New heights of inactivity, or 'Crisis, what crisis?'

The state Senate has been getting some flak for passing no legislation in January. Wait till February, we were told, when the calendar steps up into high gear. They’ll be in session four days a week, instead of the 2-days-per-week schedule in the last 3 weeks of January, (up from one session day in the month’s first 11 days). Well, up to a point, senator. Today, the Senate was due to come into session at 3, and started more than 20 minutes late, and they were all done by by 3:35, at which point they adjourned until 3 p.m . Tuesday. You could say in their defense that today's session seemed much longer. The only business transacted was passage of a resolution "to memorialize Gov. Paterson to proclaim April as electronic recycling month.” That appeared to have something to do with recycling old TV sets and computers, according to an interminable speech in support of the resolution by Sen. Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo, which few people in the chamber appeared to be listening to. (Congressman Paul Tonko, a former assemblyman, wandered by during this address, greeting friends as he passed through the rear of the Senate chamber.) The Legislature takes vacations of more than a week in February and in April, then is scheduled to stagger on until June 22, at which point they're done for the year unless called back into special session. Of course they do have other duties like marching in Fourth of July parades.

An hour earlier, at a Red Room press conference,  top officials of the Paterson administration denounced what Dennis Whalen, director of operations, called a scaremongering advertising campaign by SEIU Local 1199, the largest health-care union in the state, which is seeking to block the governor’s proposed budget cuts. It's the same campaign they've mounted in previous years, said Whalen accurately. But it’s not just the union that is singing the same song. Every governor post Rockefeller has been singing the same tune about controlling spending, while legislators listen to the siren songs of lobbyists and unions instead. But there are no plans to pay state workers in scrip, Budget Director Laura Anglin helpfully responded to a reporter's question.

Meanwhile, the Assembly has been debating a bill a bill to sweeten rent regulations for New York City tenants.

Comments

[Brian]

Given how much New Yorkers complain about overregulation, should the press really hammering the Senate for this? Should they have passed some legislation merely so it could say it "did something" in January? Passing laws merely for the sake of passing laws, is this really what we should

The press used to hammer the Senate and Assembly for passing one house bills just so legislators could pretend they "supported" x or y. Now, the media's criticizing them for NOT doing so?!

The criticism would've been more credible if commentators had said exactly what crucial bills were languishing yet ignored.

The Three announced yesterday some budget cuts. Seems like this is more important than, say, passing a bill declaring the Tootsie Roll New York's favorite chew candy just to say you passed a bill. Am I off the mark?

[Bob Conner]

TypePad
Hey Brian:
I dunno if anyone's still reading the comments on this old post, but I wanted to reply to one thing. "The Three" did indeed announce budget changes. But wouldn't it be nice if instead those had been openly debated, amended and voted on by the people's representatives, who will instead, as usual, rubber stamp whatever 3 men in a room agreed to in secret?

[Brian]

" But wouldn't it be nice if instead those had been openly debated, amended and voted on by the people's representatives, who will instead, as usual, rubber stamp whatever 3 men in a room agreed to in secret?"

No doubt. It's just a different criticism than your original post.

On New York Now, Smith pointed out that it costs something like $10,000 (if I recall correctly) to pass a one house bill. If he'd done something like that just for show or to appease that criticism, he would've been criticized for wasting money on something that had no chance of becoming law.

I (and all but three New Yorkers) agree completely that the budget process needs to change. However, I don't think that not passing bills is in and of itself worthy of damnation and is contradictory with other widespread criticisms made by the same pundits.