Kudos to Tyler!

We here at the HCP tend to focus on what is going on in the upper echelons of government, but it is important to remember that the reason that they are able to exist is through the fact that we give them that right through our democratic system.  I was personally incredibly happy to read the story of how President Obama replied to a letter written by Herkimer fifth grader Tyler Bargowski, in which he urged the president to take action to save the environment.  

Bargowski was in fourth grade when he penned the letter, telling the president that he was worried about the environment, and in it offered up his own ideas as to how the government could help.  This act, which the teacher stated he decided to do on his own, cuts to the root of what I believe we as a society have lost over the past eight months since Obama was elected: and that is the fact that if we are to advance as a society we need to be able to engage with the government to solve our problems, instead of just assuming that everything it does is evil.

Tyler observed a problem, that the environment needs to be protected, so he let an elected official know how he felt about the problem and offered a solution.  In this way he was able to engage with the government, and let his views be known.  If we all did this, instead of shouting at each other at Town Hall meetings and claiming that every single thing the government does is evil (I can wholeheartedly assure you that an organization whose lively hood revolves around you allowing them to operate is not going to start killing you off), we may have made some progress by now.  Every time you talk with an elected official you never know if the idea that you are proposing is something that they will enact, for it is the exchange of ideas that makes our system as great as it is.  It is when we completely lose sight of this that we go astray.

It goes without saying that not everything the government does is perfect, far from it as I have written in past posts, especially regarding the Senate Coup, but we have completely lost faith in our system of governance.  The government was created by us to operate for us, and this is what we need to keep in mind.  In terms of Tyler's letter he addressed environmental protection, which is something that the government affords us because it is what we as a society want and need to function.  

So once again I would like to congratulate Tyler on a job well done, and good luck with your aspirations of a political career!

State To Begin Bottled Water Deposit on October 22nd

Following a ruling by a Federal Court Judge that New York can implement its new bottle deposit scheme without the unconstitutional New York only bar code provision, the state has decided that it will begin the program on October 22nd.  On this date there will be a 5 cent deposit on all non-carbonated single serve beverage containers (think bottled water, juice, etc.), just as there currently is on carbonated soft drinks and beer.  Then when one is done with the container they can recycle it to get the deposit back, making it theoretically revenue neutral.  Since a lot of people still don't recycle even when there is an economic incentive to do so, the State will keep 80% of unclaimed deposits to put towards environmental protection and the other 20% will go toward the bottlers themselves.  Currently all of the unclaimed deposits go to the bottlers.

The current bottle bill, which has been in place 26 years, has been a tremendous success, for it has raised recycling rates higher than they would have gone with education alone.  The most important thing that it has done is create a culture of recycling, for people who don't care at all about sustainability take their bottles back to the store for the deposit because there is an economic incentive.  Thus, by increasing the amount of single serve containers that have a deposit, we are adding onto this culture and increasing our recycling rates further, without a major new program or lifestyle change.

The bill will also give the State new revenue for other environmental initiatives to promote sustainability, thus making it a win-win solution.  Economically, individuals do not have to pay more for the program because they are able to get their deposits back by recycling.  The state, meanwhile, gains more revenue for environmental programs due to some one's choice not to recycle, not by forcibly taking money from them through taxes.  Thus, this program will  allow the people to continue to chose whether or not they want to recycle, but if they chose not to partake in an activity that benefits society as a whole, they make up for it through the State spending that money on other sustainability programs.

My hope is that the State will unveil more innovative programs such as this that will help move us towards a more sustainable future, without directly taxing us to do so.  It also allows individuals to make the decision whether or not they are going to take a step towards a more sustainable future, but if they don't, they still end up paying the societal costs of having this recyclable item sent to a landfill.

Paterson Gets Another Boost, But it Still Can't Help His Poll Numbers

Twice this week Gov. Paterson has had news break that should have helped his poll numbers as he is beginning to ramp up his re-election campaign, but it seems to be too little too late.  The latest news, a Marist poll asking people how they felt about the rumors that Obama has asked to Paterson to reconsider running for re-election, shows that people are not happy with the president's foray into state politics.  62% of respondents thought that it was wrong of Obama to get involved in the governor's race, while only 27% thought that it was within his realm of responsibility to do so.  

For the Paterson campaign, this is welcome news because it means that he is being victimized in the eyes of voters by a bigger entity than himself who is trying to bully him into not seeking re-election.  People in general, and voters as well, like an underdog who has the deck stacked against them but comes out on top in the end.  This can also be tied into Paterson's symbolic victory over Cuomo with his appointment of Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor being uphelp by the Court of Appeals, amounting to one week that should have seen support for Paterson grow. 

This has not been the case, however, as his job performance ratings actually dropped from 20% to 17%, and 63% of New Yorkers still do not want him to seek re-election.  This once again suggests that Paterson's biggest flaw is the fact that he is David Paterson.  I have now come to the conclusion that there is nothing that he can do to bring up his poll numbers enough before the election cycle to be a viable candidate in any sense of the word due to the fact that his name has too much baggage that comes with it.  

I still believe that he will run through the primary though, unless he is offered a position with the federal government by Obama, but once again that would be meddling in state affairs, something the voters of New York are not happy with.  But would they be happy with it if it meant that Paterson was not running in 2010?   

This poll suggests that Paterson's only hope to garner enough support to withstand a tough primary challenge is to play the underdog card as much as he can.  With an important budget proposal to close to $2 billion deficit coming up he may have a shot at this.  He can throw it all on the table and say here is how we can do this, this won't please anyone, but it is the best that I can do given the difficult situation that I have been given.  Plus some more nudging from the White House would certainly help him to present this image as well.

But ultimately I still feel that this will all be too little too late.

Paterson's Appointment of Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor is Upheld By Court of Appeals

The New York Times is reporting that the State Court of Appeals (the highest court in NYS) has overturned a lower courts ruling and upheld Paterson's appointment of Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor.  The appointment, made during the last days of the Senate stalemate as a means to end it, has been in legal limbo since almost immediately after the announcement State Senator Dean Skelos filed suit to block the appointment.

Paterson's original intent when making the appointment was to fill the position, which has a tie breaking vote in the Senate, thus ending the stalemate as Ravitch would vote with the Democrats.  The plan worked, for even though Ravitch has not been allowed to take office until now, the stalemate ended as both sides saw that Paterson had found a way to have actual influence over their childish bickering.  The New York constitution allows for the President of the Senate to pick a new Lt. Governor and have them confirmed, but in this case there was no President of the Senate.  Thus Paterson made the appointment without knowing if what he was doing was constitutional or not, but drastic times call for drastic measures.  

The timing of the court's decision could also not come at a better time for Paterson, as at the time he made the decision without the blessing of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.  Many saw this as a way in which Paterson was differentiating himself from Cuomo as the two will almost certainly find themselves in a heated primary contest.  With news recently breaking that Democratic part leadership, including Obama, has been asking Paterson to step down in order for Cuomo to take over as the parties candidate, this is a victory for Paterson.  Although I still don't think that this will help his terrible poll numbers, for if people didn't feel that he had a hand in helping to end the stalemate at the time through this move, they are not going to change their minds just because it has been ruled constitutional.

So now the State has a new Lt. Governor, but what does this decision mean for the State?  Well, for starters, the Governor now has the ability to appoint someone to serve in vacant high level State positions without the consent of anyone.  Thus, If Ravitch dies, Paterson can immediately appoint anyone of his choosing to the post of Lt. governor, without the consent of the Legislature or the people.  Similarly, if Paterson dies, the State would then have a governor who at no time was elected by the people, or confirmed by a body representing the people.  This seems like a dangerous precedent to set, but the Court of Appeals only judges the law as it is written, not as it should be.

This leads us to what should happen in light of this incident.  The law should be changed.  There should be a new clear cut amendment made to the State Constitution specifically laying out the procedure for filling vacancies in high level state positions.  In my opinion this should be a very non-partisan issue, for we now have found out that there is a loophole in our Constitution, thus lets fix it.  Unfortunately, in today's incredibly partisan atmosphere, this suggestion would most likely turn into a circus, with both sides attempting to make all sorts of changes to the document to somehow gain an advantage or say that they left their mark on New York.

So for the meantime we have a Lt. Governor and know that the Governor has the ability to appoint someone to vacancies in high level state positions.  Lets just hope that this will help the state to get through these tough times and into a position where the law can calmly be changed.

Democratic Leaders Attempting to Discourage Paterson From Running in 2010

Rumors are now swirling about that Democratic leaders, including Obama, are attempting to convince Gov. Paterson that he should not seek election to a full term in 2010.  Party officials are worried that his abysmal approval rating, around 20% currently, could translate into a Republican gaining control of the Governors Mansion.  Leaders feel that if Paterson decides not to run in 2010 that it will pave the way for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to gain the Democratic nomination unopposed.  Cuomo's candidacy may also dissuade some bigger name Republicans from jumping into the race for they might feel that they cannot defeat him due to polls constantly showing that he is the voters top choice.

It seems to me as though the Party is now finally starting to put pressure on Paterson to bow out due to the fact that the election cycle has begun with Lazio announcing his candidacy tomorrow.  Leaders may have been waiting for Paterson to step aside on his own, but now realize that he has no intention of doing so.  If Paterson stays in the election it would take Cuomo openly challenging Paterson in a primary for him to get the nomination, an event that would inflict political damage in Cuomo's campaign even before facing his Republican opponent.  

Through Paterson's 18 months I have been one of the few people that has actually supported his performance in office and personally feel that the main reason that he has such a low approval rating is due to the fact that he is the face of the person attempting to correct the State's budget problems.  Lets take a look as to why both sides of the isle have not supported Paterson in his attempt to solve the State's budget deficiet.  From a conservative point of view Paterson is the first Governor in a long time to take on Albany's vested interests, including gaining cost saving concessions from the Unions.  This normally would be a huge reason to support his efforts, but the problem with people on the right supporting him is the fact that he is a Democrat who ultimately wants to put progressive policies in place.  This negating any budget cuts that he has made, as well as any future ones for they will never be enough.  From the left, Paterson has taken on labor organizations and has made cuts to many government run programs making it hard for them to support him.  So he really has been given the impossible task of finding a balance between having to close the State's $2 Billion budget deficit and making people happy, a task which I personally believe is impossible.

So onto Paterson's current election ambitions.  From his point of view he has nothing to loose by running again.  He spent many years in the Senate, and in a round about way, ended up as the governor.  He is not a nationally known figure and this is most likely the highest position that he will ever obtain politically, so why would he not attempt to stay in office.  The worst case scenario for Paterson now is that he is defeated by Cuomo in the primary.  The best case scenario is that no Democrat opposes him and he wins the election.  So thus, from Paterson's perspective it makes sense for him to stay in the race.

Having already stated that I am a Paterson supporter, I would rather have him decide to step down and allow Cuomo to run come 2010.  At this point in time his candidacy will only serve to ultimately harm the Democrats chances of winning in 2010.  What would be an ideal scenario would be to have Cuomo run for governor with Paterson agreeing to go back to serving as Lt. governor.  Paterson would bring his experience in helping to put an end to the State's fiscal woes to the ticket, while Cuomo would be the one who is actually running the State.  Politically this may not be the best choice for the Democrats though, as Paterson's name may be so tarnished now that it would be dead weight on any ticket, besides possibly his old Senate seat.

The fact that Paterson's name is so tarnished may be what will make it hard for the Democrats to persuade him to not run, for he will most likely not be able to win another office again.  This means that he views this as his last opportunity to continue to hold political office and makes it hard for the Democrats to offer him a cabinet level position anywhere, including Washington, due to the fact that people would not want him there.  The only possible position in which he could be put somewhere noncontroversial, would be as an aide to Obama on policies regarding individuals with disabilities, but even then why would he go from being the leader of the third most populous state in the union to a token figure in the President's staff.

Ultimately only time will tell what Paterson will decide to do, although I am sure that some back room deals are currently being brokered if he does decide to drop out.

Breaking News: Lazio to Announce his Candidacy for Governor on Monday

The Times Union is reporting that Rick Lazio, A Long Island Republican who has served in the Suffolk County Legislature, the House of Representatives, and most recently in the private sector as a managing director at J.P. Morgan Chase, is going to seek the Republican nomination for Governor in 2010.  Lazio is most famous statewide for running against Hillary Clinton in the 2000 senate election.  After the announcement in Albany he is going to go on a week long tour of the state, including Utica, to kick off his campaign.  

According to a Siena research poll asking people who they would support in hypothetical match-ups for the 2010 elections, Lazio was nearly tied when put against Patterson with 38% supporting Patterson and 37% supporting Lazio.  When pitted against Andrew Cuomo, Lazio's support drops through the floor, with Cuomo beating him out by almost 50 percentage points.

Here is a little more background on Lazio Courtesy of Wikipedia:

He was born in 1958 and attended Vassar College, following that he obtained his JD (Law degree) from Washington College of Law at American University.

He was first elected to congress in 1992 in the 2nd District and served there until he decided to run for congress in 2000.

Since then he has toyed with the idea of running for another office, such as Attorney General in 2006, but has abstained.  He has been working in the private sector, most recently at JP Morgan Chase.

So there is some background on the first person, besides Paterson, to announce that they are seeking the Governorship in 2010.  It is still quite early to be thinking about the election, but ever since Paterson has come into office there has been speculation about who will win the next general election.  

I feel that the only way that Lazio will have a chance at winning this election is if he is pitted against Paterson, whose popularity has plunged with the economy.  The problem with this is that that the Republicans will find a stronger candidate to run against Paterson in 2010, if he is indeed the Democratic choice, because they feel that they can knock him out.  The only way that I feel Lazio will be on the ballot is if Cuomo has decided to challenge Paterson for the Democratic nomination due to the fact that the Republicans know that they cannot beat Cuomo and will simply throw Lazio to the lions due to the fact that he has already decided to jump in the race.

The other reason I feel that Lazio's chances are slim is the fact that he is announcing his candidacy early, meaning that he wants to attract as much attention to himself as possible, thus allowing him to gain much needed momentum against larger name Republicans such as Rudy Guiliani.  

Let the 2010 campaign for governor begin!

The End of the World, Political Discourse, and What This Means for Our Nation

There is a comedian, whose name escapes me right now, who had a joke about how he had found the end of the world. He was in Houston, Texas and he went to a Starbucks, when he came out he looked across the street and saw another Starbucks. A Starbucks across from a Starbucks, he claimed, was the end of the world.

My last post from this side of the pond.

Here in the beginning of September 2009 we find our Country as divided as it has ever been. The days are long gone when politicians and everyday citizens came together and attempted to do what was best for the nation, even if this involved personal sacrifice. The greatest generation gave it all to fight the spread of Nazism, and help our fellow man across the world, and now we can't even agree that every American deserves the right to obtain health care when they need it.

Why this seemingly random rant on a Friday? Today I was reading the news like I do every morning and I am finally sick of reading about issues being politicized that have no business being in the political arena. Our elected officials, as well as all of us, have no shame in bringing politics into every facet of our lives. The story I speak of comes from the Times Union, and is about how Obama is planning to make an address to students on Tuesday (the first day of school for us up here) urging them to work hard this year and take their education seriously. This is a message that educators have been making time and time again but seems to fall upon closed ears from many students and parents. Now the president wants to step up to the plate and tell them directly that they need to take school seriously for not only their own good, but for the good of their country.

To me this seems like a great idea, when your young seeing the president speak is a big deal because of the fact that he is a prominent figure, and it means even more if he is directly addressing your demographic. It may be even more influential in inner city schools because of Obamas past and his ability to garner respect from minority communities. Thus, this twenty minutes of classroom time may be a waste for many, but for some it will make a difference for they will see someone who looks like them telling them that they can be better.

In the past this would not have been thought of twice, it is the president of the United States after all, one of the greatest men alive. In the "Leave It to Beaver Days" this would have been seen as a big event, then again so was school. But now, flash forward to 2009, and this seemingly important gesture of welcoming children to school and reminding them of the need to work hard has become a political football.

Republican pundits are now accusing the President of taking his political message directly to the young and forcing them to watch it since they are in school. And once again the way in which they describe their outrage at the President of the United States telling students to work hard at school takes an interesting turn to say the least:

"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education -- it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

So now the President addressing students in a publicly run school system is communism or a dictatorship? Ok, Mr. Steve Russell, then what are we supposed to do to try and motivate our students and remind them of what nation is providing the education they are receiving? This is going to sound incredibly conservative, but where has our patriotism and love of country gone? Do we only see war as the time to wave the flag, and not when educating a child or providing health care for someone, are these not also civic endeavours that can improve lives? How is it that the President can no longer do anything without it being political? There are non-political tasks that he must do as a representative of our nation, and this is one of them.

Others are making ludicrous assertions that parents should have the right to be with their kids when they watch this. Why is this ludicrous, because the students that the president is going to try and target are the ones that come from broken, impoverish homes, who put no value in obtaining an education. The ones who have been abused, discriminated against, and have seen horrors far beyond what any educator could ever conceive.

PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.

"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"

If you honestly sit down with your child at 8PM Eastern Standard Time to watch the President address the children of the nation, then your child is going to turn out just fine because you care about them and their education. Not so with the other children that need someone to tell them to do better because they have no role model at home.

As some of you may know I am soon heading off to Graduate School in Scotland to study social policy. So this is a farewell post of sorts, for my future posting plans are to have a "foreign commentary" on Friday's, where I will talk about political differences and observations between us and the Scots. I am truly saddened to see my country in this state as I leave, for now we even argue about letting our president address the youth in our schools with a positive message that needs to be reiterated as often as possible.

I now firmly believe that this nation as a whole needs to pull away from what we have become and reflect on how we got there. We literally have lost all of our patriotism and love of country due to partisanship. At the Town Hall I attended one woman actually stood up and went on about how people should be living in the woods without the government bothering them. Half the nation waved flags for the 8 years of the Bush Jr. era and now claims that their government should stay as far away from them as possible. As much as I was not a fan of George W. Bush, I respected the office and the fact that that man was the president (I would have loved to have seen him speak).

The fact of the matter is that we cannot let partisanship get in the way of progressing our nation forward. We need to begin addressing the health care crisis, global warming, and the economy. One simply cannot say lets do nothing because of the fact that Obama, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi are the ones talking about the need for policies in these areas. The same holds true if Bush, Romney, or McCain have a solution. If we do nothing we are harming our nation, as Europe and China are moving forward they are spurring all sorts of new development in high tech industries, while we are being left behind, all because half of this nation cares more about being partisan than they do about their country.

So consider this my parting prophecy, that we all must begin to put aside our partisanship and work for the better of our nation if we are to truly prosper. It doesn't matter who comes up with the idea that we need (I actually think that it's great that Romney found a way to bring about near universal health care in Massachusetts, would I have gone about it by different means, yes, but nonetheless he made it happen in a bipartisan way and I support that). My hope is that when I return here in a year that our nation will have found that it needs to come together and think of the common good as opposed to personal politics.

For right now I see our nation as that corner in Houston with two Starbucks. There are two America's, that are one in the same, but now are on opposite sides of the street from each other and I sincerely hope that soon we can find a way to consolidate our Starbucks.

Could Free WiFi Work Here?

The Times Union has an interesting article on the City of Albany's current project to cover the city in free wireless Internet. The system, called Albany Freenet, works like this: The City has been awarded grant money to pay for the installation of "nodes", which are large scale wireless routers that are placed on power lines and provide the surrounding area with wireless Internet. The City then contracts the actual Internet service out to a provider, in this case First Light, who then provides Internet access through the nodes. Individuals can then access Albany Freenet for up to one hour without paying and the company offers plans, including day passes and monthly access, for those who live in the coverage area. First Light also sells advertising on their website to help offset the costs associated with offering free Internet.

The City of Albany has recently received a $625,000 grant to help extend the coverage area of the program, and the parent company of First Light (Tech Valley Communications), has agreed to spend $3 million in their own capital to help cover the entire City. All told it is expected to cost $12 million to cover the entire City with free wireless Internet. What is great about this setup is that it is the perfect example of a Public-Private Partnership that allows the City to help build the infrastructure necessary to create the network and it allows First Light to focus on what it does best (providing Internet service).

The idea of providing wireless Internet in the region has been talked about in both Downtown Utica, and also on a lesser scale in the Village of Frankfort. Albany's attempts to bring free wireless Internet to the City should be watched by local leaders as it may end up being another tool in helping to attract businesses and people to the area by showing them that we are progressing with the times. To me it appears that this experiment can go in one of three directions:

1. It ends up being a huge success as people in Albany can now stay connected at all times and it also allows business and government leaders who visit the City to stay on top of things. It also shows those visiting the City that it is a City that is investing in new technologies and is progressing with the times to provide 21st Century Services.

2. It is a wash, the City now has free Wifi for up to one hour at a time and it is mainly utilized by residents who are checking their Facebook updates and tweeting on First Light's dime. This is not necessarily a bad outcome, as Albany now has a service most Cities don't have, but nothing major has come out of it (consider it the equivalent of building a new road that is casually used).

3. It turns into a complete boondoggle with the City and First Light loosing money hand over foot and the entire project is scrapped. This scenario seems highly unlikely due to the fact that Albany is a densely populated City that hosts scores of State and private offices that ensure that it has a high tech citizenry.

My prediction is that this experiment will end up being somewhere in the middle of options 1 and 2. No company is going to relocate to Albany simply because their employees are able to check their emails for free, but it will make the City look good and impress potential investors with their forward thinking. The project is also being financed with both Public and Private money, and I highly doubt that First Light would be investing over $3 million in a project that they thought would fail.

So what does this mean to us here in the Mohawk Valley? Well first off that we should begin to change our ways of thinking about infrastructure. The days of building a shiny new road and having people think that this is a great place to do business because of it are over. We need to begin to think of ways in which we can stand out from the competition and provide for a 21st Century infrastructure for 21st Century business. I often talk at length about the need for new transportation choices, but even more important is the ability to offer the basic necessities for business to take place. Working with Time Warner, or another company, to bring a free wireless service to Downtown Utica will not instantly fill the Harza building and bring about an end to the Hotel Utica's troubles, but it will prove to a nanotech company that we are a City willing to create the infrastructure necessary to both conduct business and make life more enjoyable. A businessman who decides to have lunch at a restaurant in Downtown can now keep tabs on what is going on in the office while out and about, thus increasing their standard of living.

Only time will tell in free wireless access in Cities will be a trend that catches on, but if it does our local leaders should begin to pursue Public-Private Partnerships with local companies to ensure that the risk involved in starting this program is spread out and that we develop the best possible service to meet our diverse needs. For if other Cities begin to have this service and we don't, it will become one more strike against us when it comes to enticing businesses to relocate here.