Wondering on Wednesday 7/21/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

A whole lotta wondering going on, going on. Let's dive in.

Billionaires Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos separately launched themselves to the edge of space, or actually to space recently, depending on who you listen to. Not surprisingly there's a lot of chatter about how these guys waste their money on stuff like this, rather than on feeding the hungry, or raising wages, or paying taxes (Bezos), or a whole host of other things we'd spend our money on, if we had it to spare. 

But here's what I wonder: is it worse that billionaires spend a few of their own billions launching themselves dozens of miles high, or that cities and countries spend tens of billions of dollars hosting the Olympics, all the while ignoring the needs of their own residents who may be hungry, homeless, sick, unemployed, or otherwise being underserved by their government?

Take Los Angeles, which is set to host the 2028 Summer Games, at projected cost of $6.9B. Additional money will come from the federal government, and the state has committed to cover any cost overruns in case tickets, merch, sponsorships and the like don't cover all of the costs. 

Is there really nothing better that LA, CA, or the US of A could to with that money, I wonder? And, if that's not enough, Salt Lake City is going to be bidding on an upcoming Winter Games, maybe 2034, they say. How much will we spend there, against what more pressing needs?

Can't we just declare permanent spots for the Winter and Summer games, and stop the nonsense? 

Sticking with the Olympics, remember all the uproar over the American sprinter who broke the rules, and tested positive for pot? She would have missed her individual race, serving a suspension for the banned substance, but then she wasn't chosen by the US team to participate in the relay, either, which would have been held after her suspension was served. Instead, her spot went to a runner who didn't have a positive drug test. I wonder why so many people thought that was wrong?

And, one more for you: Becca Meyers, a deaf and legally blind American gold-medal-winning Paralympian swimmer, has withdrawn because she's not allowed to have her mother, who serves as her Personal Care Assistant (PCA), attend the games due to COVID. In a tweet, Meyers said, in part, 

So, in 2021, why as a disabled person am I still fighting for my rights? I'm speaking up for future generations of Paralympic athletes in hope that they never have to experience the pain I've been through. Enough is enough.

The USOC will have one PCA for all 34 members of our swim team, including nine who are blind. In a country where everyone's going to be masked, making lip-reading impossible. Where's the outrage about that, I wonder? Is that really the best we can do, in 2021?

Speaking of "the best we can do, in 2021," there's this:

Athletes on the Norwegian women's beach handball team are being punished for wearing shorts rather than bikini bottoms during a recent game, with the European Handball Federation leveling fines over "a case of improper clothing."

While the men's uniform includes "shorts that fall no longer than 10 centimeters above their knees" the women "must wear bikini bottoms... with a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg." And the width of the bikini at that upward angle toward the top of the leg? The same 10 centimeters, or about four inches, as the maximum distance of the men's shorts from their knees.

The fine amounts to about $175 (US) for each of the ten team members. And they don't care - they're hoping to change the stupid rule. Good for them. And how much longer is this absurd objectification going to continue? That's the wondering here. Enough, already! Respect the women as athletes - or, I guess, put the men in similarly-designed bikini bottoms. What's good for the goose, and all.

Finally, we've got Kevin McCarthy, the alleged leader of the GOP in the House of Representatives. McCarthy went to Bedminster to meet with the real leader of the GOP, Former Guy, to talk about the mid-terms he said. But Trump said they had "much to discuss," which undoubtedly included who should represent the GOP on the House Select Committee on Former Guy's insurrection. Five days later, McCarthy named Rep. Jim Jordan and four others to the Committee. 

In response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejecting Jordan's appointment, and that of Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, McCarthy pulled all his people, saying 

This panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility. Pelosi has broken this institution. 

Pretty sure it "lost all legitimacy and credibility" when you trotted off to kiss that ring in New Jersey, Kev. McCarthy, you'll remember, said this, on the House floor, just days after the insurrection.

Last week's attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob riot. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts required immediate action of president Trump to accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. And the president's immediate action also deserves Congressional action, which is why I think a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent.

And today, he stands in front of a microphone and says Pelosi has broken the House? I've gotta wonder, how does he say this stuff with a straight face? As someone I know likes to say, we are so screwed. 

Oh wait - that's me. I like to say that. 

What's on your wondering mind today?

Wondering on Wednesday 6/30/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive in to today's wondering, shall we?

A Republican strategist on NPR suggested that because the Dems have only a five-vote majority in the House of Representatives as a whole, it would be grossly unfair to have a Select Committee on the 1/6 Insurrection with eight Democrats and five Republicans. And I wonder, if that consequence of the election is so unpalatable, why on earth didn't the R's jump at the chance to have an independent, 9/11-style commission? I mean, did they all get their Melania jackets from the dry cleaners at the same time?

Sticking with the House and the Select Committee, I wonder if any of the Rs that don't want an investigation have considered what Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) reportedly said - here's the meme that's making the rounds. 

I wonder, what's the argument against what he says? Either you want to know, because you think it was something other than what it appears to be, or you believe The Big Lie, and you don't want any more proof that it was supporters of Former Guy, just like it's been shown all along. Or, I guess, you're chicken and afraid of losing your job. 

Kinzinger, in a recent appearance on CNN, told Anderson Cooper, 

If people are willing, at a young age, to put their life on the line for this country, and we can't put our career on the line for the same thing, what's it worth? Why are you doing it, right? But if everybody just comes out and tells the truth, has differences of opinion or perspective, of course, we can fix this country. Short of that, we've got some trouble.

I wonder how many of his colleagues are willing to admit publicly they agree with him on that?

Speaking of 'we've got some trouble," we learned that South Dakota Gov. Kristy Noem, who might want to be Nikki Haley when she grows up, has promised to deploy her state's National Guard troops in Texas to help with border security. And, according to her spokesman, she's going to use private funds to "help alleviate the cost to South Dakota taxpayers."  The private funds are coming from a Trump-supporting used care billionaire from Tennessee, if that makes any sense at all.

And now, I'm wondering what would happen if say, Michigan's Gov. Gretchen Whitmer decided to send her state's National Guard to Texas to support asylum seekers crossing the border, and say it was Michael Bloomberg who was footing the bill. How'd that sit with everyone?

And are we going to see National Guard deployments up for bid on eBay and other auction sites, I wonder? Or Go Fund Me campaigns to send them to other states on a governor's whim? Think of all the money that could be separated from billionaires and used for defense. Or for The Wall. Anyone still have Steve Bannon on speed dial?

Speaking of Former Guy, he held a rally in Ohio the other day. and Amanda Uhle, a WaPo reporter, attended the rally out of her self-proclaimed inability to "stop probing Trump supporters, trying to understand exactly how they see the world and why they're not seeing it the way" she does. Speaking of his Ohio appearance, she wrote

This time, he was to be accompanied by all you might expect from an 88-degree evening at the Lorain County Fairgrounds — a dusty parking area, livestock stalls and creaky grandstands under the rich, dank odor of manure and surrounded by verdant fields. Air Force One would not be deployed. His lectern wouldn’t be adorned by the presidential seal. He’s not officially running for anything, even if all signs point to a bid in 2024. So, who would want to attend a Trump rally in 2021?

I almost stopped at "the rich, dank odor of manure" line - what could be more evocative of a Trump rally than that, I wondered? But I kept reading, and learned that the people who are attending now are the same people who attended his rallies before - he doesn't seem to have a new crowd, any more than he has a new message. I guess that's a good thing.

Finally, like most people, I've been following the story of the condo collapse in Florida. My heart aches for the families that have been forever changed by the tragedy, and for the community similarly forever changed

One thing I can't shake? Whether this, like so many other infrastructure collapses, was preventable, if only we had been paying attention. And paying attention from the very beginning, not just two or three years ago, or forty years later, or five or six months from now. 

Our appetite for building in coastal areas, on cliffs, in fire-prone forests, on fault lines, seems boundless, as does our appetite for ignoring potential signs of danger along the way, and for kicking the can down the road. 

We cringe, and duck, when we get an estimate on repairs, whether it's a condo or a bridge or a highway, and we don't act until the very last argument is made, literally dozens of times, and even then, half the time we make a temporary fix, as if the arguments will change when it comes time to pay the pipe. And pay we will, after a horrendous collapse, after people die, after families are forever changed by the tragedy, or even after a change in who holds the purse strings. 

And that's always the driver, right? Money up front to make growth happen; money in the middle to buy the view or the solitude or the speed to get from point A to point B; money on the back end to keep things standing (hopefully in time); and of course, money to distribute when our worst nightmares come to fruition.

I wonder about all of that, I do.

What are you wondering about?

Email of the Week (v22)

Somehow, I managed to get unsubscribed from all of the Biden-Harris team emails - no more Team Joe, Joe Biden, Joseph R. Biden, Biden 2020, Kamala Harris, Biden-Harris 2020, and so on. 

I suspect it was due to neglect - I admit I haven't been all that responsive to the emails - but with nothing new for the past several days, it's been pretty quiet in my politics inbox.

I did get an email from Papa Joe's camp touting my popularity. In case you didn't know, I was a hot commodity for a minute there, and here's who let me know that: Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Khizr Khan, Carole King, Symone Sanders, Jill Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Tammy Duckworth, and Biden himself.

They wanted my money, of course - although, according to an email I got today from Ballotpedia, the Biden-Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee together raised a whopping $365,000,000 in August - far exceeding the previous record of $193,000,000 raised in September 2008 by the Obama/DNC combo.

I did get an email that I thought was interesting, and while it came from a former presidential candidate, it had nothing to do with the campaign.  Take a look.

Friend,

 

Racial disparities within our communities are a matter of life and death, and COVID-19, which has had a disproportionate and devastating impact on Black people across the country, is a stark example -- and a call to action.

The effects of inequity were present well before the pandemic, and they show up across a range of health outcomes for Black Americans, from higher infant mortality to higher death rates from cancer and heart disease. And these health inequalities contribute to wealth inequalities -- and vice-versa. It is a debilitating cycle that we must confront head-on.

Today, I joined the Presidents and Deans of four Historically Black Medical Schools to announce an initiative to take on these connected challenges. Bloomberg Philanthropies is committing $100 million over the next four years to America's four Historically Black Medical Schools -- Meharry Medical College, Howard University College of Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. This funding will allow the schools to provide scholarships up to $100,000 to nearly every medical student currently enrolled and receiving financial aid.

These four schools tend to have higher graduation rates of Black students than medical schools overall -- in part because increasing diversity in medicine and offering medical services for communities most in need are ingrained in their mission, so they provide more support to help students overcome obstacles and graduate.

Research has shown that Black patients have better health outcomes with Black doctors. More Black doctors will mean more Black lives saved, and a reduction in the health issues that can limit economic opportunity in Black communities. That won't cure the disease of disparities within our health care and economic systems, but it is an essential part of the treatment.

During my presidential campaign, I announced The Greenwood Initiative, which was aimed at closing the racial wealth gap and securing economic justice for Black Americans. That work continues through the partnership we're announcing today -- with more to come in the future.

Read about our effort to support more Black doctors, and the lives it can save -- and please share the op-ed with your family and friends to raise awareness about these urgent challenges.

Have you figured out which former presidential candidate is behind this initiative? If you guessed Michael Bloomberg, you guessed correctly. 

And, for investing his own money in something worthwhile, instead of asking for my money to run an ad in a swing state or something, he gets the coveted Email of the Week award. 

Email of the Week (v6)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

This was crunch time for many of the candidates, and let me tell you, there were an awful lot of emails were filled with 'Donate' buttons and 'could you just send a little something before midnight/before tomorrow/before it's too late?"  That's what usually happens right before a debate -- and then after the debate, there's the 'I just got off the stage' email, which - you guessed it - also asks for money.

I thought about giving a team email award, to whichever candidate's team asked me for money the most; and I thought about giving this week's recognition to Cory Booker's suspension email, but I just did that for Julian Castro. So,I read through all 95 emails, and finally found something that was more than just a bald-faced ask for cash.

So, without further ado, here's the coveted email of the week, which echoed one of the sound-bite moments from Tuesday's debate.

Thank you for being part of this grassroots movement. I hope I made you proud on the debate stage tonight.

One of the most important issues we talked about was how we’ll beat Donald Trump. There’s a question out there: Can a woman win? Let’s tackle that question head on:

Collectively, the men on the debate stage tonight have lost ten elections. There were only two people on this stage tonight who have won every single election that they've been in — and they were the women.

Since Donald Trump was elected, women candidates have outperformed men candidates in competitive races. And in 2018, we took back the House and state houses across the country, because of women candidates and women voters.

Here's what I know: the real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can't pull our party together, or someone who takes big parts of the Democratic constituency for granted. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. And I’m ready to do just that.

Hope and courage win elections. That’s how I will make you proud, every single day, as this party’s nominee — and as the first woman president of the United States.

We're building a grassroots movement together - and together, we will win. Can you chip in tonight and help power this campaign forward? 

Thank you for being a part of this.

Elizabeth  

I'm going to add Tom Steyer to the mix, I think - but I'm not budging on Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg - at least, not yet. Maybe the self-funded campaign will bring us some new email panache.

Quick Takes (v47): Billionaires Buying Elections?

Quick Takes

Catchy headline, right?  Those big bad billionaires and their money making a mess of things?  Well, maybe, and maybe not. Let's take a look.

First, the 'maybe' or, more correctly, the 'actual.' This NY Post article from late December caught my eye, which shouldn't surprise regular readers who know how I feel about political advertising.

The article was about the impact that spending by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was having on ad rates for all of the candidates, including Bloomberg.

He’s a one-man stimulus package! 

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending so much money on television spots across the country that it’s causing ad rates to soar, a new analysis shows. 

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

And, the article noted that Bloomberg is "shelling out an average of $25.5 million a week" on ads since he entered the race in November, according to the Post's research. At that pace, Bloomberg will spend over $350M before the New York primary in late April; he could spend over $1B if he gets the nod to take on Trump, according to the experts. And, 

“With no end in sight for his ad blitz, we will continue to collect data on the way Bloomberg’s spending affects rates in markets across the country,” the analysis said.There’s no historical comparison to Bloomberg’s early ad spending, said John Link, Advertising Analytics vice president of sales and marketing. 

So then: it's clear that Bloomberg's spending is having an influence - the question is, does it have the hoped-for influence, the kind that swings voters from the undecided column or from another candidate's column, to Bloomberg's? 

That's where the 'maybe not' part comes in.

According to this end-of-December article from Reason.com, 

Bloomberg, Steyer Showing Money Can't Buy Elections After Failed $200 Million Ad Blitz

The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.

The article, by Eric Boehm, noted that Bloomberg and fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer have "launched themselves all the way to... the middle tier of the Democratic primary field" even though together they've spent some $200M on television ads, most of it by Bloomberg. That vastly overshadows the piddly amounts spent by the other candidates, none of whom has spent more than $18M according to a Politico report Boehm cites in his article.

And Boehm suggests that the polling performance of both Steyer, who's been on the stage in the past few debates and Bloomberg, who doesn't seem to care about the debates at all, may disprove the cry from other candidates that the billionaires are going to buy the election. 

Further, trying to buy  a nomination may not be the best way to go about driving change.

...the two billionaire candidates are providing a real-world lesson about opportunity costs by setting fire to their huge campaign war chests. They've got the means to change the world but getting involved in politics isn't the best way to do it.

It's early yet - the first votes won't happen until early February, and Bloomberg is not even paying attention to the early states, focusing instead on the Super Tuesday states where there are a boatload of delegates up for grabs, but if things hold true, Boehm may be right when he says that

Yes, it's certainly true that money can buy access and influence in the political process. But when it comes to campaigns, money is only as good as the results it can produce...

And if they can't buy the election, couldn't these guys do more by not running for president?

Focusing on comments made by Tom Steyer, Boehm points out that "you don't need to be president to create jobs" but you need capital to do it - which the billionaires have. And he notes that the private sector, not government, will likely be the impetus for the new ideas and products that we'll need to really tackle the climate crisis, which is Steyer's number one priority. And, Steyer's in a position to support the companies that will be on the cutting edge of that innovation - a better way to burn through cash, it seems, than buying political ads.

Similarly, he points to opportunities Bloomberg has to spend his money on things like "a $100 million campaign to inform Americans about health eating" instead of "the Big Gulp ban President Bloomberg would likely try to sign."

Finally, Boehm makes reference to what I think is a primarily a Sanders push to severely restrict how the Democratic National Committee can raise money (with no impact on its GOP counterpart) and implement public funding for federal elections and national conventions, among other things - and the irony of what that would really mean for other billionaire Mikes and billionaire Toms.

It's also worth noting that the post-Citizens United world that Democrats who actually stand a chance of being elected president want to build would be a place where self-funding billionaire candidates would enjoy a relatively easier path to electoral success. By trying to reduce everyone else's ability to speak, Democrats would let the future Bloombergs and Steyers dominate the airwaves even more than they do now. And those guys could use all the help they can get, it seems.

Definitely something to think about.

As an aside, it's also worth remembering that, back in 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to refuse federal funding - before the Citizen's United decision truly opened the floodgates. And, he also was the guy who got rid of public financing for national conventions. Why? Because there was so much money in the system already, there were plenty of creative ways to get even more money into it, including campaigns to attract small donors,  and, honestly, because the Dems suck at raising money compared to the Republicans.

The Update Desk: Who Loves Me, Baby? (v12)

I skipped last week's update on my social experiment with what was once the top ten Democrats running for president, given that it was Thanksgiving. Here's a link to the last update, from November 21st. That was the one where I dropped both former Vice President Joe Biden and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro from the weekly tracking.

For this past two weeks, here's the breakdown of the 262 emails received from the remaining seven candidates: Pete Buttigieg, 45; Kamala Harris, 42: Cory Booker, 40; Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, 38; Elizabeth Warren, 34: and Bernie Sanders, 25.

So, what were they talking about, other than the regular requests for money?

• the November debate and how they did;
• who's on the stage for the December debate and how they got there;
• who's not on the stage for the December debate and how we can get them there;
• billionaires in general, not just the one already in but the one who just joined;
• Iowa, barely two months away;
• the end-of- November fundraising deadline; and
• diversity, or the lack thereof, in the remaining candidates.

That last bullet stems from the decision by Kamala Harris to suspend her campaign, announced on December 3rd. In her email, she noted that she's tried every day to "speak with decency and moral clarity and treat all people with dignity and respect."  And, she added,

So here’s the truth today.

I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life.

My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue...

In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do.

Some of the other candidates, notably Cory Booker, lamented her departure and the corresponding loss of diversity on the trail in general, and on the debate stage in particular.as of now, there will be no person of color in the December debate.. Booker, Castro, and Andrew Yang have not yet qualified.

Here's his personal message on Harris leaving the race, in which he included a couple of pictures of them on the trail:

Long before she was a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris was my friend and my sister. We may have been competitors this last year, but it was with sadness that I learned Kamala announced she’s ending her campaign.

Kamala Harris’s campaign changed this country. So many people got to see -- for the first time -- someone who looked like them on a presidential debate stage. Someone fighting fearlessly and unapologetically for a better future for them.

I’m so proud of her for championing values we share, and know she’ll continue that fight as strong as ever. I pledge to do the same.

Elizabeth Warren talked about both Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand (who left the race weeks ago), noting collectively they "won more than 11.5 million votes in their last elections," but her email was all about money and how "Running for president shouldn't be a passion project for bored billionaires." 

Last week was Thanksgiving, and Bernie Sanders was the only candidate not issuing some kind of Thanksgiving message. No surprise there, honestly. The other candidates all gave it a whirl.

• Warren included a link to a new app her team has developed to help canvass and bring others on board, and she offered some tips, such as "Have fun watching a Thanksgiving parade, and take a minute to laugh at the parade of billionaires who think they can buy this election."
• Harris and Klobuchar talked about spending time with their families; Harris even sent a video of her making one of her mom's special recipes; 
• Yang sent a video thank you message on Thanksgiving Eve; and
• Booker included a picture of a snowman doormat his mom put out at his house with his holiday message.  

Our email of the week award goes to Mayor Pete for his Thanksgiving message:

Thanksgiving is an opportunity for Americans to come together -- as families, friends, and as a nation.

We know that after a year of avoiding getting into political debates with some relatives on Facebook, we’re going to find ourselves sitting across the table from each other.

We sense those walls going up between us in our communities, our churches, and yes, even within our families. We feel the pain of what I can only describe as a crisis of belonging in America, with so many of our fellow Americans wondering where they fit in and whether they belong at all.

But on the day after this presidency comes to an end, we’re going to need to pick up the pieces of our divided nation and come together to tackle the urgent challenges we face.

So in the midst of a heated political season, I hope we remember the values we share -- especially today, on Thanksgiving.

Let’s take inspiration from the extraordinary Americans I’ve met throughout this campaign. Veterans who didn’t hesitate to answer our nation’s call. Farmers in rural Iowa discussing how they can be a part of addressing our climate crisis. Young people demanding we act on guns. DREAMers making this country their own, and conservatives who recognize immigrants as a credit to their communities.

If we focus on what we hold in common, then I believe we can knit back our country and deliver a future where every one of us belongs.

I hope everyone has a meaningful Thanksgiving.

Pete

I hope you had a meaningful Thanksgiving, no matter how you spent it. 

This is my last formal update on the social experiment, with a changing cast of characters (and likely more changes in the next week or two), and with a decided tone in the emails of money, money, money and little else, I think we're run the course. I'll have a final wrap up next week, along with any plans for moving forward. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v94)

Happy July 5th, the day we put away our patriotic swimwear, outerwear, paradewear and, for all I know, underwear, for another year. (And to answer your question, no, I'm not wondering whether anyone I know is wearing any of those handmade items.)

Did you hear about those rascally folks at NPR, who tweeted the entire Declaration of Independence on Independence Day? And even better, did you hear about the reactions?  Oh yeah, people thought they were calling for revolution! They were drunk! No wonder they're being defunded! They were spreading propaganda! They're anti-Trump!

No, they're geniuses, plain and simple.

My favorite reaction:

I wonder how all of the people who complained are feeling today? Proud to be an American? Ready to #MAGA? Or, maybe, spending some time on Twitter reading our founding document?

We now know that North Korea can likely reach Alaska with their new ICBM, which they launched on Monday. And we know that we previously said that we would have a military response if they were to do so.  UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said so back in April:

If you see some sort of intercontinental ballistic missile, then obviously we're going to do that.

Haley's comments were more measured this time around.

(North Korea's) actions are quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution. The United States is prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must.

We're going to be proposing more sanctions, Haley said - on top of the last round of sanctions, which was on top of the round of sanctions before that...  We've lost patience with China, since they're not making any real headway with Kim, and now they've issued a joint statement with the Russians basically telling us to heel.  All of this makes me wonder, have we drawn a red line in the Korean peninsula, and if yes, has it been crossed with this latest missile test? Or are we just putting words out there, like the previous administration did (to wide criticism) about Syria?

And finally tonight, let's turn to California for a clear picture of what the Democrats are up against: each other, it seems.  Out there on the west coast, they've been talking about the Disclose Act for a while now.  From the article linked above

Who pays for all those political ads that bombard voters every election?

An effort to make the answer clearer is squeezing California Democrats between two liberal constituencies. On one side, they're facing pressure from progressive activists who decry the influence of dark money and want more disclosure. On the other, they're being lobbied by labor unions, which help fund their campaigns and are fighting a bill to bring more transparency.

It seems like a no brainer - get the money out, bring light to the darkness, let people know who is putting the positions in front of the voters, right?  And when the Republican party is the party of "corporations are people too" and massive Super PACs and DeVos money and all that evil Koch Brothers money, it would seem easy for Dems to align on the other side of this issue and collectively support transparency, right?  Wrong.

I wonder, if they can't unite around something as easy as this, in California  no less, how will Dems pull it together nationally?

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v6)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Members of the Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation have been butting heads over whether or not the NY Legislature deserves a raise.

In order to consider how much of an increase should be given to our officially part-time legislature, they have to get past the issue of whether the perceived lack of interest shown by members of the Assembly and the Senate is indicative of anything more than election year jitters, or if they really think that staying out of it and not commenting will help.

One member of the Assembly, Rodneyse Bichotte, has been paying attention to the proceedings, including comments by Commission member Fran Reiter who, as we learned last time, had entered into the record a statement that, in a nutshell, a raise was not deserved, in part because no one was willing to come before the Commission and fight for one. Bichotte submitted a letter in which she volunteered to testify before the Commission on why a raise was not only desired, but necessary.

As promised, let's take a look at some excerpts from her letter.

I write to you as someone who takes their job seriously, and as someone who has lived the true reality of the struggle to make ends meet... I write to you as a legislator that has suffered from the ill perception that people have of those who hold elected office, particularly in light of the recent scandals that have plagued both houses of the New York State legislature.

The face of Albany has changed dramatically with people of color approaching 50% and women topping 25% of the legislature. What you will fine is that there is a major discrepancy in terms of where outside incomes are a factor and where they are not. For example, they tend not to be a factor amongst members of color, women... the majority of legislators are not independently wealthy and struggle to pay their bills like many of their constituents... We cannot allow those ...who earn significant outside income to dictate the incomes of the majority of legislators whom are living off a relatively low base salary that has not been touched for decades.  

Bichotte goes on to explain her background - five degrees in the math, engineering and finance arenas; a co-op purchased with savings from previous jobs; a mom-to-be staring at a stagnant wage set by people who just don't get it.

Like former legislator Tim Sullivan once said, "a legislator cannot feed their family with honor." In the case of present-day elected officials our wages are not commensurate with the work we do, the hours invested,the miles traveled, and they myriad of other responsibilities associated with our work.

The figures to increase the legislature's salaries are not based in reality. The increase is based on figures that show that for almost two decades the legislature's salaries were not increased proportionally and with regard to the rate of inflation, the cost of living, and as a measure of the type of work we do as executive leaders. 

Referencing others who are paid more - professors in the SUNY and CUNY systems and NYC council members, among others, she continues

This is all the while being away from their families for at least half the week, and then needing to travel to constituent events on weekends and any time they are available, not to mention the large volume of law making with one of the highest State budgets in the country. 

The reality for the majority of the legislators is that the work we do is full time. Our priority is to answer to our constituents and their issues do not only exist six months out of the year... Although at one point in time, the NYS legislator's position was part-time, to say that legislator's jobs are part-time now would be egregiously inaccurate. The time when there is no session is the time that many legislators spend building relationships in their communities, going to community events, and getting to see issues up front and on the ground. This is far from downtime... 

 Other points raised in the letter?

• the high costs of living in NYC, Westchester and Long Island, in comparison to upstate cities like Utica;
• NYC Council members are paid $148K, but state legislators have to deal with both state legislation AND legislation specifically and solely related to NYC;
• Members represent between 130,000 and 260,000 people (dealing with them directly as they don't have sufficient staff,), and write much of their own legislation 

Bichotte recommends a salary in the $140,000 to $160,000 range for full-time positions, "in line with legislators in the NYC Council and Congress as good comparable models."  That also seems to be in line with the latest suggestion on the table for the Commission.

So - do any of her points ring true? Should we consider these folks full time, based on what an actual NY politician says, rather than on some comparison to what they do in California and Pennsylvania, or on some scholarly writing?

And if we accept her position that she and other members of the Assembly and the Senate are full time, and are not crooks, and do not have outside income, and struggle like many of their constituents across the state, do we also lend credence to her position on what a reasonable salary looks like?

My answer, and a recommendation, come tomorrow. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v4)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

When we last checked in on doings in Albany, we were looking at the issue of a possible legislative pay raise, with something in the neighborhood of 47% on the table.

My earlier posts touched on the recent legislative session, the pros and cons of a big raise, and good people.

I had hoped, by now, that the transcript from the September 13th meeting would be available, so we could see how the Commission tackled the part-time vs. full time issue, which they touched on in the July meeting and were to address in more detail this month, Alas, nothing's been posted yet.

But that's OK, because there have been even bigger doings in Albany than something as inconsequential as a monster pay raise for the Leg, the Gov, and the various commissioners who do those things about which we often hear little and know even less.

Our old friend Preet Bharara, the US Attorney in Manhattan and the person most actively interested in getting rid of corruption in Albany, has struck again - in a big way.  He has indicted several people on bribery, bid-rigging and other charges. Here's who made the list this time:

• Joseph Percoco and Todd Howe, both former aides of Andrew Cuomo and his father, late Governor Mario Cuomo. Percoco was referred to as "Mario Cuomo's third son" by the current governor - "and the one he loved the most." Percoco allegedly accepted bribes arranged by Howe from a couple of development companies.
• Steven Aiello and Joseph Gerardi, of Syracuse-based COR Development, who were alleged to have paid bribes for help in avoiding a labor agreement, getting paid by the state for work done, and obtaining a raise for Aiello's son, who worked for Percoco. The company was not charged.
• Peter Galbraith Kelly Jr, the lobbying guy for Competitive Power Ventures; the company wanted help on a project in the Hudson Valley, and paid bribes to Percoco's wife. Again, the company itself was not charged.
• Louis Ciminelli, Michael Laepple, and Kevin Schuler, of LPCiminelli. The goal of these bribes was to ensure that the company (itself not charged) was the sole eligible bidder on a project.
• Dr. Alain Kaloyeros, head of SUNY Polytechnic, who was the mastermind behind high-tech economic development projects across the state.  NY Attorney General Eric Schneidermann also charged Kaloyeros last week for other corrupt actions

Naturally, everyone did nothing wrong, they will all be exonerated, this is a sham, Bharara has designs on something bigger, and on and on. I like to think he has designs on continuing to clean up Albany, something that the Governor and the Legislature are unable to do themselves. JCOPE is an example of that.

JCOPE, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, is more of a reporting organization than anything else, and like other commissions, is lock stock and barrel comprised of representatives of the people it oversees.

The Commission consists of 14 members, three appointed by the Temporary President of the Senate, three appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, one appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate, one appointed by the Minority Leader of the Assembly and six appointed by the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor. 

As with the Commission looking at the pay raise, none of the members are appointed by the people of the Empire State. None answer to the people of the Empire State. None are looking after the interests of the people of the Empire state. The fox is overseeing the hen house, with the full commitment of the hens.

This is ridiculous, but it's not as ridiculous as Cuomo's personal attempt at rooting out corruption.

I've done a number of posts on the reasonably well conceived but poorly executed and prematurely shut down Moreland Commission. This commission would have been a complete waste of time and money, except that it really put front and center our Sonofa Gov's lack of interest in getting ethics reform. He's been talking reform for a number of years, but the reality of what he's accomplished pales in comparison to his rhetoric.

Cuomo has always maintained that he's clean as a whistle, and so far, he's not been touched by Bharara's investigations, which also took down Shelly Silver and Dean Skelos. But now, the investigations have closed in on people who are extremely close to the Governor, who are huge donors, who are actively involved in the Buffalo Billion and in the other signature projects that came from the Gov's porkfest, the Regional Economic Development Councils.

I suspect Cuomo may be having a little more trouble sleeping at night.

Can I Afford Not to?

I'm thinking I'm going to have to get a second, maybe a third job, which would mean I would have very little time for this blog, for my garden, for My Sweet Baboo, or for anything else. I'll need the extra money, you see, if I expect to get any attention from a politician, now that the Supremes have given us their decision in the McCutcheon case.

The Roberts Court, which brought us Citizens United, has now added that aggregate limits on contributions for elections violate a person's most fundamental First Amendment activities "without justification." I obviously disagree with this, as I disagreed with the 'corporations are people too' ruling that came with Citizens United.

My belief?  People - the living, breathing kind - have 'speech' rights, but non-living, non-breathing entities do not.

My belief?  Being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to 'speak to' politicians, is not what 'free speech' means.

My belief?  I'd have a better chance of seeing Elvis perform live at the Weedsport Hotel than I have of getting a politician to take seriously what I say  (on the phone, via email, via social media, in a survey, or in a face to face conversation)  unless what I say comes with tens of thousands of dollars in strings attached.

My belief?  Money is something that is used to pay for things. And I'm not alone:

• money: something (such as coins or bills) used as a way to pay for goods and services and to pay people for their work
• money: any article or substance used as a medium of exchange, measure of wealth, or means of payment...
• money: any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts...

What does money buy, in politics? Money buys attention from politicians, or buys votes for politicians. Money 'speaks' to politicians in a way that mere words cannot. (Most politicians that is. Not Republicans or Andrew Cuomo or Bill Fitzpatrick, but 'regular' politicians.)

And what is the 'exchange' that politicians give in return for all this money, even the ones who are playing by the rules? What goods and services do these massive donations purchase?

• maybe it s a tasty little sentence or two that might go unnoticed in the middle of a huge bill, something that would provide a nice benefit to a donor
• maybe it's a helpful vote on legislation, such as stopping regulations that might make it harder for the donor to do business.
• maybe it's a package of tax breaks for companies within a specific business sector, or maybe it's tax breaks for the rich (who are the only ones who can make this level of contribution)
• maybe it's a job for a relative, or friend, or something fairly benign like that
• maybe it's ten, twenty, thirty, forty or more votes to repeal a law that donors don't like

Is there really no difference between money and words?  Is that really how we want to run our political system? 

Because if it is, I've got to get another job or two.