Breaking Fake News Update (v2)

 Fake News Broke on August 8, 2025!

This news broke after MAGA Reps. Elise Stefanik and Nick Langworthy wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on August 6th, telling him to do something about the wildfires burning in his country and causing smoke issues for New Yorkers. The letter stated

The scale and severity of these fires continue to raise concerns about forest mismanagement and lack of effective deterrence of human-caused fire.

No word on Carney's response, but the fake news response was quick, and we're grateful to Rawanda for taking these two pesky representatives on with the next planeload of undocumented immigrants the US is shipping there.

We'll continue to share fake news as it breaks.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/28/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm feeling wonderful-ish today... you know, not really wonderful, just kinda wonder-ish, or full-ish, or something like that. 

Like George Santos, the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican to be elected to Congress, or something like that. He's also the first most openly lyingly lying non-incumbent Republican t0 be elected. He made so many lie-ish statements during his campaign I don't know if even he knows what's true, vs. what's true-ish, vs. what's just 'ish.' He went to college-ish; he worked in finance-ish, for Goldman Sachs-ish. He was poor-ish, and then he was an entrepreneur and started a company-ish, but had no income-ish, but managed to loan his campaign $700,000-ish. He had a company in Florida and four of his employees-ish died in the Pulse nightclub shooting, sorta-ish. 

And the best one, of course, is that he was raised Catholic but is Jew-ish, whatever the hell-ish that means. He promised us he had a story to tell, and he told it, and it only made things worse-ish. In a wonder-ish fashion, I await the official response from the GOP in NY, and in DC. I can only think that it'll be about as '-ishy' as anything Santos has said so far. 

Last week, after the Democratic-controlled NYS legislature voted, in a special session, to give themselves an obscene $32,000 raise effective January 1, 2023, and limit their outside income but not until January 1, 2025, I reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul urging her to veto the bill, even though there are enough Dem votes in both chambers to over-ride the veto. 

At the same time, I reached out to Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, asking for their thoughts or comments on the vote. I haven't heard from any of them, and honestly, I don't expect to. There's nothing really wonder-ish about their lack of response - the gov's been dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime weather event, and it is a holiday-ish week, after all, but since they all know where I stand on the issue, I doubt there'll be a race to try and appease me or change mind. I'll keep you posted on any responses I get. 

Another person I don't expect to hear from? Whoever charged some snooty-ish mountain bike parts using my credit card. Graciously, one of the five or six vendors who got hit with fraudulent charges (nearly $3500 worth all told) texted me to see if I had made the bike parts order with a request to ship it to a different address, which he shared. That's a big no, I told him. 

All of the charges were reversed; fraud investigations ensued. And so did a Christmas card to the address the vendor gave me. I do wonder, a little-ish, if it made whoever read the card feel bad-ish even for a moment. I hope it did.  

I'm seeing lots of stuff on social media citing the January 6th Committee report and transcripts about documents being torn, flushed, eaten, copied and removed, and even set on fire during the waning days of the last administration. 

I'm not surprised, really, by any of that - I mean, given what we've learned about the Trump White House, there's not a lot that will surprise me anymore. One thing I'm wondering, just a little-ish, is whether there was ketchup involved in all of those, or if another condiment was used?

What's on your wondering-ish mind tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 6/22/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Separate from the foolishness of a Congressional Oversight Committee holding hearings on the NFL's Washington Commandos, which in and of itself deserves wondering, I can't help wondering why people continue to think that there's a quote-unquote First Amendment issue when an employer fines, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee for comments made, or for bad behavior, or other such infractions. 

For the folks in the back, here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything there about the NFL? The Washington Commandos, or Redskins, as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ick) called the team? 

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

I also find myself wondering about this part, too, and whether Jordan knew how ironically funny it sounded, given the former president's well-documented proclivities....

Jordan then mentioned that Portnoy, whom multiple women have accused of sexual assault, is an established journalist who interviewed former President Trump, saying, “Seems to me, [if you] can get into the White House, you should be able to get into a football game.”

Moving from the First Amendment to the Second, there appears to be enough bipartisan agreement to pass some gun reforms this time; the initial vote to advance the legislation passed 64-34. Folks are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle, with some Dems suggesting they might not vote for it because it doesn't go far enough, and some Rs saying outright they won't vote for it because it goes too far. 

Here's one who suggests exactly that: the #3 Republican in the House, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Embarrassing NY as Best I Can). Stefanik, who's got a better-than-fair chance of becoming the House Majority Leader if the Rs win in November, given Trump's public souring on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, released this statement today.

I will continue to stand up for Second Amendment rights against this legislation that shreds the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans with no effect on deterring criminals who do not follow the law when obtaining firearms. This bill contains unconstitutional gun control provisions and allows the implementation of red flag laws that take away due process rights. It would restrict men and women who are able to serve in our military from purchasing a firearm and would strip the Constitutional rights of gunowners by broadening the scope of punishment for even nonviolent misdemeanors. As this blatant government overreach seeks to make gun owners second-class citizens, I will continue to stand up for the Constitution and push for solutions, including advocating for increased mental health resources across the country.

I feel kind of bad for her, that she feels compelled to say stuff like this, particularly that last part, about her intention to advocate for increased mental health resources. And I wonder if she's even read the bill, or any news reports about it?

According to this article, the bill "provides $15 billion in federal funding to bolster mental health services..." from training programs to pediatric mental health care to community health services to intervention and prevention services t0 school-based mental health services, and more.

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. The second is below. 

Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:

Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.

Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty.

Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self-defense in emergencies such as riots.

Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights.

We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). 

One more thing on Stefanik? Taking a page out of her Dear Leader's playbook, she's endorsing sketchy characters for office. For example, she proudly endorsed Carl Paladino for Congress in the new #NY23 district.

Carl is a job creator and conservative outsider who will be a tireless fighter for the people of New York in our fight to put America First to save the country.

I guess it makes sense that she'd endorse a guy who said Hitler is the kind of leader we need today. After all, someone very much in Stefanik's corner seems to meet the "get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized" definition Paladino used to describe Hitler... 

But, I wonder if she remembers Paladino going public with plans to threaten NY members of Congress if they didn't support Trump in 2016? Or, later that same year, when he said stuff so bizarre about the Obamas that even the Trump campaign objected? 

And that's where the real wondering comes in: is it possible that Trump's peeps have out-Trumped him? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

TGIF 1/29/21

What do you think - should we focus on some good news tonight?

First, there's news on the case involving the most recent former president's taxes. A judge in New York has ordered more data to be turned over to the NY AG, Tish James, saying that "many of the communications (Trump's attorney) marked as privileged" weren't, and so the specific documents need to be turned over. If you're that former president, and you're confident there's nothing wrong with your taxes, you probably want to clear your name as soon as possible. If you're a detractor of him, you want the most information possible to be available in hopes it will do him harm. And if you're just a person who's looking to have all the crazy tax rules exposed (and perhaps changed, in the interest of fairness), you're probably happy, too. So, I guess this is good news all around - unless, of course, you're him and your taxes are not squeaky clean.

Sticking in the Empire State and with our AG, lots of people are talking about her report on nursing homes and COVID. Most folks are all gaga over the statement that COVID-related nursing home deaths were under-reported, perhaps by as much as 50%. That's an eye-catching number, for sure, but those 'excess deaths' were reported as hospital deaths, because that's where the patients died. The bigger issue, to me, that the report found fault with a number of nursing homes for how they were handling patients, infection control, and so on. Hitting the Sonofa Gov is great fun, for sure, but is he the real issue, or is patient care the real issue? Hopefully, people will understand it's the latter - that would be good news, for sure.

Sticking with COVID-related items, there were three other stories this week related to vaccines that had happy endings. In the first, vaccines were given to motorists stranded in a snowstorm in Oregon. There were only six doses available, but rather than let them expire while stuck on the highway, the health care workers went car to car to find folks who wanted one.  Said one recipient, "It is important for people to know how dedicated health professionals are to getting every single dose into people. My community should be so proud - I am."

The second COVID story also comes from the Pacific Northwest. It took only about two hours after a freezer alarm went off in a Seattle hospital signaling that vials of the Moderna vaccine needed to be used before they got too warm to get a vaccine clinic set up and get word out that folks could come on down. When all was said and done, over 1600 doses were administered, starting at 11PM. According to some reports, folks showed up in their PJs and bathrobes, they were that interested in getting the vaccine. Kudos to all involved in putting the plan together and saving the doses, and to the folks who made the trip and stood in line to get their jab. Some folks suggested that the same sense of urgency should be on display every day, and it should - but we should at least be happy that this worked as well as it did.

What else do we have?  Well, if you don't mind rampant, aggressive cursing, this Georgia resident going off on his fellow Georgians to get them to rise up against Marjorie Taylor Greene is encouraging. I repeat, this is NSFW and NSFC (children) and NSFP (parents) and maybe NSFHP (houseplants) but he's got a point. I hope people not only feel the same way as he does, but are going to act on their anger and rage and demand they get better representation. I also hope it doesn't take until the next election to get rid of her.

Oh, that third COVID story? It's a flat-out good news story, no question about that, and it comes to us from Minneapolis. Take a look. 

When COVID arrived last March, neighbors in the 4100 block of S. Colfax Avenue in Minneapolis stepped outside to sing together as a way to boost morale. Nearly 300 nights later, they're still singing. Every night at 6 p.m., "rain, shine or meteor shower, ..." they tackle Prince and Elvis, "Baby Shark" and "Let It Snow," "God Bless, America" and "This Land is Your Land." 

They've got a repertoire of over 200 songs, now. Back in the beginning, we saw lots of stories of this kind of thing, the clapping for health care workers, the solo musicians, the opera singers, even the balcony marathoner - but it's been a while since I've seen anything that shows this kind of dedication. 

Got some good news to share? Drop a comment. 

TGIF, everyone.

Quick Takes (v44): NY Dems Have Lost Their Mind

Quick Takes

And, yes, it's their collective mind that is missing, it's not any one mind, or even a couple. It's all of them.

I don't know about you, but when I go to the polls to vote for local officials, I'm thinking local. Here in Syracuse, I get to vote for my district's Common Councilor, for an at-large Councilor, and for Common Council president. I also get to vote for someone to represent me in the Onondaga County Legislature, and for  Syracuse City School District school board members.

When making decisions on who will help lead my community forward, on who will address local issues that are important to me, am I thinking about what Donald Trump thinks about the candidates on my ballot? Am I thinking about Donald Trump's ethical, policy and human failings?

Nope - I'm thinking about who can improve our schools, our city, and our county. I'm thinking about who can lead those elected bodies into the future. I'm thinking about who can help reduce poverty, grow our economy, help our neighborhoods, and educate our children.

I can assure you the absolute last person I'm thinking about is the current occupant of the Oval Office.

The New York State Democratic Committee? Yeah, they're thinking about Washington more than they're thinking about New York.  Need proof? Check out this email I received from the State Democratic Committee earlier this week.

The first sentence says it all: they're "committed to fighting back against Trump and his cronies."  Not "committed to fight for New Yorkers" or "committed to fight for fairness and equal opportunity for all New Yorkers" or frankly, any commitment at all that represents me. And I look at the decision I made, months ago, to withdraw my party registration, and affirm that it was the right one.

They are fighting the wrong battle, the NY Dems are. They have lost their collective mind. 

Splitting The Empire (Part 1)

As the New York State legislative session moves towards its June conclusion, conversations about the disparity between how upstate and downstate interests are represented in Albany will likely continue long after our representatives go home for the rest of the year.

You'll recall that in the 2018 election, the Republicans lost their majority in State Senate, which they had held only with support from the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC). The loss made New York a 'trifecta state' - one of 14 states fully controlled by Democrats, to go along with 22 fully controlled by Republicans. In New York, cities are blue across the state, but most upstate counties are solidly red.

Since the election, there has been renewed discussion on what can be done to allow folks north of Westchester County - that broad area that everyone buckets into a hot mess called "upstate" - so that we can regain some semblance of representation of our interests in state government, and to make it harder for the folks who represent NYC to ignore all of us up here.

The idea getting the most attention is the wrong one, I think -- splitting up the Empire State. And, to muddy the waters, there are two distinct ideas on how best to make the worst decision.

Let's take a look at one of them.

Seeking Unity in the State of the Union

News has it that the president is seeking to give us a message of unity in tonight's SOTU, which will be coming your way at 9PM eastern time.

He's tried giving us that message before - think Charlottesville, for example - with limited success. Usually that's because he's not able to restrain himself - and his handlers are not able to restrain him - from tweeting nastiness, lies, or self-defeating misinformation within hours of giving a speech. He's hampered by that whole, "I'm talking to you, not to myself" trap that ensnares so many people in public life, but maybe tonight will be different.

For example, we're told in this report recapping an appearance by Kellyanne Conway on Fox and Friends, that the president will focus not only on unity, but on an "end to retribution and  resistance politics"- but Conway was not optimistic that his "rivals.. will respond well." And, she said,

It's a very uplifting address to celebrate milestones of American greatness, including those that have anniversaries coming up in 2019... When he is calling for unity and he is talking about actual portraits of Americans who have achieved greatness on behalf of all of us, including our brave men and women in uniform... (if there is) anybody sitting there with their arms folded, looking like they're sucking lemons, he is calling for unity and working together. They will need to decide if they're serious about that as well. 

She also added that the president wants the legislature to "do its job" including "meaningful immigration reform" with a physical barrier that "you can't crawl under, climb over, drive through or walk around."

(As an aside, I noticed that the president's advisor didn't mention the pole vaulting option; she might want to look at that, now that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker again.)

Finally, Conway noted, he'll tout his many accomplishments, which bad people deny, and he'll address late-term abortion, a topic that will delight his base and antagonize people who believe that the government doesn't need to be between the patient and her doctor. You'll recall that was a huge rallying cry for the Republicans on why the Affordable Care Act was a horrid idea for the country.

Go figure.

The Update Desk: Another Look at Albany Pay Raises

We've got another update on the already updated plan to raise the pay for elected executives, legislators, and appointed commissioners in New York.

Some background: NY has commissions decide on pay raises; in 2016, salaries for judges were increased but not for the governor and legislators.You can follow that process by starting at the end, with this post from December 2016. A new, smaller commission took another look this year. A raise was a forgone conclusion; the only question was how it would work. This post talks addresses some of that.

The Commission recommended getting rid of 'leadership lulus' for all but 15 of the legislators, as well as strict limits on outside income (beginning in 2020). In return, there are  pretty significant increases - $50,500 over three years for the legislators, with the governor, other executives, and appointees also get a significant bump on the same schedule.

As I noted in that post, we've not heard the last of this. And we haven't, as we saw in the local papers in Syracuse and Buffalo.

First, from the Post-Standard article,

Three state lawmakers from the Syracuse area say they will oppose a plan to make the state Legislature the highest paid in the nation because they don't like the strings attached to the deal.

Assemblyman Will Barclay (R-Pulaski, first elected in 2002), noted that the "whole thing is a little dubious" and that an unelected commission shouldn't have been the decision-makers. He also noted

I do have a philosophical problem with a full time legislator. We don't need a professional legislature. I do like the diversity we have now; it allows people to have outside experiences. Once you have a full-time legislature, that becomes your job and you have to justify your existence by passing more bills. 

Senator Bob Antonacci (R-Onondaga, just elected in November) and Assemblyman Gary Finch (R-Springport, serving since 1999) were of like minds on the issue.

Antonacci: We want people to come up, do their work, and go back to the private sector. To ask people to give up their private sector interests could be tough to do. You're going to end up with professional legislators. 

 Finch: It prevents a enormous amount of talented people who know what it's like to work in New York, and meet a payroll, from serving in the Legislature... 

Where do other CNY lawmakers stand?  Senators Patty Ritchie (R-Oswegatchie, elected in 2010) and Rachel May (D-Syracuse, just elected) and Assemblywoman Pam Hunter (D-Syracuse, serving since 2015) generally support it.

Out in Buffalo, there were similar concerns.  Here's Senator Michael Ranzenhofer (R-Amherst, in the Legislature since 2009, with prior elected office back to 1989) on the outside-income ban:

It's reflective of an attitude which is elitist and doesn't appreciate the fact that there's a value to individuals with real world experience working in government.

The commission was composed of longtime Democratic Party insiders, and, according to the article,

Some were privately wondering whether this wasn't part of a plan to drive more Republicans out of Albany and put their legislative seats into the hands of Democrats. 

Assemblyman Andy Goodell (R-Jamestown, elected in 2010) believes that only the Legislature and the governor can give lawmakers a pay raise, and that having 'current' real-world experience is necessary:

So, those unemployed other than their legislative position with no business background or private sector employment would be eligible to serve and everyone who's a successful business person and who understands the challenge of operating in the private sector would be banned from serving unless they gave up their business. 

For his part, Buffalo Senator Chris Jacobs (2017) thinks the focus should be on full transparency on outside income.

Here are some thoughts from someone who has real world experience living, working, and voting in NY:

• No one mentioned the inherent risk with legislators being able to pass laws that can directly influence their outside income. If not limits, what?

• No one mentioned that that the legislators have long told us that they work full time on our behalf, and we have no idea how busy they are when they're not in Albany. If they're working full time, they wouldn't need outside income; conversely, if' they're not working full time, why do they need a raise?   

• Assemblyman Finch noted that he wouldn't have been able to support his family on just his legislative salary (some $17,000 higher than NY's median income, not counting lulus and per diems). But that kind of 'real-world experience' - making ends meet when you simply don't have enough money - is not the kind of experience that our leaders should have?

• As to Sen. Jacobs' suggestion that we focus on 'full transparency' rather than limits, would he support a move to stop reporting income in overly broad, multiple-hundred-thousand-dollar ranges, which in and of themselves are far beyond what many New Yorkers earn?

Barring a miracle, the initial pay increase - and the elimination of lulus - goes into effect on Tuesday.

We'll have to wait to see if any of this is challenged, if anyone actually refuses the raise, and whether they'll pass bills that allow them to work around the outside income limits as recommended by the Commission. 

Ranting and Raving (v2): The 2018 Midterm Election

I've pretty much had it with the 2018 elections, on every imaginable front. I'm sick and tired of mud-slinging politicians who say nothing about their own positions but instead spend their entire time lying or purposefully obfuscating the record, story, purpose and positions of their opponent or, as happens here almost daily, asking bizarre questions on social media calling out their opponent for something about which the questioner reveals nothing about his own position. "Look at her! Look at her! Don't look at me!" I'm sick and tired of out-of-district money interfering in what happens in my district and directing who gets elected to represent me. Washington insiders are not NY-24 constituents, and they don't have a clue what's important to me. Neither does my current congressman, because he won't have a town hall meeting if his life depended on it - and it doesn't (see above reference to outside money screwing up my representation). Yeah, this guy? He's brave, oh boy is he brave. We find out about his 'biker town hall' when he posts the pictures. We find out about his 'diner town hall' when he posts the pictures. His breakfast-eating far-western-part of the district constituents found out about it when they saw the handwritten notes taped on their diner door: "Joe Blow here Sat. 8AM." We find out about his visits to carefully chosen companies when he posts the pictures. We see he's in town when he posts the pictures of endorsements he receives. Other than that? Yeah, no. He's not interested in hearing from us unless we're on record as being interested in him. He's from the other party, and I've voted for him twice - but never again. I'm sick and tired of the face, name and policies of Donald Trump being the most important thing in every race in the country. For example, in the race for Attorney General... You want to be NY AG? Tell me what you're going to do for me not what you're going to do to him. You want to take on Trump? Fine - run for Senate or Congress. Maybe I'll vote for you then. (Likely not, but whatever). I'm sick and tired and tired and sick of the ads, which around here have been running since August, I kid you not. Since August. And I'm in a media overlap are, so we have NY-24, and we have NY-23 and we have NY-22 And you know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who refuse to identify themselves, their district, their party in their advertising. What are they afraid of?  "I'm Jane Doe and I'm running as the Democrat in the NY-22 - vote for me!"  Remember when that used to be par for the course?  Not any more. They're too afraid to even say what party they're in. SAD! SICK!! to quote a certain someone. And the lies. Outright, blatant, ridiculously unbelievable lies - I mean, there is no way anyone can believe three quarters of the stuff that appears in the ads, and yet... And yet -- there's no lack of interviews with people here, there and everywhere who completely and totally parrot the lies they see and hear, and you can tell they believe with all their heart what they're saying, a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT of the lies in the ads, the lies that come from the candidates directly, the lies that come from incumbents and challengers of both parties - on both sides - and of course from the current resident of the Oval Office, because he lies like the proverbial rug, in spades. I'm tired. I'm low energy. And we still have two weeks to go.

Wondering on Wednesday (v147)

Random noodling around tonight; we'll see where it takes us. There's certainly a lot going on out there to wonder about.

Do you wonder, listening to president Trump talk about Hurricane Florence, whether he's actually taking credit for her being the biggest one ever to hit the east coast? You hear him talk about his thinking, and that of other really smart people, and I honestly sense a little bit of pride there.

HAHAHA, Obama - take that!  My storm's way bigger than any of yours. Sad! Haahaha. And my hands too....hahahaha! It's going to be a fantastic disaster!! 

Sticking with the president, raise your hand if you have any idea what the president must have been thinking about when he gave a double fist pump and an angry sneer upon arriving at the 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania.  Personally I think he's terribly unphotogenic, and I think there have to have been more than a few purposefully bad pics of him published since he started his campaign, but here's the thing: you can't be photographed doing a double fist pump as you arrive at a memorial service if you don't do a double fist pump as you arrive at a memorial service. 

I'm wondering, for all you party-registered NY voters, if your phones are ringing off the hook with recommendations for tomorrow's primary, or if it's just me? For example, I had three phone calls from the Communications Workers of America -- my retired husband's union - in 12 minutes. Seriously. And they're calling me, not him, because he's an Independent and can't even vote in the primary for governor. I've had law firms calling to tell me to vote for a specific judicial candidate, and former judges calling for the same race, but a different person.

I've had calls on the Attorney General's race, the governor's race, my state senator - it's a battle royale I tell you.  Anyone willing to hazard a guess on the gubernatorial primary? Will it be the Sonofa Gov, incumbent Andrew Cuomo, or maybe the angry activist, former Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon? Or maybe Syracuse's former mayor Stephanie Miner, who's running as the representative of a new party?

Speaking of Nixon and Miner, should one of them overcome massive odds to win the primary, she would become the 16th woman with the chance to become their state's governor. I wonder who would have thunk that? Even more remarkable, according to the Barbara Lee Family Foundation,

There are currently six women governors, and the most we've ever had serving at one time was nine. Over the course of US history, only 39 women have eve served as their state's governor. Compare that to over 2,300 men.

I wonder if this will be the time the tide turns?

And finally, sticking with politics for the close, NY's 24th congressional district is a mess again, with boatloads of out-of-district money flooding in, like always. The incumbent John Katko is running snotty TV and radio ads during the lunch hour and the dinner hour, daily -- and we've got almost two months until the general election? I don't know about you, but I'm wondering of what he's afraid?

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v16)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Many of us have been focused lately on Washington's spending bill, which added Carl Sagan-esque billions and billions of dollars to the federal deficit, on top of the tax plan Christmas present we got last year - but then we moved quickly on to 'school safety/gun safety/dammit we're taking ALL your guns!' discussions that have been occurring, honestly and not, since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.

Or  we've been focused on how Congressional Democrats miraculously lost their entire chain of thought on solving the DACA problem, given that they can only argue about one thing at a time, and because they have to focus on winning seats in special elections so they could, assuming they win the majority in November, go back to focusing on stuff like DACA, or finding a candidate to take on Trump in 2020, or whatever else they're thinking.

Meanwhile, back in Albany,  New York's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo and his handful of men in a room managed to hash out and pass a budget deal, before the deadline, leaving everyone time to get home for the holiday.

Among the provisions in the $163B budget:

• requirements related to preventing sexual harassment for the government and private companies;
• a projected $100M annually from opioid manufacturers to help combat addiction;
• tax credits for charitable contributions for public education or health care programs, and an option for an employer tax to replace personal income taxes;
• new spending on education;
• another commission to figure out how much we should pay legislators and other government officials (see prior posts on the pay issue here: v3, v5, v6, v7, v8 - including my solution, which will NEVER come to fruition)
• funding for water quality issues of various types; 
• prohibitions on police claiming consensual sex with people in custody; and
• a number of items that will help fund activities in NYC including some $415M annually from a charge on cabs, Uber, Lyft and other pay services in certain sections of the city.

Here's how the Sonofa Gov described the accomplishment:

This budget is a bold blueprint for progressive action builds on seven years of success and helps New York to continue to lead amid a concerted and sustained assault from Washington on our values and principles.

We put into place the strongest and most comprehensive anti-sexual harassment protections in the nation...(we) will become the first state to implement new measures to shield families from the devastating federal tax law's elimination of full state and local deductibility... protects New York's future with record funding for education, coupled with...reforms that finally ensure transparency and equality in how that funding is distributed... (it) delivers for the most vulnerable among us, including...tenants who have had to live with mold, lead and no heat.. and those who have had to ensure the injustice that is Rikers Island. 

With this budget, we chart a path forward and ever upwards toward a better future for all New Yorkers. 

Excelsior!

The NYS Senate had a slightly different take on things. According to their web page, the Republican-controlled Senate (with help from the Independent Democratic Caucus, which hangs with the Rs), it was all about keeping Cuomo under control.

The New York State Senate has completed passage of the 2018-2019 state budget that achieves key objectives to promote affordability, opportunity, and security for hardworking taxpayers. The final budget maintains fiscal discipline by keeping within the self-imposed two-percent spending cap and closes a $4.5B deficit, while also preventing billions of dollars in new taxes and fees to protect taxpayers and encourage economic growth. 

The Rs are happy, though, with things like staying within the 2% spending cap for the eighth year, with over $52B in total taxpayer savings since the cap was imposed;keeping brownfield, historic and certain other business tax credits from being deferred, and having $700M available under these programs; adding $13M on top of what Cuomo proposed for farm-related initiatives; job training programs,and so on.

It'll likely take some time for all of the dust to settle on this but at least coming out of the gate, the pols seem expectedly happy with the outcome, which allows all sides to claim victory.  The proof will come when we taxpayers start seeing and feeling the impact of the budget, which will take longer.

It is an election year, though -- so we're apt to see the good stuff fast, and the less good stuff, well, less fast.  I'll circle back around on things as they progress.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v8)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Oh, how the plot has thickened!

It seems the Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation has come to a stalemate and it appears there will be no pay raise this year.

When we last touched base on this in v7, I had suggested that whatever raise was decided, it should be implemented exactly the same as the increase in the minimum wage - higher and faster for NYC and immediate areas, much slower (and likely not ever reaching the NYC rate) for Western NY, Central NY, Northern NY and the Southern Tier.  I thought that was a great plan, and I actually submitted it to the commissions.

As I noted in v5 of this series, Fran Reiter, one of our Sonofa Gov's appointees on the Commission, has long been asking for reasons why the raise was needed, either form legislature leaders or members since some had said they had no interest in one, especially in an election year.  She had also been concerned with the ethical challenges that had been identified in the Leg, including the convictions of Shelly Silver and Dean Skelos.

Today, Reiter indicated she would not go along with the increase absent action from the Leg on ethics.

We believe the opinion of the public is entirely relevant, if not determinative. Because the public is, in the truest definition of the word, the employer. Obviously the employer's view on the employee performance and merit is incredibly important.

A vote was called in the meeting, when Reiter and Cuomo appointee Robert Megna abstained, along with judicial appointee Bart Crozier, the deal was done. Without a fully representative majority, and with a statute that required a decision no later than November 15, there was nothing left to be done.

Showing great collaboration and a unified front, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan issued a joint statement.

It is unfortunate that the Governor's appointees to the New York State Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation once again felt the need to demand legislative action in exchange for an increase in compensation. This is completely unacceptable and far exceeds the mandate of the Commission, which was to evaluate the need for an increase in compensation based primarily on economic factors.

I'm actually somewhat torn with this outcome. While I too had a hard time thinking about giving everyone a giant raise in one fell swoop, given they already make substantially more than the median income in New York, and since many members are fairly new to the Leg, they shouldn't be eligible for what was, in effect, to be make up pay, I was looking forward to what the Commission would ultimately recommend, and more selfishly, if they would consider an implementation plan that exactly mirrored the ones the same Legislature put into effect for struggling New Yorkers.

Sadly, we'll never know.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v3)

Nathaniel Brooks/New York Times

When we last visited Albany, I had looked at the pros and cons of giving everyone in the Leg a raise.

I promised we’d talk about the proposed increase, and take a look at the Commission that’s been charged with making the decision on any salary increase.

The Commission on Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Compensation was formed to lend an air of independence to decisions on how much our elected officials, including judges and District Attorneys, and our managerial bureaucrats in state government get paid. The Commission gets pulled together every four years (starting in June 2015) to make salary recommendations for these folks, who otherwise would not receive a raise. For example, and as a reminder as you look at this issue, Legislators are working now for the same base pay as they earned 19 years ago.

The thinking is that having an independent commission would be better than having these folks raise their own pay whenever they felt like it. A cynic might question the 'independence' of the group; of the seven members, three were appointed by the Governor, one each by the President Pro Tem of the State Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly, and the remaining two were appointed by the Chief Judge of the NY Court of Appeals - but that's the way of the world in politics.

Judicial wages were tackled first, in case you're wondering; over a short period of time, we'll see judges in New York paid on a par with their federal counterparts.

For the Legislature, there's an increase in the general neighborhood of 47% being discussed.

A frequent argument for giving politicians and bureaucrats a raise, and one that the Commission is trying to deal with, is that we need good people in these positions. It seems important to discuss that when we're talking about lawmakers and managerial folks - and never important to discuss that when we're talking about public employees or raising the minimum wage. I mean, where was the clamoring for ‘good people’ to make the coffee or grab the donuts or flip a burger or offer fries with that? 

A couple of commission members have been vocal on this issue. Roman Hedges, Ph.D., an appointee of the Speaker of the Assembly, has some personal experience with the ‘good people’ thing, which he shared.

We need people who are smart enough, who are knowledgeable enough, who have learned enough that they shouldn’t be listening to their senior staff as the only source of information. They shouldn’t be listening to lobbyists as their only source of information. They should be listening to the people that elect them. They should be listening to their colleagues. They should be thinking for themselves. They should be drawing on all of those influences. They should be smart enough to sort through all of that stuff and read complicated things. And I think that is not a part-time thought, whether it’s a Commissioner or a Governor or a Legislator. I think that is not a part-time vocational idea. I think that is an investment in a career. It is really hard work.

As someone who has spent 20 years as a senior Legislative staff person, I would like to think that the people I have worked for were smarter than I was and that they listened to the advice I gave them but took it as advice and not as direction. I would like to think that when I interacted with lobbyists I didn’t have to worry that the people I worked for didn’t know enough to interact with even more sophisticates than I did.. And I think we are talking flavors like the ones I just outlined, to me that puts me in the right realm, that is going to attract good people.

Those ‘flavors’ Hedges mentions? He’s not talking ice cream, he’s talking gravy: that 47% figure I cited at the top of this post.

Fran Reiter, one of Cuomo's appointees, has experience in Albany and in New York City, in the Giuliani administration, and she seems unconvinced by Hedges' argument. 

The issue about, that you raised, Roman, which I do find interesting and probably take some issue with, is whether or not rewarding legislators so they stick around is something that, that is real in terms of what we see which is most legislators aren’t going anywhere. That the ones we have now get re-elected time after time after time after time. The public is wholly dissatisfied with them, if you could read the mail we get, and yet they keep re-electing them over and over and over and over again. Rather than exercising their right to vote for somebody else. But I haven’t seen a shortage of people who want to be state legislators. I may be wrong about that, but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence about it. Nor, does it appear that those who are serving now, though many of whom are serving for a very, very long time, are leaving because of this issue. 

Two sides of the coin: we need to have a good salary so good people will want to be legislators, vs. we don't seem to have a shortage of people running, and lots of these folks get elected over and over again, even though no one likes them. (How sad is that?)

In reality, there has been some turnover in recent years.

• Only 36 out of the 150 in the Assembly - a mere 24% - have been in office more than ten years, and only 21 of the took office before 2000.  
• In the Senate, it's 24 out of 63, or 38%, who've been around more than ten years; only eleven who were around before 2000. 

But are we to assume that all of these new folks are 'bad people' who are not capable of sorting "through all of that stuff" and "reading complicated things" that Roman Hedges describes?

Or maybe they're good people, not pad people. but they're not the best people, because they're willing to work part time for a base salary north of $79K, roughly $20K higher than the median household income in New York state?

One thing that's certain: it would be very hard to convince me to give any really significant raise to these folks given their part-time status, and their per diems for travel to Albany, and the 'lulus' many of them receive for taking some kind of leadership role, to mention just a few things that would influence my vote.

The Commission is trying to deal with those issues too - and I'll take a look at those in the next MBIA post.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v2)

Nathaniel Brooks/New York Times

In my post the other day, the first in a new occasional series focused on what's going on in New York's capital,  I talked about the limited number of days our part-time legislators are required to spend in in Albany, how much time they seem to spend fundraising, and how we can't account for the time they spend on the job when they're not in session. All of that leads us to today's post, where I take a look at some of the pros and cons of giving the NY Legislature a raise.

First, the cons:

• The senators and assembly members know what the pay and benefits are going in; it's not a secret.  They also know that they job will require them to be away from home off and on during six-month legislative season during which time they'll be expected to participate in committee meetings, caucus meetings, and legislative sessions.  
• They are officially a part-time legislature. Sure, they'll be expected to put in some time after hours, when their constituents are home from work and have time to call with some complaint or another, but they have a light official schedule. 
• Their current salary (not counting per diems and lulus) is already the third highest among the state, behind California and Pennsylvania.
• Other than days the Legislature is in session, we have no idea what they're doing on our behalf, or how much time they spend on our business.
• The legislators receive a pension for what is, in effect, a volunteer position, and something many of their constituents don't have for their full-time jobs.
• Many of them have outside income, which is not unexpected given that the legislature is supposed to be a part-time job.
• At any time, a legislator can not run for re-election if they feel they can't live on the salary they make.

Now, the pros:

• The salary has not gone up since 1999, which admittedly is a long time to go without a pay increase. 
• The salary is not competitive with other public sector jobs, such as those earned by say, unionized government workers, or with comparable private sector jobs.
• We can't get good people to run because the pay is too low; this is particularly true for legislators from New York City or other areas with a high cost of living.
• The salary is so low, elected officials will fall victim to schemes of personal enrichment because they need the money.
• What they do is worth more than what they get.
• They are really a 'full time' legislature because of everything they do outside the official calendar, and so deserve more money.
• The outside income they receive could also lead them ethically astray, because they might legislate on behalf of their own interests rather than those of the rest of us. 

Have I missed anything in either of the lists, or does that pretty  much cover it?  

Coming up, we'll look at the proposed increase, and some conditions that might be attached to the raise to get the commission working on it to come to a recommendation.