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  

Compromise Brings New Hope on Farmworkers Rights Bill

by: BingChester

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:44:25 PM EST

The day may be fast approaching when some animals will have greater labor protections than tens of thousands of New York State's farm workers.

The city Health Department has proposed rules that would mandate five weeks of vacation per year for carriage horses, plus limits on daily hours of work and upgraded stable facilities.

The people who plant and harvest our food should only be so lucky.

source

When the National Labor Relations Act first passed in 1935, farm workers were excludes from the bill so that FDR could garner support from rural Senators.  The campaigns of Caesar Chavez for farm worker rights fought at the state level to give rights to farmworkers through state government.  In New York advocates have continued to fight for a Bill of Rights for farmworkers.  With new developments and new commitments from state leaders, we may fast be approaching the day where farm workers will possess the rights of other private sector employees to organize, collectively bargain, and receive overtime pay.

Advocates and supports in Albany have dubbed the proposal the Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act .  The bill models itself after most other labor laws in the state and the country and provides a legal framework to provide labor rights for farmworkers.  Notably it provides farmworkers the right to organize and collectively bargain, sets a standard for overtime pay for overtime hours, creates a disability insurance provision for workers, and a guaranteed day off per week.  These are standard rights of workers that have largely been in place for private sector employees since the New Deal.  

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of push-back from the Farm Bureau and the farm owners community.

Tim Bigham, area field advisor for the New York Farm Bureau, described several aspects of the bill as "anti-business," saying farm owners, especially the smaller ones, simply won't be able to afford them.

Bigham said a main concern is a provision requiring forced payment of overtime rates to workers who are on the job longer than eight hours per day. Bigham argued that farm work should continue to be exempt from such overtime provisions because, by its nature, it is seasonal work, requiring individuals to put in longer hours during warm weather when work can actually be done. Such items, Bigham said, could drive up costs for area farmers, many of whom are struggling financially as it is. source

With an eye to compromise, advocates recently announced a variety of changes to the bill to mollify the concerns of the Bigham, the Farm Bureau and small farm owners throughout the state.  The changes provide substantial compromises while guaranteeing protection to workers in great need of better working conditions.  The new proposal makes the following changes:

-Collective bargaining protections are limited to workers on farms with sales exceeding $500,000-exempting over 95% of New York farms and covering only agribusinesses.

- The overtime threshold (i.e. the number of hours of straight pay before time-and-a-half kicks in) is increased from 40/week and 8/day to 60/week (55/week beginning in 2013) and 10/day, and on the 7th consecutive work day.

- Only 1.5 times the minimum wage for workers paid by piece-rate will be required for overtime hours, rather than 1.5 times the worker's regular rate .

- Existing unemployment tax liability on guestworker wages is eliminated entirely, resulting in $1 million or more in annual savings for New York farmers.

-Small farms are allowed continued exemption from workers compensation and unemployment insurance tax liabilities.

-"Family" is defined as broadly as possible and exempted from coverage under the Act

These are substantial reductions in the overall effect of the Act.  95% of farms will be exempt.  Overtime thresholds are pushed back.  Overtime wage scales are lowered.  The most important thing, however, is that the bill has met the concerns of small farm owners and will provide rights to those in desperate need of protection.  Farmworker advocates took a major step to unilaterally meet the concerns of the Farm Bureau.  

Can we expect the bill to pass now?  As Reverend Richard Witt of the Justice for Farmworkers Campaign stated, "We hope that all interested parties will now act in good faith as New York takes this major step toward justice and equality for all workers."  Opponents of the bill have a duty to act in good faith and work with worker advocates to pass a bill that provides workers protections they deserve.  We are closer to a bill then we've ever been.  Now is the time to pass the bill and bring farm working conditions into the 20th (let alone the 21st) century.

The Labor Committee is expected to meet next week and discuss the bill.  Expect to hear more as it comes in...

Note: I am proud to work as a new media volunteer for the Justice for Farmworkers Campaign.  The views expressed in this piece are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Justice for Farmworkers Campaign.

The First Step Towards a "Liberal" Harold Fold

by: BingChester

Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 17:40:52 PM EST

"He wants to improve the health care bill so he can vote for it, addressing the concerns of Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson, so New York gets its fair share, removing anti-abortion language, and protecting more small businesses from mandates," Goldin said.
source

This is not a major step because opposing the Stupak amendment does not make someone pro-choice.  However the entire statement is a clear pander at New York voters.  Not only is Ford supporting the choice lobby here, he's specifically supporting New York interests over a more fiscally conservative bill.  But the pro-choice language here is a complete shift in the rhetoric of Harold Ford.

Ford supporters will predictably say that Senator Gillibrand also shifted her rhetoric and her record as a Senator does not match her record as a Congresswoman.  While Gillibrand has softened her stance on certain issues, there is nothing inherently inconsistent with her major stances.  Senator Gillibrand always stood up for woman's rights and LGBT rights.  The change of heart that Harold Ford needs to undergo to be competitive in New York just won't be as convincing.  It will be the biggest "change of heart" that New York has even seen.

Ford "won't be bullied"

by: simonstl

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 17:19:56 PM EST

The New York Times is running a story that tries to cast Harold Ford as an underdog, some kind of opponent to the party leadership in New York State.

Now, perhaps it's possible that Ford didn't meet much of the New York State party leadership while he was head of the DLC, and it doesn't sound like he exactly sought political activity since moving to New York City. So maybe he's worried that these folks haven't heard of him.

I've criticized the Gillibrand campaign repeatedly for casting aspersions on and pushing out primary opponents before, but in this case I just have to wonder: what is Harold Ford thinking?

I appreciate the difficulties Southern Democrats face and recognize that they have to hold more conservative positions to represent their districts. But to move north after making those positions clear, and trying to inflict them on the rest of the party as Chairman of the DLC? Seriously?

Has he looked around at the kinds of folks who vote in statewide New York Democratic primaries at all? They aren't rabid DLC supporters.

Go ahead, primary Gillibrand. Get the conversation going. Don't feel bullied. Just bring whatever you have for this "marquee challenge." Right.

NYS Senate Back at It.... Selling Your Interests Down the (Niagara) River

by: robinia

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 16:46:14 PM EST

I call it more back-room power politics.  Maziarz, who represents a district with the Niagara Power Project in it, will chair the powerful Committee on Energy and Telecommunications.  So glad we can have a bought and paid for company man in that position.  Here's hoping that we don't have to depend on HIM to protect us from Exxon's natural gas grabs....

Senator X

by: davesnyd

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:07:48 AM EST

I'm also unhappy with a lot of what I've seen from the administration. I've largely held my tongue, defended the President to my friends on both the left and right, and held out hope that Things Could Be Improved.

But it's hard to feel optimistic after seeing the Senate bill gutted so ceremoniously this week.

I wish I could receive an email that starts like this (and is continued after the jump):

Hello, my name is Senator X.

I'm running for majority leader.

And I need your help.

A List of Shame from Today's Vote

by: BingChester

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:49:04 PM EST

1) Ruben Diaz was the only one on the "No" side to state his convictions and speak publicly about his No vote.  None of the rest of the 38 had the courage to get up and explain their vote.  

2) Hiram Monserrate, a man that supported marriage equality in the City Council and in his Senate campaign, flipped and voted no.  Hiram Monserrate, a man convicted of assault against his girlfriend, wants to tell same sex couples that their right to marry a partner of their choice are less important than his.

3) 8 Democrats broke rank and voted against equality.  That's 25% of the Democratic caucus in the State Senate.

4) Zero Republicans voted for the bill.  This includes people like Vincent Leibell, who counsels gay couples on estate planning, as well as Jim Alesi, who attends a church where gay couples are given the church's blessings.  This includes 3 Republicans who represents New York City.  This includes 7 Republicans who represent Long Island.  100% of the Republican caucus voted for discrimination.

5) John Sampson, our new caucus leader (or whatever his title is) was nowhere to be found during today's debate or in comments after the press.  Supposedly he spent his time pressuring borderline Senators to vote yes.  The one one to do so was Senator Valesky.

Shame, shame, shame.

But let it not go without saying that we now have these people on record.  Even if the No side hid their votes until the very end, we have a record showing their support for discrimination.  It's up to us to pound the pavement in every one of their districts and remind voters that their state senator supports discrimination.  

Reminder: The New York State Senate Stinks

by: BingChester

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM EST

If New York State runs its money supply down to a mere $36 million later this month - as predicted - the state will have to decide which bills to pay first. That means libraries, schools and taxpayers who qualify for a real estate tax rebate could all get their money later than usual, maybe a lot later.

And the blame for this latest financial squeeze will fall squarely on the New York State Senate - both Democrats and Republicans.

The State Senate, on the other hand, has done little more than issue press releases. Senators are too busy eyeing next year's elections, especially those lawmakers with the least political security - that is, a few suburban Democrats in dicey districts and all 30 of the Republicans, who want to regain the majority next year.

They don't want to do anything unpleasant or really difficult like pare state expenses in midyear - in other words do their jobs - even if it means facing an even larger deficit in April, perhaps as high as $10 billion.

We have Senators who can't work together, who don't want to do their job, and who don't have the policy and legislating chops to actually get anything done.  In other words, the Senate is entirely dead-weight in this process.  If we get lucky, maybe the Assembly and Governor Paterson will craft a decent deal.  Otherwise, we'll be stuck with massive cuts because the lack of fortitude by either of those bodies to leverage progressive taxes against our top earners.  Regardless of what we get, you can take it to the bank that it won't be because of the Senate.  The Senate has wiped their hands of any responsibility  in, you know, governing.

Who Wouldn't Want to Protect the State Senate?

by: BingChester

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 15:19:35 PM EST

Requirements: Successful completion of police or government security service career with administrative experience. An associates degree related to government security service or a degree in a similar field to the aforementioned degree.

We're not just looking for muscle.  No sir.  We need a policy wonky.  Who else do you think will break the tie the next time Pedro Espada and a disaffected Hispanic colleague switch sides?  "Lt. Governor Ravitch"?  As if!

Supervisory experience in the above fields.

Lord knows we need some adult supervision.

Must have the ability to work long hours and be on 24 hour call.

You never know when there might be a coup!  But on the bright side, you get long vacations when we lock out the other side and fight behind closed doors, hidden away from the public.

Have the ability to coordinate security needs with other law enforcement agencies. Have experience as a proven supervisor of officers. Provide for the special needs related to legislative activites.

We might not be able to work with either the Assembly or the Governor, but don't think that means you can't cross administrative lines!  Did we mention that we really need supervision?  We really do.  When we say "special needs", we really mean the ability to lock the doors, throw away the keys, and thumb your nose at the other side.  

DCJS certified as security program instructor. Certified in CPR and AED.

Yea, we're old.

Successful candidate must be available on 24 hour call back and be able to work long hours when neccesary.

Did we mention that a coup could happen at any time?  We really don't trust Pedro Espada.

Willing to maintain primary residence within the Capital District.

That cushy per-diem figure that we in the Senate get?  Dream on you slag, that's not for staff!  

Good luck to all you ambitious job seekers!

Men Telling Women What Their Rights Are? The Stupak Amendent Roll Call Review

by: robert.harding

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 00:15:41 AM EST

Remember that: A WOMAN's right to choose.

The Stupak amendment was all about a woman's right to choose or rather, taking away that right. It was a sorry amendment which, the more you read, appears to be a deal sweetener to get Blue Dogs on board with health care reform. We couldn't get a vote on single-payer but we can vote for the stripping of women's rights.

There is an interesting fact about the vote on the Stupak amendment that is worth noting. Of the 240 votes in support of the amendment put forth by Congressman Bart Stupak (a man), how many of those votes were women?

19. That's right, on a vote that will impact women AND only women, 19 women voted in the affirmative. And 17 of those women are from the Republican Party (all 176 Republicans supported the amendment).

Only two women from the Democratic side (of the women in Congress, there are 57 in the House Democratic conference) voted for this amendment: Kathleen Dahlkemper and Marcy Kaptur. Both Dahlkemper and Kaptur attached their names to the amendment and were paraded out to try and make this look legitimate, but with 62 male members of the Democratic Party voting against women, nothing about it is legitimate.

Stupak, in a statement about the passage of his amendment, said the following:

"Today all members of Congress were afforded the opportunity to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents on the issue of federal funding for abortion," Stupak said.  "Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy."

"I have long been an advocate of health care reform.  My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate.  Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans.  I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds."

NARAL Pro-Choice America had plenty to say about the amendment's passage, calling it a vote for "extreme anti-choice policies" and a "blow to women's freedom and privacy."

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal  funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

NARAL also included a few facts that debunk attempts by supporters of the Stupak amendment to make the measure appear like an ordinary move that just reinforces current federal guidelines.

   * The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer.  Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals.  In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package.  It seems clear which choice they will make.
   * Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center,  the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders.  In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider.  Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade.  Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

This is a damaging amendment. As stated earlier, it is hard to ignore the possibility that this was a deal sweetener for the Blue Dogs and other anti-choice Democrats to vote for health care reform. It is never good to sacrifice women's rights in the name of "reform." That's exactly what this amendment does.

Sen Diaz: Monserrate Response is Racist

by: BingChester

Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:39:46 AM EDT

"I think none of these liberal white guys could be fair; they're all out to get Monserrate," Ruben Sr. said when I asked him if he believed Sen. Eric Schneiderman was a good choice to chair the bipartisan, nine-member committee.

"...All the white people, all the legislators, are asking for the head of the Puerto Rican. That's what they want to do. They're opening a Pandora case. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it."

source

So let me get this straight: not only does Senator Diaz attack the motives of those that have called for Monserrate to resign or be expelled, but he attacks the motive of a Senator who hasn't even taken a stance on the issue yet?  And doesn't this quote attack the motive of every single white person who calls for Monserrate to resign?  

Let's not forget during this effort that there are other bad Senators in our caucus.  After all, Ruben Diaz is the same guy who openly questioned whether Obama was born in this country and who stands against marriage equality.  Hiram Monserrate committed a violent crime and for that he deserves to be expelled from the Senate.  We can't tolerate domestic abusers among the ranks of elected officials.  Others, such as Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz, violated the proper code of conduct for a public official.  For that they deserve to be defeated next November.

What the people are saying

by: jmcbride

Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 10:26:55 AM EDT

Some comments about domestic violence:

If we do not remove Montserrate, we are sending a TERRIBLE message to all the girls and women trying to strategize about their options or escape abuse and violence.

If our lawmakers can get away with domestic violence, then what message does that send to everyone else?

What a classic case of scaring the victim to lies.
He should be imprisoned.

Comments about the impact on government:

Senator Monserrate should do the right thing and resign. I am so tired of the lack of ethics and the bad behavior of many of our State Democrats, and was especially upset by the actions during the summer. For the first time in a long long time, we had a chance to show the Republicans how to govern. We (or should I say YOU) blew it. The reputation of all the representatives has been destroyed. You have to do better. We- the people who voted for you all -deserve better.

Nothing will hurt the Democratic party more in New York than keeping people like this in the Senate.

Several signers have made this point:

This requires courage to do the right thing, but is morally, ethically and politically the right course of action.  Do not hesitate.

There are hundreds of comments, and I have not been able to read them all.  There are several more after the flip.  

I met Jon Cooper this weekend

by: davesnyd

Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 13:05:10 PM EDT

This site is more or less pro-Gillibrand. Me, personally, as only a reader of the site, I am neutral on her, as I've mentioned in the past.

I liked Jon Cooper but I'm still in the neutral category. More below.

Espada Raising Money for Senate GOP

by: BingChester

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

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

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

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

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

link

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

Dear Senator Gillibrand

by: davesnyd

Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 09:17:24 AM EDT

I have to say that I don't think you're going to be primaried. And if you are, I don't think it will amount to much-- you have the money, the party support, the President's support, and Howard's support.

Me? I'm either "on the fence" about whether you should be primaried or just don't care (at least not yet).

I'm neither a fan of you nor virulently for one of your (three!) opponents. I don't know you well enough or them at all.

So I'm scratching my head. Why all the talk of a primary? And I also find myself wondering, how should you game play this? More after the flip.

That makes 60.

by: Adama

Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:37:12 PM EDT

A few minutes ago Coleman offically conceeded the election, now almost 8 months distant, to Senator-elect--and soon to be Senator--Al Franken.

Elsewhere on the 'net, the congratulations are pouring in. From the now-no-longer-most-junior Senator Gillibrand.

From DSCC chair Senator Menendez.

And last but not least, from the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Coming up on that special session

by: simonstl

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 13:13:40 PM EDT

Might something actually get done in the New York State Senate today? I still wonder about the legality of anything they do, but Senators seem to be seething about the Governor, and maybe that will take this in a new direction.

The chamber was empty a while ago, and albanycitizen1 reports Malcolm Smith's emergence from a meeting with Republicans.

I'll update this post as I hear more. If you want to watch the video, maybe around 3:00pm, it's here, at the bottom of the page.

An agreement I hope wasn't made

by: simonstl

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 18:50:15 PM EDT

Paterson's office says that the one thing that our State Senators agreed on was getting paid, though in the same article GOP spokesman Scott Reif denies it.

The one agreement I can imagine would help the Senate's image with voters short of something that gets things going again would be an agreement to forego pay until the Senate operates again.

However, I'm glad to see - and I was wondering about this - that Reif "added that Senate employees would be paid regardless of the state of negotiations in the Senate stalemate."

Update: Liz Benjamin reports that "the Republicans tell me they didn't collaborate with their Democratic colleagues on that effort, but merely prepared the payroll information on their own accord and sent it along - just to be on the safe side."

A few other bits:

• Democrats are back in court. According to mkink,

  our action sought to stop Senator Espada from using his novel "two votes" theory to create a quorum and run the Senate. Espada's attorneys admitted he couldn't do that, so we withdrew our request for a TRO and are considering further court action.

  Update: more on the court case.

• Unemployment claims climbed above 800,000 in NYS.

• At least one person is putting his hat in the ring to primary Pedro Espada.

• In something I don't really understand, Darrel Aubertine was going to join the Republicans to give them a quorum for some legislation, but under terms that never happened? (More here and here.)

• Negotiations aren't going well.

QOTD

by: robinia

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 09:31:02 AM EDT

Republicans should search what's left of their souls and do the deal.

Perhaps somewhat complicated by the fact that, as LBJ would say, Golisano has "their peckers in his pocket," or, perhaps that devil has bought their souls.  Ya think we could fund-raise to get Golisano some scratch, and buy them their members back?

Because it matters.

by: davesnyd

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

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

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

Specific suggestions below the fold.