Vote No NYS Prop 3: $2 Billion bond measure for education, so tax cuts can remain and cost for schools are the next guy's problem

This proposal would allow the State to borrow up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000). This money would be expended on capital projects related to the design, planning, site acquisition, demolition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or acquisition or installation of equipment for the following types of projects:

1. To acquire learning technology equipment or facilities including, but not limited to,
1. Interactive whiteboards,
2. Computer servers, and
3. Desktop, laptop, and tablet computers;
2. To install high-speed broadband or wireless internet connectivity for schools and communities;
3. To construct, enhance, and modernize educational facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and provide instructional space to replace transportable classroom units; and
4. To install high-tech security features in school buildings and on school campuses.

The biggest bone of contention I have with this is that if these expenditures were so necessary why don't we raise taxes to pay for them rather than using the state's credit card. I would be more inclined for using borrowed money was the purpose to build new schools, but it is instead supposed to be used to buy consumer/enterprise electronics that have a depreciation life of 5 years. It would be far wiser to spend 2 billion dollars on new schools, and make permanent, some form of revenue to pay the teachers to fill those schools. A good first step would be to make all revenue from lottery and gambling earmarked for the school district that the retail location resides, essentially no longer allowing the NY State Lottery Commission's budget to be fungible with the general budget. 

Vote Yes on NYS Prop 2

Prop 2 is quite straight forward, letting the state legislature go paperless. Unless you're the Dunder-Mifflin that has the paper contract, you should be for this prop.


The purpose of this proposal is to allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. Under the current provisions of the Constitution, this requirement can only be satisfied by distribution of a physical printed copy.

Vote No on NYS Prop 1: Revising State's Redistricting Procedure

I would describe myself as reform minded, and am aware of the need to drastically change how redistricting occurs in New York every 10 years in response to the Constitutionally required census. The ballot prop 1 is an attempt to reform redistricting that is akin to moving around the chairs of the Titanic, though worse since if it passes it will for the foreseeable future be considered already dealt with. Currently redistricting is approved directly by the state legislature, after the passage of Prop 1 their will be commission that will have vague directives who will propose a redistricting plan that will be required approval of the state legislature's leaders.

Inserting a middleman and unenforceable directives do not make actual reform. The directives are listed below:

• No district lines may result in the prohibited denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights. Districts cannot be drawn to have the purpose of or result in the denial or abridgement of such rights.
• To the extent practicable, districts must contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants. The commission must provide a specific public explanation for any deviation that exists.
• Each district must consist of contiguous territory and be as compact in form as practicable.
• Districts cannot be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.
• Maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions, and of communities of interest must be considered.

Caveats of "as practicable", "discourage competition" or "favoring or disfavoring" are so subjective to make them entirely unenforceable, even if the legislative leaders wanted them to be enforced. The legislative leaders remaining as the final arbitrators is the core rationale that good government reformers have lambasted Prop 1. The New York Times succinctly described the prop as "This is a phony reform that purports to establish a new system of drawing legislative districts. Legislative leaders would appoint a committee charged with drawing new districts. If the legislators don’t like the first two tries, they can draw the districts themselves. The net result would be to reinforce, not reform, a system that virtually guarantees job security for incumbents and discourages competition."

IDC's State Senators Switching Sides, So It Must Be Election Time Again

The following is an excerpt from an email WFP sent June 26th (a week after NYS legislative session ended) claiming victory due to the IDC joining with the Democrats in the State Senate:

Sean,
BIG NEWS: the Independent Democratic Conference in the New York state Senate is breaking with the Republicans to form a new progressive majority coalition with the Senate Democrats!This is huge. Republican control in the state Senate has been the biggest roadblock to every progressive goal, from public financing of elections to raising the minimum wage to the Women's Equality Act. With this new coalition, the Republicans should be headed back to the minority.


But even with the IDC on our side, we still need to win in November. At this point, we'd be holding on to the majority by a thread -- a projected one-seat margin. We can't afford to lose a single seat.
There are three progressive Democrats in swing districts elected with the help of Obama's 2012 wave. Holding those seats will take real work. There are also three formerly Republican held open-seats that could be ripe pick-up opportunities to expand the majority.

So what does victory look like according to WFP? State Senators that caucused with obstructing Republicans while in session switch sides yet again to feign loyalty to avoid primaries and the only repercussion for being fairweather friends, why having their primary opponents lose financial support and be left free to switch back to the Republicans after the election.

In a state that often is pejoratively referred to a being liberal, the so-called liberal elected officials bear a striking resemblance to the Washington Generals with Republicans standing in for the Harlem Globetrotters. Liberal alternative candidates being outmaneuvered to ensure the intentionally-losing-on-policy Democrats remain to pantomime putting up fight for progressive values that they so reflexively betray. Majority of the voters of New York State voted against Republicans in the general election of 2012, and the Republican majority only existed by a handful of State Senators who ran as Democrats but then crossed the aisle as naked-opportunists.  
Leader of the IDC, State Senator Klein apparently is not very good at math as the NY Daily News reported him saying "Klein said it's not enough just having a Democratic majority. It's key to elect Democrats who support a more progressive agenda. A push to strengthen the state's abortion laws wouldn't pass currently because the Dems don't have the sufficient 32 votes." There are currently 5 IDC State Senators, 29 Republican State Senators, and 29 Democratic State Senators, so to state their wasn't enough Senators precludes the 5 IDC Senators is farcical at best. Were the IDC to remain with the GOP majority, while intending to wait  for the Democrats to take 4 or more seats from the GOP, why would the Democratic conference welcome back the IDC backstabbers? Why would the Democratic Party ever trust the IDC State Senators and withdrawal support of their primary opponents? Doing either would invite ever quicker dismissal of values the rank-and-file Democrats hold and the average voter is promised as the central motivation for voting Democratic in November.  

I Endorse Zephyr Teachout For Governor, Tim Wu for Lt Gov In The Democratic Primary

“I believe in democracy,” Ms. Teachout said, “not donors.”

People aren't happy with "concentration in the media industries and tech industry into political strength," Wu says.

These are the sentiments that will never come out the mouth of Governor Cuomo and the reason why Cuomo should not have received the WFP endorsement and should not receive Democrats vote in the upcoming September primary. Concentration of wealth, influence and political power is an anathema to our constitutional republic and our democratic institutions. On the right side of the aisle, there is feigning of outrage that the government is overreaching with regards to economic intervention but calls for unilateral restraint in the side of the least powerful. On the left side of the aisle, there is a predetermination of who gets the benefits of the government action but since it is not equally implemented it is intrinsically unjust metered out. Zephyr Teachout, admittedly by herself, is an underdog in the campaign to be governor it should not disqualify whether or not one is too vote for her. The prognosticators that assumed Eric Cantor's primary was a foregone conclusion were proven wrong, and I hope that Ms. Teachout and Mr. Wu will overcome poor odds and claims that it is quixotic to even attempt but our democracy is all that more stronger the more opinions that are expressed and the more ideologically diverse our candidates for public office are.

Even she does win the primary, she would then need to run a three way race against Rob Astorino and Andrew Cuomo yet again but the Governor would be depending on the Independent and WFP line.    

Should liberals vote for Rob Astorino?

There's been a lot of buzz recently about New York's next race for governor, and speculation about whether a progressive challenger will run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Here's how The New York Times described what's going on:1
    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has won significant support from traditionally Republican constituencies, including business executives who like his tax cuts and Wall Street financiers delighted with his support of charter schools. But this courtship has come at a price: As he begins his bid for a second term, he is struggling to hold on to support from the left wing of his own party.

We want to know where New York MoveOn members stand. This isn't a formal endorsement vote—just a statewide membership survey to get a sense of what New York MoveOn members are thinking as a potential race shapes up.
Do you think a progressive candidate should run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo this year?
    Yes, I want to see a progressive challenger to Andrew Cuomo.
    No, I support Andrew Cuomo.
After we tally the responses, we'll report back to MoveOn members across the state and share them with the media—so they know what progressives are thinking as the gubernatorial election gets under way. 

 -MoveOn.org Email Subject: New York Member Survey: Progressive challenger for Gov. Cuomo? (May 27th, 2014)

Friend,
Gov. Cuomo pushed through tax cuts for the super rich, repealed taxes on banks, and slashed funding for local schools -- all ideas Republicans really like.
It's no wonder there's been speculation about whether a true progressive will challenge him in the race for governor.
The New York Times: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has won significant support from traditionally Republican constituencies, including business executives who like his tax cuts and Wall Street financiers delighted with his support of charter schools. But this courtship has come at a price: As he begins his bid for a second term, he is struggling to hold on to support from the left wing of his own party.
We want to know where our New York members stand.
Do you think a progressive candidate should run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo this year?
We'll report back to you and share the results with the media -- so they know what progressives are thinking as New York's gubernatorial election gets under way.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-Bold Progressive's Email Subject: New York survey re: Cuomo (May 28th, 2014)

This Saturday night, Working Families Party State Committee members from across New York will gather in Albany to make one of the most important decisions we have ever faced.
Should we support Governor Andrew Cuomo's re-election or endorse a progressive challenger?
I’ve been with the Working Families Party for 15 years and know firsthand that the power of our organization comes directly from empowering supporters like you to make important decisions and take meaningful action.
That’s why it’s so important our State Committee Members hear from you before they make this important decision.
Let us know if you believe the Working Families Party should endorse Governor Cuomo’s re-election or endorse a progressive challenger to run against him.
While Gov. Cuomo deserves credit for winning marriage equality and passing gun reform, many New Yorkers are frustrated with his tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations and dramatic cuts to education.1
Since we last wrote about this race, another poll came out showing over 22% of New Yorkers would support a Working Families Party alternative this November — within the margin of error of Republican Rob Astorino’s 24%.
But before this decision is made, we wanted to reach out again to see what you thought our next step should be. Share your thoughts here:
http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9926
We’ll be in touch over the next few days to keep you up-to-date on the latest news and information about this decision.
Thank you for making your voice heard,

-Working Families Party's Email Subject: Endorse or challenge Andrew Cuomo? (May 29th, 2014)

The proceeding three emails, were a selection of progressive organizations seeking feedback on whether or not Cuomo should receive each organization's support and especially whether or not a WFP should back Cuomo for re-election. They each allude to significant opposition within the self-identified liberal/progressive movement that Cuomo innately faces. WFP state convention occurred, and with lots of arm twisting by Mayor DeBlasio and his aides, the nomination was delivered to Corporatist-Centrist Democrat Cuomo.

The following emails I received in response to the Cuomo nomination by the WFP:

Sean,

Last night, we secured a major win. Not for the Working Families Party, not for Governor Andrew Cuomo, but for the working families of the state of New York.
Faced with a challenge from Zephyr Teachout -– a Working Families Democrat if there ever was one -- for the Working Families Party endorsement, Gov. Cuomo declared for the first time that he will join the effort to secure a Democratic-Working Families majority.
We have disagreed a lot with the Governor's economic and education policies over the last four years. On many issues, he has not governed as a progressive. But we do agree with the platform he committed to fighting for last night, which will help transform the lives of millions of people, and even set the stage for still further gains:
    *passing comprehensive public financing of elections to fight the influence of big-money in our democracy
   * passing the Dream Act, so all New Yorkers can access higher education
    *decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, so we can stop jailing our youth, especially young people of color
    *passing the full 10-point Women's Equality Agenda, to protect and ensure women's equality
    *raising New York's minimum wage to $10.10/hour, indexed to inflation, and allowing cities and counties to raise wages 30% higher than the state level
    *increasing the state's investment in community schools to improve educational opportunities in high-need districts. But the Governor still fell far short of what's needed -- we need to comply with the Campaign for Fiscal Equity court order and fully fund our schools.

     

The Governor's pledge to fight for this vision of New York is why the WFP State Committee voted last night to endorse Andrew Cuomo for Governor of New York. 

Now, the hard work begins. We will hold the Governor accountable to his commitment, but we'll need your help. Can we count on you?

Yes, count me in. I will work to hold Governor Cuomo to the promise he made for a more progressive New York. 

-Working Families Party Email Subject: Our commitment to New York (June 1st, 2014)

Progressives won a big victory in New York last weekend. The Working Families Party forced Gov. Andrew Cuomo to drop his support for Republican control of the State Senate and made him commit to a populist agenda to fight income inequality. In return they agreed to back him for a second term.
Gov. Cuomo didn't want to do it. We forced his hand. Our survey of New York DFA members last week found 82% of those who responded said they would back a progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo.
We shared those numbers with the Working Families Party, helping give them confidence to support a challenger if Gov. Cuomo didn't meet their terms. It also showed Gov. Cuomo that we were serious about a challenge, forcing him to commit to a progressive agenda.
DFA was willing to back a progressive challenger in order to hold Gov. Cuomo accountable and to push him to the left. His agreement to support the Working Families Party agenda validates that strategy. But it's not the end of the story. DFA members are going to hold Gov. Cuomo to his promises. We will not let him backslide. We will not let him side with Wall Street and the rich. 

Democracy for America Email Subject: How Andrew Cuomo caved to progressives (June 6th, 2014)

Dear New York MoveOn member, 
Recently, we shared survey results with the media showing that 73% of responding MoveOn members in New York State want to see a progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo.
Here are some highlights of Gov. Cuomo's commitment to progressives:¹

• Support for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and letting localities across New York—including New York City—set their own higher wages up to more than $13/hour

• Support for the Dream Act 

• Support for passing the full 10-point Women's Equality Agenda

• Support for decriminalization of marijuana

• Support for public financing of elections

• Commitment to working to elect a Democratic State Senate to turn these proposals into law, and a demand for the so-called Independent Democratic Caucus lawmakers to return to the Democratic Party

As with all political agreements, we can't take anything for granted, and follow-through will depend on two things: 1) Democrats must win the State Senate in November, and 2) there needs to be meaningful accountability to make sure Gov. Cuomo delivers on the agreement.
That's where all of us come in: Together with allies, we're helping form a Cuomo Accountability Team to make sure Gov. Cuomo knows progressives are watching closely and demanding follow-through on the commitments he has made.
Will you sign up for the Cuomo Accountability Team to make sure promises turn into action? Click here to join:

Here's an update: In order to win the endorsement of the Working Families Party—and faced with pressure from MoveOn members, law professor Zephyr Teachout, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, DFA, and other allies across New York—Governor Cuomo agreed to support a set of demands that progressives been making for years. 

 -MoveOn.org Email Subject: Update re Gov. Cuomo (June 13th, 2014)

Each of the emails after the WFP convention claimed victory and asked for donations (links to donation pages removed), but they also acknowledged that exact goal before the WFP convention (having an alternative progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo) was wildly popular. There is such a thing as 'moving the goal posts' but this not 'moving the goal posts' but instead deciding there was never goal posts but if there were goal posts they were really popular goal posts if they ever existed. I know I stretched the analogy a bit far, but metaphysical twisting of logic to pull out a win from Cuomo eliminating any viable progressive challenger is equally a stretch.

Which brings me to the point that my title alludes to, if the progressive activists that were excited about a possible challenge to Cuomo (since he was characterized in May as a Republican Lite, but in June a strong fighter for the Liberal cause), couldn't they ensure that 4 years down the road that unseating a Astorino Governorship with a real progressive be better than handing over all progressive credibility to a Republican Lite Cuomo who have the WFP nomination as trophy of the Big Liberal Game Hunter when he runs for president in 2016? Should the 73%-82% of participants in the poll that wants a real progressive to challenge to Cuomo be better served by holding their nose and voting for Astorino rather than holding their nose and voting for Cuomo? Astorino, even if 200,000 people agreed with me and voted against Cuomo for the betterment of the Progressive movement, wouldn't win the governorship; but it would send a loud message to all those Democratic elected officials that presume they have to kowtow to the opposition's base because the Tea Party won't go along with compromise, that the Progressives are tired of being the only side that gives anything in political negotiations. That 200,000 vote number I'm using is a significant number only in that is the number of votes, if withheld from the WFP, would cause the WFP to lose their ballot access and have to wait 4 years to get it back. The requirement of 50,000 votes for governor on a party's line, and in 2010 WFP recieved less than 250,000. Even if somehow Astorino did win and Cuomo kept to his promise to beat both Independent Democratic Conference State Senators and poachable GOP state senators' seats, it would be assuredly better to have both houses safely held by real Democrats than the Potemkin village setup where the Republicans hold the majority and play bad cop to Cuomo's good cop.

Progressives lost when Cuomo received the WFP nomination, and the Progressive panhandling organizations (DFA, MoveOn.org, Bold Progressives, WFP, etc) irrespective of whatever the outcome turned out to be was going to ask for money to get "real progressive change." We've got big mountain to climb if we are going to get challenger Bob to defeat Cuomo! But there was no challenger so we get instead: Cuomo has really let us down, but if you give money now that will show him to change his ways and keep the promises that he begrudgingly made under duress. What is the difference, I don't think even the Progressive panhandlers know or care. 

The likeliest of the good scenarios is that the WFP losses it's ballot access it is narrow race (I'm indifferent to whether or not Cuomo wins re-election), with the narrative that would get widely reported is that the left were too unhappy with it's lone choice voted for protest write-in candidate or Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins getting a surprising segment of the vote.

Steamroller Spitzer: Had To Go; "My Way or No Way" Cuomo: Can Stay Forever

So it was often referred to in 2008 and throughout Eliot Spitzer's governship that he 'did not play well with others' which was part of the rationale to why he couldn't weather out the storm of his perchance to use high end prostitutes like current Senator David Vitter did when he was outed as a family values politician that flouted his family obligations. Assemblyman Keith Wright in an attempt to collect endorsements from Democratic clubs around the city came across the problem that the Governor is not too popular among the most active Democratic activists, as seen in the below quote from Capital New York article:

Later, (satirist and protest candidate for governor Randy) Credico asked (former Assemblyman Peter) Grannis, “How is the comptroller’s relationship with Andrew Cuomo? Seriously.” After a few moments of silence from Grannis, who had a knowing smile on his face, Credico added, “Be honest.”

“I know the answer to the question," Grannis replied. "It’s a strained relationship and that’s unfortunate because we … could be a much more aggressive and productive partner with the governor.” He added, “the governor has this approach: my way or no way.”

AND

“Expectations have been high for this governor because of what he did with the Marriage Equality Act,” Wright told the crowd. “Why can’t he do that everywhere? I mean, that’s the question. This governor is in firm support of the Dream Act. I’m going to tell you quite frankly, the New York State Senate doesn’t like it. They hate it. And the Dream Act really doesn’t poll that well. So, you have senators that just won’t do it, just won’t do it. You’re giving tuition, financial aid to children of undocumented immigrants. Every place is not Greenwich Village."

So the styles of the Governors could be considered similar, if there was even a small smell of scandal would Cuomo be forced to resign as Spitzer did due to lack of support? Or would Cuomo weather the storm due to the support that his grating leadership style has lost him are the grassroots and not the big money contributors. In the documentary "Client 9", Ken Langone (billionaire founder of Home Depot) was shown in his own words to have inside information about investigating Eliot Spitzer prior to any knowledge of Spitzer's involvement with prostitutes, and demonstrated that his personality had nothing to do with his resignation but that his grating and obnoxious was merely directed towards the wrong segment of society, the organized money. Andrew Cuomo's obnoxious behavior is set against the least among us and those in the middle class, so he is secure in getting an insurmountable level of support and resources from those that are morbidly wealthy. Only those that have near infinite resources cannot be offended by elected officials that dare to seek out to carry out the will of the people and enforce the law indifferent to size of his/her bank account. When organized money screams for the heads of elected officials, get behind those candidates for office; when organized money get behind elected officials they find agreeable, scream for their heads and oppose them in every possible democratic institution.

But maybe the current New York State governor with future presidential ambitions should look to a previous holder of that office for some advice:

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Speech at Madison Square Garden"

Carl Kruger not just corrupt, closeted self hating gay

Carl Kruger is 1 of 8 Democrats in 2009 that voted against gay marriage has been outed by the FBI in the course of the corruption investigation that his live-in boyfriend helped launder money. Though all the claims of the State Senator's homosexuality is speculative, what isn't is the fact that Senator Kruger is not long for keeping his seat... and I say good riddance to bad garbage!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/nyregion/11kruger.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/12/gay-marriage-fails-24-38.html