the albany project - Recommended Diaries

NY-21: Eight Democrats Debate

Soundpolitic — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:18:29 GMT

Last night, eight candidates to replace retiring Representative Mike McNulty (D-Green Island) met at the SEIU 1199 headquarters in downtown Albany, hosted by Democracy fro the Hudson Mowhawk Region and the RFK Democrats. According to the Times Union about 150 people were in attendance, packing the house to hear John Aretakis, Tracey Brooks, Craig Burridge, Lester Freeman, Darius Shahinfar, Phil Steck, Paul Tonko, and Arthur Welser make their way through introductions, general questions, a "lightning round", and closing arguments.

I was lucky to be one of those 150 people in the audience, and was taking notes. Below the fold is the summary of all the questions from all the candidates that you won't find anywhere else...
Opening Statements

I was able to make my way to the back of the room while former aide to Representative (and new mom) Kirsten Gillibrand Darius Shahinfar was making his opening statement, stammering some of the way. He later made light of this, and throughout the debate stood out as one of the more well-spoken candidates. I'd like to apologize to the candidate's whose statements I missed, but with most of them having backgrounds in law, they'll understand my Estate & Trusts final exam took precedence over getting there on time.

Phil Steck, an Albany County Legislator and Town of Colonie Democratic Comittee Chair, made the focus of his opening statement his electoral victories in his heavily Republican district and town. Steck pointed out that both grassroots movement against the other party as well as standing up to Democratic party leadership made these victories, and future ones, possible.

Former Assemblyman and recently resigned NYSERDA President Paul Tonko (no website) made his opening pitch for his campaign in public. He pointed out that he had thought "long and hard" about getting in the race, emphasized his focus and expertise on energy policy, and made first use of his nightly refrain that he could "hit the ground running" if elected to Congress with his 23 years of experience in the Assembly behind him.

Finally, real estate agent Arthur Welser stood to introduce himself. Standing amongst six men and one woman wearing suits, Welser was donned in a white campaign tee-shirt and his balding hair and beard appeared strangley untrimmed or combed. He declared himself the "non-politician" of the crowd and mumbled through an opening statement that declared his support for making government more like a business because government is broken.

Questions from the moderator commenced thereafter, with each candidate given sixty seconds to answer and instructed to remain seated. Not surprisingly, all the candidates stood up to answer questions throughout the night. And by my own counting, the moderators were much more lenient with time restraints with Mr. Tonko than the other candidates.

Question One: The First Bill You Would Support

John Aretakis: Pointed out his experience as an attorney representing children who had been abused by priests to justify introduction of a bill in Congress to give legal rights to abused children. Aretakis defined this issue as a "national civil rights struggle."

Tracey Brooks: While making frequent mention of her website, Brooks touted gas price relief, including rollbacks of subsidies of oil companies, and to reinvest the money in alternative energy.

Craig Burridge: The Executive Director/CEO of the Pharmacists Society of New York noted that his first move would be to implement universal health care, stressing coverage for the unemployed. Craig Burridge did not mention his new website a la Brooks.

Lester Freeman: Taking to the microphone with a preacher's furor, Freeman touted two first moves for Congress: changing the age of majority across the board to age twenty (for marriage, armed service, tobacco and alcohol consumption, and voting) and a "permanent stimulus package" centered around a flat tax rate in which those who make less than $50,000 would not be subject to federal income tax (but those who make $50,001 would).

Darius Shahinfar: After poking fun at himself for his public speaking slip during opening statements, Shahinfar quickly and specifically named his support for HR 676, the health care bill, as his first course of action as Congressman. He also mentioned a need for a national health care policy, national energy policy, and reiterated his support of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

Phil Steck: Steck's first move in Congress would be to support a full and immediate withdrawl of all troops from Iraq. He emphasized that this "has to be the first priority" above other issues because "unless the war in Iraq is ended none of [the other issues] means anything," making a reference to the amount of money the war is costing us in connection to the health care and energy crises.

Paul Tonko: He was the third candidate in a row to say his first move would be to end the involvement in Iraq, connecting what he called a "disinvestment" of massive sums of taxpayer dollars to the deficit and energy policy, the latter of which he spent the bulk of his time speaking on.

Arthur Welser: Standing up in a tee-shirt and what appeared to be uncombed hair, Welser made note of his support for an "education bill for mandatory high school education for all" in a rather mumbled tone. He wants a form of a military draft for students who drop out to be placed in military high schools and also a measure to have high schools open for remedial classes on Saturdays.

Question Two: Would You Vote To End Funding For The Troops To End The War

Brooks: Tracey pointed out that this was "a very pointed question" and difficult to answer in a yes but no but yes but no style. Before her time expired, she noted that it would be necessary to do should John McCain win the presidency.

Burridge: Invoked the withdrawl from Vietnam to explain his support for a speedy withdrawl; in reference to question, he also said he would vote yes to cut funding for the troops in the even of a McCain White House.

Freeman: Mr. Freeman quickly said "Of course not....That's crazy!" and he would never cut funding for the troops. He continued to speak about the need for an orderly withdrawl and that people were forgetting about the troops in Afghanistan as well.

Shahinfar: Answered a quick "yes" and then reframed the question as cutting off funding for operations in Iraq (as opposed to engaging in Republican talking points). Darius also spoke of the need to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and against mentioned the 6-16 month timetable for withdrawl under the Responsible Plan.

Steck: Spoke in favor of discontinuing any funding for the illegal Iraq War, and reframed the question by saying "I am for funding withdrawl to keep troops safe." He elaborated further that the entire U.S. foreign policy needs to be revamped so we no longer "lord over" the international community, but instead become a part of it once again.

Tonko: While not directly answering yes or no, Tonko fell back on his record in the Assembly, in which he co-sponsored a resolution calling for redeployment in connection with H.R. 746. He once again connected the cost of the War with the energy crises, and again stated his theme of the night of hitting the ground running.

Welser: Stood up and said "If McCain is elected, I'll be the biggest thorn in John McCain's ass..." Once laughter subsided, Welser continued to mumble something about bringing control of the National Guard back to state Governors. It was at this point, I speculate, that Mr. Welser locked up the comic-relief vote.

Aretakis: Made mention of the fact that everyone was standing up despite the rules, so he'll stand up as well. Then reiterated that he would cut funding for the troops, but that it would look bad for Democrats given the short-term loss of life he claimed doing so would cause. He then pointed out that candidates Steck and Tonko were "wrong" and claimed Congress has no Constitutional authority to declare war, citing the War Powers Act.

Question Three: What Would You Say To Young Professionals Looking To Leave the Region?

Burridge: Pointed out the opportunities that green technology is bringing to the region as a reason for young professionals (like myself) should stay in the Capital Region.

Freeman: Mentioned the bio-and-nanotechnology opportunities growing in the region, but also spoke at length about looking to the inner cities as well.

Shahinfar: "Stay!" he quickly replied, saying that the area was growing fast. He added, "We have it going on here!"

Steck: While not saying what he would say to a young professional, Steck segued into the issues of New York's high energy costs (second highest in the nation) and that these costs can be brought down while bringing about job growth for young professionals by utilizing alternative energy technology. He also reiterated that health care costs added to the flight of young professionals.

Tonko: Decisvely declared that he would advise young people to stay in the region. He cited Governor Paterson's recent "innovation economy" programs to help encourage young professionals to remain in the Capital District, especially in the area of green energy.

Welser: I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Welser mumbled, but I was able to make out "education costs down" for what it's worth....

Aretakis: Spoke about the book his brother wrote entitled "No More Ramen" and its relation to encouraging young professionals to making it in life. He also spoke about reinvesting in education in the Capital District with the goal of creating a "mecca of learning."

Brooks: Declared that the region is growing quickly and that there is a large number of inventors at the local colleges and universities. She also made a reference to the industrial revolution.

Question Four: Would You Co-Sponsor HR 676 (Kucinich)?

Freeman: While smiling, points out that Dennis Kucinich is "one of my favorites" and that he'd be on board with anything put forth by the Congressman/perpetual presidential candidate.

Shahinfar: Said he would support HR 676 for a second time. He also endorsed Mike McNulty's record on the issue of universal health-care, and pointed out his support for a "medicare-for-all" system prior to Phil Steck's answer; "medicare-for-all" has been a prominent feature of the Steck campaign since its inception.

Steck: Outlined his role as draftsmen in the Albany County Legislature of a resolution in support of HR 676 and pointed out the "medicare for all" system as well. He justified the system by pointing out that 90% of Albany County property taxes go toward Medicaid and that Medicare's administrative costs of 3 cents on the dollar compared to HMO's average of 40 cents made the program a viable and intelligent measure.

Tonko: "Yes," was his answer to the direct question of supporting HR 676. But most of his time (over again) was spent talking about how he had testified before Kucinich in Congress as an Assemblyman, except this testimony was related to energy policy.

Welser: Yes, he is in favor of the bill, but I have no idea what the man said after this...

Aretakis: Made a comment about the panel sounding like "lemmings" to laughter from the audience before declaring his support of HR 676. But he added that he would not do away with private insurance and that we should not have "socialized medicine."

Brooks: Stated that she would support HR 676, but critized the measure as not being strong enough due to the 15-year phase in period. "We don't have 15 years," Brooks said, and she also pointed out the need to help people who do have insurance. She ended by saying health care needs to be "affordable, universable, and accessible."

Burrdige: Declared his support for the bill and touted his 15 years of experience as a physician and career in pharmacueticals as giving him a unique perspective on the health care issue. He stressed a need to focus on the patient and not the medicine.

Question Five: Do you Support the Clean Money Clean Elections Act

Shahinfar: Stated he was fully in favor of campaign finance reform after his first run for office brought to light the amount of time candidates spent raising money. He made the pitch that more time should be spent on the street talking to people instead.

Steck: Phil Steck quite simply agreed with Mr. Shahinfar.

Tonko: Paul Tonko also said yes, he would support the Clean Money Clean Elections Act. And while I know I'm here to cover the debate, having just finished up an internship at the New York State Assembly, I've researched the life of A.975 (Thiele) the New York Clean Elections Act back to it's introduction in the 2001/2002 session. While Tonko did put his name to a May 2007 letter to Governor Spitzer in support of the proposal, none of the undersigned Democrats, nor any other member of the Legislature, has ever signed onto Theile's bill, including Mr. Tonko. The bill is identical to the the Congressional bill and the Arizona and Connecticut statutes, and personally, I don't care if a Suffolk County Republican introduced it; Tonko himself mentioned at least once during the night's debate of his willingness to "cross the aisle" as well...

Welser: Arthur broke me out of my interpretative reasoning by standing up and yelling "I HAVE NO MONEY!" after which he slouched back down into his seat.

Aretakis: Was quick to point out that he has donated $200,000 of his own funds to his campaign, and accepted an additional hundred-thousand from his family members, so he is "probably not a fan of public financing." He went on to say how dissapointed he was that Representative Gillibrand has raised so much money herself already, and that these kinds of things are "destroying the democratic process."

Brooks Opened her answer by saying "We need campaign finance reform," but instead of touting Clean Money, Clean Elections, she emphasized her signing on to the Voters First Pledge. She closed by saying "I have actual voters who are supporting me."

Burridge: Talked about his 20 years spent engaged or coordinating volunteer operations. He also answered the question in the affirmative, adding that the provision is "long overdue."

Freeman: Lester launched into a speech about how he is running a grassroots campaign and looking for individuals to donate. He spoke at length about how there are too many "advantaged" people in politics and that we were in need of people "with real ideas" before being cut off for time.

Question Six: What Is Your Opinion On Nuclear Energy?

Steck: Not in favor of nuclear energy because it is not conclusively safe. He also made not of his work in the Albany County Legislature to increase hydro power usage at Cohoes Falls by reinstituting the Albany County Power Authority. Steck wants to consider alternatives before "going down that road."

Tonko: Spoke at length, and again over time, on his expertise in energy policy. He pointed out that additional research on nuclear was necessary and that renewables were a better option than nuclear energy while pointing out France's success with nuclear energy.

Welser: I'm pretty sure he said we should look into nuclear energy, but everything he talked about was agian unintelligble.

Aretakis: Stated he was "absolutely, unequivocally opposed" to nuclear energy, noting that his father served in World War II and saw the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima. He also asked rhetorically what would have happened had the targets of the 9/11 attacks included a nuclear reactor.

Brooks: Stated that she also was not in favor of nuclear energy, and again reiterated the innovations taking place at area colleges and universities across the district.

Burridge: Is also opposed to nuclear energy. But he spent most of his time talking about what people can do as individuals, noting that if a person stops eating beef their carbon footprint is lowered by 25%.

Freeman: Said that we need to look at nuclear energy, and also look at what we are consuming locally. He connected the issue to the poorer neighborhoods in Albany.

Shahinfar: Related the story of how he was in Kiev in 1986 at the Chernobyl meltdown to emphasize the dangers inherent in nuclear energy. But he also stated that, while in favor of renewable alternatives, he was not willing to take nuclear "off the table."

Question Seven: What Would You Do to Gain Union Support and Support Unions?

Tonko: Proudly proclaimed heavy union support and support of unions over his 23 years in the Assembly, saying "My record is there, sharp, and pro-union." Specifically, he mentioned his 2007 vote on IDA reform and sponsorship of a 2002 measure to protect the prevailing wage of union members.

Welser: Stood up and yelled "NOTHING!", paused, then mentioned something about the "olly-goppy powers" of unions.

Aretakis: Said he considered himself pro-union, specifically mentioning his support of the Turn Off Channel 13 movement in the Capital Region, and has represented unions as an attorney. He also made mention of a need to replace "small town cops" with State Troopers and the hurdles put up by unions on this issue.

Brooks: State "I actually have union endorsements" matter-of-factly, that she had gained it in her failed 2002 bid for Assembly and then "never walked away" from it, and even proudly stated "I've been on TV for it." She made note of her support from Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Union Local #2, IBEW Local 97, Laborers - LIUNA Local 190, and Amalgamated Transit Union Workers to applause from supporters.

Burridge: "I was born with a union label on my butt," said Burridge, outlining his family's history with the Masons and ties to Canadian pro-union movements in the 20th century. He also noted his experience in helping unions with trust funds.

Freeman: Said that the number one problem with unions was that there were not enough minorities and that the districts next Congressman needs to reach out to minorities and poor communities and increase union employment in these demographics.

Shahinfar: Stated that he was in full support of labor unions and also in favore of the Employer Free Choice Act in Congress. He also stressed that union membership is down due to the recent onset of the economic recession and the need to move to unionize our growing service economy's jobs.

Steck: Put his experience as a labor and employment civil rights attorney front and center, noting that he had taken on and won "risky cases." Seck also said he knew "exactly what needs to be done to change Federal union laws," making specific mention of taking out certain provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.

Question Eight: Steps You Would Take To Prevent Global Warming

Welser: I think he said something about taxing hydrocarbons, but mostly I just mumbling again.

Aretakis: Opened by saying he was a fan of Al Gore's movie (though none of the candidates said "An Inconvient Truth") and belied the lack of any incentives to conserve. He cited a need for tax breaks for fuel efficient cars.

Brooks: Began by saying we need to roll back the "tax breaks to oil companies," and continued on by talking about some of the work her former boss, Senator Clinton, has done in this area. Closed by stating "the U.S. has to be a leader" on this issue. As another blogger's note, Ms. Brooks is known for driving a large Mercedes SUV....

Burridge: Spoke at length about following the lead Denmark has taken by taxing carbon emissions, allowing companies to work off the taxes, and then using the money for further green energy research.

Freeman: Said that Global Warming is a "sophisticated" issue that doesn't mean much to people in poorer neighborhood and those trying to make ends meet, citing the close to four dollar price of gasoline. He said a "massive education program" is needed before these people can understand the issue, and also spoke about the dangers of sandlot baseball in polluted areas.

Shahinfar: Generally agreeing with the candidates who want to roll back the Bush policy, Shahinfar added that as Congressman, he would press the President to finally get the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

Steck: Related to the "hollow feeling" he had at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth" in relation to the film's suggestions to what people can do, noting that while he could afford to purchase a Prius and make changes in his own household, most people could not afford to take the measures suggested. He said that government needs to take as active a role as possible in helping Americans with this, and agreed with Shahinfar about the Kyoto protocol.

Tonko: Quick to declare this his "area of expertise" and again repeated his "hit the ground running" refrain and touted his experience as president of NYSERDA. Tonko went well over time talking about the need to remove petroleum from the transportation sector altogether, grew passionate about our country's 2030 goal of improved efficiency standards, and also spoke of the need for production tax credits.

"Lightning Round" Round Up

The debate closed with a "lightning round" of questions meant to speed up the end of the debate. A few of the more interesting answers will be highlighted due to the length of this diary:

Democratic Enrollment: When asked whether the candidates were lifelong Democrats, two candidates answered in the negative. Darius Shahinfar was registered Republican for five years in the late 1990's "for no real reason," he said.

Tracey Brooks, however, stated that she was raised in a Republican and registered Republican. It wasn't until 2002, the year of her failed run for Assembly on the Democratic ticket, that she switched parties.

Blue Dogs: When asked if the candidates, if elected, would join the Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democrats in Congress, Aretakis stated he would definitely join to promotoe "fiscal responsibility." Freeman noted he would do the same and also join the Congressional Black Caucus. Phil Steck defiantly announced his intention to join the Progressive Caucus.

The interesting answer here is Shahinfar's. While he stated he would not join the Blue Dogs, his major claim to experience is his work with Rep. Gillibrand's office; Gillibrand joined the Blue Dogs (or "Bush Dogs" as hardcore progressives refer to them) within days of her swearing in.

Military Draft: When asked if the candidates would support a military draft to end the War in Iraq, Shahinfar was the only candidate to note that if a draft had been in place during peacetime and every family shared the same risk, we would have never gone in in the first place. Aside from this, none of the candidates supported a draft except for Mr. Welser...

...who again mumbled about his military high school proposal, said a couple other unintelligble things, and then shocked the audience by yelling "WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!?" before slumping back into his seat.

Earmarks Good or Bad: The candidates seemed to disagree slightly on the degree of harm and usefulness inherent in earmarks, mostly to the tune of they can be good things, but the process needs to be more open. Phil Steck went one step farther than calling for open-ness, saying that clear rules needed to be adopted in the House for earmarks and that private bills to benefit individuals should be dissallowed.

Gay Marriage: Most candidates favored gay marriage or civil unions. Mr. Welser noted his opposition because he didn't want gay couples being able to adopt children (at least I think that's what he said) and John Aretakis made note that "some things are just not possible." Steck was the only one to elaborate on the issue when delcaring his support by mentioning the need to amend Title VII to protect homosexuals and transgendered people's employment from discrimination.

Hillary's Gas-Tax Holiday: Of all the questions in the debate, this was the kicker that got Presidential politics involved. When asked if they would support Hillary Clinton's (ahem...and John McCain's) recent gas-tax holiday proposal, most of the candidates either simply said no or went so far as Lester Freeman, calling it "pandering."

But former aide to Senator Clinton Tracey Brooks stepped up to the proposals defense, saying that families needed "real relief" and again mentioning her website's Seven-Point Plan addressing the gas prices. It is in this plan she notes that "...if State or Federal leaders impose a tax holiday, it won't go towards meeting our budget gaps or providing services either. Actually, it's nearly all going -- and will continue to go -- towards big oil's record-breaking profits..." I will let that inconsistency speak for itself.

Post-Debate News Round-Up And Blogger's Note

Once the questions were finished being asked (the final one being a lighthearted inquiry into the candidates' favorite songs) the candidtates made brief closing statements emphasizing their platforms and hit the floor. But what had been a very civil and entertaining evening (thanks Mr. Welser!) turned briefly hot when candidates Lester Freeman and Tracey Brooks took the presidential politics to the next level.

From Capitol Confidential, Freeman turned on Brooks soon after the debate was over and made the charge to her face that she was a racist for continuing to support Hillary Clinton in light of her comments about Barack Obama being unable to win the white vote. My take on the whole thing is that while Presidential politics are certainly bound to enter this race as it would any other primary and that Ms. Brooks connections to Clinton are an emerging liability for her...but in the end it seems like Freeman could have held in his anger if it was genuine at best or that his charges were a media publicity stunt at worst. Ultimately, it's not as important as the debate itself, but it was the only part of the debate that CBS6 WRGB decided was newsworthy.

As far the rest of the coverage of the debate went, the Times Union article linked to in the beginning and News Channel 13 were the only two outlets that had the goodness to at least name all eight candidates (even Arthur Welser in his tee shirt) whereas the rest of the media continued to mention only Mr. Tonko as though he were the only one running. This has been the case with most of the mainstream media since Phil Steck became the first Democrat to annouce.

My general verdict is that I cannot understand the local media's decision to so briefly summarize or outright ignore the specifics of this wide open primary. There were reporters sitting next to me taking just as many notes as I was, professional journalists, yet I doubt we will find anything like this blog out there in the mainstream. What gets me is the fact that the mainstream media televised several two-hour-long debates at the presidential level, and I don't see why this event was not worth televising in its entirety as well...especially considering the entertainment provided by Mr. Welser. Oftentimes, I believe we place a bit too much weight on the presidential contest...just imagine how strong our democracy would be if the people in general got as riled up about their representative in Congress?

Well, it gets me riled up...to the tune of putting in the time that the mainstream media won't pay it's journalists with all their advertising money to give the people of the 21st a synopsis if they wanted to attend, but were unable to. The honor of being to able to present that to fellow voters and information-seekers is payment enough for me. Thanks for reading...Primary Day is September 9th!

Sunlight is Running the Numbers on Congressional Wealth

NishaT — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:50:31 GMT

Cross posted from the Sunlight Foundation

Just as members of Congress are filing their latest annual personal disclosure reports (due this Thursday), we are launching "Fortune 535," a new Web site which lets you track how much, or how little, lawmakers' wealth has grown during the past 11 years -- the period of time from which lawmakers' personal financial data is available.

For the first time ever, we compiled and visualized online lawmakers' net worth from personal financial disclosure filings to show the growth in net worth for each member of Congress from 1995 to 2006. These filings reveal lawmakers' personal finances-assets, liabilities, outside income-and the gifts and travel provided for them by outside organizations. Fortune 535 also lets you compare the net worth growth of each lawmaker to that of the average American family, and lists the wealthiest lawmakers (Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. John Kerry), those with the greatest change in their net worth, those who began their congressional careers with no net worth and those whose net worth was less than $0 in 2006. Sen. Clinton, for example, started her Senate career with over $6 million in debt, but is now worth over $30 million.
One thing we learned while working on this project: measuring lawmakers' net worth is very difficult (and sometimes impossible) because of the seriously flawed disclosure system used by members of Congress. Because the personal financial disclosure reports lawmakers file asks for assets and liabilities in ranges, we could not determine whether some lawmakers, like Speaker Pelosi, are extremely wealthy or on the verge of declaring bankruptcy (or somewhere in between). That's why we support more precise reporting requirements as well as full online disclosure and preservation of lawmakers' personal financial disclosure reports.

"Fortune 535" relies on the personal financial disclosure database at OpenSecrets.org and archive, but since that data only dates back to 1995, we dug through the archives of the Library of Congress Law Library to retrieve personal financial reports (required by law since 1978), that were previously only available on paper. We made available PDFs of these first personal financial disclosure reports filed by lawmakers, as part of Sunlight's goal to make more government information publicly accessible on the Internet.

For each of the 535 members of Congress, there are 535 individual stories told through stock portfolios, rental houses, mortgages, student loans and ownership of stock in multi-million dollar corporations. The data we reveal should certainly raise questions for citizens and journalists to ask about the rising and declining fortunes of their elected officials.

Full Disclosure: I'm the Online Organizer and Outreach Coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation.

NY-13: Get America Working Again

Steve Harrison — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:50:47 GMT

My name is Steve Harrison and I'm a Democrat running for Congress in NY-13.

This is my first post at the Albany Project and I look forward to posting here more and getting to know the TAP community better.

I ran for Congress in 2006 against Vito Fossella and I received 43% of the vote, the highest percentage a Democrat has received against Fossella, even though I was outspent 13:1.

Now it's 2008 and I'm running again and with your help, we can turn NYC blue and remove the last GOP congressman in our midst.

Our people-powered campaign is soaring and has received national attention. Our opponent, Vito Fossella, has received national media attention, as well.

There are many issues that separate me and any Republican opponent.

I believe that we need to get our troops safely out of Iraq.

I believe in the Conyers/Kucinich Single-Payer healthcare legislation.

I believe in increasing the minimum wage to a living wage.

I believe in full marriage equality.

I believe in human rights, civil rights, and women's rights.

With your support, we can turn NYC blue. For too long, our district has been represented by someone who was beholden to special interest groups.

It's time NY-13 had a representative who knew who he was beholden to: the people.

Website | Volunteer | Contribute

Is foreclosure relief finally coming to New York State?

mwgriffith — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:13:16 GMT

This entry is cross-posted on DMI blog

For those who want something to be done about the foreclosure crisis and are looking for signs of intelligent life in Albany, there may be hope. On Monday the New York State Senate Banks Committee chairman, Hugh Farley, held hearings on the Governor's foreclosure relief and anti-predatory lending proposal.
The Paterson bill, as you may remember from one of my earlier posts, expands New York's anti-predatory lending law and compels banks and brokers to make loans that are affordable and in the borrower's self-interest, among other things. It also establishes conditions which will help borrowers stave off foreclosure.

Also, as Crain's recently reported, the Assembly passed a one-year foreclosure moratorium bill which I blogged about a couple of months ago. Stunning not only for what it would do - halt foreclosure actions long enough for homeowners to secure meaningful repayment or sale options - this bill is also impressive for its mere survival so far in Albany's legislature. Although it is being pushed along by ACORN and is one of the most potentially effective short-term ways to force lenders to consider more affordable terms for subprime borrowers, the mortgage lobby, predictably, and quite a few Senate Republicans, are strongly against it. This has prompted some to predict that it helps position the Paterson bill as the more reasonable alternative.

But the Paterson measure and the moratorium bill are very different proposals with two very different, I would argue, complementary, goals. One is a multi-faceted instrument that seeks to make structural changes in the mortgage lending industry and strike at the root causes of foreclosures. The other is a blunt tool designed to push the emergency stop button on an out of control foreclosure assembly line.

In other words, each proposal is an apple to the other's orange. Given that there were more than 14000 foreclosure filings in New York State in the first quarter of this year, and increasing numbers of borrowers with subprime mortgages owe more than their homes are worth and are falling behind on their payments before rates reset, New York homeowners need both of these measures on the legislative table.

Clean Money, Clean Elections Event in Queens 5/15

greenheron — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:35:08 GMT

West Queens Independent Democratic Club, and Citizen Action of NY
Invite you to a Panel Discussion:
Clean Elections and the Movement for Social Justice
Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM
All Saints Church in Sunnyside, Queens
(43-12 46th Street, Sunnyside, NY 11104, #7 local train to 46th Street)

CLEAN ELECTIONS PUTS POWER BACK WHERE IT BELONGS
IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE

Panel Discussion Will Include:
The Fight for Universal Healthcare through Clean Elections
Clean Elections: A Civil Rights Necessity
Power and the Rent Wars: Why Are Tenants Losing?
Clean Elections Here and Now

Why Full Public Financing of Elections?
Clean Money/Clean Elections is a full public financing system for election campaigns under which candidates who agree to limit spending, not take any private interest money, and collect only a limited number of small, individual contributions from their constituents, can qualify for a set amount of public funds to run their campaigns.

Clean Elections levels the playing field, focuses on the needs and interests of the voters, and is a common-sense solution to restoring democracy.

Co-sponsored by:
Democracy for NYC, Met Council on Housing, Metro NY Healthcare for All Campaign, Mitchell-Lama Residents Coalition, West Queens Greens, Long Island City Alliance,Democracy Matters, Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens, New Visions Democratic Club

RSVP to kguild@citizenactionny.org

Obama Watches the Wire, Do You?

CoryDMI — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:19:28 GMT

No matter who you're voting for, you have to admit that Barack Obama has good taste in TV. He told the Las Vegas Sun that his favorite TV show was The Wire, the HBO police drama set in inner-city Baltimore that just completed its fifth and final season. Obama even told the Sun that his favorite character is Omar Little, a "charismatic, sawed-off shotgun toting, Honey Nut Cheerios-eating, gay stickup artist." Some have compared Omar to a modern day Robin Hood because he kills drug dealers and then gives the drugs to the users that have been exploited by the dealers. "That's not an endorsement. He's not my favorite person, but he's a fascinating character," Obama said.

This is not an endorsement -- for Obama, anyway -- either. But it is an endorsement for the issues and perspectives that are explored throughout the five seasons of The Wire -- those of urban policy and inner-city reality. During the current presidential administration, and throughout this campaign season, the issues of cities have been woefully ignored. We've heard about Iowa corn and ethanol and more than we ever wanted to know about the candidates' personal lives, bowling scores, and nutty pastors. But what about housing and transportation, infrastructure and education? To millions of Americans, these are the issues that matter. As mayor after mayor said in interviews on MayorTV, urban issues are crucial to the country and have been overlooked by the federal government.

The Wire's creator and producer David Simon, however, has addressed these urban issues head-on. Throughout the five seasons of The Wire, Simon has built a fictional-yet-real city in the city of Baltimore. He's wrestled with police corruption, drug gangs, and public health. He has looked at nonprofits, family life, and the inner-city school system. Finally, in the last season, Simon explored the newspaper and journalists who wrote about the city. And throughout it all, Simon has constructed multi-dimensional characters, an almost-literary narrative, and managed to embrace the complexities (and frequently the corruption) of inner-city life and politics. Although the drama takes place in Baltimore, Simon has said it is an allegory for the cities across the country.

Next Tuesday, May 20, DMI will be honoring David Simon with our annual Drum Major for Justice Award "for deftly exploring the realities of America's neglected cities." We'll also be honoring PowerPAC.org founder Steve Phillips and New York City Councilwomen Melissa Mark-Viverito.

The Benefit will be held at Cipriani 23rd Street in New York City. Student/activist/blogger priced tickets are available. We'll also be having a fantastic auction with items such as lunch with political consultant James Carville and lunch with SEUI's Andy Stern. The items for auction are up on eBay (more details on this later) so even if you can't attend the event you can still bid on the items.

Obama -- if he weren't busy doing that whole running-for-president thing -- would want to hear what David Simon has to say about cities. Don't you?