PlanetAlbany

Upstate farm team better than Blakeman

I took in some speeches this afternoon at the state Conservative Party conference in Colonie, and a trio of upstate Republican-Conservative county executives, Chris Collins of Erie, Maggie Brooks of Monroe and Joanie Mahoney of Onondaga, came across well. Collins was touted as a gubernatorial candidate until a couple of gaffes caused him to withdraw, and when I'd heard him on Fred Dicker's Talk 1300 radio show he put me off with constant references to the cult-like Six Sigma business management b.s. (at least I assume it's b.s., and have no interest in investigating the matter). But Collins gave an entertaining recital of his county's battle with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding alleged civil rights violations at the jail, and Brooks had some OK stuff about Albany's "sense of entitlement" and "toxic culture that favors patronage and partisanship" over ordinary people.

The star of the show, however, was Mahoney. Following Brooks, who had read a speech too fast, Mahoney spoke directly to the almost 300 people in the room, gathering confidence as she described her battles with the CSEA and other efforts to restrain spending. She is also relatively young (born in 1965), a married lawyer with four children and not afraid of a kiss, who was introduced as "from a pro-life family" and seems like a breath of fresh air in New York politics.

But when an actual potential statewide candidate, Long Island Republican Bruce Blakeman (who aims to take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) started speaking, he was so bad he drove me out of the room. One thundering cliche followed another, about "out of control spending" and how the Democrats say they'll just tax the rich but there aren't enough rich people to pay for their programs so they'll tax the middle class, too, and "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Every stale line was presented as if we'd never heard it before, and he was promising to "focus laser-like" on something or other when I made it through the door.

Open up NY hospitals for Haitians

This story about the U.S. suspending medical flights from Haiti because of a bookkeeping issue with Florida hospitals is incredible and outrageous. Maybe Gov. Paterson can offer some hospital space in New York, and break the federal logjam.

No source of revenue left untapped by Cuomo campaign

There was a Google ad today atop the blog of a friend of mine, Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian,  for Cuomo 2010. When I clicked on it and filled in the sign-up page, it took me to a fund-raising pitch for the attorney general, who hasn't said what exactly he's running for this year, but is universally expected to challenge Gov. David Paterson. No wonder Cuomo has far out-raised the incumbent governor, who is busy alienating unions, politicians and other power-brokers because he has to balance the state budget, while his challenger ignores those difficult issues of public policy and concentrates on scouring the Internet for campaign funds.

New York gets stiffed on rail grants

The Obama administration's $8 billion plan for rail improvements awards a measly $151 million to New York state. The president is announcing it in Tampa, where the feds will pony up $1.25 billion on the line from there to Orlando. I guess that's another drawback of New York not being a swing state, or having a governor on the outs with the administration, or an ineffective congressional delegation, or something.

Limousine liberalism rides again

Gov. Paterson's budget proposal has drawn fire from regional representatives, with upstaters bemoaning prison closings and New York City pols like Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger finding plenty to complain about. "New York City shoulders a disproportionate amount of pain,” says Krueger, citing an aid cut and:

"Restructuring the STAR program by limiting the NYC Personal Income Tax STAR Benefit. This will cost New York City residents an estimated $200 million in new taxes. STAR has always disproportionately benefitted land-owners outside of New York City, and that fact will only be exacerbated by the limiting of the NYC Personal Income Tax STAR Benefit."

That's one way to put it. The New York Post -- no proponent of higher taxes -- said this about Paterson's proposal: "It called for ending the STAR property-tax benefit on homes worth more than $1.5 million and limiting the program's tax credit to the first $250,000 of income." So the only people paying more would be living in homes worth more than $1.5 million and/or earning more than $250,000 a year.

Krueger is generally considered one of the most liberal members of the New York State Legislature, although -- or because -- her Manhattan district runs north from Gramecy Park through midtown and the Upper East Side. These days, for New York Democrats from Chuck Schumer on down, liberalism means never having to say you're sorry to the people who work at places like Goldman Sachs.

Krueger also portrays herself as a champion of reform, and like that other ethics poseur Sen. Daniel Squadron was all too ready to settle for a weaker bill than Paterson had proposed. Well, she explained, "We must now continue our progress and pass legislation that will limit lobbyist contributions, reform campaign finance rules, revoke the pensions of elected officials convicted of a crime while in office, and restrict how campaign funds can be spent.” That, however, is not a comprehensive list of what last week's ethics bill left out. She didn't mention Paterson's proposal to require legislators to publicly reveal the amount and sources of their private-sector incomes. The bill that was passed last week (which Paterson calls inadequate and plans to veto) improves disclosure some, but among other weaknesses it lets lawyers like Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate leader John Sampson continue to conceal their private clients.

So not only have conservatives given up conserving, but the new liberal mantra is protect the powerful and pay tribute to the rich.

It's a secret

Another "print exclusive" in today's Times Union, although if it's like last week's the link will take you to the full story in a day or two. Today's is a nice job by Jim Odato about how most state legislators won't reveal anything about their private-sector incomes -- not even as much as would be required in an ethics bill they passed by near unanimous votes last week. Gov. Paterson, who wants tougher disclosure rules (along with term limits and other things) has vowed to veto the Legislature's bill as insufficient.

It has always seemed to me extraordinary that legislators, especially the most powerful ones, can get away with this without being effectively challenged. There has been little pressure on them to voluntarily disclose their income and its sources, which they could do regardless of what the law requires. (If potential clients do not want to be publicized, there are plenty of other lawyers they could hire apart from those serving in the state Legislature.)

In the case of Joe Bruno, the secrecy he maintained about his private business consultancy enabled corruption, a federal jury decided last month. Yet his successor as Senate leader, John Sampson, and as Republican leader, Dean Skelos, and his longtime colleague Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, to this day decline to reveal their private incomes, and have not supported legislation (as proposed by Paterson) to require lawyers like themselves to list their private clients.

This would be a good topic for the public hearings on ethics which the Brennan Center is calling for. Don't hold your breath for the Legislature to schedule them. 

Skelos half right on ethics

Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos says that although he and his colleagues voted for the ethics bill yesterday, that doesn't necessarily mean they would vote to override Gov. Paterson's promised veto. From Skelos' statement: "We share the Governor's concerns that the legislation has problems and needs to be improved, which is why we offered three amendments to the bill that were rejected by every Senate Democrat."

One of those Democrats, Ruben Diaz, was the only senator to vote against the bill itself, on the grounds that politician-lawyers should have to reveal their clients (which the governor's bill, but not the one passed yesterday, would require). That's also a reason cited by Republican Assemblyman Jack Quinn for his negative vote, one of two in that chamber. But that issue was not brought up in the Republican Senate amendments. Last time I checked, Skelos did not reveal the clients (or income) of his private legal practice --- just like another two lawyers, Senate Democratic leader John Sampson, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Last year, when Senate Democrats said the Assembly ethics bill did not go far enough, a naive person might have hoped that the disclosure provisions would be strengthened -- but that didn't happen (they added campaign-finance provisions instead).

Skelos is right to urge negotiations now between the governor and Legislature to come up with a better bill that could be enacted. In a rational world with a functional state government, that what his new stand would help bring about.

Paterson's necessary budget

Gov. Paterson's budget proposal includes less money for education, where state spending has been out of control for years.
The complaints about the governor's plan from the prosperous mayor of prosperous New York City are a good sign.
Means-testing services for special-needs children, and restructuring STAR, are a couple of good ideas  in the proposal that would put more of the budget-balancing burden on those who can best afford it.

The governor's critics, who are many, and potential opponents including Andrew Cuomo, should be required to provide specific alternatives that would actually make the numbers add up. Nobody -- except for the occasional nonpolitician like E.J. McMahon -- is going to be able to do that.

NYPIRG's Horner working on ethics bill

I'm not sure how meaningful legislative schedules are these days, but the Senate and Assembly are supposed to take up their ethics bill tomorrow (Wednesday). Blair Horner, legislative director of NYPIRG, has been going back and forth between the Senate Republicans and Democrats, trying to resolve differences that blocked passage of an ethics bill in that house last year. Then, the sticking point was what Republicans saw as an effort to undermine the Board of Elections and transfer its enforcement authority to a potentially partisan body. The new bill (backed by NYPIRG but not by Common Cause and the Brennan Center) strengthens the BOE instead, but Horner is still trying to address GOP objections and won't predict how the vote will come out. (Senate Democrats predict victory.)

Horner, while still smarting over Gov. Paterson's attack on the goo-goos in the State of the State, grudgingly conceded (we talked at length in the Senate lobby today) that the governor's ethics proposals for the Legislature, regarding oversight and disclosure, may be superior to what is in the Assembly-Senate bill. But he cautioned he had not yet read the governor's legislation, which was only released today in the budget bills, and objected to one provision in which the executive director of the proposed new ethics oversight agency would not have a fixed term but would serve at the pleasure of the board. Horner is clearly much more interested in the bill backed by legislative leaders, which unlike the governor's has a chance of passing (unfortunately, there do not seem to have been any negotiations between the two branches). He also defended the back-door disclosure provision in the Assembly-Senate bill, requiring lobbyists and their clients to report business relationships with legislators. That would result in most lawyer-legislators' clients becoming public, he said. 

Race to the bottom

Gov. Paterson and NYC Mayor Bloomberg didn't pull any punches in their statement tonight on the Legislature's failure to pass legislation to qualify for $700 million or so in federal "Race to the Top" funding.The Democratic governor and independent mayor blasted the Assembly and Senate Democratic leadership, and most of the legislators they praised were Republicans. (Maybe the Senate Republicans have finally smartened up and will start taking Paterson's side against the Senate Democrats.)

The key issue is charter schools, which the feds are pushing while sabotaging the current voucher program in Washington, D.C. Seems to me the growth of charters is bad news for Catholic schools, but alleviating that doesn't seem to be on anybody's radar screen. I had a long chat in the Assembly chamber today with Mike Fitzpatrick, a Long Island Republican who is probably the most principled and consistent conservative in the Legislature. He supports charters as an alternative to and competition for regular public schools, providing educational opportunity for people who can't afford to pay tuition, and hadn't thought about them as damaging Catholic and other private schools. Fitzpatrick supports vouchers, and his wife is secretary at Our Lady of Providence school in Islip, which has been under financial pressure but is subsidized by the Diocese of Rockville Centre. But charters aren't an issue there: There's only one in Suffolk County, and it's nowhere near Fitzpatrick's district. Fitzpatrick, by the way, said he thought Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi lost in November because after chairing the commission on controlling school property taxes, he seemed to lose interest in the issue. That squares with my perception the last time I saw Suozzi.  

Here's the key graf from the Paterson-Bloomberg release:

"On behalf of the City and the State, we want to thank Senator Dean Skelos for his efforts to pass this important legislation. In addition, we would like to thank Senators Craig Johnson, Ruben Diaz Sr., and members of the Senate Republican Conference, Assemblymembers Sam Hoyt and Brian Kolb and members of the Assembly Republican Conference and the other legislators who supported the Governor's legislation which offered our State the greatest opportunity to receive Round 1 Race to the Top funding. Since introducing that bill on January 7th, the Governor met on several occasions with the Legislative Leaders, there were numerous staff meetings and the Governor's office was open to negotiations. The Governor revised the legislation to reflect many of the concerns raised by the Leaders and their members. But, those efforts were not met halfway by our Legislative Leaders. It was not until the 11th hour that Legislative Leaders, without notice or negotiation, submitted their own! bill on the Race to the Top competition - a bill that would ultimately have undermined the improvement that the Race to the Top grants intend to achieve."