Jim.Sweeney: January 2009 Archives

President George W. Bush was widely criticized during his eight years in office - and a lot of the rebukes were well deserved.

But news reports on pardons and clemency decisions suggest that Bush took an egalitarian approach to a presidential power that verges on royal prerogative.

Despite widespread fears on the political left, Bush didn't issue blanket pardons for members of his administration, CIA officers and others who may have broken laws after 9/11. He also didn't pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Nor did Bush grant requests from a list of well-connected applicants including financier Michael Milken, ex-Govs. George Ryan of Illinois and Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, ex-Reps. Randy Cunningham of California and Mario Biaggi of New York and telecomm exec Bernie Ebbers. All of them applied for pardons, according to a report posted today on the Los Angeles Times Web site.

Obscure people were the recipients of most Bush's pardons - and he granted just 189 in eight years, the fewest of any recent president.

Bush hasn't talked publicly about his decisions, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she discussed pardons with the ex-president at the inauguration, and told CNN's Larry King: "He said people who have gotten pardons are usually people who have influence or know friends in high places," a route that is "not available to ordinary people."

"He thought that there was more access for some than others, and he was not going to do any," Pelosi said.

Bush rescinded one pardon after learning that the recipient's father was a major political donor, sparking a debate over a president's power to un-pardon someone. George Lardner Jr., a former reporter, developed some interesting history on that topic for the Washington Post, which also ran a rebuttal by Brian C. Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State.

-- Jim Sweeney

A day after President Obama introduced a new "era of responsibility," a private economist at a State of Sonoma County event offered a roadmap for improving things here.

Steve Cochrane of Moody's had three things on his list: education, resources and regulations.

In descending order, he said the biggest gains can be made via education, citing the now familiar statistics that the Latino population is growing fastest in Sonoma County and is considerably less likely to have completed high school. Even a modest improvement would translate to 4,800 more jobs by 2020 (2.2 percent more than if there were no education gains. There would also be a $600 million increase in economic output.

Next, reducing the cost of water by 10 percent (he didn't suggest how) would add 1,500 jobs and $108 million in economic output over the same period.

Finally, reducing the number of hours businesses spend complying with regulatory demands by 10 percent would add 900 jobs and $82 million in economic output.

All three things on Cochrane's list also are on the list of the Sonoma County Innovation Council, which recently completed its report (with Moody's help) to the Board of Supervisors.

Let's hope some of it works ...

-- Jim Sweeney

Let's talk taxes. And political fallout.

In Washington this week, we've witnessed an uproar of the failure of Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner to pay $34,000 in federal taxes. Here in Santa Rosa, we've received several letters castigating The Press Democrat for reporting on the failure of Rue Furch, a Sonoma County planning commissioner and unsuccessful candidate for supervisor in the November election, to pay her property taxes.

At this juncture, it looks like Geithner's nomination will survive the disclosure. Some senators cite the ongoing economic crisis, saying Geithner is too important to President-elect Barack Obama's recovery effort to let him sink. (Sounds a lot like the rational for bailing out the big banks and brokerages last fall.) Another factor that may  help Geithner was his quick, clear explanation. (On the other hand, a finance expert saying he didn't understand the tax rules doesn't stir much confidence in his ability to right a listing economy.)

If he is confirmed, perhaps Geithner should be the first to leave Obama's cabinet, either voluntarily after getting a recovery plan in place or involuntarily if it turns out he's not any better at economic stimulus than he is at deciphering the tax code.

As for Furch, I'm not convinced the tax issue cost her the election. Obviously it didn't help. Nor did she did help herself any with her myriad explanations. It's still not clear if tax payments were delayed because of business setbacks, unexpected remodeling costs, too much time in volunteer service, her partner's oversight, her children's housing needs or something else. The issue came up months before the election, and a straightforward answer may have buried it.

Some say it was inappropriate to check her tax bill (they're all public records, you know) after the election, but she remains a public official, a member of the Sonoma County Planning Commission. The new supervisor, Efren Carrillo, hasn't said if he plans to replace her. But after the latest disclosure, it would be surprising if he didn't.

In the end, I think Geithner and Furch are proof that paying your taxes matters, especially if you want to serve in government.

-- Jim Sweeney

Among his last acts as president, Bill Clinton issued more than 100 pardons, including several that proved politically embarrassing (Remember financier Marc Rich?). President Bush has been unusually stingy about pardons throughout his tenure, and we don't know if he plans to issue any more before leaving office next week. But we can get a peek inside the process courtesy of  Fred Franzia, the California wine merchant responsible for "Two-buck Chuck."

It turns out Franzia was convicted 16 years ago of selling fraudulently labeled grapes, and he petitioned Bush for a pardon. Franzia got turned him down, but details of his application were released to McClatchy Newspapers after a Freedom of Information Act request. McClatchy D.C. Bureau Chief Mike Doyle's story outlines the role of a California congressman and a former Justice Department lawyer in trying to secure a pardon for Franzia.

Do you think Bush made the right call? Do you think he'll issue more pardons before he leaves office?

-- Jim Sweeney

We may be edging closer to mail-only elections, at least in the North Bay.

Sonoma and Marin county election officials have aggressively promoted mail balloting for many years, saying it boosts turnout and could save money.

An analysis of the November election released Tuesday by the Field Institute reaches the same conclusion, at least with regard to turnout.

California's voter turnout increased for the third straight presidential election, after 32 years of declining participation, and Field attributed the trend to an increase in vote-by-mail ballots, the new name for absentee ballots. Of the record 13.7 million votes cast in the November election, 5.7 million were mail ballots. That's up 1.6 million since 2004 and more than double the 2.7 million cast in 2000.

In addition, 84.9 percent of the 6.7 million mail ballots distributed were returned, compared to an overall turnout of 75.9 percent.

As we've already reported, Sonoma had the largest turnout of any county, with 93.4 percent of registered voters casting ballots. And 59.4 percent voted by mail. Only six counties had larger proportions, including tiny Alpine and Sierra counties, which only have mail ballots.

Sonoma and Marin counties would like to go the all-mail route, and election officials have volunteered several times to be test sites for the state. Gloria Colter, the assistant registrar of voters in Sonoma County, said the offer stands for a special election this spring that's likely to be required by any state budget deal.  "We're still ready, willing and able," she told me Wednesday.

She thinks there would be enough savings from not setting up 300-plus polling stations, each with four paid workers, to more than offset postage costs. And she thinks the data proves that more people would participate.

The hold ups include tradition (many people like to go to the polls) and politics (legislators aren't so sure that an all-mail election offers the best chance of approval for spending cuts and tax hikes likely to be on the ballot). Also, Los Angeles County isn't enthusiastic about mail voting. So Colter and other advocates are hoping lawmakers might give county supervisors the option of holding mail-only elections.

I'll admit that I'm one of those who likes going to the polls. What would you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

You may recall that the chambers of commerce in Santa Rosa, Cloverdale and Sebastopol hired a company to create slogans and logos for them. I'm afraid I couldn't have remembered one of the slogans if someone offered me $1,000 until I got a letter to the editor today asking about Santa Rosa's slogan, "California Cornucopia." Thanks for the reminder go to Ned and Jane Alpert of Santa Rosa. Your letter will be in the paper in the next few days.

But what really got me started on this subject was a column from the Marin Independent-Journal by Dick Spotswood. Marin County has come up with its own new slogan ("Marin - Just a little out there"), and Dick offered some suggestions for Marin's cities and towns. Among them:

-- Corte Madera: "Mall of Marin."

-- Fairfax: "Where the '60s still live." (This one might get a protest from Cotati.)

-- Nicasio: "Home of Skywalker Ranch, but we can't tell you where."

-- Mill Valley: "Come for the lattes, stay for the pilates."

-- Point Reyes Station: "Don't even think of building here."

-- Ross: "Where $10 million doesn't go as far as it used to."

-- San Quentin Village: "Marin's largest gated community."

-- Bolinas: A series of signs along southbound Shoreline Highway, starting in Stinson Beach, beginning with: "Bolinas does not exist." Heading around the lagoon: "Bolinas - 20 miles." At the intersection leading to Bolinas: "The AAA road map is wrong." Halfway down the road toward the village: "Warning! Last  chance to turn around. Proceed at your own risk."

-- Jim Sweeney