Drunk Driving Laws - Wrong approach and a lot of wasted money

The popular (and perhaps populist) approach to drunk driving is increasing strict limits on blood alcohol content (BAC) and increasingly harsh penalties. This is the wrong approach.

Keep in mind when I say this that I'm a DWI lawyer in Albany, NY. I make good money off this system. If there were fewer DWI arrests, and if the consequences were less severe, I'd get fewer clients and I wouldn't be able to charge as much money for what I do. I'm arguing for an approach that would cost me a lot of money.

DWI laws start (in NY at least) at a BAC of 0.05. You might think otherwise, but I have had clients who were charged with BACs as low as 0.05 (that one was dismissed). I've had a couple of others at 0.06 and 0.07 (both resolved with violations not a part of the DUI system).

0.05 is too low of a threshold. So is 0.08. Personally, I don't believe much in the BAC system at all. If the person is impaired or intoxicated, then prove that. The BAC system makes it easier to convict people, even when they're not a problem on the road.

I've blogged about this before in a DWI-related post on my Albany Lawyer blog.

From the policy perspective, there are other things we can do that would be more effective.

What can we do that would work better? How about a genuine mass transit system for the greater Albany area? Then you zone areas around certain stations for nightlife, with little or no parking nearby. Now drinkers have a way to get to their watering hole without driving. Inherent in this approach is the recognition that drinking is a normal part of human existence, instead of the prohibitionists mindset that drives current laws. Mass transit would save so many lives even beyond DWI.

How about changing local zoning codes so bars can't have more than 1 parking space for every four customers (figuring # of customers for an average night)? Currently most towns require such establishments to have lots of parking. If we modify the zoning to reduce parking, that would encourage carpooling (with a designated driver, hopefully), mass transit, and taxis.

How about getting rid of speed traps on safe highways, and putting those cops on a detail to look for problem drivers? Remember the TV show CHiPs from years ago. Ponch and Judy (I forget the other guy's name - John?) would sit on bridges watching the highway and when they saw a problem driver they'd check it out. Now we've got these highly trained Troopers sitting in U-turns with the mindless task of tagging safe drivers with a laser and then ticketing them for driving as fast as the Trooper drives on his own time.

All of these things would be more effective, less expensive, and less intrusive in the lives of regular people. DWI charges are devastating to the average Jane or Joe. Let's stop wasting their money, and while we're at it, stop wasting ours.

Byy the way, I've been accused on occasion of thinking outside the box. I think the ideas above are an example of that. My weakness is not being too good at thinking inside the box. I don't really consider it a problem but others do.

Is Gillibrand chicken?

Here's a line from Gillibrand's website:
"I am not afraid to put out policy ideas and will discuss them in open forums throughout the district during this campaign and hopefully well beyond."

I'm not sure what she means by an open forum. I offered to debate her (and I believe Eric Sundwall has extended the same offer). I'll debate her anytime, anywhere, on any topic. She can choose the time, place, manner and topic or topics. I'm happy to have Sweeney, McNulty and Sundwall invited as well. If she wants the debate in her district, that's fine with me. If she really wants to discuss policy ideas, then all she has to do is let me know when and where -- she can even surprise me with the topic. Still no response after 3 weeks. Maybe a debate isn't an open forum ... but she did challenge Sweeney to a debate. Hmm.

I wonder why Gillibrand is dodging this. If she debates me and Sweeney doesn't show, she gets good press coverage and Sweeney looks like a dope or a coward (not sure he'd look different if he showed). Except of course, maybe she's not really ready to debate. She seems good at politics, but policy may not be her bag. She knows Sweeney can't debate his way out of a frat party, so she can challenge him and not worry about it. I don't think that's really it. She probably would do okay in a debate (as long as she stays away from her idiotic position on CAFE standards).

The other problem is that if she agrees to debate me, I get good press coverage and that helps me against McNulty. She doesn't want to step on his toes. Of course, everyone tells me he's invincible so why would it bother him? Answer: Because he's not really invincible if his challenger gets press coverage.

Gillibrand is smoking something

All this talk about medical marijuana, and now we find out Kirsten Gillibrand is smoking something.

Apparently she just took the position that the "corporate average fuel economy" (CAFE) for each car manufacturer in 10 years should be 60 mpg. If I'm not mistaken, there's not a single car on the road in the US that gets 60 mpg. The Prius comes close, and the Insight is no longer being manufactured.

And she's talking about 60 mpg being the average. That means some cars would have to do better than 60 mpg, and few cars would be viable if they did much worse than 50 mpg.

I don't know what she's smoking, but she's smoking something, and it must be good. Maybe she was sitting in the garage too long with the engine running and the Carbon Monoxide went to her head.

CAFE is just plain stupid policy. Regulations like CAFE are not the real answer to raising fuel economy (which we should do). Take a look at Japan and Europe. They have no CAFE standards. But they use much less gasoline overall and fuel efficient cars are much more common. Gosh and golly gee whillickers, how do they do that?

Big gas taxes. Gas in Europe and Japan costs between $4.50 and $6 per gallon these days there, and their prices have been high for a long time. Our prices only recently got to $3/gallon, and just a few years ago were near $1/gallon. If gas cost $5/gallon consistently here in the US, people would drive more fuel-efficient cars. It's that simple.

But let's be very, very clear, I do not for one second support increased gas taxes unless there is a corresponding reduction in other taxes. If the typical driver does 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg, that's 480 gallons a year. A $2/gallon gas tax would cost that driver about $1000 a year. So we need to give the average person a $1000 reduction in taxes somewhere else -- preferably in lower income taxes at the bottom of the scale.

Think about it. In this scenario, if you want to pay less taxes, now you have some choices. You can drive less (carpool, mass transit, etc.). You can drive slower (using less gas). You can get a more fuel-efficient car.

And if you don't change your driving behavior, don't come crying to me. You know what you have to do. I would be affected more by this since I drive about 20K miles a year, mostly for work and therefore unavoidable.

And if a lot of people change their behavior, we'll have less revenue. But then again, we won't have to waste money monkeying around with the Middle East anymore either.

McNulty - Wasting Money on Pork - The Flake Amendments

Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona recently tried to do something to slow the porkfest in Washington. He put forward 19 amendments, each of which would remove certain earmarks -- pork barrel spending usually targeted to an individual congressman's district. Flake's effort is being watched by many, including the Club for Growth (clubforgrowth.org).

While Flake didn't make much progress on slowing the pork, he did force all member of the House to vote on the record. The incumbent in our district (NY-21), Mike McNulty, voted against all the amendments -- in favor of every single pork item. None of the items were for pork in our district. Nice to see he's bringing home the bacon for others.

Keep in mind that McNulty has consistently rated among the biggest taxers and spenders in Washington. Not too long ago he was ranked the second-worst member of the House by the National Taxpayers Union. Even if you think those rankings are partisan (they are), he was still worse than all Democrats but one.

Second worst! I've said it before and I'll say it again -- you don't want me batting for the Yankees and you don't want Mike McNulty batting for you in Washington.

As a side note in the Sweeney-Gillibrand chronicles, one of the 19 votes concerned an earmark in Sweeney's district. He voted against all of the amendments too. How can either of these guys be called a conservative??

I support Congressman Flake and would vote to eliminate all earmarks. While we're at it we should eliminate their parallel in the NY legislature -- member items.

Sweeney and Gillibrand fight over who's a bigger whore

The Times Union's Capitol Confidential blog has a great post about 20th district insider candidates Sweeney and Gillibrand fighting over who has raised more money from outside the district. The answer is that they're both whores for special interests.

Next they're going to argue about who started it.

Is Luther Forest a waste of money?

Interesting op-ed piece in today's Times Union supporting the proposed chip plant in Luther Forest (which is in the neighboring 20th congressional district). This follows on a previous op-ed piece that opposed the plant, or rather, the $1.2 billion subsidy going to the plant.

I'm sorry to say I don't know enough to say whether the $1.2 billion is a good investment. By that I mean that I'm not sure how much of the $1.2 billion is government spending as opposed to a break on future taxes that would have been paid by the plant. If it's just tax breaks, then that's money we wouldn't have gotten anyway, so I don't see a loss there. If it's taxpayer money going in, then it's a boondoggle.

Today's writer compared the chip plant to the Erie Canal. The theory is that the plant will create benefits beyond the jobs inside the plant. That's baloney. They say the same thing about stadiums, and Jerry Jennings' proposed civic center for Albany. I wonder if anyone's figured out how much money has been lost so far on the Pepsi Arena -- which used to be called the Knickerbocker Arena until it lost so much they had to sell naming rights. Or is it going to be the Times Union Arena next? I heard a local personal injury law firm was in the bidding.

The Erie Canal created benefits beyond itself because it created a new avenue for the (literally) flow of commerce. My pet project, a mass transit system for the Capital Region (funded privately and not with taxpayer dollars), would also create such benefits. The first op-ed piece also suggested mass transit.

If we are going to fund chip plants, I don't think Luther Forest is the best place for the money in this region. Fulton County was once home to a thriving leather and glove industry (that's what it's called Gloversville). Those industries have withered, leaving tremendous water capacity behind them. There's enough on tap (again literally) for two microchip plants. They have all the other infrastructure necessary. And while Saratoga already has a thriving economy, Fulton County is struggling and the plants would be a much bigger boost there. So why not develop chip plants there? Maybe because it's not in Joe Bruno's district.

A huge waste of money - the War on Drugs

I have been a critic of the drug war for a long time. I like to say it's what got me off the couch. I mean that quite literally. In a short span of time I watched two documentaries on PBS, one about the drug war (named "Snitch", from the Frontline series) and another about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (by Ken Burns). So I see these two women who fought for 60+ years for suffrage and it didn't happen until after they had died. Then there's this great societal wrong in our time - the drug war. And there I was, sitting on the couch watching it.

I got up. I joined some groups. I created repeal.net, a website critical of the drug war and advocating the repeal of drug prohibition. Eventually I decided that the various groups I had joined were not accomplishing enough (a bit like the problems the suffrage movement had), and I had to do more, so I started getting active in politics. Then I decided to run for office and talk about this issue.

I'm not some phony who vaguely says he supports drug policy reform without having any substance behind it. Our DA ran on this issue and continues to prosecute drug offenders even more aggressively than the last guy. On Unlawful Possession of Marijuana cases, his office is particularly bad, trying to impose illegal conditions on routine dismissals.

I genuinely support reform. Prohibition doesn't work. The incarceration of drug offenders is wrong, even unconstitutional (I wrote an article on substantive due process and the drug war - warning - the article is pretty boring, even for lawyers).

The incumbent in my race now says the war in Iraq is a colossal failure and the biggest blunder in the history of warfare. Aside from his utter ignorance of history (at least he could watch The Princess Bride), one has to wonder what he thinks of the War on Drugs. Isn't it a colossal failure? How about the biggest blunder in the history of pseudo-wars (War on Poverty, War on Terror, ...)?

But let's get to wasting money. The War on Drugs costs about $100 billion a year. This includes money wasted spraying RoundUp on peasants in Colombia and Afghanistan, border efforts that manage to catch about 1% of the drugs coming into the country, and a heck of a lot spent on police, prosecutors and prisons. So there's about 500,000 non-violent drug offenders behind bars in the US. Check my math, but at $40K/year that's about $20 billion right there. Add in the other stuff and you get to $100B pretty quick.

Is it working? When I was in high school (graduated in '84), the only drugs I saw were alcohol and marijuana. I had the sense that there were other drugs around, but never saw them and the use was limited to a few people. Most of us just drank a lot and some of us smoked marijuana occasionally.

Now, drugs are commonplace in high schools and not at all rare in many middle schools. As I like to put it, any kid in any school can get any drug they want. I used to add "if they try hard enough," but then some teens told me I was wrong. The two quotes I remember are: "all you have to do is ask" and "the drugs come to you".

Another way I like to put it is to ask a high school kid what would be easier for them to get in 30 minutes without leaving school grounds -- a marijuana cigarette or a six-pack of beer. They always answer marijuana.

In 2004, the incumbent attacked me for my views on the drug war. Of course he avoided stating his own position on the issue. No surprise there. That's smart politics.

I often get asked what my answer is to the drug problem. Do I want to legalize drugs?

In 1933, alcohol prohibition was repealed. The repeal did not include any solution to the alcohol problem. And just about everyone agrees that repeal was the right decision in 1933. So why do I have to have a solution to the drug problem now? Repeal of drug prohibition is the right answer now, just like repeal was the right answer in 1933. What we've learned in the past 30 years is that the current policy is worse than not having a policy.

I'm not suggesting that heroin be provided as part of the school lunch program, or put on supermarket shelves. There are many ways to deal with the drug problem. I have my personal view, but I don't think my way is the only way. As long as we end the stupidity of the current policy, I'll support anything reasonable in its place (including no policy at all).

My personal take is that marijuana should be treated generally like we now treat cigarettes and alcohol, since it is less harmful than those drugs. Most of the other currently illegal drugs should be available by prescription -- doctors should be able to prescribe heroin for heroin addicts, for example. This is done in England, Switzerland, and Holland. Heroin addicts there commit far less crime, have fewer social problems, and are more likely to maintain a steady job.

I don't like using the word legalization because it has been demonized for decades. If legalization means a really horrible policy that will encourage children to take heroin and cocaine, then of course I don't support legalization. If legalization means doing the same thing we did with alcohol in 1933 (bringing about a huge reduction in violent crime and many other benefits), then yes, I do support that.

Anyway, we've been wasting $100 billion a year for a while now on this stupid pseudo-war. Let's stop wasting that money.

ps: After writing this I was looking at something else and noticed a report from Citizens Against Government Waste called Wasted in the War on Drugs. They don't go far enough, but they make some good points and show some of the waste.

No response from Gillibrand

Just a quick note that Kirsten Gillibrand, the 20th district Democrat challenger, has not responded to my debate challenge. She had challenged Sweeney, the Republican incumbent in her district, to a debate. I thought her challenge to him was not genuine and was just a political ploy. Looks like I was correct.

There's a bit more to the story. I was contacted by one local television personality who offered to host the debate and contacted her campaign. Still no response. That's because she has no interest in a substantive debate. She's playing the traditional political game of building positive name recognition while saying nothing controversial, and at the same time going negative on the incumbent.

Gillibrand is just another political insider who brings nothing of substance to the table. So far she's showing a lot of political smarts and she's raised a lot of special interest money. Sadly, that's already what we have in Washington.

Media bias in elections

We often hear about media bias, usually in the form of accusing the media of a liberal bias. I don't pay too much attention to that kind of bias. There's probably ideological bias both ways. I read the Wall Street Journal and love most of it, but the op-ed page is a little too blindly pro-Bush (though they do go after him on economic issues from time to time -- for being too liberal).

What I find most troubling is a combination of pro-incumbent and anti-challenger biases. These biases are common in various institutions. For example, when I ran in 2004, the Fulton County YMCA had a dinner and had the incumbent in my race as the keynote speaker. I was not offered a chance to speak. When I contacted the head of that YMCA, a guy who I know fairly well, he would not give me any opportunity to speak at all. I don't mean to single out the Y. The Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce did the same thing.

In first confronting this, you might think there's nothing wrong with this. But there is. The biggest problem for most challengers is name recognition. Incumbents already have it and want to reinforce it. Challengers want to get it in the first place. By having an incumbent politician speak at your event, and further by refusing to give a challenger equal time, you are helping the incumbent in that race.

Let's turn to the media. First, it's very difficult for challengers to get covered at all. In my 2004 race, only the Times Union gave my campaign significant coverage. Other major papers in the district (Troy Record, Schenectady Gazette, and the Fulton County Leader Herald) ignored me. The Gazette and Leader printed a couple of letters to the editor mentioning me, but between them I think they wrote one article mentioning me. The Record attended a debate but wrote no article about it, and then endorsed the incumbent shortly before the election, misstating one fact in a way that favored the incumbent and exaggerated something about me in a negative way. TV and radio news coverage was almost non-existent. A couple of channels did about 30 seconds on the debate. Channel 13 gave me the best soundbite in that one and I still fondly remember the newscaster who called me to check on it before it was aired. Alan Chartock and Fred Dicker interviewed me on their shows, and they were both fair and pleasant. One popular radio personality openly refused to mention me, even refusing to let me speak at an open mike event he had set up at Crossgates. He told me I'd have to pay for airtime. I should also mention that the Metroland gave me decent coverage, and the Amsterdam Recorder mentioned me a few times.

I'm going to focus on the Times Union though. While I will be demonstrating their bias, it is still among my favorite news sources in the area. While their approach was biased, it was the least biased of all media in the area. The Troy Record was the absolute worst.

Anyway, the TU had about 15 pre-election articles in 2004 mentioning me related to the campaign, including a couple of articles that were pretty favorable. The best was about my appearance in a Japanese newspaper. I met a reporter from the Yomiuri Shimbun (one of Japan's largest papers with a huge readership) during the Republican convention, and she wrote an article about me. I called the TU and said that if my campaign was newsworthy in Japan, you'd think it would be newsworthy here. The reporter was not interested in my campaign, but thought the appearance in a Japanese newspaper was worthy. While I was disturbed by his values, the article was great. There were several other articles, most of them good.

But compare their coverage of the incumbent. Doing a search in their archives shows over 150 articles with his name (searching for michael AND mcnulty in 2004). So he got roughly 10 times the coverage. And this was mainly because I made a big effort to get them to cover me. The 2002 challenger got virtually no coverage.

Beyond the difficulty getting covered, one also sees another kind of bias. I actually mentioned this in a letter to the editor to the TU on August 23, 2004 (which to their credit, they printed). When they do mention challengers they often use subtle (or not-so-subtle) negative terms to describe them. In that letter I referred to their use of "relatively unknown" or "little-known". In the last couple days the TU has twice referred to my 2004 campaign as "unsuccessful." Yes, I do know I didn't win the election. But one could easily say that I had a better than usual campaign. I got 30%, while the past 7 challengers got 25%. When you consider how little money I spent, getting a 5-point increase was actually quite an accomplishment. Of course I hoped for better. But the point here is that they're associating me with a negative word -- unsuccessful.

They've covered the incumbent's flip-flop on the war in Iraq. They mention that he voted for it and now calls it a colossal failure. But they don't describe it as a flip-flop or put any other kind of negative spin on him. Look at his quote: "the Iraq War is one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare." How about attacking him for voting in favor of the war?? Where's the negative spin? The TU blog post mentions that he "voted in favor of the Iraq war". How about saying he "foolishly voted for the war", or some other negative take? I'd pick the word cowardly, since chickenshit is too coarse for a newspaper. How about calling him up and asking him to explain why he voted for the war in the first place. Here's a guy who calls his own vote "one of the biggest blunders ..." and they're not calling him on that. Incumbents get a free pass.

Unless, of course, they get challenged by a special challenger. In the 20th district, Kirsten Gillibrand has been anointed somehow as a worthy challenger. The TU has made an editorial decision (consciously or subconsciously) to cover that race. Is it because Sweeney gets caught drunk at frat parties, or because Gillibrand raised a million dollars from PACs and New York City liberals? Probably both. I don't mind them covering that race. But why the editorial decision not to cover the race in the 21st - or at least not give it as much coverage? Why not cover the Libertarian candidate in the 20th district? Even if you think he doesn't have a chance of winning, he might get enough votes from one side or the other to make a difference in the race between the two others. He might force them to talk about issues they don't want to discuss. Do a search in 2006. 46 articles mention Gillibrand. Sundwall (the LP candidate) is mentioned once (in an article where Gillibrand is in the headline with Sweeney). But don't think Gillibrand is getting such a great deal. Sweeney (sweeney AND john) is mentioned in nearly 250 articles.

Despite this criticism, I want to emphasize that the TU was by far the least biased of all major media in my 2004 race (with the possible exception of the Metroland, and I guess also the Yomiuri Shimbun). I say this both to credit the TU for its effort to be fair and to note that the media bias is actually worse than what I've described above in most media outlets.

The Democratic primary

I was honored to be invited by Tom Raleigh to his campaign announcement. This was today at the Italian Community Center (next door to my office), so I had to go.

He did a very good job of getting media to show up. Channels 6 and 13 were there, along with reporters from the Gazette and the Informed Constituent. There might have been one or two others.

I don't think he's got a snowball's chance in Haiti, but I'm rooting for him in the primary. It's an insider-outsider thing. The incumbent, along with Sweeney, Gillibrand, Pataki, etc. ... they're all political insiders. On the other hand, Raleigh, Sundwall and myself are outsiders. I'm the most inside of the three of us and I don't feel like I'm on the inside.

Of course, if he wins the primary, I'll have to stop rooting for him. :-)

Shocking news!!

I was at the State Board of Elections today and was surprised to see that there's a second Democratic candidate for the 21st district. In addition to McNulty, a Thomas Raleigh filed a bit over 300 pages, apparently with about 1500 signatures. His campaign website is www.raleigh12sep06.com.

I suspect that someone will challenge his petition. I've often heard that one should have double the number required. One needs 1250 for Congress, so he's only got 250 to spare. This could get interesting. ...

VerbNow - a comical waste

It would be funny if it wasn't our money.

Roughly five years ago the US Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Tommy Thompson and the Bush Administration, started the "Verb" or "VerbNow" program, at a cost of about $200 million a year.

What does this program do?

From the CDC website: "The VERB campaign encourages young people ages 9 to 13 (tweens) years to be physically active every day. The campaign combines paid advertising, marketing strategies, and partnership efforts to reach the distinct audiences of tweens and adults/influencers."

That's bureaucrat lingo. What they really do is advertise to children on television and the internet, to encourage them to be physically active. This way they won't spend so much time watching television and surfing the web.

Yes, they're advertising on television to kids, in the hope that this will get them to watch less television.

One simple example of how our government can stop wasting our money.

Petitions filed

Petitions were filed today. A major party congressional candidate in NY generally needs 1250 signatures. A tremendous number of volunteers managed to get nearly 6000 signatures for me across the 7 counties in the congressional district. The Town of Colonie really stood out.

I was also very fortunate to get help in the process from Barbara Davis at the Albany GOP and from friends Cathy and Todd, who are very knowledgeable about the finer points of the process.

Thanks to all for their help.

This was a somewhat interesting experience. Last time I filed on the first day of filing, and the office was not busy at all. This time I filed on the last day of filing, and there was a lot of activity. It looked like a lot of professional consultant types were reviewing the petiitions that had been filed.

For those who are unaware, New York State has very complex laws that make it difficult for candidates to get on the ballot. I've heard that half of all election law cases in the US take place in New York State. Those who are chosen by the major parties have access to free advice from people who really know the system. Third-party candidates and "independent" candidates have a much tougher time.

An example of the problem is the effort to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot. I've been endorsed by the LP, but we would need 3500 signatures to get on the ballot on that line. At 10 signatures an hour, that would be 350 hours of work. Even if we managed to be efficient and get signatures at events, it would still take 70 hours. It's hard to find that much help for a minor line like the LP.

That's where the major parties have an advantage -- when functioning well (like the GOP in Colonie or the Dems in Albany), they have a lot of volunteers. The lesser parties have an advantage if they get recognized status. Currently this includes the Conservative Party, the Independence Party, and the Working Families Party. They only have to get 5% of the number of people enrolled in their party in the district. So if there's only 1000 enrolled in the WFP, they only need 50 signatures.

This is why some in the LP want to endorse a celebrity or major party candidate for Governor, as the Greens used to do with Grandpa Al (who played Grandpa on the Muensters TV show). The perception is that this would get 50,000 votes for the LP's Governor candidate, and that would make the party recognized statewide, so petitioning would be much easier in the future. Didn't work this year as the LP picked William Weld, and he dropped out.

Sweeney and Pataki

Wow! Great reading today in Liz Benjamin's blog. She posted about Sweeney and Pataki, referring to an article in Esquire Magazine about John McCain (the part about Sweeney starts on page 4 of the article).

So Sweeney is taking shots at Pataki. He even slips in a barb at Bush, saying he was wrong to have supported Bush over McCain in 2000. At least when I take shots at these guys, there's no history of them having done anything for me. Here's Sweeney, whose whole career has been a gift to him from people like Pataki and Bush, and now he's stabbing them in the back, left and right. I wonder if Joe Bruno is safe.

So I'm reviewing Kirsten Gillibrand's FEC filings, and I see she's getting money from Mike McNulty, the incumbent in my race. McNulty's hosting events for her and everything. I confess I'm a bit glad to see someone making Sweeney sweat.

But the one I really want to go after is Pataki. I call him "Pa-tax-i." I refer to a variety of "user fees" and "revenue enhancements" as Pataki Taxes. Every time he talks he claims he's lowered taxes, and everyone I know thinks they're paying more taxes. He just fluffs the numbers around. He spends like the worst Democrat out there. People call me a RINO (Republican In Name Only). At least I'm a fiscal conservative. Pataki is the biggest RINO ever. Spend, spend, spend.

The thing about all these career politicians is they don't stand for anything. Is there an issue where any of these people stands out? They all keep their heads down. And all the while they're throwing our money around, and then claiming credit for it.

I have to give Joe Bruno credit. Don't remember where it was, but someone was thanking him for some project, and he just said it -- "It's your money. I just arranged it." At least he knows its our money.

And I give John Faso credit too. At least he sounds like he'll hold back the spending a little. Hopefully he'll deliver on that. Too bad Pataki's been doing his level best to keep Faso down. Maybe Pataki's really jockeying for a job in Hillary's administration.

House.gov wasting money

Funny to see that roughly 10% of the traffic on my campaign website comes from house.gov. Nice to see congressional offices wasting our money using our tax dollars to review candidate websites.

Campaign Finance

I had lunch today with someone who started talking about what's wrong with campaign finance and he seemed to endorse something called Clean Money - Clean Elections (CMCE), which apparently goes along with the concept of public financing of campaigns.

All this campaign finance reform is bunk. I want to be very clear about the problem.

First of all, I agree that the current system is a form of licensed corruption. Politicians, especially incumbents, accept campaign contributions from people who, generally speaking, want them to vote a certain way on some issue or set of issues. It smacks of vote buying.

This system has become so corrupt that many politicians now think it's no big deal to kick some of this campaign money directly to their own family members. The incumbent in my race funneled something like $30K to his brother. A salary of $1347 a month isn't bad for a couple hours work. He stopped after I pointed that out. Another nearby incumbent was funneling money to his wife for "fundraising". Most local media ignored this, with the notable exception of the Times Union (that darn Liz Benjamin again). Don't worry. The incumbents find plenty of other ways to funnel their campaign money. They buy support from their local party organizations, and even from the third parties and other interest groups.

A great example of this is Citizen Action. This organization is a big supporter of CMCE. That didn't stop them from accepting $650 from the incumbent in my race, according to his campaign finance filings. Citizen Action is a far-left group, but they're happy to take dirty campaign money from a guy who voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, is anti-abortion and opposed to gay marriage.

But I want to move on from the corruption. The system exists in its present form after substantial campaign finance reforms were passed in the last 10-20 years. Despite those reforms, incumbents continue to raise huge sums. At the same time, congressional elections have become much less competitive -- the incumbency reelection rate has been higher recently than it was before the reforms.

Let's see. Incumbents pass campaign finance reforms, and incumbency reelection rates go up. Hard to figure that one out. I'll spell it out for you. The incumbents used the push for reform to pass laws that made life more difficult for challengers. A great example of this is the "Millionaire's Amendment". For House races, if a candidate spends more than $300K of his/her own money, that allows the other candidate(s) to raise more money. That law is aimed squarely at challengers, because incumbents never spend their own money.

For those who say that they want campaign finance reform, I ask this -- What's your goal? I think the goal should be more competitive elections. To do that you have to make life easier for challengers. And you have to recognize the problem of being a challenger.

The incumbent has name recognition, and unless it comes from a missing intern or from attending frat parties, that's an advantage. Challengers need to get name recognition. If voters don't know who you are, they're much less likely to vote for you.

Going door to door? There are 450,000 registered voters in a NY congressional district. If you manage to meet 100 people a day for 500 days, that's only 50,000. Postcards? Sending a postcard to each registered voter will cost roughly 25 cents apiece. That's over $100K per postcard. And to really get that to work, you'd want to send at least three. TV and radio ads? I spent $25K last time and it was clearly not enough. People in Republican campaign headquarters didn't know who I was.

In other words, challengers need money to get their name and their message out to voters. Proposals to have public financing of elections are sure to be coopted by incumbents to make sure challengers cannot campaign effectively.

I have a solution. Free postage. Give each person who gets on the ballot enough postage to send a few postcards to each registered voter. That would effectively give each candidate (including incumbents) an extra $300K for their campaign. And it would be a drop in the bucket for the post office -- I doubt it would even be measurable in terms of their added expense.

So, do you think incumbents will vote for that? Do you care enough to support it?

The overseas thing

I find it hard to stop talking about how we waste money overseas. Partly that's because voters react positively to that message, but more, it just shocks me how much we waste and how stupid it seems.

I'm addicted to a few publications -- The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and Capitol Confidential (at the Times Union). I was rudely awakened by our 17-month-old daughter tonight (either she does not respect a candidate's need for sleep, or she is trying to sabotage my campaign because I'm a Republican).

So I was reading the Economist about North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and nuclear weapons.

I want to see if I've got all this straight. We're defending South Korea from North Korea, costing us roughly $50 billion a year. South Korea's economy is roughly 40 times the size of North Korea's economy. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons and missiles. Along with Japan, we are pushing for aggressive sanctions to stop North Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea's nearest neighbors, China and South Korea, are pushing for a softer line. Reality check: North Korea poses a far greater threat to China and South Korea than it poses to the US. I say we let them deal with the problem. In the meantime we can save billions of dollars by bringing our troops home from South Korea.

Then we have a similar situation in Iran. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We are taking a hard line, and there are even rumors we're preparing for yet another war. Other "great powers" like France, Germany and Russia want a softer line. They're closer. If Iran does go nuclear, that's a greater threat to Russia and Europe than it is to the US (kinda like Iraq). Douglas Adams would call this "somebody else's problem." Somehow we make everything our problem, and it costs an awful lot of money.

And don't forget Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't know how much we're spending in Afghanistan, but apparently that's not going well either. And our support for Pakistan is looking more and more like a bad idea.

There are plenty of powerful countries closer to all of these problems. Let them handle their own problems and let's stop wasting our money. If what we were doing was working, then maybe I could see it. But our approach is failing. I keep hearing about the concept of "exit strategy" regarding Iraq. I'm waiting to hear the exit strategy for Europe, Japan and South Korea, but also for Afghanistan. And while we're at it, I'd love to see a clear statement as to what would mean we've won the war on terror (or for that matter the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc.).

I have been called an isolationist. In a military sense, I am. The purpose of the US military should be to defend our borders. We may celebrate George Washington, but we sure don't listen to his advice.

Neighboring district

I was looking over the website for the Democratic challenger in the 20th district. She's running against Congressman John Sweeney. A couple weeks ago on her site, she issued a challenge to Sweeney to a debate on Iraq.

As far as I know, he has not responded to that challenge. It's typical for incumbents to ignore challengers. I studied congressional elections in grad school, and it is standard political strategy to ignore the challenger and never mention her name. The incumbent in my race has done that pretty well so far about me.

Since we're both challengers in the same media market, and we both face the same hurdles, I'll throw down. I would be happy to debate Ms. Gillibrand in as many debates as she likes, on whatever topics she chooses. And if the incumbents in our races would like to join us, I would welcome their participation.

Following her method, I'll send her a letter. The text of my letter is below:
-------------

July 9, 2006
Gillibrand for Congress
PO Box 1279
Hudson, NY 12534

By Fax: 518-751-2555

Re: Debates

Dear Ms. Gillibrand:

I had the pleasure today of reading your June 22nd debate challenge to Congressman Sweeney about the War in Iraq. As far as I can tell, he has not responded.

I appreciate your desire for a real debate on substantive issues, and would be happy to debate you. This offer is open-ended. I will debate you as many times as you like, on whatever issues you choose.

While we are running in different districts, we share two counties and the vast majority of our voters are in the same media market. It might be a bit unusual for us to debate, but that shouldn't stop us. I would also welcome the incumbents if they want to join us, and assume you feel the same.

I look forward to hearing your response and joining you soon for one or more debates on the topic(s) of your choosing.


Very truly yours,


Warren Redlich

Press Release

The campaign's first press release is now out on PRLeap.com.

Politicians whoring for money

Our local paper, the Times Union, has a great blog called Capitol Confidential. In a recent post, their lead blogger Liz Benjamin mentions the Democratic challenger in the district next to mine bragging about how much money she's raised.

That's what I want from my elected official. Someone who is good at fundraising. It's always nice to see someone in the Capital Region campaigning on money from rich New York City liberals, or from PACs and local business interests.

I'm taking the opposite tack. At this point I am not accepting campaign contributions. I might change my mind, but it's not likely. I'm trying to send a message about not wasting money. The political process of whoring for money (a bipartisan tradition) contrasts sharply with that message.

Speeding Tickets - A big waste of money

I read the Wall Street Journal almost every day. I don't agree with everything they write, but today they were thumping my bible.

Their editorial is titled Safe at Any Speed, and it talks about how highway deaths decreased after speed limits went up. They describe how some ridiculous leftists like Ralph Nader predicted massive increases in traffic fatalities.

Short story - it didn't happen. I'm a Traffic Ticket Lawyer and I handle a lot of speeding ticket cases. Our state and local governments are spending millions, and possibly billions, of dollars on all sorts of efforts to stop people from driving safely at speeds that nanny-state liberals don't like.

Reminds me of an old George Carlin routine that anyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, and anyone who drives faster is a maniac.

I don't care if this seems extreme. I'm going to say it anyway. Speed limits are too low, and even having an arbitrary number for a speed limit is silly on a highway like the Thruway or the Northway, once you get outside populated areas. In the right car, it is perfectly safe to go 100 mph on these roads.

As part of these arbitrary speed limits, our governments are wasting ridiculous money. In the process, an awful lot of regular people have their lives upended. For people like me, a traffic stop is no big deal. I work with police all the time and no longer find the process intimidating. But for most people, a traffic stop is a frightening experience. Add to that the extreme fines we see in New York State, and you get a colossal waste of money.

We've got to stop wasting money, and this is a good place to deal with it. Our laws should encourage police to pull people over for dangerous behavior, not for speed alone. And don't blame the cops for this. They're just doing their jobs. We'd all be a lot better off if we didn't turn our highly trained troopers into trolls under bridges, and set them to work on more serious problems like burglaries and domestic violence.

Stop Wasting Money Overseas

Time for the first substantive blog post on our new Stop Wasting Money blog.

When I ran in 2004, I found an issue that really seemed to hit home with people I met. I would speak at events. If I talked about taxes, people would applaud politely. Mass transit would get a lot of yawns. Few topics seem to get people interested. But one topic really got people going.

My line was this: "We've got to stop wasting money overseas defending rich countries, like France." This worked for a few reasons. First, people don't like the government wasting money. They especially don't like sending money overseas. The thinking there is that we've got enough problems at home. But the kicker in the line is, of course, France. Seems Americans really don't like the French.

I actually do like France. Je parle un peu de Francais, et j'ai voyage en France deux fois. J'aime la cuisine Francaise. yada yada yada. But it was such a good line.

Anyway, there's real substance behind the line (unlike so much else in politics). First we need some historical perspective. Before World War I, our country spent very little money overseas, and our troops rarely went anywhere. When World War I came, it took a lot of effort for our leaders to persuade the people that we should send our troops to Europe. And when it was over, our troops came home.

Fast forward to World War II. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and that was it. Our troops have been in Europe since the early 1940s, and have occupied Japan since 1945. We've had troops in South Korea since the 50s.

It's hard to quibble with the decision to enter WWII. And in the 50s and 60s it was certainly reasonable for us to stay, what with that darn Cold War and all.

But at some point, Europe and Japan became wealthy. This was clearly true by the end of the 1970s. South Korea took a little longer, but they're clearly wealthy now.

With the current situation in Iraq, we often hear talk about having an "Exit Strategy". Same was true in Somalia, and probably other recent conflicts.

So what's our exit strategy for Europe, Japan and South Korea? There is none. I challenged the incumbent on this issue in our debate in 2004. He had no answer. None. He completely dodged the question. I'm not picking on him. No one in Washington has an answer to this question.

The funny thing is, almost everyone I met had an answer. It's time. Let these rich countries defend themselves.

I haven't forgotten that this is the Stop Wasting Money blog. This issue is quite possibly the biggest waste of money in the federal budget. If you look at our military spending over the last 10-20 years, and you review the mission of our military, it's obvious that roughly half of our military spending is devoted to defending rich countries. The reason we have troops and tanks in Germany is to defend Europe from a Soviet invasion. The reason we have troops in Japan is to counter the Soviet position in the Pacific. Japan was once called our unsinkable aircraft carrier. And we have troops in South Korea to defend South Korea from North Korea.

For the first two, there is no longer a Soviet Union. Europe is far wealthier and far more techologically advanced than Russia. Japan is also far wealthier and far more advanced. South Korea's economy is 40 times the size of North Korea's economy, and their technological advantage is similar to comparing a 2006 Hyundai Sonata to a bicycle - an old bicycle with one speed and no handbrakes.

This waste amounts to roughly $200 billion a year. My opponent has been in office for nearly 18 years now. In that time we've spent nearly $4 trillion defending countries who don't need our help. A little math here ... $4 trillion divided by 300 million Americans equals ... well over $12,000 per person. If you go by households, you get more in the ballpark of $40K per household.

Imagine how much better off your family would be today if you had $40,000 more in the bank than you have now. Or, more common in today's world, if you had $40,000 less debt.

That's why we need to stop wasting money. And we need to start the process by not wasting money overseas.

Announcing the Stop Wasting Money blog

The Warren Redlich for Congress campaign is pleased to announce that its Stop Wasting Money blog is now up on the website.

Warren will regularly post to point out areas where government wastes our money. No punches will be pulled, and no politician, Democrat or Republican, will be safe.

Keep your eyes open!