Note: Senate Republicans Are Not Fiscal Conservatives

by: BingChester

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:28:01 AM EST

Senate Republicans added 98 new taxpayer-funded positions, bringing the total to 420, and granted raises to a host of others, Dems charge.  In addition, Republicans created the new office of GOP Minority Policy Development, which has four people and costs $260,000, Senate records show.

Senate Republicans are on pace to spend $17.5 million, a jump of about $3.5 million from the $14 million that was available before the botched takeover.

Let's not forget that the ethics law "passed" by the Senate Republicans was a meaningless gesture of half-hearted reform.  And let's also not forget that the day of the coup was the same day that the Senate was to vote on earmarks and Malcolm Smith put forward a plan denying Pedro Espada the allocations for his infamous Soundview health facility.  Of course after Pedro came back to the Democratic fold, those earmarks magically found their way back into the member items.  

Our state is run by a cabal of greedy individuals looking to pay back their friends, employ their family, and line their own pockets.  The continued abuse of member items and the length to which the Senate Republicans went to snatch back power from the elected majority goes to show how important that pork spending is to New York Senators.  We've lost any notion of a meritocracy, where money is handed out to projects and people that have earned the support of government.  We need a new system where member items are split between both parties equally and closely scrutinized to avoid throwbacks to campaign contributors.  We also need a fair system for creating Senate jobs, to avoid situations just  

NYS Senate Recommendation to Expel/Censure Senator

by: Andrew C. White

Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 15:58:30 PM EST

Full text of the report here.

Monserrate was elected to the Senate in Nov. 2008 to the seat formerly held by Sen. John Sabini. Monserrate narrowly lost a primary to Sabini in 2006 and challenged him again in 2008. Meanwhile Sabini had been pulled over in Albany the previous November, failed a field sobriety test and refused a breathalyzer. He pled guilty to a reduced charge of DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired). Sabini decided against running for re-election and instead was appointed Chairman of the Racing and Wagering Board by Gov. Paterson in June of '08.

December 19, 2008, after his election to the Senate but before his swearing in, Monserrate was arrested for assault in an incident in which he slashed his girlfriend Karla Giraldo in the face with a broken drinking glass during an argument in his Jackson heights apartment.  

Time to clean house...well, Senate, actually

by: furiousdee

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:14:03 PM EST

The NYS legislature met once again to try and fill a %3.5 billion budget gap. Carl Kruger floated more tax increases, Governor Paterson wants to cut education funding mid-year, Majority Leader (if he still is, I can't keep track) Espada seems to be absent from any real solution, while Senator Diaz continues to proclaim his love for his gay brothers, grandchildren, and staffers, while at the same time ensuring they remain second-class citizens.

I would like to remind NYS Democrats that an election is coming up in 2010. All 62 seats in the state Senate are up for grabs. Every single one deserves a primary challenge by a progressive, reform-minded Democrat.

We can no longer rely on those sitting in power now to do the people's business; they will not, hasn't it been proved over and over again? Go to:

http://www.elections.state.ny.us/

and find out how you can become a candidate for the NYS Senate now.

There is no time like the present, No Day, but Today!

Removing the Gang of Three (is Kruger off the hook?)

by: NYTrialman

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 07:04:33 AM EDT

Thats all.....would appreciate those with a greater well of information to taking this post from here.

Espada Raising Money for Senate GOP

by: BingChester

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 13:33:38 PM EDT

Yes, that's right, the "Democratic Majority Leader" of the New York State Senate is raising money for the opposition leader.  And he's doing it with Dean Skelos.

The event, which is being held at The Penn Club, features two "special guests" - Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos and Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr.

Maziarz, as you'll recall, played a key role in the ill-fated June 8 coup that deadlocked the Senate for 31 days this summer.

He served as the point main between Tom Golisano and Steve Pigeon and the Senate GOP in the early days of coup planning. According to Jim Odato's tick-tock, Maziarz set up a meeting between Skelos, Sen. Tom Libous, Golisano advisor Steve Pigeon and himself as an Albany bar called Red Square.

link

When will the insanity end?  How much longer will the Democratic leaders in Albany keep supporting the same wolves in sheep's clothing?

I need to take a (political) bath

by: simonstl

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 17:00:26 PM EDT

Watching the Senate Democrats' press conference has been a painful experience. Welcoming back Espada was never going to be pleasant, but watching the smoothing over and repeating previously unfulfilled promises is excruciating.

It's still possible that something good will come out of this - maybe the Democrats will actually pass genuine reform instead of just talking about it, or maybe voters will finally have had enough and take it out on their legislators and party structures instead of thinking it's everyone else who's corrupt.

Is there anyone here who's actually happy about the state of our reconciled Senate? (I'm sure it's possible.)

There's still time for the Senate to redeem itself, but this chaos and even its resolution gives them quite a mountain to climb.

Update: The Brennan Center has a piece on what might happen for rules reform.

And update: I hope Amherst Guy will still visit New York for our sakes if this story about Steve Pigeon becoming a Senate staffer ("the majority leader's general counsel") is true.

Welcome back, Pedro?

by: simonstl

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:59:56 PM EDT

I have absolutely no idea what to say about this. I guess we'll see whether Espada actually gives the Dems a quorum today at 3:00pm.

New boss looks a lot like the old boss(es)

by: simonstl

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:16:36 AM EDT

I have no idea if CapCon is right, but they report agreement on a new leadership:

President pro tempore: Democratic Sen. Malcolm Smith

Senate majority leader: Republican Sen. Dean Skelos

Vice-president pro tempore: Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada

Democratic conference leader: Democratic Sen. John Sampson

CapCon says that the "the challenge now is convincing the fractured Democratic conference to go along with this agreement". I think the bigger challenge is going to be convincing New Yorkers that this merry band is a better option than leaving the Senate shut down. It looks like a great recipe for encouraging an anti-incumbent wave in 2010, though I doubt that's how they're looking at it.

Hopefully there's more substantive change in the rest of the conversation.

Bringing Republicans out of their bunker

by: simonstl

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 08:48:16 AM EDT

While Democrats outside of the leadership have acknowledged flaws in how things were run and promised greater change, I've not found much chatter like that from Republicans. (I'd really like to be wrong - if anyone's seen such talk, let me know!)

For now, Republican Senators seem to have hunkered down with the leadership, staying in a parallel universe where somehow President Pro Tempore Pedro Espada and Majority Leader Dean Skelos can munificently preside over a 31-31 split Senate, just because they say they can. Apparently no one is worried about the implications of this for 2010, or for getting much done in the short term either. (All I can find from my own Republican Senator are these comments from back on the 11th.)

I've suggested that the answer to this breakdown may come from the backbenchers rather than the leadership, but the backbenchers taking the initiative - and then falling back - all seem to be Democrats. Not counting the original switch of Monserrate and Espada, Duane and Aubertine seem to have come closest.

So what's sustaining Republican unity? Is it sheer party loyalty? Is it the togetherness of the last stand, knowing that even their gerrymandered districts can protect them for so long? Is it patronage, the hope of reversing the Democrats' hires and replacing them with their own people? The sense that sticking together worked in the past, so why change now? Pride? Contempt for the Democrats? Tom Golisano? The threat of their local party machinery turning against them? I don't get the sense that they're actually all that fond of Pedro Espada.

But much more important, what might entice them out of the suicidal position their leadership is claiming? I don't think Paterson can appoint State Senators to the many open posts, even some of the vital ones, and expect them to accept.

What might bring them out of their bunker, into a functioning State Senate with room for two genuinely participating parties?

I suggested earlier that decentralizing Senate power might ease things, for members of both parties, but given the silence I'm hearing from Republicans, I don't think they're going to move forward soon on that basis.

BREAKING: MILLENNIUM PRIZE AWARDED FOR SUCCESSFUL PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS

by: bbill

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 13:12:33 PM EDT

The Riemann hypothesis is that all nontrivial zeros of the analytical continuation of the Riemann zeta function have a real part of 1/2. A proof or disproof of this would have far-reaching implications in number theory, especially for the distribution of prime numbers. This was Hilbert's eighth problem, and is still considered an important open problem a century later.

"What we're maintaining is that if there's 31 members present and ready to vote, those 31 members can ask for a tie-breaking vote to be cast."
"But if it's 31 to 0, there's no tie," Dicker replied, sensibly.
"That's your math. My math is that 31 present, 32 needed."

Republicans overplay their hand

by: simonstl

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 19:02:22 PM EDT

CapCon called this "GOP offers their bipartisan operating agreement", but I like my headline better. Unless I'm missing something obvious, these two pages boil down to "Pedro Espada and Dean Skelos are in charge. With one Democrat on board, we can still call it 'bipartisan'. Suck it up."

Maybe they're smarter than I am - time will tell how this plays with the public - but I think they've moved from a brilliant parliamentary maneuver coupled with a smart PR move to the same old stodgy "we only care about power, ever" story that they told during the Bruno years.

It's too bad. There really was an opportunity here to build a saner Senate, one with long-term prospects for a relevant Republican minority. Instead they seem to be going for broke.

I'm afraid we'll all end up broke as a result.

Hopefully they might yet recognize this isn't going to make them look good, for a long long time to come, and we can salvage some of the possibilities that briefly seemed to open.

Update: For a collection of bipartisan operating agreements in actual use elsewhere, see here.

Because it matters.

by: davesnyd

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:24:58 AM EDT

We are faced with an extraordinary set of problems and the theatrics coming from the State Senate do nothing to help fix them.

Time to stop behaving like children, work together, and figure out how to make the State work in the short term and fix it in the long term.

Specific suggestions below the fold.

A Question Inspired by the Commentariat

by: robinia

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:03:48 AM EDT

Monserrate wants someone to pay for the legal bills. To even have that discussion is a federal crime.

I had just finished commenting about how corrupt this whole process appeared, although, with everything happening in secret cabals at Red Square and behind closed doors in the Capitol, it is hard to tell.  I was looking for the FBI to ride to the rescue, a la Joe Bruno case (and as per NYCO's classic statement that

if NYS were a third world country, the Feds would have already invaded and installed a democracy.)

But, wait, we actually do have some separation of powers here in NYS still.... and, you know, I think that Andrew Cuomo actually has an open case on Espada, no?  Yo, Andrew, can you please subpeona all records or witnesses to these secret meetings, and make them testify about what, if any, deals involving his legal problems Espada was trying to cut?  FBI, you could go for same on Monserrate, either under existing Bruno investigation, or, give the slasher his own Federal case, if multiple felony counts aren't bad-boy 'nuf fer him.

A legal means to remove the most corrupt Senate politicians would be an excellent way to give NYers a real chance at a new start.

Maybe... coalitions?

by: simonstl

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 21:10:01 PM EDT

It's been a mind-expanding day. First there was the prospect of principled disloyalty from Tom Duane, then the afternoon's wobbling around with Monserrate's position staying unclear, and now (hat tip NYCO), I see Eliot Spitzer suggesting "a step forward in New York politics.". (I really didn't expect him to chime in, but it's been a week of agreeing with people I'd rather not support.)

The core of his piece, I think, is:

good government groups and editorial boards rightly demanded that individual legislators be empowered to turn the Assembly and Senate into real deliberative chambers. In an odd way, that is exactly what is happening. With control of the Senate almost perfectly divided between the parties, any one legislator can tip the balance of power, and hence every legislator has something heretofore denied them-great negotiating capacity. After playing the role of sheep for years, legislators are now recognizing they have the power to be coyotes.

The use of that power by two Democratic senators, though perhaps for questionable purposes, is emboldening others to use their leverage to bargain for worthwhile causes. State Sen. Tom Duane is reported to be negotiating with the Republicans to persuade them to bring a bill authorizing same-sex marriage to the floor. And the Republicans, perhaps knowing that their control of the chamber will be short-lived, passed some reform measures, that while less than what should be sought, are more than what they put in place during their decades of control, or what the Democrats had put in place during the past five months....

The sterile decision-making that was criticized when it was behind closed doors has been replaced for the moment by the crass and ugly sausage-making that is legislative process. Out of this mess may come a legislative branch where legislators actually begin to voice differing views, argue on substantive matters, and finally bring into the open the discussion of issues that should be occurring in public.

It's crazy, I know, to suggest that maybe democracy (lower-cased) is a possible result of this wild ride. And Liz Benjamin can't believe this guy is saying this. (Update: nor is Robinia impressed.)

However, if you think about it, and if you can turn off your disgust filters on so many levels, it seems clear that voters presented New York with an unstable Senate in the last election, and maybe that's not so bad.

On the surface, yes, Democrats did have a 32-30 edge, though the negotiations to actually make that work demonstrated just how weak it was, more like 30-28-4. The "Gang of Four", "Three Divas", "traitors" - whatever you want to call them, they're the fulcrum of the Senate if you think strictly in terms of party. Espada has as much power in a divided Senate as he does specifically because his party loyalty is weak.

The suggestion that Duane was contemplating his options opened up the possibilities a lot more. I don't think anyone would argue that he's seeking personal enrichment rather than political goals. Maybe he's extreme in the pursuit of that goal, but I suspect there are at least some other Senators, in both parties, waking up to the possibilities.

My record for predicting New York politics is terrible, but I think I see an opening - an opening created by crass manipulation - for the process to change. Instead of simple partisanship, illustrated by the 10-1 member item split that both parties have now embraced, we could see shifting coalitions, in which the views of individual legislators matter more than just which party has control of the chamber.

Unless more Senators move clearly to one party or the other, some kind of negotiated settlement may force this to happen because neither side wants to be a classic NYS legislative minority.

I'm reasonably certain that party loyalty will again become the one true gauge of a Senator's worth at some point, but maybe this is a moment where strictly party loyalties give way, and instead of a strong and static leadership we have a weak placeholder leadership, and Senators doing what they want for a brief moment.

Who knows? They might even like it. So might voters.

Looking to 2010 and beyond

by: simonstl

Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:59:37 PM EDT

I was worried that I'd misplaced my sense of outrage yesterday, watching the Senate coup without nearly enough surprise or concern. The Republicans were doing what a minority party is supposed to do, and it had been clear for a long time that the loyalty of the Gang of Four was in question (though these weren't the two I'd have guessed most likely to flip.) Besides, I'd cheered up when Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords grew weary of the other side of the aisle and came over.

But still, how could I be calm about the reversal of a goal I'd fought for? Well, I think this guy has the answer:

they should really take a breath, because-while they will have a clear and profound impact on the workings of Albany through 2010-the surprise defections of State Senators Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate to the Republican conference could end up, in the medium term, looking more like a blip than an earthquake....

the new G.O.P. majority will be built on an absurdly flimsy foundation. Sure, Espada and Monserrate will provide the two crucial votes that will make Dean Skelos majority leader, a development that will severely complicate the budget process and, more broadly, the agenda of David Paterson and state Democrats. But by flipping to the G.O.P., Espada and Monserrate have almost certainly expedited their own exits from Albany-and the election of new, far more loyal Democrats to their seats.

Maybe I'm misguided or naive, and I'm certainly not happy about the timing, but I actually see opportunity here. I'm not too excited about "loyal Democrats", though that's likely, but maybe there's a chance here for "better Democrats".

Talking with a friend about the coup, it occurred to me that I can't think of any "lions of the NY Senate" the way I might think of "lions of the US Senate", people who've demonstrated their ability to address complex problems despite the challenges of getting legislation passed.

Some of it's doubtless the nature of the institution, which hasn't exactly rewarded or even made a place for individual initiative. (I have a similar problem with the Assembly.) However, it also seems that NY Senators are kind of ossified. Whether that happened before they were elected (retired upward) or after is an open question.

I think, though, that this latest chaos, however it resolves, throws things wide open. A lot of Democratic seats will be competitive in 2010, and a number of Republican seats were already competitive in 2008. Maybe there's an opportunity to improve the quality of Democrats in the Senate overall?

And for the long term, maybe we'll learn that we need to value quality?

The short term is going to be awful - opportunities lost, state government in turmoil, and probably a good deal of suffering that could have been avoided. That seems unfortunately clear. At the same time, though, the long term looks pretty good to me.

Republican coup

by: simonstl

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 16:08:36 PM EDT

Well, I guess I can stop worrying whether Hiram Monserrate's indictment will cost Democrats control of the Senate.

Here's the Times-Union and the Times on what looks like Espada and Monserrate shifting to the Republicans to give them a 32-30 majority.

In which I thank the Gang of Three

by: simonstl

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 21:37:10 PM EST

No, I'm not thanking them for their political positions.

No, I'm not thanking them for what seems to be unalloyed ambition.

No, I'm not thanking them because I think they should be re-elected. (I don't.)

No, I'm not thanking them for potentially yet hobbling our finally Democratic Senate.

I have to thank them, though, for breaking open the conversation on leadership positions, how these things break down, and what they mean.

In the heat of that conflict, a story emerged - one that taught a lot of readers more about the State Senate than they likely ever would have bothered to learn otherwise. Vice-what? Pro-Tempwhat? Who's this Lulu girl?

As ugly as it was to watch, and as little good as it said about Democrats or the Senate, it was still a lot better than the pure silence of private meetings yielding a roster of lulus for committees whose function has been in doubt for years.

Will anything good come out of it? Not much in 2009, I'll bet. But maybe more interest in 2010, 2012, and beyond.

We need - and I know this will bother a lot of folks here - a lot more of this. A lot more openness, even - especially - when it's openness about conflict.

Stop hiding in caucus!

It'll sting in the short run, but we'll have a much healthier state in the long run.

It's going to be a long hard road

by: simonstl

Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 14:09:58 PM EST

It's been a hard few years for New York Democrats with a fondness for reform. After years of little hope, Spitzer raised our hopes and then crashed them. Over the last few months, our hopes climbed with the election of a Democratic majority in the State Senate, the last Republican fortress. Now they've crashed to earth again, thanks to the "Gang of Three" and the Democratic leadership's response.

I don't know why we keep thinking that it will be easy once our favorites get into office. Changing the cast of characters makes a difference, certainly - but even if he hadn't imploded, Eliot Spitzer would still be facing challenge after challenge from a deeply-rooted Albany culture.

Our legislature has been about two things, and two things exclusively, for the last few decades: power and deals. Power is the foundation, and deals are how everything gets sorted out. Deals lubricate the mechanisms of power and are the path by which ideas become concrete.

What we've seen over the last few weeks is a slow struggle toward a deal. The blunt fact of the matter is that the "Gang of Three" has power right now - power that I think they're well aware is temporary, but power they'd like to cement in a deal.

They're not, despite some overheated rhetoric here, terrorists - they're playing the Albany game exactly as it's been played for a long long time. Party loyalties? Yes, they sort of matter, but really only so far as they mesh with the demands of power.

Similarly, while it's completely likely that we'll hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric from Democratic Senators who are unhappy with the deal, there isn't much reason to believe that the rhetoric is really motivated by idealism. There's a bit of that, some sense that party loyalty should matter - but mostly, once again, it's about power, and how this deal affects the distribution of power.

It's too bad we can't just say that the Senate is divided 30-29-3 and move on. That's the underlying reality, but it doesn't fit into the legislative rules very neatly, so we're stuck in a very strange charade.

How can I possibly be so cynical, when I'm the guy who lectures the most about what New York State government should be? Given my rants about the Democratic Assembly, how can I possibly tolerate this nonsense from our Senate, long the home of lofty Democratic reform rhetoric?

It's because we need to change the culture of New York politics, not just the players. Changing the players regularly is an important part of changing the culture, but shifting a few Senators from one party to the other isn't nearly enough.

Yes, we're stuck in an ugly situation. Of course, we're stuck in an ugly situation. We're at a point where tiny groups of Senators have tremendous power, where the folks we'd like to be in control haven't ascended yet, and even when they do ascend, it's going to be touch and go for a long long time to come.

I've had days when I liked Smith and days when I loathed Smith. But Smith isn't the story - and neither is a Democratic Majority Leader.

The real story, I think, is much slower, less exciting, and less likely to make good fodder for soap opera tabloid. It's the kind of work cliffweathers is taking on in Rockland County, and the involvement many of us have in our local committees. We need to change the political culture in every county, and across the state.

We can't count on party leadership shaped by decades of Albany's power and deals culture to break free of that culture in a single election. It will take many, many elections, even after Democrats are comfortably in control.

Getting there is not up to them, though - it's up to us.

In the hands of the Gang of Four

by: simonstl

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 18:00:37 PM EST

I guess they're not so much the self-styled revolutionary vanguard as the counter-revolutionary vanguard:

The fight for control of New York's Senate that Democrats thought they won in historic fashion Tuesday stretched into Wednesday and could go on for weeks with a group of four maverick New York City lawmakers essentially holding the key to the balance of power.

The four Democratic senators met Wednesday with GOP leaders who hold the Senate majority at least until Jan. 1, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the meeting. The meeting was to discuss how the four might serve the GOP and what's in it for them should they defect, according to the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because leaders wouldn't confirm the talks.

Despite the intense nausea this makes me feel, it's still kind of funny. When the Republicans said that a Democratic majority in the State Senate would put the fate of Upstate in the hands of "New York City lawmakers", I don't think this is quite what everyone thought they meant.

(And while I know this makes it tempting for Democrats to argue for strict rules that lock the membership under the thumb of the leadership, it may be a situation that better calls for rules that let members vote their minds all of the time, every day. You know, a functioning legislature with cranky back-benchers. Sometimes those seem to work just fine.)