Republican Blogspot

There Were Good Times When Republicans Ruled Harrisburg

2012-02-03T14:33:00.001-08:00

Paul Beers. Michael Barton (ed.) City Contented: CityDiscontented: A History of Modern Harrisburg. Harrisburg, Pa.: Midtown ScholarPress, 2011.

This book is a collection of newspaper column written byPaul Beers that provides us with a history of 20^th centuryHarrisburg. Harrisburg is a city that,from 1900 to 1905, saw 2,500 new buildings costing over $5 million. Seven banks arose in Harrisburg from 1903 to1910. Harrisburg’s population was 10,000in 1900 growing to 50,000 in 1910. Anincrease in railroad, steel, and government jobs fueled growth with Harrisburgreaching 75,000 in 1920.

A new Capitol building was dedicated in 1906. 27 nudestatutes depicting unbroken and broken laws were placed in front in 1911. The nude sculptures caused controversy. The sculptor, George Grey Barnard, expected$700,000 for them, The legislature, someof whom wanted the sculptures discarded, paid him $180,000.

The new 633 room Capitol as 23 times than was the burnedCapitol it replaced. It was built with1,100 carloads of Vermont granite. In 1906, the Capitol had the world’s mostexpensive lighting system, costing $4 million. Half those costs, though, were illegal payments to contractors.

In 1900, the Capitol had 300 employees working for 11departments plus 14 boards and commissions for a state government budget of $17million. By 1920, there were 1,400working for 20 department and 15 boards with a state government budget.

By comparison, in 1812, there were 50 state employeesworking for a state government budget of $336,819.15. Governor Simon Snyder didn’t have an officeand all his work was kept in his pocket.

An Executive Housefor the Governor was created in 1858. Harrisburg has an agreement that if the Capitol ever leaves Harrisburg,it will be given $20,000. This wouldrepay $20,000 Harrisburg paid for the Governor’s Mansion in an effort to keepthe Capitol in Harrisburg.

People then drank water from the river which they alsodumped their waste. One year, 27 diedfrom typhoid and 13 from diphtheria in Harrisburg. Vance McCormick, Chairman of the MunicipalLeague and a City Councilman, led a successful effort for a $1.1 million bondissue for public facilities for clean water. $1.1 million was about what all homes in Harrisburg were worth. The drive lasted nine months and helped electMcCormick Mayor on his “Anti-Typhoid Ticket”. At the same time, the blond issue was approved by 7,319 to 3,739. The Municipal League spent over $10,000 andprinted over 200,000 flyers in support of the bond issue.

Mayor McCormick instituted street sweepers, a new practicethat continued until the 1950s. Manycity streets were also paved for the first time during McCormick’s term.

Harrisburg had a zoo from 1927 to 1945 with as many as fourlions, four bears, one tiger, and others.

Harrisburg was a mixture of neighborhoods. Social events happened in neighborhoods andwere most self-contained. The entireneighborhood thrived or declined.

African Americans lived in segregated neighborhoods. William Howard Day, an Auditor General clerk,was probably the first African American state employee in 1872. Day later became the first African AmericanSchool Board President in a Northern state. In 1925, 13% of African Americans in Harrisburg and Steelton owned theirown homes.

Sibletown in Harrisburg is the oldest African Americanneighborhood in Pennsylvania. It was theonly African American community in the nation carried by Barry Goldwater overLyndon Johnson by 378 to 303. PearlBailey lived in Sibletown.

Over 30 people used to drown annually in the SusquehannaRiver.

Harrisburg once reached over 40 million cigars manufacturedin the King Oscar, Sweet Girl, and Owl brands.

Railroads were an important business. Political boss HarveyTaylor supported railroad interests. TheRepublican Senate President Pro Tem once, perhaps jokingly announced “ThePennsylvania Railroad having no most business in this chamber, we standadjourned.”

There is no 8^th Street in Harrisburg. It is now a rail line. As many as 15,000 Harrisburg residents workedfor the railroads. Most jobs began earlyin the day. Nightlight past 9 pm wasminimum in Harrisburg. Railroad peopletraditionally went straight home to get up early and did not drink as much asothers did. Many joined the ProhibitionParty and followed Harrisburg’s Rev. Silas Comfort Swallows, who ran forGovernor, coming in second, and for President as the Prohibition Party nominee.

Railroads jobs then were not available to African Americans.

Ed Beidelman was Harrisburg’s Republican laeder from 1912 to1929. Beidelman was a railroad counselwho also had labor interests as he helped create laws establishing workerscompensation, protecting street car motormen, and requiring a full crew complementon trains. Beidelman also served asLieutenant Governor.

The Depression claimed the Harrisburg Cigar Company and its900 jobs as well as the Harrisburg Shoe Manufacturing Company and its 500 jobs.There were 12,000 steel workers employed in Steelton and only Pittsburgh thenproduced more steel.

Harrisburg used to have a trolley system with 130 trolleysserving the area. The rise ofautomobiles killed the trollies.

The rate of Harrisburg high school graduates going to posthigh school education did not rise above 30% in 1937.

Harrisburg schools were then so segregated that aMississippi member of Congress noted that his states’ schools were moreintegrated.

The Pennsylvania Legislative Correspondents Association, theolder state government press association, began in 1895. Reporters have a Capitol office on the E (Enteral)floor. In the 1880s, several statelegislators doused a Patriot report with water from a fire hose as theybelieved him drunk.

In the 1860s, Simon Cameron, a political boss, was upsetthat the Patriot had written that African Americans should join the UnionArmy. Cameron had four Patriot editorsillegally imprisoned for 16 days.

The Patriot deemphasized Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address andgave more prominence to other stories, such as a drunken brawl between friends. Lincoln would lose Adams and CumberlandCounties in the 1864 election.

In the 1970s, Speaker Jack Seltzer claimed the press made“the public image of the legislature lower than whale manure.”

Fiction works based upon Harrisburg include “A Rage to Live”and “Ourselves to Know”, both written by John O’Hara and James Boyd’s “RollRiver.”

Harrisburg, along with other Pennsylvania cities, lost aboutone fifth of their population to suburbs from the 1960s to the 1970s. This shifted political, economic, and socialpower towards the suburbs. The StateSenator representing Harrisburg from 1964 on did not live in Harrisburg. By the 1980s, only one county judge was fromHarrisburg.

There was a riot in Harrisburg in 1969, resulting in onedeath, eight arsons, and 103 arrests. That year marked the last time Harrisburg schools had more whitestudents than African American students.

As population shifted to the suburbs, an economic plan wasoffered to help the declining city. TheGreater Harrisburg Movement attempted a response by forming in 1972. William Keisling was its ExecutiveDirectdor. Harrisburg formed in 1972 todevelop Strawberry Square shopping and office space as well as City Towersresidences.

Harristown was developed according to the philosophy ofElenezer Howard that a public authority with the ability to plan and own landfor public purposes is necessary. Thestate government leased offices from Harristown worth $480 million inobligations. State Sen. Richard Tilghmansued to prevent the state form doing this, yet his suit was unsuccessful.

From 1956 to 1975, Harrisburg lost 700 businesses. Retailwas 70% of Harrisburg businesses in 1950 and 11% in 1975.

17,000 pounds of untreated mine acid went into theSusquehanna River in 1970. GovernorRaymond Shafer and Attorney General Fred Speaker quickly provided $1 million inresponse to this environmental disaster.

Hurricane Agnes hit in 1972, flooding 6,000 Harrisburghomes, destroying 83 of them. 616businesses were destroyed. There were$200 million in damages, of which insurance covered $5 million.

The flood cost Harrisburg city government $3 million. The Federal government did not act to provideflood protection. A future flood willlikely take the same path as happened during Agnes.

Harrisburg built a “Rolls Royce” incinerator that cost $1million in annual mortgage payments, even before it began operating. Harrisburg offered “maid service” trashcollection where garbage collectors went up driveways for up to 40 feet tocollect trash.

Municipal debt increased from $8.8 million in 1965 to $25.18million in 1979. Harristown had $150million debt yet had almost $500 million in long term lease commitments. In 1977 ,the per capita local debt of a Pennsylvanian was $330 while this per capitadebt for a Harrisburg resident was $3,185.

Harrisburg has one water filtration plant providing 15million gallons of water per day. It has not been updated much since it openedin 1940. The Agnes flood destroyedHarrisburg’s other filtration plant.

The “Rolls Royce” incinerator would financially succeed onlyif more affluent suburban communities joined in using it. They declined to do so, opting to send theirtrash to distant landfills. In 1969, theincinerator had $20 million in amortized bonds. Operational difficulties drove the bond costs to $20 million. The incinerator has the capacity to handle720 tons of trash daily. To befinancially successful, the incinerator needs to operate at 85% capacity. It generally runs at 60% capacity.

In 1958, there were 98 African Americans employed in stategovernment.

The Republican Party, through the days of Harvey Taylor,engaged in “400 votes of six pages of the calendar” voting in the AfricanAmerican precincts. This was a processwhere a voter would put a calendar page into the ballot box. Inside the calendar was 400 ballots allmarked for Republican candidates. CitySanitation Inspector Charles Franklin was indicted in 1965 for voter tamperingin the predominantly African American 7^th Ward. This was a precinct that produced a 400-0vote in 1947 when Franklin worked at the polls. In 1963, all of the 12 candidates Franklin supported received exactly627 votes with the 12 challenges getting 52 to 54 votes. In 1964, Harvey Taylor won Franklin’s precinct by 640-4 while Goldwater carried it by378-303. This was the only AfricanAmerican Goldwater won in the nation.

The first African American firefighter in Harrisburg washired in 1973. The first integratepublic housing was Morrison Tower which opened in 1976.

Several state legislators went to Moose Lodge 107, a fewblocks from the Capitol, in 1969. AnAfrican American legislator, Leroy Irvis, was denied service. He sued. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Moose, a private lodge, had a rightto restrict service to members.

Harrisburg remained mostly racially segregated. It was called the “Mississippi of the North”.

In 1969, Central Dauphin passed Harrisburg as DauphinCounty’s largest school district. Harrisburg’s school budges tripled from 1968 to 1983 to $30 million.From 1980 on, the state government ended its commitment that it had done toprovide half of local school costs. Cityschools like Harrisburg require more spending on special programs, truancy,etc. Harrisburg hit its debt limit in1973 and received court permission to go $1.6 million further in debt in orderto pay expenses. A Middle School wasbuilding under the “classroom without walls” philosophy that later was shown asa failure. The school soon needed wallsand a new roof.

In 1969, 16 of Harrisburg’s 18 grammar schools were raciallysegregated, with schools having from 95% to 99% African American pupils. Harrisburg’s schools were desegregated in1970. 43% of pupils were transported toschools.

The new Harrisburg High School lost its only 1971 footballgame at the predominately white Cedar Cliff High School. A Confederate flag flew on the Cedar Cliffside. Racial agitation resulted. OnlyAfrican American students were arrested with three given of them prison terms. The Pennsylvania Interscholastic AthleticAssociation did not reprimand Cedar Cliff but placed Harrisburg on two years ofprobation with limited practices. ADistrict Justice from near Cedar Cliff observed the penalties appeared onesided based on the events observed.

The United Republicans, also called the United Arabs,unsuccessfully tried to defeat Harvey Taylor for control of the localRepublican Party. One of the members ofthe insurgent group, John Shumaker, would return 21 years later and be electedto the State Senate.

Harvey Taylor was 88 years old and was Senate President ProTem when he faced reelection in 1964. The long-time local political boss had successfully helped guide much ofGovernor Bill Scranton’s agenda through the legislature. Taylor even helped pass a $5 commute tax thatupset some constituents. He also triedunsuccessfully to defeat an old ally Blaine Hocker for reelection to the statelegislature. Taylor did not bother tofill the League of Women Voters questionnaire, assuming his reelection was assured. Taylor was upset by William Lentz by 3,249votes. Taylor would later be defeatedrunning as a Nixon delegate in the 1968 Republican Primary. Taylor lived to be 106.

Mayor Nolan Ziegler in 1957 had the foresight to realizewhat Harrisburg needed to survive. Heurged the legislature to either allow Harrisburg to annex its suburbs or thatit receives payments from tax exempt properties. The legislature did not agree.

Harrisburg reportedly had 38 houses of prostitution duringWorld War II. Author John Gunther quipped that Harrisburg was the only cithboth the Army and Navy wanted quashed.

An independent audit of city finances in 1967 discoverednumerous irregularities. The PoliceChief pled guilty to larceny. A CharterCommission was formed and John Lynch, a Democrat, received the most votes toserve on the commission. In 1969,Democrat Harold Swenson defeated incumbent Mayor Al Straub by 50 votes.

Mayor Swenson produced the city’s first capital budget in1972, which was $3.6 million for public service upgrades. When Harrisburg Railways began planningclosing its local rail lines, Swenson created local bus service with theCapitol Area Transit Authority in1973. Harrisburg began fluoridating itswater in 1970.

In 1978, in his third week in office, Mayor Tim Doutrichfaced a $300,000 in emergency snow removal costs when up to 20 inches of snowhit Harrisburg’s 450 miles of streets. This caused the city’s Moody’s bond rating to be lowered. Harrisburg had $30 million in needed watersystem repairs but no means to obtain the funds. A third mill special property tax wasapproved for two new fire stations. Meanwhile, the city incinerator was losing about a million dollars ayear. The city budget was underfinancedand unable to meet bond payments. It was a budget Doutrich refused tosign. Doutrich was defeated forreelection by Stephen Reed.

Democrat Reed defeated Republican Doutrich by 8,782 to3,731. Reed earlier won a primary overCouncilman Earl Gohl by 292 votes.

Mayor Reed and Council President Gohl quarreled for twoyears.

Harrisburg has received various visitors throughout its history.Oscar Wilde described hotel sofas in Harrisburg as “hideous”. John O’Hara also wrote about disgracefulhotels in Harrisburg. Charles Dickens was upset in 1842 when observing statelegislators in Harrisburg spitting tobacco juice onto the House floor.

When a Democrat Snuck Into Becoming New Jersey Governor

2011-12-20T12:02:00.001-08:00

RichardJ. Codey with Stephen Seplow. Me, Governor: My Life in the Rough and TumbleWorld of New Jersey Politics. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rivergate Books, 2011.

Theauthor, Richard Codey, was New Jersey’s Senate President, next in line to beGovernor, when Governor James McGreevey suddenly announced he was resigning,which then made Codey Governor. Codeyfirst heard the report McGreevey from a reporter. Codey doubted itstruthfulness as Codey had met with McGreevey ten days prior and McGreevey gaveno hint he was leaving office. There hadbeen scandals in the McGreevey Administration, but none seemed to have directlyinvolved McGreevey.

NewJersey then had no Lieutenant Governor. The Constitution then called for the Senate President Pro Tem to serveas both Governor and Senate President should the Governor’s office bevacant. This was an usual lack ofseparation of two branches of government.

Codey’swife had surgery that day. She sheawoke, she was informed she had become New Jersey’s First Lady. Her responsewas “Where’s the anesthesiologist? Tell him to put me back under.”

McGreeveyresigned because his Homeland Security aide Golan Cipel claimed McGreeveysexually assaulted him. McGreevey claims the relationship was consensual. Cipel never produced evidence he was harassedand Cipel tried blackmailing McGreevey. McGreevey quit as

Governor.

Codybelieves McGreevey was too close to political bosses who led McGreevey toappoint the wrong people to office. Cipel wasn’t even an American citizen and he was the Governor’s liaisonto Homeland Security.

Cipel,though, was not in charge of Homeland Security, which was a separate office.

FormerGovernor Chrstine Whitman believed McGreevey created a defense of being ahomosexual as an excuse to hide other scandals in his administration. She believes those scandals were the realreason why McGreevey resigned.

Codeydid not like political bosses. Thebosses knew they couldn’t control Codey. If McGreevey resigned immediately or soon enough to put the Governor’svacancy on the November ballot, the bosses could pick the nominee for theNovember elections and they would pick a candidate they could control. McGreevey set his resignation so Codey wouldbe Governor for 14 months. McGreeveytimed his resignation, not to help Codey, but because he wanted to accomplishsome matters before leaving office. Also, McGreevey feared a Republican could win the Governor’s election inthe midst of this scandal. McGreeveyalso didn’t like the political bosses and felt no desire to do anything to helpthem. McGreevey also didn’t have a home,car, or job to move to and he needed time to get his future life together.

Codeykept McGreevey’s Cabinet except for Clifton Long as Commissioner of Health andHuman Services. Codey replaced Long forseeking to become the head of a university hospital while on the job, a jobLong eventually got. Codey also kept some of McGreevey’s aides.

Codeyset a limited 14 month agenda for himself as Governor. He sought to work on health care and mentalhealth issues. He also wanted towork ongetting the unbalanced budget more in balance. Codey declined having an inauguration celebration, as he didn’t feelthat was a time for celebrating.

Codeyentered politics in 1968 by running for, and losing, for a Democratic CountyCommittee seat. He lost by four votes.Yet he saw he had actually won when checking the voting machine. Codey went to the Town Clerk to protest theelection. The Town Clerk advised if hedidn’t challenge the election he’d be the party’s choice the next time. Hedidn’t challenge and he was the party’s choice in the next election. He then became a ward leader and then OrangeCounty Democratic Chairman. He learnedabout the patronage process. He waselected to the legislature in 1974.

In1976, the state Supreme Court closed all public schools due to a lack offunds. Governor Brendan Byrne sought tocreate an income tax. Codey stated hewould support the tax yet sought a highway exit to Orange in return. The Transportation Department suddenlyproposed an exit be constructed. Thelegislative votes were close yet New Jersey became the 43^rd statewith an income tax. Even then, it wasonly for enacted for two years. A yearlate, and by one vote in the Senate, the tax became permanent. The exit was build and named the Richard J.Codey Exit.

Inthe legislature, Codey successfully fought for placing a highway emergencyphone box in district. He further servedon the Orange Housing Authority and successfully fought for more senior citizenhousing.

WhileCodey enjoyed being on the Housing Authority, he didn’t like being DemocraticCounty Chairman, a job that drew lots of complaints over matters of which hecouldn’t be of assistance.

WhenCodey entered the legislature, he found very few professional staff andresources available to legislators. Hehad two district offices, one in a rundown storefront and the other in abasement below a bar. Legislators usuallywere unable to view bills and learn what they did before voting on them. Caucus meetings were run by the Governor’sstaff members. Some legislators smokedand there was no air conditioning, making the Capitol building smell. Lobbyists were influenced and suppliedalcohol, meals, and event tickets to legislators. There are eight and a half lobbyists forevery legislator.

Codeyproposed a bill that was enacted that created a Division of Aging. He alsocriticized an economic development loan to McDonald’s. He fought to allow localgovernment to charge frees to tax exempt properties.

Lobbyists(circa 2007) spent $50 million annually influencing legislators. Codey writes of legislators who introducebills just so legislators will be retained to fight their bills.

Codeyfought to ban contingency fees paid to lobbyists, which is where lobbyists arepaid only if their efforts on a bill are successful. Codey believes this pressures lobbyists tooffer bribes. Governor Byrne vetoed thisproposal. Cody has also proposeddisallowing lobbyists from giving to legislators. This bill passed only the Senate and has yetto be enacted.

Codeyfought to take away absolute preference that a veteran goes to the top of listsfor civil service hires. Codey lost thisfight and he has since changed his mind of this issue.

NewJersey legislators used to be paid $10,000 annually. Codey proposed raising the salary to$18,000. Salaries have since increasedto $49,000.

PresidentPro Tem Pat Dodd was a mentor towards Codey. Codey would often go to the podium where most believed Dodd was givingadvice. Often, though, Dodd wouldwhisper about women he’d dated.

Casinolegislation was debated thoroughly. Legislators passed a bill using every method to keep organized crimeaway from casinos. To stimulate economicdevelopment, each casino had to include a hotel, restaurant, and meetingrooms. Codey had the bill require theslogan “Bet with your head, not over it” placed on all ads for casinos.

Casinosbegan operating successfully financially. Resorts predicted their first year profits would be $12 million from $30million of revenue. Third first yearbrought pretax profits of $135 million on $233 million revenue.

Codeyproposed disallowing prosecutors from running for election until two yearsafter they’d left their prosecuting positions. This was to prevent politically ambitious prosecutors from seekingheadlines more than doing their jobs.

NewJersey does not have the death penalty. Codey proposed creating the death penalty for premeditated murder andfor killing a police officer of a firefighter.

In1983, Codey faced a primary challenge from Orange Mayor Joel Shain in the mostexpensive primary to date in New Jersey. Shain accused Codey of havingorganized crime connections because some mob figures had been buried by hisfamily’s funeral home. Shain spent$285,566 while Codey spent $154,771. Codey won with 13,451 votes to 4,044 for Shain.

Codeycampaigned 14 months ahead of primary elections. He would telephone the fifth of voters whovote in primaries every evening until 9:30 and discuss issues with them. While speaking, he would write thank youletters to them. He observes votersappreciated hearing from their representative when there is no election soon,and they remember that.

Codeydid not like the bullying ways of his county Democratic boss who was also underindictment for extortion. The Chairmanran a candidate against Codey, Maybe Bob Brown of Orange. Codey noted Brown was bond counsel for twoagencies, was an Assemblyman, and Mayor and earned more than the President ofthe United States. Codey won.

Codeynotes New Jersey’s reputation for political corruption. He notes most NewJersey public corruption has been in local governments. New Jersey has 588 school districts withtaxing powers. He also believes someprosecutors seek public corruption cases to further their own politicalambitions.

Codeyin office was very concerned about mental health issues. He had heard horror stories aboutmistreatment in mental health institutions. He was surprised to learn there were employees working with mentalhealth patients with convictions for sexual assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.

Codeyresearched the issue by obtaining a fake Social Security card on Times Squareunder the name of a convicted sex offender. He then applied for employment at astate mental health hospital. None ofthe people he listed as references were contacted. He was hired. He was instructed he could be fired for hitting a patient, so he shouldtake a patient into a closet and hit where no one else would see it. He found conditions were poor and peoplethere were people who didn’t do their jobs. He found there were no activities and little care, including properclothing, for patients. He reportedthese conditions. Governor Thomas Keanincreased hiring practices, including criminal background checks.

Legislativehearings learned of further problems in mental health institutions, includingisolating prisoners for several days and unreported rapes of patients.

Codeythen led a surprised legislative visit of a state licensed mental healthnursing home. They found overcrowdedconditions, mice, and cockroach infestations, no air conditioning, etc. This resulted in the state Health Committeeordering inspections of all 151 mental health residential facilities.

AsGovernor, Codey fought for and signed legislation for a Special Needs HousingTrust Fund with $200 million allocated for 10,000 housing units for people withmental illness (intellectual disabilities). He oversaw the construction of new facilities.

GovernorCodey inspected a mental health facility of 200 people in room of temperaturesfrom 80 to 89 degrees. He also found the food service was terrible.

In1997, Republicans won 53% of the votes for State Senate yet won 60% of the seatwith a 24-15 advantage. Codey sought toredistrict so Democrats had a shot at winning the Senate majority. He did this by proposing putting more AfricanAmerican voters (who are mostly Democratic) into more districts, thus givingDemocrats chances of winning more districts. He was worried this could violated the Civil Rights Act that protectedseats for racial minority voters. Heexplained his plan to African American and Hispanic Democratic legislators,showed how they would still win but with lower percentages, and they all agreedwith the plan. The Democrats made theirplan realistic, which helped in the long run. With the plans of the two parties deadlocked in the redistrictingcommission, the Chief Justice of New Jersey appointed an unregisterednonpartisan Political Science Professor at Princeton to be the decision 11^thmember of the commission which had five Republicans and five Democrats. The Democrats argued that the plan hadpartisan fairness and responsiveness as the votes cast by party should reflectwhat party wins seats. The Democratswere obliging when the new 11^th member made suggestions, while theRepublicans tried bullying him. TheCommission chose the Democratic plan.

Theelection result was a 20-20 tie between Senate Democrats and Republicans. An African American even won a seat where thedistrict was 27% African American. TheSenate elected Co-Presidents from both parties, with Codey being the DemocraticCo-President.This created a legislative dilemma as Donald DiFrancesco wascurrently Governor and Senate President due to the resignation of Governor Christine Todd Whitman. DiFrancco’s tenure as Senate President, andthus also as Governor, ended a week before the new Governor wasinaugurated. Codey and his co-SenatePresident each agreed to be Governor for three and half days. There was even an hour gap between thelegislature ending and the Governor’s inaugural, making the Attorney Generalthe Governor for one hour. New Jerseyhad five Governors in a week long span.

RutgersUniversity asked for his papers has Governor for three and half days. He told them to buy the state’s newspapers.

Thistied party control of the Senate led to each committee having co-chairs fromeach party. Codey refused to agree thateach President agree picking bills for bills as that would give Republicansveto power over Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey’s programs. They came to an agreement where, for every 30bills, each Co-President could post nine for votes.

EssexCounty Democratic boss George Norcross offered to Republican John Bennett thatBennett could be Senate President by getting some South Jersey Democrats tovote for him. Bennett turned down theoffer, stating he could work better with Codey than being at Norcross’smercy. Thus, Democrats won a majority inthe next election.

GovernorMcGreevey wanted a bill passed for rights for same sex domestic partners. Sen.John Adler would support the bill only ifCodey appointed him Judiciary Committee Chairman. Codey agreed but had to goback on his word to name someone else Judiciary Committee Chairman. Five African American Senators then refusedto back Codey for Senate President. Theyoffered the Senate Presidency to Republican Senate Leader Leonard Lance, whodeclined, believing the majority party had the right to the Senate Presidency.

TheNew Jersey Governor is more powerful than Governors in most other states. The New Jersey Governor appoints the AttorneyGeneral, Treasurer, and the Secretary and State, which are offices elected insome other states. The New Jersey Governorhas line item veto power. In addition,Codey still served as Senate President.

Codeywanted to restore public faith in the Governor after the McGreeveyAdminstration scandals. Codey called foran ethics audit of state government. Itwas proposed the Ethics Commission be independent and of private citizens. Executive employees could not receive gifts,there would be a standard ethics code, there would be ethic training, therewould be an ethics code for vendors and contractors with state contracts. A bill passed disallowing anyone contributingover $3,000 to a state or county candidate or party from receiving a statecontract for over $17,500 within 18 months of the contribution. Also, a $25,000 maximum contribution wasenacted. Codey signed an Executive Orderbanning Trustees from conducting business with their schools.

Aradio announced made jokes about Codey’s wife. Codey went to the radio station to defend her. Codey’s approved ratings increased overnight.

GovernorCodey signed legislation banning smoking in most public places (casinos wereexempted), conducting random drug testing of high school athletes, and creatinga stem cell research centers, as well as others.

Coedykept the budget at about the same level as before, which hadn’t been done in adecade. He reduced the property raterebates to save $63 billion.

NewJersey constructed a 2,000 foot pier that Delaware claimed crossed into theaquatic border. Republican HouseMajority Leader Wayne Smith proposed the Delaware National Guard preventthis. Codey threatened that New Jerseywould defend the pier with a battleship.

Codeywas more popular than the two candidates for Governor. Yet Jon Corzine had far more money to spendand Codey knew he could not compete with Corzine’s financial advantage. Codey did not run for Governor.

Politicalboss George Norcross maneuvered to get his candidate, Sen. Steve Sweeney,become Senate President. Two Senatorswho had pledged to vote for Codey switched to Sweeney. Thus, Codey no longer was Governor nor SenatePresident.

When a Democrat Wins a Republican Seat, and Other Sad Tales

2011-12-14T18:25:00.000-08:00

FranklinL. Kury. Clean Politics, Clean Streams: A Legislative Autobiography andReflections. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh University Press, 2011.

Theauthor was elected to five Pennsylvania State House and one State Senateterms. He won over the opposition of hiscounty patronage-based political organization. He was first elected in 1966 with the help of many volunteers who wereunconnected to the local political scene.

Kuryserved in the Pennsylvania legislature, an institution dating back to the 17^thcentury. In the 17^th century,the legislature was unelected and was advisory to the Governor. In 1701, the legislature became elected, thencreating a separate branch of government.

The20^th century was one where lobbyists were able to visit Senatorswhile in their seats on the Senate floor. Lobbyists for the Pennsylvania Railroad and Sun Oil had seats in theSenate chamber. The Senators were onceled by President Pro Tem Harvey Taylor, who controlled much patronage. Taylor earned a percent of state insurancecontracts, believed to be about $450,000 annually. Taylor divided this commission withRepublican Senators, Republican House leaders, and candidates he supported.

Kurywent to Penn Law School, where he was campus Co-Chair of Students for Kennedyand Johnson. He then worked as a clerkin the state Attorney General’s office. He was involved in keeping a phone line open between the Governor and awarden during an execution. Hearing theexecution on the phone helped make him oppose the death penalty. He also worked on the state governmentdefending requiring students to read the Bible. This would help him later when running for office in a politicallyconservative area. Kury then worked forU.S. Rep. George Rhodes and then served in the Army Reserves. Kury returned from Army duties and thenbecame a precinct Democraticcommitteeman.

Kurypushed for legislation to reclaim streams that had been polluting by coalmining. Kury testified before thelegislature. The proposal passed thestate House by 190-6. Kury’s localrepresentative, Rep. Adam Bower, voted against it.

TheNorthumberland County Republican organization was supported by patronageworkers in the county elected row office and in state Transportation Departmenthighway maintenance office. Thesepatronage workers were expected to donate 5% of their salaries to the countyRepublican organization. The countyorganization mailed literature to all voters. In the 1950s and 1960s. the organization was led by Henry Lark. Lark was wealthy and solidified politicalpower. He was a loyal Republicansupporters and did not gain personally from his position.

TheNorthumberland County Sheriff delivered and collected absentee ballots from thecounty nursing home where voters delivered 100% of their votes for theRepublican ticket. The public began suspecting the integrity of countyelections. Election results resulted inlitigation.

Kuryran against Rep, Bower and used Bower’s vote against clean streams againsthim. Bower was first elected to the Housein 1938.

Kuryran by meeting as many voters as he could. He focused on issues such as clean streams. He was helped that parts of the legislativedistrict included Montour County, which was not part of the Larkorganization. Kury felt “awkward” askingpeople to donate to his campaign, so he and his wife paid the $7,500 hiscampaign cost. He had to defeat PaulBecker, the Montour County Democraitc Chair in the primary and then defeatBower in the general election.

Kurydistributed a questionnaire to 500 voters that was similar to one designed byState Rep. John Pittenger. He personallyresponded to every returned questionnaire. Kury campaigned door to door through the entire district. Democratic Caucus Chair K. Leroy Irvis calledwith advice.

Theclear steams issue resonated once a pollution spill killed about 100,000fish. The press raised the issue of thedangers of acid mine draining into streams. Kury campaigned with a photograph of him holding a jar of visiblypolluted water in one hand and a jar of clean water in the other with thecaption “The Choice is Yours”. Kury won with 10,564 votes t0 to 7,625 forBower. The upset victory was statewidenews. Bower was then appointed ChiefClerk of the House.

Kurylearned a state legislator had no office, secretary, nor even a phone. Kury used his law office to respond toconstituent mail. Democratic MinorityLeader Herb Fineman hired some secretary so there was about one secretaryserving 20 House members. Kury observedthat the Philadelphia House Democratic members supported their fellowPhiladelphian Fineman and that many concentrated more on Philadelphia issuesthan on statewide issues. There wereonly about 12 Democratic members who were not from either Philadelphia orPittsburgh and few Democrats were concerned with rural issues.

Kuryobserved it was wise to inform his caucus leaders about what he was doing. Leaders would tolerate dissent from partypositions more if they knew about it beforehand. The leaders also realized that rural Democratswould have a different focus then did urban Democrats.

Bower,as Chief Clerk, helped Kury by letting Kury know that Herb Fineman had hiredNorthumberland County Democratic Chair John Mazur as a Research Assistant. Kury had nothing to do with Mazur being hired. Kury asked Fineman to announce that it was Fineman who had selected Mazur. Mazur’s hiring was never used by Republicansagainst Kury.

Kurywas impressed that Secretary of Labor and Industry Clifford Jones respondeddirectly about a constituent question he had. Kury had not expected a Republican Cabinet member would call a freshmanDemocratic Senator. Kury and Jonesbecame friends.

Pittengerworked as Research Director for the Democratic Caucus after losing his reelectionto the House. Kury found Pittenger to bevery bright, able, and knowledgeable about issues.

Kuryworked on election ballot reform. Paperballots could easily be tampered with and altered after voters cast them. Kury helped lead to having NorthumberlandCounty switch to machine voting.

Kuryworked for passage of strong water protection. The coal industry had political power prior to block these laws frombeing enacted. The power of coal mineoperators was lessening and the public was becoming more aware of environmentalissues. Kury also fought for otherenvironmental legislation, including increasing more fish being able to migrateup the Susquehanna River.

Kurydecided to make the right to a clean environment a part of the StateConstitution. The legislature and publicboth approved and the amendment was created.

Kuryvoted against a bill Governor Milton Shapp wanted to create 51 new Judgeshipsincluding 25 in Philadelphia. Kury didnot want to be seen a supporting Philadelphia interests and he opposed thebill. Kury told Shapp the bill didnothing for his district. Kury wanted anew bridge in his district in Sunbury. Shapp agreed to a 1971 engineering design and right of acquisition forthe Sunbury bridge. Kury writes herealized political “horse trading is as old as the country.” The bridge, though, took until 1986 to berealized.

StateSen. Preston Davis decided not to run for reelection in 1972. Kury decided to run for that seat. Kury won by 46,535 to 42,778 over RepublicanGeorge Dietrick even though Nixon defeated McGovern by a 2 to 1 margin in thedistrict.

TheSenate had more accommodations for its Senators than the House did for Housemembers. Senators had an office, asecretary, and staff, The Senate had a Senate barber and a private diningroom.

Kurynoted Senators listened when other Senators spoke on the Senate floor. This was unlike the House where only a fewlistened and only a few such as Leroy Irvis could attract other House members’attentions.

WhenDemocrats achieved a majority in the State Senate, they removed reserved seaton the Senate floor that were used by lobbyists William Reiter of thePennsylvania Railroad and Harry Davis of Sun Oil. All lobbyists were banned from the Senatefloor.

Eventhough Kury was a freshman Senator, the leadership called him to work onreforming the process where the Senate confirms nominations made by theGovernor. Governor Shapp in 1972 sent887 nominations to the Senate and 41 were confirmed. Kury led a committee that concluded too manpositions required confirmation and some should not require the approval of twothirds of Senators. The committee alsoconcluded that there should be a requirement that a rejected nominee should notbe allowed to continue serving in an acting capacity should not be allowed tocontinue serving in that acting capacity. These proposals were adopted and approved by the voters as a Constitutionalamendment.

Kurylearned about compromise in getting the confirmation changes passed. Kury was on a Senate and HouseConference Committee to resolveddifferences in how each chamber passed the bill. An agreement was made to apply a two thirdsvote requirement on judges and certain position and a majority vote on allothers. As Kury notes, “politics is theart of the possible.”

In1975, Kury became Chairman of a new Senate Consumer Affairs Committee. For decades prior, public utility legislationthat became laws were drafted by DavidDunlap, a lobbyist for the electricindustry. The committee decided it wastime to conduct the first ever Senate investigation into the Public UtilityCommission (PUC). It was found the PUCfavored the utility industry over consumers. The PUC lacked the staff to properly review utility rate increaseproposals, that Commissioners were allowed ex parte communications with thosethey regulated, and public hearings on rate requests were not required. Kury worked on changing the laws to give thePUC more staff, created Administrative Law Judges, and create a ConsumerAdvocate.

Afterflooding in 1972, Kury researched floods. He realized Pennsylvania is a state more at risk to flooding with 2,428community flood zones. Each communityhad its own flood management plan. Thisdid not allow coordinated, comprehensive action. Flood management actions upriver could causemore flooding downriver. Kury soughtfloodplain zoning laws that could restrict building in areas prone to flooding. It took two sessions to get floodplain lawspassed.

Kury,noting Churchill’s belief “that political victors should show magnanimity” wasvery disappointed that Richard Thornburgh, when inaugurated as Governor, didnot acknowledge or shake hands with outgoing Governor Shapp. He then found Thornburgh held a “firm controlon staff and departments, even requiring departmental press releases andspeeches be approved by his office.” Kury agreed with Thornburgh on using meritto appoint more positions previously were picked by patronage.

Kuryran for Auditor General in 1980. He lackedname recognition and found the experience “frustrating and disappointing” as helost the primary. Kury decided not toseek a third Senate term. Kury remainedpolitically active and helped the Mondale for President campaign fund, pick,and win more Delegates in the 1984 Pennsylvania Primary. Kury continued helping other candidates, suchas Sen. Harris Wofford, future Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.;, and Auditor General JackWagner.

Inreflection, Kury urges legislators to continually fight for their policy positionswhile being open to compromise. He foundsupport from leadership as “essential” for achieving legislative goals.

Kurynotes there have been an increase in “partisan animosity” in the legislaturesince he left. He notes legislators ofdifferent parties used to trust each other more.

Analysis of Something Good Republicans Never Touch

2011-09-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

FEDERAL COURT CASES ON CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

Conant v. McCaffrey, later Conant v. Walters. Case Number 00-17222. 1997-2002.

Summary This allowed for a physician to discuss medical marijuana in a state, California, where medical marijuana is legal, without facing legal sanctions for doing so.

Background This was a class action suit that was upheld for plaintiff physicians by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court and U.S. District Court. It was filed by Dr. Marcus Conant et. al.
The class action requested that physicians “have the right, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to communicate in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, without government interference or threats of punishment, about the potential benefits and risks of the medical use of marijuana”. They sought injunctive relief from criminal prosecution and revocation of Federal prescription drug licenses.
California voters approved the medical use of marijuana in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The use is required to be contingent upon a physician, orally or in writing, recommending its use.

Plaintiffs Dr, Marcus Conan as a dermatologist first recognized Kaposi’s sarcoma patients with new symptoms which helped lead to the discovery of AIDS. He prescribed medical marijuana and Marinol to about 100 AIDS wasting syndrome patients to stimulate appetites and to curb nausea. Upon receiving threats, he and his staff were “curtailing severely” information on medical marijuana that otherwise would have been provided to patients.
Several other physicians in this class action suit described similar threats that reduced their abilities to discuss medical marijuana with patients.
Several patients were a part of this class action suit. Some argued they would not have continued chemotherapy and they would be dead without the use of medical marijuana.

Defendants: The defendants named were four public officials serving in official capacities that enforce marijuana laws. The first defendant named was Barry McCaffrey, Director of the U.S. National Drug Control Policy Office.

Factual Background: The plaintiffs notes a 1990 survey of over 2,000 oncologists reported 44% recommended marijuana for nausea or stimulating appetite in chemotherapy patients.
It is noted the Food and Drug Administration permits tetrahydrocannabinol (found in marijuana) in synthetic form for treating emesis/vomiting and for treating weight loss in AIDS patients. It is stated that the synthetic form is not as effective and some patients have a side effect of dysphoria/mental confusion and that the pill form is difficult or impossible to be taken by patients with severe nausea.
It is noted that scientific studies have found marijuana have medical efficacy for patients with cancer, AIDS/HIV, glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, paraplegia spasms and pain, and quadriplegia spasms and pain.
Medical marijuana is legal in California according to section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
No Federal official, including the named defendants, had ever revoked a prescription drug licensed or punished any physician for recommending marijuana prior to the passage of California’s law legalizing medical marijuana. Barry McCaffrey had publicly threatened to seek prosecution of California physicians who recommend marijuana to patients, In 1996, McCaffrey issued a statement “The Administration’s Response to the Passage of California’s Proposition 215 and Arizona’s Proposition 200) that threatened that a physician recommending marijuana to a patient could be criminally prosecuted, have a license from the Drug Enforcement Administration to prescribe drugs revoked, be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, and have it recommended that a state licensing board revoke a physician license and a surgeon licenses, when applicable.

Irreparable Harm The plaintiffs argue a patient has a constitutional right to a full range of medical information. The threats from the defendants have prevented physicians from providing this full information.

Prayer for Relief The plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants and others from enforcing or threatening to enforce criminal, civil, and administrative procedures against a physician who recommends marijuana to a patient.

Court Order of Judge Fern M. Smith This order granted class certification and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The order notes the plaintiffs and defendants both appear to agree there are First Amendment rights to discuss using medical marijuana.
The defendants argue the government had a right to regulate the distribution and possession of drugs. Judge Smith notes in NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 (1964) that the government cannot broadly sweep to invade protected freedoms.
The Judge concluded the First Amendment protects physician-patient communication until the point it becomes criminal that a physician aiding, abetted, or conspired to become a principal in violating a Federal law. This preliminary injunction prohibited the government from taking any administrative action against a physician for recommending marijuana in good faith.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California The Court permanently enjoined the government from initiating any investigation solely because a physician recommending medical marijuana.

Brief for Appellees United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The Appeals court affirmed the judgment and injunction of the District Court.
The appelles argued it is emphasized this is not about doctors prescribing, distributing, or growing marijuana but is about the First Amendment right to physician-patient confidentiality and that the defendants lack the statutory authority to enforce actions over these discussions that are protected by freedom of speech.
It is noted that physicians recommend other treatments that are not Federally-approved medications, such as chicken soup, red wine, and vitamins. It is further noted that recommending something is not the same as obtaining something or prescribing something intended to be obtained.
The Federal government defendants argued that allowing physicians, who are role models, to recommend marijuana would conflict with their efforts to inform that public and especially young people about the dangers of drugs and marijuana.
It is noted the U.S. Supreme Court held that a physician had a right to discuss abortion or any medical subject with a patient in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 198-200 (1991).It is common law that a physician is required to provide complete information about all treatment options, which was upheld in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990). The government is not permitted to distort doctor-patient communication that prevent the patient from receiving uncensored medical information, in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 748, 756-57 (1976).
The appellees noted the government’s argument that a physician recommending medical marijuana conflicts with its public messages against using marijuana. The appelles noted the government cannot limit free speech and cannot restrict speech on the basis of ideology or opinion, according to Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828 and 929, even when the government is hostile to the opinion expressed, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).

Appeals Court Decision The Appeals Court enjoined the Federal government from investigating or revoking a physician’s license as the basis of recommending medical marijuana. It recognized the First Amendment rights of doctor-patient relations.

American Public Health Association et, al. Amicus Brief This brief notes direct observations from health care professionals as well as scientific studies that there are medical benefits to marijuana use. Four of the Amici in this brief use medical marijuana with the permission of the Federal government.
The brief notes that Canada allows physicians to prescribe and recommend medical marijuana. It also observes the House of Lords of Great Britain concluded that marijuana has medical efficacy.
Marinol, which is synthetic marijuana, may be legally prescribed. Marinol acts more slowly and less effectively than does marijuana.

California Medical Association et. al. Amicus Brief This brief defended the free speech of physician-patient speech under the First Amendment. It notes the government may ban illegal conduct yet it cannot suppress speech about illegal activity. It also notes that medicine is regulated by the state and not by the Federal government.

California Academy of Family Physicians et. al. Amicus Brief This brief warns against allowing the Federal government to overreach and stop free speech between physicians and patients. It notes the U.S. Health and Human Services Department warns HMOs against “gag clauses” that limit what doctors tell Medicare patients about treatment options. Both President Clinton and HHS Secretary Donna Shalala have publicly defended the free exchange of information between physicians and patients.

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative et. al. Case Numbers C 98-00085,6,7,8,9 CRB and 98-00245 CRB. (1998-2007)

Summary A cooperative, the Oakland Cannibus Buyers’ Cooperative, grew marijuana. The Federal government put a halt to this. The court agreed that the Federal government may do this. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there is no medical necessity defense in this case and that the Cooperative’s actions are illegal.

Appellants’ Opening Brief Oakland passed a city ordinance allowing medical marijuana. Oakland’s City Manager selected the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative as the organization permitted to provide medical marijuana and to provide enforcement of the ordinance. City ordinance provided the Cooperative with civil and criminal immunity from state and local government officers. Employees, directors, and agents of the Cooperative are deemed as officers of the City of Oakland.
The Federal government enjoined the Cooperative for violating Federal law against manufacturing, distributing, and possessing marijuana.
The Cooperative notes that California voters passed the Medical Use of Marijuana initiative. The appellants state they are engaged in lawful activities under state and local law.
The Cooperative argued that not allowing seriously ill patients to have medical marijuana violated their Ninth Amendment protections of life and liberty.
The Federal government argues Federal law applies over state and local law.

Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees in Support of Affirmance This brief filed by The City Attorney for Oakland and others noted that cannabis has been an effective medicine for over 3,000 years. It notes the 1937 testimony of an American Medical Association spokesman arguing against banning marijuana as it would burden health professionals in depriving them of prescribing something that research may prove to be of substantial value. It mentions the LaGuardia Committee’s five year study that found attacks on marijuana as unfounded. It describes how the Shafer Commission, which was led by a “drug hawk” Raymond Shaffer, stacked with conservative doctors, and led by a noted anti-drug Executive Director, concluded marijuana should be decriminalized. Also noted is the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge that natural marijuana is one of the safety therapeutic substances.

Brief of Amicus Curie. State of California, in Support of Respondents The State seeks to preserve the sovereign jurisdiction of the State and of the electorate that passed Proposition 215. The 9th and 10th amendments give the states the right to determine uses of treating serious illnesses. The 9th Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with California regulating the health and welfare of its citizens. The 10th Amendment gives states the power to determine powers not delegated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court allows states to use the democratic process to determine the issue of regulating abortion, which California argued is similar to this issue.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae and Brief of California Medical Association and National Pain Foundation as Amic Curiae in Support of Respondents The CMA and NPF fully support appropriate regulation of drugs yet argued that physicians and patients should be able to consider alternatives when standard therapies fail. It is argued that, while marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug with no medical use, the Federal government has never claimed that marijuana has no medical use. Marijuana fits the criteria for medical use as it has a known chemistry, has been shown it can be used safely, qualified studies have proved its efficacy, the evidence from the studies are widely available, and qualified experts accept these studies. There are numerous individual cases that show marijuana has a medical use. The DEA argued these are anecdotal cases. It is argued there is a public interest for marijuana to be used as medicine. Allowing marijuana for medical use will not interfere with the government to enforce illegal use of marijuana. There are no alternatives to marijuana for some patients and it is argued they will suffer unspeakably if they are not able to use marijuana.

Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union of California et. al. in Support of Respondents It is argued the Controlled Substances Act of the Federal government leaves discretion for an injunction for medical necessity. There are patients in severe physical suffering would face a hardship if marijuana is not available to them.

Brief Amici Curiae of the American Public Health Association et. a. in Support of Respondents. It is noted that the U.S. Institute of Medicine stated there are “limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses”. The British House of Lords also issued a report agreeing there are medical benefits to marijuana. These studies have indicated that marijuana may not be the superior drug for all patients, yet it should be recognized that there are patients who would get the best medicine from using marijuana. It is for these patients that medical marijuana should be provided. Marinol takes more slowly to act and is not as effective as marijuana, in most cases. Many pain and spasm patients require faster treatment than what Marinol provides. The court is urged to look at the full range of facts and recognize there are patients who are unable to use conventional treatment who could benefit from medical marijuana.

Brief Amici Curiae of the Marijuana Policy Project et. al in Support of Respondents. It is argued that the government’s argument that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of medical marijuana should be rejected because the Federal government has impeded research into medical uses for marijuana. A 1986 FDA study found cannabis controlled nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients. Further studies since then have been rejected by the Federal government. Since the FDA process has not operated as Congress intended, it is argued that patients should be allowed to make a medically necessary argument in order to use medical marijuana.

Appellee’s Reply to Brief of Amicus Curiae The Federal government argued a city cannot engage in conduct against Federal law.
The Federal government did not find it relevant the City of Oakland’s argument that Congress had neglected the Shafer Commission report. It notes that Congress has not acted to remove marijuana from being listed as a Class 1 drug.
The Federal government disputes that there is a Constitutional right to use marijuana because the voters of California approved this. It is argued states have no right to have a referendum to declare enforcement of Federal law as being unconstitutional.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Decided. 190 F.3d. 1109. This denied the Cooperative’s motion to dismiss the complaint and found the Cooperative in contempt of injunction. The United States Marshal was empowered to seize the Cooperative’s offices.
The case was remanded to consider allowing the distribution of cannabis to seriously ill patients. The court was asked to consider criteria for a medical necessity exemption.

Reply Brief for Appellant United States of America The Justice Department argued that medical necessity is not a defense for violating Federal law. It is argued it is the clearly expressed intent of Congress to uphold the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, there can be no argument that there is a medical necessity for medical marijuana when Congress has made a clear intent that marijuana should remain illegal, according to the Justice Department. The Shafer Report is mentioned as recommending the decriminalization of marijuana, yet the fact that Congress has continued to keep marijuana illegal in the face of this recommendation demonstrates Congress intends for marijuana to remain illegal, according to the Justice Department. The Government further denies that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine.

Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari An issue is whether the court’s injunction failed to consider the public interest. The defendants argue that stating that Congress has failed to act does not rebut that there is a medical necessity to medical marijuana.
A District Court injunction prohibited the distribution of cannabis except to patients who are members of the Collective who have a serious medical condition that is treated by cannabis, would suffer immediate harm without cannabis, and there is no reasonable legal alternative to cannabis.
A Federal agent witnessed the Collective violate the injunction and make 14 marijuana transactions. In addition, the Collective issued a press release stating they were going to do this.
The court ruled that Proposition 215 does not conflict with Federal law because it exempts certain people from California drug laws. Thus, a seriously ill California has a right to obtain and use medical marijuana. It remains illegal under Federal law to distribute marijuana for any purpose except for approved research. The Collective claimed to be a cooperative where members shared medical marijuana amongst themselves and that third parties were are involved. The court ruled this argument was not likely to prevail.
The Supremacy Clause makes the only issue whether Federal law has been violated. The court believes this is likely but notes no decision has been made as to whether Proposition 215 is unconstitutional nor if a patient should be enjoined from possessing marijuana upon the recommendation of a physician.
The San Francisco District Attorney raised the issue of the distribution of medical marijuana by a local government under strict controls. It is noted the distribution of clean needles violates Federal law but that the Federal government has not acted to stop these distributions. The court noted this issue was not before the court.

Reply Brief for the Petitioner The Justice Department petitioner argues that Congress has placed marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance that bans it for any purpose, including medical use, although except for approved research. This ban is incompatible with a medical necessity argue, according to the petitioner.

Brief for the Petitioner Congress determined in 1998 that marijuana does not have any medical use. The City of Oakland declared a public health emergency to allow the distribution of medical marijuana. A medical necessity can not apply when there has been a legislative resolution that conflicts with it, according to the Justice Department petitioner.

Brief for the Respondents It is argued that patients who are also Collective members face a choice of evils between violating the law versus facing debilitating pain or loss of eyesight. There are no legal alternative medicines available to these patients. The people obtaining this medicine do so under duress and the Federal government’s actions against them is entrapment, according to the Collective. It is further argued that there are more than research exceptions to the ban on marijuana as the Federal government approved 79 patients to use marijuana for chemotherapy patients. It still permitted eight people to use medical marijuana, at the time of this brief. The brief notes that the Congressional disapproval of not legalizing marijuana is a caption buried in an omnibus appropriations act. The brief argues that patients have a fundamental right to be free from government interference of the personal, self-funded medical decisions. It notes Federal courts traditionally give greater discretion to seriously ill patients.

Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court The Acting U.S. Solicitor General argued Federal statute leaves no room for a medical necessity exception to Federal marijuana law. It is argued necessity requires a balancing of harms that does not apply in this case as Congress has already decided that balance.
A Justice observed a footnote indicating the case is a sham as the Collective may be a front for illegal marijuana use.
A Justice questioned that the Federal government did not enforce this against severely ill patients until California passed its proposition.
The Acting Solicitor General indicated that Marinol is a legal alternative. It was also noted that the FDA has not tested and approved marijuana for medical use.
A Justice questioned why the Federal government did not state it preempted California’s law. The Acting Solicitor General responded that the California law provides a person with a defense against California law, and this does not conflict with Federal law. A Justice then asked if this meant California law states a person would not violated state law but is still at the mercy of Federal law, and the Acting Solicitor General agreed.
A Justice questioned if this was brought as a civil case because California juries may be prone not to convict people on crimes with which they disagree. The U.S. Solicitor General did not have an answer to this, except to state that it is more desirable for find a mechanism to resolve a dispute before jailing people.
George Uelmen, arguing for the respondent Collective and others, claimed not pursing a criminal prosecution deprives the respondents of a jury trial and that the standard of proof differs by bringing a civil case. Instead, a summary judgment was made with no fine but with the business being seized. Thus the respondents could have been be jailed for refusing to abide by the judgment, and done so without a jury trial. The respondents abided by the judgment and halted their activities.
A Justice questioned the medical necessity defense as the action was brought against the Collective clinic and not against the patients. A Justice also questioned that non-medical people had determined what is medically necessary.
Uelman responded that California requires a physician’s recommendation or approval. He argued that these conditions are unusual and were not contemplated by Congress when it required a physician to make a prescription.
A Justice asked if there are any other cases where the court has recognized a medical necessity defense. Uelman state there are none but argued Congress did not rule out this defense. He also stated there is a necessity defense in common law. This extends to the Collective as they have the necessity of not letting someone die from not giving them medicine that would enable them to continue chemotherapy or not go blind from glaucoma.
Underwood rebutted arguing that Congress considered and rejected alternatives to cannabis and thus there can be no medical necessity defense. She noted the respondents never submitted marijuana to the FDA for review.

Supreme Court of the United States The Court rejected the medical necessary argument since marijuana is a controlled substance. It is noted that a medical necessity defense is controversial even at common law. Congress has made a determination of values that marijuana has no medical benefit. This was the opinion of Justice Thomas that was joined by four other Justices.
Justice Stevens with two other justices concurred yet stated medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana. It finds the overbroad language unfortunate as there should be respect for sovereign States and Federal courts should avoid or minimize conflict between Federal and state law.
Justice Breyer did not take part in this decision.

Defendants’ Brief on Remand The defendants raised Constitutional issues they believe the Supreme Court failed to consider which led to an injunction being issued that stopped their operations. It is argued that an injunction must be issued only to protect interstate commerce. They are that intrastate distribution of marijuana does not substantially affect interstate commerce, that its distribution is not an economic activity, and that the action interferes with state rights, as protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is argued it is the will of the people of California that medical marijuana be provided. The injunction violated the public interest.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California Judgement: Permanent injunction The court permanently enjoined the defendants from distributing marijuana.

Gonvalez versus Raich. Also, Ashcroft versus Raich et.al. No. 03-1454

Summary The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal government may, under the Commerce Clause, enforce the law against marijuana possession in the case of a person who grows marijuana for personal medical use in a state that allows the use of medical marijuana.

Brief for Petitioners It is argued that Congress has approved regulated interstate commerce and the market for controlled substances. The distribution of marijuana violates these laws.

Brief of Respondents The respondents are patients with life-threatening or serious and painful conditions who use marijuana solely for medical purposes as recommended by their physicians. They seek a preliminary injunction to prevent actions brought against them stating they violated the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
The respondents argue that the Commerce Clause does not apply to a medicine that is recommended by a physician and authorized in state law.
It was argued that Angel Raich would die without using marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a medical necessity argument for distributing and manufacturing marijuana. This is a medical necessity for a respondent.

Reply Brief for the Petitioners It was argued that marijuana has no accepted medical use. It is the duty of the government to prevent this distribution of any illegal Schedule I drug for any purpose. Nothing in the California law states marijuana is now legal under Federal law.
It was argued there is no distinction in the Commerce Clause that distinguishes between medical versus recreational use of a product.

Respondents’ Brief in Opposition It is argued that many health care professionals have found that marijuana is an appropriate medicine to some people who cannot use alternatives. One patient, Diane Monson, grew her own marijuana. Another patient, Angel Raich, is unable to grow her own marijuana due to her physical condition. Her caregivers grew marijuana for her. These plants for were personal medical use, used legally under state law, and involved no violation of interstate commerce. Their physicians stated that marijuana is a required medicine for both these patients.

Arguments Before the U. S. Supreme Court Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that home grown marijuana for medical use could be diverted into interstate commerce. Clement claimed this is an illegal $10.5 billion interstate market. While these particular individuals may not have produced marijuana that entered interstate comment, Clement argued they are of a class where their marijuana could be so diverted.
Clement argued that raw, home grown marijuana contains 400 chemicals and that not all these chemicals can be beneficial, unlike produced medicines such as Marinol. He also argued that smoking marijuana is not a good means to deliver a drug and that while Marinol takes longer to enter the bloodstream, this is good to prevent abusing the medicine.
Randy Barnett, attorney for the respondent, argued the class he is defending are non-economic and are all intrastate. They are not part of the marketplace as they grown their own marijuana for health purposes.

Back When Some Democrat Interrupted Republican Domination

2011-09-20T14:16:00.001-07:00

Reed Smith. State Government in Transition: Reforms of the Leader Administration, 1955-1959. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963

It is often difficult for Governors to be strong administrators as they are hampered in what they may effectively implement. It is hard to judge success by how well Governors week and then use what means they find available to implement their programs. The administration of George Leader as Pennsylvania’s Governor from 1955 to 1959, though, is noted for its many implemented reorganizations within state government.

George Leader, as a Democrat, was a change from a century long line of Republican Party domination. Joseph Grundy of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association was a key component of selecting every Republican candidate for Governor and other candidates from 1929 on with added influence from Joseph Pew of Sun Oil Company from 1939 on. Their campaign influence was added by Republican Party political machine organizations, including one in Philadelphia where the politicians, police, and organized crimes had close relations. News reports indicated vote fraud were a part of political machine operations. The Governor controlled much patronage which a main part of keeping the Republican political machinery operating.

The Pennsylvania Governor controlled more patronage into the 1960s and prior than any other state’s Governor. The Pennsylvania Governor could decide who filled about 50,000 jobs. In 1956, Pennsylvania had 52,959 non-civil service jobs compared to 7,433 in New York. These jobs were not personally selected by the Governor yet were allocated to different political party leaders.

The Pennsylvania Governor also had more appointive powers over a broader spectrum of administrative functions than Governors in other states had. George Leader concerned himself primarily with directly appointing department leaders and their deputies. County political chairs chose most highway, prison, and field position within the Labor and Industry Department and mine inspectors within their counties. Robert Jones was Leader’s patronage secretary. Leader insisted on non-patronage recruitment of state mental hospital doctors and nurse, highway engineers, bank examiners and foresters.

George Leader was a farmer, not a traditional occupation for past Governors, and was 36 years old when elected. The average age of previous Governors was 52.

Leader streamlined and delegated operations within the Governor’s office so he could focus on the areas he wished. He was known for his ability of persuasion and in creating a loyal staff. He was idealistic, pragmatic, and had a strong knowledge of state programs and operations. He sought immediate changes rather than holding back in hopes of better future opportunities. This combination won him both many friends and enemies. Friends found his tenacious while enemies found him stubborn.

Leader visited every state institution, prison, and hospital. He was well versed on state issues. He became an advocate on numerous policies involving people with mental and physical disabilities.

Democratic Party leaders did not expect Leader to win. When he won, Leader was an independent liberal who did not feel beholden to the demands of Democratic Party leaders. Leader did not oppose the Democratic Party county leaders and sought to have reformers and party leaders work together. This did not work well with either side as they had differing agendas.

Leader revived the Executive Board, which consisted of the Governor and six department leaders. He also had monthly Cabinet meetings. Leader found the Cabinet too large in size to properly discuss issues, so he used the Cabinet meetings to express common goals to all. The smaller Executive Board was used for deciding how to implement programs.

The Planning Board advised on economic, natural resource, and physical matters.

Leader created the Office of Administration by Executive Order. This office coordinated department actions into unified policies.

A new office of Legislative Secretary was created. This improved communications with the legislators. The Public Relations office was expanded which provided more news to the press, although it is noted much more unfavorable commentary resulted.

A Bureau of Management Methods was created. The office searched for problems in state operations and sought to resolve them. This bureau created several agency reorganizations.

A Bureau of Accounts was created. More modern accounting methods were introduced. Accounting was made more uniform. IBM punch cards helped introduce mechanized bookkeeping and payroll.

There were flaws in the system. The Department of Property and Surplus remained under political patronage. It used practices that were costly and ineffective. Leader discovered favoritism was used in awarding some contracts along with a lack of concern about performance from some administrators. Leader sought to reform these operations yet he met much resistance from the status quo political machinery.

A Bureau of Capital Expenditures was created. Difficulties delayed its becoming operational for three years. While a separate capital budget was produced in addition to the biennial state budget, it was questioned why the Budget Bureau shouldn’t continue handling both budgets.

Leader removed one Cabinet member, Labor and Industry Secretary John Torquato, for using workers compensation jobs for politically connected associates. Leader also removed some Joint Delaware River Bridge Commissioners for misusing funds as well as two sales tax officials who were also Democratic ward leaders for administrative and personality conflicts.

Leader moved 9,000 patronage jobs into civil service by Executive Board decision. A Bureau of Personnel was created to see all patronage positions were filled by qualified people.

Leader achieved much of his legislative agenda. While the majority of State Senators were Republicans in both two year legislative sessions when Leader was Governor, Democrats held 112 House seats to 98 House seats during Leader’s first two years while Republicans held 126 House seats to 83 Democratic House seats in his second two years.

The Mental Health Commissioner became the state’s second highest paid position after the Governor. The Mental Health Department was also reorganized with all positions placed under civil service.

Under Leader, unemployment compensation and workers compensation benefits were increased. The number of weeks a person could collect unemployment compensation was increased. The largest school construction program than ever before occurred. State aid to universities increased. An Industries Development program assisted economically deprived regions. Slum clearance funds were increased. The largest highway construction than was ever before occurred. Agricultural legislation passed exempting farmers from paying tax of gas used on their farms and on improving feed and fertilized quality.

The Pardons Board continued to be a board of mostly nonprofessionals. Despite newspaper criticism of pardons during Leader’s administration about his being soft on criminals, Leader granted fewer pardons than did more recent Governors. It is believed the press attacks were personally motivated because the Philadelphia Inquirer’s publisher’s father had been denied a pardon.

30% of applicants for pardons received pardons in 1930 and 34% received pardons in 1954. Under Leader, 18.3% of applicants received pardons, the lowest rate since 1946.

The Departments of Welfare and Public Assistance were merged under Leader. These two large departments together resulted in one of the largest departments in the country.

Leader moved the Milk Control Commission to greater technical procedures and fewer political connections. Leader’s being a farmer may have led to this attentiveness.

Leader implemented free public education for children with disabilities. This was the first time this was available in Pennsylvania.

Correctional industries were expanded under Leader. Forestry camps were created for juvenile offenders.

Leader’s administration was noted for rapid changes throughout all areas of state government. He is criticized for being more liberal than his more conservative constituency. Leader was an activist who accomplished many reform from his pure energy. The author concludes “Leader is the best recent Governor Pennsylvania has had.”

Texas Republicans Say "Give Prison a Chance"

2011-09-13T11:09:00.000-07:00

Robert Perkinson. Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire. New York: Metropolitan Books. Henry Holt and Co,m 2010.

The philosophy of criminal justice in many Northern states focuses on rehabilitation. The philosophy of criminal justice in many Southern states focuses on retribution. Further, profit is more apt to be a motivation for operating prisons in Southern states than in Northern states.

The largest state prison system is in Texas. The author observes racial disparity in Texas prisons has increased over the past four decades.

1% of U.S. adults are incarcerated, making the U.S. the world’s largest prison system. As the author notes, “just as slavery once stood as a glaring exception to the American promise”, incarceration is today’s exception.

The American criminal justice system has 2.4 million employees and costs $212 billion annually. For comparison, this ls largest than our two biggest private sector employees (Wal-Mart and McDonald’s) combined,

Despite the prevalence of people under incarceration, the author notes “many Americans still don’t know anyone who has been to prison”. This is because incarceration has a strong racial component. 1 in 6 African American males, 1 in 13 Hispanic males, and 1 in 39 white males have been incarcerated. This disparity is about twice as much as before the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. The author notes that, in 1965, it would have been impossible to gain approval for a policy that would increase prison spending 44 times while increasing prison racial disparity, yet this was the result.

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate followed by Texas. Texas increases 691 per 100,000 residents. Texas leads the nation in adults in the criminal justice system, people in for profit imprisonment, supermax lockdowns, and executions.

The author notes “rehabilitative prison has failed, in part, because it was never allowed to succeed.” In Texas, prison reforms since the 1880s have always fallen to budget cutbacks.

There are about 170,000 people incarcerated in Texas. 90,000 of these are imprisoned for nonviolent crimes. 81% of new Texas inmates are imprisoned for nonviolent property crimes or for drug use.

Violent criminals include those who were convicted of possessing pepper spray, resisting arrest, and fighting. Criminologists observed violent criminals are often in the early twenties and that violent tendencies usually decline after their twenties. Thus, long prison sentences hold these criminals past their age when they tend towards violence.

Historically, prisons were primarily workhouses until the U.S. created penitentiaries for long confinement. The theory was the incarcerated would use this time to feel penitent from their crimes.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery, yet allowed slavery as criminal punishment. Slavery thus became a common punishment, with convicts sold by bid. Salve prisoners were often abused, treated poorly, and literally worked to death.

Rail companies hired prisoners. Joseph Brown, Georgia’s Governor, U.S. Senator, and Supreme Court Justice, was a leading employer of prisoners for his coal company.

Prison reform movements were mostly unsuccessful with many Texas Governs and political leaders working to undermine reform efforts.

Tales from ex-convicts and convicts informed others of prison conditions. Leadbelly’s songs of prison torments was part of a movement from the 1940s on, of convicts alerting the public about prison life through song and books. Some convicts starting filing court challenges on prison conditions.

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 allowed for suit in Federal court if Constitutional rights were violated. The NAACP and ACLU began representing inmates. In 1966, there were 218 civil rights violations filed by inmates, in 1972 there were 3,000, and in 1984 there were 18,000. Prisoners were primary beneficiaries of the civil rights movement.

White prisoners received better and easier jobs while in prison, such as bookkeeping. They were also abused far less than were African American prisoners.

Court cases, bad press, and legislative queries into prison operations in the 1970s and 1980s led to changes in the prison system. Politicians such as Alabama Governor George Wallace fought back. Wallace claimed the reformers were coddling prisoners and that criminals had more rights than citizens and police officers. This rhetoric received much popular support in Texas and elsewhere, which slowed or halted many prison reform efforts.

President Nixon declared drugs a major problem, even though more people died from choking on food (2,313 in 1971) than from drugs (2,227 in 1971). Spending on Federal drug enforcement under Nixon rose from $65 million to $791 million. More people began being incarcerated for drugs.

The American Friends Service of the Quakers noted in 1971 that it was Quakers who led the movement to create penitentiaries. They then called for abolishing penitentiaries, noting “this 200 year old experiment has failed.”

Bill Clements was helped in part in being elected Governor of Texas by running ads against incumbent Gov. Mark White for White’s paroling prisoners. Texan George H.W. Bush would be elected President in part by running similar ads against his opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis.

Governor Clements won approval for $530 million for building 12,500 new prison beds in 1987. These beds were quickly filled. Private prison lobbyists descended upon Texas. Soon, Texas had the largest private prison system in the nation.

Governor Ann Richards favored drug and alcohol (D&A) treatment and guided construction of the largest D&A system on Earth. Still, more prisons were built to house 22,000 more prisoners while Richards was Governor. Richards reduced first time approval rates for parole applications from 79% when Clements was Governor in 1989 to 29% in 1994. Discretionary sentencing was replaced with fixed sentences established by a commission under Governor Richards in 1991. Texas voters approved $1 billion for new prisons while also voting to defeat $750 million for new schools.

Under President Clinton in 1994, Federal assistance for more prison construction and for police was approved, yet it was provided only to state that reduced parole. Also passed during the Clinton Presidency was the Prison Litigation Reform Act that vastly reduced prisoner lawsuits by increasing filing fees and placing low caps on attorney rewards.

George W. Bush defeated Richards for Governor in 1993. Governor Bush changed most D&A beds into prison beds. Stronger drug sentences were passed. There were soon over 90,000 nonviolent inmates in Texas.

Bush reduced D&A funding, increased justice funding, increased longer juvenile sentences, lowered the age for incarceration as an adult to 15, and increased incarcerated juveniles by 150%. Under Governor Bush, prison spending went from $1.4 billion for 119,195 prison beds to $2.4 billion for 166,719 prison beds. Bush also vetoed a bill for statewide public defenders. Texas is one of the few states without public defenders. Texas, with 7% of the nation’s population, has 12% of the nation’s prisoners.

In 2007, Texas had 2,324 crimes that were felonies.

Some Republicans Still Live in Cities (But They Won't Admit It)

2011-09-12T14:18:00.000-07:00

Edward Glaeser. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York: The Penguin Press, 2011.

The author argues cities are economically and culturally better places to live than non-urban areas. City residents have higher standards of living, healthier lives, and are more environmentally conscious.

Glaeser argues that January temperatures are leading indications of economic growth in cities. Our poor treatment of cities in recent decades has led to greater income inequality, greater economic difficulties, and more environmental problems nationwide.

Two thirds of Americans, or about 253 million, live on 3% of our land that is urban.

New York supplanted Boston as the busiest British colonial port due to shipping wheat and flour which went mostly to Southern colonies. Transportation improvements brought more people to cities. New York declined as a manufacturing area as the global markets grew, yet it remained as a place where people with ideas could comingle, in areas such as academic knowledge, financial innovations, and clothing designs. New York rebounded from financial troubles in the 1970s to where 40% of Manhattan employees are in financial services. Wages increased in Manhattan faster than in all large cities. Manhattan wages are 17% above the national average and 45% above Santa Clara County, a.k.a. Silicon Valley.

Nationwide, city employees earn 30% more than non-metropolitan employees.

Cities globally “are gateways between markets and cultures.”

The author argues Jane Jacobs was wrong that older and shorter buildings would be cheaper. Increasing the supply of housing by building more buildings that are taller decreases housing prices. The author agrees with Jane Jacobs that cities should be very accessible to pedestrians and they should exude creativity.

Historic preservation has its place, according to the author. Yet, Glaeser noted that reducing construction of new homes decreases its supply and increases housing costs. Paris, for instance, is well preserved yet only the wealthy can afford to live there.

Sprawl increases commute times, harms more of the environment, and decreases the sense of community amongst residents. Cities, by comparison, have fewer carbon emissions. Urban dwellers use more mass transit. New York City residents use less gas on average than do residents of any other city.

Athens was a great sixth century B.C. city where much of Western philosophy originated and was explored by many in close residence. Rome had fewer cities and collapsed in part because it had trouble maintaining its many roads and vast infrastructure.

One thousand years ago, three of the four cities with over 50,000 people had Islamic residents, namely Seville, Palermo, and Cordoba. The fourth was Constantinople.

Baghdad in Fifth Century B.C. was a center of exchange of scholastic, philosophical, and mathematical knowledge. Merchants were enriched with a collection of buyers in close proximity.

Nagasaki, beginning in 1543, became a major trading city with Western merchants.

Bangalore was a center of engineering advancements. It remains an international leader in computer and information technologies.

Entrepreneurial advances in information will be what guides future growth.
Cities that adapt to the demands of information will grow economically, Glaeser predicts. Those that don’t will not grow.

Cities that declined in recent years tried to hold on their industrial base, which itself was declining. The cities that grew reinvented themselves and attracted new and growing enterprises.

New York expanded through entrepreneurship. Financial sector employees eared over $78 billion in New York City in 2008.

Some cities declines decline, in part, by what the author calls the “Curley Effect”, named after former Boston Mayor James Michael Curley. Mayor Curley called Anglo Saxons “a strange and stupid race”, an intended insult for many wealthier Bostonians. Some cities that declined actively drove out its wealthier residents. Successful cities attracted wealth and investors.

The author argues the Federal government should allow all people to keep more of their own money. He opposes Federal government policies that help specific locations. He also notes more government programs divert money towards those who are political connected.

Many cities have large numbers of poor residents. Cities that have grown offered ways for poor people to advance themselves. This created new wealth that helped increase the city’s overall wealth.

Government programs on poverty typically target poor people in cities rather than in rural areas. Government programs that help the poor often encourage more poor people to move to cities to access these programs. This further increases urban poverty. A city will improve it is can enable its poorer residents to improve their economic situations.

Empowerment zones were a government program that successfully created jobs for low income workers. Yet it did so at a cost of about $100,000 per job created.

Glaeser argues housing vouchers to low income people allows them to move into improved housing. It also puts public funds into the control of residents rather than the control of builders. Builders often are politically connected and are more prone to use public funds exorbitantly. Studies, though, have shown mixed results with housing vouchers. Overall, African American women improve their lives with vouchers while African American males do not fare as well with vouchers.

Glaeser argues the best Federal policies for poverty are ones that lower artificial barriers between the wealthy and the poor. Policies that provide more to schools in wealthier schools than poorer schools, as often happens currently, only increases the gap between richer and poorer people.

School quality disparities have prevented urban growth in cities such as Detroit. Wealthier people leave urban areas for better schools in the suburbs.

Werner Troesken conducted an economic analysis that showed that, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, cities that invested in municipal waterworks significantly lowered deaths from water borne illnesses. Many troubled cities today, such as Dharavi and Kinshasha, would benefit from investments that reduce diseases and illnesses.

Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner conducted economic analysis that indicates vehicle miles traveled increases with each mile of new road. Thus, constructing new roads does nothing to lessen congestion.

William Vickrey’s economic analysis shows that vehicle drivers do not factor the lost time costs to other drivers. The economic market answer would be to charge drivers for the congestion they create, such as increasing tools during times of high congestion. London adopted congestion pricing which greatly reduced congestion. So far, the concept of congestion pricing has not been politically viable in the U.S., even though its costs are in the billions of dollars.

An increase in population increases the number of criminal suspects. This makes it harder for police to solve crimes. A doubling of a population reduces crimes solves by approximately 8%.

“Close-knit” communities reduce crime, even in urban areas. Residents watching their neighborhoods that deal with problems when they arise have lower crime rates.

There seems to be no explainable reasons why crime rates fluctuate. The only correlation found is that increases in the number of young people, who commit the most crimes, account for about one fifth of increases in crime. John Donohue and Steve Levitt argue that legalizing abortion led to their being fewer troubled youth which led to lower crime rates.

Crime rates reductions correlate with arrest rates increases more so than with increasing incarceration sentences.

Tougher penalties for drug laws and other crimes increased the number of people in the criminal justice system (incarcerated, on parole, or on probation) from 1.8 million in 1980 to 6.4 million in 2000. Having fewer criminals on the streets lowered violent crimes by 40% during the 1990s. Much debates centers on the increased incarceration of nonviolent criminals. Many of the people who are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes would otherwise lead productive lives, yet some are also violent criminals who were caught more easily committing nonviolent crimes. Society has to weight the costs of denying freedom and reducing the prospects of nonviolent criminals versus lowering crime rates, Glaeser recommends.

Another factor in lowering crimes rates during the 1990s was that there was a 15% increase in the number of police officers. Steven Levitt claims this lowered crime by 5%. An advantage to hiring more police is they are less costly than incarcerating people.

Jack Maple mapped high crime areas in the New York transit system. The New York Police Chief then mapped crime areas in New York. A computer model helped them assign resources to where criminal activity was most occurring.

Cities began reinstating police officers patrolling neighborhoods which the officers knew. Good community contacts helps officers gain trust and to receive information from local residents. Neighborhood patrols were changes from previous concepts of rotating police officers. They were rotated after corruption cases where people were bribing officers known to them.

Neighborhood advisory councils often help police officers. It is noted that police officers who are female and/or of racial minorities have generally been more effective in establishing good community relations.

Suicides and accidents are major reasons of death for younger people. Urban areas have lower suicide and accident rates. New York vehicle deaths are 75% lower than the rest of the nation. The New York suicide rate is 56% less than the rest of the nation. Gun ownership is four times higher in smaller towns than in urban areas.

New York residents aged 54 to 64 have 5.5% lower fatalities than deaths nationwide, 17% less for New Yorkers aged 64 to 74, and 24% less for New Yorkers aged 75 to 84.

Urban residents are most active. Compared to rural residents, urban residents are 98% more likely to see a movie, 44% more likely to see a museum. 26% more likely to drink at a bar, and 19% more likely to go to a rock or pop concert.

Urban residents spend 25% more on footwear.

The 284 foot spire of Trinity Church was once New York’s tallest structure until 1890 when the New York World skyscraper opened and was taller,

Five of today’s ten tallest New York skyscrapers were between between 1930 and 1933. In 1933, New York enacted a 420 page code that regulated building limits that halted much construction. The code also removed New York’s noted setbacks requirements and instead used a system of floor area areas. “Wedding cake” buildings ceased being built as glass and steel slabs were the new norm.

Mumbai enacted a building height limit. This resulted in newcomers living in smaller units. It also created increased congestion.

The author advises cities to replace the permit system with a fees system. Fees should be charged to pay for the social costs of buildings.

Glaeser advises that preservation laws should designate a fixed number of buildings and that the list should be changed only slowly. He seeks to encourage building in areas that need not be preserved.

The author encourages neighborhoods to have the authority to keep their unique characteristics. People should have more influence than should city planners on the directions of their community.

An ironic consequence of efforts by Ian McHarg and others of building new suburban housing projects integrated with nature destroyed more nature from the resulting sprawl.

Housing prices increase by 1.35% for a 1% increase in family income in that area. An area with January temperatures that are 5 degrees warmer than the national average have 3% higher housing prices.

Houston has no zoning code. It provides more affordable housing than do most cities. Houston does have much sprawl and high energy costs.

A gallon of gas, from refining to driving, uses 22 pounds of carbon dioxide. The average family is involved in emitting ten tons of carbon dioxide per year. Gas consumption, according to Glaeser and Matthew Kah, decreases by 106 gallons annually with a doubling of the number of residents per square mile.

California has a good climate than doesn’t require as much energy throughout the year as the rest of the nature.

Centralized governments like Japan tend to have larger capital cities. People locate close to where political power exists. Many businesses want dealings with the government. Japan, even when economically poor during the 1960s, had a population better educated than in most other countries. Many young people started their careers in government employment. This educated workforce helped Japan achieve significant economic gains.

Singapore grew by using both free markets and government directed industrialization.

Cities with a highly skilled population are more apt to adjust over the loss of a major industry

Cities drew from immigration that brings in new talent. A good education system helps city grow and innovate. Poverty programs should help people and not places.

The U.S. population grew by 19.5% or more in every decade from 1790 through 1970 except once, the 1930s.

As Glaeser put it, “The central theme of this book is that cities magnify humanity’s strengths…Our culture, our prosperity, and our freedom are all ultimately gifts of people living, working, and thinking together…the ultimate triumph of the city.”

A Timely Book from a Senator and Governor on Being on Time

2011-09-06T12:13:00.000-07:00

Edward Martin. Always Be on Time. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Telegraph Press, 1959.

"Always be on time" is a rule the author, a former Pennsylvania Governor and U.S. Senator, learned from his father and abided by throughout his life. Doing so "pays dividends in the long run". He also learned from his youth that hard work pays, that getting the best and earliest crops earned the most money, and that doing one's best brought many gains.

Martin was a student at Waynesburg College when the Battleship Maine sunk in Havana. He joined a National Guard company at college and was elected their Captain. After training in Mt. Gretna, he was sent to the Philippines as a Private. 20% of his fellow soldiers were wounded or killed in his first battle with Spanish regulars. Martin then participated as a Corporal in the 70 day fight against Filipinos until their capital of Malolos fell. Malaria hit most of the soldiers.

Martin furnished college and joined the Bar in 1905. He was "greatly impressed" with Senator Matthew Quay. He went into politics and became Burgess of East Waynesburg in 1906. In 1907, he became County Solicitor where he fought for better highways. The fight over highways would last for a half century for Martin. In 1908, Martin became Greene County Republican Chairman.

During the Spanish American War, Martin volunteered for service. He was placed on Mexican border service where he rose from Sergeant in 1901 to Major in 1910. He notes the National Guard is an important first line of the military.

In 1916, Martin again became County Solicitor. He was criticized by local banks for borrowing public debt funds at 3% interest from New York banks instead of for 6% from local banks.

Martin joined the 10th (changed to 110th) Pennsylvania Infantry during World War I. He was in a building destroyed by an 8 inch shell that killed 17 with only 5 survivors. He couldn't find his helmet and escaped wearing a German helmet. He was almost killed by friendly fire until he identified himself in time as not a German soldier. He one spent 72 hours on duty without sleeping. Several attacks and battles ensued, including surviving bombing that killed 22 and wounded 80. Marik commanded his infantry during five days of fighting. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. His division was considered one of the most efficient of the war,\.

After the war, he wrote a history of his divisions, In 1924, Martin ran for Auditor General and won a contested Republican Primary where he won in every county. He then won the general election, In 1928, he was elected State Treasurer as well as Republican State Committee Chairman. He would remain Chairman until 1934.

The Republican Party split in 1926. The business interests of the Mellons of Mellon Bank and Senator Joseph Grundy, leader of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, supported George Wharton Pepper for reelection to the U,S. Senate versus Governor Gifford Pinchot versus U.S. Rep. William Vare, a Philadelphia Republican leader. For Governor, John Fisher had the Mellon-Grundy support while Arthur James had Vare's support. Vare and Fisher were elected won in an election Pinchot declared, while certifing the election, was "partially bought and partially stolen."

Martin was State Treasurer during financially troubling times when 130 Pennsylvania banks closed. Pinchot and Grundy unsuccessfully opposed Martin's reelection as Republican State Chairman. He defeated this candidate, S. Van Brown, by 80 to 35.

The Philadelphia Republican machine, according to Martin, was "probably the most efficient political organization in the United States". When Gifford Pinchot defeated John Hemphill for Goveror, Pinchot was cut by the Vare machine as he lost Philadelphia by 245,518 votes while Republican James Davis carried Philadelphia in the Senate race by 260,739 votes.

Martin fought Pinchot and Grundy over who should be President Pro Tem. Martin supported Sen. Augustus Daix of Philadelphia who defeated Sen. William Mansfield of Pittsburgh by 24 to 22. Pincholt, as Goveror, offered patronage jobs to Senators yet the Daix forces held firm.

In 1932, Martin's slate defeated Pinchot's slate for U.S. Senator, two row offices, Supreme Court, one Superior Court position, all State Committee seats, and 73 Delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Pinchot slate won one Superior Court position and two Delegates. At the National Convention, the Pennsylvania delegations unanimously voted for Martin for Vice President.

Both Pinchot and Martin agreed, when Prohibition ended, that the state government should control liquor sales. Martin researched liquor programs in Canadian provinces for Pinchot. The Liquor Control Board was created in 1933.

Martin left politics in 1934. Arthur James appointed Martin as Adjutant General with the rank of Major General in 1939. In 1941, the National Guard was inducted into the U.S. Army.

In 1942, Martin ran for Governor. He had the support of Governor James, Senator Grundy, State Sen. M. Harvey Taylor, Richard Mellon, and others. He was elected.

George Bloom was Governor Martin's Secretary and de facto Chief of Staff. Sen. M. Harvey Taylor was Republican State Chairman and frequently met with Martin's Cabinet.

As Governor, taxes were reduced by $322 million, net bonded indebtedness was reduced, education funding and teacher salaries increased, regular physical exams of all school children were planned, steam purification laws were enacted, mental health hospitals and prisons were constructed, workers compensation benefits were increased, a five year high and rural roads plan was developed, the first African American unit of troops in Pennsylvania was created, the Capitol Park was expanded, a permanent Drake Well museum was created, and Pittsburgh Point Park was improved.

In 1946, Martin was elected to the U.S. Senate. As Senator, he told veterans who were Communists "they had no right to claim the respect and treatment due to veterans." In 1948, the Republican State Committee endorsed Martin for President. He had additional Delegate support in five other states. At the convention, he threw his support to Thomas Dewey, who eventually won the nomination. Martin won reelection to the Senate. He boasts that $250 million in Pennsylvania projects were approved while he was Senator.

Martin was upset to see the increase in Federal government power. In a quarter century, taxes went from 21% of national income to 31% of national income. He did not believe there could be peaceful coexistence with a country, the Soviet Union, that opposed religion. He saw the U.S. as a religious nation.

A Pennypacker Saved Is a Pennypacked Earned (Not That Politicans Then Could Be Bought)

2011-09-06T11:41:00.000-07:00

Samuel W. Pennypacker. The Autobiography of a Pennsylvanian. (Harvard Law School Library Reproduction). Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1918.

The author worked in his Grandfather's store, became a school teacher, and then served in the Civil War. He went to Harrisburg as a Sergeant in a Phoenixville company. He slept on the Capitol steps. It was declared that they were required to be sworn into service, and the company he was with refused to be sworn. Pennypacker then joined a group of strangers and served in a Pottstown company as a Private. A few days later, he fought a division of Lee's army as it advanced towards Gettysburg. The inexperienced soldiers delayed the Confederate division a day by fighting them, in Chambersburg Pike and then in Dillsburg.

Pennypacker was active in a literary society. At a convention of literary societies, he was instructed to vote against the admission of African Americans including Octavis Catto. He refused. The society then unseated him and others who favored admitting African Americans.

Pennypacker studied law. He noted "a lawyer sees much of the tragedy of existence". Three people he sued for debts killed themselves.

Pennypacker wrote how Republicans viewed Democrats as part of a "wicked attempt to destroy the government". Reformers sought to "purify" the Republican Party by seeking to remove Simon Cameron as its state party leader. Pennypacker ran as an independent against the Republican organization for nomination to Council. He helped rally many Republicans to attend the nomination meeting but his ticket lost.

Pennypacker wrote that Philadelphia Republican leader James McManes "was an absolute autocrat who tolerated no difference in the ranks."

Pennypacker supported civil service. Pennypacker stated he did not remove anyone for political reasons while Governor. He had a plank adopted by the National Republican League that public employees should be hired for life while maintaining good behavior and that they should be provided merit promotions and pensions.

Pennypacker ran for the Assembly. He was nominated by the Independent Republican and was endorsed by Democrats, temperance voters including the Liquor Men's League, and the Committee of 100. He lost to James Romig.

Pennypakcer was appointed to the Philadelphia Board of Education by the Board of Judges in 1885. He represented the city's 29th Ward.

Pennypacker served on the Board with Richardson Wright, a former State House Speaker. Wright was known to have assisted helped a woman onto a coach and then telling her "and now, Madam, when you reach the bosom of your family, you will be able to tell them that you have been helped on your way by the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives."

Pennypacker was appointed as a Judge in 1889. Republican leader Matt Quay approved the appointment. As a Judge, he imposed mandatory fines where other Judges did not impose him. He felt an obligation to the written law. After 14 years as a Judge, he concluded the legislature had created too many technical crimes, he doubted that judicial punishment prevented crimes, special evils such as prostitution should not be assumed to ever be resolved since the burden was seldom placed on on those causing the crime, and that press sensationalism distorted jury verdicts. The press was owned by corporations and operated for profit rather than for providing information.

Attorney General John Elkin wanted to be Governor. Quay objected and sought a candidate, according to Pennypacker, "against whom nothing could be said." Quay approached Pennypacker and assured his concerns that the campaign would not cost him anything. Pennypacker accepted being a candidate.

The Republican Party contributed $5,000 to Pennypacker's campaign. Pennypacker asked Quay about the origins of those funds. Quay replied "I do not see the matter need concern you in any way." Pennypacker was nominated over Elkin in a contentious meeting that Pennypacker wrote in which he "had no part or parcel." An Elkin supporter who switched to Pennypacker asked Quay if he should return money Elkin had given him. Quay replied "No. If you return that money Elkin will use it somewhere else against me."

Pennypacker made a different speech at each event. He let his surroundings dictate what he would say. He campaigned with Senator Boies Penrose. His Democratic opponent, former Governor Robert Pattison delivered the same memorized speech each time. Pennypacker likened Pattison to the katydid, an insect that repeated the same noise and seemingly never did anything.

Pennypacker claimed Quay made only one request of him, and that was to allow betting on horse races. Pennypacker replied "if you choose to introduce an act which abolishes our laws against gambling, I will carefully consider the question. But, remember, that permits the Negro to shoot craps. I think it would be a mistake to allow betting on horses and not on craps." No proposal for allowing gambling was presented to Governor Pennypacker.

Pennypacker did not like the Executive Mansion, He wrote "there was not a single feature about it which had the slightest attractiveness for me. All over it were manifestations of great outlay, awkwardness and bad taste."

Pennypacker turned to advice from many politicians and not just Quay. In his Inaugural address, he called for less legislation, for creating districts for legislators, maintaining the right to vote for a straight party ticket, restricting the right of corporations to use eminent domain on private property, for increased wages paid from profits, that employees should not be prevented from going to work and that labor violence should be harshly dealt with, that a tax should be placed on state products sold to foreign corporations, that the Camp Grounds of Valley Forge and Bushy Run should be cared for, that the University of Pennsylvania should receive state funds as required in the 1776 State Constitution, that the names of owners of newspapers should be printed in each issue, that Pittsburgh and Allegheny should unity into one municipality, and state support should be provided for a Philadelphia seaport.

As Governor, Pennypacker updated the State Library and granted charters only when he agreed they should be granted rather than just ascertaining the paperwork was in order. The state laws were reduced while he was Governor from 1,200 pages to 700 pages. Under the next Governor, the laws increased to their previous size. The Health Department was created under Governor Pennypacker.

Pennypacker was the first Pennsylvania Governor invited by the legislature to address the legislature.

The University of Pennsylvania Trustees met once a year in the Governor's office as they began receiving state funds that for years had only been provided for their hospital., The legislature also appropriated funds to another institution, the Medico Chirurgical College. Pennypacker agreed so long as he could scrutinize their finances and bills, The college agreed to this,

As Governor, he vetoed a bill allowing railroad companies to use eminent domains on homesteads.

Pennypacker sated he consulted Quay and Penrose on filling judicial vacancies, Pennypacker wanted to be a candidate for a state Supreme Court Justice position, He was widely criticized for politicizing the judicial appointment process for his political advantage. He was most hurt by these charges, especially from people who knew his work as a Judge.

Senaor Quay died. Senator Penrose gave Pennypacker a list of recommended nominees. Pennypacker chose somoene not on the list, Phllander Knox. The legislature confirmed Knox 223 to 23. Pennypacker insists Knox was unaware he was under consideration and denies Knox paid to become a Senator.

Pittsburgh and Allegheny were merged with a strong Mayor under Governor Pennypacker. The Mayor could appoint 12,000 positions.

Pennypacker was unsatisfied with the lack of time, not even one day a week, that Israel Durhan was spending as head of the Insurance Department. Durham was a powerful Philadelphia leader. Senator Penrose defended Durham noting Durham was too ill to travel to Harrisburg. When Durham traveled to California for political purposes, Durham then resigned.

Pennypacker also urged the legislature to create primary elections, establish civil service, and require detailed campaign spending reports. Most of his policies were adopted.

A scandal emerged over spending on the new Capitol. Furniture, metal cases, and furnishings were overcharged. Governor Pennypacker dedicated the new Capitol and President Roosevelt spoke at the dedication.

Back When State Legislative Staff Moonlighted With for the KGB

2011-09-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

David Wise. The Spy Who Got Away: The Inside Story of Edward Lee Howart, the CIA Agent Who Betrayed His Country's Secrets and Escaped to Moscow. New York Random House, 1988.

The book provides much useful insight into the background of the only CIA agent who defected to the Soviet Union. The situation began with a KGB defection to the CIA.

Vitaly Yurchenko, who led all KGB operations in the US and Canada defected. This happened at a time the CIA image had been faltering. The CIA had mined harbors in Nicaragua, which Sen. Barry Goldwater and others noted was an act of war. Congress was glad this secret CIA action had not led to war and the Senate, by an 84-12 vote, had condemned the CIA. The Yurchenko defection bolstered the CIA at a critical time.

CIA counterintelligence agents wanted to learn intelligence from Yurchenko. Ordinarily, the best method was to get information from a KGB mole who reported inside information while still working at the KGB. Yet information from a defector such as Yurchenko could still be useful. One thing the CIA wanted to know from a defector is who within the CIA was providing information to the KGB.

It was critical for the CIA to verify that Yurchenkos's defection was real and not part of a KGB plot to provide misleading information. This could involved the defector providing correct and verifiable information yet later providing false intelligence that would prove more disruptive than any gain the CIA had from the correct intelligence. The CIA looked to see that true and valuable information was provided, even though doing so also increased the suspicions that an even larger, more disruptive KGB plot could be underway.

A CIA agent, James Jesus Angleton, had previously kept a Soviet defector Yuri Nosenko drugged and in solitary confinement for three and a half years. The CIA was divived on both whether the defection was real and whether the techniques were appropriate. Ultimately, CIA Director William Colby fired Angleton. Yurchenko was treated better, in hopes of attracting more defectors rather than discouraging them with harsh treatment.

The first bit of intelligence CIA debriefers asked of Yurchenko was if he knew of anyone within the CIA who had provided intelligence to the KGB. Yurchenko told he knew of two people. One was a National Security Agent employee. He didn't know his name but provided a description and an approximation as to where he lived.

The second CIA mole Yurchenko knew of was an agent who had been take off of assignment to Moscow. This agent had provided agent code names and intelligence to the KGB that allowed the KGB to identify CIA operatives. This was disturbing to the CIA as this mole had provided knowledge of the most sensitive section of the CIA. This confirmed that someone had let the KGB to arrest a CIA contact Adolf Tolkachev and cause a diplomat Paul Stombaugh, Jr. to be expelled for espionage. Adolf Takachev was executed by the Soviets.There were fears this CIA agent had endangered all CIA operations in Moscow.

Yurchenko provided the CIA with some useful information. Yurchenko claims he defected because he was tired of the KGB system. Yurchekno claimed the CIA offered him $1 million plus $62,500 a year and $48.000 worth of furnishings. Yurchenko later walked out on his CIA guard and disappeared. Yurchenko had complained he was alone and not allowed to speak to his family. Yurchenko returned to the Soviet Union. Officials are divided whether his initial defection was real or not.

The CIA determined the agent who compromised their Moscow operations was Edward Lee Howard. Howard had been dismissed for failing a polygraph test regarding petty theft. The CIA had already considered Howard as a security risk and Howard had even admitted to the CIA he had considered selling secrets to the KGB. The CIA then concluded Howard really had sold secrets. The CIA claims Howard's information provided to the KGB "wiped out" the Moscow station.

The CIA began and for several decades, recruited almost all employees from Ivy League colleges who knew each other from prep school. Admiral Stansfield Turner, CIA Director in 1977, removed 820 Clandestine Services employees. The CIA culture rapidly changed as employees were fed into the CIA from colleges from around the country. Even this was difficult, as the CIA paid college graduates less than did the private sector, and CIA work was more dangerous.

Howard worked for the Peace Corps and had left that employment six years before joining the CIA. The CIA would not hire someone from the Peace Corps for five years after their Peace Corps service.

Howard admitted to past drug use while undergoing a polygraph administered to applicants. The CIA would hire past users but would not allow drug use afterwards. The CIA used to not hire drug users, but reality that there were insufficient applicants led to a change in this policy.

Howard trained for the CIA at Camp Peary, which the CIA does not admit exists. While there, Howard saw where Yuri Nosenko was held in a house bordered by barb wire. Howard found the house "eerie".

Howard's wife Mary worked for the CIA as a Secretary. The CIA planned that both would be spies in Moscow. They figured two people could better keep an eye on matters. Howard was a rush replacement for Moscow duty when a previously selected person failed a psychological requirement. It was soon observed, but not officially noted, that Howard drank heavily.

The CIA often sends people with little experience to Moscow. The KGB would not have information on them and were less likely to suspect they were CIA agents. Howard had a background with the Peace Corps and the Agency for International Development, and thus did not appear to be a traditional CIA spy.

By agreement, the KBG and CIA are told whose each other's station chiefs are, and each approves the other's choice. The American public, though, is not told.

CIA contacts some agents only a few times a year. The meetings are brief with the agents usually passing information on microfilm.

Howard read the cables from the Soviet desk to D.C. for 15 months. Howard thus knew a lot about Moscow CIA programs. Howard worked overtime on Saturdays to learn more about what the CIA was doing in Moscow. Howard knew code names of agents and where their meeting places were.

The CIA has great faith in lie detectors, even thoughts its accuracy is suspect. A University of Pennsylvania study found taking a specific drug allowed 27% of those studied to lie without detection. An Office of Technology Assessment study found lie detectors found 19% are liars who in fact were telling the truth

The CIA administered four lie detector tests on Howard. The tests suggested deception in some responses. His hard drinking then raised more concerns. Howard's superiors were split over firing Howard or transferring him. Some feared he could provide the KGB with secrets and he would be more valuable to the KGB if he remained inside the CIA. They decided to insist upon his resignation or else be fired. He was allowed to state on his resume he was an Economic Specialist with the State Department. Howard was never told what the problem with the polygraph was.

Howard did not take this failure in life well. He made drunken, strange phone calls to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. He left a message for the Station Chief, who is known to the KGB, which tipped off that he was a CIA employee. This he admits was a vengeful call and Howard admits he know the KGB would hear it.

The CIA claims Howard contacted a KGB Colonel. Howard denies this. The CIA has no law enforcement authority within the U.S. Yet the CIA did not alert the FBI about the concerns that Howard may be violating security laws. IN fact, the course of action the CIA took was to hide these suspicions.

Howard replied to an ad for an Economic Analyst with the New Mexico's Legislative Finance Committee. They were impressed a former State Department economist was applying and he was hired. In an irony, the Howard rented an apartment from Santa Fe's FBI supervisor.

Howard was known for performing well at his job with the New Mexico legislature. He did tell one of the staffers, when drunk, he had been with the CIA. Howard drank heavily but it did not affect his work.

When working for the New Mexico legislature, Howard opposed a bill the Governor wanted divesting state investments in South Africa. Howard was known as a good worker yet he pulled some office pranks. Howard once wrote a false press report stating oil prices had crashed. He was also active with the National Conference of State Legislatures, where he was noted for his knowledge of local drinking establishments.

Howard, while visiting Washington, D.C., considered going to the Soviet Embassy with an offer to sell information. Howard claims he decided not to do so. The CIA states Howard contacted the Soviets and let them know he was a former CIA employee.

As a state legislative aide, Howard visited Los Alamos National Laboratory which researched nuclear weapons. The officials claim Howard did not inquire about any secrets.

Howard, after heavy drinking, pulled a Magnum on two men leading an an altercation where Howard discharged his weapon into one of the men's vehicle. The men got his gun and wallet and reported this to the police. Howard was charged with felony aggravated assault. Howard called the CIA for help. The District Attorney's office denies the CIA ever contacted them. Howard entered himself into alcohol and psychological counseling. He plea bargained a guilty plea for five years of probation.

Bill Bosch, himself dismissed from the CIA, met with Howard. Bosch claims Howard discussed seeking revenge on the CIA and suggested they visit the Soviet embassy in Mexico. Bosch thought Howard wasn't serious and that the trip never happened. The CIA claims Bosch states the Soviets paid for Howard's travel and that Howard had met with them. Bosh denied stating Howard ever or did said anything more than he was contemplating selling secrets.

Howard represented the Legislative Finance Committee (though he claims he paid for the trip himself) at a conference in Milan. The CIA believes it was in Milan when Howard sold information to the KGB. The FBI states Howard sold intelligence to the KGB while in Vienna on this trip. Howard claims he never was in Vienna.

When the FBI was informed of the CIA's suspicions that Howard was selling intelligence, the FBI was slow to act. The FBI placed Howard under surveillance. Howard spotted them. The FBI then approached Howard and told him that he had been named as an informant. Howard refused to take a lie detector test, since he already distrusted them.

Howard's wife refused to tell the FBI whether she thought he had sold secrets to the KGB. She denied having any knowledge he had done so. She later admitted the KGB paid for their trip to Europe. She also told the FBI that Howard had $150,000 in a Swiss account and also had money buried in the desert. She led the FBI to the buried funds where the FBI dug up $10,000.

The Grand Old Party Is Not New Orleans During Mardi Gras

2011-09-06T10:00:00.001-07:00

William A Stone. The Tale of a Plain Man. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, Pa.: The John C. Winston Company, 1918. (Pennsylvania State University Libraries reprint).

The author, who was a Pennsylvania Governor, was born in 1846. He grew up where kissing was forbidden, even at weddings. Illnesses were fought with plants and sweating to boiling hemlock. Doctors were not required to be formally educated, and they mostly prescribed a plant with a low level toxin, aconite, and belladonna, a plant mixture. People would get up before dawn to travel 20 miles to hear politicians debate.

Stone attended an 1856 debate between two stump speakers, John Simpson for the Democrats and Galusha Grow for the Republicans. Many arrived from miles around to hear them. Simpson fell asleep during Grow's speech and vomited while asleep. After Simpson's speech, Grow responded "I can never listen to a Republican speech without becoming so deathly ill that I must vomit."

Stone's house was part of the Underground Railroad. His parents hid African Americans in a spare room and moved them away at night to another location 20 miles north on the way to freedom in Canada. Stone's father was also active in local politics, serving as Town Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, School Director, and Justice of the Peace.

Stone enlisted for six months with the Pennsylvania volunteers for the Civil War. He did not have his father's consent and a telegram from his father to Senator Simon Cameron got him sent home. When Stone convinced his father that, without his consent, Stone would enlist under another name, his father gave his consent. Stone admits he felt shame staying home when others were volunteering.

Chronic siarrhea was a problem for Stone and many other Union soldiers. After finding a dead man in a well, water was brought from a distant creek. Stone participated in capturing a Confederate railroad. He helped fight a Confederate attack that didn't realize they had charged between two Union lines and thus were slaughtered. Stone's regiment was sent to Camp Cadwalder outside Philadelphia. He and others were upset to march in a parade with officers who ever left Philadelphia and never saw battle. There was criticism that the battle worn soldiers did not look as good as those who didn't see battle and were wearing their dress uniforms, a uniforms those in combat had discarded as necessary to carry. Captain Morgan Hart and others took offense to the criticism that they didn't look like proper soldiers. Hart and some others received court martials for insubordination.

After the war, Stone taught public school in Baldwin. His salary in 1865 was $20 a month plus board. He applied for admission to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1870. The interview with the Bar committee did not go well. They mentioned he needed to ask others when the proper interview rules were. He did, and the next time brought whisky and cigars for the interview. He was unanimously admitted to the Bar. Many young lawyers, as was Stone, were interested in politics. Stone was appointed Adjutant General with rank of Lieutenant Colonel in a National Guard division.

In 1872, Stone was appointed a Transcribing Clerk to the Pennsylvania legislature. He learned how Senator Simon Cameron and his lieutenants Matt Quay and Robert Mackey were important leaders who rewarded loyal followers. The political organization gave money for Stone and other sto help persuade, for $1 to $2 per vote. In 1874, Stone became District Attorney. In 1876, he became a U.S. Juryman.

Stone was convinced by a close friend A.C. Churchill to pose as him at the state Democratic Convention. Stone, a Republican, at first refused but then agreed. He voted per Churchill's instruction and was called upon, as Churchill, to speak. He pretended to speak as a good Democrat. The Democrat's nominee for Governor was elected. Pattison liked Stone's speech so much that Churchill received a Gubernatorial appointment.

Stone supported Beaver for Governor over Pattison. Beaver lost but won the next election as Governor.

In 1890, Stone went to a convention to nominate a candidate for Congress. Thomas Bayne was nominated but refused the nomination and recommended Stone instead. Stone was not expecting this, yet he was nominated. The press criticized him nomination as he had not been before the public when Delegates were elected. Stone asked for a second convention or else he wouldn't run. The party organization supported George Shiras, III. The organization unsuccessfully challenged seating some of Stone's supporters as Delegates. The Shiras Delegates attempted to walk out. The Chief of Police prevented this by bolting the door of the only exit. Stone was nominated and then elected.

In Congress, Stone sent a quart of whisky, found during an excavation in Pittsburgh, to the House Appropriations Chairman. That gesture helped preserve a Post Office in Allegheny County. Stone introduced a bill to restrict immigration.

Stone pushed Matt Quay for President in 1896. He got all but three Pennsylvania Republican members of Congress to pledge support to Quay. It was known that should McKinley be elected, a deal could be made to funnel Federal patronage through Quay. This deal was indeed reached between the McKinley and Quay camps.

Stone ran for Governor in 1897. Challenging him for the Republican nomination were John Wanamaker and U.S. Rep. Charles Stone. Wanamaker was opposed to Quay. Quay supported Stone. Some delegates suggested another candidate and promise their candidate would do what Quay asks. Quay replied "I would have to tell him and I wound not have to tell Stone. He would know what to do without telling." Stone was nominated.

Stone states his opponents Democrat George Jenks and Prohibitionist Dr. Swallow were able and good speakers. Swallow attracted many Republican votes, giving Jenks a better chance at winning. Boies Penrose and others spoke will on behalf of Stone.

The A.P.A., a powerful anti-Catholic organization elected Stone to its membership without informing him prior. Stone wanted both A.P.A. and Catholic votes. He declined to join as a candidate, stating it would look political if he joined while running for office.

Swallow was a member of A.P.A., a Mason, and a High Priest in the Hairless Goat, who believed the Catholic Church was behind the Lincoln assassination. This information was provided to Catholic voters to help Stone. Stone won easily.

Stone writes Quay did not ask Stone to make any appointments to his Cabinet. Quay did approve of who Stone selected.

As Governor, Stone faced anthracite coal mine strikes and a budget deficit. Stone approved legislation that changed Pittsburgh's government. He also approved a bill to build a Capitol building. He notes a fine building was created for less than what was budgeted. He states he had nothing to do with the furnishing of the Capitol which became a scandal.

Quay resigned as a U.S. Senator after being criminally charged with election law violations. Quay was acquitted. The legislature failed to elect a new Senator, Stone appointed Quay back to his old seat, but the U.S. Senate refused to seat him. The legislature eventually elected Quay to the seat.

Quay faced a dilemma when 20 allies asked to be appointed to a single state Supreme Court vacancy. Quay didn’t want to make 19 enemies by picking one. Stone offered a solution. Quay nominated all 20 and Stone rejected each. Stone instead appointed his law partner William Potter while Quay retained 20 friends

In 1903, anti-Stone forced supported Elkin for Governor. Quay supported Samuel Pennypacker. Stone writes that Elkin had a majority of Delegates but Pennypacker was nominated "by the most corrupt and shameless purchase of Delegates that the state had ever seen."

Back When Republicans (Did Not, Honest) Get Abortions

2011-09-02T11:55:00.000-07:00

Jackson Taylor. The Blue Orchid. New York: Touchstone Book, 2010.

This novel is based upon real life story of the author's grandmother, Verna Krone. It is based on a year's research including hundreds of interviews and newspaper surveys as well as recollections of old family stories. What is presented is the intriguing story of a woman who struggled trying to survive from a low income background who becomes a nurse and immersed in a world different from her poor, rural upbringing. She becomes a nurse for a prominent physician. The book explores issues of racial understanding, with a white nurse working for an African American physician, Dr. Crampton. Dr. Crampton is a civic and political leader in part because he rallies the African American community to support the Republican Party machine of State Sen. Harvey Taylor. Dr. Crampton is also noted for the city's immense secret as the person to go for safe abortions, as opposed to a "butcher" in Steelton. Dr. Crampton is the abortionist to people connected to the Mayor's office, District Attorney's office, Police Departments, and even the White House of three Presidents, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower.

Verna Krone herself has struggled through the trauma of having an abortion. She was a psychiatric nurse prior to working for Dr. Krone, where readers learn of the intense conditions at Harrisburg State Hospital. While working with Dr. Crampton, about 5,000 abortions were performed. While this was illegal, many physicians referred patients to Dr. Crampton. The city elite's and legal system looked the other way, in great part because his illegal secret was their secret.

Political Science students will appreciate reading some insights into the Taylor Machine. Afrian American voters were offered $2 per vote to vote for the Taylor ticket. People working for opposition candidates were greeting with physical violence. People who were dead or out of town still had votes cast in their names.

Readers interested in city planner and Harrisburg history will appreciate learning about the city's devastation of Harrisburg's 7th Ward and its removal of the poorest housing that removed many politically powerless African Americans from their homes, many of which had stood since the Civil War. Sen. Taylor sought to build many new state buildings on the 7th Ward. Dr. Crampton led support for this expansion, even though he privately was upset that this expansion would be across the street from his resident at 600 Forester Street. He told residents that Sen. Taylor promised to set aside 10 acres for residential use for all displaced by the Capitol area expansion. He promised the new residential spaces would be better than the ones they were leaving. Dr. Crampton boasted this his influence would save residents from a previous expansion when all the African American community received in return was land for two Y buildings. Dr. Crampton and the residents were tricked. What resulted were 70 units in Allison Hill for 200 displaced families to fight over. Many of the apartment prohibited children, leaving families totally displaced. On the other hand, a mansion that was displaced was lifted and moved around in order to make way for the renewal projects including a new bridge. The legislature named the bridge after Senator Taylor, the first time in Pennsylvania history the legislature named something after a politician still in office.

Tragedy strikes when an abortion is performed on a woman with pernicious anemia who bleeds to death. Dr. Crampton and Verna Krone are arrested for performing an abortion. Dr. Crampton at the time was 75 years old and his political influence was under attack from both within the African American Republican community and a growing sentiment for the Democratic Party among African Americans. Verna Krone threatens to name the 5,000 boy friends and husbands whose wives and girlfriends had abortions, including leading names in the prosecutor's office. The charges are dropped against Krone. Dr. Crampton is found not guilty, yet is devastated. He dies a few months later,

Harrisburg enthusiasts will appreciate reading the attitudes of the Harrisburg of decades ago. These were times when Dr. Crampton, as an African American, could get a drink but not a meal in the Penn Harris Hotel. Harrisburg was then a city with no higher education, where the author notes that youth with ideas leave. Capitol employees are noted for their pettiness and envy. Readers wishing to read a historic novel of Harrisburg should read this book.

Republicans Only Drink Socially. Of Course, Some Are Exceptionally Social

2011-09-01T15:33:00.000-07:00

Bill w. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. New York: A.A. Grapevine, Inc., 2010.

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) began in 1935. It used ideas from religious and medicine in fighting alcoholism. AA began in Akron, followed by groups in New York and Cleveland. It was discovered that alcoholism is difficult to overcome. It took AA three years to develop the tenets is believes work best. The book "Alcoholics Anonymous" was published in 1939. This book helps readers understand alcoholism as expressed by alcoholics and the spiritual nature of AA.

The author declared that only God can remove alcoholism from an alcoholic. An alcoholic needs to feel total humiliation for one's alcoholic behavior and to admit the alcoholic is unable to overcome alcoholism. Those who won't admit to this hopelessness will fail, the book argues.

AA members confess their alcoholic deeds to each other, make amends, and pray and meditate to God or a Higher Power. AA recommends 12 steps, yet it does not insist everyone believe in each step. AA asks for members to openly consider each step. The author argues it is the person refusing to consider the 12 steps who has a closed mine. The author advises that converting one's willpower into the will of God will overcome a dependence on alcohol. The book notes that admitting one's defects is the most difficult step. When one becomes conscious of God, one will be guided in removing character defects.

When Republicans Can't Stop Drinking Chateau Latour Wines

2011-08-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. Alcoholics Anonymous. 4th Ed. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 2001.

This is the basic text for Alcoholics Anonymous members. Over 20 million copies in all editions and formats have been printed (circa 2001).

An alcoholic is considered a very sick person. Alcoholics find fellowship through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) where the only membership criteria is a sincere desire to stop drinking alcohol. The initial tenets of AA were most of the tenets of the Oxford Group (a religious movement in the 1920s and 1930s that believed that giving oneself to God would allow a sinner to convert away from sin), namely one should make a personal moral inventory, confess any defects in one’s personality, make restitution to people who’ve been harmed, become helpful to others, and become dependent upon God.

Dr. William Silkworth argued that spirituality could replace the hopeless feeling felt by many alcoholics. Alcoholics could help other alcoholics overcome their feelings of hopelessness.

The medical advice provided in this book is from the 1930s. (See Carlton Erickson book for medical information as of 2007). The body and mind of an alcoholic is abnormal. The body is allergic to alcohol. People allergic to alcohol can never safely use it. An alcoholic craves alcohol repeatedly. AA believes alcoholism is not solvable with just mental control and psychological techniques.

People allergic to alcohol are seen as a separate class from others. Allergic types lose their self-reliance when becoming alcoholics. They need a greater power than themselves to overcome their reliance on alcohol.

A psychic change can transform a person to easily control using alcohol. Yet alcoholism is not seen as a problem exclusively resolved from mental control. The craving for alcohol is stronger than one’s mental control.

Total abstinence is required for an alcoholic. An alcoholic can never drink again or the alcoholic will likely relapse into alcoholic behavior.

The real life experiences of alcoholics are presented. Some gradually drank increasing amounts of alcohol daily until they could no longer concentrate on their work and on their families. They found faith in God, creating a greater power than their own, that ended their destructive alcoholic behavior.

Many AA members find that former problem drinkers better empathize with their struggles and thoughts than do psychiatrists. Moderate drinkers often do not understand what heavy drinkers face, as the moderate drinkers can’t identify what heavy drinkers go through.

Many alcoholics won’t admit to being alcoholic. Many will resolve to stop drinking and later resume drinking. Alcoholics find they can’t stop drinking on their own.

The book urges agnostics to consider the possibility of God or some universal spirit whose powers are greater than their own. Everyone has their own concept of God, and one need not belong to any religion in order to join AA.

The book claims the AA plan works and those who fail at the plan do so because they aren’t honest with themselves, yet it is not their fault as they were this way at birth.

The AA plan is in 12 steps: 1.) admit to yourself (an alcoholic) that you lack the ability o overcome your destructive alcoholism, 2.) accept that a greater power is required to overcome this destructive behavior, 3.) turn yourself over to the concept of God, 4.) make a moral inventory of yourself, 5.) confess to God your wrongdoings, 6.) believe that God can remove the character defects you have, 7.) ask God to remove these defects, 8.) recall all people your alcoholism has harmed. 9.) make amends to those you’ve harmed, unless doing so would injure someone else, 10.) keep an updated personal inventory, 11.) pray to God to obtain what you need to know to improve your life, and 12.) achieve a spiritual awakening as to what to do and then take those steps.

Open discussions with other alcoholics is encouraged. AA members should help each other and should develop fellowships with others and with God.

Many stories of alcoholism describe how their drinking led them to lose control of their lives. Committing themselves to God and to AA helped them lead better lives.

AA discussion should never involve business deals. AA may work with hospitals and health care institutions. AA will never make an endorsement or affiliation. AA operates on voluntary contributions.

Everybody, Except Good Republicans, Poops

2011-08-16T14:09:00.000-07:00

Sarah Albee. Poop Happened!: A History of the World From the Bottom Up. New York: Walter & Co., 2010.

The history of human waste control is a delicate subject that more historians ignore. Yet it is an important part of life. Sanitation, or the lack of it, has played major roles in history. It remains important to city planners and sanitation employees today.

Many diseases have been associated with human waste (aka poop). Over 50 communicable diseases can be spread through poop. These diseases can be transferred by air, water, touch, or bites from insects that came into contact with the waste. Humans did not realize this until a few centuries ago. Cholera, typhoid, dysentery, Escherichia coli, polio, schistosomiasis, and polio, related to human waste, have killed more humans than did all wars. Empires collapsed from plagues of these diseases, and contributed to the downfalls of Athens. Rome, and the Byzantine Empire. Athens blamed Sparta for poisoning their water yet they more likely contaminated it themselves. Napoleon Bonaparte may have been defeated by having a half million soldiers living too close together. Typhus killed 220,000 of them.

Poop wasn’t a big problem for humans for about two million years until humans stopped being migratory about 1,200 years ago. Human waste build-up was often a major reason why early settlements moved to new locations.

The Harapans first developed sanitation about 5,000 years ago. They developed public bathhouses away from their private homes. Their sanitation had a complex system of pipes going into sewers. The Cretes developed plumbing around 4,000 years ago, then developed flush toilets operated by gravity, but for the King only.

Babylonia during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzer (circa 630-562 BC) had cisterns and canals. The rich had toilets.

The Dead Sea Scrolls explain why only 6% of Essenes lived past age 50. They burned their poop. Parasites that normally died when poop dries survived burning. These parasites were found in many excavated Essenes.

Poor was a Biblical matter. Deuteronomy teaches that people should carry a shovel, dig, and cover one’s poop.

Chamber pots were a home staple for several centuries. Alexander Cummings patented the modern toilet, the water closet, in 1755. Smells were trapped in the U bend. The first toilets still had smells, leaked, and filled homes with flammable sewer gas, which was a problem as homes used candles for light and fires for heat.

A major boost to the Roman Empire was piped sewers. The Romans were the first to use lead, rather than wooden, pipes. They had 144 public toilets for a million people in 315 AD. There were even a few heated toilet seats. The sewers and aqueducts were constructed so well that some continue being used. Rome had a Goddess of Sewers, Cloacina.

Christianity during the Middle Ages halted sanitary advances. Washing was denounced for creating impure thoughts. People used to think smells in the air carried disease. By removing waste and dumping it into rivers, they reduced the smells but polluted the drinking water, causing more disease. Early toilets did not help, as they moved waste into the rivers.

Toilet paper first appeared in China in 1391, but only for the Emperor. Toilet paper for consumers began in 1857. It took awhile to gain acceptance and people were embarrassed to purchase it.

Paris built a wall around itself for defensive purposes. Human waste was dumped outside the walls. The walls were raised several times for fears that invades could climb the piles of waste and enter over the walls.

In ancient Europe, water was contaminated with sewage and rarely used for drinking. Fermented drinks tasted better and the fermentation process destroyed germs. Wine, ale, and beer were drunk by all, including children, at an average rate of a gallon per day per person. People then were likely constantly intoxicated. Tea and coffee weren’t popular in Europe until the 17th century. In 1771, 9,000 children died from gin poisoning.
.
American colonists continued the European tradition of avoiding drinking water. They drank rum, beer, whiskey, hard cider, and, in some southern colonies, peach brandy.

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) began with an angry crowd that two Catholic ministers and a servant from a Prague castle window 50 feet above ground. The three survived when they fell into a large pile of poop.

About 100,000 of London’s 400,000 residents died of the plague in 1665. The plague resulted from crop failures driving starving rats, infested with fleas, into the city where waste piles allowed the population of rats to expand. London’s Mayor incorrectly surmised dogs and cats were causing the plague and had them killed, thus removing predators to rats. A fire erupted and destroyed four fifths of London, Only give deaths were officially noted. The five ironically killed most of the rats. London was rebuilt with brick and stone structures replacing the destroyed wooden ones. Streets were widened. London became a healthier city in which to reside.

The plague erupted almost annually in some part of France throughout the 17th century. 96% of the French in the 18th century lived in poverty with deteriorating sewage and drainage systems. This helped lead to the French Revolution.

Venice in the 18th century had no toilets.

China in the 18th century collected human waste. A building residents’ poops and urine were the building owner’s property. They were sold and the poop was used for fertilizer.

Benjamin Franklin realized there may be connections between foul water and disease. He created the first street cleaning in America in 1757. His will left money to create freshwater piper in Philadelphia.

Easy chairs in the 18th century which could transform into cushioned seats with chamber pots.

As London expanded increasingly into farmland, it began taking longer, and thus it became more expensive, for night soil men, who since Medieval ages emptied cesspools and then sold the sewage to farmers, to operate. This led to cesspools reaching their limits more often and many new cesspools being created. Many threw their waste into London’s creeks and rivers while ultimately polluted the Thames River. New homes were built over cesspools and streams. Sinkholes resulted which sunk homes, carts, and people, often killing them.

Many 18th century residents kept their windows closed to avoid the stench of the outside air. This unfortunately led to methane and hydrogen sulfides, often emitted from decaying sewage, to remain inside rooms and build-up. People died from breathing these poisons.

By the early 1800s, there were over 6,000 water closets in England.

Trade with China introduced tea. Boiling water to drink tea killed germs in the water and saved lives. Tea drinking also led to lowered intoxication levels amongst the public.

Pigs were used as garbage collectors in New York, London, and Paris in the 18th century. A problem was pigs left their own manure behind. People, usually children, collected animal manure, using their bare hands. What they collected was sold to tanners for tanning hides.

Water companies in the 19th century provided running water to working class London neighborhoods only three times a week, for one hour. One neighborhood received only ten minutes of running water. When this water was reduced to five minutes, a riot erupted.

Cholera erupted in England and France in 1832. Cholera is spread by microbes in human feces that enter the drinking water. 20,000 died in Paris and 18,000 died in London that year. Passengers spread cholera to Montreal and Quebec and then beyond. It would kill 3,500 in New York City.

Sanitation Commissioner Edwin Chadwick, beginning in 1848, began a movement in London that made streets cleaner, water carried away, and sewers flushed.

Dr. John Snow, observing cholera attacked the intestines and not the lungs, theorized that cholera was spread through water, and not through the air as people then thought. Snow’s theory was widely doubted. Snow later observed people drinking from a water pump fill ill while their neighbors, who breathed the same air but drank from a different water pump, did not contract cholera. Further, brewery workers in the same neighborhood, who drank ale and no water, did not contract cholera. It was discovered that a cesspool was leaking into the well of the pump that sickened people. Louis Pasteur in 1870 would discover microbes and helped prove the causes of many diseases.

New York City built a reservoir in 1832. Piper did not reach the poorest neighborhoods of southern Manhattan. A cholera epidemic hit there in 1832. In 1842, the Croton Aqueduct was completed connecting the Croton River over 30 miles to a receiving reservoir at 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, holding over 180 million gallons of water.

Paris began constructing sewers in 1852. Paris continued putting raw waste into the River Seine until 1899.

By 1857, 200,000 flush toilets existed in London. All took waste to the river. By 1858, the Thames River smelled so bad that Parliament, situated over the Thames, could not meet. Chief Sanitation Engineer Joseph Bazalgette led construction of 82 miles of new sewers that led to a most distant river. The last cholera epidemic in London happened in 1966, which hit a poor neighborhood where the sewers didn’t reach.

Soldiers in the Civil War lived in unhealthy conditions. About 60% of soldiers died by typhoid, dysentery, and diarrhea.

Florence Nightingale was a nurse who saved the lives of many British soldiers. She may have saved the most lives by insisting upon sanitary living.

Dr. Herman Biggs fumigated rooms of cholera victims and burned their clothes and bedding in New York City. This reduced the city’s cholera deaths to nine in 1892.

George Waring, beginning in 1894, led 2,000 New York City employees in marching in white uniforms to clear over 2.5 million pounds of manure daily. Prior sanitation employees were much less efficient and, as part of the city’s corrupt political system, seldom worked.

When President James Garfield was shot, he became sicker while attempting to recuperate in the White House. He left the White House yet died later. The new President, Chester Arthur, was convinced sewer gases in the White House had harmed Garfield. Arthur fought living in the White House and asked it be torn down. Garfield settled for plumbing improvements.

The flushomter toilet was invented in 1907. This operated by pressure instead of gravity.

Plumbing became an important but dangerous profession. Before valve traps were invented and used, gases or explosions form gases killed some plumbers. Peppermint was put into pipes and leaks in pipes discovered by smelling for peppermint, as well as observing the presence of dead rats killed by leaking gas.

Sanitation and water laws passed under President Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Era. About half of U.S. homes had indoor plumbing in the 1930s.

A baby uses about 5,000 diapers.

Sanitation remains a problem in many countries. The costs of creating proper sanitation is more than many can afford. A solar powered sewer than will cost far less is in development at Pennsylvania State University.

For People Dependent on Chateau Latour Wines

2011-08-02T11:39:00.000-07:00

Robert P. Fairbanks II, How It Works: Recovering Citizens on Post-Welfare Philadelphia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Philadelphia has a national reputation or its network of drug and alcohol assistance centers available to abusers to seek services. Philadelphia is responding it a crisis, as the Kensington section of Philadelphia leads the nation in per capita heroin and cocaine purchases. Temple University assists several centers. It is important, though, for a person to have insurance and identification in order to receive most formal services.

Many recovery centers provide unofficial, unregulated services to people with problems with drugs and/or alcohol. There are 30,000 abandoned homes in Philadelphia that attract recovery centers, as they often materialize inside an abandoned home. There are approximately 400 to 500 recovery homes in Philadelphia. None are government regulated. Most operate by word of mouth. Many attract people from out of state. Newark and Baltimore hospitals are known to give substance abusers one way bus or transit tickets to Philadelphia. Churches and local governments in Puerto Rico give abusers one way plane tickets to Philadelphia.

It is debatable how good the services are that are provided, and they may vary greatly amongst the recovery homes themselves. To some, the provide hope and improve the lives of the most troubled substance abusers. To others, they provide unqualified services in illegal and shoddy housing conditions.

A person typically enters a recovery house by agreeing to place one’s General Assistance, Social Security, and food stamps into a group pool. In return, the person receives housing and participation in a traditional 12 step recovery program to attempt to overcome problems with drugs and/or alcohol.

These homes create challenges for residents. Most exist in neighborhoods where drugs are readily available.

Many recovery homes have strong local political support. Home recovery residents provide Election Day campaign labor for State Rep. John Taylor, who in return is an advocate for these homes. Recovery home residents were also noted being involved in campaign for officials such as Mayor John Street, Rep. Chaka Fattah, and Sen. Arlen Specter. One group of centers, One Day at a Time, provided 50 to 60 Election Day workers form Sen. Specter. Specter then helped provide a $250,000 unrestricted grant to One Day at a Time.

Residents are used for lobbying purposes and are sent in buses sent to Harrisburg seeking support from state legislators. Some political leaders oppose these homes. City Council member James Kenney argues many of the homes are operated by corporations with no credentials, no insurance, and provide substandard housing in return for profit.

Some houses have failed and, instead of helping people, have reverted into becoming homes supporting drug use and other criminal activities, such as prostitution.

Since the recovery home facilities operate without licensing, there is little government does to close exploitative recovery centers. The only government oversight is for basic housing matters from the city’s License and Inspections Department (L&I). It takes a complaint made to L&I to get an investigation as whether a place is warehousing people. The License and Inspections Department has no official category for “recovery house”. The author argues L&I lacks the funds and means to inspect all of the homes. The author also suspects some recovery homes may bribe L&I inspectors to overlook infractions.

Day care centers are licensed and inspected by L&I. Licensing could require the homes to follow proper zoning which could be enforced by L&I. Some believe this could reduce houses that warehouse, or overpopulate their homes. Some believe this would matter little, as some believe L&I is ineffective. Further, L&I is concerned only with the physical structure and not the program quality. L&I seldom issues “cease and desist” orders because they know the residents would then lose housing and many would be back on the street. State Sen. LeAnna Washington has fought to keep recovery homes open to reduce homelessness and to keep addicts from committing crimes.

The author interviewed L&I officials as well as state Public Welfare Department officials. They agreed they lack the finances and staff to inspect and monitor recovery houses.

Recovery homes are recognized by people in related institutions. Hospital employees, probation officers, and social workers refer patients to some recovery homes.

Most recovery homes teach residents the traditional Alcoholics Anonymous instruction that a resident has no ability to overcome drug and/or alcohol problems alone. The residents love all ability of self-governance. Indeed, the author argues “a central purpose of this book, therefore, is to understand something more broadly about the relationship between the techniques of self-government---as embodied in recovery---and systems of power” within their communities, including political, social, and spiritual/religious institutions.

To some, the recovery homes teach people how to become responsible for themselves, become responsible citizens, and achieve upward social mobility. These homes are seen as improving moral values and encouraging civil participation. Some advocates sees recovery home residents as resources for community improvement, The residents can work on cleaning-up neighborhoods and work on neighborhood crime watches.

The author sees the recovery homes are a reflection of current social services ideology where government programs dating back to the New Deal are responding more to private markets. Recovery homes are private institutions operating for a profit.

This book explores how some recovery home operators have utopian visions of improving society by resolving the difficulties faced by illegal drug use actions.

The author argues recovery homes are an unintended consequence of state law and the welfare reform movement that has led to a rise in informal delivery of social services; some of which take advantage of their clients. The author finds many recovery home residents return to their drug and/or alcohol use. This keeps these residents in these homes and these homes continue having a large supply of clients. The author discovered much informal transfer of patients between legitimate recovery program and the illegal recovery homes. Thus, the recovery homes have become part of community structure which tolerates them, declines to intervene to stop them, and often works with them.

The recovery homes operate to make a profit. Residents are recruited by word of mouth. Some advertise with flyers. Operators of recovery homes often recruit residents at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The residents often must attend recovery meetings, pay rent, and perform work, such as cleaning and repairing the house. The system breaks down regular, as clients often leaves, sometimes without notice, as it is difficult to enforce rules within an illegal and informal system.

The author found one person estimates a house could have monthly bills of around $600 with small houses earning $2,500 to $3,500 monthly with large houses earning $5,000 monthly before bills. Another stated an even larger house had $5,000 monthly costs while earning $20,000 monthly profit. Another observer noted that a row home can be purchased in Kensington for $5,000 to $20,000 or rented for $350 to $500 per month, with the owner charging $180 to $200 per month plus half of one’s food stamps. The author notes many homes struggle financially. The market system responds as operators of successful homes entice residents from failing houses to leave and move into their homes.

Recovery houses prefer residents who receive public assistance. Their checks are more dependable than most others’. The operators are careful not to claim to be a rehabilitation facility, as these are regulated and require licensing. The author observed an Attorney General inspector checking on the status of a house and how the operator knew not to cross that legal line. The author also observed recovery homes bending the law and violating the law in order to complete paperwork to obtain utilities.

Pennsylvania enacted its Welfare Reform Act 75 in 1982. The law redefined eligibility for public assistance such that a person could no longer receive public assistance unless the person fell into one of several categories, such as having a disability or for being a substance abuser. This had the unintended consequence of creating cheap housing capturing the public assistance paid to substance abusers.

In 1995, Pennsylvania eliminated transitional needy General Assistance benefits for substance abusers. In addition, Social Security Insurance was not allowed for substance abusers. This led many substance abusers to become classified as chronically needy in order to receive public assistance benefits. This had the unintended consequence of making recovery home more economically stable.

The criminal justice system is a part of the recovery home network. Treatment Court offenders and paroles are sometimes sent to recovery houses. Clients sometimes move from government-funded homes to non-funded homes.

Philadelphia city government officially approves only Coordinating Office for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program (CODAAP) homes. Some of these homes have contracts to handle cases from the criminal justice an system and for handling homeless people during below freezing weather. In 2004, the City of Philadelphia funded 23 CODAAP homes. This compares to the estimated 400 to 500 homes in Philadelphia operating outside this official system.

A CODAAP funded recovery house has the approval of local community groups and District City Council member, liability insurance, 50 square feet minimum per occupant, one bathroom per six occupants, no bunk beds, has a business privilege license and business tax number, and has a designated managing agent who receives any summonses, notices, or orders from L&I. CODAAP requires staff to complete ten weeks of training.

In a CODAAP home, a person who uses drugs or alcohol is almost always evicted from that home. In recovery homes, users usually continue residing there, although they may be fined.

Most recovery homes will not accept methadone maintenance residents. Doing so often would destroy a recovery home’s reputation, even within the informal world of recovery.

Recovery homes have been found by L&I to have as many as 30 people within beds, furniture, or utilities. Some were found to be crack houses or brothels. Violence amongst residents has occurred.

The author notes he has heard about, as has been reported in the media, that some recovery homes have engaged in food stamp fraud. After they pool the residents’ food stamps, they allow unscrupulous food store operators to overcharge them for the food purchased. The overcharged amounts were then split between the involved food store operators and the recovery home employees.

The author notes distinctions between nonprofit recovery homes, whose reputations are better, and for profit recovery homes, some of which are known as “money mills” that provide little or no services. Some for profit homes have good reputations, indicating there is a large variation in how for profit homes are operated.

The author, a male, researched mostly male recovery homes. There are also about as many, and maybe even more, recovery homes for women. The author found one coed recovery house. Some formal women’s recovery homes operate with the child welfare system. Most women’s recovery homes operate informally. Most do not permit children.

Many recovery homes are racially segregated. There are Christian recovery homes that mostly serve Puerto Ricans, speak Spanish, involved Bible study, ban cigarettes, and have admitted some African Americans and whites. Many residents in Christian recovery homes arrive directly from Puerto Rico, often sent by a church or local government in Puerto Rico.

Some owners operate a system of houses. There are intake homes where newly admitted resident become familiar with the procedures. They often undergo a two to four week blackout period where they are not allowed outside contact except for meetings with governments officials, such as probation officers or welfare case workers, health care appointments, and 12 step sponsors. Some undergo withdrawal in intake homes during this period.

A person needs a legal address to receive welfare in Philadelphia. A recovery house provides that address. A rental agreement or a voter registration card serves as this proof. A person must be determined by the Public Welfare Department to have been declared as having a chemical addiction and has no ability to work for nine months in order to enter many recovery homes.

Many houses charge a $40 intake fee or security deposit that is credited towards the first month’s rent. Some unable to pay have this fee waived.

After the blackout period in these systems, a person often moves into a recovery house. When the recovery house residency is completed, a person may move into a transitional house, also known as a worker house or a three-quarter house. The total period spent in these homes typically covers the nine months of public assistance provided for unemployable people with chemical dependencies. Many continue staying in the homes for years afterwards, so long as the public welfare system determines they are unable to work. Some stay through the five years lifetime maximum of welfare benefits. Some even stay afterwards using their food stamps as payments to remain in the houses.

Some recovery houses operate as food clubs. These often require residents to pool their food stamps. The homes typically return half the amount to residents for laundry and cigarettes. A person not collecting food stamps is required to pay the equivalent in cash. An advantage of this system is that people are fed well and often gain weight, which is especially good for those who have been emaciated from drug use. Further, everyone is treated similar, which reduces fights and stealing when residents purchase their own food.

Many residents perform labor within their recovery homes. This is part of their transformative process in recovery. The residents generally see working as giving something back. Houses where everyone works are viewed as being more harmonious than ones where some work and others are slackers. The author argues the best recovery homes show residents the meanings of freedom, consent, rules, and economic realities. Homes that exert too much control over residents are apt to fail as residents would be likely to leave such homes for other programs.

Most recovery home operators know that new residents often have hustler personalities where they may claim to want to recover when they don’t. It is the goal of the recovery home programs to turn them into people who desire to recover. The resolve to be sober is a key part of the philosophy of Alcoholics Anonymous. A person needs discipline to overcome dependency, but it must also be the person’s choice to do so.

The author finds most recovery homes eventually fail. Many homes require a profit, tend to become overcrowded to get more rental income and tend to reduce upkeep spending. Some residents “endure levels of destitution even more extreme than that which they endured while using drugs”.

Some recovery homes have connections to local employers for day labor so residents may earn some money. It is noted that this work could not be enough that it would lead to a cut off of public assistance benefits. Some recovery house operations receive some of the pay in their roles as middlemen in finding jobs and residents to fill them. This makes operators important parts of the temporary low wage markets.

A problem recovery homes face is when someone replaces into using drugs and/or alcohol. Relapses are a common difficulty. There is not only the problem of trying to keep residents off of drugs and alcohol but relapsed people often require money for their renewed habits. Relapsed residents may steal money and belongings from other residents and from the house. There is a strong black market in Kensington that absorbs these sales.

It is difficult to get feel for service health reimbursements for the paraprofessional counselors in recovery houses. These counselors lack formal training and have been prone to backslide themselves.

Scandals have hit recovery homes. It was disclosed in 1995 the New Jersey Probation and Parole Department illegally placed approximately 1,000 drug felons in Pennsylvania recovery homes without providing required notification to Pennsylvania officials. The scandal did not drive state or local governments to regulate recovery centers. It is theorized the houses are tolerated as they are providing housing to people who otherwise might become a public sector burden on limited public sector resources. There is a lack of government spending on drug and alcohol treatment services and on homeless shelters, which some years are even reduced. Recovery centers grew to fill some of the void created by this underfunding.

A person receiving public assistance is allowed to collect assistance payments from others for a recovery house pool. It is fraud for someone receiving public assistance to receive funds above one’s own public assistance. Thus many house managers on public assistance violate the law when they receive a percent of the pooled money. This illegality confuses the managers who understand the state wants them to find employment, and the recovery system encourages it, and then they are penalized when they do work.

As for the welfare system, the author observes “by scrutinizing where the money is coming from, and not to where it is going, the regulatory structure of welfare sweats the recipient-operator while absolving absentee landlords.”

The author believes the issue of regulating recovery houses is the wrong issue. He sees licensing as encouraging civil order while preserving classic liberal sensibilities against creating too much state authority. He believes the state will not have the proper resources to inspect and oversee recovery houses. The author finds the current informed recovery system operates to end fraud and abuse within its own system. Yet the more successful programs often vary in correlation with race and economic class.

The author views recovery homes as “survival strategy based on the exigencies of state policy and urban political economy”. They exist as it is hard to live off of welfare benefits, while pooling benefits allows a survival mode to succeed. This is “a new system of poverty management designed for the governance of insecurity in the postindustrial city.”

From State Legislatve Aide to Defector to KGB: Not the Usual Career Path

2011-07-21T14:29:00.000-07:00

Edward Lee Howard. Safe House: The Compelling Memoirs of the Only CIA Spy to Seek Asylum in Russia. Bethesda, Md.: Enigma Book: National Press Books, 1995.

The author, Edward Lee Howard, was a CIA agent who contends a Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) agent led the CIA to believe he was spying for the KBG. The FBL assigned 60 agents to investigate Howard. Howard contents the KGB created misdirection to bring focus on him so that another CIA agent Aldrich Ames could provide the KGB information undetected. Ames did this for eight years before he was caught.

Howard defected to the Soviet Union. He claims he did this because he did not believe he could receive a fair trial in the U.S. The author continued living in Russia under KGB protection.

The CIA attempted to stop this autobiography from being published. The ACLU negotiated approval of publication with the Justice Department.

Howard was about to work in the American embassy in Moscow when he failed a polygraph test in 1983 and was fired from the CIA. The CIA contends Howard gave names of CIA agents to the Soviet Union who then killed some CIA agents. The Soviet Union gave Howard political asylum.

Howard worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development when he received a cryptic request for a job interview from a place with no return address. It turned out to be from the CIA. He was questioned, given medical, psychological, polygraph, attitudinal, and language tests. Howard believes the CIA sought honest people who thought “the ends justify the means”.

The first year of CIA employment involved career training and rotations to different offices. Howard learned that while he was instructed that military actions in foreign countries require Congressional approval, the CIA had more leeway with approval from the President. He also realized most CIA employees were analysts, technicians, secretaries, and file clerks. Howard was a covert employee. He was taught Russian and assigned to Moscow.

Howard took a CIA lie detector test. He states he was then asked to resign yet was never told why he should do so. He notes lie detectors are not accurate. After leaving, the CIA made several requests for Howard to take a physical exam, which he refused. In his anger, he called the CIA Chief of Station in Moscow and left a message declining the physical exam. He called on an unsecured line which he knew was monitored by the KGB. This let the KGB know, since only CIA agents were required to take physical exams, that Howard had been a CIA agent and now what his cover had been, a State Department employee.

Howard found a job with the New Mexico state legislature. He worked as an Economic Analyst for the Legislative Finance Committee. He began drinking heavily with legislators and fellow employees. He got into a fight while intoxicated and discharged his gun into a vehicle. He pled guilty to aggravated assault and received probation.

KGB Colonel Vitali Sergeevich Yurchenko requested political asylum in Rome. Yurchenko told the CIA he knew of two Americans working for the KGB. One was Ronald Pelton of the National Security Agency. Yurchenko stated he never met the other man but that he know it was a former CIA employees whose Moscow assignment had been withdrawn. The CIA concluded it was Howard. Howard believes Yurchenko did this to draw CIA attention away from the real mole, Aldrich Ames.

Howard could tell from his training on how KGB agents are followed that light aircraft were following his movements. He did not understand why that was happening. He concentrated on his busy legislative work while noting the surveillance planes were obvious as they got as close as 1,000 feet above him.

The FBI finally confronted Howard with allegations that he was a KGB informer. He also realized the FBI knew he took a trip to Europe in violation of his probation. He could have gotten seven years imprisonment for that alone.

Howard decided to flee. He constructed a dummy and placed it in a car following him that wouldn’t realize he had fled on foot. He tape recorded a voice message to leave on another’s phone so those listening to his wiretaps would believe he was still there making phone calls. He fled to Helsinki and went to the Soviet Embassy. The Soviets offered to bring Howard to Moscow. Three consular officers drove him through the Finnish-Soviet border with Howard hidden in the trunk. The officers showed their diplomatic credentials while a third remained in the car. One stayed in the car to explain why search dogs would find a human scent.

The CIA denounced Howard as a traitor who had been fired from the CIA for drug use as well as womanizing and being a homosexual.

Howard found the KGB officials he met as very friendly and not like the negative stereotypes he was taught by the CIA. He was treated well. He was debriefed and told the KGB what he knew about the CIA.

Howard states he was treated well, not because he had information but for the public relations value the Soviet had because he had defected. The Soviets also realized that several defectors had later committed suicide and wanted Howard to feel comfortable.

Howard insists he did not name any CIA agent that was not already known to them. The KGB was particularly interested in CIA recruitment methods. The CIA would sometimes engage in “false flag” recruitments where they would pretend to be agents from another country in order to recruit someone who did not like the USA or did not want to work for the CIA.

Howard noted both the CIA and KGB have press offices that distort and spin news.

Yurchenko double defected and returned to the KGB. Yurchenko claimed to have been kidnapped by the CIA and claimed he told the CIA nothing. The KGB feared Howard might double defect and began guarding him at all times, even when he went to the bathroom. Howard does not believe Yurchenko’s allegations the CIA drugged and kidnapped him. Howard does not believe that is the CIA’s style of operating. He also believes Yurchenko did not reveal the names of real KGB agents or else he would have named Aldrich Ames.

The CIA reported Howard gave the KGB the name of a CIA informant, Adolf Tolkachev, a scientist, who was then arrested and executed by the Soviets. Howard denied this, writing that CIA agents did not know each others’ identities. CIA agents and their locations are listed by codes with the codes sealed in CIA offices in Moscow so even the Washington office could not divulge this information. Aldrich Ames would use personal computer, which were relatively new then, to obtain names of CIA agents.

Howard claimed the CIA used his name over and over to blame him for every operation the KGB discovered. Howard believed this was CIA spin.

Howard staged a protest against the KGB over his desire to reunite with his family that he left behind in America. He went on top of his roof and refused to come down. Even his neighbor, Boris Yeltsin, came by to watch him on the roof. Yeltsin, then a Politburo member, inquired what was happening, which sparked a KGB response. The KGB agreed to let Howard visit his family in America. They gave him a fake passport and had him fly Malev, an airline whose computers were not accessible to the CIA. When he arrived in America, he realized it would be too risky for him and his family to make contact as the CIA was still observing his family. He returned to the Soviet Union. He decided to defect so his family could then formally visit him in the Soviet Union.

Howard agreed to let the Soviets formally announce that he was the first CIA officer to defect to the KGB. He became a Soviet citizen. In return, he received a home and a job comparable to what he had in America. He continued working on econometrics. He discovered the CIA believed economic data was very important while the KGB focused more on military and political research. A few years later, the KGB changed their minds and made economic data their first priority.

Howard stated the KGB treated him far better than the CIA treated defectors. The CIA would be helpful to defectors until the CIA had all the information they needed. They then dropped them with only a phone number in case they had a problem.

Howard claims the David Wise book about him took some of his statements out of context and that false allegations were mae. His is glad the book also presented his side.

Howard lived in Hungary until the U.S. government wanted that $160 million in assistance to Hungary was in jeopardy if Howard remained there. He moved to Czechoslovakia and worked with the Czech Foreign Investment Council. While there, their Communist government fell to Vaclav Havel.

“U.S. News and World Report” reported Howard committed suicide. Howard assures readers he did not.

Howard moved to Sweden. Yet Sweden feared he was a Russian spy trying to steal information about technology. He was convinced to leave Sweden. He returned to Moscow.

Back When There Were Republicans Who Understood Issues

2011-07-11T15:04:00.001-07:00

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Raymond Shafer, Chairman of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (and former Pennsylvania Governor) hoped this study would “demythologize” marijuana. The report urges for more “uniformity and rationality” in Federal and state marijuana laws.

The report notes that marijuana only became considered a major problem during the 1960s. It is noted marijuana has “certain pharmacologic properties”. While marijuana is illegal, the public reacted more negatively (circa 1972) against marijuana that it did to other illegal acts such as adultery and gambling.

Marijuana was used primarily by low income people before the 1960s. Society overall was not very concerned about this use. As marijuana spread into use by middle income and high income young people, more people more aware of marijuana and some acted with alarm. There were also cultured clashes growing in the late 1960s between younger and older people over social issues and topics including marijuana use. Opponents of marijuana saw marijuana use as “the rejection of cherished values”.

The factors that led to the Federal government making marijuana illegal in 1937 were based “more on fantasy than on proven fact”, this report concludes.

The debates on alcohol temperance and prohibition were widely debated in the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-narcotic laws that passed every state by 1906 were not widely discussed as narcotic use was mostly done by foreign residents, such as Chinese immigrant opium users, and lower income people. Marijuana was used mostly by Mexican and West Indian immigrants. Marijuana was “incorrectly classified” as a narcotic. By 1931, every Western state except two and a few Eastern states had made marijuana illegal. The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws developed model state legislation banning marijuana in 1932 that became law in every state by 1937. The Commission notes that “not once during this entire period was any comprehensive scientific study undertaken in this country of marihuana or its effects.”

The report states the debate over marijuana has legal, medical, social, moral, and philosophical aspects. Each aspect should be understood to grasp the overall issues. It is noted that much is known about marijuana and its effects, the issue is not one that is lacking information. It is known that alcohol and heavy cigarette usage have harmful effects and they are legal and easily obtained. There are philosophical issues about the role of government in protecting people from themselves and in restricting private conduct. Some argue a government has a responsibility in protecting social order and in preventing people from harming themselves. Some see alcohol and legal marijuana as efforts by higher social orders to keep lower income people, particularly African Americans, happily intoxicated and satisfied with remaining low income workers.

Sociological studies estimate 24 million American had used marijuana (as of circa 1972). Some argue this high acceptance of use means people want it to be legal. Yet, others observe many of these people used it for short time periods and interest in it disappeared, and thus it is not widely supported.

There are legal debates as to whether moral behavior should be handled by the police and courts, families, schools, and/or religious institutions. Some question the effectiveness of laws banning marijuana and whether the costs of administering these laws are greater than their benefits.

Marijuana use (circa 1970s) did not vary much by race.

45% of adults and 41% of young people who used marijuana surveyed stated they did not use another drug. 61% of adults who stopped using marijuana stated they did so because it no longer interested them. The frequency of marijuana use is so disparate there is no such thing as a typical user. Young people who use marijuana were more likely to have a parent who used medicine, alcohol, or cigarettes. Peer group pressure is a leading reason why young people use marijuana.

All chemicals, including food, marijuana, and drugs, affect living tissues in a human body. It is debated the degree to which benefits and harms result from each chemical, which also can vary according to how much chemical is taken over how much time. People also have varying tolerances to different chemicals.

Marijuana use was not found to cause physical bodily damage. No fatal use of it was found. High dose users could have psychotic reactions which usually coincide with outside stress. Many users felt altered consciousness and found its use as pleasant. There were no major physical, mental, or biochemical problems found with long term marijuana use. Some organ injury or behavioral changes could occur with long term heavy use.

There were social impacts on the issue of marijuana use. May in the media and law enforcement had portrayed marijuana use as lowering inhibitions that led to increased crime and violence. Later studies failed to find these links. While marijuana users may commit more crimes, it is believed it was because criminals were more likely to use marijuana.

A survey found 48% of Americans questioned believed marijuana use could be lethal, despite no record of a single overdose death of using marijuana.

Marijuana use does not lead to physical dependence and the body has few withdrawal symptoms where it use of marijuana stops. Some heavy long term users may be psychologically dependent on its use.

Some feared young marijuana user wanted to withdraw from society, not work, and became radicals. 43% of adults surveyed believe marijuana was being promoted by foreign enemies. The Commission found young marijuana users wanted to become part of society and wanted to work.

About one quarter of Americans surveyed then favored removing criminal penalties for using marijuana.

Congress in 1951 made the minimum penalty for possessing marijuana two years imprisonment for a first offense, five years imprisonment for a second offense, and ten years imprisonment for a third and subsequent offenses, along with a $20,000 fine. Selling marijuana had a minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for a first offense with ten years imprisonment for a second or subsequent offense. Selling marijuana to a minor had a minimum penalty of ten years imprisonment. Except for first time possession offenders, parole and probation were not allowed in marijuana cases.

Marijuana enforcement increased in the late 1960s. In 1965, there were 18,815 arrested for violating state marijuana laws and 523 arrested for violating Federal marijuana laws. This compared to 188,682 arrested for violating state marijuana laws and 2,082 arrested for violating Federal marijuana laws in 1970.

Many began believing the penalties for marijuana laws were too harsh. Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement handled marijuana cases more leniently. 24 states reduced the penalties for marijuana violations. The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws created model legislation making all drugs, not just marijuana, as misdemeanors.

In 1972, 42 states and the D.C, had made possession of at least small amounts of marijuana as misdemeanors with 4 other states allowing the courts to sentence marijuana users as misdemeanor offenders.

A survey of prosecutors found 31% would not prosecute marijuana used in private groups, 29% would offer informal probation instead of prosecuting, and some would consider several factors before prosecuting a marijuana case, such as prior record, amount of marijuana found, the family situation of the accused, etc.

A survey of Judges found 13% would incarcerate an adult for possession marijuana and 4% would incarcerate a minor.

A survey found 51% of adults and 48% of young people thought marijuana should be handled through the medical system, 37% of adults and 20% of young people thought it should be handled by the courts, 11% of both adults and young people thought it was not a problem, and 5% of adults and 20% of young people had no opinion.

The Commission recommended discouraging the use of marijuana, concentrating efforts on heavy users; removing criminal penalties for private possession and casual distributing for no or nominal remuneration of marijuana; retaining Federal law on public marijuana possession, cultivating, distributing, or selling in public and setting the fines at $100; making disorderly conduct from marijuana intoxication punishable by 60 days or less imprisonment and/or a$100 fine; operating a vehicle under the influence would be punishable by one year or less imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000 or less and suspension of drivers license for 180 days or less; a having a person influence the influence of marijuana be civilly liable for any resulting harm or damage.

The Commission recommended increased evaluation of medical uses of marijuana in cases of glaucoma, caner, migraines, and alcoholism.

Back When Republicans Were Northerners

2011-06-12T15:23:00.001-07:00

Mary Spencer Ringold. The Role of the State Legislatures in the Confederacy. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1966.

The Confederate Constitution, while not specifying state’s rights, deliberately left “general welfare” out as a means for Confederate Congressional taxation. This meant general welfare issues were left to each state. General welfare issues, in addition to maintaining economic and political operations during war time, were the primary concerns of Confederate Governors and state legislators.

In six weeks in 1861, successions conventions were held in South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas for approving succeeding from the United States. A Confederate government was formed that was later joined by Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Many of the laws in Confederate states were initially existing laws changed to omit references to the United States. Laws on treason were changed. Three days after succession, Louisiana transferred all Federal offices and Postal employees to Louisiana jurisdictions. Louisiana took over Federal revenue collection duties. Federal courts became state courts. Other states followed in similar fashion, including some taking control of Indian reservations.

South Carolina adopted the powers to make foreign treaties and appoint foreign agents.

Louisiana established state-owned stores to sell necessities to civilians. North Carolina had state owned ships to go past Union blockades to bring back supplies for civilian and military use.

Six Confederate state legislatures moved from biennial to annual meetings. North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and South Carolina all had several extra sessions.

Defeating was widely felt throughout the Confederacy in 1863. Growing public expression was expressed that state legislatures could not find solutions to the many problems created by the war. Economic, political, and social disintegration grew. A man of “Unionist stripe” was able to win election to the Alabama legislature. Some newspapers condemned secessionist leaders for grabbling powerful position and then serving incompetently. The bigotry of Conference legislators was denounced. The images of legislators fleeing as Union armies were emerging added to the atmosphere of defeatism.

Governor John Milton of Florida in 1862 wanted a militia to protect Florida instead of leaving the defense of Florida to Confederate troops. The legislature refused to agree to this until 1864.

The North Carolina legislature authorized financing 10,000 volunteers for the war efforts and later increased this to 11,000. Tennessee optimistically established 55,000 volunteers. Texas authorized one regiment for one year. Texas also created a Ranger Corps under Confederate command that could not leave Texas. South Carolina approved some Ranger and two cavalry companies but did not establish an army until 1863. Louisiana authorized $50 and 80 acres after the war to anyone becoming a private or non-commissioned officer,

Virginia created a militia and a reserve militia. Their system was considered the most practical as other states created various militia and brigades. South Carolina allowed its militia to go into other states as long as it continued being directed by the South Carolina Governor. The Union invasion of Mississippi caused the legislature to lower the militia age to 16 and increase the upper age limit to 55. Some newspapers criticism was the militia added little militarily and that the men would have been more effective at home. The militia laws were not popular everywhere. The exemption of public officials form militia services upset many.

The Confederacy wanted volunteers for the war’s duration while Governors were creating units to serve for one year. The Confederacy at first sent back volunteers who were not agree to serve for more than a year. The Confederacy eventually accepted troops for a year if they arrived completed armed and equipped. The Union invasion of Virginia in 1862 coincided when many one year conscriptions were ending.

The Confederate Congress suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The Florida legislature in 1864 upheld the writ and declared their authority supreme. The North Carolina legislature in 1863 approved the authority of Sheriffs to take into custody anyone state law considered to be wrongly held by Confederate law. In 1865, North Carolina law allowed the Confederacy to only suspend habeas corpus for alleged accused criminals. This made it difficult for the Confederacy to organized and maintain a military force.

The Confederate army impressed to obtain supplies. North Carolina and Virginia legislatures voted to make impressions more equitable so people would not lose all they have. Seven states enacted penalties for overly impressing.

The Confederate army began with $389,267 that Louisiana officials found in a min and customs house plus a $500,000 loan from Alabama.

The Confederate Treasury urged states to guarantee the Confederate debt. Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Mississippi guarantee a proportion of the national debt, according to some proportion of their state size. Georgia declined to do this, arguing for restraining the financing powers of the Confederate government.

Several states created banking laws. There were no banks in Arkansas and Texas. Historians observe the banks engaged in war time speculation. Banks did well but farmers did not. The Union blockade cut purchases of farm goods, the war decreased the number of farm workers, and railroads carrying agricultural goods were disrupted by war needs. A large supply of unsold cotton developed. Mississippi and Alabama created taxes on cotton seed to lower cotton production. Arkansas limited cotton to two acres per hand and create large fines for exceeding this. Florida enacted tougher production restrictions with exceptions for own use and low priced sales. The Georgia legislature voted down stricter limits and enacted a three acre per hand limit on cotton.

North Carolina sought to increased food production and lower alcohol production by taxing whiskey at 30 cents per gallon up to a date in 1862 and then banning production after that date. Whiskey brought into North Carolina was taxes $1 per gallon. Florida limited whiskey production except what that which the government contracted. Florida later prohibited rum production. Alabama’s Governor unilaterally halted all distilleries. The legislature then concurred and gave the Governor control of distilleries with distillery profits allocated to indigent soldier families. South Carolina similarly created state control of whiskey. Georgia and Mississippi created licensing. Louisiana prohibited spirits.

Louisiana and Alabama passed laws to control areas that produced salt. North Carolina required adequate salt production. Georgian and South Carolina subsidized salt production. Mississippi allocated $500,000 for salt works.

Louisiana and Georgia created commodities production entities owned by the state. Louisiana sold goods in stores owned by the state.

Tennessee loaned $17 million for railways. North Carolina allocated funds to build 900 miles of track. South Carolina issued grants and bonds to 12 railroad companies. Alabama brought stock in companies to expand rail in Alabama. Georgia seized control of a militarily strategic rail owned mostly by shareholders in Northern states.

Louisiana issued bonds for $6,000 per mile of rail. Arkansas issued loans and bought rail stock. Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Alabama issued land grants and credit for railroads. These were costly investments as Union troops destroyed much of the rail system.

Florida let troops ride rails for free for a year. This law was then repealed.

There were fears that a war involving slavery would lead to slave rebellions. Florida created weekly patrols of plantations. Virginia created county police that could arrest escaping slaves or anyone calling for a slave rebellion. Tennessee created a law that five people who were found credible could accuse a person of insurrection. Incendiary actions brought the death penalty in North Carolina.

Mississippi created a $500 fine and 60 day imprisonment for giving freedom to a slave. Texas prohibited slaves from owning farm animals. North Carolina prohibited a free Black person from having slaves.

A bill creating legal marriage among slaves passed a Mississippi Senate committee but went no further.

The laws in Florida required slaves and even freed slaves to be tried by a jury of 12 slaveholders with a decision made by majority vote of jurors.

The death penalty in Arkansas could be given for sodomy, perjury, bigamy, incent, for embezzling public money, burglary, robbery, Negro stealing and other higher crimes such as murder.

All Confederate legislators passed stay laws to create debtor relief, to the chagrin or merchants and banks.

Georgia created public schools funded by a dedicated tax. Counties could use some revenues from the tax for soldier relief or for buying necessary goods.

Texas had a $2 million school fund where fraud and railroad borrowing against this fund led to a repayment values of 6% to 10% of the value borrowed.

Louisiana shifted free school funds to the general fund, eliminated the State Superintendent of Education in 1865, and allocated $100,000 for school books that were sold to students who could buy them and were free to students who could not buy them.

North Carolina’s Governor was a strong supporter of public schools. Schools continued through the war and expanded in 1864.

Poor morale of Confederate troops spurred several states to exempt them from property and poll taxes and to provide relief from sales for collecting their debts. North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida allowed troops to vote by absentee ballot.

North Carolina allocated$300,000 for a hospital and a surgeon in Virginia to treat North Carolina soldiers. Alabama created a hospital in Virginia for wounded Alabama soldiers.

Arkansas created a hospital and homes within Arkansas for its soldiers. Florida created wayside homes. Virginia allowed wounded discharged soldiers to attend university for free.

In 1861, Florida placed price controls of 33% profit on key food substances. This was repealed by a state convention in 1862. Mississippi penalized speculation with imprisonment of one year of less and/or a $1,000 fine. Texas law required beef sales to be reported but did not regulate them.

Relief laws for assisting poor families of men in military service were enacted throughout the Confederacy. Many let counties tax and administer this relief. Relief was later expanded for needy families regardless of having a family member at war. Mississippi and Virginia allowed for seizing supplies for relief purposes.

Every Confederate state government except South Carolina had major revenue problems. Most state gambled the war would not last long and assumed large debt. Consumer confidence made it difficult for states to sell bonds. Tennessee’s state government collapsed. South Carolina raised taxes in 1861 which increased its revenues by $200,000 to a total of $800,000. Taxes were raised even more in 1864.

Desertion from the Confederate military became rampant. North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi had large parts of their states controlled by deserters. In addition, the declining Confederate economy and weakened Confederate patrols created growing illegal trade with Union merchants. This trade became so common, especially since it was often done out of necessity, that both sides did little to stop it.

State legislators in North Carolina and Georgia debated in 1864, but did not pass, offers of peace and reconciliation with the Union.

Republicans Take Control in Southern States, and Other News

2011-06-12T13:42:00.000-07:00

Charles E. Menifield and Stephen D. Shaffer (ed.) Politics in the New South: Representation of African Americans in Southern State Legislatures. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2005.

“Descriptive representation” is the belief that legislators should resemble the demographics of the area represented. It argues legislators should represent the values and views and be similar to their constituencies. This limits creativity and discourages legislators from developing unique views that deviate from the community norms. It does guarantee that the views of that district are presented.

Voters tend to select candidates who are most like themselves. Members of racial groups are most apt to vote for representatives who are members of their own racial group.

Swain, Lublinz, Grofman, Bullock, and Hill have found in various studies that creating districts that will virtually guarantee racial minority representation has harmed general political goals of racial minorities. The concentrating of racial minority votes into districts composed primarily of racial minority residents makes it more difficult for moderates from the majority racial white community who favor racial minority rights from being elected when their districts then consist of greater proportions of whites.

Increases in the numbers of African Americans in state legislatures can be traced to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mississippi was the state where this increase happened at the slowest rate. Mississippi was also the state that was the slowest in addressing provisions of the Voting Right Act.

Most African Americans elected to Southern state legislatures before 1988 were male.

A survey of African American legislators in the early 1990s found most African legislators in the early 190s felt discriminated against by fellow legislators. They believed they were given less important committee assignments. Studies have confirmed the relative lack of important committee assignments.

Arkansas, compared to other Southern States, were historically less obstructionist against African Americans. African Americans had little difficulty voting in at least parts of Arkansas (not counting the Delta plantations) in the 1940s. Racial integration peacefully occurred in some schools in Arkansas before it became a contentious issue in the 1950s.

The percent of African Americans as a percent of the Arkansas legislative bodies was 3% in both House and Senate through the 1970s increasing to 5% in 1989. Arkansas redistricting was found to be in violated of the Voting Rights Act. Legislative seats most likely to be filled by African Americans were created, with 13 House and 3 Senate of such districts established. The percent of African Americans in the House increased to 10% in the Senate and in the Senate to 9%. In 1998, two additional seats were won by African Americans. A study found African American legislators in Arkansas have often voted together as a block yet they have had little influence on policies.

Florida has experienced much migration from the rest of the U.S. and from Cuba. African American voters found much discrimination before the 1960s. The 1960s brought the Voting Rights Act and the beginnings of large migration to Florida. African Americans increased as a proportion of legislators, yet they were Democrats in a state that was becoming more controlled by Republican politicians. In 1997, the Black Caucus began aligning with Republican legislative leaders on issues such as institution school vouchers, allowing prayer in school, prohibiting same sex marriages, and voting for a Republican education budget over the Democratic proposal. Republicans did not always reach out to African Americans, as noted when Republican Jeb Bush, when running for Governor in 1994, stated he would do “probably nothing” for the African American community. In 1998, Jeb Bush made a point to reach out to the African American community. He was elected Governor that year.

Some African Americans had problems voting in Florida in 2000. Their voting areas have the worst voting arrangements. Some were told they couldn’t vote because they held the same name as a felon even though they weren’t felons who are not allowed to vote in Florida. Police officers reportedly kept some from voting.

In only one session, 1994-96, has one Florida African American House member chaired an important legislative committee. No important Florida Senate committee has been chaired by an African American (Note: book printed in 2005).

The percent of African American legislators in Florida reached its highest percentage in the late 1990s at 12.5% in both chambers. This happened as a result of implementing more districts that would likely elect an African American. Florida was 14.6% African American in 2000. African American representation is almost proportional to the percent of population yet the legislators have not obtained significant influence.

In 1965, the Southern states with the highest percent of African Americans registered were Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Mississippi has the lowest percent at 6.7%

13% of Georgia legislators were African American in 1980-82. In 2000, the percent was 18%. In 1991-94, this percent was 22%. Georgia’s population was 28.7% African American in 2000.

Georgia Democratic African American legislators voted differently than did white Georgia Democratic legislators 50% of the time in the House and 30% of the tie in the Senate.

In 2000, 29% of Mississippi House members and 19% of its Senate members were African American. In 2000, 33% of Mississippi House committees were chaired by African Americans. African American legislators in Mississippi have worked with white Democrats to pass affirmative action legislation, motor voter legislation, and other issues important to African Americans. The Black Caucus has formed coalitions with white Democrats to support public education, especially in pooer communities.

During Reconstruction, there were as many as 2 African American Senate and 12 African American House members in the 1871 Texas legislature. Texas took steps to prevent African Americans from voting in 1883 and increased these efforts with a poll tax in 1902. Texas was not initially included in the enforcement provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In 1999, 9.3% of the Texas House and 6.4% of the Texas Senate were African American. The percent of representation has not deviated much from 1981 on. (Note: The book was printed in 2005).

A study of Alabama politics has found Alabama politicians generally less responsive to African American political influence than in most other states.

In 2000, 32.2% of Louisiana’s population was African American. Ernest “Dutch” Morial in 1968 was the first African American to serve in the Louisiana House since Reconstruction. In 2000, 21.0% of House members and 21.5% of Senate members were African Americans. 2 of 17 Senate committee and 3 of 16 House committees were chaired by African Americans.

22% of North Carolina’s population was African American in 2000. 14.2% of House members and 14.1% of Senate members were African Americans in 2000. African Americans served as Speaker (Daniel Blue) and House Majority Leader (Milton Fitch) until their Democratic party lost control of the House. In 2000, African Americans held influential committee chairmanships of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

In South Carolina, African Americans held no legislative committee chairmanships or vice chairmanships in the Senate and one House chair and one House vice chair position in 2000.

In Tennessee, African Americans held 9% of the House and 9% of the Senate seat in 1980. They held 13% of House seat and 12% Senate seats in 2000. African Americans saw 55.8% of their bills passed in 1987 and 57.2% passed in 1988. These percentages compare with the 54.1% in 1987 and 48.9% in 1988 passed b white legislators. A study found African Americans tend to work on significant legislation that helped their constituencies on education, health care, economic issues, etc.

In Virginia, 4.0% of House members and 3.6% of Senate members in 1980 were African Americans. In 2000, 10.0% of House members and 10.7% of Senate members were African Americans. An African American, Douglas Wilder, presided over the Senate as Lt. Governor. Yet, there were no African American chairs nor many bills sponsored by African Americans passed while Wilder presided. (Wilder later became Governor). There were no African American Senate chairs and three were House chairs in 2000.

Legislative Black Caucus positions had chamber success rates of 96% in Texas, 79% in Georgia, 67% in Mississippi, 59% in Florida, and 44% in Arkansas.

Republicans Used to Like a Democrat Who Liked Them

2011-06-09T14:31:00.001-07:00

Rodney E. Stanley and P. Edward French. Tennessee's John S. Wilder: The Longest Tenured State Legislator. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, Inc., 2007.

John Wilder served for 36 years presiding over the Tennessee Senate as Speaker and the Senate, an office that also includes the title of Lieutenant Governor. Wilder is a Democrat but some claim he "thinks like a Republican." Wilder states "a good Democrat is a conservationist and a conservative businessman." He has won respect from people in both parties, as well as animosity from people in both parties who dislike a person who can often see both political sides.

In Tennessee, the Senate Speaker selects the Senate committee chair and vice chairs of nine committees. The Lt. Governor also decides which bills are referred to which committee. Wilder served 18 two year terms as Senate Speaker, making him the person who has presided over a legislature longer than anyone else in American history.

Wiilder is considered a "nominal Democrat" or "extremely conservative" Democrat who has appointed Republican Senators to chair committees. Wilder states he votes his conscious. One reason Wilder may have been able to remain a Lt. Governor is he was never viewed as using his office for advancement. He never ran for Governor, although he briefly considered running once, something his wife urged him not to do. He survived an attempt to oust him was Republicans Winfield Dunn and Lamar Alexander were Governor. He survived a Democratic Party split. He finally was ousted as Speaker in 2007.

Wilder describes himself as a Jeffersonian Democrat who supports the free market and dislikes government subsidies to farmers. He argues without subsidies that more food to food more people would be produced at lower costs. Wilder, like Jefferson, dislikes political parties. He believes partisanship harms progress.

Wilder is very religious. He believes people should talk to Jesus daily. From that, people will better love and respect others.

Wilder grew up in a farming family. U.S. Senator Jim Sasser convinced Wilder to become involved with the National Soil District which was created to conserve water and soil and prevent another dust bowl. He then became President of the Tennessee Agriculture Council in 1959.

Wilder ran for the Senate in 1959. He was named Vice Chairman of the Senate's Agriculture Committee and Secretary of the Conservation Committee based on his past experiences. He was defeated for reelection by the County Democratic Executive Committee Chairman, Jimmy Walker, who was also Mayor of Bethel Springs. Walker lost reelection to William Cobb in 1964. In 1966, Wilder defeated Cobb for reelection.

The 1966 Wilder-Cobb election was marred by the theft of some ballot boxes before the ballots were counted. They were found in bushes and the ballots then counted. The ballots increased Wilder's previous thin lead.

In 1971, the Senate elected Wilder as Lt. Governor and Speaker of the Senate. The previous Lt. Governor, Frank Gorrell, helped make the legislature more independent from the Governor. Gorrell had challenged the right of the Governor to appoint the Senate Speaker. He also helped change the Tennessee legislature to having annual rather than biannual sessions.

The Tennessee Constitution states the Senate Speaker serves as Governor in the Governor's absence. The Lt, Governor is a symbolic title, except for also serving as Vice Chairman of the Building Commission and as an ex officio member of the Council of Pensions and Retirement. The Senate Speaker serves on the Fiscal Review Committee.

The General Assembly in Tennessee appoints the Secretary of State, Comptroller of the Treasury, and the State Treasurer. This is a power not found in most other states giving Tennessee legislators and their leaders greater influence.

Tennessee created the Joint Legislative Service Committee in 1977 which is co-chaired by the Senate and House Speakers. This committee hires people to direct legislative administration, legal services, budget analysis, and information services.

Wilder became known for defending his constituents’ values. A slogan he used in his campaigns was “I will be as close as your telephone."

The Tennessee Senate served two year terms until 1966. Afterwards, they served staggered four year terms with half the Senate elected every two years. The Senate elects it’s Speaker every two years.

Wilder was a strong supporter of Speaker Gorrell. Wilder was elected to succeed Gorrell on the basis he would continue Gorrell's work. Wilder detested partisan politics which allowed him to work well with almost all Senators from both parties. He makes appointments form both parties, a rarity in American legislative politics.

In Tennessee, the Lt. Governor succeeds as full Governor if the Governor resigns or dies. This has happened four times in Tennessee history. If the Lt. Governor becomes Governor during the first 18 months of a Governor's term, a special election for the rest of the term would be held at the following general election for the rest of the term. If the Lt, Governor becomes Governor after 18 months into the term, the Lt. Governor will serve as Governor for the remainder of the term.

Wilder began serving as Senate Speaker in 1973 during tumultuous debate over redistricting as the courts had struck down a plan the legislature had previously developed. Wilder felt the courts had overreached in their intervention in redistricting. Wilder felt certain parts of the state were overrepresented. He defended representation for his western part of the state,

Wilder sponsored legislation that was enacted that had judges appointed by the Governor with an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee would have four appointees by the Senate Speaker, four by the House Speaker, and seven by the Governor. Wilder argued this gave the legislative branch more power.

Sen. Riley Darnell, a Democrat, challenged Wilder for Senate Speaker in 1987. 15 Democrats supported Darnell but they could not get two other Democrats to join them. Senate Republicans voted for Wilder, allowing him to win by 18 ti 15. Wilder removed six Democrats who oppose dhim from their committee chairmanships. That led another attempt to remove Wilson in 1987. Wilder won this time by 20 to 13. By 1991, Wilder and dissident Democrats reached an agreement.

The state Republican Party Chairman made an effort to defeat Wilder for reelection to his Senate seat in 2000. The state Republicans allocated $80,000 in this unsuccessful effort. In 2004, Wilder's campaign cost $870,364 while his Republican opponent Ron Stallings spent $203,948, making this one of the most expensive legislative campaigns in history.

The FBI indicted several Tennessee legislators on bribery charges. Wilder felt some were entrapped.

Wilder fought for prison privatization. The Corrections Corporation of America now operates several privatized prisons in Tennessee.

Republican Senators who supported Wilder were threatened with primary opposition if they continued voting for Wilder for Speaker. Wilder was defeated by Ron Ramsey, a Republican, for Senate Speaker in 2007 by 18 to 15. Two former Wilder supporters switched sides. Ramsey became the first Republican Lt. Governor since Dorsey Thomas in 1871.

Back When Republicans Were Hard to Find in Boston

2011-06-09T14:08:00.000-07:00

William M. Bulger. James Michael Curley: A Short Biography and Personal Reminiscences. Carlisle, Ma.: Commonwealth Editions, 2009.

In 1955, the author cast his first vote for his political hero for Mayor of Boston, James Curley, who then was age 81. Curley had been elected Mayor four times yet his candidacy then proved to be a long shot. Bulger admired Curley's courage and his history. Bulger respected that history and recalls going to watch Curley's concession speech in the 1951 race for Mayor when Curley finished second in the Democratic Primary.

In 1952, as a college student, Bulger wrote a college paper on Curley's second conviction. Bulger believes Curley did not engage in the mail fraud of which he was convicted. Curley had attached his name to help James Fuller obtain military contracts. Curley was not aware of Fuller's illegal business activities and writing checks that bounced. Curley even received one of Fuller's checks that bounced. Bulger argues that Federal prosecutions were overzealous and committed their own illegal acts in order to convict a famous person, Curley, for crimes committed by a lesson known person, Fuller.

Curley served in the Common Council and was a state legislator when he was convicted for taking a civil service test for another. He went to jail in 1904. He kept his political career going with the argument "he did it for a friend." He argued he deliberately violated a bad law by helping a poor person get a job that rich people could easily get. The feeling was if Curley would go to jail to help someone, he would fight for his constituents. Curley trounced the "good government" candidate. Curley read a lot in prison. He found and remembered many quotes he would use in speeches.

Curley helped people and by helping others he built his own political organization. Curley claimed in his first decade in politics he annually found jobs for 500, halted 7 evictions or repossession, and prevented 25, mostly juveniles, from obtaining criminal records. Curley would help people facing vagrancy charges find jobs. He refused to help drunks, whom he found were not reliable employees, and wife abusers, who disgusted him.

Curley remained accessible to the public. Even as Governor, people could wait and meet him. Curley claimed as Mayor he met 250 people daily, although this is likely an exaggerated claim.

Curley made personal attacks. He would not attack a corporation for a fare hike, but would attack the leader of the corporation and claim that leader personally causing the rate hike. When he was criticized by another politician once, he told his mostly Irish American audience that his attacked who had served in the British Army, was a "British Hessian."

Curley would play audiences for humorous put downs. When a Congressional opponent stated his wife wanted to be the wife of a Congressman, Curley responded "then why don’t you drop dead and let her marry one."

Curley required everyone in his office to work on constituent problems. As Governor, he persuaded banks to lower mortgage rates, something they had not done in a quarter century. As Mayor and Governor he got lower rates for public utilities. Jobs programs were administered for public works that hired many jobless. Curley was involved in the details of his administration.

Curley died in 1958. Curley’s family let it be known Curley appreciated his life and that people should not despair over the difficulties he faced in life. "It was a good life. He was grateful for it."

Back When New York Needed Reform, As If It Doesn't Need Reform Today

2011-06-09T14:02:00.000-07:00

Peter A. A. Berle. Does the Citizen Stand a Chance?: Politics of a State Legislature: New York. Woodbury, N.Y.: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1974.

The author became a member of the New York Assembly in 1969. This book describes the New York legislature and how the author believed it needed to be reformed.

New York began representative government in 1641. The Dutch West India Company Director wanted a group that could handle questions he wanted to pose, such as handling Indians accused of murder. Family heads and masters selected 12 Select Men to represent the 400 residents in Fort Amsterdam in approving Indian matters and handling various abuses. The Director disliked the Select Men system and disbanded it.

Peter Stuyvesant, a Governor of the Dutch colony, selected 18 people to administer colonial government in 1647.

The Duke of York created an elected General Assembly for the British government that created 14 laws in 1683. The laws were then sent to the Duke for his approval.

State legislatures of New York used to meet in January through the time for spring farm planting.

Elections for Speaker and leadership are usually not based on issues. Legislators usually vote according to rewards for committee positions, more staff, jobs, etc.

Bills often passed according to their being supported by key legislative leaders. Few legislators read all the bills they vote on. As one legislator once commented, “It's easier to pass these bills than it is to read them."

The Speakers has tools to influence how legislators work. One is the threat of redistricting to make it difficult for legislators out of favor with the Speaker to be reelected.

The Speaker often instructs committee chairmen as to which bills are to be reported out of committee. Many bills are killed by never leaving committee. The Speaker can further kill a bill that is approved by a committee vote by not bringing it to a vote by the Assembly. In New York, the Speaker may "star" a bill which indicates it will not be brought to an Assembly vote. This effectively gives the Speaker veto power over committee approved bills.

In New York circa 1973 and before, a legislator who was present was considered present for the rest of that week. Thus the legislator need not have been on the Assembly floor to be counted as voting "yes". This allowed the Speaker to move the bills the Speaker faces. This could be thwarted by a slow roll call, which requires each member to be present and to announce a vote verbally.

Legislative committees filter legislation. A bill’s sponsor must formally request a committee to consider a bill. Thus, legislators often propose bills they don't want enacted. Legislators often propose bills for appeasing constituencies that they recognize are not good ideas to become laws.

Berke notes the lack of professional legislature gives an advantage to the Governor in presenting data on issues. Professional expertise was then controlled by the Executive branch.

In New York, all bills in all committees are transferred to the Rules Committee a few weeks before the end of the session. The Speaker chairs the Rules Committee and picks its members. Thus the Speaker has great control in the final weeks.

The Governor, unlike legislators, is elected statewide and responsible to the entire state. The Governor is given the power to veto bills the Governor believes are not good for the state.

The Governor proposes a budget. The Governor often negotiates for legislators to support his budget in return for supporting bills the legislators want. The Governor also controls patronage jobs that can be used. Similarly, the Governor has been known to fire patronage workers sponsored by legislators after the legislator disagrees with the Governor on an issue important to the Governor.

Bills are required to be on legislators' desks for three days. This is done in the belief it will give the legislators time to read the bills. Bills with a message of special necessity may be brought to votes more quickly than three days. The Governor often proposes bills with special necessity on the last days of the legislatures to rush legislation through passage before legislators can fully scrutinize and question the bills. This is also done to rush bills through before opposing groups can mobilize against them. Berke observes the Governor is powerful enough to alter the usual checks and balances between government branches.

Lobbyists used various methods to advocate for their positions. Corrupt legislators have been bribed. Many lobbyists meet with legislators and present their points for their positions.

The New York circa 1972 and prior had a history of hiring legislative staffers who perform no work. This is done to reward political workers who helped elect legislators. Political leaders often favor candidates who will then deliver no show jobs for them to offer. Sometimes former legislators are hired for no show jobs. This sometimes happens when a former legislator needs some additional time of employment to qualify for a pension.

Berle notes the saying that "only fools, millionaires, or thieves can afford to be assemblymen." Legislative pay is small for part time employment.

Berle encourages citizens to become more informed on issues and to become more involved politically. This can lead to positive reforms of the legislative process.

Berle recommends announcing bills for legislative votes a week before the votes. He also believes legislators should be physically present in order to vote. He also advocated changing the committee membership of a 2 to 1 majority to minority distribution to one that increased minority representation. He further believes both caucuses should have professional staff. He argued for committees retaining jurisdiction over bills through the entire system. That would reduce the Speaker's powers.

Berle argues for also reducing the Governor's powers. A professional legislative staff could be a check on the Governor.

New York then required candidates to report contributions, but there were no enforcement. Berle also support lobbying disclosure laws.

Citizen Activism in Connecticut That Does Not Involve Yachting

2011-06-09T13:40:00.001-07:00

Toby Moffett. Nobody's Business: The Political Insider's Guide to State Legislature. Riverside, Ct.: The Chatham Press, Inc., 1973.

The author notes that, circa 1972, there was little citizen activism on state legislative issues. The largest force tat changed state legislatures were court decisions on legislative redistricting.

The author worked for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) that advocates for stronger environmental and consumer protections. They fought increasing phone rates before the Public Utilities Commission. Phone rates were consistnely increased annually.

Moffett notes legislators often rely on informaiton on legislation from industry and lobbyist documents and statements.

A problem with citizen movements, Moffett observed, is they are loosely organized, unlike professional lobbyists, and they tend to be slowed down by "petty infighting".

CCAG complied information on all Connecticut state legislators. They discovered many public records actually were inaccesible or no longer existed. They checked transcripts and travel vouchers to determine which hearings and meetings legislators aattended. They noted the statements on issues the legislators made, They interivewed legislators, They noted the reasons given by those legislators who refused to give interviews as to why they refused to be interviewed.

18 legislators refused to participate in CCAG interviews, Their analysis found those who resisted interviews were also those who were representing special interests more than their constituents.

CCAG discovered most Connecticut legislators did not hold office hours for constituents to meet with them. ///those that held office hours found few people visted during those office hours.

a 1300 page profile of Connecticut legislators was produced. Individual legislator profiles were sold for $1. The complete report was sold for $25 for the public and libraries, $50 for state agencies and unions, and $100 for lobbyists and corporations.

Republicans and Reform Both Begin with "Re"

2011-06-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

Eugene Hickok, Jr. The Reform of State Legislatures and the Changing Character of Representation, Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1992.

The author argues the legislative process involves a mix of political ideals, legislative personalities, and legislative procedures. He sees legislative reform driven by frustration with Federalism and with politidcians. He sees more incumbents facing defeat and more approval of term limits. He sees more Federal responsibilities transferring to state governments.

Representative government should strive to create policies for their constituencies. They should do so in a responsible manner that reflects the views of those they represent.

Until the 1990s, most state legislators were part time amateurs. Many states had unequal representation in the number of constituents served by different legislator. Legislators further were demanding a greater role in state issues. Legislatures became more professional and operated full time.

Charles Greenwalt and G. Terry Madonna note the Pennsylvania legislature in 1969 was called "the house of ill repute" due to corruption and special interest influence. They state it has since reformed and improved. It is now a full time legislature. It though gained high public disapproval when it approved a $3.3 billion tax increase. The House passed the tax increased by 103 to 99 with 11 if 103 Republicans voting in favor., The Senate then passed it by 26 to 24 with 11 Republican Senators, mostly in leadership, voting in favor.

Legislators in Pennsylvania began introducing more complex and detailed proposals. This increased the number of bills introduced while also lowering the percent of bills introduced that were enacted. Professional staff allowed members to better understand legislation. This increased knowledge has reduced the previous tendency of legislative friends voting for each others' bills without fully understanding what all the bills did.

The book argues that reducing the number of legislators would increase competition to become legislators. They note Pennsylvania legislative incumbents increasing were being less challenged politically. In the midterm election of 1962, 78% of incumbents were turned out, compared to 64% in 1974 and 54% in 1990

Hickok argues legislative reform is not likely to begin among legislators. Reformers and legislators becoming sympathetic to reform are what will make a difference. Hickok believes reform is more likely in states that have initiative and referendum, which Pennsylvania does not have. He further does not see Pennsylvania as likely to adopt initiative and referendum.

And I Have Not Run for Office for Six Months Now

2011-06-09T12:55:00.001-07:00

Ron Gomez. My Name Is Ron. Memorirs of a Louisiana State Representative. New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2000.

Ron Gomez was a singer and stand up comic who ran for and was elected to the Louisiana state legislature. He served three terms.. He admits he made mistakes. He is proud that he remained honest through his career, unlike what he saw happen with many other legislators. This was a legislature where the Senate Pro Tempore once announced a Senate vote as "trial lawyers 26, insurance companies 66."

The Louisiana legislature is famed for being the site of quote such as "if it weren't for the Rural Electric Association, we farmers would still be watching television by candlelight" and "I don’t know anyone here that's been killed by a handgun."

The author recalls admiring the Louisiana Capitol building as a child. It is a building with an unusual shape for a Capitol building. The shape is one that made Bob Hope comment “this damn city's got a hard on." Gomez recalls working at the building he admired and observing its many artistic details.

Gomez was a radio announced who eventually covered state government news. We was also the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce President. He had never considered running for office before age 44. He and the Chamber of Commerce membership supported building a convention center in Lafayette. The Mayor opposed this. He decided it would be helpful to fight for the convention center from inside government. He ran for an open State House seat.

A person observing Gomez early in the campaign observed Gomez had not walked around and met the people in the room. Gomez realized he needed to go out, work crowds, and speak with many people he had never met before, He began campaigning hard.

Gomez tried to campaign by going to every voter. He observed he could reach about 90 homes in a night, half the time there was no one home. In only four or five homes of those who answered seemed interested that he was running for office, and of those, only about 10% had a question for him. The most common questions were what party he was and who else was running. Often a growling dog would answer the door.

Gomez led a field of four candidates with 42%, Louisiana holds a runoff between the top two candidates if no one wins a majority, Coming in second was Mary Regan, the only Republican in the race, at 20%. Much of the African American vote favored Gomez in the second round. This voter segment had supported a candidate who had been eliminated in the first round of voting.

In Louisiana, found mostly in the African American community, mostly Democratic supporters drove voters to the polls, told riders which candidates they urged them to vote for, and the drivers could even go into the voting area and "assist" them in voting. Candidates would pay these drivers $25 to $100 per vote based upon past records of success. Gomez did not pay for this but as a Democrat running against a Republican his name was included among those with the Democratic drivers.

Gomez noted much of the African American vote went for Republican David Treen for Governor over Democrat Louis Lambert. Treen paid to have election day pamphlets with Treen's voting number to be distributed to voters. Some Democratic voters than changed the pamphlets by hand to get voters for vote for Lambert. Treen carried the African American vote in Lafayette but not be as much as was expected. Treen still rewarded Layfette Democrats with jobs.

As a state legislator, he learned constituents would visit at 5 am, as when a relative was arrested. He observed 70% of constituent requests were not relevant to what state legislators could do, as people reached out with all kinds of problems.

Gomez learned legislators have little privacy. His 22 year old son's auto accident with no injuries was news because he was a legislator's son.

Gomez observed the media gives far more attention to opponents of a bill that passes than to supporters. Negativity makes news, which stirs more negativity towards legislators.

Gomez also notes the media is not good at explaining the legislative process. A legislator may support an issue yet be seen as opposing it because it was amended in a way that caused the legislator to oppose it. He also observes reporters often themselves do not understand the legislative process and there may be errors in what they report. He also learned to give the answer that made sense. Sometimes uninformed reporters would ask flawed questions, such as one inquired during debate on state liability laws, if the U,S. should admit liability in downing an Iranian plane,

Gomez notes some legislators made mistakes. Rep. Carl Gunter defended incest by stating "maybe we would get super sharp kids."

One of the first legislative votes Gomez faced was a bill to raise legisaltive pay. Legislators supporting it urged early approval of it in the belief voters would not remember the vote at election time in four years. Gomez voted against it although a lower pay raise then initially proposed was passed. The Louisiana legislature also later increased their retirement benefits and allowed them collect at an earlier age of 55.

Gomez noted a former legislator was retained by railroad interests to lobby to have specific bills defeated. A legislator would introduce these bills, not to get them passed, but to keep alive the reason for hiring his friend. In return legislators were treated to meals by railroad lobbying.

Gomez learned Louisiana had procurement officials who handled one items and received commissions from the industries from which they ordered. One person received $100,000 in commissioners from light bulb manufacturers. Gomez tried unsuccessfully to get these practices changed.

Gomez continued pushing for a convention center. He was informed his plan was opposed because it did not have bond fees for lawyers, real estate commissions, and guaranteed contracts for engineers and architects. Governor Treen actively oversaw points in the bill. The project was approved and built.

Gomez is critical of four term Governor Edwin Edwards for using his office to enrich himself and his friends.

Gomez observed Governor Charles "Buddy" Roemer a brilliant person who could also develop a closed mind that then refused to listen to logic,. Roemer had mood swings that Gomez believes may have been caused by his diabetes and insulin.

Louisiana had severe financial problems. Gomez criticized Edwards for overspending Louisianans into debt. The state government issued Revenue Anticipation Bonds to escape going bankrupt from one billion of debt. It also created a statewide Recovery District that, similar to local recovery districts, could increase local sales taxes on one cent per dollar.

Gomez voted to seat former Klan member David Duke in the Louisiana legislature. A challenge to his qualifications had been decided in favor of Duke by the state courts. Duke was seated by a 69 to 33 vote.

It is observed much legislation reflects what business or interest it helps. The author describes many frustrations with the legislative process. He resigned to accept an appointment as Natural Resources Secretary.

A Republican Judge Judges

2011-05-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

Steve McEwen. Not Even Dicta. Warminister, Pa.: Neibauer Press, 1997.

The author, who was Pennsylvania’s Superior Court President Judge, learned his father (who was a lawyer who passed the Bar without a college or law degrees as rules then allowed years of employment by an attorney count as eligibility to take the Bar exam) that It is important in court to know the facts and to know the judge. It is important to know how a judge acts and thinks in the courtroom. This does create “judge shopping” among trial lawyers.

This book presents keys to the author’s judicial thinking. He agrees that employers usually have an economic advantage over employees. This is why the legislature creates workers compensation and human relations laws to create more equity between the two parties. He cautions against going beyond correcting the economic inequalities. He urges the legislature to correct imbalances where delays in health care for workers compensation recipients may unduly benefit insurance companies.

The author notes the Pennsylvania legislature has approved 18% interest rates for bank loans and 25% interest rates were approved in Ohio. Prior, this would have been considered gouging.

McEwen believes the lemon law should pertain to someone leasing a malfunctioning vehicle, even though the legislature wrote that the law is for the vehicle’s “purchaser”.

McEwen believes children and not just spouses should be able to receive compensation for less of a parent. The legislature agreed when it enacted the Family Preservation Act in 1989.

McEwen believes it is poor public policy where HMOs attempt to restrict medical attention. This denies people proper medical care when their care is determined by insurance administrators and accountants.

A warning is given that corporate officers often create a legal veil in order to avoid paying recovery to injured parties.

A child has a human right to avoid traumatic cross examination when testifying as a victim of sexual abuse, McEwen argues. When such testimony would traumatize a child, this should be a permitted exception to hearsay.

Trial by jury has throughout time proven to be the best method to decide court cases, McEwen notes.

Equal justice must also preclude keeping African Americans off on juries, McEwen argues. He notes some prosecutors do so because they believe African American jurors may be less prone to convict. McEwen believes it is wrong to exclude jurors solely by race.

McEwen notes the shame of someone who committed a crime after having a lawful career can itself be a punishment as well as the legal punishment that is given. A mitigating circumstance is when a repeat offended commits another crime. McEwen observes.

McEwen believes it is proper for a judge to have more regard for a protestor admitting guilt then someone who broke a law for gain. It is proper to consider the character of the accused.

McEwen cautions the FBI to avoid oppressing people they investigate. Someone should not be sentenced more harshly just for refusing to become an informer. Informers may distort investigations as they have incentive to state what investigators hope they will state.

McEwen believes the Racketeering Act logically applies to racketeers. He cautions against stretching that definition.

Punitive damages must reflect the outrageous behavior that caused the damages, McEwen asserts. This has not always been the case as some awards have been too low to be considered punitive.

A Press Council should exist for self examination of the press, McEwen declares.

The presumption of innocence must rule over the appearance of impropriety, McEwen notes. There has to be an actual wrong act proven.

McEwen argues a child should not be placed with a natural parent who consistently has shown an inability to care for the child. Termination of parental rights should consider the child’s best interests.

Non-violent civil disobedience is far preferential to violent disobedience. The author notes Martin Luther King’s descriptions of non-violent protest throughout American history.

An accused person’s lawyer has no right to obtain legal fees for forfeited bail money, McEwen claims. To do so would benefit the fugitive and could encourage future fugitive attempts.

McEwen does not believe that a very hazardous activity that may harm a small proportion of a community should be allowed just because it would benefit the entire community.

McEwen argues that a legal system that can decide property control of an incompetent should also have similar ability to consider terminating life sustaining measures for an incompetent person.

Prosecutors may prosecute with fervor so long as they stay within the rules of the Bar Association Prosecution Standards, McEwen notes. Misconduct by prosecutors should be sanctioned.

McEwen proposes that due process and judicial fairness should apply to witnesses.

The tort of medical injury to a fetus should apply in cases of still births, McEwen argues. While it may be hard to prove a medical injury caused the still birth, that by itself should not preclude the possibility of a tort. It is noted the law prevents recovery of pecuniary loss of lifespan earnings which is available is cases of live births with medical injuries.

McEwen notes the state Supreme Court ruled that statutes of limitations are to be liberally construed to protect the accused. Further, it is law that a new law is not to be retroactive unless the legislature clearly intends it to be so. Thus McEwen ruled that a law enacted in 1992 did not apply to crimes committed before its enactment.

McEwen cautions that the Judicial Inquiry Board can’t presume to reach conclusions that differ from a jury’s findings Doing so would be against our judicial process.

The author notes judges tend to demonstrate civility to other judges in their judicial decisions.

Republicans Seek to Protect their Lobster Dinners

2011-05-04T12:37:00.000-07:00

Ted Danson with Michael D’Onse. Oceana: Our Endangered Oceans and What We Can Do to Save Them. New York, N.Y.: Rodale, 2011.

This book was on the dangers to our oceans. Offshore drilling is threatening oceanic species, including many of the fish we consume. 90% of “big fish” species have disappeared over the last 60 years.

Of all of the living space on Earth, 1% is one land and 99% is in water. Aquatic life is threatened by human activities. For example, chemical runoff into Lake Erie has made is such aquatic life can’t survive. Despite famous oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and the 171 million gallon spill in 2010 into the Gulf of Mexico, we have been slow to have a sustained reaction that creates better protections of our waters.

The U.S. is the largest petroleum consumer, urging (in 2008) 19.5 million barrels of petroleum daily, followed by China at 7.8 million barrels.

“Minor” mishaps spill 15 million gallons of oil annually in North America. In addition, toxic chemicals used in the drilling process place 90,000 tons of toxins in the lifetime of a rig into the water, as measured by rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

The book recommends decreasing fossil fuel consumption, less vehicle driving, more mass transit use, more electric or hybrid vehicles, and fewer petroleum based cosmetics.

Oxygen levels, required for aquatic life, are decreasing in oceans. The levels besides southern California have fallen almost 20% over the past quarter century. A fifth of the oceans are oxygen dead zones.

The ocean’s ability to process carbonic acidity is decreasing. This is killing aquatic life. Almost 30% of all tropical reefs have disappeared in the last three decades. This upsets the ecosystem as about a quarter of all marine life relies on the coral reefs.

Overfishing is occurring. It is feared we could lose many of the fish species we consume within decades. The numbers of sharks have decreased by 90% and cod 70%. The authors call for an end to high seas fishing by bottom trawling which captures more than intended.

The damaged ecosystem is seen to be afflicted with more diseases, infections, and parasites affecting aquatic life. The author call for scientifically determined fishing limits, ending fisheries subsidies, and penalizing catching the wrong fish species.

Back When Republicans Went to Pot, on Purpose

2011-04-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

Lester Grinspoon. Marihuana Reconsidered. New York: Bantam Book, 1971.

Georgia law (in 1971) called for life imprisonment for an adult selling marijuana to someone under age 21. The death penalty was called for a second offense.

A literature search the author conducted of around 100 scientific articles on medical research on marijuana did not find as many medicinal benefits as the author had hypothesized. Yet the research was in its infancy and abruptly decreased.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was established in 1930, at a time marijuana was illegal in 16 states. By 1937, almost all states had banned marijuana. It is noted that when Prohibition was repealed, the liquor manufacturers supported the continued demise of their competitor of marijuana.

The FBN declared that marijuana caused aggressive and hostile behavior leading to violent crimes and savage sexual acts. The cases were cites as showing marijuana led to murder and rape. It is noted these ten cases were voluntary comments by prisoners hoping their cooperation would reduce their sentences. A 1934 study of 2,216 convicted felons in New York found only 7 of 361 psychopaths had smoked marijuana at length.

A 1933 study of U.S. soldiers in the Panama Canal Zone found marijuana was mostly harmless.

The author notes several 19th century through modern writings describe marijuana as one that increases awareness and is not, as critics claim an escape from reality.

The author observes the effects of marijuana can vary among people. Some report feeling various sensations from dizziness, twitching, floating feelings, feeling lightness, feeling heaviness, feeling head pressure, etc. Many report hunger feelings and a feeling of euphoria.

A study by F.T. Melges et. Al. concluded that marijuana causes temporal disruptions that can affect perceptions, memory, and expectations. There was a loss in recall, visual distortion, and some experienced a loss of time perspective.

Various studies found marijuana increased sensory perceptions. Sometimes marijuana use would achieve nonlinear conceptual leaps that were difficult for others to comprehend. Some marijuana users claimed it enhanced creativity, but the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1930 disagreed with this claim. The AMA found marijuana caused a combination of stimulation and depressive tendencies.

A U.S. Army study of 310 marijuana users found they used marijuana to feel better. Some reported it eased psychic pain, nerves, and headaches.

85% of 54 white middle income users aged 18 to 30 in a study reported they felt better using marijuana than drinking alcohol.

John Steinbeck IV reported about three fourths of American military personnel smoked marijuana in Vietnam. The military seemed to feel there was no use in fighting this widespread use. In fact, using marijuana helped calm military personnel, alleviated the drudgers of their work, and helped them overcome fear.

W.B. O’Shaughnessy of the Medical College of Calcutta found marijuana useful as a muscle relaxant and for preventing convulsions. Dr. R.R. M’Meens reported to the Ohio State Medical Society in 1880 that marijuana helped with hemorrhages, rheumatic pain, asthma, gonorrhea, chronic bronchitis, postpartum depression, dysmenorrhea, and could be used by analgesic during labor. Both Olshaughnessy and M’Meens observed that marijuana stimulated appetite which could help a person with anorexia nervosa.

Mattisen found marijuana relieved migraine pains and prevent migraines.

H.A. Hare in 1887 found marijuana relieved pain. He noted it could be used as a topical anesthetic and observed some dentists used it as such.

J.P. Davis and H.H. Ramsey concluded in a study of five epilepsy children that marijuana did not control grand mal epilepsy.

J. Kabelik, Z. Krejci, and F. Santary found marijuana cured an infection that was not cured by penicillin or other antibiotics.

E. Birch in 1889 found marijuana could overcome opiate addiction.
Dr. H.H. Kane in 1881 found marijuana, in a study of one patient, could be used to overcome alcohol addiction. S. Allentuck and K.M. Bowman in 1942 found marijuana could be used to overcome opiate addiction. L.J. Thompson and R.C. Proctor found marijuana helped overcome alcohol, barbiturate, and narcotic addictions.

J.J. Moreau in 1845 reported using marijuana for treating melancholia, hypomania, and general chronic mental illness. Subsequent papers found conflicting results with mental illness. In 1947, G.T. Stockings found synthetic marijuana significantly improved 36 of 50 patients with depression. O.A. Pond in 1948 found no effects in treating depression with synthetic marijuana.

Marijuana was found to not be addictive in a 1904 study by G.F. W. Ewens, a 1925 Panama Canal Zone Governor’s Committee study, a 1934 W. Bromberg study, and a J.F. Silver et. al. study finding only 15% of marijuana users stated they “missed marijuana when deprived of it.”

Most studies have failed to connect, or indicated that in only a few cases, that cannabis use was associated with psychosis. There are some theories cannabis may reduce the development of psychosis by dulling its effects.

The Republican Social Guide List and How to Hide Certain Problems

2011-04-17T11:05:00.000-07:00

Carlton K. Erickson. The Science of Addiction: From Neurobiology to Treatment. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007.

The word “addiction” is not a scientific term, although the author recognizes it as a term the public comprehends. Most scientific studies instead refer to “dependence syndrome”. The term “addiction” is not a precise term.

It is impossible to determine changes in brain chemistry.

The public has stigmatized terms like “addiction” and “alcoholism”. An “alcohol dependence” or “chemical dependence” is what the scientific literature recognizes. “Addiction”, when expressed by different people, could refer to being in a disease state or the more general popular definition. The author notes there is a difference between “chemical addiction”, which is a brain disease, and “drug abuse”, which is not a disease.

“Drug misuse”, which notes that a person should be responsible for one’s actions, is the term found in British journals and is a better description than “drug abuse”.

The stigmatized words are used to indicate that the people being described are different from the person using the words. The stigmatized words indicate the person using the words believes they deserve bad things for a problem that is their fault. Terms that stigmatize include “drunks”, “alcoholics”, “addicts”, “junkies”, etc.

“Drug abuse” is the misuse of a drug and is not a disease. “Chemical dependence” when pathological is a brain disease where the brain is impaired from controlling use of the drug.

The American Medical Association labeled “alcoholism” as an addiction in 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in 1988 when it legally found alcoholism as “willful conduct”.

Genetic, neurobiology, and pharmacology research over the past two decades found “chemical dependence is a chronic, medical brain disease, driven significantly by genetic vulnerability.” The mesolimbic dopamine system of the brain works improperly during chemical dependence. This is a disease because it is biologically based, has unique indentifiable symptoms, has an anticipatable results, and a person cannot control the cause of the disease.

Insurance companies fight labeling “addiction” as a disease. They don’t want to pay the costs of handling the disease.

Alcoholics Anonymous contributes to the misunderstanding of alcoholism. It tells its members their problem is behavioral. The author argues it really is a complex issue of biology, genetics, physiological, and behavioral. New data from research shows it is a brain disease.

Physicians have found there are people are people with drug related difficulties are able to cease using drugs on their own will. The drug use is voluntary and intentional. There are also people with drug related difficulties who have a chemical dependence and they can’t stop using drugs. This drug dependency is “pathological and unintended”.

Withdrawal results occur after prolonged drug use that allowed a body to adjust to the depressed functions caused by the drugs. The withdrawal affects occur as the body begins returning to normal functions when the drug use stops. The process of returning to normal functions creates hyperexcitability.

There are no observable physical withdrawal symptoms from stopping the use of drugs that affect the central nervous system, such as cocaine, amphetamines, and LSD.

The rehabilitation “treatment” for chemical dependency could consist of anti-craving medicine when appropriate, detoxification, counseling, and guidance of abstaining, nutrition, exercise, etc. The goal is to achieve a psychological and emotional stability.

There are degrees of severity of chemical dependence. A mild dependence seeks to use drugs “a lot”, a moderate dependency seeks the drug “even more”, and a severe dependency seeks the drug “all the time”.

Scientific studies have never concluded there is an “addictive personality” where a person addicted to a drug is inclined to become addicted to other drugs. There have been studies that show some conduct disorders or antisocial personality disorder may be more inclined to alcohol dependency.

Epidemiology studies indicate there is a higher chance for adolescents, especially young adolescents, to develop alcohol dependency if they begin drinking alcohol during adolescence. It is believe adolescents may be more prone to developing dependency when using other dependency producing substances.

A third of heavy alcohol or drug users become dependent on their use. Many people “do not have the genetic” disposition to become dependent.

There has not been much research into becoming “instantly addicted” on first use of a substance. It is theorized it may be more an infatuation than an actual addiction. Still, the instances are plentiful enough to warrant further study.

Of users of substances who become addicted, a 1994 study found the percentages at 32% for nicotine, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, 11% for stimulants, 9% for cannabis, 9% for sedatives, 5% for psychedelics, and 4% for inhalants.

A person can become reliant on antidepressants yet they are not addicting. They have no effect on the mesolimbic dopamine system in the brain. People using medication for a disease are reliant on the medication for their health. A diabetic is reliant on insulin. A depressed person is reliant on antidepressants.

Pathological gambling may be a “chronic and progressive mental illness.” Most overcome this without treatment. Consistent pathological gambling may be treated with naltrexone (sometimes in combination with an antidepressant) and, if bipolar disease is also present, lithium. Some new studies indicated that nalmefene is just as effective and has a lower liver toxicity than does naltrexone.

Alcohol and drugs change the human nervous system and alters how cells communicate with other cells. This results in a person feeling intoxication. This can create permanent changes that create a chemical dependency to maintain the changed state. The author argues this is a brain chemistry disease. He disagrees with people who consider people with this disease as having a mental weakness or a moral weakness. He argues that step programs that teach a person they are powerless to overcome their dependency may prevent an awareness of how the dependency can be treated.

Every disease disrupts cell activity.

The release of endorphins and serotonins produce pleasurable feelings. Heroin mimics this release but at a higher does.

The incentive sensitization theory is backed by some strong research. This theory is there is a decrease in a drug’s effective over time of use. This and other theories indicate drugs affect the brain’s mesolimbic dopamine system by turning it into a disease state.

Studies since the 1970s indicate there is a genetic connection to some alcoholism. There is no such thing as an inherited chemical dependency gene. Yet a defect in a gene may make someone susceptible to a disease. A combination of polymorphic genes and environmental factors may lead to alcoholism.

It is a myth that a drug with the most “high” effect is the most addictive. The most addictive drug, nicotine, has a low euphoric value.

Caffeine research is lacking, but so far caffeine does not create a chemical dependence in the brain.

OxyContin is an effective pain control drug and is more effective than other opiods. It is no more likely to create a chemical dependency than morphine. People have died from OxyContin but more deaths occur from other opiods.

Most scientists agree alcohol is a drug.

Alcohol can permanently damage the nervous system.

Long term heavy alcoholic drinking can lead to chronic pancreatitis, which is hard to treat, esophageal varicas, which requires one to stop drinking alcohol to treat, and liver deterioration.

Liver cirrhosis happens in about one fifth of heavy alcohol drinkers. Alcohol can contribute to cancer, immune system, weakening, and poor nutrition. More deaths attributed to drinking are due to accidents and suicides.

No hangover remedy had been found effective. The best way to prevent a hangover is never to let one’s blood go above 0.05% (with this number varying due to body size and other factors).

Alcohol can increase the effects of some other drugs. Alcohol and methamphetamine can increase or decrease the reactions of each depending on how much of each is taken.

A woman drinking alcohol during pregnancy can lead to the body having fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. This can reduce the brain size, lower IQ, and cause missing finger, toes, or kidneys of the baby. This does not occur to every pregnant woman who drinks heavily.

Alcohol in moderation of one or two drinks a day has a mild antioxidant effect of keeping free oxygen radicals from body tissue, which thus reduces risks of cancer and heart disease.

Nicotine is used as an animal tranquilizer.

Babies of mothers who smoke during pregnancy are more apt to be born with smaller lung capacities. They are more apt to die from sudden infant syndrome.

Marijuana is not lethal and is thus the safest drug. In large amounts of use it can create impairment (one should not drive when under its influence), short term memory loss, and create a loss of motivation.

The author believes marijuana is not likely to become addictive although greater euphoria of stronger cannabis can lead to continued use.

Marijuana can produce pain relief, reduce nausea, decrease the eye pressure of glaucoma, reduce lung and trachea pressure to help with asthma, and help with nervous system and spinal cords to assist people with multiple sclerosis.

A 2004 study indicates there could be a connection between marijuana and psychosis, although this remains unclear as to whether it triggers or calms psychosis.

Marijuana can create a dependency. It can have withdrawal symptoms.

Ecstacy can cause death in high doses. Few studies have been done of this drug.

LSD fragments or blurs the ego/self from the external world. This can cause delusions and hallucinations. It is not toxic to organs. It has a low rate of dependency. It does not create hallucinations in all users, but it does distort perception. There is no known legal use of LSD itself. It can cause psychotic episodes or a “bad trip”. A “flashback” can occur to a psychological retrieval of the memory. The flashback does not occur to the drug remaining in one’s system, as it does not remain in the system. The flashback can bring back pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feelings.

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate or GHB was used to create alertness in a person with narcolepsy. It has high toxicity. It can as it cross the blood-brain barrier, causing an overdose,

Rohypnol, or “roofies”, when combined with alcohol, create a comatose state. It is also known as the “date rape drug”. It has a high risk of lethal overdose.

Inhalants are found in pain solvents, deodorants, cooking sprays, air freshners, glue, gasoline, paints, etc. It reduces oxygen and disrupts the hearth rhythms. Death has occurred in people are young as 10 years old.

Physician supervised prescription drugs are usually not dangerous. Neuroleptics (used for mental illness), antidepressants, membrane stabilizers, anti-epileptics, and lithium do not create a chemical dependency.

There is no single drug that is effective for everyone with the same disease. A choice of medication options, until the correct option is found, is required.

Alcoholics Anonymous has a 5% overall effective rate based on some formal studies and anecdotal estimates. Of members who attend meetings for three years, there is a 50% effective rate.

Interactional and behavioral therapy counseling seeks to address issues related to chemical dependency. The author believes many counseling programs have poor diagnostic intake assessments. Most counseling ignore the disease aspect of chemical dependence.

A good methadone program: 1.) watches the patient take the methadone in the clinic. Methadone taken home could be sold to others. 2.) conducts regular urine drug testing, 3.) requires the patient to achieve economic stability, and 4.) requires counseling for a drug free life.

Some methadone clinic staff do not believe abstinence works. Some other staff do not ask for abstinence for fear of the patient leaving the program and reentering chemical dependency.

Benzodiazepine prevents delirium tremors (DTs), seizures, and hallucinations during withdrawal.

There is no case on record of anyone dying from just acute withdrawal. Medications and acupuncture can reduce withdrawal symptoms.

Disulfiram or antabuse blocks aldehyde dehydrogenase, a liver enzyme, causing a sick feeling when drinking alcohol. It can cause death. A study in Germany found a 50% abstinence rate from antabuse users. Some will continue drinking through the sick feeling.

Medications that may reduce a craving for alcohol, and are not very effective when used alone, are naltrexone (blocks the endorphin high) and acamprosate (shown to decrease alcohol use).

Medicaitons for heroin dependency are methadone (reduces the craving for heroin) and buprenorphine (with trade names of Subutex and Suboxonel), which is less likely to be abused. Different patients find one medication better than the other.

Nicotine dependency can be treated by bupropion or zyban (reduces withdrawal symptoms). When used alone, they have less than a 50% effective rate. They are more effective when used with nicotine replacement therapy (such as patches, gum, and devices that continuously reduce nicotine use over time until abstinence is reached).

A 2006 study found that varenicline is a more effective medication than is bupropion for quitting nicotine.

Rimonabant, or Acomplia, is an endocannabinoid used in England for quitting smoking and fighting obesity. This has potential benefits as some people otherwise tend to gain weight when reducing smoking.

There are no medicines for treating amphetamine addiction. This addiction is treated with counseling and supportive care.

A 1996 study found 33% of bipolar disorder patients also has a drug use disorder.

Is Arkansas Governor the Stepping Stone to the Presidency?

2011-03-28T13:35:00.000-07:00

Mike Huckabee. A Simple Government. New York: The Penguin Group, 2011.

The author abhors personal attacks. He compliments Bill Clinton for campaigning for all of Huckabee’s opponents without ever personally attacking him.

Huckabee notes the issues are complex, but he believes the solutions are simple. Appling justice, integrity, and freedom to our political governance should guide government towards proper actions.

He seeks more morality, family values, and more intact nuclear families, He notes families that converse and eat meals together have children that get better grades at school and are less likely to use alcohol, drugs, or tobacco.

The author is very concerned that 75% of African American births are out of wedlock. He also notes some states with abortions per pregnancies at 33% in New York, 30% in New Jersey, 24% in Connecticut, 9% in Arkansas, 6% in Utah, and 6% in Mississippi. He is opposed to abortion and favors abstinence education.

Huckabee argues our country was meant to have a Federal government that protets borders and allowed liberty and travel.

The stimulus plan made the Federal government the main source of funds to states and local governments during the first three months of 2009. Programs were created but the Federal government funds are now gone. State and local governments have to choose between ending the programs or paying for them with their own funds.

Union versus nonunion public employees find union public employees with 30% greater salaries and with 70% more benefits costs. Huckabee believes these costs too much,

60% of Federal spending goes to Social Security, health care, and the military, with each being about one fifth of the Federal budget. Safety net programs are 14%, retirement benefits are 7%, interest on debt is 6%, education is 3%, research on science and health 2%, and nondefense foreign aid is 1%.

In 1970, one third of the Federal budget was mandatory spending. Today, about two thirds of it is mandatory spending.

Social Security set the retirement at age 65 when the life span for men was in their late 50s and for women in their early 60s. While it is too late to change benefits, Huckabee argues it is appropriate to ask younger people to expect a higher retirement age and fewer benefits.

Medicare has $38 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Huckabee recommends allowing private insurance to be available instead of going on Medicare and to increase eligibility for Medicare.

Almost half of everyone pays no Federal income taxes. 1% of the top payers of taxes pay as much taxes at the lowest 95% of taxpayers pay.

Huckabee recommends reducing the capital gains tax on investments of five years or more.

The effective corporate tax rate including tax breaks, is 35%. This is the highest tax rate of the 33 countries in the Organization for Economic Opportunity and Development where their average effective tax rate is 19.5%. Huckabee argues decreasing our tax rate will increase international investments.

Huckabee favors a national sales tax that would replace taxes on income, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, self employment, estates, and gifts. He also favors a prebate that provides the sales taxes to the poverty level to ensure no one falls below the poverty level.

Huckabee calls for allowing health insurance to be sold in different states.

When Massachusetts adopted a statewide health care policy, health care increased from 16Tof the state’s budget in 1990 to 35% of the state’s budget in 2010. Massachusetts insures a family at an average cost of $20,000 while the private sector costs average $13,000.

The Federal health care plan intends to establish a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparable Effectiveness. Huckabee warns this organization could ration health care.

Huckabee supports charter schools. He supports personalized learning where a student completing an extracurricular activity could get credit for that activity.

Huckabee supports nuclear energy. He believes it is safe.

Huckabee charges that corruption in the Interior Department led them to net oversee oil drilling that led to a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He also faults industry for not having a remote controlled shutoff switch, as Canada requires. There was also a lack of advance planning for such a disaster as there were not enough containment and absorption booms.

A lack of planning and action led to a lack of insulation being placed in structures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 1,000 Americans died plus billions of costs due to fuel hauling accidents caused by this lack of insulation.

Natural gas is seen by Huckabee as providing enough energy to give us time to move towards long term energy self sufficiency. He sees clean coal, where the U.S. has 30% of the world supply, as a future resource/

Huckabee sees immigration as a complex problem. He believes in securing the borders and preventing illegal immigration as a first step.

Huckabee warns that we have weaknesses that terrorists could exploit, such as nuclear power plant cooling systems and cyberattacks.

20% of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from post traumatic stress disorder or depression. Veterans services have failed to meet needs.

Huckabee supports a foreign policy that lets enemies know we are able to fight.

Good People Come From Bowling Green, Kentucky

2011-03-28T12:56:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul with Jack Hunter. The Tea Party Goes to Washington. Nashville: Center Street, 2011.

Rand Paul, elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 2010, attributes his victory to voter discontent over government. He believes the voters want changes to the Federal government status quo. He campaigned against Federal government spending which has created a $13 trillion debt. Paul criticizes spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and opposed the Federal health care plan.

The authors believe the role of government is “to protect our liberties” and not to provide economic protections. He sees the Tea Party movement as a protest against the taxes supporting government programs. There is no formal Tea Party structure, but the term symbolizes disenchanted voters.

Rand Paul’s father Ron was one of just four members of Congress to support Ronald Reagan for President in 1976. Rand Paul notes that while President Reagan increased military spending due to the Cold War threat that this need for high military spending no longer exists. He also questions why military spending is greater now than during the Cold War.

President George W. Bush spent more money than most other Presidents. The authors believe Republicans should not be afraid to criticize other Republicans, especially when they are “big government conservatives”.

Senator Jim Bunning supported “pay as you go”, a rule the Senate had adopted. He voted against legislation for unemployment compensation benefits because he felt it violated this rule. Bunning’s fellow Kentucky Senator, Mitch McConnell, did not like Bunning’s philosophy and wanted Bunning out of the Senate. Bunning could not raise enough money to run for reelection and he chose not to run. Paul defended Bunning and ran for the seat. Dick Cheney and Rick Santorum endorsed his opponent, Trey Grayson. Sarah Palin, Sen. Jim DeMint, and Bunning endorsed Paul.

Paul met with Mitch McConnell and assured him that he would not critical but would be complimentary towards McConnnell. McConnell stated he would stay out of the primary.

Paul believes the government has taken away too many property rights. He opposes the Supreme Court decision allowing the government to use eminent domain to increase revenues to government.

The authors argue there is nothing in the Constitution to require people to purchase health care or to have education decided by the federal Education Department. They note increased spending on education has not improved students’ test scores.

The Federal government has at least 263 organizations spending at least $75 billion annually on terrorism issues. The Homeland Security Department will become the third largest Federal Department behind Defense and Veterans Affairs. 30,000 people monitor phone calls. Yet none of this prevented the Fort Hood shootings or the underwear bomber attempt.

The arms industry is enormous, the authors note the Defense Department is our largest employer with 1.4 million on its payroll.

The authors argue there are similarities between Trotskyism and neo-conservatism in that both seek to export social democracy to other countries through military means.

The wisdom of occupying a country is questioned. It does not stop terrorist groups and it may even encourage terrorism. Islamic ideology has not changed over decades. What has changed is that American military occupation makes us a target.

There are 1,000 American soldiers per al Qaeda fighter. Yet the military is not effective in fighting al Qaeda. The U.S. builds schools and then bribes the Taliban not to blow them up. The Taliban then use this money on arms against the U.S. military.

As President Jefferson did in fighting the Barbary pirates, it might make more sense, according to the authors, to hire contractors to deal with terrorists rather than attempting to fight them with a conventional war.

Rand Paul is worried that government intervention is disrupting the economy. He notes with alarm there are few controls over Federal Reserve Bank actions. He believes more free market systems in health care would lower costs.

The authors note the dollar’s value had declined 96% since 1913, when it was backed by gold. It is now backed by borrowing.

Rand Paul seeks to balance the budget, require legislation to be printed with time for members of Congress to read it, and that the Federal Reserve Bank should be audited.

Back When Republicans Won World Wars Before Becoming President

2011-03-23T13:34:00.000-07:00

David Eisenhower with Julie Nixon Eisenhower. Going Home to Glory: A Memoir of My Life with David D. Eisenhower, 1961-1969. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2010.

Immediately upon ending his term as President, Dwight Eisenhower went to live on a farm he purchased in 1950 in Gettysburg, Pa. People gathered along the published route to see and greet his car as he passed by.

In Eisenhower’s last Presidential address, he observed that the U.S. had experienced eight years of peace and the economy was sound. He warned that the “military industrial” complex could upset domestic policies. Khruschev’s call for “wars of national liberation” drew international attention. President-elect Kennedy was fearful about the nation’s standing and declared the U.S. should “be as a city upon a hill---the eyes of all people are upon us”. In his inaugural speech, Kennedy declared “let us begin anew”, words that many Eisenhower supporters did not like.

Eisenhower believed Nixon should have used Eisenhower more in the 1960 Presidential campaign. It was felt the election was partially a referendum of the Eisenhower Administration.

Eisenhower pledged to back Kennedy’s foreign policies, so long as they did not include recognizing Red China. He also wanted Dulles International Airport to continue being named after Dulles and he wanted his rank as a Five Star General reinstated.

Kennedy’s aides realized that the Five Star rank would give Eisenhower more distance from the White House. Kennedy approved the request and Congress granted it.

Kennedy turned more to fellow Democrat Truman than to Republican Eisenhower for guidance. This was even though Truman considered Kennedy a “spoiled young man”. Truman had discussed supporting Eisenhower for President if he ran as a Democrat in 1948 and Truman would have been his running mate. The friendship between Truman and Eisenhower dissolved when Eisenhower chose to run for President as a Republican in 1952.

Eisenhower had planned a CIA led invasion of Cuba from Trinidad by Cuban exiles trained in Guatemala. Kennedy was hesitant as he knew world opinion disapproved of colonialism by national superpowers. Kennedy attempted to distance the U.S. from the invasion and delayed the invasion date. The invasion location was moved from a daytime invasion from Trinidad to a more difficult nighttime invasion at the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy called off a bombing support in fear the Soviet Union could retaliate in Berlin. The hope was the invasion would create an uprising of popular support for a new government. Castro defeated the invaders within two days. Eisenhower was upset because he believed more support should have been given to assure the invasion worked. Eisenhower strongly believed in proper planning and organization and he believed Kennedy was reacting upon too much conflicting advice rather than creating a set plan of action.

Kennedy wondered why Eisenhower spent so much of his Presidency playing gold and with whom he golfed. Kennedy stated “I could understand if he played golf all the time with old Army friends…All his golfing pals are rich men he has met since 1945.”

Several Republican leaders suggested forming a “shadow government” led by Eisenhower. It was decided it should appeal more to younger, more conservative voters. It was decided Eisenhower should “remain above the battle”.

Nixon wanted to run for President and was debating running for Governor of California in 1962. Eisenhower encouraged him to run, noting Nelson Rockefeller had a platform as New York Governor that provided him public attention. Also, Eisenhower thought Nixon was the strongest candidate to win California for the Republicans.

Eisenhower stood by his criticism of the “military industrial complex”. He spoke how the overproducing of missiles was too costly financially. He feared it was giving the U.S. a negative worldwide image. He warned of public policy succumbing to “a scientific-technological elite”.

Eisenhower criticized Kennedy’s “grab for power” that increased spending and centralized government. Kennedy went to Harrisburg, 35 miles away from Gettysburg to make his strongest attack on the Eisenhower Administration. This attack in his backyard drove Eisenhower to go on the campaign trail. Eisenhower sent a message to Kennedy of “one more attack like that in Harrisburg and my position of bipartisan support in foreign policy will draw to a permanent end.” Kennedy did not attack Eisenhower on foreign policy ever again.

Kennedy pursued a less confrontational policy towards the Soviet Union and obtained an agreement to stop atmosphere nuclear weapons test.

Eisenhower was upset when ABC News anchor Howard K. Smith had a special entitled “The Political Obituary of Richard Nixon”. Eisenhower asked ABC News to discharge Smith. Smith went on permanent assignment as a reporter. Smith returned as an ABC news anchor a few years later.

The Pennsylvania legislature, Governor, and Supreme Court gathered in Gettysburg for the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Governor William Scranton noted “the tyranny of prejudice is doomed because the American people, in their common sense, realize it is wrong”. Eisenhower spoke, noting “Lincoln’s faith on the Gettysburg battle would one day result in a peaceful union has been justified, but the unfinished work of which he spoke in 1863 is still unfinished.”

After Kennedy was assassinated, President Lyndon Johnson asked Eisenhower to meet him. They spoke three times shortly afterwards. Eisenhower and Truman met and put past their previous disagreements. The two, though, would not speak to each other again.

Eisenhower disliked Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had called the Eisenhower Administration “a dime store New Deal”. Goldwater had inherited the conservation wing of the Republican Party from anti-Eisenhower Robert Taft supporters. Eisenhower and moderate Republicans could not determine a strategy while Goldwater’s campaign advanced. Eisenhower felt Goldwater did not have a basic grasp of Presidential powers, especially when Goldwater spoke of ending relations with the Soviet Union yet claiming he as President would not have the ability to do it. Eisenhower doubted Goldwater’s grasp of Presidential authority.

Eisenhower supported the United Nations and civil rights, which Goldwater fought. Ts helped boost Nelson Rockefeller’s candidacy, as Rockefeller agreed with Eisenhower on these issues. Rockefeller’s divorce and remarriage to a younger wife hurt Rockefeller as Goldwater campaigned on morality. Rockefeller’s wife gave birth just before the “winner take all Delegates” California Primary, which allowed the morality issue to reemerge and Goldwater won the California Primary by a narrow 68,000 votes. Rockefeller withdrew from the race.

Goldwater was 150 Delegates short of the nomination. Dwight Eisenhower’s brother Milton recommended Bill Scranton for President. Dwight agreed and he called to meet with Scranton. There is disagreement as to what happened at the meeting. Scranton believes he had Eisenhower’s support for President. Eisenhower believes he only wanted Scranton to announce he was available to run for President. Scranton appeared on television and Eisenhower was unimpressed with what he saw. Eisenhower called Scranton to state he would not be part of any “stop Goldwater” movement. Dwight Eisenhower did approve of his brother Milton being a Delegate from Maryland for Scranton.

Goldwater secured the nomination. Eisenhower called Goldwater and recommended Goldwater pick Scranton as his running mate. Eisenhower didn’t know Goldwater had already decided upon Republican National Chairman, Rep. Bill Miller.

Goldwater met with Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and governors Scranton, Rockefeller, and George Romney of Michigan. They all met in Harrisburg. Eisenhower and others tried to convince Goldwater to explain and moderate his views on extremism. Goldwater announced he refused to make any “concessions”. Eisenhower privately stated he thought Goldwater was “just plain dumb”.

Milton Eisenhower felt going to war in Vietnam would be a “colossal mistake”. Dwight Eisenhower felt the U.S. should not enter the war by itself. Eisenhower advised Johnson to win the war, He opposed the “graduated response” that was the policy, arguing instead for a “quick and overwhelming” response. Eisenhower also called for a wider warin, including invading Cambodia.

More on When Michigan Republicans Didn't Play Nice

2011-03-22T15:02:00.000-07:00

Bruce A. Rubenstein and Lawrence Ziewacz. Payoffs in the Cloakroom: The Greening of the Michigan Legislature, 1936-1946. East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University Press, 1995.

In the 1920s, many Michigan state legislatures were known to pad their $3 a day salary with bribes. Governor Fred Green called them “one of the finest legislatures that money can buy”. The Depression only increased t he desire of legislators to find money through any means.

A scandal emerged in 1939 when Janet MacDonald killed her daughter and herself. She left behind notes detailing numerous bribes she had given. The local Prosecutor declined to investigate. Detroit City Council passed a resolution to create a grand jury. A grand jury indicted 25, including the local Prosecutor, the Police Commissioner, and the County Sheriff for bribery and protection criminal activities.

The push for reform moved towards investigating legislators and lobbyists. There was a focus on legislator s accepting money in return for disallowing more chain banks. A legislator, Sen. William Stenson, stated an unknown man put money and a note in his overcoat instructing him how to vote on the bill. State Treasurer D. Hale Brake then claimed a “barrel of money” had influenced the legislature. The Attorney General had resisted investigating yet then decided to form a grand jury.

The Michigan National Bank President, a branch bank, was an ally of Michigan Republican boss Frank McKay.

A lobbyist claimed that Rep. William Green demanded $600 for a vote. Other legislators were reportedly similarly named by a lobbyist and seeking funds for their votes. Rep. Warren Hooper claimed the Executive Secretary of the state Medical Society tried to bribe him to kill a bill.

Rep. Stanley Dombrowski stated a lobbyist, Charles Hemens, offered him $350 regarding the chain banking bill with $150 upfront and $200 after the vote. He claimed he was threatened after testifying before the grand jury. Dombrowski changed his story, claiming it was another legislator who offered him the money and not Hemens. Dombrowski was found guilty of perjury.

The Attorney General, a former State Senator, hired Jay Linsey as the Chief Grand Jury Prosecutor. Critics claimed that Linsey, who was associated with McKay, would be biased in steering the grand jury away from McKay and other McKay Republicans.

The Grand Juror, Judge Leland Carr, responded to Linsey’s addition by selecting an additional prosecutor, Kim Sigler. Carr let Sigler know that Carr distrusted Linseys connections to McKay. Sigler conclude that indicting McKay was the main goal of the grand jury process.

McKay helped elect Fred Green as Governor in 1926. McKay began using his influence to dominate state Republican conventions along with Republican leaders Edward Barnard, a Detroit lader, and William McKeighan, a Flint leader. McKay alleged convinced Governor Frank Fitzgerald to allow illegal gambling operations to occur by steering the State Police away from investigating them. McKay is also believed to have illegally extorted state contracts for his surety bond companies. McKay also owned the General Tire Company, which had the contract for all state vehicles. The State Treasurer even purchased and stored the company’s flawed tires.

Three grand juries in the early 1940s looked into McKay. One was for allegedly accepting bribes to influence which products were sold in state liquor stores. Another was to look into alleged fraud involved municipal bond bids. A third looked into whether McKay extorted money from Edsel Ford, President of Ford Motor. No indictments emerged. NcKay claimed the grand juries was biased by U.S. Attorney General Frank Murphy, who had lost a race for Governor to a McKay candidate.

The Attorney General stated that prosecutions made by any grand jury would be tried by his office. Carr objected, stating he believed Sigler should prosecute the cases from his grand jury. The Attorney General eventually yielded and let Sigler prosecute/

A leak from the grand jury, most likely from Sigler, indicated that half the legislators brought before the grand jury stated they took bribes.

In 1944, Judge Carr issued arrest warrants on 20 members of the 1939 legislative session along with six executives of finance company for the largest bribe scheme in Michigan politics. Over $25,000 was reportedly used to influence auto loan legislation. Ernest Prew, General Finance Corporation’s Vice President, admitted his guilt.

Some legislators debated cutting funds to the grand jury. One of the legislators indicted, 77 year old Miles Callaghan, defending the funding. His speech helped win approval for the funds. Callaghan later pled guilty and became a grand jury informant.

National radio newscaster Walter Winchell informed the public that the Grand Jury was using Charles Spare as a special investigator. Spare, a former Ku Klux Klan member, had a history of defaming others. Legislators threatened to cut the Grand Jury’s funds because of Spare. State Sen. Charles Diggs, Michigan’s only African American legislator at that time, was upset over being judged by an investigator with a history of bigotry. Spare was dismissed yet later was hired back by Sigler under the name “Mary Duke”. When Sigler left his position, all references to Spare were deleted.

In the trials, Sigler stated in his opening he would prove “the use of money, liquor, beautiful women, and lavish entertainment to sway the votes of pliant legislators to the will of selfish special interests”. Ralph Smith, President of Community Finance Company, admitted a legislative committee was created “for buying votes”. Senator Callaghan testified the bribery took place.

Charles Hemans, a lobbyist, was given immunity in return for his testimony. Hemans spent $15,500 of the Grand Jury’s funds. Sigler hid this as state law prevented payments to testifiers. Hemans testified he bribed legislators at sums ranging from $100 to $300, plus giving alcohol to those who drank.

Sigler made further indictments of more alleged bribed involving intangible tax legislation. Many had already been indicted and two additional lobbyists were placed under indictment. Former Lt. Gov. Frank Murphy was then indicted along with others for bribery involving liquor license legislation Murphy admitted his guilt.

The trials diminished McKay’s influence. He was defeated for reelection to the Republican National Committee. McKay allies lost their statewide positions.

Hemans testified that lobbyists were known as the “third house” of the legislature. Most of the indicted legislators denied receiving bribes. Defense attorneys attacked Hemans’ credibility. One attorney noted that all but one of the indicted legislators were Democrats, that Republican were the majority legislative party in the legislature and thus had the real power to influence legislation, and that none of those indicted were on important legislative committees. Thus, it would make little strategic sense to bribe those with the least influence. The jury found all the legislators and all but tow of the other defendants guilty.

The authors conclude that Siglar “was not the courageous white knight who appeared in public, but rather a self-serving, self-promoting schemer”. Sigler sought to indict and convict McKay in hopes of furthering his career.

State Sen. Warren Hooper had refused to testify against others. Hooper was a McKay ally. Sigler questioned Hooper until Hooper collapsed. Eventually, Hooper admitted that McKay offered him money to keep legislation on horse racing from coming out of his legislative committee. McKay would pay $1,000 to each committee member. Hooper testified to receiving $500 from McKay. He further admitted to receiving money from McKay on banking chain legislation. McKay and others were then arrested, including Floyd Fitzsimmons, a fight promoter. Sigler then charged Fitzsimmons with bribing Rep. Gail Handy on horse racing legislation. Sigler was calculating that it would be easier to try McKay if the jury knew that one of McKay’s co-defendants, Fitzsimmons, had already been convicted.

Fitzsimmon had previously convinced Rep. William Green to hire Sigler as his attorney to defend Green on graft allegations. Sigler violated lawyer – client confidentiality by using when Green told him when Sigler later became a Grand Jury Prosecutor.

Frank McKay and another, according to later testimony, paid $25,000 to have Hooper murdered by several members of the Purple Gang. Hooper was shot to death.

Fitzsimmons was convicted. Sigler then charged four former legislators and three others with conspiracy over dentistry legislation influence, For unknown reasons, a trial date was never set.

Five legislators were charged with accepting bribes on naturopathic medicine legislation. There additional current or past legislators were subsequently indicted.

Several witnesses died. Sen. Earl Munshaw died while his car engine was running in a closed garage. His death was ruled accidental. A witness died when his car was struck by a train, leaving people wondering why he didn’t exit his care beforehand. Former Lt. Gov. Murphy died of heart problems at age 46 before his trial began. Sen. Callaghan died of a stroke.

A lobbyists with immunity testified giving bribes ranging from $250 to $500. He gave smaller bribes to Rep. Francis Nowak who asked to be included. The jury found some guilty and some not guilty. In a second related trial, testimony claimed $1,200 was given to six legislators. All were convicted.

Rep. Jerry Logie and Rep. Charles Diggs were charged with taking bribes on pari-mutual betting legislation. Logie received $800 and Diggs received $150. Former State Sen. Chester Howell testified he made the bribes. Logie and Diggs were convicted.

Four Purple Gang members were charged with Hooper’s murder. Charles Leither, one of the Purple Gang members convicted of killing Hooper, agreed to testify against McKay. Before McKay’s trial, Justice Howard Wiest died. Judge Carr was named to the vacancy. Carr thus was no longer the Grand Juror. The new Grand Juror, Judge Louis Coash, was not the ally to Sigler and Carr had been.

Prior to the McKay trial, a County Prosecutor alleged that McKay’s private investigators tampered with the jury. Several jurors recalled to receiving threats. The trial was moved to another location.

Sigler accused McKay of controlled the Liquor Commission, including its hirings and its businesses, in an unlawful conspiracy that benefitted McKay’s clients. Hiram Walker hired McKay to get more of its product line into Michigan state liquor stores. Others similarly testified to giving money to get their products shelved. George Ackes, who led the Liquor Commission’s Statistical Department, testified there was 96% to 98% perfect distribution, which was evidence than no distiller was given favoritism or discriminated against.

McKay’s lawyer argued that it was legal for McKay to have clients and that receiving a commission was legal. There was no bribery, the lawyer argued. The Judge agreed and he gave a directed verdict of not guilty to all defendants. All 12 jurors agreed.

Pro-McKay State Senators successfully passed a resolution to investigate the $400,000 of funds given to the Special Prosecutor Sigler. Sigler told the press the legislature was still under investigation, thus giving the press the idea that the Senate investigation could be part of a cover-up.

The Senate investigation uncovered the $16,000 paid to Charles Hemans, including entertainment and liquor for him. Payments under law was capped at $3 a day. Sigler defended the payments claiming he needed the cooperation of Hemans.

Sigler feared Judge Coash would dismiss him. Sigler gambled by alleging Coash was allied with politicians opposing the Grand Jury Coash dismissed Sigler. 15 newspapers editorialized for Sigler to be brought back. A few newspapers agreed with the dismissal.

Sigler than announced he was running for Governor. Sigler campaign upon his success as a Prosecutor. A week before the primary, an allied Sigler Prosecutor made an indictment that helped publicize Sigler’s efforts. Sigler won the Republican Primary. He went on to be elected.

The Grand Jury next indicted 17 current and former legislators regarding a banking bill. Rep. Raymond Snow pled guilty. Snow stated he turned down bribes but took one because it was hard to live on his $3 a day legislative salary. He also claimed he although he took the money he didn’t vote on the bill. Charles Hemans then announced he would not testify on this case. Hemans sated he had “faith” in Carr and Sigler but not in Coash and the new Prosecutor, Dick Foster. Three imprisoned former legislators were given immunity, They testified about the bribes. Hemans refused to testify. Without the testimony of Hemans, the Judge quashed all the indictments.

Sigler was defeated for reelection by G, Mennen Williams. Coash dismissed charges against 15 people whose trials never began. The total cost to taxpayers for the investigations was $495,189.

In 1957, Coash had all the Grand Jury records destroyed Foster was upset to learn this, citing law requiring the County Clerk to keep the records.

Back When Michigan Republicans Played for Keeps

2011-03-22T08:04:00.001-07:00

Bruce A. Rubenstein and Lawrence E. Ziewacz. Three Bullets Sealed His Lips. Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University, 1987.

In 1943, a grand jury investigation into Michigan state government corruption resulted in 130 arrests and 60 convictions, including the Lt. Governor, 12 State Senators, and 11 State Representatives. It was discovered that legislative votes were open to sale from lobbyists and special interests.

Attorney General Herbert Ruston, a former State Senator, had refused to create a grand jury even when the Detroit Citizen’s League provided evidence of corruption. State Rep. William Stenson publicly declared that someone unknown to him put $1,350 and a note on how to vote on legislature concerning banks into his coat pocket. The Attorney General then felt obligated to create a grand jury. Judge Leland Carr was a one person grand juror.

The press attacked Republican State Party leader Frank McKay. He has been State Treasurer until resigning during a previous grand jury. McKay, though, was a political king maker who chose nominees for Governor and state offices. The press believed McKay and his political associates allowed illegal gambling operations to exist in Michigan. Futher, the press discovered McKay obtained state contacts for his own company. Three grand juries looked into charges McKay engaged in various influence peddling schemes. McKay was acquitted.

Judge Carr discovered over half of legislators brought before him stated they took bribes. Over a third of the entire legislature was eventually indicted.

At first, 20 legislators (some no longer in office) and six finance company employees were indicted on $25,000 in bribes on automobile financing legislation. The employees pled guilty are received immunity. Sen. Miles Callaghan became an informant.

The legislature considered holding up $150,000 in funds for the grand jury. Some legislators were concerned that the grand jury’s investigator Charles Spare was a Klansman who previously incited wartime factory strikes among white workers. Spare was released from the investigation yet was later secretly hired under the name “Mary Duke”.

The law did not allow for paying witnesses more than $2 a day plus meals. Yet a key lobbyist who turned witness, Charles Hemans, was provided funds and expenses that included prostitutes and replacing a mattress. Hemans then refused to testify against friends. He served 1 ½ years for unlawfully fleeing Michigan het he received a high salary from a bank that he had refused to testify against.

Sen. Warren Hooper admitted to the grand jury he received a salary from McKay in return for keeping a horse racing bill from moving out of his committee. Hooper also told of McKay bribing other legislators. Hooper was promised immunity for agreeing to testify against McKay.

Senator Hooper was shot to death. The legislature quickly acted to approve funding the grand jury.

Muri Aton, a local prosecutor, found a witness who indicated there could have been a woman with a man in the vicinity of Hooper’s murder. Kim Sigler, who was prosecuting the grand jury, and Aton kept their silence on this information. When Sigler was nominated for Governor, the little known Aton was picked to run for, and was elected, Auditor General. Sigler had decided to use the murder investigation to further his career and he wanted to bring down McKay to do so.

Rumors emerged that Hooper had affairs. The State Police found suspicion that Hooper had been threatened to be killed by Harry Rosenberg, a mobster in a group known as the Purple Gang because Hooper supposedly had an affair with Rosenberg’s wife. Sigler considered this a possible tie to McKay since McKay’s bodyguard Charles Leiter had belonged to the Purple Gang.

Sigler, before becoming grand jury prosecutor, was an attorney for Rep. Bill Green, who was under indictment. Green had explained to Sigler a lot about legislative graft. Green was upset when Sigler left as his attorney and used what Green had told Sigler before the grand jury.

Sam Abramowitz, a Purple Gang associate, was found, through questioning as confirmed by a polygraph test, to have been involved in the Hooper murder along with Henry Luks. Luks failed the polygraph when denying his involvement.

Sigler speculated that McKay had ordered and financed Hooper’s murder. Meanwhile, the grand juror Judge Carr charged McKay, Charles Leiter, and other Purple Gang members for liquor law violations. Abramowitz and Luks testified against some associated who were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

Sen. Ivan Johnson criticized Sigler’s spending, especially funds spent on Charles Hemans. The current Grand Juror, Judge Louis Coash (who had replaced Carr when he was made a Supreme Court Justice) dismissed Sigler. Sigler, realizing his career faced oblivion, attacked Coash and claimed he sought only to punish criminals. A week later, Signer announced he was running for Governor. A week before the primary, a Sigler ally indicted Sen. Johnston for bribery. This created a boost for Sigler’s campaign and helped him win the primary. Sigler was later elected Governor.

State Police Commissioner Donald Leonard investigated the Hooper murder. He took all the records when he resigned of Commissioner in 1952. McKay supported Leonard in his unsuccessful campaign for Governor.

In 1985, grand jury files was discovered. Sigler had brought Hooper to testify in front of McKay. Hooper testified McKay gave him a $500 bribe.
The Purple Gang was offered $25,000 to kill Hooper if it was done before Hooper next testified. McKay was presented, as a sign of good faith that the money would be paid. Abramowitz tried to blackmail Governor Sigler, claiming Sigler knew his testimony was false. Abramowitz vanished and was never seen again.

KcKay lead a successful campaign to defeat Sigler’s reelection as Governor in 1948.

Education New York Style

2011-03-21T14:40:00.000-07:00

Diane Ravitch. The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000 (originally published in 1974).

In the beginning of the 20th century, the school reform movement sought and brought the centralization of the New York public school system. A decentralized system of schools was seen as being ripe for corruption.

The author sees a common school system paid for by public taxes as an important creation. She notes that have been and will be conflicts, such as over community control of their schools as was demanded by many Catholics in the 1840s versus the Public School Society, which was controlled by Protestants, and by many African Americans in the 1960s. Some issues, such as church versus state, centralization versus decentralization, and how to best educate low income students have been long term issues that continue to the present. It is important to remember, as many social issues revolve around education policies, that the main objective has to be learning.

Public schools have never in their history education virtually every student. That is their mandate, but there appears to be little reason to see how they will accomplish this. Schools have always faced problems imposed by parents with low incomes and by crime. Additional problems have arisen in recent decades with drugs and increased percentages of broken family units. In 1995, 90% of New York high school students were in a school with over 900 students. These problems are enlarging at times when there are fewer job opportunities for unskilled labor, making a good education more of a necessity.

The centralized versus decentralized issue includes who should decide where a student attends school. A belief that a parent should choose the school means one rejects the idea that this is the right of a central bureaucracy to so decide. Some support allowing waivers for students to attend charter schools. In addition, a parent has an option to go the private sector to purchase a private school education if the parent has or can arrange for the ability to afford it.

The battle between the Roman Catholic Church and the Public School Society in the 1840s led to nonsectarian but secular public schools that allowed nondenominational (but mostly Protestant in appearance) Bible study and prayer.

In many school battles, the disagreements often occurred from new arrivals to a community who believed that present values in schools conflicted with their values. Battles were often over such issues as who controls school governance, decentralization versus centralization, and the issue of providing education to children of the poor, all of which issues continue to today,

In 1997, New York public students were 37% Hispanic, 36% African American, 15% white, and 11% Asian American. In 1970, these percentages were 25% Hispanic, 38% white, and 1.5% Asian American.

The rise in Hispanic and Asian students produced a new element to the traditional battles between newcomers and established elite. This time, the newcomers did not have common concerns, as happened more in the past. Asian students tended to do well and wanted schools to advance their social mobility. Hispanic students tended not to do well and were concerned about preventing dropouts. They sought bilingual education.

A 1969 law had the Board of Education being consisted of one appointee of each of the five Borough Presidents and two members appointed by the Mayor. The board appointed a Chancellor to administer the school system. There were also over 30 elected community school boards yet they had little powers as hires and contracts were centralized with the Chancellor. There were relatively few community level decisions. The decentralized boards had problems with corruption. Voter turnout in those elections decreased. Nepotism increased. The teachers union and other interest groups organized and won control of some Boards.

In 2000, the four year high school graduation rates were 70% for whites, 66% for Asian Americans, 42% for African Americans, and 38% for Hispanics. The seven year graduation rate for all was 60%.

Chancellor Frank Macchiarola instituted promotional grades at grades 4 and 8 where a student who was a grade level behind in reading or two years behind in Math was held back. He issued citywide curriculum guides. He resigned in 1983 and his promotional policy was abandoned. Students moved from grade to grade regardless if they mastered the subject.

Charter schools receive public funds and meet certain standards but operate without local school board influence. They offer unique classroom options that attract students. Teachers have more lax standards as long as academic standards are reached.

In the 1990s Chancellor Rudolph Crew approved charter schools, froze principal salaries for four years, and gained the power to fire them while insisting they give up their right to tenure. Many principals and other supervisors left for other districts and many vacancies resulted as few then applied for their positions.

The author observes each school system reorganization came about after a major battle that emerged during a new wave of immigration.

New York education in the 17th century was offered by churches to their members. Some hired tutors. Some private pay schools emerged. The first school that was not religion based was a school for African American children which opened in 1787 by the Manumission Society.

New England states formed schools supported by public taxes in the late 18th century. There were strong Calvinist drives in New England for public education. New York embraced this concept a few decades later.

In 1795, the New York legislature allocated $50,000 a year for five years in matching funds for local governments to create schools. 1,000 schools with almost 60,000 students emerged. In 1805, the New York state government created a permanent school fund that began awarding funds that began collecting enough money for the schools in 1815.

New York city used these 1795 funds for eleven existing schools (ten church schools and one African Free School). No new schools were created. It was decided it would cost too much to create a citywide school system. 52% of the city’s children attended a school at some time during 1795-96.

Religious groups supported education so men could read the Bible. Religion seen as a means to save souls and reading was therefore considered important.

Te Manumission Society and the Family Society, which was mostly Quaker, advocated and created nonsectarian public education. This upset Catholic clergy who wanted Catholic sectarian public education. There was a large immigration of Catholics, mostly Irish, in the 1820s and 1830s.

The Manumission Society persuaded New York to create public education and gained business support for taxes to support education. There were two education tracks, one for the poor and another for the wealthier. With the growing number of poor being Catholic, large numbers of the poor students were not being served. The Society’s first school opened in 1809 of a cost of $13,000 to build. It included educating 150 girls in a separate classroom as the Female Association’s School.

Bethel Baptist Church began a school for poor children of all faiths in 1820 and began receiving public funds in 1921. The Bethel Baptist Church paid lower teacher salaries and over-reported expenses. This allowed it enough funds to have three free admission schools. The Free School Society sought to have funds also provided to their schools. The Society argued public funds should not support a church’s operations.

The public support for universal education grew in the 1820s and 1830s. Governor William Seward in 1838 supported universal public education.

Some Catholics attacked public schools over reading the King James version of the Bible. Some claimed the textbooks attacked Catholicism. The Public School Society thought the textbooks were the primary school. Textbooks that offended Catholics were removed. Much of the Catholic opposition to public schools remained. In fact, many of the Catholic priests sought to destroy funding for public schools.

In 1841, the Board of Aldermen voted 15-1 that the Catholic schools failed to meet standards to receive public funding. Governor Seward expressed disappointment that New York City was failing to educate Catholic children. Catholics brought their cause before the state legislature. Seward wanted any kind of universal education, either secular or sectarian. The issue was postponed by a Senate committee by a 11-10 vote.

60% of New York City students were in school versus 96% of New York students in the rest of the state.
Catholic organizers proved to Tammany Hall Democrats that they needed Catholic votes to win. Most Democrats then opposed funding the Catholic schools.

An amendment banning teaching any religious doctrine or tenant in any New York City Schools passed the legislature 65-16. Catholic Bishop John Hughes supported this bill. While it was not what Catholic educators wanted, many Catholics were glad that this bill defunded the Public School Society. The State Senate approved the bill and Governor Seward signed it.

A Catholic ticket in the upcoming elections then withdrew and endorsed the Democratic ticket. On election day, rioting in the streets resulted. A group of angry people stoned Bishop Hughes’ residence. The militia was sent to protect St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Mayor Robert Morris was reelected while Whigs won control of Common Council by 9 to 8.

The Board of Education decided Bible reading without teacher commentary was not sectarianism. Many Catholics were upset schools used Protestant Bibles.

In the first central Board of Education, each of the 17 wards operated the schools within their ward. Local school boards chose the courses, books, and made its’ own contracts for supplies. The full Board of Education paid the bills. The Board was composed of two elected Commissioners, five trustees, and two inspectors from each ward.

The Public School Society gave up competing with ward schools and it stopped functioning in 1853.

Financial limits of cost construction costs were removed. This resulted in large construction cost increases.

The Superintendent certified prospective teachers. Local School Board chose who to hire. A main entryway into employment was knowing a trustee. Teachers as young as 16 were hired. It was discovered some positions were sold. An 1864 scandal found one ward’s trustees and some principals extorted money from teachers and contractors. These problems caused the legislature to change the school system into several districts with each distract electing a School Commissioner with a three year terms and a central School Board with 21 members. Ward politics, though, continued to have a dominating influence on school practices.

Tammany Hall Democrats took over the School Board and its contract awarding abilities. Home rule was passed for New York City. The Tammany Hall Democrats grabbed political and financial control of much of city government.

The School Board members awarded contracts to politically connected firms. It was never shown the Board members enriched themselves. School expenses rose rapidly ever as student attendance fell.

The Superintendent or assistants in the 1850s through 1890s visited every classroom at least once annually to exam the students. The scores from the exams were used by local Trustees for promotions or lowering salaries. Teachers were not provided their scores so they did not know how their students were doing in each subject.

Female teachers were paid half what males earned. A female teacher was discharged upon marring until courts ruled this invalid in 1904.

Psychologists helped bring an education reform movement that sought to mold character as part of education. It was hoped this would get poor students to ultimately overcome poverty.

School budgets were often insufficient for their expenses in the 1890s. Per capita school costs fell from 1890 to 1895. The public and press reported the deterioration of most school buildings. A common complaint was the school bureaucracy left no one accountable to fix the problems.

Nicholas Murray Butler organized a school reform movement seeking to hire more education experts and new laypeople in education. He also opposed local control of schools. The legislature, with several Republicans seeking to hurt Tammany Hall Democrats, passed school reform measures. Mayor William Strong decided to agree with the reform movement for centralized control of education over local control. Centralized control then meant shifting power from local School Board to a Board of Superintendents.

Teacher salaries created controversies. In 1898, New York City formed by combining with nearby counties. The Manhattan and Bronx Board attempted to have teacher pay increases contingent on passing exams. The teachers helped in persuading the legislature to instead set salary increases according to years of experience teaching.

As universal education was adopted, schools had to adjust to teaching students who previously were unexposed to education. Many lacked English skills, especially children of immigrants. Trade and industrial schools were created, primarily for African Americans and children of recent immigrants.

New York created standard curriculum to be used in all schools. New York spent $100 million on building new schools from1898 to 1915. Still, overcrowded schools remained an issue as immigration into New York flourished.

New York implemented using the entirety of school facilities, with half of students’ time in class and half at play, laboratories, auditoriums, etc. Half the students would be in class and then switch with the other half in the other school facilities. Thus, all school facilities were used the entire school day. After school, the facilities were open for community use. Some parents felt more time should be spent in the classroom. Some students objected. At one school, about 1,000 students rioted and broke windows. It was claimed they were expressing their dissatisfaction with the new system. Rioting spread to other schools under the new system over ten days. 5,000 students marched against the new system. It was alleged the plan was devised by many elites to prepare for economic servitude. The next elected Mayor, John Hylan, ran on a campaign that included promising to eliminate this system. He delivered on that promise.

Mayor Hylan continued expanding schools. $300 million was spent to educate an additional 475,000 children. Still, 50,000 students could only enroll on a part time basis in 1930.

Science entered into education. Intelligence testing led to ending mass instruction of teaching at different levels. This allowed every student to graduate, even though they graduated to different levels of instruction at the same grade. In 1940, there were 20,000 students enrolled on a part time basis. Graduation rates were almost 100%. The average number of students per class was 34.

In New York City, the African American population was 150,000 in 1920, 328,000 in 1930, and almost 750,000 in 1950. The Puerto Rican population in 1950 was 250,000. Most African Americans and Puerto Ricans lived in segregated parts of the city. Most had low paying employment. It was believed that education alone had been the reasons previous immigrants had achieved economic gains, which the author labels a “myth”. African Americans and Puerto Ricans moved in New York in hopes of economic success. They found segregated housing and neighborhood schools that were also segregated. Segregation was illegal, but existed in fact.

The official response was to view everyone as equal. Racial information was removed from school forms. Yet, this equal treatment under neighborhood schools resulted in segregated schools. Dr. Kenneth Clark gained much notice by observing that African Americans were given provided less of an education than other received. Mayor Robert Wagner felt school issues should not be politicized, which meant elected officials were not going to act. The School Board developed an integration plan. The plan declared that education is slum neighborhoods were lacking. This helped many whites to presume that integration African Americans into their schools would deteriorate their children’s education.

Demonstrations supporting and opposing school integration arose. A combination of racism, worries, and economic fears drove much of the opposition. More funds were provided to African American schools while the subject of integration was little addressed. Large numbers of what students left the public school system. Enrollments were opened to attract public integration, but only a few entered. Only under 50 of eligible African Americans chose to switch to a predominately white school.

In 1961, student test scores declined. School officials generally declined to mention that the migration of new students mostly form racial minority groups was a primary cause. Ignoring the problem meant not resolving it.

A scandal over financial irregularities in school construction funds led to new Board of Education members in 1961. That same year, the 43,500 New York teachers voted to unionize with the United Federation of Teachers.

The State Education Commissioner declared no school in New York State could have more than 50% of its students from racial minorities. Outside New York City, this was easily obtained. Yet this ignored that in 1963, African Americans and Puerto Ricans made 40% of the New York City public population, including 52% of first graders.

African Americans threatened to boycott these officially declared inferior schools. Some noted integration went for only one direction, moving African Americans into predominately white schools. White students were not moved into predominately African American schools. White parent sued to prevent having white students placed in predominately African American schools, and the courts agreed with the parents.

Some whites agreed with the goals of integration. A group EQUAL, composed mostly of whites, was more militant in its advocacy for integration than some predominately African American pro-integration groups.

Dr. Kenneth Clark spoke out against bussing students long distances to other schools, calling that “unrealistic”. While he believed integrated schools were better than desegregated schools, he argued that it was more important for teachers to believe that students from the slums could be taught. He argued for more effective teaching.

Bayard Rustin, with support of many community groups and churches existing in the ghettos, organized a boycott of African American students refusing to attend the schools. The boycott lost some allied support with white liberals. A second boycott was organized, only this time without Rustin’s support. Rustin feared a white backlash could set the movement backwards. A third boycott was held. A state court ruled that integration was not required by law.

A Board of Education report issued in 1964 declared that desegregation was achievable. Calls for integration were revitalized. The plan called for keeping neighborhood schools at the elementary level, and thus these schools would be segregated, while junior high and high schools would be desegregated. New construction of high schools to met demand from the emerging proportion of racial minorities as students occurred in predominately white neighborhoods. An administrator would oversee a cluster of an integrated middle school and several segregated elementary schools whose students would graduate to that middle school.

New schools were built in the ghettos. Still, there were no plans for actual integration of these schools.

Community action poverty programs often resembled the patronage organizations that Tammany Hall and other groups used previously to organize immigrants.

Martin Mayer, a journalist, observed no large city spent over 70% per pupil what New York spent. Yet the schools were not improving. He also noted the absence of a sizeable African American middle class in New York City.

The author notes similarities between African Americans in the New York public schools in the 20th century and Catholics in the 19th century. Both groups immigrated in large numbers to New York City and found a school system that did not address their unique needs. Assimilation by these groups was fought by existing society.

Dr. Kenneth Clark’s research increased the belief that there was an institutional problem that was failing to properly educate African American students. This led activist groups to charge that racism was deliberately trying to keep African Americans “subservient”.

Whereas prior beliefs kept elected politics out of School Board actions, Mayor John Lindsay felt he had to become involved. He asked for a decentralization plan. A plan creating more community control was developed.

A report criticized the school bureaucracy for not responding to integration of schools. It called for more public participation. Yet, with strong opposition to integration, it is doubtful that would have led to integration. Neither Mayors Wagner nor Lindsay endorsed integration, leaving the job to a Board of Education that lacked the power to create integration. The School Board issued a report calling for more community control, ignoring the previous historical evidence that education reform is less apt to happen when education control is decentralized. Mayor Lindsay submitted a decentralization plan for elementary schools.

In 1968, almost 54,000 of 57,000 teachers engaged in a strike. It lasted two days. The teachers were given more protections from local boards. The strike was declared illegal but the agreement made with the teachers was declared legal. Yet some teachers were denied positions that were won in the agreement. A second strike was called. A second agreement provided protection so returning teacher s could go to work while passing angry crowds.

Disagreements continued between local school district leaders and the teachers unions. Another strike shut down about 85% of schools. This led to the creation of groups calling for community control and resistance to the teachers union. The union ultimately was able to have the displaced teachers returned to their positions.

The legislature eventually agreed to create more local autonomy in education decisions while giving more protections to teachers.

The author notes that common schools allow basic values to be taught to all.

If Laws Were Sausages, We'd All Have Coronaries

2011-03-20T13:42:00.000-07:00

Daniel L. Feldman and Gerald Benjamin. Tales from the Sausage Factory: Making Laws in New York State. New York: Excelsior Editors, State University of New York Press, 2010.

Author David Feldman was a member of the New York State Assembly from 1981 to 1998. He notes Otto von Bismark commented that “laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.” Feldman saw, and writes about the process (of making laws).

This book finds the legislative process as a slow and complicated process where even great ideas can years to gain acceptance and passage. The authors note that the legislature often finds it easier to take symbolic action over a more complicated and harder to obtain agreement on substantive actions. Indeed, the authors see symbolism acts as an essential part of how the legislature addresses the psychological need that the public desires for some sort of attention on a matter. Passing legislation requires legislators working with their peers and obtaining public approval of their ideas. Understanding insider legislative politics is important in getting bills passed, yet the authors note that proposals that are substantive and have strong merits do well in the insider politics. Outside interests have major influences on legislative success and failure. Legislators are advised to learn about the laws they amend, the legislative process, and to apply their values in how they work. This comes together in the “sausage factory” whose output is legislation.

The authors argue that bipartisan gerrymandering helped decrease the reputation of the New York legislature. In 1971, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures ranked New York as having one of the four best legislatures. Gerrymandering separated legislators further away from responding to public opinion and more towards responding to political party leaders.

Traditionally, gerrymandering was designed to give Republicans a majority in the State Senate and Democrats a majority in the State Assembly. Obama carried New York in 2008 with 62% of the state vote which helped elect enough Democrats to the State Senate that they were a majority. This was their first Senate majority since the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide. The Democrats were diverse and four refused to support the leader of the others, Malcolm Smith. Of these four dissidents, one, Pedro Espada, was indicted for receiving a salary from a nonprofit that received state funds with his support. Another, Hiram Monserrate, was arrested and convicted of assaulting his girlfriend. He was later expelled from the State Senate.

Republicans courted Espada and Monserrate to regain political control of the Senate. Republican politician Republicans sought a new leadership election in hopes of regaining control of the Senate with the help of dissident Democratic Senators. Democrats moved to adjourn the Senate and 28 left. 30 Republicans and the four dissident Democrats remained. Those remaining elected Republican Senators as Senate President and Majority Leader. Two dissidents then rejoined the Democratic Caucus, creating a 31 to 31 tie. The Lieutenant Governor would have voted to break the time but the position was vacancy as Lt. Gov. David Patterson had become Governor when Elliot Spitzer resigned as Governor. When Governor Patterson called the Senate into special session, two presiders, one Democrat and one Republican, both presided and attempted to run the meetings simultaneously. Important legislature such as revenue grants to local governments, retaining sales taxes, and maintaining Mayoral control of New York city schools sat in the Senate bottleneck.

Governor Patterson appointed Richard Ravitch as Lieutenant Governor. This was a new procedure he Attorney General declared as unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals ruled 4-3 that Ravitch could serve as Lieutenant Governor but that he could only vote on procedures matters and not to break the tie for Senate control.

Monserrate switched back to the Democrats to become Majority Leader in a deal that made Democrat John Samson the Senate President instead of Malcolm Smith.

It is noted Tom Golisano donated $5 million to Democratic legislative candidates in 2008 while advocating for conservative tax and spending proposals.

The author David Feldman was elected to the Assembly with the support of most of the regular organization as well as reform Democrats. A faction of regular Democrat supported his primary opponent, who he defeated. After his first election, he faced little electoral opposition.

As a legislator, Feldman was active in community issues and constituent services. He worked to reduce long sentences for drug offenders and for gay rights, consumer protection laws, environmental protection laws, and for reducing the number of parking tickets issued, which he claims were excessive. He, from person experience, learned that many constituents paid parking fines only to discover a second computer that did not align with the computer keeping track of the payments then required these payments be made in order to register a car. He introduced and had a bill passed that made the Motor Vehicle Bureau reimburse and pay extra to those so affected. The city lobbied against the bill as it affected their revenues. Still, the author learned about fighting the good legislative fight. He realized, even in small ways, legislators could improve lives.

The authors observe that many legislators often tended to act in their own self-interest more so than in the public interest. Working for constituents helps the constituents yet it also helps the legislators get reelected.

Party affiliation was a major factor in determining legislative behavior. Legislators did not always act in their own self-interest. The authors observed that Assemblyman George Michaels voted his conscience in voting in favor of making abortion legal knowing, correctly as it turned out, that the vote would lead to his defeat.

Legislators are presented as voting on issues, in this book, on a cost-benefit analysis. More emotional issues may not follow this cost-benefit calculation. Yet in general, legislature value efficiency (which means different things to different people), security, liberty equality, and property. The public expects representation, fairness, and a right to dissent.

The values legislators have impact their work. They are concerned how their constituents feel about issues. Organized interest groups that influence public opinion can impact how legislators respond. An important outside influences that can sway public and legislative opinion is the media.

Legislators develop friendships with each other, much as people ordinarily do. These friendships can influence how they vote on issues as they may wish to avoid conflicts and agree with friends on issues important to their friends.

Legislators sometimes have to deal with conflicting values. Legislative leaders may threaten actions when a caucus member desires to vote against the party leadership line.

In New York, the Speaker usually designates a Speaker Pro Tempore to preside over the Assembly while the Speaker works the phones conducting actual business while listening to floor discussions in his office. Many discussions among legislators occurs in their party’s conference, or caucuses. Legislators ask about the legislation they are going to vote on, debate merits, and form floor strategies. The Speaker often decisions made, although “majority will” could sway the Speaker in another direction. Many final decisions were formed by “three men in a room”, usually the Governor, Assembly Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader. The authors note that Conference decisions could influence the responses of their leader in the Room of Three.

Morality or lapses on morality have roles in legislative behavior. In New York, Democrats and Republicans tended to stay together in separate hotels: Democrats in the DeWitt Clinton Hotel and Republicans in the Ten Eych Hotel.

The authors observed most legislators were not dedicated in their legislative committee assignments and one avoided them all together.

New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, as of 2004, were the only full time Senates that used a fast roll call. The legislative leaders give their vote and unless of member of that party indicates otherwise, all the members of that party are indicated as voting accordingly. The member need not be present in the room to vote. A slow roll call is sometimes called for political purposes to get individual votes recorded with their presence.

The legislative leadership has various means to kill a bill. Bills can be sent to committees where the committee chairs are instructed not to refer the bills out of committee. Bills that emerge from committees that leadership doesn’t want can be sent to the Rules Committee and the bills can be kept there from every emerging.

The Rules Committee seldom met yet reported bills consistently. The Rules Committee, in reality, was the Speaker acting as the Rules Committee Chair.

Feldman was a member of the Rules Committee. He confirms that it never met. It was the Speaker and the Speaker’s staff who determined which bills were reported from the Rules Committee.

The New York legislature allows for swift approval of legislation under necessity power due to timely emergencies. This means of approving bills became more routine. The New York courts struck down passage of a ban on selling cigarettes on the Internet through legislative emergency powers as the courts rules this was not a timely emergency.

Speaker Stanley Steingut changed a tradition. The old ways involved county Democratic leaders brining the legislators their county political machines elected according to the Speaker’s wishes. Steingut instead worked directly with the legislators, bypassing the county Democratic chairs. Steingut also allowed each Assembly member of both parties to have a district office. Steingut lost a primary in 1978. Stanley Fink was the next Speaker. Fink did not institute any major procedural changes.

The authors note that Stanley Fink, Speaker from 1978 to 1986, was a masterful politician whose leadership surpassed that of Governors. Fink was a part of Brooklyn Democratic Party leader Meade Esposito’s political organization. Fink opposed the death penalty yet let pro-death penalty bills pass, claiming it was a vote of legislators and personal beliefs while knowing the Governor would veto them

The next Speaker, Mel Miller, left office in 1991 due to a felony conviction over his legal practice. Miller was replaced as Speaker by Saul Weprin. Miller’s conviction, incidentally, was overturned on appeal.

Speaker Weprin was known for urging Democratic Assembly members to “stay on message”, to support the party line, and not to deviate from the party line. He centralized staff, diminished the influence of committee chairs. Key staff to Weprin were delegated more authority than most other staff ever had. This created resentment from members.

Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, became Speaker in 1994 after Weprin died. Silver consolidated more power, justifying it as necessary to fight both a Republican Governor and Republican majority Senate. The Speaker’s staff were instructed not to share information with other Democrats leaders and Democratic committee chairs.

Strong leaders clam their powers are necessary to achieve legislative successes. Yet the authors argue, in New York, the strong leadership had difficulties producing results. Gridlock and dysfunction often was the result.

It is noted that the Republican majority in the Senate and the Democratic majority in the Assembly were strong majorities in both chambers from 2002 to 2008. Sheldon Silver was Speaker and Joseph Bruno was Majority Leader until his resignation in 2008. Two strong leaders with strong control with different political philosophies led to much legislative gridlock.

The Assembly Rules Committee became public meetings with recorded votes as of 2005. This decentralized some of the Speaker’s powers.

Conference committees of members from both chambers exist to resolve disputes between the two chambers over specific legislation. These conference committees are chosen by and thus represent the position of the legislative leaders. Before 1995, there were no conference committees.

In 1978, the Assembly passed a rule where the sponsor of a bill could insist upon committee action on the bill. Committee chairs got around this by scheduling votes on large numbers of bills and convincing committee members to vote on bills as a group as to whether or not they were to be reported from or held in committee.

Committee chairs are hardly ever scrutinized by the press for keeping a bill in committee. Even though this action allows one person to kill a proposal, this inaction is seldom criticized by the press.

The authors note that legislative success sometimes involves responding properly to inside politics, knowing the goals of different parties involved on the issue, and getting to points where enough parties agree.

The authors observe that, in 1990, half of newly imprisoned inmates in New York were convicted of buying or having drugs. 72% of females incarcerated were for drugs. Most were addicts. Police officials stated that drug dealers were replaced by drug organizations within minutes of being arrested, as so many other addicts could quickly be recruited to become dealers.. Thus, huge increases in Corrections expenses were not denting the flow of drugs.

Feldman was often on the other side of battles with Sheldon Silver. When Silver became Speaker, Feldman’s career began diminishing in influencel He did find some influence when a new Govenor, George Pataki, concerning the issue of getting more drug users into treatment programs. A Drug Treatment Program, while technically run by the Corrections Deparmtent, was created as a place for nonviolent second time felony drung offenders to serve time.

Support diminished for the strong antidrug laws with long prison terms were adopted under Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Long prison terms did not affect recividism. Support for treatment alternatives grew. David Rockefeller was among those who came out against his late brother’s drug policies, as did a leading academician on the issue who before was an advocate of creating these policies, John DiIlulio. Over time, Speaker Silver came to support judicial discretion in drug cases and increasing drug treatment programs. Majority Leader Bruno agreed mandatory sentences on drug cases were unfair. A seven hour negotiation session led to incremental reform that reduce some drug penalties and enabled judges to sentence drug offenders to treatment programs. The District Attorneys Association fought the agreement. Governor Pataki did not fight hard for its passage. The issue emerged in District Attorney elections and a leading defender of strict drug laws was ousted in a campaign where this was a central issue. Legislation finally passed. Further legislation reducing sentences for drug offenses passed when Democrats gained influence in the Senate.

The authors observe there is value in good staff. Feldman especially valued staff that researched and found good issues which could be supported. Feldman credits key staff for helping get a sex offender registry law enacted. This process included being diplomatic with the Speaker who favored a different version of the proposal and getting the Speaker to consider and then approve the proposal.

Not the Larry or Moe of Boston Politics

2011-03-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

Jack Beatty. The Rascal King: The Life and Times of James Michael Curley (1874-1958). DaCaopfiese, 2000,

Police estimate one million people lined the streets of Boston to watch the hearse carrying James Curley pass. As four term Mayor and Governor, Curley had been their leader, especially to many Irish Americans.

The fictitious “The Last Hurrah” was based on Curley. He sued with a film version was made and then denied he had been paid $25,000 for the right, claiming whoever signed his name forget his signature. He agreed to a $15,000 payment. There are many who believe Curley may have conieved to squeeze a little extra money from the film producers in what may have been Curley’s real life last hurrah. He died two months later.

Curley did not get along with the Kennedys. He hold over his head, as blackmail, that John Fitzgerald, Boston Mayor and John Kennedy’s grandfather, had an affair.

As Mayor, Curley got long handled mops for cleaning ladies so they wouldn’t have to clean City Hall on their knees. It was said “Lincoln freed the slaves, Curley got the scrubwomen off their knees.” Curley also called them matrons and cleaners rather than scrubwomen, and he made their jobs civil service. Curley’s mother had been a scrubwoman.

Curley had two children die, at ages 34 and 41, of cerebral hemorrhages at two different locations on the same day. Curley stood for 14 hours to meet everyone who came to see him after their deaths.

Curley grew up poor. He filled his youthful hurt of being poor by seeking money and spending it.

Curley did not create a political machine. All his political organizations were for his own elections.

Arthur Schlesinger and Erik Erickson found that, in 1924, campaigns based on issues increased voter participation while campaign based more on personalities decreased voter participation. The TV ads of today often place great reliance on character and less of issues. These may be part of the reasons for smaller voter turnouts in modern elections than in the past. In 1880, 82% of voters participated in the Garfield versus Hancock election with one fifth of Northern voters being personally active in the campaigns. Curley ran on personality, with little regard for issues, and won elections with low turnouts.

Curley was elected to the Common Council in 1897. It was a group that listened to citizen complaints one night a week, but had little power. He ran for office independent of either Democratic Party factions. Curley ran door to door campaigns. He finished respectfully in a losing campaign. He claims he won and that the party machinery stole the election. He won a third try with party support.

Curley studied oratory and became a good speaker. He defended the poor and claimed his favorite designation given to him was “Mayor of the Poor”.

Curley switched allegiance from the Charles Quirk party faction to the Timothy McCarthy faction before the McCarthy faction won all caucuses in 1900. Election rigging is acknowledged by Curley as having occurred.

Curley served two terms on Common Council. He then ran for the state legislature. He was also a ward chairman and still a supporter of McCarthy. Curley say McCarthy as a rival and he plotted with a group called the Jackson Club. Curley though left the Jackson Club, vowing he never again waned to be a member of someone else’s political organization. Curley started his own club. He called it Tammany Hall, after the scandal ridden New York political club. To Curley, Tammany Club meant a place that helped people obtain jobs and which helped the poor.

Curley’s club resulted in former rivals Timothy McCarthy and Charles Quirk to unite. Curley was reelected to the state legislature and an ally also won. Afterwards, McCarthy lost reelection to his Alderman’s post to a Republican.

Curley and an ally were arrested for cheating on civil service exams by taking them for two others. Curley was found guilty and sentenced to twon months in jail. Curley was reelected the day after being imprisoned. Although he was the first Massachusetts state legislator jailed, he chose not to fade away in disgrace. Instead, he ran for Alderman at Large, running across all of Boston. He was one of eight Democrats who with the primary. The Reform Club members declared they had been “disgusted” by Curley’s nomination, with one member declaring “Massachusetts might become a second Pennsylvania---a shocking thought”. Tammany paid a dollar a vote to people who voted multiple times. Curley was elected.

Curley was expelled from the legislature but embraced by most of his fellow Aldermen. While there, Alderman Frank Linchen accused a number of Aldermen with accepting bribes. Linchen claimed Curley was their leader in getting a bill passed and was paid twice what the others received. A grand jury looked into the allegations and made no indictment.

The Boston Herald was critical of Curley. Curley wrote a letter threatening to stop publishing Council minutes in the Herald, which would cost the Herald $8,500. Curley denied writing the letter although the handwriting is his.

Tammany used intimidation. They threatened the Herald’s editor. They beat up a rival’s caravan by burning some with torches, hit one with a brick, and broke their musical instruments. They also violently disrupted a rival’s meeting.

Curley’s ally Tom Curley (no relation) turned on James Curley by support Theodore Glynn for Alderman over Curley. Tammany Hall was factionalized in the split. Tom Curley and others were purged from Tammany Hall, with a brawl afterwards. It is noted that James Curley was a strong man who fought physical fights.

The Boston American accused Curley of getting the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company to hire nonexistent people and that their pay went to Tammany funds.

In 1909, Curley was elected to the new City Council, created when the Board of Aldermen and Common Council were abolished. He then ran for Congress against incumbent Democrat William McNary. Curley accused McNary of taking funds from the Armour Sulzberger Company and Swift beef packers. He then accused his Republican opponent J. Mitchell Galvin as being close to an anti-immigrant politician, Henry Cabot Lodge. Curley was elected.

Immigration was a main issue for Rep. Curley. He argued against a literacy requirement for being accepted as an immigrant. He noted many people who arrived in American illiterate who became important, including signers of the Declaration of Independence. During debate when Rep. Augustus Gardner was reading statistics of crimes committed by illiterate immigrants, Curley replied “I was going to ask the gentleman how many illiterates had been arrested for forgery:, a crime, of course, an illiterate person would have trouble committing.

Curley ran for Mayor against incumbent John Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald withdrew from the race. Other opponents withdrew as well. It has been speculated that Curley did things to get them out of the race. Most of the Boston papers printed in English supported Curley’s opponent. Yet almost 90 foreign language papers supported Curley. Tammany called the wives of campaign workers for Curley’s opponent and told them their husbands were not campaigning but we having affairs. Curley was elected.

Mayor Curley reduced the pay of high positioned police and fire officers and of school doctors. He increased the pay for patrolmen, privates, and custodians. While 6,000 of 15,00 city employees received pay cuts, only a few were fired. He also nixed some city contracts Fitzgerald had awarded.

Curley is believed to have received 5% of several city contracts. This may explain why Edison provided lighting at much higher costs in Boston than it charged in other cities.

Curley expanded Boston City Hospital. He also expanded Strandway, a parkway by the bay. He abolished the Parental School where truants were sent for up to two years.

While Curley was Mayor, the city debt decreased. This is contrasted during the same period by per capita spending increases of over 100% in New York, Jersey City, and Albany, 75% in Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Chicago, and San Francisco.

Curley increased censorship. Some books could not be sold in Boston. Words such as “bitch”, “bastard”, and “oh, God” could not be said on stage. The tango was banned from a park. Isadora Duncan could not dance with bare legs. Bare feet in public was banned.

In an act of hypocrisy, Curley lobbied Sen. Boies Penrose to allow a moive “Where Are My Children?”, about women having abortions without many negative consequences, shown in Penrose’s state of Pennsylvania. Curley had a financial interest in the film.

The author notes that many historians talk about the widespread bribery of public officials during this era. Today, disclosed payments to campaigns are allowed. Instead of individuals being corrupt, the author observes, today the system is corrupt.

Curley took “honest graft”. He did not take money from illegal operations. Curley bought a large house in Boston far away from his old ward. The luxuriousness of the house led many to question where he got the money to afford the house. People performing work on his house received city contracts.

Curley allowed political free speech. Socialists and peace groups could meet and speak in Boston while President Wilson was having them jailed elsewhere. Curley also stood up for German Americans who were physically attacked in other cities, noting they were not Germans under the Kaiser.

James Gallivan, who took Curley’s Congressional seat, ran against Curley for Mayor. Andrew Peters resigned as Assistant U.S. Treasury Secretary to also run. The press reported Peters had raped a 11 year old girl and had paid tens of thousands of dollars of blackmail to her parents. The girl committed suicide. Peters denied the story. The race enlarged as U.S. Peter Tague decided he had a chance as well.

Curley had tow favorable short films about him made. He warned theaters that their licenses depended upon their showing the films.

Peters won the election. Gallivan divided the Irish American vote. Curley decided to run for Governor. Curley then changed his mind and ran against Gallivan for Congress. Gallivan noted that Curley no longer lived in the district. Gallivan defeated Curley.

Curley ran again for Mayor. He and District Attorney Joseph Pelletier realized neither could win with both in the race. A Curley aide, without Curley’s knowledge, offered to have an arbiter decide who should withdraw from the race. Pelletier accepted. Curley was upset but agreed to the arbiter. Curley’s negotiators got both sides to agree to a pro-Curley arbitrator. The arbitrator decided Curley was the stronger candidate. Some believe Pelletier was looking for a graceful method to leave the race, and this was it.

Curley accused his Republican opponent John Murphy as being a “reformer”. That tag was unpopular in 1921. A Republican ran as an independent. It is believed Curely ran him to take away votes from Murphy, which likely helped. The independent received 4,260 votes and Curley won by 2,698 votes.

In his second term, $11 million was spent updating the City Hospital. He also increased school building spending. Curley raised assessment to raise revenues. Some businesses removed their top floors to lower their assessments.

Curley ran for Governor. Curley spoke out in favor of restricting child labor. His opponent called that “Bolshevism”. It was a strong Republican year and Curley lost.

The law was changed to prevent a Boston Mayor from serving successive terms. Curley’s Fire Commissioner Teddy Glynn and Curley’s brother John Curley. the City Treasurer, both ran. Curley was divided and finally endorsed Glynn. John Curley withdrew from the race.

Curley worked for Al Smith’s campaign for President. Smith lost but he carried Massachusetts. Some credit Curley’s work with making the difference in Smith winning the state.

Curley sought a third term as Mayor. The Good Government Association endorsed former State Treasurer Frederick Mansfield, another Catholic. Mansfield accused Curley of graft and that mismanagement was keeping Boston from achieving home rule. Without home rule, the legislature had a lot of say in Boston’s public policies. Daniel Coakley also ran. Coakley taunted Curley with requests to allow Coakley to tell the truth about Curley, from what Coakley knew through lawyer-client confidentiality.

Curley was a planning visionary. He called for creating a 50 year plan for metropolitan Boston, including 43 towns around Boston. Many met these ideas with derision. Still, had this regional planning been addressed since Curley’s time, there may not be the educational disparity between excellent schools in white communities and poorer achieving schools in African American neighborhoods.

The Depression hit during Curley’s third term. Two weeks into his term, the first case of death by starvation hit Boston.

John Fitzgerald planned to run for the U.S. Senate in 1930. Curley planned to run for Governor in 1932 after Governor Frank Allen would like win his second two year term in 1930 and then likely not run in 1930. Curley figured the seat as Governor would be open a d he would still be Mayor and could use his strengths as Mayor to mobilize support. Curley guessed Fitzgerald would lose running for Governor. Curley offered to throw his support to Fitzgerald if he ran for Governor instead. Fitzgerald agreed. Fitzgerald faced primary opposition. Fitzgerald suffered nervous exhaustion during the race and withdrew.

Curley became President of the National Conference of Mayors. The Mayors gathered and realized that solving the problems of the Depression were beyond the abilities of Mayors.

Curley ran for Governor in 1932. He also supported Franklin Roosevelt for President. Curley convinced Roosevelt to challenge Al Smith in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary. Massachusetts was considered a state leaning heavily towards Al Smith. This primary was also Curley challenging the state Democratic Party organization. Smith won the primary with over 60% of the vote and denied Roosevelt even a single Massachusetts delegate. Curley’s political reputation suffered. Yet, it improved when Roosevelt was elected President. Curley hoped for a major appointment but did not receive one. He was offered Ambassador to Poland but later withdrew his nomination.

In running for Governor, the party organization endorsed Charles Cole, a World War I General. The Boston Herald printed stories of graft wile Curley was Mayor. Still, Curley won the primary and then defeated another General, Gasper Griswold Bacon, in the general election.

Governor Curley sought to show power by removing Finance Commission members “for cause” after the Republican majority of the Commission turned down his request to do so. Curley tried attacking the reputation of a Commission member in a radio broadcast, but that didn’t work. So he offered another Commission member another job, and that worked. Democrats then, for the first time ever, had a majority of Commission membership.

Controlling the Finance Commission enabled Curley to fire people and put his appointees in their places. Patronage was dispensed. The Boston Globe criticized Curley for removing qualified employees and replacing them under political favoritism.

254 pardons and paroles were granted by Governor Curley on Christmas, 1935. Many of the prisoners paid high fees to their attorney who also paid Curley and an aide. Prisoners unable to purchase pardons and paroles rioted.

As Governor, a 10% surcharge on income, corporate, and inheritance taxes was imposed. The workweek at state institutions was reduced from 60 to 48 hours. A limit of using injunctions during disputes between labor and management became law. A prevailing wage for state construction jobs was created. Workers compensation rates were increased and allowed to last, if qualified, for lifetime instead of a five year maximum. Curley’s proposed a graduated income tax, retail sales tax, and an additional intangible wealth tax, which were defeated.

Curley tried to boast that his ties to President Roosevelt would bring in large projects to Massachusetts. Yet the Roosevelt Administration privately was not very fond of Curley. Many of Curley’s publicized grand proposals were approved, but at substantially lower levels.

Curley declared an emergency during a flood. He took command of the National Guard for two straight days without sleep. He criticized the legislature for not approving sufficient flood relief funds.

Curley declared that judges over age 70 should submit to physical and psychiatric examination. He hoped that would allow him to replaced some of the 36 judges this concerned. The press reacted strongly against his attempt to “pack the courts”. Curley abandoned this proposal.

Curley won the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Roosevelt spoke at a political rally and ignored Curley. Curley’s campaign suffered without getting Roosevelt’s support. He lost to Henry Cabot Lodge. He was the only Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to lose in 1936.

Curley is believed to have received kickbacks for awarding some state government contracts.

Curley ran for Mayor of Boston in 1937. Curley mistakenly claimed he had given a patronage job to a rival’s sister who had no living sister. He accused another rival of being a British government agent but could not show any evidence supporting the claim. The Cardinal endorsed Maurine Tobin over Curley. Tobin won.

Curley then ran for Governor against Democratic incumbent Charles Hurley. Curley won the primary. The press wrote of a $40,000 kickback Curley received from a legal dispute. A civil, but no criminal, suit resulted. Curley was ordered to repay most of the amount plus interest. Curley lost the election.

The law changed so Maurice Tobin could run for reelection as Mayor. A scandal involved Daniel Coakley helped Tobin defeat Curley.

State Sen. Daniel Coakley, Curley’s close ally, was impeached for taking $1,000 to fake a letter from a priest to have Raymond Patriarca, convicted of murder, pardoned by Curley on his last day in office as Governor. Coakley became the first person in 321 years of Massachusetts colonial and state government to be prohibited from ever running again for office. Some Curley allies challenged Tobin’s victory. They claimed Tobin’s campaign finances were afoul of the Corrupt Practices Act. After several months, the state Supreme Court dismissed the allegation.

Curley next ran for Congress against Rep. Thomas Hopkinson Eloit. Eliot had been the main drafter of the Social Security Act as a Congressional aide and then served as the first General Counsel to the Social Security Board. Curley ran against Eliot on the slogan “Curley or Communism:. The Catholic Bishop indicated the Catholic Church hierarchy preferred Eliot, a Unitarian, over fellow Catholic Curley. Eliot observed the same people voting in different precincts. Curley won.

Curley surprised some by having a liberally voting record in Congress. He was accused of agreeing to lead a Kalanite company that committed fraud while it was supposed to have been aiding the war effort. The Attorney General Francis Biddle informed President Roosevelt that Curley’s “profit had been trifling” but that he could be indicted. President Roosevelt requested that Curley be allowed to testify before the grand jury. Biddle consented. Curley gave an hour long speech before the grand jury. The grand jury then indicted him. Curley declared the charges were political from New Deal Democrats who wanted him out of office.

Curley meanwhile was elected Mayor. He was then convicted of the fraud charges. Curley refused to resign as either Mayor or as U.S. Representative. Curley appealed the conviction, which took a year and a half.

Curley got revenge against Governor Tobin. Curley attacked Tobin’s viciousness against Curley at the Democratic State Committee. The speech drew applause. Posters of Curley’s claim that Tobin was “vicious” and “cruel were placed around Boston. Tobin was defeated for reelection by Republican Robert Bradfield.

The Appeals Court upheld Curley’s conviction. Curley was imprisoned. Governor Bradfield and the legislature passed a bill giving Curley his salary while imprisoned and declaring that Curley would be reinstated as Mayro from the temporary Mayor upon his release.

100,000 signed a petition requesting President Harry Truman to give Curley clemency. 100 members of Congress signed, including every Massachusetts Democrat except John Kennedy. Truman commuted Curley’s sentence.

The legislature considered abolishing the office of Mayor of Boston. Instead, a plan for a strong Mayor with at two- party- election after primaries was placed before voters.

Curley ran for reelection. He spent no money and returned the one contribution he received. He lost.

Curley ran unsuccessfully for Mayor two more times. Curley was given a full and unconditional pardon by President Truman. Curley stated he needed to keep campaigning to keep himself alive.

Curley convinced state House Speaker Tip O’Neill to help the legislature approve a $12,000 yearly pension for Curley.

Curley’s career fizzled as he for Governor in 1954 but received only one vote at the Democratic Convention.