The Creeping Danger of Losing the Mantle of Reform

by: BingChester

Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 11:13:34 AM EST

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  

Why Did the Court of Appeals Find for Paterson?

by: BingChester

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 13:36:15 PM EDT

If you're interested in getting a detailed description of the majority's holding, feel free to follow me over the fold.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Marcellino (SD-5) willing to cut school aid

by: nassaupolitics

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 16:48:56 PM EDT

The battle for control of the State Senate dove-tails with the current and looming fiscal crisis for the state. A special session has been planned for after the election to address the budget short-fall for the rest of 2008 and going forward into 2009 and 2010. With the market collapse and failures of banks, New York State is in for a wild ride. $2billion or more must be cut from the 2008 budget.
These cuts are more political than ever because of the election.

Republican Senators Vote for Less School Aid

by: nassaupolitics

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 14:34:03 PM EST

Well, you would be wrong.