The New Progressive

The Right Lives - God Save Us All

 The rigid right lives in Connecticut as the  <a href="http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/general_news/hartfords_taxpayer_tea_party">Connecticut </a> News Junkie reports.

 I like all this response to so called "pork" in the stimulus plan.  And to say that there is no pork would be disingenuous.  But what is the difference between calling it pork or "tax-cuts".  Its the same thing.  Except that "tax-cuts" usually has no strings attached.  You know, no oversight.  The government cannot dictate how you spend your money.  

The problem is this.  Tax cuts are not deep enough for the average person on the street to actually get ahead.  I mean the last tax incentive check paid for the increase in oil and gas for heating my home and commuting to work.  So if you want real stimulus, that little $600 check merely offsets inflation and does not even begin to creep into the problems that real people are facing.  

So, what are these people really protesting?  Not the fact that there is really any "pork" in the legislation.  They are protesting because all that money they saved in tax cuts over the last 8 years will finally have to see the light of day.  They may actually have to divest themselves of investments to pay taxes.  

Now I do not advocate a policy of soak the rich.  I think that that would be futile.  However, I do think that they should re-educated themselves.  1.  They claim to be patriotic, well put you money where your mouth is.  Ask yourself, would you be as rich as you are if you did not live in this country.  I know this requires deprogramming and the development of a conscience.  2.  Throw away some of those ridiculous economic theories of old.  In case you have not been noticing, THEY DON'T WORK.  Trickle down economics doesn't trickle or drip it stops at the top and the rich do not invest they put the money in the bank.  

We need percolate up politics and it is time.  As someone once said, "money, if you pardon the expression, is like manure.  It's not worth a thing unless its spread around encouraging things to grow."

I too hope these people keep up the protest.  It's about time that the other side knows what futility feels like.  I know I seem to be picking fun.  I do not challenge their patriotism.  I challenge the principles that they have been advocating. 

The Death Penalty Lives in Connecticut

Despite the fact that CT has rarely used its Death penalty law, it remains on the books.  Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed the bill this last week ensuring that the adjourned general assembly will not have the votes to override the veto. 

This issue is a difficult issue that needs to be addressed on many fronts.  First, it is not surprising that the death penalty is used on minorities, because they are usually the groups that have a larger than average number of people living in poverty.  Hence, crime, for some, is viewed as a way out of poverty and get rich quick.  This is not to say that whites also engage in this, they just do it with MBA's and a greater amount of education.  Frankly, there is not difference between the drug dealer on the street and the CEO who knowingly drives his company into bankruptcy.  They both know they are breaking the law; they steel from various groups of people without discrimination along as they have money; and they can expect a certain amount of government intervention when things go wrong.  Now, it would be silly to say that these similarities are the same scale.  But yet, are they.  One group destroys family incomes and individuals through drug dependence; the other group destroys families with visions of the American dream and retirement savings,only to find the investors have been taken down the river.  At least with drugs you get what was advertised! 

Secondly,  the state should not be involved in putting people to death.  That does not mean they should not be punished or removed from society.  My reasoning would be that I am a vindictive man,  I find the death penalty the easy way out for some criminals.  I want them to suffer, death is the absence of suffering. 

Third,  I would like to see that the death penalty be used only in cases where there is absolute definitive evidence of murder, etc.  The state must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is killing the right person.  There is no room for a mistake here.  For this reason if nothing else, the death penalty should be used sparingly.  How many people in the past prior to DNA, have been possibly put to death for a crime that they did not commit?  There are literally hundreds.  And let us not forget the use of the death penalty in the South as a racial weapon. 

Finally, we have to think hard as citizens like we have the fate of people in our hands, do we have the right to pass judgment?  If we do, then do we not want to ensure that the person in question is absolutely guilty?  I would hate to be on a jury, make such a decision, only to find out that the person did not commit the crime.  That is a travesty. 

   

He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules

In a stressful economic time were homes are being foreclosed on every block this story cuts to the quick. The story of Bob and Jane Cull described by NPR Weekend Saturday will bring you to tears and question one's faith in the entrepreneur.

As the story goes, the Cull's were an upper middle class couple who had decided to build their dream home. A story that sounds familiar to everyone whether we build or buy. They had the fortunate ability to have the time and money to search for their perfect lot to build for five years. They found the plans they wanted and hired a builder. They moved into their home and had been greatly pleased for six weeks. Then the foundation problems began. When a main structural beam weakened, they hired an engineer, who then told them the bad news.

This began their 13 year odyssey. The Cull's obtained a lawyer and started legal proceedings against their former builder, Perry Homes. Now in Texas, the legal system is never for the average person. Texas is renowned to forego legal protection to ensure a healthy business climate. In this case, the Cull's went to arbitration as the law demanded. They won and the builder was instructed to pay the Culls a settlement of $800,000, remarkable by Texas standards. However, the builder just happened to be the richest and most politically connected builder in the state. Rather than pay the settlement he spent his money by stalling. He mis-used the legal process by appealing, and appealing, and appealing. At the same time he was contributing to the campaign funds of Governor Perry (no connection to the builder), State Supreme Court candidates, George W. Bush, and was the largest single contributor to Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth." The case finally ended up before the Texas State Supreme Court, whose membership did not have the temerity to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. It doesn't stop there. The owner of Perry Homes was able to lobby for and obtain passage by the Texas Legislature a law to ensure more protection for homebuilders. Yes, you heard it right for the builder not the owner. And it gets better, the attorney for the Cull's home builder who continued to appeal this case and mis-used the legal system is now the head of the new agency created to ensure the protection of homebuilders.

Meanwhile, the Texas Supreme Court in a phenomenal miscarriage of justice voted 5 to 4 to throw out the $800,000 Cull judgement stating that the case should not have gone to arbitration and sent the case back to court. Hence, after 13 years of court challenges, the Cull's now have to start all over again, possibly with the same state agency just created and headed by the attorney hired by Perry Homes to appeal their case.

At a time when America continues to measure the ramifications of the mortgage crisis, this incident just cries out for justice. The Cull's went through the entire process as prescribed by law at the time and 13 years later they can't sell their home because it would not pass inspection. In addition, they cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix their dream home. All is not completely lost. They do get to begin their case again. Hopefully, they will obtain their judgement and all the money it took to appeal the case and the cost the opposition put in appealing the case. Perry Homes knew they were wrong, yet they continually appealed their case to stall and prevent paying the judgement. Talk about frivolous lawsuits. This is not only frivolous it's ridiculous. I wonder how much Perry Homes paid in legal fees to appeal. I bet it would have been cheaper to pay the judgement. Meanwhile, the Cull's home is falling down around them. What can you expect out of a state that follows the golden rule, " he who has the gold makes the rules."

AIG The Final Straw

In the Sunday March 15 version of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16aig.html?_r=1&hp> the New York Times </a> AIG after being bailed out by the taxpayers has paid $165 million in bonuses to its management staff. This is outrageous. It has earned the ire of the Obama Administration's Economic adviser Lawrence Summers. Much to our surprise is the comment may by Senator Mitch McConnel stating "If you're going to take the government as a partner, the message here, I'm afraid, to any business out there that's thinking about taking government money, is "Let's enter into a bunch of contracts real quick, and we'll have the taxpayers pay bonuses to our employees,' Interesting comment by the head of the party that got us into this business. One does note that he does not advocate abrogating those contracts with the AIG executives. He states the obvious but does not intend to help the Administration do anything about it.

The Administration's arument Summers claimed that "There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system."

Well what good is having the power of government if it cannot break a contract or two. The government always has the upper hand when making contracts. If any institution should have the right to break a contractual obligation, it is the federal government that should have that power.

What we have here folks is a dilemma. On the one hand, we have the legal obligation to pay bonuses to some of the very people who helped put AIG into the financial problem it is in. Hence, we are now in the legal position to reward their behavior. Sort of leaves a bad taste in you mouth doesn't it?

On the other hand, we have the moral consideration. I do think that the Administration is making every effort to stop these pay outs. They should bring in each person and state the moral imperative. If any executive has a conscience they should give up those bonuses. And if they don't the government should refuse to pay, let them sue the federal government. These are bonuses. A bonus is suppose to be paid when a person goes beyond their normal job and performs exemplary. Driving a company into bankruptcy does not deserve a bonus. How in any contract can a bonus be paid in good faith for bankrupting a company? This defies logic and reason. Is is also symptomatic of the growing gulf in corporations between the highest paid executives and the lower paid staff employees. Those executives have no idea what their workers go through and, frankly, do not care. If they did they would not deliberately drive their company into bankruptcy. And this could have been avoided.

Now, since the US government, and by extension the American people, own approximately 80% of AIG, perhaps it is time for nationalization of the company. I know. I hear the comments now how could you possibly advocate that. Well, it appears that the Federal government could run the company better than the former owners. This could be a great experiment. What if the Federal government could run it better??? Hmmm. It would mean that the American people would have a greater say in the operations of the company. Is this bad???? It certainly could not be any worse than corporate CEO's bleeding the company dry without any concern for the stability of the company. Who says business leaders did not learn from the 1980s. The learned the basic rule, "I'm in it for myself, forget the company."

As for the legal reasons for the Federal government to uphold contracts that may be legal but are morally inexplicable, I say break the contract. Then let those CEO's sue to get their "bonuses". Take a page out of the play book of companies who refuse to pay for workman's compensation etc. Companies know they are liable and fight the suite anyway. Hoping they will pay less by wearing down individuals to the point they will give in. Let's turn that around. make the CEO's justify on record why they should get their "bonuses." I know there are many who do not deserve workman's compensation. I am arguing for those who have legitimately gotten hurt and rightly deserve compensation.

What is a government for if it cannot at times of extreme injustice use the sovereign power it has to break a contract. I hope the government goes through every line of each contract and finds a way to not pay for this outrageous unjustifiable payment. I do not advocate the breaking of contracts lightly. However, this is a moral imperative. They might be able to prevent payment of the "bonuses" by looking at the definition of a "bonus." It comes from the Latin derivative of "bounty". It means "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due." I would say that the $165 million in "bonuses" was not "strictly due" and should be challenged in court.

The New GOP Chariman Honest about Abortion and the Complexity of the Issue

In a recent blog by the New York Times blog site the Caucus the new Chairman of The Republican National Committee was caught in a bit of an honest moment when asked about his position on Abortion. This should be no surprise to any that the GOP is fervently anit-abortion. However, its new chairman appears to be confused about the party's stance. Mr Steele stated as much in his response to an interview with Lisa DePaulo of GQ. "On abortion, Mr. Steele said that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided" and that states should decide the issue. But he also said that the issue was one of "individual choice" and that women had the right to choose abortion."

Well has everyone now taken notice? The GOP had to look hard for a new qualified chariman that would present a new face to the party. They found one. Steele has been hounded by accustions that he is not in charge and that the true ideological leader of the GOP was in fact the irrasible political, he who must not be named. Of course, Chariman Steele tried to clairfy his position, this only made matters worse. Causing future Republican nominees to chime in such as Mike Huckabee, ""For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it's a violation of the most basic of human rights - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Mr. Huckabee said. "His statement today helps but doesn't explain why he would ever say what he did in the first place."

Steele is going to have a hard time trying to reform the GOP with 19th century throwbacks like Mike Huckabee in positions of influence. What Steele has revealed though is the true nature of the abortion debate that most GOP members would admit privately but never publicly. The fact remains it is not a clear cut issue. There is much gray between the pro and anti-choice forces. Steele would do well to expound upon his first statment to GQ. This would be a welcome change to the party and could bring in many new voters, namely working class women who tend to be apart of the gender gap that has been getting wider since 1980. But, not as long as the religious right has any part of the party structure, the GOP will be doomed to become the party of the ideological right.

Steele is in a difficult position. It appears that he is attempting to change the view of the GOP which could stand some change from the last 14 years. It's star slowly sinking. Right now the GOP can be considered a "REGIONAL" party at the national level. In the 2008 elections to the House of Representatives, the last Republican House member, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, was defeated. Currently, there is not one Republican House member representing New England. Steele sees the need for a new image for the GOP, but those who are in other leadership positions want to hold on to those time honored values that they cannot appear to get a majority of Americans to agree to. Steele needs to present a new plan and act upon it or he will remain in the current position he finds himself, irrelevant. And that is not a good place for any party chairman and spokesman to be in.

The President Needs Some Slack

Well according to the Washington Post <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911.html>the Obama Administration is putting forth a budget proposal to cut the federal deficit in 4 years.  Well, since Republicans have little credit on this issue, I hope he succeeds.  We need to not just have fiscal discipline and invest.  That is what government is for.  To do the things that business and the rich will not do.  And he plans to do it by raising taxes on the rich, well since they benefited from the last 8 years of unchecked regulation and increased incomes, they should pay their fair share.   The Repbulicans want to say that we should not get into class warfare tactics.  Well, what kind of war are they fighting when they ignore an economy for the last 8 years that has overheated.  What about the housing problems?  They ignored regulation and let it fester.  Banking?  I never thought I would see the day that I questioned the safety of my deposits.  There is an endless list. 

I was not originally an Obama supporter, but from what I have seen I like.  He has show that he understands people are hurting.  He has tried to work with the Republicans, who have turned their noses.  No President since FDR has gotten results like this,  Ronald Reagan had to work a bit longer but he did manage a tax cut for all his freinds who gave him a campaign contribution.  I hope that the new President manages a few more things because he seems to be on the right track.

Politics as Usual in the Governor's Office

In an article in the Hartford Courant, (http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-govwatch0215.artfeb15,0,3329924.column), It has come to the attention of the public that she is willing to play the political game she so characteristically has asked others not to employ. 

Last December, Melissa Farley, the judicial branch's executive director of external affairs and legislative liaison, called the governor's office to request that 9 judicial positions not be appointed because they were not needed.  This would save about $2 million dollars that is so desperately needed for the budget deficit.  In more than 2 incidents documented by the Courant, the governor's office refused to back down from nominating judges to save the money.  The governor's office is claiming that the judges are needed.  This is in contradistinction to the claims of Ms Farley.  At at time when leadership should be exerted, Rell has chosen the easy way, politics as usual.  This incident could be overlooked, had it not been for the recent discovery that the governor has no clue as to how much the deficit beginning in the new fiscal year will be.  At first she had stated there would be a $8 billion dollar budget deficit.   However, in her annual budget proposal is for only a $6 billion dollar gap. The latest number is $8.6 billion according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis. To cover up her latest blunder the governor is now calling for budget summit with members her budget team and the Office of Fiscal Analysis.  This should have been done before the governor submitted her budget.

Now the story gets even more interesting as John Lender writes in the article noted above.  As recently as last December, the chief court administrator, Judge Barbara Quinn had personally called the Governor's top aid Lisa Moody to head off filling the proposed nominations.  The judicial branch simply did not need the judges.  However, this is contrary to the Governor's spokesman Rich Harris who questioned the validity of the claim of the Judicial Branch's aggressiveness in addressing the issue.  Harris stated that the Judicial Branch had not been aggressive enough in pursuing the non-appointment of judges.  What should the chief court administrator have done?  She called the top aid of the Governor.  Should Judge Quinn have gone to the Chief Justice of the Connecticut State Supreme Court and have her call the Governor?  Clearly, the Governor's office had every interest in naming appointees.  Forget saving the much needed money.

What one gets from this latest turn of political events is that the Governor's aids are not serving her well.  Clearly, they knew about the request of the judicial branch.  They have placed the Governor in a position that most aids try to avoid.  The question of leadership now arises among the public.  If the Governor did not know about the request of the Judicial Branch, why didn't she?  This makes one wonder who is in control in the governor's office.  If the governor's aids did not inform her they are guilty of malfeasance and a house cleaning should be in order.  Secondly, if the Rell did know of the request, she is now guilty of playing the old political game that she claims she is above.  Judicial positions remain prized plums for political favors.  In all likelihood,  she probably thought this would never see the light of day, big mistake.  Now, the governor's image as attempting to stay above politics is truly shattered.  At a time of huge budget deficits, this could have been a political point to make, especially given the recent budget she just submitted cutting the health programs of the very poor.  Instead, Connecticut will have 9 new judges that they don't need within the year. 

When one works in the political arena, the political game can be a closed system. The role of making deals and doing favors is nothing new.  Since 2004, Governor Rell has attempted to be above politics as usual.  A refreshing change from the corrupt politics of former Governor and inmate John Rowland.  This latest intrigue has caused more than one politico to pause for thought.  This will not go down well with a legislature that is being asked to cut most state social programs nor will it bode will for up and coming budget negotiations.      

Rell's New Fuzzy Math for the 21st Century

<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/83n7sq7k57" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

Well this is an interesting development. I find it interesting to listen to the demands for leadership when those in power should: 1. be leading in the first place and 2. can't seem to get their facts straight. So what is it $8 or $6 a billion here a billion there and we can balance the budget by 2010 or 2011??? The only problem with this guffaw is that it is important to know just how much in debt we are??? The governor demands that the legislature do something. Well, I am sorry it is hard to address the problem when the source of the problem can't add up the figures. Now it is understandable that an exact number may be difficult to achieve. But a gap of $2 billion is not just a mis adding of numbers. Well it is hard to accept leadership from someone who cant even come near to balancing the state's checkbook. You can't balance the budget if you don't know how deep in debt we are to begin with, consumer economics 101 and it appears that the Governor missed that class. If she can't add, then how can citizens expect to re-elect her?