Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/31/22

CBS won the billion-dollar classroom lottery today, so we'll have highlights from Face the Nation for Sunday School and your Extra Credit. John Dickerson sat in for Margaret Brennan. 

We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in. 

Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.

...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...

Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?

It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. 

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something. 

If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John." 

Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."

Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."

Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.

... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.

Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.

Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."

Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.

They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."

Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to

a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away."  However, Toomey argued,

What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.

Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"

Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.

To which Dickerson responded,

 Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 6/20/21

 Today, two of my least favorite senators were in the classrooms: Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) who talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and That Guy from Vermont, Bernie Sanders (I-'m Never Gonna Be a D), who chatted with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union, which is where we'll start.

Bash set the stage this way: work continues trying to find a bipartisan agreement on infrastructure, while at the same time, TGFV, who's the Senate Budget Committee chair, is working towards a reconciliation bill that won't need any of the Rs. And, the $6T package (yep - that's trillion) has some of the big policy goals Dems favor, but the price tag is scaring some of them, too.

Bash asked TGFV if he had Biden's approval to go big - way big. He said that Biden's given them a "serious and comprehensive blueprint" of where they want to go, and while there's an admittedly important inclination to "get bogged down in numbers,"

we got to look at what the needs are of the American people, what's going on right now. And what is going on right now, obviously, as everybody knows, very rich are doing phenomenally well. Corporate profits are soaring. And yet we have -- in terms of real wages for working people, it's lower today than it was 48 years ago. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck.

And then he ticked off the issues: childcare; housing; climate; paid medical leave; corporations not paying taxes; rich people not paying taxes.

So, all that the president is doing, all I am doing is taking a look at reality for working families, understand their needs have been ignored for decades. Now it is time to create good-paying jobs, millions of good- paying jobs, addressing health care, housing, infrastructure.

And about those Ds who are feeling queasy, is he willing to cut the price tag or edit the laundry list? He said the process is just beginning, and he plans on talking to everyone and trying to hammer things out, but again,

... I think that there is general agreement that the time is long overdue that we address many of the long-neglected problems facing the middle class and working class of this country.

TGFV does not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Bash noted. He said the bill "provides spending in some important areas," but the money is not adequate. He does think that raising taxes on wealthy people is ok, but that "raising the gas tax, or a fee on electric cares, or maybe privatization of infrastructure," which have been mentioned, are "bad ideas." He said he'd have to see how the bill is paid for, and added, again, the laundry list of his priorities which he clearly considers are everyone else's priorities.

And I can't help thinking, as I do every time he's interviewed, that he seems to forget that he lost - twice - to a less progressive candidate. And yet, he always seems to think that he's in the driver's seat. And if he's the one to kill a bipartisan infrastructure bill, he'll have proven that he's not president for a reason.

Down the hall, Chris Wallace asked Sen. Graham, one of the Group of 21 (10 Ds and 11 Rs) who have a $1T infrastructure plan, "how close are you to a deal with the White House? And what's the effective deadline for reaching an agreement?" Graham said that the group is willing to add more new money to the plan, whereas the previous group was not willing to do that. He also said that it's up to Biden, really.

...I am hopeful if the White House and Joe Biden stay involved, we can get there. I would just say this: President Biden, if you want an infrastructure deal of a trillion dollars, it's there for the taking. You just need to get involved and lead. 

Graham's thoughts on compromising on infrastructure with the Dems, knowing that they're seemingly willing to go forward unilaterally with the $6T behemoth spending plan? 

That could be very problematic. I'm going to sit down and talk with my colleagues. But $6 trillion being spent through reconciliation is more money than we spent to win World War II. Infrastructure to me is roads and bridges and ports -- and electrical vehicles are fine. I don't want to raise taxes to pay for it. 

Well, except for things like the federal gas tax, which he said hasn't been adjusted for inflation since the 90s. He's also OK with using unspent COVID money to fund an 'infrastructure bank' but Wallace didn't ask for details on that, or even on what that money was originally intended for in any of the COVID relief packages. And, Graham threw in the talking points that are required every time an R gets in front of a microphone.

And what they're calling infrastructure, the liberal left, to me, is not remotely related to what's traditionally been called infrastructure. It's just -- it's just a power grab by the Democratic Party in every area of our lives. 

Because affordable broadband and eldercare and whatnot didn't exist back in the day? Because investing in medical infrastructure for our aging population, or broadband for our poor children are just ways for the Dems to grab power? And adjusting a tax for inflation is a good idea, but fixing the minimum wage which is even older is a bad one? Who are these people?

Moving on to voting rights, Wallace asked Graham whether he'd support the Manchin plan, which is a heavily stripped-down version of SR-1, the For the People Act. Manchin's proposing making election day a holiday, at least 15 days of early voting, banning partisan gerrymandering, and requiring a voter ID. 

Graham doesn't "like the idea of taking the power to redistrict away from state legislators," because 

You're having people move from red -- blue states to red states. Under this proposal, you would have some kind of commission, redraw the new districts, and I don't like that. I want states where people are moving to have control over how to allocate new congressional seats. 

So, he's a no on the plan, just as he's a no on SR-1 

In my view, SR-1 is the biggest power grab in the history of the country. It mandates ballot harvesting, no voter ID. It does away with the states being able to redistrict when you have population shifts. And it's just a bad idea and it's a problem that most Republicans are not going to sign -- they're trying to fix a problem most Republicans have a different view of. 

Wallace did do some fact-checking on Graham's statements, but it didn't matter. And then, he asked if the Rs run the risk of the moderate Dems throwing in the towel on bipartisanship and joining calls to change the filibuster.

Graham says he hopes not, noting that the two parties are close on police reform, and on infrastructure as they discussed, and that he's willing to work with Manchin. He also said when the Rs had Former Guy and majorities in both the House and Senate, there were "a bunch of Democrats" willing to sign a letter protecting the filibuster. They're hiding somewhere now, Graham thinks, but he's adamant on one thing.

Never once did I go to Joe Manchin or any other Democrat and say, if you don't do some of the things I want, I'm going to agree with Trump to change the rules. I'm not going to be extorted here. I'm asking no more of my Democratic colleagues then I ask of myself. It was very unpleasant to be beat on every day by the president of the United States, President Trump, and his allies, to try to change the rules in the Senate to have their way. I said no because it's bad for the Senate. I hope these Democrats understand it's bad for the Senate to change the rules, and I don't want to be extorted. I've got to give two or three things before they will not change the rules. I don't like that at all. I didn't do that to them and I wish they would not do this to me. 

Unasked? 

• Why aren't more Rs willing to compromise? 
• Where is the Grim Reaper on all of this, encouraging his party to work together so that the rules could be protected? 
• Why are the Republican so against these proposals which have broad support conceptually, even if not broad support on the money? 
• Why, specifically, are the policies being proposed the wrong ones? Not the spending part, the policy part? How are these needs going to be met otherwise?

Sigh. See you around campus.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v37)

Sonofa Gov Poster

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Sonova Gov, recently helped save a man who was trapped in an overturned vehicle on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.  A few days later, he visited Puerto Rico after the recent earthquakes.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany between those two early-January activities, he delivered his tenth State of the State address - and, I should note, he was the creative force behind the poster you see here.

Our ship of state is stronger than it has been in decades. But the ocean we navigate is as tempest tossed as we have seen. Waves of anxiety, injustice and frustration are being fanned by winds of anger and division, creating a political and social superstorm.

That 'superstorm' includes school shootings, synagogue massacres, swastikas, turmoil on university campuses, homophobia, the increase in hate crimes... And it's going to get worse, he said, because of impeachment proceedings, divisive campaigns, and increasing global conflict. And those folks in DC? They're making it worse. 

We have a divided nation and a polarized Federal government. Everyone is pointing fingers, but no one is pointing forward and no one is pointing up.

He then recounted how New York has been a leader in the progressive movement, described as "the advancement of social, racial and economic justice, in an effective manner, to bring about meaningful improvement in the lives of aggrieved people and to further the collective interest." He outlined successes including gun safety, marriage equality, minimum wage, paid family leave, infrastructure, pro-union policies, and more.

Taxes went down for the middle class and corporations, and we've limited government spending to a 2% cap. We did all of that already, so what's left?

• Climate change: be ready to handle emergency situations, accelerate the transition to renewables, focusing on upstate opportunities; new transmission lines to get power from upstate to downstate; banning Styrofoam; funding national restoration/resilience programs, and more
• Green economy: expanding electric vehicles, attracting green industry, and putting a Nobel laureate to lead the way
• Taxes: continue growth by cutting small business taxes by 2.5%, cut 'middle class' taxes for individuals making up to $300K a year
• Upstate: continue REDC and DRI funding for economic growth; expand infrastructure investment; move on a host of regional projects from Buffalo to the Mohawk Valley and the Adirondacks; additional airport improvements; and more
• Downstate: continue investing in the MTA and Long Island Railroad; banning repeat sex offenders from the MTA; parks and housing initiatives. 

And, there's more:

• ensuring adequate cell service for the entire state; changing how the gig economy classifies workers; expanding paid leave; ensuring banks do business with everyone, or they won't do business with anyone; coordinating with neighboring states on legal marijuana; creating a global cannabis and hemp research center; ending the 'pink tax,' changing rape laws specifically where alcohol is involved
• legalizing 'gestational surrogacy' for same sex couples; expanding the Empire Child Care Tax Credit to include children under four; increased funding for affordable housing, with a demand for a 'higher level of competence, skill and professionalism' from local governments so the money won't be wasted 
• Not allowing guns purchase by people with a deniable conviction in another state; ending school funding disparities; free college tuition for families earning up to $150,000 a year; expanding workforce training programs
• Restricting the sales of all flavored e-cigarettes, restricting advertising on these products, and banning 'dangerous chemicals and products' as well as all variations of Fentanyl and synthetic drugs; expanding access to medication and assisted treatment; funding and other steps to ensure every New Yorker is counted in the upcoming census, and overturning the SALT limitation in the Trump tax code
• Speaking of taxes, all elected officials making over $100K annually must release their New York State taxes; prescription drug reform, medical transparency; passing the ERA; veterans assistance; e-bike laws; voting and election reform; and more.

Now, about that $6B budget gap, what did he have to say? All I can find is this:

• shifting more of the Medicaid burden to municipalities, which has been frozen for six years; and adding more accountability on the municipalities to keep costs down.

He challenged us to end the "American cancer" that is hatred, regardless of who it's against.

 Racism and discrimination are not new... It is this country consuming itself from within. And if we do not confront it, and if we do not defeat it, it will defeat us — there is no nation on this globe that can beat this nation, but this nation can defeat itself. 

New York must be the antidote. 

He said hate crimes would be subject to the "first-in-the-nation domestic terrorism law" and there'd be funding to expand the capacity of the Hate Crimes Task Force and for security grants to schools and places of worship. And, he wants schools to teach civic values and our history on diversity, as well as how immigration was driven by religious freedom, and

How Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity all teach one premise: that the strongest four-letter word is not hate, its love. 

There's also a call to expand the Jewish Museum on the Holocaust to allow it to "host school children all across the state" and make visiting there

part of a rounded education because to know the history of the Jewish people, is to know the history of love and connection, because New York would not be New York without the Jewish community, period.

Finally, he spoke of unity, saying that we should learn from the Pledge of Allegiance.

 It says, "One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Justice for all. Not justice for some, not justice for the wealthy, not justice for the well-off, not justice for the well-bred. Justice for all. That's what it says.

To demonstrate what that means to New Yorkers, he wants to add E Pluribus Unum to our state flag.

And then, the closing:

And hear me today, loud and clear. There is no place for hate in our state... When someone attacks one of us, they attack each of us and all of us.

When they attack Muslims, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack the LGBTQ community, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Latinos, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Asian Americans, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack African Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Italian Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Puerto Ricans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. And when they attack Orthodox Jewish people on the seventh night of Hanukkah, in Monsey, in Rockland, in the home of Rabbi Rottenberg, they attack me and they attack you! 

And when you try to divide the great State of New York, we will stand up tall. We will stand up unified. We will stand up and we will fight and we will win! Because we are right! And that is the New York way! Excelsior! Thank you, and God bless you!

And, lest you're wondering, he's not running for president in 2024. At least not yet.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v36)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Ah... late fall in New York.

The time when DPW folks and highway superintendents and mayors and county executives in my neck of the woods get to stop worrying (at least a little) about getting highway projects wrapped up, and start worrying (at least a little) about whether they've got enough road salt or sand to keep their roads safe through the winter, reminding people to shovel out fire hydrants in their neighborhood, and things like that. Our full-time legislators are back home in their districts, doing whatever it is they do when the Leg is not in session the second six months of the year.

And meanwhile, back in Albany, the wheels the Legislature set in motion continue to turn, with bills approved during our brief but spectacular legislative session making their way to the governor's desk for signature. Or not.

I recently saw reporting on auburnpub.com of a veto by our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, on a bill that was unanimously approved by both the Assembly and the Senate. The bill would have provide much-needed help to those DPW folks and highway superintendents and mayors and county executives who have to manage their local budgets to pay for maintenance of state roads within their jurisdictions - at a rate that hasn't gone up since 1987.  It also would have tied the reimbursement rate to the urban Consumer Price Index, so that it would be increased incrementally as needed.

There are 38 local jurisdictions in New York that take care of this kind of maintenance; one of them, the city of Auburn, maintains over 197,000 square yards of arterial highways, receiving 85 cents per square yard, with a an additional dime tacked on for square yards on bridges. The law, had it not been vetoed, would have upped the non-bridge yardage reimbursement to $1.87 and to 20 cents for bridge yardage.

According to data supplied by the NY State Conference of Mayors, Auburn would receive slightly over $200,000 in additional funding; the same would be true for Syracuse, where I live. The total additional cost would be around $12.7 million. The lion's share - over $8M - would have gone to New York City.

However, in vetoing the legislation, Cuomo said that the bill didn't include a funding source, that it would "significantly increase expenditures" and that this kind of thing needs to be done during the budget process. I don't know about you, but I don't see this as a "significant" increase in a $175.5B budget. And yes, I understand that we do have a huge budget gap that is likely to get worse instead of better, even if Cuomo and the legislative leaders take steps to get spending under control.

While state residents may not necessarily feel the state's budget gap directly, municipalities that have to pay increasing costs to repair the state highways in their jurisdictions are almost certainly feeling the impact of the 1987 reimbursement rates on their budgets - and that's the kind of economics that trickles down to residents who have to pay the costs. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be paying for with our tax dollars.

Supporters of the bill vow to try again in the 2020 session, which starts up in January. I'd like to think that, in a state where we can make up for legislators not getting a raise for 20 years, we should be able to fix this reimbursement rate, which hasn't seen an increase in over 30.

Wondering on Wednesday (v178)

Didja watch the Mueller testimony before the House Judiciary and/or Intelligence Committees?

I confess, I did not. I was in the garden, listening to my favorite NPR shows, so I only caught soundbites that people thought were important. Things like the part where Mueller said he did not exonerate Trump, that he didn't charge him because of the DOJ ruling that you can't charge a sitting president, and that Trump could be indicted for obstruction after he leaves office. You know, the kind of stuff we already knew.

So, in a nutshell, it was just what we thought it would be: a bunch of people trying to score points, some of whom did and some of whom really only swung and missed. And yes, if you're wondering, I appreciate that I'm covering multiple sports there, so no need to point that out.

But here's the part that I think is truly worthy of wonder. In his opening statement to both committees, Mueller reminded us that Russia did try and interfere in our 2016 election. Here's what he said to the Judiciary gang:

And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.

Similarly, he told the House Select Committee on Intelligence this:

Finally, as I said this morning, over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to intervene in our election is among the most serious. I am sure this Committee agrees. 

So, is anyone listening to that, or are they only listening to themselves ask questions (including a number of them that Mueller flat out said he couldn't or wouldn't answer, but they wasted everyone's time on them anyway)? What are our elected representatives doing about this type of threat, that is happening right now, which Mueller told them could come from other countries too?

In other wondering, there is concern that the budget deal worked out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin that raises the debt ceiling, and more, will have plenty of detractors on both sides - but it has to be passed this week, we're told, before the House leaves for the rest of the summer, because we could be put in a position of not being able to pay our bills before they get back.

So we have to wonder, will the detractors make a mess of things and not let the bill pass in the Senate? Here's the most colorful answer to that question, and it comes from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who wasn't sure what he was going to do, but suggested it would be appropriate to "color (him) doubtful."

It may taste like pumpkin pie, but I've got a lot of questions. Cutting spending around here is like going to heaven. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody's quite ready to take the trip... 

Now that today's shenanigans are out of the way, maybe we'll quickly see where everyone lands on the spending plan.

And finally, turning back to Mueller's testimony, the only other thing I have to wonder is, what will the Dems do next?

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v31)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

With the Legislature still home for the Memorial Day weekend, you can be sure our legislators' thoughts are focused on things like getting through the last couple of weeks of the session, and figuring out how to make it look like they're putting in full work weeks even though there's no legislating going on for the rest of the year.

And now that they've gotten their big raise, some of them need to figure out how to get their outside income at or below the 15% of base salary cap that came with the raise.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, as we say, our Sonofa Gov is making headlines on a radio interview. Take a look:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo plans to seek a fourth term as governor of New York state, he disclosed Tuesday. During an interview on WAMC radio, Cuomo said he believes he is making a difference in New York and plans to run again in 2022. 

Yep, he wants to stick around and is not planning on a 2024 run for president, if we read between the lines here.

I have been in the federal government. I was a cabinet secretary... I was in Washington for eight years. I believe I'm making a difference in the state of New York. I believe that in my heart. 

I think I'm doing good things... I believe I know how to do this (note: being governor). I would like to do it for as long as the people of the state of New York believe I am a positive.

Only Nelson Rockefeller won a fourth 4-year term; Cuomo's father and George Pataki each also served three terms. I did not know that at one point the term was only three years -- and George Clinton served seven of those.

Quick Takes (v35): No, It's Our Money

Quick Takes

A while back, California received federal funding to build a high-speed passenger rail service connecting San Francisco and LA.

Some work has been done on the project, however it seem clear, based on statements by Governor Gavin Newsom, that it may never be built. Here's a report about his State of the State address back in February,

In a change to a project voters first approved with a $10 billion bond during the Schwarzenegger administration, Newsom said there "simply isn't a path" to build highs peed rail to connect the northern and southern parts of the state wihtout more funding. The project as originally designed now is estimated to cost at least $77 billion.

Instead, he called for focus on a section linking the Central Valley cities of Merced and Bakersfield, which have long been neglected by lawmakers. "The Valley may be known around the world for agriculture, but there is another story ready to be told: a story of a region hungry for investment, a workforce eager for more training and good jobs, Californians who deserve a fair share of our state's prosperity," he said. The high speed rail project can be part of that.  

He also said at that time that the larger project "isn't dead" and that they'd complete an environmental review for it - and he also said he

does not want to return the $3.5 billion the state has received in federal funding.

Well, here's the thing: the federal government gives tons of money to infrastructure projects across the country, some of them worthy and some not, depending on who you ask. But the money that's given needs to be spent on the things for which it was appropriated.

Why, you ask?

Well, if it's wrong to take money from the military and other federal agencies and use it to build a wall on the southern border (and that is wrong), then it must also be wrong to take money designated to building a high-speed rail system connecting southern and northern California and using that instead to only connect two cities in the middle of the state. Sure, it's all railroads - but this is apples and oranges, it really is.

And the Federal Railroad Administration understands that. Here's their jargon-filled statement withdrawing nearly a billion dollars in funding from the project (I've emphasized the operative part):

After careful consideration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has terminated Cooperative Agreement No. FR-HSR-0118-12-01-01 (the FY10 Agreement) with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), and will deobligate the $928,620,000 in funding under that agreement.  The decision follows FRA’s Notice of Intent to Terminate and consideration of the information provided by CHSRA on March 4, 2019. FRA finds that CHSRA has repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the FY10 Agreement and has failed to make reasonable progress on the Project.  Additionally, California has abandoned its original vision of a high-speed passenger rail service connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, which was essential to its applications for FRA grant funding. FRA continues to consider all options regarding the return of $2.5 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds awarded to CHSRA.

In a statement, Newsom promised to defend "California's money," noting in part

The Trump administration's action is illegal and direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project...

Just as we have seen from the Trump Administration's attacks on our clean air standards, our immigrant communities and in countless other areas, the Trump Administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state...

Well, there's some of that, sure.  Just as there's no secret that I'm no fan of the Trump administration, it's also no secret that the Trump administration is not a fan of California, New York, and other blue states. (I don' think I've hit the administration's radar yet, but you never know.)

But the fact is, the state of California thinks that our money is their money, even if they're going to use it for a different purpose than it was appropriated - and even if they don't need it. The state's own High-Speed Rail Authority, which Newsom created, said that even without the billion or so that's being deobligated, it

believes it will still have enough money to complete the expanded Central Valley segment - as long as revenues from California's cap-and-trade auctions perform strongly.

For California, everything is personal when it comes to the Trump administration. It's all about 'him' and 'us' and never the twain shall meet.

But in this case, the Golden State is wrong -- it's not their money, it's our money. And it should be re-obligated to another project if they can't spend it the way they said it would be.

And frankly, everyone needs to get used to this idea, whether you like Trump or not. If you're blessed with our tax dollars, we have a right to hold you accountable for spending them the way you said you would.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v30)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Most of us are familiar with how what passes for legislating these days gets done in New York, right?We cram all of the key legislative items into the budget, which is negotiated by the three leaders in Albany, of course. Isn't that how everyone does it?

Probably not, but that it totally muddies the budget waters, cuts most of our expensive legislators out of the process, and negates most of the limited opportunities we voters have to interject our voice into the legislative process doesn't seem to matter much.

This year those three people - Democrats Andrew Cuomo, the Sonofa Gov, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Leader Carl Heastie - have moved quickly on many reforms, but they're currently struggling on public campaign financing. Some of the opposition, it seems, is coming from Heastie's Assembly; while they've passed similar laws in the past when there was zero chance of passage by the Republican-controlled Senate, now that it might actually happen it seems there's some foot-dragging going on. According to a report from the State of Politics blog,

...some lawmakers have raised concerns with the effect of independent expenditure committees, or super PACs, and the potential of fines levied under a public campaign financing system. 

And Heastie himself says his chamber is all for matching small contributions, except for paying for the match, I guess.

He added that his members "are not ready to support the NYC model for the entire state" - but did not say what they would support as a statewide program, not did he suggest where the matching funds would come from.

The New York AFL-CIO also has come out against doing it as part of the budget, noting that they supported the package of reforms that was passed earlier (and that didn't have any potential negative impact on union influence, which this change likely would).

Let's look at what the plan would include.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v28)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

With so much focus on how quickly New York's 'trifecta' government got out of the gate this year, it's easy to understand how some recent news may have flown under the radar, but it surely is as important as the legislative agenda we're seeing passed with record speed.

Here's the lede from an Albany Times Union article earlier this week:

New York state is facing an unexpected $2.3 billion shortfall - the most significant in eight years - due to a sharp drop in income tax collections for December and January, state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo revealed on Monday.

The governor, who had announced his $175 billion spending proposal for 2020 last month, cast blame on the federal government, attribution the drop largely to the 2017 federal rollback of the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, which he said was designed to penalize Democratic "high-tax" states. "Everything we did economically is right," Cuomo said Monday. "We tightened our belt, we cut taxes, we're creating jobs, and here's a penalty just because we are Democrats."

The article in the Buffalo News started out with this:

Less than three weeks after he proposed his 2019 state budget, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday raised red flags over slipping tax revenues and suggested that some popular items in the fiscal plan, including state aid to schools, could face cuts from what he offered in mid-January. 

Calling the situation "as serious as a heart attack," the Democratic governor said revenues are $2.3 billion below projections for the fiscal year that ends March 31. That is on top of a $500 million revenue dip form personal income taxes that the Cuomo administration recently projected when it put together a budget plan last month. 

And here's how City and State NY presented the news:

The flashy and progressive $175.2 billion executive budget Gov. Andrew Cuomo presented last month just rain into a roadblock earlier this week when the governor and New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli announced a $2.3 billion shortfall in income tax revenue - on top of the $500 million dip in revenue at the end of last year. Cuomo and DiNapoli both have pointed to the 2017 federal tax law capping how much of their state and local taxes (known as SALT) that income tax filers can deduct from their federal tax liability as a force that caused some of the state's high earners - who contribute a significant amount to the state's income tax revenue - to flee to states with lower taxes. 

Let's take a deeper look.

Grains of Salt (v40): Ben Walsh Reflects

Ben Walsh, the Independent mayor of Syracuse, will give his second State of the City this Thursday at the Red House, the newly renovated arts center on Salina Street.

In advance of that address, he had a Question-and-Answer session with Chris Baker of the Post Standard/Syracuse.com, and an interview with India Miraglia of SU's The Daily Orange, In both of those interactions with the media, Walsh shared his thoughts on his first year in office. The information - and quotes - below came from both of the articles linked above.

Among the highlights, he said:

• hearing from people that there's a new energy and renewed sense of optimism for Syracuse;
• establishing a strong vision for the future - for Syracuse to be a growing city that embraces diversity and creates opportunity for all;
• having a very diverse team, at all levels;
• identifying strategic 'building blocks' of fiscal sustainability; neighborhood stability and economic growth; constituent engagement; and finding effective and efficient ways to deliver city services;
• holding spending flat, as well as identifying savings opportunities;
• the new sales tax agreement with the County; 
• focus on public safety (new police chief, new recruits for the SPD, and a new fire chief); and.
• and the summer jobs program.

What else was on his mind?

Grains of Salt (v33): Quietly, A Budget Passes

Grains of Salt

It's almost sad that I'm still catching up on things that happened at home when we were on vacation last month, but it's true.

One of those things that almost slipped by was the passage of the Syracuse city budget, unanimously and with no changes, by the Common Council.

This is in stark contrast to what has happened in the recent past; former Mayor Stephanie Miner's last budget, for example, saw the Council reallocate funding for the Greater Syracuse Land Bank (GSLB) to fund Syracuse Police Department recruits. The mayor's veto of the changes was overridden by the Council - which had a Democratic majority; the mayor was of their own party when all of this happened.

Ben Walsh, our new and improved mayor, ran as an independent, with strong support from Democrats, and as a collaborative executive willing to work with any willing partners to try and make things better for our city. According to council members, they were brought into the budget process early on, had meetings with the mayor's team, got answers to their questions, and helped craft the budget.  The goal of all of that?  I'll let the Mayor explain:

Our goal when we started this budget process was to make sure there were no surprises in the budget when it reached the councilor members' mailboxes, and I think we achieved that. 

Not only did he invite councilors to participate, he made a budget presentation to them, in person, instead of sending minions to do it for him. That kind of respect and cooperation between City Hall and the chief executive is what we'll need to solve our difficult challenges - something Walsh is not afraid of tackling.

His budget freezes salary increases and non-essential hiring; it also funds new firefighter and police recruits, and restores the GSLB funding, all of which make me happy. We will need to take another $11M from city reserves, and the school district budget, also approved, will tap Syracuse City School District reserves for $14M.

And, also important for us, a plan to have the state's Financial Restructuring Board review spending and operations and provide some non-binding recommendations for city leaders to review and act upon. If we do, there's state money to help implement the changes. I'm hopeful this review, coupled with the efforts of Walsh's Fiscal Summit Advisory Committee (a report is due in time for next year's budget planning), will identify what we can do to right our financial ship and keep the city moving forward.

This non-confrontational budget process is a really good start.

Trump in Transition (v28)

The president, in his own words, before a meeting yesterday with his generals or something. Orange emphasis is mine.

So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man.  

And it’s a disgraceful situation.  

It’s a total witch hunt.  

I’ve been saying it for a long time.  

I’ve wanted to keep it down.  

We’ve given, I believe, over a million pages’ worth of documents to the Special Counsel.

They continue to just go forward.  

And here we are talking about Syria and we’re talking about a lot of serious things.  

We’re the greatest fighting force ever.  

And I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now — and actually, much more than that.  

You could say it was right after I won the nomination, it started.

And it’s a disgrace.

It’s, frankly, a real disgrace.  

It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense.  

It’s an attack on what we all stand for.

So when I saw this and when I heard it — I heard it like you did — I said, that is really now on a whole new level of unfairness.

So this has been going on — I saw one of the reporters, who is not necessarily a fan of mine, not necessarily very good to me.  

He said, in effect, that this is ridiculous; this is now getting ridiculous.  

They found no collusion whatsoever with Russia.  

The reason they found it is there was no collusion at all.  

No collusion.  

This is the most biased group of people.  

These people have the biggest conflicts of interest I’ve ever seen.

Democrats all — or just about all — either Democrats or a couple of Republicans that worked for President Obama, they’re not looking at the other side; they’re not looking at the Hillary Clinton — the horrible things that she did and all of the crimes that were committed.  

They’re not looking at all of the things that happened that everybody is very angry about, I can tell you, from the Republican side, and I think even the independent side.  

They only keep looking at us.

So they find no collusion, and then they go from there and they say, “Well, let’s keep going.”  

And they raid an office of a personal attorney early in the morning.  

And I think it’s a disgrace.

So we’ll be talking about it more.  

But this is the most conflicted group of people I’ve ever seen. 

The Attorney General made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself.  

Or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different Attorney General in.  

So he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country.  

But you’ll figure that out.

All I can say is, after looking for a long period of time — and even before the Special Counsel — because it really started just about from the time I won the nomination.  

And you look at what took place and what happened, and it’s a disgrace.  

It’s a disgrace.

I’ve been President now for what seems like a lengthy period of time.  

We’ve done a fantastic job.  

We’ve beaten ISIS.  

We have just about 100 percent of the caliphate or the land.  

Our economy is incredible.  

The stock market dropped a lot today as soon as they heard the noise of this nonsense that’s going on. 

It dropped a lot.  

It was up — way up, and then it dropped quite a bit at the end.  

A lot.

But that we have to go through that — we’ve had that hanging over us now from the very, very beginning.  

And yet the other side, they don’t even bother looking.  

And the other side is where there are crimes, and those crimes are obvious.  

Lies, under oath, all over the place.  

Emails that are knocked out, that are acid-washed and deleted.  

Nobody has ever seen — 33,000 emails are deleted after getting a subpoena for Congress, and nobody bothers looking at that.  

And many, many other things.

So I just think it’s a disgrace that a thing like this can happen.  

With all of that being said, we are here to discuss Syria tonight.  

We’re the greatest fighting force anywhere in the world.  

These gentlemen and ladies are incredible people, incredible talent, and we’re making a decision as to what we do with respect to the horrible attack that was made near Damascus.  

And it will be met, and it will be met forcefully.  

And when, I will not say, because I don’t like talking about the timing.

But we are developing the greatest force that we’ve ever had.  

We had $700 billion just approved, which was the reason I went along with that budget because we had to fix our military.  

General Mattis would tell you that above anybody.  

We had to fix our military.  

And right now, we’re in a big process of doing that.  

Seven-hundred billion and then $716 billion next year.

So we’re going to make a decision tonight, or very shortly thereafter.  

And you’ll be hearing the decision.  

But we can’t let atrocities like we all witnessed — and you can see that and it’s horrible — we can’t let that happen.  

In our world, we can’t let that happen, especially when we’re able to — because of the power of the United States, because of the power of our country — we’re able to stop it.