Money leads to service from politicians

Here comes the crunch. No two ways about it, American taxpayers are fed up with what they have to pay in income and property taxes. This is all aggravated by the huge unemployment rates in the country and specifically, in New York. At the same time, the worse things get, the more those who are unemployed and so many others need the help of government. The governor and the Legislature have to figure out which priority is greater — the lowering or stabilizing of tax bills or providing the services that everyone needs and demands. The politicians know that if they can’t figure something out, they may well be looking for work, too. They lose voters either way so they hold a finger into the wind and pray they get it right. If you don’t think this is serious, just look at the kind of press that the politically pathetic Sarah Palin and her “tea party” cohorts are getting. I mean this woman proved herself to be completely inept as a politician but is riding voter anger to what looks like a run for the White House. Unbelievable and sad.

The major lobbies in New York State will be yelling and screaming at the legislature. “Our kids will suffer.” (They surely will.) “People will die in our heath care facilities.” (True.) “Our elderly will suffer.” (They absolutely will.) “Our poor will suffer.” (They always come first.) “Our indigent accused criminals who can’t afford a defense will suffer.” (So what’s new?) “Our poor who need legal help with non-criminal matters will be crucified by these budget cuts.” (Tragically, they absolutely will.) “Our arts organizations will be seriously compromised.” (You better believe it.) “The animals in our zoos will suffer.” (Here come the ads showing starving and pathetically treated animals. All true.)

The “lobby days” at the state Legislature will see more busses lined up than ever before. The legislators will find themselves hiding under their desks and using the back door escape hatches to come and go. Secretaries in their offices will be reduced to tears as angry service seekers yell and scream at them since they can’t find the people who actually make the laws.

It is an axiom of politics that those who have the least find themselves at the lowest end of the priority list. As the old saying goes, “The mentally ill don’t have alumni associations.” And it doesn’t stop with the mentally ill. The same could be said for the unemployed; for people who have just been released from a penal institution; for those poor who need urgent medical care. These people certainly don’t have any lobbyists representing their interests, nor do they have money to buy the votes of legislators.

Yes, you read that right. What do you think is going on when all those legislators spend all that time “dialing for dollars?” Who do you think they are calling? Every night in Albany and New York City, you can have your choice of fund-raising cocktail parties in which fat cat lobbyists show up and fork over big checks to legislators. Of course, it would be a felony to say, “I’ll give you this money if you vote for bill X,” so only a dummy would say that. Look, there is honor among these folks — did you think I was going to say “among thieves”? Everyone knows how it works. You give value for value received. If someone gives money, they get “access.” Where I come from, access means that they have sold their votes to the highest bidders.

As a SUNY professor, I was represented for years by a powerful union. Unfortunately, this year SUNY is being screwed because the politicians have to find the money where there is none. You can’t get blood from a stone. Those who can give the most money will get the best service. If you think for one second that the banks, the lawyers and the insurance companies won’t get service for cash on the barrel, think again. If those whose kids are students don’t keep their eyes on these people, you had better believe that some terrible things will be happening. It won’t be good public policy, it will be political prostitution. I’ve never wanted to be a politician. Now that’s truer than ever.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 2/8/10

White House plan for no NY primaries is unraveling

Primary campaigns were put in place in America in order to provide voters with real choices. This is especially true in states like New York, where you can only vote in the primary of the party in which you are registered. In a number of states like Massachusetts, if you follow the rules and stay “unregistered,” you can vote in whatever primary you choose. The Massachusetts way is much better because it is more democratic. To be blunt, primaries in a state like New York are often tantamount to winning the general election. That’s why President Barack Obama’s move to send the word down that there should be no New York primary election against appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand turns out to have been a very, very bad and counterproductive idea.

People don’t like bullies. They get angry when you take choices away from them. This is especially true in a case like Gillibrand’s. Let’s remember, she was never elected. She was selected by Gov. David Paterson. That’s fine. He had every right to do that. One can argue with his choice, which many people believe was made at the behest of Sen. Charles Schumer. I have written that Gillibrand’s selection as senator made Schumer the only senator with two votes. Others have likened her to a parakeet on Schumer’s hand. Gillibrand is a very ambitious politician and has every right to run. Her problem is that she is an upstater and the Democratic primary votes are in New York City and its suburbs. Polls show that Gillibrand could well be beaten in a primary, which is why the word came down from the White House, and probably through Schumer, that such a primary might be divisive.

Now things are unraveling. In the first place, the voters do not like being bullied. Even Schumer’s polling numbers are falling. In the second place, it looks like we are going to have a primary, White House or not. That’s because in order to fulfill his manifest destiny dream, Andrew Cuomo will have to fight it out with David Paterson in a gubernatorial primary. Paterson says that he is staying in and for the reasons enumerated above, I think that’s a good thing. Cuomo won’t like that because he risks alienating some African-American voters who will resent his running against the first black governor in New York history. The White House has told Paterson to get out. The question then is how they will square their earlier “no primary” request of those who could have easily beaten Gillibrand with their support of a primary that would pit Cuomo against the incumbent. In what looks like a big Republican year, things could be too close for comfort should Cuomo beat Paterson in the primary. So once the primary flood gates are opened it will be a call for other primary contests, including one by Harold Ford against Gillibrand.

Harold Ford will have his own problems in taking on Gillibrand. Yes, he is a conservative Democrat, which will surely help him in upstate New York. Yes, he has a lot of big New York money behind him and even though Gillibrand has been raising a lot of money for her own run, she’ll need a lot more to win. But once Ford announces that he is in, and it sure looks like that will be the case, other more progressive Democrats may well jump into the fray. One of the rules of primaries is that the people who come out to vote are the true believers in the party and in New York, the true believers are of the more liberal persuasion. Once a popular progressive gets into the race, Ford and Gillibrand, the two conservative Democrats who are changing their tunes to a more liberal rhetoric, will split the vote. This scenario would have to be very tempting to someone who had always dreamed of being a United States senator. You don’t get that choice too many times in your life.

Mario Cuomo once told me that the great politicians are those who can think about things six steps in the future. In this case, Obama and his political genius, Rahm Emanuel, clearly did not do that. The people may get very angry about their choices being taken away. They should.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 2/1/10

Unite to keep neighborhood streets clean

The Chartocks are fanatic about cleaning up any dog poop that Murray the Westie may deposit. We have little blue bags and peppermint bags and red bags and Murray, with his exacting standards, will not venture outside unless his walker is carrying the aforementioned bags. I have often noted that feces of any variety are not a good thing. We do not let humans poop on the street for good hygienic reasons and dog poop should be picked up and disposed of. This is always true but especially so when we are talking about dogs pooping in yards where children play in the snow.

A few years back when the situation got really bad, I took to posting signs around our property warning folks that not picking up after their dogs was a violation of Great Barrington ordinances and asking for their cooperation.

We do have TV cameras around the property and I would have had no choice but to let the police handle the matter if we found law breakers letting their dogs poop willy-nilly around the yard. The dog owners complied and the situation improved immediately.

Now one of my near neighbors is up in arms because a major perp has been leaving deposits on his property, even in his driveway where his very young children play. He wrote me, “I hope I am not overreacting but massive amounts of dog poop in the very snow banks where my kids play leave me completely enraged and I want to take decisive action.”

In a series of conversations, I suggested that we form a neighborhood watch to catch the evil-doers. We had some trouble coming up with the right name for our new group. I suggested Association for Dog Hygiene on the Hill (AFDHOTH.) My neighbor responded kindly, saying, “Not bad. I was actually contemplating People Offended by Ongoing Poop Perpetrators (POOPP).” I wrote back and told him that his idea was much better, probably because he paid more attention in English class.

As a citizen of the Berkshires, you should walk up to anyone you see with a dog and ask them if they have a bag. If they tell you to mind your own business, tell them that what they are doing is “un-American.”

On another matter, I have always thought that Barack Obama was smarter than I am. I still do. As demonstrated by his State of the Union address, he is a brilliant speaker. Clearly, he gathered up his political advisers and they looked at the polls. People didn’t like his Rube Goldberg, technical and complicated health care plan. The voting middle class were troubled by it. Most of them had health care and were pretty happy with it.

They were deeply suspicious that the program had been thrown together in order to get all those 46 million uninsured covered. I don’t think anyone really opposed the idea of covering the uninsured but many middle class folks and businesses thought that they would have to pay the bill. Many Americans were just unsure of what exactly the new plan would entail. In Massachusetts, Sen.-elect Scott Brown, a republican, and his advisers saw the same polls that Obama saw and went for it. That’s why Martha Coakley, the democrat seeking the seat, lost.

I said from day one that Obama should have gone for single-payer, Medicare-for-all system. After all, Medicare for those of us over 65 is a great program. Why not just expand it? But Obama thought that the Republicans could be persuaded to partner with him. He actually thought they would do what was right as opposed to what was political. He was wrong — they live the land of “no.” They will do anything to embarrass him and they shot down his plan. All his negotiations with the greedy insurance companies and drug companies and the American Medical Association came to naught. He ended up with egg all over his face, big time. Had he gone with Medicare-for-all in the first place, it would have been simple and reassuring to the middle class. It would have been easy to understand and his base of independent and middle class voters would have stayed intact.

Now he should let the whole thing simmer. Once the steam rebuilds he should do what he should have done in the first place. I still think he is smarter than I am but on this one, he was wrong.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 1/30/10

It’s a dangerous time to be a politician

Will someone please give me a break?  For years, I have been speaking of the “IPP” or “Incumbent Protection Plan.” Let’s face it — how hard is it to understand that when the people who serve on the New York state Legislature gets into office, they will take whatever actions are necessary to stay there? Will someone please tell me how these folks look themselves in the mirror every morning or pat their kids or grandchildren on the heads and tell them that they are elected to serve the people?

Look, I know many of these people and despite what I am writing here, I like them. They are fun, they are filled with ideas, and I would drink a club soda with them any time. My bet is that you would like them, too. In fact, all the polls tell us that while we hate the collective Legislature, we love our own guy who quite often looks, sounds and acts just like us. That, of course, leads to the question as to whether if one of us got elected to the Assembly or the Senate, we would behave exactly like these folks do. Of course we would. That’s why I would never run for office — I wouldn’t want to be one of them. The temptations are too great.

I have always said that if you hooked any of these people up to a lie detector and asked them, “Are you a good, honest, ethical person who is doing the people’s work,” they would answer, “Yes, I am good and I am doing the people’s work.”  Trust me — the machine would register a flat line. These people have to believe that they are good and fair. Otherwise they couldn’t sleep at night. But the truth is that the whole process has become a self-serving mess. The voters know it and these are very dangerous times for politicians.

Everywhere I go, people tell me that it is time to throw them out and start over. In nearby Massachusetts, a Republican who was given no chance ended up in the United States Senate. Unthinkable, but a good measure of what politicians must be worrying about at 3 in the morning.  I just read that Chuck Schumer is getting nervous as he watches his numbers fall.

People want to impose term limits on elected legislators in order to mitigate the self-serving nature of the Legislature. If our legislators were smart, they would hold their collective finger into the wind and sense the danger. They would institute whatever changes were necessary to make the election game fair. For example, they would disclose the names of every person who hired them in their outside jobs. This they refuse to do. Top leaders have told me that it is unfair, for example, to make a woman who hires a legislator for legal advice to disclose that she had gone to him seeking a divorce. Fine, make up your mind.  Are you a legislator or are you a lawyer? We all know that people go to legislators who are lawyers because they think that the legislator has influence over the judge, in the form of a pay raise or maybe even an election. Power goes to power.

“Well,” the legislators would say, “If you don’t want us accepting outside work, you have to give us a pay raise.” Not really. Many people would work hard and without conflicts for the nearly $100,000 salary when all the perks are added up.

Of course, the winds of change are roaring all around us and Governor David Paterson is onto them.  He knows what the people want, and he wants to give it to them. The Legislature passed a tepid series of rules reforms that just don’t go far enough. The bills are so lukewarm that there was only one negative vote in the whole Legislature. The message to Paterson was that they would override a gubernatorial veto. Well, I hope he does veto this piece of garbage. Let the Legislature override. Then the battle lines would be drawn. There would be our David with a slingshot and the legislative Goliath. The media would grab hold of the event.

If the Legislature does the right thing and passes a meaningful bill, they will forever be known as the group that put the “d” back in democracy. If they don’t, people will continue to hold them in contempt.

I want to see all politicians come forward, including the crusading Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who apparently wants to be governor. Let us know now whether you are with the people or the politicians. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and not in a muted voice, but loudly and clearly. The more David Paterson goes after the Legislature, the higher his poll numbers grow. They should. Let’s hope he inherits the wind.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 1/25/10

Taylors are selfless in their actions

By now, most of you know how I feel about James and Caroline (Kim) Taylor. They are pretty special. Again and again, these two have selflessly done their best to help those who have less. They are truly role models for the rest of us. They walk the walk.

Last week, Haiti experienced a giant earthquake that took the lives of about 200,000 human beings. The capital city, Port-au-Prince, was devastated. As the Taylors heard and read about the disaster, they became convinced that they had to do something to help those suffering. They decided to do a benefit concert for Haiti and match whatever was generated in ticket sales. Several rows of the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center were reserved for $1,000 subscribers. After that came seats at $200 and the seats in the upper balcony sold $100.

I was approached to see whether WAMC could simulcast the concert live and set up a phone bank to take donations for a Boston-based organization already on the ground in Haiti, Partners in Health. Calls were made and a committee was quickly put together to plan the event.

The cooperation among those who met in the Taylors’ barn that Sunday evening was extraordinary. People left their personal agendas at the door. When Kate Maguire of the Berkshire Theatre Festival heard about the WAMC simulcast, she said that she would gather a group of BTF volunteers to come answer the phones. The Berkshire Eaglevolunteered free publicity and their Clarence Fanto got cracking with his usual thorough coverage. The Taylors’ able personal assistant, Ellyn S. Kusmin, was six places at once, coordinating everything. Lenox’s Susan Olshuff chaired the meeting and set an agenda. Nancy Fitzpatrick was instrumental in helping to think it up and then make it work.

Since details had yet to be worked out, it was decided that information wouldn’t be released until Tuesday morning. We went with it on the radio starting at 7:32 a.m., and the Mahaiwe box office opened at 9, no early birds allowed. In under an hour, the concert sold out. James agreed to do a show the following night, the Mahaiwe was available, and with the exception of a few of the $1,000 tickets, the second show sold out as fast as you can say “piranha fish.” It was hardly a surprise. Every James Taylor concert around here is a sellout. Just look at Tanglewood.

The meeting began with just the people who were working on the project. Then Kim came in and about halfway through, James arrived. When James walks into a room, he brings with him a special kind of energy. He is incredibly smart, he knows himself, he knows how to organize things and he is a great decision-maker. It was a good thing that he was there, otherwise we might still be there hashing out the details.

The Taylors’ commitment to the Partners in Health (PIH), the organization that will get the money, is absolute. Their generosity in matching the Friday night ticket sales is unsurpassed. James has the ability to make each person he is working with feel very special and he brings out the best in all of us. When James and Kim are running things, people want to do their best. It is extraordinary what was accomplished in the span of six short days. It shows you what can be done when people are committed to a common vision.

Others got into the act, too. At the Friday night performance, the $1,000 donors had an opportunity meet James on the Mahaiwe stage, but only a hundred people were allowed up there. So on the second night, the always generous Michael Ballon offered up the Castle Street Café for the after-party. You could multiply that over and over again.

Every once in a while, you get lucky in life and get to meet some wonderful people. I’ve had my share but I have to tell you, Kim and James are right up there at the front of the parade.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 1/23/10

Will Democrats continue their suicidal downslide?

Let there be no mistake about it — New York’s Democrats have every reason to be shaking in their boots. The polls across the country are showing that voters are covering their bets. They took a chance on Barack Obama. Now they aren’t so sure. Obama won because of an energized base. People I knew who never participated in a campaign sat by their phones and made calls to lists of people provided by the DNC. People gave and gave to get rid of Bush and his cronies and his right wing philosophy. While all of this was happening, the economic condition of the state sank to new depths.

Decisions made by Obama and his brain trust clearly assume that the base that elected him would stay with him and that he needed to dig into the pile of voters in the middle and to the right of the middle. That may have been a crucial mistake. It turns out that the Republicans will do nothing, and I mean nothing, to help Obama. The Republican “voice machine” has raised the level of histrionics. The Limbaughs and the Becks have come close to inciting to violence. I’ve never seen anything like it. The last time we saw it was in 1994 when the Democrats were wiped out in what could be called a “realigning election.” The Congress went Republican. Governor Cuomo lost his election in New York to a political unknown named Pataki. “Senator Pothole,” Al D’Amato, was riding high.

It would appear that we are on the precipice of another 1994 type election. The State Senate will be in grave danger of going Republican. Some of the marginals who recently won their seats in places like upstate New York and Long Island must have taken a look at the elections in November and had a glass of wine to calm their nerves. If what we saw the last time happens again this November, there will be Democratic carnage.

If the state Senate does go Republican, they will be able to gerrymander the Senate in their own image in order to hold onto power. The current leaders of the Senate have been inept to the max. Instead of making the best and the brightest their leaders, they have relied on some characters who acted too late (and like fools) and still don’t seem to get it. They don’t understand that the winds of change have reached hurricane force and all they can do is put on a protective and prophylactic rain coat.

As for Obama, he should have emulated the political brilliance of the Bush people. Bush never made the mistake of his father George the First. George the younger played to his right wing base without exception. He didn’t flinch on appointing right wing judges or on abortion or stem cells. It was disgusting but it worked and his troops never deserted him. When he ran the second time they were there for him. Instead of learning from that, Team Obama looked the other way. They came up with such a convoluted health care reform plan that people don’t understand it and are afraid of it and the polls show it. Instead of practicing democracy and encouraging the very kind of primaries that allowed him to win his Senate seat and his Presidency, Obama essentially told New Yorkers “no primaries.” His political ally Chuck Schumer played the enforcer and even Schumer’s numbers are going down as a result.

Will the Democrats wake up and get back to their base or will they continue this suicidal downslide? Will they reform the banks and remember that elections will be won or lost by their middle class base? When they spend their time taxing people’s health benefits and allowing the country to slip further and further into debt, they will lose elections.

People bet on Obama to be the President of all the people but if he and the Rahm Emanuels that surround him continue to desert the liberal base and think they can continue to get away with it, Martha Coakley’s race in nearby Massachusetts will be just the beginning.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 1/19/10

Ruberto pays attention to neighbors

The nutty bloggers have gone completely insane over Pittsfield Mayor Jim Ruberto hiring former North Adams Mayor John Barrett III to consult for the city. They are spouting their usual whack-job conspiracy theories. For a reported $15,000, Pittsfield gets to tap into the knowledge of the former longest serving mayor in the Commonwealth. Ruberto wants to hire Barrett for a three-month period during which he can figure out how to improve Pittsfield’s neighborhood services. Barrett was known for getting out in North Adams neighborhoods with his service providers. He has a lot more to offer than some wet-behind-the-ears college professor who majored in urban planning and gets his ideas from a book.

It seems to me that Ruberto is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. To his credit, he recognized that the neighborhoods felt left out in Pittsfield’s efforts at revitalization. So Ruberto takes steps to tell the neighborhoods that he has heard them and is doing something about their complaints. Instead of saying, “Thanks, mayor, we appreciate that you are listening to us,” he gets dumped on. Why anyone would want to subject themselves to a city where people continually show disrespect to their elected officials is beyond me. Hey, back in the day when I was a selectman in tiny Alford, three years was more than enough for me. You couldn’t have paid me to do it again. It looks to me like Pittsfield is showing real signs of life. I like the town but it’s time for someone to come forward and thank Jim Ruberto for doing a thankless job.

On another front, let there be no mistake that the next election cycle will be a Republican one. The warning signs are all over the place. Americans have always liked to cover their bets. They took a big chance on Barack Obama who, by and large, is doing a good job. He’s made some mistakes — trying to micromanage New York State politics, denying people the right to a primary, and making what could have been simple, one-size-fits-all health care reform into a big mish-mosh that almost no one understands. The people will put on the brakes. Too bad. How soon we forget what a disaster George W. Bush was. He brought the country to its knees and fiscal ruin. He created the recession we’re in. He led us into at least one unwarranted war that has bankrupted the country.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts now has to decide whether the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, will be replaced by smart, intelligent, thoughtful Martha Coakley or Scott Brown who looks and smells like a more conservative Mitt Romney. Incredibly, at least one poll finds the election too close to call. It’s all going to come down to who can turn people out. Make no mistake about it — if the Democrats sit on their hands and the Republicans get their folks out to vote, the majority now enjoyed by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will be a thing of the past. Voting is the most important job a citizen has in a democracy. I certainly hope no one will wake up the day after the election feeling guilty about not showing up at the polls. Putting the Republicans back in the driver’s seat is just too scary to imagine.

A very curious thing happened recently in Great Barrington. The local branch of the Massachusetts Cultural Council seemed to be looking for a reason to deny the local community radio station a paltry $350. WBCR has done a terrific job of bringing people together and creating a sense of community. I hoped that the money was not being withheld because the station plays political material that you or I might take exception.

I hear this all the time at WAMC. Those on the left complain about Herb London’s right-wing commentaries and more conservative folks complain about Alternative Radio. At least one of the people on the local Cultural Council once called me up and gave me the business because we played programming from the BBC, one of the most respected news organizations in the world. Let’s all take a deep breath. Smart people can make up their own minds.

Now we are hearing that Hilda Banks Shapiro, the longest serving member of the committee with the greatest institutional memory, has been thrown off the committee because she’s served more than two terms. If anyone in our community is slated for sainthood, it is Hilda. Now the chair of the committee has resigned under a cloud surrounding the WBCR affair. The little radio station has had some of its grant reinstated. As Paul Rapp, the station’s president put it, “It was never about the money, it was all about fairness.”

Congratulations to WBCR. Trust me — there are things on this little radio station that I find unlistenable. Nevertheless, they had an idea and went with it. They made it work against all odds and that’s quite an accomplishment.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 1/16/10

Get Spitzer back in the game

I recently had a chance to speak with Eliot Spitzer, certainly one of the brightest men I know who, by his own admission, made a colossal personal mistake that took him out of the political game. Too bad for us. Considering the crop of dummies, semi-crooks, real crooks, slashers and unethical sheep-like zombies raising their hands on cue, Spitzer was an extraordinarily bright light. Unlike the others, he did not betray the public trust. He betrayed his family and is in the midst of fixing that. Half of the marriages in America fail because of situations like this. Ironically, Spitzer’s marriage is alive and well and apparently thriving. His wife loves him and his kids love him. He got caught. Even my own wife says that monogamy is overrated.

Under normal circumstances, I would not write this column and take the abuse that will inevitably come my way, but we are in real trouble in this state and in this country. We need great minds to help us through these very dark times. Yes, Spitzer got himself into a mess but I have always believed that every intolerable situation brings with it an opportunity. Spitzer told me he would not run for any political office although his name seems to come around more and more frequently. Someone ought to insist that he serve.

Most people think that if we do ethics reform or fiscal reform or trade reform, we can save ourselves. Spitzer sees the big picture. He understands that we are doomed unless we figure out a few things — we have to fix the greed of Wall Street; we have to change the unethical behavior of politicians who are milking the present system dry by enriching themselves first and the public last; we must understand international trade, the banking system and its greed, and the role of the Chinese who own this country.

Spitzer has the Horace Mann, Princeton, Harvard-trained mind that can put all the moving parts together. He can look at the macro and the micro and deal with the individual parts as well as the way in which they fit together. Ask yourself which contemporary politician can do that. Is it, for example, Kirsten Gillibrand or her major sponsor, Chuck Schumer?

Don’t be silly. Schumer is a brilliant mind and a brilliant political tactician. He is not, however, a long-term thinker. He knows how to get people elected and if you are a Democrat, you might have to thank him for that. It would appear that he may well turn out to be the Senate majority leader, one of the most powerful men in the country and in the world. Gillibrand is his “second vote” and everyone knows it. When I asked Eliot Spitzer about Gillibrand, he made it clear that her appointment was a major mistake. He faulted his hand-picked successor, David Paterson, for appointing her. Gillibrand is not a political heavyweight — far from it — and Spitzer said so. He used words that add up to “opportunist.” She would be much more effective if her thinking about public policy was commensurate with her ambition. He said that he wouldn’t have appointed Gillibrand. He thinks it was wrong of the White House, confronted by incredible problems, to start to dabble in state and local politics. Better Obama should listen to Spitzer and less to Rahm Emanuel.

Primaries are the centerpieces of American democracy. President Obama knows that he got his Senate seat that way. When the people vote they pick the strongest candidates. If the White House and the powerful senators like Schumer break the bones of anyone trying to run in a primary, they are perverting democracy. That starts to come down to what killed the political cat and so many other politicians — arrogance.

Spitzer knows it just like so many in our congressional delegation know it. There is no secret here. Many of them wanted to run and had their political bones broken to prevent them from running.

I don’t know who will put a fine mind like Spitzer back into the game but someone ought to. We need him a lot more than he needs us. Things are now going from bad to worse and someone ought to put the coffee back on the stove so that we can smell it.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 1/11/10

The full hour with Spitzer

By now, you’ve probably heard that former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had some harsh words for both the White House and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in an interview with me Friday.

Tuesday at 1 p.m., WAMC will air the full interview, in which Spitzer touches on life after office, the recession, Joe Bruno’s conviction, and many other topics.

I hope you’ll join us for this rare and extended sit-down.

Terrorists have citizens wondering

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never liked flying. Like my second cousin, Erica, I have a fear of it. I know all the statistics say that it’s more dangerous to get behind the wheel of a car, but I am scared to death to get on an airplane. Unlike my partner, the lovely Roselle, I don’t really like to travel. Now I have reason to hate flying more than ever.

Let’s face it: Had the Nigerian lunatic had his way, 300 bodies might have been scattered all over the landscape. Only divine intervention saved the people on that airplane. By now we all know that somehow, a young Nigerian was able to smuggle some explosives onto the plane but then messed up, probably out of nervousness, and was unable to detonate his improvised underwear bomb. Thank heavens for the alert passenger who jumped the guy.

However, let’s face it: He could have just as easily have succeeded in blowing himself up. When Homeland Security Czar Janet Napolitano announced that the system was working, she put President Barack Obama in a terrible position. In fact, she did so much damage to the Obama presidency that he had to publicly rebuke our security apparatus for not getting it right. My bet is that Napolitano will end up paying with her job.

Despite the failure of this particular attempt, the terrorists won a round. By putting this country into such a tizzy, they registered the fact that they were a real force and that sooner or later, they would succeed.

I keep thinking about the second Nigerian — the guy who went into the restroom and wouldn’t come out. It turns out that he was not a terrorist, but I’m sure you thought what I thought. What if the first Nigerian had gone into the lavatory, closed the door, and refused to come out? What if he had set his device off in the privacy of the restroom? How do we get around that one? Do we invade people’s ultimate privacy — in the toilet? Do we put cameras in the bathrooms and have people observe the process?

You say, “Oh, come on.” But seriously, now that people know that they can go into the toilet and set off a device, how will we deal with that possibility? Obviously, civil libertarians aren’t happy with the current security climate and the resultant long lines and invasion of privacy that we are experiencing at airports. They don’t like the idea of profiling, putting some nationalities on a list for extra scrutiny. Some people don’t want other people’s hands on their buttocks. But let me tell you one thing about the American public: We are a tolerant and forgiving group, but when it comes to our personal safety and that of our families, we are uncompromising.

Imagine if your kid was on a plane blown up by terrorists. We have to do whatever we can to make planes and airports safe. Are there any guarantees? Probably not. Someone is always trying to invent a better mousetrap.

When interviewed by the press, most members of the flying public say that they will happily put up with inconveniently long lines and full body scans if doing so meant they would be better protected. Some people are horrified that if they are wearing the latest in adult Pampers, an airport employee might snicker or some idiot might make some comment about the physical attributes of the people going through the line.

On the other hand, why should anyone really care? Do you care about your doctor seeing you? A colleague of mine suggested that some of the TSA people might be tempted to use some of these scans in child porn sites. Hey, there will always be idiots and criminals. There already are: Recently, my laptop disappeared, probably at the hands of the very upright citizens who will now be viewing our underwear.

In the end, it always comes down to choices. Civil liberties or safety? There will be people who say that it’s all about the averages and dismiss all of this as hype. When the federal government’s prestigious committee on mammography suggested that it wasn’t economically worth it to screen young women, there was a huge hue and cry. Everyone knows someone who developed breast cancer in their 30s or 40s. Statistically, the committee may have been right but if you were a young woman with breast cancer, you would be much more than a statistic.

You can put me down squarely in the group that says, “Whatever it takes.”

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 1/10/10