Part-Time Pundit

A Republican Renaissance in Alaska? David Cuddy Challenges Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens

When David Cuddy decided to run against Senator Ted Stevens for the Republican nomination for the US Senate in Alaska, he had no idea that Stevens was going to be indicted on federal corruption charges. He was simply tired of the excessive earmarks, the disapproval of Congress in general and that Stevens was not focused on the nation’s problems.

Senator Stevens is the poster child of why the GOP got trounced in 2006 and his race was looking to be another Democrat pickup in 2008. However, chance kicked in and preparation with the right ideas met opportunity. Stevens was recently indicted, which has thrown the Republican primary wide open in a race that should be Stevens’ to lose.

Of particular interest in this race, at least from a national perspective, is the debate on earmark reform. Earmarks are legislative tools whereby legislators insert “pet projects” into legislation without debate and shower gifts upon their friends. Senator Stevens, the earmark king, made the practice well-known and despised with the infamous “bridge to nowhere” project where he tried to direct $223 million of federal funds to build a bridge to an island of 50 people.

Cuddy seeks to reform this practice with a common-sense solution, to make earmarks public and subject to debate. In the long-term, he believes the federal government shouldn’t be spending any money on local projects. If a town would like a public swimming pool, they shouldn’t be able to charge taxpayers in another state with the bill. The practice of trying to get “free federal money” needs to stop. It is a bit like sending a sandwich to Washington and lobbying for the leftover crumbs and calling it “success”.

Cuddy comes from a business background and applies economic approaches to policy issues. For health care, he argues it isn’t about who pays. That’s simply a matter of passing the high cost of health care around. The problem is the high cost and inefficiencies built into the health care system. He points to Walmart as a successful example of innovation to take an industry and radically reduce its costs. The high cost of health care is linked to another issue that he speaks on: immigration.

One of the causes of the high cost of health care is the “unfunded mandate” that hospitals must treat everyone who shows up regardless of their ability to pay. This includes illegal immigrants. The result is that those costs for health care are passed off on paying customers through higher fees, higher copayments and higher insurance premiums. The debate on who pays is an interesting aside, but it misses the point. Health care costs are skyrocketing.

Cuddy understands why immigrants would do anything they could to get to the United States. The incentives are so great compared to what is in Mexico, it just makes sense. The senseless moralizing against illegal immigrations (i.e. “ZO NOES! They Broke the Law!”) does nothing to solve the issue, especially when both the governments of Mexico and the United States encourage this. He argues the incentives need to be changed by enforcing the law, particularly on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants to push down wages.

Foreign policy, in general, he argues should disentangle us from foreign engagements. We’re in Iraq and we should finish the job, but the process to close foreign bases and end power projection is a task Cuddy believes the United State should undertake.

Cuddy winning the primary is not a given, he faces another Republican, Vic Vickers who will throw hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race. However, on the issues, Cuddy is clearly superior and shows Republicans what they need to do to stop losing. In short, Republicans need to run on their platform instead of running a platform to redistribute the spoils of power to their friends instead. Cuddy also has the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus which has a strong presence in Alaska.

Cuddy is running to restore balanced budgets, to fix elections that overwhelmingly favor incumbents so that citizens can have a meaningful place in the political process again. It’d be a welcome change from Ted Stevens and hopefully will inspire more candidates like Cuddy to run for Congress.

August 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Around the US, Columns, Elections, Politics | no comments

Book Review: The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso

For people who pay attention to politics, the phrase “Chicago Machine Politics” means all the worst aspects of electioneering, corruption and dirty politics. Jobs are handed out as political favors, contributions are solicited in exchange for contracts, and government workers spend their times leading up to Election Day doing political work on behalf of connected candidates. It’s everything that’s wrong with Washington politics, except far worse.

This is the starting point of David Freddoso’s new book, The Case against Barack Obama - The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate. For instance, it is little-known that Barack Obama’s first real election challenge was his primary race against… Hillary Clinton. In 1996, he ran for the State Senate but used Illinois’ arcane (and unconstitutional) election laws to throw every other candidate off the ballot. He won office unopposed.

In 2004, he ran for Senate but the sexual dalliances took down his main primary opponent. The general election race, however, would be pure comedy if it wasn’t so tragic for the Illinois Republican Party. A Republican version of Obama, Jack Ryan, won the primary nod, but he was not well-loved in the inner-circles of the state GOP organization. His divorce files were made public, and more sexual dalliances came out (at least those were with his wife) which sunk Ryan.

For weeks, the Illinois GOP could not find a nominee. They had to import Alan Keyes to run against Obama, who’s only campaign point seemed to be “Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama”. Obama won his Senate seat without any real opposition in what would have otherwise been a very bad year for the Democrats.

To political observers, it seems absurd that a product and participant of Chicago machine politics could credibly claim to be the voice of change and hope to reform Washington D.C. Not impossible, sure, but it defies credulity. Freddoso examines the facts of Obama’s career in Illinois, his relationships and his rise to power to definitively show that Obama is not the sterling immaculate candidate he portrays, but in reality, is just another Chicago politician - albeit with a better speech writer.

Throughout his tenure in the Illinois General Assembly, Obama had given favors and steered state contracts to contributors and friends. In particular, he has a great deal of ties to real estate developers that benefited from his state legislative career and he benefited from their success. Developers having access to the corridors of power is nothing new, especially in Chicago, but for a candidate who is preaching an anti-lobbyist anti-special interest message, the evidence shows he didn’t practice what he preaches.

The Obama campaign has steadfastly refused to speak the nitty-gritty of policy on the stump and has run a “cult of personality” campaign. This is why it is a timely and important work to show the man behind the façade, but to do so in a legitimate way. Many, mostly slanderous, attempts have been made to show Obama as some kind of un-American Trojan horse candidate. This has only helped to inoculate him against legitimate criticism. However, Freddoso sticks to the record with copious footnotes to back him up.

Most of Obama’s more radical leftist connections are public record. The public fallout from the Rev. Wright controversies started to bring to light that strange company that Obama has kept. In particular, Freddoso touches upon Obama’s relationship to Bill Ayers who was part of the terrorist group the Weathermen. Obama may try to walk and talk like a “moderate” on the stump, but he surrounds himself with the far left.

The book is a thorough treatment of Obama’s career, what he has done and how he got there. The image that emerges does not mesh at all with the icon of hope. The media, for their part, simply has not dug deep into the mirage that is the Obama campaign. The book provides a sorely needed analysis for a candidate who is almost getting a free ride to the White House. It is fact-based, well-researched and is critical reading for anyone interested in who Obama really is.

August 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Book Reviews, Elections, Features, Illinois, Politics | no comments

Sandbox Politics

UPDATE: Ok, with Pelosi changing her mind and the news that has come out since, I was wrong on this. It ended up being a great way to bring pressure and highlight an issue. And for once, it showed the Republicans fighting *for* something. Kudos.

Last Friday, the United States House of Representatives adjourned without voting on an offshore drilling bill supported by the Republicans. Instead of adjourning and going home for the five week recess that was scheduled, hilarity ensued.

The Republicans stayed, talking on the floor to "debate" the energy bill. In response, the Democrats turned off the microphones and the lights. A Republican Congressman figured out how to brute force the A/V closet and got the microphones back on. They tried to marshal the press out of the press room with the Capitol Police until a Republican decided to host an impromptu press conference.

To "pad" the numbers of people on the floor, they allowed staffers and visitors down and were shouting back up to the gallery and back. In short, it was a little bit like 7th grade homeroom when the teacher leaves the room.

Well, the Republicans decided that it was so much fun, they are doing it again today. To be fair, energy policy is something that merits serious consideration, but childish antics more suited for playgrounds than Congress is not the way to go about it.

But it appears that a faction, a small one at that, of Republicans have been spurred on by unserious pundits and activists. I say a small faction because this morning, RedState sent out a desperate e-mail for anyone in the DC area to head down to the House floor. That's right, they want the fever swamp bloggers down there to hoot and holler like it’s a high school house party when mom and dad are away. Of course, RedState is not new to childish and superficial politics.

Energy policy is a serious issue and families are being pinched by higher (albeit now falling) gas prices. I've been driving all around the state of Illinois in my pickup for a campaign I'm running, and I can tell you first hand its rough. We do need a diversified energy portfolio for this nation. Offshore and ANWR drilling certainly is part of that, as are other programs, such as expanded nuclear and wind power.

The Democrats, for their part, have shown themselves unwilling to deal with the issue, at least before Election Day. They have every incentive, the more pain people feel at the pump, the more they blame the party that controls the White House. It's a transparent hope that they drag their feet until November and then ride in to the rescue, showing the Democrats as the "energy" party. It isn't the first time someone played politics with important legislation; it won't be the last.

However, instead of carrying that message or showing that even Barack Obama is starting to support a new energy policy, childish games ensue. What happened to the party of ideas?

Instead of an intellectual advancement of a sound energy policy, the oxygen is sucked up by infantilism. The voters are fed up by politicians who are not advancing their values and they want solutions. They are so fed up, many have whole-heartedly embraced a mirage of hope and change. It should tell Republicans something that a strong chunk of the electorate has placed their hopes in cleaning up Washington on a … Chicago machine Democrat.

While it may be giddily amusing to engage in a general ruckus on the House floor, nothing is well-served. With the Republicans going into an election cycle where the conventional wisdom declares it to be a blood-bath-in-advance for them, you'd think they wouldn't give voters yet another reason to throw them out of office. Maybe they've already resigned themselves to defeat. I'd rather they be the party of ideas and leadership and not "a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more." At least those engaging in the antics are the minority of Republicans.

August 6th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, National, Politics | no comments

A Fun Theory on Why NYTimes Rejected McCain’s Op-Ed

What would have been an actually very “smart” move (unethical, sure, but this is politics) would be that if McCain’s people wrote the NYTimes Op-Ed intentionally so that the NYTimes would have to reject it. Now, I’m not sure they are that smart, but if they did, far more people would have read the column and it would portray McCain as the victim of media bias to endear him to the conservative base. But really, more people would have read the column than would have read it if it otherwise was printed in the NYTimes without fanfare.

Just a fun little thought. Every since I heard more than one political consultant said they designed campaign ads and such so that it would be just slightly over the line to generate controversy and enter the news cycle, I’ve started to get skeptical of these controversies. It’s a very smart play, generating controversy to get free airplay.

It’s also a good reason why honest people don’t get involved in politics anymore… they don’t like playing the BS game.

July 22nd, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics | no comments

Is Obama Afraid of Change for Illinois?

The presidential candidate for change has adopted the twin themes of "hope" and "change" for his political campaign. These themes are the creation of David Axelrod, Barack Obama's senior campaign adviser. It was a stroke of brilliance to tap into the widespread disaffection with Washington D.C. and the growing irritation among normal citizens that they have no say in their federal government. With approval ratings of the U.S Congress being around 9% (in other countries there would be an armed coup by now), the timing was perfect.

However, the same distrust and disgust are just as true with the state government of Illinois. We have a governor under multiple federal investigations, a General Assembly that can never seem to pass a budget, and political patronage happening out in the open with no regard for citizens. The gridlock in Springfield is universally despised and all other attempts to reform Illinois have failed. Change is sorely needed for Illinois.

That is why it is disappointing to see the same firm that crafted the candidate for change was just given a  two to three million dollar contract to oppose a constitutional convention. Among the arguments they will make is that convening a constitutional convention will give power to all the special interests, that the constitution will be made worse, and that there is no way to elect good people to a convention. They have already gone so far as to tell seniors that a constitutional convention will take their pensions away even though federal law is clear that it can't. In short, the ads can be reduced to a sound bite: "No… you can't."

In November, voters will be able to vote to convene a constitutional convention to amend the state charter. This would allow for the ending of gerrymandering, the practice of politicians picking their voters and not vice versa (see Illinois Congressional District 4's map for an illustration of how absurd the maps have gotten). An additional change could be adding the ability of citizens to recall elected officials, a right many states currently already enjoy.

Many of the problems that Illinois faces are a direct result of a constitution written in 1970 to create a "strong government." This allowed politicians to amass incredible power and to engage in rampant and overt corruption. For instance, the Cook County presidency was almost literally bequeathed from father (John Stroger) to son (Todd Stroger) reminiscent of a title of nobility in the Middle Ages. The constitution guarantees state pensions but it was also explicitly written to not require funding of the pensions. This has resulted in the worst funded pension system in the nation. We aren't even close to 49th place.

The governor can treat budgets as advisory and move money around at will. The leader of a legislative chamber can unilaterally kill a bill with no recourse by other members of the chamber (see House Bill 1 which was sponsored by over 80% of the Illinois Senate, yet still killed by Senator Debbie Halvorson).

In all this, the citizens are disempowered. Illinois election law is the most restrictive (and unconstitutional) in the Union. Third party and independent candidates are required to get over 10 times more signatures and are subject to capricious ballot challenges that keep them from being listed on the ballot. Ballot initiatives are not binding and routinely ignored by politicians.

Even the balanced budget requirement in the Constitution is considered a "moral imperative" when crafting the state budget. This requirement is unenforceable which is how the state gets away with trying to pass a budget $2 billion out of balance. Try considering paying your next property tax bill with a "moral imperative" and see how that works out.

Citizens are disempowered and government is dysfunctional. The result has been a grassroots movement comprised of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and those who normally would not associate with a political party. The citizens are demanding that Springfield change. The question is why the same people running Obama's campaign are saying, "Change you must fear."

July 15th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

Can a Constitutional Convention Save the Pension System?

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional convention is that “they” will take away the pensions. In fact, there are some proponents (chiefly business groups) that advocate scrapping the pension system because it is a large part of the state’s debt. To be fair, in about 10 years, the state’s pension obligations threaten the solvency of the state without reducing pensions, raising taxes or both. It is a problem that needs to be solved, and solved soon.

The pension problem is chiefly a creation of the current Illinois constitution. The constitution regards pensions as an “enforceable contractual relationship” which cannot be diminished. Come hard times the pension checks must still go out. However, the constitution does not require the funding of the pension system. This was a very intentional choice by the convention delegates in 1970 who wrote the text.

It made sense to the delegates to give the General Assembly discretion in how they funded the pension system. The General Assembly has used this discretion to shortchange the pensions every single year since ratification. Some years they even took money out. This discretion has been grossly abused and shows the General Assembly as a poor steward of the pension system. The chief problem facing the pensions is not “generosity”, it is a chronic and perpetual failure of the state to contribute the amount they promise.

There are those that argue the solution to this problem is to simply let the state out of its promise to workers. The problem is that such a solution would be ruled unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists several things states cannot do. States cannot enter into treaties, coin money or impair the obligation of contracts. By calling pensions an “enforceable contract”, the U.S. Constitution forbids them of taking them out from under people, even via constitutional amendment.

Those who are vested in the pension system could not have their pensions confiscated, period. Federal case law is clear on this point in cases such as McGrath v Rhode Island Retirement Board. Anyone who says the pensions will be taken is using fear-mongering in an attempt to scare citizens from demanding the reforms they are entitled to.

On the other hand, adopting a “wait and see” approach will only result in an exponentially growing pension debt that eventually leads the state into bankruptcy. There is an exception to the federal contract clause, namely if the diminishment of a contract serves an important public purpose. While it is impossible to know for sure, avoiding bankruptcy of a major state certainly is an important public purpose to which a court may decide a benefits reduction is necessary.

In short, there is no risk to the pensions by trying to address them in a convention, however, waiting for bankruptcy does entail significant risk to those in the pension system and potentially even those already retired.

So what could be done to fix the pension problem in a convention? The only proposal in the state (that isn’t a promise to fix the problem) is one that I created. Namely, the General Assembly has proven they cannot be trusted to fund the pensions and keep their promises. Instead, the constitution should be amended to require the employing agency to pay the pension contributions directly out of their own budget.

The benefits of this are several. One, a state agency can be sued to force them to pay the promised pension contributions, the General Assembly cannot be so sued. Two, employing agencies pay the full cost of abusive pension games to benefit top administrators. Three, employing agencies will bear full cost for employment of people and will make more efficient hiring decisions. This will not fix the debt already incurred, but it stops the massive bleeding from a General Assembly failing year after year to keep their promises.

If you want to save your pension in November, vote yes for a constitutional convention. If you want to roll your dice and gamble with your retirement, vote no. Either way, we deserve a state that keeps its promises.

June 6th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

TV Appearance on the Constitutional Convention

Below is a partial clip of a recent TV interview I did up in Chicago on the Constitutional Convention.

Two lessons learned:
1) Always have a sport coat with me
2) When my hair gets long, it looks like crap (I have since gotten a haircut)

UPDATE: Corrected with full clip of the video now.

June 6th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, con-con | no comments