Gov. Cuomo Leads on Gun Control

Governor Cuomo's State of the State speech included an inspiring statement of support for reducing gun deaths. 

Cuomo Leads from the Front on Gun Control

Governor Andrew Cuomo's State of the State speech included passionate calls for new legislation to reduce gun violence. He spoke about gun deaths in Newtown, Connecticut and demanded that the state legislature “reject the extremists” and “save lives” by sending him "sensible” gun control measures to sign into law. 

Governor Cuomo's eagerness to bring the “strongest assault-weapons ban in the nation” to New York State is backed up by a desire to impose a ban on high-capacity magazines. “It’s simple -- no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer and too many people have died already."

“End the madness now. Pass safe, reasonable gun control in the State of New York. Make this state safer. Save lives. Set an example for the rest of the nation. Let them look at New York and say this is what you can do. This is what you should do."
 

Cuomo 2016?

Some political experts are seeing Cuomo's push for gun control legislation as a move to build support from his left-of-center base in advance of his own re-election fight and perhaps a run at the Presidency in 2016. Cuomo took on unions and disappointed some Democrats by supporting (at least implicitly) the Republicans as they sought to remain in control of the state senate. 

NRA vs. Cuomo

The National Rifle Association, of course, opposes Cuomo's call for increased gun control legislation. But, the NRA is wrong about gun control and is particularly wrong on New York State's influence over the rest of the country. While the NRA says that increased gun control in New York will not influence other states, the reality is that New York is indeed a state that can drive national debate. 

We praise Governor Cuomo for demonstrating the courage to take on the NRA and for having such a clear vision for a safer New York and a safer United States. 

NYS Senators' Marriage Equality Support Punished

With last week's concession of defeat by State Senator Saland, three of the four Republican State Senators who supported marriage equality will no longer be in the State Senate.

Marriage Equality Victory in NY

In June of this year, the New York State Senate approved the marriage equality law that now governs our state. The Assembly had already passed it, and the Governor signed it immediately.

The State Senate passage was made possible by the support of four Republicans State Senators who joined with all but one of the Democrats in the State Senate "after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes."

Three of Four Republicans Not Returning to the State Senate

Since the thrill of the June victory, we have had a primary election and a general election. Those elections have not been kind to the Republicans who courageously pushed marriage equality over the finish line in New York State. In the end, the loss of these Republicans strengthened the Democrats and strengthened the support in the New York State Senate for marriage equality.

The New York Times described what has happened to the four Republican State Senators who supported marriage equality:

" . . . when the Legislature returns to Albany next month, only one of those four senators will be among those sworn into office. One, facing the prospect of a tough challenge, decided not to run again; a second was defeated by a more conservative Republican in a primary, and on Thursday, a third conceded defeat after a monthlong paper-ballot counting process in a three-way race in which a more conservative candidate drew so many votes from him that the race was won by a Democrat.       

      

"Activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue nationwide had kept a close eye on the fate of the four New York Republicans, whose re-election battles were depicted as a de facto referendum on whether it was electorally safe for Republicans to support same-sex marriage. Gay-rights advocates talked hopefully of being able to persuade Republican legislators in other statehouses that voting for same-sex marriage did not amount to political suicide.        

 

"But, same-sex marriage opponents paid for billboards to denounce the incumbents and predicted that voters would punish the senators for switching their positions. The outcry against the Republicans had an awkward side effect — although conservatives contributed significantly to their fates, two of the three are being replaced by Democrats who support same-sex marriage.

Vote Linares Twice on Thursday

This Thursday, we have an election in New York State. If you live in Upper Manhattan or elsewhere in Manhattan and 1) are in the 72nd Assembly District, you must vote for Mayra Linares and/or 2) are in the 31st Senate District, you must vote for Guillermo Linares. You can vote Linares twice this Thursday and make our community stronger.

Guillermo Linares

Guillermo Linares is currently the Assemblyman for Washington Heights, and he is the best choice for the State Senate seat that dominates that part of Manhattan. Mr. Linares cast the deciding vote to create the Pathmark on 125th Street and Lexington in Harlem, a development that launched the second Harlem Renaissance that continues today. He has been a leader on immigration, a superstar member of the NY City Council, and a special leader in our city.

The New York Times endorsed Guilermo Linares yesterday:
STATE SENATE DISTRICT 31 Manhattan’s West Side from Washington Heights to Chelsea. Adriano Espaillat, the incumbent, has focused most of his energy recently on running an unsuccessful race to unseat Representative Charles Rangel in Congress. He missed more than 50 percent of the votes this year in Albany, and returning there might seem like a consolation prize. His opponent, Assemblyman Guillermo Linares, is ready to work for the diverse immigrant communities in this district. He served with distinction on the City Council and as the city’s commissioner of immigrant affairs under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Our endorsement goes to Mr. Linares.  

Mayra Linares

Guillermo Linares' daughter, Mayra Linares, is a long-time District Leader in Upper Manhattan and a former aide to Governor Andrew Cuomo. She is the best choice to replace her father in the New York State Assembly.

Don't fail to vote, and don't forget to vote for Linares . . . twice.

Republican Donors Support Marriage Equality in NYS while Bloomberg is Embarrassed by His Budget

Last week, we learned that major Republican donors were adding their dollars and their voices to the fight for marriage equality in our state, and we learned that Mayor Bloomberg's budget proposal included an embarrassing $1 billion in spending on education consultants while firing 4,100 teachers.

Republican Donors Join the Fight for Marriage Equality

In a pleasant and encouraging development, major Republican donors are funding the efforts to end our state's discrimination against same-sex couples and bring marriage equality to New York State.

A week ago, we highlighted Governor Cuomo's determination to lead a coordinated initiative to bring marriage equality to New York. Having Republican donors as supporters of the initiative is a major step forward, and it may represent the key ingredient of success for marriage equality this year.

In our state, the Senate is controlled by the Republican Party. A marriage equality law will need to receive meaningful Republican support to pass (some Democrats do not support marriage equality, thereby making the support of Republicans even more necessary). Republican donors are likely to have influence over the Republican controlled Senate, and the rest of us should applaud their willingness to jump into this initiative after the failure of the push for marriage equality in 2009.

Mayor Bloomberg and other supporters of Republican elected officials around our state now represent two-thirds of the funding of the initiative driving the push for marriage equality. Without them, the Governor would lack both the resources and the political influence that will likely be necessary to win this fight.

Let us hope that these Republicans remain the right side of this issues, and perhaps we can pray that Bloomberg and the other Republicans will take the satisfaction of fighting for human rights for same sex couples and push New York City to end its law enforcement terrorism against people of color as well as its exclusion of people of color from the Fire Department of New York.

Bloomberg's Embarrassing Education Budget

Mayor Bloomberg's budget includes $1 billion for consultants while eliminating more than 4,000 teachers. Manhattan Borough President and other supporters of public education have criticized the imbalance, and the Bloomberg administration has dismissed the criticism. After the Cathie Black debacle, the Mayor continues to give his opponents ammunition with which to attack him as lacking a commitment to improving the education of children in New York City.

Cuomo Leads Coordinated Push for Marriage Equality

Governor Cuomo has chosen to play a leading role in the fight for marriage equality in New York State, and he has prompted leading advocates for same-sex marriage to adopt unprecedented levels of coordination.

Marriage Equality in NY Would Create Jobs

As we stated in April of 2009, allowing same-sex couples to marry would improve the New York State economy and create jobs.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson produced a report in 2007 that attempted to estimate the economic impact of legalizing same-sex marriage. His analysis suggested that New York State would benefit from approximately $250 million of economic activity over three years simply from the weddings that would take place in the state after the legalization of same sex marriage. He also estimated that $175 million of the $250 million would be economic activity benefiting New York City.

Many couples living in New York City would take advantage of the new law and begin planning weddings, while both New York City and New York State would benefit from out-of-state couples coming to New York for their weddings. New York's hotels and banquet halls would see increased activity. The sooner New York State acts, the greater the benefit, as the lack of equivalent opportunities in neighboring states will increased the economic activity in New York State in the near term. Longer term, we'd expect neighboring states to follow our lead and provide equal rights to their residents irrespective of sexual orientation.

State-Sponsored Discrimination Should End

In that April 2009 posting we also discussed the need to end the discrimination against same-sex couples that is represented by the denial of the right to marry.

There are more than 1,100 federal rights and more than 1,300 New York State rights available to married couples that are not available to couples who are not married. Therefore, the prohibition against marriage for same sex couples in New York State who wish to marry is equivalent to the systematic denial of nearly 2,500 rights to those New Yorkers.

An excellent example of the types of rights that only married couple enjoy is the spousal privilege - a married person cannot be compelled to testify in court about communications with his or her spouse. Without marriage, there is no privilege, and same sex couples who wish to marry are left without this crucial protection.

Beyond the enormous psychological benefits of marriage, we must recognize that there are thousands of important rights that are available only to individuals who are married and that, by preventing some of our fellow New Yorkers from gaining the status of being married, we are participants in a state-sponsored discrimination exercise that attacks our neighbors.

Governor Cuomo Pursues Marriage Equality

Governor Andrew Cuomo has expressed optimism that a law creating marriage equality will pass in the near future, despite the defeat of the 2009 effort.

He also has decided to push advocacy groups to band together to push marriage equality legislation forward. As described by the New York Times:

The most heartening new factor, though, is the active involvement of New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo. His predecessor, David Paterson, also supported same-sex marriage, but he was too weak and unfocused to get the job done.

With Mr. Cuomo’s encouragement, the state’s most influential gay-rights groups have banded together to form a united front. Working under the guidance of Cuomo aides, their coalition is getting ready to mount an intense and well-financed campaign — including field organizers and a major media blitz — that would focus on about 15 Democratic and Republican lawmakers whose votes are thought to be in play. A seasoned labor and media strategist with close ties to Mr. Cuomo, Jennifer Cunningham, has been tapped to oversee the coalition’s political and media efforts.

Let us hope that Governor Cuomo's efforts result in marriage equality that will both make New York State a leader in human rights and provide New York State with badly needed new jobs.

Our Bankrupt State

Governor Cuomo's budget reflects the horrible reality that New York State is in terrible financial condition, but it is painful for New York City and cuts education and healthcare significantly.

Painful Spending Cuts

With a $10 billion deficit staring him in the face, Governor Cuomo has proposed a budget with enormous spending cuts and almost no tax increases. Governor Cuomo is more responsible than Mayor Bloomberg, who has sought to fill his budget gaps with regressive taxes. But, Cuomo's reliance on budget cuts also has the potential to be highly regressive and to undermine the economic future of our state.

In addition to significant cuts to healthcare and education, Cuomo's budget brings us 10% cuts to each state agency without regard to which agencies currently use our tax payer dollars most effectively and without regard to which agencies' activities serve the most vulnerable populations in our state. Across the board cuts are rarely the best approach to improving a budget's quality, but Governor Cuomo's focus is on reducing our state's deficit. Across the board cuts are an excellent solution to reducing a deficit.

A large portion of New York State spending goes to help pay the bills of municipalities in our state. The cuts will put pressure on many cities and towns in New York State, and New York City will be one of the municipalities facing exacerbated budget problems as a result of our state's need to cut its deficit.

Automatic Government

In the 1988 book Automatic Government, its author Kent Weaver demonstrates the growth at the federal level in indexing government spending to the inflation rate. Because nearly half of the US federal budget is indexed to inflation, it is essentially on auto-pilot. Elected officials who do nothing are essentially voting for indexed programs to represent a larger portion of the budget each year as non-indexed programs face squeezes and cuts as deficit reduction is attempted.

In New York, the "automatic government" is far more unmanageable in a deficit reduction era. Governor Cuomo revealed as part of his budget address that both healthcare spending and education spending are scheduled to increase by 13% in the next fiscal year if nothing is done by the New York State Legislature to change the auto-pilot trajectory. In an environment where overall spending must be reduced, automatic 13% increases are an unwelcome challenge, and even if those automatic increases are not implemented in the upcoming year, they will return in the following year to ruin a future budget in the absence of major cuts in the rest of the budget. Neither education nor healthcare are services that New York State residents can easily do without, and the size of the cuts may require real sacrifices that are likely to be borne by those with the least resources in our society.

What's Next?

Now, the fight begins. There are no clear heroes and few clear villains in this fight. Budgets cuts will hurt vulnerable people, and some opposition to budget cuts comes from self-interested groups seeking to profit from the state and not to protect vulnerable constituencies. Let us pledge to pay close attention to this budget fight and support efforts to reduce the deficit in ways that do not target poor people and other vulnerable groups. Let us also recognize that the process of getting our house in order will require most of us to sacrifice. We do not have to like it, but we do have to endure it in order to give our state the type of future our children and their children deserve.

NYC Should Control NYC

New York City needs more authority over its own affairs. The New York State government in Albany is not an appropriate parent organization to run NYC from a distance.

Albany's Greater Dysfunction

The NY State government in Albany is more dysfunctional than the NYC government, and the NY State financial situation is far worse than the NYC budget shortfall. Therefore, having NYC decisions made in Albany is counterproductive and harmful.

New York State is well known for having the most dysfunctional government in the United States, and it has a $9 billion budget deficit that will grow to $17 billion over the next two years. Even massive tax increases will not solve New York State's budget problems. Without assessing blame, we can all agree that New York State is troubled right now. With our new Governor giving every indication that he is ready to take serious action to turn around our state's fiscal woes, there is hope for a brighter future.

New York City is not is good condition, but it is in far better shape than our state. NYC has a budget deficit of just $2.4 billion and hope for the Wall Street recovery to shrink that deficit even further. We have been very critical of the Mayor's efforts to increase revenues for NYC through regressive taxes and his general incompetence in leading our city's economic and fiscal apparatus. But, the Mayor's incompetence and fiscal failures do not approach the level of dysfunction we see in Albany.

Albany Ruling NYC

For too many areas of NYC governance, Albany is in charge.

The NYPD residency requirements are set by Albany. The NYPD is overloaded with leadership and individual officers who mistreat NYC residents. One of the reasons for that unfortunate reality is the fact that NYPD officers are not required to be NYC residents themselves. Some NYPD officers have always hated NYC and its residents, and their attitude shows in their behavior. By making NYC residency a requirement of the NYPD, many of the problems caused by the NYPD would be reduced. Because NYC cannot set its own residency requirements, we must suffer the costly abuse and mismanagement so common within the NYPD.

Our city's rent control policies are burdened by Albany control as well. In 1971, Albany took away New York City's authority over its own rent control regime. Mayor Bloomberg has opposed returning control to New York City, even though he is our city's Mayor. New York City should manage its own affairs in housing rather than operating based on preferences from politicians who will never even visit our city. The Mayor could not be more wrong on this topic, and Albany could not be a worse place from which to make specific decisions about life in New York City.

The New York Times editorial last week asked for our city's pension regime to be controlled by NYC rather than by Albany. Pensions are a major reason for the expected fiscal challenges looming for our city, yet our city cannot drive the pension regime to match our city's resources. For now, Albany has been very generous with NYC pensions, but if Albany moves to gut the pensions of our city's workers, our city is powerless to protect itself. Mayor Bloomberg is correct to seek New York City control of its pensions, and we hope that he will be successful in that quest. If he succeeds in acquiring control, we hope that he will not use it to abuse working families the way he has abused our city with regressive taxes, race-based policing, and incompetent management.

The Ethics Trap

Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General-elect Eric Schneiderman risk creating an unacceptable distraction by focusing on creating new prosecutors for Albany's legislators. Our state's problem is poor policy making rather than criminal behavior.

The Rangel Example

With his ethics trial beginning today, Congressman Charlie Rangel's challenges in the US House give us a great example of the risks of a runaway focus on "ethics" that ignores or even conflicts with common sense efforts to create the best public policy. Congressman Rangel has represented Upper Manhattan for 40 years and, after being accused of ethics violations, received 80% of the vote in the November elections. He did not face a serious challenge in the primaries or in the general election because the people of Upper Manhattan know his record of achievement, loyalty, and integrity.

Charlie Rangel has been accused of what amount to bookkeeping errors and paperwork mistakes. None of the mistakes enriched the Congressman, and the errors were largely sefl-reported and corrected long ago. One of the key attacks on Rangel is that he used his office stationary to seek donations for City College in Upper Manhattan. Irrespective of the ethics rules, anyone who asks for donations to be made to a wonderful organization that serves our city the way that City College does should be praised - the type of letterhead doesn't change the underlying effort, which is to promote increased and improved educational opportunities for young adults in our city.

Because of the ethics attacks, Congressman Rangel stepped down as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful posts in Congress. Therefore, the flimsy accusations based on self-reported and already-corrected poor bookkeeping and stationary mistakes resulted in an actual reduction in the quality and the competence of the leadership of one of the most important institutions in our country, the House Ways and Means Committee.

Congressman Rangel's bookkeeping errors did not result in job losses, weakened military strength, or poorer healthcare infrastructure in our country, but the accusations related to the bookkeeping errors actually reduced our ability as a country to attack our biggest challenges.

With the deficit continuing to grow and job growth failing to ignite, we need Charlie Rangel's leadership more than ever, and we should not lose it because his political opponents take advantage of his revelations to them of bookkeeping errors.

Albany Needs Leadership Rather Than Prosecutions

Cuomo and Schneiderman have announced that they plan to push for more prosecutions of New York State legislators. There is a big risk in such an approach.

In Albany, we have the most dysfunctional legislature in the United States. Our problem is ineffective policy-making, concentration of power, and a lack of honest debate regarding how to make our state the best it can be. There is undoubtedly criminal activity and unethical activity in the New York State government, but that criminality and lack of ethics is NOT the priority dysfunction that we must address.

Our state has massive budget deficits and spends more per capita on nearly every service that the average state in the US spends, yet we do not have a realistic opportunity to address our challenges because of the dysfunctional nature of our legislature. There is too little transparency and too much influence from interest groups instead of from the broader public interest.

Prosecuting legislators is NOT going to fix our state. In fact, a focus on finding misbehavior and criminality in Albany could distract our leaders from the monumental compromises them must forge to bring our state into the next decade on solid footing.

The Rangel experience should be a warning to us. We can dig deeply into the lives of public officials and then make mountains out of the mole hills of mistakes and failures we find. But, if we are to succeed, we will need to focus our attention on finding solutions to our problems rather than finding personal faults in those whom we've sent to Albany to lead us to job growth, improved education, and better, longer, happier lives.

Let us step back and acknowledge that we do not condone criminal or unethical behavior, but we also do not condone prosecutions as an alternative to effective governing. We have real work to do. Let us get to work.

Democrats Sweep NY Statewide Races - NY State Senate in Doubt

All of the statewide races in New York were won by Democrats, but the control of the New York State Senate remains in doubt.

Democratic Statewide Sweep

Democrats won all of the statewide electoral contests in New York in 2010. Andrew Cuomo won the race for Governor easily, and with similar ease, Senators Gillibrand and Schumer were sent back to the US Senate.

The tighter races for Attorney General and State Comptroller were also won by Democrats with Eric Schneiderman, a Manhattan State Senator, winning the Attorney General race by more than ten percentage points and Comptroller Tom DiNapoli retaining his role by just two percentage points.

The top of the ticket set the tone. The Republican nominee for Governor, Carl Paladino, started out the post-primary campaign with poll numbers that suggested a tight race despite his low name recognition and lack of experience in elected office. But, as voters became aware of Paladino's love of racist and sexist emails, his unstable behavior on the campaign trail, and his aggressive anti-homosexual rhetoric, his poll numbers dropped, undermining the entire Republican statewide slate and handing a sweep to the Democrats.

State Senator and now Attorney General-elect Eric Schneiderman appeared to be trailing in the polls on the eve of the election but won the election by a wide margin. Schneiderman's victory can be attributed to both the Paladino problem faced by the Republicans and to the intense collaboration between the Schneiderman campaign and the Cuomo campaign.

DiNapoli did not have the support of Cuomo and found himself in the tightest of all of the statewide races, but the Democrat DiNapoli was victorious nonetheless.

State Senate Control In Doubt

The Democrats controlled the New York State Senate by only two seats (32 to 30) in the last session. Thus far in the 2010 election, the Democrats have won 29 seats, and the Republicans have won 30 seats. There are three seats that are still too close to call. In two of the three, Republicans lead by hundreds of votes with thousands of absentee votes yet to be counted. In one of the three, the math is reversed - the Democrat leads by hundreds.

The Democrats need to win two of the three disputed seats in order to have an equal 31 - 31 split of the State Senate seats and retain control through the tie-breaking votes of the state's Lt. Governor (a Democrat elected along with Cuomo).

If the the Republicans win more than one of the three seats in dispute, they become the leaders of the New York State Senate.

Redistricting on the Horizon

All of the Congressional district boundaries, all of the Assembly boundaries, and all of the State Senate boundaries will be redrawn in 2011 based on the 2010 Census by the New York State Legislature. If the Democrats retain the State Senate, their control of the Governor's Mansion and both houses of the State Legislature would provide the Democratic Party an unchecked role in redrawing all of the lines for the elections in our state of the next ten years.

If the Republicans gain control of the State Senate, the Republicans will have the leverage to push for lines that provide them with an advantage in future State Senate elections (and perhaps in some other races as well).

Therefore, the party that wins the three disputed State Senate elections may use those victories to reshape our state's electoral map to reinforce its control of the Senate and improve its ability to win US House and State Assembly seats as well.

Schneiderman for Attorney General

With the Democratic Primary three weeks away, we endorse State Senator Eric Schneiderman for New York State Attorney General.

New York Times Concurs

Senator Schneiderman is the only Manhattan candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, and he is also the candidate with the best record of taking courageous and correct positions on the key issues facing our state. Not only has he taken the correct positions, he's been a leading advocate for the biggest achievements of the State Legislature, including the historic repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

The New York Times endorsed Senator Schneiderman for Attorney General late last week, and they did so for the right reasons.

"We endorse Senator Schneiderman in the Democratic primary because of his sound judgment, legal expertise, political independence, and long history of fighting for government reform."

Amsterdam News Adds Its Support

In a lengthy and detailed endorsement of Senator Schniederman, the Amsterdam News focused directly on how Schneiderman has consistently proven his ability to lead on the criminal justice issues that have been the focus of those of us who live in Upper Manhattan.

"While in the State Senate, Schneiderman has been instrumental in passing legislation that directly affects the lives of our community. From a Clinic Access Bill to the legislation to increase the minimum wage, to his most recent legislation focusing on how inmates in upstate penitentiaries are counted by the United States Census, he has been there fighting for us."

No candidate can claim to have a record of achievement as Attorney General; Schneiderman's competition has no one it who has held statewide office or been Attorney General. But, evidence of the independence, judgment, leadership, and sense of justice needed to become a successful Attorney General is abundant in Senator Schneiderman's record as an elected official. As the Amsterdam News observed, Senator Schneiderman has proven that he has the right skills and the right values to be successful as Attorney General. We look forward to seeing him in that role.

Rice is Wrong

Andrew Cuomo is supporting Kathleen Rice in the Democratic Primary, but she is not an acceptable candidate. She opposed the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws; she refused to register as a Democrat, and she refused to vote in elections until recently. Her lack of leadership, her unwillingness to be a Democrat and her unwillingness to vote in elections demonstrate that she is not the best choice for the Democratic Party in 2010. Senator Eric Schneiderman is the best choice.

Budget Blame Game in NYC

Mayor Bloomberg is cynically suggesting that the New York City budget cuts he is proposing are being forced upon him by decision-making regarding the New York State budget in Albany. In reality, the Mayor is proposing enormous cuts in education to confuse taxpayers into thinking that Albany is setting the Mayor's budget priorities.

Albany Budget Turmoil

There is no question that Albany has not generated confidence in its budget efforts this year. The budget in Albany must be completed by April 1 under New York State Law. But, we are well into May this year, and there is no sign of a state budget.

That unsettling performance has added to an already dire budgetary picture at the local level. With the state facing a huge budget deficit in 2011, and with no clarity on what the 2011 state budget will be, municipalities across New York State are bracing for significant reductions on state funding.

Amongst the problems facing Albany is reduced federal funding. The federal stimulus dollars that President Obama fought to bring to state governments across our country immediately after his inauguration are now running out. In 2011, New York State (like so many states) will have exhausted nearly all of the support provided by the stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009, thereby creating increasing pressure on state budgets that are already strained beyond the breaking point. In 2012, essentially all of the stimulus money will be gone.

Until now, stimulus money spared governors and state lawmakers from making some of the most brutal budget cuts. But with this lifeline running out, officials are looking at making significant cutbacks to public services, particularly schools and health programs. "The stimulus funds have staved off what could have been even deeper cuts," said Todd Haggerty, policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "You're seeing states now are coming to that point where they will have to make additional cuts or find new sources of revenue for fiscal 2011 and that will continue in fiscal 2012."

Phony Blame for Albany

Despite the national impact of the end of the stimulus money, the Mayor has insisted on blaming Albany for the cuts that NYC will have to make to its own spending. In reality, NYC has choices it must make in the face of reduced revenues, and the Mayor has decided that primary and secondary education should be singled out to suffer in these lean times. Ironically, the Mayor focused his campaign for re-election to a third term, in part, on the assertion that he had been and would be successful in improving the NYC public schools.

Having overturned the New York City Charter in order to allow himself to run for a third term, and having been re-elected by a slim margin despite outspending his opponent by an order of magnitude, the Mayor is now using the prospect of undermining the public education system to shift blame away from himself and to Albany for the budget cuts he chooses to implement. If indeed Albany had the final say in how NYC's budget was designed, changing the New York City Charter in order for the Mayor to seek a third term would seem silly, or worse. But, we went through the trouble of accommodating the Mayor's need to be the Mayor, and, now that he has four more year to rule over his subjects, he should not be permitted to suggest that his budget priorities are set by politicians in Albany.

The budget cuts proposed by the Mayor are the Mayor's choices and reflect his priorities. He has decided that he will not cut any police jobs and that he will concentrate nearly all his cuts in the educational system.

We hope to see the Mayor adopt a more responsible set of budget priorities and a more responsible approach to communicating with the public about the budget choices he is making.

Age of Innocence Coming to NYS

New York's judges and our State Senate may be ushering in an age of innocence with groundbreaking efforts to allow defendants to appeal their convictions on the grounds that they were innocent of the charges against them.

Actual Innocence

While being innocent may not seem to be an exotic defense to most people who are not involved with the criminal justice system, our nation's legal history forbids the use of innocence as a defense at the appellate level. There are New York judges and members of the New York State Senate that are starting a new trend of allowing "actual innocence" as a an appellate claim.

Generally, a defendant seeking to reverse a conviction must prove that the proceedings within the judicial system violated the defendant's constitutional rights in order to earn the reversal. Often, the presentation of new evidence of innocence is not permitted unless the defendant proves that the evidence would have been impossible to present at the original trial. The basis for this approach of prohibiting actual innocence as a defense in the theory that our judicial system needs and values finality. If convicted defendants were permitted to re-argue their innocence at every level, prosecutors would essentially be required to convict defendants three or four times in order to be certain that the guilty verdict would prevail. The sentencing could be equally confused by endless appeals on the grounds of actual innocence.

The Supreme Court of the United States took an extreme view of the limits of actual innocence in 1994. In that year, they ruled by a 6-3 vote that a defendant's actual innocence claim, even when endorsed by the statements of the state that sought his conviction, was not a proper basis for an appeal. To add to the drama of that 1994 case, the defendant was executed by the state of Texas in the early days of 1995 after losing the appeal in 1994. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that being innocent is not an appellate defense even if the prosecutors tell other juries in other cases that you are innocent in order to convict other defendants of the crime for which you are scheduled to be put to death. The state of Texas, in the 1994 case, even argued in another trial that the executed defendant was unaware that the actual murder had a weapon in the moments prior to the crime in question and that the executed defendant was not in the building with the victim at the time of the killing.

One Supreme Court Justice has stated that executing a defendant known to be innocent is very similar to murder by the state. The 1994 case referenced above demonstrates how an innocent defendant can be executed nonetheless.

Jesse DeWayne Jacobs was executed on January 4, 1995, despite the fact that Texas prosecutors knew that he did not shoot Etta Urdiales in 1986. In speaking to the jurors that would sentence Jacobs to death, Montgomery County District Attorney Peter Speers said, "The simple fact is that Jesse Jacobs and Jesse Jacobs alone killed Etta Ann Urdiales." However, another prosecutor said that Jacobs' sister, Bobbie Jean Hogan, actually killed Urdiales. At Hogan's trial, the prosecutor also said that Jacobs "[didn't] know that Bobbie had a gun." Texas convicted Hogan of involuntary manslaughter in the Urdiales killing, and Hogan received a ten year sentence. Nevertheless in Jacobs v. Scott, No. 94-7010, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, allowed Texas to execute Jacobs. Jacobs was killed by lethal injection on January 4, 1995.
Even in light of this new evidence, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales refused to acquiesce to a new sentencing hearing, relying on Supreme Court precedents that limit death row inmates to raising constitutional questions on appeal. Since "the prosecution's subsequently stated belief that Hogan was the trigger person is not new evidence, newly discovered or otherwise," Morales asserted that Jacobs' death sentence should stand. Two different persons were convicted for shooting the same person. Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to overturn Jacobs' death sentence, holding that "it is not for us to say" that the jury had made a mistake. The Supreme Court denied review, with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissenting. Stevens wrote, "It would be fundamentally unfair to execute a person on the basis of a factual determination that the state has formally disavowed. I find this course of events deeply troubling." Stevens was particularly moved by the fact that the State itself vouched for the recantation of Jacob's confession.
Texas had full knowledge of the fact that Jacobs was not guilty of the crime that he was sentenced to death for committing. Texas sentenced the person who actually killed Urdiales to ten years in prison, while executing Jacobs.

New York's Age of Innocence

In New York State, two recent court decisions have endorsed the concept of actual innocence as an appellate claim, and the New York State Senate has begun to pursue legislation that would create an actual innocence defense.

One of the decisions, issued on November 9th of this year, states that the appellate judge was persuaded by the defendant's submission that the defendants was innocent, and the judge follows that finding with a dismissal of the conviction with prejudice (meaning that the defendant cannot face a new trial for the crime in question). In July of this year, a similar case resulted in the tossing aside of a conviction in New York State. Both defendants had spent more that a decade imprisoned for crimes that they did not commit (18 years and 12 years, respectively), and both were released based on "actual innocence" rather than constitutional violations.

In October of this year, members of New York State Senate introduced legislation entitled the Actual Innocence Act of 2009. The legislation, if enacted, would establish the appellate claim of actual innocence for convicted defendants in New York State and prevent the abuse of law by permitting judges to ignore evidence of actual innocence if the defendant intentionally withheld evidence of his or her own guilt during the trial. “Prolonged and unnecessary incarceration of the innocent is detrimental to all - the wrongly incarcerated, society, the criminal justice system and the victim. I can only hope that the proposed legislation ensures that others wrongly incarcerated like me, never have to suffer like I did in securing their freedom through the criminal justice system,” said Marty Tankleff, who was wrongfully convicted for the murder of his parents based on a false confession.

The most important "actual innocence" effort now is to promote the passage of this legislation.

Taking Authority Over Authorities

Last week, New York State took a major step forward toward government accountability by establishing oversight over most of the nearly 1,100 authorities that have governed in our state for decades without checks and balances.

Authorities - The Shadow Government

Authorities in New York State operate as if they are self-contained independent governments. They collect fees and issue bonds. They often have layers of their own bureaucracy and have, until now, never been forced to operate in a transparent manner or face the scrutiny of any other part of the government. These authorities are often referred to as a "shadow government" because of their enormous power and lack of oversight by other entities.

There are many estimates of the number of authorities operating in New York State, but the New York State Comptroller's office has suggested that the total number approaches 1,100. Some of the most well-known and most important are the Port Authority (which manages each of the major New York City metro areas airports as well as several bridges and tunnels), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which manages New York City's subways and buses), and the Dormitory Authority (which builds all of the public hospitals and higher education buildings across New York State).

In total, these authorities have built up a debt load of $150 billion and are key sources of employment and governance within our state.

Oversight From Albany

In a major development that changes the shadow government into a set of quasi-governments that are accountable to the state government in Albany, Governor Paterson signed legislation last week that brings the authorities out of the shadows.

While some experts have suggested that reform must go farther than simply demanding accountability and must include reducing the number of authorities as well as limiting their power, the first step is a necessary and valuable part of improving the overall quality of government and the level of accountability in our state.

The reform legislation will:

1) Establish the creation of an independent Authorities Budget Office to oversee authority operations
2) Allow for Comptroller review of contracts for more than $1 million that do not result from a competitive bid process
3) Mandate enhanced financial reporting, mission statements and measurement reports by public authorities, so that the State and the public know what authorities are doing, as well as their financial condition
4) Strengthen the rules governing the disposal of property by public authorities to prevent the give-away of public property to private developers
5) Strengthen the rules governing contact between lobbyists and employees of public authorities
6) Regulate the formation of subsidiary corporations and the issuance of debt by subsidiaries in order to place limits on the amount of debt issued by those corporations
7) Require board members of a public authority to perform their duties in good faith, in the best interest of the authority, its mission and the public in order to ensure that public authorities act responsibly
8) Create a Whistleblower Access and Assistance Program to protect those individuals who report wrongdoing.

With improvement in Albany still necessary, we are pleased to see Albany starting to take control of the authorities that play such a major role in our lives.

Another Bloomberg Blunder - And - Albany Reloaded

Three days ago, Mayor Bloomberg announced retroactive raises for his senior staff members, demonstrating once again his unlimited arrogance.

Separately, New York State Senator Pedro Espada came full circle in his turncoat / traitor odyssey and rejoined the Democratic Party to give the Democrats a 32 to 30 majority in the New York State Senate. As part of his double-cross of the Republicans, Espada will be elevated to the role of Majority Leader in the New York State Senate. So, it seems that crime does pay after all.

Bloomberg's Retroactive Raises

Mayor Bloomberg has surpassed his previous demonstrations of arrogance with his granting of retroactive raises to nearly 7,000 members of his staff. In essence, the Mayor's team will receive bonuses representing the additional earnings they would have received if the raises had begun 16 months ago. They get a 4% raise for all of last year and a 4.16% raise for all of this year.

As absurd as the bonuses and raises appear on their face, a broader context illuminates how unacceptable this latest mayoral maneuver really is.

1) The Mayor demanded that City Council change the City Charter to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, despite two referenda in which the people of New York City voted overwhelmingly to disallow Mayors to serve for three consecutive terms. In arguing for the third term, Bloomberg has suggested that the intense economic and fiscal crisis facing New York City requires keeping Bloomberg in power (ignoring the fact that Bloomberg got us into this mess). Bloomberg's answer to the economic and fiscal crisis is to give huge bonuses and raises to his staff. Now, at least one of the Deputy Mayors will have a higher salary than the salary provided to the Mayor's office by law. The third term seems unwise.

2) At Manhattan Viewpoint, we have been highly critical of the Mayor's decision to use sales taxes to balance the city's budget. The Mayor's obsession with protecting high earners from taxation has resulted in a painfully regressive budgetary approach that relies on poor people to pay more taxes to fill in the budget gaps created by the economic downturn and by the Mayor's unfortunate reliance on Wall Street revenues during his first 1.5 terms. It is ultra-shameful that a mayor who so thoroughly believes in regressive taxation would be so generous to his own senior staff during a fiscal crisis. He is demanding that poor people pay more so that he can pay his top advisers more.

3) Bloomberg is setting a record pace for stopping and frisking people of color. He has given the crime of "walking while black" the official City Hall stamp of approval, and his administration is retaining all of the personal information of those that are stopped. 90% of those stopped are non-white even though whites who are stopped are 2.5 times more likely to have illegal substances or weapons in their possession. Yet, Bloomberg will stop and frisk more people of color this year than any mayor has ever stopped in New York City.

4) The Mayor chose to reject federal aid from the Obama administration because it would have expanded the availability of food stamps to more poor people.

Bloomberg is demonstrating the type of leadership that suggests he should have had only one term and should certainly not attempt to impose a third term on our great city.

Albany Reloaded

Pedro Espada came roaring back into the Democratic Party late last week. Given his weaknesses and challenges, no one should be pleased that he is now the New York State Senate Majority Leader. While the Democrats have waited about 70 years for the opportunity to set the public agenda for New York State, relying on the loyalty and leadership of Pedro Espada is not at all consistent with the progress we must make in our state. He is more likely to be indicted or declared ineligible to hold the office to which he was elected than to turn out to be a leader that we should admire. For now, Espada's latest move puts the Democrats in charge of the New York State Senate. Given the Democratic control over the State Assembly and the Governor's Mansion, the Democrats are now responsible for making tangible improvements and have no excuses and no one to blame but themselves if they fail.

Lt. Governor Controversy

Governor Paterson appointed a Lt. Governor last week despite guidance of the New York State Attorney General and from decades of precedent that suggested that he did not have that power. While we are not qualified at Manhattan Viewpoint to challenge the Governor or the Attorney General on the proper interpretation of the New York State Constitution, we certainly are qualified to state the obvious: a Lt. Governor chosen under circumstances that many credible people see as unconstitutional will be bogged down in litigation and will not be legitimized until all legal challenges to his appointment have been defeated.

The Governor's choice, Richard Ravitch is an excellent choice in terms of a person whose intellect and integrity are unquestioned. We just may not get the opportunity to benefit from the services of this superb public servant for weeks and months while we wait for the legal process to come to some conclusions about the legality of the appointment.

Assessing the Albany Coup and Enjoying Henry Hudson's "Failure"

Just days after celebrating the birth of our nation with uplifting ceremonies and arresting fireworks, we are now back to reality. The New York State Senate remains in chaos.

Also, two days ago, we celebrated the 400th anniversary of Henry Hudson's first trip on what is now the Hudson River by moving New York City's July 4th 30-minute fireworks show from the East River to the Hudson River. Those of us in Manhattan can trace the start of the development of the Manhattan we know to the "failure" of Henry Hudson's 1609 voyage to discover a "northern passage" from Europe to Asia.

Closer Look at the Albany Coup

Tom Robbins wrote an insightful column in the Village Voice last week that addressed the underlying motivations of Tom Golisano and the Republican Party as they moved to elevate Democrat Pedro Espada to the Presidency of the New York State Senate in early June. The Republican Party and other powerful interests around New York State became fearful that the new Democratic majority would turn their progressive agenda into legislation that would ultimately become law. The Democratic majority in the State Senate had already proven to be the key ingredient in the successful effort to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws after decades of seeing the repeal effort fail because of Republican control of the State Senate. That same Democratic majority in the State Senate was poised to take on other powerful interests, and those interests initiated a coup that has caused a stalemate in Albany and undermined the will of the electorate in the last election.

As Robbins correctly points out - in describing the nature of the effort to destroy the Democratic majority:

The threat to power here was the slim Democratic majority that won control of the Senate last fall for the first time in more than 40 years. Consider the timeline: The plotters launched their coup on June 8, the day before the Senate's housing committee was due to consider legislation—given a good chance of passage—that would curb rent hikes on hundreds of thousands of city apartments. Worse, it was even possible that the new majority might vote to give control over New York City housing policies to the city itself. Imagine that? Home rule! For the real estate and landlord lobby, which had long held full sway in the Senate, this was an impossible state of affairs. A pair of renegade Democrats were recruited at a still undisclosed price. The rebels stepped across the aisle to vote the Republicans back into power, thus ensuring that there would be no further incursions into the business of real estate profit or any other sacred Albany cows.

Robbins focuses on reality of the Albany coup as an attack on progressive public policy rather than the caricature of foolish mismanagement of public affairs that has been presented by most of the local media when addressing the Albany coup. We encourage Manhattan Viewpoint readers to read Robbins' column in its entirety.

This analysis reminds us that elections have consequences and that we must all keep on fighting, even after an election ends with results that please us. Because of the coup, legislation that would keep us safer, legislation that would improve our economy, and efforts that would ensure that powerful business interests must abide by the laws already in place have all be put on hold. The fight in Albany is just beginning.

Henry Hudson's "Failure"

As we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first trip by Henry Hudson up the Hudson River, we are reminded of how the Manhattan we enjoy today got its start with Hudson's failed attempt to travel from Europe to Asia by traveling northward. Though Hudson died viewing his efforts as failures, his trips led the way to the control of Manhattan by the Dutch (Hudson was British but was employed by the Dutch), and that Dutch control started Manhattan on a journey that continues to our era. Underneath the abuses of the Native Americans, the long period of slavery, and the support of the Confederacy during the Civil War, a wonderful city grew into what is the greatest city in the world today.

Albany Chaos With No End In Sight

The latest insanity in Albany started on Tuesday of last week with defections in the State Senate, and though one of the two defectors has recinded his defection, and though a judicial pronouncement is due out today, the Albany chaos is at its beginning rather than at its ending.

Unpleasant Surprise

On Tuesday of last week, two of the State Senate's Democratic members sided with the Republican Party to attempt to elect new leadership in the State Senate. Because the Democrats held a slim 30-32 vote majority, the maneuver created a 32-30 majority for the Republicans and threw Albany into Chaos. The two Democrats making the switch were already in serious legal trouble. One of them, Pedro Espada, Jr., is under investigation by the New York State Attorney General's office for misuse of State funds, and the other, Hiram Monserrate has been indicted for attacking his female companion. Any Senator that is convicted of a felony is immediately removed from office. Therefore, while Monserrate reversed his defection today, Espada's might be reversed by a jury in the coming months if it is not reversed in some other way.

Another Billionaire Anoints Himself Leader

In New York City, our Mayor is a multi-billionaire who felt that the two consecutive term maximum in the New York City Charter was too restrictive. He had it changed to allow him to serve a third term by enlisting the help of another billionaire, the same billionaire who initially promoted the term limits that the Mayor overturned. It seemed that the Mayor of New York City believed that any time two billionaires agree on a public policy issue, the absence of a billionaire in opposition to them demonstrated the correctness of their approach while also converting any principled opposition into "disgrace[ful]" attacks.

In the latest Albany nightmare, yet another billionaire, Tom Golisano, led the process to initiate the chaos because he felt slighted and angry after the Democrats voted to raise taxes in the highest earners in New York State. He met in secret with the Republicans and personally wooed the two defecting Democrats into the Republican fold.

Unclear Outcome

Unfortunately for the Republicans, their coup had an instant misfire. Monserrate refused to support his own coup the day after he initiated it. His change of heart intensified the sense that Albany is adrift and potentially unsalvageable in the near term.

Monserrate went so far as to pledge last week to vote "no" on all legislation until he could more Democrats switch to the Republican camp. Such an approach would have ensured that nothing could pass the New York State Senate and would ensure that Democrats and Republicans would have nothing to show for this session. His decision to return to the Democrats has a similar effect. It leaves the New York State Senate deadlocked at 31-31 with no mechanism to break the tie (because of the lack of a Lt. Governor in New York State after Governor Spitzer's resignation and the elevation of Lt. Governor Paterson to the office of Governor - New York State has no system for filling the vacant Lt. Governor position).

Unimportant Showdown

The Democrats have asked the New York State judiciary to declare the Republican takeover of the New York State Senate illegal. While we eagerly await the decision of the judiciary branch today (a decision almost certain to be appealed until it ends up in the New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals), we find it very difficult to see that such a declaration would have any practical impact.

Espada is not going to support the Democrats, one cannot imagine a justice declaring that State Senators must support a particular leadership team or political party. Ultimately, even if the judicial branch declares that the Republican takeover was invalid, the practical effect of having more Senators supporting the Republicans than the Democrats will be the same as if the coup were validated by the judicial branch. If remain deadlocked, no one will be in charge, and chaos will remain the order of the day.

The only questions that matter revolve around how Senators will vote in committees and on legislation that reaches the Senate floor. For now, we have many questions and no answers.

Unending Frustration

With so much riding on this session, including the potential legalization of same-sex marriage, the frustration of the latest chaos is greater than what accompanies the typical Albany foolishness. The Democrats worked for 70 years to gain control of the New York State Senate for long enough to make real changes in public policy as well as in the institution of the State Senate itself. Now, after less than six months in power, it seems that the 70 years of Republican control (with one brief interruption in 1965) continue endlessly into the future. If the Democratic control of the State Senate proves to have been a mirage (or even a fantasy), the people of the State of New York will not have the leadership in place that is needed to help pull New York through the global economic slowdown or prepare New York for the brighter national and global economic times that are certain to arrive sooner or later. Without Democratic control, we might never allow all New Yorkers to have the right to marry. We might miss out on a great future that we were supposed to have as a progressive State in the era of progressive politics that has emerged in Washington DC. We might have to wait another 70 years for the chance to fix our problems and get our public sector leadership moving coherently and enthusiastically toward better lives for the people of New York State.

Same Sex Marriage Would Improve the NYC Economy

Last week, Governor Paterson proposed that the New York State Legislature adopt legislation legalizing same sex marriage. We note that legalizing same sex marriage will improve New York City's economy while living up to our moral obligation to end the discrimination in our state and in our city against homosexual residents and the outcome of that fight will be determined in the New York State Senate. This fight for liberty and equality will be decided in the New York State Senate, and the outcome is completely uncertain.

State Senate at the Crossroads

The legislation proposed by Governor Paterson passed the New York State Assembly by a wide margin in 2007, but it failed to get to the floor of the New York State Senate. Since then, the Democrats have taken over the New York State Senate by a very thin majority, making adoption of the legislation more likely but uncertain.

It is rare in the New York State legislature for a vote to be taken in either chamber on a piece of legislation that the leadership of that chamber is not certain will obtain a majority vote. With this piece of legislation, the vote will be too close to call right up to the moments before the vote.

Economic Growth and Same Sex Marriage

City Comptroller Bill Thompson produced a report in 2007 that attempted to estimate the economic impact of legalizing same sex marriage. His analysis suggested that New York State would benefit from approximately $250 million of economic activity over three years simply from the weddings that would take place in the state after the legalization of same sex marriage. He also estimated that $175 million of the $250 million would be economic activity benefiting New York City.

Many couples living in New York City would take advantage of the new law and begin planning weddings, while both New York City and New York State would benefit from out-of-state couples coming to New York for their weddings. New York's hotels and banquet halls would see increased activity. The sooner New York State acts, the greater the benefit, as the lack of equivalent opportunities in neighboring states will increased the economic activity in New York State in the near term. Longer term, we'd expect neighboring states to follow our lead and provide equal rights to their residents irrespective of sexual orientation

Benefits of Marriage to New Yorkers

There are more than 1,100 federal rights and more than 1,300 New York State rights available to married couples that are not available to couples who are not married. Therefore, the prohibition against marriage for same sex couples in New York State who wish to marry is equivalent to the systematic denial of nearly 2,500 rights to those New Yorkers.

An excellent example of the types of rights that only married couple enjoy is the spousal privilege - a married person cannot be compelled to testify in court about communications with his or her spouse. Without marriage, there is no privilege, and same sex couples who wish to marry are left without this crucial protection.

Beyond the enormous psychological benefits of marriage, we must recognize that there are thousands of important rights that are available only to individuals who are married and that, by preventing some of our fellow New Yorkers from gaining the status of being married, we are participants in a state-sponsored discrimination exercise that attacks our neighbors.

Being a Better New York

Legalizing same sex marriage makes us all better. It continues the march to greater personal equality and freedom that our country has undertaken - from slavery to Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, to today. It adds hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy and vindicates our self-image as a land of equal opportunity.

We urge the New York State Senate to support Governor Paterson in this historic battle.

Balancing the Budget in Albany During a Recession

Leadership in Albany is often criticized, and none of us have forgotten the study that showed the the New York State legislature was the most dysfunctional in the United States. The events of the last two days might be a sign that Albany is changing in ways that are healthy for New York State, New York City, and our borough of Manhattan.

Democratic Control Means Democratic Responsibility

The State Senate is in the control of the Democrats for the first time in many decades, and the Democrats now control the entire legislature and the Governor's mansion. It is far too early to give the elected leaders in Albany an overall grade, but they deserve extra credit points for the compromise they have reached regarding increasing tax revenues  to bring the New York State budget into balance in the coming fiscal year and those to follow immediately thereafter. During a recession, taking steps aimed at generating economic growth or avoiding steps likely to deepen the recession are paramount. The tax compromise reached in Albany late last week has all of the appearances of an honest attempt to solve two incompatible problems, increasing state government revenues and avoiding further harm to our state's economy.

The Democratic Party must continue to make these good-faith attempts to do what is right in these complex and controversial areas. It will not be easy, but it will be necessary. If the Democrats cannot develop a record of good-faith hard work and compromise in Albany, there won't be anyone willing to see the blame for those failures as shared with the Republicans. The Democrats must deliver or find themselves back to the structure of the past several decades, where Republican control of the State Senate made success on nearly all controversial issues impossible.

As we said the night of the November 2008 elections: 

With control of the Executive Branch and both houses of the legislature in both our nation's capitol and in Albany, the time has come for Democrats to deliver for the people. No excuses, and no blaming the Republicans . . . This election is the beginning of our journey rather than the end.

Economic Growth and Government Budgets

During economic downturns, the United States federal government should increase spending (and perhaps reduce taxes) in order to spur economic growth. The reduction in tax revenues from the reduced economic activity (coupled with lower taxes, potentially) and the increased government spending combine to result in deficits (or lower surpluses). The goal of ending recessions creates the environment in which deficits increase.

At the state level in the United States, budgets are less flexible. New York, like all fifty states, is required to have its revenues match its expenditures in each year's budget. It would not be wise to allow states to create deficits unless the sizes of those deficits were strictly limited. The capital markets would find it difficult to absorb the financing of large and growing deficits from fifty states, and only the Federal Reserve can create new cash. States would not be able to provide adequate certainty of repayment without strict limitations. The requirement of a balanced budget can promote longer recessions and slower recoveries by forcing state governments to reduce spending and raise taxes when the economy is in need of the opposite.

Here in the New York State, the government in Albany is in just that dilemma, and they are making the best of a bad situation.

Higher Taxes That Could Have Been Worse

Higher taxes, especially in a state like New York that is already at the top of the list of the states who impose the largest tax burden on their residents, are unwelcome and counterproductive. They are also often necessary during difficult economic times, and we are in such times.

The budget that is very close to becoming law in Albany could have been much worse on the taxation question. Many groups pushed for permanent or long term levels of much higher taxes. Others pushed for increases in sales taxes. Because both ideas were rejected in favor of a small increase in income taxes (a one percent increase for those earning over $250,000 per year and another approximately one percent for those earning over $500,000) for only 3 years, we should take a moment to appreciate the wisdom of the Governor, the State Senate, and the State Assembly in compromising amongst each other in what must appear to each of them to be a "no-win" situation.

New York State already relies heavily on regressive sales taxes, and because of that reliance, New York State's overall tax scheme is regressive (meaning that it imposes the greatest tax burden, as a percentage of income, on New Yorkers with the least income). Adding large new sales taxes to the New York State tax scheme would have made that bad situation worse.

A long term increase in income taxes would likely result in reduced economic activity as the workers subject to the higher tax rates move to other states or otherwise alter their economic behavior to reduce their tax burden. At least as important is that New Yorkers would reduce their spending to account for the reduced take-home pay resulting from the higher taxes.

With a short-term tax increase, New Yorkers are far less likely to reduce spending, leave New York State, or take other counterproductive actions that could have resulted from a longer term tax increase. The potential negative consequences are also mitigated by the small size of the tax increase. 

In the end, the leadership in Albany deserves credit for a job well done on taxes, and they are unlikely to be praised for it. Let's hope that they continue to pursue responsible compromises and earn praise in the months ahead.

Bring Control of Rent Control to NYC

For nearly 40 years, the authority over rent control and rent stabilization in New York City has been held by the New York State Government. The time has come for the New York City Mayor and the New York City Council to be provided with the tools to show leadership and judgment in this critical area of policy related to local housing. With approximately 90% of all of New York State's rent controlled apartments located in New York City, the State Legislature and the Governor should work to grant authority over New York City's rent controlled units to New York City.

State Control

In 1971, New York State took away New York City's authority to administer rent control within New York City through the adoption of the Urstadt Law. Urstadt was the Housing Commissioner under Governor Rockefeller in 1971, and the law that carries his name prohibits cities in New York State from enacting rent control regulations that are more protective of tenants than what is contained in state law.

The New York State Assembly, with its long history of Democratic control, has passed legislation that would repeal the Urstadt Law several times. The New York State Senate had been controlled by Republicans since the mid 1960's, and the Republicans had failed to control the New York State Senate for only one year of the last 70 years. The New York State Senate would prevent a repeal of the Urstadt Law as frequently as the Assembly would vote in favor of such a change. As we stated in our October 2008 endorsement of Joseph Addabbo for a Queens State Senate seat, ending the 70 years of Republican control of the New York State Senate creates enormous opportunities to improve the public policy landscape for Manhattan and for all of New York City as well as for our entire state. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/10/manhattan-for-addabbo-in-queens.html

Now, after the Democratic Party took control of the New York State Senate as a result of the 2008 elections, there is a very real chance for a bill to repeal the Urstadt Law to pass both houses of the New York State Legislature and receive the signature of Governor Paterson, thereby returning control over New York City's rent control regulation to New York City.

Mayor Bloomberg Sides Against New York City

Ironically, the New York City Mayor prefers that New York City leave control over rent control in the hands of the state government. http://www.observer.com/2009/unlike-quinn-and-silver-bloomberg-does-not-support-repealing-urstadt Mayor Bloomberg should be leading the charge for New York City to have authority over regulating its housing stock. We hope that he changes his position and that whoever is elected Mayor in November 2009 advocates for increased control by New York City over local issues such as housing.

Economic Impact of Rent Control

Perhaps the Mayor's opposition to local control is actually a reflection of his discomfort with rent control more broadly. He may believe that the New York City Council will make poor choices in an effort to pander to tenants, who represent a large voting block. Landlords tend to make large campaign donations but represent a small number of votes and may not be voters at all if their primary residence is outside of New York City. He may also side with many economists, who argue that rent control regulations reduce the amount of housing available in the market, reduce the quality of the housing available in the market, increase corruption in the housing market, and do not result in more affordable housing. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

He should keep in mind that decontrolling apartments creates economic shocks and displaces families in ways that are very unhealthy. Dr. Mindy Fullilove http://www.rootshock.org/ brought to light the incredible emotional and psychological harm done to those who are forced to leave their homes in her book Root Shock. http://www.amazon.com/Root-Shock-Tearing-Neighborhoods-America/dp/0345454227 Just as artificially low rents may lead to some undesirable outcomes, massive displacement is a major threat to the safety, economic health, and mental health of the people of New York City.

The specific approach to rent control (and rent stabilization) that will create the best outcomes for New Yorkers is open for debate. There should be no debate over whether New York City should have the authority to implement the policies in this area that our elected leaders in New York City think are best for our city.

Reminiscing - Obama in Manhattan - June 2004

Americans have made a choice for President, and that choice brings back memories for me of the fundraiser that I helped lead in Summer 2004 for State Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in mid-town Manhattan.

NYS Senate Goes to the Democrats

The choice that our country made mirrors the choice that New York State has made in ending Republican control of the State Senate after nearly 70 years. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/10/manhattan-for-addabbo-in-queens.html

With control of the Executive Branch and both houses of the legislature in both our nation's capitol and in Albany, the time has come for Democrats to deliver for the people. No excuses, and no blaming the Republicans. The responsibility falls squarely on all progressives to improve the lives of the people in our communities through public policy and public sector initiatives. This election is the beginning of our journey rather than the end.

Skinny Guy - Funny Name

Back in 2004, most New Yorkers couldn't pronounce Obama's name. He had not yet been chosen to keynote the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston, and no one was suggesting that he run for President. There were even polls that suggested that he might be defeated in the Senate race. Instead, Obama's Republican opponent withdrew from the race in a scandal, and Obama went on to win a landslide victory without real opposition. While that Senate race ended without opposition, Obama's Presidential election required him to defeat John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, two very formidable candidates, to win the Democratic nomination; he then had to defeat a war hero with a centrist record to win the Presidency. He has come a long way, and we wish him well on this new journey - leader of the Free World.

My fundraiser was a huge success; we exceeded our fundraising goal and gave our friends a chance to spend some quality time with a future US President. The text of the 2004 invitation is below - I wrote the description of the need to elect Obama to the US Senate before I met him, and after meeting him, I would have amended it to say that the US Senate needs a skinny guy with a funny name (as he described himself) to help lead the way. Thanks again to those who served as hosts in 2004; you were part of history.

Indeed, we were a part of something big, and it was far bigger than we imagined.
____________________________________________________

Gregg Walker - Sheena Wright - Marianne Camille Spraggins

Invite You to a Conversation With

Barack Obama
Democratic Nominee for US Senate, Illinois

Hosts:
Frank Borges, Reverend Calvin O. Butts III, Don P. Cogsville and Nadja Webb Cogsville, Willie Dennis, Wanda Felton, Hon. Harold Ford Jr., Kirsten Gillibrand, Hon. Betsy Gotbaum, Claudette Hayle, Phil Isom, Doug Lawrence, Ed Lewis, Joyce Johnson-Miller, Joel Motley, Charles Simpson, Hon. Bill Thompson

Tuesday, June 8th
8:30 am - 9:30 am
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
34th Floor

$1,000 to $2,000 Per Person Contribution Requested

Please RSVP to Gregg Walker at 212-XXX-XXXX or Jenny Yeager at 312-XXX-XXXX

Barack Obama has spent a lifetime fighting effectively to empower working families and the poor - as community organizer, civil rights attorney and a leader in the Illinois Senate. He has brought new ideas and approaches in pursuit of traditional Democratic ideals to make a real difference for people -- from better schools to affordable health care to criminal justice reform. The US Senate needs Barack Obama, and Barack Obama needs our support. He will be the only Black member of the US Senate after his victory, and his performance in office will make all Americans proud.

Authorized and paid for by Obama for Illinois. Candidates are required to report the name, mailing address, employer and occupation for individuals with aggregate contributions over $200 in a calendar year. Contributions to federal candidates are not deductible for income tax purposes. Corporate checks are not acceptable for federal campaigns. Contributions are limited to $2,000 per individual for each election cycle.
This material was authorized and paid for by Obama for Illinois.

_____________________________________________________