"I happen to believe in the people and believe that the people are supposed to be dominant in our society. That they, not government, are to have control of their own affairs to the greatest extent possible with an orderly society." - Ronald Reagan

We got the beat.

Posted: July 13th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Buffalo | No Comments »

Buffalo is launching a pilot expansion of its foot and bicycle patrols today, focusing first in commercial districts and parks. Initially two additional officers on two shifts in each of five districts will be assigned to the program.

I’m glad to see the city utilize the additional manpower they’ve added to the police force in this way. Though arguably effective, some of the crime initiatives introduced by Mayor Brown run the risk of reinforcing perceptions of law enforcement as an adversarial presence. Surveillance cameras might have a net positive effect on crime rates, they put people in mind of “big brother”. Raids might be necessary, but people should see cops when they aren’t brandishing guns and kicking down doors.


More of this, please.

Posted: July 11th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: International | No Comments »

I just read Obama’s speech and his interview with allAfrica. Bravo.

I have been generally underwhelmed by his past speeches; I found his race speech craven and self-serving, and his inauguration speech far too littered with petty barbs toward his predecessor. The tone and tenor the President strikes here is spot on, though – clear advocacy of western values and a focus on self-determination and individual responsibility.

Surprisingly I found much to agree with in terms of policy. His remarks to the effect that the purpose of aid must be “creating the conditions where it’s no longer needed” even put me in mind of Reagan speaking on welfare policy, and focusing on investment over aid is just plain smart.

I was also pleased to see him acknowledge Bush, if only for one aspect of his efforts in Africa. Sadly few seem to be aware of that aspect of his legacy, much less praise him for it.


The presence of the doctor is the beginning of the cure.

Posted: July 9th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: National | No Comments »

The debate on health care seems dominated by cost.  How much, and where will it come from?  Important questions, particularly in the midst of a recession, but a more important question might be, “Where will they come from?”

Money makes the world go round, but it will not cause doctors and nurses to materialize out of thin air.  Extending coverage to forty million new patients and promoting broader preventative care might be a laudable goal but that doesn’t change the basic fact that increasing demand with a growing supply shortfall will have significant repercussions.  Costs will go up, availability will go down or both.

Any rational attempt to control costs and expand coverage needs to treat this a core issue, and yet it gets scant mention if acknowledged at all.  Why?


Yay?

Posted: July 9th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: New York | 1 Comment »

The crisis in Albany appears to be finally coming to an end.  Senator Espada has reportedly agreed to return to the Democratic caucus and will be installed as majority leader.


Exactly.

Posted: July 7th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: National | 1 Comment »

Interviewing with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Vice President Biden declared, “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy.”  Exactly.  Exactly.

The stimulus plan had broad support, if not the universal consensus claimed here by Biden and previously by President Obama.  The projections were prepared and endorsed by men and women at the top of their field.  Geniuses.  Nobel laureates.  And they were wrong.

Doubtless many will argue that the spending has had a net positive effect, that they just misjudged the baseline.  There may be some truth to that.  Others will argue the bulk of the stimulus hasn’t happened yet, that it was always a long game proposition.  That isn’t how it was sold, but it’s certainly how it’s played out so far.  Still others say the whole idea of a stimulus was misguided, or that it should have included more tax cuts, or that it was too large, or that it was too small.

The details don’t matter.  The bottom line is that incredibly smart, eminently qualified people aren’t omniscient, even in aggregate.  That strikes me as a powerful reason not to bet hundreds of billions that they are.


Missing the point.

Posted: July 7th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: International | No Comments »

Speaking in Moscow, President Obama has doubled down on Hondurus:

America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies.  We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.

Whether or not they violate the constitution?  Whether or not they openly defy their courts and legislature?  Whether or not they threaten and punish their military leaders for refusing to be complicit in their designs?

Regardless of whether the removal was executed properly, there were clearly grounds and the circumstances were arguably grounds for expedience.  That the President pro tem is the lawfully designated successor alone should be grounds for recognition that this is no military coup.  If anything, it would seem more a young democracy defending itself.

It is difficult to see what compelling interest we have in supporting the restoration of Zelaya to office for the remaining six months of his term, if not a cynical attempt to secure the favour of more strategically important American countries.  It would have been more respectful of Honduran sovereignty to meet with their government before making incontrovertible pronouncements about the legality of their actions and to focus on conduct during the upcoming elections.


Big business, big government.

Posted: July 6th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: General | No Comments »

The Republicans are often branded the party of big business.  As the narrative goes free markets allow business to run roughshod over the interests of individuals.  Even if one accepts that maxim – and I don’t – it ignores the reality that big government often favours big business even more effectively than a free market.

Consider, for example, the Yahoo! data center coming to Lockport, which is being heralded as a potential “re-boot” of the jobs market in the region.  To be sure, a high profile internet company could potentially attract both jobs and talented applicants to the region.  The cost of attracting them?  A complete sales tax abatement, no property taxes for ten years and reduced taxes for the next ten, and a sweetheart deal from the power authority projected to save in excess of a hundred million in the next fifteen years.

Every tax is an opportunity for favouritism.  Ever regulation a barrier to entry.  Large businesses know this and often use it to their advantage.  Is it more likely Philip Morris supported the recent tobacco out of concern for consumers, or because the advertising restrictions favour the incumbent market leader (i.e. themselves)?  Is it more likely Walmart is backing an employer mandate out of concern for their employees, or because they expect economy of scale is in their advantage?

Even when passed with the best of intentions, legislation passed in haste can have unintended and often disastrous consequences that disparately favour entrenched or dominant companies.  The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Safety Act is a prime example.  Sparked by the import of lead tainted goods by major toy makers like Hasbro and Fisher-Price, the brunt of the impact has been felt by small businesses and independent sellers that now find it difficult or impossible to continue selling products that were safe all along.

This isn’t to say Republicans are blameless in this regard; quite to the contrary.  Politicians as a class are prone to seek aggrandizement, even in acts ostensibly done to the benefit of their constituents.  Making deals with powerful entities comes naturally.  Expanding government makes that easier.


Sizing up the locals.

Posted: July 2nd, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: Buffalo | 1 Comment »

I have to confess, my grasp of regional politics leaves something to be desired. To some degree, my ignorance reflects the greater indifference of the community.  National issues tend to crowd out local ones – in conversation, in news, in radio – even when they pale in actual impact.  Not that I excuse my own shortcomings, mind you.

The challenge now is finding trustworthy news and commentary, and I have to admit the task is somewhat daunting.  Not only are there far fewer sources, but my own lack of knowledge hinders my ability to evaluate commentary.  What sounds plausible in ignorance is not always reasonable.

Recommendations are appreciated, of course.


Children.

Posted: July 1st, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: New York | 4 Comments »

I would comment in more depth on the mess in Albany, but frankly the subject is too depressing.  I’ve decided to pretend they’re shooting a new reality TV show named “Senate” to help close our budget gap.


Jumping to conclusions.

Posted: June 30th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: International | 2 Comments »

Many have noted the apparent disparity between Obama’s muted response to the Iranian protests and his prompt repudiation of Zelaya’s exile from Hondurus.  Indeed, it’s puzzling and not a little troubling that the President is so quick to dismiss the ostensibly lawful actions of a foreign legislature and judiciary as a coup.

However, on reviewing his early statements on Iran, it is difficult to conclude inconsistency.  Though many summarize his stance as an aversion to “meddling”, his exact words are more nuanced: “It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling … in Iranian elections.”

He is clearly speaking to appearances in light of our prior involvement in regime change in Iran, and it isn’t a consideration to be taken lightly.   Whether one agrees with his approach, robbing it of an explicitely stated context is grossly disingenuous.

That still leaves open the question of why such a prompt and unequivocal support of the deposed leader, which many take as tacit approval of the man and his goals.  Though a consistent and at least marginally plausible explanation, it seems pat.  I suspect it actually reflects a broader emphasis on consequence over ideology; a politically cheap way of currying favour with larger powers.