|
|
|
The New York Post is having a field day with the craziness going on in Albany. Every day, they run cartoons depicting members of the dysfunctional New York State Senate as clowns, playing out the metaphor of a circus going on in the State House with no one in charge and no prospects of anyone being in charge anytime soon.
But it's well beyond a circus at this point. It's a lot worse than a bad joke. What's happening in the Senate in New York State is an absolute crime. It's no longer simply about who is going to be in control, the Democrats or Republicans. It's about the fact that if anything happens to Gov. David Paterson, it is unclear who is next in line to be the chief executive in New York State. It's about the fact that a law passed in Albany a few years ago turning over the New York City public schools to its mayor has the potential to set New York City schools back decades in terms of student achievement and organizational stability.
But the worst part about what is going on in New York State is that by all indications, senators of both parties don't seem to care very much. They don't feel threatened in any way by Gov. Paterson, who says that senators shouldn't be paid, and that he plans on withholding funding for legislative pet projects until this crisis is resolved.
Yet, senators from both sides of the aisle scoff at the governor. They see him as weak, politically impotent, and frankly, pretty much of a non-entity in state politics. And you can bet that former New York City mayor and failed presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is going to say if he were in charge, if he were governor, none of this absurdity would happen under his watch. You can expect Democrat Andrew Cuomo to say that same thing when he inevitably takes the plunge and runs for governor.
One last thing: senators in New York have to get their house in order in a rush. They are convinced that the majority of New York voters don't give a damn. Oh yea, they'll say they're angry and that they are embarrassed by the actions, but the reality is, well over 90 percent of Senate incumbents get re-elected, no matter what they do. Senators are convinced (and unfortunately I'm convinced) they are right, that most voters are going to vote for their incumbent Senator regardless of the fact that they have taken about a month off from work for no legitimate reason, and have no prospects of going back anytime soon. When politicians think voters don't care enough to throw them out and make a change, they become more arrogant than ever.
Well that's the bottom line in Albany these days; most Senators think there's absolutely no consequences for their bad behavior, and as long as that's the way they see it, things are only going to get worse. Like I said, it's a lot worse than an embarrassment or a circus. It's a crime. It's just a shame that no one is going to be prosecuted in all this.
You don't need this blogger to tell you what a disgrace it is in Albany these days. It also doesn't matter that Senator Hiram Monserrate has now apparently rejoined the Democratic fold after bolting to the GOP last week. It's all a circus, it's all a shame. It's great media fodder. The intrigue, the personalities, the rich fat cats like billionaire and perennial failed state-wide candidate Tom Golisano— all these elements make the Albany fiasco fascinating on many levels.
There's only one catch— while Albany is in shambles, and the Senate is now apparently deadlocked at 31 votes each with an apparent Senate president in Senetor Pedro Espada, Jr. (who is facing a range of ethical and fundraising investigations), it all comes down to one simple fact: the important business of New York State will not be done anytime soon. State government must act on the question of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controlling the New York City public schools. There are huge questions regarding tax and spending policies. New York has a governor in David Paterson who is also the former Senate democratic leader, who is so weakened politically, that no one takes what he says or does very seriously.
The irony is that a clown like Monserrate gets so much attention, not for any important legislation or policy efforts he is engaged in, but rather, because he not only keeps flip-flopping from party to party, he happens to be facing charges for allegedly slashing his girlfriend in the face with glass. Gridlock reigns supreme in Albany, and Espada and Monserrate will try to have you believe, along with Tom Golisano and his very deep pockets, that they are somehow doing something heroic and significant. They are not. They are simply involved in a power grab, and for now they have succeeded.
I can't blame the Republicans for participating in this coup, because the Democrats' hold on the Senate majority was tenuous (at best) when they elected an incompetent legislator like Malcolm Smith to lead their efforts. How could Senator Smith not see this coming? How could Governor Paterson, with all his years of Senate experience, not see this coming? The fact is, while the New York tabloids and those of us in the broadcast news media have a field day with this story, Albany and New York State have become a laughing stock across the nation. The Democrats now look for the courts to nullify Senator Espada's ascendance to the Senate Presidency and reestablished the Dems as the party in power. Even if that happens, it won't create any stability in Albany, because the fact is, there is a massive lack of leadership upstate, and no court in the world can keep a legislative body functioning and doing the business of the people.
Before I became a journalist, I served in the New Jersey State Legislature. Even though I saw some pretty petty Legislative politics in Trenton, I've never seen anything so embarrassing and disgraceful as what's going on in Albany. Governor Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo, Rudy Guiliani, as well as every serious and concerned citizen and media organization must speak out and demand that the state senate in New York get its house in order immediately. If not, there is no conceivable reason why any of these clowns should be reelected, much less rewarded for their antics.
There's so much blame to go around, and blaming won't solve this. The only thing that will is the fear of voter backlash and significant political consequences for the very bad actors who have created this calamity in the New York state house.
Politics, name calling and labeling people is the norm in today's society. When you don't agree with someone, you call them a "liberal". Those on the left label people they disagree with on the issue of guns as "gun nuts", or pro- choice advocates as "pro life zealots". The word "socialist" is big these days.
Now consider the case of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Clearly she has said things— including her statement about Latinas making better decisions than white men— that are controversial and need to be explained. Further, her decision to throw out the New Haven firefighter test when a white applicant scored dramatically higher than many minorities is highly suspect at best.
However, to call her a "racist," as Rush Limbaugh did is not only counterproductive, it's divisive and absurd. Limbaugh has been joined by Newt Gingrich in playing the name-calling game against Sotomayor. For Limbaugh, calling her a "racist" does nothing but help him stay in the news and keep his listeners coming back for more. For Gingrich, it helps keep him relevant with certain constituents in the Republican Party.
But I keep wondering what it would be like to have Senate hearings in which the merits of Sonia Sotomayor's decisions and statements can be debated, as opposed to vilifying her and attempting to destroy her reputation. When Al Franken wrote his best-selling book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", the title was catchy and it helped move a lot of books. But obviously, it was a marketing tool. Franken attempted to make his case within the body of the book, but it was the name-calling that captured everyone's attention. While I didn't love the title of Franken's book, I understood why he did it. I can also understand how many could be offended. Yet, as bad as that was, Franken was referring to Limbaugh, whose reputation as a radio talk show host has largely been based on calling others names. Not only can he take it, but that's the world he lives in.
In this case, we are talking about putting someone on the Supreme Court who will make decisions about the most important issues in American life. The stakes are much higher. But to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, this is a game that they love playing. They have little (if any) desire to have a meaningful dialogue about the pros and cons of Sotomayor's record, because that would mean they would actually agree or consider the validity of some of what she has said, even if they disagree with much of it. Name calling and reputation bashing is so much easier. The only problem is, these personalities continue to tear away at the fabric of civil and meaningful public dialogue when our country faces such serious problems and while the role of the Supreme Court has never been more important.
By any reasonable standard, President Barack Obama has had a pretty good 100 days. Interestingly, the last few have gotten even better, with longtime Republican US Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania leaving the GOP ranks and joining the Dems in supporting Obama's budget plan, which includes a massive overhaul of the healthcare system.
Clearly, the Obama administration has made many rookie mistakes, including naming several people to high-level Cabinet positions who either forgot or apparently tried to get out of paying their taxes. The most egregious example is US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, since the Treasury Department oversees the IRS.
But beyond Obama not knowing whether he should bow or shake hands with certain foreign dignitaries, in that very awkward moment with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (is this guy a creep or what?) Obama has largely succeeded because of the PR/image/branding campaign he and his team have executed in the past three months. Most of the mainstream media loves this guy and his family, including their new dog Bo. In fact, Michelle Obama, who was seen as not an especially great asset on the campaign trail by many (when she made those dumb remarks about being "proud" for the first time in her life because of her husband's success) has gone through a huge image overhaul. The First Lady is on virtually every magazine that caters to women. The Obama's daughters take a pretty terrific picture. Put them all together, it looks like an updated version of Camelot in the YouTube age.
Last night, Obama did another primetime press conference. This was his fourth. Personally, I think it's at least one or two too many, but tens of millions watched, and we'll all be talking about it today. He's also doing a town meeting in St. Louis to mark 100 days of his presidency. All this, while his administration says we in the media are making too much of this 100-day-marker.
Bottom line— President Obama is doing alright, but ultimately his success or failure as President over a four-year period will not be based so much on image, PR, and his ability to get many in the mainstream media to fall at his feet; it will be how the American economy performs. If unemployment continues to rise, and businesses continue to fold, he won't be able to charm his way out of it. If the stock market tanks anymore than it has, and there are more federal bailouts of critical US industries on Obama's watch—fair or not—he's going to take the hit for it.
So of course, these 100 days are important, but the next 1,360 are going to be a hell of a lot more important— not just for him, but for millions of Americans who are convinced that he's the guy that can turn their lives around.
New York Governor David Paterson has a new cause. Paterson, whose poll numbers continue to slip and whose political power is weakened by the minute, has become a champion of gay marriage in the Empire State. Paterson, in a much-publicized press conferencem along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council President Christine Quinn, unveiled a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, even though the measure has been rejected by the more conservative New York State Senate after having passed the Assembly.
On many levels, I agree that same-sex marriage should be passed in New York State, given that certain legal benefits to couples, including health insurance coverage and hospital visitation, can only be given to couples whose relationship is sanctioned by the state as an official marriage. I say, gay individuals should not be discriminated against just because the government does not sanction their relationship.
However, there are practical political issues here, the biggest one being that Governor Paterson is the wrong political figure to lead this most difficult and challenging effort. Paterson can't even get a budget passed and is perceived by many Democrats to be a weak candidate to represent them state wide on the ballot in 2010. For most New Yorkers, the only issue that really matters has to do with the economy and their individual pocketbooks.
Philosophically and morally, I argue that there is no perfect time to propose that citizens' rights be protected. However, politically speaking, Governor Paterson's comparing of the gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement is problematic on many levels. First, the leadership of the Black Church has never been particularly supportive of gay marriage. Many blacks and others who are closely tied to their church interpret the Bible literally and believe that God believed that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Simply put, Governor Paterson is not only going to have a hard time to get Upstate Republican Senators to support his gay marriage proposal, he's also going to have a hard time getting minority Democrats with ties to their church aboard. In addition, New York has a new Archbishop, Timothy Dolan. He too has announced his opposition, reinforcing long-time teachings of the Catholic Church.
Simply put, even though it seems like the right thing to do constitutionally and morally to allow same-sex couples to the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, it is very long-shot indeed passing such a law in Albany, as long as David Paterson is leading the effort.. Gay rights advocates and others that support gay marriage will have a better shot when and if a more popular Democrat becomes Governor and is willing to lead this effort. Two words: Andrew Cuomo.
There is no doubt that President Barack Obama is an excellent public speaker. He's dynamic, charismatic, and knows how to play to the crowd. We saw that during the campaign as he out-charmed all of his opponents for nearly two years. But Obama's challenge today is a very different one, in trying to sell his economic plan to both Congress and the country.
Barack Obama has become a one-man sales force. He is, in fact, the country's "Salesman-in-Chief" when it comes to promoting complex and controversial bailouts and fiscal schemes to prop up our country's financial giants, including the banking industry and automakers. The President's task is daunting, and no one can accuse him of not being "out there" pitching every place he can— on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, on ESPN talking about the NCAA Tournament, on 60 Minutes, on the Internet, on primetime press conferences on every major television network. In many ways, it's a welcome relief that we have a President who can put two sentences together and actually speak the English language the way it was intended to be spoken. Conversely, George W. Bush was one of the weakest communicators to serve as President. In fact, Obama has had more primetime press conferences in his first couple months in office than Bush had in his last few years in office.
However, the danger for Barack Obama is that he is bordering on being overexposed. It's almost too much of a good thing. Press conferences are great, particularly when you are answering tough questions, but when you pre-empt American Idol, you are treading on dangerous ground. Of course, we need to see our President, and hear him explain his fiscal policies. But I'm not convinced we need to see him on every television network, or on every magazine cover, on a regular basis. The more the President is out there, the greater the risk is of him making dumb mistakes— saying stupid things, like trying to make a joke on The Tonight Show about bowling a 129 and some ridiculous reference to "Special Olympics."
But Barack Obama needs to understand that being a candidate for President is not the same as being President. When you are running for President, you need to be everywhere all the time and try to look "presidential" in the process. Right now, Obama borders on looking like too much of a candidate for President, when the election is long over.
My advice is that Barack Obama start picking his spots, back off just a little bit, be a little less accessible and obvious. I'm not talking about hiding or going undercover, but rather not being so omnipresent. I'd never thought I'd say it, but our President is, in fact, getting overexposed. Most Americans already like him and want to trust him; we just don't need to see him all the time.
Finally, this may be easier said than done because like I said, Barack Obama seems to be the only effective salesperson in his administrations' fiscal policies. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is a terrible media figure. He doesn't present well, and clearly does not instill much confidence. As for Hilary Clinton, she'd be great, but she's the Secretary of State, and Obama doesn't want her anywhere near his limelight. Plus, it's not her job.
Simply put, the Obama administration has a very weak bench. The President not only bats leadoff, but he's also batting cleanup, while doing the pitching and the catching, as well as managing the team.
I don't like Governor Jon Corzine's budget proposal any more than you do, especially because I get whacked on many levels. First, I am not going to get a rebate check because the governor says that anyone earning over $75,000 is out. Further, what was the point of working to purchase a home and pay ridiculous property taxes if now the governor says I can't deduct them on my state income taxes next year? (That is, of course, unless I were a senior or disabled.)
The governor also had the gall to say that if you earned over $500,000 that you will get hit by paying more in state income taxes. And get this. The governor actually had the nerve to say; "We would have preferred not to have to cut funding for the arts and humanities, but we chose, in this financial emergency, not to close hospitals or eliminate senior prescription drug assistance."
As for state workers, the governor proposed that state workers take 12 days off next fiscal year without getting paid. That is an 8 percent salary reduction added to the fact that the governor proposed freezing salaries of state workers.
Those are just a few of the more controversial items in the governor's $28.9 billion spending plan. The governor says he would rather do none of these things. Call me naïve, but I believe him. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Jon Corzine is clearly not the most articulate or charismatic politician, but he is the first governor in my lifetime that had the guts to actually try to reduce state spending and pay as you go.
It may go against every one of Corzine's liberal instincts to cut government programs and antagonize state workers, but he is doing it anyway. He is trying to limit the fiscal gimmicks and not borrow on top of all the borrowing that has been done before him. But like I said, there is not much I really like about Jon Corzine's proposed budget.
But criticizing is easy. Solutions are hard. Just ask the Republicans who pile on Corzine because they continue to smell blood as many voters turn against him. According to state Senator Kevin O'Toole (R-Essex); "Higher taxes, fewer jobs, diminishing opportunity and an increasingly unaffordable cost of living…Governor Corzine has abandoned the middle-class taxpayer." O'Toole is a smart state Senator. I've known him for years, but his comments criticizing the governor's plan are typical, predictable and not especially helpful.
As for Chris Christie, the likely GOP gubernatorial candidate who has a real shot at becoming our next governor, he, too, blasted Corzine's spending plan. I asked Christie in a live call-in this week if he would have limited the Homestead Rebate to people earning under $75,000. Christie's artful response was that he would never have gotten us in this fiscal mess in the first place. However, when I pressed him as to whether he, if faced with our economic crisis, would have limited the rebates for people over $75,000, Christie candidly said, "no." But here's the catch. We all need to know exactly what Chris Christie, Kevin O'Toole, irate home owners, peeved mayors, arts group leaders (whose funding was cut by the state), WOULD cut.
It is so easy to be angry at Jon Corzine and to blame him for all of our fiscal problems. And yes, he has contributed to it on some level, solely because he has been governor for over three years. But to ignore that there is a worldwide, national, as well as regional recession, the likes of which most of us have never seen in our lifetimes, is absurd and disingenuous.
I've asked this question before and I am going to ask it again. Given the state's dire fiscal situation and that we are many billions of dollars in the hole, what exactly DO you propose gets cut in state government? Write to me at sadubato@aol.com and tell me if YOU were governor exactly what you would cut. Don't write to me and tell me Governor Corzine is a bum and his plan is garbage. That won't even begin to close the massive fiscal hole New Jersey faces. Think about it. When it comes to your own family budget, when was the last time calling each other names, pointing fingers or blaming your spouse ever got the bills paid? It doesn't work at home and it won't work in the statehouse. So either put up or shut up. Get busy and write that e-mail because actions always do speak louder than words.
Three major political chief executives are having a very hard time with things lately— New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Governor David Paterson, and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine. I'll save Paterson and Bloomberg for another blog; but right now let's focus on Governor Corzine.
New Jersey is facing a massive $4 billion budget hole, and Governor Jon Corzine is looking for ways to close it in a hurry. To Corzine's credit, he's had the political courage to do away with property tax rebates, which cost the state $1.7 billion a year. Of course, everyone wants a rebate from the government, but sometimes you just can't afford it.
You know, it's funny; people say they want the government to spend less money, but what most people really mean is that they want the government to spend less money on everyone except them. I understand it's tough for a struggling family who has come to depend upon a few hundred bucks, even possibly a few thousand dollars, from the state every year. But times have changed, and the money just isn't there. No governor can balance by deficit spending. The Feds can do it, but state government can't. So in my book, Corzine gets points, even though he is probably going to become a political pariah this fall when the Republicans make him public enemy #1 and the reason for all of New Jersey's fiscal problems.
The other area that Corzine gets points on is his proposal to have state workers be furloughed for two days this fall, which would simply mean they wouldn't come to work and they wouldn't get paid. I know, it doesn't sound like fun, but Corzine says (rightfully so) that furloughing state workers is one of the only ways to save the jobs of public employees. Corzine has also asked state workers to accept a wage freeze that is intended to save jobs. However, public employee union leaders have said, no way, and have vowed to fight Corzine to the death.
I'm a big supporter of unions when they make a valid case against management and protect workers from workplace abuse. However, in this case, Jon Corzine is giving state workers the chance to save the jobs of their brothers and sisters. I say, that in this economy, that's a pretty good deal. However, if the unions say no way, we have a contract, and tell Corzine that he can't furlough workers and his idea of a salary freeze is "dead on arrival", then there's going to be a bloodbath in New Jersey. Massive numbers of state workers are going to lose their jobs. Many of those same union leaders will then blame Jon Corzine.
What is the Governor to do when the state is running out of money and state revenues are sinking like a rock? You've got to cut costs when you can. I call that being a fiscal conservative, but all Corzine is going to get is grief. Then again, we wonder why a lot of really talented, creative, and successful professionals don't want to run for public office. Talk about a thankless job. Corzine's job doesn't sound like any fun to me. Does it to you?
