|
|
| |
Run, Carolyn, Run; Resign, Senators, Resign
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER
There are two distinct thoughts in this column – one likely, one not.
Manhattan/Queens Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney looks more and more like a challenger to Kristin Gillibrand for the United States Senate seat that was gifted to her by an accidental governor.
The sorry members of the New York State Senate will not resign. It will be our collective responsibility to end their careers when they face us in the September primaries and November elections in 2010.
First, in the interest of democracy, in the interest of the people, in the interest of all we believe is good in politics, we think it is essential that Kristin Gillibrand receive a Democratic Primary challenge and not be allowed to be handed a United States Senate seat and then be protected from a primary by Chuck Schumer and the White House.
We admire Schumer, his political skill, his accomplishments, his take-control attitude. We admire the President and the course he and his team have chartered. However, the Democratic nomination for United States Senate must be decided by the party members in a primary, not by the bosses – no matter who they are or how much we like their own records in office.
A month ago I called my friend Tom Allon, publisher of Manhattan’s Our Town and West Side Spirit, applauding his front page editorial imploring Carolyn Maloney to enter the race against Gillibrand:
“We wholeheartedly encourage East Side Rep. Carolyn Maloney to challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in next year’s Democratic primary.
This is not a knock, necessarily, at Gillibrand’s qualifications, or at President Barack Obama and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s recent appeal for “party unity.”
It is an appeal to reaffirm the democratic process and the opportunity to have real voter choice in our leadership.”
His papers go on to explain that not so long ago, there was an Illinois Senator that was told to step aside in the interest of party unity. The rest is history.
No, this is not an endorsement of Maloney or an indictment of Gillibrand – though we have some serious questions about her positions on gun control, immigration, her ability to represent downstate and her apparent willingness to flip-flop as quickly as any elected official we know.
Charlie Rangel and Gerry Ferraro just headlined a fundraiser for Maloney – it was not specified for a Senate campaign but it is encouraging to know the Washington powers didn’t dissuade these two New Yorkers from supporting one of their own. And now President Bill Clinton will be hosting a funder for Maloney – we haven’t quite figured out the subtle innuendos of that move, but it strengthens the Maloney effort.
Carolyn is one of us. She represents Queens, is relatively accessible and has been a hard working and influential member of Congress. She has earned the right to run for Senate.
The New York Democratic Party members are capable of hearing the arguments, evaluating the candidates and selecting the best one in a Primary. In November, the party will be united for the candidate who prevails.
Should one be forced down their throats, they have the ability to look at other options – and we would encourage them to do so.
Run, Carolyn, run!
State Senate Shame
On the NYS Senate issue, we have long ago passed our point of no return. While the title of the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation was officially bestowed five years ago, we have been calling them the worst for close to a decade.
Now the NYS Senate has fallen to new depths and the only appropriate response by the people is to refuse to ever vote for any of the 62 culprits again.
If you agree, please go to the Queens Tribune Facebook page and let us know or you can reach me at the address below.
Any one of the 62 members could bring an end to the circus. Non-controversial bills could be passed. But posturing that trickery and chicanery have a role in the enactment of laws is illustrative of the moral bankruptcy that permeates Albany.
We applaud NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for witholding the pay of all state Senators.
Their penalty should be much more severe and, in the end, it is up to the people.
Let’s get rid of them all!
They’re not going to resign – it’s going to be up to us.
Tell them you’ve had enough.
Start to be heard now!
MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com
You can reach the Queens Senators: monserra@senate.state.ny.us, onorato@senate.state.ny.us, stavisky@senate.state.ny.us, addabbo@senate.state.ny.us, shuntley@senate.state.ny.us, masmith@senate.state.ny.us, padavan@senate.state.ny.us
|
|
|
| |
Cupboard Bare, Appetite There; Parties Ignore Deficit
|
| Henry Stern
|
By
HENRY STERN
The latest Albany antics are so lame that one feels somewhat ashamed to be writing about them, as if reporting to the public makes one an accessory to the nonsense.
There is a larger issue in this dispute – one that has been largely avoided by the squabbling partisans. New York State is spending much more money than it is receiving through taxes and fees. The Legislature, unwilling to raise sufficient taxes to balance the budget or to reduce expenditures through layoffs (which is where most of the savings would have to be) simply resorts to more borrowing and subsidies to pay for current expenses and to fund a construction program.
Although the Federal government has the option of printing money for the Federal Reserve, the state may not operate its own mint. What the state has traditionally relied on is off-budget borrowing by selected public authorities. This is from the Enron playbook: keep the bad stuff off the balance sheet. It works until the house of cards collapses, which with any luck will be after you leave office.
New York relied on billions in Federal stimulus money to alleviate the deficit for FY 2010. Instead of being used to create new jobs, the stimulus money was used to preserve existing jobs for public employees, maintaining an artificially inflated public sector, and leaving the layoffs to the taxpaying private sector of the economy. The state argues that the result is the same. Is it really? Will subsidizing bloat provide the same stimulus to the economy as the creation of green jobs, the repair and construction of roads and rails, scientific research and technology, etc? Could a reasonable person conclude that we are mortgaging future prospects to serve current needs because we lack the power or courage to confront the spenders?
Preparation of the FY 2011 budget begins in a few months, and the governor’s budget proposals will go to the Legislature in January. Will a similar stimulus package be in place by then? That is highly unlikely, but since 2010 is an election year, another bailout is possible. With all the money the Federal government has spent to fatten banks and save automobile companies, the states can argue for their place to receive handouts, especially if the relief comes from bills that has been printed for the occasion.
The voters will decide in the November elections next year whether they want the spiral of spending to continue. They may very well do so and the Republicans’ artificial Senate almost-majority could easily collapse.
Meanwhile, the state, like its legislature, is divided. On one side, there are millions of taxpayers: people with earned or unearned income, workers, homeowners, corporations doing business in the state, and visitors who shop in our stores.
On the other hand, there are millions who are net tax receivers, even though some are also taxpayers. These are public employees, pensioners and prospective pensioners, people on Medicaid, food stamps, or unemployment compensation, and beneficiaries of other government assistance. Hospitals and their patients, and non-profit educational institutions are exempt from real estate taxes.
The recipients of state funds for salaries, pensions and benefits are generally not freeloaders. Many supply essential services in exchange for their compensation, which was much lower years ago than it is today. Other public employees add to the quality of life, and make New York a more attractive place to live and work. It is fair and reasonable for employers to defer some compensation to provide pensions for those late in life. The problem is that many noble programs have been taken to wretched excess, for the simple reasons that the tax-recipients are more numerous, better organized and more effective in lobbying than the taxpayers. That is how the balance of power works in New York.
The political aspect of the state’s fiscal problem is complicated by the reality that financial conservatives are often social and religious conservatives. The Republican Party has drifted rightward. The voters, particularly young people, who reject conservative social attitudes, will vote Democrat and elect people whose fiscal decisions are often made by lobbyists on behalf of the tax receivers. Both ends work against the middle, and the result is polarization.
This is not a scholarly presentation, but we have tried to describe the heart of the matter. Moderates in both parties are reviled, even as people are willing to vote for moderate candidates – if they can survive the polarized nomination process. This has led to the rise in bloc voting in Congress and the Legislature, and the increasing limits on the capacity and ability of senators and assembly members to cast independent votes. Most of them don’t want to be independent, because it requires some familiarity with the issues to make judgments. Those who do understand what is happening often do not dare to deviate from the party line, since they would jeopardize their committee chairmanships and their lulus, and possibly face expensive primary challengers, supported by organized tax receivers.
The Senate dispute, now in Day 32, is a symptom of the malaise that pervades the Legislature.
StarQuest@NYCivic.org |
|
|
Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato |
|
|
|
|
