The Luckiest Dude

Jon Stewart is right: Barack Obama is the luckiest dude in America.  Any other candidate shouldered with today’s economic statistics wouldn’t stand a chance of being re-elected. The official unemployment rate is about 8.3%, a rate that would normally kill a candidate’s campaign. The real unemployment rate is far higher. Government statistics don’t account for the thousands who have already burned through 99 weeks of unemployment checks. The official statistics also fail to capture the true impact of all those who are grossly under-employed. These are the facts that DNC shills like Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz like to omit when they beat their chests about all the jobs that Mr. Obama has “created”. 

Were it not for Ben Bernanke printing money faster than it can be spent, Mr. Obama’s statistics might rival those of a former President with whom I compared Obama in June 2008 (BEFORE he was nominated): one Jimmy Carter. Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama promised to change Washington culture. Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama started handing out the goodies to his contributors right away. Washington is as rife with lobbyists as it ever was. He named Tim Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury, which is no different from asking the obese guy to guard the Twinkies. While Mr. Carter chose to ignore Congress, Mr. Obama has chosen to defer to Congress instead. He lets Congress determine the agenda – a Congress where the Republican majority has stated publicly that their primary goal is to deny Mr. Obama whatever he asks for.  A real LEADER would have used the bully pulpit and taken his case to the people on a daily basis in order to put pressure on the GOP (especially leading up to mid-term elections in 2010). Unfortunately, the “cool”, “aloof” Obama doesn’t like to get his hands dirty; he prefers speaking in platitudes.

I have described Mr. Obama in these pages as feckless and spineless. This is commentary on his leadership skills. On a personal level, he seems like a wonderfully charming human being, the kind of guy I’d spend time hanging out with. His oratorical skills are masterful. Unfortunately, given the mess he walked into, these traits aren’t enough for me, or for our country.

Based on all the above, he should get creamed in November. He won’t. He’ll get at least 54% of the popular vote and will exceed 300 electoral votes. Why?

The Republicans nominated Eddie Haskell.

Ah, the luck of the Irish.

Something Rotten in the State of Connecticut

Last week, the Connecticut legislature passed HB5556, An Act Concerning Changes to Campaign Finance Laws, commonly known as the Disclosure Act. The Act requires disclosure of who is financing political advertisements occurring within 90 days of an election, and that this disclosure be made within 12 hours of the advertisement. This effectively ferrets out the real people behind these ads and affords the voters (i.e. the governed) the opportunity to divine the real interests said people are promoting. The fiduciary bond between the government and the governed, as we know from the Declaration of Independence, is based on consent. With the Disclosure Act, Connecticut voters can know the parties to whom they are truly giving consent. Further, the Act requires that organizations engaged in making political expenditures reveal the names of all donors giving $1000 or more. This does not place overly onerous reporting requirements on these organizations, nor does it reveal the names of smaller donors. The Act also requires that the names of the top 5 donors to these organizations be given in the advertisement. Clearly, the Act seeks to prevent people like Sheldon Adelson or George Soros from tilting the electoral playing field behind the cape of purposefully vague organization names such as “People for Freedom”.

The Act that has also become known as “disclosure on steroids” would be a nice addition to Connecticut's Clean Election Law, making Connecticut just about the cleanest place in America to hold an election. This would be a welcome change from the years of being known as “Corrupticut”. But current Governor and hypocrite-in-residence Dannel Malloy doesn't want the voters of Connecticut to have the information with which they can give informed consent. Malloy has indicated he will veto the bill based on unspecified constitutional issues. Apparently the opinion of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law regarding the constitutionality of this Act is not persuasive for the Governor and his counsel. This Act puts no greater restriction on free speech than did the Citizens United decision – the very decision our legislators have tried to counteract. Perhaps Malloy, who was a huge beneficiary of Connecticut's public election financing system in 2010, is now finding the trappings of power a bit too appealing to risk losing them in 2014. Like myriad “Washington outsiders” elected to the US Congress on promises of change, Malloy's tune changed once he was on the inside. Like the leaders of his party on a national basis, Malloy decries the influence of big money but will gladly take all he can get; finding out where it comes from, and the favors expected in return, is your problem. Perhaps the fact that Malloy's star is rising within his party nationally has given him aspirations of higher office in 2016 or 2020; the best way to achieve those goals is to remain in office, and Malloy appears to be willing to sacrifice the voters of Connecticut in order to do it. Be afraid, Connecticut voters, be VERY afraid.

The New Media

Through my volunteer work with Common Cause, I have gotten involved with the New Haven Votes Coalition here in Connecticut. While the primary purpose of NHVC is to increase voter registration and turnout, the overarching theme of the organization's work is increasing overall civic engagement in the community. Working with the Civic Health Index formulated by the Secretary of State's Office, we are seeking to encourage greater citizen participation in local community and faith-based civic organizations, municipal and state advisory boards, issues forums and so forth. This type of civic involvement (as well as other factors) is statistically correlated to higher voter turnout.

In our meetings, a recurring theme has been the lack of participation among the young – specifically college students. While there are several factors accounting for this, the primary one is a sense that the individual is powerless against large, organized monied interests. This sentiment is not surprising, given that in six months we will all be choosing between Romney's billionaires and Obama's billionaires. Harshly negative attack ads funded by obfuscatory Super PAC's are indeed discouraging for those who care about our nation's future yet feel that a place at the table is reserved only for those with deep pockets. I completely understand the sense of futility.

However, I am also struck by the power and effectiveness of organizations like United Republic. If you've read recent news stories about major corporations withdrawing from the American Legislative Exchange Council, and are happy about that, you need to thank United Republic. The people there used their passion and their bully pulpit to call out these corporations for their support of a cabal seeking to suppress voting and impose other nefarious change on ordinary and financially-outmatched citizens. The people at United Republic are not part of “the elite”; they are concerned citizens who care and want things to change. When I was growing up, if a story didn't make the six o'clock evening news or the front page of the New York Times, nobody knew about it. The world is a very different place now. While there are certainly more major news outlets, specifically on cable television, there are also a plethora of internet-based media operations, many of which sprang from small, humble roots. The capital barrier to entry in this market has been virtually eliminated. Furthermore, the advent of social media networks such as Twitter has enabled individuals to disseminate information and organize like-minded people around a cause in a way that has never been possible until a few years ago. The barriers to organizing a political movement and effecting change have never been smaller.

As the smallest ripple can eventually create an enormous wave, so too can the voice of a lone individual create a massive political and social movement. To those who feel they are powerless to compete with large monied interests, I say this: All you need is passion and an internet connection. Si,se puede.

Trading Liberty for Security

Just when you thought the Bush administration was over, it appears Karl Rove is ghost-writing for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Not only is the language of Kennedy's opinion in Florence v. Board of Freeholders positively Orwellian, it displays utter disregard for minor constitutional concepts such as probable cause, due process and the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

In case you missed it, Florence is the case of Albert Florence, who made the grave mistake of committing DWB in New Jersey (if you've ever driven the Jersey Turnpike, you know exactly what I mean) and getting hauled in on a voided warrant despite having paperwork showing the warrant was no longer valid. To paraphrase Bob Dylan's Hurricane, “In New Jersey, that's just the way things go. If you're black....” Simple incarceration wasn't enough; Mr. Albert was forced to submit to a strip search.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, and, unlike President Obama, I don't play one on TV; but it seems to me that the Supreme Court turned three constitutional guarantees on their heads in order to create one guarantee afforded only to prison officials. As Kennedy wrote, “In addressing this type of constitutional claim, courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.” I wasn't aware it should be the purview of corrections officials to judge constitutional matters. Thankfully, Kennedy explains for us that these officials “offer significant reasons why the Constitution must not prevent them from conducting the same search on any suspected offender who will be admitted to the general population of their facilities.” I don't mind impinging on the rights of CONVICTED offenders, but I thought SUSPECTED offenders actually had Constitutional rights. Lyle Denniston showed me the light in SCOTUSblog on April 2, 2012: “The Court explicitly refused to limit the authority to use strip searches only to situations in which a specific individual gave officers a reason to consider that prisoner to be dangerous or likely to be carrying a concealed weapon or drugs.” Nazi Germany, anyone?

I'm not sure how the court can stand three separate parts of the Bill of Rights on their heads and still pass Constitutional muster, and apparently Justice Alito shared my concern. More from Denniston: “Justice Alito, with apparent support from the Chief Justice, suggested that a general search policy might not always be reasonable under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. 'The Court,' Alito wrote, 'does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip search of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial officer and who could be held in available facilities apart from the general population.'” They shared my concern, just not enough to keep them from shredding the Constitution.

The decision in Florence is bad enough on its own. What is even scarier is the lengths to which it might be taken in other circumstances, especially given Kennedy's language. Here's a gem: “There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population.” Using Kennedy's logic, why not strip searches at TSA checkpoints, sports stadia, train stations, public schools and grocery stores? If you don't believe these things begin on a small, limited basis, let me introduce you to the Patriot Act.

Stand Your Ground, Justice Kennedy. Sieg Heil!

The Real Healthcare Issue

Now that the Supreme Court has completed hearing arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act, I'm hoping for a 2 to 3 month reprieve from all the online carping about 9 unelected officials deciding the fate of the health of millions of Americans. Don't blame the Court for doing its job, or the founders for adopting a system of checks and balances. Rather, place the blame equally with the two parties responsible for writing a horrible law to achieve a noble, yet misguided, goal: an obstructionist, “our way or no way” Republican party, and an absolutely spineless, passive-aggressive Chief Executive.

While the large number of uninsured Americans is problematic, insurance coverage in and of itself is not the root problem. When a 5 minute visit to the surgeon's office to have an abscess drained costs over $1000 out-of-pocket, after insurance pays the doctor, the problem is cost itself. Adding more people to the ranks of the insured will help, but it fails to address the real issue. Yes, part of the problem is that the insured ultimately pay for the care of the uninsured. The real factors driving massive cost increases are malpractice litigation and lack of competition on prescription drugs.

When I was growing up, a physician was the top of the socioeconomic food chain. Everyone aspired to be a doctor, and every mother aspired to have her daughter marry a doctor. Now, doctors are abandoning their practices due to outrageous malpractice insurance premiums. You can thank trial lawyers and their friends in Congress and the White House for that. We are also at a stage where seniors often face choosing between buying food or buying medication because they can't afford both. You can thank the FDA and big pharma lobbyists for that.

It should come as no surprise that President Obama's legislation ignored these issues. It is true that the legislation would have passed constitutional muster and never reached the Supreme Court if it had been written as a tax. Yes, the GOP would have raised a fuss over anything remotely resembling a tax. That's when an executive should act like an executive, use the bully pulpit and take the case to the people. Our feckless leader prefers to play passive-aggressive, let Congress take the initiative and control the dialogue, then play woe-is-me.

Why does no one in Washington have the cojones to identify publicly and then address the problem? Simple: trial lawyers and big pharma companies are huge contributors to BOTH parties. Since 2008, pharma money has been split evenly between both parties. Trial lawyers contribute heavily to both sides, with an advantage going to Democrats. When our President and Congresspeople are consumed by greed and self-interest, you get the Affordable Health Care Act instead of a real solution to the real problem. Stop whining about the Supreme Court and address your outrage where it belongs, and do so in November.

Corrupticut

A skunk by any other name is still a skunk; here in the fair State of Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy is displaying his stripe and odor for our electorate. For those not familiar with election law in Connecticut, we have had the cleanest election system in America since 2005 when our system of public campaign financing was instituted. This event came on the heels of corrupt Governor John Rowland being run out of Hartford on a rail. Governor Malloy is now joining a seemingly endless line of politicians in this country who successfully campaign yet turn their back on principle as soon as they take office. President Obama railed against the influence of special interest money in 2008, yet refused to accept public financing. In this campaign cycle, he is gladly accepting Super PAC money to fuel his re-election effort. Like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, our President uses the age-old “well, everyone else is doing it” excuse. That line never worked for me when I tried to use it with my parents; it doesn't work in school or in the workplace. Yet, astonishingly, this excuse finds a perfect home in American politics.

Governor Malloy was a clear beneficiary of Connecticut's Clean Election Law in 2010 when he used public financing to defeat a very wealthy opponent. Malloy now wants to permit candidates to accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and other monied interests if those candidates are being outspent. Here is part of Malloy's facile attempt at obfuscation: "I am trying to preserve a public system. I'm willing to live by those rules. But you can't live by those rules in the state and then have other people come in and destroy the value of those rules.” If you are truly willing to live by those rules, Governor, then do so. If you think the law needs to be strengthened, then make that case and fight that fight. The Governor's senior advisor, Roy Occhiogrosso, makes the following patently absurd argument to support his boss:"He's not being a hypocrite at all. He'd prefer to live within the public financing system.” Clearly the Governor would NOT prefer to live within the system; if he truly did, he wouldn't be making this effort. You are wrong, Mr. Occhiogrosso – your boss is an enormous hypocrite.

Perhaps the underlying issue here is the Governor's decreasing popularity resulting from his attempt at education reform. Perhaps the Governor doesn't think he can defeat a challenger in a fair fight. Perhaps the Governor feels that if you don't like the rules, you should simply change them to your personal benefit. I understand that Governor Malloy, like all other politicians, can only see as far as his next re-election effort. The people of this State, for whom Governor Malloy works, can see farther than that. Governor Malloy, we can see farther, and we can see right through your farcical smokescreen. We also have pretty good memories; don't insult our intelligence more than you have already done by assuming we will forget this by the time you run for re-election in 2014.

Death Penalty, Part 3: The Company You Keep

Lawmakers in Hartford will hold hearings today on pending legislation to repeal the death penalty in Connecticut. I have already written in detail about my objections to capital punishment. There is no need, then, to reiterate the moral and ethical arguments, nor repeat the many facts upon which my argument is made. Rather, today I will appeal to the currency with which our legislators are most conversant: public opinion.

It is true that Connecticut poll respondents have indicated their favorable opinion of capital punishment by a 2-to1 margin. The Quinnipiac poll conducted at this time last year, at the height of the Petit trials, bears this out. Often overlooked, however, is that this margin is greatly diminished when respondents are asked about capital punishment versus life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Results of any poll are directly skewed by the way in which poll questions are asked. What would the results have been if the following questions were posed?:

• Are you in favor of capital punishment even if it does nothing to deter crime?
• Are you in favor of capital punishment even if the monetary cost is equal to or greater than the cost of life imprisonment?
• Are you in favor of capital punishment even if it places a significantly greater emotional burden on the families of the victims?
• Are you comfortable risking the execution of innocent people?

There is nothing wrong with opinions; everyone should have one, especially on such an important issue. I would prefer that legislators base their decisions on informed opinion rather than intellectually lazy polling.

Beyond the results of statewide opinion, I would suggest our legislators consider a broader type of public opinion. Remember those commercials for Verbal Advantage with the tag line, “People judge you by the words you use”? People also judge you by the company you keep. It is true, albeit disheartening, that up to 50% of the countries in the world have some form of capital punishment. Based on raw numbers, legislators have a convenient shield behind which to hide when they oppose repeal. As we had to dig deeper into in-state polling results, we must dig deeper into international statistics. Have our lawmakers looked at which countries maintain capital punishment? Every European nation save Belarus has outlawed capital punishment. Even Russia has abolished the death penalty. Most of South and Central America have abolished the death penalty. Where besides the United States is capital punishment still permitted? Here's where: China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia amongst others. In 2010, the United States carried out more executions than all these countries except China, North Korea, Iran and Yemen. What wonderful company to keep!

As I've stated previously, the fact that we are even having this discussion speaks rather poorly to where we are on the trajectory of human and social development. If Connecticut legislators still wish to vote against repeal of the death penalty in spite of the above information, so be it. Knock yourselves out...we'll see you in November.