Daily Campaign Roundup: Kaplowitz Fights For Property Tax Cap
By Mike Connery on 08/09/2010 @ 04:45 PM
TODAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news. Democratic Candidate Mike Kaplowitz fights for property tax cap. Democratic Candidate Joanne Yepsen leading the way to save New York's racing industry. Republican Senator puts personal profit ahead of public health.
- Democratic Candidate Mike Kaplowitz fights for property tax cap – Mike Kaplowitz denounced The State Assembly for failing to pass the property tax cap that the Democratic Majority in the State Senate passed last week. “It is disappointing that the Assembly left town for the summer without also passing the property tax cap. This is Albany dysfunction at its worst. There is no excuse for the Assembly’s failure to enact the cap into law.” Kaplowitz brought attention to the fact that New Yorkers pay the highest property taxes in the country and that local property taxes in New York grew by 73% from 1998 to 2008 -- more than twice the rate of inflation. “Unless the Assembly enacts a property tax cap immediately, more New Yorkers will lose their homes, more families will be forced to leave our state, and more jobs will be lost,” Kaplowitz said.
- Democratic Candidate Joanne Yepsen on Aqueduct Deal: Seal It Now - Joanne Yepsen is urging the state to act quickly on New York State Lottery Division’s recommendation to award the Aqueduct Race Track video lottery terminal contract to Genting Inc. “New York state is losing $1 million a day in revenue until the VLTs are up and running at Aqueduct, forcing taxpayers to pick up the difference in funding state programs. Tragically, this nine-year delay has cost $2.5 billion in revenue to New York state, all at a time when our deficit and unemployment rate are of great concern,” Yepsen said.
Last Friday, Yepsen met with Sen. Eric Adams, chair of the Senate Racing Committee, to talk about the Aqueduct Race Track bidding, argue for the necessity of capital investment in the Saratoga Race Course, and highlight the local jobs and economic activity tied to such a project. Yepsen has been leading on this issue for quite some time and has continually stressed the importance of this revenue stream, “not just to Saratoga but to our entire state." - Republican Senator George Winner deemed “poster boy for Albany ethics mess” – Republican George Winner failed to disclose “a glaring, previously hidden conflict of interest on an issue of grave concern to all water-drinking New Yorkers.” The issue is hand is permitting hydrofracking in New York -- something Winner is a vocal proponent of. It was revealed that Winner’s his law firm has done work for some of the very companies who are seeking to make millions off the process and are lobbying the Senate to be able to drill upstate. In a true act of political cowardice, Winner is refusing to say who exactly his clients are -- or how much they are paying him. This led The New York Daily News to call this a “slam-dunk example of why the state Legislature needs ethical scrubbing.” Democrat Pam Mackesey is running to replace Winner, who is retiring, in the 53rd Senatorial District. Mackesey supports a moratorium on hydrofracking until all New Yorkers can be assured that it will not negatively impact their health in any way.
Republican Senator Puts Profits Ahead of Public Health
By Mike Connery on 08/09/2010 @ 03:36 PM
Republican corruption and ethical violations in the State Senate are nothing new. So what did it take for Republican incumbent Senator George Winner to be coined the “poster boy for Albany ethics mess” by The Daily News?
New Yorkers know that Winner is one of the most vocal supporters of permitting hydrofracking - a controversial and dangerous method of extracting natural gas from a miles-deep rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale. What New Yorkers didn’t know was that Winner’s law firm has done work for some of the very companies who are seeking to make millions off the process and who are lobbying the Senate to be able to drill upstate.
For a slam-dunk example of why the state Legislature needs ethical scrubbing, look no further than state Sen. George Winner.
The Daily News' Ken Lovett reveals that Winner has a glaring, previously hidden conflict of interest on an issue of grave concern to all water-drinking New Yorkers.
A Republican from upstate Elmira, Winner has been one of the Legislature's most outspoken proponents of opening New York to hydrofracking - a controversial and dangerous method of extracting natural gas from a miles-deep rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale.
What Winner managed to keep secret until now is that his law firm has done work for some of the very companies hankering to drill upstate.
Winner says that he is for full disclosure, but he failed to mention his stake in the outcome of the hydrofracking debate when it came up in the Senate last week. And in a true act of political cowardice, Winner is refusing to say who exactly his clients are -- or how much they are paying him. The Daily News put it mildly when they said this kind of corruption is simply “unacceptable, given the high stakes for New York's water quality. Not when one bad well sunk too close to New York City's reservoirs could ruin the drinking supply for millions.”
Fortunately, Winner is retiring at the end of his term. Republicans are locked in a primary to determine who will run for his open seat, but the Democratic candidate is already chosen, and she's ready to protect our environment and our drinking water. Pam Mackesey is running a strong campaign in the 53rd Senatorial District. Mackesey supports a moratorium on hydrofracking until all New Yorkers can be assured that it will not negatively impact their health in any way.
The Dominoes Continue to Fall - Republicans Contend with Primaries and Retirements
By Mike Connery on 06/06/2010 @ 01:14 PM
Another day and another domino falls in a chain reaction of events that looks to dash GOP hopes of retaking the State Senate in November. Three stories this weekend continue the trend we've been monitoring for weeks.
First up, Capital News reports that a contentious Republican primary between between concert pianist Andrew Russo and East Syracuse Mayor Danny Liedka is setting up the GOP for a repeat (defeat) performance in the district currently represented by Democrat David Valesky:
Six years later, Republicans appear to have a shot at retaking the seat from Valesky, which would considerably bolster their odds of winning back the upper chamber. But a potentially divisive Republican primary between East Syracuse Mayor Danny Liedka and Andrew Russo, a concert pianist, threatens to again thrash GOP hopes.
In addition, Russo has already gotten the Conservative Party’s endorsement to run on its line in November, which would present problems for Liedka and the GOP if he emerges as their nominee. Russo said that he would run an active general election campaign on the Conservative line regardless, unlike Dadey, who Russo said did not actively campaign on the Independence and Conservative lines in 2004.
The primary was sparked, in part, because local Republican county chairs have unable to pick a candidate in the race, announcing in mid-March that they were deadlocked. (Russo won the backing of Onondoga County, which has the highest Republican registration in the district, while Russo took Madison County, which has the second highest registration.)
This local primary is microcosm of a larger trend we've seen among the GOP across the state. New York Republicans are in chaos, unable to field strong challengers from within the party ranks, short on cash and facing primary challengers from the right and left. Indeed, the SRCC appears to be supporting Russo over one of their own purely because of his cash-on-hand advantage over Leidka:
But fearing the consequences of a heated primary in a district they have serious hopes of winning, the Senate Republican Campaign Committee has made no such promises, announcing in mid-May the unusual decision to back Russo in the intra-party struggle. Leadership of the SRCC says that it will be willing to put staffers into the district and recruit elected officials to campaign on Russo’s behalf.
Fundraising was a major factor in the SRCC’s decision: Russo had $96,000 cash on hand as of the January campaign finance filing, while Liedka acknowledges he has raised far less, though he has not made any official financial disclosure.
Meanwhile, both the Ithaca Journal and Democrat and Chronicle published stories examining the difficulties Republicans face due to the large number of retirements. Every week, it seems, brings news of another GOP senate retirement, each of which requires an expenditure of resources to defend previously safe seats and draws the GOP's attention away from top tier races.
Republicans are eagerly hoping they can win back the majority in the state Senate this year, but they unexpectedly face having to defend four seats in which veteran GOP lawmakers are leaving office at year's end.
The four departures complicates Senate Republicans' goal of flipping the tenuous 32-30 seat Democratic majority and regaining control of a chamber the GOP held for more than 40 years before the 2008 elections.
One domino at a time, Republican hopes of recapturing the chamber are fading. While GOP candidates are dropping like flies (or in-fighting like the Lord of the Flies), Democrats are fielding strong challengers in more districts than ever before.
New Yorkers still remember well what 44 years of Republican control of the senate was like. That's why anti-incumbent sentiment is directed strongly at upstate Republicans - holdovers from the reign of Joe Bruno - and why 3/4 of New Yorkers reject Republican control of the Senate.
And that's why 2010 is shaping up to be a good year for Democrats.
George Winner Joins the Parade of Republican Retirements
By Mike Connery on 06/02/2010 @ 05:07 PM
Politics On the Hudson reports that Republican incumbent George Winner will not seek reelection in the fall, bringing the total number of Republican open seats to four:
Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, made a surprise announcement today that he will not run for re-election this fall, making him the fourth veteran Republican senator this year to abandon his re-election plans.
Sens. Thomas Morahan of Rockland County, Vincent Leibell of Putnam County and Dale Volker of Erie County are leaving the Senate at year’s end, putting pressure on Republicans to hold seats they have long viewed as safe GOP districts.
This is yet another blow to Republicans in what should have been a banner year for their candidates across the board. To recap:
- Vincent Leibell, Dale Volker and Thomas Morahan - all Republican incumbents - have retired or are seeking higher office this year, leaving a string of weak challengers and contentious primaries in their wake.
- A study of voter enrollment data conducted by NYPIRG in April revealed that Democrats saw enrollment gains in 51 of 62 Senate Districts, and that Democrats held an outright registration advantage in 45 districts.
- A poll by Quinnipiac in May showed results similar to those revealed by Siena today. Quinnipiac found anti-incumbent sentiment at its highest point in the poll's history, with Republican base voters showing the highest levels of dissatisfaction.
- Former Republican Majority Leader Joe Bruno was convicted on two felony corruption counts.
- And the shallowness of the Republican political bench was revealed very publicly in a New York Times story in which potential GOP Senate candidates revealed that they declined to run due to a lack of confidence in the Republican leadership.
The New York Republican Party continues to disintegrate in front of our eyes.
The Truth About Budget Extenders
By Mike Connery on 04/27/2010 @ 12:18 PM
Yesterday the Democratic Majority Conference passed another round of budget extenders. The extenders are receiving the lion's share of media attention this morning, so it's worth taking some time to know what exactly is included in the extender, and why Republicans who vote against the extenders are not only hypocritical, but also working against the interests of the public, who rely on the jobs and services the extenders provide.
First, a look at what, exactly, the extender's fund:
- $2.57 billion mandated payments to schools for General Aid Payments not associated with the Executive’s delays of school aid payments.
- $2.5 billion for local providers of the Medical Assistance Program including:
- $1.45 billion for payments to Medicaid providers including:
- $900 million for medical services provided by State facilities operated by OMH, OMRDD and OASAS.
- $311 million for nursing home services.
- $261 million for managed care services.
- $234 million for long term care services.
- $172 million for hospital inpatient services.
- $137 million for pharmacy services
- $67 million for non-institutional and other spending.
- $30 million for outpatient and emergency room services
- $29 million for clinical services
- $12 million for transportation services
- $7 million for dental services
- $40 million for contracts approved prior to April 1, 2010 where payments must be made during the period from April 1, 2010 to May 2, 2010.
- $40 million for contracts approved in the period from April 1, 2010 to May 2, 2010 where payments must be made during the same period.
As is readily apparent, these are all vital services that New Yorkers rely upon, and represent thousands of jobs that are putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of New York families. Those who support this extender are supporting our troopers, guardsmen, corrections officers, nurses, and social service workers who care for our veterans, the homeless, and mentally disabled.
Which leads me to my next topic. Seventeen Republicans voted against the extender: DeFrancisco, Flanagan, Golden, Hannon, O. Johnson, Larkin, Libous, Marcellino, Maziarz, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, Seward, Skelos, Volker, Griffo, Winner and Young. Many of these Republicans have been in office for a decade or more. They had no problem voting for budget extenders when they controlled the chamber.
- 2008: 9 days late/ 2 extenders
- 2004: 133 days late/ 12 extenders
- 2003: 42 days late/ 5 extenders
- 2002: 42 days late/ 8 extenders
- 2001: 125 days late/ 12 extenders
- 2000: 39 days late/ 3 extenders
- 1999: 126 days late/ 19 extenders
- 1998: 14 days late/ 4 extenders
- 1997: 126 days late/ 10 extenders
- 1996: 104 days late/ 14 extenders
- 1995: 68 days late/ 10 extenders
Plainly, Republican opposition to the budget extenders isn't about taking a principled stand. It's about showboating for voters and shirking tough decisions. It's playing politics with people's lives and jobs. New Yorkers deserve more.
Poison Party?
By Mike Connery on 04/21/2010 @ 11:10 AM
Helping children is usually about as uncontroversial an issue as you can find in politics. Children are our future. Everyone is for children. Unless you're in the New York GOP.
Yesterday, as part of a package of Earth Day related legislation, the State Senate passed a bill sponsored by Brian Foley that prohibits the use of certain toxic chemicals for pesticide and weed control at schools.
Bill Before New York State Lawmakers Would Ban Use of Pesticides on School Playing Fields
Chemical companies are pressing lawmakers to vote against the bill. They say pesticides are highly regulated and safe to use.
Children are especially susceptible to pesticides because of their small size and still-developing organs, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than a purely chemical approach, the agency recommends schools use Integrated Pest Management, which combines several more organic and less toxic techniques to manage pests and weeds, such as overseeding, mowing grass taller, watering less and applying “compost tea,” a liquefied form of compost.
“Put simply, IPM is a safer, and usually less costly option for effective pest management in a school community,” EPA regulators said.
It's not just safer, though. It could also save schools money in the long term:
Schools would see a slight increase in cost during the first two years of IPM, but after the third year, the price would fall about 25 percent below the costs of chemical lawn treatment, according to a study by Grassroots Environmental Education, a nonprofit public health advocacy group in Nassau County. That group has offered free training to school groundskeepers on ways to care for fields without pesticides.
Keeps kids healthy? Check. Fiscally responsible? Check. So why are 22 GOP Senators opposed to this again?
Would Senate Republicans Prefer a Government Shutdown?
By Mike Connery on 04/20/2010 @ 01:26 PM
Yesterday the State Senate voted to pass budget extenders that will fund the essential functions of government and protect vital services on which millions of New Yorkers depend. The budget extenders allow the state to continue paying our troopers, guardsmen, corrections officers, nurses, and social service workers who care for our veterans, the homeless, and mentally disabled. They provide funds for Medicaid, Social Security, and Unemployment.
Without these extenders, the state cannot function, and New Yorkers already struggling to make ends meet with take yet another hard hit. This is a big deal, with an immediate impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the state's residents. So it's worth noting that 16 Republicans - as they have so often since they lost the majority - said 'No' to a functioning government, 'No' to services for their constituents, and 'No' to paying the first responders we rely upon in emergencies by voting against the budget extenders.
Here is the list of Republicans who voted against yesterday's bill. It's a wall of shame if ever there was one:
- John DeFrancisco
- John Flanagan
- Martin Golden
- Joe Griffo
- Kemp Hannon
- William Larkin
- Ken LaValle
- Tom Libous
- Carl Marcellino
- Michael Nozzolio
- Michael Ranzenhofer
- James Seward
- Dean Skelos
- Dale Volker
- George Winner
- Catharine Young
Here's my question. With so many New Yorkers struggling, and the state facing one of the biggest fiscal crises in recent memory, does this gang of 16 really think shutting down parts of the government and letting vital services lapse is a good idea? I wonder if their constituents would agree with their answer.
