« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
December 29, 2006
Crackdown on Albany Corruption Coming
According to an article by Ken Lovett in today's NY Post, Albany County DA David Soares and state Lobbying Commission chief David Grandeau met for lunch yesterday to discuss how they can work more closely to battle corruption in NY State government.
This power-duo, as the Post calls them, are supposedly meeting again today over lunch and both seem very excited about the prospects of joining forces to challenge the status quo in Albany. According to the Post, Grandau said:
"I was extremely impressed by [Soares] and find him to be a person of high moral integrity and someone who has the desire to do what's right in the field of public integrity."
This could spell trouble for many legislators in both parties who have played fast and loose with the rules in recent years, following the example set by the three men in a room, who have all benefited in unethical ways from their positions as top state power brokers.
The Pataki Scandals have, of course, been endless and well covered on blogs such as Urban Elephants. Silver has had his problems accepting perks from casino's that have been lobbying the state, and has also been the major roadblock to tort reform while making millions at his personal injury firm. Then there was Bruno's giving his brother a high-paying no-show state job with a plush office for his non-work. And now the latest scandals involving his racing interests.
It is no wonder that Albany has become a cesspool of corruption with leadership like this. Let's all support Soares and Grandau in this endeavor and not let partisanship get in the way of good government
Posted by Robert Hornak at 04:13 PM | Comments (1)
December 28, 2006
Happy New Year and Thanks for Coming to our Party
The New York Young Republican Club would like to thank everyone who attended our Holiday Party on Wednesday, December 27. It may seem difficult to gather folks together between Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but we did it, and got twenty people to join or renew their membership for 2007.
Everyone who paid for a 2007 membership received our nifty new 2007 New York Young Republican Club pin. Now, you can wear an emblem of distinction as you encounter fellow New Yorkers, especially those of the liberal persuasion.
We look forward to many more events like our Holiday Party and hope to see all of you at our upcoming events and meetings in 2007. Thank you all and have a Happy and Joyous New Year Celebration.
New York Young Republican Club, Inc.
Board of Governors
Posted by NYYRC at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)
Control the Comptroller
Now that Alan Hevesi has pleaded guilty to the felony of defrauding the government and has resigned from the state office of comptroller in order to avoid a prison term, the time has come to examine the office itself. For if there is one position in New York State government that has the potential for corruption, the comptroller's office is it.
If asked, "Who is the richest man in the world?" likely responses might be the Sultan of Brunei, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, but the correct answer is none of the above. The richest man on the globe is the New York State comptroller, for he has unilateral control of a $145 billion pension fund.
With this kind of influence the comptroller can make friends very easily. He decides who manages the money. Most importantly, he makes these decisions by himself. He has an advisory body, but he ultimately has complete authority to make investment decisions without any oversight or intervention from the state Legislature or the governor.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, the comptroller decides to give the XYZ Assets Company the right to manage $1 billion and the commission is 10 basis points or $1 million. Suppose, as well, that the comptroller says the expectation is that the fund should perform at least as well as the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. If the manager is smart or lazy or both, he puts the index on his computer and manages $1 billion in conjunction with it. He can now spend his time playing golf in Bermuda.
This could be the end of the scenario, but it isn't. When the incumbent comptroller runs for office, he invariably calls on the asset manager to step up to the plate by contributing to his campaign. As you might imagine, the asset manager is pleased to pay. He knows full well that you have to pay to play.
As a consequence, there is a clear correlation between campaign contributions and management commissions. Remarkably, journalists have generally ignored this relationship. Yet if any condition warrants examination in the New York State administration, this is it.
Let me cite several examples randomly selected from New York State reports that illustrate the point. Blaylock & Partners manages $155.7 million of pension fund money and receives a commission of $256,594. In 2003 this asset management group gave $10,000 to the Hevesi for New York campaign committee. Guggenheim Partners manages $1.45 billion and gave Hevesi $25,000 in 2006. Mezzacappa Investors manages about $1.11 billion and gave $48,000 in multiple checks for the 2006 Hevesi campaign and $7,500 in 2004. Williams Capital Group manages about $1.76 billion generating a commission of $631,204 and gave $15,000 to Hevesi for New York in 2003. Guzman & Co., a small investment house, manages $50 million with a $310,032 commission and contributed $5,000 in 2006 and $5,000 in 2004 to Hevesi. Ramirez Partners LLC manages $48 million with a commission of $303,711 and in 2004 gave $5,000 to the Hevesi campaign.
If you parse through the list of contributors — not easy to do since the names of contributors are not obviously associated with an investment house — it is clear that most of Hevesi's $5 million campaign fund in 2006 came from the asset management community. In fact, only about $340,000 in the campaign kitty came from sources other than the asset management community.
That there is a correlation between commissions and campaign contributions is undeniable. Some of these asset management firms may be doing a perfectly reasonable job, and in fact, there isn't any reason to assume otherwise.
My point, however, is not to allege wrongdoing. What I'm suggesting is that a system without controls, one that gives the comptroller sole authority for pension investment decisions, is an invitation for malfeasance and corruption. Every comptroller has recognized this issue, but in recent years they have been reluctant to say so since revelations might restrain campaign contributions. What is at stake, however, is far more egregious than the roughly $200,000 of taxpayer money Hevesi used for limousine transportation and household services to assist his wife.
For one thing, the comptroller has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the integrity of the pension fund. Therefore, the fund should not be used as a way to solicit campaign contributions. New York State clearly needs transparency on this matter. If an investment house gets a management contract and then contributes to a campaign, that action should be revealed to the public.
Second, the Senate and the Assembly should play a role in monitoring investment decisions made by the comptroller's office. Most states follow the practice of California, where that state's Legislature monitors the California Pension Fund, the largest pension fund in the country.
The comptroller might enjoy the independence he has, but as far as New York taxpayers are concerned, transparency and oversight make a lot of sense.
Mr. London is a member of the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. Board of Advisors, president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is also author of "Decade of Denial" and was a candidate for state comptroller in 1994.
This opinion editorial is reprinted from the New York Sun - Dec 27, 2006.
Posted by NYYRC at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
December 26, 2006
"Surprise, Surprise, Surprise"
23 December 2006
By: John L. Overland, III, Esq.
"In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, USMC: 'Surprise, surprise, surprise!'" Thus I began my response to a recent posting on the Drudge Report, itself from an ABC News web site, that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) stated that had she known now what she knew at the time she voted for military intervention in Iraq, she would not have voted to commit American troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Usually I greet each episode of the never-ending series "The Westchester Hillbillies" with equal parts amusement and disgust. That Senator Clinton, as have so many of her fellow Democratic Congress members who voted in favor of the war way-back-when, now claims conversion to the anti-war side in a manner comparable to Paul's blinding on the road to Damascus, simply fills me with disgust.
Those Democrats who voted in favor of committing American troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom and who now have jumped on the Peace Train have a huge problem: how do they explain their lack of scrutiny to President Bush' request for armed intervention and their subsequent vote in favor of it? Their story-and they're sticking to it-is that all of the intelligence available to the President was not made available to them and that in accordance with some sinister, master plan they, somehow, someway, became unwitting dupes and pawns to the President in his quest for war in Iraq. We are supposed to believe that, had they somehow known exactly what the President knew then, they would never have voted for American military intervention.
As Texans like to say, this dog won't hunt. Senator Clinton (as are Senator John Kerry and former senator John Edwards, two others who voted for war but who now claim to have seen the anti-Iraqi War light) is a trained, experienced attorney. Thinking critically and analyzing the evidence presented-not blind acceptance of it- are hallmarks of litigation work. These senators, and indeed each member of Congress, are serviced by a staff that can summon the expertise of retired military officers and members of the intelligence and diplomatic services to allow their respective senators and representatives to test the intelligence provided them by the President. That such senators, each of whom are former attorneys and who are or have been members of committees that even now issue subpoenas and examine witnesses, supposedly went along with the President, mesmerized by his spell as if rats following a Pied Piper, is inconceivable. That they cling to this story is worthy of contempt.
Such a conclusion is reinforced by the liberals' own attitude towards the President: that he is supposed to be incredibly stupid and easily led by a cabal of those members of his Cabinet who had been secretly scheming for war all along. Again, this ain't no huntin' dog: when any President goes to Congress for authorization to go to war-war, for goodness’ sake, with its horrible suffering and bloodshed-that request demands that each member of Congress apply the strictest of scrutiny to the intelligence and the stated mission of our military's involvement. Such scrutiny should have critically analyzed the reasons for war, the probability of success, and the costs in American lives to accomplish the mission. That these Democrats, many of whom subscribed to the "he's dumb as rocks" mentality, failed to do so leads to a choice of only two possible conclusions: (1) that each of these senators and representatives, having swallowed whole the allegedly fabricated rationale for war, were themselves infinitely dumber than they believed the President to be, or (2) they were themselves willing to send our military to fight, kill, suffer and die for a war they themselves did not believe necessary for the sole purpose of rehabilitating a public perception that the Democratic Party is weak on national security. There are no other logical conclusions.
Can anyone imagine what would have happened had our military interventions in Bosnia and Haiti-both initiated by President Bill Clinton, by the way-developed into insurgent wars of attrition? What would he have done? Had the casualty counts mounted and if the polls increasingly showed opposition to our continuing military involvement, would he have cut and run, or would he have remained resolute, firm in his belief that his decisions had been correct and understanding fully the consequences of withdrawal? To ask such questions is to answer them.
As a reminder to those currently wrapping themselves in the self-righteous mantle of "Bush Lied, People Died", there were indeed compelling American interests involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not just our own intelligence agencies but those of our allies-notably Britain and Israel-believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was actively involved in terrorism, giving generous gifts of money to the surviving family members of "martyrs" who blew themselves up in Israeli buses, pizzerias, and marketplaces, and it is foolish to assume that he would not be willing to extend that support to those who would attack us. Our forces discovered torture chambers and mass graves and heroically rescued the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whatever risks to American interests existed in Bosnia or Haiti in the 1990's, the risks by failing to act in Iraq-and in failing to finish the mission-are significantly greater.
No, Missus Clinton (and in fairness, every other liberal Democrat looking at 2008), you weren't misled. The problem with each of you is that you aspire to the Presidency, a position that has throughout our Nation’s history demanded leaders, and each of you, in reality, are followers. In decisions of war and peace, leadership requires a thorough analysis of the issues presented, including the advice of those persons, both pro and con, who have greater expertise and knowledge to help you analyze the courses of action and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Leadership requires making a decision, the moral courage to see a decision through, and the acceptance of the responsibility that comes with making such decisions. That moral courage comes in handy, especially when that decision has taken us through three years of war and when public opinion polls show that the American people are tiring of war and when it appears that only you can see the consequences of quitting. Ask Tony Blair.
Or, for that matter, ask President Bush.
John L. Overland, Jr. is a former United States Army officer and former Texas peace officer who now practices law in NYC. He welcomes comments via johnoverlandjr@aol.com.
Posted by Raquel Walker at 05:36 PM | Comments (2)
December 20, 2006
January Monthly Forum
The next New York Young Republican Club, Inc meeting will be held on Thursday, January 11, 2007.
Scheduled Speakers
Lisa Schiffren was a speechwriter for former Vice President Dan Quayle. Over the past decade Lisa Schiffren has written essays, reviews and op-eds on politics and social issues for Commentary, National Review, The Weekly Standard, as well as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. She has appeared as a commentator on CNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS and other outlets. She is a member of the National Advisory Board of the Independent Women's Forum. She writes writes speeches, on a consulting basis, for Republican officeholders and candidates, and occasional business leaders. She will be contributing to Commentary magazine's forthcoming blog, Contentions.
Allison Gilbert is an Emmy award-winning journalist and the author of Always Too Soon: Voices of Support for Those Who Have Lost Both Parents (Seal Press, 2006) and is co-editor of Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11 (Bonus Books, 2002). She has also written for numerous newspapers and magazines including The New York Times. For more information visit: Always Too Soon.
Shakespeare & Co Booksellers will have a table set up with Ms Gilbert's books. Credit Cards accepted.
Lawrence Scheer is President of the Young Jewish Leadership Political Action Committee. The YJLPAC's mission is to maintain and strengthen the relationship between the United States pro-Israel community and the Republican party.
Posted by NYYRC at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)
New York puts forth Four Presidential candidates.
by Daniel Peterson
With the 2006 Election Cycle coming to an end, talk has immediately jumped to the 2008 Presidential race and in New York, the media is determined to lift four big contenders to the forefront of discussions. These discussions include Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Hillary Clinton, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki as candidates for President of the United States. They all have notable records to run on and could potentially garner plenty of support throughout the country. They also have histories that could turn away voters and prevent them from getting far in the race.
In another time, New York was a breeding ground for national leadership, sending men like Martin Van Buren, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland and the Roosevelts to the Washington. Times change however, as does the direction of our two main political parties, and the issues voters believe are most important have swung Presidential elections away from leaders from large cities to leaders who appeal to states with an entire population equivalent to these large cities. Could New York's four potential candidates persuade America's voters back to a big city ticket?
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
New York City's current mayor won an election in 2001 by default. Here was a billionaire who changed his registration from Democrat to Republican, so he could avoid the crowded field in the Democratic Primary. He was able to expand his name recognition with unlimited financial resources and appeal to registered Republicans, as well as NYC voters known as "Giuliani Democrats" & "Reagan Democrats." His unexpected victory was a result of ill advised campaign tactics on the Democrat's side, which drove a large percentage of hispanic voters to pull the lever for the Republican candidate.
Because of his record and streak of independence, many political operatives believe Mayor Bloomberg could run a successful presidential campaign in 2008. Unfortunately, he has no home in the two major parties. The Democratic National Committee has no intention of endorsing someone who has spent the last five years as a registered Republican, and the Republican National Committee isn't likely to back a candidate who fits the mold of its archaic Nelson Rockefeller wing. The voters he'd potential attract would be Republicans and independents in New England and moderate Democrats and independents throughout the rest of the country. This could be seen as a win-win for an independent candidate, but the bottom line is no independent candidate has ever one the presidency in America's history.
Michael Bloomberg is enjoying all the attention he's receiving as a potential presidential candidate, but his national ambitions after his mayoral term is not in elected office. He will certainly be a major player in the 2008 elections and beyond, but with his recent 2030:PLANYC, his focus will remain predominantly on New York City for the foreseeable future.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton enjoys the fame of being the wife of former president William J. Clinton. President Clinton is remembered as a polarizing figure in elected politics. Republicans despise the man for abusing his power as president, as well as talking out of both sides of his mouth on issues and matters that are important for the country. His ability to say what you want to hear is exactly his endearing quality that has Democrats swooning over him. Simply being the wife of such an enigma couldn't hurt your chances of building a base support among Democrats. Hillary Clinton made a calculated and wise decision to move to a state where she could successfully run for US Senate, build a record and support and become a power player in US politics.
Though many left-leaning organizations have attacked Sen. Clinton on some of her votes in Washington and positions on national interests, the bottom line is she is a Clinton and Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win the presidency in the last quarter century.
Does Senator Clinton have the same appeal her husband had among Democrats? Probably not. She's a very smart woman and knows she will have more enemies than supporters if she chooses to run for president. Many believe it's a forgone conclusion that she will run for president and even someone such as Dick Morris, a man who has worked closely with the woman, is in this category. However it is unlikely that she will step forward and throw her hat in the ring.
As a senator, Hillary Clinton enjoys support in one of the nation's largest states. If she enjoys being a civil servant in national politics, her record as a senator will almost ensure reelection in 2012. If she throws her hat in the ring for president, many of her negatives will come out and weaken her statewide appeal. She won't have to leave her senate seat as a presidential candidate, but since she won't win, she will enter the 2012 elections in a far weaker position against a strong Republican candidate.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
The man who changed... no... fixed New York and brought it back to its glory is almost certain to be a major player in the 2008 Presidential elections. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has already opened an exploratory committee for president and appears to have national appeal after being thrown into the national stage of politics on September 11, 2001. Mayor Giuliani appeared on TV news beyond the borders of the metropolitan area due to his calm and cautious approach to a terrorist attack that changed our nation forever. Soon afterward, he was profiled by countless news organizations and print media and reached star status with his record of accomplishment in a city that was said to be impossible to manage.
Rudy Giuliani is not someone without a negative side. He made many political enemies and developed an unfavorable rating in black and hispanic circles. His personal life is much to be desired among social conservatives and his liberal beliefs on many social issues won't win over many of the religious groups in middle America.
However, many Republican operatives believe that the political climate is once again changing and with new challenges our country faces in the twenty-first century, a Rudy Giuliani could realign voting trends. On fiscal matters, Giuliani has more often stood on the right side of economic development and conservative principles in job growth and business expansion. As an executive of one of the largest cities in America, his leadership in New York City is equivalent to a governor in many of our United States. He also had to work with a legislature that has always and will always be in the hands of his opposition.
It's still too early to determine whether America is ready for a man like Rudolph Giuliani, but a presidential campaign could put the man in position to be a vice presidential candidate, the Attorney General or the Director of Homeland Security. He may not successfully win the White house, but it won’t hurt in furthering his career in leadership for our country.
Governor George E. Pataki.
Against all odds, the former mayor of Peekskill, NY, built up a political following and took away the governor's mansion from three term liberal icon, Mario Cuomo. Governor Pataki, like many elected officials, has a record of never losing a campaign he didn’t believe he could win (Senator John Kerry was in that boat prior to 2004). If he decides to run for president, could Pataki surprise the political nay sayers with a victory in 2008?
The answer is no, but I am not someone who believes an ambitious poll should be told not run for an office he or she believes is winnable. There's the issues factor with candidates. Could George Pataki shape the debate on matters that wouldn't be brought to the national stage by another candidate? Yes. He can also play a role in steering voters towards or away from other Republican candidates in the mix. He could present a challenge to the Democratic contenders which could destroy their political ambitions.
George Pataki has money and the drive to present his presidential case to the general public. He won't win enough support to go far in the primary process, but I believe he is one candidate that will change the face of the 2008 race for both Republicans and Democrats. If he places in the top three of Republican candidates in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, expect Americans to take a further look at Governor George Pataki as a viable candidate on issues for our 2008 presidential election.
= = = = = = = = = =
The inspiration for this blog entry derives from a Newsday story on December 11, 2006.
Posted by Daniel Peterson at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)
December 11, 2006
2007 NYYRC ELECTIONS during the April 2007
The New York Young Republican Club will be holding Leadership elections during the April 2007 meeting.
We want you to contribute to electing our new Leaders and move forwards to making the New York Republican Party stronger for future generations.
If you are a longtime YR member, (or a new member who is looking to get more involved), and interested in being part of the YR leadership for 2007, please email Executive Vice President Ron Lewenberg [RonL -(at)- nycyr . org] or Vice President Daniel Peterson [DanielP -(at)- nycyr . org] for more information on how you can get inolved.
2007 will be the perfect year for rebuilding the New York Republican Party and in order to do it, we need the help from Young Republicans like yourself. Our club has traditionally been the most active club in republican politics and in order to continue this tradition, we need some of the most active young professionals to participate.
Posted by NYYRC at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)