The NY Daily News opined yesterday-citing the CBC's report-about the ballooning personnel costs that threaten the solvency of city government: "Numbers just published by the Citizens Budget Commission reveal that the price tag for the average city worker has soared to $107,000 a year. That breaks down to $69,124 in pay and $37,619 in health insurance and pension costs.
Both sides of the ledger have gone off the charts since 2000, rising faster than inflation - with the expense of benefits skyrocketing by an astonishing 182%. At a time when the city is going broke, Mayor Bloomberg is contemplating deep service cuts and taxpayers face big hikes, the figures are indefensible."
Absolutely, the situation is intolerable, but the News writes as if the current indefensible state of affairs has arrived through some form of immaculate conception: "New Yorkers have every right to expect that in these tough times the city's labor force will recognize that the public no longer has the wherewithal to foot the bills. Sacrifice - reasonable sacrifice - is in order."
The NY Post calls it like it is: "But the scariest part is how fast these costs have grown: In 2000 - shortly before Mike Bloomberg became mayor - the city's yearly tab was just $65,000 per average employee. So the cost has soared fully 63 percent since then - twice as fast as in the private sector."
The reality is that we're facing this budgetary problem because our Fiscal Maven-in-Chief has been misfeasant-failing to rein in the size of government because he simply didn't believe in the necessity of doing so. This is the same Bloomberg that the News is touting for a third term owing to the belief that the city needs his acumen in these economic hard times. Here's how the NY Times had described the personnel fiasco: "Bolstered in part by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s spending, the average New York City employee cost the city $107,000 a year in wages, health insurance, pension and other benefits in the 2008 fiscal year, an increase of 63 percent since 2000, according to a new report."
Quite the disconnect to us-especially from a paper that is quick to hand out Knucklehead Awards for some rather minor political peccadillos. If Joel Rivera deserves a Knucklehead designation for wanting to use zoning to cut down on the number of fast food restaurants in low income areas, what kind of award does Mike Bloomberg deserve for failing to rein in the cost of city government when the municipal treasury was flush?
According to the Daily News, Bloomberg's award is a third term; an indication of either the paper's lack of acuity and balance, or more likely, symbolic of it's essence as a special pleader for a friend and classmate. Given the obvious lapse in judgment, we suggest that the News should refrain from now on in pointing fingers at the wayward among the political class.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Deposit Nightmares
The folks at NYPIRG who are so eager for an expansion of the bottle bill, really don't understand what dangers they would wrought if the bill should pass in its current incarnation. Of particular concern, is its call for the state to grab the unredeemed deposits: "Generate new funding for local environmental needs by requiring beverage distributors to transfer any unclaimed deposits to the State Environmental Protection Fund. Currently, beverage companies are keeping an estimated $140 million a year in unclaimed deposits from bottles and cans that are not returned. New York is out of step with many other states, which require beverage companies to return unclaimed bottle deposits to benefit the public."
Does these advocates really understand just how the deposit system works? Or are the being purposely disingenuous? The unredeemed deposits are income that the bottlers and distributors use to pay for the cost of the recycling system. Just examine how much it costs the NYC Department of Sanitation to pick up and process recyclables-it comes to better than $300 per ton. So if you remove this revenue stream what is likely to occur is that the cost of redemption will be further passed on to beverage consumers; in other words a tax on soda and beer drinkers.
Than there's the problem of empty container tansshipment. As the NY Balance web site points out: "The millions of new bottles and cans in the system will mean longer lines at stinky, sticky recycling centers and grocery stores, as well as storage and handling headaches for retailers across the state. And that's just the legal returns. But it will also certainly fuel an entirely new, multimillion dollar industry in lucrative, underground "bottle-legging" by unscrupulous amateurs and professional crooks eager to mine refunds from bottles they purchase deposit-free from outside the state."
But what this commentary misses is even more foreboding than even an active underground economy. You see, under the current system, the deposit initiator redeems and accounts for the returned container. This is a fiduciary responsibility that is zealously undertaken because every container redeemed is a nickel (plus 2.5 cents handling) that the initiator must fork over to the retailer or redemption center-it comes right off of the bottom line.
If, however, the state becomes the ultimate repository of these unredeemed nickels, than there's no real interest for the wholesalers and bottlers to act as scrupulously in the accounting for the unredeemed containers-and all kinds of sleight-of-hand behavior is likely to occur. Even if initiators aren't purposefully looking to game the system, which we believe they won't do, there will be many others who will act to take advantage of a less vigilant review process.
Ultimately, in our view, this will result in the worst of all worlds: increased prices for beer, soda and all of the newly included drinks; and a redemption rate that rises close to 100%-thus depriving the EPF of any real new revenue. In order to avoid the latter, the state would need to add hundreds of new inspectors to the DEC, and even then, we don't believe it would do much good at detecting the gaming process.
All of this needs to be seen in the context of what the increased number of containers in the redemption system will mean to the beleaguered food retailers in NYC. Make no mistake, the bottle bill-and particularly an expanded version-is an expensive regulatory mandate that increases the cost of doing business at a time when supermarkets can no longer afford to operate in certain areas, places where a good market is crucial to the health of neighborhood residents.
So for a whole host of reasons, the expansion of the deposit law makes little sense. It will abet the decline of urban supermarkets, while at the same time adding additional costs for consumers at a time when unemployment is rising and incomes are falling. The measure needs to be defeated.
Does these advocates really understand just how the deposit system works? Or are the being purposely disingenuous? The unredeemed deposits are income that the bottlers and distributors use to pay for the cost of the recycling system. Just examine how much it costs the NYC Department of Sanitation to pick up and process recyclables-it comes to better than $300 per ton. So if you remove this revenue stream what is likely to occur is that the cost of redemption will be further passed on to beverage consumers; in other words a tax on soda and beer drinkers.
Than there's the problem of empty container tansshipment. As the NY Balance web site points out: "The millions of new bottles and cans in the system will mean longer lines at stinky, sticky recycling centers and grocery stores, as well as storage and handling headaches for retailers across the state. And that's just the legal returns. But it will also certainly fuel an entirely new, multimillion dollar industry in lucrative, underground "bottle-legging" by unscrupulous amateurs and professional crooks eager to mine refunds from bottles they purchase deposit-free from outside the state."
But what this commentary misses is even more foreboding than even an active underground economy. You see, under the current system, the deposit initiator redeems and accounts for the returned container. This is a fiduciary responsibility that is zealously undertaken because every container redeemed is a nickel (plus 2.5 cents handling) that the initiator must fork over to the retailer or redemption center-it comes right off of the bottom line.
If, however, the state becomes the ultimate repository of these unredeemed nickels, than there's no real interest for the wholesalers and bottlers to act as scrupulously in the accounting for the unredeemed containers-and all kinds of sleight-of-hand behavior is likely to occur. Even if initiators aren't purposefully looking to game the system, which we believe they won't do, there will be many others who will act to take advantage of a less vigilant review process.
Ultimately, in our view, this will result in the worst of all worlds: increased prices for beer, soda and all of the newly included drinks; and a redemption rate that rises close to 100%-thus depriving the EPF of any real new revenue. In order to avoid the latter, the state would need to add hundreds of new inspectors to the DEC, and even then, we don't believe it would do much good at detecting the gaming process.
All of this needs to be seen in the context of what the increased number of containers in the redemption system will mean to the beleaguered food retailers in NYC. Make no mistake, the bottle bill-and particularly an expanded version-is an expensive regulatory mandate that increases the cost of doing business at a time when supermarkets can no longer afford to operate in certain areas, places where a good market is crucial to the health of neighborhood residents.
So for a whole host of reasons, the expansion of the deposit law makes little sense. It will abet the decline of urban supermarkets, while at the same time adding additional costs for consumers at a time when unemployment is rising and incomes are falling. The measure needs to be defeated.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Tax Plan Fizzles
The governor's plan to tax soda is running into opposition-and not just from soda bottlers. As the NY Daily News reports, some purveyors of other kinds of sugary drinks are taking exception to, well, the plan's exceptions; particularly the pass given to calorie laden fruit juices: "A fat lot of good this is gonna do. Fizzy drink makers are lashing out at Gov. Paterson's obesity tax, saying it will burn a hole in people's pockets without winning the battle of the bulge. The proposed 18% levy on some sodas, fruit juices and carbonated drinks has come under fire for including flavored sparkling beverages that have fewer calories than those made just from fruit."
The reality here is that there is no rationale to just tax soda-at least if your goal is to make government the arbiter of what you can, or cannot eat: "The proposed tax is completely irrational," said Liz Morrill, founder and CEO of Fizzy Lizzy, a brand of natural sparking juice. "It imposes no tax on 100% juices such as Tropicana Pure Premium Orange, which has a whopping 165 calories and 33 grams of sugar per 12 ounces, but levies a massive 26% tax on Fizzy Lizzy Tangerine, which contains only 100 calories and 24 grams of sugar per 12-ounce bottle."
The road to hell here is really being paved with misguided intentions-and the premise of the tax, if extended to its logical conclusion, would make everything fair game for greater government intrusion into individual decision making. After all, there's an argument that could be made (and alsways a nanny to make it) for taxing a whole lot of supposedly unhealthy things.
But if you tax soda, where do you ever draw the line? As the News says: "Paterson's proposal aims to help New Yorkers stay lean by making it more expensive to buy nondiet sodas, fruit drinks with less than 70% natural fruit, or carbonated drinks containing sugar, fruit juice, additives or flavoring."
And if the tax is too low to change behavior? The next logical step is to increase it to see where the pressure point will be for behavioral change. The end result of this modality? Increase taxes on an increasing number of products-and the health of local business be damned.
The reality here is that there is no rationale to just tax soda-at least if your goal is to make government the arbiter of what you can, or cannot eat: "The proposed tax is completely irrational," said Liz Morrill, founder and CEO of Fizzy Lizzy, a brand of natural sparking juice. "It imposes no tax on 100% juices such as Tropicana Pure Premium Orange, which has a whopping 165 calories and 33 grams of sugar per 12 ounces, but levies a massive 26% tax on Fizzy Lizzy Tangerine, which contains only 100 calories and 24 grams of sugar per 12-ounce bottle."
The road to hell here is really being paved with misguided intentions-and the premise of the tax, if extended to its logical conclusion, would make everything fair game for greater government intrusion into individual decision making. After all, there's an argument that could be made (and alsways a nanny to make it) for taxing a whole lot of supposedly unhealthy things.
But if you tax soda, where do you ever draw the line? As the News says: "Paterson's proposal aims to help New Yorkers stay lean by making it more expensive to buy nondiet sodas, fruit drinks with less than 70% natural fruit, or carbonated drinks containing sugar, fruit juice, additives or flavoring."
And if the tax is too low to change behavior? The next logical step is to increase it to see where the pressure point will be for behavioral change. The end result of this modality? Increase taxes on an increasing number of products-and the health of local business be damned.
Yanking Our Chain
Juan Gonzales continues his crusade against the egregious exploitation of NYC Tax payers by the Bloombergistas-and their partner in crime, the New York Yankees: "Less than three years after they got $942 million in tax-free bonds for a new Bronx stadium, the Yankees are at the public trough again. With our city facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and more than 200,000 people expected to lose their jobs by the end of the year, baseball's richest team wants another $260 million in tax-free bonds to help cover a stadium cost overrun of $370 million."
This news comes on top of the Citizens Budget Commission report that underscores just how well Mike Bloomberg (and the city council) has given away the store to the public work force-also at the expense of the city's hapless tax payers. But the stadium is a monument to the mayor's arrogant disregard for reining in costs: "The itemized list of extra stadium costs that city officials released this week is truly astounding. There's $137million to pay for concessions at the new stadium - including a swank new Yankees Steakhouse, a Hard Rock Cafe, a museum and a conference center. The Yankees added most of those items to the stadium budget after the city approved the original financing plan."
Critics of the additional funding are calling for a new hearing before the bond vote next week: "This is bizarre," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), a longtime critic of the stadium deal. "We don't have enough money for our schools or the subways, yet they want to give the Yankees money for a steakhouse and granite ramps?" Brodsky joined Assemblyman Jim Brennan (D-Brooklyn) to call an emergency public hearing for Wednesday to review the Yankees' new request."
Clearly, the new stadium, sitting on top of the grave yard of Mullaly Park, is going to be an exquisite example of high class amenities, but why so at the public expense? As Gonzales argues: "Team officials, it seems, are sparing no expense to make this the most luxurious, high-tech structure ever imagined. They have a perfect right to splurge in any way they wish - with their own money. When they're getting a tax break, it's another matter."
Yankee Stadium will end up costing double what the Mets ball park will cost-and the level of subsidy, when seen on top of the callous despoliation of neighborhood green space, will dramatize and characterize just what kind of mindset the mayor brings to economic development: monuments to luxury and excess that treat local folks as nonexistent appendages to private sector greed.
This news comes on top of the Citizens Budget Commission report that underscores just how well Mike Bloomberg (and the city council) has given away the store to the public work force-also at the expense of the city's hapless tax payers. But the stadium is a monument to the mayor's arrogant disregard for reining in costs: "The itemized list of extra stadium costs that city officials released this week is truly astounding. There's $137million to pay for concessions at the new stadium - including a swank new Yankees Steakhouse, a Hard Rock Cafe, a museum and a conference center. The Yankees added most of those items to the stadium budget after the city approved the original financing plan."
Critics of the additional funding are calling for a new hearing before the bond vote next week: "This is bizarre," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), a longtime critic of the stadium deal. "We don't have enough money for our schools or the subways, yet they want to give the Yankees money for a steakhouse and granite ramps?" Brodsky joined Assemblyman Jim Brennan (D-Brooklyn) to call an emergency public hearing for Wednesday to review the Yankees' new request."
Clearly, the new stadium, sitting on top of the grave yard of Mullaly Park, is going to be an exquisite example of high class amenities, but why so at the public expense? As Gonzales argues: "Team officials, it seems, are sparing no expense to make this the most luxurious, high-tech structure ever imagined. They have a perfect right to splurge in any way they wish - with their own money. When they're getting a tax break, it's another matter."
Yankee Stadium will end up costing double what the Mets ball park will cost-and the level of subsidy, when seen on top of the callous despoliation of neighborhood green space, will dramatize and characterize just what kind of mindset the mayor brings to economic development: monuments to luxury and excess that treat local folks as nonexistent appendages to private sector greed.
"He Knows the Buck"
This is getting real close to being an Abe Beame moment for Mike Bloomberg. You might remember that Comptroller Beame ran and won the mayoralty in 1973 using the slogan: "He Knows the Buck." After demonstrating little fiscal acumen, as New York slid into the fiscal crisis that put the city into receivership, Beame was ridiculed for having touted his financial acuity.
How close is Mike Bloomberg to his own Abe Beame impersonation? Well, if current financial reports are any indication he is realclose indeed. As City Room reports: "Now comes word today, through a new report [pdf] by the Citizens Budget Commission, that the average compensation cost of full-time employees of the city, when including both pay and fringe benefits, is $106,743. The report documented the skyrocketing costs of pensions and health insurance."
Where was Mike Bloomberg when this out of control personnel spending was mushrooming? As Nicole Gelinas outlined a few days ago: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit. Plus, the city-funded workforce has grown by more than 12,000 people in the last three years - so even the 4,556 job cuts that Bloomberg projects won't bring us back to 2005."
And things are going to get much worse, as Eliot Brown points out: "The city’s Independent Budget Office just released a dour report on New York's fiscal picture, projecting a cumulative $11.3 billion in budget gaps over the next two and a half years and $18.3 billion by mid-2012. Such figures would represent substantial shortfalls requiring major cuts and/or new revenues, given a city budget currently of about $60 billion. The IBO report shows budget gaps far larger than the Bloomberg administration’s estimates released in November, with IBO projecting $6 billion less in revenue than the city did over the next three and a half years, according to the report."
All of this doesn't sit well with the CBC. As the NY Times reports: "City worker compensation grew twice as fast as that of employees in the private sector and elsewhere in the public sector during the same period, the Citizens Budget Commission said in the report, which was released on Thursday. The increase was driven by contractual raises that outpaced the inflation rate, and by the rising cost of health insurance and pension benefits, said the commission, a business-backed research group. The group said those benefits have remained “exceptionally generous” under Mr. Bloomberg."
Bloomberg, much like the grasshopper in the fable, was idly playing philanthropist (with the tax payer's dough), while the city's fiscal situation deteriorated-and don't tell us that no one could have anticipated the meltdown. Bloomberg's approach to government-let's say his generosity of spirit-made the current crisis almost inevitable: "These skyrocketing costs are stunning,” said Carol Kellermann, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, “and they impose an enormous, and growing, burden on increasingly strained taxpayers. Corrective action is essential and can no longer be delayed.”
Mike Bloomberg allowed government and the municipal work force to expand as tax increases and Wall Street cash allowed the city to get flush. In light of what has transpired, and in light also of what we know historically about the city's fiscal peaks and valleys, this amounts to political malfeasance on the mayor's part: "Thus budget experts regard New York as a city that sees far greater peaks and valleys than the nation as a whole, with mountains of cash flowing in during the high times and budgets getting squeezed close to suffocation during the tough times."
The mayor, however, was hoisted on his own ideological petard; one that construed government expansion as a good thing-and he made few real demands on the labor force, opting instead to bargain for tranquility rather than demand greater effeciences.
What has been Bloomberg's big idea, promoting citizen health by banning transfats and requiring calorie posting on fast food menus? And this from a mayor who, because of his financial background and his lionization by acolytes for fiscal shrewdness, now wants term limits ended so he can be given a third term. Give us a break!
How close is Mike Bloomberg to his own Abe Beame impersonation? Well, if current financial reports are any indication he is realclose indeed. As City Room reports: "Now comes word today, through a new report [pdf] by the Citizens Budget Commission, that the average compensation cost of full-time employees of the city, when including both pay and fringe benefits, is $106,743. The report documented the skyrocketing costs of pensions and health insurance."
Where was Mike Bloomberg when this out of control personnel spending was mushrooming? As Nicole Gelinas outlined a few days ago: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit. Plus, the city-funded workforce has grown by more than 12,000 people in the last three years - so even the 4,556 job cuts that Bloomberg projects won't bring us back to 2005."
And things are going to get much worse, as Eliot Brown points out: "The city’s Independent Budget Office just released a dour report on New York's fiscal picture, projecting a cumulative $11.3 billion in budget gaps over the next two and a half years and $18.3 billion by mid-2012. Such figures would represent substantial shortfalls requiring major cuts and/or new revenues, given a city budget currently of about $60 billion. The IBO report shows budget gaps far larger than the Bloomberg administration’s estimates released in November, with IBO projecting $6 billion less in revenue than the city did over the next three and a half years, according to the report."
All of this doesn't sit well with the CBC. As the NY Times reports: "City worker compensation grew twice as fast as that of employees in the private sector and elsewhere in the public sector during the same period, the Citizens Budget Commission said in the report, which was released on Thursday. The increase was driven by contractual raises that outpaced the inflation rate, and by the rising cost of health insurance and pension benefits, said the commission, a business-backed research group. The group said those benefits have remained “exceptionally generous” under Mr. Bloomberg."
Bloomberg, much like the grasshopper in the fable, was idly playing philanthropist (with the tax payer's dough), while the city's fiscal situation deteriorated-and don't tell us that no one could have anticipated the meltdown. Bloomberg's approach to government-let's say his generosity of spirit-made the current crisis almost inevitable: "These skyrocketing costs are stunning,” said Carol Kellermann, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, “and they impose an enormous, and growing, burden on increasingly strained taxpayers. Corrective action is essential and can no longer be delayed.”
Mike Bloomberg allowed government and the municipal work force to expand as tax increases and Wall Street cash allowed the city to get flush. In light of what has transpired, and in light also of what we know historically about the city's fiscal peaks and valleys, this amounts to political malfeasance on the mayor's part: "Thus budget experts regard New York as a city that sees far greater peaks and valleys than the nation as a whole, with mountains of cash flowing in during the high times and budgets getting squeezed close to suffocation during the tough times."
The mayor, however, was hoisted on his own ideological petard; one that construed government expansion as a good thing-and he made few real demands on the labor force, opting instead to bargain for tranquility rather than demand greater effeciences.
What has been Bloomberg's big idea, promoting citizen health by banning transfats and requiring calorie posting on fast food menus? And this from a mayor who, because of his financial background and his lionization by acolytes for fiscal shrewdness, now wants term limits ended so he can be given a third term. Give us a break!
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Assignment for Disaster
According to the NY Daily News Adolfo Carrion, who we last saw spreadeagled in anticipation before for hosing prepared for the Bronx Terminal merchants and the neighborhood folks around Yankee Stadium, may be a candidate for Hilary Clinton's senate seat. This is so preposterous, that we're moved to cry out, against all of our previously stated observations: "Give the seat to the Princess instead!"
Here's what the News says: "Add Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión's name to the long and growing list of potential candidates being considered for appointment to New York's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat." Please tell us Davis, that this is all window dressing; because the thought of the craven AC in the US Senate is too chilling to bear-even given the fact that the body has coughed up some real winners in the past few years.
Carrion's performance as Bronx BP is nothing more than mediocre-with a slavish attention to the needs of real estate transcending any real concern for the people of the borough; and his crafting of bogus CBAs for the Gateway and Stadium deals is a clear indication of his lack of qualification for either the senate seat, or the White House post he's rumored to be in line for: "In being considered for the White House job, Carrión has had to deal with criticism from some local Web sites and e-mails over actions he has taken - or has failed to take - as borough president."
Let Adolfo put himself before the voters based on his record-and let's see what happens. But given his record, we can understand why he wants to be appointed to something-anything.
Here's what the News says: "Add Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión's name to the long and growing list of potential candidates being considered for appointment to New York's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat." Please tell us Davis, that this is all window dressing; because the thought of the craven AC in the US Senate is too chilling to bear-even given the fact that the body has coughed up some real winners in the past few years.
Carrion's performance as Bronx BP is nothing more than mediocre-with a slavish attention to the needs of real estate transcending any real concern for the people of the borough; and his crafting of bogus CBAs for the Gateway and Stadium deals is a clear indication of his lack of qualification for either the senate seat, or the White House post he's rumored to be in line for: "In being considered for the White House job, Carrión has had to deal with criticism from some local Web sites and e-mails over actions he has taken - or has failed to take - as borough president."
Let Adolfo put himself before the voters based on his record-and let's see what happens. But given his record, we can understand why he wants to be appointed to something-anything.
Senatorial Scorecard
Crain's Insider is laying out the winners and losers in the just concluded senate leadership fight, and, as expected Malcolm Smith is at the top of the list: "Malcolm Smith. He might never be as powerful as Joe Bruno was, and he’s been tarnished by the process of winning the Senate majority leadership, but four weeks ago this outcome looked very much in doubt."
Quite true, but it is important to point out that Amigo ringleader, Senator Carl Kruger, emerges as a big winner-especially considering where he stood just two short months ago. Does any one think that Kruger, after being close to Majority Leader Bruno, would have been given a plum assignment by the new leader?
The Insider recognizes this (but overlooks the other two amigos unfortunately); and goes on to throw props our way as well: "Sen. Carl Kruger. “He was as out of favor as anyone could possibly be,” an insider says, but by holding the Gang of Three together, he nabbed the Finance Committee chairmanship and a $34,000 lulu. Lobbyist Richard Lipsky, who handled media for Kruger gratis, also gained."
On the losing side, the Insider singled out two unions who made a major misstep-but should, we believe, given them top billing: "CSEA and 1199 SEIU. The two unions stuck with Senate Republicans until the end."
The big unresolved question is whether or not the people of New York will be the winners in all of this. The will be answered only when the Owl of Minerva flies.
Quite true, but it is important to point out that Amigo ringleader, Senator Carl Kruger, emerges as a big winner-especially considering where he stood just two short months ago. Does any one think that Kruger, after being close to Majority Leader Bruno, would have been given a plum assignment by the new leader?
The Insider recognizes this (but overlooks the other two amigos unfortunately); and goes on to throw props our way as well: "Sen. Carl Kruger. “He was as out of favor as anyone could possibly be,” an insider says, but by holding the Gang of Three together, he nabbed the Finance Committee chairmanship and a $34,000 lulu. Lobbyist Richard Lipsky, who handled media for Kruger gratis, also gained."
On the losing side, the Insider singled out two unions who made a major misstep-but should, we believe, given them top billing: "CSEA and 1199 SEIU. The two unions stuck with Senate Republicans until the end."
The big unresolved question is whether or not the people of New York will be the winners in all of this. The will be answered only when the Owl of Minerva flies.
Obesity Epidemic in Government
Governor Paterson's speech on the "perilous" state of the state's finances was woefully short on remedies needed to rein in state spending and cut back on the size of government. As the NY Post points out this morning: "Gov. Paterson yesterday delivered his first State of the State Address - a rightly gloomy report that offered scant grounds to think he's on the correct track to making things right. "The state of our state is perilous," Paterson warned. New York faces its "gravest" challenge "in nearly a century." No argument here. Thing is, Paterson has said this before. And nowhere in his 63-minute speech did he suggest what to do about it."
What the governor did do, was to spend more time lamenting the state of children's waste lines than the waste that needs to be trimmed from the state's budget: "Rather, he rambled on about what he termed an "epidemic" of childhood obesity - scarcely noting that New York's fundamental problem is its scandalously obese government. Even in the best of times, the state spends more than it can afford, and often even more than it collects. But these aren't the best of times."
The NY Daily News agrees: "The governor who stood before the Legislature yesterday was once more steadily forthright about the state's dire straits. But the governor who has so willingly challenged lawmakers to make hard and unavoidable decisions was not in attendance."
Fred Dicker is even harsher in his assessment of the speech's shortcomings: "Gov. Pater son squandered an opportunity to confront New York's fiscal problems yesterday in a rambling, thin and cliché-ridden State of the State Address that failed to recognize that the crisis represents a rare opportunity for sweeping change...But when it came to addressing the root causes of the state's problems - the most expensive health-care system in America, more education spending per pupil than any other state, and a bloated and overpaid local and state government workforce - there was nary a word."
And Dicker criticizes the governor for spending so much time on the obesity issue, something that is tangential at best to what's ailing the state's fiscal situation: "About the only real passion came when he delivered an attack on childhood obesity, a serious problem, but not one at the core of the state's disintegrating economy."
This left an opening for the state senate's former majority leader to weigh in-laying the groundwork for a potential Republican comeback. As the NY Times reports: "Asked if there was anything in the address that concerned him, Mr. Skelos replied, somewhat archly, “I learned an awful lot about child obesity in the governor’s speech.” He also said that Mr. Paterson — who has devoted a majority of his public statements in recent months to the state’s fiscal crisis — had missed an opportunity to “maybe rally the Legislature a little bit more,” as well as the public at large, about the state’s budget problems."
Sp there's a great deal of work that needs to be done; but the open question is whether David Paterson's the right person to lead us in these challenging times. Dicker gets the last word here: "Now that he is gearing up to run for governor on his own next year, Paterson has ditched his pledge to reform government and chosen instead to borrow the warmed-over policies of his mediocre predecessors, who sought to hang on to power no matter the cost to the public, or the damage to New York."
What the governor did do, was to spend more time lamenting the state of children's waste lines than the waste that needs to be trimmed from the state's budget: "Rather, he rambled on about what he termed an "epidemic" of childhood obesity - scarcely noting that New York's fundamental problem is its scandalously obese government. Even in the best of times, the state spends more than it can afford, and often even more than it collects. But these aren't the best of times."
The NY Daily News agrees: "The governor who stood before the Legislature yesterday was once more steadily forthright about the state's dire straits. But the governor who has so willingly challenged lawmakers to make hard and unavoidable decisions was not in attendance."
Fred Dicker is even harsher in his assessment of the speech's shortcomings: "Gov. Pater son squandered an opportunity to confront New York's fiscal problems yesterday in a rambling, thin and cliché-ridden State of the State Address that failed to recognize that the crisis represents a rare opportunity for sweeping change...But when it came to addressing the root causes of the state's problems - the most expensive health-care system in America, more education spending per pupil than any other state, and a bloated and overpaid local and state government workforce - there was nary a word."
And Dicker criticizes the governor for spending so much time on the obesity issue, something that is tangential at best to what's ailing the state's fiscal situation: "About the only real passion came when he delivered an attack on childhood obesity, a serious problem, but not one at the core of the state's disintegrating economy."
This left an opening for the state senate's former majority leader to weigh in-laying the groundwork for a potential Republican comeback. As the NY Times reports: "Asked if there was anything in the address that concerned him, Mr. Skelos replied, somewhat archly, “I learned an awful lot about child obesity in the governor’s speech.” He also said that Mr. Paterson — who has devoted a majority of his public statements in recent months to the state’s fiscal crisis — had missed an opportunity to “maybe rally the Legislature a little bit more,” as well as the public at large, about the state’s budget problems."
Sp there's a great deal of work that needs to be done; but the open question is whether David Paterson's the right person to lead us in these challenging times. Dicker gets the last word here: "Now that he is gearing up to run for governor on his own next year, Paterson has ditched his pledge to reform government and chosen instead to borrow the warmed-over policies of his mediocre predecessors, who sought to hang on to power no matter the cost to the public, or the damage to New York."
Senate Post Mortems
Spin Cycle has an interesting take on the deal that was struck to elevate the Three Amigos to positions of power that they likely wouldn't have had just two short months ago: "The deal lets Carl Kruger jump into the powerful post of Finance Committee chairman, and makes Pedro Espada head of Housing and Community Development, vice-chair of the powerful Rules Committee and Vice President of the Senate for Urban Policy. Ruben Diaz gets the Committee on Aging. All of them get some of your money as lu-lus. The deal, with minor changes, is the same as the deal Smith backed out of in December. It's an ugly thing to reward disloyalty. And Smith starts out looking like a buffoon -- caving into blackmail, then uncaving and denouncing the deal he had cut, then turning around after a Christmas break and caving in again, cutting the same deal."
So why did Smith accede? "But the simple fact is that the Gang of Three had leverage, Smith wasn't going to get his heart's desire unless he paid them off, so he did -- with the full consent of his conference. It's a tacky beginning that doesn't suggest we're in for an era of high-minded governance -- but it's not like Joe Bruno and Dean Skelos offered that either."
But Smith also announced some reforms-with more promised to follow that should hopefully divert attention away from all of the sausage making. As the Politicker tells us: "Smith also pledged several rules reforms, including measures that would record votes to discharge bills from committees and that pertain to amendments on the floor will be recorded (they are not currently under a rule known as 'canvass of agreement'). More rules reforms were promised, and will be announced in two months after a commission studying the chamber makes recommendations, Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said."
Someone asked us whether Smith would be a weaker leader than Joe Bruno was; which we believe is an unfair question. If Malcolm truly believes in reform-and goes about implementing it-he will not wield the kind of autocratic authority that Bruno was famous for. In this new age a more skillful bargaining style of leadership will be needed-one built on consensus rather than the sheer weight of partisanship. The ability to develop this style will determine whether Malcolm Smith will ultimately prove to be a successful leader.
So why did Smith accede? "But the simple fact is that the Gang of Three had leverage, Smith wasn't going to get his heart's desire unless he paid them off, so he did -- with the full consent of his conference. It's a tacky beginning that doesn't suggest we're in for an era of high-minded governance -- but it's not like Joe Bruno and Dean Skelos offered that either."
But Smith also announced some reforms-with more promised to follow that should hopefully divert attention away from all of the sausage making. As the Politicker tells us: "Smith also pledged several rules reforms, including measures that would record votes to discharge bills from committees and that pertain to amendments on the floor will be recorded (they are not currently under a rule known as 'canvass of agreement'). More rules reforms were promised, and will be announced in two months after a commission studying the chamber makes recommendations, Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said."
Someone asked us whether Smith would be a weaker leader than Joe Bruno was; which we believe is an unfair question. If Malcolm truly believes in reform-and goes about implementing it-he will not wield the kind of autocratic authority that Bruno was famous for. In this new age a more skillful bargaining style of leadership will be needed-one built on consensus rather than the sheer weight of partisanship. The ability to develop this style will determine whether Malcolm Smith will ultimately prove to be a successful leader.
Healthy Economic Development
Speaking of supermarket development-and the mayor's nonfeasance in this area-it was refreshing to see that Governor Paterson elevated this issue in his outline of of this health issue. As he said in his SoS mnessage: "Our five-point plan includes the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative, which offers a new revolving loan fund that will increase the number of healthy food markets in underserved communities."
And, as the UFCW Local 1500 wrote in a press release issued after the speech:
"United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, New York State's and New York City’s largest Labor Union representing supermarket workers, applauded Governor David Patterson today for his announcement in the State of State of a Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative. Such an initiative includes $10 million dollars for revolving loans to food markets interested in locating in “underserved” communities.“Today Governor David Patterson showed that New York State is prepared to get serious about the health and economic consequences of our disappearing Supermarkets,” stated Bruce W. Both, President of United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 1500. President Both also serves as a member of the Governor’s Council on Food Policy and the New York City Supermarket Commission."
Now the logistics of this fund need to be worked out, and the locating of sites is crucial here as well, but this is clearly moving in a positive direction; supermarket development is both an economic as well as a health concern: "UFCW Local 1500 has spent the last 2 years working with State, County and City officials on the growing problem of disappearing supermarkets and its affect on the health and economies of communities. New York City’s own Department of City Planning conducted a report that concluded that New York City alone is need of over 100 full service Supermarkets.“When responsible supermarkets owners/operators open in communities, they bring excellent wages, healthcare and an improved standard of living. The community also gets access to healthy food, a greater number of products available, as well as the type of competition that forces reasonable pricing and improved product quality," said President Both."
Now if we can only get the city and state to work together on this, we might begin to see some headway-with zoning restrictions needing to be lifted so that certain sites can be developed in a reasonable manner. We're hopeful that the city council will jump on this so that economic and land use barriers can be lifted, and more supermarkets built.
And, as the UFCW Local 1500 wrote in a press release issued after the speech:
"United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, New York State's and New York City’s largest Labor Union representing supermarket workers, applauded Governor David Patterson today for his announcement in the State of State of a Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative. Such an initiative includes $10 million dollars for revolving loans to food markets interested in locating in “underserved” communities.“Today Governor David Patterson showed that New York State is prepared to get serious about the health and economic consequences of our disappearing Supermarkets,” stated Bruce W. Both, President of United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 1500. President Both also serves as a member of the Governor’s Council on Food Policy and the New York City Supermarket Commission."
Now the logistics of this fund need to be worked out, and the locating of sites is crucial here as well, but this is clearly moving in a positive direction; supermarket development is both an economic as well as a health concern: "UFCW Local 1500 has spent the last 2 years working with State, County and City officials on the growing problem of disappearing supermarkets and its affect on the health and economies of communities. New York City’s own Department of City Planning conducted a report that concluded that New York City alone is need of over 100 full service Supermarkets.“When responsible supermarkets owners/operators open in communities, they bring excellent wages, healthcare and an improved standard of living. The community also gets access to healthy food, a greater number of products available, as well as the type of competition that forces reasonable pricing and improved product quality," said President Both."
Now if we can only get the city and state to work together on this, we might begin to see some headway-with zoning restrictions needing to be lifted so that certain sites can be developed in a reasonable manner. We're hopeful that the city council will jump on this so that economic and land use barriers can be lifted, and more supermarkets built.
The Bare Luxuries
In what looks a lot like a kind of death bed conversion, the Bloombergistas are apparently giving up the luxury box at Yankee Stadium that they had worked so hard to obtain. As the NY Times reported: "After intense criticism, the Bloomberg administration has given up a perk it worked fervently to secure: a free luxury suite at the new Yankee Stadium. The city will relinquish use of the 12-seat box in exchange for whatever revenue the Yankees generate by selling the seats, minus the cost of marketing them. Although neither the city nor the Yankees have publicly disclosed the market value of the suite, similar suites at the new stadium are being sold for as much as $600,000 a year."
Why such righteousness at this late date? Could it have something to do with next week's bond vote? Here's Richard Brodsky's take: "Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who had sought details about the deals the city was making, described the city’s about-face over its use of the suites as “a terrible embarrassment.” “The taxpayers who are paying for the construction of Yankee Stadium cannot afford to buy tickets for the games, but the mayor was getting a luxury box, so he had to back off,” he said in an interview on Tuesday. “But the reason he backed off,” Mr. Brodsky speculated, “is because next week, the city is going to give the Yankees more taxpayer money.”
As we have opined, the Yankee deal symbolizes just how cozy the Bloomberg chazas are with all manner of big development; and we are still awaiting the announcement of the first new supermarket constructed with funds set aside for that purpose by an administration that believes we desperately need more markets for the sake of the public health. As we say in New York, however: "Don't hold your breathe."
Bloomberg has egregiously neglected neighborhood business-and any business that is a bit too distanced from the city's financial epicenter. If the mayor wasn't as wealthy as he is, there would be charges a foot about how cozy he was with Big Real Estate; but folks are disabused by his wealth in such a way that they are blinded to how his class-oriented world view dictates his policy choices.
The stadium deal, midwifed by Carrion, Baez and the rest of the Bronx gang, stands as a clear symbol of the mayor's myopic mindset. So much so that the Crain's Insider is reporting that Comptroller Thompson may use it in his electoral challenge. As Crain's tells us: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson could join Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s war against subsidies for the city’s new baseball stadiums. Brodsky’s latest battle is to stop the city Industrial Development Agency from approving another $454 million in tax-free financing for Yankee Stadium and Citi Field on Jan. 16, the morning after a public hearing. Brodsky wants a delay in the IDA vote and has demanded all of the relevant paperwork and e-mails."
And, as Crain's goes on to point out, the issue could be a sensitive one during the current economic downturn: "Thompson could use the issue to portray Bloomberg as too generous with taxpayer money at a time when city revenues were plunging, taxes were increasing and services were being cut. The comptroller could bolster his image as a fiscal watchdog, too."
The real hero in this fight has been our old friend Battina Damiani, who told the Times: “Does the Bloomberg administration really think that giving up a suite at Yankee Stadium is going to soften the blow that this project has had on city taxpayers?” said Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York, a civic organization that has closely scrutinized projects subsidized by the city, including the new baseball stadiums."
The city's response, however, is priceless: "Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “Other cities get boxes and through our negotiations we made sure New York got no less, but we’ve decided to take the value in cash payments to return it to the community.” Now if they could only return Mullaly Park to the community as easily as they talk out of both sides of their mouths..
Why such righteousness at this late date? Could it have something to do with next week's bond vote? Here's Richard Brodsky's take: "Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who had sought details about the deals the city was making, described the city’s about-face over its use of the suites as “a terrible embarrassment.” “The taxpayers who are paying for the construction of Yankee Stadium cannot afford to buy tickets for the games, but the mayor was getting a luxury box, so he had to back off,” he said in an interview on Tuesday. “But the reason he backed off,” Mr. Brodsky speculated, “is because next week, the city is going to give the Yankees more taxpayer money.”
As we have opined, the Yankee deal symbolizes just how cozy the Bloomberg chazas are with all manner of big development; and we are still awaiting the announcement of the first new supermarket constructed with funds set aside for that purpose by an administration that believes we desperately need more markets for the sake of the public health. As we say in New York, however: "Don't hold your breathe."
Bloomberg has egregiously neglected neighborhood business-and any business that is a bit too distanced from the city's financial epicenter. If the mayor wasn't as wealthy as he is, there would be charges a foot about how cozy he was with Big Real Estate; but folks are disabused by his wealth in such a way that they are blinded to how his class-oriented world view dictates his policy choices.
The stadium deal, midwifed by Carrion, Baez and the rest of the Bronx gang, stands as a clear symbol of the mayor's myopic mindset. So much so that the Crain's Insider is reporting that Comptroller Thompson may use it in his electoral challenge. As Crain's tells us: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson could join Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s war against subsidies for the city’s new baseball stadiums. Brodsky’s latest battle is to stop the city Industrial Development Agency from approving another $454 million in tax-free financing for Yankee Stadium and Citi Field on Jan. 16, the morning after a public hearing. Brodsky wants a delay in the IDA vote and has demanded all of the relevant paperwork and e-mails."
And, as Crain's goes on to point out, the issue could be a sensitive one during the current economic downturn: "Thompson could use the issue to portray Bloomberg as too generous with taxpayer money at a time when city revenues were plunging, taxes were increasing and services were being cut. The comptroller could bolster his image as a fiscal watchdog, too."
The real hero in this fight has been our old friend Battina Damiani, who told the Times: “Does the Bloomberg administration really think that giving up a suite at Yankee Stadium is going to soften the blow that this project has had on city taxpayers?” said Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York, a civic organization that has closely scrutinized projects subsidized by the city, including the new baseball stadiums."
The city's response, however, is priceless: "Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “Other cities get boxes and through our negotiations we made sure New York got no less, but we’ve decided to take the value in cash payments to return it to the community.” Now if they could only return Mullaly Park to the community as easily as they talk out of both sides of their mouths..
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Fatheads
According to Liz B, the governor has some serious allies for the implementation of his fat tax: "While they may vehemently oppose Gov. David Paterson's proposed health care budget cuts, 1199-SEIU and the Greater New York Hospital Association are supportive of his so-called "fat tax" on sugary drinks and his plan to boost existing taxes on some alcoholic beverages. In fact, the health care workers union and its hospital partners would like to see Paterson go even further by opting for an excise tax of one cent per ounce rather than a sales tax on sugar-sweetened drinks and applying the proposed increase of taxes on beer and wine to all kinds of booze."
But the coalition in question by going even further, sets up an almost confiscatory tax environment. As Capitol Confidential tells us: "But instead of a sales tax, the group is looking to impose an excise tax that would tax by weight - a penny-per-ounce. So that Double Gulp, which is a whopping 64 ounces (2 liters), would see a 64-cent tax. (In case you were wondering, a super big gulp is 44 ounces, a big gulp is 32, and a gulp is 20 - yes, I looked it up.)"
So, let's get this straight. In order to fund an already bloated-and underutilized-hospital system, these folks want to further tax New Yorkers, and damage city and state business in the process. And the system is not only bloated, it's also rife with fraud. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "Two hospital workers helped uncover an alleged Medicaid drug-treatment scam that prosecutors say has cheated taxpayers out of $50 million, The Post has learned."
And the paper followed up with the following editorial that is extremely relevant to this discussion: "With the state facing whopping budget shortfalls, cracking down on Medicaid fraud seems more vital than ever. But closing underused facilities - eliminating their "need" to engage in fraud and sleazy "patient"-recruitment - should also be at the top of the to-do list."
Which is exactly what the SEIU and GNYHA want to prevent-with millions of additional tax payers dollars being used to cover up this glaring problem. Here's the statement (via Liz) from the tax gougers: "These soda and alcohol taxes can be important elements of a larger, comprehensive effort to ensure shared sacrifice in closing this budget deficit. With a "5-5-5" plan, we can reduce New York's $15 billion budget deficit via $5 billion in increased federal funding, $5 billion in various state taxes, and $5 billion in other State actions, including equitable spending cuts spread across all sectors," the union and the hospital association said in a joint statement issued earlier today"
The reality is that Medicaid spending-both actual and fraudulent-is one of the big reasons NYS is in such a fiscal dilemma. We need to focus heavily on this sector; and not engage in diversionary, "...spending cuts spread across all sectors..." that camouflage where are real budget problems lie.
But the coalition in question by going even further, sets up an almost confiscatory tax environment. As Capitol Confidential tells us: "But instead of a sales tax, the group is looking to impose an excise tax that would tax by weight - a penny-per-ounce. So that Double Gulp, which is a whopping 64 ounces (2 liters), would see a 64-cent tax. (In case you were wondering, a super big gulp is 44 ounces, a big gulp is 32, and a gulp is 20 - yes, I looked it up.)"
So, let's get this straight. In order to fund an already bloated-and underutilized-hospital system, these folks want to further tax New Yorkers, and damage city and state business in the process. And the system is not only bloated, it's also rife with fraud. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "Two hospital workers helped uncover an alleged Medicaid drug-treatment scam that prosecutors say has cheated taxpayers out of $50 million, The Post has learned."
And the paper followed up with the following editorial that is extremely relevant to this discussion: "With the state facing whopping budget shortfalls, cracking down on Medicaid fraud seems more vital than ever. But closing underused facilities - eliminating their "need" to engage in fraud and sleazy "patient"-recruitment - should also be at the top of the to-do list."
Which is exactly what the SEIU and GNYHA want to prevent-with millions of additional tax payers dollars being used to cover up this glaring problem. Here's the statement (via Liz) from the tax gougers: "These soda and alcohol taxes can be important elements of a larger, comprehensive effort to ensure shared sacrifice in closing this budget deficit. With a "5-5-5" plan, we can reduce New York's $15 billion budget deficit via $5 billion in increased federal funding, $5 billion in various state taxes, and $5 billion in other State actions, including equitable spending cuts spread across all sectors," the union and the hospital association said in a joint statement issued earlier today"
The reality is that Medicaid spending-both actual and fraudulent-is one of the big reasons NYS is in such a fiscal dilemma. We need to focus heavily on this sector; and not engage in diversionary, "...spending cuts spread across all sectors..." that camouflage where are real budget problems lie.
It's a Done Deal
After two months of acrimony and uncertainty, the Democrats finally put it all together and took control of the state senate. As Liz B reported last night: "The Senate leadership deal is officially done, and Queens Democrat Malcolm Smith has finally landed the 32 votes he needs to be majority leader of the Senate, putting the chamber back into Democratic hands for the first time in 43 years. Flanked by members of his conference - including all of the Gang of Three - who marched from Sen. Carl Kruger's office in the LOB to the Capitol to join their fellow Democrats, Smith announced his victory."
Here's how the NY Times described the deal to bring the dissidents into the fold: "Under the new deal, Mr. Smith will be both president and majority leader. While Mr. Kruger will become finance chairman, the committee will not get special autonomy, as had been previously envisioned. Mr. Espada will be vice president of the Senate for Urban Policy and chairman of the Housing Construction and Community Development Committee. Mr. Díaz will lead the Senate’s Aging Committee."
In our-quite unbiased-view, the ability of the Three Amigos to hang together and negotiate positions of responsibility and influence has been quite remarkable. In particular, our good friend Carl Kruger demonstrated a steely will and perseverance that helped to hold the amigos together. Both Espada and Diaz also showed that they could hang together and stay as a team in order to achieve a common goal. Espada, who has been cited as a bit of a wild card, proved to be disciplined and wily in his ability to keep both sides unbalanced to the advantage of the dissidents.
And in the end, three senators who on November 4th could have expected to get gornish and bubkis from Smith, came away with some serious clout and influence; with Kruger negotiating a vastly greater authority for the finance committee that he will chair-we're not sure what the Times means on autonomy, but the new finance committee will have its own $5.9 million budget; something that was negotiated the first time around.
As far as the issue of gay marriage is concerned, there was some uncertainty; but everyone realizes that the 32 votes to pass the measure simply doesn't exist. As the Times points out: "The issue of same-sex marriage was not a sticking point in the discussions among Democrats on Tuesday, several senators said. In fact, it may be moot for the near future.Though it does not appear that a bill to legalize marriage of gay men and of lesbian couples will be voted on anytime soon, it will not be because of any bargain, senators said. With several Democratic senators opposed to same-sex marriage, there are not presently enough votes to get a bill through the Senate. “There are still five or six votes against the bill in the Democratic conference,” said Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, who represents parts of Bronx and Westchester County. He insisted that same-sex marriage was not discussed at all among Democrats on Tuesday. “And I certainly don’t know five or six Republicans who are going to vote for it,” Mr. Klein added. “Everybody understands that.”
Now what remains to be seen is how the newly arranged governance structure will work in practice. As Liz pointed out: "Chief among the rules reforms is the end to the "canvass of agreement," which means votes on motions to discharge bills from committee will now be recorded and no longer done by voice vote. Also, members of either party will have an expanded ability to bring bills out of committee to the floor and both minority and majority members will be able to sponsor and co-sponsor bills."
All of which is a good step for reform; and this new approach will be sorely tested in the difficult budget negotiations ahead. But it is the so-called Gang of Three that emerged last might-along with Malcolm Smith-as the big winners; just when many pundits had counted them down for the count.
Here's how the NY Times described the deal to bring the dissidents into the fold: "Under the new deal, Mr. Smith will be both president and majority leader. While Mr. Kruger will become finance chairman, the committee will not get special autonomy, as had been previously envisioned. Mr. Espada will be vice president of the Senate for Urban Policy and chairman of the Housing Construction and Community Development Committee. Mr. Díaz will lead the Senate’s Aging Committee."
In our-quite unbiased-view, the ability of the Three Amigos to hang together and negotiate positions of responsibility and influence has been quite remarkable. In particular, our good friend Carl Kruger demonstrated a steely will and perseverance that helped to hold the amigos together. Both Espada and Diaz also showed that they could hang together and stay as a team in order to achieve a common goal. Espada, who has been cited as a bit of a wild card, proved to be disciplined and wily in his ability to keep both sides unbalanced to the advantage of the dissidents.
And in the end, three senators who on November 4th could have expected to get gornish and bubkis from Smith, came away with some serious clout and influence; with Kruger negotiating a vastly greater authority for the finance committee that he will chair-we're not sure what the Times means on autonomy, but the new finance committee will have its own $5.9 million budget; something that was negotiated the first time around.
As far as the issue of gay marriage is concerned, there was some uncertainty; but everyone realizes that the 32 votes to pass the measure simply doesn't exist. As the Times points out: "The issue of same-sex marriage was not a sticking point in the discussions among Democrats on Tuesday, several senators said. In fact, it may be moot for the near future.Though it does not appear that a bill to legalize marriage of gay men and of lesbian couples will be voted on anytime soon, it will not be because of any bargain, senators said. With several Democratic senators opposed to same-sex marriage, there are not presently enough votes to get a bill through the Senate. “There are still five or six votes against the bill in the Democratic conference,” said Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, who represents parts of Bronx and Westchester County. He insisted that same-sex marriage was not discussed at all among Democrats on Tuesday. “And I certainly don’t know five or six Republicans who are going to vote for it,” Mr. Klein added. “Everybody understands that.”
Now what remains to be seen is how the newly arranged governance structure will work in practice. As Liz pointed out: "Chief among the rules reforms is the end to the "canvass of agreement," which means votes on motions to discharge bills from committee will now be recorded and no longer done by voice vote. Also, members of either party will have an expanded ability to bring bills out of committee to the floor and both minority and majority members will be able to sponsor and co-sponsor bills."
All of which is a good step for reform; and this new approach will be sorely tested in the difficult budget negotiations ahead. But it is the so-called Gang of Three that emerged last might-along with Malcolm Smith-as the big winners; just when many pundits had counted them down for the count.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Is it Soup Yet?
Both Capitol Confidential and Daily Politics are reporting about the deal that is cooking between the three amigos and Malcolm Smith. As CC tells us: "This, of course, comes with the disclaimer that nothing is really finalized until there’s a vote, but here’s what we’re hearing about the deal between Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith and the so-called “Gang of Three.” The “Gang” and Smith have come to a deal and now the Senate leader is reaching out to conference members individually to talk them through the finer points. The Senate Dems are expected to approve the deal tonight at their closed-door conference in Albany. An announcement is expected this evening to the public."
Who gets what is now the question, with CC saying the following about Kruger: "Sen. Carl Kruger is expected to become chair of the Finance Committee, but not the souped-up committee he was offered before by Smith. He won’t get the $6 million budget or separate staff, according to two Senate Democratic sources."
Liz, however, disagrees: "As predicted, many elements of the original deal have been preserved. But, things are very tenuous at the moment. Already there's some discrepancy over what, exactly Kruger has been promised. Senate Democratic sources tell CapConf that Kruger will indeed get to chair the Finance Committee, but it won't be the independent and extra-powerful body that was offered to him in the first go-round of negotiations. However, the source close to Kruger refutes that, insisting that the Finance Committee will indeed have a $6 million budget and staff."
The real wild card has been the role carved out for Pedro Espada-since his majority leader status caused the most contention. It now appears that Pedro may be an even bigger winner: "Espada will not become majority leader, as was proposed in the first incarnation of the deal. But he will get get to chair the Housing Committee, become vice chair of the powerful Rules Committee and also will head a task force on Urban Policy which will have a staff and a budget." Substance traded for symbolism, it seems to us.
The issue of same sex marriage is being dealt with sotto voce according to DP: "The same-sex marriage question, which Diaz has heretofore made a make-or-break requirement of his support of a leader, appears to be unanswered for the moment. The reality is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes necessary to bring pass it and so there's no reason for him to bring it to the floor. Once he has the votes, he might no longer need Diaz's support to retain his leadership post."
But all of this, of course, is contingent on Smith's ability to herd the Democratic cats, something that he appears better situated to do than he was a month ago: "Details of the deal between Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith and the Gang of Three are starting to leak out even though both sides having been trying to keep things quiet, fearing a repeat of the implosion that occurred in the wake of the last agreement almost a month ago. The Democratic conference has not yet codified this deal and is scheduled to meet at 6 p.m. tonight. But there is so far none of the internal grumbling that led to the death of last month's power-sharing pact between Smith and the gang."
The deadline for all of this is six o'clock tonight; and, as Liz reminds us: "A source close to the Gang of Three ringleader, Sen. Carl Kruger, cautioned that this isn't yet a completely done deal, saying: "You'll know it's done when these three walk into the conference tonight."
Who gets what is now the question, with CC saying the following about Kruger: "Sen. Carl Kruger is expected to become chair of the Finance Committee, but not the souped-up committee he was offered before by Smith. He won’t get the $6 million budget or separate staff, according to two Senate Democratic sources."
Liz, however, disagrees: "As predicted, many elements of the original deal have been preserved. But, things are very tenuous at the moment. Already there's some discrepancy over what, exactly Kruger has been promised. Senate Democratic sources tell CapConf that Kruger will indeed get to chair the Finance Committee, but it won't be the independent and extra-powerful body that was offered to him in the first go-round of negotiations. However, the source close to Kruger refutes that, insisting that the Finance Committee will indeed have a $6 million budget and staff."
The real wild card has been the role carved out for Pedro Espada-since his majority leader status caused the most contention. It now appears that Pedro may be an even bigger winner: "Espada will not become majority leader, as was proposed in the first incarnation of the deal. But he will get get to chair the Housing Committee, become vice chair of the powerful Rules Committee and also will head a task force on Urban Policy which will have a staff and a budget." Substance traded for symbolism, it seems to us.
The issue of same sex marriage is being dealt with sotto voce according to DP: "The same-sex marriage question, which Diaz has heretofore made a make-or-break requirement of his support of a leader, appears to be unanswered for the moment. The reality is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes necessary to bring pass it and so there's no reason for him to bring it to the floor. Once he has the votes, he might no longer need Diaz's support to retain his leadership post."
But all of this, of course, is contingent on Smith's ability to herd the Democratic cats, something that he appears better situated to do than he was a month ago: "Details of the deal between Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith and the Gang of Three are starting to leak out even though both sides having been trying to keep things quiet, fearing a repeat of the implosion that occurred in the wake of the last agreement almost a month ago. The Democratic conference has not yet codified this deal and is scheduled to meet at 6 p.m. tonight. But there is so far none of the internal grumbling that led to the death of last month's power-sharing pact between Smith and the gang."
The deadline for all of this is six o'clock tonight; and, as Liz reminds us: "A source close to the Gang of Three ringleader, Sen. Carl Kruger, cautioned that this isn't yet a completely done deal, saying: "You'll know it's done when these three walk into the conference tonight."
Hammond's Albany Reformation
The NY Daily News' Bill Hammond unveils his own legislative reform ideas in this morning's paper-and seeks an almost total transvaluation of Albany's past legislative practices: "In his quest to become majority leader of the state Senate, Queens Democrat Malcolm Smith is talking to the wrong people. He should tell the renegade Democrats known as the "three amigos" - who have been shaking him down in exchange for their support - to take a hike. Instead, he'd be better off reaching out to his "enemigos," the 29 Republicans on the other side of the aisle. He should invite open-minded GOP senators to join Democrats in running the Senate in truly bipartisan fashion, as co-equal partners in a small-d democratic legislative process."
Whatever the moral arguments in favor of this approach-and how oxymoronic is that conception?-it would leave the Democratic majority in a much more weakened state than any deal with the three amigos could ever do: "This would mean breaking with generations of bitterly partisan tradition in Albany. It would mean angering many fellow Democrats - who have suffered under the thumb of Republican majorities for more than four decades and would desperately like to return the favor."
Does Hammond think that Malcolm's Democratic colleagues would support this surrender of power any more than they did when he crafted the first deal with the amigos? That being said, and as we have pointed out, there is still plenty of opportunities for reform-short of simply giving away the store; and Hammond hits on a number of the possibilities: "And the committee system - which is the lifeblood of real legislatures, like the U.S. Congress - should be revitalized and given the independence and authority to truly debate and shape legislation. Committee memberships should reflect the overall breakdown of the Senate, with Democrats holding only a slight majority. Rules should be changed to make it easier for bipartisan coalitions to force public debates and votes on controversial bills."
There is, however, still a place for partisanship-and elections do have consequences. And there really isn't any need for Smith to hand over the reins to the other side; especially when bipartisan negotiation will be the rule rather than the exception. This doesn't have to be engineered when it will emerge organically: "...Smith cannot live by Democratic votes alone. He cannot rely on all 32 of his party members' votes when a tough issue comes to the floor - and there will be many, starting with how to close the unprecedented $15 billion hole in the state budget."
With leadership comes responsibility, and in 2010 voters will be asked to judge how well the legislature responded to the fiscal crisis. If Smith is given the reins, he and his Democratic colleagues will be judged on the results-even if there is a greater degree of bipartisan cooperation. As a result, it behooves Smith and his fellow Dems to govern responsibly, and to give the voters of New York a reason to return them to power in two years.
Whatever the moral arguments in favor of this approach-and how oxymoronic is that conception?-it would leave the Democratic majority in a much more weakened state than any deal with the three amigos could ever do: "This would mean breaking with generations of bitterly partisan tradition in Albany. It would mean angering many fellow Democrats - who have suffered under the thumb of Republican majorities for more than four decades and would desperately like to return the favor."
Does Hammond think that Malcolm's Democratic colleagues would support this surrender of power any more than they did when he crafted the first deal with the amigos? That being said, and as we have pointed out, there is still plenty of opportunities for reform-short of simply giving away the store; and Hammond hits on a number of the possibilities: "And the committee system - which is the lifeblood of real legislatures, like the U.S. Congress - should be revitalized and given the independence and authority to truly debate and shape legislation. Committee memberships should reflect the overall breakdown of the Senate, with Democrats holding only a slight majority. Rules should be changed to make it easier for bipartisan coalitions to force public debates and votes on controversial bills."
There is, however, still a place for partisanship-and elections do have consequences. And there really isn't any need for Smith to hand over the reins to the other side; especially when bipartisan negotiation will be the rule rather than the exception. This doesn't have to be engineered when it will emerge organically: "...Smith cannot live by Democratic votes alone. He cannot rely on all 32 of his party members' votes when a tough issue comes to the floor - and there will be many, starting with how to close the unprecedented $15 billion hole in the state budget."
With leadership comes responsibility, and in 2010 voters will be asked to judge how well the legislature responded to the fiscal crisis. If Smith is given the reins, he and his Democratic colleagues will be judged on the results-even if there is a greater degree of bipartisan cooperation. As a result, it behooves Smith and his fellow Dems to govern responsibly, and to give the voters of New York a reason to return them to power in two years.
Wheeling and Dealing
According to the NY Daily News, senate Democrats may be closing in on a leadership deal: "Senate Democrats appeared on the verge of a last-minute deal Monday night that could avoid chaos when lawmakers go back in session Tuesday. Sources said Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith and three dissident Dems were close to an agreement that would give Smith the 32 votes he needs to become majority leader."
Whether this is the case, however, depends upon the ability of Senator Smith to bring it all home with the conference he leads: "Smith's members were expected to be asked to sign off on the deal during a closed-door Democratic conference." Remember that the original deal apparently was too much for Smith's colleagues to swallow.
Will whatever is currently on the table be different enough to allow for Smith to ascend with the support of 32 senators? This is the question that remains unanswered this morning-even while unsubstantiated rumors surrounding the new parameters emerge from behind the scenes: "One source said that Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and a leader of the rebel Democrats, would become chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., a Bronx Democrat and another so-called Gang of Three member, would become chairman of the Aging Committee. Bronx Democrat Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., who under a previous deal that fell apart was to become majority leader, would receive an "influential policy position," sources said. "Espada will come out the most senior and influential Hispanic in state government," one source said of the Bronx Democrat."
Other sources deny that the three amigos will have the same kind of influence that they appeared to have negotiated previously: "Unlike the previously aborted deal, the positions of president pro tempore and majority leader will not be decoupled. Smith (D-Queens) will hold both titles. Also, Kruger's Finance Committee will not get a separately funded staff, a source said. Another source said the Gang of Three will get the titles they seek, but will have no power over the legislative agenda."
So we can see that there is still a great deal of uncertainty here, with little time left before the opening of tomorrow's session: "Absent a leadership deal, the state Senate could have trouble opening for business. Because the state has no lieutenant governor - who traditionally presides over the Senate - Republicans and Democrats were squabbling yesterday over who should wield the gavel."
Something should get done, but past experience gives us pause-and Democrats are rather expert at creating chaos out of order. Tonight's Democratic conference will be all telling on this two month controversy.
Whether this is the case, however, depends upon the ability of Senator Smith to bring it all home with the conference he leads: "Smith's members were expected to be asked to sign off on the deal during a closed-door Democratic conference." Remember that the original deal apparently was too much for Smith's colleagues to swallow.
Will whatever is currently on the table be different enough to allow for Smith to ascend with the support of 32 senators? This is the question that remains unanswered this morning-even while unsubstantiated rumors surrounding the new parameters emerge from behind the scenes: "One source said that Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and a leader of the rebel Democrats, would become chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., a Bronx Democrat and another so-called Gang of Three member, would become chairman of the Aging Committee. Bronx Democrat Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., who under a previous deal that fell apart was to become majority leader, would receive an "influential policy position," sources said. "Espada will come out the most senior and influential Hispanic in state government," one source said of the Bronx Democrat."
Other sources deny that the three amigos will have the same kind of influence that they appeared to have negotiated previously: "Unlike the previously aborted deal, the positions of president pro tempore and majority leader will not be decoupled. Smith (D-Queens) will hold both titles. Also, Kruger's Finance Committee will not get a separately funded staff, a source said. Another source said the Gang of Three will get the titles they seek, but will have no power over the legislative agenda."
So we can see that there is still a great deal of uncertainty here, with little time left before the opening of tomorrow's session: "Absent a leadership deal, the state Senate could have trouble opening for business. Because the state has no lieutenant governor - who traditionally presides over the Senate - Republicans and Democrats were squabbling yesterday over who should wield the gavel."
Something should get done, but past experience gives us pause-and Democrats are rather expert at creating chaos out of order. Tonight's Democratic conference will be all telling on this two month controversy.
Reform on the Way?
According to the Politicker, this might be the best year to achieve legislative reform in the state senate: "A coalition of good-government advocates are making the case for "yes," and today released an update to a 2004 report by N.Y.U.'s Brennan Center which details New York's legislative dysfunction. The new report lists concrete recommendations like evening out funding given to legislators--regardless of party--and empowering the chairs of legislative committees to hire their own staff and move bills to the floor. There is also a new recommendation for more substantive notes on the fiscal impacts of bills."
These are all meritorious ideas, and have been endorsed by putative majority leader Malcolm Smith; lost in the hubbub, of course, is the fact that many of these reforms were advanced by the three amigos at the time when their original deal was proffered. It remains to be seen whether the reforms remain as an essential component of a new Democratic majority-should that occur in the next couple of days.
Much of this was taken up in an interesting Op-ed by Jeremy Creelan in last week's NY Daily News. Creelan's idea of reform may be a bit far out for most legislators; and it appears that he wants to eschew partisan politics from the legislature-something that would, in our view, cause more harm than it would create better governance:
"Imagine if, instead of focusing on ensuring that Democrats will control the majority leader position so they can run the Senate like the dysfunctional autocracy it has been for so long, Gov. Paterson and Senate Democrats now chose a different path. Namely, give the entire Senate a choice of leaders - without regard to political party - and dramatically reduce the powers of the majority leader to control which bills are drafted and voted on by the full Senate. Allow the full Senate to select committee chairmen based on their experience and expertise, rather than their party and their relations with the majority leader. Allow minority party members (in this case Republicans), as well as the whole Senate, to force bills out of committee and onto the floor for a vote."
Envisioning a meritocratic utopia is fine for the arm chair theorists; but would devolve quickly into a rudderless morass, as political interests soon came to undermine the road to good intentions. That being said, empowering the chairs of committees makes a great deal of sense; and actually having public hearings is long overdue as well.
In this morning's NY Times, the paper editorializes in favor of reform: "As the Brennan analysts noted this year, legislative leaders, especially Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, have had “a stranglehold on the flow of legislation at all stages of the legislative process.” Most members have little say. Committees are run like shadow puppet theaters. Details about legislation are hard for the public to get, unless they subscribe to a bill-drafting service for $2,250 a year."
But, according to the Times, Malcolm Smith and the Senate Dems can change this situation: "Two years ago in the last vote on legislative rule changes, Mr. Smith sponsored comprehensive reform similar to the Brennan Center’s excellent ideas. The changes, which were rejected by the Republicans in the majority, would have strengthened committees, requiring lawmakers to be physically present to vote. Recently senators could fax in their yeas or nays to the committee chairman. The proposal would have required tons of transparency and made it easier for bills to come to the floor for debate instead of the usual automatic passage."
The NY Post's Fred Dicker is typically more colorful-but hits on the same theme: "ALBANY POLS STILL SUCK." Citing the Brennan Center report: "NYU Law School's Brennan Center for Justice said virtually nothing had changed since it blasted the Legislature's notorious secrecy, lack of democracy, and strong-arm leadership - despite politicians' repeated promises that things would get better."
Our advice? Take it a few small steps at a time; because, as we've seen already in Washington, stentorian cries for global change tend to flounder on the more tawdry realities of mundane political considerations. Incrementalism should be the watchword of Albany change, especially since the close nature of the partisan split will force a great deal more bipartisan cooperation; but, if done right, a measure of real good can be achieved in the upcoming session.
These are all meritorious ideas, and have been endorsed by putative majority leader Malcolm Smith; lost in the hubbub, of course, is the fact that many of these reforms were advanced by the three amigos at the time when their original deal was proffered. It remains to be seen whether the reforms remain as an essential component of a new Democratic majority-should that occur in the next couple of days.
Much of this was taken up in an interesting Op-ed by Jeremy Creelan in last week's NY Daily News. Creelan's idea of reform may be a bit far out for most legislators; and it appears that he wants to eschew partisan politics from the legislature-something that would, in our view, cause more harm than it would create better governance:
"Imagine if, instead of focusing on ensuring that Democrats will control the majority leader position so they can run the Senate like the dysfunctional autocracy it has been for so long, Gov. Paterson and Senate Democrats now chose a different path. Namely, give the entire Senate a choice of leaders - without regard to political party - and dramatically reduce the powers of the majority leader to control which bills are drafted and voted on by the full Senate. Allow the full Senate to select committee chairmen based on their experience and expertise, rather than their party and their relations with the majority leader. Allow minority party members (in this case Republicans), as well as the whole Senate, to force bills out of committee and onto the floor for a vote."
Envisioning a meritocratic utopia is fine for the arm chair theorists; but would devolve quickly into a rudderless morass, as political interests soon came to undermine the road to good intentions. That being said, empowering the chairs of committees makes a great deal of sense; and actually having public hearings is long overdue as well.
In this morning's NY Times, the paper editorializes in favor of reform: "As the Brennan analysts noted this year, legislative leaders, especially Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, have had “a stranglehold on the flow of legislation at all stages of the legislative process.” Most members have little say. Committees are run like shadow puppet theaters. Details about legislation are hard for the public to get, unless they subscribe to a bill-drafting service for $2,250 a year."
But, according to the Times, Malcolm Smith and the Senate Dems can change this situation: "Two years ago in the last vote on legislative rule changes, Mr. Smith sponsored comprehensive reform similar to the Brennan Center’s excellent ideas. The changes, which were rejected by the Republicans in the majority, would have strengthened committees, requiring lawmakers to be physically present to vote. Recently senators could fax in their yeas or nays to the committee chairman. The proposal would have required tons of transparency and made it easier for bills to come to the floor for debate instead of the usual automatic passage."
The NY Post's Fred Dicker is typically more colorful-but hits on the same theme: "ALBANY POLS STILL SUCK." Citing the Brennan Center report: "NYU Law School's Brennan Center for Justice said virtually nothing had changed since it blasted the Legislature's notorious secrecy, lack of democracy, and strong-arm leadership - despite politicians' repeated promises that things would get better."
Our advice? Take it a few small steps at a time; because, as we've seen already in Washington, stentorian cries for global change tend to flounder on the more tawdry realities of mundane political considerations. Incrementalism should be the watchword of Albany change, especially since the close nature of the partisan split will force a great deal more bipartisan cooperation; but, if done right, a measure of real good can be achieved in the upcoming session.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Let the Record Show
Nicole Gelinas continues her excellent work critiquing the Bloomberg mythos. In the NY Post this morning, she outlines the way in which our chief fiscal maven has dug us into a deep hole-precisely because of his lack of expertise and his ideological blinders: "Consider what state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli reported just before the holidays: If you take out the effects of big surpluses leftover from Wall Street's boom years, New York City will spend $4.3 billion more than it will take in this fiscal year - a whopping 10 percent of city-funded revenues."
How did this happen? Well, under the mayor's watch, thing's have gotten much worse-with the mayor adopting an Alfred E. Neuman, "What me worry," persona: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit. Plus, the city-funded workforce has grown by more than 12,000 people in the last three years - so even the 4,556 job cuts that Bloomberg projects won't bring us back to 2005."
This is the guy whose expertise is needed for another term? Give us a break! And take a look at the DOE: "Instead, the mayor must make outsized cuts in education spending, whose city-funded budget has ballooned at nearly 10 percent every single year since Bloomberg took office - without commensurate results in achievement. Unfortunately, much of that increased spending came in the form of contractually guaranteed, six-figure teacher salaries - so cuts must come from staffing, instead. So, for now, Bloomberg should take the time to ensure that these cuts cause the least possible harm to students."
We're waiting, as we've pointed out time and again, for all of the editorialists who are bleating about the necessity of mayoral control, to examine the mayor's real record in this area-the gap between increased expenditures (cost), and better student outcomes (benefit). The issue isn't mayoral control, it's the failure of Mike Bloomberg to effectively deliver on his mandate.
As he has in so many other ways. We desperately need new leadership at City Hall-on both sides of the building. In the kind of crisis we're facing political sclerosis needs to be excised and fresh thinking introduced; other wise we will be condemned to repeat the mistakes that have got us into this fiscal mess in the first place.
How did this happen? Well, under the mayor's watch, thing's have gotten much worse-with the mayor adopting an Alfred E. Neuman, "What me worry," persona: "It's almost jaw-dropping that the mayor, faced with these projections and with no hope of a return to a bubble-era "normal" on Wall Street, has made things worse. City workers' salary growth, for example, is set to rise 13 percent between now and our drop-dead year - largely because the mayor late last year voluntarily entered into labor contracts granting hefty raises to both civilian and uniformed workers. The cost of higher pay adds nearly $1.7 billion to the drop-dead-year deficit. Plus, the city-funded workforce has grown by more than 12,000 people in the last three years - so even the 4,556 job cuts that Bloomberg projects won't bring us back to 2005."
This is the guy whose expertise is needed for another term? Give us a break! And take a look at the DOE: "Instead, the mayor must make outsized cuts in education spending, whose city-funded budget has ballooned at nearly 10 percent every single year since Bloomberg took office - without commensurate results in achievement. Unfortunately, much of that increased spending came in the form of contractually guaranteed, six-figure teacher salaries - so cuts must come from staffing, instead. So, for now, Bloomberg should take the time to ensure that these cuts cause the least possible harm to students."
We're waiting, as we've pointed out time and again, for all of the editorialists who are bleating about the necessity of mayoral control, to examine the mayor's real record in this area-the gap between increased expenditures (cost), and better student outcomes (benefit). The issue isn't mayoral control, it's the failure of Mike Bloomberg to effectively deliver on his mandate.
As he has in so many other ways. We desperately need new leadership at City Hall-on both sides of the building. In the kind of crisis we're facing political sclerosis needs to be excised and fresh thinking introduced; other wise we will be condemned to repeat the mistakes that have got us into this fiscal mess in the first place.
Coming Down to the High Wire
As Liz Benjamin reports in this morning's NY Daily News, Malcolm Smith met with dissident senate Democrats in an eleventh hour attempt to craft a final deal so that he could assume the body's leadership post on Wednesday: "There's 72 hours left, and still no deal in Albany.
Both sides in the battle over who will control the Democrat-led Senate stepped up the pressure Sunday in the hope of ending the stalemate before Wednesday's vote. Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith - heir apparent to the leadership spot - met face-to-face with the so-called Gang of Three on Sunday night in the Bronx. It was his first meeting with the renegade Democratic trio since a power-sharing deal brokered by Gov. Paterson imploded and imperiled Smith's standing with his fellow Dems."
Whatever the terms of any agreement might turn out to be, what is most precious in these final stages is the issue of trust: "The highly public death of the deal created a significant "trust issue" between Smith and the three senators - Ruben Diaz Sr., Pedro Espada Jr. and Carl Kruger - that Smith has yet to resolve, a Gang of Three source said. "No one has a great deal of faith in [Smith] until this check clears," said the source. "They've been down this road before. The old Clint Eastwood line comes to mind about your mouth writing checks your body can't cash. They're prepared to bury him if that's the case."
Still, it appears as if the three amigos are more eager to side with their Democratic colleagues, if they can get Smith to collateralize any agreement with the support of his conference-the same folks who abandoned him kicking and screaming last month. And, as Benjamin avers, it remains true that the three hold outs hold the cards for any leadership end game: "Neither Skelos nor Smith can succeed without the votes of Espada, Diaz and Kruger as long as all the other senators remain loyal to their respective parties. The gang seemed content yesterday to let negotiations go down to the wire. "There is no decision yet," Diaz told the Daily News. "The people will know on Jan. 7."
The exact nature of any agreement is yet to be determined, but what is clear is that the three will have to be satisfied if Smith is to be elevated; and, as of yesterday, it appeared that this was a possibility: "The now dead Paterson-brokered deal would have made Espada majority leader, Kruger head of a souped-up Finance Committee and Diaz chairman of the Aging Committee. A Democratic source said key elements of that deal remain in play. "They will get marginally less, but not substantially less, than they were first offered," the source said. "What has to happen here is the Gang of Three has to blink a little bit, but not too much."
There is a good chance that all of this will be resolved today-although it's unlikely that anything will be announced, since public displays of affection have a tendency to backfire before anything is finalized officially: "The Senate Democrats were slated to meet Saturday but scrapped that plan because there was no deal. They will now meet in Albany tomorrow night, as will the Republicans. Sen. Martin Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, predicted the leadership fight will be over by tomorrow. He insisted there would be no significant disturbance in the Senate regardless of the outcome. "It has the potential of going in either direction, and I think it gets done very quickly because it's starting to get old," Golden said."
If Smith is able, however, to convince the three amigos that any agreement reached is solid, there is a chance that the insurrection will be over-and that Democrats will control all three branches of state government. Today should bring clarity-and perhaps finality-to this entire episode in gamesmanship.
Both sides in the battle over who will control the Democrat-led Senate stepped up the pressure Sunday in the hope of ending the stalemate before Wednesday's vote. Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith - heir apparent to the leadership spot - met face-to-face with the so-called Gang of Three on Sunday night in the Bronx. It was his first meeting with the renegade Democratic trio since a power-sharing deal brokered by Gov. Paterson imploded and imperiled Smith's standing with his fellow Dems."
Whatever the terms of any agreement might turn out to be, what is most precious in these final stages is the issue of trust: "The highly public death of the deal created a significant "trust issue" between Smith and the three senators - Ruben Diaz Sr., Pedro Espada Jr. and Carl Kruger - that Smith has yet to resolve, a Gang of Three source said. "No one has a great deal of faith in [Smith] until this check clears," said the source. "They've been down this road before. The old Clint Eastwood line comes to mind about your mouth writing checks your body can't cash. They're prepared to bury him if that's the case."
Still, it appears as if the three amigos are more eager to side with their Democratic colleagues, if they can get Smith to collateralize any agreement with the support of his conference-the same folks who abandoned him kicking and screaming last month. And, as Benjamin avers, it remains true that the three hold outs hold the cards for any leadership end game: "Neither Skelos nor Smith can succeed without the votes of Espada, Diaz and Kruger as long as all the other senators remain loyal to their respective parties. The gang seemed content yesterday to let negotiations go down to the wire. "There is no decision yet," Diaz told the Daily News. "The people will know on Jan. 7."
The exact nature of any agreement is yet to be determined, but what is clear is that the three will have to be satisfied if Smith is to be elevated; and, as of yesterday, it appeared that this was a possibility: "The now dead Paterson-brokered deal would have made Espada majority leader, Kruger head of a souped-up Finance Committee and Diaz chairman of the Aging Committee. A Democratic source said key elements of that deal remain in play. "They will get marginally less, but not substantially less, than they were first offered," the source said. "What has to happen here is the Gang of Three has to blink a little bit, but not too much."
There is a good chance that all of this will be resolved today-although it's unlikely that anything will be announced, since public displays of affection have a tendency to backfire before anything is finalized officially: "The Senate Democrats were slated to meet Saturday but scrapped that plan because there was no deal. They will now meet in Albany tomorrow night, as will the Republicans. Sen. Martin Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, predicted the leadership fight will be over by tomorrow. He insisted there would be no significant disturbance in the Senate regardless of the outcome. "It has the potential of going in either direction, and I think it gets done very quickly because it's starting to get old," Golden said."
If Smith is able, however, to convince the three amigos that any agreement reached is solid, there is a chance that the insurrection will be over-and that Democrats will control all three branches of state government. Today should bring clarity-and perhaps finality-to this entire episode in gamesmanship.
Taxing (is the) the PITS
The NYS Comptroller-Select, Tom DiNapoli, is warning us that taxing so-called millionaires may well be unavoidable-but he warns that it shouldn't be anything but a last resort. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "State Controller Thomas DiNapoli said a millionaire's tax may be necessary to solve New York's budget crisis but should only be used as a last resort. In an interview with the Daily News, DiNapoli said a recession is not the best time to add to the state's tax burden. He called for state lawmakers to make "tough decisions" to curb state spending before considering a tax on the wealthy. "To start out there would not be the smart way to go," DiNapoli said of the millionaire's tax."
We agree with DiNapoli, but we've yet to see the kind of state spending curbs proffered that could be seen as a significant response to the fiscal mess that we're in. All of the WFP and DMI wailing about "shared sacrifice," must be put into the proper context. The advocates who want to add more taxes in a recession should be, instead, the very folks scouring the nooks and crannies of state government in an effort to expose the waste that is certainly there.
If they feel that certain services are indeed "vital," than it is incumbent on them to expose the less than vital government waste of the tax payers' money. Instead, they knee jerk on the more tax mantra; but it shouldn't just be business interests and conservative scholars on the reduce government spending band wagon. DiNapoli needs to be heeded by all of the decision makers and interest groups.
We agree with DiNapoli, but we've yet to see the kind of state spending curbs proffered that could be seen as a significant response to the fiscal mess that we're in. All of the WFP and DMI wailing about "shared sacrifice," must be put into the proper context. The advocates who want to add more taxes in a recession should be, instead, the very folks scouring the nooks and crannies of state government in an effort to expose the waste that is certainly there.
If they feel that certain services are indeed "vital," than it is incumbent on them to expose the less than vital government waste of the tax payers' money. Instead, they knee jerk on the more tax mantra; but it shouldn't just be business interests and conservative scholars on the reduce government spending band wagon. DiNapoli needs to be heeded by all of the decision makers and interest groups.
Bloomberg the Shtarker
We have always been rather less than kind to Mike Bloomberg-but his statements on Hamas reveal real moral clarity. As Liz B points out, the mayor was steadfast in his view of the situation: "Israel has been attacked by Hamas since 2005 when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, and I think I speak for an awful lot of - almost all - Americans who think that Israel is doing the right thing in defending itself. It has a responsibility to defend the citizens. President Bush has said that and President-Elect Obama has said exactly the same thing."
We just came back from seeing Defiance, and nothing has changed in our view: If Jews aren't able to defend themselves, no one else is going to step up on their behalf. When it appeared as if the Arab armies were going to overrun Israel in June of 1967, the whole world wept with sympathy; but all were quickly made uncomfortable by the military success of Jews fighting back successfully.
As far as we're concerned, the entire Palestinian dispossessed meme is totally out of synch with any reality on the ground-the suffering in Gaza is Hamas' doing, and it would be nice if all of the hand wringers for the poor Gazans would take a real close look at just who Hamas is; and what it represents. AS Blomberg told the NY Times: "Asked about the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, Mr. Bloomberg replied sharply: “That they are putting people at risk is an outrage. If Hamas would focus on building a country instead of trying to destroy another one, then those people would not be getting injured or killed.”
We just came back from seeing Defiance, and nothing has changed in our view: If Jews aren't able to defend themselves, no one else is going to step up on their behalf. When it appeared as if the Arab armies were going to overrun Israel in June of 1967, the whole world wept with sympathy; but all were quickly made uncomfortable by the military success of Jews fighting back successfully.
As far as we're concerned, the entire Palestinian dispossessed meme is totally out of synch with any reality on the ground-the suffering in Gaza is Hamas' doing, and it would be nice if all of the hand wringers for the poor Gazans would take a real close look at just who Hamas is; and what it represents. AS Blomberg told the NY Times: "Asked about the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, Mr. Bloomberg replied sharply: “That they are putting people at risk is an outrage. If Hamas would focus on building a country instead of trying to destroy another one, then those people would not be getting injured or killed.”
Nondisclosure
Caroline Kennedy, who has lived in privilege all of her life, apparently worked at the city DOE under rules that were applicable to no one else. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "Like it or not, roughly 7,000 employees of New York City file 32-page disclosure forms each year divulging personal information about their family finances in an effort to bolster confidence in open government. But when Caroline Kennedy was employed by the city Department of Education from 2002 to 2004, as the chief executive of the Office of Strategic Partnerships, she was not required to file, even though two people who worked for her had to disclose information about their finances."
And so now, it is hardly shocking that she would seek a US Senate spot by designation, instead of holding herself out to the voters sometimes harsh scrutiny. In defending her exemption from the city's disclosure rules, the Princess wants to have it both ways: "City officials have offered a variety of explanations over the last few weeks why Ms. Kennedy did not have to meet this filing requirement despite her title and the responsibilities she has cited in her efforts to convince the public that she has the experience to take Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat in the Senate. City officials have most often pointed to Ms. Kennedy’s decision to accept $1-a-year in salary. More recently, Joel I. Klein, chancellor of New York’s schools, explained that she was ultimately exempt from the requirement because the department did not deem her to be a “policymaker.”
If her work was significant, than she should have been subject to the same rules that apply to others less regal: "Until 2004, public servants were generally required to file disclosure forms if they were officers or directors of agencies or if their salaries indicated high-level responsibility. That year, the city was able to shrink the rolls of those required to file by scrapping the salary test, and instead declaring that anyone holding a policymaking position had to file, regardless of income."
So what will it be? Was Caroline merely a meaningless volunteer, whose job was little more than society busy work? Or was she a real policy maker-in which case she should have been disclosing her resources just as even the billionaire mayor must do. In our view, the DOE''s decision to exempt Kennedy was the right one-it accurately reflected her role; and to aggrandize it ex post fact simply doesn't pass anyone's smell test.
Let Kennedy run on her own merits in 2010. Whoever Governor Paterson selects will be a short termer, and the Kennedy mystique will be a formidable factor in any Democratic primary. Our view is that CK is much like Gertrude Stein's Oakland: "There's not much there, there."
And so now, it is hardly shocking that she would seek a US Senate spot by designation, instead of holding herself out to the voters sometimes harsh scrutiny. In defending her exemption from the city's disclosure rules, the Princess wants to have it both ways: "City officials have offered a variety of explanations over the last few weeks why Ms. Kennedy did not have to meet this filing requirement despite her title and the responsibilities she has cited in her efforts to convince the public that she has the experience to take Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat in the Senate. City officials have most often pointed to Ms. Kennedy’s decision to accept $1-a-year in salary. More recently, Joel I. Klein, chancellor of New York’s schools, explained that she was ultimately exempt from the requirement because the department did not deem her to be a “policymaker.”
If her work was significant, than she should have been subject to the same rules that apply to others less regal: "Until 2004, public servants were generally required to file disclosure forms if they were officers or directors of agencies or if their salaries indicated high-level responsibility. That year, the city was able to shrink the rolls of those required to file by scrapping the salary test, and instead declaring that anyone holding a policymaking position had to file, regardless of income."
So what will it be? Was Caroline merely a meaningless volunteer, whose job was little more than society busy work? Or was she a real policy maker-in which case she should have been disclosing her resources just as even the billionaire mayor must do. In our view, the DOE''s decision to exempt Kennedy was the right one-it accurately reflected her role; and to aggrandize it ex post fact simply doesn't pass anyone's smell test.
Let Kennedy run on her own merits in 2010. Whoever Governor Paterson selects will be a short termer, and the Kennedy mystique will be a formidable factor in any Democratic primary. Our view is that CK is much like Gertrude Stein's Oakland: "There's not much there, there."
Friday, January 02, 2009
Budget Face-off
This budget season is bound to be acrimonious-with a huge deficit this year to be followed by an even larger one in 2010. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the narrow majority held by the Democrats in the state senate will mean that all of the body's decisions on budget matters will be guided by each party's political needs. As the Democrat and Chronicle points out (via the Politicker): "The 2010 elections are especially crucial because the power to redraw legislative district lines for themselves and the state's members of Congress will lie with the majority party in both houses. Republicans will want to use the budget crisis to gain election victory, while Democrats won't want to alienate their strongest supporters, traditionally organized labor, including the powerful teachers' union, which provide valuable help during election time..."
And then there are the various interest groups-each special in its own way: "Raise taxes on the rich. Reduce Medicaid reimbursement rates. Shrink state Legislature staffs. Eliminate school aid to the wealthiest districts. Get rid of pork barrel spending. Ideas on how to close New York state's budget gap, estimated at $15.4 billion by 2010 if taxing and spending continue on their current course, come from labor unions, budget watchdogs, business boosters, upstate county executives and other special interests."
What does this mean in the state senate, where a 32-30 split will militate against boss rule? The Journal News offers some clues: "With Democrats potentially poised to take over the Senate next week, the power and influence of GOP senators from the mid-Hudson Valley could be reduced after decades of being in the majority. Republican senators this week were quick to point out that the Senate leadership issue remains unresolved. Even if the Democrats take control for the first time since 1965, the state's fiscal crisis and the small margin either party will hold ultimately will reduce the strength of a Democratic- or Republican-controlled Senate, they said."
Bipartisanship will have to be the rule, and not the exception: "Because the numbers are so brutally close, we have to work together," said Sen. Vincent Leibell, R-Patterson, chairman of the Senate Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee. Leibell, whose district covers all of Putnam County and parts of Dutchess and Westchester counties, said he didn't know who would end up with the majority. "If I'm in the majority, I'm looking forward to working with my Democrat colleagues. If I'm in the minority, I'm still looking forward to working with my Democrat colleagues," he said."
Lee Miringhoff captures the essence of the situation: ""Because it's so close, their votes will be sought because there's no guarantee by any means that there's going to be uniform Democratic support on any one issue," he said." In this potentially chaotic cauldron, throw in the Smith pledge-should he become leader-to implement the Brennan reform platform. If the body becomes more democratized, will reform be as welcome in practice as it is in theory? Who can predict what will happen in these uncharted waters? But first, Smith needs to get his own conference in order.
And then there are the various interest groups-each special in its own way: "Raise taxes on the rich. Reduce Medicaid reimbursement rates. Shrink state Legislature staffs. Eliminate school aid to the wealthiest districts. Get rid of pork barrel spending. Ideas on how to close New York state's budget gap, estimated at $15.4 billion by 2010 if taxing and spending continue on their current course, come from labor unions, budget watchdogs, business boosters, upstate county executives and other special interests."
What does this mean in the state senate, where a 32-30 split will militate against boss rule? The Journal News offers some clues: "With Democrats potentially poised to take over the Senate next week, the power and influence of GOP senators from the mid-Hudson Valley could be reduced after decades of being in the majority. Republican senators this week were quick to point out that the Senate leadership issue remains unresolved. Even if the Democrats take control for the first time since 1965, the state's fiscal crisis and the small margin either party will hold ultimately will reduce the strength of a Democratic- or Republican-controlled Senate, they said."
Bipartisanship will have to be the rule, and not the exception: "Because the numbers are so brutally close, we have to work together," said Sen. Vincent Leibell, R-Patterson, chairman of the Senate Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee. Leibell, whose district covers all of Putnam County and parts of Dutchess and Westchester counties, said he didn't know who would end up with the majority. "If I'm in the majority, I'm looking forward to working with my Democrat colleagues. If I'm in the minority, I'm still looking forward to working with my Democrat colleagues," he said."
Lee Miringhoff captures the essence of the situation: ""Because it's so close, their votes will be sought because there's no guarantee by any means that there's going to be uniform Democratic support on any one issue," he said." In this potentially chaotic cauldron, throw in the Smith pledge-should he become leader-to implement the Brennan reform platform. If the body becomes more democratized, will reform be as welcome in practice as it is in theory? Who can predict what will happen in these uncharted waters? But first, Smith needs to get his own conference in order.
Bottle Bill Showdown
As we approach the new legislative session, all of those interested in the fate of the "Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill," should be prepared for a bruising battle. The enviros certainly are: "The commissioner of the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has urged support for the “bigger, better bottle bill,” maintaining it would have positive benefits in the Buffalo Niagara region. “Updating our state’s bottle bill law to include noncarbonated beverage containers will help us achieve two important goals: make our communities cleaner and generate necessary funding to help support our parks,” Commissioner Carol Ash said in a written statement."
And while the expanded bottle deposit law has previously passed in the assembly, it has always had rough sledding in the state senate. However, with the Democrats perhaps usurping control, the battle in the senate is going to get very contentious; and it's hard to predict the outcome. Both sides need 32 votes-assuming that there is no leadership hold on the measure, something that was commonplace when Joe Bruno ruled the roost.
We have already outlined our opposition to the measure, but one point needs continued emphasis: If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
Everything else is white noise as far as we're concerned. But retailers, bottlers and beer distributors better be getting ready for this. Supporters of an expanded bill-something that has a fiscal implication as well-are really reved up for this fight; don't be bringing any knives to this gun fight if you're gonna hope to prevail.
And while the expanded bottle deposit law has previously passed in the assembly, it has always had rough sledding in the state senate. However, with the Democrats perhaps usurping control, the battle in the senate is going to get very contentious; and it's hard to predict the outcome. Both sides need 32 votes-assuming that there is no leadership hold on the measure, something that was commonplace when Joe Bruno ruled the roost.
We have already outlined our opposition to the measure, but one point needs continued emphasis: If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
Everything else is white noise as far as we're concerned. But retailers, bottlers and beer distributors better be getting ready for this. Supporters of an expanded bill-something that has a fiscal implication as well-are really reved up for this fight; don't be bringing any knives to this gun fight if you're gonna hope to prevail.
State Senate's 11th Hour
As the day's dwindle down to the first legislative session of the new year, the state senate is still without a leader; and while staffers from the old majority continue to bail, everything else remains in limbo-which doesn't give the new leader any real time to ramp up and deal with the fiscal crisis. As the TU points out: "If Smith wins the leadership vote on Jan. 7, his administration will need time to ramp up its staff. Under ordinary circumstances, Smith would have had three months to prepare. That means Smith, if he becomes majority leader, will have to lead and make serious budget decisions within a truncated transition period. But he'll be in good company: Paterson had a five-day transition period before he became governors last March."
But Smith does need to get cracking, and the pressure tactics of his allies isn't working that well. As the Politicker tells us, at least one of the dissidents is immune to pressure: "The ring-leader of the so-called "gang of three" has spent a quiet holiday season, people close to him say, and as his fellow renegades have been blasted by mail, canvasser and YouTube, no one has gone after Kruger. He even passed some quality time at Brooklyn scion Vito Lopez's holiday party last night without incident from the scores of party loyalists who came to pay their respects in Bushwick.
"He's kind of hard to get to," said one operative, begrudgingly."
But "getting to" the dissidents is something Smith needs to do-and we hear that there is some backroom discussions being done through intermediaries; but the problem still remains the original deal that Smith agreed to, only to walk away when the uproar ensued. That deal set certain parameters in place and it will be hard to get the three rebels to come along unless the new offer is comparable.
That being said, there are those who don't feel that a leaderless senate is a bad thing; it might even be a "blessing in disguise." In this morning's NY Daily News, Jeremy Creelan argues: "And so, after decades of ironfisted leadership by the likes of Sen. Joe Bruno (R-Rennselaer), the Senate has devolved into a frightening chaos that should concern all of us. Or should it? The truth is, there's hope in the rubble. The state Senate has functioned feebly for decades precisely because the majority leader has controlled everything, leaving the talents and energy of the rest of the senators - and the voters who elected those senators - entirely out of the process."
So, Creelan tells us, all would be better if the senate was totally democratized. Perhaps it would but, forgotten in all of the hubbub over the failure of Smith to live up to the original leadership deal, is the fact that Kruger and the amigos had placed many of the reforms that Creelan supports at the heart of the deal they negotiated. Do you think that part of the reason for the deal's collapse could have been a result of this little discussed part of the package?
In any case, we believe that all of this will soon be coming to a head because leaderlessness isn't acceptable in the current crisis. But Malcolm flunked his leadership pretest; will he flunk the final as well?
But Smith does need to get cracking, and the pressure tactics of his allies isn't working that well. As the Politicker tells us, at least one of the dissidents is immune to pressure: "The ring-leader of the so-called "gang of three" has spent a quiet holiday season, people close to him say, and as his fellow renegades have been blasted by mail, canvasser and YouTube, no one has gone after Kruger. He even passed some quality time at Brooklyn scion Vito Lopez's holiday party last night without incident from the scores of party loyalists who came to pay their respects in Bushwick.
"He's kind of hard to get to," said one operative, begrudgingly."
But "getting to" the dissidents is something Smith needs to do-and we hear that there is some backroom discussions being done through intermediaries; but the problem still remains the original deal that Smith agreed to, only to walk away when the uproar ensued. That deal set certain parameters in place and it will be hard to get the three rebels to come along unless the new offer is comparable.
That being said, there are those who don't feel that a leaderless senate is a bad thing; it might even be a "blessing in disguise." In this morning's NY Daily News, Jeremy Creelan argues: "And so, after decades of ironfisted leadership by the likes of Sen. Joe Bruno (R-Rennselaer), the Senate has devolved into a frightening chaos that should concern all of us. Or should it? The truth is, there's hope in the rubble. The state Senate has functioned feebly for decades precisely because the majority leader has controlled everything, leaving the talents and energy of the rest of the senators - and the voters who elected those senators - entirely out of the process."
So, Creelan tells us, all would be better if the senate was totally democratized. Perhaps it would but, forgotten in all of the hubbub over the failure of Smith to live up to the original leadership deal, is the fact that Kruger and the amigos had placed many of the reforms that Creelan supports at the heart of the deal they negotiated. Do you think that part of the reason for the deal's collapse could have been a result of this little discussed part of the package?
In any case, we believe that all of this will soon be coming to a head because leaderlessness isn't acceptable in the current crisis. But Malcolm flunked his leadership pretest; will he flunk the final as well?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)