To the victor...

I don't mean to continue beating this dead horse, since there are very few developments in the Coup of 2009, but this current debacle reeks of desperation on the part of the Republicans in the State Senate. Essentially, the GOP made a mad dash for power to counteract two (well, more than two) changes faced by the party:

• Fewer member items, a natural result of being the minority party
• A changing Republican demographic

Last year, NYC was one of the few areas in New York that saw any sort of population increase, mainly coming from an increase in immigration to the city. This inherently favors the Democrats, as immigrants and non-English speaking New Yorkers tend to vote for a party that does not consist solely of 60+ white men. Concurrently, upstate and western New York, traditional conservative areas, have seen large population exoduses, mainly as a result of an unsustainable tax level coupled with massive job losses in the past few decades, mainly blue collar.

As the GOP voting base in upstate continues to leave due to the inability of Rep. Senators to make good on campaign promises to keep jobs in the state that would simultaneously keep their constituency strong, Democrats are seeing an influx of immigrant minorities that traditionally make up a large portion of Democrat voters. Republican Senators in Albany clearly realize the problems facing their delegation in the new few decades, and have taken steps in the past month to remedy the potentially politically devastating situation for the party: mainly, by instituting a policy of equality in terms of member items. After decades of being the majority party in Albany, the minority Democrats tended to come up with the short straw when it came to pet project funds and member item budgets to the tune of millions of dollars in difference (see our earlier post on discrepancies in member item budgets). Facing the probability of being in the clear minority after next years' elections, Senate Republicans made a move to equalize these member items, led by Binghamton Republican Tom Libous:

"For myself, this is very much about the rules changes“These rule changes will make every senator relevant and effective so he or she can pass legislation and have equitable resources for their district in the future.”

Of course, Libous was forced to acknowledge this hypocritical statement by the interviewing reporter, going on to state that the Republicans never asked for member item equality while in the majority. Libous legitimized his position by continuing on to say:

“I’m not justifying the way we ran the house,” Mr. Libous said. “I’m telling you it’s wrong and we should change it. What we did to the Democrats all those years was not right.”

Gee whiz. One whiff of being in the minority and the GOP is already begging for the equality they ignored for several decades while in power. I'll be interested to see how this plays out over the next few...months, probably, and definitely looking forward to the 2010 elections to rule out any possibility of a Republican uprising, even if they had a dozen Pedro Espadas that want to join the GOP coalition.

Local Stimulus Update

The Utica OD is reporting that Gov. Paterson has announced a new round of transportation related projects that will be taking place in this area. Specifically these projects are "greenscapes" projects, through which a street or area is repaved, the sidewalks are rebuilt, period lighting is added, and it ends up looking a lot nicer (Think last summer's project on Albany Street in Herkimer). The projects will cost approximately $3.5 million and will create about 84 construction jobs over the summer. The areas getting the money are:

Herkimer: Mohawk street will be redone from the Thruway interchange to S. Main St. (which will compliment recent projects on Albany and State Streets. At a cost of $800,000.

Dolgevile: $1 million will be spent on a similiar project on Main street from Cramer Lane to State St.

Two other projects in Sylvan Beach and Canajoharie were also part of the funding. The Governor, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Gillibrand, and Congressman Arcuri are all quoted in the article as stating how happy they are about the 84 jobs that are being created through the spending of $3.5 million. But these jobs are only temporary summer construction jobs, when the winter comes these people will be right back on the unemployment roles. I usually am a fan of greenscape and beuatification projects, for they increase the quality of life in an area and may help attract new employers, I see no long term plan that these projects are based on. If our goal is to put money into people's pockets to allow them to stimulate the economy I feel as though it would make more sense to just give the $3.5 million to these 84 people and have them spend all of it, as opposed to spending most of that money on projects that will have a negligable effect on our overall economic recovery.

To me it seems that this money could be spent in a manner that would facilitate long term growth as opposed to taking 84 individuals off the unemployment roles for a couple of months. There doesn't seem to be a plan behind the projects that are being conducted, and personally I don't see a huge benefit in redoing Mohawk Street unless there is a deal with some company that will move in if it looks nicer. This once again highlights one of my main complaints about our areas spending of stimulus money; we are doing everything we can to spend it without any concrete plan to show for it after it is spent. Yes an improved Mohawk Street will be nice for Herkimer, but where in the long term scheme of things does this play a role in revitalizing our economy?

Padavan, Cola, and the Circus that is the New York State Senate

Stumbling upon this apparently harmless and humorous story is something that, instead of providing a chuckle, provides a look at how childish every Senator, Democrat or Republican, is acting in this circus of a power grab we have in the NYS Senate.

As he'd swear in an affidavit later in the day, Sen. Frank Padavan (R- Bellerose) merely walked through the Senate chamber Tuesday en route to the members' lounge.

Padavan (in photo) was going to get a cola, a coffee or some other "caffeinated beverage," he said later. He'd have taken a route outside the chamber, but a public event arranged by Democrats had news media personnel jamming the lobby.

The route became an issue because it occurred at the outset of a daily bizarre exercise - in which the Democratic half of the Senate meets with the pretense of being in control of the house, back-to-back with the Republicans, who do the same.

Seizing on a technicality, Democrats - victimized by some quick work on the floor by the GOP 22 days earlier - quickly counted Padavan as "present."

Since he didn't stick around to vote "no" on bills, Padavan was counted as a "yes" on those bills, giving Democrats - on paper - a 32-vote majority for the business at hand.

Could this serve as the equivalent of pine tar too far up the bat? Could it have the effect - intentional or not - of moving this deadlock to a legal resolution?

Padavan was asked if he found the Senate Democrats' move absurd.  "Childish, fraudulent, mean-spirited chicanery - there are a lot of adjectives you could use and all of them would be accurate," he replied later.

These bills that passed during this session all are legally recorded as having passed.  This leaves the ultimate decision at David Paterson's desk as to how to handle the situation.  In my opinion, to the contrary of many of the Democratic Senators, Paterson is doing the right thing in not signing these bills.  There is no need for Paterson to sign these bills into law and get the Republicans even more riled up than they are about this situation.

Take a step back, and look at what is currently happening in the New York State Senate.  Meetings are convening with only one party present at a time.  A Senator goes to get a soda, and suddenly there's a controversy.  These are OUR elected officials working with OUR money for OUR future.  Maybe the Senators need to think about who their bosses really are before continuing with this nonsense.

House Votes in Favor of Climate Legislation: But Arcuri Votes No

The House narrowly passed legislation that would cap our nations greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in history 219-212 with only 8 Republicans voting for it as well as having 44 Democrats vote against, including our own Congressman Michael Arcuri. The legislation is a last ditched effort to enact some form of carbon regulation with the goal being to reduce carbon emissions to 17% below our 2005 emissions by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050. Both of these targets are much lower than what scientists agree is necessary to mitigate the most disastrous aspects of climate change, and much lower than targets that other industrialized countries are setting.

The reductions would be achieved by the creation of a "cap and trade" system through which a cap would be set on carbon emissions in the country and allowances of up to the cap would be allotted to various industries to cover their pollution. Firms that have lower emissions than the amount of allowances that they have would be able to sell their excess to other firms who are polluting more, and thus it becomes profitable (and creates an incentive) for firms to lower their carbon emissions to make more money. This also allows for a built in transition period during which industries that have a large carbon footprint (think electric utilities with a larger percentage of their power generation coming from coal) have the ability to transition their production to cleaner technologies, without a government regulator telling them to immediately construct windmills and close power plants (which could have disastrous economic consequences). This allows the people who know how best to lower their emissions, the firms themselves, to be able to do it in the most effective manner, as opposed to our traditional regulatory system where the government mandates ineffective and outdated measures that hurt a companies bottom line and does not create an incentive for firms to lower their emissions voluntarily.

So in the spirit of our democracy I called our congressman's office today to get an understanding into why he voted against this important first step in lower our greenhouse gas emissions. I spoke to a staff member at the Utica office and this was Arcuri's rationale for voting against the bill:

1. We already have high electricity prices and this would only raise them even higher. This is true on some parts, but we here in New York State have one of the highest percentages of electricity generated from renewables in the country (mainly from hydro power on the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers), so thus the effects would be much less pronounced to us than to other States.

2. He considers this to be a "jobs neutral" bill on the national scale, thus the amount of "green jobs" created through the bill would be offset by the amount of jobs that are lost in traditionally carbon intensive industries. But for our area he estimates that we would have a net loss of jobs from the passage of this bill. I disagree with the Congressman here for we do not have large carbon intensive industries operating in our district that are going to either move their operations overseas or go out of business if the price of carbon rises. I would argue that our area stands to benefit greatly from this legislation in terms of overall employment because of the fact that we have the natural resources that are necessary for renewable energy production. Already there are proposals for wind farms in Jordanville and Fairfield based upon the State's mandate to have 25% of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2013. The amount of projects that are explored would only increase if there was a federal incentive as well. One Upstate example of how this would benefit us is in Loweville where the Maple Ridge Wind Farm was built. Local governmental entities, including the school districts, Towns, and Counties receive $10 MILLION a year in payments from the wind farm. Imagine what we here in Herkimer County could do with large amounts of money coming from new renewable energy facilities in the County. This would not only create jobs, but would also allow us to lower our property taxes, for the County and school districts would have a new source of revenue, thus providing even more incentive for businesses to move to our area.

3. There are no provisions in the bill that would prevent the NYRI proposal from coming back to life if the bill were to be passed. This was the one point that the Staffer was adamant about, and made it clear that this was his main concern with the bill. So our Congressman voted against a bill that could allow us to see an economic boom, should we so choose to take advantage of it, because there was no language in it that would prevent a power line proposal that is already dead from being constructed. He also stated that it would have been futile for the language to be included because Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada and majority leader of the Senate) is "a power line guy", and would have removed the language from the bill anyway. So thus it seems that according to the staffer that I talked with that Arcuri will never support the bill due to this technicality.

I was glad to hear that Arcuri had some legitimate concerns about the bill and did not just vote against it because he thought that climate change was a hoax like most Republicans, nor did he feel that it would have dire economic consequences for our region (aka John Beohner). I am still upset that Arcuri did not vote for the bill if he is genuinely concerned about our nation's response to climate change, but stopping NYRI was one of his main complain platforms, and this is his constituency, and unfortunately this takes precedent in his mind over a true shift in our nation's climate change policy.

Fewer Meetings Equals Savings?

Oneida County Legislator Richard Flisnik (R-Marcy) has recently proposed cutting the number of times that the chamber meets from twice to once a month, The OD is reporting. The main reason he cites for the change is to cut costs by having department heads not have to attend as many meetings, as well as allowing for legislators to have more time to spend working on issues and to bolster attendance. Democratic Minority leader Michael Hennesey has come out in opposition to the measure stating that this measure would not save money and that if legislators are too busy to be attending the meetings twice a month then there is no reason for them to be on the board in the first place.

Is there really no other issue that Mr. Flisnik could be pushing than the number of meetings that the legislature holds each month? The only savings that I can see coming from this are possibly the cost of having the chamber lit and heated/cooled depending on the season. The department heads are all salaried employees, so it does not cost the county extra to have them come to meetings. Also, what department head needs to attend every single county legislature meeting? If anything they will attend the same number of meetings because they will have to come more frequently to the ones that are held since there are fewer overall meetings.

Attendance should not be an issue at all. Period. If you are elected to serve the people of Oneida County you go to the required meetings to do, as the phrase has been used in the Senate controversy, "the people's business". You chose to run for public office, so you made a pledge to the people that elected you that you are interested in their affairs and are going to make an effort to represent them. If there is a problem with attendance then the offenders, if they have no legitimate excuse, such as a medical or family emergency (I'm not completely heartless), should be punished or even expelled from their position. It's as simple as that, you are elected and paid to attend these meetings. I can't skip out on work, and neither should our elected officials.

Energy Efficiency Programs? Why not here?

I have written about how one of the smartest investments that our government, or any individual for that matter, can make is in energy efficiency.  Here is just one more shining example of smart public policy in action.  The University of Illinois at Urbana has recently undergone a $5 million energy efficiency upgrade, including more energy efficient light bulbs, motion sensors that turn off lights when rooms are not in use, and even sensors that adjust the heating and cooling of a room based upon its occupancy.  But here is the kicker: the University spent $5 million in efficiency measures and it is expecting to recoup that cost in 1 YEAR!  This means that this project is going to pay for itself in its first year, thus the college has an extra $5 million dollars to use towards scholarships or lowering tuition each successive year.

So if the University of Illinois at Urbana can embark on a project that will allow them to have an extra $45 million over the next ten years, why can't we?  If we made investments such as this at the State, County, and Local level, then we could use the savings to lower our tax rates.  If government costs less to operate then we all are able to save if those savings are passed on to us, or they could be used for future environmental or social programs (universal health care for example).  This is also the perfect time to be thinking about making these investments for there is stimulus money that could be used to it.  And even better, this would act as a hedge against electricity spikes, such as those coming from the recently passed tax on municipal utilities.

If we are truly serious about cutting our tax rates we are going to need to look at innovative ways to save money, instead of just talking about cutting government spending.  An investment in energy efficiency is a government expenditure, but if it is possible to make it pay off in a short amount of time (not all projects will have such a quick pay off), then you end up saving money and thus cutting the cost of government.   

Jim, Jim, Jim.

So I usually make an honest attempt to stay above partisan politics and try and find a "middle of the road" solution that makes sense to all involved.  This includes abstaining from the pointing of fingers, for this only leads to not only continued gridlock, but today's absolutely absurdly partisan editorial in the Evening Telegram by Jim Seward.  A piece of writing this partisan deserves an equally partisan response.  

[begin partisan rant]

First off Jim, if it wasn't for your "reform coalition" offering a leadership position to a Democrat and then attempting to take over the Senate, then we never would have seen this gridlock, so thus your argument about the coalition being "non-partisan" is moot.  Espada would never have stayed with your coalition if he was not offered the position of President of the Senate.  And how about all of the ethics questions flying around about Espada using his health care clinic in the Bronx as a means to funnel pork money to himself.  Yes of course we can overlook this in the name of "reforming the way Albany operates".  Never mind the fact that one of the main motivators for him switching sides was Malcolm Smith's refusal to give him pork money for his health center citing Espada's previous record with the facility.

Now lets move onto your talk of the Democrats caring only about "lavish" offices, nice parking spots, and lots and lots of high priced political staff.  Have you completely forgotten your life before this past year, now I by no means condone what has taken place, but stop calling the kettle black.  I have already blasted the Democrats in the Assembly for their pork distribution, but you had it just as nice.  Just walk into your office on Prospect Street in Herkimer and tell me that the ornate brass furnishings and mahogany desks were purely the result of you spending personal money on that office.  Then compare that to the rest of the buildings on Prospect Street.

Next, one of my main complaints with you, how are you complaining about the massive rise in the budget this year, when 8,700 positions are being terminated, there is an across the board 5-6% cut in operating budgets for state agencies and the elimination of STAR rebate checks and Empire Zones.  What else would you like us to cut? (your pay would be a good place to start but I get the feeling that you would not support that legislation).  All of this grumbling and you are still whining about the elimination of the STAR rebate checks.  Where is the money for the STAR rebates going to come from, higher taxes.  All this program does is have some individuals pay higher property taxes so that we can give out rebate checks to lower income residents, thus you can smile at a photo op (last I checked this is called socialism, but this isn't an Obama policy we are talking about so I'll refrain).  Why not find a way to lower property taxes for all, and not have to worry about STAR rebate checks, you know, by possibly allowing people the right to abolish unnecessary levels of government, ohh wait, that was Andrew Cuomo's idea and he is on the other side of the isle so you couldn't support it.  My bad.

You also seem to have some complaints about the legislation that has been passed so far this session including the reforms to the Rockefeller drug laws.  So the reforms to the drug laws, which were aimed at saving money by allowing non-violent, non-major dealing drug offenders to go to rehab programs so that they can beat their addictions is a bad thing how?  So you would rather spend all of this money putting minor offenders behind bars as opposed to allowing them to get the treatment they need, for a fraction of the cost, and you are still complaining about this huge budget.  It seems to me that you oppose all of the measures that have been put in place by the Democrats to cut costs, so how the heck can you complain about a bloated budget when you oppose all the cost saving measures that have been enacted?

You also seem to be very proud of all the ethics reforms that the "reform coalition" has enacted.  OK, if your so proud of them then why can't you name them?  That's right, they don't exist.  Your audience is not going to believe something just because you say it, we want concrete examples of these so called reforms that you have made that have passed and are now law.

So lastly, and here is where you really went throwing your words around, you claim that none of the Democrats had the "courage" to join the "reform coalition" and change the way Albany operates.  I will agree with you, it would take a lot of courage for one of the Democrats to join behind a man who made this entire fiasco possible by wanting nothing more than POLITICAL GAIN without concern for ethics, on top of stalling the entire Senate for over three weeks, and almost allowing lots of time sensitive legislation to expire that many counties and cities rely on.  And you know what Jim, I am glad that none of the Democrats had that kind of courage, because I have no respect for people who do nothing more than pander to their constituents.  This entire situation was nothing more than the way Albany typically operates, dysfunctionaly.  So how have you, by supporting this move, acting in a manner that exhibits the type of change that we want to see in Albany?  Do as I say and not as I do I suppose.

Jim, we can see through your rhetoric and we are not happy with the way you have conducted yourself during this piece of political theater.  YOU had the opportunity to attempt to help broker a solution and show true leadership, but instead, you high-tailed it back to your constituents all goody-goody gum drops going on about how great this is and how bad the Democrats are.  A true leader indeed Mr. Seward.  If only all of our elected officials showed the character that you exhibit, ohh wait, 99% of them already do.

[end partisan rant]