Mickey's Book Club

Over the past few years I have read a number of political books and have come to the following conclusions about what to expect from the authors.

Politicians are generally apologetic and write mostly about their accomplishments. They are rarely informative as to what goes on in Washington.

Pundits usually write with the slant that appeals to their existing readers. They spin. This is what they do for a living.

Talk show hosts write to their fan base and any one else they can convert. Their books tend not to be well written or informative.

Reporters fill in the fact gaps left out by all the other books.

Last year I told you to read a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch." It is still a good read. Johnston was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

I just got through reading Will Bunch's book, "The Backlash," which I also highly recommend. Bunch was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

"Backlash" is the story of the Tea Party and how it developed, along with all the fringe parties, how these groups took the idea from the peaceniks of the seventies and turned their idea into a cause. The big difference is that the peaceniks believed in  love and the new radicals believe in hate. Of course not all Tea Partiers and all fringe groups are hateful but they're certainly not spreading a message of love.

Mayor Bloomberg's Report Card

Just in case he decides to run for higher office. . .

CONGESTION PRICING: F. This plan was predicated on an affordable, well run transit system that could handle more passengers. It is neither. Less trains, less clerks, higher fares.

FOOTBALL STADIUM: F. This plan would have brought congestion where it was not needed. See above for problems.

EDUCATION: D+. I think he meant well but does not have enough knowledge about the problem to fix it. The Charter school idea was and is too costly.

TOURISM: B+. He has made N.Y.C. a tourist mecca - but at the expense of its inhabitants.

TENANTS: D-. His relationship with the real estate industry led him to form a Rent Guideline Board that catered to the industry's wishes.

WALL STREET: D+. His knowledge of the business of Bloomberg News should have told him that fighting for deregulation would be hazardous, but he still fought for it. This helped fuel the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market.

The jury is still out on the Yankee Stadium deal and the Nets Basketball Stadium deal. The cost to taxpayers, however, was tremendous.

Bloomberg ran on a platform of fixing the MTA and failed. His police, fire department and sanitation decisions deserve C+.

All in all I give him a C- and wish him luck.

Pedro Espada and what's wrong with politics

New York State has an unusual situation. Some of its citizens voted for a Democrat who thinks like a bad Republican and wanted to be a Republican.  For stupid and selfish political reasons the Democrats thought they needed this scoundrel as a voting Democrat.

They bribed him by offering him a job he was not capable of doing. Now they realize their mistake and are doing all they can to get rid of him. He is being investigated for alleged wrongdoing.

Unfortunately these same Democrats - and Republicans - usually ignore their colleagues' malfeasance. The result: Poor representation.

Thanks to the laws they've passed, these  poor representatives from both parties have given us monopolistic, unregulated cable television, a greedy Wall Street, a corrupt credit  card industry, uncaring banks who stole from their customers, and, with the help of the real estate industry, stole homes from people who believed in the American Dream.

And some of these representatives are the people who voted themselves a raise while denying increases to people dependent on social security.

Bush's tax cuts

The Republicans, led by the Tea Partiers, and supported by the Blue Dog Democrats have been arguing for quite some time that continuing unemployment insurance will put a damper on those people looking for jobs.

But these same people are the ones saying that continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will stimulate the economy.

Where do they get that idea from? How do they justify that giving additional money to people who already have plenty of money to spend is better for the economy than giving money to people who will need to spend the money?

Besides, under President Bush and his tax cut, the economy - in which more people fell below the poverty line while the rich got richer - collapsed.

How much more proof do they need than what has already been shown to be wrong?

Only fools make the same mistake more than once.

As for the Tea Partiers, they have to watch what's going into their tea. The stuff they are putting in their tea seems to kill the thinking process.

Unethical or Illegal behavior by elected officials

When a thug points a gun at you, abuses you or burglarizes your home you do not ask if he or she is a Democrat, Republican or Independent. You feel violated.

Why then does it matter if the illegal or unethical behavior of an elected official is caused by a Democrat, Republican or Independent?

Too many times our officials are judged by their fellow officials and the media before all the facts are in. But too often they are also judged merely on the basis of their party affiliation. It shouldn't matter.

If the party is guilty of bad behavior a reprimand is not sufficient. In some cases even a censure is not sufficient. Sometimes jail is the only remedy. He or she should be relieved of their post and put on their pension, and only their share of the pension that they put money into.

If you voted for a candidate who behaved improperly in office you should be angry for his/her betraying your trust. To vote for the culprit again is utter foolishness. We should not be so forgiving. We will not get better representation until we demand it. Both parties have been shameful.

We need better Republicans AND better Democrats.

Immigration and Tea Partiers

I know this is not a solution, but I think it is a starting point:

Any illegal immigrant who commits a felony or a worse crime, or is convicted of  an ethnic, racial, or gender hate crime shall be deported regardless of what country they came from. I see no reason to support them in our jails.

Tea Partiers are todays' radicals. To be a radical does not necessarily mean you are a liberal. It means you have departed from the usual or traditional. The main difference between today's radicals and the radicals of the older generation  are that many of today's radicals are NRA supporters and carry guns while the radicals of the past protested for peace and were shot at.

A sensible gun policy

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's extending of gun rights across the nation has shown that it will never seek a middle ground. Some of the Justices could care little about fairness or public safety. They are puppets of the National Rifle Association and lock-step proponents of a Constitutional amendment written before there were urban areas, before there were police departments, long before there were automatic weapons and at a time when the British enemy lived among us.

Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.

Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I  suggest we take a different approach.

I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.

One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.

Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.

I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.