There Are New Media Directors And Then There Are New Media Directors

by: robert.harding

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:06:38 AM EST

What qualifies Phillips for such a prestigious post? Here is a look at his background:

Phillips is a former director of strategy and communications for Washington, DC-based Blue State Digital, a private web design firm that eventually became closely tied to the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign for whom he worked for as an internet strategist. Phillips had previously worked for Democratic Florida State Senator Rod Smith as a senior strategist during the 2006 Florida gubernatorial election. He had also worked for Ted Kennedy.

Phillips was the Director of New Media for the Presidential transition of Barack Obama and had oversight responsibility for Change.gov. In fact, he turned the website on the morning after the 2008 Barack Obama election victory speech. Prior to that he was involved in BarackObama.com and directed the technological initiative to announce the selection of Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee to be Vice President of the United States. Philips' new media efforts during the 2008 United States presidential election helped raise vast sums of money for the Obama presidential campaign, while his text messaging, online videos and social networking skills led the campaign in many organizational and informational ways. Blue State Digital created and managed Obama's campaign site, which brought in a million Facebook friends and about $500 million.

It is not right to expect that a new media director for, say, Governor David Paterson would have the qualifications that Phillips brings to the table. So when Governor Paterson's communications staff brings a new media director aboard, it is worth looking at what qualifies her for the post.

Melanie Hartgraves will be the new media director. What qualifies for the post? It is hard to say. Here is her background (from her LinkedIn page):

Assignment Editor
Special Projects Producer
News Assistant
Producer
WRGB CBS 6 News
(Broadcast Media industry)
September 2006 - Present (3 years 3 months)

(Note: Hartgraves, during her three-plus years with WRGB, served in those four posts at some point, not all four positions at once.)

Intern
Capital News Nine
(Broadcast Media industry)
2005 - 2005 (less than a year)

Obviously, those of us at TAP know what a new media director does. We have at least one new media director (Phillip) within our ranks. The position is a necessity in politics and governance. Using the Internet to show the state what you're doing is a great strategy by the governor's press office. Now they just need someone who is qualified for the job.

Unfortunately for them, and with all due respect to Ms. Hartgraves, she is not qualified.

Broadcast media experience is great for your average communications position. It is good to have people with diverse communications backgrounds in a press shop. I believe you should have someone from newspapers, TV, radio and the Internet. The last of those is where your new media director comes in and while Ms. Hartgraves would fit in for just about any other job, she is not qualified to become a new media director.

A new media director is in charge of shaping, in this case, the governor's new media strategy. This means making the governor's website, which is below average, much more accessible and user-friendly. This means utilizing things like blogs to promote the governor's agenda. This means turning to Facebook and Twitter and using those mediums to build the governor's profile and allow citizens access to their state's top executive.

Nothing in Ms. Hartgraves' background shows that she will be able to implement such a strategy, let alone form one.

But like most hires in Albany, I doubt this had anything to do with qualifications (clearly, it didn't). I'm sure there was someone she knew, someone she had some contacts with and someone who decided that they had this job open so it was worth it for a friend. Other than that, it's hard to explain why they would hire a TV producer to be a new media director.

NY-Gov: If Lazio Is The GOP Nominee, Paterson Can Run... And Win

by: robert.harding

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 00:15:01 AM EDT

The only candidate Paterson beats? Republican Rick Lazio, who has declared his candidacy for governor.

Steve over at Daily Kos has this analysis on the New York gubernatorial race:

NY-Gov: Is Romney Tipping Rudy's Hand?
There are a couple of different ways to read into this nugget of news out of the Empire State: apparently, 2008 GOP presidential contender (and, to many, the 2012 favorite) Mitt Romney will be heading to New York in three weeks to host a fundraiser for 2010 gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio. This could be seen as a sign that Giuliani is going to eventually demur from seeking the governorship, since Romney would be unlikely to expend a lot of political capital on a candidate who polls show would have little chance of winning the GOP nomination against Giuliani. This could also be a sign that there were some seriously hard feelings about the 2008 presidential race, and Romney feels like giving Rudy a little clip at the knees. It is worth noting that Lazio is a Romney friend, as well as an endorser of the former Massachusetts Governor's presidential campaign last year.

While I don't think Romney will have such an impact (if Giuliani decides not to run, it will be on his own, not because he isn't aligned with Romney or because Lazio is Romney's horse in this race), I do think if Giuliani were to take a pass and no other serious Republican challenger steps up to run, we could see Paterson give it a go in 2010.

For that to happen, Paterson will need some help.

- Giuliani would need to announce he isn't running OR Giuliani could run for U.S. Senate against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. That would take away the GOP's best candidate for the seat.

- Cuomo will have to pass on the Democratic primary. This is the least likely of the two. Cuomo's poll numbers show that he would win a primary. He is a very popular attorney general and would get a lot of support in a primary and general election. He is the biggest threat to Paterson.

- Lazio isn't the strongest of candidates, yet he is only within a few percentage points of Paterson. While it's too close for comfort, it's a race Paterson can win.

I don't think it's likely, but we could end up with a general election of Paterson versus Lazio. What a campaign that would be. Having a matchup like that would be like the Yankees and Red Sox losing their respective division series matchups and getting an ALCS featuring the Twins and Angels. Sure, it's still a championship, but it's not the best championship possible.  

NY-Gov: Marist Poll Says Most New Yorkers Against Obama's Involvement

by: robert.harding

Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:05:37 PM EDT

The poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed did not support Obama's involvement in the governor's race. Only 27 percent believed it was the right thing to do. In a separate question, 60 percent believe the White House should not get involved in the primary even if it impacts other Democrats.

These facts from the poll are good indicators of where people are at on the White House's involvement.

Not surprisingly, Democrats are more worried about Paterson's impact on the 2010 Democratic ticket than are Republicans.  Still, only 42% of Democrats agree with the White House based on this rationale, and 48% report the White House was incorrect in urging Paterson not to run.  Looking across the aisle, 75% of Republicans overwhelmingly believe the Obama Administration overstepped its bounds while 18% think the move was a right one.  Non-enrolled voters are more in line with Republicans on this issue.  Regardless of the potential impact Paterson's run may have on other Democratic candidates, 68% report the White House's action was wrong while 21% think it was right.

Few New York State voters are surprised by the White House's interest in next year's New York State elections.  Just 25% are surprised while 73% are not.

I am in the minority on this. I believe it was the right thing to do. I also think the interest in New York has a lot to do with Patrick Gaspard (a New Yorker) being the White House political director. If the political director was someone else from another state, there might not be such an interest in New York.

Paterson's approval rating didn't make any gains in the polls. His approval rating is at a new low for the Marist poll and is at 17 percent.

One final stat: 63 percent of voters don't want Paterson to run next year. That tells the story right there. Whether you agree with the President or not, you have to realize that he had a point. Paterson isn't the greatest candidate for governor at this point.

NY-Gov, NY-Sen: Paterson's Favorable Rating Down, Gillibrand's Numbers Drop

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 11:51:05 AM EDT

Governor Paterson has a 29 percent favorable rating in the new poll. It is the first time since May that his numbers dropped below 30 percent and does not serve him well after the news came out that President Barack Obama doesn't want Paterson to run next year. It is hard to make a case for Paterson running next year with numbers like that a year out from the primary.

When asked about next year's elections, 71 percent said that they "prefer someone else" over Paterson. That is a tie for the highest percentage of respondents saying that they want someone other than Paterson. Only 14 percent said they would elect Paterson.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo fares better than Paterson in a primary and against hypothetical general election opponents. If the race between Cuomo and Paterson was held today, Cuomo would win 66 percent to 20 percent. In general election contests, Paterson beats Republican Lazio 39 percent to 35 percent with Cuomo beating Lazio 64 percent to 18 percent. Paterson loses to Republican Rudy Giuliani 52 percent to 35 percent with Cuomo knocking off Giuliani 52 percent to 39 percent.

By comparison, Cuomo's favorable rating is at 66 percent. In a separate question, 47 percent of respondents said that they would rather see Cuomo run for governor than attorney general.

For Gillibrand, the numbers are a little better given her time in office (eight months) and her status as still a statewide unknown. Her favorable rating is 29 percent, which is the same as last month. However, her unfavorable rating is at 24 percent - the highest it has been since Siena starting asking people about Gillibrand.

The poll only focused on one possible opponent for Gillibrand this month and that was Giuliani. In the matchup, Giuliani would win 46 percent to 38 percent. Those numbers aren't bad considering Giuliani's name recognition statewide compared to Gillibrand. But it does show Gillibrand has a long way to go.

A final stat to take notice of in the poll is this question:

As things stand now, if the election for State Senate were held today, would you vote to re-elect your incumbent Senator or would you prefer someone else?

Only 38 percent of respondents said they would vote to re-elect their incumbent senator. Another 45 percent said they would vote for someone else. Those numbers are worth highlighting because of everything that has happened in the state senate. I don't think it should sweep up the good senators, but I do hope it rids the New York State Senate of ineffective legislators whose only goal in Albany is to line their own pockets and expand their influence.

Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 11:32:13 AM EDT

From Liz:

The state's highest court has upheld Gov. David Paterson's appointment of former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch to be his lieutenant governor - a surprise ruling that overturns several lower court decisions and provides the beleaguered governor a significant victory at time when he is under pressure not to run in 2010.

The vote was 4-3. The deciding opinion was written by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who was appointed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer Paterson and is a close ally of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who is a good friend of Ravitch's.

   "The issue on this appeal is whether the governor of the state of New York has the authority to fill a vacancy in the office of lieutenant-governor by appointment. We now hold that he does," Lippman wrote.

This is a huge win for Paterson and for New York. It is a huge rebuke of our state's constitution, however. Having the state's highest court say that Paterson does have the authority to appoint a replacement flies in the face of the constitution, which says that the vacancy of the lieutenant governor's post should be filled by the president of the Senate until the next election.  

NY-GOV: President Obama Is Right: Governor Paterson Should Not Run

by: robert.harding

Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 09:50:03 AM EDT

The reaction here at TAP and in New York has been mixed. The views range from agreeing with the President to concerns about the President's involvement in New York politics.

In order to understand why the President would do this, we need to look at the big picture. In 2006, we took back the Governor's mansion and that gave Democrats the upper hand in legislative manners: The governor was a Democrat, the Assembly was still ruled by Democrats and the State Senate wasn't too far off. In 2008, Democrats took over the New York State Senate, only to have that disrupted in a matter of months by Republicans and Pedro Espada Jr. looking for more power. Espada eventually came back, giving Democrats the Senate again.

The reality is that, in 2010, we could go back to what we had before the gubernatorial and state senate wins. We could go back to having a Republican governor and a Republican state senate all because of who is at the top of the ticket in New York State.

The poll numbers show that Governor Paterson is not in a strong position to run for re-election in 2010. His approval rating at the end of August was 32 percent. That is a quick decline from where he was at in late January, when his poll numbers stood at 54 percent and an even more dramatic drop from the 60 percent favorable ratings he had in late 2008 and early 2009. We are a year out from the Democratic primary (if one does take place) and we are less than 14 months away from the general election. Unless Paterson makes a huge turnaround (which, at this point, is unlikely) he is not in a position to be a strong candidate for governor.

President Obama is a smart man. He is also a political genius. He sees New York as an important piece to the Democratic Party. His involvement in the U.S. Senate race is well documented. He has tried to clear the field for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand so that she can run a strictly general election campaign instead of having to run a possibly damaging primary election that would leave her vulnerable for the general.

In the case of Paterson, he sees the opposite.

He sees a candidate who is weak and would not serve the party well in a general election. He sees a candidate that is not well received in this state and is not someone New Yorkers support. Trying to support him for governor would be tough, not only for Obama and national Democratic leaders, but also for leaders in New York at the local and state levels.

On Paterson's end, he has made some missteps in forging a good relationship with the Obama administration.

From the New York Times:

In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor's selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.

The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama's aides.

In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama's, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton's replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.

The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama's advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.

As it stands right now, Paterson doesn't give New York Democrats the best chance to win in 2010. While I don't think he will drag down the whole ticket, including congressional candidates in upstate districts that will be running for re-election next year, I do think he will have a negative impact on state senate candidates specifically. In order to turn that around, we will need a different candidate at the top of the ticket. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be a great option. But Paterson, at this moment, is not our guy.  

Paterson Vetoes Creating War Of 1812 Bicentennial Commission

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:53:14 AM EDT

Of that "savings", $2.25 million of that would have gone to the creating of a War of 1812 Bicentennial Celebration Commission. The commission would have been used to promote War of 1812 sites in New York. Whether it is up near Lake Champlain and Plattsburgh, where a key War of 1812 battle took place, or Old Fort Niagara that was captured by the British in 1813 only to be returned to the United States at the end of the war.

As a lover of history and tourism, I find it very discouraging that the governor, citing the current economic crisis, would veto a bill creating such a commission. Is the initial price tag high? Maybe. Paying $2.25 million is a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a tiny amount when comparing that payment to the whole budget.

If there is one thing I have learned about New York, it is that we don't promote our history and we don't promote the crown jewels that we have. For such a small investment, the state (and local businesses) would see a great reward.  

From the Buffalo News:

The state's War of 1812 historic sites already conduct programs and host re-enactments, Paterson said. He encouraged existing boards as well as state and local agencies to work together to promote commemorative events.

Supporters of the commission say Canada has already put money into planning for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.

"They see the economic and cultural benefits," Emerson said. "So much of the War of 1812 happened here. The ball has been dropped, and it's extremely embarrassing."

Without the right planning, a hodgepodge schedule of events could give short shrift to heritage tourists like Michael and Marilyn Zepf of Chicago, who visited Old Fort Niagara in Youngstown on Saturday.

"They're already getting short shrift," Michael Zepf said of historical sites across the country.

Over the years, the two have visited historic battlefields and other historic sites across the country, even traveling along the Lewis and Clark trail and Route 66 to learn more about the country's history.

What do they too often find? Reduced hours. No brochures. Closed facilities. Few tours.

During the past two weeks, the two drove along the Great Lakes Seaway Trail, from its northernmost point at Massena to Youngstown.

Nowhere along the trail could they find a guidebook with information about the War of 1812 sites they visited.

...

Robert Emerson, executive director of Old Fort Niagara, sat on a state commission created to commemorate 250th anniversary events for the French and Indian War.

Thousands of visitors pumping millions of dollars into local economies have come to upstate historic sites since 2005 - including more than 2,300 who gathered in Youngstown over the July Fourth holiday weekend to re-enact six battles over three days.

Some $75,000 in commission funding helped organize Old Fort Niagara's re-enactment, which led to $1.8 million spent by visitors during that weekend, Emerson said.

"It's a $75,000 investment with a $1.8 million return," Emerson said. "I think that's very good."

Mr. Emerson is correct. It is very good.

If the state wants to cut the deficit, they are going to have to look at ways of bringing in revenue. Cuts alone aren't going to work and that has been proven, even though Paterson continues to think that he can cut the deficit away.

That is where tourism dollars can come in. Events like this can bring in a lot of money, not only for local businesses, but for the state through sales tax. If you promote it and use it right, then you will see the benefits. But when you veto something like this, it is a very narrow and wrong-headed thing to do, especially when it could bring in millions of dollars over a two or three year period.

New York Leaders On The Passing Of Senator Ted Kennedy

by: robert.harding

Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 16:13:25 PM EDT

Some of New York's leaders took time to remember the Lion of the Senate today.

Governor David Paterson:

"It is with profound grief that I learned the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's passing late last night.

"Senator Kennedy took his seat in the United States Senate in 1962, and from the moment he was sworn in, he fought for the progressive principles and ideas that he held so close to his heart. Over the course of 47 years in the Senate, he was an unstoppable force for peace, civil rights, expanding access to health care, improving education, reforming our immigration system and encouraging national and community service. It is fair to say that Senator Kennedy influenced every important issue that affected our nation for the past half century, and on every issue, he stood for justice and compassion.

"Senator Kennedy was the Lion of the Senate and one of the most consequential figures of the 20th century. He was intimately familiar with the Senate's levers of power, and knew how and in what order to pull them. His mastery of the legislative process is unparalleled in our time, and he stands on par with giants like Webster and Clay. Still, first and foremost, he was a friend to regular Americans. He was a fighter for our needs. He was a true American hero.

"And so today, Americans mourn the loss of our great champion, but we also rejoice in what he lived for. As Senator Kennedy said of his brother Robert, so can be said of him: 'He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty and sharing in time of happiness.'

"Senator Kennedy may be gone, but the impression he left on this nation and its people remains. The values he spent his life fighting for stand eternal. His dream for a better future lives. On behalf of my family and all of the people of the State of New York, I offer the Kennedy family my condolences on this great loss. I hope that they, and all of the Senator's friends, colleagues and supporters, can take comfort from the knowledge that America is a safer, freer and more just nation thanks to Ted Kennedy."

Senator Chuck Schumer:

"Ted Kennedy was a mentor, a guiding light, and a close friend -- we all loved the man. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy was our sun - the center of our universe. To be pulled by his strong gravitational field, to bask in his warmth was a privilege, an honor, and, for many of us, even a life changing experience. His death leaves our world dark but, as he said in his own words, 'the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.' Ted, we will not let your flag fall."

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand:

"Senator Kennedy's dedication for over four decades to help millions of our nation's children, seniors and families is an inspiration to me, and I am honored to have had the opportunity to serve with him in the United States Senate.

"While we have lost an American treasure today, Senator Kennedy's rich legacy, historic legislative record and deep commitment to positive change for all Americans will continue to be felt for generations to come.  

"My thoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy family as they grieve over their loss."

New York State Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill:

"The nation has lost the 'lion of the Senate' and a champion for those who are marginalized and disenfranchised in our country. Senator Kennedy was an American icon and a hero to millions who admired his strength, grace, intellect and conviction.

In 1980 I had the privilege of being elected a Ted Kennedy delegate to the Democratic National Convention held that year in Madison Square Garden. It was a memorable night when he gave one of the best, and most moving speeches of his career. He pledged then to fight for Americans who are unemployed and for national health care insurance.

Last year, as a delegate to the National Convention in Denver, I was among the thousands who were in the hall to see and hear Senator Kennedy deliver what would become his final major public address. There wasn't a dry eye in the house when he finished. He reminded us of how far we had come, and how far we have yet to go. He implored the country to support the 'passing of the torch to a new generation' and to make sure that health care became a right not a privilege. Ironically, that marvelous speech was delivered one year ago today. Although we mourn this great loss, Senator Kennedy's legacy lives on.

I have more statements from other state leaders below the fold.

Paterson Appoints Ravitch As Lieutenant Governor

by: robert.harding

Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:09:30 PM EDT

From the Governor's press release:

Governor David A. Paterson today announced the appointment of Richard Ravitch to serve as Lieutenant Governor. The Governor announced the appointment in a televised statewide address during which he spoke about both the fiscal and government crises facing New Yorkers.

Mr. Ravitch has been called to public service numerous times throughout his career by Governors and Mayors at times of historic crises and he will now join Governor Paterson in his efforts to put New York on the road to recovery.

"Over the past year, I have worked to address the worst fiscal and economic crisis to hit New York in decades. Throughout that time, my number one priority as Governor has been to stabilize our State's economy and put New York on the road to recovery. Over the past month, our work to address the economic crisis has been undermined by a crisis of governance in the State Senate," said Governor Paterson.

"The confusion in the line of succession cannot and must not continue," added the Governor. "That is why today, I am acting on behalf of the people of New York and will use my legal authority as Governor to appoint Richard Ravitch to the position of Lieutenant Governor. Dick has dedicated much of his remarkable career to public service. Over the past several decades, he has been called to service on numerous occasions by governors and mayors during times of crisis and today, I too am turning to him to assist me in my continued efforts to stabilize New York's economy."

Mr. Ravitch began his career as an attorney for the Government Operations Committee of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., from 1959-1960. He then joined HRH Construction Corporation as a principal and was responsible for supervising the development, financing and construction of over 45,000 units of affordable housing in New York, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico and other locations. In 1975, Governor Hugh Carey appointed him to serve as Chairman of the New York State Urban Development Corporation, a financing and development agency with 30,000 dwelling units under construction.

I'm not sure how this helps, given the insanity in Albany lately. The legality of this move is something that the Governor's office isn't too worried about, at least on the surface. Yet, there have already been claims made that this is illegal, including one claim from Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. that this is illegal. If that isn't hypocrisy (or irony) I don't know what is.

If it is legal, Ravitch is a safe pick. He obviously wouldn't run in 2010 but he would serve the office well.

I will credit Governor Paterson's leadership here. He is taking a big risk here. He needs to take more of them. This could blow up in his face, but he is willing to go far to end this mayhem. That is good. At least someone is trying to end this stalemate.

Smith, Upstate Senators Want Regional Blueprint Funds For Upstate

by: robert.harding

Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 07:25:38 AM EDT

On April 9, 2008, Governor David Paterson announced that his own version of the upstate revitalization plan would be included in the budget. Instead of $1 billion, the plan was cut to $700 million. In the press release announcing the plan, the Regional Blueprint Fund is outlined:

Regional Blueprint Fund ($120 million): Reflecting the need to move away from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to Upstate economic development, the Enacted Budget creates a $120 million Regional Blueprint Fund, which will be used to take advantage of the unique assets in each part of New York. This fund will be administered by the Empire State Development Corporation and will build on Regional Blueprint sessions held last fall to identify projects that will enhance each specific Upstate area's economic advantages.

After reviewing Spitzer's upstate plan and Paterson's upstate plan, there are a couple of differences. But what was also included in Paterson's plan that received very little attention was $35 million for a "downstate revitalization fund" that was included in Paterson's upstate plan.

Why is that important? A year after Paterson announced his own plan for upstate, that $120 million that was supposed to be invested in upstate has been held up by Gov. Paterson. Instead of using it as a Regional Blueprint Fund, Paterson wants to combine it with the "downstate revitalization fund" and use those monies for projects all across the state. While all the money won't go to downstate, it all won't go to upstate either.

The five upstate Democratic senators - Sen. Neil Breslin, Sen. Darrel Aubertine, Sen. David Valesky, Sen. Bill Stachowski and Sen. Antoine Thompson - came together with Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith to write a letter to Governor Paterson calling on him to release these funds that were promised to upstate. You can read the letter here.

This is important and this won't be the last time you hear about this issue during the week. When last year's budget was announced, Governor Paterson took advantage of the $700 million he set aside for upstate and used it for his political gain. There were conference calls (which I took part in at the time) where Paterson touted this plan for upstate. In that plan was the Regional Blueprint Fund, which he said would be in the 2008-09 budget and in the 2009-10 budget.

But now, Paterson is trying to play games with the funds. That $120 million could go a long way for upstate New York. It could also help Paterson at a time when he is struggling throughout the state and in upstate New York.

Release the funds, Governor Paterson. Upstate needs them. This money was promised to upstate by you in last year's budget. Don't go back on your word.  

Three Men In A Room Reach Budget Deal

by: robert.harding

Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 20:38:40 PM EDT

Governor David Paterson announced tonight that a deal has been reached with Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. The deal includes several spending cuts, a tax hike on the wealthiest New Yorkers and reforms to Medicaid that are being touted as necessary changes to the system.

"Over the last year, New York faced a historic fiscal crisis that tested our resolve. But by working together cooperatively with our partners in the Legislature, we made the tough choices necessary to address that challenge through shared sacrifice and responsible budgeting," said Governor Paterson. "The agreement we are announcing today closes the largest deficit in State history, stabilizes our finances, and institutes critical reforms that will help eliminate waste and inefficiency in our government. We have produced a budget that provides a solid foundation to move forward and address the challenges ahead. We have accomplished this with a budget that holds government accountable to the people of New York, and protects those who can not protect themselves."

There are several items in the budget that were cut, but then restored thanks to funding from the federal stimulus package. Some of these items include funding for public schools, which would have been slashed $1.1 billion under the Deficit Reduction Plan. But in the budget, there will actually be a $405 million increase in aid - a modest increase, but better than the original cut that was proposed.

There will be $2.3 billion in cuts to health care in New York, which is a lower figure than the proposed $3.5 billion in cuts that Governor Paterson was aiming for in his Executive Budget. Among items in the health care portion of the budget are reforms to the Medicaid hospital reimbursement system.

Here are some of the other highlights (you can also read the full list below the fold):

- The budget will expand the bottle bill, albeit slightly. So far, all that is being expanded is bottled water. Based on the summary given, that doesn't seem to include drinks like Gatorade, which do not have deposits on them. Even with the inclusion of bottled water, the state is expected to gain $115 million with that move.

In addition, the state will retain 80 percent of unclaimed deposits. In the past, bottlers kept 100 percent of unclaimed deposits.

- One of the more talked about changes this year is the STAR rebate program. The budget will eliminate the STAR rebate program along with the enhanced New York City STAR tax credit, which is a $1.5 billion savings to the state.

However, the STAR exemption program and the New York City STAR credit will remain in tact and still provide $3.3 billion in property tax assistance to New York's taxpayers.

- It's not Fair Share Tax Reform, but it's a lot better than nothing. Overall, the budget will produce $5.3 billion in revenues from taxes and fees. Among those taxes and fees are two new tax levels that will produce $4 billion in revenue. This is how it breaks down:

- From 2009 to 2011, married couples filing jointly will pay the following rates:
      - Income over $300,000: 7.85 percent
      - Income over $500,000: 8.97 percent

Again, you can read the full summary below the fold.

The budget is far from perfect. A lot of what was cut in Governor Paterson's proposal was still slashed, but it was also saved by the economic stimulus package funding the state received. Still, there are plenty of individuals and groups in this state that will be in quite a bind, including schools. So while having an on-time budget is a feel-good story, the impact of this budget still will leave plenty of New Yorkers hurting.

Next Round Of Upstate Town Hall Meetings Announced

by: robert.harding

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:24:08 AM EST

The next town hall meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Niagara Falls Housing Authority's Doris W. Jones Family Resource Building, 3001 9th Street, Niagara Falls. The doors open at 4:30 p.m., so get there early to get a seat.

The following Wednesday, Governor Paterson will be in Rochester. That event will also begin at 5:30 p.m. with the doors opening at 4:30 p.m. The town hall will be held at the Rochester Riverside Convention Center's Lilac Ballroom, 123 East Main Street, Rochester.

On March 12, the day after the town hall in Rochester, Governor Paterson will hold his second student town hall meeting at SUNY Geneseo. That will take place on the campus of SUNY Geneseo inside the Wadsworth Auditorium. The doors open at 10 a.m. and the event starts at 11 a.m.

Governor Paterson acknowledged how important these town halls are for the public and for his own enrichment.

"During this economic crisis, we as citizens have the responsibility to work together towards achieving a brighter future for our State," said Governor Paterson. "These Town Hall meetings have provided New Yorkers with a forum to share thoughts, ideas and suggestions on ways we can improve the economic outlook for New York. I look forward to hearing directly from New York's residents and students as we work together to emerge from this crisis and place New York State on the road towards fiscal recovery."

If you are interested in attending, you can RSVP here. An RSVP is not required to attend. You can also submit your questions here.

I will be attending all three of those meetings, so if you are in the area of any of these, I'd gladly meet up with some fellow TAP community members for a coffee shop visit or dinner. Feel free to e-mail me at robert.harding22@gmail.com if you are interested.

Siena Poll: Support For Stimulus, Fair Share Tax Reform Up; Paterson Down

by: robert.harding

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:31:11 PM EST

Siena College has released their latest poll that finds Governor Paterson to have a 40 percent favorable rating among respondents. His unfavorable rating is at 47 percent. And what's worse, only 19 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for Paterson in 2010.

In fact, if a Democratic primary for governor were held today, Paterson would be crushed by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo leads 53 percent to 27 percent over Paterson. And if Paterson were to face Republican Rudy Giuliani in the general election, Giuliani would win 51 percent to 36 percent.

Also, the people of New York support raising taxes on those making $250,000 and those making more than $1 million per year. Of those surveyed, 59 percent say they support an tax increase on those making $250,000 and 77 percent support a tax increase on those making more than a million dollars per year.

And in direct opposition to Paterson's policies, 72 percent of respondents said that they oppose the budget cuts proposed by Paterson.

Steve Greenberg probably summed up these poll results best:

"David Paterson has reached a low water mark with voters since becoming Governor," said Steven Greenberg, spokesman for the Siena New York Poll. "Between the Senate appointment process, which is still the focus of negative reports one month later, and the attacks being waged across the media by those opposed to his budget proposals, the Governor is tumbling in the polls from record highs three months ago to new record lows."

It begs the question: Is Paterson paying attention to what New Yorkers want? Does he pay attention to these polls? Is he interested in doing what is in the best interest of New Yorkers?

You can make the argument that there is a direct correlation between Paterson's approval rating and his opposition to Fair Share Tax Reform, a millionaires tax and his support for budget cuts. Most New Yorkers support FSTR and oppose budget cuts. Paterson is the opposite. Therefore, Paterson's favorable rating is 40 percent. Is that a surprise? Definitely not.

Dan Cantor, Executive Director of the Working Families Party, puts everything in perspective with this statement:

"We've said it from the beginning: New Yorkers don't want to see the Empire State go back on its commitments to our school children, the sick, the elderly and the disabled.

Faced with an enormous budget gap brought about by the global economic downturn, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers believe that instead of deep cuts, we should ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay a little more in taxes. But don't take our word for it.

A new poll released today by the Siena Research Institute is the most in-depth public poll to date measuring the attitudes of New Yorkers to the Governor's budget plan. The verdict: a resounding rejection of his cuts, and a clear call for real shared sacrifice along the lines of the Working Families Party's Fair Share Tax Reform proposal. Hopefully Albany is listening."

Governor Paterson, you might want to listen to the people of New York. If you do, I guarantee you this: You will win a primary in 2010 and you will be New York's governor for four more years. If you don't, you won't even make it out of the primary.

NY-Gov: O'Byrne To Return As Unpaid Political Advisor To Governor Paterson

by: robert.harding

Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 08:09:31 AM EST

But now, O'Byrne will be making a comeback. This time though, the New York Times reports, he will be returning as an unpaid political advisor to Paterson for his re-election bid next year.

Mr. O'Byrne's new role will be as an outside unpaid political adviser, a spokeswoman for Mr. Paterson's office said, a setup that will allow Mr. O'Byrne to continue to work on behalf of private clients as a consultant.

Mr. O'Byrne's duties were still being defined, the spokeswoman said. He is expected to have responsibility in helping to run Mr. Paterson's political operations and to work in a significant way with the governor's senior staff in the Capitol.

"The governor will have a reinvigorated operation led by O'Byrne that will focus on the re-election," said one person with direct knowledge of the governor's plans. "That's where they decided to deploy him, and he'll provide guidance to the new internal team about what works for the governor."

Governor Paterson has been criticized recently for his lack of a political operation. Critics say that if Paterson was seeking to run for re-election, it sure didn't look like it.

But with O'Byrne, Paterson gets someone he can trust and someone who will be a strong asset going forward.  

Governor Paterson: Follow President Obama's Lead And Let In Sunlight

by: robert.harding

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:06:54 PM EST

That is why what Phillip reported earlier this morning is, as Blair Horner of NYPIRG said, "mind boggling."

It has been nearly a month since Governor David Paterson selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The process was, after Gillibrand's selection, over. Yet, Governor Paterson and his office refuse to turn over information regarding that process, which includes questionnaires and responses from prospective candidates for the post.

Multiple media outlets have tried to submit Freedom of Information requests with the office only to be stonewalled and told that the information won't be released to protect the personal privacy of the candidates.

When President Barack Obama officially took office, he sent this memo to heads of executive departments and agencies. In that memo, he said the following: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

With Governor Paterson and his office refusing to reveal such information, he is going against what the President (and our party's leader) is doing in the highest office of the land. Also, the governor and his office aren't helping the reputation of this state's government, which has notoriously lacked transparency over the years.

It is also interesting to note that if the governor's office is withholding the information in order to protect the personal privacy of the candidates, why did Sen. Gillibrand decide to disclose her own questionnaire and responses? She did redact the personal information (Social Security Number, home addresses, etc.) but left all of the questions and responses there for everyone to see.

Of course, Gillibrand has a long record of being open and honest with her constituents. She is, after all, one of the few members of Congress that posts her schedule online. She is arguably one of the most transparent members of Congress there is.

If you want to protect personal privacy, you can redact all of the information deemed personal. We do not need Social Security Numbers. We don't need home or cell phone numbers. We don't need home addresses. All we want to see is the list of candidates, the questions they were asked and the responses provided to those questions.

It is time Albany let the sunlight in. But we need leaders who are willing to be open and transparent. In order for that to happen, there needs to be someone in the Executive Mansion who is willing to step up to the plate and open the doors on his or her administration. That means Governor Paterson should be willing to be open and transparent. If he leads by that example, maybe then we will see Albany a little more open and a little more transparent. But right now, that is not the case.

Governor Paterson, it is time to be forthright with the people of New York. Release the information and let us see the contenders. Let us see our answers. If Sen. Gillibrand believed that the information provided was valuable enough to post on her campaign website, then it should be in the best interests of this state and your administration to release the responses from all the candidates who contended for this post.

And going forward, let's be a little more open and honest with the business that is being conducted in this state.

Paterson And Schumer Discuss New York's Cut Of Stimulus Package

by: robert.harding

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 19:00:07 PM EST

The final version of the package comes in at $789 billion, which is less than the bills that passed both houses of Congress over the past week.

According to Sen. Schumer, New York will get a healthy cut of the package. The state will receive $12.6 billion in Medicaid funding spread out over the next nine quarters. Of those monies, $8.6 billion will go to the state, $2.8 billion will go to New York City, $929 million will go to the upstate counties and $292 million will go to Long Island. The Medicaid relief will go directly to the localities so they will see immediate benefits.

Usually, the federal government pays a percentage of the state's Medicaid costs. In New York's case, that percentage is 50 percent. But under the stimulus package, that percentage is closer to 60 percent. That means the state will have to put less money into Medicaid.

New York will also receive $2.7 billion in education funding, although this money is considered a "stabilization fund" and will be used to make up for cuts already made to education programs. There is no money for school construction in the bill, which was something included in the House package but taken out in the Senate deal. But there is $800 million for special education funding.

Schumer said that the Senate will start debating this package tonight and could vote on it as early as midnight. He did warn, however, that if a senator chooses to place a hold on the package, they won't be able to act on the bill for 36 hours. So at the latest, it won't be voted on until the weekend. Schumer added though that he didn't see anyone placing a hold on the bill.

So how good is this package? It's not perfect, Schumer argued. But it's good enough.

"We couldn't let the perfect get in the way of the very good," Schumer said.

Schumer complimented and thanked Governor Paterson for his role in lobbying senators and being a proponent of the package. Paterson reminded the media during the call that the state faces tough fiscal times ahead and that this bill doesn't mean we can sit back and relax.

"We have not found the bottom of the floor of the deficit," Paterson said, warning that there will still be cuts and there still will be action taken to address the state's growing deficit.

New York got a bigger piece of the pie than expected. There are a lot of benefits here. I'm awaiting the final summary of New York's part of the package. I should have that later.

New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes Starts Fight Against Beverage Tax

by: robert.harding

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 17:08:52 PM EST

This tax has led to some opposition, including 64 percent of respondents in a Quinnipiac poll that asked if New Yorkers supported or opposed the obesity tax.

Now, New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes has unveiled a website, NoBeverageTax.com, to provide a base for the fight against the obesity tax.

A coalition of concerned New Yorkers today announced the formation of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, the primary aim of which will be to defeat Albany's proposed 18 percent tax hike on juice drinks and soda.

Nelson Eusebio, the Chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, said, "We've come together - hardworking individuals, struggling families, and already burdened small businesses - to prevent the enactment of this unfair and misdirected tax that could cost our state over 6,000 jobs."  

"Our coalition understands that New Yorkers are already among the highest taxed people in the country. And we won't sit idly by while Albany tries to hit us with another 18 percent tax on beverages that New York families drink every day.  This is a regressive tax that disproportionately targets middle and lower income New Yorkers and we won't be fooled by Albany trying to control our lifestyle by policing what we eat and drink," Mr. Eusebio said.  

This 18 percent tax will be in addition to the sales tax consumers already pay as well as the extra deposit cost. All of the new and expanded proposed taxes together that Governor Paterson is proposing, including this new beverage tax, will add nearly $4000 to the annual expenses of an average New York family and could lead to the loss of 1-in-10 jobs in New York. (Source: The New York Assembly Ways and Means Committee Staff.)

Mr. Eusebio is issuing a call to all New Yorkers to reject the taxes on juices and other beverages New Yorkers enjoy every day.  

"In an economy like this, the last thing government should be doing is raising taxes. I have seen firsthand small supermarkets and neighborhood bodegas are boarding up their doors at an alarming rate. It's not fair to place the extra burden on us, and it's the wrong solution to our State's budget troubles," Mr. Eusebio said.

New Yorkers can join the coalition's fight at www.nobeveragetax.com in order to declare their support, sign the petition, and make their opposition known to the Governor and their State Representatives.

The principle of the obesity tax is a good one. We should encourage people to consume healthier beverages than soda and drinks that don't contain juice. But the principle of the tax isn't why this tax will be imposed. This tax will be imposed to help the state erase its deficit.

While this might be being touted as a health measure, it really is a budget measure. It is being done to help the state make some money.

You can sign the petition here. You can also check out the group's Facebook page for more information.

Governor Paterson On Signing Of SCHIP Bill Into Law

by: robert.harding

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 17:30:22 PM EST

In response to President Obama signing the SCHIP expansion into law, Governor David Paterson issued this statement:

"Today we celebrate a huge step forward in our efforts in New York State and across this nation to ensure that all children get the opportunity to grow up healthy. I applaud President Obama and Congress for working quickly to achieve consensus on bipartisan legislation reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I also want to thank the members of the New York Congressional Delegation for working so diligently to ensure that the bill meets the needs of New York's uninsured children.

"Nothing is more important than the health of our children. That is why, in 2008, my administration worked with the State Legislature to ensure that all of New York's uninsured children would be eligible for low-cost or moderate health care coverage by increasing the income eligibility threshold for Child Health Plus from 250 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. We took these important steps to protect our children, fully covering the federal funding share of the expansion after President Bush twice vetoed federal legislation that would have provided increased financial support for Child Health Plus. These actions ensured that nearly every one of the 400,000 uninsured children in New York State have access to health insurance.

"The Child Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 is a good bill for children and for New York. New York will be able to obtain federal funding for our expansion to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($70,000 for a family of three). This bill creates incentives for enrolling the lowest income children, provides stable funding for state SCHIP programs at a time when New York and other states are facing historic fiscal challenges, and will also help the State continue to cover our most vulnerable children - like those losing coverage because their parents have lost their job or those who live in low-income families.

"New York State stands ready to utilize this legislation to cover our children. As of January, Child Health Plus, the State's SCHIP program, covered 375,000 children statewide. Since the expansion to 400 percent of the federal poverty level in September, an additional 10,000 children have been enrolled. Two-thirds of these newly enrolled children are in families with incomes between 250-300 percent of the poverty level ($44,000-$52,000 for a family of three), the fastest growing segment of uninsured children.

"New York also focused on reducing barriers to enrollment to make it easier for families to get and keep their coverage, as well as increased outreach to spread the word about the availability of affordable health insurance for all uninsured children. This legislation provides additional funds for states like New York that have been national leaders on the issues of health care outreach and enrollment."

This is a great day all around the country. The SCHIP with a Bush White House was a tough one. Now with a president who has health care on his mind, it is great to see SCHIP expanded.  

Governor Paterson: Millionaires Tax... Now

by: robert.harding

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:46:04 AM EST

Last year, Governor David Paterson (along with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and then-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno) received a letter from renowned Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. I have mentioned this letter in past writings about the millionaires tax and I have repeatedly stressed the importance of this letter.

In that letter, Stiglitz criticized the Bush tax cuts (tax cuts that helped the wealthiest Americans) by saying that "the tax cut didn't stimulate the economy much." But Stiglitz also had a clear message for New York's leaders: "When faced with such an unpleasant choice (raising taxes or cutting expenditures), economic theory and evidence gives a clear and unambiguous answer: it is economically preferable to raise taxes on those with high incomes than to cut state expenditures."

Yesterday, Phillip wrote a terrific post on this issue as it relates to Governor Paterson's thoughts on the millionaires tax. When asked about a millionaires tax, Paterson said the following: "What I'm saying is if you tax the rich right now, while the economy is disintegrating, you're going to lose jobs and you're also going to lose from the tax base as people leave the state."

That is an interesting quote. It is interesting because in that very letter from Stiglitz, the myth about rich people leaving if you raise taxes on them was debunked. In fact, it is worth quoting Stiglitz in full on this one:

Critics picture a mass exodus of the rich from New York, forgetting the wonderful advantages that our state provides-benefits that might, in fact, be compromised if we have to cut back expenditures. Under the proposed increase of less than one percent in the top income tax rate, less than one percent of New York taxpayers would pay more. It is hard to imagine that many people would be prompted to pack up and leave New York because of that. After all, whether you look at the last five, 10 or 25 years, top earners in New York have fared extremely well at a time when the average family has seen modest income gains at best. In fact, who can point to an exodus in the wake of the similar high-end state (and New York City) income tax hike that was in place from 2003 to 2005? It didn't happen then and New York appears to be as attractive as ever.

That paragraph alone should make the choice clear: New York needs a millionaires tax, not cuts that will affect millions of New Yorkers and leave many programs underfunded.

Stiglitz also said that a high-end income tax hike is "economically preferable to raising fees like the auto insurance surcharge since the burden of the latter will fall partly on those with modest incomes who are more likely to spend a higher percentage of their incomes than those higher up the income ladder." Thus, all of those increased fees and taxes that Governor Paterson proposed in his Executive Budget is the wrong approach as well.

Governor Paterson, a world-renowned economist made serious recommendations to you and he said that you should go with a millionaires tax, not cuts in expenditures. A recent Siena poll found that 65 percent supported a personal income tax increase. If it is okay for an economist and accepted by two-thirds of New Yorkers, why isn't it okay for you, Governor Paterson?

We need shared sacrifice. Governor Paterson, you are making budget cuts on the backs of everyday New Yorkers. You are telling us that we should pay more for our soda, our beer, our trips to the movies and our music downloads. When are you going to tell the millionaires of New York to pay their fair share? When are you going to show that, in these tough economic times, the sacrifice is truly shared among those with lower incomes and those who are the wealthiest New Yorkers?

It is time for shared sacrifice. It is time for a millionaires tax. It is not time for more damage to be done to New York's lower and middle class citizens. We are broke. We cannot take anymore. We have been covering the wealthy long enough. It is time that they start contributing their fair share.

Paterson/Kennedy = Spitzer/Bruno?

by: robert.harding

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:56:33 AM EST

But in a New York Times piece today, Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim compare Spitzer/Bruno to the Governor David Paterson/Caroline Kennedy saga.

An administration leaks damaging information about a political figure. The leak is denounced by the governor, who says that he had nothing to do with it.

This is what happened during the tenure of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose aides disseminated information about state-financed travel in 2007 by Joseph L. Bruno, then the Senate majority leader. This led to condemnation of Mr. Spitzer, the resignations of some of those aides, and charges that some of the aides had violated the Public Officers Law, which sets standards for state officials' conduct.

It is also the story of what happened nearly two weeks ago after Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat.

A review of public comments and interviews with more than a dozen people involved in the process make clear that Gov. David A. Paterson's administration released confidential information about Ms. Kennedy and misled reporters about its significance as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit her after she withdrew. But the governor is unlikely to face the legal scrutiny or numerous investigations that Mr. Spitzer did, even though he has acknowledged that the information about Ms. Kennedy should not have been released.

The article goes on to highlight the Paterson/Kennedy controversy, which included a few claims involving Kennedy's personal life from long ago.

One of the administration's central claims to reporters was that Ms. Kennedy had, in the words of a person close to the governor, "a definite tax issue" and "a nanny problem" that "she didn't want to become public."

But that story was inaccurate. The governor and his aides now acknowledge that those issues - a tax lien of a few hundred dollars in 1994, and a lapsed visa for a foreign nanny who worked for Ms. Kennedy during the late 1980s - had been resolved years earlier and were never considered disqualifying during the vetting process.

I don't think Paterson/Kennedy compares to Spitzer/Bruno. But I do think that the Paterson/Kennedy saga has been damaging to Paterson. Smearing Caroline Kennedy was the worst thing that he and his administration could do. Whether she was qualified to become a U.S. senator or not we could have debated for a long time. But smearing her like the Paterson administration did was wrong on many levels.