My mom is not a victim

One-third of the adults in my household don’t pay any federal income tax.

As those of you who heard me last year when I first entered the 5th District race may recall, my mom has an apartment in my wife’s and my home.  She is 78 and lives off Social Security.  I think she earned every penny of it.  

When I was in elementary school, my father lost his job and it took him several months to find a new one.  So my mom went to work.  She worked from 6 pm until 2 am.  She chose those hours so she would be home when my brother and I returned from school and could also sleep a few hours before seeing us off in the morning.  It couldn’t have been easy.  

Now, however, she doesn’t pay any federal income tax.  She is “dependent” on the government.  Or so we are told.  Well I say this not only because I love my mom but because I respect how she took responsibility for herself and her family 45 years ago:

Mitt Romney can take his candidacy and shove it.

Mose knows the 5th

When I read about the endorsement from former President Clinton, I heard yet another Mose Allison song playing in my head.

"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken for a ride?
The bigs ones eat the little ones and there's no place left to hide.
Just don't drink the water, try not to breathe the air.
I'm not discouraged, I am not discouraged, but I'm getting there."

While still in the race I received some unsolicited feedback after the Cornwall debate from two women visiting from New York.  "We can't vote because we don't live here--but you were by far the best candidate during the debate."  Which made me think of what Mose sings:

"The best is supposed to come in first, but they're at the mercy of the worst."

So no matter who wins the Democratic primary tomorrow, I will be listening to the great philospher from Tippo:

"Stop this world, let me off.  There's just too many pigs in the same trough.  Too many buzzards sitting on the fence.  Stop this world, it ain't making sense."

My endorsement

Since there is only one week until the primary in the 5th district and I know quite a bit about the three Democratic candidates, it is time for me to provide some direction to all the folks who supported me at the convention.

Here is my take on the candidates (in alphabetic order to be fair).

Chris Donovan

1. He seems to be the most progressive/liberal candidate, though not as progressive as I am, so that is in his favor.  
2. However, there is no realistic way for him to escape the taint of the alleged corruption among his top staffers.  Any indication that he was involved will not only damage Mr. Donovan but the Democratic party.   
3. Also, while he is progressive, his campaign has not been nearly bold enough in its positions. 

Elizabeth Esty

1. She has many admirable traits--sincere, hard-working, thoughtful.
2. My main issue with Ms. Esty is that winning seems more important to her than making a difference.  It was a huge mistake not to commit to the "positive campaign" pledge that was proposed at the first debate.  People who served on multiple town committees, the first people each candidate had a chance to represent, asked for a positive campaign.  (Now I know that the campaign has been a study in hypocrisy.)  If a politician is not willing to take a position proposed by the people doing the hard work at the grass roots level, then that says something about how she will "represent" the district.  To me it says that political expediency is more important than listening to constituents.  
3. The fact that will be hardest for her to overcome--taking money from businesspeople her husband regulates--is reflective of the same mindset.  It would have been harder for her campaign to get a strong start with less money, but it would have been the right thing to do do refuse the money that caused the appearance of conflicted interests.  

Dan Roberti

1. I don't know where to start.
2. OK. Saying you wish a Super-Pac would not attack your opponents is laughable.  Especially when its donors number fewer than 10 folks all of whom you surely know.
3. Running a highly negative campaign after pledging to remain positive is what Repbulicans do.
4. Using "different" as a campaign theme for a campaign based on raising money and attacking fellow Democrats is the height of cynicism.  

All that being said, I want a Democrat to win this election.  And I want all Democrats to stop the madness that has caused three good people to do questionable things and try their best to diminish each other.  

While none of the candidates can change how they have raised money, any of them can commit to shut the revolving door.  

I will endorse whichever candidate pledges: "I will not, nor will any member of my staff, accept a job as a lobbyist or working with a lobbying firm for five years after the last day on the taxpayers' payroll." 

Jail time does wonders

Jack Abramoff is trying to make amends and telling anyone who will listen that money spent by lobbyists is, if anything, even more corrupting than we imagined.

When a public servant has a debt to someone seeking a favor from the government, the foundation of our government is at risk. Each time a lobbyist or special interest makes a political contribution to a public servant, a debt is created. Lobbyists are very adept at collecting these debts. Unfortunately, the true debtor on these obligations is the American people. In a very real way, congressmen who take contributions from lobbyists and special interests are selling our nation to repay their debts of gratitude. That is the price of their votes and offices -- and it must stop. 

The problem is that no one is listening.  Least of all the Democrats.  Instead of banning contributions from lobbyists and committing to shutting the revolving door, each candidate is doing his/her best to convince us that he/she is different. Every piece of campaign mail I have received in the past two weeks tells me that all we need do is elect the correct candidate and he/she will "change Washington"  by the force of his/her special moral strength.

That will not work.  If a candidate has not changed the influence of money in his/her own campaign, there is no chance of that candidate changing Washington.  Once a politician is addicted to money, those plying Jack Abramoff's erstwhile trade are still in control of debt collection.

I have been eating sour grapes*

Now that I have been out of the race for more than 2 months, I think I can comment on Connecticut's 5th Congressional District with the perspective of distance.

Boy am I disappointed.  Just today I received campaign mail from the Roberti and Esty campaigns.

Roberti tells me:  "Chris Donovan and Elizabeth Esty's CROOKED HARTFORD POLITICS aren't what we need in Wahshington."

Esty uses a shattered graphic to let me know:  "Washington IS BROKEN.  Chris Donovan Part of the Problem, More of the Same."

Sure, my hope that one of the Democratic candidates would adopt some version of my non-compete clause to shut the revolving door was wishful thinking.  But it seemed possible that Chris Donovan's finance problems would provide the opportunity for Elizabeth Esty and/or Dan Roberti to make the plague of money in politics their own issue.

If anything, the opposite has happened.  I have been following the campaign through The Register Citizen's excellent blog.  The campaign leading from the convention to the primary has incorporated all the problems folks told me they wanted changed.

1. Much of the campaigning is negative;
2. Out-of-state money is playing a large and unsavory role;
3. Even issues that should unite Democrats are being misrepresented for political advantage.  

I understand the cliche that "politics ain't beanbag."  But at some point we Democrats must commit to seeking politic success for the purpose of better governance.  I hear too many co-workers and friends who have become apathetic because "politicians are only in it for themselves."  Nothing that has happened in CT 5 recently is going to change how such people feel.  

When Democratic politics becomes mostly about gaining power for its own sake, then we might as well be Republicans.  

*I know in the fable the grapes are sour because they can't be eaten.  However, in all honesty, I am bothered by having made so little impact.

The man from Torrington

I just finished reading Tony Horwitz's Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War.  Highly recommended--a gripping tale of an important part of American history.

One of the things I glean from history is that we are much too eager to label things the "most," or "best," or "worst."  (An Australian friend pointed this out when we were watching tennis more than a decade ago and the announcer proclaimed Pete Sampras the "best ever.")

Of course many of us keep saying that our politics are "more divided" than at any other time.  My response is: "Really??"  While our current Congress has accomplished little, none of its members has attacked another with a cane.  And while the income inequality in America is at historic levels, fellow citizens are not being arrested and beaten for demanding the right to vote.

On the other hand, what does seem to have been lost is the righteous outrage that is needed to bring about change.  What I experienced is that candidates and their supporters are so committed to winning, that they do not commit to making the changes in their own campaigns that are morally required.  This is why money has become such a problem.

In my next post, I will address how this is corrupting the race here in Connecticut's 5th District.  

The Corruption of Culture

The three headlines on the New York Times front page today:

1. The Penn State child abuse scandal
2. A "New Fraud Inquiry as JPMorgan's Loss Mounts"
3. The Barclays' LIBOR fixing scandal

It seems that anything that can be labelled "big" is now corrupt: big banks, big-time college football, big Pharma, etc.

And if politics can be called anything, it is big.  Spending on the presidential election this year is forecast to be close to $2 billion.  Most Senate races will cost between $50 million and $100 million.  And many House races will exceed $5 million in spending.  

Yet our election system may be the easiest to change.  Politicians all have the same primary concern--winning the next election.  If voters are willing to demand that candidates commit to limit outside spending and eliminate the revolving door that Congress and the Administration use to acquire high-paying lobbying jobs, then candidates will become less corrupt.  The key is to punish candidates that don't make the commitments.  

As much as I think the no-tax pledge is terribly damaging, I have to admit that it has been effective because those who have ignored or broken it have seen their chance for re-election diminished.  

The only effective tool for voters is denying candidates what they want--winning.