Skip to main content

A Government Of The People, By The People And For The Senators


“You cannot restore the fiscal integrity and competitive posture of this state unless you do three things: first, reduce state spending in absolute dollar terms; second, renegotiate state employee benefit arrangements in a manner that is fair to employees, retirees and the taxpayers who must pay the tab; third, right size state government and revise its operational practices. We also need to engage in regulatory relief and tax reform and other actions, but these three actions are critical.”

That is Dave Walker, speaking more or less off the cuff. This is standard conservative – i.e. Chicago School – economic doctrine.

A Republican running for Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Walker does not pull his punches. But because he is vying for a position comparable to John Nance Garner’s colorful description of the office of the Vice President, the punches land softly on the opposition. Mr. Garner, Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President, once described his largely ceremonial duties in scatological terms that would be frowned upon even today: He said of the Vice Presidency-- “It isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.” Cleaned up by the usual Puritans, this is how Mr. Garner's estimation of the VP office has come down to us. Mr. Garner had not mentioned “spit” but rather another unmentionable body fluid.

Within the state, the lieutenant governor’s position is comparable to that of the Vice Presidency. Some people think it’s not worth much more than Mr. Garner's estimation of his own position. The Lieutenant Governor, like the Vice President, is at the beck and call of the chief executive; he presides over the legislature when it is in session and may decide split votes, a remote possibility in Connecticut’s one-party state. The Democratic hegemony in the state’s General Assembly is longstanding, and Democrats now control the chief executive office for the first time in twenty-three years. Republicans are within striking distance in the Senate, and some polls indicate that the gubernatorial slot may be up for grabs.

Mr. Walker is highly overqualified for the position he is seeking. Asked why he is not running for governor, he tips his hat genteelly to precedence. It is very unusual, not to mention ungracious, in Connecticut politics for newcomers to successfully storm the Bastille. The normal practice is to wait your turn in the usual line of succession.

Because the position is not an appointive one, Lieutenant Governors run independently of governors, which means that the governor occasionally may be yoked with a partner whose political vision is at cross-purposes to his own.  When Governor Jodi Rell, herself a Lieutenant Governor, stepped into former Governor John Rowland’s empty shoes, her Lieutenant Governor for a time was, by the luck of the draw, Kevin Sullivan, a Democratic Party stalwart who served in the slot for three years before being replaced by Republican Michael Fedele. Because the Lieutenant Governor position traditionally has been for the most part worth little more politically than a warm bucket of spit, the Democratic Party interloper was not able to do permanent damage to Mrs. Rell, still the most popular governor of the last four, including Governor Dannel Malloy, whose popularity ratings during his first term in office may accurately be termed worth little more than a warm bucket of spit.

Mr. Malloy’s problem is more than the economy -- stupid. The national economy recovered from the Great Recession three years ago, but Connecticut has not, and it is instructive to ask why.

The “Great Recession” was caused chiefly by the bursting of the housing mortgage bubble. If President Barrack Obama had dedicated his first term in office to an effort to restore the bruised housing market, Mr. Obama, and all Democrats running for office this year, would have been untouchable. But Democrats, following Mr. Obama’s lead,  decided instead to reach for a rusty brass ring that had been clanking around in the progressive attic since the days of Eugene Debs – universal health care. Obamacare, one of its variants, is simply a baby step in the direction of a universal healthcare system, a Veterans Administration for the nation at large. The result was, and is, chaos and progressive economic anarchy.

Crises, however, are the sort of thing that energize progressives. Here in Connecticut, and elsewhere in the nation, progressives have employed such crises to corral special interests – women persecuted by Republicans, unions, academia, sloppy thinkers in the media, African Americans imprisoned in wondrously gilded welfare cages, Latinos used to quasi-socialist political systems in their home countries, permanently duped molecular Democrats – and so advance their own cause. The watchword of progressive musclemen is: Never let an artificially caused crisis go to waste, and any crisis that does not enhance electability is wasteful.

In “Democracy” -- a novel by Henry Adams, begun in London in 1867 but published anonymously much later in 1880; Adams had  instructed his publisher to bring the novel out on April Fool’s Day -- one of the supporting characters, possibly speaking on behalf of Mr. Adams himself, describes the Washington D.C. scene, even then, during the post-Civil War period, full of lobbyists and cagey congressional incumbents, this way: “The government of the United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the Senators.”

And THAT is the problem.


No Republican in Connecticut has thus far articulated the problem compellingly. But Mr. Walker has come close. Proper articulation is the first step in problem solving.

Comments

peter brush said…
first, reduce state spending in absolute dollar terms
-----
God Bless Walker (and McKinney).

I appreciate Gov-manque Pelto's forthright exposure of the Nutmeg governance fraud, but forcibly extracting more revenue from "the rich" to fix the honestly-analyzed budget failure is both wrong and ultimately impractical. Both our Federal and our State governments are running up debt at a rate that is simply unsustainable with any imagined taxing. (The left seems to think unsustainable is somehow different than not being able to pay for it. Who cares about sustainability as long as we keep increasing revenue?)
But, there is something afoot in Dem-witted political theorizing. Both our Bill Curry and the Abominable Mrs. Klinton have recently discovered that their party has lost its soul. It should be more like Ralph Nader or Jonathan Pelto; ideologically honest, ethically upright, and more solicitous of the wants of the People . The trouble is that the reason our spending is out of control is that the Dem Party has since 1932 operated without regard for Constitutional limits. Their pursuit of social justice through demagoguery, their kissing of the ass of the donkey masses, is disrespectful of the self-governing People. But, can the Dems not look around the place, acknowledge all the good their rational policies have accomplished, and simply pay for and operate the machine they've created? No way; they are having a dream in which they are forever marching on against the interminably bitter clingers.
Still, its not a bad thing to have Democrats acknowledge that they don't know who they are, what they are doing, or even what they want.
----------
Curry:
If Democrats can’t break up with Obama or make up with Nader, they should do what they do best: take a poll. They would find that beneath all our conflicts lies a hidden consensus. It prizes higher ethics, lower taxes and better governance; community and privacy; family values and the First Amendment; economic as well as cultural diversity. Its potential coalition includes unions, small business, nonprofits, the professions, the economically embattled and all the marginalized and excluded. Such a coalition could reshape our politics, even our nation.
------
"We have to go back out and sell ourselves," Clinton said. "It is not to be taken for granted. What do we stand for and, how do we intend to lead and manage? How do we try to enlist the rest of the world in this struggle between cooperation and order and conflict and disorder which is really at the root of so much that's going on today, and i don't think we've done a very good job of that...We spend a lot of money and a lot of time and effort trying to be influential around the world when I think we would be able to succeed more effectively if we were clearer about who we are and what we stand for and the values that we hold."
peter brush said…
Thanks, Don, for your work. Sorry for the inconvenience.
---------
Curry's piece at "Salon" is really quite pitiful. It brings to mind that old Bob Dylan lyric about one Mr. Jones who knows something is happening, but he doesn't know what it is. Reading Curry one gets the impression that the Party hasn't done well in recent elections; that the country isn't blessed with pseudo-Keynesian deficits, quasi-nationalized healthcare, the Dodd-Frank elimination of "too-big-to-fail," gay marriage, and global climate control through eradication of U.S. fossil fuel extraction and use; not to mention an exquisitely egalitarian immigration "policy."

The reason for the Dem failure, according to Curry is that they don't like the People, and therefore have no ideas. The Dems have become corrupt, or at least unethical, because of their love of money. Obama's "longest list of unkept promises is the one titled 'ethics and open government.'” But, unlike Ralph Nader, Curry doesn't call for the impeachment of the President. For him Obama's failure is not a gross and serial violation of law, fundamental and statutory, but his embrace of Wall Street and K Street.

I don't claim to have read the entire piece, but one thing that strikes me about it is its reference to the Constitution zero times. He's committed to a teleocratic government, to a government that "gets things done," without limits other than perceived goodness of policy. One would think he'd celebrate the progress the Dems have made in transforming the country into such a teleocracy, not to say a banana republic led by nit-wit autocrats.
-------------

When it comes to the current president, Nader said that Obama has violated the Constitution on several occasions and should be impeached.

"Oh, most definitely," Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. "The reason why Congress doesn't want to do it is because it's abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution."
-----
Curry:
"We’re in crisis because of all our broken systems; because we still let big banks prey on homeowners, students, consumers and retailers; because our infrastructure is decrepit; because our tax code breeds inefficiency and inequality; because foreign interventions bled us dry. We’re in peril because our democracy is dying. Reviving it will take more than deficit spending and easy money. It will take reform...
(But Democrats) don’t believe in ideas because they don’t believe in
Don Pesci said…
Bill Curry has been writing that book featuring the Clintons for a long while, certainly more than five years. He got stuck in the middle of it and really doesn’t know why; it’s not writer’s block. The danger in writing about the Clintons is the danger in writing about any live subject. People are naughty, and people not yet dead, particularly if they are actively involved in politics, tend to lay waste the plans of mice and men. This would include Mr. Curry. His understanding of progressivism is just slightly off. And if he is waiting for moderates in Connecticut’s Democratic Party to awaken and grab the governance tiller from progressives, I’m afraid he will be sorely disappointed. He should hold up on the book for another ten years, at which point Connecticut, under the progressive hegemony, will be quite dead and much easier to write about.
Bill Buckley had him on Firing Line once or twice. When they later met – I think at the Hartford Library, where Bill was performing – Mr. Curry was running for governor against John Rowland. Mr. Buckley approached him, smiled that world conquering smile of his, warmly grasped his hand and said “I plan to vote against you, with the greatest reluctance.”

Here’s something on the Nader-Curry romance: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2011/01/nader-hearts-curry-harpoons-dodd.html

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p