Sunday, January 31, 2010

Full Circle: An Open Letter to Senator Marty Golden

Dear State Senator Marty Golden:

I am nearly positive that your Brooklyn constituents appreciate the strong moral stance you have taken regarding your colleague, Senator Hiram Monserrate. You are undeniably correct that it's ridiculous for Senator Monserrate to compare himself to Civil Rights workers, or to Jesus.

As everyone reading this most likely knows by now, then-Senator Elect Monserrate and his girlfriend had an incident at his apartment late in 2008. Assault charges were filed against him. While he was acquitted of felony assault charges resulting from the incident itself, he was convicted on misdemeanor assault charges resulting from the aftermath, wherein he was seen on security cameras literally dragging her to the hospital.

Many were shocked by Senator Monserrate's conduct. Based on this incident, and other factors, in this article I have outlined my own case for Senator Monserrate's resignation from the Senate, but regrettably Senator Monserrate hasn't listened to me, thus forcing that institution into a peculiar dilemma.

There is a movement afoot to expel Senator Monserrate from the Senate. Senator Golden, your strong statement indicates that you are at the forefront of this movement. I am certain that your constituents are, justly, proud of your strong, inviolable moral stance in seeking to expel Senator Monserrate.

However, the closer I look at you, Senator Golden, the more I wonder about what appears to be certain nuances in your moral outlook. Perhaps your constituents will have questions too.

For example, they might have questions about allegations made in this March 2009 Village Voice article that you employed a $65,000 a year Research Assistant while he was facing assault charges. Strange. The fact that this Research Assistant was the son of your Republican colleague, Senator Owen Johnson of Long Island, is, I am sure, unrelated to his employment. (Interestingly, the SeeThroughNY.net database still shows an “Owen Johnson” employed as a “Research Assistant” by the Senate for just under $50,000 a year, as of August 2009, but it doesn't specify what office Mr. Johnson works for.)

Perhaps the difference is that Hiram Monserrate is a Senator, whereas Senator Johnson's son is, despite his family name, still just a Research Assistant? It's possible that's the distinction. If so, though, it begs the question: Why support undoing an election to take a moral stand and yet refuse to take one simply by firing your Research Assistant?

I don't know the particulars of Mr. Johnson's case, of course, other than the brief mention in the Village Voice article. He was accused, that article states, of assaulting his “roommate.” The alleged victim, thus, was likely male. Is that the distinction, Senator? If so, though the sentiment is noble, isn't it a little outmoded, even inappropriate?

As stated, I don't know the particulars of Mr. Johnson's case. It could be that those particulars are the source of the distinction. Regrettably, I can't address those.

If it turns out that Mr. Johnson wasn't convicted, whereas Senator Monserrate was, perhaps that's the distinction? No, it can't be that, because you were an early-comer to the crusade against Senator Monserrate, a fact which your recent statement proudly references. Before Senator Monserrate was convicted, you attempted to prevent him from “being seated” in the Senate. ("Being seated," basically, is technical parliamentary jargon for fulfilling the office, literally sitting in the Senate Chamber.)

Which brings me to another point I'd suggest your constituents have a right to question. After Senator Monserrate was seated after all, you, Senator Golden, actually dropped your campaign against him for awhile, and even shook his hand. The Times Union's website has a picture. It's obvious from the picture that you both knew there was a camera there. You're both smiling at it.

A few months after that, you and Senator Monserrate actually joined forces to challenge Senator Malcolm Smith's leadership of the Senate. Perhaps predictably, Senator Monserrate chickened out on the coup, after only a week, leaving the State Senate paralyzed at 31 to 31, for weeks. Eventually, of course, Senator Pedro Espada, the other Democratic partner in the coup attempt, returned to the Democratic fold as well, and life at the State Senate, such as it is, went on as “normal.”

To review, first you tried to undo Senator Monserrate's election, prior to his conviction, while employing a Research Assistant who had also faced assault charges (and who happened to be the son of a fellow Senator). Then, you appeared to change your mind, first shaking Senator Monserrate's hand publicly, and then joining him in an attempt to basically undo the results of 2008 State Senate elections in their entirety. After he chickened out of that effort, some months later, here you are again, Senator Golden, calling to undo your colleague's election.

Your position has come full circle.

There is, I might suggest, nothing wrong with a little pragmatism or flexibility, or even a lot of it. Except, of course, when you first take a strong, seemingly-inviolable moral stance that appears to exclude taking actions that you are, as a pragmatist, more than willing to take. Further, even on a practical level, what does it say about your judgment that you were willing to rely upon the political support Senator Monserrate for something as major as a floor fight in the New York State Senate?

Could it be, Senator Golden, that you simply support anything with money, prestige, and patronage attached? Could it be that you are more than willing to undo an election or work with the person whose election you wish to undo, all dependent upon your needs of the moment? Could it be that your strong moral stance is something less than it appears to be? Could it be that you are simply a pragmatist, and a relatively poor one at that?

I wonder if your constituents will consider these issues this Autumn. I have read that you have an opponent.

Perhaps he'll ask.

Sincerely,
The Albany Exile

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The Field

• Introduction
As of the time of writing, the late afternoon of 14 January 2010, there are 5 candidates I am aware of, some declared and some undeclared, for the New York State Governorship.

After looking at the 5 candidates I am aware of at the moment, I came to a depressing realization, that led to a single hope. I realized that all of the 5 carried negatives that were extremely significant, potentially (or in some cases almost definitely) impinging upon their ability to govern the State at this critical moment. And the hope was, simply, that someone else takes up the mantle, and does it soon.

• Name: Steve Levy
• Democrat, Suffolk County
• Current Occupation: County Executive of Suffolk County

I had hopes for Executive Levy. He came on the Statewide scene not trashing his rivals, but simply implying that he could do better than they. However, more recently I have read that he's feuded with the police in his county. If this foretells his relationship with the State Police should he become Governor, it could be a dangerous spot for him to be in. (To negotiate with police unions in a tough manner is one thing, but some of Executive Levy's critics see open hostility.) I have also read that Levy has been so anti-illegal immigrant that some have argued he is anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant in general. (I haven't examined his immigration statements or positions personally; I'm reacting, at the moment, to the perception. In politics, perception is over half the battle.) Hispanics are found just about everyplace in New York State, they pay taxes, and they've been part of the fabric of life in New York for a very long time. I think it's fair to count it against a politician when that politician apparently goes out of his way to alienate a major demographic of the State. If he wins, he'll be representing Hispanics too, and his Departments usually are understood to have to enforce certain laws as vigorously on behalf of illegal immigrants as on behalf of others.

Levy's response to two Hispanic Assembly Members' promising to oppose him politically was to attempt to file a complaint against them with the Public Integrity Commission (PIC). The, to my mind questionable, theory was that they had threatened to use their offices to harm those who supported Levy.

I find Levy's action to feel eerily similar to the SLAPP Lawsuits that are filed by major corporations in an attempt to silence whistle-blowers and critics; basically it's seeking legal sanction upon those who criticize you. (Imagine what Levy might do as Governor.) Further, Levy also went about this stupidly; the PIC has no jurisdiction over the Legislature.

To my mind that's the kind of thing you should look up before you take such an action.

• Name: David Paterson
• Democrat, Albany County and New York County (Manhattan)
• Current Occupation: Governor of New York State

New York State's first Black and first disabled Governor is a man of many talents, many gifts, and also many flaws. The latter have been especially on display for quite awhile now. He has what The New York Observer called “a complicated relationship with the truth.” His staff often appears to be in disarray. They often present an incoherent or muddled message. (As a recent example, take the Governor's office's unclear response to the Legislature's ethics bill). Paterson's son's recent run-in with the police on its own, wouldn't necessarily mean anything, but it fits Paterson's odd pattern too well to be ignored. And finally there's the bizarre notion he's tried to put forth, that he should be judged on what he wants to do rather than what he is able to actually accomplish.

New Yorkers believe many of Paterson's central messages, but they lack confidence in his ability to actually do much. And, really, who at this point could blame them for their skepticism. Political Scientist Richard Neustadt once wrote that presidential power is the power to persuade. The Governor of New York State has institutional powers that the President would envy, but the Governor still needs that power to persuade. David Paterson has lost it, and there's no realistic way for him to get it back. Even if he somehow wins the election, which seems unlikely, he won't be able to do anything.

And I disagree with the Governor that he should be judged more by his intentions than his actions or accomplishments.

• Name: Rick Lazio
• Republican of somewhere in New York City and somewhere in Long Island (Counties unspecified)
• Current Occupation: Full-time Candidate, as far as I can tell; he has most-recently worked for J.P Morgan Chase and for some kind of advocacy group for CEOs called the Financial Service Forum

Rick Lazio is chiefly known as the man who thought he could beat Hilary Clinton for the U.S. Senate in 2000 by bullying her in a debate, a move which even he now admits was a mistake. However, that he could ever think such a move (he essentially charged across the stage to angrily shove a piece of paper in front of her) was wise speaks poorly for his judgment. Not only did he come across as a bully, but as a bully who was bad at bullying.

I also at this point think that anyone who worked in the financial industry during the early 2000s should be considered suspect. A lot of things that this industry did during this era violated both common sense and all analytical logic.

Also, who has heard of him? Not many. Want to bet that the first two things many voters will find out about him are that he's a bully (a poor one at that) and that he used to work for an advocacy group for CEOs?

• Name: Chris Collins
• Republican of Erie County
• Current Occupation: County Executive of Erie County

The kindest way to talk about Chris Collins's recent actions is to say that he has seriously seriously embarrassed himself. He is supposedly a Christian, but he is a peculiar sort of Christian who allows Nostradamus to enter into his religious thinking, alongside the Bible and other Christian texts. He has, for example, publicly used Nostradamus's writings to claim that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the “Third Antichrist.” The second one, you see, was Adolf Hitler. I forget who the first one was. (Other Christians of this stripe assign the honor of being the “Third Antichrist” to President Obama.) So not only does Collins compare a Jewish politician to a man known for attempting to wipe out Jews, but he resorts to calling his political opponents the “Antichrist,” and uses to bolster the argument the demented writings of a man who is more typically the subject of New Age books, the cover page of the Weekly World News, and an album by the heavy metal band Judas Priest.

And then there's the matter of the recent incident wherein he openly sexually harassed a woman, in the New York State Assembly Chamber, while waiting for Governor Paterson's State of the State speech to start. (And yes, publicly remarking that a woman who can't find a seat would get one if she offered lap dances does in my book qualify as sexual harassment.) The fact that this was done so openly makes him not only a harasser, but a stupid one.

One word: Fail.

• Name: Andrew Cuomo
• Democrat of Albany County and New York County (Manhattan)
• Current Occupation: New York State Attorney General

Andrew Cuomo is currently the most popular candidate in the field, by far. He is definitely electable, at least assuming he doesn't make any major missteps or otherwise screws up. And we know that screw-ups by New York State politicians are almost totally unknown.

However, Cuomo has several negatives as well, which will sooner or later get more publicity than they have so far. The first is his last name. Hardly anyone I have spoken to who lived through his father Mario Cuomo's 12-year reign as Governor of New York remembers it with much fondness. The business climate was considered bad (though it should be noted that “business climate” is a difficult concept at best), and Mario Cuomo was the most recent Governor to engage in layoffs of State workers. Young Andrew was deeply involved in his father's administration.

As Attorney General, Cuomo has pretty much stuck to easy targets, such as Wall Street and Senator Pedro Espada. Cuomo was also on the (legally) “wrong” side of Governor Paterson's battle with the Legislature over the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor. I have analyzed one of the policy proposals Andrew Cuomo made as Attorney General, his plan to manage the largest government employee pension fund. The article is elsewhere on this site. The proposal appeared to be poorly researched, not well thought out, and at the time the article was written there was no publicly available bill to examine, just some Press Releases.

As Governor, Andrew Coomo will not have the luxury of only taking on easy targets, and his judgments and policy proposals will have much more a direct impact on people's lives.

Finally, I must make a highly subjective judgment. I find it difficult to look at Andrew Cuomo, or read anything he or his office has produced, without somehow “feeling” a sense of entitlement oozing off of it. Others may disagree, I know. But to the degree that I'm right, New York surely doesn't need a Governor with a sense of entitlement.

• Conclusion
Quite simply, New York needs another candidate, and needs it badly. I don't ask for perfection, or even near-perfection. But the Empire State, at this juncture, badly needs someone worth having confidence in, rather than someone who is better than the rest.

Sadly, the latter may be all New York can expect.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Chasing Rats: Brief Thoughts on Eliot Spitzer and the Financial Industry

Eliot Spitzer, disgraced former Governor and Attorney General of New York State, has managed to turn himself into quite the financial industry expert, if one uses the number of television appearances he has made as an indicator of his expertise. As well as television, Wall Street is also a frequent topic of Spitzer's at his Slate column.

The most recent television appearance Spitzer has made on the topic as of the time of writing was on CBS's This Morning, on 11 January 2010. Spitzer, readers will be glad to know, confirmed that the anger at seemingly excessive Wall Street bonuses was “legitimate,” because tax dollars were used to fund the bonuses. (I reacted by breathing a little easier. I had worried that my anger was not legitimate, until Eliot Spitzer confirmed that it was.)

Spitzer says this as though there's people outside of the financial industry and, to a degree, Fox News, who disagree with him. (And even with Fox News, it depends on which conservative face they are putting on that day: Ayn Rand's corporatist capitalism or Pat Buchanan's pitchfork populism.)

Even Governor David Paterson, who turned a 9 December 2009 speech at the Museum of American Finance into an odd pep talk to Wall Street, probably agrees with Spitzer about the bonuses. Paterson, however, thinks he can get more mileage out of taxing the bonuses for State revenue than he can by complaining about them.

In the same CBS interview, Spitzer also let the world know that he has caught on to the fact that the Bush Administration's financial industry bailout (referred to in policy wonk jargon as the “Trouble Asset Relief Program” or TARP), has, as implemented, effectively socialized risk, and privatized profits. In other words, we all put up the money when things go poorly, but when things are going well, suddenly Capitalism kicks in, and the individual's profits are the individual's profits. We all share in the risks together, not the profits. It's grand to know that Spitzer has caught onto something that actual financial experts were talking about awhile ago.

However, I, for one, have long suspected that Spitzer actually played a role in the troubles (for want of a better term) on Wall Street, due to actions he took as New York State Attorney General. Not that he conspired with Wall Street, not that he participated directly, but rather that his actions pushed things further underground, where they could flourish all-the-more.

My argument goes something like this.

The Bush Administration, acting within a lax regulatory framework that I have read can be traced in part to the Clinton Administration, basically allowed the financial industry to do pretty much anything it wanted. Complicit in this of course was Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who openly praised the overly complex financial time bombs known as derivatives. We now know that derivatives were one of the main sources of the financial industry collapse.

For more than a decade, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has fiercely objected whenever derivatives have come under scrutiny in Congress or on Wall Street. “What we have found over the years in the marketplace is that derivatives have been an extraordinarily useful vehicle to transfer risk from those who shouldn’t be taking it to those who are willing to and are capable of doing so,” Mr. Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in 2003. “We think it would be a mistake” to more deeply regulate the contracts, he added.

See this New York Times article, the source of that quote, for more.

At about the same time, then Attorney General Spitzer was emerging as the “Sheriff of Wall Street,” pursuing the crimes of the financial industry with a driven intensity Eliot Ness would have envied.

It is frighteningly easy to imagine that Spitzer had prophetic powers, that his pursuit of financial industry misdeeds foretold the economic crisis. And certainly I have little doubt that Spitzer, with his undeniably sharp and keen intellect, had some idea of the obvious parallels between the lead-up to the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the lead-up to the 2008 Stock Market Crash. (Then again, however, so would anyone else who cared to read John K. Galbraith's great book The Great Crash, 1929 sometime during 2005 through 2008.)

(It is, of course, likely Spitzer's embittered pursuit of Wall Street that forms the basis of the media's re-imagining of him as some kind of financial industry expert.)

Consider this analogy, however. If the exterminator's rat poison is taken away, can you effectively kill the rats by chasing them into the walls where they can breed in privacy? No, you cannot. Rather, the exterminator needs his poison back, or needs traps.

Bush and Greenspan took away the poison. Spitzer, I would suggest, chased the rats into the walls. At the very least, I find it doubtful that Spitzer's sheriff act helped matters. Even Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat (at least in the edition of that book that I happened to read), admitted that Spitzer's actions had driven certain Wall Street analytical jobs overseas. Traps are slow going, and aren't as much fun as the chase. Same for poison. But you can kill a lot more rats than you can by chasing them.

The financial industry is a noble and necessary one. As long as there has been money, there has been a financial industry.

But, unregulated, it just becomes a rat breeding colony. And when you pursue the bad actions in that industry, of which I'm sure there are many more than we know about, using legal tools designed to chase common street criminals, all that happens is you chase the rats into the wall, where they are safer, and can breed in the dark.

The truth is that the financial sector doesn't need an exterminator, or a sheriff. It is telling that the most prominent current book about Spitzer was entitled Spoiling for a Fight. This was not the approach America needed on Wall Street. Rather, America needed "adult supervision" of the financial industry.

I find it telling that one potential for such an adult, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is one of many current objects of Spitzer's ire.

Spitzer thinks that Geithner, who then was at the New York Federal Reserve, either had a role in the troubles at AIG, or at least did not help. And Spitzer may well prove correct. But is anything Geithner might or might not have done at the New York Fed really the source of Spitzer's ire? Or is it the fact that Geithner is an adult, and the intelligent, spoiled child can always see the adult's faults more clearly than he can his own?

I don't know exactly how to test my theory that Spitzer's rat-chasing games hurt more than helped. I will leave it to Historians, I suppose. Perhaps one day it will make a fine exhibit at the Museum of American Finance.

-The Albany Exile