Tag Archive for 'politics'

Casey Cagle on Water and the 2008 Session

Published
by
Wilson
on February 12, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

This interview with Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle took place last week and my apologies to Casey for not posting it sooner. It took place the day before a significant court ruling in the “water wars” between Georgia, Alabama and Florida. That decision dealt a significant blow to Governor Perdue’s assertions that Georgia, not Alabama, not Florida, not the Corps of Engineers, would control the flow of water out of Lake Lanier. According to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Georgia has no right to take any water out of Lake Lanier for drinking water use without the approval of Congress. The Court’s decision is well worth a read. The main opinion is less than 20 pages, but it gives a good overview of the water wars that have swirled around Lake Lanier.

When you consider that Lake Lanier presently supplies almost a third of the water used by Georgians (all of them in metro Atlanta), this decision could have an immediate and significant impact on the metro area.

I was amazed that the Statewide Water Plan made it through the legislature with such speed and has already been signed by the Governor. With all the controversy surrounding the Plan (at least I thought there was controversy), I assumed the Plan was going to be the subject of hearings and debate. What happened? Casey says the universal support is the result of the good job the Water Council did in developing the Plan. He gives his full stamp of approval to the Plan and assured me that Atlanta was not going to steal my South Georgia water. What more can I ask for?

Only time will tell. Another reason for the lack of opposition may be due to the fact that there really isn’t much to the Plan. It doesn’t constitute a law or a regulation. It is more of an organizational plan that will have to be judged after the dozens of members are appointed and begin their work. I doubt the Plan will have any immediate impact on the water problems.

As for opposition to the Plan, Casey referred to a “very radical environmental viewpoint” that was asserted by some opponents as a scare tactic. I assume this refers to the Riverkeeper organizations. Whether their concerns prove justified, only time will tell!

As for the long-term water solution, there are 11 reservoirs in the planning stage, primarily for municipal water supplies. Casey also said there would be a minimum of $30 million in the budget for water issues.

Another major area of legislative attention this year is health care. According to Casey the uninsured population increases the cost of health care for the rest of us. An average family of 3 pays about $1000 a year in additional premiums just to cover the cost of medical care provided to the uninsured. The legislature is considering two initiatives: safety net clinics and a website which would allow consumers to shop for health care plans on a more competitive basis.

As part of the safety net clinics, incentives would be provided to communities that provide preventative health care to individuals who can’t afford it. I am not sure what this means, but be on the lookout for prohibitions and restrictions on suing safety net clinics and their doctors in the event they kill you!

As for the web based marketplace, I am not sure how that will work either. The concern here is that the insurance industry is allowed to offer all sorts of coverage plans, including the one that covers 100% of you medical expenses if you are bitten by a cobra while standing on your head! Read the fine print!

Casey also discussed an effort to provide coverage for catastrophic illness to the 25 and under age group who don’t like to pay for health insurance because as we all know, the young are invincible. They are also the biggest group of people that are uninsured. The catastrophic policy might cost as little as $45 a month.

On the transportation front, Casey indicates that the DOT is undergoing restructuring and modernization. But what about traffic? What about metro traffic? How about movable lanes? Most of us have seen the heavy traffic going one way in the morning and the other way in the evening. According to Casey the state of Virginia has movable lanes. So do other places! Sounds weird, but it may provide some relief. The biggest problem I see is that if Georgia continues to grow in population and cars, all the lanes in one direction may not be enough in 20 years. And that is the problem. No one is working on a solution that will deal with the long-term. Only time will tell!

Speaker Richardson’s Great Property Tax Plan is dead, but Casey says property owners, both residential and commercial, need relief from an ever increasing property tax burden. He suggests the legislature is considering a cap of 2% or 3% on annual tax increases. Also, local property tax assessments might be frozen until local jurisdictions establish a uniform assessment process. Frankly, I thought we had one.

Casey points out that the Governor has cut the state portion of property taxes by 1/4 mil.

Some consideration is also being giving to eliminating the income tax on senior citizens. Since I am close to being a senior citizen, I am all for this.

As for education, there will be austerity cuts. We did not have time to discuss what they might be.

And what about Georgia’s economic future? Casey says we will see a slowdown in Georgia’s economy. Inflation is up, credit is tight, foreclosure rates are up. But Georgia has always weathered economic downturns better than a lot of states. I hope this continues to be the case.

 
 Casey Cagle, Lt. Governor of Georgia [28:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (339)

There’s A Bully in the House!

Published
by
Wilson
on February 5, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Way too much of this interview dwelt on that insignificantly small person that parades as Speaker of the Georgia House, Glenn What’s His Name. Jason Pye describes the recent vengance wreaked by the Speaker on those members of the House who dared to vote against his choice for DOT Commissioner from the 9th District. Banished and stripped of power, the Speaker certainly knows how influence people. I am not sure about winning friends. Arrogance and pettiness are his trademarks. Bullying is his tactic. I applaud his perverse sense of leadership solely because I am sure it will ultimately seal his fate. It is only a matter of time.

If Richardson were a child he would have been disciplined (somewhere between spanking and beating) months, if not years, ago. He might even have done a tour in “juvy” for attitude correction. But, apparently the other Republican members of the House enjoy being abused, harrassed, threatened and deprived of any claim to manhood–if you know what I mean. Too bad there isn’t one leader among them with the balls to stand up to a brat.

What really gets me is the possibility that all this strutting and strong-arming is somehow a prelude to a gubernatorial campaign in 2010. (Good Lord, will it be that long before Sonny leaves!) Pick up a mirror Glenn, and kiss your political future goodbye. Tick, tick, tick……

We mention briefly the quick approval of the Water Plan. Jason doesn’t appear to be overly concerned about the ultimate implementation of this plan. His reasoning: it can always be changed, if need be. (They said the same thing about the Constitution!) I still have a lot of friends who think the Water Plan is nothing more than a plan for Atlanta to get more water and the rest of the state, less water. The total lack of debate over it still makes me think that politics is at work behind the scenes on this one. We will just have to wait a decade or so and see how it goes.

The credit freeze bill and the gun at work bill passed the House.

Jason finally convinces me that talking about mass public transportation in Atlanta is nothing more than misplaced nostalgia for what could have been. Let’s face it, Atlanta is going to be concrete gridlock forever. There is no hope to improve, much less eliminate the problem. The leadership that was needed came and went 40 yers ago. Until we have personal transport vehicles that fly, Atlantans will continue to fight traffic and hate it. Move south!

In a parting comment about voting on Super Tuesday, Jason gives a plea: Don’t vote for Huckabee! Jason characterizes Huckabee as a tax and spend liberal from Arkansas. Huckabee scares me because he confuses religion and government, something Jesus never did. Alas, our comments were to no avail. Georgians, at least the Republican part of the state, continue to prove that we have no idea what the Constitution of the United States says or what it means.

Jason keeps up the legislature in Georgia Legislative Watch. You should, too.

 
 Jason Pye, Blogger, Political Commentator [27:55m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (403)

Jekyll Island Showdown: Chapman, Egan, Langford, Garvey

Published
by
Wilson
on January 25, 2008
in Podcast
. 11 Comments

The Jekyll Island development controversy gains new clarity in this interview with four of the primary participants. (1) Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-3) plans to introduce a resolution which would effectively prevent new development on the beach. (2) David Egan, Founder of the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island, wants the Jekyll Island Authority to listen to what the people want. (3) Jim Langford is the Project Manager of Linger Longer, the Revitalization Partner selected by the JIA in a bid process that is currently in litigation. (4) Eric Garvy is the Senior Director of Marketing and Business Development for the Jekyll Island Authority and firmly defends its actions and decisions.

Because all 5 of us were on the phone at the same time, I scheduled this interview for an hour. While this may be long, it is well worth the effort. My previous interviews with Chapman, Egan, Langford, and Garvey provide a lot of background, but it took this interview for me to truly appreciate the real bottom line in this controversy: Will Jekyll Island be preserved or developed?

A little history. Jekyll was purchased by the State in the late 40s. The State still owns all the land and simply leases it to homeowners, motel and business owners to generate the income necessary to maintain the roads and other infrastructure, as well as other projects such as restoration of the historic district and the Georgia Sea Turtle Center.

In 2007 the legislature declared Jekyll to be Georgia’s Jewel, but it is on the verge of being a multimillion dollar jewel in the hat of developers if the current 63-acre development project proposed by Linger Longer and selected by the JIA goes forward.

The law that created the JIA contained a specific directive for the income generated on Jekyll Island:

All income and revenues arising out of the operation of Jekyll Island State Park, and all gifts, grants, appropriations, or bond or loan proceeds made specifically for Jekyll Island State Park, shall be used by the authority for the sole purpose of beautifying, improving, developing, enlarging, maintaining, administering, managing, and promoting Jekyll Island State Park at the lowest rates reasonable and possible for the benefit of the people of the State of Georgia.

While it is the responsibility of the JIA to manage Jekyll in a manner that generates sufficient income, it seems obvious, at least to me, that in 1950 the legislature envisioned something other than a fully developed resort type recreation area. This interview explores in depth several issues which arise from the manner in which the JIA seeks to fulfill its responsibility to Jekyll and to the people of Georgia.

This is clearly not a dispute about revitalization of the existing motels and convention facility. Everyone agrees this is necessary, and in fact, several facilities either have been or are in the process of major renovation or complete rebuilding. When all are back online the increased capacity and higher room rates will result in more annual income for the JIA.

The controversy focuses on two basic issues: (1) Is the propsed 63 acres of new development necessary to meet the reasonable income needs of the JIA? (2) Should any development be allowed on the prime stretch of beach (approximately 9000 ft.) that is, without question, unique, both in the quality of the beach and length.

IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY? The answer depends on your choice of goals. Langford of Linger Longer contends it will generate $100 million in income for the JIA over 10 or more years. It is hard to argue against such a project if your goal is to make as much money as possible. Not only that, but this project is just the first that the JIA is contemplating. Presumably, the JIA wants even more in income. The question is why? The answer to that question is not written in some brochure or noted on the JIA website. The motives of the JIA can only be judged in the context of the its actions and conduct regarding the development and promotion of the project.

While I am sure Linger Longer and the JIA will disagree, that judgment is not flattering to an entity like the JIA which is charged with a public trust. Rather, the JIA has made a mockery of the idea that it acts as a Trustee for the people of this State. It undertook this project without any apparent attempt to determine its actual income needs. The JIA cannot answer this question: Will the existing faciliities, once they are renovated, generate enough income to meet the operational needs of Jekyll? Even with the old motels, Jekyll operated in the black every year but one, and that was when the renovations may well have affected the number of rooms available.

Another breach of the public trust by the JIA is its apparent total lack of concern, bordering on scorn, for public opinion and input. It dreamed up this project, it issued a request for developers to submit proposals, and it gave its approval to Linger Longer without ever undertaking to find out first what the residents of Jekyll or what the people of the State of Georgia wanted. Like most bureaucratic entities, the JIA assumes it knows best in all things and the people that actually live on or visit Jekyll know nothing.

In this interview, Langford and Garvey suggest that the JIA and Linger Longer are willing to scrap this project if the people don’t want it or if someone has a better idea. The actions of the JIA in this entire process raise serious doubts as to whether or not this is anything other than mere lip service. It is rare to see a state agency or authority decide on a course of action and voluntarily yield to public pressure to change direction. While it can happen, it is not easy for the public to force the change without the assistance of a big stick. That big stick just might be the pending litigation or, in this election year, it might be public outcry.

One other point. The JIA clearly seems determined to develop Jekyll Island to the fullest extent possible. Why? That goal is not in the legislative directive which created the JIA. Since 1950 the JIA has never promoted development, first and foremost, above all other considerations. Why the change? Why now? It could be that the recent appointments by Governor Perdue to the JIA have a new idea for what should be done to Jekyll. But the real answer is money, plain and simple. If you ever have a question about why government does something, follow the money. If Linger Longer’s proposed project goes through, it will make tens of millions of dollars. The JIA’s plans for further development will put hundreds of millions of dollars of pure profit into the hands of Linger Longer or some other developer.

Why development? Because we can is the JIA’s position. Why not! Earn millions, spend milliions, put millions into the hands of people like Mercer Reynolds, the owner of Linger Longer, who gives big, big money to governors and presidents.

IS IT NECESSARY TO BUILD ON A BEACH THAT HAS BEEN UNOBSTRUCTED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS? The JIA’s position on this simple issue reveals the simple truth: The JIA isn’t interested in earning enough income to provide accommodations at the lowest rates reasonable and possible for the benefit of the people of the State of Georgia. It’s interest is to suck just as much money out of Jekyll as it can, the beach be damned. That’s it, spread the love, baby!

Without a doubt, whatever project JIA and Linger Longer propose to build could be built somewhere else on Jekyll. So why not satisfy the people and just move the project to another location and leave the unobstructed beach unobstructed? The answer, money! As Langford said at the beginning of the interview, the present goal of the project is to create an “economic engine.” As Sen. Chapman points out, there is nothing to suggest that the legislature or the people of Georgia bought Jekyll Island for the purpose of creating an economic engine. That was not and is not Georgia’s intent for Jekyll. The problem is the JIA has forgotten or ignored that it holds Jekyll in trust for the rest of us. The JIA thinks it owns the place.

There are only two ways to deal with a state agency which has become arrogant, that won’t listen to anyone, that is intoxicated with its own power. One option involves violence, is clearly illegal, and therefore not one that I can recommend. The other option is legislative action which is exactly what Sen. Chapman proposes to do. His proposal would prohibit development on the beach so that the view we all grew up with would be there for our grandchildren. It would also insure that whatever leadership failures future members of the JIA exhibit, it won’t threaten the beach and the view.

Now, the question is whether or not that Republican majority in the legislature will exhibit some leadership on this issue. And that is a big question!

 
 Jekyll Island and Development [59:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (502)

The Great Tax Plan Targets Education!

Published
by
Wilson
on January 17, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you don’t know about Glenn Richardson’s plan to eliminate ad valorem taxes in Georgia, you must be dead–just like his Great Plan. Speaker Richardson supposedly toured the state telling everyone about his proposal to do away with property taxes, but he only told people bits and pieces and would entertain no public discussion. The city and county governments jumped on him. Casey Cagle and most everyone else in the Georgia Senate expressed grave concern about such a proposal and essentially said it would not pass the Senate. For whatever reason, his plan has now morphed into a plan to eliminate the school tax portion of the property tax.

My question: Why schools? Why education? If it won’t work for city and county governments, what makes it good for schools? In this interview Jeff Hubbard, President of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE), explains what this proposal means for education.

There are a lot of problems with this misconceived plan to take away local control of the education budget, but regardless of the shear power grab by the legislature, I don’t understand why we would want the quality of our education to depend on how much money people spend on goods and services, particularly with an economy that may be going downhill. If teachers get paid out of sales tax revenues and the economy goes in the tank, revenues go down and school districts have to scramble from month to month to make ends meet.

If you talk to these guys in charge of our state budget, like the Governor, they just love to tell you that they put more and more money into education every year. That may be true, but as Jeff points out, the fact that we spend more does not mean we are improving the quality of the education our kids receive. Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and a lot of the increase in education funding is due to this increase in the population of the state. More money does not translate into more money for classroom instruction. There may be more money for more buildings to house more students, but the money to improve the quality of instruction doesn’t increase.

There are about 1.6 million school age kids in Georgia. About half of them qualify for free lunches, which means they are generally from lower income families. About 57% of the state budget goes for education. And yet, we have never fully funded education according to the formulas set up 23 years ago in the Quality Basic Education Act.

Speaker Richardson and anyone who supports his efforts to transfer the cost of funding public education from the property owners (many of them wealthy) to the working families of Georgia (through the sales tax) is not seeking to improve education in this state. They are seeking power. They are manipulating the people of this state by promising the elimination of a significant portion of their property taxes without explaining the dangerous consequences for our struggling, underfunded educational system.

One of these days!

 
 Jeff Hubbard, Georgia Association of Educators [27:14m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (278)

Politics: Drifting With the Grift!

Published
by
Wilson
on January 16, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Talk about gambling, predicting the outcome of presidential politics is pure fantasy, but also fun. James Williams always gives me hope that someday I will understand something–anything about politics, that is. Which is a lot more than I can say about those TV pundits who take the insignificant, blow it up, out of proportion and not only predict winners and losers, but cast eternal judgment (condemnation) upon the poor candidate who happens to be in their sights at the moment. And 4 hours later, they completely reverse their predictions and damnations. James, you are a breath of fresh air.

I wish I could do this interview justice, but I am afraid I am still pressed for time, so if you want to hear two guys chew the fat, this is a good listen. The first half focuses on the presidential race, who we like, whose up and whose down and whether that means anything. The last half jumps into Georgia politics and the hot items at this legislative session like property tax reform.

Gotta go!

 
 James Williams, GriftDrift Blogger [29:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (250)

Year End Greetings from the Big Apple: Doug Monroe!

Published
by
Wilson
on January 4, 2008
in Podcast
. 2 Comments

My apologies to Doug for not posting this interview last year (last week), but I am afraid my mind took the holiday break more seriously than usual. (When is the next long weekend!) I hope everyone had a safe and great time during the holidays, both Christmas and New Year’s.

Even though Doug has moved to the Big Apple, he is still a fifth generation Atlantan and keeps in touch on Georgia issues. After all, Sonny praying for water made the The Times.

In this end of the year conversation we cover Atlanta, New York, Iowa, the nation and the world. All in less than 30 minutes!

Looking to the issues the Georgia legislature will have to deal with in 2008, Doug bemoans the failure of leadership to deal with some of the serioius problems now facing the state, water and transportation being close to the top of the list. He notes that Roy Barnes and Tom Murphy made an effort (but not enough of one) to address water issues several years ago. And then, there was Zell who put a developer in charge of transportation in the state. Not a good move for the future of public mass transit.

Unfortunately, Doug did not get a dime of the billion dollar bonuses they gave out on Wall Street in December. He is as amazed, as am I, that anyone can “earn” a billion dollar bonus, particularly when their companies, in many cases, lost billions on the subprime mortgage market. This isn’t the American Dream we grew up with.

As might be expected, Doug is still disappointed in Democratic leadership and candidates. He wonders if they aren’t already dead in Georgia elections for 2008.

In the national contest for president, he favors John Edwards, who is the only Democratic candidate even attempting to talk about the issues that concern most Americans: wages in particular, the economy in general and the growing divide between the wealthy and the rest of us. (As you know by now, Edwards came in second. Not bad for a lawyer who is publically financed, not by lobbyists!)

On the Republican side, Doug thinks Rudy is on the slippery downhill slope to irrelevancy. I hope so. He is the one Republican candidate that I simply do not trust. According to Doug, people in New York don’t trust him either. Many think he is rather sleazy, even misrepresenting his role in 9-11. While he is still leading in NY, Doug thinks he is vulnerable.

By the way, Doug’s teacher’s union endorsed Hillary. I wonder if Iowa will change that.

Doug notes, with some seriousness, that a lot of people in New York are convinced that Bush and Cheney were responsible for 9-11. While you may think otherwise, New Yorkers point to the fact that the Twin Towers were heavily insured and apparently sold just before the attack. They wonder if the destroyed video tapes of the interrogation of the terrorists contain any information that would shed light on who was responsible for 9-11. You may not want to hear this, but will someone look at the video of the collapse of Building #7 (not the Towers) and tell me it was not the result of a controlled demolition! (There go my syndication chances.)

As for Saxby Chambliss’ re-election, Doug doesn’t think he has much competition. He wasn’t impressed with any of the candidates based on what he followed in “Drifting Through the Grift” about the recent senatorial debate. Doug sees the Iraq War as a big issue in the 2008 election and doesn’t understand Dale Cardwell’s position on the war. Doug thinks it sounds more like a Republican. (The problem is that it may be the position it takes to get elected in this state.)

And then we get into the news media, its’ faults and shortcomings, its failure to do what it should do: investigate and tell us the truth. On the whole, American has lost faith in the media. Doug relates some of the problem to the consolidation of media under the control of a few corporations. For example, the Cox organization owns the AJC and WSB in Atlanta, in addition to other local radio stations. The AJC lost 9% of its circulation in 6 months to become the fasting shrinking major American newspaper.

Doug points out that small, independent newspapers are doing fine, while the giants are having trouble making a profit. The problem seems to be that more and more people are turning to the internet for their news and no one has discovered a way to make money with news online.

Doug’s disdain for the crap that airs as either news or legitimate commentary is palpable. He doesn’t hold high opinions of Michael Savage or Neal Boortz on WSB. Bigots both!

It is always good to talk with Doug.

 
 Doug Monroe, Writer and Commentator [29:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (311)

Jekyll Island Development: A Question of Fairness and Justice?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 24, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Last week, I interviewed Jim Langford, the Project Executive of Linger Longer about the status of the proposed development of a new Town Center on Jekyll. This week, Wade Shealy of the Jekyll Island Company responds.

The focus of the controversy is a simple question and answer asked by persons unknown and answered by persons unknown at at June 25, 2007 compulsory meeting. In this interview, Wade explains why neither the Jekyll Island Company nor any of the other companies submitting a proposal assumed that the question and answer changed the development project from a 45-acre development to a 63-acre development. His answer is fairly simple: The written request for proposal, RFP #244, said repeatedly: Do not exceed the 45 acres specified! If the JIA intended to change the acreage on something as important as a $500 million project, you would think that the one thing the JIA could get straight was the acreage to be developed.

Linger Longer seems to be hanging it’s hat on that question and answer. The ultimate success of that position will be determined by the Superior Court of Fulton County. A preliminary test is scheduled for January 14, 2008 when the court will hold a hearing on Jekyll Island Company’s request for an injunction to prevent JIA from going ahead with the development until the issues concerning the selection process are resolved.

If the court issues an injunction, it will be because justice demands it. The question will then be whether or not the JIA will continue to fight or do the right thing, the fair thing, and go through the selection process again.

Wade says that is all his company wants: a fair selection process. He is apparently willing to trust the JIA to make a fair selection, once the acreage issue is resolved. Wade may not have much of a choice, but I have little faith in the ability of JIA to do anything fairly when it comes to selecting one development proposal over another. Just about everything the JIA did in the selection process suggests secrecy and bias. Why you ask? Money!

At stake are profits which Wade estimates to be in the range of $500 million. Think about that: $500 million. $500 millioin in profit for a private company for the privilege of developing an island owned by the people of Georgia. This is not to minimize the risk involved, or to suggest that this level of profit is unreasonable. I simply don’t know. My point is the huge incentive for the selection process to become corrupted, for political favors to be paid, for campaign contributors to be rewarded, legally, so to speak.

A curious side note! Wade was appointed by Governor Perdue to the Georgia Land Conservation Council. On December 6, 2007 the Council announced the purchase of almost 20,000 acres in 3 Georgia counties at an expenditure of $92 million. Wade says he was advised that a press conference had been scheduled to announce the decision to purchase the property. The only problem: the press conference was being scheduled before the Council voted, which means the Council was expected to simply rubber stamp a decision that had already been made. Wade questioned the propriety of scheduling a press conference before a decision had been made. While Wade did vote for the purchases, his reward for asking the question: He gets a letter from Governor Perdue telling him he is no longer on the Council, effective at the end of the month!

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the state of leadership and politics in this great state on Christmas Eve 2007. If you voted for these guys, you asked for it, you got it!

 
 Wade Shealy, Jekyll Island Company [27:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (371)

Have You Heard of Presidential Signing Statements?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 23, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

Sitting around the house over the holidays is a dangerous thing. I came across the website for the American Presidency Project, which contains a lot of information about the public papers of the Presidents, some as far back as 1789. You can find easy references to State of the Union addresses, inaugural addresses, radio addresses, executive orders and just about anything else you can think of relating to the public papers and statements of a president.

It also has for your reading pleasure the signing statements of presidents beginning with Hoover, Herbert, not J. Edgar. Never heard of a signing statement? Me neither! According to American Presidency Project,

A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

In 1929, the year of the crash, President Hoover saw fit to issue one such statement indicating his pleasure at signing a bill to build veteran hospitals. FDR signed 13 of them from 1941 through 1945, the years of WWII. It seems the frequency of issuing signing statements rose significantly after FDR. This is not surprising, since signing statements are, first and foremost, public relations tools whereby a president doesn’t just sign a bill, but either takes his share of credit for it or criticizes the Congress that passed it.

Our current president has magnified the controversy as to the legal implications of these signing statements. You have to remember that signing statements occur only where a president signs a bill into law. If he didn’t like the law, he could veto it. Instead of a veto, a president signs the legislation into law and uses a signing statement to put his spin on why he will not enforce it as written.

If you read a few of these statements, you may believe (and rightfully so) that Congress is always trying to make the president do something that he doesn’t think he should have to do. The phrase that epitomizes this attitude is “unitary executive,” a phrase apparently coined by the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan.

The following language is contained in the signing statement issued when President Bush signed into law the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006. In case you don’t recognize it by the name, this legislation incuded the McCain Anit-Torture Amendment which the President signed into law on December 30, 2005.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

I am sure we could argue about exactly what this language means, but it seems the clear intent of signing statements like this is to declare that the president gets to decide whether or not a law violates the Constitution. Thus, if the Congress makes if clear that we, as a nation, will not torture people, in this case detainees, the president gets to say this is the law only to the exent this prohibition is consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief.

The primary responsibility of the president is to enforce the law, not make it, and to some extent, not interpret it. The effect of these signing statements is to gut the balance of power established in the Constitution. The president signs a law and binds himself to enforce it, while at the same time thwarting the clear legislative intent of a valid law which he signed. The Supreme Court interprets and declares the law, but the president usurps that power by claiming the power not enforce those provisions of a law he has signed which he considers unconstitutional. He doesn’t go to court to have the law challenged. He just asserts a constitutional power that does not really exist, except in the impotency of a divided Congress.

The idea that a president can unilaterally decide whether or not a law he (or some president) has signed is constitutional was openly discussed in a 1993 memo by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton. You can also read a 2006 ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine on the use of signing statements for a better understanding of the impact of this practice on constitutional government which claims to be a government of laws.

I wonder how long this democratic society will continue where power is the goal of the great majority of all of our elected officials and the idea of a humble public servant is foreign to our politics.

A Conversation with Jane Kidd, Chair, Democratic Party of Georgia

Published
by
Wilson
on December 18, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

It was just one of those days. This conversation with Jane Kidd, Chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia didn’t start out like I expected. My bad.

I am just tired of hearing day after day example after example of the total breach of the public trust by the Republican Party. Sorry, but these guys just don’t have any philosophy of government other than power make right. When they are in the majority, they just don’t care what anyone thinks, including the American public.

I am dealing with the news this week that the Republican child, Kevin Martin, who is Chairman of the FCC, together with his Republican cohorts, is going to ignore 100% of the imput by the public and approve further consolidation of the media in this country into the control of the very few. (It just passed.)

Everyone ought to be disgusted that they are actually debating in Congress giving corporations, the phone companies, immunity from being sued for breaking the law! The only reason they are considering that is because it was the Bush White House that broke the law with them!

It galls me even more to think there are Republicans out there who think this is just fine. Please, give them your rights, but let me keep mine! Barry Goldwater would throw up and he knew what being a Republican really meant, which isn’t something this new breed of power hungry, corrupt, hypocritical, hoodlums knows anything about. The don’t govern, they don’t attempt to govern, they pillage.

Example: An acquaintance of mine told me yesterday that he received a “Dear John” letter from Governor Purdue because he raised a question about the propriety of scheduling a press conference to announce a decision by the board on which he serves, before the board even met to consider the proposal! This is essentially the same thing our dear Governor and Tommie Williams did earlier this year when they removed Sally Bethea from the DNR Board. These boards aren’t there to rubber stamp what the Governor wants. They are there to exercise a degree of independence about what is good or not good for the people of Georgia. It isn’t just that any particular board may “kiss up” to the Governor, and do his bidding (like the Jekyll Island Authority), it is that they cannot even tolerate being asked a question!

Think that is too strong? Wake up everybody! The legislature convenes in less than 3 weeks. Jane and I discussed the probability that the ‘08 legislature is going to be one of the most contentious, and that may be saying a lot. It is going to be contentious because the Republican leadership’s idea of solving problems is that you agree with them and you vote for their proposition. Anything less than that, and you are simply ignored.

When it comes to the issues of water, property tax reform and many others, are the Republican leaders going to welcome imput from the Democrats (who happen to actually represent some Georgians) or experts who may have a different opinion? Probably not, because they have already decided they want and they believe they are right. So why bother with the opinion of others.

Are they going to protect the people of Georgia in resolving the water issue or are they going to mask their true motives and do what ever it takes make sure development in Atlanta continues? Are they going to try and gut the property tax base at the expense of every city and county in this state, because most of these guys own a lot of real estate? Are they going to ever do anything about the tort reform travesty of ‘05 when they declared that Emergency Room physicians couldn’t be sued if they negligently killed you?

Okay, enough! I will shut up and you can listen to the interview which didn’t dwell on this point nearly as long as I have in this post. I refuse to remember the $100,000 tax break Governor Perdue had snuck (or is it sneaked) into a legislative bill.

Enough!

2008 is the year! Throw the bums out!

And don’t forget that Hillary and Obama and Edwards are expected to be in Atlanta on January 30, 2008 for the Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner at the World Congress Center. Get your tickets and see the next President of the United States.

If there is someone out there that would like to respond to any of these remarks, just send me an email and we will arrange an interview and you can make your case.

 
 Jane Kidd, Chair, Democratic Party of Georgia [25:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (457)

Campaign ‘08: Whose Electable? Obama and Giuliani!

Published
by
Wilson
on December 17, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Whose up and whose down? Who said the wrong word? Who has the right strategy. I can’t keep up!

Obama has Oprah, which makes the campaign the Story of Os.
Hillary (and Bill) can’t take cheap shots at Obama, which sounds sexist to me.
Edwards is the only Democrat talking like a Democrat, and can’t get the rest of Iowa to understand that we haven’t elected a sitting Senator (Obama and Hillary) since 1960.

Romney doesn’t think his Mormon faith should matter so that is all the man can talk about.

Giuliani probably can’t believe he is not currently the chosen one, considering his heroism on 5-28.

McCain gets the endorsement of The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, but is still apparently so desparate that he asks that Democrat/Independent, bi-polar, sorry excuse for a candidate in ‘00 Joe Lieberman to support him. I had rather be waterboarded. Actually, maybe this is waterboarding.

Huckabee has the faith of a preacher, but is betting on Ed Rollins to save his political soul.

And today, I find out that Ron Paul has raised another record $6 million in one day on the internet. That is like saying that someone other than Halliburton got a contract in Iraq. So what? However, I have to say go Ron Paul. By George, if nothing else, you may prove the power of the internet and people in time for ‘12.

It just seems to me that none of this makes sense. I am having a hard time keeping it straight. What I really think is this: The polls are wrong! I am betting the Iowa Caucus is having as much difficulty as I am. It’s an open race all the way to January 3, 2008. I think Edwards and McCain are the sleepers. I think Iowans are not telling the pollsters the truth. But hey, what do I know?

In this interview Bob Newman of Newman Communications, gives us his take on what is going on.

Bob thinks even though Obama is enjoying a lead in the polls, Clinton is going to edge out a victory in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the Republican side, Huckabee will win Iowa, not New Hampshire and South Carolina doesn’t matter because no preacher is going to be elected president.

The unfortunate candidates are McCain and Edwards, both of whom epitomize the core beliefs of their respective parties, but neither seem to be able to capitalize on the issues. McCain may be paying for his support of Bush and the War. Edwards should be the most electable but doesn’t seem to be captivating the electorate. But don’t count him out.

Georgia seemed to be Fred Thompson’s back yard a few months ago. Now, it appears that Fred is either lazy or old or both, but in any event he is out of it for all practical purposes.

Bob would like to see Obama get the nomination. It would make for an exciting election. His problem is trying to acheive broad appeal to whites and blacks. He is not talking about the typical black issues, so as to avoid being perceived as a Jesse Jackson. Clinton, on the other hand, has inherited Bill’s broad base of support among African Americans, which explains why Obama brought out the Oprah. For this reason, Bob wonders if Obama’s lead in the polls is legitimate and raises the possibilities that the Iowa electorate doesn’t want to say on the record that they aren’t voting for Obama.

All things said, the bottom line is who is the most electable? Bob says: Obama for the Democrats and Gulliani for the Republicans.

And the most important question: Is there any chance a Democrat won’t win in ‘08? Bob answers this question by saying that he thinks there is a chance that Giuliani could win.

If the Democrats can’t win in ‘08, I will just……

 
 Bob Newman, Newman Communications, Public Relations & Political Consultant [29:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (290)