Feature Guest Post -- Abby Gardner on The Vise of Political Information

(And yes, I could have titled it vice too.)  The following is a guest post by Abigail Gardner.  Abby served as then-Congressman Dan Maffei’s press secretary from 2008 to 2010. Two quick comments on her post.  First, as with all posts, the views expressed here are solely the author's, and not those of Syracuse University, the Campbell Institute, or the WRVO stations.  Second, I think her observation about useful political information getting squeezed between political ads on the one hand and less substantive coverage by the local networks on the other is critically important, and as she notes, food for thought in light of the debate regarding PBS funding.  You can read her blog at http://abigailgardner.tumblr.com/

Record Breaking Profits

This recent story, Cash Clowns, from a Seattle alt-weekly paper describes a disappointing trend of record breaking political ad revenue for local television and the simultaneous decline of local news coverage of political campaigns- a trend I think we’re experiencing in Upstate New York as well.

Cash Clowns uncovered that the four Seattle local network affiliate stations made more money from political ads in the 2010 cycle, $47 million, than any previous election season. Considering this was a midterm election and not a presidential election year, it was an impressive but not shocking haul. The Supreme Court’s Citizen United vs. Federal Election Committee ruling allows for corporations to spend an infinite amount on advertising for or against an issue or candidate. Conservatives said this was a victory for free speech, but it seems it is actually a victory for local television sales departments.

While I don’t know the numbers for Upstate New York stations, I have to imagine they, like Seattle, had a very profitable 2010. U.S. Senators and Representatives, the New York Governor, Attorney General, State Senators and Assemblymen were all on the ballot. Additionally, outside groups with names you can’t argue with, like “Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity” formed overnight. They exist for the sole purpose of raising money to spend on political ads. Hundreds of thousands of those dollars flooded the Syracuse and Rochester markets to attack just one candidate- my former boss, Congressman Dan Maffei.  

Less Coverage

The story also focused on the hypocrisy of record breaking political ad sales while local coverage of political races is declining. I don’t begrudge media outlets for making money. They are a business that sells a lucrative product to clients trying to reach an audience of likely voters. While they’re raking in the ad revenue, however, stations are simultaneously doing less reporting on the actual campaigns. My first-hand experience varied greatly with Rochester and Syracuse stations. Some were very dedicated to political coverage, some did the best they could with limited resources and some chose to almost entirely ignore the campaigns in the area.

During the campaign for New York’s 25^th Congressional seat between Dan Maffei and Ann Marie Buerkle, most stations hosted or aired a debate. At a minimum, every one covered President Clinton’s visit to Syracuse. However, depending on your station of choice for local news, you might not have seen a single other story about the race for Congress. Not that there wasn’t news to cover. The candidates disagreed on nearly every issue: the economy, health care, choice, education, energy, the environment, and on and on. Any station that wanted to produce a story focused on the issues had a myriad to choose from. Instead, some made the editorial decision to focus on Dancing With The Stars, crime, sports, and not on difference between two Congressional candidates on Afghanistan or climate change. Perhaps the lack of attention on the issues is why many people in Syracuse are surprised by the views of their new Representative in Congress.

Ads Cannot Supplant Stories

After the election, I asked a manager at one local TV station why I didn’t see them more often on the campaign trail. The answer was: "Well, our viewers saw so many political campaign ads, we don't want to inundate them with political stories too." I was shocked that a news organization thinks ads supplant stories. Ads are to persuade viewers, news is to present the facts. Ads obviously aren’t going to supply all the information voters need to make an educated decision. With newspapers shrinking in size and staff and the new Republican congress threatening to cut off funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, it is more critical now that other media outlets step up, not back, their coverage. If local television news is going to accept record breaking amounts in ad revenue, they also need to accept their responsibility to inform viewers.

Feature Guest Post -- Mike Sutton's Interview with Howie Hawkins

The following is a guest post by Mike Sutton.  Mike has been a candidate for the Onondaga County Legislature's 9th district seat, and also recently contested for the City of Syracuse Republican Party Chair.  He's very active in civic affairs in his Eastwood community, and also finds time to write on a wide variety of topics.  This is a piece based on an interview he conducted with Howie Hawkins.

I recently was granted a interview with the one and only Central New York "Green Warrior", Howie Hawkins. I asked the L.A. native about everything from his 6 years of service in the U.S.M.C., to his run for Governor, to his future campaign plans,and just about everything in between. 

Though most of family are Republicans (especially his Grandmother who is staunchly so), Howie leans to the Left on most issues. He also tries to bring a common sense and practical approach with him, where ever he goes. What impresses me about Howie is not only that he genuinely cares about his fellow citizens, but that he always modifies his message to match the position he is running for. Though many local third party candidates like David Gay seem to struggle with pounding federal issues when they run for city, county, or state office, Howie does not. He easily made the transition from running for U.S. Congress, to City Common Council, to New York State Governor in consecutive years. Each time, his message match the level of government he was running for.

Another thing that attracts people to Mr. Hawkins is the fact that he will not compromise his values or message or "sell out" to get votes. He always seems to stay true to himself as he addresses the issues and presents his solutions. Though Howie does not seem to be a vote thief or a politician, he is very involved in the local political process and pounds his message, while standing up for the rights of the less fortunate.

Being that he is a rank and file member of the Teamsters Labor Union and works the third shift, Hawkins has plenty of time to campaign during the day and has turned politics into his social life, as well as his life's mission. He genuine enjoys meeting people and addressing their concerns.

Before I reveal his opinion on a few celebrities that Howie met along the campaign trail, I will summarize my views on his political past and future.

It is clear to see that he is an anti war protester and activist, even though he was a faithful U.S. Marine for six years. Howie favors a non-military approach to social justice around the world. He believes that protesting, demonstrating and changing legislation is the more effective approach. I do feel that he has had an impact on New York State as a whole and will continue to do so for many years to come!

Here are his answers to a few of my questions. 

Me: What is your opinion of the following people and what comes to mind when you hear their names?

Jimmy"The Rent is too Damn High"McMillan - Howie: " Jimmy was quiet,and polite when I met him. I think his passion is real and he feels for the poor in our state. However; he doesn't seem to understand the political process and did not have a viable solution to the problems that face New York. His speech was a distraction from the real issues that Warren Redlich and I actually addressed and proposed solutions for." Al "Grandpa Munster" Lewis. - Howie: "I knew Al well and spent a lot of time with him when he ran for Governor on theGreen Party Line. He was a great man and cared more about his politics and social justice than he did his acting career. His only drawbacks were that he was very loud and scared the media at times, and went a little overboard once in a while. One time when he was talking about a toxic plant in New York State, he said" I want to take the chemicals in that plant, pour them into a glass and make George Pataki drink them". Our party didn't need that. But overall Al was great! He was a terrific "street speaker" and drew big crowds at his appearances.He was more of a character in real life than he was as Grandpa on The Munsters. Al was passionate and genuine" Carl Paladino - Howie: "Carl was friendly, but didn't remember people. Even though I was running for the same position, Carl introduced himself to me twice at the same event. I do think his anger was real and though he told Fred Dicker what many politicians want to say to Fred, Carl went too far. He didn't have the right temperament to be Governor. I think the loss of his son has had a lasting effect on Carl"

Me: What did you want to accomplish in your campaign for Governor of New York?

Howie: I had three goals: 1. Get the line back for the Green Party in our state, so it will be easier for other "Greens" to run for local offices. 2. Strengthen the Green Party by raising enrollment and awareness. 3. "Expose Andrew Cuomo's real position or lack there of, on important issues like tax reform, hydro-fracking, and the unethical practices on Wall Street." Howie expressed a common sentiment that "Andrew would gloss over many issues, was very vague and would not tell us his true intentions with regards to hydro-fracking in our state."

Howie had stated that Andrew said that he was against unsafe measures to extract natural gas. The problem is, you can make something sound safe before you do it without seeing to it that it does not harm out water and the valuable resources that we have to offer new businesses in New York State. Howie told me that he believes that hydro-fracking should not be allowed in our state because it will provide a temporary "boom" to our economy and leave us with long term problems. "The companies that come here to drill will bring their own crew of workers, rather than hire locals. Therefore when they leave the area again to drill in another state, the benefits will leave too. The problem is that we have great natural resources here that will draw lasting corporations to our area. Why would we jeopardize out resources for a short term fix?"  Mr. Hawkins also told me that he believes that within a year, Andrew Cuomo will be pushing to legalize and will welcome hydro-fracking in New York State.

I also asked Howie what the 2 most frustrating things about running for our Governor were. He told me that the worst part was the fact that the media ignored him and followed Jimmy McMillan everywhere, and often would not take statements from Howie at all. In fact, when most media outlets quoted him they would say "the Green Party Candidate" said... without mentioning his name. He stated that in a forum in harlem the media followed Jimmy everywhere and even a German news outlet would not talk to Howie. "I asked the reporter if he wanted a statement from me since Germany has a Green Party too. The answer was no."  He also said that is was frustrating trying to generate support when the Green party only has a strong core of members in 5 cities in N.Y. "There are too many area's that we are weak in. Now that we have our line back, that should change."

Howie also stated that though he is not a native to Syracuse, he enjoys our University's sports programs especially basketball. "Our kids are fun to watch because now, they play together as a team.

Please read the entire interview with Howie Hawkins by going to-http://hubpages.com/hub/My-interview-with-Howie-Hawkinshttp://hubpages.com/hub/HasHowieHawkinsTimeCome

Follow Up on The Egypt and Tunisia Interview

In this interview, I tried to pose a question to my guests about a possible, unintended relationship between the recent protests and the Bush Administration's prior actions in the region.  I did not frame the question clearly, and Bob K. correctly called me out on it.  He added his comment under the "Reminder on Comments" posting.  See his comment there, and my response to it.

Reminder on Comments

I warmly invite comments, especially those that disagree with me or the guest posts from others.  But they need to be civil and not contain personal attacks.  I removed one such comment today--from someone called "anonymous" of course--which was uncivil and personally-oriented, and which also contained some false claims about me.  Such comments will not be posted.  Thanks, Grant Reeher

Feature Guest Post -- Abortion in the American Health Care Debate

The following is a guest post by J. Lindsay.  Lindsay is a graduate student in public health at the University of Washington.  She is also a guest blogger for My Dog Ate My Blog, and a writer for the Guide to Online Schools.  As is the case with all posts, the views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent Syracuse University, the Campbell Institute, or the WRVO stations.

Advocates for reproductive justice were basically slapped in the face with the introduction of H.R. 3 or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." This bill, introduced by anti-choice Congressman Chris Smith on January 20, 2011, would make the restrictions of the Hyde amendment permanent. Specifically, these restrictions deny taxpayer subsidies for abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. In addition to finalizing these restrictions, H.R. 3 would prevent self-insured and employer-based consumers from receiving tax breaks if they buy insurance plans that include coverage for abortion.

H.R. 3 has received countless criticisms, not only for its restrictions but for its language, which specifies that "rape" must be of a forcible nature in order to be covered by public funding. This language, not to mention the entire bill, is absolutely preposterous in the opinions of many. In only covering "forcible rape," this bill has undermined the violation that occurs to a woman's dignity and mental stability with all forms of rape (including date rape, incest, and work-based harassment). Rape is rape, and each occurrence is bound by a lack of consent. It should not be redefined in an attempt to advance partisan efforts.

Having received numerous attacks from women's groups, House Republicans have recently decided to remove the incredibly offensive language from the bill. Representative Chris Smith has commented that the word "forcible" will be dropped from the bill and replaced with the original language from the Hyde amendment, leaving the bill to cover all forms of rape. The removal of this language is only a minuscule victory for reproductive justice advocates compared with the whirlwind of current events during the abortion debate, but at least it ensures that more women are covered.

H.R. 3 is definitely not alone in its restrictive nature. On the same day that H.R. 3 was introduced, Representative Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania introduced the erroneously named, "Protect Life Act," or H.R. 358. On February 3, 2011, Representative Pitts  introduced a new provision to the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services even if a woman is at risk of dying if she does not receive them. Unfortunately, it seems like there is no limit to the kinds of restrictions that will be introduced during this controversial time.

Right now, states are in the process of drafting their insurance exchanges that, according to the health care reform package, are to be implemented in 2014, and abortion-restricting bills are popping up in many of them. In particular, Pennsylvania has seen many abortion-restricting bills after the controversy surrounding Dr. Gosnell, who was arrested for performing late-term abortions in a horrendous manner. This case has been riling up anti-choice legislators to introduce more bans, but what Gosnell did only strengthens the argument that women need greater access to abortion services. It is tragic that women in their sixth, seventh, and eight months of pregnancy received abortions by Dr. Gosnell, but do you think they would have waited so long if they could have received an abortion shortly after conceiving? The answer is most likely no.

Regardless of where we stand on the moral issue of abortion, we need to realize that American women need access. Let individuals make the decision themselves of whether or not they will receive an abortion. The government--federal or state--does not have the authority to intervene during this decision making process. But by making abortion unavailable to countless women, lawmakers seem to be trying to convince women that abortion should be out of the question. Without insurance coverage, a woman may unable to afford an abortion, and she may result to drastic measures if she isn't free to make the decision about what's right for her and her family.

CPB versus BBC, and What It May Mean for Politics

Republicans in Congress have renewed their attack on public broadcasting, proposing that federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), currently at about $445 million annually, be entirely eliminated.  CPB funnels money to National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).  I've been reading through the commentary advocating the zeroing out, and I've been struck, once again, by the anger and disdain that NPR and PBS generate in some quarters.  Stripping that away, the case for not funding them seems to focus on two specific claims:  That the programming of the broadcast organizations is politically slanted--to the Left--and therefore shouldn't be funded by the government (the firing of Juan Williams is sometimes held up as proof of this bias); and that neither PBS nor NPR supply a distinct public service which is not already available through the market.  In addition, there's the more general objection that no media programming should be funded by taxpayers; NPR and PBS should instead be supported entirely by voluntary individual and corporate contributions (currently it's a mix of private and public support). 

Transparency before going further:  I host a program on a regional NPR station, and while I have an interest in seeing that program continue, I am not paid by NPR or the local station.

On the supposed Left bias, I guess I can see a slight liberal tinge, in two respects, neither of which is surprising or unique.  First, it's probably the case, as it is with a lot of media organizations (absent FOX), that the employees and the talent tend to be more liberal than the average citizen.  It's not clear that this means the content of the news broadcasts is decidedly more liberal, however.  Such a bent might come through, at the edges, at the moments when it's especially hard for the personal views of the broadcasters not to become intertwined with what they're doing on the air--for example perhaps Steve Inskeep's recent interview with Donald Rumsfeld, which was clearly more aggressive than his usual chat with a guest.  Rumsfeld stirred up some emotions for Inskeep--at least it seemed that way to me.

Where it's easier to see a liberal slant is in feature story selection, as NPR and to a lesser extent PBS search for the less reported, more quirky, and more diversity-oriented topics, and those are almost by definition less conservative (see NPR's mission statement below).

But the renewed attack on CPB funding got me thinking about the BBC, which I consume as my primary news source in the weeks during the summer when I teach a program in London. 

Granted, the BBC and the CPB have entirely different histories, reflecting the two nations' different views toward regulating the market and the kinds of things rightly considered to be within the public trust.  They're also structured differently, with the BBC being more centralized, and NPR more federated (again reflecting the nations' political systems).

And relative to the CPB, the BBC is "massively" funded, as the Brits would say, to the tune of approximately $5.8 billion annually. 

But there are similarities.

The BBC is funded by the government, but it is not a state media outlet--like NPR and PBS it is independently operated. 

They have similarly worded missions.  For the BBC:  To inform, educate, and entertain.  For PBS:  To educate, inform, and inspire.  For NPR:  To create a more informed public challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.

The BBC attracts criticisms similar to those of the CPB, and the mandatory license fee on televisions that funds it is a constant source of political debate.

Christopher Cook, a media observer and critic (and also my colleague in London), notes that the political criticism the BBC receives comes from both the Left and the Right, but like the CPB, its most virulent criticism is found within conservative camps.  And like the CPB, a lot of that criticism is rooted in the perception that the personnel at the BBC are to the Left of the average citizen, even if the news coverage is not directly slanted.

Yet the argument to entirely eliminate the funding for the BBC remains a fringe position.  For example, David Cameron's Conservative/Lib-Dem government recently cut the BBC's budget by 16 percent over a four year period, while the average cut to government departments was 19 percent.

So how does the BBC maintain its safe position as a government-funded, public news organization, while the CPB is regularly tied to the railroad tracks?  According to Cook, the three most important reasons for the BBC's strength are:  First, a broad band of viewers and listeners--the electorate--like it and trust it; second, over the years it has become one of Britain's national institutions and therefore a sacred cow, so attacks on it are politically dangerous (think Social Security perhaps); and third, politicians recognize that their best bet for having politics taken seriously and covered in depth as a broadcast topic is the continued existence of the BBC.

Clearly NPR, PBS, and by extension the CPB never reached the threshold of viewership and support in our network and cable dominated landscape to become a similarly defining national institution, and their appeal has always been more limited.  But perhaps our politicians are a bit different as well--it may be that beyond the Left-Right debate, having politics taken seriously and covered in depth is not seen by them as something in their collective self-interest, or our collective self-interest, and this may tell us something important about our political culture.

More Insights on Egypt and Tunisia

Check out this Friday's Campbell Conversation interview, when I will be speaking with two faculty members from Tunisia and Egypt, respectively (see "What's Up on the Campbell Conversations" box to the right).  One of the guests has a specific interest in media and civic engagement.  I'll try to get behind and beyond the daily news reports of the situation to some deeper insights of why, when, and what next.

About the Jordan-Elbridge Interview

As I expected, there is some criticism of the interview I did with Mary Alley, President of the Jordan-Elbridge School Board.  You can find the interview podcast here. 

Let me write a few words about the purpose of the interview and the show--not just this particular segment, but also the program more generally.

I am not trying to sort out the tangled trail of what has happened in J-E over the past few months, and I did not approach the guest as a source to do that.  That is the job for a news reporter.  I did not try to get into the specific grounds for what the board has done, though I did want Ms. Alley to explain or confirm why she thought she couldn't discuss those actions--and she did that.  The hypothetical question I asked her about possible futures--should the board's specific grounds for the actions they've taken ultimately be shown to make sense--was to elicit her sense of the level of damage to the community that has been done to this point.  I did not suggest--and did not intend to suggest--a position on whether the principal or treasurer or anyone else should have been fired. 

I invited her on the program because she is an elected official at the center of this controversy, who could speak directly about the effects on the community, about what she thought the board could and should have done differently in dealing with the controversy, and about the experience she's had in all this as an elected, volunteer official.  The point of the interview extended beyond the specific facts of the J-E board actions to the nature of our political life.  The overall approach toward the interview was to create a civil, rational conversation.

I do not bring guests on the program to badger them or to argue with them, but rather to draw them out and elicit their views.  This opens the program up to criticisms of being too sympathetic to the guests when the guests are controversial, and this criticism cuts across the ideological spectrum.  Thus, I have heard similar comments after interviewing Eliot Spitzer and a Left-wing member of the British Parliament on the one hand, and Ann Marie Buerkle and local leaders of the Tea Party on the other.  The emotions are higher in the J-E case, and so the comments are more sharply edged--I understand that.

Here is an alternative standard I'd suggest to evaluate this interview--was there new information and some additional understanding provided?  Since no one from the board has yet spoken to the media in this way, I'd say the answer to this question would have to be yes.  Bringing this guest in to ask the kinds of "tough questions" that some have suggested to me would have resulted in no interview at all.  And note that I did ask her why she's waited until now to speak, what the board should have done differently, why they haven't communicated the grounds of their actions, and why they've apparently moved toward less public comments since the fall.

Here's a final consideration:  Members of the community have had numerous opportunities to voice their anger to each other directly, and through the media to the broader community and the greater Syracuse area.  And they've been taking advantage of these opportunities.  I heard two hours of them at the meeting in October.  They have been in the Post-Standard every week.  This was the first time that anyone has heard from someone on the board in any kind of extended format.  I think on balance the dial was moved in a positive direction by the interview, however slightly.

--Grant Reeher

Tiger Mothra

I was just settling in to write a post about the Tiger Mother hoopla, when I discovered that Cynthia Tucker had already said most of what I wanted to say, and it's here.

What I'd underscore from her piece is that one of the reasons for the ridiculous amount of attention this woman and book have received is that among certain classes, a version of the Tiger Parent is fast multiplying.  "Tiger Mother Lite" is probably the best term.  There are tons of them here at the university, for example, and it's fun sport to watch them talk about their kids at a social event--a polite exchange of information that is in reality a battle for supremacy by proxy, the verbal equivalent of a West Side Story rumble.

Ultimately, if the fallout from the book gives a few more kids their summers back, I guess I'm for it.

I'll end with a Zen koan in honor of the book:  What is the sound of one hand carrying money to the bank?

I've Seen the Microphone and the Damage Done

Apologies to Neil Young on the title, but if you haven't already guessed, this post concerns the saga of the Jordan-Elbridge School Board and its community.  They're back on the front page again, and are the subject of the lead editorial in today's Syracuse Post-Standard.

I've written on the community's conflict before--here and elsewhere--based in part on my experiences as public comment moderator for one of the early, large (800 plus) public meetings in which some tempers flared, to put it mildly.

Based on that experience and what I have continued to read, here are some additional thoughts--musings in no particular order:

--The news story today by Paul Riede and his colleagues seemed to me to be fair, accurate, and non-inflammatory, but some of the paper's earlier coverage of the controversy--the framing of the narratives and implied conclusions--served to stir up, at least in part, the damaging conflict the paper is decrying on its editorial page.  I've written on this general topic before in this space, but early on I think the paper fanned the flames through its coverage.  To really demonstrate this, I'd need to present a thorough content analysis of all the coverage.  I won't do that--I'll just state that this is my impression based on close reading.  Others may disagree.

--It was my impression at the earlier meeting--and it's my impression based on reading the new story--that the principal in question is enlisting and encouraging some of the protests on the part of others.  Not that many members of the community aren't genuinely angry, all on their own, but I've been to a lot of these kinds of meetings, and that particular antenna in my head was activated that evening.  He went excessively beyond his allotted comment time in the meeting I moderated, with others from the audience yelling that they'd cede their time to him (which is an obviously problematic way to make a decision on that in a group of 800), and he claimed he was entitled to do so because of his position and what was at stake for him personally.  That logic runs out at some point--four months from the October meeting may be that point.  And as I've written before, given the outside investigators that have visited the district, I'm betting there's another shoe to drop here.  We'll see.

--Today's story and editorial point to the tragedy that students are having to witness the emotional excess and the bad blood in the conflict.  I agree, but a deeper level of that tragedy, I think, is the possibility that many of these students are getting drawn into the conflict through mechanisms that would concern me, including parents, teachers, and administrators.  Several students testified at the meeting I moderated, and my sense was that some of the them had been recruited, if not drafted. 

--The paper and a host of other critics are right, however, to point to the direction that the board has taken--toward more restriction and less interaction--as the wrong lesson to draw from the earlier conflict.  It was obvious that this issue would generate public anger and frustration (changes in local education always do)--especially if the grounds for some of the actions cannot be publicly discussed.  In those instances, you need to provide venues for people to express that frustration, and try to make them as constructive as possible.  For all its sharp edges, I left the meeting back in October thinking that some positive things had come from it, and that there was a path forward, if the openness continued and if people could take a breath.  Wishful thinking, apparently.

Buying Local and Local Engagement

Coming up next on the Campbell Conversations is a discussion with Chris Fowler, founder and executive director of SyracuseFirst, a non-profit dedicated to pushing out the "buy local" message.  "Buy local" can mean different things, and Chris parses that out in the interview, but in making the argument for buying local he introduced an idea that really got me thinking, and that I now wish I had pursued more thoroughly.

It's the notion that a community engaged in buying local could become more locally engaged, in civic terms.  This thought sat in between the lines of some of what he said, and at the margins of some of his other comments (about strengthening the local commercial base, for example), but the more I pondered it, the more sense it made to me.  The very process of making the effort to buy local could prompt us to learn about our own area and engage with each other in a way that could lead to further interactions in other spheres, and to a stronger sense of connection with and commitment to our local community.  In other words, we could become better citizens.  Sounds pie-in-the-sky, I know, but it's worth a thought and perhaps a try. 

Climate Change, The Movie II

No, it's not Al Gore.  This YouTube video is a nice companion piece to my Campbell Conversation interview with Dave Eichorn.  Here you can see Dave present visually some of the things he discusses in our conversation.  Truth in advertising:  There's a short pitch for a couple SUNY-ESF courses at the very end.

On 10 Rounds or More

Ruth Marcus has an interesting editorial on the now-expired federal Assault Weapons Ban, in which she focuses on its prohibition of magazines in excess of 10 rounds.  The Tucson shooter used a 31-shot magazine, and the thought is that the ban might have made it more difficult for him to have armed himself so heavily. 

What her column could have emphasized more heavily is that the ban had a grandfather clause--it prohibited the manufacture of such magazines beginning in 1994, and the sale and possession of those magazines; however, the possession and sale of larger magazines made before the ban went into effect remained legal.  New York state law essentially continues the same ban, and so new magazines with capacities larger than 10 and made post-1994 are not legal here.  The ultimate effect of the federal ban between 1994 and 2004, and the continuing ban within New York, is that the prices of these pre-ban magazines have risen, because the supply is limited.  But the magazines are still available.

This illustrates a central quandary for Americans contemplating tighter gun regulations.  The horse has definitely left the barn, a while ago.  To take an overall-supply approach in order to really limit the ability of criminals to get these kinds of guns, particularly in the short-term, restrictions would need to go far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban--focusing on possession as well as manufacture, and leaving out grandfather clauses.  That's very difficult terrain in American politics. 

Evidence suggests that the ban was beginning to have a limiting effect on access to the defined weapons by 2004, and their use in crime (see for example Robert J. Spitzer's book, The Politics of Gun Control), but there remains much controversy over whether it had any demonstrable effect on overall rates of gun crime. 

It's also worth noting that threats of bans are boons to manufacturers and dealers, and increase short-term supply.  There is clear evidence that in the past production and demand have gone up as the perceived "risk" of a possible ban rises, and I'll bet that the purchase of large-capacity magazines will go up if the current discussion of a new ban continues, if it hasn't already (update:  apparently it has).  That will put more of these magazines into circulation as "pre-ban" approved stock, should any future ban result.

Do You Have Ideas About Civilizing Political Talk? Here's How to Share Them

This is in some respects a follow up to my previous post, "Missing Culpa?" 

The plans for the event described below have been in the works for months prior to the Arizona shootings, but if you have ideas for making public conversations about politics more civil and productive--or are just interested in participating in a civil conversation about this topic--please consider joining us on February 18 at the City Hall Commons for this public deliberation event co-sponsored by CNYSpeaks and Focus Syracuse (full disclosure:  I am a co-director of the CNYSpeaks project).  It should be a fruitful and affirming discussion. 

Below is the full press release for the event.

Contacts:                                                                     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Chuckie Holstein, (315) 448-8732                                     Jan. 12, 2011

Tina Nabatchi, (315) 443-8994

Making Public Meetings Work for the Public: A Forum on Civil Civic Discourse

Work with fellow citizens on February 18 to identify the elements of constructive public forums

Syracuse, NY – Please join us at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, February 18, at City Hall Commons for a forum on how to ensure civil, constructive public meetings.

Combative school board sessions and angry town hall meetings on health care have obscured the fact that public officials and citizens must work together to solve the complex problems we face here in Central New York and across the country.

Yet public officials are given little guidance on just how to structure public meetings to ensure that citizens are heard, and citizens have little guidance about how they should behave at those meetings to ensure that their interests are understood and that the meetings are safe and productive.

On Feb. 18, FOCUS Greater Syracuse will devote its monthly Core Group meeting to exploring this topic, with the goal of hearing from citizens about how they believe public meetings can be better designed to be productive, civil and effective.  

The forum, which is free and open to all, will run from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at City Hall Commons, 201 E. Washington St., Syracuse.

Participants will work in small groups with trained facilitators from the CNYSpeaks Initiative and the Maxwell School’s Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration to discuss questions such as:

·         Why do people go, or stay away from, public meetings?

·         What do public meetings that “work” look like?  What do such meetings accomplish? What processes are used?

·         How should public meetings be designed to be more inclusive, productive and constructive?

·         What are the minimum standards of behavior required of citizens — and officials — to have successful public meetings?

Please join FOCUS and CNYSpeaks as we tackle this important issue, and thank you in advance for helping us spread the word about this event. Again, it’s free and open to all. There is no registration required. The event will start promptly at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 18, and be over by 9. Coffee will be served. More information on the sponsoring organizations can be found at http://cnyspeaks.com and http://www.focussyracuse.org/.

The public is welcome to contact FOCUS at focus@ci.syracuse.ny.us or (315) 448-8732, or CNYSpeaks at cnyspeaks@maxwell.syr.edu or 315-730-4621, for more information.

Missing Culpa? Some Reflections on the Discussions Surrounding the Shootings

Predictably, the Arizona shootings have occasioned a flood of reconsiderations of our escalated political rhetoric.  Most of it has been directed at the Right, as conservatives tend to employ military and gun-oriented metaphors in their messages more often than those on the Left.  (As I write that, however, I recall being at a political event late one night in 1988 in which a nationally prominent Democrat pretended to shoot a shotgun as he joked about "hunting Quayle.")  But the tone of our political rhetoric is also being questioned more generally, as it should be, even if the actual connection between verbal nastiness and a madman shooting a bunch of people is unprovable and unlikely. 

Moments like these also bring forth efforts by groups and individuals who are committed to certain policy changes, and are constantly looking for opportunities to make their case and move the political dial.  In political science-speak these actors are known as "policy entrepreneurs."  The opportunities that come their way are known as "policy windows," and tragedies often open them up.  So it is that we are now having a renewed discussion of gun control laws, and in particular the demise of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004. 

But if we're drawing on this tragedy to push issues, even if they are only tangentially related (or completely unrelated) to explaining and understanding why this event happened--and could have happened--then I want to add this one to the mix.  It's also time to renew our concern over the way political information is presented to citizens through traditional media outlets.  A host of research has demonstrated that over the past years, media coverage of politics, elected officials, and government--print and broadcast--has become both less substantive and more negative, focusing on supposed personal motivations and calculations at the expense of the facts and issues, and increasingly concentrating on misdeeds and mistakes. 

What concerns me in particular here is the tone of complete disdain that pervades much of the treatment.  I wouldn't begin to try to connect that to a shooting--and I want to underline that I'm not doing that--but it's increasingly difficult to perceive public officials as being public servants, even human beings, if all one has to go by is what's readily available in the media.  Our local paper's treatment of the life and career of William Walsh was a noticeable and welcome departure from the tone of many earlier stories and editorials about government and politicians. 

If we're going to have a reset and a rethink, it needs to include this as well.  It's part of the context in which we think and talk about governance.

Feature Guest Post -- An Outsider-to-Insider View of the State Budget Crisis and State Employees: The Civil Premium

The following is a guest post by Michael O'Bryan.  Michael is an Investigator with the state's Labor Department.  Prior to that, he was Director of the Solutions Delivery Group at AppliedTheory Corporation.  He's also worked for AT&T.  Michael is married to a NYS employee, and lives in Manlius, New York.

I have been a Civil servant since July 20, 2009. I work with people who have all been doing their respective jobs for far longer than me.

New York State inaugurated Andrew Cuomo this week, and my fellow State employees and I are waiting for the real impact of the new administration to be delivered.

What’s more than a little weird for me is the calmness I feel with the reality that some soulless, faceless administrator will send a message, or initiate a process, that will snuff out some meaningful number of jobs – and the lives that are connected to them. I’m calm from having lived through this going back as far as the early ‘90’s. The “outside world”, as I describe it to my state brethren, has been like this for some time.

Even though there have been layoffs of state workers before (oddly enough in the previous Cuomo administration), the insecurity associated with impending force reductions is alien to folks who started with the state after the ‘80’s. These employees have devoted their careers to the navigation of the Civil Service world. If nothing else, the overall structure provided a level of certainty that made other aspects of government work (like lower average wages) tolerable. They have benefited from Civil Service. What was once a rigid structure in a job-rich outside economy has evolved into a premium of protection. The Civil Service premium.

But now, as we are all being told, “everything has to be on the table”. And the ruthlessness of corporate efficiency and economies of scale is about to be applied to a population of workers who are by and large ill-equipped to manage it. This is not about Union vs. Management so much as it is about the erosion of a culture. Being new to it all, I can see the opportunities for process improvement, the need for operational behavior changes, and the woefully inadequate state of technology. But in fairness to the members of both management and non-management, there has never been any necessity, much less incentive, for change. Until the last 2 – 3 years, anyway.

I hope Governor Cuomo can establish some credibility as he goes about his transformation of the state bureaucracy. I wonder how he will gain credibility with the Unions, as he will undoubtedly place connected colleagues in $100K+ Director / Commissioner positions that are pure patronage. I wonder how he will gain credibility with Management, as he goes about forcing more work on lower level Managers and Assistant Directors, due to the fact that functional positions have been eliminated while the work has remained.

And I truly wonder about his ability to be credible to a Legislature as profoundly dysfunctional and corrupt as New York’s. Our current Legislature is likely 3 – 5 overall terms away from the necessary turnover that would begin to break down the fiefdoms, on both sides of the aisle, that contribute mightily to the state’s current condition.

The people doing the real work will be the population that will face the real requirements to change their day-to-day working behaviors. They will be the ones who will have no choice but to change. And they will do it, as they are the ones, who actually deliver services; who drive disabled people to the doctor; who process registrations; who help people find jobs; who investigate fraud; who teach your kids; who inspect bridges; and, even those who collect taxes.

While people who will never have to worry about their own retirement circumstances rail on about state worker pensions, keep that in mind. There is more that needs fixing in New York than what will be solved by firing working people.

Feature Guest Post -- Congressional Food Fight in a Floundering Economy

The following is a guest post from Maria Rainier.  Maria has a background in English, writing, and piano performance, and has worked as a writer, editor, consultant, and piano teacher.  She describes herself as follows:  "Maria Rainier is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at First in Education, researching online degree programs and blogging about student life. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop."  Maria has contributed to the blog before--see "Lingering Questions" in December's posts.

After a Congressional battle that’s lasted for the better part of a century, President Obama signed the food safety bill into law on January 4, 2011.

Although an Associated Press tally reports that the economy looks healthier than in recent years (the growth in bankruptcies across the nation slowed considerably in 2010 since the recession), it hardly looks fit to take on the $1.4 billion required to make this legislation a reality.  This is doubly true in light of the new GOP-led Congress.

GOP Opposition to Food Expert Insistence

Georgia Republican Rep. Jack Kingston, who will head the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA’s budget, said to Bloomberg, “There’s a high possibility of trimming this whole package back.”  He adds, “[I]f not for the wonderful nanny-state politicians, we’d be getting sick after every meal, the system we have is doing a dark good job.”

The CDC holds numbers that leave the sentiment up for a judgment call: 1 in 6 people fall ill from food they consume, 128,000 visit the hospital for said illness, and 3,000 die from it.

Kingston repeatedly claims that the number of cases of pathogen-caused illnesses does not justify the cost of President Obama’s new law.

“We still have a food supply that’s 99.99 percent safe,” he told The Washington Post, although one wonders from where he procured such a number.  “No one wants anybody to get sick, and we should always strive to make sure food is safe.  But the case for a $1.4 billion expenditure isn’t there.”

Hmm, 3,000 lives ain’t quite enough, eh?

Meanwhile, Erik Olson, director of Food and Consumer Product Safety Programs of the Pew Health Group, disagrees.  “The costs of not implementing the law are staggering,” he says, citing the projected health costs of foodborne illnesses: an annual $152 billion.

Without the $1.4 billion, former associate commissioner of food of the FDA Dr. David Acheson says, “the public health impact of the new legislation will be compromised.”

What the Legislation Entails

As it currently stands, the legislation demands the following improvements among others not listed here:

·         The FDA will have the license to order a mandatory recall of “dangerous” food.  In the past, the FDA could only request that manufacturers deal with the matter by pulling the contaminated food off of store shelves.

·         In addition to responding to contaminations, the FDA will work to prevent them.

·         The food safety agency will announce scientifically-founded standards for safe food production and harvesting.

·         An increased number of certified inspectors and investigators will be made available to increase the frequency of restaurant and other food facility inspections. 

·         The FDA will have tighter control and increased authority to inspect imported foods. 

Legislation a Step, Not Cure-All

Acheson adds that while the legislation will be a milestone in public health and the food industry, it alone will not stop recalls or foodborne illnesses.  “No legislation could do that,” he admits.  “As we improve with epidemiological and molecular tools, I predict we will see more recalls and not less in the coming years.  Ultimately, if the regulations are sound and the programs adequately funded and enforced, then we may see a gradual reduction.”

No part of this legislation is suspected of coming cheaply—an increased number of trained and certified staff being a key fund-eater.  Still, at what cost comes the health of a nation’s people?  The hospital bills of uninsured lower-income families will only add up to their existing debt, and if the government could spend literally 108 times the proposed $1.4 billion just to care for the people whose pain and suffering by the way cannot be fiscally compensated, why not take the precautionary step?  Isn’t that kind of like being too cheap to buy toothpaste and then wondering why you’re paying up the nose after getting all your rotten teeth pulled out by the dentist?  Isn’t the $1.4 billion, in fact, a sort of insurance policy for the American people and the food industry?  Oh, right, Kingston doesn’t believe in affordable health care, either.

Where Dave Valesky Might Lose Out

Interesting news recently about our local state senator, Dave Valesky, joining three others to form a new Independent-Democratic caucus.  There's been a lot of speculation about why he's doing this just now, and what effect it might have on his effectiveness.

I think the idea that this is a politically strategic effort to demonstrate a commitment to reform after a close shave in the elections is off the mark.  For Valesky to have won by over six percent, in this year--when three of his incumbent Democratic colleagues from the same area lost (Stirpe, Maffei, and Arcuri)--against a quality challenger in Andrew Russo, and with all the money that was spent, suggests that he is probably a safe bet from here on  out, absent a dramatic downfall.  The Democrats losing their majority status in the chamber strengthens that view, as the Downstate-control argument is now defused, at least as it relates to his re-election.

How the move will affect him in the chamber is less clear, given--again--that his party is now in the minority.  One could imagine the independence playing to his advantage or disadvantage, depending on how the Republican majority approaches the term.

One place where I think it's likely to hurt regardless, however, is access to inside information, a critical element in any legislature.  Not being part of a major party caucus will make it much more difficult for him to know what's coming and what is being planned.  Fewer people will confide in him.  His effectiveness may thus depend more on his ability to deftly react to what comes his way, rather than to strategically plan ahead and shape the agenda.  Again, depending on how the chamber functions (or dysfunctions), this could land him in a prime spot, but all other things being equal the Albany part of his job will be tougher with more limited information.

Double-Dippers "R" Us

Two high-profile local double-dippers have generated lots of buzz and heat about collecting retirement while earning a second salary--in one case for the same job, no less.  In an editorial with the sarcastic title "Thanks, Voters," the local paper chastised the county sheriff and suggested that his behavior was, in the end, no surprise, presumably because he was a politician--"Sure enough, within a week of winning election to an unprecedented fifth term, Walsh filed his retirement papers."  (And this after just endorsing him over two challengers for that fifth term.)  With the citizens sufficiently ginned up, angry letters to the editor poured in. 

Now it turns out that the deputy mayor did not get the necessary approval from the state to earn a full salary while on retirement from the fire department.

Granted, both of these cases are problematic, and the context for much of the anger is of course the difficult economy. 

But it bears noting that the country is awash in people who have put in their 20 years in the public sector and then used that experience to jump-start a second career in the private and non-profit sectors, or in other public sector jobs--while still enjoying their "retirements".  Perhaps the single biggest pool of these folks is the former military, especially retired officers.  Washington is chock-full of consultants, analysts, and managers from these ranks.  Private contract defense analysis is in large part an extension of the military retirement program.  And for some folks, not making full colonel was the best thing that ever happened to them financially.

Is this system right?  I think the central question here is whether the shorter time to full retirement is fair.  A lot of these jobs are high-stress, some are quite dangerous, and a lot of people in these jobs probably could have made more money in the private sector.  On the other hand, those contributing significant chunks of their income to defined contribution (versus benefit) plans, and waiting until 67 or beyond to even think about anything we would recognize as "retirement," have some reason to be miffed.

Doffing the Cap?

Consideration of a property tax cap is obviously going to be front and center in the upcoming struggle to balance the budget and reset the state's financial system.  It was one of the few specific policy changes Governor Cuomo chose to mention in his inauguration speech, and it will likely be a centerpiece in his State of the State Address tomorrow. 

Cuomo's property tax proposal is tougher and more wide-reaching than previously considered options, such as the Suozzi's commission's 4 percent cap on school district tax hikes. 

It brings up so many important and vexing political and policy issues, but one I find most intriguing is the wisdom and efficacy of governments--and the people--tying themselves to the mast in order to force themselves to achieve a broader, long-term goal--in this case flattening the spending curve.  Does such a move undermine the very point of democratic politics?  And how tightly must you tie yourself?  In some ways, it reminds me of term limits, but here it's "stop me before I spend again" instead of "stop me before I vote again."

In this case, the wiggle-room is found in super-majorities--60 percent of town and city residents could vote to override the cap within their own municipality.  So there is a democratic cap on the cap.  There are also other specific exceptions, including some state-mandated programs at the county level.

This issue will be worth following, and if you're looking for a good background overview of it, Paul Riede supplied a very nice summary of the proposal and the debate surrounding it last December in the Post-Standard.  You can find it here.