The special election congressional race for New York’s 23rd District has gathered a lot of attention; with the liberal Republican (a New England stereotype) withdrawing in the face of a widely-supported Conservative candidate.
I have no dog in this fight; I don’t live there and can’t speak to the qualities of the candidates (Iowahawk made his judgement based on wheel wells and secondarily, ideology). I have a mild predisposition to seeing Democrats win, but that has been badly eroded over the last decade.
So why am I writing about this, you ask?
Because a local editorial encapsulated what has me so furious at our political classes that I do think we simply need to turn our statehouses over and shake them very hard.
Here’s quote, from the editorial in the ‘Watertown Daily Times‘:
The Democratic candidate has demonstrated a willingness to listen to people about ways in which he could help the district as their representative in Washington. Mr. Owens has remained focused on the economy and job creation throughout his campaign. At the same time, he has shown an understanding of the military, a keen desire to help dairy farmers, an ability to work with labor unions and an eagerness to learn more about the vast, 11-county district that he hopes to represent.
Mr. Owens seems to approach politics and challenges with an open mind, a generous spirit and a can-do attitude. He has conducted a dignified campaign in comparison to Doug Hoffman.
Mr. Hoffman is running as an ideologue. If he carries out his pledges on earmarks, taxation, labor law reform and other inflexible positions, Northern New York will suffer. This rural district depends on the federal government for an investment in Fort Drum and its soldiers, environmental protection of our international waterway and the Adirondack Park, and the livelihood of all our dairy farmers across the district, among other support. Our representative cannot be locked into rigid promises and policies that would jeopardize these critical sectors of our economy.
For a member of Congress, there may be a time to promote reform in Washington, but there is also a time to work within a system that best serves the people you represent.
(emphasis added)
As I read this, in other words – “yeah, there are fatal problems with the overall system, but as long as we get ours, we’re OK with that.“
And if that doesn’t make you feel like hoisting the jolly roger and sharpening your cutlass, I’m not sure what will.
At the Press Club event where I felt I was too harsh on the LA Times guy, what I said was:
“Are you really saying that the LA Times offers quality journalism? Really? I don’t agree, and have evidence. Because if the LA Times was a good newspaper over the last 20 years, how is it – exactly – that they were so silent as Los Angeles and California managed to become so f***ed up?“
The attitude it the Watertown Daily Times? – that’s exactly how.
If we’re going to get out of this, we need to kick that attitude to the curb, and quickly.
–
…policies that would jeopardize these critical sectors of our economy.
The paper makes it sound as if there were no parts of the local economy independent of government largesse. It seems to me that an economy totally in thrall to government monies has got more problems than a representative who doesn’t suck up to the party currently in power.
Why is our system designed so that districts elect representatives to the House, and states elect representatives to the Senate? Obviously, it is to make sure that “we get ours”. I can’t think of any other reason.
What you call a problem is actually a fundamental, intended feature of the system. The alternative would be a massive constitutional change where there would be no local representation to the federal government. Do you support this?
It’s been reported that candidate Hoffman isn’t so much taking a principled view against pork, but that he has no knowledge of the impact of pork on the district he hopes to represent, nor other issues of local importance. Given that, I tend to conclude that Hoffman is just another government-member wannabe running on the we-hate-government platform. Such candidates are usually pretty non-specific about how they plan to get rid of government, since the electorate likes Medicare and Social Security and fire fighters. They trade on an idea that the problem with government is that it helps the wrong people, say, urban people of color.
One of several crazy ideas I have is a national no-confidence vote for the entire Congress. If it passes, the entire Congress should be dumped and can’t run again for at least ten years. (And if they do win later, the seniority clock starts at zero for committee positions)
The only way to get past the Age of Pork is to expose Congress as an institution to the potential wrath of voters outside their districts. If this means that babies get tossed with the bathwater, so be it, but the ancient rule of democracy is that turnover is good, entrenchment is bad.
The really sad thing is that in places like upstate New York, taxes are so high that only pork like military bases maintains a local economy. Nobody in their right mind would start a business there or do anything actually productive. If we do the above changes, lots of places will have to reform or die.
I haven’t been following the NY-23 election that closely, either (since, like you, I don’t live there) but the very article following this on in my RSS feed told me that the Republican who bowed out of the competition… turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate.
Now, I have a friend that I’ll occasionally argue politics with. But only occasionally, as he more or less hates everyone (as far as I can tell) and one of his favorite claims is that we don’t actually have two parties, we have one with two faces, but essentially they’re the same. In this, I think he’s an idiot, because it takes me no more than a moments’ thought to come up with a good half a dozen deep political divides between the parties.
But I’m dreading talking to him next week, because it’s going to be hard to argue against him, this time around.
… that it helps the wrong people, say, urban people of color.
You betcha, racists, every last one. Snicker.
bq. AJL: ….They trade on an idea that the problem with government is that it helps the wrong people, say, urban people of color.
Nice smear, guess we know the party line on Hoffman now. Got any evidence that he’s a racist, since you’re tossing down that card.
I think the better answer for LTEC is federalism. The original system divided responsibilities so that there was much less scope for “pork”, i.e. federal intrusion on local matters. It is the massive growth and intrusiveness of the federal government that’s making this a problem.
I haven’t followed Hoffman’s personal statements, so I can’t say he personally is a racist. I have no problem, however, with identifying his “Conservative” movement that pines for a halcyon yesteryear that was white, Christian, rural, and heterosexual. In their own words!
Pat Buchanan endorses the message Hoffman is sending the GOP, lauding his supporters for voting their principles instead of their party. That would be the Pat Buchanan who explained
Sarah Palin was one of the first Republicans to endorse Hoffman, which, when you think about it, is like Joe Lieberman campaigning for the Green Party instead of the GOP. Palin expounded the same vision as Buchanan.
Of course, in the Real World, something like 20 percent of America lives in small towns, wonderful or otherwise. And I don’t have to tell you what the overwhelmingly preponderant race of her audience when she gave that speech in North Carolina, do I? And yet, Obama won North Carolina—maybe someone’s expensive designer glasses need new lenses?
That wasn’t the only time Palin gave us an idea of what Conservative/GOP America should be. She also told us “Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.” Hunh? Its economy is unique, its demographics utterly atypical, its largest city is nicknamed “Los Anchorage” and thought a little inauthentic by the rest of the state, and like most of those states that purport to worship self-reliance, it takes from the Federal Government far more than it contributes.
Hoffman plays well by these rules: he was all for earmarks before he was against them. His problem with government starts when it gets out of the right[!] hands.
It isn’t just Frank Rich who understands what the Hoffman movement is about. It’s Charles Johnson and the crew at Balloon Juice.
Andrew – does someone have to cherrypick comments from Rev Sharpton, Jennings Coleman, etc. etc. as a counterpoint??
Race is a damn complex issue – in America and worldwide – no lie. But to boil down a complex set of attitudes toward the role of government into “white racists” vs. “everyone else” is hardly fair or useful.
Marc
Sarah Palin and Pat Buchanan
You sure have your bigotries set up in approved fashion. Palin and Buchanan have very little in common, conflating them is just a rhetorical trick to tar one with the other. A dishonest trick at that but consistent with the “they’re all racists” tack. I don’t think this particular line of political hackery is going to fly with the electorate.
So wait a moment. Just a moment, please.
It’s obvious that Hoffman hasn’t come up through the local party apparatus. You say “hey, these are important issues that affect his district”, but in the final analysis, there are a lot more important issues that affect a candidate’s district than that candidate is going to have time to have reviewed.
I mean, I’ve lived in Texas all my life, I’ve got a degree in political science, I’ve an active interest in politics, and not incidentally am a friggin’ genius, but if you came at me cold with a question like “what do you think about the current composition of the Texas Railway Commission?” my response would be “say what now?”
If the only way a candidate can possibly be qualified is to have received their party’s briefing and staff analysis on every possible government question affecting their area, then you might as well throw out the vote and go with life tenure – after all, any replacement candidate would inevitably be less well-informed and well-connected about local projects, right?
As far as Lazarus, to hell with you. You happily imply that his politics are motivated by (ahem) racism, but when challenged you fall back to quoting Buchanan (who, it can be stated, ain’t driving GOP candidates out of any race at all) and Palin, saying “we like small towns”, because doubtless that small town was filled with hate-filled religious anti-gay bigots… You’re even pressing the argument when you get called on it!
Lots of people have been going out to protest because government, of all stripes, has more or less abandoned the idea that what it spends should have some sort of relationship to what it takes in, and you say it’s “not even minimally coherent” about economics or government? So of course it MUST BE RACISM? Gaaah.
Never mind. I’m done with you, and I rather hope our host is as well. It’s okay to be on the wrong side of an issue, but this sort of garbage is unconscionable.
It’s not saying anything serious—or even minimally coherent—about economics or theory of government
Oooh, calling in the big guns, economics and theory of government. Not just government, mind you, but *theory* of government. Like it was string theory of something. I sense that you possess a massive intellect far beyond the ken of us lesser folk.
I wonder how the electorate could begin to tip the balance of their elected (or purchased) representatives from unenlightened self interest to enlightened self-interest…. since there is no way of avoiding the self-interest in the current situation.
Obviously, the backbone of a locally elected representative system such as ours is the idea that “bringing home the bacon” is a good thing…
but insofar as recalling legislators is a difficult and rare occurrence, there is obviously room for those legislators to exercise good judgement in supporting legislation for the greater good, even to the detriment of their own districts.
The cost of campaigning, both in time and money seems to me to be one of the prime(ish) movers in driving legislators into the arms of lobbyists – moneyed commercial interests, frequently outside a legislators district buy themselves the support they need to pursue their financial success.
Ironic that the high cost of media buys is what ends up disenfranchising the voters who absorb what they know about the candidates from those commercials, being far from willing to educate themselves as to the issues or the candidates with any sense of thoroughness…. more effort spent on voting for American Idol than American Government
This race is a perfect case study of our political system, regardless of what you think of Hoffman, and this article showcases why.
We have a political class in this country, and far beyond ideology, the most important thing these people defend is themselves and their prerogatives.
_Of course_ both parties have rushed to shore up the status quo. Of course the media hurries to apply the mortar to the cracks, they have a dog in this hunt as well.
And of course the ultimate irony of Scozzafava backing the democrat perfects the example. The powerful must protect the powerful, and Scozzafava knows there will be a nice golden parachute for her.
Sarah Palin is the most recent VP candidate of the Republican Party and a front-runner for the 2012 nomination. I don’t see how you can say she is the “fringe” of the Republican Party. She’s where the Republican Party is at now, unfortunately.
Nor is Hoffman some Mr Smith Goes to Washington. He’s endorsed by Palin; he showed up for his local newspaper interview accompanied by Dick Armey, former House Majority [GOP] leader. (I don’t believe the Democrat in the race has any previous elected experience either—so in that sense he is just as much a newcomer. Until the GOP split, the seat was considered almost hopeless for the Democrats.) The idea that the Hoffman candidacy is something pure is simple projection. The Hoffman candidacy is the “moderate” local Republican apparatus losing out to the National Tea Party rump Republican activists, which, for a start, has a good chance of costing them a safe seat in Congress. (While it’s possible that Scozzafava is endorsing Owens as a fellow member of the two-party system, isn’t it also possible that she finds the ignorant, socially-far-right Hoffman abhorrent? The New York Conservative Party isn’t going national: this is a struggle within the GOP no matter how the factions are labeled.) Has the Hoffman campaign explained, say, what the economy would look like now without the government stimulus package, or are they terrorizing their base with fear of ACORN? (Hint: look at Hoffman’s comments on the Scozzafava withdrawal: ACORN, abortion, nothing on the Bush Administration’s TARP package.) Of course, reference to ACORN, which I am sure has no one working in Upstate New York, has nothing to do with the race of the people you see working for it.
Although as I said, there’s more than literal racism here: these people feel alienated. The far-right, however, isn’t offering legislation to break up banks so they can’t grow too big to fail; they are offering up another serving of the paranoid strain of the American right.
Since AJL hasn’t put forward any evidence that Hoffman is actually a racist, only thin attempts at what he believes to be guilt by association, I think we can take the ‘raaaaacist’ point as conceded.
He is instructive in this: Like the MSM, the left is doing anything it can to make the NY-23 story be about the socially conservative right, rather than any sort of anti-big spending, big government and anti-corruption ground swell. Good luck with that.
I’m curious as to how many people actually vote for candidates based on the bacon they bring home.
I mean- sure, thats the party(s) line, but I don’t think I know a single person that is so directly affected by pork that they would actually vote based on that factor. Certainly not at the expense of party affiliation, which is so polarizing these days.
Is it possible that this pork issue is a smokescreen, or a cipher that _really_ means campaign contributions from the entities in question?
Maybe my experience is just naive or sheltered. Can anybody else shed light on this? Are there really material numbers of voters out there chafing about the funding for Fort Porkulus or the Harry Reid Airport/Museum/Library of graft?
The bacon is the system.
The difference between a thief and a socialist is that the thief doesn’t pretend to be morally superior to the people he robs.
_”The bacon is the system.”_
Yup. And much like anything that isn’t actively conservative will trend liberal over time- any system that isn’t actively replacing the players on a regular basis will trend towards oligarchy and corporatism.
As funny (gallows humor anyway) as it is to see conservatives corrupted into big government spenders over time in Washington, you will also see fire breathing progressives turn into special interest/corporate sluts in the same way. Witness the latest financial crisis, all the corruption allegations involved, and the bailouts etc.
For a party that ostensibly distrusts Big Corporate, the Dems sure have gone into lockstep to protect and nurture the ‘too big to fail’ partners. That ‘free market’ republicans jump to join them is just absurd.
At what point do we realize that we have a bipartisan kleptocracy of the worst kind- the kind that honestly believes what they are doing is for the best for their constituents?
I live in the 23rd. As a matter of fact I had a few occasions where my job put me in Scozzafava’s office while she was the mayor of Gouverneur. Through that job I interacted with people from small businesses, schools, doctors, and local government on a regular basis. Most the people I dealt with were generally quite personable. Sitting down and having a non-business conversation every so often with most of them was the rule rather then the exception. Dede was one of the few exceptions. The Watertown Times just happened to be one of my clients. Dim witted comes to mind when I think of the big wigs at the Times that I had to deal with. Watertown is a rather strange place.
Until the expansion of Fort Drum it was a very tight old boys network. Tribal mentality if you will. Fort Drum is really it’s own city. The solders don’t share much in common with the surrounding community so there is little socializing between the two. Outside of the base there isn’t much of a minority population.
The government jobs in the county I live in constitutes about 30% of the jobs not including education which is almost another 10%. The county next to where I live is worse. It is 50% not including education. Prisons are abundant here. Although conservative relative to the rest of the state I would not call the area conservative.
#1
Chuck,
You are correct. In my county 30% of the jobs are government constitute 36% of the income. Education is worse. 10% of the jobs and 22% of the income.
#4
Andrew,
There are for all intents and purpose no “urban people of color” here. The “idea that the problem with government is that it helps the wrong people” is obvious in the small towns that make up the area. It totally disguists my daughter that so many of her classmates got pregnant because babies are cute and the government will support you. Many of them on second or third babies with as many fathers. It’s amazing what you learn if you listen to your kids.
#5
Foobarista,
Being on the Canadian border we have a significant number of Canadian companies that set up branches on this side of the border. Tax incentives included.
#11
Andrew,
You don’t have a clue. Your just making it up now.
#13
Marc,
Race is a complex issue. Back in the late 80’s I had one client that was an unapologetic racist. I bought my house through a real estate salesman who happened to be his son in law. He also happened to be the only black man in town. The unapologetic racist got over it and grew to like his son in law.
OK, Marc, let’s concentrate on the interview. You seem to have a picture of Mr. Hoffman as the Knight Errant launching his quixotic but noble campaign against Pork. I don’t think quite see that. Fort Drum is the largest employer in the district. (That’s probably true of any CD with a major military installation, so unless we are going to abolish the military, we’re going to have at least some places largely dependent on Federal spending.) Should Fort Drum show up on the next base closure list? I have no idea. But I do know if it’s closed, I’d rather have a Congressman who would fight to get some transition compensation than an ideologue who would march off to see if there was some smaller government employer, say, a park or two, that he could get closed as a follow-on.
But Hoffman didn’t go to his newspaper interview as a knight, he went as an ignoramus. At least as the paper reports it, he didn’t expound policy they disagreed with, instead he didn’t know and didn’t care about the local issues. Not surprising, I guess, since Hoffman doesn’t even live in the district. His interview bodyguard was Dick Armey of Texas. His statement on the Scozzafava withdrawal mentioned Pelosi and ACORN, not closing Fort Drum. His vague objection to “big spending” is more of the incoherent “government hands off my Medicare” confusion I mentioned above. His web site objects to bailouts and deficits, but I didn’t notice his saying how we was going to close the deficit. He seems obsessed with calling his opponent a “Nancy Pelosi Democrat”. Pelosi isn’t a particular champion of pork—don’t you think it’s more likely he wants to remind people the Democrats chose a Speaker who was female and from a gay-friendly city?
So, in the flesh, Mr Hoffman is not a “reform” candidate. He is a social reactionary whose economic plans are, AFAICT, the Club for Growth (major sponsor) program to drown government in the bathtub. Whatever romanticized version you make of his candidacy in the abstract—so what?
Is it possible, to turn to your other question, to be a liberal and support reform? Welfare reform came from Bill Clinton. Probably a Nixon Goes to China, because welfare reform from Republicans probably consists of rebuilding Dickensian poorhouses. Where was the opposition to the disgraceful Medicare-D Big Pharma gift? From the liberals. Liberals are, I think, as interested in structure as conservatives, and if we need structural changes to restrain earmarking, then I think liberals will be on board. Of course, when you compare pork in Alaska The Facts to pork in Alaska the Movie, you will discover that the Palin-Beck-Hoffman (you saw, I suppose, that Hoffman called Beck a ‘mentor’ today?) axis is just fabricating a campaign issue, right?
AJL:
Okay, I get it – if you say “Nancy Pelosi”, you hate women and gay people.
But earlier you said that “pork” means “I hate urban people of color” … are you calling Nancy Pelosi a racist?
Funny thing. The fact that Hoffman lives 8 or 10 miles outside the district has not been an issue here. The focus on Fort Drum is rather ignorant. It is a 3 hour drive from Watertown to Plattsburgh. Outside of Jefferson County nobody cares or is affected by Fort Drum. The district is so large and diverse that ignorance of “local issues” is the norm as any honest candidate would admit. As an aside, Plattsburgh had an Air Force base that was closed. As it turned out, the “dependency” of Plattsburgh’s economy on the Air Force base was way over stated.
Armed Liberal:
By the standard Andrew J. Lazarus sets up in #4, that is a racist statement. It trades on “an idea that the problem with government is that it helps the wrong people, say, urban people of color.”
You’re also “pretty non-specific” in how you plan to abolish government. (As non-specific as Hoffman is, which seems more than coincidental.)
And your persistent failure to denounce the suspected racist Herr Hoffman, and to name additional names – specific names, such as Sarah Palin – speaks for itself.
If further corroboration was necessary – and it isn’t – quotes just like those that led to the exposure of the racist Rush Limbaugh can be discovered on WikiQuote any time it should prove necessary.
You didn’t anticipate how easy it would be to catch out your kind in the new, post-racial age, did you, “Armed Liberal”? Or should I call you … Von Danziger!
AL:
Then I don’t know whether this will please or erode you, but the Dems might save the NJ governorship, thanks to things like this: “Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett calls.”:http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/34725/democrats-admit-paying-pro-daggett-call-obama-records-robocall-corzine
Meanwhile, in Virginia, “the White House is blaming Deeds”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204708.html for not seeking more “help” from Barack Obama, which he could not do because Virginia is racist.
I submit that the first problem with the system is not the pork, but the bad philosophy and the downright naked corruption.
The real question will be whether Dems get enough military absentee votes tossed out to eek out their races.
Marc, I think it’s clear from the name that Representatives are and always have been expected to represent the issues of their district. Note, it isn’t only the military base. The newspaper mentions environmental protection—which will mean something different in New York and Texas. Sure, this parochialism has paradoxical results, but the worst probably aren’t the earmarks that get so much attention. Think about the anti-terrorism funding formula that gives more to Idaho than New York City. We live, though, in a federal system, and I can’t imagine that replacing what we have now with some sort of top-down decree will be less inherently corrupt. Speaking of which, I do agree with the Wishard’s statement that bad philosophy and outright corruption (Don Young, Murtha) are worse than pork per se. His analysis of “Nancy Pelosi Democrat” leaves something to be desired, though.
AL,
What’s to forgive? It just sounds like you’ve got a functioning BS detector. 🙂
AL,
SO I guess all your detractors here have never heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma perhaps?
_”Your complaint here is that a local newspaper is advocating a local “representative” who it believes will best serve local interests.”_
If every representative was equally motivated and capable of bringing home the bacon, there would be little reason to have a national government in the first place. This system is lunatic- send most of our public money to Washington and then whoever, by seniority, raw power, bribery, or luck is in position to snatch away the choicest hunks wins… quite aside from who actually needs it or could use it efficiently to the betterment of all.
I’d say yeh, anybody who continues to prop up (much less cheer for) that system is deserving of complaint.
I don’t want to ever again hear how we desperately need more money for X,Y, or Z but the greedy heartless oppose it, while meanwhile the apparent priority is a new parking lot for Fort Drum.
My complaint isn’t that they are defending local interests; it’s that the definition of local interests has been cheapened to “how much can we get from the Feds” in both cash, favorable regulation, and rents.
I’ll post something to try and explain…
Marc
_”Except, of course, for the other half of the legislative branch, the judiciary and the executive, which happens to include, among other things, the military, the treasury and co-ordination of foreign affairs and policy.”_
Are you suggesting we limit our federal government to these arenas? I’m in. Sounds suspiciously like the the actual constitution itself.
_”The betterment of all? Heavens, Mark, you’re sounding outright socialist all of a sudden.”_
You’ll excuse me if, having chosen to take half my paycheck without my consent, I insist the money is used in some way that actually does something besides providing a make-work job for somebody else with better benefits and pension (unfunded of course).
_”If our elected representatives don’t decide how to divide up the pie, then who does?”_
Nobody? Why should we assume our elected idiots are any wiser dividing up the pie than the rest of us? My only argument is that if i’m stuck with it, I’d at least like to see the _illusion_ that my hard earned dollars are going to alleviate someone else’s suffering, or educate someone, or cure a disease. As opposed to just ‘spreading the money around’ as a general principle (and of course making sure the spreaders get to wet their beaks).
_”In any case, I wasn’t making an argument in support of the system so much as expressing surprise at the expectation that a local newspaper wouldn’t support local, parochial interests.”_
It depends, is there logic in fighting over the steering wheel when the care is careening towards a cliff? Your final destination is pretty immaterial if the current tract has you going Thelma and Louise. We’ve got literally untenable deficits and unfunded liabilities- it seems LUNATIC to me to fight over the crumbs.
_”It’s like expecting Cliff Lee’s agent to argue for a salary cap._”
If the league was due to go bankrupt in the next 6 months he might.
You know- this is the point, we’ve got this political class full of dopes playing games with the future of this nation. We’ve been warned for _years_ that our demographic bomb was going to go off and that we had no prospects for paying for it without massive changes to government and entitlement layouts.
And now the bill is coming due and all the rats can do is scurry around and try to get every last piece of cheese out there before the hole thing collapses. And the level of scurrying is what’s considered laudable.
We’ve got a R party that had a great chance to reign in spending and start working on entitlements and instead did the opposite, increases both. Then we had a D party that screamed bloody murder about spending, until they get elected and QUADRUPLE it… BEFORE they even get their ginormous entitlement addon, which they have the balls to smoke and mirror and claim wont cost us a penny. We all know, every one of us, that its going to cost trillions.
And we’re worried we might not get that half million dollar parking lot? What the hell is wrong with us?
_”Medicaid, TANF, Food Stamps, are all meant to alleviate someone else’s suffering.”_
And we all know what the road to hell is lined with.
_”And education? Yes, we spend an enormous amount on education.”_
Indeed we do. It almost seems the more we spend the less we accomplish.
_”Earmarks, on the other hand, account for an almost invisibly small percentage of the national budget. Less than 1% as I understand it.”_
That is true- my point is if we are at a place where brazen billions are just tossed out without even pretending there is a good cause- we will never get to a place where we can examine the programs above and decide if we are actually accomplishing anything with them or if we are just throwing money at people to have jobs pushing paper. Is the Dept of Education really any different than the Dept of Building Buildings named after Robert Byrd? Or do we just imagine it to be, because of the _intention._ Intentions don’t impress me, results do. Do these departments actually do what they claim they do, or do they just employ civil workers and provide opportunities for junkets?
But that’s besides the point- until we cut out the flat out pork we can certainly never hope to attack the waste in areas that have popular sounding names like education or agriculture.
And there is waste! We in Illinois, for instance, are spending 40% more in real dollars than we were in 2001. 40%! And we can’t trim a dollar, because they are all crucial somehow. But ask every Illinois resident if they feel 40% better off, or ANY better off and see what they say. The same applies even moreso to the federal level. Our discretionary spending has exploded, and every year, no matter the circumstances, no matter if inflation even exists that year, it automatically (extra add ons aside) goes up. Does anybody feel like they are getting their money’s worth? Does anybody even ask? Spending other people’s money is not compassion, its easy. Doing the hard work of spending money efficiently and effectively is.
And btw- that trillion dollars in pork we spent earlier this year wasn’t chicken feed. Buying chicken feed might actually have been a better idea and created some actual jobs.
Mark B.,
First you ask for just an illusion, then you just want to settle for pretending and now you want results? Wow. Give you an inch….
The problem, I think, is– and I’m serious here (briefly) — that in a democracy of 300 million, it’s hard to find agreement on what is waste, what is efficient, what we should spend money on and what we shouldn’t. In a democracy we will always end up with a compromise that pleases neither me nor you. But you and I will never agree on the fundamentals because we think so differently. You make it sound as if it’s so obvious what we should do. But clearly, it isn’t that obvious.
I think everyone would agree that spending money more efficiently and effectively is the way to go. But we don’t agree on what qualifies as efficient and effective. (I, e.g., believe we have wasted billions of dollars in stupid foreign adventures.) And no one wants to hand the keys of government to efficiency management bureaucrats.
Democracy will always be messy. Believe, I don’t like my hard-earned dollars being used in Iraq any more than you like yours being used in education. But there it is. We get outvoted.
_”First you ask for just an illusion, then you just want to settle for pretending and now you want results? Wow. Give you an inch….”_
Like I said, baby steps. One hypocrisy at a time.
_”it’s hard to find agreement on what is waste, what is efficient, what we should spend money on and what we shouldn’t.”_
Two separate issues, of course. I think our current government is so gigantically and hugely expensive AND ineffectual that there is a jungle of low hanging fruit. How much overlap is there? Tons. I would take 300 names out of the national phone book and red pens and I guarantee you could could the discretionary budget in half, no sweat.
_”But clearly, it isn’t that obvious.”_
I disagree. We have a political class tied into the corporate elite and the bureaucracy that have been inflating their perks and purview at everybodys’ expense. They have brilliantly use party warfare to keep the people so involved in making sure the other guy doesn’t get to do the screwing over. But if you REALLY look at what these government departments and programs do and accomplish, the vast majority of the people would be appalled at the shear waste. It has almost nothing to do with actually helping the people they intend to help in most cases. Otherwise- exlain to me agricultural subsidies. Do you really think even 20% of Americans would vote to fund them? Yet here we are with tens and hundreds of billions spent on giving senseless subsidies to huge farming corporations.
_”But we don’t agree on what qualifies as efficient and effective.”_
Largely because the government has made SURE that nobody is allowed to test or apply metrics to their systems. That could change. Prove this billion dollars will improve these kids test scores or you don’t get that money again. Plus youre fired. MOST Americans believe in that (by far). Only the tiny minority that benefits from it and the politicians in their pockets disagree.
Andrew J Lazarus has nothing of interest, importance, or intelligence to add to this discussion. He’s utterly ignorant of the political dynamics on the ground, but makes up for it with aggressive hatefulness.
NY-23 raises some interesting issues, but not many, and never would have. Neither of the non-Democrat candidates came through a primary – one was appointed by state party bigwigs who did their homework poorly, one ran on another party’s banner. From the get-go, that split created a dynamic where the Democrat had a chance to win a solid Republican seat. But ti was still a solid GOP seat, so all the right-wing’s hoo-hah about a Hoffman win as some kind of a huge, seismic signal was b.s.
The main factor in NY-23 wasn’t ideological at all. It was that S. was a TERRIBLE candidate. Aside from the card check support and Daily Kos endorsements, the party bigwigs picked someone who called the police on a reporter for asking tough questions, and was apparently talking with the Democrats about switching parties before being nominated. The first flaw indicates someone way out of her league; the second should get you put in the political equivalent of cement shoes. And now it has; she backed the Democrat, thus turning the local GOP from “unenthused” to “enthused enemies”. But her new party won’t trust her (and hence won’t really reward her) either, and knows her weakness as a candidate.
There are ways to switch parties and maintain both integrity and relationships, but she obviously doesn’t know them. After this, S. may have trouble holding on to her local political job, never mind future dreams of more.
Hoffman was given a huge opening by her failings, but he was also a problematic candidate. Not so much because of his positions, which resonate well in a solidly Republican district. He was problematic because unlike S., he lacked a local base and local issue knowledge. The old saying that “all politics is local” still has relevance. And the split dynamic made his job very hard. National endorsements can add pressure S. to withdraw, but they can’t fully make up that lack of local base. At best, you win despite the handicap.
There are lessons here, but none are remotely related to any of AJL’s bilge. They’re all pretty “standard politics” lessons too, not so much ideological.
* All politics may be local, but some politics is national, and more of it will become so.
Hoffman’s rise suggests that the role of national issues in politics is currently growing, the Watertown editorial aside. That’s what vaulted Hoffman into his position. On the left, the Daily Kos types are raising large sums to defeat Democrats who aren’t supporting OHealth. Bottom line? A divisive set of programs, shoved into a divided electorate = more national issue prominence. Expect more of this. Which means that partisanship is going to harden, and all that “post-partisan” nonsense is going to be seen for the logical impossibility of a lie that it always was.
* The GOP’s party infrastructure in NY State is in bad shape.
I can understand why S. might look like a potential candidate, at first. A Party that can’t vet people like that out, however, is either weak and poorly run, or desperate. In this district, the GOP was not desperate.
* Serious reform is going to have to start at the party level, and involve personnel changes. Which is nearly always true in a democracy, and even more true in the American 2-party system.
For the GOP, the question in NY is what happens to the people who got involved in NY-23 after the election, and how the whole experience ends up affecting the party. That will be the real story of this race. I’d be deeply surprised if anyone covers it.
As for the “give us our pork” mentality in the Watertown paper, it’d be interesting to see how the coming pleas for media subsidies play out there (the paper may have been thinking of itself more than its readers). But really, that’s not going to go away until sustainability really hits the wall. At which point, several sea-changes take place.
Joe:
That bad shape is its normal shape, I think. It’s actually a large scale reproduction of Nelson Rockefeller’s ass; the New York version of Mount Rushmore.
In the past the NY GOP has cranked out country clubbers and limousine liberal Republicans, and people like Jacob Javits and John Lindsay, who would have been considered left-wing even in the Democratic Party. Their Soviet-style so-called primary ensures that the proles have little say in what kind of candidates they get.
That’s why the Conservative Party of NY was founded years ago, to try to goad the elephant into the right chute. It has mostly failed at this, and if there is a lesson from NY-23 it’s this: Third party movements are for losers, and always have been. The only cure for a Democrat is a Republican (and vice versa). Fix the party you have.
A reform I could believe in would be for all states to adopt genuine popular primaries, doing away with the top-loaded primaries and the caucuses.
If it were so, Hillary Clinton would probably be president. Oh God, if only Hillary Clinton were the president …
I’ve always been as impressed with your analysis as you are with mine, Joe, and this is no exception.
The problem is not that the GOP picked one particular candidate in one district. In all of New York and New England combined, there are now two GOP Congressmen. So either the NY, MA, ME, CT, and VT GOP parties are having terrible problems choosing a good candidate in every district, or the GOP brand is very hard to sell in the Northeast. I vote for the latter.
Now, whether or not Scozzafava was a good campaigner or a good pick, she was almost sure to defeat Owens straight up. She didn’t get that chance. And as a bonus, with her withdrawal we got to find out how well the previously-unknown Democrat would do against a strongly-financed hard conservative darling of Glenn Beck’s Tea Partiers (and, it appears, Joe Katzman). The answer is, the unknown Democrat would defeat the Conservative darling in a district most of whose counties had not had a Democrat in Congress since the 19th Century.
On behalf of the crew at Daily Kos: Thanks guys, keep it up!
C’mon guys, tone it down, please. Let’s talk about the issues, please…
Marc
Joe,
You are correct that Dede’s meltdown wasn’t ideological. Her direct involvement with her brother in the bankrupting of a 100 year old local business clearly played a role in her demise. The owners of the business sold it to Dede’s brother for an IOU that will never get paid. The business was expanded to a number of locations with a debt load that was unsustainable. As the business started to collapse locations were closed and press releases issued assuring the public that there would be no more closings. Rinse and repeat. I lost track of the number of times the assurances were given that there would be no more closings. There were a lot of local investors that got hosed in the process. In an area where the conventional wisdom is that government is key to job creation, which is not exactally a conservative belief, the failed business didn’t exactally boost her credibility.
Although the seat may have appeared to be solid Republican from the outside it really wasn’t. It was solidly incumbent. Geographically the district is huge and diverse. There are at least 5 distinct areas in the district. Plattsburgh, Watertown, Oswego, the Adirondack park, and the rural St. Lawrence – Franklin counties. It is also the poorest district in the state. Gathering the resources to challenge an incumbent so you look like your familiar with the “local issues” would be an onerous task. Name recognition is everything and Dede’s was tarnished.
I hold that this race had so much less to do with R vs D than it did with insider vs outsider. It is entirely telling that ultimately the two parties joined forces to put down the challenger.
I probably agree with Hoffman on less than 50% of his major beliefs, but I’d support him if it was even less if simply because he’s a new face and a shot across the bow. I’d be just as happy if a liberal dem outsider ran against Pete Hoekstra.
_”The Heritage Foundation’s Dennis Smith says that a “manager’s amendment†to Pelosi’s controversial 1,900 –page health care bill includes new provisions that will allow back-door payoffs to specific members of Congress, such as more favorable Medicare reimbursements to particular doctors or hospitals and lower taxes on medical device manufacturers in certain congressional districts._”
_”One such earmark – which Smith says “suddenly appeared†after the Energy and Commerce Committee had already completed its work – creates a new $6 billion Medicaid slush fund for nursing homes to be doled out by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, with no input from the states, ordinary rulemaking or administrative review.”_
“link”:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/You-call-a-6-billion-slush-fund-draining-the-swamp-69151932.html
Funny how those paltry little earmarks have no much power in Washington. This wouldn’t be a mechanism to by wavering blue dog votes now would it?
AJL:
Not true. A Democrat last held the seat in 1993. Don’t believe everything Nancy Pelosi says.
Of course it required the Republican to endorse the Democrat, but who’s counting? Insiders vs outsiders.
AJL –
Well, I stand corrected. I guess you and the crew at Daily Kos are indeed the proud new owners of a real right-wing cesspool.
“May not be over quite yet.”:http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/its_not_over_recanvassing_shows_ny23_race.html