Category Archives: Politics – General

The risk of supporting a former girlfriend

Posted on by
2

Hecht and Miers.jpgIt’s reasonably clear that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht didn’t think anything of it when he gave dozens of media interviews last year supporting President Bush’s nomination to the US Supreme Court of his former girlfriend and fellow parishoner, trusted Bush White House advisor Harriet Miers.
But the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct didn’t view Justice Hecht’s politicking on behalf of Miers in the same way. In May, the Commission issued an ethics rebuke to Justice Hecht, determining that he had improperly used the prestige of his office to support the nomination of Miers. Earlier this week, Justice Hecht appealed that decision to a three-judge panel during a hearing in Ft. Worth (hat tip to Peter Lattman for the link).
The Commission accused Justice Hecht of going ìon a specific mission, a campaign, in connection with certain parties in the White House and their operativesî and, in so doing, violated two canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:

ìA judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others;î and
ìA judge . . . shall not authorize the public use of his or her name endorsing another candidate for any public office.î

In response, Justice Hecht contends that the Commission misapplied the canons because Miers was not a political candidate, was not involved in a political election race and had no election opponent. Moreover, Justice Hecht observed that reporters were interested in his views about Miers because of his three-decade friendship with her, not because of his status as a Texas Supreme Court Justice.
The three-judge panel has 60 days in which to issue a ruling. The panel’s decision may be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, which Hecht lawyer Chip Babcock contends that he will if the Commission’s rebuke of Justice Hecht is upheld.

What’s really behind the Andrew Young-Wal-Mart flap

Posted on by
Reply

wal_mart logo2.gifThis NY Times article reports on the flap over the recent remarks of Andrew Young, the colleague of Martin Luther King who went on to become the first black congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction and one of Atlanta’s most prominent politicians.
Young had recently become a consultant for Wal-Mart, but that particular job didn’t last long after Young was quoted during a recent interview “defending” Wal-Mart as not being so bad for black people because Jewish, Arab and Korean store owners had traditionally ìripped offî black neighborhoods by ìselling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables.î Concluding that Young’s defense of the company was faint praise, Wal-Mart understandably let him go.
As would be expected, the Times article focuses on the angst that Young’s remarks has generated among the folks who are preoccupied with race relations, but Larry Ribstein observes the much more troubling dynamic that is truly behind Young’s remarks:

I don’t believe civil rights hero Young is a bigot. But unfortunately the bigoted nature of his remarks will draw attention from the real prejudice here — against capitalism. It’s really all about people who want to make a profit, and those who insist that this is a zero sum game that has to be ripping off the customers.
The result of this attitude is anti-Wal-Mart laws like the one coming up in Chicago that hurt the very people Young fought to defend. Even when hired to defend Wal-Mart, Young couldn’t resist bashing it, and others who tried to make a buck.

Meanwhile, along the same lines, Jeff Matthews analyzes Senator Joe Biden’s recent anti-Wal-Mart remarks and how they reveal the leadership void within the Democratic Party. Check it out.
Update: The always-insightful Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal chimes in with this column ($) echoing the same thoughts and more.

An Enronesque public scam

Posted on by
Reply

Spitzer60.jpgThis NY Times article reveals a scam that New York AG (“attorney general” or “aspiring governor,” take your pick) Eliot Spitzer won’t touch with a ten-foot pole:
Every year since 1999, New York City has reported that it has all the money it needs to pay for the pensions that have been promised to city workers.

With the retirement plans said to be financially sound, state politicians have happily showered city employees with generous pension enhancements ó annual cost-of-living increases, holiday bonus payments, early retirement with full benefits ó that are the envy of private-sector workers, whose pension benefits have eroded.
But a close inspection of city pension records shows that the funds committed to the plans may fall well short of the cityís promises to hundreds of thousands of current and retired workers. They look fully funded chiefly because the city has been using an unusual pension calculation that does not comply with accepted government accounting rules. Even the cityís chief actuary, who helps produce the annual reports, says the official numbers are ìmeaninglessî when it comes to showing the plansí financial health.
The chief actuary, Robert C. North, has prepared a little-noticed set of alternative calculations showing that the gap in the pension funds could be as wide as $49 billion. That is nearly the size of the cityís entire annual budget and the equivalent of the cityís publicly disclosed outstanding debt.[ . . .]

Continue reading →

Now, let me get this straight

Posted on by
1

POLICE OFFICER & WHISTLE.gifI am not astute politically, so I usually leave analysis of such matters to more politically savvy bloggers, such as local pundits Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff, as well as Kevin Whited and Anne Linehan over at blogHouston.net.
And I also certainly don’t condone public officials using their clout to obtain favorable treatment for their family members and friends who mess up and find themselves embroiled in the criminal justice system.
However, after reading this article, it occurs to me that the attorney general of New Jersey was forced to resign earlier this week essentially because she forgot some some items in her boyfriend’s car and the boyfriend wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
What am I missing?

Nice gig if you can get it

Posted on by
1

Downsizing the federal government.jpgCato Institute tax director Chris Edwards — author of Downsizing the Federal Government (Cato 2005) — addresses in this Washington Post article the myth that a job in the federal government involves much of a sacrifice of what the “servant” could earn in the private sector:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released data this month showing that the average compensation for the 1.8 million federal civilian workers in 2005 was $106,579 — exactly twice the average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector: $53,289. If you consider wages without benefits, the average federal civilian worker earned $71,114, [which is] 62 percent more than the average private-sector worker, who made $43,917.
The high level of federal pay is problematic in and of itself, but so is its rapid growth. Since 1990 average compensation for federal workers has increased by 129 percent, the BEA data show, compared with 74 percent for private-sector workers.
Why is federal compensation growing so quickly? For one thing, federal pay schedules increase every year regardless of how well the economy is doing. Thus in recession years, private pay stagnates while government pay continues to rise. Another factor is the steadily increasing “locality” payments given to federal workers in higher-cost cities.
Rapid growth in federal pay also results from regular promotions that move workers into higher salary brackets regardless of performance and from redefining jobs upward into higher pay ranges. [. . .]
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the rate of layoffs and firings in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector. [. . .]
One sign that federal workers have a sweeter deal than they acknowledge is the rate of voluntary resignation from government positions: just one-quarter the rate in the private sector, the BLS data show. Long job tenure has its pros and cons, but the fact that many federal workers burrow in and never leave suggests that they are doing pretty well for themselves.

And that’s not even considering the enormous cost to businesses and lives resulting from the misguided work of some of those well-paid federal employees.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Posted on by
Reply

jail10.jpgSeveral posts from last year (here, here and here) addressed one of the constants of my 27-year legal career in Houston — the chronically abysmal condition of the Harris County Jail. With this article, the Chronicle’s Steve McViker continues the Chronicle’s series on the problem that no Harri County official seems to want to solve. Despite showing a “good faith effort” to correct problems at the jail, the Texas Commission on Jail Standards has concluded that the jail will remain decertified for the third straight year.
During an inspection of the jail earlier this month, commission officials found that “although there were over 700 available beds, there were 548 inmates without bunks,” which followed a 2005 commission report in which it noted that just under 1,300 inmates were sleeping on the floor. Meanwhile, Harris County officials continue to dawdle over increasing staffing at the jail and even are dragging their feet in regard to the Chronicle’s open records requests regarding jail matters.
Last year, Scott Henson over at Grits for Breakfast wrote a fine series of posts that addressed the reasons for the problems at the Harris County Jail and what needed to be done to correct those problems. As has been the case for decades in Houston, Harris County officials continue to do the minimum necessary to avoid a state-mandated closing of the jail while avoiding the difficult work of actually addressing the causes of the jail’s problems by implementing necessary changes in the jail’s administration and the local criminal justice system.
A community’s soul is often reflected by how the community deals with constituencies who are unpopular and have no political power. In the case of Houston and the people most impacted by the Harris County Jail, that reflection is ugly and — as shown by this community’s remarkable response to the Gulf Coast evacuees last year after Hurricane Katrina — not an accurate indication of our community’s conscience. It is well-past time that Harris County officials prepare and implement a plan to resolve the local jail’s chronic problems once and for all, and here’s hoping that the Chronicle and the TCJS stay on their tails until they do. Houston deserves better.

Colbert strikes yet again

Posted on by
Reply

colbert3.jpgEventually, Congressional staffers are going to refuse to allow their bosses to be interviewed by Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert (previous posts here).
However, until they do, let’s continue to enjoy Colbert exposing the hilarious (and somewhat frightening) lack of perspective among our nation’s members of Congress, this time of Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia (remember, it’s not a state):

Let’s do lunch

Posted on by
Reply

munitz12.jpglockyer140.jpgYes, lunch in LA can be so interesting.
You remember Barry Munitz, don’t you? Former UH wunderkind president, Maxxam executive, California state university administrator and besieged Getty Museum director, the talented Mr. Munitz certainly knows how to get around the key social circles in SoCal. Previous posts on Munitz are here.
And remember California attorney general Bill Lochyer? He is that gem of statesmanship who told an interviewer in 2001 during the aftermath of the California power crisis that “I would love to personally escort [the late former Enron chairman and CEO Ken] Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'” Of course, left unsaid by Lockyer was that Lay and Enron had little to do with that crisis, which was caused primarily by California state politicians (including then state senator Lockyer) who botched deregulation of electric utilities by freezing retail power rates while utilities bought juice from a newly-created wholesale market at prices that had no caps. Lockyer is the sort of politician who prefers to rely on myths and appeal to resentment rather than confront the truth.
Lockyer’s office launched an investigation of then Getty Museum chief Munitz in mid-2005 after the LA Times reported that Munitz had made grants to friends, demanded a raise amid cost-cutting, traveled lavishly, expense and used staff to perform personal errands, all at the expense of the non-profit Getty (subsequent post here). Munitz resigned as the Getty Museum CEO this past February, agreeing to forgo more than $2 million under his contract with the Getty and to reimburse the non-profit $250,000 to resolve “continuing disputes.”
However, it’s now almost August and still nothing has been heard from Lockyer’s investigation of Munitz. So, the LA Times started nosing around and asking questions and, earlier this week, Lockyer responded to the Times by admitting that he and Munitz had met in mid-January for lunch (at LA’s Rocket Pizza, which has very good crust), smack dab in the middle of Lockyer’s investigation of Munitz and a month before Munitz bailed out from the Getty.
Lockyer, who is now running for California state treasurer (can’t this guy get a real job?), is in full retreat over the disclosure. He actually told the Times that the get-together did not violate his unwritten policy of not meeting alone with targets of an investigation because the probe was not discussed.

“This was, in my mind, lunch with a personal friend that I’ve known for a long time and it didn’t have anything to do with the case,” he said. . . “I was being a good listener, kind of consoling him as he leaves a job that he loves,” said Lockyer, characterizing the discussion, which eventually shifted to books and movies, as “therapy with a friend.”

I bet the pizza was good, too.

Innocence as a distraction

Posted on by
4

death penalty.jpgDavid Dow, a University Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Houston, is one of nation’s leading experts on the death penalty and the author of Executed on a Technicality: Lethal Injustice on America’s Death Row (Beacon 2006) (previous death penalty posts here). Rick Garnett passes along this NY Times op-ed from several weeks ago in which Professor Dow makes the interesting point that “innocence is a distraction” in the political and legal debate over capital punishment:

For too many years now, though, death penalty opponents have seized on the nightmare of executing an innocent man as a tactic to erode support for capital punishment in America.
Innocence is a distraction. . . [M]ost people on death row did what the state said they did. But that does not mean they should be executed.
Focusing on innocence forces abolitionists into silence when a cause cÈlËbre turns out to be guilty. When the DNA testing [proved that such a defendant] was a murderer, and a good liar besides, abolitionists wrung their hands about how to respond. They seemed sorry that he had been guilty after all.
I, too, am a death penalty opponent, but I was happy to learn that [the defendant] was a murderer. I was happy that the prosecutors would not have to live with the guilt of knowing that they sent an innocent man to death row. . . .
As Justice Scalia has said elsewhere, of course we are going to execute innocent people if we have the death penalty. The criminal justice system is made up of human beings, and fallible beings make mistakes.
But perhaps that is a price society is willing to pay. If the death penalty is worth having, it might still be worth having, despite the occasional loss of innocent life. . .
[We] ought to focus on the far more pervasive problem: that the machinery of death in America is lawless, and in carrying out death sentences, we violate our legal principles nearly all of the time.

Professor Dow nails the key issue in the death penalty debate. Proponents of the death penalty reason that it is not wrong for the state to kill a person as punishment for murder where that person was lawfully convicted in a fair and accurate criminal justice process. However, reasonable proponents of the death penalty must confront the reality that errors will occur in carrying out the death penalty in even a morally-justified criminal justice system. By making the above-stated moral justification the central issue in the debate, proponents of the death penalty are overlooking the glaring defects in the process that undermine the moral justification.

Nice gesture, but what about these folks?

Posted on by
Reply

hempleaf-746083.gifThis NY Times article reports on Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch’s intervention recently on behalf of Dallas Austin, a 35-year-old, black record producer who had been arrested, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison in Dubai for possession of about a gram of cocaine. Kudos to Senator Hatch for helping prevent a talented man from enduring an injustice over a victimless crime.
But as noted in this previous post, the American criminalization of drug possession is a costly nightmare on many fronts. Currently, over 350,000 people languish in American prisons for drug possession. Commenting on Senator Hatch’s intervention on behalf of Austin, David Boaz over at the Cato @ Liberty blog observes:

Surely Hatch thinks regular old Americans are due the same consideration as a Grammy-winning singer. Heíd advocate the release of any American convicted of possessing 1.26 grams of cocaine, right?
Or are politicians hypocrites? Could it be that they think average Americans like Richard Paey should go to jail for using large amounts of painkillers, but not celebrities like Rush Limbaugh? Could it be that they laugh about their own past drug use while supporting a policy that arrests 1.5 million Americans a year, as a classic John Stossel ìGive Me a Breakî segment showed? (Not online, unfortunately, but you can read a commentary here.)
Putting people in jail for using drugs is bad enough. Putting the little people in jail while politicians chortle over their own drug use and pull strings to get celebrities out of jail is hypocrisy on a grand scale.