Liz Krueger2013-05-21T16:59:02-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=liz-kruegerCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Liz KruegerGood old fashioned elbow grease.What the Debt Deal Could Cost Ustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9299782011-08-17T21:17:59-04:002011-10-17T05:12:01-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/
Take a look at this chart. Please understand how dire these federal cuts will be on everyone! You might not think you will ever need to collect unemployment...but stop and consider how many people you know who've lost their job in the last three years (and read my policy spotlight at end of this community bulletin). Maybe you don't think cutting government education aid to poor children will impact you personally. But do you think that our country will somehow gain an economic competitive advantage with even lower educational outcomes? And what about destroying funding for public health (CDC) and health research (NIH)? Are we really trying to say we've solved all those issues? Please think about this: instead of creating a fair, progressive tax system in this country, we are trading vital programs away.
"OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors..."
He's talking about a decent number of my constituents. Although I am more likely to be called upon for help from frail elderly constituents who can't afford both their rent and their prescription medications; or parents wondering how their children can actually be "wait listed" for a seat in their over-crowded public school; or people who are middle aged but have been unemployed for so long that they are scared that there is no place for them in the "new economy"; or 20 somethings who tell me they think they'll be working into their 70's because they don't expect a Social Security/Medicare system to be in place for them.
So, as just one of your elected officials in a community of Manhattan that includes a disproportionate number of well off, wealthy and super rich --- if you agree with Warren and me, could you please make some noise? Mr. Buffet is from Nebraska -- a fine state. But elected leaders in New York and Washington need to hear you demand a change in direction so we can get this country back on track. Tell the President, the Governor, the Mayor and every member of Congress. Tell us! We need to hear your ideas and your support in order to take unpopular positions. I am told I am insane to support higher taxes for the rich -- I represent the wealthiest Senate District in the state. But the true insanity comes from those who are pushing to strip our country of the type of government that has made it great. We cannot allow this to happen, we must push back.
I teach high school students in my annual youth civics program that voting is not enough. Holding on to our frail participatory democracy requires strong and immediate action.
When Congress returns to Washington after its August recess, it will enter the next phase of consideration under the recently passed debt ceiling deal. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "Super Committee") will hold its first meeting and begin to develop plans to cut the deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion. It is critical that this next round of cuts does not impose greater damage on our nation's safety net.
And yes, there is a way we can prevent these cuts and protect these services. Increasing tax revenues from large corporations and those most able to pay must be on the table.
Policy Update: Unemployment Insurance
If you are an employer, you have likely received a notice from the NY State Department of Labor stating that you will have to pay up to $21.25 per employee as part of the Interest Assessment Surcharge (IAS). Many employers have contacted my office to express their frustration with this surcharge and believe it is another unexpected and burdensome cost of doing business in New York. But the IAS is only a part of a much larger problem for our state, one that could lead to drastic tax increases for businesses; the real problem we are facing is an insolvent unemployment insurance trust fund.
Due to the economic downturn, many states, including New York, exhausted their unemployment trust funds, which pay out benefits to unemployed individuals. Because our trust fund was insolvent, New York had to borrow money from the federal government to make benefit payments. All totaled, New York State has borrowed $3.5 billion, which will need to be repaid. In 2009 and 2010, the federal government made these loans interest-free. However, since they have not extended that provision through 2011, New York must pay roughly $95 million in interest on these loans by September 30th, 2011. Because federal law prevents New York from using general unemployment taxes to pay off the interest, the state was forced to collect the new maximum of $21.95 through the IAS. This is just to pay interest....we still owe the principle, and may need to keep borrowing if the economy does not turn around.
Having a bankrupt trust fund affects business owners in many ways. Employers' federal and state unemployment tax rates are partially determined by the solvency of our trust fund. Simply put, a solvent fund lowers employers' taxes; an insolvent trust fund raises them. Additionally, without a solvent trust fund, New York faces an even more dismal situation if another recession occurs. The state will be forced to borrow billions more from the federal government, thereby significantly raising employer taxes, and/or drastically cut weekly benefits to the unemployed.
If the legislature fails to act to correct this problem, the federal government will begin collecting on the $ 3.5 billion loan. They will hit each business with federal tax increases per employee, beginning in 2012 until the federal loan is repaid. According to the National Employment Law Project, it is estimated that the full repayment of this loan would not be made until 2018.
This will wind up costing NYS employers a minimum of $5 billion: $1.5 billion in interest payments( IAS), plus the repayment of $3.5 billion for the loans (which will be much more if the unemployment rates continue to be so high). Plus, our trust fund would still be insolvent and increasingly susceptible to another recession.
An insolvent trust fund is also bad news for the unemployed. Unemployment benefits are a vital safety net for New Yorkers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. These benefits have kept families in their homes and food on the table. Economists agree that these benefits stimulate the economy because the unemployed put the money they receive right back into the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, up to $1.90 of economic activity is created. Unfortunately, New York's maximum benefit rate of $405 is significantly lower than many neighboring states, including New Jersey ($598) and Massachusetts ($625). For residents of New York, especially New York City, $405 a week barely covers rent, let alone food and utilities. New York has not raised their maximum benefit rate since 1998.
It is clear that continuing to run an insolvent unemployment insurance trust fund will lead to dire consequences. Without state action, we will owe more money to the federal government, which will be recouped through more taxes on businesses. It is past time for our government to address this issue for the long-term fiscal health of our trust fund.
There are currently two pieces of legislation, one federal and one state, that I strongly believe will enable New York to bring our trust fund into solvency and also provide greater benefits for the unemployed. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois has put forth legislation (S. 386) that would waive both the interest fees on federal loans for the next two years and the requirements that the states increase their taxes on employers to pay back the interest. Employers would be refunded the IAS they are currently required to pay. This bill would allow New York to work on paying off the original loan while avoiding significant tax increases on employers.
On the state level, legislation which I co-sponsor (S. 673) has been introduced to gradually raise the taxable wage base and maximum benefit rate for unemployed individuals, which would bring New York State's unemployment trust fund into solvency by indexing the taxable wage base with growth in state average wages. According to National Employment Law Project, this single policy initiative makes states three times more likely to remain solvent, even during difficult fiscal times. The taxable wage base is the amount of employee wages subject to unemployment taxes. New York State has not raised the taxable wage base since 1998, which has caused, in large part, our trust fund's insolvency. Our current taxable wage base of $8,500 is drastically lower than the national average of $15,717.
My bill, S. 673, would increase the taxable wage base incrementally each year from the current $8,500 until it reached $13,500. It is important to keep in mind that while this proposal does raise the amount of income subject to state and federal unemployment taxes, it will effectively lower the actual unemployment tax rate for employers by bringing the trust fund into solvency. Additionally, if the federal bill also passes, this will allow New York to more quickly and cheaply pay off the balance and interest of the loan from the federal government, thereby avoiding the need to impose more taxes on employers. Should New York enter into another recession, we will have a fiscally sound trust fund to sustain benefit payouts while not drastically raising taxes on employers in the long term.
This legislation would also gradually increase the maximum benefit rate. As discussed earlier, our current benefit rate simply has not kept up with cost of living increases. Since 1998, when the rate was last increased, the spending power of $405 has declined 20% to roughly $325. With this legislation, the maximum benefit would gradually increase up to $650, after which the maximum benefit would equal one half of the state's average weekly wage. In times of significant unemployment and an economy struggling to create jobs, we must ensure that those relying on unemployment benefits as a vital safety net can actually provide for their families. This bill would go a long way to keeping unemployed New Yorkers afloat.
]]>A Step Toward Equal Paytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8775662011-06-15T23:11:02-04:002011-06-16T09:21:08-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/
The United States has always been a beacon of democracy. And as Americans, we take pride in our basic principles that are rooted in the democratic notions of freedom and equality. Yes, injustices persist, and we continue to fight and break down barriers that prevent access to basic rights. But what happens when these problems are kept well hidden and are not as easy to identify or expose?
Today, we would venture to assume that most women, especially those who are relatively new to the work force, presume that their salaries have everything to do with job performance and responsibility, and nothing to do with gender. However, 48 years after President John F. Kennedy sought to end gender-based pay discrimination and close the wage gap through the Equal Pay Act, pay inequality rooted in gender bias continues to persist. Today, women earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, up from 59 cents in 1963, meaning the wage gap has narrowed at a dismal rate of less than a half a cent per year.
Part of the problem is that occupation segregation still exists, and women continue to be pigeonholed into "pink collar" jobs, which typically depress their wages. However, even advanced education doesn't prevent pay inequities. As early as one year out of college, pay gaps between men and women with the same background, and college major, emerge. For those women who major in "male dominated" fields, the pay differential is even greater. For example, while women earn 95 percent as much as men in the field of education, they only earn 76 percent as much as men in mathematics, just one year into the job. Even here, in the State of New York, women who've earned a college degree, or more, earn an average of $53,000, while men in the same category earn $65,000.
Just as education plays a factor in wage gaps, so does race. Studies have shown that the pay gaps between African-American and Latina women and white men are even greater than that between white women and men. In 2007 African-American women earned 69 cents for every dollar, while Latinas earned just 59 cents.
Yet even if someone suspects they are the victim of wage discrimination, they often can't prove it. According to results form a recent IWPR/Rockefeller Survey, nearly half of all workers, across the nation, are either contractually forbidden or strongly discouraged from discussing their salary with colleagues. In the private sector, where pay secrecy is most pervasive, the gender wage gap for full-time workers is 23 percent. Conversely, in the Federal Government, where salaries are transparent and made available to the public, the gender wage gap is only 11 percent. Therefore, while salary transparency may not end wage discrimination, it can certainly help expose, and hopefully change, the most egregious abuses.
With women now half of the paid work force, and two-thirds of women serving as either the primary or co-bread winners, the results of unequal pay is having a profound effect on families, our state, and our nation's economic recovery. In real life terms, in New York that is an average loss of over $8,500 annually which equals a year's supply of food, months of rent, 2,000 gallons of gas, child care or a family's health insurance.
The effects of pay inequity even continue after a woman retires. In fact, some of the repercussions only grow stronger. Due to reduced pay throughout their lives, many women have inadequate pensions, savings and other financial resources when they retire. And, because statistics show that women live longer than men, we are seeing an increase in poverty in our older generations. Ironically, the increase in dependence on public service programs for the elderly will wind up costing our nation much more than what it would have cost to just pay these women adequate wages in the first place.
We applaud the members of the NYS Assembly, who have taken action to end this discriminatory and harmful practice by passing a comprehensive bill -- the Fair Pay Act -- on Equal Pay Day in April, as they have done annually since 2002. However, the Fair Pay Act (S2200 / Krueger), is again stalled in the Senate. In an effort to gain at least a piece of the needed reform proposed by the Fair Pay Act, I have recently introduced legislation (S5674), which is sponsored by coalitions and advocates across New York, that focuses solely on protecting workers' rights to speak about salaries. This bill has no price tag for business, and it will enable New York workers to freely discuss their salaries, and inquire about others', without the threat of retaliation.
Some injustices are not always as easy to spot. In fact, sometimes they're well hidden. Therefore if we want to end wage disparities, and give women the justice, and pay, they deserve, than we must take the first step in bringing this discrimination to light. Every New Yorker deserves to know that they are being paid fairly, right away. With three days left in the legislative session, I and NYWA/EPCNYC call on legislators to pass this bill and help us move one step forward towards ending wage discrimination. ]]>Don't Play Politics with Homeless Familiestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8404122011-03-25T12:15:56-04:002011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/
Every spring, as we debate the tough choices that inevitably must be made to balance our budget, we hear from thousands of New Yorkers, non-profits and mayors -- from cities big and small -- who warn of the consequences of cutting the State programs they rely on.
Often, they are right. My colleagues and I have fought hard to restore cuts to schools, healthcare and services for the disabled, the elderly and other vulnerable groups. But not every program Albany funds is a winner. Some, like New York City's "Advantage" program for homeless New Yorkers, are ineffective and a poor use of our limited resources.
Advantage aims to move families out of the shelter system and into their own apartments -- a crucial and important goal. But its bureaucratic rules and rigid cutoff dates have resulted in many people who enter the program, ending up back on the streets or returning to the City's overcrowded homeless shelters. This winter, the City's own data confirmed that one-third of those who left the program ended up homeless again. In short, the program simply isn't working.
This unnecessary, alarmist response serves no purpose other than to make headlines. As state officials and homeless policy experts have argued, New York City can responsibly phase out the failed Advantage program and return to alternative programs that we know work, like moving qualified families into Federal housing programs, such as public housing and Section 8. That was the proven approach used by the City for decades (even under Mayor Giuliani!), and that has helped thousands of families move into permanent, affordable homes and restart their lives. But as of now, Mayor Bloomberg and the City have not proposed an alternative solution, instead they have simply said it's either this program or none at all. I see no sense in that.
The Coalition for the Homeless, New York's leading voice for sensible, effective homelessness policy, has launched an online letter writing campaign, calling on the Mayor to stop the scare tactics and go back to the cost effective programs that we know can reduce family homelessness.
Join me and send your letter to Mayor Bloomberg online.
]]>16% and Rising: Combating the "Angry Man" With a Slate of Women Candidatestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7336912010-09-21T15:56:17-04:002011-05-25T17:45:25-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/A New York Times Poll released yesterday all but declared 2010 the "year of the angry man," noting men are the most enthused demographic group this election cycle, and that women voters - a key constituency for Democrats -- remain uncommitted and "hopeless."
Here in New York, where racist, sexist, and self-proclaimed "mad as hell" candidate Carl Paladino is at the top of the GOP ticket, there certainly seems to be a focus on appealing to angry men. New York's women voters have much to be enthused and engaged by in 2010, however.
Twelve of the Democrats challenging Republicans for their State Senate seats this year -- more than half of all Democratic state senate candidates -- are women. That's the most female candidates we've ever had in a single election, and they represent a tremendous opportunity to remake the New York State Senate.
To support those candidates, and raise awareness about their amazing work on the campaign trail, the New York Senate Dems launched a new project today: 16% and Rising.
Even though women make up 51% of the population of New York, just 10 of our state's 62 sitting State Senators are women: that's just 16%. The only states with legislatures more heavily dominated by men are Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.
This year, all that could change. If all 12 of our women candidates won, they would join 10 sitting female Senators (8 Democratic and 2 Republican) to make the State Senate more than a third female, bringing with them an influx of fresh ideas and a fundamentally changed dynamic in the State Senate. Here's a quick glimpse of how these women could revitalize our state and bring real reform to Albany:
Restore Faith in Government and End Gridlock:
Americans believe that women are more likely to be honest (pdf) as political leaders, and generally it is a belief well-earned. Research has demonstrated that women are less likely to be involved in bribery schemes, and that management styles associated with women (pdf) tend to focus on transparency and accountability, a willingness to listen to diverse perspectives, and an interest in negotiating towards an effective solution. Research also suggests that when women reach critical mass in a group, those qualities begin to change the whole group dynamic (pdf). There's more collaboration. There's more listening. There's a new approach to problem solving.
Transparency, collaboration, strong ethics: these are the types of changes we need to finally reform Albany. Sound appealing to an electorate that is tired of partisan bickering, gridlock and dysfunction?
Sound Representation for Their Districts:
Of course, not all women candidates are good candidates just because they are women. These 12 women would be strong representatives for their districts because they understand the issues facing working families in their districts, and that's why their districts need them in Albany.
Pam Mackesey is deeply concerned about hydrofracking, not because she is a woman, but because she lives in a region of the state that could be hard hit if hydrofracking causes damage to local water quality.
Joanne Yepsen has been a strong advocate for horse racing, not because she is a woman, but because she is a County Legislator in Saratoga, where horse racing is a key part of the local economy.
These women have deep roots in their districts and big ideas for the 2011 legislative session.
New Ideas to Restore the Economy:
Leaving the economic decisions to the same (male) Republicans who have been representing their districts for 20 or 30 years will not improve our state's troubled economy.
When you look at the websites of our women candidates this year, it is striking how strongly they all believe that New York's economy can be turned around -- and how many ideas they have for doing so.
Cynthia Appleton supports public-private partnerships for green jobs.
Mary Wilmot believes that tax rates can be lowered if overlapping government programs are streamlined and unfunded mandates reined in.
Didi Barrett recognizes the economic contribution and potential of family farms.
Susan Savage has a track record of keeping down taxes while creating jobs in her county.
Kathleen Joy is known for being a strong advocate for green infrastructure as a way to revitalize the city she serves.
They are women with experience building local economies, women who know how to get things done.
Join Us:
For the next six 6 weeks, 16% and Rising will be a place to learn about these exciting women candidates, and learn how you can help them change Albany. It will also highlight the great work of our 8 sitting female Democratic Senators and the rest of the Democratic Majority, who won some important victories--the Domestic Worker's Bill of Rights, divorce reform, more state contracts for women-owned small businesses, and stronger domestic violence laws--for New York's women this year.
We hope that you will join us in raising the number of women in the State Senate - on our blog, on Facebook, and on Twitter.
We hope you'll volunteer your time with a campaign in your district, or help remotely by phone banking for candidates that align most closely with your own values.
And we know that times are tough, but we hope you'll give what you can to support the campaigns of these amazing women candidates.
16% is only a starting point -- let's raise it to 35% this year!
]]>Marriage Equality in New York: The Time Is Nowtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3491482009-11-06T18:13:50-05:002011-05-25T14:35:20-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/
Under current New York law, lesbian and gay couples are denied the basic protections provided to heterosexual couples. In such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension benefits and testimonial privileges, married couples have a host of important rights and protections. Denying gays and lesbians access to those benefits - as well as the many responsibilities which come with civil marriage - is a violation of the basic principle of equal protection.
Those who argue against marriage equality usually base their arguments either on 1) religious grounds or 2) on their belief that marriage should be reserved for relationships centered around procreation and child rearing. The first argument fails to recognize both the separation of church and state and the fact that many denominations do in fact already recognize same sex marriages. The second argument is just plain silly.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would not and could not force any religious officials to do anything - religious institutions already choose who can or cannot get married within their denominations for both same and opposite sex marriages and they would continue to do so. It would not require any change of religious teachings or actions. The only institution which would be required to recognize same-sex marriages would be the State.
Similarly, family- and procreation-based arguments fail to recognize how many same-sex couples are in fact raising children, as well as how many opposite-sex married couples are not. Marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples, but it would also provide huge benefits to their children, who would gain many protections by having their parents' relationship legally recognized.
Denying couples marriage recognition by the State serves to discriminate not only against the individuals wishing to enter into those marriages, but also harms all of us who remain living in a society where we know that we are allowing family, friends and neighbors to be discriminated against by their government.
New York has a reputation for being at the forefront in the fight to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination, but we have not kept up with many of our neighboring states when it comes to ensuring basic equality for lesbian and gay New Yorkers. In the last year, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine (which unfortunately recently voted to reverse recognition of same sex marriages) have joined Massachusetts by acting to legalize same-sex marriage. Joining these states will serve to demonstrate the ability of our institution to act on critical issues at a time when many doubt that we have that capacity.
I do not know that this legislation will pass, although I am optimistic. But whether we have the votes to pass marriage equality legislation or not, it will be a credit to the Senate and a vindication of the rules changes we made this summer, if leadership brings the bill up for a vote. It will demonstrate that we are becoming more democratic as an institution, and that we are willing and able to discuss and vote on issues critical to our State without requiring that the outcome be predetermined. A vote on marriage equality would thus also be a significant step toward fulfillment of efforts to reform the institution of the Senate.
The Governor has called us back for a special session on November 9th and 10th, and I believe this is the perfect opportunity for us to act on marriage equality legislation. Doing so will be a basic step toward creating equality for all before the law and in demonstrating our ability as a legislative body to take action on critical issues impacting so many New Yorkers. ]]>The Albany Saga: Too Much For Hollywoodtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2211142009-06-26T07:45:00-04:002011-05-25T13:30:21-04:00Liz Kruegerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-krueger/
The events that have taken place during the last three weeks in New York State's Capitol have been so shocking and so surreal that I doubt the best Hollywood screenwriters could have written such a story. We've seen an illegal coup engineered by a billionaire, possible corruption of office (did you know it is actually illegal to sell your votes on bills, or for the control of a legislative chamber?), intrigue (who will switch sides today?), investigations into residences of a Senator's home, court challenges of the illegal coup (some think one Senator can have 2 votes -- can he have 2 paychecks?), the demise of democracy, and a Legislature for sale (now everybody is competing to claim they bought the guys to win the coup). If someone actually wrote the screenplay, no one would believe that such events could actually take place in an advanced democracy in 2009.
Countless articles and books have been written about the "three men in a room" phenomenon that is Albany -- the Governor, Senate Majority Leader and Assembly Speaker making all the decisions behind closed doors for 19.5 million people. But on Monday June 7th, we shifted to a one man model where an unelected billionaire named Tom Golisano (who recently announced he was moving to Florida to avoid paying New York State income taxes) makes all the decisions. But before he left, he showed up outside the Senate Chambers in the Capitol and stood with the Republican leadership when announced that they had the votes to take control of the Senate.
At first, Golisano seemed to be the "mastermind behind the coup." Although, as the days go by, others have rushed to claim equal bragging rights to have purchased the coup including: a lobbyist for the real estate industry who is also the lawyer for the lead Senator who traded sides (pro-tenant legislation might pass), the anti-choice movement (we were about to pass a reproductive rights bill), campaign finance reform (isn't that like Communism?), and those who oppose marriage equality (Oh no! New York would benefit from the economic activity and tax revenue generated by LGBT weddings). I even heard a rumor that Roger Stone -- yes, Tricky Dick's Roger Stone -- is claiming he masterminded the coup.
You'd think someone might care that buying votes is theoretically illegal, a felony even.
Did I mention that the highest-titled position and new face of the Republican Party in the State is Pedro Espada -- a person who should not be in elected office? Please, just Google him --- the story writes itself.
Anyway, I am getting ahead of myself. What I really want to do is give you all my perspective on what happened and what it all means.
The last three weeks in Albany have taught me that no matter how dysfunctional I thought this place was, it really was possible for it to get worse.
The Republicans claim that the coup was done for the good of the people and in order to enact government reform. This is absolutely and completely ridiculous. Remember, this is the same Republican party that controlled the Senate for more than 43 years and made it one of the least democratic and deliberative legislative bodies in the nation. The attempted coup was simply a blatant power grab by the Republican party and a couple of disaffected Democrats.
In a desperate attempt to retake control of the Senate, the Republicans are willing to make Pedro Espada the President of the Senate and next in line to be Governor of the State of New York. This is an outrageous act which, on the face of it, belies any claims they make about trying to reform the system.
New Yorkers have been through enough in the last few years. They do not need someone with only a passing acquaintance with honesty to be just one heartbeat away from the Governor's office. It is simply unacceptable to have such a person in any position with such direct influence over the lives of 19 million New Yorkers.
You may be wondering who set up a situation that is vulnerable to such disaster. Ironically, the Republicans did accidentally during the 2002 redistricting. New York State has been bleeding Republican voters for years, so to protect their majority, they gerrymandered a bunch of districts and added a Senator on the last possible night without telling anyone. Yes, you can do this! So suddenly we had 62, not 61 Senators -- and the real possibility of tie votes. But, the Lieutenant Governor has the authority to vote during ties... so not to worry. Except, Governor Spitzer (remember him?) had to get out of town, moving Lt. Governor Paterson to Governor. Hence, no Lieutenant Governor, and no way to replace him 'til the next election and no tie-breaker. And the President Pro Temp as next in line for Governor (see above, Pedro Espada).
That said, I think all of us in the Democratic Conference have to look critically at what role we played in what went wrong. I believe that the biggest failure of my Conference was that it was not aggressive enough in advancing a reform agenda. From the day I ran for office I have advocated for reform of the Senate's rules in order to empower individual members regardless of who was in the Majority.
While the Democratic leadership did introduce new rules that improved transparency, made it easier to move bills to the floor, and offered a broader proposal for significant reforms of the committee process, other issues such as equitable distribution of resources -- staff, office space and ability to get funding for local projects -- were not addressed. The common sense and "small d" democratic changes I have been fighting for were rejected. I believe that many of my colleagues adopted a "to the victor goes the spoils" model, and while I repeatedly argued against this, in the end, the Conference was not willing to go as far down the reform road as they should have.
One potential silver lining from this situation is that the Senate may be forced to change its model of operations, given that we now face an equally divided body. The Senate Democrats have already proposed a bipartisan operating agreement to the Republicans, used in numerous other states and the U.S. Senate when they found themselves in similar circumstances, to circumvent the gridlock created by a 50-50 split.
Our proposal includes:
A rotating Presiding Officer of the Senate, alternating daily, one each to be designated by the Democratic Conference and the Republican Conference, respectively;
Establishing a six-member Senate Conference Committee, comprised of three members designated by the Democratic Conference and three members designated by the Republican Conference, to determine which bills and resolutions will reach the floor; and
Rotating Floor Leaders, alternating daily, one each to be designated by the Democratic Conference and the Republican Conference, respectively.
Unfortunately, so far, this proposal was soundly rejected by the Republicans who would rather let government grind to a halt than give up their last chance of having total power. What the impact of all of this is on broader legislative issues remains to be seen. Regardless of the short-term outcome, it will no doubt be harder to move progressive legislation in a number of areas. This is a great disappointment to me, as I had high hopes for good legislation on important issues like affordable housing, public education, environmental policy, and same-sex marriage. However, there is always the possibility that as legislators we will learn some valuable lessons.
Any chance of real recovery from this disaster will require the legislature to internalize some lessons. One is the need to develop fairer and more equitable rules. Every senator, regardless of party, represents the same number of constituents and should have adequate resources. I am an optimist and believe that if I persevere we will ultimately be able to make real progress.]]>
Why 16% and Rising?