Bi-partisanship is like Trickle-Down-Economics: Neither works

Bipartisanship can't work because loyalty to party and winning at all cost is a priority. The very fact that there are minority and majority leaders and whips proves it.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Republicans started to attack immediately. Newt Gingrich declared a "Contract for America." The Republicans went after Clinton in numerous ways that had nothing to do with governance.

When he lied to them on a sexual matter it only made it easier for them. They would not help him with the Health Care issue. Then they bugged him with the nice sounding idea of giving the public the right to opt out of government Social Security and invest in the stock market. We know how that would have ended. In spite of an uncooperative and unfriendly Congress he managed to leave our economy in excellent shape.

Then came "the Decider". He decided he would lie to Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world. He would get us into an unnecessary war that was costly in lives and finances. Then he and his Republican majority resurrected the failed "trickle down theory," which may work, but only if everyone  plays by the rules. Self aggrandizement cannot enter into the equation.

For example, a grandfather leaves money in his will for his grandchildren's college education. He makes the father the executor. The father buys a new luxury car, a yacht, and a private plane to take him to meetings, and uses up the trickle down money. Then the "Decider" with help from Phil Gramm of Texas and other friends induce Alan Greenspan, the Economic advisor, to push for Deregulation of the Banking industry. The justification is to shore up the stock market with low interest loans. It will also allow Americans to buy into the American Dream, (home ownership). That they could not afford this dream was not considered, so the dream turned into a nightmare. (Incidentally they did it with the help of some Democrats.)

Disaster followed so the public looking for change voted for a Democrat named Obama.

The Republicans who came close to destroying the country suddenly thought they had all the answers. They demanded changes in Obama's stimulus package, but even when they got some of their tax cuts in the bill, refused to help pass it.

Here is why.

1. If it succeeds they take credit for making it successful.

2. If it fails they then blame Obama for not including enough of their proposals in the bill.

Conclusion: When winning is the only thing, bipartisanship gets in the way. If our Congress spent 1/4 of the time governing that they do campaigning, we would have far more sensible laws and much better government.

My priorities for the Stimulus Plan

1. Create Jobs.
2. Take care of Infrastructure, Amtrak
3. Help States and Cities with Unemployment insurance, Schools, libraries, and local transportation
4. Help individual home owners, prioritize those who lost there jobs.
5. No tax rebates.
6. Help solvent banks give loans and credit. Banks were too busy with Big Business, and balooning Real Estate prices they could not sustain at the expense of Small Business.
7. No money for subprime lenders and failed banks.
8. No money for Hedge funds.
9. No money for Sports Arenas.
10. No money for Wall Street and Failed Financial Institutions.

I would go back to regulating banks and Wall Street. Wall Street should never have been artificially shored up with low interest for Real Estate loans. Clients took money out of the banks because of low interest and invested their savings in stocks and we all know what happened. A good business climate is enough to pay dividends on stocks. Credit card companies and banks with low opening charges induced peopple who should have known better to buy on credit they could not afford to pay, because they did not have money in the bank when things got tough.

The problem with politics

Here are three examples of conversations between paid lobbyists and elected officials. They're not verbatim, but you get the idea:

Lobbyist to Representative: Your leader said I should speak to you. If you want the money for your library we need your help on HR deregulation. He needs your yes vote.

Lobbyist to Representative: The M.T. A. will give you the expansion of the bus route you wish. It will look good on your campaign literature. All they need in return is help on eminent domain and re-zoning. It is a good trade off for you.


Lobbyist to Representative: The government needs your help on the filter plant that we wish to put in your district. In return we will give you money for parks and other things you need for your resume. But we really don't care if you use the money for the parks, etc.

MTA - No Sense or sensibility

Congress is grilling the Big Three Automakers on what they will do with bailout billions if they get it.

That makes sense.

I believe that New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) should also be grilled on price increases and tolls on the East River Bridges.

Not too long ago politicians were extolling the virtues of the MTA as being reasonable and an alternative to driving that would make congestion pricing in Manhattan feasible.

Obviously they were wrong.

I have not used the East River Bridges in over ten years, but believe the new plan is a stupid approach to what we are led to believe is a temporary condition. If we spend money now to convert the bridges to toll roads they will remain toll roads forever and be subject to continual increases. They will further make New York a divided city.

To turn the bridges over to the MTA is asinine.

They must put their own house in order first.

They should give up their pool of limousines and chauffeurs. Give up their free EZ passes and learn their own public transit system. Stop spending money on fancy offices. Stop adding high paid executives. Stop paying for cost overruns on construction projects. In short stop wasting money before they are entitled to a raise in fares.

Local political clubs are about control, not reform

The political club, in theory, is where democracy begins. It is the grass roots of politics. In practice it is also the graveyard of democracy at times.

It started out as a forum where like-minded individuals went to discuss issues so that their elected officials could represent them on these very issues. It evolved into an organization whose sole function is to elect incumbent officials. It does not matter whether the club is Democratic, Republican, Independent,  Conservative, Liberal, or somewhere in-between.

It is run by the President and the Board of Directors who make up the agenda.The Board of Directors usually is made up of
the elected official's employees and dedicated people who are generally good petitioners. Generally they are there to protect the officials and put forward their agenda.

That is why you rarely see people who challenge the incumbents in a club have much success. The only time you see any new people running for office from a club is when the present official does not run. Most of the time the club assumes the name of the elected official and loses its own identity. It becomes Jose's club, or Marie's club, etc. Incumbency is the name of the game. The endorsement feature usually locks out challengers. The incumbent generally has an advantage over any challenger, because he/she can point to his ability to bring home money to his constituency.

The word "Reform" is a misnomer once the elected officials are elected more than once. It becomes just like  a "Regular" club.

Issues become less important than campaigning and keeping power.

'Indispensable Mayor' or Grim Fairy Tale

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided that he is indispensable and must run for a third term to save the City from economic disaster.

That is a fairy tale.

Let me give you some reasons why.

In the first place his term does not come up until next year, by which time he may not be needed to save us. In the second place, the buddies he pals around with and usually hand picks for appointments come from Real estate, Banking, and Wall Street. These are the very people who got us into this mess with the help of our Congress.

They decided at the behest of President Bush and the Republican party and some Democrats that there was no need for a watchdog in the economy, that the Real Estate , Banking and Wall Street people were of such a high caliber that they could and would police the industry.

What they did with this trust is have a party at our expense. Enormous bonuses were paid to undeserving Executives. Then they gave tremendous golden parachutes to departing Executives. If a golden parachute was not enough they bribed the executive with a platinum one.

All this was done on Mayor Bloomberg's watch. His office is not too far from Wall Street, and his company's ticker tape showed the market trends, yet he could not see what was coming. So how can he help us.

Think about it. Would you keep a shortstop on your team who kept making errors, simply because he had experience.

If Mayor Bloomberg really wants to prove his value, he should convene an expert group of economists - people like Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Robert Rubin and even Alan Greenspan to work on the problem with him. If they are successful, then he could retire as the Statesman he deserves to be.

A Bronx Cheer for a Cheerleader

I watched the vice president's debate the other night and came away with this thought: I do not know which debate the Conservatives who gave Sarah Palin rave reviews were watching. After all she was debating to prove that she and John McCain could do the job of making our economy stronger and changing the Washington work ethic. She did nothing to allay my fears about either, because she never explained what her plans to do so were. I could definitely agree with her about changing the tone in Washington. We need to get rid of some Democrats along with some Republicans. I would also have liked to hear an explanation about how we get rid of the Lobbyist power structure. At least Joe Biden gave some figures about the votes of John McCain that can be fact-checked. Palin said little "wrong" because she said so little.

What I finally decided is that Sarah wins hand down on perkiness? Which reminds me of the famous line in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," when Lou Grant says to Mary, "You are perky. But I don't like perky."

The economy is more important than perkiness.

Sarah's smiling and winking led me to the conclusion that if we need a cheerleader for our country, I would
definitely hire her. She should apply for the job of National Cheerleader.