Mike Nava, the center’s director.

“If anyone even comes around looking for work that day,” Nava said, “the men want him suspended.”

This should not be completely representative of the feelings of most people that will do something this day.

However, this might be closer to a view most of those people would embrace:

Some insist that a boycott is the next key step — beyond marches — to show the nation just how much economic power undocumented workers hold. “The marches are a tool, but they are being overused,” said Mahonrry Hidalgo, head of the immigration committee of New Jersey’s Latino Leadership Alliance. Like civil rights boycotts of decades past, he said, “this could finally be the spark for our people to advance.”

However, the Civil Rights Movement was born out of people that should have had all the benefits of citizenship but were denied those benefits because of Jim Crow laws and general intolerance.

Perhaps there is an intolerance towards illegal immigrants, but they are not citizens. As was stated earlier, their first act on American soil was a violation of American law. This is not an inherently racist or bad law in that it would discriminate against a group of people, unless one believes that immigration laws promote discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia, et al.

Also, if they want Congress to grant some concession, the risk of angering the American public with this demonstration will not work.

“To encourage people not to go to work or children not to go to school is counterproductive,” Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

And also as MSNBC reports, this demonstration may backlash:

Many worry that not working or spending money will alienate business leaders, and that cutting classes sends an anti-education message. Even Los Angeles’ Spanish-language disc jockeys, who helped fuel marches hundreds of thousands strong in recent weeks, have toned it down. “We have to demonstrate that we came here to succeed,” said Eduardo Sotelo, whose morning show, “Piolin por la Manana,” is syndicated nationwide.

In New York though, an idea to tone down the demonstration and make a different statement is planned:

In each of New York City’s five boroughs, thousands of workers are expected to take work breaks shortly after noon to link arms with shoppers, restaurant-goers and other supporters along city sidewalks for about 20 minutes. “This will symbolize the interdependence of all of us, not just immigrants, but all of society,” said Chung-Wa Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

A good idea, as long as it does not interfere with normal business too much.

Now is the time for Congress to come up with a real solution. Border security is essential as is enforcement of the laws. We will not be able to "kick 'em all out." It's also the price we pay for not paying attention to enforcement and security all this time.

However, a policy that would help integrate most of these workers into American society should be considered. It would include a wait towards citizenship (if desired) and also a penalty for the law that was broken. It sounds a lot like that scrapped compromise, doesn't it?

Well, it needs to go further, with plans to better man the border and also a deal on how such a program and policy would be implemented.

The time for rhetoric is over. There should be a real debate, between the American people, Congress, and representatives of the groups pushing for demonstrations. And this should be done before parts of the economy are hurt as well as the goodwill that may be lost after such demonstrations.

Before we're all shouting "May Day!" because of the trouble.

Why Not Hold a Presidential Primary in 2007?

2006-05-01T00:45:00.000-04:00

Governor John Lynch (D) of New Hampshire signed a bill that seeks to help the state continue to hold its position as the nation's first presidential primary, reports the April 28th New York Times.

This law gives their secretary of state greater flexibility in determining when the candidates may file their papers to run in the primary. The law is also designed as a response to changes made in the proposed 2008 calendar of the Democratic National Committee. That proposed 2008 calendar includes at least one state caucus between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

There is competition between states to hold early primaries. Their campaigns have included promotions of pleasant winter weather as well as the diversity of the voting populations. California is considering a bill to allow a primary as early as January 2nd.

Given California's weight, if the primary were held that early, the nomination campaign will be greatly altered to match the new schedule. Iowa and New Hampshire would become far less important with California either coming first or very close to the opening elections.

New Hampshire is not without weapons in the fight for the early primaries. The state enacted a law in 1975 stating that the primary would be held seven days before any "similar elections." If California scheduled its primary on January 2, 2008, New Hampshire could schedule its primary on December 26, 2007. Perhaps people returning their Christmas gifts may fill out ballots while waiting on line to buy whatever is 50% on sale.

Perhaps it may be a good thing to stack the deck earlier. Having a diverse population choosing the party's representative is a good thing. And considering that the nominee is anointed as the "guy to beat" very early in the process, it would certainly help even out the field a little. Either that or make events like Super Tuesday even more important somehow, perhaps moving it up so there isn't so much press about who won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Or by pushing the first votes later than a time when people still mistakenly write the previous year on their checks.

Tune in next year as the campaign for the 2032 presidential election starts!

The Hammer's Still Building

2006-04-26T00:55:00.000-04:00

Disclosures last Monday the 17th from Tom DeLay's campaign revealed that the ex-congressman-in-waiting was a proficient fundraiser for his cause during his last six weeks as an official incumbent candidate.

The $484,475 raised by the campaign from February 15th to March 31st may also include money raised after the congressman had decided to pull out of the race and resign.

According to the April 19th story by the Houston Chronicle, DeLay began to ponder his possible resignation right after his victory in the primary election and had reached the decision at least a week before he made the decision public on April 3rd, which places his choice within the time frame of the period disclosed by the campaign.

Keeping all his options open is one thing. However, the Chronicle reported that last Monday, DeLay's campaign website was still soliciting donations, stating, "To continue to win, I need your help and your most generous contribution today."

The website must not have been updated since his announcement that he would resign, right?

After all, on the Contributions page, the campaign says the following:

Dear Friend,

I would be honored to have your help as I seek re-election and the job of working for you and our community. Please contribute using the secure form below.

Your gift will be immediately put to work. Thank You.

However, the website also includes (and the link is unavoidable from the homepage) DeLay's his statement that he would resign from the Congress.

DeLay's campaign has been raking in the dough.

The Chronicle reports that the Federal Election Commission allows for several options for campaign funds. In addition to returning the donations to his donors, DeLay's campaign may also give the now $1.4 million campaign war chest to charity. Additionally, the money could be used for closing his congressional office, paying legal expenses, or donating the funds to the Republican Party or its candidates.

Nearly $2 million has been raised for a separate legal defense fund but the campaign money may provide a boost as DeLay still faces hurdles before claiming that his name has been legally cleared.

Those quoted in the Chronicle article have mostly given DeLay leeway when it comes to handling the funds, even though all have donated late in March. However, one person quoted, Lee Leaman, stated that he'd prefer DeLay use it for "advancing his agenda," whatever that may be.

It would be very interesting if any DeLay donors would demand a refund. After all, the donations were likely for DeLay to campaign to continue to be the representative of the 22nd Congressional District, not to pay for expensive lawyers as he makes his exit, abandons the district, and heads to Alexandria, Virginia.

The House That Lobbyists Built

2006-04-25T01:35:00.000-04:00

While most people were either focusing on the immigration battle that has unfolded or decided to take a vacation along with the Congress, House Republican leaders were busy stripping the little potentcy that the House proposal had to limit the influence of lobbyists, according to the USA Today article posted late Sunday evening, April 23.

The amended bill was made public when it was conveniently posted on the House Rules Committee website on Friday afternoon, which has been the traditional time to release news and other information that would stir a negative reaction if it made the headlines on a weekday.

This House bill outlines a business-as-usual approach to lobbying "reform."

No changes would be made on the rules allowing members of Congress and their staffs to take gifts from lobbyists. Additionally, USA Today highlighted the differences between the new House proposal and the approved Senate bill.

- Instead of banning gifts from lobbyists to Congressmen and their aides, the House bill would make no changes to the $50 limit. The $49.99 special would remain intact.

- Instead of increasing the time period which former lawmakers are banned from becoming lobbyists to two years, the House bill would make no changes, which currently mandates a one year ban.

- Instead of having all lobbyist-paid trips approved by the ethics committee, which may be an extremely weak provision as it is, the House bill would merely suspend the travel until December 15, conveniently a month after the election.

But never fear! House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is on the case!

USA Today reported that Boehner said that the House bill will make ties between congressmen and lobbyists more transparent and will "rebuild the trust between Congress and the American public."

The bill would require lobbyists to file reports quarterly, rather than the current policy of filing semiannually. But that won't do anything unless those reports were very easily availiable, media outlets point out the reports, and if there were more rules regulating such activities.

Nice try, Boehner.

If lobbyists somehow felt oppressed by the prospect of this House bill, the lawmakers gave them a few gifts. The revised bill, USA Today reports, dropped several requirements for lobbyists, such as that lobbyists would have to specify which lawmakers and aids they have contacted, disclose their payments for posh parties for congressmen during political conventions, and also report their fundraising for candidates for federal office.

So much for reform. It was a nice idea for the couple of months it lasted.

Unfortunately, it would be hard politically to vote against this bill. The House Republican leadership could attack and state that those who voted against this bill are not interested in reform and love the corruption. On the other hand, voting for the bill will not offer much hope for continued efforts on the matter. Those loving the status quo, Boehner included, will declare the matter closed and state that they proposed and passed reform legislation.

Hopefully, everyone has their backup BS Detector turned on. This one may overload the sensors.

With hope for reform now on life support, the final defense voters have comes this November. Hopefully those voters will remember these tactics for the next six-plus months.

City Council Pay Raises Stuck on Hold?

2006-04-24T00:11:00.000-04:00

The New York Daily News argued against pay raises for the New York City Council.

The Daily News ("No Pay Raises for City Council," April 15th) made that argument in response to the appointment of a commission by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to study whether the elected officials throughout the city deserve pay raises. The commission was formed eight months prior to the next official chance that Bloomberg could have appointed the commission. The Daily News argues that city law sets when raises and commissions might be due. Bloomberg declined to consider pay raises through a commission in January 2003 and his next opportunity arrives in January 2007, not April 2006.

However, that is not the only reason that the Daily News argues against a pay raise for the Council.

The largest argument the Daily News piece outlines against the pay raises is that being a member of the Council is officially a part-time job, making at least $90,000 annually. In addition, 46 of the 51 members are awarded additional stipends from $4,000 to $28,500 annually for all the various posts that a Council member can hold.

The other large, though not quite as large, argument was that any raises can only take effect if the Council votes for them. While Congress and the State Legislature can vote on pay raises that take effect for the following term, that is not the case for the City Council. As the Daily News writes, "that puts lawmakers in a position to hike their own salaries, a self-defeating maneuver forbidden to Congress and the state Legislature by the U.S. and New York constitutions."

The Daily News editorial board left out one important fact that separates the City Council from their counterparts in Albany and in Washington. Unlike members of Congress and the State Legislature, those in the City Council are under term limits. Given the extremely high retention rates in the Congress and State Legislature, their votes for pay raises are essentially pay raises directly for themselves, just deferred until the next term.

Although it is still very likely that the Council will ram through changes for a third term to be added to the limit (more than half of the Council is in their second term) or to even get rid of term limits altogether, they do not have the luxury to continue to put it off to the next term. If the raises took effect in the next Council term, then what would be the incentive for the Council to ever vote for the hike, unless the vote took place when a majority of the Council is in the first term? They might have all the disadvantages and attacks for voting for the raises but would see none of the benefit. However, if they rejected raises, then they would be able to use that as a campaign tool if they run for another office and the situation could be handed to their successors.

Perhaps it is not time for an increase; the last hike occurred seven years ago and the Daily News says that Bloomberg's commission should advise delaying any pay increases until the next term, which begins in 2010. However, would this result in another Daily News editorial saying the same thing on April 15, 2010, especially if Council members get their third term?

Perhaps instead of appointing a commission to study pay raises, a commission could be appointed to find a way for the salaries of the Council (perhaps also including the other elected offices) to be determined by another way. This way, that potential conflict of interest can be avoided.

An Expansion of the UN in New York?

2006-04-19T02:56:00.000-04:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg may get one more try at convincing state lawmakers in Albany to approve a proposal to expand the United Nations headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, according to an Associated Press report that can be found at AM New York/Newsday.

New York State must approve the proposal for the UN to build on park land that is next to the headquarters. According to the AP story, "several state senators blocked the bill in 2004 because of their political opposition to the United Nations."

Bloomberg countered those attacks on the bill on his weekly radio show last Friday.

"They have stirred up people and said, 'Oh the UN is anti-Zionist, it's anti-this, it's anti-Semitic.' I don't know whether that's true, and it has nothing to do with this."

Will there be a UN building standing beside this one?

Bloomberg also insisted that the resistance has stemmed from real estate developers who would rather use the land or that a new building would block the views from other buildings.

Michael Long, the chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, stated that the campaign against the expansion of the UN is the result of the UN's relationship with the country.

Brooklyn Republican State Senator Martin Golden took the reasoning a step further and cited two reasons why the proposal was blocked.

As the AP report states:

"In 2004, he said the UN's oil-for-food scandal and refusal to join the United States in fighting the Iraq war were reasons why the city and state should want nothing to do with the UN."

The problem with that reasoning is that many in New York City are against the Iraq war. Also, if one wants to get rid of the UN for opposing the Iraq war, then relations with all the other countries and groups that opposed the war (then or now) would have to go as well.

Bloomberg has stated that he will try to convince the Legislature to approve the use of the land for the expansion. Bloomberg asserts that the expansion will benefit the city since it will keep the UN in the city, which generates economic activity. Additionally, the expansion would free two city-owned buildings that are currently used by the UN.

If Bloomberg wants to obtain the permission for the expansion, then he should explain in more detail how the city would benefit. The economic activity generated in the city by the UN should be explained as well as the plans the city would have for the two buildings that the UN would vacate when the expansion is complete. The city could use such evidence to prove that the expansion is better for the city than any other plans that might be brought forth. The city is the cash cow of the state and any additional benefit should be sought by the state, as it would be ripe for the taking.

On the other hand, the state should consider the merits and demerits of the proposal based on things other than opposition to the Iraq war, especially because the war has had less support since 2004.

Of course, all this is assuming that the proposal makes it past any state senators seeking to block the bill. It should at least see the light of day.

Danger Growing in Our Backyard?

2006-04-17T22:22:00.000-04:00

Thankfully on Election Day last November, a platform of racism and hate was not allowed to be voted into office. Although the candidate had almost as much chance of winning the election as there would be for New York City to be completely clean of pigeons, the fact that the candidate made it to the general election, no less received a respectable, but small, amount of the vote, is appalling.

The Rent is Too Damn High Party (watch out for music on the web pages, if you have speakers on) is apparently still in operation. And they're expecting "3 Million New Yorkers" to attend a citywide rally on the steps of City Hall in July. What the rally is for is anybody's guess as is how they'd find three million New Yorkers and manage to fit them at City Hall, which certainly isn't citywide as it's just a prime piece of real estate in downtown Manhattan.

Even though the party's President is a college student and their vice president is still in high school, the party's racist agenda seems to still be in tact.

As highlighted in this Election Day post, the Rent is Too Damn High Party rants on Jews in Williamsburg and how they force out people that are not Jewish. Nevermind that you could find plenty of non-Jewish people in Williamsburg. Those pages still stand to this day. And there's this little gem on the homepage, about 80% of the way down:

We are calling for an (8) Eight Year Rent Freeze, and a Rent Reduction of the same, because of the existence of (APARTHIDE) that involves:

1.) Rent Guidelines Board

2.) Rent Stabilization Board

3.) Rent Control Board

Members of these Boards are making decisions to Raise Rent for their own financial gain, they are apart of the Landlord and Real-estate Association, and that's a Violation of Federal Law. (US Code - Title 18 - Chapter 11. Conflicts of Interest.)

4.) Every State, and Local Elected Official who are turning their heads looking the other way due to their investment in Real-estate.

As well as the Dismantling, Reforming or the Abolishment of every Housing Department, (Authority) that operates in the state of New York because of the presents of APARTHIDE that is supported Federal, State, and Local Administrators, as well as every elected Official.

APARTHIDE, the Violations of the "Hate Crimes Act," that has resulted in Ethnic Cleansing. As of November 2005 there are over (35) Thirty Five Thousand Newly Rented Apartments Available Now! Renting in Williamsburg Brooklyn the APATRHIDE Headquarters.

The references to "aparthide" (which sounds like a rather silly child's game) are not complemented with any kind of proof of apartheid, in Williamsburg or anywhere else.

This party is suffering from severe cases of delusions of grandeur, among other things.

Among the other accusations and expectations for millions of people to join a stampede at City Hall is this Jimmy McMillan's "candidacy" for Governor this year in which his claims to fame are a couple of news articles about an attack on him in 1993 and also an accusation that he was discriminated against by not being allowed to enter the debates during his campaign for Mayor last year.

There is one wonderful thing on their website, however. You can send your sweetheart a Rent is Too Damn High Valentine Card! Your very special person will remember it for years to come!

Hopefully, this "party" will not get very far in any local, city, or state election. That will be easier to accomplish once their "message" is placed out in the open. Erlene King won only 7% of the votes for the 45th Council District last year. However, this party should not be allowed to gain more votes. Once people know about their platform, they should not be receiving too many more votes in the future.

Jack Abramoff's Blood Money?

2006-04-15T23:35:00.000-04:00

Two people have accused lobbyist kingpin Jack Abramoff of seeking a deal with the government of Sudan to improve its reputation in the United States in exchange for a princely sum of money, the April 4th edition of the Los Angeles Times ("Abramoff Offered to Aid Sudan, Envoy Says") reported.

Sudan's ambassador to the United States (why we even entertain one is puzzling, to say the least), Khidir Haroun Ahmed, asserted that the Sudanese "never seriously considered" a lobbying contract proposal from Abramoff in late 2001.

However, a former Abramoff associate, who did not want to be named, gave more detail about the offer. The deal would net Abramoff between $16 million and $18 million, an amount that Abramoff considered a reasonable sum given the extent of the damage to Sudan's economy that has been caused by Sudan's atrocious reputation. Abramoff's job was to improve Sudan's reputation in the United States, especially with Christian evangelicals who were campaigning against human rights violations that have become standard fare in the war-torn country.

Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff, said that a conversation between Abramoff and the ambassador did take place, but no contract was sought because of Sudan's human rights record.

Maybe Abramoff has some standards.

Was the government behind this flag a possible client of Abramoff?

Blum also added that Abramoff instead objected strongly to Sudan's treatment of Christians and that the encounter was embarrassing to the ambassador.

This would not have been an unprecedented contract for Abramoff, if it went through. Abramoff has taken $12 million from the Malaysian government and has taken credit for arranging a meeting in 2002 between President Bush and the Malaysian president, who has been known to make derogatory comments about Jews.

Abramoff's former associate said that Abramoff talked about his ties with the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, as proof that Abramoff could make good on his end of any contract. Reed, now running for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia, has also worked with Abramoff in the College Republicans organization, suggesting a possible acquaintance dating for a couple of decades.

However, Reed's spokeswoman, Lisa Baron, insisted that Reed would never work on behalf of Sudan.

The former associate stated that Abramoff met with the ambassador and discussed a plan to stop the pressure from Christian groups, which included giving money to the Christian Coalition as well as setting up trips for Christian leaders to visit Sudan and talk with the government. Additional money would be spent on a campaign to improve the image of the country in the United States.

The former associate also said that Abramoff repeatedly told the ambassador that he would have Reed push the idea with Christian groups.

Luckily, this plan and this contract never was put in effect. Whether that's because Abramoff has some standards or Sudan has some standards is irrelevant at this point in time. Given what has happened since the time of this supposed meeting, it would be hard for Sudan to have any better reputation, no matter how hard Abramoff pushed. It's rather appalling to think that anywhere from 150,000 to 400,000 lives could be swept aside for as little as $18 million. Thankfully, we never had to find out if that was true.

Tom DeLay Abandons His District (And Over 600,000 People) to Protect Politics

2006-04-14T00:56:00.000-04:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) correctly predicted that he would not be able to call an emergency special election to fill the congressional seat for the 22nd Congressional District. As the Houston Chronicle reported on Friday, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had to have resigned by Friday in order for the governor to call a special election.

This situation is due to there only being two uniform election days remaining in the year, May 13th and November 7th, which is also the general election. Additionally, Texas law requires a minimum of 36 days for a race to be placed on the ballot. Conveniently, DeLay said he will not formally leave his office until June.

There is no doubt that DeLay's choice of the time when he actually leaves Congress is a calculated political maneuver. If an election were called for May 13th, the Democratic challenger, Nick Lampson, a former House member that was a casualty of the Texas redistricting, would have a decent chance of winning the election, giving him the seat before the November general election. Although the November election may be very competitive, the winner of the special election would almost certainly also win the general election, which would remain true should Lampson have won the special election. DeLay, by delaying his resignation, gives the Republicans a better chance of retaining the seat.

While DeLay is capitalizing on Texan election laws to attempt to pull off one last political victory as a member of Congress, he is abandoning the most basic duty of a member of Congress by depriving his district of a representative until November, when a special election to fill the seat for the rest of the year occurs at the same time as the general election (where the term will begin in January).

Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas want to elect someone to represent them from May until November. Tom DeLay is preventing that from happening. Sure, the voters may have elected Lampson, a Democrat. But that would have been their choice, not DeLay's. There would be another election in November and Republicans would have a decent chance of retaking the seat.

Perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District in Texas would elect the Republican candidate. That should be acceptable to DeLay and also very possible; DeLay won the 2004 election and many before that and the redistricting in Texas was designed to help the Republicans. But Tom DeLay thought it was better that the district has no representation at all.

Tom DeLay would rather play politics than care about the needs of the voters in the 22nd District.

Granted, Congress this year isn't going to do much representing. After all, Congress will only be in session for a little under one-quarter of the year. Congress is going on an Easter break just after they came back from a break and a long summer break is planned. Congress will be in session fewer days than the famous 1948 "Do Nothing Congress." However, DeLay should not be forcing his district to have no representation at all.

If this is what DeLay does to help out his party, perhaps the voters of the 22nd Congressional District will send a reply against DeLay's wishes.

"We should hold the election on May 13th to avoid a gap of several months in representation for the suburban Houston district," Lampson said, reported by the Washington Post.

"We can't be without a voice in Washington D.C., while someone is here playing politics," Lampson said before the governor made his announcement, reported in the Chronicle.

Of course, Lampson has a vested interest if a special election was called. However, looking past party politics, he is absolutely correct. DeLay is denying the people of the 22nd of their representation.

It is just as well that DeLay will be leaving Congress. He deserves to leave the Congress because of his denial of representation for the district. That would be a cause to vote against an incumbent if he or she does not represent the people by not showing up to work.

It's just a shame that DeLay abused his right to resign to select a time that will deny representation for nearly half a year, approximately one-fifth of the congressional term, because he may have angered voters enough to vote for the Democrat.

Identity Politics Rears Its Ugly Head in Borough Park

2006-04-11T01:14:00.000-04:00

As much as everyone would love to think that the divisive identity politics in New York City are relics of the past, Tuesday night (April 4th) provided the latest example that identity politics are alive and well, even if it is not as powerful as it once was.

That Tuesday night, Borough Park in Brooklyn witnessed a riot by the Hasidic Jewish community, albeit brief and small. The riot was sparked by the arrest of an elderly man during a traffic stop. That in itself would be nothing remarkable. However, there are accusations that the police treated the man harshly and, as City Councilman Simcha Felder said, that Joseph Esposito, the top officer in the area, was shouting "Get the fucking Jews out of here!"

The Gotham Gazette's Wonkster collected viewpoints from various parties regarding the riot. In addition to Felder's accusation, he also remarked in the New York Post that "we will bring witnesses upon witnesses upon witnesses to confirm what he said. If they try to push this under the rug, they are in for a rude awakening."

However, most of those voicing an opinion condemned the riot. The New York Daily News defended the cops of the 66th Precinct in its editorial.

"If anything, the people of Borough Park should be thanking the 66th Precinct for making their neighborhood far safer."

The Post also wrote in defense of the police.

"For hours on end, hundreds of people ignored orders to disperse and go home. Instead, they lit bonfires in the middle of busy 16th Avenue, torched one police car, smashed the windows of another and angrily taunted cops. Police showed admirable restraint in the face of such provocation."

The Yeshiva World Blog took a moderate position, suggesting that Esposito should be suspended while an investigation questions all of the witnesses that Felder said heard the officer make an anti-Semitic comment.

However, the New York Times noted that city officials were facing questions as to why only three people were arrested during the riot.

Councilman Charles Barron knows the answer and manages to inject his race into the debate.

"If that was in a black community there would have been mass arrests and there would have been mass butt-whipping."

Charles Barron seems to be into S&M.

He might have had a point if the Borough Park riot had approached the carnage of one of his hero's riots, those started by Sonny Carson. Maybe Barron would have been less disappointed had the NYPD fired at the crowd of Borough Park residents.

But if you listened to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, you might have thought that the police did take measures that would have made Barron happy.

"“This is not the intifada in Ramallah in the Middle East …. There were young people out of control and, unfortunately, the [police] tactics used literally contributed to a situation that became more out of control,” he said.

Really?

Newsday says otherwise in this early morning's story, one week after the riot.

A week after rioters in Borough Park set more than 20 fires -- including one inside a patrol car -- vandalized another police vehicle and grabbed a sergeant, possibly in an attempt to take his gun, police have not made any arrests beyond the three that first night.

The incident between the Hasidic community and police picked up steam a day later, with accusations of racial insensitivity lobbed at a top chief and a plainclothes officer.

The controversy has died down since, but several police sources said the arrests the night of the riot seem more and more like window dressing. They said that, if the clash had happened in another community, there would have been a more aggressive response.

If the accusations about the police are true, then there is no excuse for what the offending officers have done. And for the actions that are definitely true, those that took place during the riot, there is definitely no excuse for those actions either.

Perhaps for the sake of peace and given that it's already one week after, the police may instead try to mend the relationship with the community rather than seek revenge. However, the police do seem to have been too lax. Given the scale of this riot and that police property (and perhaps personnel) were damaged, there should have been a more forceful response. This community, or any others for that matter, should not have a free pass to riot like they did that night. There should not be a riot every time there is an accusation of a few cops behaving badly. They can work with the police to ensure that such things do not happen again, otherwise, they have their representatives in government and their strength in numbers to peacefully seek change.

Otherwise, their own credibility is burned in the bonfire.

(All mentions of newspapers and blogs that were not linked to have links in the Wonkster's post.)

Fool Me All Over Again

2006-04-08T23:42:00.000-04:00

Republicans are again tossing lobbyist money overboard as another lobbyist falls.

The Hill reported that 13 House Republicans have already returned or planned to return contributions from lobbyist Tony Rudy. Rudy, a former cohort of lobbyist kingpin Jack Abramoff, pled guilty to conspiracy last week and could possibly be a witness, like Abramoff, in the government's corruption probe of lawmakers and their aides.

Six offices of House Republicans have stated that they do not plan to return the contributions or donate them to charity. From Rudy, 34 House Republicans have received money to their campaigns or political action committees.

Rudy worked for ex-Majority Leader and soon to be ex-Representative Tom DeLay from 1995 to 2000. DeLay was the recipient of $4,000 from Rudy during the years 2001, 2002, and 2005, according to The Hill. That figure is second only to the much more substantial amount given to Representative John Doolittle (R-CA).

Doolittle (what a name for the job) received either $11,250 or $12,500 according to The Hill (there are conflicting numbers in the report, possibly a typo). He is dealing with this revelation the same way he dealt with money given by Abramoff. He has stated that he is confident that the investigation will prove his innocence.

"Congressman Doolittle believes he has done nothing wrong and has no intention of returning any campaign contributions that were made in a lawful and ethical manner," said an e-mail from Chief of Staff Richard Robinson.

It is very interesting that during the rush to dump Abramoff's money that money from Tony Rudy was mostly retained until he went down.

Perhaps the grand rush to dump Abramoff's money came only because his fall made headlines for days in early January. Rudy is a much smaller fish, but not the only one. It is amazing how coverage of these proceedings has fallen so far from the highs of Abramoff's plea deal. For now, it looks like this cycle of tossing money aside once the donor pleads guilty and cooperates with the government will continue.

The Hill reported all the lawmakers who did not return calls by the time the story went to press. These lawmakers, connected to Rudy, include several Republican House leaders. The list is below:

Half of the Republican lawmakers contacted for this story did not return calls by press time: DeLay, Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rob Simmons (Conn.), Darrell Issa (Calif.), Ric Keller (Fla.), Geoff Davis (Ky.), Robin Hayes (N.C.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Sam Graves (Mo.), Ron Lewis (Ky.) and William Jenkins (Tenn.).

The Hill also provides a list of donations to the Republican lawmakers from Rudy:

Rudy's beneficiaries

House Republicans $ Received Years
John Doolittle (Calif.) $12,500 2001, 2004-05
Tom DeLay (Texas) $4,000 2001-02, 2005
Mike Ferguson (N.J.) $3,000 2004-05
Sam Graves (Mo.) $2,500 2003, 2005
Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.) $1,500 2002, 2004
Tom Feeney (Fla.) $1,500 2004-05
Spencer Bachus (Ala.) $1,500 2003, 2005
Roy Blunt (Mo.) $1,500 2003-04
Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) $1,490 2001, 2005
Bob Ney (Ohio) $1,250 2003
Richard Pombo (Calif.) $1,250 2002-03
John Duncan (Tenn.) $1,000 2003
Robin Hayes (N.C.) $1,000 2003, 2005
Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) $1,000 2004
John Carter (Texas) $1,000 2003, 2005
Jon Porter (Nev.) $1,000 2002-03
Mike Rogers (Mich.) $1,000 2003
Joe Wilson (S.C.) $1,000 2004
Richard Baker (La.) $1,000 2005
Ric Keller (Fla.) $1,000 2003
Bobby Jindal (La.) $1,000 2005
Ernest Istook (Okla.) $750 2003
Charlie Dent (Pa.) $500 2005
Jim McCrery (La.) $500 2003
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) $500 2005
Geoff Davis (Ky.) $500 2004
Dave Reichert (Wash.) $500 2005
Darrell Issa (Calif.) $500 2003
Ron Lewis (Ky.) $500 2005
Mark Foley (Fla.) $500 2003
Michael Burgess (Texas) $500 2003
Eric Cantor (Va.) $500 2003
Rob Simmons (Conn.) $250 2002
Bill Jenkins (Tenn.) $250 2003
Chris Cannon (Utah) $250 2003

TOTAL $48,500

The More Things Change...

2006-04-07T22:41:00.000-04:00

Despite all efforts to try to accommodate the mass of parents whose children attend P.S. 312 in the Bergen Beach area of Brooklyn, severe traffic problems still plague the streets that surround the school.

At dismissal, many parents will double and triple-park their cars in order to pick up their children. Then, those parents will weave through the streets, mostly because other parents parked exactly the same way throughout the block.

According to the March 27, 2006 Kings Courier (accessed at 8:45 PM on March 24th), on February 6th, a young boy was hit as he made his way around a double-parked car as it pulled away from the school.

Although he was hospitalized, the boy has healed and has resumed his school attendance.

The morning rush was changed from being a similar nightmare scenario to a more tolerable situation. For the morning, a "parking valet" system was enforced, where parents take turns driving to the curb, leaving their children, then going on their way. Such a system would not be possible for dismissal, where each child leaves at the same time.

The principal of P.S. 312, Linda Beal-Benigno, has requested that police from the 63rd Precinct increase their enforcement of traffic laws in the area. She is also requesting that East 71st Street become a one-way street and that the school parking zone would take the entire block on the side of the street that houses the school, from Avenue T to Avenue N (those that don't know the area should know that a fifth of the alphabet doesn't exist in that area, but the missing letters do show up further to the west). Such an extension would allow school buses to park further down the street and allow parents to drive closer to the front door.

This has been a problem for a long time. In fact, it was a severe problem when I attended P.S. 312 from 1990 to 1996 and was much worse during the annual student-show-off-some-lame-class-dance festival, where parents would park wherever they pleased for a few hours. The fact that the problem has not been solved in 16 years shows a lack of concern and effort from those in charge throughout the entire time, perhaps longer.

That annual festival was a mild ticket blitz for the one officer the 63rd Precinct bothered to send and may still be if those festivals continue to be held. The rest of the year saw lax, if not nonexistent, enforcement. Which is par for the course for the 63rd in the area. Often, not even a patrol would make rounds to enforce traffic laws among the residents of the area.

When there was enforcement, it was sporadic. While triple-parked cars blocking much of East 71st Street would be overlooked, someone by the fire hydrant was ticketed. Nevermind that it is easier to access or clear a hydrant area than it would be for an ambulance or firetruck to drive down the street when even average motorists have to drive slowly due to the cramped spaces. This does not foster a safe environment for the area immediately surrounding the school.

The approaches from everyone involved are completely wrong.

The principal's plans cater solely to the parents and would do little to alleviate the problem. The triple-parking would still exist but instead, if the street were made into a one-way street, at least everyone would hopefully be driving and triple-parking in the same direction on East 71st Street.

The 63rd Precinct is also approaching this manner in the wrong way. Lax enforcement is the standard but even increased enforcement would not change much. As long as enforcement is emphasized but general safety is not, then the boy that was hit will not be the last one. He was lucky. The next one might not be that lucky. It is surprising that more children and adults have not become victims to this ridiculous situation.

The parents have been quite selfish in this entire relationship. That is not to say that every parent has become selfish over the years, but enough have become selfish enough to make the situation what it has been and what it still is. Too many of them try to drive all the way to the entrance as if walking an extra 50 or 100 feet would threaten the American way of life. With crossing guards and other authority figures in the area, plus those covering Roy H. Mann I.S. 78, the junior high school three blocks away (which only makes the traffic situation worse though it is not as massive a problem as it is at P.S. 312), it's even safe for the parents to wait a block or two away.

Also, many of the parents reside with their children within reasonable walking distance of the school, yet they will still drive every day. This might be less of a problem if they did not compete to be right in front of the school with everyone else. To demand that the school should only cater to their desires is not responsible, especially when some part of the problem could be avoided.

It seems that nobody has bothered to come up with alternatives that could easily alleviate the situation and make use of the wonderful advantages the school could have if some work was done. Perhaps some common sense is in order.

First, make walking in the area safer, especially for young children. Place traffic lights at every intersection in the immediate area. There were zero traffic lights around P.S. 312 when I attended and it made crossing streets difficult, especially with Avenue T being four lanes wide (not including parking lanes) in the area. The lights should also be placed at Avenue N intersections for people heading into Georgetowne. At the busiest intersections, a time could be made for pedestrian crossing only and red lights all around. This would also make the job for the crossing guards much easier.

Second, find ways to make use of the undeveloped land surrounding P.S. 312. If the land is somehow owned by someone other than the city, then the land should be purchased. Then, a driveway could go around the school with several parking lots or pickup zones created to accommodate vehicular traffic. This configuration can be changed as long as it helps prevent a crushload of cars from sitting on Avenue T or East 71st Street at the same time.

The lots could also be used overnight by area residents to park their cars. This would help overall congestion. The area is witnessing the creation of houses and nothing but houses and many households own more than one car. Additionally, many landlords don't even make us of the wonderful invention called the "garage" and park their cars on driveways, on sidewalks in front of their driveways (another thing the 63rd Precinct does not enforce, a person can not park on the sidewalk, even if it is in front of their home), and on the street parking spaces in front of their homes, depriving tenants of spaces for their vehicles. With the area encouraging a car culture simply to get to supermarkets not very close by, overnight use of the lots by residents could be a welcome benefit.

Third, discouraging some parents from driving should be tried. There are only two MTA buses in the area (the B3 and the B41) and it may not be possible for many parents to use that option and escort their children on mass transit. Additionally, that option does little for those residing in Mill Basin, in Bergen Beach, or in Georgetowne (or very far away, as I remember a couple of children hailing from as far as Bay Ridge at the other end of Brooklyn and Staten Island).

What could be done instead would be to expand the school bus system for P.S. 312. The school could tell parents that a certain amount of students must arrive and depart via a school bus, unless the parents get an exemption. Those who require special attention, have a disability, or legitimately have safety concerns (such as being a popular target for hostile students) could be exempted. The rest of the possible exemptions could be given through a lottery system.

Finally, after all of the other steps have been taken, then increased enforcement of traffic laws can take place. Instead of trying a ticket blitz that will do little to improve the current situation, enforcement after the plans are put into effect will be easier and will focus on safety.

Many parents will not be happy if such changes were implemented. But they need to make some sacrifices to clean up a mess they mostly created, even though it was not their intent. And after all, if they have the time to go and drive their children to and from P.S. 312, then they have the time to wait for a school bus to arrive in front of their homes. Hopefully, they will understand that such measures are needed to improve the safety of the children as well as residents around the school and anyone else in the area at the time.

This is almost certain to be an imperfect plan. If it can be improved or replaced by something better, then it should be welcome. However, it is much more than asking the 63rd Precinct to keep a closer eye on motorists. After at least 16 years and likely longer, that approach simply does not work. It is finally time to create other plans to deal with this problem. It should be done before more children (or other pedestrians) are injured (or worse) by careless motorists and by this preventable problem.

This problem is only representative of the flaws in the 63rd Precinct. And this is but one thing that can go unaddressed for years in that part of Brooklyn. It's about time it gets fixed.

Remembering a Remarkable Pope

2006-04-02T23:58:00.000-04:00

Today is the first anniversary of the passing of Karol Jozef Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II, although by now it is already Monday morning at the Vatican. Although there were certainly many people that disagreed with some of his policies and that of the Roman Catholic Church (including Catholics), he was widely respected and admired; no one could doubt his spirit.

Throughout his long papacy and even before then, John Paul II challenged great injustices through the world. He was a beacon of freedom against Soviet domination in Eastern Europe, including in his native Poland. He tried very hard to build closer relationships to Jews and Muslims, cutting through the rhetoric and taking the Church in new directions. He toured the world to bring the Vatican closer to millions of people and encouraged faith.

Hopefully, for this time, people could come together and continue the spirit of this remarkable person. And hopefully that would be a springboard towards more peace. We can honor John Paul II on this day and on many days in the future; after all, he is worthy to be canonized and become a saint. But we should honor his spirit and devotion every day.

There will be disagreements, of course, between people as there were between many people and John Paul II. There will be many battles ahead, as there are today. However, for many of these disagreements, of politics, of policy, of money, and of many other things, there are civil ways to resolve them. There can be an end to the "solutions" pushed by some people, from local matters to international conflicts, that result in pain, bloodshed, and loss, if everyone is willing to attempt to try civil and peaceful means first.

That is the message John Paul II delivered. He told us that we can accomplish this through faith, in God and in each other. As difficult as it will be, it can be done. Through this message is the path to freedom. John Paul II helped to deliver that freedom to millions.

It will not be perfectly peaceful. There will be times when that path will require a battle that must be won by all means necessary. Any person with any basic knowledge at all can cite times when such a fight was necessary. But that does not mean we cannot try to build a better world for our everyday lives.

Let's honor John Paul II and his extraordinary spirit today and every day.

Cameraphone picture taken from the M9 bus on East Houston Street near Avenue B in Manhattan.

More on Pope John Paul II can be found here.

Velvet Gloves on Iron Fists in New York's 11th Congressional District

2006-04-01T23:31:00.000-05:00

As reported in the April 3rd, 2006 Kings Courier, one of two black workers in City Councilman David Yassky's office, Rickford Burke, resigned last week. Burke, a policy advisor to Yassky, questioned Yassky's attempt to become the congressman of the 11th Congressional District.

Burke is only the latest person to question Yassky's run in the 11th, which draws its roots back to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure more African-American representation in Congress.

Burke, while commenting on Yassky's candidacy, said something rather peculiar.

"I don't think it's a good idea for him to run in a voting rights district," Burke said.

So much about rights.

Burke did add that he thinks Yassky would be a good candidate for Congress, "just not in this district because of all the political issues that are being raised."

All the issues being raised? There is only one issue that Yassky is desperately trying to defend himself from attack and that is the color of his skin.

Apparently, Yassky has no business in a "voting rights" district.

Burke tried to further explain the situation.

"Yassky and I have had a very good relationship, but when one analyzes all of the issues that arise out of his candidacy, anyone that has an objective view will understand my position, which is I don't think it's a good idea that he runs."

The one issue that Burke is talking about does make Yassky's run much harder as it forces him to defend who he is and what he was born as. All the other issues, issues that a representative will need to address, are swept aside during this campaign.

Burke also pointed out that should Yassky decide to hire more African-Americans for his office, it would show "political maturity."

The Courier did present the view from Yassky's camp, given by spokesman Evan Thies:

Yassky spokesperson Evan Thies said that, including Burke, there are two African-Americans working in Yassky’s six-person office, and that like many elected officials’ offices, there is a lot of turnover.

“We reach out to all parts of the community whenever we hire anyone and David is famous for doing exhaustive searches in finding the best candidates through a selection process, and that’s why he has such great staff over the years,” said Thies.

“Rickford’s politics are separate from his Council work, but he’s a well-respected member of the Brooklyn community and we’re certainly sorry to see him go,” Thies added.

Thies reiterated Yassky’s position that the reason the voting rights district was created was to make sure that minority communities that were underrepresented or kept from participating in the past were represented energetically and fairly.

“That’s exactly what David is going to do when he is congressman, and that’s why he’s spending so much time reaching out to every part of the 11th Congressional District,” said Thies.

“He represents a diverse Council district and will do the same thing for the 11th Congressional,” he added.

This has been the same position that Yassky's camp has given for a while, also reported in The Politicker:

Yassky responded that he believes "it's foremost in politicians and politicos minds," although he thinks voters are more concerned with issues than race.

"The district is drawn so that the community of color in that district is sure to get representation," he continued. "I don't think that means that the representative is supposed to be of a particular skin color or not. What it means is that person who is going to be representing them is going to do a great job for the community. The whole point of my campaign is I'm saying I think I can do that job, I want to do that job."

Yassky may not be the best man for the job. However, with the retirement of Major Owens, who has been the representative of the district for 24 years, this is the opportunity for Yassky and others to take the post. It is likely that the successor could also be in that office for two decades. So why shouldn't the debate be on who the best person is rather than the one person that has the wrong skin color?

With four other candidates, besides Yassky, to choose from, the voters of the 11th Congressional District have a rare opportunity to see a competitive primary with numerous candidates. They should be able to take advantage of that by hearing about what each candidate wants to do for the district, which includes people from many backgrounds, instead of silly attacks on how Yassky is encroaching on someone's rights by...gasp!...running for Congress.

The other candidates are City Councilmember Yvette Clarke, State Sen. Carl Andrews, Assemblymember Nick Perry, and Chris Owens, son of Major Owens. And they have as much of a right to win or lose based on merits and demerits as David Yassky does. But arguing about Yassky's run because of his skin color robs all of the candidates of that chance.

If people are willing to point out the lunacy of Charles Barron in the 10th Congressional District, then where are the people willing to point out the velvet-covered, racially-charged attacks on David Yassky in the 11th?