the albany project - Recommended Diaries

Dear Congresswoman Maloney,

United for New York — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:34:08 GMT

For many years, we have been proud to support your efforts. We have long applauded your work on the issues most important to women, and just this year, we celebrated your appointment as Chair of the Joint Economic Committee and your victory on important legislation governing credit card issuers.

Despite this, we must say that we would be deeply disappointed should you decide to pursue a primary challenge to our new Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. We find ourselves wondering how you can consider embarking on a campaign that is so potentially destructive to the interests of New York State and for the Democratic Party. We agree wholeheartedly with EMILY'S LIST founder Ellen Malcolm, who recently said in an interview: "It reminds me of Bella Abzug, Liz Holtzman, Gerry Ferraro - all these women in New York who were real leaders, political leaders, on issues that were important to women. They ran for higher office, we lost them in the House and never got them back."
While we certainly value the democratic process, we implore you not to pursue a divisive primary fight which forces voters to choose between two tremendously capable, hard-working women. At best, this would leave at least one of you without a job, and could ultimately result in giving the seat back to the Republicans. We value your seniority and leadership in the House, and agree with the premise of your recent book that "rumors of our progress have been greatly exaggerated." There is much work still to be done and we hope that you will continue in your current prestigious, well-deserved position to be at the forefront of the progress to come.

We believe that Senator Gillibrand is off to an excellent start and is doing everything required to insure that she represents the voices of New Yorkers throughout our State. We know that as her new constituents get to know her, they come to like and support her. This is evident even in early polls, which show steady upward progress in her numbers, with close to half the electorate still unacquainted with her. The growing list of endorsements from elected officials, women's organizations, progressive leaders and unions also reflects this.

We have every expectation that Kirsten Gillibrand will have a long, productive tenure in the Senate, and we are deeply committed to doing our part to assure her election in 2010 and beyond. We hope that you will decide to join us in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

Karen Adler
Margo Alexander
Holly Atkinson, M.D.
Lisa A. Azzato, Esq.
Martha Baker
Dina Bakst
Joan Bartos
Nina Petraro Bastardi
Bonnie Berger
Jane C. Bergner
Dr. Allida Black
Nora L. Bredes
Jean Brett-Leach
Binta Brown, Esq.
Jacqueline Cady
Susan B. Castner
Ellen Chesler
Bryn Cohen
Helen A. Cook
Mary K. Collins
Lauren Corcoran
Harriet Cornell
Betty Cotton
Mary Ellen Courtney
Chumi Diamond
Donna Dolan
Susan Elin
Scott Elkins
Karen Feldman, Esq.
Linda Frankel
Fran Fusco
Thomas Garry, Esq.
Regina Glocker
Dorothy Goosby
Sally Greenspan
Norma Grill, Esq.
Jim Hart
Judy Hart
Pamela Hayes, Esq.
Judith H. Hope
Marjorie Horne
Brian Keeler
Martha Kendrick, Esq.
Elaine Kerner
Denise King
Sarah Kovner
Victor Kovner
Deborah Slaner Larkin
Geraldine Laybourne
Elaine Leshnower
Dr. Elizabeth Letzler
Stephanie Letzler
Risa A. Levine, Esq.
Maureen Liccione, Esq.
David Lieberman
Ricki Lieberman
Jill Loomis
Wendy Mackenzie
Lynne Mahoney
Kathryn A. McGuire
Robert McDonald, Esq.
Kristen McElroy
Ellen Mendel
Friedrike Merck
Charles Myers
Kate O'Hagan
Ronnie Planalp
Sandy Rapp
Jack Rivkin
Jane Rivkin
Rosina Rubin
Reshma Saujani
Nancy Schulman
Dolores Sedacca
Elaine Spaull
Sonya Starr
Anne Teichmeier
Susan Thomases
Tom Twomey
Judy White
J. Christine Wilson
Andrena Wyatt
Diane Yatauro

This has become an embarrassment.

Adama — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:41:50 GMT

I'm sorry that I have to say this, because I know that there are some people with excellent intentions who are working on the problem. But it's become increasingly clear that there is no scenario under which the two sides in the State Senate fight are going to put together a reasonable power sharing agreement. Several have been proposed, and then immediately shot down, because no one appears interested in actual governing.

This all started when two Democratic outcasts jumped ship, giving the Republicans an effective majority. It's been said in the past that the Democratic Party is a coalition party, and nowhere is that more obvious than in events like this.

In other countries, when a governing coalition falls apart, they call new elections to sort out who the people want running the legislature. We can't do that here, but we can do the next best thing.

I'm hereby calling on the entire New York State Senate to resign, effective immediately.

Every member of the chamber, go home. Have the Governor call a special election, complete with primaries, for all the Senate seats. The current senators can run to get their jobs back if they like, but let's allow the voters to decide who they want running this thing. Everyone is at exactly equal risk--the only thing that you have to be judged on is how you've conducted yourself.

Believe me, I'm under no illusions that this will actually happen. But at this point it doesn't seem any more unlikely than a power sharing agreement that will do anything other than put the entire state on hold until 2010.

My not-so-excellent health insurance/talk show adventure

devtob — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:10:24 GMT

I listen to too much talk radio, in part because there's no decent music radio around here (Albany, NY, and I can't get WEQX well) and mostly because I'm interested in almost any discussion of national, state or local issues.

I hardly ever call into the few local talk shows, but yesterday I did.

And it sucked, big time.

The issue for three hours on Dan Lynch's afternoon show on WGDJ-AM was health insurance reform.

I thought I had something to add, based on two bloggy things I'd read, about one reason for-profit health insurance cannot compete with any real public option -- the obscene compensation of insurance company CEOs compared to the much more modest compensation of government health insurance executives.

So I called, and was derided as "far left" and "socialist" by the allegedly moderate host.

Details, below.
As I was listening, I also read Matthew Yglesias' post about how publicly traded American companies pay their CEOs way more than publicly traded euro-zone companies.

Yglesias noted that the CEO of Aetna, No. 300 on the Forbes 500, "earned" $38.12 million last year, while the CEO of Swedish telecom company Ericsson, No. 289 on the Forbes list, earned just $2.5 million.

The name of the Aetna CEO sounded familiar, and sure enough I had read about him being a sandbagging "expert" on the Obama town meeting on ABC Wednesday night in McJoan's excellent FP diary on Daily Kos.

So I had my hook -- it will always be hard for for-profit health insurance companies to compete with a government health insurance entity that would pay its top executive less than 1 percent of what Aetna's chief profiteer Ron Williams makes.

I called, made my case about the inherent inabilty of companies like Aetna to compete, and was subjected to a 10-minute-plus inquisition designed to marginalize me as beyond the pale of reasonable political discussion.

Lynch compared decent health insurance to electricity as a vital need, and asked if I would also want the government to take over companies that provide electricity.

I responded that that was irrelevant to the current debate about health insurance reform, but grand inquisitor Lynch was relentless.

So I said, sure, I'd prefer lower-cost electricity provided by municipal utilities (like one nearby in Green Island) to the very-high-priced electricity I'm forced to get through National Grid, a British company that's bought up several Northeastern electricity/natural gas distributors.

Really, who wouldn't.

When we did discuss health insurance, I responded to another Lynch leading question by saying I supported single-payer, like in Canada, France and Germany, but not a National Health Service like in Great Britain.

Lynch then lied that few in the U.S. support single-payer, and called me a socialist for wanting what most people want.

He also badgered me about whether I supported government ownership of hospitals, after I had told him that I did not.

Though I added that for-profit hospitals were no good.

When he again called me "far left" for supporting health insurance reforms that most Americans also support, I'd had enough.

I said, "Screw you, far left," and hung up.

In retrospect, I wish I had not said that, but after more than 10 minutes of being cross-examined by someone whose generous health insurance is paid for by NY taxpayers (his wife is a retired teacher), I somewhat lost it.

On the other hand, Lynch has hung up on me a lot more than I've hung up on him.

Lynch is no dummy -- he's a former managing editor and columnist at the Albany Times Union. But he's convinced that his brand of support-the-status-quo political moderation is received truth, and anyone who dissents from that is a wacko.

So he enjoys baiting people like me and Joe from MoveOn, and trying to prove that his mini-Village conventional-wisdom views are aligned with the majority.

Which, as every poll on health insurance reform shows, is not true.

I continued listening, for the last time, to see what other callers would say about our dust-up.

Lynch, naturally, called me some more names, and one caller gave him props for that.

The last caller of the day was also a single-payer advocate, citing his acquaintance with people from Europe who overwhelmingly approve of how their countries provide health care for all and basically free higher education.

Lynch was much gentler with this guy, who made the same arguments I did in a different way.

I think I know why -- Lynch knows who I am; we crossed swords a lot back when he was an enthusiastic Iraq War cheerleader, insisting on the received (from serial liar Cheney) truth of pure BS like Atta in Prague and WMDs.

So when "Dave from Rensselaer" called yesterday, Lynch was on alert to deride someone whose views on health insurance reform reflect the vast majority of Americans as "far left" and "socialist."

Lynch promotes his show as "radio for people who think."

What it really is is "radio for people who think like Dan Lynch."

Which thankfully is a micro-minority, in every poll and radio rating book.

84% of New Yorkers agree, this is all about power

Putney Swope — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:14:22 GMT

I told you weeks ago that this whole coup by the GOP+Espada "reform coalition" was about nothing more than power and patronage.

It was always transparently ridiculous that the very people who fought against any reform at all for 40 years had had a sudden change of heart and did so while adopting and elevating probably the single most ethically challenged person in the entire chamber. Did anyone really believe any of this stuff? It was always about power, perks and greed.

It seemed obvious at the time and now everyone else can see it as well. A whopping 84% of New Yorkers (really, when was the last time 84% of us agreed on anything?) believe that the current sideshow in Albany is more about a "political power play" than a "serious effort to bring reform to Albany."

76% of registered voters statewide have heard, at least, a good amount about the current chaos in the Senate. This includes 31% of voters who have heard a great deal about the situation. And, voters say they just don't think their elected officials have their best interests at heart. A whopping 84% of registered voters report that, from what they have heard, the situation is nothing more than a political power play. In fact, just 12% view the wrangling as a serious effort to bring reform to Albany. The sentiment that the Senate dispute is for political gain transcends party lines with 88% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 82% of non-enrolled voters echoing this argument.

No one is buying the "we did this for reform" nonsense. That was always a ridiculous argument. This was a raw power play.

In these accounts, the fact that there are hugely important stakes for everyday New Yorkers in the outcome of the Senate fight is barely mentioned. Nor is the embarrassing truth that what transpired in Albany in the past month is the local version of a banana republic coup. In this case, the conspiring generals were lobbyists and one very power-hungry billionaire, Tom Golisano. Their goal was no different from that of those democracy-fearing Iranian mullahs: to overturn the results of a popular election.
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.
Despite its often clumsy and muddled performance during its short-lived reign, the Senate's new Democratic majority became a target of fear and loathing for the state's traditional powerbrokers. That's because on the occasions that they did get their act together, the Democrats showed what a progressive coalition might achieve.

I'm glad that better than 8 in 10 of us are seeing this for what it really is. It's good to see that we are all on the same page here.

That makes 60.

Adama — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:37:12 GMT

If we may turn our attention away from the Charlie Foxtrot that is New York politics for a moment: today the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Al Franken, dismissing Norm Coleman's attempt to get the election results overturned, and ordering Governor Tim Pawlenty to sign the election certificate.

A few minutes ago Coleman offically conceeded the election, now almost 8 months distant, to Senator-elect--and soon to be Senator--Al Franken.

Elsewhere on the 'net, the congratulations are pouring in. From the now-no-longer-most-junior Senator Gillibrand.

From DSCC chair Senator Menendez.

And last but not least, from the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Reform Coalition Offers Blueprint To End Senate Stalemate

Susan Lerner (CC/NY) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:27:59 GMT

A coalition of long-time reform organizations today released the outline of their plan to end the Senate stalemate. Citizens Union, Common Cause/NY, the League of Women Voters, and NYPIRG issued their plea as the state Senate entered its fourth week of gridlock.

At this late date, it appears that efforts to develop a long-term solution have failed. Thus, the groups' plan urges a "moratorium" on the debate over leadership, a bipartisan agreement to wrap up session and approval of new rules. At least initially, the plan focuses on achieving action on the immediate needs facing the state. There is a host of "must do" legislation that demands action. From local taxes to New York City Mayoral control of schools, from allowing additional debt to overhauling the state's ethics laws, key items need action, now.

A short-term agreement must offer tangible benefits to each side.

• First, put aside the battle over who controls the Senate until an appropriate date in early July.
• Second, rotate on a daily basis the role of presiding officer - with strict limits on discretionary powers - between Republicans and Democrats.
• Third, create a Senate legislative coordinating committee with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. These Senators would agree on the legislation that would move forward.
• Fourth, the Democrats and Republicans should to agree to the most important of the Senate Rules change proposals. In particular, there must be an agreement to essentially equalize resources for each of the Senators and to revitalize the committee process with these requirements locked in place through the end of 2010.

Finishing up the session would then give the Senate six months to discuss how best to move forward. It is our strongest hope that the success in wrapping up the session will begin to forge relationships among rank-and-file members that will be the foundation for a truly bipartisan Senate for the 2010 legislative session.