Is Chris Christie Fit to Govern?
June 8, 2015
As the calendar moves forward toward an expected announcement from current NJ Governor Chris Christie on his candidacy as the potential GOP nominee for president in the 2016 election, stories about – and soundbites from – Christie abound.
With the radio tuned to news in the background, I listened to some of these stories and soundbites today.
I’m left feeling that Chris Christie has no moral compass. Christie is apparently willing and able to lie about almost anything and everything.
Here’s a soundbite from Christie’s appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, June 7, responding to recent comments from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who called out for significant expansion in voter access, calling out several prominent GOP leaders – including Christie – accusing them of purposefully limiting voter access in their states through policies such as voter identification requirements and limited early voting.
Said Christie: “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. In New Jersey, we have early voting available to people. I don’t want to expand it and increase the opportunities for fraud. Maybe that’s what Mrs. Clinton wants to do. I don’t know.”
Christie continued, “But the fact is: folks in New Jersey have plenty of an opportunity to vote. And maybe if she took some questions some places and learned some things, maybe she wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements,” he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-hillary-clinton-is-clueless-on-voter-fraud/
What Christie failed to note in his response is that it is more common in New Jersey (and many other states) for elected and appointed public officials to commit fraud then it is for a voter to commit fraud.
And, more alarming: Just 31% of eligible voters in New Jersey exercised their voting rights in the 2014 election. [http://www.electproject.org/2014g]. Seems to me that the real opportunity here is to address and/or eliminate existing obstacles or impediments to help increase voter participation, not creating more obstacles which have the probability of discouraging potential voters.
Chris Christie: You are both a phony and an opportunist, and it’s very sad that you were elected to a position of trust (Governor of New Jersey) and as such, (a) you have tremendous power over the infrastructure and inner workings of our 11th largest state, and (b) you have tremendous influence over the functionality and decisions of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the public authority which builds, operates, and maintains critical transportation and trade assets in the NY Metro area.
PANYNJ controls a network of aviation, rail, surface transportation and seaport facilities which annually move millions of people and transport cargo throughout the New York/New Jersey region.
We can only hope that the ongoing ‘Bridgegate’ investigation will soon expose your culpability in the ensuing mess that (at best) inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of bridge users on those days where access to the bridge was restricted; and (at worst) exacerbated economic losses well into the 100’s of millions of dollars through a ripple effect to commercial entities in the Tri-State region, and throughout the U.S.
I, for one, would be delighted to see you spend the next 8 years, or so, in the Big House, not any other house.
The Foolish Boys of Mitch McConnell’s Senate
March 12, 2015
The current U.S. Senate atrocity involves a letter released on Monday, March 9, 2015 from Senate Republicans to Iran’s government (the “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran”), saying that any agreement made by President Obama amounts to a “mere executive agreement” goes well beyond the arena of conduct which disregards the laws of our nation.
I believe a significant number of mostly Republican elected officials in Congress are guilty of depriving the people of the United States the intangible right of their honest services, for at least the past 5 consecutive years.
That is a domestic issue, and it is described in Federal Law as ‘Honest Services Fraud’ (see 18 U.S.C. § 1346).
It seems pretty clear that some of these boys elected to the U.S. Senate just can’t resist acting like 3rd graders let loose on the playground with no supervision.
These boys have now pushed into a new and dangerous place. Whether they are guilty of Treason, as some have suggested, is really not the point.
At minimum, they are guilty of acting like narcissistic brats, and their behavior casts a dark shadow over an institution with a proud 250 year history.
This act of cowardice and ignorance engaged in by 47 elected officials in the U.S. Senate ought to be a wake-up call to all Americans that we have a major problem in Washington, D.C. and that our problem is not at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
This letter was signed by 47 of 54 Senate Republicans, and was authored by Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave it his approval and signed the letter. Among the Senators who also signed the letter are Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) all of whom are considering running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
In their letter, they wrote, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution – the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices – which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress…. Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.”
They also reminded Iran that “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
The letter – and the 47 Republican Senators – faced an immediate negative reaction from the White House; President Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Senate Democratic leadership; Congressional and Senate Democrats; and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; as well as many more.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized the letter finding it either (a) undermining the president’s authority; or (b) counterproductive.
Among other things, Zarif said, “This kind of letter is unprecedented and undiplomatic. In truth, it told us that we cannot trust the United States.”
Alabama freshmen Senator Tom Cotton has become a center of attention, facing both criticism and accolades, and he has been the key defender of the letter’s message. Many media sources have fixated on Cotton and the other Senators who signed the letter, led by the New York Daily News headline on March 10, “TRAITORS”.
Even Fox News (Megyn Kelly) was critical of this apparent publicity stunt: “What’s the point in writing to the Iranian mullahs? What are you going to do? They dismissed it already like ‘pfff, whatever’. And you’ve offended the Obama administration. And you may have offended some of the Democrats who would have come over with the Republicans, if depending on what happens with this deal, to have a stronger say in the Senate.”
Not to dismiss some incremental support from the Right: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former Texas Governor Rick Perry have expressed their support for the letter.
Among the seven Republican senators who did not sign the letter, several have commented that, ‘they did not find it appropriate, helpful or productive.’
While it seems likely that 46 of the 47 Republican elected officials are now questioning their decision to sign the letter, Tom Cotton himself is probably saying, “That worked out great!”
Overnight, Tom Cotton has risen from an unknown and obscure Alabama Senator to a household name!
Tom Cotton has demonstrated that a U.S. Senator who’s been in office just a few months can accomplish a great deal, with a little initiative and creativity.
Much like the boy who shouted “FIRE” in the crowded movie theater, Cotton may have caused a major panic. In this case, the resulting impact includes: irreparable damage to the reputation of the U.S. Senate; to the Republican Party; and to the security of the United States.
But, to the Tea Party base from which Cotton draws his support, he is now a hero. The more criticism he gets, the more convinced they become of his heroism.
The Koch Brothers must be mighty proud!
Toughest Sheriff in America
June 6, 2014
Maricopa County Arizona has a population of about 4 Million, making it the 4th largest county in the U.S.
The Maricopa County seat is Phoenix, the state capital and the sixth-most populous city in the U.S.
The chief law enforcement official in Maricopa County is Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He has been elected Sheriff 6 times to consecutive 4-year terms as Sheriff.
As the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” and a perpetual darling of Fox News, Sheriff Arpaio has received plenty of coverage in national media for his somewhat controversial approaches to law enforcement.
By some estimates, Arpaio has cost citizens of Maricopa County more than $44 million because of alleged illegal, vindictive, unethical and unnecessary lawsuits and other actions that he has leveled against his enemies — or people he believed were enemies – ostensibly because those folks objected to the Sheriff’s approach to finding justice.
It seems the majority of those targeted in lawsuits have been politicians; journalists; activists; and others who did not agree with his actions and/or positions.
This approach does not seem to be favorable to the residents, taxpayers and voters in Maricopa County because — rather than hire teachers and police, open libraries, maintain parks or staff hospitals – money is being paid out in settlements to those who have apparently been wronged by Sheriff Arpaio.
Thus it seems that Sheriff Joe Arpaio may be the poster child for a serious failure in our U.S. political system.
Back when Wyatt Earp was appointed Deputy Sheriff for the eastern part of Pima County, Arizona, it was the Wild West. That was almost 150 years ago, and things have changed just a bit.
How is it that we continue to elect the chief law enforcement officer in so many places across the U.S.?
How do we know that the candidates have the best experience and credentials to do the job we expect from them?
In his defense, Arpaio does have some experience in law enforcement.
But, he has no documented successful experience managing people; managing a budget; or managing anything other than his own affairs.
Yes, he apparently graduated from High School, and he served in the U.S. Armed services.
How that qualifies him to be the chief law enforcement officer in the 4th largest county in the United States is baffling, at the least.
It was all good in 1776, and much of it is still good today. But, we really need to update some of our basic rules to adapt them to the realities of the 21st Century.
Hedge Fund Managers Achieve Record Earnings
May 10, 2014
The news this week included a report from Institutional Investor which tells us that the top 25 Hedge Fund Managers took home a combined $21.2 Billion in 2013, a significant increase over 2012, when earnings totaled just $14.1 Billion, the lowest sum since the 2008 financial crisis.
If I did the math correctly, the average wage of these 25 individuals computes to $407,692.31 per hour, somewhat above our current $7.25 per hour minimum wage.
What is it that Hedge Fund Managers do that makes them the highest paid people in the world?
Do Hedge Fund Managers create economic value? Do they create jobs? Do they make products or deliver services which make our world a better place?
Unfortunately, they seem to do none of the above.
Hedge Fund Managers look for opportunities to exploit temporary weaknesses, gaps, flaws or aberrations in the operations of a specific company or in an economic sector overall.
They typically have billions of dollars of resources at their disposal, and by creating and taking well-crafted and strategic financial positions, they have the ability to move markets, generally to their own benefit.
The film “Other People’s Money”, starring Danny DeVito and Gregory Peck, was released in 1991. Danny DeVito plays the role of “Larry the Liquidator” providing us a crude but quite accurate roadmap of what Hedge Fund Managers do every day.
In the 19th century, we called this sort of activity “Piracy” and we labeled the perpetrators “Pirates”.
In the 20th century, we called this sort of activity “Organized Crime” and we labeled the perpetrators “Mafia” or “Gangsters”.
Here we are in 2014, clearly well into the 21st century.
Our Hedge Fund Managers are out in the open, creating outcomes which seem to have no potential for positive impact on the U.S. or world economy, and we are giving them not just permission to operate (no regulatory oversight), but also preferential tax treatment on their booty (known as ‘carried interest’).
Hedge Fund Managers typically receive their compensation in 2 ways – an overall management fee equal to 2% of assets under management, and a 20% share of any profits on the assets under management.
It is the tax treatment of that 20% fee — categorized as Carried Interest — which is currently taxed at 20% — versus the 39.6 percent rate which business owners must pay on their earned income — that has created somewhat of a firestorm in Washington.
None of this makes any sense to me: does it make sense to anyone?
Separate and Unequal
April 27, 2014
Westchester County in New York State seems to attract a great deal of attention in the media.
Not long ago, we learned from a posting on Zillow that property owners in Westchester County pay more in property taxes than the typical resident of any other major American county. The average property tax bill for a single family home in Westchester County comes to $14,829 a year (vs. the U.S. median of about $2,800).
There are a number of reasons why property taxes in Westchester County NY are the highest in the nation, but the primary reason is property taxes levied to support public schools.
In a county with a population of just under a million residents, Westchester County taxpayers are supporting some 47 completely autonomous public school districts!
Very recently, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino made headlines because he continues to battle the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over compliance with a consent decree approved in 2009 which requires Westchester County to take an active and affirmative role in desegregating local villages and towns in the county which have miniscule populations of African American and Hispanic residents.
Some commentators have applauded Astorino for defying the federal government under the guise that, “(Astorino) is doing his job by protecting the neighborhoods of those who worked very hard to live where they live!”
I’m fine with the notion that people ought to be able to live where they want to live.
However, because New York State allows and encourages public school districts to form around — and to exclusively serve residents of — villages, towns and cities, the impact of this ‘home rule’ approach to public education has created de facto segregation which has produced more egregious and dangerous consequences than the issues debated in the Brown vs. Board of Education case which was decided in 1954 – 60 years ago!
We can clearly witness that “Separate and Unequal” has become the standard in Westchester County.
It becomes very clear from reviewing NYS Education Department statistics that economic and racial segregation in housing translates directly to school inequality and results in disparate student outcomes.
The Village of Scarsdale is one of the communities identified in the Housing Agreement (consent decree) as racially segregated, and thus a priority area for new units of fair and affordable housing.
A report released in late April from US News and World Report reveals that Scarsdale High School was ranked among the very best high schools in Westchester County; in New York State; and across our nation.
In Scarsdale, no students at the High School receive subsidized meals, and just 9% of students are Black or Hispanic. About 8% of Scarsdale students have been classified with a disability, and 68% of those students spend 80% or more of their school time in regular classroom settings. Most recent total per-pupil spending across the Scarsdale schools was $27,219, with $17,450 focused on general education students.
Meanwhile, just 5 miles south of Scarsdale High School is Mount Vernon High School, where 70% of students receive subsidized meals, and where 95% of students are Black or Hispanic.
About 16% of Mount Vernon Students have been classified with a disability, and just 48% of those students spend 80% or more of their school time in regular classroom settings.
Most recent total per-pupil spending across the Mount Vernon public schools was $23,560, with just $11,641 centered on general education students.
The real test may be in graduation rates. For the class of 2012, 95% of Scarsdale seniors graduated with Regents diplomas; at Mount Vernon High School, just 52% of seniors graduated with a Regents diploma.
The attitudes and actions of public officials should set a positive example for all people, affirming that our elected leadership is fair, honest and forward thinking.
There really is no place in our current society for personal private agendas – working against the general public good – on the part of our elected officials.
Municipal and school district consolidation seems to be the only rational resolution — why is this solution so difficult to discuss and resolve?
In White Plains, the Great OZ has Spoken!
April 24, 2014
I learned today from an article published in The Journal News that Westchester County has again refused to come into compliance with federal anti-discrimination law and sign a statement to affirmatively further fair housing throughout the county.
The official statement looks something like this: “… (Westchester) county is not going to turn over control of the local zoning of its six cities, 19 towns and 20 villages to bureaucrats in Washington for $5 million in grants.”
This is pure incendiary nonsense, really not different than shouting Fire in a crowded movie theater.
Recalcitrance on the part of the executive branch of Westchester County government will cost villages and towns $5.2 million in community development grants, which had been awarded in 2012 but have been withheld along with all the other rounds of funding since 2011. More than $7 million in grants from 2011 were lost in a similar fashion in 2013.
We elect our public sector leaders to make balanced decisions which are in the best interests of all current and future residents. There really is no place in the American governance process for elected officials to pursue their own personal agenda(s) at the expense of the public good.
Through his continued defiance of the terms of a 2009 agreement between Westchester County and HUD, Mr. Astorino has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he is unable and/or unwilling to pursue the actions which are in the best long-term interests of the people of Westchester County.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Great OZ Has Spoken!”
It’s time, Mr. Astorino. Time for you to resign from your current elected position to pursue your private agenda on your own time and on your own dime.
Walrus Feeling Guilty
October 4, 2013
With all of the attention on the shenanigans in Washington and the in-depth moment by moment reporting, I thought the Walrus might sit this one out, but various forces have caused guilt.
Congress certainly has the authority to challenge the Affordable Care Act. Why don’t they just challenge the ACA in Court? Why are they messing with the greatest economy in the World?
Oh, wait. They did challenge it in court. In the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land. On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” finding that the federal government can require people to purchase affordable health care insurance coverage or face an income tax penalty.
So, we have a law which was approved by the House of Representatives, approved by the U.S. Senate, approved by the President of the U.S. and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
But, wait! We also have a splinter group of dubiously elected officials (i.e. the Ayatollah John Boehner, Cruz Control, Private Ryan, Eric “T.P.” Cantor – and others who shall remain anonymous for now).
These creatures have determined (in September 2013) that the only appropriate way for the Congress to arrive at a Continuing Budget Resolution which would keep our federal government running is to open a debate on a law which was enacted in 2010?
Now, don’t get me wrong. There are many times I wish that I could just put all of the clocks and calendars around the world on pause. Just give me a few days to catch up on all of the loose ends, and then I would restart the clocks and calendars as though those few days I had to myself were invisible and inconsequential. Sort of like a short “working vacation” in the Twilight Zone.
Boehner and his Band of Merry Men apparently have gone beyond the Twilight Zone and have jumped all the way down the rabbit hole, desperately trying to drag the rest of the country with them.
I have to wonder – how does the Supreme Court feel about this behavior?
The Marijuana Dilemma
September 4, 2013
Back when the Walrus was just a pup, the great George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Another version is printed as “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
However we weave the words, the concept is that we can look back at history, and use the outcomes from various actions to inform what might happen in the present should we repeat an action from the past.
It could be a military action: The outcomes from the Vietnam War could have provided a lesson to the U.S. in 2001 that invading foreign countries over ideological and/or religious principles is an absolute exercise in futility. Instead, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and now is contemplating military sanctions against Syria.
It could be an industrial action: The outcomes from the Love Canal saga in Niagara Falls, NY where the NYS Health Department proclaimed this as a “national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations” could have provided a lesson to the U.S. in 2005 when the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was substantially amended.
Instead of using the mistakes of the past to inform us in the present, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a provision that has come to be known as the “Halliburton Loophole” — an exemption that excludes gas drilling and extraction activities (popularly known as ‘fracking’) from requirements in the SDWA by making the chemicals found within fracking fluid a “trade secret” – thus exempting them from any regulatory oversight.
It could be a social action:. Prohibition – implemented in 1920 as a result of the 18th Amendment – came about from presumably well-intentioned activity championed by The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). They believed that banning alcohol would reduce domestic violence, child abuse, and crime.
By the time Prohibition was repealed (1933) by ratification of the 21st Amendment, it should have been clear that even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution wasn’t going to change human propensity toward relaxation and enjoyment.
Prohibition didn’t work at the basic human level, and it helped to create an off-the-grid economy which brought all of the activities of manufacture, distribution and retailing of alcoholic beverages out of the legitimate economy where it was regulated and taxed, into a shadow economy which ostensibly was controlled by organized crime and bootleggers.
Before Prohibition, the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was regulated and taxed, providing a net positive benefit to government operations; after, the enforcement costs spiraled while revenue disappeared.
Prohibition of alcohol was repealed in 1933, yet 80 years later, we continue to make growing, distribution and consumption of marijuana a criminal activity.
As a nation, we are spending somewhere near $6 Billion annually to attempt to enforce archaic regulations pertaining to marijuana related activities.
We receive no income taxes, no sales taxes and no revenue taxes related to marijuana production, distribution or sales. There is plenty of legitimate research which shows that marijuana is less harmful. – In fact, more salubrious – than alcohol.
As a taxpayer, I say, “stop wasting my tax dollars on pointless enforcement; legalize, regulate and tax marijuana; and reduce my property and income tax burden attributable to archaic and foolish laws and regulations!”
“A Plutocracy Ruled by Self-Centered Jerks?”
August 27, 2013
I spotted this headline, and couldn’t resist clicking on it. The intro says,
“Two studies released last week {August 2013} confirmed what most of us already knew: the ultra-wealthy tend to be narcissistic and have a greater sense of entitlement than the rest of us, and Congress only pays attention to their interests. Both studies are consistent with earlier research….”
This does seem to ring true for the most part. I think there are those rare individuals who were raised in privilege — maybe 3rd generation blue bloods? — who have minimal affectations and are really decent people.
As I’ve heard said, ‘they were raised right.’
The truly self-centered seem to be the pirates who rose from a proletariat family to economic aristocracy on their own – hell-bent on becoming rich and powerful – no holds barred.
My poster child for this syndrome is Joseph Cassano, who grew up in Brooklyn, where his father was a policeman. He earned a political science degree from Brooklyn College in 1977. No blue blood here!
In 1987, American International Group (AIG) hired Cassano as Chief Financial Officer for their Financial Products group.
By 2000, Cassano had risen to the position of CEO of the AIG Financial Products group, which had developed a very lucrative business selling Credit Default Swaps to various Investment Banks as protection against their potential losses on mortgage-backed securities.
Some said that Cassano was at the very center of the Great Recession due to his leadership of this lightly-regulated AIG subsidiary which seemed capable of writing its own rules on how it assessed risk; on how it priced risk; and how it compensated executives.
It has been reported that between 2000 and 2008 — the year he left the company — Joseph Cassano’s compensation from AIG was more than $300 Million.
Cassano walked away free, absolved of any improprieties by federal prosecutors.
Meanwhile, U.S. taxpayers injected $182 Billion into AIG to prevent it from destroying our American financial system.
What a fabulous inspiration for young people on how to achieve the American Dream!
walrus51 