David Sirota has become something of an expert when it comes to the Working Families Party and the impact the "minor" party has on politics in New York (both in the city and state). He dedicated a chapter in his most recent book, The Uprising, to the WFP and how fusion voting impacts politics in New York.
According to the New York Times, the most recent election proves that the Working Families Party "is now the pre-eminent political force in New York City politics." The WFP has achieved this status not through the usual celebritized/glamorized channels of big money television ads and endorsements, but through old-fashioned grassroots work that too much of the much-ballyhooed Washinton-based progressive "infrastructure" ignores/laughs at. The result is that not only have they built power, but they've built durable power - and that scares the bejesus out of both major parties in the Empire State.
As I showed in my latest book, conservatives, led by Rudy Giuliani, have long vilified the WFP. But a few has-been washouts in the old Democratic machine are freaking out as well. What's so hilarious, of course, is that because these washouts are so overcome with rage, they've forgotten some of the most basic lessons of Economics 101. Specifically, check out this op-ed by former New York Mayor Ed Koch (who endorsed George W. Bush) and former city comptroller candidate David Yassky (whose candidacy just got crushed by the WFP's candidate) using McCarthyist "threat" language - and more specifically, check out the crux of their argument about why the WFP is supposedly a "threat":
"We see danger when narrow agendas overwhelm the public good. That happened this spring in Albany, when the WFP masterminded a whopping 9% increase in state spending in a year when the state's economy is actually contracting."
The danger? Really? I mean...really? Are you out of your friggin' mind?
Sirota concludes his piece by giving this summary of what the attacks on the WFP mean:
Indeed, being attacked - and in particular, being attacked so dishonestly and spastically in such hysterically McCarthyist terms - is the tell tale sign that something has built the kind of genuine power that is feared by the status quo. That's what the WFP has done - and it should serve as a model and inspiration to all of us working in progressive politics.
To add onto what Sirota said, other aspects of the WFP that are different from the major parties include their focus on certain issues. Take, for example, the push for Green Jobs legislation. The WFP was at the forefront, but they shared in the glory with the Democrats who saw the Green Jobs bill pass the Assembly unanimously and pass the Senate overwhelmingly. They worked hard and the bill passed, even though some Republicans tried to take jabs at the WFP in the process.
This is why the major parties (in particular the Democratic Party) finds it so difficult to pass huge legislation like health care reform. The Democratic Party wants health care reform, but for the party, there is not an individual proposal that they want to see passed. They have the "big tent" and welcome all ideas, which is great, but leads to a stalemate.
The Working Families Party is more than just a political party. They are a think-tank and policy-based party that isn't afraid to address major (or minor) issues.
And that's why they scare the major parties. They have had a lot of legislative success, especially here in New York. That's not something you see from a minor party anywhere. But thanks to fusion voting and a strong infrastructure at the WFP, we have such an institution here in New York.
The passage of the Green Jobs legislation late Thursday night was a victory for all New Yorkers, especially Senate Democrats who backed the measure and received plenty of support from their Republican colleagues.
But it was also a big win for the Working Families Party. Their Green Jobs NY campaign was a main reason why this legislation was not only introduced, but why it also passed. They wanted to see green jobs come to New York. They wanted to see greener homes in New York and greener businesses. They made it a key part of their legislative agenda and, as the Working Families Party usually does, they won.
"This bill would put New York on track to become a national leader in energy efficiency," said Dan Cantor, Working Families Party Executive Director. "Millions of homeowners will get the chance to green their homes and see big energy savings while reducing our carbon footprint. And all that construction work means tens of thousands of badly needed high-skill, living-wage jobs. It's a win-win-win."
A report on Green Jobs/Green Homes by the Center for American Progress said that the initiative "a policy roadmap for New York State to achieve mass-scale energy-efficiency improvements-or retrofits-of 1 million housing units over the next five years." In addition to that, it would help New York fight climate change and would create 60,000 green economy jobs and save New York's households $1 billion every year.
From the report:
Green Jobs/Green Homes NY will be the largest residential retrofit program ever initiated in the United States and can serve as a model for the nation.
What did the Working Families Party? They did what they do best: Built a coalition of groups to support the green jobs bill. While they acknowledge the great job the Senate Democrats did on this and believe that it was the hard work of everyone that got this to pass, it is hard to overlook the WFP's efforts on this legislation. They built the coalition. They pushed this legislation as a key economic development and economic growth tool, as well as an important environmental measure that would make New York a leader in combating climate change. The even became the target of Republicans who wished to tie these efforts to ACORN and tried to make the New York State Senate a political battlefield over this issue.
Senator Mike Ranzenhofer, a Republican who represents the 61st Senate District, said this of the Green Jobs bill in a press release:
Senator Sampson has called the State Senate into special session for Thursday, September 10 at 2 o'clock. One of the bills on the agenda establishes a Green Jobs/Green New York program that is billed as an environmentally friendly economic development initiative, when in reality it is simply a tax giveaway to "community organizers" like ACORN and the Working Families Party.
"Western New York needs real solutions and real jobs, not another program that will not produce results and will cost taxpayers $112 million. Thursday's special session will turn out to be a waste of time and money for taxpayers if it fails to eliminate wasteful programs. Enacting across-the-board spending cuts remains the only way to solve the State's fiscal crisis," said Senator Ranzenhofer.
Ranzenhofer targeted community organizers (apparently, they are deserving of sarcastic quotes) who play a key role in the Working Families Party and targeted, by name, the Working Families Party.
But he still voted for the Green Jobs bill.
The Green Jobs bill is a big win for New York. We don't hear a lot of good things coming out of Albany, but this is a very good thing to come out of the capital. Getting this Green Jobs bill through the Senate is a win-win for all New Yorkers. For the Working Families Party, it reinforces what we already knew: They are a force in New York and when you need to get a bill passed and build a coalition of support behind that bill, you want the Working Families Party on your side.
Here's the stream of the WFP's Mayoral Candidate Forum. You can also You should just watch it at their site and participate in the twitter conversation as well. Justin and Josh from Living Liberally are liveblogging the forum over at Open Left.
P.S. If the player starts to drive you crazy, you can turn it off by clicking the "menu" button.
It appears that deal has been reached to ask a bit more of those New Yorkers who can most afford it instead of balancing the state's budget on the backs of the poor and middle class. Liz has the scoop.
There is a tentative three-way deal on hiking the personal income tax on wealthy New Yorkers, multiple Democratic sources confirm.
The agreement - assuming it holds - sets up the following three tiers:
- $300,000 to $500,000: 7.97 percent.
- $500,000 to $1 million: 8.47 percent.
- $1 million and above: 8.97 percent.
This increase will sunset in five years.
The current top rate is 6.85 percent for those who make $40,000 and above.
I'd add the Working Families Party to the winners column along with the Assembly Democrats and I agree with Liz that the losers column includes The Governor, The Mayor and the Senate Majority Leader.
Good news from Albany. Hopefully this "tentative" deal will hold.
Unshackle Upstate's Brian Sampson is making the news circuit these last few weeks with the message that Fair Share Tax Reform would cause small businesses to fire workers (the Fair Share Tax Reform is making progress in Albany with bills that would create new NYS marginal tax brackets starting at $250,000). He says that 75% of small business owners pay taxes through personal income tax.
Ok, sounds like a reasonable concern, right?
Meanwhile, back in the reality-based community According to James Parrott, of the Fiscal Policy Institute, "only 1.4% of tax units with small business income were in the top two federal tax brackets, i.e., over $250K." The VAST majority of small business owners don't make that kind of money and therefore would never be subject to the Fair Share tax.
And let's think about Unshackle Upstate's logic for a minute. Imagine you are one of the rare group of small business owners netting over $250,000. The new Fair Share Tax Reform tax bracket costs you about $70 a week extra. Are you going to fire a worker to recoup that seventy bucks?
The good news is that Sampson's disingenuous media forays are the last gasps of a sinking trickle down theory. Wanna see a New Yorker laugh in your face? Tell them that tax breaks for the rich create jobs.
In many ways our current budget crisis, a crisis that seems to deepen by the hour, was always going to necessitate at least a modest increase in the income tax rate at the very top. There just isn't any way to close the gap without asking the New Yorkers who can most afford to pay, the same ones who have benefited most over the last decade or so while seeing their real tax liabilities decline, to endure a slight increase in their state income tax burden. Now, it looks as if that reality is finally taking root in Albany.
Democratic leaders in the State Senate will seek income tax increases on at least some affluent New Yorkers and a sales tax increase of a quarter of 1 percent to help balance the state budget, a Senate official with knowledge of the plans said in an interview over the weekend.
"The hole is too deep to dig ourselves out by cuts alone," said the Senate official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the details of the proposal were still being hammered out. "The debate now is over where to start."
The move by Senate Democrats, who have a slim majority, will significantly increase pressure on Gov. David A. Paterson, who has said he would consider raising income taxes only as a last resort and only after the Legislature had agreed to steep cuts in state spending.
...
The Senate official said discussion within the leadership had moved in recent days from whether such a tax was needed to what contours it would take.
Among the questions were the income level at which it would kick in, the amount of the tax and whether it would include a sunset provision.
...
"It's better to tax the rich than crucify the poor," said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, a union-backed group that has lobbied aggressively for higher taxes on the wealthy to help close the state's $14 billion budget gap.
"The Senate is signaling that it needs to balance the budget in a balanced way, meaning smart cuts and fair taxes," Mr. Cantor said.
And while this move was in many ways always inevitable, the Working Families Party has helped greatly to bring it about by creating the space necessary to allow lawmakers to pull the trigger. As Crain's points out, their "outside game", as I like to call it, was key and it should be considered another rather large notch in their belt. It indeed was "textbook".
New York's chattering classes are no longer debating whether state income taxes will be jacked up on high earners. Now the only question is by how much. And the credit-or blame-for successfully framing the debate goes largely to a minor political party that's starting to have a major impact on state government.
The left-leaning Working Families Party has orchestrated a tax-reform campaign straight from the textbook of retail politics. Last week, it staged eight simultaneous rallies that drew nearly 100,000 people statewide, including 50,000 at City Hall. It has knocked on 42,000 doors, generating 7,000 handwritten letters to lawmakers. Radio advertisements saturate the airwaves in Albany. Its YouTube video "highlighting how easy the state's tax system is on millionaires," as a party spokesman put it, is being watched a thousand times a day.
"It certainly has made a difference," says Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, D-Manhattan, pointing to identical bills in the Assembly and Senate that would raise rates on people with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000.
It is not just the advocacy campaign, Mr. Bing says, but the Working Families Party's ability to oust incumbents that grabs legislators' attention. Indeed, the party campaigned relentlessly for months before last November's elections to evict state Senate veterans Serf Maltese and Caesar Trunzo, resulting in the Democratic takeover of the chamber. That, in turn, has made the tax increase achievable.
...
"We haven't won anything yet, but I feel like we're winning the debate," says Mr. Cantor, who has run the party since its creation.
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman, D-Manhattan, who is carrying the bill in the Senate, says: "They've been moving public opinion. And they have been effectively reaching out to those of us in the Legislature to encourage us-to show that not only is this the right thing to do, it's the politically popular thing to do."
The opposition has been meek by comparison. A conservative political action committee, New Yorkers for Growth, started an online petition, and the Real Estate Board of New York put together a group called Taxpayers for an Affordable New York, which includes the Business Council of New York State. The latter group sent a mailing to 125,000 high-earning households and launched a Web site that has generated 1,000 e-mail messages to legislators.
And take note of a key part of WFP's campaign, something they haven't done much of in the past. They are finally using using new media tools to augment their already impressive ground game, and doing so with great success. The video mentioned above was a huge hit and the Fair Share Tax Reform site has been very, very successful.
The Fair Share site, meanwhile, has generated 25,000 e-mails in addition to arranging the rallies, letters, commercials and personal meetings with lawmakers.
"They have a system, a very powerful system, for raising money and taking over the airwaves," says Kenneth Adams, president of the business council. "Millions of average New Yorkers across the state don't have those systems-and frankly, neither does the business community-to mobilize to oppose this."
Mr. Schneiderman says the Fair Share campaign has tapped into the growing public sentiment that "the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy went too far." But Mr. McMahon says the Working Families Party and its allies have used "class warfare" to "create the illusion of a mass movement."
Here's what Mr. McMahon does not get: That video cost next to nothing to produce and was distributed for free via YouTube, not by "taking over the airwaves". It was spread virally (it was a big hit on twitter, for example) by folks sympathetic to its undeniable message. Anyone of those supposed "millions of average New Yorkers" could have done the same. They didn't.
It's also rather insulting to the 100,000 or so folks who rallied from one of the state to the other to refer to their movement as an "illusion". As for the "class warfare" swipe, one of the things that makes WFP's video so potent and poignant is that it very simply and effectively illustrates that there has indeed been class warfare engaged in for the last few decades. Guess who has been winning? It's certainly not those "millions of average New Yorkers". This is obvious to everyone when they learn that they pay their state income taxes at the same rate as Donald Trump and Bernie Madoff.
The big takeaway for me is that WFP's game is getting stronger by their embrace of these new tools. Now, they haven't abandoned the "inside game" by any stretch. Trust me, I'm sure they are bringing the heat to lawmakers personally as well. But, they've added new tools to further increase the effectiveness of their outside game. If they can fully integrate an effective new media communications strategy with their already formidable ground game, watch out. This may be but the first example of an even more robust combined effort on their part.
Do you pay the same tax rate as millionaires like Donald Trump and Bernie Madoff?
The answer may surprise you. The WFP hit the streets to see if New Yorkers knew just how little you have to make to be in the state's highest tax bracket.
Even while President Obama works to make America's taxes fairer, New York's tax code is anything but. Over the last 30 years, the rich have seen their state taxes cut in half. Today, janitors and cab drivers pay the same state tax rate as Wall Street bankers.
It's not just unfair--with the state facing a $14 billion budget gap and devastating cuts to hospitals and nursing homes, it's madness.
A group of powerful business organizations is preparing to fight a proposed "millionaire's tax" they say will drive affluent New Yorkers out of state.
Taxpayers for an Affordable NY includes the Business Council of New York, the Real Estate Board of New York, and the Rent Stabilization Association - a trio of groups that came together once before, in the early 1990s, to fight property tax hikes.
Taxpayers for an Affordable New York, an astroturf org, has even mailed out 150,000 of the mailers you see at the right. The mailers and the website are so full of BS and distortions as to be almost comical. Of course, we're talking about real people and a fiscal crisis that is all too real. There's nothing, not a damn thing, funny about it.
The Working Families Party believes that you are not paying your fair share and they are pressuring your State Senator to increase your income taxes. Amazingly, despite what we have learned these past months, they want New York to continue to spend more then it has and they want you to pay for it. They call it a "millionaire tax" even though the taxes of every family with an income of more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars could be raised by 20 to 50 percent.
Governor David Paterson has said "My belief is (that raising income taxes) is an almost automatic formula for losing population in the state and losing job creation."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg called this plan a "crazy idea". He said "You can't tax people who can move... the city would end up losing its tax base."
Families that earn more than $200,000 comprise only 4% of taxpayers but they pay 54% of the taxes. It seems to us that you already pay your "Fair Share".
If you read this site regularly, you are probably fairly familiar with what the Fair Share tax Reform Act does and what it does not. Take a look at the copy above and count the falsehoods.
So that's a good measure of the momentum building behind the proposal. The fat cats are mobilizing and using all the usual tools to spread fear and disinformation.
NY-20 challenger Scott Murphy has landed the Row E ballot line from the Working Families Party. In what is sure to be a tough, close race, this is very good news indeed. Liz has the goods:
Karen Scharff, co-chair of the WFP's Capital District chapter, confirmed the party has agreed to endorse Muprhy and put him on its line (Row E) in the upcoming special election.
Scharff said the members of the executive committee weren't completely thrilled with some aspects of Murphy's ideology (his plan to follow in the footsteps of the woman he's seeking to succeed, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, in joining the Blue Dogs, for example), but decided the rest of his positions are "strong enough in favor of working families in the district that we can work with him and support him."
Scharff said the 20th CD, with is 70,000+ GOP voter enrollment edge, is the kind of district where the WFP could make a "big difference."
Also, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is stumping for Murphy at an event in Poughkeepsie, hopefully one of many big guns to lend a hand.
Regardless, the WFP endorsement (and boots on the ground) could be quite significant and decisive in what is sure to be a very tough race.
Gov. David A. Paterson Tuesday threatened to veto a millionaires' tax unless lawmakers first cut billions of dollars in spending.
He said he would oppose increasing the personal income tax on the wealthy in order to sustain the current level of state spending. "What we are trying to do here is get rid of the addiction to spending that is just abounding in this Capitol and get ourselves on the road to fiscal discipline," he told reporters after a speech to the state Association of Counties.
Asked if he would veto a hike in taxes on the wealthy, Paterson said, "I think I would if there was the type of tax increase that was just designed to recreate spending."
He added that lawmakers first must agree to $11.2 billion in spending cuts in the 2009-10 budget before considering more broad-based taxes.
"If what I'm seeing is?taxes to bring back programs that we think we need to cut, I'm going to stop it."
Gov. Paterson suggested Tuesday he may veto any plan to hike taxes on the wealthy.
"Everybody is trying to find a way that they can keep spending," Paterson complained. "If people think that they are going to create a false economy here by raising taxes ... I am just not going to support this."
Asked specifically if he would veto an income tax hike, Paterson said, "I think I would if there was the type of tax increase that was just designed to re-create spending."
But, in typical Paterson style, he hedged shortly afterward.
"I didn't say that I would veto an income tax hike for all time," the governor said.
Governor David Paterson has given conditional backing to a plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers, but he says the legislature will have to prove they can make deep spending cuts first.
Governor Paterson gave his strongest signal yet that he might sign on to a plan to increase income taxes on the state's richest residents. Paterson, who has said for months that raising income taxes should be last resort, now says he'll consider a proposal that's gaining support in the legislature if lawmakers agree to some serious spending cuts first.
"If I see real spending cuts that really address this problem, and if our deficit goes beyond it, well then we're at a point when our backs are against the wall," said Paterson, who said he might consider raising the income taxes on the wealthy then.
At the same time, in a seemingly contradictory statement, the governor threatened to veto a tax hike bill, if the legislature doesn't implement cuts to his satisfaction.
Gov. David Paterson warned state lawmakers Tuesday not to raise income taxes on the wealthy or use federal stimulus aid to restore budget cuts, suggesting he may veto attempts to boost state spending.
Paterson first indicated that he would veto a plan by the Democratic-controlled Legislature to increase taxes on the wealthy, but then said a tax increase couldn't be ruled out if the state's finances were to worsen.
"If I see real spending cuts that really address this problem, and if our deficit goes beyond it, well then, we are at a point where our backs are against the wall" and income taxes could be increased, he said.
Among the bill's supporters, there is a sense that they face considerable - but not necessarily insurmountable - skepticism from Senate Democrats.
"By introducing this bill, we are opening the conversation," said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents parts of the Upper West Side and the Bronx and is the bill's lead sponsor. "But this is an issue that gathers support the longer people think about it."
Called the Fair Share Tax Reform Act of 2009, the plan laid out in Mr. Schneiderman's bill is an expanded version of the so-called millionaires' tax the Assembly passed last year. It would create three new tax brackets at the highest end of the state's income tax scale and apply to taxable income, not gross income.
"While Governor Paterson continues to ask everyone except the wealthy to contribute to closing the state's budget gap, the Fair Share Tax Reform Act introduced by 18 Senators today strikes a bold note for fairness and true shared sacrifice.
The Act would raise $6 billion in desperately needed revenue for New York, helping to offset some of the Governor's proposed devastating cuts to students, the elderly, and the disabled. Fair Share Tax Reform does so by asking the very richest New Yorkers to pay their fair share in taxes by giving back some of the generous tax cuts they've been lucky enough to receive.
As Congress continues to debate the federal stimulus package, hundreds of economists have warned that Gov. Paterson's proposed cuts could slow economic activity and sink New York deeper into recession.
Their take: raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay is not only the fairest solution, it is the one that will put New York fastest on the road to recovery.
As the devastation to schools, hospitals, libraries, public transportation and hundreds of other essential public programs the Governor has proposed becomes clear, it is no wonder that poll after poll shows the vast majority of New Yorkers support asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.
Karen Scharff of Citizen Action:
"The question comes down to whether we should ask wealthy New Yorkers to pay a small amount in additional taxes to protect average New Yorkers facing job losses, foreclosures, school cuts and property tax increases," said Karen Scharff, Citizen Action Executive Director. "The proposed state cuts in programs like education and health care will have a devastating impact on the quality of life for all New Yorkers unless the state raises significant new revenue."
Currently, every New Yorker who earns more than $40,000 pays the same marginal tax rate of 6.85%. The "Fair Share Tax Reform" bill, introduced today by Eric Schneiderman and other Senators from across the state, would reverse a 30-year pattern of reducing taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers by creating new income brackets for individuals or families making more than $250,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000.
"It's much fairer to ask a person making $300,000 per year to give up the cost of a high-end dinner in midtown Manhattan than to layoff teachers at public schools in his neighborhood, forcing children into larger classes," said Scharff. "The state budget deficit is forcing our state leaders to decide whether our priority is protecting wealthy New Yorkers who can easily afford a bit more in taxes, or working families who depend on basic services like education and health care."
More as they come in. In the meantime, this looks to be a perfect opportunity for folks to get in touch with their Senators. Ask them if they are a sponsor of the bill. If they aren't, ask them why not.
Before mentioning all the newspapers that have written their own editorials on yesterday's State of the State Address given by Governor David Paterson, here are what a few groups had to say about yesterday's address.
"Low and middle income New Yorkers are reeling from national and state policies that have led to mortgage foreclosures, job losses, and health care premium increases, said Karen Scharff, Executive Director of Citizen Action of New York. "Governor Paterson says we all should share the pain, but his solution will make the problems worse by cutting education, aid to cities and other critical programs."
"We support the Governor's call today for President-Elect Obama and the Congress to pass a federal economic stimulus package to help the states, but this shouldn't substitute for state action to stimulate New York's economy. The President-elect has made clear that in tough economic times, the best thing for families is for government to invest in education, health care and jobs. We urge the Governor and the Legislature to show the same kind of leadership by asking the wealthy who benefited from the last economic boom to contribute, rather than balancing the budget on the backs of schoolchildren, urban residents and others who depend on state services," said Scharff.
"Governor's Paterson's call for shared sacrifice in tough economic times is heartening.
"Working families across New York are facing the triple threat of a deep recession, painful cuts to programs they rely on, and nuisance taxes that will raise their cost of living.
"True shared sacrifice must mean asking the wealthy New Yorkers who have seen massive tax cuts to contribute a little more. Fair Share Tax Reform is enormously popular, will help balance the budget, and according to hundreds of our leading economists, it is the best way to revive the state's economy.
With the Governor's leadership, we can find a fair solution to the fiscal crisis, but only by asking all parts of society to pitch in."
"Governor Paterson's commitment to a 21st century, green economy - from research and development to energy efficiency projects - will help reinvigorate New York's economy and reaffirm the state's role as an environmental leader," said NYLCV President Marcia Bystryn. "While we remain concerned about proposed cuts to other environmental programs, we are tremendously heartened by the governor's energy agenda and we look forward to working with the state Legislature and state agencies to make it a reality."
The centerpiece of Gov. Paterson's energy vision is the new "45 by 15" plan, which calls for reducing the state's energy usage by 15 percent and increasing the amount of energy that the state gets from renewable sources to 30 percent by the year 2015. In addition, the governor called for the creation of workforce training initiatives; a major push to get schools, local governments and large institutions to take advantage of energy efficiency programs; the creation of an Energy Policy Institute to work on energy efficiency issues; and an emphasis on cleaning up the Hudson River in conjunction with this year's quadricentennial celebrations.
There will be more reaction to come throughout the day today.
This is not shared sacrifice. The Governor proposes to balance the budget in an imbalanced way: by raising taxes on the middle class while simultaneously reducing the services we all rely on.
In this budget there's a tax on almost everything. Drinking, smoking, driving, food, health care, going to the movies, downloading music, clothes and haircuts. In total, it's billions in regressive taxes - "nuisance taxes" - that don't add up to a sensible approach.
There is a fair way to end the fiscal crisis. It's called the Fair Share Tax Reform plan. Prudent spending cuts will be necessary. But common-sense and fairness require that we also ask the state's wealthy to carry their fair share of the load. Right now, they don't, and the Governor is asking everyone to sacrifice except those who can most afford to do so.
That's what shared sacrifice must mean, and we hope Albany leaders will see that.
Amen Mr. Cantor. The Fair Share Tax Reform plan is a good one and one that should be considered. And I agree with the fact that while "prudent spending cuts" are necessary, there is no need to take a hatchet to so many precious programs that help so many New Yorkers in need.
We need a common sense approach. Unfortunately, I think Governor Paterson's budget proposal lacks common sense.
The Working Families Party used a poll conducted by Kiley and Company to show that spending cuts proposed by Governor David Paterson "won't fly with voters" while calling for a modest tax increases on the wealthiest New Yorkers.
According to a poll conducted by Kiley & Company, and commissioned by the Working Families Party, the vast majority of New Yorkers are in strong opposition to the planned cuts by Gov. David Paterson and are in strong support of a solution to the State's budget crisis that uses a combination of both some spending cuts with some tax increases on New Yorkers who make more than $200,000 a year.
" This poll shows that New Yorkers are speaking loud and clear, and Governor Paterson and Albany legislators would do well to listen: they do not want the solution to this budget crisis to just be a giant swing of the axe," said Dan Cantor, Executive Director of the Working Families Party. "It's clear that New Yorkers are nearly united behind a solution that combines prudent spending cuts with sound tax increases on those that make over $200,000 that would both restore fairness to the tax system and help raise the necessary revenue to close this budget gap."
The poll showed that New Yorkers were strongly resistant to the proposed massive cuts to healthcare, education programs, and the safety net. When asked whether the state should "seriously consider" a list of budget proposals in order to close the budget gap, or should "definitely not consider taking that step," between 60% and 75% of all voters said Albany should "definitely not" consider any of the following steps:
· Reducing the amount the state would reimburse hospitals for services provided under the Medicaid program (60% say "definitely do not take that step")
· Reducing state funding for Medicaid and other health care services by $1.7 billion over the next year and a half (65%)
· Cutting state aid to public schools by $1.4 billion over the next year and a half (75%).
Cutting is the easy way out. The real solution is finding more revenue sources. The proposed millionaires tax would be a great revenue source, but it has fallen on deaf ears.
These cuts will do nothing except rob New Yorkers of important services that are provided to them. Whether it is education or health care, these are important parts of the state budget that will have a far-reaching effect.
Yes, prudent spending cuts in state spending are a necessity - that much is undeniable. But so far, the governor is asking working families to shoulder the entire burden of the budget deficit alone, while taking any income tax increase on New York's many millionaires off the table.
That is not acceptable. Not after the richest New Yorkers have seen billions in tax cuts that have slashed their income tax burden in half over the last 40 years. Not when asking those who can most afford to contribute a little more in taxes could easily prevent many of the most painful cuts being talked about in Albany.
Opponents of a tax on millionaires repeat the mantra that asking the wealthy to pay a modest increase in income taxes would drive them out of the state. But all the evidence and recent experience says that simply isn't so.
In 2003, following the economic downturn caused by the 9/11 attacks, the national recession and the burst of the dot-com bubble, New York relied on modest increases in income tax rates on the wealthy to help close its budget gap. The state employed a temporary top rate of 7.25% for single filers with incomes over $100,000 and 7.7% on income over $500,000.
The rich did not leave the state. Instead, the economy rebounded and the number of high income New Yorkers continued to grow.
In 2004, New Jersey raised its income tax on those making over $500,000 a year by 2.6 percentage points. Despite dire predictions, a recent study from Princeton University found that while the half-millionaire's tax helped the Garden State raise billions in needed revenue, it caused almost no tax flight. (The study did find however, that high local property taxes - a very likely side effect of Gov. Paterson's proposed cuts in education and aid to localities - were responsible for driving out thousands of middle-class families).
As Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in a letter to Albany leaders, "Increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families."
Those are wise words state leaders can't afford to ignore. In the months ahead, Albany will have no choice but to meet the budget deficit head-on.
So enough of the bluffing and blame-mongering. Serious times demand a serious approach to getting our state back on track.
What is needed to solve the budget crisis - and it is solvable - is a plan that calls for true shared sacrifice. Sensible spending cuts, yes - but also a commitment to asking the New Yorkers who can most easily afford to do so to pay their fair share in taxes.
It is a formula that has worked before. The well-being of millions of working families and the health of critical public investments demand that we use it again.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled this afternoon that Jon Powers cannot be removed from the ballot on the Working Families Party line for the 26th Congressional District, meaning that Alice Kryzan has lost her bid for a second party line.
The judges issued a one-paragraph ruling following oral arguments this morning on the New York State Republican Committee's bid to prevent the change.
It was announced on Friday that Kryzan would get the Working Families Party line. However, Judge Richard Arcana of the U.S. District Court in Buffalo issued a temporary restraining order preventing that decision from being executed. Today's decision will bring an end to this. The case could be taken up with the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the timing of today's decision, that appears to be unlikely.
Tomorrow when you go into the polls, vote for Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line. That is the only place where you will see her name. Vote for her. Alice is an intelligent woman and a progressive and we need those traits in Washington representing us. She will listen and she will be a true representative of the people. If you want Tom Reynolds Jr., vote for Chris Lee. If you want a change from the failed policies of the past and a representative who will do more than just show up for photo ops, vote for Alice Kryzan.
A Federal Judge in Buffalo has issued a temporary restraining order preventing local election officials in NY-26 from placing Alice Kryzan on the Working Families Party ballot line.
A federal judge is blocking a Democratic congressional candidate from getting her name on a third-party ballot line in western New York, the latest judicial twist in the battle to replace retiring Rep. Tom Reynolds.
Alice Kryzan _ who beat Jon Powers in the Democratic primary _ is trying to get her name instead of his on the Working Families Party line. An extra ballot line is usually worth thousands more votes.
New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye on Friday let stand a lower court ruling giving the line to Kryzan.
Republicans took the case to federal court in Buffalo, where Chief Judge Richard Arcara late Friday issued a temporary restraining order barring elections officials from removing Powers' name from the ballot.
Kryzan campaign aides said they're appealing Arcara's decision.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that a lower court erred in deciding that Powers, Kryzan's former rival for the Democratic nomination for the seat, must stay on the Working Families line even though he had moved to Washington, D.C., to take a job there.
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Powers's letters to the Board and his concomitant submission of an out-of-state driver's license and lease agreement conclusively establish his intention to establish residency outside of this state," the appeals court said.
That disqualifies Powers from the ballot -- giving the Working Families Party the right to name Kryzan its candidate, the court said.
"Given that a vacancy was created by Powers's disqualification, the Board [of Elections] was obliged to accept the WFP's certificate of nomination and authorization naming Kryzan" as its candidate, the court said.
This is the right decision. I know people expressed concern about military ballots and absentee ballots, but in reality the most votes come via voters on Election Day who go to the polls. I believe the appellate court made the right call here.
UPDATE: The Kryzan campaign issued a press release on this decision today. Anne Wadsworth, a Kryzan campaign spokesperson, had this to say about the decision:
"Alice is proud to have the support of the Working Families Party, of Jon Powers, and of voters across this district who want a new direction for Western New York's economy," said spokesperson Anne Wadsworth. "Despite Chris Lee and the Republican machine's attempts to block Alice's name from appearing on the Working Families Party ballot line, today's ruling will allow voters to have a clear choice when they vote on Tuesday."
I agree. It is only right (and fair) that Kryzan gets the WFP line since Lee was handed the Independence Party line in a shady deal.
"We're ecstatic. Alice Kryzan is the candidate who'll stand up for the issues that matter to working families in Washington, so it's only appropriate that she should be on the Working Families Party ballot line. Now, Western New Yorkers can cast a vote for real progressive change by pulling the Working Families lever for Alice."
Democrats are on the ascent, nationally and in states like ours, where the decades-old Republican stranglehold on Albany may finally be broken in less than one week.
If the Democrats are victorious, then the real battle will begin: how do we hold them accountable to progressive values against the enormous pressure they will face to play it safe?
As you may well know, they've led many of the big battles over the last ten years, from raising the minimum wage to putting paid family leave on the map, to fighting for affordable healthcare for all, public transportation, and most recently taking on Mayor Bloomberg's extremely undemocratic plan to extend term limits without a public vote.
In late September, Anthony Fumerelle, who was then running for Congress in the 26th congressional district on the Independence Party line, was nominated for a judgeship - in Queens. Of course, no one saw anything wrong with that. That freed up the Independence Party line. The Independence Party didn't contact Alice Kryzan, who was riding high after an upset victory in the Democratic primary. Instead, the Independence Party gave their line to Republican Chris Lee.
At the time, I saw a lot wrong with how easy it was for Fumerelle to get nominated and within moments, it seemed, Lee was able to get on the line.
Compare that with today's announcement that Jon Powers will remain on the Working Families Party line, robbing Kryzan of a minor party line of her own. By all accounts, Lee's awarding of the IP line went without incident. However, when the WFP line was going to be awarded to Kryzan, the Republicans decided to create a scene and challenge that.
Here are the facts:
(A) Jon Powers no longer lives in New York. The judge in this case admits that, but also contends that Powers living in Washington only means that he will not be in New York on Election Day. What? If a person no longer has a residency in New York, how can you make such a contention? It's not as if he had dual residencies. He's in D.C. now. That's where he is living.
(B) The judge also made this argument: "However, upon his nomination, he accepted the nomination. He did not decline the nomination, nor were there any challenges to his nomination." I believe the same could be said for Fumerelle, am I correct? Upon his nomination, he accepted the nomination. He did not decline it. The deal to get him off the ballot didn't take place until 16 days after Primary Day. So why doesn't the court review that as well?
(C) Bob McCarthy of the News says that this is a blow to Kryzan. I don't think it is. Late last month, Powers was only polling at five percent. I can't imagine he's polling any better now. In fact, I'm sure his numbers have dropped. Even with his name on the ballot, I can't see too many people voting for him. Unless, of course, they want to waste their vote.
(D) Lastly, this is what the Republicans wanted. Yes, Powers isn't polling well and will be a non-factor. But they know that people will vote for Powers. If the race is close, that could mean Powers serves as a spoiler, helping Lee. This decision only helps the GOP and Chris Lee. This decision does rob voters of the 26th district from having another line to support Alice Kryzan on.
This is an absurd decision and the rationale given by the judge for her decision boggles my mind. Nevertheless, we will push forward and I urge fellow citizens of the 26th district to vote for Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line. This is the kind of politics Tom Reynolds and Chris Lee adhere to. Let's keep Chris Lee away from Washington D.C. We don't need another Tom Reynolds. We need new, responsible leadership from a true progressive. That candidate is Alice Kryzan.
