A Tale of Two Governors (and Occupy)

by: simonstl

Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 09:16:17 AM EST

Last night the Legislature and the Governor, in classic three-men-in-a-room fashion, passed a new tax bill complete with a unanimous Senate vote while the pages were still warm and no one had time to read them. You can see the resulting tax brackets here.

It's not precisely the "millionaire's tax" but it's also very different from the pre-2009 rates. Whether taxes on the rich have gone up or down depends on where you start counting from, giving the Murdoch papers and their friends room to complain about tax hikes while everyone else considers it a tax cut.

What's interesting to me, beyond the rates, is the rhetoric. Governor Cuomo made his old friend Fred Dicker very upset, and suddenly started talking about "fairness" a lot.

Might this change have something to do with calls for fairness and a shift away from the "inequality is good for you" models of the past coming from the Occupy movement, including the folks he doesn't want on his doorstep in Albany?

He said the Occupation protests had nothing to do with his change of heart.

"My job as governor is to make the best decisions I can at the time to meet the needs of the state at the time," Cuomo said. "The role of government is to try and help the people of the state, bring a direction for the circumstances of the moment."

Maybe. Meanwhile, one of his predecessors, a ghost I'm less than happy to invoke on this site, is telling a different story:

"Occupy Wall Street has won, not that they achieved changes in policy, but I think that they have had a demonstrable effect on political discourse: What we are talking about, and what the agenda is most like these days," Spitzer said.

Spitzer added that he believed that, before Occupy Wall Street, nobody was paying attention to equity issues, the distribution of income and the inherent unfairness of the current economic structure.

Somehow I think protesting had an impact on the political conversation, even as it makes the very serious people nervous. The Three Men in a Room seem to have noticed that the conversation around them is changing, even if they haven't changed much.

Update: Apparently Cuomo's ex-wife agrees.

"...and then I destroyed it" STFU, Eliot!

by: robinia

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:55:10 AM EST

So, there is a whirlwind of bad behavior among Albany pols, most but not all of them Democrats.  Any reasonable progressive would be focusing intently on two things: 1) HOW do we clean house? (check here for an answer on that). 2) HOW do we limit damage to the Democratic brand, to avoid a reflexive turn to voting Republican?  Hey, if it can happen in Massachusetts, it can happen here.  If you think all this is not encouraging throwing the baby (you and me, bub) out with the foul sewer-like bathwater, you're dreaming.

So, what is surely not helpful during this difficult time is public retrospection and fulminating on his fall by Eliot Spitzer.  Eliot, do not give interviews where you talk about your sex life to Time Magazine.  Do not make it possible for The NY Post to publish articles headlined "Eliot Spitzer: Why I liked ho's" (sic).  Do not opine--

"How do you think I feel?" he said, eyes misting. "At one point, I stood for something that was important and useful.

"I was in a place in time where I had a purpose, where it mattered. And then I destroyed it."

Eliot, STFU.  How you feel is not something to be considered by the public now. You have a new role, let me spell it out for you: say nothing, just collect your investment income, and send money to others who don't stain the cloth of our political system every time they open their mouth.

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.

Spitzer Says "Senate Bedlam Will Be Good For NY"

by: robinia

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 20:41:15 PM EDT

The Circus Comes to Albany

Albany's secretive, authoritarian political culture meant that individual legislators rarely if ever even attempted to exercise the traditional prerogatives that we expect of congressional legislators: voicing serious dissent, pushing an individual legislative agenda, conducting open hearings on contentious issues of public policy.

Deliberating and deciding policy is about "exercising prerogatives," eh?  Albany does indeed have a secretive and authoritarian political culture, and this coup was an acting-out of secretive, authoritarian drama.  As were, turns out, a few of Eliot's adventures, with the legislature and also with, ah..., other(s).

Thanks for your opinions, Eliot, but, maybe, just maybe, reform has to come from the people, not the, um, secretive and authoritarian leaders.

Am not sure I would believe something was good for me just 'cuz you say so.

Two Steps Forward, One Tug Back....

by: robinia

Tue May 19, 2009 at 17:18:38 PM EDT

In other words, a small but significant part of our legislature is, ya know, actually acting like a legislature.

That, and despite last night's unseasonable frost, Hell has actually NOT frozen over.

Another milestone of sorts was marked this week, at least I think it was, when Governor Paterson admitted this, in connection with the bizarre and ongoing soap-opera about the ever-morphing Albany ethics watchdog org:

"The commission has been compromised and its public standing is in question," Paterson said. "The sad reality is that this issue is much larger than the Public Integrity Commission. The general perception is that the ethics process in Albany is broken, and I believe it is."

If admitting its broke is the first step to fixing it, well, I'll celebrate.

But, the whole ethics issue is a can of the wriggliest worms you ever did see.  And, I gotta say, the behavior of a certain Eliot Spitzer around this issue would have to seem the wormiest, most unsavory of the lot.  This guy has seriously got to go do some community service time in a soup kitchen, and work on his anger and attitude problems with a counselor, before he goes back out in public again.  He's embarrassing.

If you want to puzzle this Public Integrity Commission thing out yourself, the IG posted everybody's testimony.

Spitzer Mans Up and Returns Campaign Contributions-- What Will Bruno Do?

by: robinia

Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EDT

In the category of "he's finally doing what I tell him to" (could have benefitted by catching on to that earlier, though), Eliot Spitzer is not going to use his no-longer-needed-for-campaigning campaign funds for personal expenses on the thin but legal fiction that he might one day run for some office.  More than 1.5 million dollars will be or has already been returned to donors.

Now, Bruno has about the same amount of money last I looked (ok, you geeks!  fill in the precise numbers for me in comments).  What is he doing as he "rides off into the sunset"?  OH, how, well, very Bruno of him!  He is giving six million dollars of our tax money to Saratoga Springs, and NONE of his "own"!  Take my nifty "What should Bruno do with his campaign warchest" poll on the flip!

What a year!

by: simonstl

Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:29:45 PM EDT

Every once in a long while, State Senator George Winner is right: it's been a crazy year.

"If anybody had correctly predicted what would happen in the last 12 months and wrote it down, they would have been committed," said Senator George H. Winner Jr., a Republican from Elmira.

Even my Upstate 2050 (and more recent Legislature 2020) pieces didn't have room for anything like this year in the forecast.

Where does the turmoil leave our state? The hopes of ending "three men in a room"? Our political institutions? Our voters' willingness to take state politics seriously?

It's a warm Saturday afternoon. Share your ideas!

Spitzer responds to difficulties with yet more narcisism and groupthink

by: robinia

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM EDT

Spitzer & Co. have acted this way in the face of adversity before-- circling the wagons when times got tough, rather than opening up to input and productive dialogue. I wrote here about that problem last August; and here is the same problem today.  It is, I think, continuing to lose us ground.

Resignation coming Wednesday

by: robinia

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 22:24:18 PM EDT

I feel so... used.  Maybe he could give me the money we paid him for "working" today.

http://timesunion.com/AspStori...

State trooper internal investigation into Spitzer matter

by: NYCO

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:35:59 PM EDT

This another illustration of why this matter is disturbing to the stable operation of New York's government: the gray area involving New York state troopers, assigned to protect the governor, who could be put in the difficult situation of possibly having to remain silent about any illegal activities he might have been involved with - either that, or being forced or enticed to leave him alone and be less able to perform their duty of protecting him (which appears to be more likely).

You cannot shadow a sitting governor 24 hours a day; that's not possible.  And that is why the governor's tendencies of personal behavior (vis a vis possible illegal activity) is, in my view, more than just a "personal matter."  It is arguably a matter of state.

Governor David A. Paterson

by: NYCO

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:03:46 PM EDT

But if Spitzer did resign, that's the name you'd be seeing for the next three years.

What do you think?  Would this represent a trade-up, or at least a good deal, in your view, considering Spitzer's strengths, weaknesses and current serious problems?  What would it mean for efforts to take the state senate?  How would upstate New Yorkers feel?  How would Republicans and independents react?  Would the Three Men in a Room be any different?

Indulge in a thought experiment, if you will.

"Yes, we can" in New York?

by: simonstl

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:01:30 AM EDT

I'm starting to feel optimistic, for the first time in a very long time, about New York State politics. It's frightening to be feeling optimistic, maybe echoing my feelings every time I cheer for the Buffalo Bills in the Superbowl - but I see good reason for it.

My title probably has some Clintonistas worried, and a lot of people mumbling "but Obama lost here." I'm not actually that concerned about the Presidential race, though, but rather something that's feeding into it and feeding on it.

I had lunch Sunday with a friend who was a precinct captain for Obama in Texas. He talked about the thrill of seeing lines out the door of people who'd come together for a caucus to vote. Caucuses, though they have downsides, have the bonus that the people involved actually get to see each other, talk with each other, and maybe even get to know each other. There's a sense of coming together that's hard to achieve when voters jump into a shrouded booth and then come out again, their position a secret. It wasn't just the Obama folks who got to enjoy the spectacle, though - the party regulars, the people who'd kept the system running even when voters weren't that excited, got to see what energized voters can look like.

Mixed signs (in Austin, TX).

This year's race has people talking, even here in New York, where Hillary Clinton was the obvious favorite and we all vote quietly and privately. I'm kind of wishing, in contrast to my earlier writing, that New York had voted later, but the conversations I'm hearing haven't shown any sign of stopping.

And what's in those conversations? Yes, some sniping about which candidate is better, but also a sense that, whatever his other failings or merits, Barack Obama is getting one thing right: we need to talk about what "we" can do, not only about what "they," the candidates, can do.

I've recently seen Dryden residents come together and build a new community center cafe, in a diner that was an icon of Upstate gloom in Spitzer's very first campaign commercial.

New signs (in Dryden, NY).

There's a line in that Spitzer commercial worth re-thinking, contrasting with the action that citizens took on themselves to make that diner a sign of hope:

For every New Yorker who's been ignored, left out, who's been told, 'you can't fight City Hall,' so many times they've come to believe it. For every New Yorker without a voice, listen: there's one strong enough for all of us.

[text: Spitzer for Governor]

Spitzer: "I represent the people of the State of New York."

The message here was representation by a strong leader, not voters coming together to make change themselves, and that's proven to be a problematic solution to the problems we face here.

However, I look at our most recent cause for Democrats to celebrate in New York, and I see an ad where voters are running for State Senate, where the claim for the candidate is that "because Darrel Aubertine is running for State Senate, we all are."

That's not quite "Yes, We Can", but it's not that far away. (And yes, some of his ads were more conventional.)

I suspect that pretty much all of New York's elected leadership would prefer to lead. "Yes, We Can" is more than just a friendly claim, a slogan for a single campaign - it's a threat to the folks who depend on voters paying minimal attention to what's going on and having minimal hope that they can do something to change it. It's also a wakeup call to "every New Yorker who's been ignored, left out, who's been told, 'you can't fight City Hall,' so many times they've come to believe it."

Whatever happens in the national election, I see new energy and a different attitude rising to the surface among our citizens. Is it enough to melt the Albany iceberg? That's still difficult, no question, but reminding voters that their voices and their actions matter is a huge first step toward helping ourselves out of these snarls.

Skirting and spiraling

by: simonstl

Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:45:02 AM EST

Things seem to keep changing back, with Governor Spitzer kind of mostly sticking to the letter of his reform but showing less and less interest in the spirit.

Today's Times has an article on the Governer as a kind of bundler, sending donations beyond the $10,000 he'll accept over to the State Democratic Committee, which has no such compunction, and whose spending he helps direct.

Along the way, we get to hear from various Democrats about how it's all the Senate's fault, and about the perils of unilateral disarmament, and, well, basically the same litany of excuses that everyone in Albany seems to use when they want to claim the mantle of reformer without doing much actual reform.

Reform, painful though it may sound, means giving up certain kinds of power, not building up an arsenal. It means making it easier for the voters to speak, not making it easier for your party to blast away its enemies.

As long as reformers keep playing the same power game, we're going to spiral, always thinking that this next bit of power will be the one we need to actually implement the reforms we've promised, that if we can just get past this next curve...

Joe Bruno needs to go - there's no denying that. But this kind of skirting just hands the proud opponent of reform more ammunition, and lowers the odds that Democrats will actually be the reformers some of us have promised to be.

Falling back (into the arms of lobbyists?)

by: simonstl

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST

It looks like we really do need to consider whether Day One's changes stuck:

After pledging to loosen the grip lobbyists have on the state Capitol, Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Tuesday defended a fundraiser next month being held for his 2010 re-election campaign by a top Albany lobbying firm.

Patricia Lynch and Associates, which last year was ranked as the third largest lobbyist in the state, is holding a $1,000 per-person fundraiser for Spitzer on March 7 at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. David Paterson said he would refrain from future fundraisers in Albany during the legislative session after the New York Daily News reported an event for Paterson was held over the weekend - potentially violating new campaign-finance standards put forth by Spitzer and Paterson....

"While the governor is playing within the state's lax rules, there's a widening gap between his rhetoric of change and the reality of his governing," said Russ Haven, counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Inevitable, or simply bad judgment?

Update: This doesn't smell great either.

Republicans Don't Understand the "Crack Tax" (or Are The Republicans That Stupid??)

by: nassaupolitics

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 22:05:51 PM EST

Spitzer nails Bush on predatory lending

by: devtob

Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 20:40:58 PM EST

There was appraisal fraud, Wall Street fraud, and, for millions of homeowners facing economic devastation, predatory lending fraud.

Eliot Spitzer has an op-ed in the Washington Post today that convincingly argues that Bush protected predatory lenders against state-level regulation that would have lessened the economic catastrophe ahead.

How Spitzer nailed Bush, below.  

Paging Senator Adams... your raise is on the way!

by: simonstl

Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 22:53:07 PM EST

It looks like Senator Adams may get what he asked for - as calls to "show me the money" get probable results.

Not that it was Senator Adams' plea for more cash that changed things:

In the interview, Mr. Silver declined to give details of his conversations with the governor or the Assembly members, but he did say he and the governor had discussed a bill that would raise salaries for lawmakers and state commissioners as well as judges.

"The governor has his own interests, commissioners basically, and we will do a comprehensive pay bill," the speaker said. "He has trouble attracting people, and he's promised people raises. So I said I believe before too long he would send us a comprehensive bill. We've had a lot of discussions."

There is, alas, no mention of legislators accomplishing 24% more, doing 24% less outside work, or cleaning up their way of doing business by 24% in return for around a 24% raise - let's see, that's $98,580.

Not bad for a part-time job, really. (Especially in a year when it looks like the state's going to have a hard time collecting revenue, but who'll notice?)

Why Spitzer should stop foreclosures right now

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 16:00:42 PM EST

In their oped, "State needs to halt home foreclosures" they advise Gov. Spitzer to enact a moratorium on foreclosures right away and also implement Minnesota-style mortgage reforms.

The oped makes strong policy AND political arguments for this course of action.

With President Bush's anemic proposal to assist homeowners meeting with lukewarm responses, the table is set for Spitzer to send a bold message that New York is capable of leading the nation in addressing one of the most pressing issues of our time. There is already a growing movement within the state Senate's Democratic Conference to propose a six-month foreclosures moratorium. By ensuring the passage of such legislation, Spitzer could regain lost allies and start to build the kind of broad-based coalition necessary to move legislation on other pressing issues affecting working families such as affordable healthcare.

Since we know that Spitzer is reading up on biographies, we're sure he knows about what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in similar circumstances to protect the interests of ordinary citizens in the face of economic meltdown and corporate greed.

Day 358: Everything changes back?

by: simonstl

Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:07:51 AM EST

I was already disappointed in Spitzer's making nice with the Assembly, but now the New York Times has given me an unwelcome Christmas Eve gift: Searching for Friends, Spitzer Warms to Lobbyists.

Earlier this year, aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer began planning a lavish December fund-raiser on Manhattan's West Side, hoping to cap Mr. Spitzer's bruising first year in office with a show of political support and financial strength. To drum up contributions, they made an aggressive pitch to a group that Mr. Spitzer is not usually associated with: the state's top lobbyists.

Almost 40 lobbyists and trade association officials eventually served among the 200 or so fund-raiser "bundlers," who collected $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000 each from among friends or clients....

"I may have gotten six different e-mails on that fund-raiser," said one lobbyist, who works for a firm that does business in Albany and New York City, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to endanger his relationship with the administration. The lobbyist said he and others had been solicited repeatedly before and after the fund-raiser, which was held Dec. 3 at a Manhattan party space. "We're all being solicited to bundle contributions."

There are few better illustrations of the sometimes awkward accommodation that Mr. Spitzer has reached over the last year with Albany's thriving influence industry, a group that he publicly prefers to cast as the stubborn stewards of Albany's old political culture, in which money buys access and favor....

Mr. Spitzer declined a request for an interview. But his aides said the administration never intended to erect an impermeable barrier between officials and lobbyists. What the governor wanted from Day 1, they said, was an atmosphere in which any activists or lobbyists would be welcome to present their arguments without regard to their party affiliation, personal connections or financial generosity....

The article, of course, goes on to say that it's still an improvement over Pataki's universe, even if it seems like a major shift for Spitzer, and has the obligatory lobbyist "we're so proud of the governor's recognition of Albany reality" quote:

"You can reform things in ways that are valuable and helpful, but there is a huge wealth of information out there that some folks were in danger of cutting themselves off from because of the caricaturing of the lobbyists," said Ryan S. Karben, a former Democratic assemblyman and fund-raiser for the governor who recently joined a lobbying firm. "You need that information to make the dramatic changes the governor was elected to achieve.

I'm sure the lobbyists here are thrilled, but it's pretty clear to me that the days of hope for a governor substantially changing Albany's bizarrely broken political culture by himself are over.

Or, at least (fiction alert), over for a long time to come.

Spitzer Sending William Mulrow to Finance Senate Takeover

by: Roatti

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 00:31:40 AM EST

Mr. Mulrow ran for comptroller in the Democratic primary in 2002, and earlier this year was among the finalists to replace the victor in that race, Alan G. Hevesi, after Mr. Hevesi resigned. Spitzer aides believe that his seniority, sizable Rolodex and range of experience would help the campaign bridge the different camps within the Democratic Party in New York.

Mr. Spitzer does not face re-election until 2011. But the governor will be closely involved in efforts by Democrats next year to take control of the State Senate, where Republicans currently hold a two-seat majority.

I'm not generally the biggest fan of having big money-men bankroll political parties.  But as long as Bruno continues to stonewall campaign finance reform, I say let him now sleep in the bed he has made.