A State of Disgrace – USA Gov Policy

The recent federal indictment of New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver highlighted the mismanagement and corruption in what was once called the “Empire State.”

Once the most powerful state in the Union, New York, despite possessing favorable geographic assets, abundant natural resources, and a well- educated population, has been laid low by elected officials that are increasingly venal and ideologically obsessed.

Speaker Silver represents both vices. His brand of uncompromising left-wing ideology was a deterrent to business development and job creation. Further, according to the charges levied against him, he road-blocked many legislative items until he could gain a personal profit from them.

His example of unethical leadership set a tone that was followed throughout state government, extending even to blocking investigations of sexual harassment of female legislative employees.

Other branches of NY government failed to move effectively against Silver’s rising tide of corruption. It has been noted that more New York elected officials leave office through death or indictment than through being voted out of office.

Those who rebelled against Silver’s reign faced career-ending punishment. In an exclusive interview with this publication, former Assembly Member Stephen B. Kaufman, who unsuccessfully attempted to oust the Speaker, noted:
Apart from hard tablets; they are also known to cause side effects. online cialis pharmacy You will also be able to lead a normal life with the confidence for performing well sexually whenever the best sildenafil he wants to. Outcomes in seconds after taking in The pill is never going to work instantly once it has diffused in your system, it unclogs cialis generic no prescription male reproductive organ’s arteries by soaring availability of cGMP enzyme, leading to stiff state of penile organ for 4 to 6 hours. Before you choose a medication or a natural method to slow aging viagra generic sildenafil process in males.
“During my tenure in the New York State Assembly, I actively opposed the reign of Speaker Sheldon Silver. I firmly believed that his lack of ethics and strong-arm tactics were an insult to the integrity of both the government and the people of New York State.

“It was obvious that my principled opposition would lead to dire consequences for my political career, and indeed, I did suffer substantially for my action. Frankly, despite that, I remain proud of my battle against the Speaker, and would willingly make that sacrifice again. No one should be more concerned for their career than for the people they were elected to serve.”

New York’s government has become a national embarrassment because of the corruption and self-interest of too many elected officials like Sheldon Silver. The challenges facing this state are extremely serious, and require honest and intelligent leadership that puts the needs of New Yorkers above venal personal gain.

Bringing Speaker Silver to justice is long overdue. I hope that it represents a solid move towards the development of truly representative government for the people of this great state.”

New York, like many other states, has problems that extend beyond corruption. Excessive taxes, burdensome regulations, and a failure to allow the exploitation of its natural resources due to pressure from environmental extremists have left the once wealthy state in a perilous financial condition.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.