http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/05/albany_pork_day.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/assembly-member-items-0809xls.html

I disagree, btw, that an independent challenger would be better – Silver’s had Republican challengers before and his district and this town isn’t going to replace him with someone more conservative.

There are plenty of non-Democrats who are less conservative than Silver. Most of them aren’t even Republicans.

I disagree, btw, that an independent challenger would be better – Silver’s had Republican challengers before and his district and this town isn’t going to replace him with someone more conservative. The only viable challenge is from a progressive Democrat.

This stems from the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, if my history is correct, when in exchange for bailing out NYC’s debt defaults, ALbany won the power to approve how NYC raises and to a great extent uses $$$.

THAT has to go – home rule for NYC!!!

I’ll take any member of the City Council, including those I disagree with like Fidler or DeBlasio, over any member of the State Legislature.

Term limits are academic because we are not going to get them. The state legislature is an appointed position and they are going to keep it that way. But circulation of the elite is a good thing, and the better ones pushed out of one office can run for another.

That leaves it to total outsiders. Ron Lauder is typical of that ilk, plenty of money and time on his hands for big thoughts he brought us term limits because no one would vote for him. Thanks.

The big reform would be banning earmarks/member items/pork/set asides. There are some interesting studies which suggest there is a relationship between the amount of pork/patronage and the competitiveness of elections. ( I’ll see if I can find a famous one from Argentina.)

JK, that is awesome! The machine is so entrenched and pulling it out by the roots would be really difficult. But if it feeds on patronage … poison the patronage, and it dies!

Is this the study you’re referring to?

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4737/ozge_2_f04.pdf

Yes, Silver, Bruno, Glick and a host of others need to go but who will we get to replace them? Look at the pathetic presidential candidates we have to see how the media attention precludes real candidates.

So let’s do all we can without the involvement of Albany. Hopefully tolls within the 5 boroughs will escape their notice and we can get away with minimal extortionist payoffs to the pathetic upstate counties. (Why do they have a say in NYC business anyway…remind me?)

As we see from Quinn, handing out pork cuts to core of NYC politics. Her colleagues are outraged that she is volunteering to reduce their free hand with doling out the patronage. That’s what the uproar is about, not the bogus budget placeholders. Banning member items in Albany and council would make elections much more competitive and issue oriented.

The success in pushing this through the city council was because all the council people looking for their next gig looked to Mayor Moneybags to help them out. I support his position on CP but its not like it makes term limits look very good if people can get bought off by a single wealthy guy. In this case it was in the service of good policy but….I don’t extend that to every item of PlaNYC.

Interesting that Weiner is leaving a open term job, probably a job for life, for the Mayor’s spot. Were it not for term limits Bloomberg could stand this policy up for the voters just like he should of 2 and 6 years ago.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t noticed during the wake for CP, there is a major scandal involving Christine Quinn that Thompson is going to have a lot of trouble explaining why he didn’t do something about. All stuff that happened in the purer than snow term limit system. For the time being Silver is looking to the neutral observer as in a stronger position than at anytime in the post-Pataki era. The failure of CP has empowered the opponents and a lot of anger and flailing about process is not real productive at this point.

I want to see New Urbanism clubs formed, Livable Streets, whatever is the best marketing. If there were new urbanist clubs available to drain out the positive forces from the regular and reform clubs then some of the politicians could feel a real threat.

Term limits didn’t produce many rocket scientists in the City Council.

I support Term Limits. 12 years, phased in. I do not believe it is possible for a legislator to remain in touch with his/her constituents after decades in office. Indeed, before mew Silver had not even had a challenger for 22 years.

For more info, visit the website, and shoot me an email.

Please Help me beat Sheldon Silver
http://www.NewellNYC.org

Sheldon Silver’s failure to even schedule a vote on congestion pricing shows his contempt for both the democratic process and concerns of Lower Manhattanites. Of 150 Assembly Districts, none would have benefited more from Congestion Pricing than the 64th (though I believe it would have been a boon for the entire region, and indeed the planet).

I am a lifelong downtowner, community organizer, cyclist, enviornmentalist, and I am committed to bringing NYers back into our legislative process. Only when our elected officials listen to voters will the concerns of the vast majority of us who use public transit, walk, or cycle take precedence over the power brokers committed to car culture.

Please Help me beat Sheldon Silver
http://www.NewellNYC.org

I like Larry’s suggestion (comment #2) that a challenger in the primary also run against Silver as an independent. An uphill battle, but not impossible. The re-election of Joe Lieberman is an inexact parallel, but close enough. And a powerful leader can get unseated even without scandal – think Tom Daschle, who got too far away from his constituents.

Still, in a democracy, such as ours, the voters get the leaders they deserve. Think of all the cretins in the Assembly who get re-elected while under indictment. If voters in NYC care so little about who represents their districts, then they (we) deserve what they (we) get.

Yeah, why not term limits. It’s not like these guys are anything special. Obviously there are plenty of people who would like to lead.

And as capital (as in city) implies that all of Albany is broken which it isn’t, to substitute capitol would imply that the only problem is in the capitol building, and we know it goes far beyond that.

An awkward headline IMO.

Albany seems to have gone quiet in terms of scandal; why hasn’t anyone (Paterson?) made greater issue with Silver’s conflict of interest problem? Why hasn’t anyone (Bruno?) made more of Paterson’s misuse of state funds (which I believe would have forced him from office had it not been just after Spitzer-gate; the small amount is irrelevant and shows lack of judgment).

Scandals seem to be the best and only way to get people out of office in Albany. What can we dig up on Glick and the other democrats who let CP die?

In theory, as the Times says, “the best term limit is the ballot box.”

But in theory elections are also competitive. Partisan redistricting, among other factors, has essentially eliminated competition for elected positions at the state level in NY.

Term limits thus become a method of reintroducing competition every so often into otherwise uncontested “elections.” Term limits are a blunt, imperfect strategy and not the ultimate solution (redistricting reform would be better).

But given the dire condition of state gov’t, term limits are a good place to start. We NEED new blood in there before anything else can happen.

I’m glad this issue has woken at least some people up to our state government. But as one for whom this issue is just one on a long list, I can tell you that what went down here is far better than what we generally get from the state.

Remember, there was a commission, public hearings, facts made public and debated, a vote that wasn’t 212 to 0 (albeit a secret one in the Assembly). In general, legislators don’t even care enough to have dissenting views, or aren’t allowed to, and don’t even bother throwing out fake facts (as many did in this case), let alone consider the implications of real ones.

There was even an attempt, by incorporating the MTA Capital Plan into the discussion, to make people — in the political class and among normal human beings — look at the big picture like grown ups. As opposed to having narrow interests grab what they can, leaving our collective future to rot away.

The fact that people paid attention to this issue shows why our careerists generally prefer “everybody wins and nobody knows” deals. Anyone yelling now based on what they now know should have been nuts for a decade based on what they didn’t.

Bottom line — if you are unhappy with the outcome on this issue, you should take your outrage and raise to a power of ten, because the CP debate is about as good as it gets.

And if you are happy be advised than unless you are in on all the deals, the net result is you are still poorly treated by your appointed (not elected) officials.