jamiehollin

Archive for 2012|Yearly archive page

, , , ,

The times they are a-changin’

In Law, Legislature, Media, Politics, Public Policy, Tennessee on February 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm

The Commercial Appeal in Memphis has this update on SB 2207: LINK HERE.

Lt. Governor Ramsey deserves a tip of the cap for supporting the anticipated changes.

Bob Dylan said it best:

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don’t stand in the doorway

Don’t block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who is stalled

There’s a battle outside and its ragin’

It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your halls

For the times the are a-changin’

Thank you Lt. Gov. Ramsey. Now, about those Open Meetings laws….

, , , , , ,

There’s no rage, Mr. Dylan

In Community, Law, Legislature, Media, Politics, Public Policy, Root striker, Twitter on February 16, 2012 at 10:25 am

UPDATE: Senate rolled until next Thursday’s calendar. Also known as Thursday next.
SB 2207/HB 2345 is what’s known as an Administration (Governor Haslam) bill. I’ve written about briefly before. Even though it is a priority of the administration, there’s one person who can stop it could’ve stopped it. It will be on the floor of the Senate this morning, so you can expect it will be passed this morning. There has been no opposition in the House.

Yesterday, the Memphis Commercial Appeal had this. Today, the Knoxville News Sentinel had this editorial in opposition.

As much as this concerns me, it doesn’t come as a surprise. News flash: government is not a business. You cannot run the government like a business. Government takes on policy initiatives that do not produce positive income streams—like protecting the public. If this happened in business, this policy would be stopped. In business you’re operating with your money or the money of your investors who want a profit. In government, you’re operating on our money–taxpayer money we’d rather keep. In the history of our state, I don’t remember us getting a dividend at the end of the year.

However, secrecy appeals to the heartstrings of business. Thus, you find, as Rep. Craig Fitzhugh stated yesterday in the House Education Committee, “a solution looking for a problem.” Government works best when the sun shines in. It’s a disinfectant. When government business is conducted in secret it exponentially increases the likelihood of corruption.

Back to the individual who can stop it: Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey. He is a craftsman with no peer in the legislature. He doesn’t seem so inclined. At least he hasn’t been to this point. Instead, yesterday, he tweeted this:

I want to believe him, but I simply don’t. The acts of state government in our legislature couldn’t be more opaque and closed when it comes to these matters. [Aside: the website is great and so is the streaming]. And SB 2207/HB 2345 only makes it darker. In the age of the Internet, we should be moving the other direction, which it seems Lt. Gov. Ramsey wants to go. At least according to his words. Just like Congress, the Tennessee General Assembly is not bound by laws that apply to others. Slippery? You bet.

I will believe this protestation of supporting transparent and open government when the legislature passes rules in each chamber at the outset of each organizational session mandating open meetings. It would necessitate a rule initiative because the well worn argument against same is one general assembly cannot bind a future general assembly. True indeed, so just make it a part of the rules to start.

Our apologies Mr. Dylan, there was no rage against the dying of the light in Tennessee. When the light dies, this is what happens:

, , , , , ,

Pithy letter to editor caught my eye

In Community, Council, Legislature, Local media, Politics, Public Policy, Tennessee on February 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Today’s Letter to the Editor section of The Tennessean caught my eye. I’d provide a link, but can’t get one off their mobile site and I’m on a handheld.

Ed Forbes of Hendersonville writes the following, entitled “Lawmakers can’t get it done”:

Tennesseans want, but can’t get, wine sales in grocery stores. Tennesseans don’t want, but can’t get rid of, County Clerk John Arriola. It appears our lawmakers can’t get it right. If that ever happens, I’ll drink to that!

Here’s to knowing Mr. Forbes will live a sober life because getting it right doesn’t factor into the equation.

, , ,

Ain’t no sunshine…

In Legislature, Politics, Public Policy, Tennessee on February 10, 2012 at 10:48 am

When you’re gone. And you’re always gone. I think is how the song goes. The “you” this time are the taxpayers of the state of Tennessee. When this passes–and it will, we will know even less about why some corporate people get our human tax dollars and some don’t (assuming any are turned down).

The bill was recently in the House subcommittee of the Commerce committee. There was no discussion on the bill. Likewise in the Senate that I can find. It is scheduled to be on the Senate floor Monday night, February 13. This is an administration bill, but even the loyal opposition on the Senate Commerce committee voted for its passage–it passed 8-0.

Guess those Occupy Nashville folks were too busy tilting at other windmills to notice. Just like I am now here, I guess. Sure, the media has reported the same, but I guess we are so distracted by the noise to stop and take notice. If true, then we get what we deserve. And, we are each on our own. But, it’s still our damn money.

Congress has a history of passing laws that doesn’t apply to Congress, but it’s not limited to them. Sunshine laws don’t apply to the General Assembly–even though it’s possible by them passing one every two years at the beginning of each session. Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey recently defended the policy arguing “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He further “argues” that his ability to board with other Senators would be illegal if Sunshine laws were passed. Absurd.

I want him to continue to be able to save boarding costs when he is in Nashville just like his Senate colleagues. I believe him to be a man of such integrity to avoid those discussions when not in meetings open to the public. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld joking that if we all walked around naked, but some wore hats, we’d all want to know what was under the hat. We are curious and because you’re representing our interests, we deserve to know. If a family member or employee was spending your money behind your back, wouldn’t you want to know why and on what?

It should never be policy to hide public matters from the very public they serve. The Lt. Governor has the ability to get this changed–and it doesn’t have to be a silly as the one on the books for locals.

I have to go find another windmill.

 

 

, , , , , , ,

Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.

In Legislature, Media, Politics, Public Policy, Tennessee on February 8, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Nationally, Republicans staked this campaign for the Office of President on the economy. In economic terms, they’ve been shorting President Obama—and America’s economy. If things keep up—notwithstanding the Santorum flurry last night—they will be getting a margin call in November liquidating all their political collateral. Shorting America is a flawed policy.

Gov. Mitt Romney has tried to appeal to the most of us in the political middle. Yet, conservatives across the nation since their 2010 rise to power have governed to the right of Genghis Khan. Across the nation—Wisconsin and Ohio for example—Republicans haven’t legislated policies to improve the economic conditions of their respective states. Instead, they’ve waged war on political enemies—labor unions most notably—and prevailed. Why they did this we can’t be sure. I don’t remember the campaign promising to punish political enemies in order to cement their positions of power. Being more concerned with accumulation of power than in governing responsibly was what got the “bums thrown out.”

The folks in Wisconsin will have a recall election for their Governor. In Ohio, the voters overturned their governor’s policies. The personhood amendment in Mississippi failed. Many would call those occasions the telltale signs the governing policies of Republicans don’t match the rhetoric or promises of the 2010 campaign. Here in Tennessee, it’s much the same. I suspect many will realize the teacher’s union didn’t have much political power anyway—at least they didn’t before this legislative session. So, for us at least, it was a demonstration of running over a gnat with a bulldozer.

Undoubtedly, two years are insufficient to implement a long-range strategy for Republicans to implement a change in policy. Yet, in politics and is in life, it’s enough to reveal who you are, not who you say you are. Republicans made a bet the economy would still be in the ditch. It’s not. Take it from the mouth of the candidate most likely to be the GOP nominee.

Here is a brief snippet of Mitt Romney talking to Laura Ingraham on her radio show on Jan. 20:

No wonder the New Yorker had this as their recent cover: 

These governing policies of Republicans across the country and in the state of Tennessee the past two years will indeed lead them to slaughter—political slaughter that is. Especially when the presumptive GOP nominee thinks it’s not a good idea to build an economy on debt when that’s exactly the method Bain Capital parlayed to extraordinary success.

But, Jon Stewart does it the best, as usual:

Messaging. It’s important.

In Legislature, Politics, Public Policy, Tennessee, Uncategorized on February 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Since 2008, politicians have been preaching the same mantra: jobs, jobs, jobs. People are angry beyond belief because they’re frustrated as never before. Republicans in the state rode into power on the manifestation of national resentment against the powers that be. A “throw the bums out” wave, if you will.

Republicans succeeded on the message of “limited” government—whatever the hell that means—fewer regulations, and job creation. The electorate was desperate. Any high school senior could have run those campaigns as long as the candidate was a Republican.

Almost every candidate—democrats included—simply talked about job creation and how he or she’d make it happen. They told us they would lead or create the policies to do just that. Legislators and our Governor’s words are filled with such “jobs” jargon. Nationally, you hear R’s speak of government dependence being heresy—I bet most folks agree. Yet at the same time, they’re asking us to look to them to create those jobs. What gives? If you were such a proponent of getting out of the way, you’d be Libertarian or simply stay home.

You say you’ll get government out of our lives—ignore the logical fallacy of the obvious: you’re the government. “I’m with the government and I’m here to help.” If you really wanted to be out of our lives, you’d stop allowing some of your colleagues from making a mockery of our state. It adds insult to injury for the rest of us. Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you tell us the focus is creating jobs. You led us to believe you could create jobs. We knew you couldn’t really, but we weren’t making the promises. You made them, not us.

There can be no doubt that state R’s are winning the messaging battle. There’s honestly not much competition, which is sad because honest competition makes us better (btw, government-backed business is not competition in a “free” market). So, here we are almost 2 years later and there’s little change. Of course, you have spent an inordinate amount of time cramming your social views down our collective throats—no choice. In Nashville, it was a choice—the irony. You’ve also trampled and continue to trample on the rights of cities to make decisions for themselves. Yes, we know city governments are political subdivisions of the state. We just wish you’d serve locally if you want to make local public policy.

It must be you don’t trust them to make a decision unless you agree. Political disagreement must be sinful to you—”perfection is the enemy of the good” is an old Wilderism. You’ve shown us over the last year or so you weren’t capable of doing what you said you would do. We don’t trust you anymore. Admittedly, there wasn’t much rope to begin with. Your policies so far have achieved political retribution for the past, usurped local autonomy, made the minority party’s position your own on grocery taxes, sanctioned discrimination, readied base rallying constitutional amendments, and generally just let us down.

I predict your most radical elements in the freshman class will face certain defeat in spite of the benefits derived from redistricting. Maybe I’m wrong. I usually am about such things. Even if I am, leadership must get them under control. Unless of course, they’re the leadership. It’s almost too late to begin producing. Celebrating a fulfilled campaign promise to make data more accessible—and a dashboard to boot—is not the promise we wanted celebrated first. Delivering on a promise isn’t worthy of celebration anyway—unless it’s proof you’ve delivered the ultimate promise. And then, we wouldn’t need you to tell us. It would be obvious to everyone.

Getting “rid of red tape” didn’t bring jobs. Letting radicals dominate the media didn’t bring jobs. Usurping local power didn’t bring jobs. Getting constitutional amendments on the ballot in 2014 doesn’t bring jobs (discounting political campaign employment). People are understandably pissed. You haven’t delivered on your promises. You’re too easily distracted—like with protesters. Did I mention you’ve allowed us to become a national embarrassment, repeatedly? Mississippi’s personhood amendment got less attention. It failed by the way. Really, Mississippi?

This election, people will not be moved by the jobs mantra. In fact, they’re looking for some evidence of your accomplishments. Good luck trying to convince us with your current message. It’s stale. The rest of us are scratching for all we have. There’s nothing trickling down. Where are the jobs? You said you knew. You can’t take credit for giving taxpayer funded subsidies to corporations and call the same job creation. That’s the Robin Hood fallacy. At minimum, give the credit to us. I don’t recall the campaign statement “we’re going to use our tax collections to subsidize private enterprise.”

We all now realize the economy was worse off than most imagined. But now we know this state leadership is doing the same as the old leadership. Our collective memories are too short to remember this from history. We’re to blame for this A.D.D. Yet, when times are good at home, we mostly ignore what you’re doing. Most of us are in the political middle and only engage when you fail to act.

You have a credibility problem and the radicals aren’t helping the cause. Adding further insult to injury–for the party at least, you’re not going to get any help from any national tidal wave this year. The nominee-in-waiting as anointed by Republican “establishment” is Mitt Romney. I cannot recall the credibility of a presidential candidate more repeatedly called into question than that of Mitt Romney. In fact, it would be impossible to convince me he will not say whatever it is he needs to say to get elected. This comes from someone who believes a Romney v. Obama choice is either side of the same coin. See Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig.

In the most concise demonstration of the utter lack of consistency in the national debate about the economy—delivered by Mitt Romney yet produced by a comedian— is a candidate for president asking us to elect him based upon his hyper-successful private sector career—“the country needs a president who’s created jobs in the private sector to create jobs in this economy.” Sounds good so far, right? Then surely he will tell us he will run the country just like he ran his business, which was successful in terms of wealth creation for him, his partners and many others, I’m sure. If you thought so too, you’d be wrong just like me. In fact, it’s just the opposite—contrary to the very experience he asks us to admire as the very reason we should elect him.

Please watch:

Don’t take cues from him.

Alternatively, we may still have amnesia and Republican seats are increased in the state legislature. I doubt it. However, it’s getting harder and harder to ignore the reality Romney will be the nominee and will impact the ballot further down. Simply amazing. The state and nation have come to realize in this political economy what you have known all along: no one is working for our collective best interests anymore. New faces, indeed albeit with the same result.

I hear the true believers, money simply allows campaigns to persuade voters. I believe this too. Here’s a recent report on one candidate’s (not coordinated, of course) SuperPAC expenditures. We will never see the (c)(4) donors. Doesn’t matter.

“All told, the group, Restore Our Future [pro-Romney SuperPAC], raised about $30 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/campaign-finance-reports-show-super-pac-donors.html?_r=1&hp

In the state, “re-election is what matters now” is the only credible campaign slogan. We’d appreciate the candor. After the election, please be better. Our expectations aren’t unreasonable. Just be better. You’d be surprised by the impact. I still believe you can put all the incessant bickering behind you.

One doesn’t become a leader because he or she got more votes in a campaign. One is a leader because he or she demonstrates leadership. We’re waiting for you to tell us the sober reality—even if it isn’t on message.

Consistency used to matter in shaping public policy

In Community, Council, Law, Politics, Public Policy, Zoning on January 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm
It wasn’t long ago that consistency in politics mattered. In this instance of politics, I am talking about its result in public policy. Irrespective of your views on what our public policy should be, we should all be able to agree it should have uniform application across the county. At the Council’s last meeting, an ordinance was passed allowing residents to raise hens in certain council districts, subject to certain conditions. 8 district council members co-sponsored an amendment to “exempt” the respective districts they represent (the “loyal opposition”).

 

The public policy impact is absurd. One’s opinion on the bill is irrelevant. To clarify, it doesn’t matter to me whether you’re a supporter of the bill or part of the loyal opposition or just against its passage. There can be little debate about this being bad public policy. Enforcement will be virtually impossible.

Many members of the loyal opposition to the chicken bill were also some of the strongest advocates to save the fairgrounds. One of the strongest positions—due to its truth—in the fight for preservation, is that every resident of Davidson County owns those 117 acres. In other words, no priority given to nearby citizens—all are equal. As a consequence, each council member was free to vote based upon their constituency—councilmanic courtesy be damned. If councilmanic courtesy would’ve prevailed, the bulldozer’s work at the fairgrounds would be done by now (71% approved Charter amendment).

Councilmanic courtesy

Councilmanic courtesy is a powerful force (although less frequent than many think). I am familiar with its power from experience (Cleveland Street zoning, 11 meetings over 12 months) in 2009, which ultimately spawned a recall election, among other things. This courtesy is usually limited to zoning matters. However, in limited instances, it is used elsewhere. One such limited example was the fairgrounds. It didn’t bear fruit, as we all know. And it will be much harder to employ in the future on this topic. Hens = zoning.

The chicken bill is a demonstration of this courtesy, but not in a fashion apparent on its face. Instead of being able to defeat the legislation by keeping 21 from being posted on 3rd reading, the representatives for those 8 districts were able to collect an 18-17 count for adoption of the amendment. This is when I realized a rule requiring 21 votes to adopt an amendment on all zoning bills would be a good one. A prohibition against exempting a district from an ordinance or resolution with county-wide application is another.

The opt-out amendment movement was designed to defeat legislation short of being able to keep 21 from being posted. There are many ways to defeat a bill, but only one way to pass one. The opt-out is a much easier way out and takes less time. “It is so ridiculous” went the notion that if so allowed to amend, the sponsor would recognize defeat and move for deferral or withdraw. An example to illustrate is necessary.

Opt-out movement spawned

The opt-out amendment movement was spawned last council term relative to another controversial city-wide zoning matter. CM Erik Cole sponsored what was known as the cottage bill. During the run-up to the vote, members were asking for the districts they represent to be excluded from its application. In the face of many of these opt-out amendments being added to the bill, Cole withdrew the bill. At the time, I failed to thank CM Cole for doing the right thing. I am now making up for lost time: Thank you, Erik. Too bad others didn’t follow your example (I give the freshmen a pass in this instance). Cole recognized the obvious and felt more obligated to the long-term policy impact on the city than in scoring a short-term political “victory.”

Now back to the inconsistency in this type of councilmanic courtesy. One of the biggest policy arguments in the push to demolish the speedway was that other council members should respect the desires of the district’s representative above all—deem them to have a super-voter status. There were op-ed wars in The City Paper on this very point. And that was only the public face of the dispute.

So, fairgrounds supporters had to overcome councilmanic courtesy. Yet it is that very courtesy the opt-out amendment sponsors proffered to have the districts they represent exempted from the application of the bill. The argument is the other side of the same coin when asking others to go along with a zoning bill because it won’t impact other districts. Here, the law will apply except in those districts because the citizens “of my district don’t want certain people to have chickens.” During the fairgrounds debate it was “the citizens of each district are equal,” which is heads. Now, “the citizens of district __ don’t want this law to apply to them,” which is tails. The coin is public policy by councilmanic courtesy.

The lone power remaining exclusively in the hands of the local legislative body is zoning power. Today, it’s a mess more than ever thanks to this patchwork policy. This is terrible public policy and sets a dangerous precedent. Consistency used to be valued. It is no victory—political or otherwise—to have patchwork application of zoning laws across our city. The impact of such a policy runs counter to the argument that the Council should be a co-equal branch of government.

Yes, the point made during the fairgrounds debate that citizens of other districts are equal to the citizens of the district of the fairgrounds is still true. Yet it cannot continue to be made consistently by those who opted-out of the chicken bill. Consistent application of our general laws is important to those who care about our public policies—even if we disagree about what our policies should be. I’m looking forward to the result when a citizen is hauled into Environmental Court when cited for owning hens in an opted-out district, especially if it’s close to the line of an included district.

Next thing you know, sponsors of zoning bills vehemently opposed by outraged citizens will ask unaffected council district representatives to opt-out (even though it doesn’t apply outside the affected district) making it highly likely citizen engagement will decline further. Assuming citizen engagement indeed has room to decline. This is a terrible step in the wrong direction. Here’s to hoping someone in the body will sponsor a bill to end this terrible policy much earlier than its 2-year sunset and restore credibility to the body responsible for setting our public policy. Then, if the sponsor can get 21 again, get them. If not, let it go until it’s possible. If allowed to stand, it’s hard to imagine us being rationally considered a consolidated, metropolitan government.

Yet, I guess it’s not as bad as advocating social welfare reform while simultaneously ignoring the need for corporate welfare reform.

This is my opinion. What’s yours?

Legislative insistence on redundancy and limited privacy rights in Tennessee

In Law, Legislature, Politics, Public Policy, Supreme Court, Tennessee on January 25, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Today, Governor Haslam announced a proposal to amend the state constitution affirmatively–and redundantly–cementing the Tennessee Plan in our state’s governing document. The Tennessee Plan–as you know–is how lawyers that know the governor get appointed to the appellate courts and Supreme Court of Tennessee. Never mind the Tennessee Plan has already been interpreted repeatedly as constitutional by the TN Supreme Court–it was a Special Supreme Court in 1996–in the cases of State ex rel. Higgins v. Dunn, 496 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tenn. 1973) and State ex rel. Hooker v. Thompson, No. 01S01-9605-CH-00106, 1996 WL 570090 (Tenn. Oct. 2, 1996), which have also been affirmed numerous times by other appellate courts.

In 2010, Republicans celebrated taking control of the General Assembly for the first time since Reconstruction. Oddly enough, the justices making those decisions were appointed when Democrats controlled the legislature. Yes, I know, the Governor is making the appointments and every 8 years we Tennesseans select a governor from the other party. However, the members of the Judicial Nominating Commission are appointed by the respective speakers of the House and Senate.

Tenn. Code Ann. Section 17-4-102 – The Judicial Nominating Commission reviews applicants for judicial vacancies on the state trial and appellate courts. From the applicants, the commission makes recommendations to the governor, who makes an appointment to fill the vacancy. Eight of the seventeen members of the commission are appointed by the Speaker of the Senate. Eight of the members are appointed by the Speaker of the House. One member is jointly appointed by the Speakers of the Senate and House.

The commission then selects 3 names from the pool of applicants to recommend them to the governor for appointment to the bench. This reminds me, isn’t there a vacancy in circuit court in Nashville? Alas, it is important to note how the speakers get their list of candidates for commission members. One wouldn’t think a potential candidate (or at least a majority thereof) would get appointed without an express or implied standard he or she must follow in selecting potential candidates prior to submission to the governor for ultimate selection.

In fact, one of the commission members (the Secretary) is also a board member of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, which is ironic considering his practice is devoted to–among others yet listed second–divorce. He is also a former member of the legislature and I am certain he is a fine attorney. The current body still consists of appointments from previous House speakers.

All that being said, it is highly, highly improbable the TN Supreme Court will reverse course in our lifetime. So, why is the governor wasting our time and that of the legislature’s, the 95 county election commissions, ink, paper, etc.? Others have suggested on Twitter this is GOTV efforts. I am not sure of the answer, but let’s consider what else will be on the ballot in 2014.

The 2014 ballot will include a constitutional amendment to forever ban the imposition of a state income tax. Again, the Tennessee Supreme Court has already ruled (3 times) the same unconstitutional pursuant to Article II, Sec. 28. Even the House proponent remarked such on the House floor. Notice a pattern here?

It will also include an amendment to overturn Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist. The language of the amendment is as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

I am sure everyone can see the writing on the wall for the legislature’s 1st session if this passes. In its simplest terms, the TN Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Constitution provides an independent right to privacy and ultimately, more rights to privacy than the U.S. Constitution. In order words, the state and its political subdivisions will have to meet the strict scrutiny standard–a high burden.

In total, 3 constitutional amendments–there’s time for more–2 that affirm repeated rulings of the state’s high court and 1 that overturns their ruling–the law. It’s the economy, stupid. Not that economy. This is the political economy.

Indeed our constitution (ceiling), as interpreted by its highest court ruled that Tennesseans have more privacy guarantees than under the U.S. Constitution (floor). In light of the passage of National Defense Authorization Act, privacy is of grave concern. We should be pleased to know we are afforded greater privacy protections under our state laws, at least for now.

Is the Tennessee Plan amendment a ruse? I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. The income tax amendment idea was born years ago and was driven by public outcry. The privacy amendment is being driven by the group who seemingly has a lock on this General Assembly. Look for more of the same this session like last session on HB 600. The state is determined to wrest control of local decisions away from urban locales. It began with contracting. It goes further to wages and health care. Now, anti-bullying policies of local school districts (HB 1153).

In the words of FACT:

[i]t also clarifies state law to make it clear that districts cannot create their own definitions of bullying….

We are ill equipped at the local school district level to define the term “bullying.” I am a great skeptic of our local school policies, but I am convinced the folks we elected are plenty capable of defining such a term. Even if they weren’t, we elected them.

We can stand by and take the beating or we can act. Hundreds of small protests at the Capitol will capture the media’s attention, but it won’t change the outcome. An opening has been seized by the closed-minded and they are driving the bus.

Rural legislators are making our local, urban decisions for us. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that by and large urban areas have different policies than rural areas if for no other reason there’s more of us and we live closer together. This is the new reality in our state’s political economy. Before long, we can consider it our new normal, and for the foreseeable future. Even if I agreed with their points of view, I don’t want to be subject to the political decision-making of officials whose election I can’t impact. And neither should anyone else.

Perhaps GOTV is the answer. Jobs, anyone?

“Stop hacking at the branches of evil. Start at the root.”

In Community, Lessig, Poverty, Public Policy, Root striker on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm

This will take you some time to view. Well worth the time. Great perspective from Lessig in visual form. Many thanks to him for his work. More information at the end.

re:Public Goods from lessig on Vimeo.

Losing faith while gaining insight

In Community, Media, Politics, Poverty, Public Policy on January 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm

I love reading. Especially real, in-your-hand hardcover books purchased from locally-owned bookstores.

Here are some books I’ve read recently: The Big Short by Michael Lewis, Confidence Men by Ron Suskind, Boomerang by Michael Lewis, The Black Banners by Ali Soufan, Seal Target Geronimo by Chuck Pfarrer, Capitol Punishment by Jack Abramoff and Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer. I am currently reading Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig, while taking too many notes along the way.

Then, on A1 of Sunday’s New York Times, Charles Duhigg and Keith Brasher write How U.S. Lost  Out on iPhone Work. The Jobs biography is on deck after Republic, Lost. The article was actually available online Saturday night when I read it on the heels of Newt Gingrich prevailaing–big–in South Carolina.

I was drawn to reading Lessig after reading his work in a post-Citizen United political economy. He really got my attention with Democracy After Citizens United in the Boston Review back in late 2010. This snippet was really eye opening:

[t]he framers intended Congress to be “dependent upon the People alone.” But the private funding of public campaigns has bred within Congress a second, and conflicting, dependency. As with an alcoholic mother trying to care for her children, that conflicting dependency does not change the good intentions of members of Congress—they still want to serve the public interest they thought themselves elected to serve. But as with an alcoholic mother trying to care for her children, that conflicting dependency distracts members from their good intentions, directing their focus more and more toward the challenge of raising money.

We are now so far afield from a Congress dependent on the people alone it is now absurd to believe otherwise. I, for one, am losing faith in our ability to recapture control over our republic. Yet, we must be willing to start turning the tide while still able. If we wait much longer, it might become irrevocable. Maybe I’m just an alarmist, but it seems all too real. Buddy Roemer can’t even get on stage in a debate for the Republican nomination, yet Perry was on every stage until he dropped out–even if he didn’t meet the CNN qualifications.

Call me corny, but I love, love our city, state and country. I will begin again using this space to embark on a path of engagement with others—you, if you will–in order to reclaim a government our Founders envisioned (minus slavery, among others). This will be laboriuos, perhaps even aggravating. If you’re interested too, please share your comments here, but not anonymously, start your own blog, post a note on facebook (I gave up on the book of faces), sign-up for twitter (I’m at @jrhollin), become engaged in local government and your neigborhood. Feel free to attack the words of others, just not personal attacks. Words matter.

Before we can really reclaim our Congress, we will need to start small and at the local level. And what’s going on in local government may surprise you. There are some similarities and some stark contrasts bewteen local government and Congress. Sadly, there are more people than you care to think that group all in the same bucket. Moreover, voter participation in local elections compared to federal or state elections is abysmally low. Pre-SOPA, when have you contacted Congressman Cooper? Prior to redistricting (maybe), when was last time you contacted your state House or Senate member? The Governor? The Mayor? Your Council Member? Even then, did they respond?

The theme of my next entry will be: what you learn about local government from serving on the Metro Council. Things that can’t be learned from the media and certainly not by watching or attending Council meetings. In the interim, be sure to check out your local bookstore or library and get a copy of some of the titles above. If you’ve read them already, I’d love to hear your perspective after reading. Use the space here to comment or send an email, or better still, meet me for coffee to discuss. I will respond and indeed love coffee.

UPDATE: I was wrong–again. The theme of a coming entry will be: what you learn about local government from serving on the Metro Council. It wasn’t my next as I hoped, but will be forthcoming.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.