Ms. Pirro wanted Elliot Jacobson, the U.S. Attorney’s office prosecutor who assisted in the 2000 conviction of her possibly cheating husband for tax evasion, removed from her case. “The fact is, he is the prosecutor on this case. His behavior echoes his behavior of seven years ago,” she said.
Excuse me, but didn't Jacobson's behavior seven years ago result in the conviction of a crooked tax evader? Wasn't that his job?
Wednesday’s NY Post, joining the rest of the right-wing media calls Democrats “Hypocritical Critics” in the Mark Foley scandal.
They compare Foley to previous sex scandals involving Democrats.
The flaw with the argument can be seen on the same day’s Post Op-Ed page. Robert Novak reports "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running." (No link provided)
I may have said before. I will say it again. For the last time. One day the full and true story of two decades of Corruption in Kings County will be written. And at that time District Attorney Joe Hynes will be fingered as the single person most responsible for the sleaziness of these years. Joe Hynes is my greatest disappointment. I don’t need to be reminded that I have supported Hynes from the first time he ran for office, through last year. And at the same time I have no apology for choosing against John Sampson last year. It was like making a decision between prostate cancer and a massive heart attack.
Almost six months ago I tried to tap into the wealth of knowledge of the Room 8 community to find out what the "Also-Rans" of 2005 were doing now. I didn't get many answers. I thought maybe now that readership has increased, I’d try again.
New York elected officials must abide laws that regulate how political candidates can raise money. Yet the laws regulating how that money can be spent remain among the most lax in the entire country.
Under current law, three words fully describe New York's campaign spending guidelines: "any lawful purpose." This ambiguous definition has created an environment in which current or former political candidates can do just about anything with campaign funds short of writing themselves a check. Though spending campaign funds for personal use is technically prohibited, the lack of any clear definition for what constitutes a personal use renders the provision meaningless.
One of the reasons New York spends more on Medicaid is because the health care industry uses its political power to charge more, the subject of my prior post. A second reason is it charges for services it does not actually deliver – Medicaid fraud. A third reason is that New York provides more Medicaid services for recipients than do other states. And as I wrote here, the beneficiaries of most of those additional services are the elderly.
Today’s American elderly are the best off people, with the easiest lives, in history – unless one counts slave-owners. Tomorrow’s elderly, those born after 1955 or so, will not be as fortunate. Entering the labor force after social security taxes were raised, on the wrong end of multi-tier labor contracts, without defined benefit pensions and perhaps, when they reach their 50s, losing health insurance as well, and with limited savings, today’s young and middle-aged will reach old age as social security funds begin to run dry and the debts run up by their predecessors must be paid. We will have to work until no longer able, and will then face poverty. The poverty rate of the elderly, much lower than that of children in recent decades, is likely to explode – unless the seniors use their political clout to tax their own children into poverty, or to wipe out public education, or otherwise do unto their offspring what was done to them.
On LunchBox today, host Adam Green on: former Rep Mark Foley, Rep Thomas Reynolds, Daily News, New York Post, Jeannine Pirro, New York City Council and Cocaine.
The media here in the dog's nose of New York State have been atwitter over Tom Reynolds' involvement in the PageGate scandal involving Mark Foley. As has been widely reported, we know that the 16-year old recipient of Foley's inappapropriate emails was troubled enough to bring it up with Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who then took it to Tom Reynolds.
Why? Because Reynolds is in charge of the NRCC.
Reynolds, in turn, did not engage in any sort of investigation into the matter, but instead claims to have informed his boss, Denny Hastert about the matter. There was no ethics probe of Foley; no censure, no reprimand.
What I would do about Medicaid is not what I would do about health care. In my view, because those in need of expensive care, and those who do not want to pay for them, are free to move across state borders, health care is a national problem with a national solution (see here).
Any state that attempts to provide universal care for its residents will end up providing universal care for all Americans – until its economy collapses and it provides nothing to anyone. With regard to Medicaid, my goal is to avoid having the health care industry – with its political power and indifference to the consequences of its increasing demands – from destroying other public services and the economy of the state. Medicaid, for me, is a fiscal issue, not a health care issue, and my goal is to continue to get necessary health care without paying twice as much as everyone else. That is different from the current fiscal goal – to pay as much as possible in for as little as possible in exchange for political support. The current situation is a product of incentives – the state government gets to hand out money to its supporters, but other governments are forced to pay much of the cost and impose much of the sacrifice. My proposal is to change the incentives.
With about 5 weeks till the mid term elections, the Democratic Party for the first time in more then a decade has a shot at winning back at least the House of Representatives. At first glance this seems to be a good thing. However, if the Democrats win the House and maybe even the Senate, it will not be because of a strong and cohesive Democratic Party. It will actually be quite the contrary; it will be because of a weak and incompetent Republican Party.
If there was no Iraq war, the Democratic Party would not pick up a single seat this November. This is because the Democratic Party still has no key message, and any message that it does produce is diluted by conservative Democrats. What the Democratic Party needs today, is a latter day Barry Goldwater or William F Buckley. Democrats need to move their Party to the left first, and then worry about winning elections. Democrats today are Republican light; they constantly hedge their bets, by compromising on things like tax cuts, the Patriot Act, and until recently the war in Iraq.
via TPM Muckraker
Apparently, Hastert and Co. have another good lesson for the kids. When you find yourself embarrassed by what you've previously written and heavily touted ... all you gotta do is DELETE... DELETE... DELETE!
TPM Muckraker reports that Speaker Hastert has just taken down this press release which had been featured on the front page of his website until yesterday.
Photo Hat Tip: DailyKos
On LunchBox today, host Adam Green on: political sins.
Many will argue against what I am writing here and they will give a variety of reasons as to why; that’s expected and that’s fine. In any polity there is a marketplace for ideas; lately the blogosphere (whatever this is/ lol) has been slowly moving to corner a segment of that market. That too is fine, since to me, the more segments to that market the better- even with all those conspiracy theories about “nine-eleven” flying around the internet. Today is Sunday 1st October, 2006; it’s exactly the 216year and 8months anniversary of the first sitting of the US Supreme court (2/1/1790). Its structure was created by the first bill introduced in the US Senate (Judiciary Act of 1789), allowing for a Chief justice and five associates. That bill also created 13 districts with three divisions (East-South and Middle).
Since I've been asked to write for this blog, I've delivered a litany of (primarily) fiscal complaint, a series of objections to the ongoing and expanding advantages grabbed by powerful interests in Albany (and elsewhere) at the expense of the private sector working poor, the young, the future, and New York City's children. But I try not to make complaints unless I have what I believe are at least partial solutions. So for state government, and for the month of October, I'm going to provide some.
They won't make many people on the inside happy.
In retrospect, the year 2002 can be seen as the year that the black vote in central-Brooklyn grew up a bit. That was the years that Delores Thomas and Margarita Lopez-Torres won countywide judgeships in the county of Kings (and wannabee political-kingpins). These achievements of Delores and Margarita were phenomenal; coming after many years of Clarence Norman, Howard Golden and company, discouraging and/or blocking the challenges of minority candidates, for borough-wide slots. The central argument from those power players was that the votes just weren’t there for minority victories. These ladies sure proved them wrong. Then in 2003, Chadeya Simpson won another of those county-wide judgeships as a black woman; that was when many people started taking notice of the black vote in Brooklyn: especially in the democratic primary elections.