What's Under the Tree?

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.

Click for full post...

Not Quite Enough

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.

Click for full post...

The Retreat of the GOP

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.

Click for full post...

The New Front at Capitol Hill

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.

Click for full post...