-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
8:55pm: Jacky suggested it might be interesting for us to blog the State of the Union. I’m doing mine as a live-blog. I’m watching with three of my friends (two avid Democrats, an indifferent observer, and moi). They’re having wine, but I’m holding off, for now… We’re watching NBC, if that matters. We’ll make it through the speech, but my laptop battery is another story.
9:06pm: Two nervous guys just announced the president’s entrance. Let the handshaking begin! And the pointing! Oh, the pointing!
9:11pm: And the speech begins. An observation: The purpose of the speech is to give information about the state of our union – is there information at this point about the union that the public is not already aware of (at least that the president is going to publicly share?)
9:15pm: “For these Americans, change has not come fast enough… Hard work on Main Street is not [rewarded].”
9:17pm: “I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.” I like that he is talking about how our government needs to be better; I wonder if the message is resonating with the lawmakers in the room.
9:18pm: The populist tone begins: We all hated the bank bailouts, didn’t we? But hey, we’ve gotten most of the money back, so that’s something. Bankers, you owe us something for us bailing you out though!
9:21pm: Surprised to see Republicans sitting for tax cuts… that seems to be the one thing all Republicans can agree with Democrats on, besides supporting the troops.
9:25pm: “Jobs must be our #1 priority in 2010, that is why I am calling for a jobs creation bill tonight.” $30B from Wall Street repayments to go to community banks to lend to small businesses. Eliminating capital gains taxes on small businesses. NOW Republicans are standing.
9:28pm: Loving all the talk of clean energy and energy efficient homes – I think that it could be a huge growth industry for our future for the US with the right tax incentives in place. (And a side-note – my co-watchers just rewound the tape to see the part where he insists on a job bill, and my minute markers are now going to behind.)
9:33pm: “How long should we wait?…I do not accept 2nd place for the United States of America.”
9:37pm: Bipartisan effort in the Senate? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Grumbles of disapproval about climate change and whether it’s real in the chamber. I think he is doing a great job of delivering his messages, much better than we have seen during his first year so far. More like his speeches during the campaign.
9:42pm: Dear President Obama,
Can that $10K tax credit for college be retroactive? And can my student loans be forgiven after 10 years too? I’ll happily go into public service, I promise. Plus I voted for you and campaigned for you. Best regards, Shannon
9:47pm: Obama’s observation that he didn’t take on health care because it was good politics is probably the understatement of the year. And the gauntlet thrown: If you have a better way, let me know.
9:51pm: Yikes – projected deficits of $8T in the future – that is really mind-blowing. 2011: Freezing discretionary spending for the next three years. Bad economic policy, but good politics. Also, the economy is still barely stuttering along; is cutting spending now really the best move?
9:55pm: “I refuse to pass this problem on to the next generation.” Thanks, Obama – if you can pull it off, us youngs will be very grateful.
9:58pm: Wow, DIG at W’s two terms. “We tried that – it didn’t work.” The deficit of trust is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. Maybe a future blog post. This talk of Obama being transparent is nice talk, but he hasn’t lived up to it so far. And the talk about lobbyists being excluded is very populist rhetoric, but deprives the administration/government of valuable expertise.
10:02pm: Democrats, I would remind you that you have the largest majority in two decades and the American people expect you to get things done. Republicans: Just saying no might be good politics, but bad leadership.
10:06pm: The Iraq/Afghanistan section of the speech. “All of our troops are coming home.” Sounds great, but when? Three cheers for supporting the troops when they come home too though – the way our veterans are treated is really appalling. Take a look at the stats on the numbers of homeless veterans. It’s heartbreaking.
10:15pm: Asking to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”! Yes!!
(the laptop battery has 9 minutes left… will we make it?)
10:17pm: This wrap-up section reminds me of the Tom Friedman editorial I read earlier today: Situational vs. sustainable values. The end of the speech is truly uplifting and inspirational – if only all it took was good speeches to overcome Congress’ gridlock and partisanship.
Shan- we are totally on Team Coco. NBC absolutely strong-armed our man out of there, but can you imagine having a beautiful, multimillion dollar payout to stop working, relax and reassess where you are in life? Sounds like sweet deal to me. Maybe we can implement some Coco tactics here in NY. What if we had a piece in the FY’ 2011 budget designated as a “Golden Parachute Fund” for our beloved Senators and Assembly Members to never, ever run for elected office ever again. As far as I’m concerned, that would be the only acceptable increase in budgetary spending this year. Take the money and run guys. Run far away from Albany and don’t come back.
The state of our State is pretty much disgusting. At a glance, we have a Governor who seems to be standing in a rain storm of bad press without an umbrella in sight. Just in the past month alone, his son was arrested for gambling and having stolen credit cards, he was seen “canoodling” with an unknown “woman friend” and AG Cuomo outpaced his fund-raising by almost $14 million dollars. Over the weekend one of the AG’s aides let the not-so-in-the-bag cat out by putting a date on the much-expected announcement for a run at the Gov’s seat. And then, as Shannon pointed out, the proposed budget doesn’t do much to make the Governor any friends…
State Legislators have managed to get themselves an all-time low approval rating. No surprise there. After the summer from legislative gridlock hell we’ve moved into what is sure to be an epic budget process. Dems, finally in the driver’s seat of both houses in NY, can’t seem to agree on the color of the sky and are as fractured as ever. The State Senate is weighing the possibility of removing Senator Monseratte after being convicted of a misdemeanor (slashing his girlfriend’s face) which would really throw a wrench into budget negotiations. Already it will be difficult for Senator Sampson to keep his conference in line, but then with another precious vote absent, it could be close to impossible.
Too many agendas floating around in good ‘ol Albany and not enough of the people’s business.
It’s simple guys. Stop whining. Cut spending. Raise some taxes. Close the gaping budget gap. Take your lumps and go home. Or of course, take that Golden Parachute and get the hell out…
Brown looks like he is winning in Massachusetts – will the inheritors of Ted Kennedy’s legacy torpedo the health care reform bill?
One week after the earthquake, rescue workers in Haiti are still finding people alive in the rubble, but a lot of rebuilding needs to be done, and aid workers are having difficulty getting supplies to the people who need them. Rising violence is also becoming a concern.
Governor David Paterson released the FY2011 budget with nearly $1B in new taxes and fees. So much for cutting the budget, eh?
Harold Ford’s “trial balloon” for the Senate seat currently occupied by Kirsten Gillibrand is gathering momentum (air?) as he quit his investment banking job and has been seen with the Rev. Al Sharpton at an MLK Day event. However, State Sen. Kevin Parker is disappointed that Ford didn’t check in with his caucus first.
The Deputy Swap proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in his inaugural speech is now underway.
Motions to expel Senator Hiram Monserrate (Senator Slashy) are now underway in the senate following a report that recommended either expulsion or censure.
Senator George Onorato of my district announced his retirement. He’s been in his seat since before I was born, literally. Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, an advocate of good government and an energetic leader in our community, has announced his intention to run for his seat.
The Senate unveiled Ethics Reform legislation to counter Paterson’s proposals. Can either of them lead to real change, or is it just smoke and mirrors?
Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien feud – we’re clearly Team Coco here at Shaping NYC. (Right Jacky?)
The Personal Democracy Forum is taking place in NYC in June and I want to go; donations accepted via email!
I just finished reading Three Men in a Room by former New York State Senator Seymour Lachman and Robert Polner. Jacky recommended it to me. Lachman takes apart the inner workings of Albany to reveal its rotten inner core. None of the machinations would come as a surprise to those of us who have followed Albany, especially after the stalemate of this summer. Still, the lengths that Albany lawmakers have gone to in order to protect their turf are truly exceptional.
Lachman criticizes Albany as undemocratic and governed by the “three men” – the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Governor. When Lachman wrote the book, the Republicans ran the Senate and Democrats, as now, ran the Assembly. These three men decided which bills would be voted on, how the voting would go, and command their parties to follow suit. Legislators are given little time to digest long budget bills and then expected to vote on them as commanded. Whichever party is in the majority gets a disproportionate share of resources, violating the U.S. Constitution’s principle of “one man, one vote.” Lobbyists pour money into the parties’ housekeeping accounts, side-stepping the already weak campaign finance laws in the state. As a result of the concentration of power in the three men, the lobbyists can exercise undue influence on legislation.
The Speaker and Majority Leader exercise their power on members through the campaign purpose and their direction of redistricting. They can reward loyal members by drawing districts that will remain safe for the incumbent and punish those who are not by splitting their districts into disparate pieces. This gerrymandering of districts does not have to happen; Iowa now does redistricting through a computer program that obeys certain criteria in order to draw truly fair districts. However, under the current NYS Constitution, the leaders can continue to command the districting process. There’s a lack of checks and balances within it to separate powers and ensure a vibrant legislative process. For instance, committee chairs do not have the power to move legislation out of their committees on their own; they can only do so upon the approval of the leader of the house. Also, while theoretically a commission helps with the redistricting, the committee is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the leaders; not exactly a bulwark of independence.
Lachman also criticizes the system of authorities, the shadow governments that have outsourced much of government spending. When Robert Moses founded the Triborough Authority, the bonds that it issued were repayed by the tolls that Moses collected on the bridges and roadways. However, since then, government has created authorities to finance all sorts of projects; not all of them good for New York State. The most egregious example that Lachman cites is an authority, the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness, which exists to cover local government shortfalls when Albany fails to pass an on-time budget – which it did in 2005 for the first time in 20 years.
Lachman concludes his expose by calling for a wholesale overhaul of the NYS Constitution. He argues that it needs to be redrawn in order to protect the rights of New York citizens and allow a truly democratic process to take place in state government. Every 20 years, New Yorkers are asked whether the state should hold a constitution convention and the next referendum is scheduled for 2017. Many prominent New Yorkers have called for a new convention, and the growing recognition of the disarray of our government may provide the momentum needed for a new Constitution. Meanwhile, New Yorkers wait in disgust for a government that actually will serve the people.
Yesterday, marriage equality advocates suffered a setback when the New York State Senate voted to reject the marriage equality bill 24-38. The bill had passed the Assembly twice already this year, and political observers were cautiously optimistic that the bill would have the momentum to pass. However, during the slow role call, Senators Alesi (R-Rochester) and Addabbo (D-Queens) both voted against it,giving cover to the senators who did not want to come out in favor of the bill, and effectively ending the vote before it got to the letter B. Political observers had pinned their hopes of passage on these two men, since neither had committed to a position prior to the vote. In the end, eight Democrats (including four from my borough, Queens) and the entire Republican delegation voted against the bill.
The ramifications of this vote remain to be seen. The Empire State Pride Agenda has already vowed to fight the senators who voted against the bill by supporting their challengers in the next election. Meanwhile, socially conservative Democrats, such as the outspoken Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx), defend their decision to vote against it, but may face angry and energized marriage equality advocates come November. Alternatively, Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the bill in more vulnerable districts, such as Sen. Brian Foley (D-Suffolk) may face opposition from their constituents who did not favor the marriage equality bill’s passage.
In any case, it is undeniable that this issue will come up again. During the debate, over 15,000 people were watching the live feed of the New York State Senate, and those who care about this issue are not going away. (Insert snark about how that is more people than have probably watched the State Senate ever, if you added them up… no, too easy.)
"We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it." 