Whose Pension Bill Is it Anyway?

As Danny Hakim of the New York Times points out today in an enterprising story, the financial impact of a bill to grant thousands of city workers early retirement was provided by the unions who support it. On its face, there's nothing wrong with a union supplying analysis, except that it's included in the bill's language making it appear as if it's the government's own conclusion or as if independently verified.

Lawmakers, or in this case the union, claim the new benefit won't result in a cost, while the city says it will be $200 million in red ink annually. (Put aside that the Times goes on to quote the union's actuary hedging that the bill if enacted would actually cost a fourth of what the city estimates.)

What do the bill's sponsors, Senator Martin Golden and Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., have to say for themselves? Assemblyman Abbate told the Times: "It’s their bill." Actually, he's the elected official and it's his name that is affixed to the bill.



There's nothing wrong with a union or a non-government organization providing analysis or guidance for legislators. However, this affair illustrates the utter lack of transparency in the state legislature and lack of initiative of some members. Assemblyman Abbate's claim is shameful.

What's next? Would he introduce a bill to sell the Brooklyn Bridge because a friendly special interest group hands him a piece of paper that claims it's a good idea?

It's problematic whether he knew did or didn't know what was in the bill. So, I ask: what did or didn't he know and when did or didn't he know it?

Bestselling Author to Discuss “The Uprising” – New Book on Rise of Populism in New York and Across the Country

Readers of this blog absolutely won’t want to miss the opportunity to hear and meet one of America’s leading progressive authors, David Sirota, in New York City on May 30 and June 3. The New York Times has called Sirota a “populist rabble-rouser” with a “take no-prisoners mind-set.” Meanwhile Barron’s has said that Sirota may emerge as the “answer” to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

From personal experience as both campaign colleague and loyal reader, I can attest that Sirota is a sharp strategist; an incisive writer; and an extremely compelling, while also refreshingly humorous, speaker. His first book, Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government — And How We Take It Back quickly became a bestseller. Why? Because Sirota’s thorough research, direct style, and merciless truth-telling resonated with the readers around the country who have made him one of America’s leading syndicated columnists. That’s also why he is a regular pundit on programs ranging from NPR’s Talk of the Nation to Comedy Central’s Colbert Report.

A veteran of political campaigns and of the Center for American Progress, where the National Review described his work as “the most aggressive, most energetic opposition research in politics,” Sirota’s new book The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington, hits shelves on May 27^th.

The Uprising is the product of exhaustive research on populism in America today. Pertinently for readers of this blog, it includes an entire chapter on populism in New York politics, with Sirota reporting on the Working Families Party’s efforts to throw control of the State Senate to Democrats. It also features inside stories on major figures from across the political spectrum, from CNN’s Lou Dobbs, and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillorsen and former Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont.

Sirota has two major rollout events planned in New York City, each with a slightly different emphasis. Readers of this blog know well how desperately New York — and America — needs fresh perspectives. Sirota is that and more. He is fresh perspective and fireball rolled into one.

I’ll simply say this: if you have the opportunity to join Sirota at the events below, I personally assure you that you will leave with your mind churning; your passions stirred; and your optimism for reform piqued. I hope to see you there.

May 30, Riverside Church, 7pm: "The Underground Uprising: Alternative Routes to Social Justice in the 21st Century"
with Bertha Lewis, New York ACORN

June 3, The Strand Bookstore, 7pm, discussing his book's chapter on the influence New York is having on American populism
with Senator Eric Schneiderman
Dan Cantor, Working Families Party
Joel Barkin, Progressive States Network
Andrea Batista Schlesinger

What's In a Name Part 2: Ken LaValle School of Law?

As my colleague Beth Foster and I point out in an op-ed in today's Daily News, there's a troubling trend afoot in the state. Several public schools and their multi-mullion dollar facilities are named after sitting legislators who steer funding their way.

Now comes news that this year's budget has $45 million for a law school at SUNY Stony Brook , thanks to state Senator Ken LaValle. The senator's name already graces the university's $22 million outdoor stadium, which seats over 8,000. (Photo below.)

The law school appropriation is listed in the Education, Labor and Family Assistance Budget Bill (S 6803-D/A 9803-D), which is available here and listed under "Budget Bills" (direct link unavailable).

Can the Ken LaValle School of Law be next? We hope not.

If you don't have plans tonight . . . .

Tonight, the Brennan Center and the Democracy and Voting Issue Group of the American Constitution Society will present “The Current State of Voter ID: Voting Rights After Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita.”

The event will feature our own Wendy Weiser, in addition to Jenigh Garrett, Assistant Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Robert K. Kelner, Partner and Chair of the Election and Political Law Practice Group, Covington & Burling LLP, and Nathaniel Persily, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. The event will be moderated by Professor Rick Pildes of NYU School of Law and take place from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Kimmel Center, New York University, Room 905, 60 Washington Square South. There is no cost to attend this event.

In Case You Missed It

Over the weekend, the N.Y. Times makes a compelling case for Governor Patterson to begin pushing hard for reform. An often overlooked argument in favor of reform, particularly relevant as New York seems to head for an economic slowdown? "It is very, very cheap."

Bored at the Board of Elections

As the Times Union's Captiol Confidential writes today, NYPIRG's inquiries to the state Board of Elections about corporations violating the $5,000 contribution cap in 2006 and 2007 have gone unresolved. According to state law the max contribution is $5,000 per corporation, not per candidate.

In 2006, NYPIRG discovered overages of nearly $150,000 and more than triple the next year. Meanwhile, the board, which received notice from NYPIRG one year ago from today is “in the midst of a complete review of filings reporting 2006 political contributions,” according to a letter from this February.

Three points come to mind. First, the board needs to get to work--or else. Why aren't the committees in the state legislature with oversight power--either elections or oversight--investigating?

Second, enforcement of campaign finance laws is non-existent in this case. The board's modus operandi seems to be trust and never verify.

Finally, maybe the violations were unintentional, maybe not. But, given many of the contribution limits under state law it's no wonder why a corporation might assume that the $5,000 is per candidate, not per election. For example, each affiliated or subsidiary corporation, if a separate legal entity, has its own limit. Or, an individual may contribute up to a total of $150,000.00 in a calendar year. Party or constituted committees may receive up to $94,200 from any individual contributor in a year.

Pork and Potatoes

Many, many voices--elected officials, reformers and editorial pages alike--have weighed in with disdain about the allocation of pet projects in the federal and state budgets, known as member items here at home. Last week, the Senate and Assembly released their member item data, renewing calls from around the state for change. It's worth summarizing the reaction from many points of view:

The practice is bad from a budget standpoint. In a year when lawmakers were trying to find something, anything, to cut from the budget, many say it's irresponsible to allow legislators to dole out pork like any other year. As the Press & Sun-Bulletin notes, "Defenders of the cash piles argue that the 'discretionary items' they finance are small potatoes in a $122 billion budget. True, but those were our potatoes to begin with." Attorney General Cuomo's office is stepping up to try to eradicate outright corruption, but especially in a fiscal crunch, shouldn't we expect our elected officials to be a bit more careful with our tax dollars?

The practice is fundamentally unfair to districts that elect members of the minority party. Even if you agree that legislators should have some small pot of money to give to the most worthy causes in their districts, there is no excuse for partisan distribution of member items. The population of each legislative district is constitutionally required to be substantially equal, yet NYPIRG found that the average Assembly Republican doles out a mere quarter of the amount received by the district of the average Democrat. The Senate disparity is even worse, with Senate Republicans taking home eight times the pork of the average Democrat.

The practice is wholly political. As NYPIRG's numbers show, legislative leaders not only funnel more funding to majority members, but they also prioritize within their own conferences to help their most vulnerable members. Democratic senators are also talking about severely limited member item funding for Republicans if control of the Senate flips this fall. The current practice is despicable and its continuation after a Democratic takeover would be equally deplorable.

We second the notion that it's time New Yorkers received real equality and accountability in member items. Whether pork or potatoes, the distribution ought to be based on the worthiness of the project, not the political power of the individual representative and majority party.