This entire week I have endured the mother of all colds. Yet even in my Sudafed haze, I must comment on this week’s important developments:
This week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally rolled out his public/private partnership plan with respect to “toxic assets.” His so-called plan has me thinking about the dangers of treating symptoms instead of the cause. A fever is the body’s way of sending us a message that we need to kill off an infection. Similarly, these “toxic assets” are sending the international community an unmistakable message; hyper-sized financial institutions are a parasitic infection eroding quality of life for wage earners across the globe.
Removing toxic assets is not treating the cause. And while more regulation is entirely justified and something we liberals have been insisting upon, that too will not treat the cause. Instead, citizens need to mobilize on behalf of bold anti-trust legislation that breaks up financial institutions such as CitiCorp and empower independent community banks. Do not be seduced by the gyrations of the stock market that some liberal bloggers chirped about this week. Unless the cause itself is treated our economic destiny will remain perilous. I fully support President Obama's ambitious budget and have nothing but contempt for the insipid Republican opposition as well as corporatist enablers such Indiana Senator Evan Bayh who stand in the way. Yet even the good intentions and overdue initiatives proposed in Obama's budget will not benefit our country as it should unless we boldly reshape our entire financial system.
President Barack Obama took complete ownership of the war in Afghanistan yesterday with his announcement of 17,000 more combat troops as well as an additional 4,000 non-combat advisers. One difference between Obama and his predecessor is the linkage between the fight against al Quaeda in neighboring Pakistan as well as their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Another difference is how the Obama administration intends to combine military power with a surge in regional diplomacy and “experts” to help fight corruption and facilitate a civil society. Supposedly, the focus is entirely defeating al Quaeda and not nation building, but how the hell can we fight corruption in an ancient society we know precious little about?
Meanwhile, the administration promises to both lean on and support the Pakistani government in their struggle against terrorists. Frankly, aid to the Pakistani government at this point appears every bit as wasteful as giving billions to A.I.G. The civilian government uses terrorism as an excuse to oppress its population as elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service and military aid the Taliban in Afghanistan. How do we know that any aid we provide Pakistan isn’t being utilized to plan another attack against us or help the wrong people obtain access to their nuclear arsenal?
All this is further compounded by an ultra-nationalist government in India that would make American neo-cons blush with their belligerence. The sub-continent is the world’s most dangerous powder keg and America’s presence has intensified regional violence. Even so, I sympathize with President Obama’s conundrum. Twenty years ago, our careless withdrawal after the cold war’s end facilitated the blowback that resulted in 9/11 and gave al Quaeda its safe haven. Our careless withdrawal of course followed our ill conceived intervention on behalf of Aghanistan's Mullah's in the first place when we armed Bin Laden in his struggle against the Soviet Union. If we screw it up this time the consequences will be far more catastrophic.
I’ve long believed that the best strategic approach is cooperative containment with the international community as opposed to grandiose delusions about “dismantling” and “disabling” al Quaeda. This is an organic movement. You can take out one important leader after the other including Bin Laden himself and it will simply regenerate. We need instead to address the causes of terrorism and work diligently at draining the swamp that fosters it. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. Not to mention all the innocent people being killed in Afghanistan by our presence. Also, we should be on the side of democracy in Pakistan instead of nurturing more resentment among Pakistan's decent civillian majority.
Longtime readers of this blog know how vigorously opposed I am to our prison industrial complex. I have therefore been keeping an eye on Virginia Senator James Webb who since his election in 2006, has spoken coherently about the need to reform our prison system. With a sympathetic President finally in the White House, Senator Webb has opted to take the initiative and joined Republican Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in that effort. Both senators proposed legislation to create a blue-ribbon panel that would conduct an 18-month review and suggest recommendations of reform.
Specifically, Webb hopes to reform a system that incarcerates 2.4 million people and represents 25 percent of the world’s prison population even as America comprises only 5 percent of the entire planet. Mostly we have incarcerated people for petty drug offenses who need treatment instead of prison. This is an act of real political courage because any suggestion of reform usually results in accusations of being soft on crime.
Coincidentally, while Senators Webb and Specter plot prison reform in America, New York State’s dysfunctional leadership is finally addressing the arcane “Rockefeller Drug Laws” that have empowered my home state’s prison industrial complex for three decades. My favorite legislator, New York State Senator Liz Krueger, announced in a press release this week that,
“I am very proud to be a part of history today and finally see the Rockefeller Drug Laws reformed. The reforms announced today will restore judicial sentencing discretion and substantially expand alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.
It has been a long hard fight to reform these archaic drug laws and today is the culmination of decades of hard work and advocacy from countless people, all of whom deserve praise for helping to achieve these needed reforms."
Reforming our prisons and drug laws will do more to curb violence in Mexico than any increase in numbers of our border patrol. Legalization and treatment will address the causes of drug abuse far more effectively than mindlessly incarcerating people and creating blowback in neighboring Mexico.
The one theme that emerges from the above bullet points is America's need to think about the cause instead of always reacting to the symptoms of what ails us.
The jostling among New York State's political heavy weights is underway to replace Hillary Clinton. New York State governor David Paterson has opted not to select himself. Instead names ranging from Brooklyn Congresswoman Nydia Vasquez (my district) to Suffolk County Executive Thomas Suozzi are mentioned. There is also Westchester Congresswoman Nita Lowrey who stepped aside eight years ago to allow Hillary Clinton a clear path to the Senate.
Many understandably want Clinton replaced with another woman. Naturally, Patterson hopes to select someone who can prevail in a statewide race. However, one criteria I'm not reading or hearing enough about is that Hillary Clinton's replacement should be an unapologetic champion of working people, the poor, high quality education to all segments of society as well as universal healthcare. In other words I would like Hillary Clinton's replacement to be a genuine liberal. Hence, I'm hoping Governor Paterson will consider appointing New York State Senator Liz Krueger.
Krueger represents New York State's 26th district covering Manahattan. Many will object that Krueger is not electable beyond her Manhattan constituency. However, Krueger's tenure as Chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) helped Democrats erode and finally overtake the Republican decades long majority. Indeed, to become a State Senator she defeated an icon of Albany's entrenched power in Roy Goodman.
Longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall a podcast interview I had with Krueger early last year. Prior to her election Krueger was a longtime advocate for affordable housing. Upon her election Krueger has been a steadfast champion of reform and transparency inside Albany's corrupt culture. Given the challenging times we live in Krueger is the right person to replace Hillary Clinton. Liberal, feminist, intelligent and compassionate. Once in the U.S. Senate I have no doubt Krueger would reassure all New Yorkers that she is an effective advocate for working people in our state.
If you're a New York resident, please click here to email Governor Paterson's office and request that he consider appointing Liz Krueger to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.
Update: As an anonymous commenter corrently pointed out, Krueger lost to Roy Goodman in her first race in 2000. There was a recount and Goodman prevailed. Which I actually noted in the introductory text to my podcast with Krueger early last year. But this time was not careful and I regret the error. Goodman was stunned by the defeat and joined the Bloomberg administration. After scaring an entrenched icon of the Albany establishment into retirement from the state senate, Krueger was able to prevail in a special election.
Perhaps no politician, other than Eliot Spitzer himself, has been associated with the cause of promoting ethics reform and transparency in Albany than New York State Senator Liz Krueger. It's hard to believe that early last year I interviewed Senator Krueger when our hopes were so high during the early days of Governor Spitzer's administration. The tragic demise of Governor Spitzer's political career means that change agents such as Senator Liz Krueger are more important than ever today.
Today, I received an email from her office issuing the following statement:
"Like all of my constituents, I was extremely disappointed to learn of Eliot Spitzer's behavior, which has compromised his ability to govern as the agentof ethical reform that New Yorkers elected him to be."
"I believe that due to the nature of his actions, the announcement today of his resignation was necessary in order to allow us to return our focus to the important issues facing our State."
"We are fortunate that an experienced, talented public servant like David Paterson is in a position to assume the role of Governor. I have known David for many years and I strongly believe that David will provide for a smooth transition into the Governor's seat. I look forward to working closely with him in passing the impending state budget and advancing a progressive reform agenda for New York."
Three-decade incumbent Republican Roy Goodman represented the 26th Senate District of New York. He was a “Rockefeller” Republican and symbol of Albany’s unchanging status quo. Goodman had delivered for this district covering Manhattan’s east side and midtown. He appeared invulnerable and his continued success helped the GOP maintain their Senate majority for decades.
Liz Krueger, a longtime advocate for tackling issues pertaining to poverty, hunger and homelessness, challenged Goodman for the State Senate in 2000. Although a liberal district, Goodman was popular, well financed and enjoyed a reservoir of good will. As a liberal on social issues Goodman remained in sync with his constituents.
Krueger mobilized an enthusiastic grass roots campaign based on reforming Albany’s corrupt and closed culture. I lived in the 26th at the time and noted Krueger’s campaign appeared more visible with high-energy volunteers patrolling the streets. Nevertheless, it never occurred to me Krueger had any chance of upsetting Goodman. Yes, he was older and might not win as comfortably as before. But I had no doubt Goodman would win convincingly. I was very wrong.
As the country fixated on the delayed outcome of Bush vs. Gore, the New York Senate’s 26th District wasn’t decided until six weeks after Election Day. Goodman won re-election by approximately 190 votes over Krueger. Krueger had a slim lead that disappeared after the count of absentee ballots.
Stunned by his near defeat, Goodman soon accepted a position in Mayor Bloomberg’s administration and a special election for the 26th was held in February 2002. She won convincingly and has steadfastly pursued a progressive/reformist agenda. Krueger’s priorities as Senator are a continuation of her work in private life. As the biography from her website notes,
“For 15 years, Senator Krueger was the Associate Director of the Community Food Resource Center (CFRC) where she was responsible for directing its efforts to expand access to government programs for low-income New Yorkers. She helped monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and State programs in New York City, identifying barriers to participation, and fighting for improvements in the effectiveness of these programs.
Prior to joining CFRC, Liz Krueger was the founding Director of the New York City Food Bank, building that organization into one that now serves over 1,100 emergency food programs, senior centers, day-care centers, and other community-based programs serving an estimated 5.4 million meals each year.”
With Eliot Spitzer’s election as Governor, the reformist winds represented by Senator Krueger may finally be blowing her way. In late January, legislative leaders adopted ethics reforms she had championed for years such as closing the “revolving door” lobbying loophole, a ban on legislators accepting honoraria as well as a gift ban for legislators and their staff.
Senator Krueger is the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development. She is also a member of five other committees: Banking, Consumer Protection, Finance, Higher Education, and Rules.
For the previous two election cycles, Senator Krueger served as the Chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). Democrats have gained under her leadership and following the recent special election of Craig Johnson in Nassau County, the Republican majority is a mere two seats.
In recent weeks there have been persistent rumors two Republicans may switch parties and deliver the Senate to Democrats. Ironic, because in 2002, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said casting a vote for Krueger was a waste due to the Republicans entrenched majority. Instead, Krueger’s efforts have the Democrats poised to assume one party rule in the state’s capitol. In five years the onetime outsider has increased her influence and remained an agent of change.
Senator Krueger agreed to a podcast interview with me and among the topics covered were: her experience as a reformist outsider and campaign leader of Senate Democrats; the possibility of future gerrymandering favoring Democrats in New York State; Governor Spitzer’s adversarial relationship with the legislature; the Governor’s proposed budget and whether New York might move up their presidential primary date to help the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Guiliani. Please refer to the media player below.
This interview can also be accessed for free via the Itunes story by searching for "Intrepid Liberal Journal."
