Are you starting to feel a 'draft'?
I, Publius
Are you starting to feel a 'draft'?
By Alan Chartock

Do you think it's interesting that the United States keeps making threats about invading other countries, despite the fact that our armed forces are stretched so thin that we have to extend tours of duty just to handle our current wars?

Do you think it's interesting that we have a selective service system, otherwise known as a draft? The current thinking is that it would be political suicide to reinstate the draft, but what if this country faced a "national emergency" of one kind or another? Currently, every 18-year-old male has to register. It wouldn't take long for the apparatus to start taking our young people. The current goings on in Iran make the point. The United States has said it would back the European negotiators, but the Iranians seem to be daring the people who are running the U.S. to bring it on.

Apparently the Iranians think we just don't have the bodies to mount an invasion. I am quite sure that the Bush people would love to avoid a draft, but if their purpose is to dominate whole regions of the world, could anyone see a time when those in power would have to resort to getting soldiers the hard way? Right now, the armed forces are finding it very difficult to get enough people to enlist. Congress is now investigating the use of fairly substantial "signing bonuses" (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars) to get young recruits. Those in Congress who have spoken to me about this say it could happen, and soon.

Do you think it's interesting that so many people have decided to run for the seat being vacated by Peter Larkin? You don't have to go any further than to the page marked IPP or "Incumbent Protection Plan." In the United States, often described as the greatest democracy the world has ever known, it is extremely rare to see an incumbent being unseated. It is only when there is an open seat that we see real elections. Maybe that's because no one really wants to see anyone lose their job. They project their own concerns about job security onto the legislator.

Quite frequently there is money for individual letters and newsletters to keep constituents "informed." These vehicles are nothing more than money for ongoing re-election campaigns. Then, too, there is "pork" in the form of special money that incumbents can bring to their districts.

Do you think it's interesting that many politicians, even members of boards of selectmen, no matter how well meaning they are, upon getting into power suddenly become convinced that they have all the answers? It doesn't take long for outsiders to become insiders. Quite often, we see this dangerous self-delusion to be combined with Robert Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy." That means that even when you have a five-member board of selectmen, someone on that board will effectively seize power. That may be because the others don't have the time or inclination or because someone just has more testosterone than the others.

In Great Barrington, probably for this reason, they tend to rotate the board's chairmanship. That, of course, only goes so far since you don't have to be chair to have influence. Of course, the smart power brokers will always make it appear that power is shared. When you don't do that, as in the case of the Massachusetts House and Senate, it tends to catch up with you.

Do you ever think about just how bad our mass media has become? The new breed of reality shows demonstrate just how pathetically low the intellectual level in this country has sunk. Just think about it: if the United States has been "dumbed down" so that the only things people want to see on television are thinly disguised mating games and demonstrations of testosterone, doesn't that mean that people are not spending time thinking about the major issues of the day? We have a president who gives great lip service to increasing our educational attainment in this country but who really is the great beneficiary of a country where we are producing people who just can't think. We see it every day as he advances spurious arguments that would not pass muster in countries like Great Britain or the Netherlands, whose educational systems are far superior to ours. It's all made more complicated when we homogenize by testing our kids rather than asking our teachers to teach kids by making them think. That, apparently, is too dangerous.
- posted by Raymond @ 3/28/2005 07:34:00 AM

 
I am proud of Pataki the reformer
A while back, I gave Gov. George E. Pataki some advice. I told him that it was time to become a reformer. I pointed out that when all else fails, when your popularity is in the gutter, when you have been tainted by accusations of helping your friends and family, the one thing that’s sure to pick up your fortunes is to become a reformer.
Forget about your friends like Big Al D’Amato and Charlie Gargano and go after the real bad guys. Tell your own gang to lay low for a while.
The idea is to point the finger at everyone else and people will forget your sins. Lo and behold, I guess I am more powerful than even I thought. Pataki has gone and done it. He took my advice. He went to the costume store and rented a white horse, put on a black mask and, to the tune of the William Tell Overture, has set out to turn things around in New York State.
Now all that remains is to see whether people fall for it. I am so good. I can’t believe it.
Pataki has put out what he calls several major proposals. First there is the reform of the New York State lobbying laws. Well, maybe “reform” is a bit strong. Right now if you are a lobbyist and you want to try to influence public policy you have to tell the state Lobbying Commission about it. Big deal! Most of the lobbyists I know register and declare what they are being paid for lobbying. Some even try to inflate their numbers so that they will be seen as the “go-to” firm - the one you should hire to get you stuff back from the Legislature.
Of course, there are a few holes in the law. One is that if you lobby you have to register and tell what you are making, but if you “consult” and “advise” the client, you do not. The other so-called loophole is that if you appear as a lobbyist before a state agency and try to procure contracts, you don’t have to register as a lobbyist under the current law. That’s absurd but that’s the way we do it in New York.
Since a lot of influence peddling goes on before the various executive departments, you were home free if that’s where you practiced a good deal of your art. Now Pataki says he wants to put a stop to what has been going on under his very eyes for years now. Well, better late than never.
Of course, the state Assembly beat him to the punch. Just to make sure that things don’t get too out of hand, Pataki wants additional appointments to the Lobbying Commission. It’s nice to have your own guys on board who know what hand feeds them.
In addition, Pataki wants to make sure that public officials can’t accept any gifts whatsoever, not just those below the current $75 limit. I can just the newspaper headline now. “Assemblyman caught accepting a cup of coffee from man seeking legislation.”
Of course, there is nothing in this proposed law that says your family members can’t take lucrative “consulting jobs.” A certain governor’s wife has made an art form out of that one.
Pataki also says that he wants to close a so-called ethics loophole. If someone is working for a state agency and is accused of doing something wrong, he has the right to quit and not face any ethics inquiry at all. There was once this New York National Guard general who was accused of being a bad boy. He quit, but the state ethics commission tried to go after him anyway. The courts put a stop to that. These politicians in robes said something like, “If the state had wanted you to go after people who did bad things after these officials had quit, they would have told you to do that.” Will you give me a break? If someone commits a felony like accepting a bribe, you can send him to jail for that.
Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, one of the best watchdogs in the state, was quoted recently as asking whether the governor was just talking or whether he would fight for the reforms. In other words, was the Lone Ranger blowing smoke or was he for real? One can only suggest that the guy has been around for quite a while and he isn’t known for fighting for this kind of reform.
Good going, George. Now you’re a reformer. I told you it would work. I’m proud of you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- posted by Raymond @ 3/28/2005 07:33:00 AM

 
West Side stadium battle lines drawn
Does the West Side of Manhattan need a new football stadium for the Jets to play in? Many in the Big Apple’s real estate industry and unions think so, but the people of the city are not so sure. Proponents are backed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is fighting an uphill battle for reelection. He is joined by tabloid publishers and people who want to see the Olympics come to New York. They think no stadium, no Olympics.
The idea is opposed, big time, by the Cablevision folks who run Madison Square Garden. To protect their own real estate and turf interests in New York, they have offered a whopping bid to the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the very same property the city and state would build the stadium on. News organizations had to apply under the Freedom of Information Act to find out that the Garden had spent more than $13 million to have its way with relevant political bodies.
The Times Union quotes Blair Horner, one of the most important ethics watchers in Albany, who says that the whole affair is “the Super Bowl of lobbying.”
Many of those who don’t want to see the proposed stadium in Manhattan are suggesting the whole project be shipped to Queens. But a whole deputation of Queens politicians says, “Not so fast. We don’t want it here. We think it should stay in Manhattan.”
Many people who live on the West Side of the $24 island just don’t want the thing. Of course, part of it is the usual Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Who can blame these folks? They already have an overcrowded, underfunded and antiquated subway system that packs people in like sardines.
Many of the folks who are running for mayor see gold in these political hills and are doing whatever they can to deep six the project. Everyone knows that there isn’t an apartment to be had in Manhattan and that prices are rising to an obscene level for even the smallest pad. A two-bedroom coop on the West Side is selling for more than $1 million. The stadium would only make matters worse.
It doesn’t stop there. There are many tax payers who know that, one way or the other, they will be footing the bill for the new monster. Many suggest the same public cash [some say more than $600 million] that is going into the project might be put to better use augmenting the scarce funding for education, hospitals and other people needs in New York.
It is interesting that Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and the big enchilada, Gov. George E. Pataki, who are always talking about not spending to protect the taxpayers’ pockets, are not singing that tune now. Who could be surprised when you start to think about the contributors who will continue to put millions into the campaign accounts of the folks running for office? It is the way the system works.
Since Albany is a big focus for the project, millions are being spent to start and squash the project. “The green” is virtually pouring into Albany. It is a virtual “Full Employment for Lobbyists Act” in itself. Some critics question the whole raison d’etre of the project.
To those who argue that it will bring economic benefits to the neighborhoods it will serve, one need look no farther than the model of Yankee Stadium in the Bronx which is hardly an argument for neighborhood revitalization. Of course, many of the city’s labor unions are hand-in-hand with the real estate folks to make this project happen. It will keep a lot of folks working for a long time.
In the end, the whole New York City mayoral election could hinge on this. The mayor’s principal opponent, Freddy Ferrer, has called for a public referendum and the Quinnipiac poll suggests that an overwhelming number of New Yorkers do not want to see the stadium built. You had better believe that the mayor and his campaign people are burning the midnight oil over this one.
Bloomberg’s once healthy polls have taken a dive and pollsters suggest that the stadium project is taking its toll. By no means is this one resolved. I grew up on the West Side and when those folks get riled, they are experts at organizing themselves into a lean, mean, fighting machine. On the other hand, there is all that power and money. If you think the stadium is a sure thing, think again when you get to the end of the West Side Highway, a project that couldn’t be stopped. It was.
- posted by Raymond @ 3/28/2005 07:32:00 AM

 
Rewrite of state constitution should be simple
What would you do if you had the right to change the New York State constitution, which is a cesspool of largely irrelevant verbiage that most people don’t even know exists? In its present form, this huge and ugly group of words pays homage to the those who have waited in line long enough to grab and preserve political power, taking the biggest piece of the pie for themselves rather than letting the people rule.
In a way, it’s sad but true that the huge document actually is democratic because New Yorkers have allowed their power to be siphoned off and given to a relative handful of people who want more than their share. Here’s what I would do.
I would take a page from the book of those who wrote the United States Constitution and throw out the old. I would start anew, sticking to the most important ideas and consign everything else to simple laws. After all, a constitution is supposed to be, I think, a guiding document; a sort of Ten Commandments of the law, not a garbage can filled with irrelevant material that makes even the bravest of souls afraid to read the thing. The founding fathers kept our national Constitution simple for a reason. They actually wanted us to read it.
So if you asked me, I would make sure that whatever a constitutional convention came up with in New York State would be directed toward a simple goal – preserving and extending democracy. Anything in the present mess we call a state constitution that didn’t meet that simple test should be thrown into New York harbor.
There should be a provision insuring the sanctity of the vote. Anything that interfered with that vote should be declared unacceptable. There should be something approaching initiative and referendum, a concept that allows the people to suggest laws and then to vote on them, overriding the largely male power structure that holds fast to the breast of the greedy monster. Only when the governor and the Legislature know that their outside limit is what the people will accept, will the system of buying influence and legislation change.
I would emulate what the people of New York City [a creature of the state] have done under their more progressive rules. Let the people decide. They decided in New York City that politicians had corrupted the system and the voters imposed a simple rule – you can only stay in a particular elected office for a specific amount of time. There were all kinds of phony protestations and warnings of gloom and doom, but it turns out that the idea wasn’t bad. You get power for a while and then you give it up. You can always run for a different office and that makes everyone aware that it really is a good thing to make politicians accountable. When a politician loses office he or she will be more likely to face off with another entrenched politician. We see in New York City where politicians are term limited and then run against entrenched members of the state Legislature after their terms on the City Council run out. We hear rumors that Michael Bloomberg will run for governor after his time runs out as mayor. Good. Keeps things interesting.
There should be a provision that a non-partisan panel of retired judges and or public citizens draws the legislative district lines. Nothing is a bigger perversion of democracy than letting one side make the rules. You wouldn’t allow it on a baseball, basketball or football field and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in a so-called democracy.
The constitution should have a basic rule that keeps the greedy and powerful lobbyists – hand maidens to the powerful – at bay.
A great constitution should preserve our personal liberties. Now, more than ever, we must face the fact that there are despots who would leave us, for our own good, in their hands. One could start with the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and make sure that they are enshrined in the document. Blue state New Yorkers, more than anyone in this country, know what is possible as those scared of losing power would do anything to hold onto it.
If the framers of the federal constitution could do the whole thing in less than 6,000 words, we should be able to do the same thing. We should insist that it be done.
- posted by Raymond @ 3/28/2005 07:30:00 AM