OrangeVerse XLVII: An Orange Flush

Ah, a meeting with cameras and the press - it just brings out the poetry in the president, doesn't it? I know it set my free verse-loving heart all a-flutter, that's for sure.

And that's exactly what happened recently when the president, vice president, and some cabinet members and other dignitaries gathered to talk about reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses.

Let's pick up where the poet talks about the administration's battle against California's emissions standards, lightbulbs, and toilets.

Much, Much, Much
We can make cars much less expensive and

much better and much stronger and about the same

from an environmental standpoint. Very close. But then 
when you realize they don't want to buy new cars because

frankly, they don't work very well. But the cars are much safer.

Our cars are much safer. They're much cheaper. They're much better.

And the reason they're safer is because they can be heavier because right 
now the cars are made out of  papier-mâché. (laughter) 
And ours are actually, we allow steel content (laughter)
But just remember: our cars are safer and they are 
much safer, by the way - and they're better. 
They operate better. And in every way 
we think it's going to be terrific. 

The Lightbulb Goes Off
The lightbulb: they got rid of
the lightbulb that people got used to.
The new bulb is many times more expensive 
and I hate to say it, it doesn't make you look as
good. And we’re doing other things. Of course being
a vain person, that’s very important to me. (Laughter.) 
It’s like a - it gives you an orange look. I don't want an
 want an orange look. (Laughter.) Has anyone noticed that? 
(Laughter.) So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a
couple of rooms where I am in the White House. (Laughter.)
But we are going back to the - - it’s a double standard. We
have a standard of the new bulbs and we have the old bulbs
And they’re already making the old bulbs. Many people
were complaining that the new bulbs were much much
more expensive. Many times in some cases more
expensive and the other thing they are considered
hazardous waste that because it's largely, a gas
 gas technology, when the bulb is disposed
of you're supposed to bring it to a haz-
ardous waste site. I said how many
people do that? Nobody does it
and you know that's a bad
thing. So you have proba-
bly heard about it You 
probably read about it.
And you'll be able to
to buy lightbulbs that
are better lighting in 
the opinion of many
and I tell you in my
opinion - and for a
lot less money. And
so we're doing that
but you'll also be a-
ble - if you want -
you can buy the
other bulbs also. 
And I'll tell you,
the bulb compa-
nies are - very - 
happy about that.

One Flush Two Flush
We're defending the American
workers we're using common sense.
We have a situation where we're looking
very strongly at sinks and showers and
other elements of bathrooms when you turn the
faucet on - in areas where there's tremendous amounts
of water where the water rushes out to sea because you could never
handle it - and you don't get any water. 
You turn on the faucet; you don't get any water. 
They take a shower and water comes dripping out.
It's dripping out - very quietly - dripping out.
People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times
as opposed to once they end up using more water.
So the EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion.
You go into a new building or a new house or a 
new home and they have standards.
 "Oh, you don't get water."
 You can't wash your hands, practically, there's so little water
comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave
the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your
hands you end up using the same amount of water
So we're looking at, very seriously, at opening up
the standard and there may be some areas where we'll
go the other route - desert areas. But for the most part
you have many states where they have so much water
that it comes down - it's called rain (laughter) - that
they don't know - they don't know what to do with it.

Alternative Facts

So we're going to be opening that up I believe and we're looking

looking at changing the standards very soon, and that's a

little bit like the lightbulb where you get a bulb that's

better for much less money, We go back - but you

have the other alternative. And you'll keep the

other alternative with sinks and showers et

cetera too that's been a big problem so

a lot of the things we do are based 

on common sense... In so many -

so many of the things we do

it's based on common sense

like the car the car will

end up with that net

tremendous saving environmentally

when you think of all the cars the

old cars that will come off the road

you'll end up with a very - a better

car and you'll end up environment-

ally it will be ultimately much better.

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/8/19

As promised in yesterday's Sunday School post, here's a recap of NJ Senator Cory Booker's conversation with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week. Booker was the only one of the 2020 Dem presidential candidates making the classroom rounds yesterday.

They started their conversation on Kamala Harris dropping out of the race, with George wondering if Booker could "unpack" his comment about the system not being fair, noting that Harris had

started out with a bang, had 20,000 people at her first rally, raising an awful lot of money early on, performed pretty well in the early debates and only fell back when she stumbled in the campaign.

In response, Booker offered a comparison between Harris and former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has announced his endorsement of former VP Joe Biden.  Kerry followed a very similar path to Harris during his campaign: he pulled out of every state, poured all his resources into Iowa, he had issues in his campaign, he was polling at 4% -- just like Harris.  But then, he loaned his campaign $5M - something Harris couldn't do.

And so, the Democratic Party which makes a right critique that this -- we should be stopping the influence of big money in politics, that Kamala Harris stopped her campaign because of the campaign finance rules and the fact that she couldn't do what we see billionaires doing in this race, which is flooding ads to jack up their poll numbers and get in.

George noted that Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren - they're not wealthy and they're still in the race, and billionaires may be spending, he suggested, but look at Tom Steyer, who's "pretty far back right now."  Booker argued that "Iowa voters should have the right to choose" and they also defy polls "just about every time."

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter -- Barack Obama around this time was about 20 points behind Hillary Clinton. But Iowa voters where you have to come out here and actually meet folks, you see people who are polling at low numbers end up finishing first. It wasn't just John Kerry that year, John Edwards was polling at 2 percent and number seven and he finished number two in Iowa. So, I’m just at the point, at this point in the campaign, let Iowa voters decide. It goes to the same issue with the debate right now.

And he turned the discussion to his own campaign, and "the system" - requirements for both polling results and individual donors - is hurting him.

You know, we're running a campaign where in Iowa and New Hampshire, we're in the top in endorsements. We have literally one of the top net favorabilities in the race. We're called by local media here in Iowa as one of the top field organizations and they've even -- you had press people coming out in Iowa and saying this is ridiculous. If the pollsters call you, choose Cory Booker because he should be on that debate stage.

So, we’ve been excited. You know, over the last -- since last debate, we've been experiencing our biggest surge in online donations. We have tons of people coming out just yesterday, more elected officials endorsing my campaign and are frustrated that we are putting artificial barriers which often could be overcome by people with money determining who Iowa gets to choose from.

Something is wrong with the system.

George wondered about strategy, especially since Booker will have to be present in the Senate for a likely impeachment trial, and since it looks like, barring some really good polls, Booker will be shut out of the December debate.

Booker said he's going to keep running his campaign, "like a lot of candidates have done in the past that were discounted by national media and press." He expressed gratitude to folks who have been donating and "helping us to overcome a lot of these artificial barriers." He also noted

And as far as being a United States senator, I take my oath very seriously, even if the president's going to violate his. I'm going to be in the Senate and do my job and trust that, here in Iowa, we're going to continue to build on this momentum we're feeling right now. And I'm really grateful that, at this moment in our campaign, we're breaking records in our campaign, because Americans are saying, your voice is important in this race, and we're going to do everything we can to keep you there, because our online small-dollar contributions are going up. And I hope that Americans will continue to support us in this last sprint to Iowa.

Moving to the impeachment inquiry, George asked whether Booker thought Rudy Giuliani should testify, "especially in the wake of his trip to Ukraine this week" and asked if he has a reaction to president Trump's saying that he expects some kind of report from Rudy as a result of his efforts.

Look, this -- this is just a disappointing chapter in American history -- that a president's private lawyer should also be engaging in -- with the president's consent, in foreign policy interference.

And what's going on right now is just unacceptable to anybody who's going to be a fair observer of fact. And the fact that we can't get to the truth of this matter, because Giuliani is not willing to testify, and the president of the United States is holding back witnesses that could give the American people insights into the true breadth and depth of this corruption, is just -- should be frustrating to everyone.

Finally, they talked briefly about the shooting in Pensacola and whether anything should be done, maybe a review, of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Booker said the US-Saudi relationship is "unacceptable" and cited examples, including of course the "outrageous killing" of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi.

This is a relationship that has serious problems. And the fact that this president seems, in a very transactional way, doubling down on the relationship, and telling us it's because of just financial interests, is unacceptable. America is best when we lead with our values in a resolute manner. And this is a relationship that needs more than just an examination. In the Senate, we came together in a bipartisan way to rebuke what -- some of the things we have been doing with the Saudis, like the engagement in Yemen. It's unacceptable. And, as president of the United States, I will change it. We will lead with our values again.

That's where they left things, and where I'll leave things as well.

See you around campus.

And please, consider going to corybooker.com or yang2020.com and donating for diversity on the debate stage.

Sunday School 12/8/19

Let's spend some time on impeachment today, talking with folks from both sides of the circus. I'll have a Sunday School Extra Credit with Cory Booker coming up a little later, since I promised to cover the 2020 Democratic candidates and their classroom appearances. 

We'll get things started with a conversation between George Stephanopoulos and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on ABC's This Week. Lofgren, George told us, has played a role in every modern impeachment, which means she's been in office for more than 35 years. 

Lofgren was asked to "make the concise version" of the case that allegations against Trump are more serious than those against either Nixon or Clinton. She explained that Nixon abused his power by trying to influence the election and by covering it up. Trump, she said,

not only has he abused his power to improperly put his thumb on the -- on the scale for the election, he used a foreign power to do it. And that is -- really hits all of the buttons that the founding fathers were concerned about.

George hit her with one of the many Republican defenses, that Trump didn't get what he wanted, and that the aid was released. Lofgren said that "as a matter of fact" people died while the aid was suspended, and that Trump is continuing to use "agents to get improper things done," referring to Rudy Giuliani, and that this is "an ongoing threat" to national security. She added

 And it's an abuse of power that is -- needs to be dealt with, really. It's -- it's depressing, honestly. I wish the president's behavior had been better.

Lofgren thinks they should focus the impeachment "only on those items where we have direct evidence" and noted they don't have direct witness testimony for what's in the Mueller report.

Stephanopoulos referenced a WaPo editorial suggesting that witnesses and documents being blocked by Trump could "provide a fuller, and to many Americans, more persuasive picture of his guilt."  He wondered if the House should wait for that information, as the editorial suggested. Trump has "improperly withheld" witnesses, she said, adding

I'm mindful that the last time we fully litigated that claim, it took 18 months. So to allow the president to engage in frivolous appeals so that the appeals extend beyond his term of office really is not what the constitution provides...

And she said she thinks they'll be able to make the case without having to wait for that information.  And in response to a question that impeachment will replace the "certainty of presidential terms," something she said a long time ago, that Congress could use partisan impeachment to change the outcome of an election, she disagreed.

... I think I did say throughout the Clinton impeachment was, first you need a high crime and misdemeanor. Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power, maybe husband power. And certainly Trump has done the same thing when it comes to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. We're not proceeding on his lies about his affairs. That has nothing to do with the abuse of presidential power any more than it did in the Clinton administration.

She finished by again, equating Trump's actions with those of Nixon, and that

...the founders were very concerned that the president that they had created in the constitution had enormous powers. And if unchecked, if the use of that power was made to subvert the constitutional order, there had to be a remedy and that remedy was impeachment.

Let's move on to a couple of excerpts from Chuck Todd's conversation with Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, on NBC's Meet the Press. Cruz said something about Trump being tough on Russia, and Todd asked if what the president did with Ukraine was "somehow tough on Russia" or if instead Trump "by just introducing all of this delayed aid, play into the hands of Russia." Here's Cruz not answering.

You know, Chuck, substance matters. By any measure, the president's policy and this administration's policy have been tougher on Russia and, actually, better for Ukraine than Obama's was. Let me give you an example. You just mentioned Ukrainian aid. The Donald Trump administration gave lethal defensive aid to Ukraine, Javelin missiles, to take out Russian tanks. Do you know what? Throughout the Obama administration, I repeatedly pressed President Obama to give lethal aid to Ukraine. I traveled to Ukraine. I went to the Maiden Square, in Kiev. And they needed lethal aid. But the Obama administration, they sent, teddy bears and MREs. They wouldn't actually give weapons. And at the end of the day, Chairman Nadler doesn't want to talk about any of that. He doesn't want to talk about the substance.

Speaking about House Democrats, Cruz suggested it was "garbage. What nonsense" for them to suggest that "you don't have to prove a crime, you don't have to prove a law was violated, to impeach a president."

Chuck Todd let out four 'whoas' at that line, arguing that high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution, and that the Constitution was written before they even wrote the laws. Here's Cruz

So actually what the Constitution -- Chuck, actually, what the Constitution says is you can impeach a president for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. It specifies it. High crimes and misdemeanors was a -- hold on, Chuck. Don't interrupt me-

So high crimes and misdemeanors was a term of art that the framers used -- and you know, it's striking. In poker, there's something called a tell. When a player has a really bad hand, and they reveal it, it's a tell. What we saw last night was a tell from the House Democrats. You know, just a few weeks ago, their talking point was bribery, bribery, bribery. They're now admitting they can't prove a crime. They can't prove a law was violated. And here's why. Any president, any administration, is justified in investing corruption. And there was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. You know how much Hunter Biden was paid every month? $83,000. That's $1 million a year.

I don't even know where to start with that answer, if it's an answer. 

• Pretending the Constitution requires a criminal act? That's a lie. 
• Hunter Biden getting a job isn't in and of itself an indication of corruption; if anything, you could argue that it was an attempt at currying favor with the Obama administration, but that has not been proven - and is not a crime. 
• That Biden was paid $83,000 per month? Well, it was $50,000 a month, so the inflation since he got the job is pretty impressive - and not a crime. 

And then he blamed the media, Cruz did, fro not caring about any of this. Except that, as Todd rightly said, the reason anyone - including Cruz - knows anything about this is because the media reported it. Todd asked if there was corruption, why didn't we have American officials do the investigation, why ask a foreign government to do it?  Here's this non-answer.

So I believe any president, any Justice Department, has the authority to investigate corruption. In this case, there was serious evidence, on the face, of corruption. The reason Hunter Biden got that position is because his daddy was Vice President of the United States.

Next question: does Cruz believe that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election?

I do. And I think there's considerable evidence of that.

Next question - after reciting several examples of crap Trump launched against Cruz in 2016,  "is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative about somebody, in order to help him, politically?"

Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call...

And then, provided the evidence that Ukraine interfered in our election. Make sure you've got your seat belt on.

Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump --  during the election season. --  That is unusual...  and they wanted Hillary Clinton to get elected.

Because an op-ed is... election interference.

Got it.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v13)

A lot going on this week - and I didn't even touch the impeachment report or the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Here you go, in case you missed anything.

Sunday School included two interviews with Senator Amy Klobuchar and one with Senator Cory Booker. Both, of course, are still in the race for the Democratic nomination next year.  Here's a bit from Booker, talking with John Dickerson on Face the Nation about how we need a 'healer' after president Trump.

We're hating each other because we vote differently and - and we're not going to be able to get the big things done that we need to get done, like facing down climate change, the health care crisis that still persists. You need new American majorities to get that. And you need a leader that can inspire the moral imagination of this country.

Martha Raddatz sat down with three veterans in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit to talk about the president's intervention into the dealings of the Navy. One of her guests was Col. Dave Lapan, US Marine Corps (Ret.). Lapan served for 34 years with deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. Among other things, Lapan talked about the "politicization of the military" that we're seeing, saying that

This president has often talked about how much he admires the military, how much he has done for the military, it's all about the strength of the military. And I'd ask what these pardons have done to further that goal. Rather than making the military stronger, I think he's weakened the military, in these days.

We had new information from The Update Desk on efforts being taken here in Syracuse to protect taxpayers from the ridiculous so-called '485-a' tax break. This incentive, which I've written about a few times, is supposed to be used to repurpose and rehabilitate historic buildings with a mix of residential and commercial space, but developers have been getting away with all kinds of crazy stuff, and the city is trying to put a stop to it. 

The council voted unanimously to amend local law by giving the assessor more explicit authority to reject applications for the so-called 485-a exemption, which the city first adopted in 2010. The amendment specifically aims to exclude projects that involve demolishing old buildings to make way for new construction. 

There was news from our Sonofa Gov, captured in this Meanwhile Back in Albany post. Andrew Cuomo, our Sonofa Gov, vetoed  a bill that was passed unanimously by the Assembly and the State Senate that would have increased reimbursement to municipalities for maintenance on state highways.

... 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...

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.

Also from The Update Desk, we had a tw0-week update on emails from the 2020 Dems.  Here's what they were talking about, other than asking for money.

• the November debate and how they did;
• who's on the stage for the December debate and how they got there;
• who's not on the stage for the December debate and how we can get them there;
• billionaires in general, not just the one already in but the one who just joined;
• Iowa, barely two months away;
• the end-of- November fundraising deadline; and
• diversity, or the lack thereof, in the remaining candidates.

I talked about why I like the new contract between the city of Syracuse and the Syracuse Police Department in this Grains of Salt post; the contract includes higher pay for longevity, leadership positions, and more - and a five-year residency requirement for new hires. 

So, yes, I'm delighted that the next class of officers graduating from the SPD's academy will have to find a place to live in the city within six months of graduation, and meet the same residency requirement that our firefighters do. Honestly, I hope one moves into my neighborhood the next time there's a house for sale.

And, it includes a new program to keep kids interested in becoming cops after they get out of high school until they're old enough to enter the academy. Good stuff all around, as far as I'm concerned.

And finally, we had a Quick Take today on folks doing a "victory lap" because Amazon is going to lease office space for 1500 jobs, with no incentives (at least so far). You'll remember, of course, that the deal for Amazon to put their HQ2 in Queens, which could have brought up to 25,000 high-paying jobs to the state, fell through earlier this year. 

I thought that an odd thing to celebrate, and I was not impressed by their self-appreciation, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was selling what appears to be false information on how the company would have gotten state job creation tax credits. 

And yet, even today, AOC was tweeting something completely different. Take a look.

While we’re here, let’s clear up some GOP disinfo: - “It’s 1500 jobs vs 25,000”: The 25,000 jobs figure was a 10-20 year fantasy # from Amazon, not a promise or agreement. In exchange for that lack of commitment, they wanted billions of public $. Their Y1 jobs projection was 700.

Those subsidies are a "10-20 year fantasy" if Amazon doesn't deliver the jobs, as far as I can tell. And of course I'm not an expert on how to read these things, but the table in the agreement seems pretty clear. 

And there you have it - another week in the books. We'll be back next week with more, of course - including, because I can't ignore it any longer, the impeachment inquiry.

Quick Takes (v46): A Victory Lap?

There's MATH, the Andrew Yang tag for Make American Think Harder, and then there's math, the kind that says that getting 6% of something is just as good as getting 100% of the same thing., which is the kind of math Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proudly trying to sell us.

AOC is tweeting about a "victory lap" because Amazon, which is not building its 25,000-job second headquarters in Queens in part because of her efforts, is instead is adding 1,500 employees in leased space in Hudson Yards. In the article linked above, we learn that

"The giant online retailer said it has signed a new lease for 335,000 square feet on the city’s west side in the new Hudson Yards neighborhood, where it will have more than 1,500 employees,” The Wall Street Journal reported. "Amazon is taking the space without any of the special tax credits and other inducements the company had been offered to build a new headquarters in the Queens neighborhood of Long Island City, the company said."

That's right: 1,500 jobs instead of 25,000; leased space instead of new construction, and no incentives - well, none that we no of for Amazon anyway.

The developers of the Hudson Yards project, however, are getting nearly twice what Amazon would have had for their HQ2, according to this piece in the New York Times.

But with far less public attention, the city government has for more than a decade been funneling even more aid to Hudson Yards, a 28-acre complex of gleaming office buildings and luxury residential towers that is one of the nation's' biggest real estate projects in recent years. 

In all, the tax breaks and other government assistance for Hudson Yards have reached nearly $6 billion, according to public records and a recent analysis by the New School.

And Amazon may still be able to get some breaks here if they qualify for a "discretionary tax credit" that three other companies mentioned in the article are eligible for; the credits, if fully realized, would be worth over $40M for those companies alone.

Also happy about this bullet-dodging announcement? State Senator Michael Gianaris, the guy who was put on a team that could kill the Amazon project, and when they pulled out, was abruptly removed from the group. From a NY Times article yesterday here's what he said in a statement.

Amazon is coming to New York, just as they always planned. Fortunately, we dodged a $3B bullet by not agreeing to their subsidy shakedown earlier this year. 

Gianaris and AOC seem convinced that the $3B would have gone to Amazon whether they had created 1 job or 1 million jobs, but that doesn't jive with multiple published reports, including this one in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

As part of the deal, New York state taxpayers will be on the hook for up to $1.525 billion should Amazon meet its 25,000-job pledge, pay an average salary of $150,000 and occupy at least 4 million square feet of space within the next 10 years, as promised. That number would increase to $1.7 billion if Amazon exceeds its goal and gets to 40,000 jobs by 2032.

The D&C report is consistent with the Agreement which shows the job creation incentives are entirely dependent on the jobs actually being created within the specified timeframes.

And yet, even today, AOC was tweeting something completely different. Take a look.

While we’re here, let’s clear up some GOP disinfo: - “It’s 1500 jobs vs 25,000”: The 25,000 jobs figure was a 10-20 year fantasy # from Amazon, not a promise or agreement. In exchange for that lack of commitment, they wanted billions of public $. Their Y1 jobs projection was 700.

Those subsidies are a "10-20 year fantasy" if Amazon doesn't deliver the jobs, as far as I can tell. And of course I'm not an expert on how to read these things, but the table in the agreement seems pretty clear. 

And I get that economic development deals are messy and that there are always opposing viewpoints on them. I get that I live upstate not in Queens or in Hudson Yards, and so wouldn't have felt the pain of the HQ2 deal, even though I would have felt the benefits. But as a New Yorker, I'd like to see politicians doing less patting themselves on the back for killing a deal the size of Amazon's HQ2, and see them be a little more honest in their communications. 

There'll be plenty of time for patting themselves on the back when, for example, they fix the corporate tax code so that companies like Amazon don't get to pay $0 in federal taxes. 

Just a thought.

Grains of Salt (v52): Syracuse's New Police Union Contract

Residency requirements. Leadership incentives. Longevity increases. Incentives for veterans, bilingual officers, and those with higher levels of education. 

These are the changes in the new Syracuse Police Department contract that's been approved by the rank and file, and is pending approval by the Syracuse Common Council. 

I have to say, I was excited that we even got to talk about this kind of thing in the negotiations, and thrilled that the union has agreed to the contract, which I anticipate will be passed by the Council. 

In Chris Baker's article from The Post-Standard | syracuse.com, we learn how this all came to be: an agreement on what the goals were, before the two sides even started talking about specific language. 

Frank Caliva, the city’s chief administrative officer, said the negotiation process, which was about six months long, was unlike many previous contract settlements. The two sides agreed to a series of objectives before deciding on specific contract points.

This is particularly important, given the relationship between Chief Kenton Buckner and union president Jeff Piedmonte and the rank and file.

I've long felt that city employees, particularly teachers, firemen, and police, should be required to live in the city. I grew up understanding that this was the right thing to do, with parents who passed on buying a house they loved because it was just outside the school district where my Dad taught. Instead, they lived in the village, and we grew up with a bunch of other kids who had parents with the same crazy idea.

There were consequences from that decision. Our house got egged a couple of times at Halloween; if memory serves, there was one year where no costumes were involved, so Dad knew who did it.  The kids knew he knew, and the eggs got washed off the house pretty quickly. My brothers and I took a little heat from other kids sometimes, people telling us Dad was a jerk and mean; and frequently we were asked for help on tests and stuff like that, as were the children of the French teacher, and the business teacher, and the science teacher, and the math teacher, and the English teacher. We all survived.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the potential threats to police officers and their families aren't greater than the potential threats to a social studies teacher and an elementary school teacher (my mom also taught in the same district) - but the benefits of having a police officer in the neighborhood, in the community, in the park, with their kids on Pop Warner teams and so on, are significantly greater than 'just' having a teacher down the block.

So, yes, I'm delighted that the next class of officers graduating from the SPD's academy will have to find a place to live in the city within six months of graduation, and meet the same residency requirement that our firefighters do. Honestly, I hope one moves into my neighborhood the next time there's a house for sale.

And I hope that officers will take advantage of the other contract provisions, including the longevity and leadership bumps, so that we don't lose our best people as soon as they become eligible for their pensions. We need to keep the good ones, and incentivizing them to stay is a good start.

Another thing that everyone's working on? Getting young people onto the force. In another of Baker's articles, we learn that the city's seeking state money to help build a program to get kids who are interested in becoming police officers into non-officer positions with the SPD. First Deputy Chief Joe Cecile pointed out the issue they hope to resolve.

At 18 you said you want to be a police officer, but we lost touch with you until you're 20 and a half. We're trying to fix that by bringing them on the department, giving them a job learning the department. 

The program, which will be housed at the SCSD's Fowler Public Service Leadership Academy (PSLA),  appears to expand upon the school's existing law enforcement education programs.

Another potential benefit? Improving the diversity of the force, which is not where it should be, based on the makeup of our community as a whole.

I'm hopeful about these changes, as I have been about many of the other positive changes we've seen with new leadership in the city and the county. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to be thinking about, and collaborating on, in order to move things forward.

The Update Desk: Who Loves Me, Baby? (v12)

I skipped last week's update on my social experiment with what was once the top ten Democrats running for president, given that it was Thanksgiving. Here's a link to the last update, from November 21st. That was the one where I dropped both former Vice President Joe Biden and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro from the weekly tracking.

For this past two weeks, here's the breakdown of the 262 emails received from the remaining seven candidates: Pete Buttigieg, 45; Kamala Harris, 42: Cory Booker, 40; Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, 38; Elizabeth Warren, 34: and Bernie Sanders, 25.

So, what were they talking about, other than the regular requests for money?

• the November debate and how they did;
• who's on the stage for the December debate and how they got there;
• who's not on the stage for the December debate and how we can get them there;
• billionaires in general, not just the one already in but the one who just joined;
• Iowa, barely two months away;
• the end-of- November fundraising deadline; and
• diversity, or the lack thereof, in the remaining candidates.

That last bullet stems from the decision by Kamala Harris to suspend her campaign, announced on December 3rd. In her email, she noted that she's tried every day to "speak with decency and moral clarity and treat all people with dignity and respect."  And, she added,

So here’s the truth today.

I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life.

My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue...

In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do.

Some of the other candidates, notably Cory Booker, lamented her departure and the corresponding loss of diversity on the trail in general, and on the debate stage in particular.as of now, there will be no person of color in the December debate.. Booker, Castro, and Andrew Yang have not yet qualified.

Here's his personal message on Harris leaving the race, in which he included a couple of pictures of them on the trail:

Long before she was a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris was my friend and my sister. We may have been competitors this last year, but it was with sadness that I learned Kamala announced she’s ending her campaign.

Kamala Harris’s campaign changed this country. So many people got to see -- for the first time -- someone who looked like them on a presidential debate stage. Someone fighting fearlessly and unapologetically for a better future for them.

I’m so proud of her for championing values we share, and know she’ll continue that fight as strong as ever. I pledge to do the same.

Elizabeth Warren talked about both Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand (who left the race weeks ago), noting collectively they "won more than 11.5 million votes in their last elections," but her email was all about money and how "Running for president shouldn't be a passion project for bored billionaires." 

Last week was Thanksgiving, and Bernie Sanders was the only candidate not issuing some kind of Thanksgiving message. No surprise there, honestly. The other candidates all gave it a whirl.

• Warren included a link to a new app her team has developed to help canvass and bring others on board, and she offered some tips, such as "Have fun watching a Thanksgiving parade, and take a minute to laugh at the parade of billionaires who think they can buy this election."
• Harris and Klobuchar talked about spending time with their families; Harris even sent a video of her making one of her mom's special recipes; 
• Yang sent a video thank you message on Thanksgiving Eve; and
• Booker included a picture of a snowman doormat his mom put out at his house with his holiday message.  

Our email of the week award goes to Mayor Pete for his Thanksgiving message:

Thanksgiving is an opportunity for Americans to come together -- as families, friends, and as a nation.

We know that after a year of avoiding getting into political debates with some relatives on Facebook, we’re going to find ourselves sitting across the table from each other.

We sense those walls going up between us in our communities, our churches, and yes, even within our families. We feel the pain of what I can only describe as a crisis of belonging in America, with so many of our fellow Americans wondering where they fit in and whether they belong at all.

But on the day after this presidency comes to an end, we’re going to need to pick up the pieces of our divided nation and come together to tackle the urgent challenges we face.

So in the midst of a heated political season, I hope we remember the values we share -- especially today, on Thanksgiving.

Let’s take inspiration from the extraordinary Americans I’ve met throughout this campaign. Veterans who didn’t hesitate to answer our nation’s call. Farmers in rural Iowa discussing how they can be a part of addressing our climate crisis. Young people demanding we act on guns. DREAMers making this country their own, and conservatives who recognize immigrants as a credit to their communities.

If we focus on what we hold in common, then I believe we can knit back our country and deliver a future where every one of us belongs.

I hope everyone has a meaningful Thanksgiving.

Pete

I hope you had a meaningful Thanksgiving, no matter how you spent it. 

This is my last formal update on the social experiment, with a changing cast of characters (and likely more changes in the next week or two), and with a decided tone in the emails of money, money, money and little else, I think we're run the course. I'll have a final wrap up next week, along with any plans for moving forward. 

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.

The Update Desk: Vending Machine Tax Breaks (Again)

Time for another update on the section 485-a tax exemption New York State offers to developers of historic buildings.

That's the one that's designed to get historic buildings repurposed into mixed use properties and back on the tax rolls. Here's the chronology of my posts on this subject, starting with this Meanwhile Back in Albany post back in July 2018.

Got a vending machine? Get a tax break!  Wouldn't that make a great billboard along the highways leading into all of the cities, towns and villages in upstate New York, instead of those silly signs we have on the Thruway?

Can you imagine anything so silly? Of course you can - it's economic development incentives we're talking about, and we're in New York.

State law created the tax break to help turn old and underused buildings into the kinds of places that filled downtowns in the old days. The idea was to restore the buildings with upper-floor apartments and street-level businesses - restaurants, offices and stores - to bring back the bustle of urban life.  

For Copper Beech Commons, vending machines did the trick. Without the tax break the owner would pay $560,000 a year in property taxes. With the vending machine incentive, the annual bill comes to less than $33,000.  

There were 39 properties in Syracuse getting the 12-year exemptions, the first eight years of which are fully exempt. Many of the properties here do have legitimate commercial enterprises, located in renovated historic properties - others, however, don't have commercial space and/or are in brand new properties built on land where historic structures were demolished.

In August of 2018, I had my first update on this, talking about Copper Beech Commons again.

A small office at the property has been cleaned up, with new doors added, to try and entice a small business to lease the space and preserve the tax break. Why? Well, as city assessment commissioner David Clifford noted,

Vending machines are not a commercial use, especially when they're owned and operated by the building owner. As far as I'm concerned, that's just like having a washing machine in the basement.

The assessors last warned the developer that the vending machines did not count for the exemption four or five years ago, so there should have been no surprise that there could be problems once the last (and only) tenant of the space moved out in 2015.

I wished the developer well in finding a tenant, but

More importantly, I hope we can count on city officials to consistently be good stewards of our tax dollars, and that our legislators can find a way to correct these 'good ideas gone bad' laws...

In the second update, I let you know that the NYS Assembly passed a bill submitted by local Assemblyman Bill Magnarelli to cut opportunities for abuses.  Among the changes?

• limits on the commercial purposes and uses that can quality, and they must be publicly accessible;
• at least 75% of the floor area of an eligible building must be a pure-existing structure;

• annual certification of properties to ensure the developer is in compliance; and

• revoking the tax benefits of non-compliant properties, as well as penalties if someone makes a material misstatement on their application for the tax break.

 And today, we learned (again from reporting by Knauss) that the Syracuse Common Council took action:

The council voted unanimously to amend local law by giving the assessor more explicit authority to reject applications for the so-called 485-a exemption, which the city first adopted in 2010. The amendment specifically aims to exclude projects that involve demolishing old building to make way for new construction. 

You know - projects like those brand new luxury student apartments, for which the developers get around $4M a year in 485-a tax breaks.

The amended Syracuse law says the assessment office should "narrowly construe" the 485-a exemption by excluding "projects that primarily consists of demolition of the existing real property (i.e. 60% or more of the existing building.)"

The second measure passed by the council Monday asks state legislators to further clarify the law on 485-a exemptions. 

This is a good step, even though it will only apply to new development, not the existing abusive properties. Mayor Ben Walsh is said to support the legislation; but won't make a final decision on the bill until after an upcoming public hearing.

Now, if the State Senate can get it passed (fingers crossed), we'll get this fixed for good.

Sunday School Extra Credit: 12/1/19

Stepping away from impeachment and the 2020 race with this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, and instead I sat in on a conversation between Martha Raddatz and three veterans on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos who were discussing the Commander-in-Chief and his very active involvement in all things Navy these days.

Raddatz talked with Col. Dave Lapan, US Marine Corps (Ret), who served for 34 years and deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti; Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, US Marine Corps (Ret), a Cobra pilot with multiple deployments in over a decade of service, who has a PhD from the Korbel School; and Cdr. Kirk Lippold, US Navy (Ret.), a 26-year veteran who served on Aegis guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and who was the commanding officer on the USS Cole at the time it was attacked by al Qaeda.

She started by asking the veterans to react to comments made by fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who, in an op ed, said the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank of the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank,

"was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically, or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices." 

Lapan agreed, saying that Trump did "reach down into the chain of command, into the military personnel system in an unprecedented way" and also noted

I think this is the latest example that we've seen from the president that shows he has very little to no understand of the military that he professes to love. 

Lippold, on the other hand, believes Trump did the right thing, noting "you have to look at how the military justice system was performing at that time" and said it was failing, with a prosecutor removed.

The president made it very clear that he was disappointed that the system was not working as it was (supposed to). He wants to back his troops on the ground. This is very disconcerting in many ways to senior officers. 

And, he said, Spencer's comments and how he made them was "wholly inappropriate" and made him seem petty after being fired for cause.

Hunter was troubled that Trump's interventions "send some very concerning messages" after noting that it's important to think about all of this in the context of "the importance of moral in small unit leadership."

And rules of engagement are an incredibly, incredibly important system that is put in place for a reason, And the boots on the ground, the individuals that are making that split (second) decision to take a life or not take a life, to pull a trigger or not pull a trigger, need to know that those rules are there for a reason and that they mean something. 

They discussed a tweet from the president which states "we train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill."  Lippold said it was inappropriate, and to his thinking, it shows the president "is not fully grasping" that they are professionals, with standards and rules that need to be followed.

Hunter was asked to talk about "good order and discipline" and why that's so important.

...in the military, we are expected and we're trained and we are required to do things that often go very counter to human nature. We run towards conflict. We - we lean into it. And that's not something that's easy. It's not in our normal nature to o ti. And so to do it and not devolve into the idea of being a barbarian, that takes a lot of training, but it also requires that there are rules and constraints put in place. 

Lapan shared a story from a time when both he and Raddatz were in Fallujah, and one of our  convoys was caught up in a spot where traffic had been stopped, and an approaching vehicle started going around the ones that were stopped. A Marine shot at the vehicle, in a split-second decision that it was a threat. It turned out not to be the case, but

those are the kind of split-second decisions, life or death and I think that's the key to understanding good order and discipline. We talk about it, but most people don't understand that. 

Raddatz wondered two things - what kind of effect would this whole thing have on our troops on a go-forward basis, and how would they talk to their troops if they were in command today. Here's Lippold:

I would sit there and I would say the president made a decision. It was within his bounds to do so. That is not going to change how we are going to train to do business if we have to go to the tip of the spear and defend this nation. 

If I'm a commander, I am going to still run my unit to that standard, period, because I know that I'm operating under the guidelines and the long view of history is going to support that.  

And here's Hunter, on potential long-term affects.  She mentioned PTSD as something she worries about, and

You know, coming back from war, having made decisions to pull the trigger is hard. You know, it's something that I have worked through. And I think knowing the rules of engagement are meaningful, knowing that we made the best decisions for ourselves and for the people that are to the left and the right of us is something we need to continue to have confidence in and we owe it to those, you know, those young women and men who are over their right now, that they're making the right decisions. 

Raddatz wondered if this divides the force. Lippold said yes, before Raddatz even finished her thought, which was that

we have - we have different opinions right here. I'm thinking in the SEAL community and I'm thinking of the SEALS who - who support Gallagher - who support him and a whole bunch of others who think it's - that should not have happened. 

 Hunter suggested that's one of the "most harmful" long-term effects that you have is

that good order and discipline, rules of engagement, the chain of command both up and down also exists to unify us. And when there's - when the military becomes politicized, nothing good can come of it for the long-term health of the military.

Lippold, who agreed that Trump did the right thing in firing Spencer, seemed to agree.

The military today, I think unfortunately at the senior levels, has become more politicized that it's ever been in our history. And I think at the end of the day, those troops on the ground, those sailors on the ships, want to know that the chain of command has their back.  

The last work goes to Lapan, who painted a somewhat disturbing picture of things, I think.

The divisiveness that we've seen, people taking sides now, more politicization of the military and I'd say it's gone way down at the ranks, it's beyond senior officers when you have, again, troops showing up at events with the president in MAGA hats; (the) Commander in Chief holds events for troops but they're not supposed to be partisan events. And I think the force now wonders and we see divisiveness that's happening because of these things that we've seen the Navy secretary fired over. This president has often talked about how much he admires the military, how much he has done for the military, it's all about the strength of the military. And I'd ask what these pardons have done to further that goal. Rather than making the military stronger, I think he's weakened the military, in these days.

Strength in power, vs strength in morale, in obedience to rules, in respect for the good order and discipline that our military relies on. Think about that.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 12/1/2019

A couple of the Democratic presidential candidates were in the classrooms today: Cory Booker with John Dickerson on Face the Nation on CBS, and Amy Klobuchar with Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press and with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union.

Here's what was on their minds, starting in NBC's classroom, where Chuck Todd wondered about impeachment, the upcoming Senate trial, and the campaign. She made it clear to him that she can do two things at a time - campaign on the issues, and uphold her constitutional duty as a senator. 

She also said that this behavior, to her, is "part of a bigger pattern" of Trump's, his betrayal of "the trust of the American people." She mentioned him putting his personal and private business interests and "partisan political interests" ahead of the country's interests - and tied that to why Democrats won in Louisiana and in Kentucky last month.

Todd wondered "do you fear, though, what he could do - how he would interpret a Senate acquittal?"

I have no idea what he will do. All I know is that we have an obligation to the country to lead, to have this proceeding conducted fairly, which I believe it has.

Todd asked her for a criticism of her campaign that resonated with her; she pointed to comments that she's not raised as much money as the other candidates. She agreed that's true, but pointed to gains since the last debate. And she said she'll never be able to "compete with two billionaires." Todd suggested she was "particularly insulted" by former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg getting into the race, in her lane.

Well, it is more about money in politics for me. I have admiration for the work that he's done, but I don't buy this argument that you get in because you say, "Oh, everyone else sucks." I just don't. I think we have strong candidates. 

In her conversation with Dana Bash, Klobuchar agreed it would be good to hear from administration folks (Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton)  in the impeachment inquiry, suggesting Trump let them testify, since he claims he wants them to, and that it might be possible to compel them to testify in the Senate trial. 

Bash noted that in New Hampshire, pretty much everyone she talked to was looking at Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, and asked if this was going to put her at a disadvantage if she's sitting in DC in the Senate trial instead of out on the campaign trail.

I meet whatever obstacle is put in front of me... But I have many people that are going to be out there for me if I can't leave for a few weeks. That includes my husband and daughter, who are excellent campaigners. But it also includes all of our endorsers. I have more endorsers of elected and former electeds in Iowa than anyone else.

Turning to Klobuchar's not being in favor of "sending rich kids to college for free" which has been attacked by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a "GOP talking point, Klobuchar noted the comment was directed at another candidate, but that she thinks others can be brought to this position.

Let us look at our economic needs and match them to our education system. And that means making it easier and more affordable for kids to go to college by doubling Pell Grants. That also means making loan repayments much easier. But what would I make free? The one- and two-year degrees. Why? Fastest growing area of jobs. We're not going to have a shortage of MBAs or CEOs.

Bash pushed on the GOP talking point argument, and Klobuchar disagreed, calling it a "talking point for our economy." Moving on, Bash asked about a new line in the stump speech, "We can't afford to screw this up." and asked what it meant.

...if Donald Trump gets elected, shame on us. I mean that we need to bring our party together and bring with us independents and moderate Republicans, just like I have done in all my races...where I have run in suburbs, rural, and in urban areas.

Bash wondered if it would be a screw-up if a less moderate candidate is the nominee. Klobuchar said "we need to put someone at the head of the ticket that can actually bring people with us." And, she's "the only one on that debate stage that has led a ticket over and over again" that has won by bringing in suburbs, rural areas, and urban areas. That kind of experience matters, Klobuchar said.

On discrimination, Klobuchar pointed out that she's not experienced discrimination like African-Americans have, with wages, for example, but that she knows what the answer is.

...economic justice and making sure we give opportunity to more people of color, and we give them the opportunity to go into those jobs that are so high-paying, like tech jobs. The second thing I know is, no one is going to get their rights if we shut them out from voting, which is why I have been a leader on voting rights from the very beginning. 

Moving on to Cory Booker's appearance on Face the Nation, John Dickerson asked about the senator's new campaign ad talking about love and unity, and wondered if that message wasn't selling.  Booker noted that it is, to some degree - he's got more endorsements from the local folks in Iowa and New Hampshire than the other candidates, and his favorables are up in Iowa as well - so, it's working but "it's not translating to people choosing me in the polls." 

But, he said, the reason he's running is because "the next president, especially after this person, has to be a healer." And he decried the "tribalism" we face.

We're hating each other because we vote differently and - and we're not going to be able to get the big things done that we need to get done, like facing down climate change, the health care crisis that still persists. You need new American majorities to get that. And you need a leader that can inspire the moral imagination of this country.

Dickerson noted that President Obama ran on a similar vision, but by the time it was over, he felt the Republicans "were not willing partners" and wondered if Obama couldn't do it then, how can Booker do it now, when things are even worse. He said we do need someone who can bring the 'Obama coalition' along and added

...when I took over a city that was known for crime and corruption... people told me all the things we could not do. And my - my frustration was hearing all these things that people said couldn't be done. It undermined. It sort of was like a surrender to cynicism that I think we have to resist. So I'm going to come to Washington and do things differently. I'm going to break norms like this president is doing to demean, degrade and divide--

"What norm are you going to break that's going to make this city, calcified as it is, suddenly break open in a group hug?" Dickerson asked. Booker said that wasn't what he's looking for, adding

But this is what frustrates me. The majority of Americans agree on common sense gun safety reform....on the need for massive infrastructure investment...that we need to raise the minimum wage. This is the frustrating thing - is that we have this wide berth on which we agree, so our politics is not reflecting the people. And that's what I'm going to change as the next president of the United States.

Referencing President Obama's comments a while back, that we're "not really ready for revolution" and that there's maybe too much change coming from some of the candidates, Dickerson asked, "if a Democrat is elected, it's going to be after four years of- of President Trump, where there's been a lot of excitement. Is the country going to be ready for a lot of Democratic version of excitement?"

...we need a inspiring, igniting leader next. Someone who can get folks energized... I'm here because of revolutions. The civil rights movement was a revolution...Seneca Falls was a revolution. But these are revolutions that are consistent and resonant with our founding ideals...This next revolution has to be one where we understand we have common cause...We've got to understand that we're all in this together.

The final question was about getting African-Americans motivated, getting them to the polls in record numbers, which Booker talked about at the last debate. Dickerson pointed out Biden has 49% of the African-American poll respondents, and he seems to be inspiring African-Americans. Booker noted that Biden's got 100% name recognition, and pointed out that Obama was behind Hillary Clinton with African-Americans - until he won Iowa. 

This race, most people have not made up their mind, and as a guy who has shown statistically in New Jersey when I'm on the ballot, surges in African-American vote, I am confident I'm the best person in this race - not to just get the percent of the African-American vote, but to increase the base, increase the turnout in a significant way. That's the kind of leader we're going to need on the ticket in the next election. 

That's where they left it, and we'll do the same.

See you around campus.