Brodsky's Bright Idea To Save NY More Than $2 Billion

Assemblyman Brodsky is never afraid to voice his opinion, especially when it comes to the best interests of his district. His latest outrage is directed at the producers of New York's power, electric power. Specifically the way that electricity is bid for is fundamentally flawed and biased for the suppliers, not the consumers. So Brodsky's suggestion (and hopefully a subsequent law) is to change the process to put the power, so to speak, in the people's hands.

From Press Connects:

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, Tuesday introduced a bill that would abolish the way the price of electricity is currently set - known as "pay as bid" - and replace it with one where producers would be paid what they were willing to take.

The current system, Brodsky said, is "insane ... It is absurd, destructive and needs to be changed." He estimated changing it would save ratepayers about $2.2 billion a year.

Sounds good to me. Does that sound good to you? Well, not so much if you are a part of the industry that supplies that power. They have a few things to say about what Brodsky wants to do:

The head of an industry trade group, however, said the claims are wrong. Gavin Donohue of Independent Power Producers of New York says the system encourages cleaner generators of electricity such as wind or hydro power, which can profit from higher prices. Less efficient, greater polluting and older coal plants would profit less or not at all under the system, he said.

Of course, things worked just fine before we started deregulating the energy market. In fact, it worked a whole lot better because companies were more responsible to the people that they supplied power to. After deregulation we saw travesties like the Enron debacle and the interest in stockholders instead of the grid that has been falling apart (remember that blackout in 2003?). Brodsky's approach should be combined within a greater movement that puts power back into the hands of the people, from energy regulation to fiscal regulation and everything in between. Now if we can just find someone willing to take a strong position behind those ideals and enact them. Governor Paterson? Governor Cuom....well I guess that is still up for debate, but in the meantime, big props to Assemblyman Brodsky.

Tedisco Vs Murphy, Live And In Color

For residents of New York's 20th Congressional district, yesterday's debate between Tedisco and Murphy was a big one. Of course, it is also important for the country, as the House may have one new member that ducks and weaves questions asked of him that concern us all and the other that wants support the President in his quest to pull us out of our recession.



And the wrap-up afterwards:

Jerry Brown Calls For A Judicial End To Prop H8TE

Early last year the California Supreme Court allowed gay couples to have the same marital rights as straight couples. That was followed by an ashamedly successful attempt at squashing those equal rights established by the state's Court. Now the issue is back at the CA Supreme Court because the constitutionality of the proposition is in question. During the process, California Attorney General Jerry Brown subtly took the side of equal rights proponents, but had to hold back because of his position within the government. Today he is pulling no punches as the Court considers to strike down Prop 8 and affirm their decision from last year.

From DailyKos:

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons – because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

Some vigorously disagree. That's the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California's history and the nature of our constitution.

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

At the end of the day everyone's rights under the law must be protected, preserved and enshrined whether or not they love someone of the same sex or not. The Court understood the importance of liberty last year and it should not be any different in 2009. Tyranny by the majority is something that our country has fought against for centuries, slowly expanding fundamental rights to all citizens. That progress must not be impeded because a victory for equal rights would send a loud and clear message across the country.

Quinn Considers Going Back On Income Tax Adjustments For The Rich

Last month when Speaker Quinn gave her State of the City address, many were surprised by her sudden willingness to take on the Mayor. I for one was thrilled to see her think about average New Yorkers and help pay for our deficits by taxing the rich instead of always taking from the poor (as Bloomberg has...or more appropriately, driving them out of the city). Of course, she had no problem going around the voters' will last year and extending term limits so that Bloomberg and herself could run for another term, so my trust in her leadership abilities was beyond shattered. So when she hedged on her idea to increase taxes on the rich yesterday, it wasn't too suprising.

From PolitickerNY:

Asked about the prospective of a perfect storm of taxation on upper-income New Yorkers, Ms. Quinn seemed at least willing to entertain the possibility of altering her plan.

“We are going to follow after the state to see what the state does,” she said. “I think that, although I very clearly believe that those who make more have to help out at times like this, we still have to be mindful of a piling-on effect, and even for a multimillionaire, there is some point at which, with A, B, C tax increase, tax increase D will be too many.”

So is she backing off her plan already, should the state adopt a new tax increase?

No, she said. “We just have to see what happens.”

That means she's still on the right side of the issue, but her slight waver is troublesome from a politician such as herself. After slush-fund scandals and the term limits fiasco, her credibility is shot. I certainly hope she comes through on this small city tax hike for the wealthiest among us, but it isn't set in stone.

Citizen Action NY Shows Race Matters In The State's Budget

Paterson may not have thought about race in presenting his budget, but the institutional racism of how the system works is perpetuated in his current proposal for the next fiscal year. Citizen Action NY's team explains how:

Lo And Behold, The Stimulus Bill Really Can Stimulate The Economy

Now I know Republicans hate government, especially when it can actually work for the people where private enterprise comes up short. Private business, innovation and entrepreneurship is great, but not all the time, as we can clearly see in this economy. So Barack Obama moved the stimulus bill through Congress, wanting to jump start activity. Republicans screamed and cried the whole way through, claiming that it wouldn't create jobs. Rush Limbaugh subject RNC Chairman Michael Steele said it would create work, but not jobs. Well, it is only March, but thanks to the bill there are people working now thanks to the jobs created to rebuild our infrastructure.

From The NY Times:

There is nothing monumental in President Obama’s plan to revive the economy with a coast-to-coast building spree, no historic New Deal public works. The goal of the stimulus plan was to put people to work quickly, and so states across the country have begun to spend nearly $50 billion on thousands of smaller transportation projects that could employ up to 400,000 people, by the administration’s estimates.

More than a dozen states have now said how they plan to spend at least some of their transportation money, giving the clearest picture yet of how one of the president’s signature programs is playing out around the country. Beyond all the money for Medicaid and unemployment benefits in the huge bill passed last month, this will be the face of the country’s stimulus program: a bridge will be painted on a rural road, a new lane added on a suburban highway, a guardrail built on a median strip.

They may be old plans that the recession had forced a state to shelve, but multiplied by thousands, they will quickly get bulldozers rolling again and paychecks flowing. On the highway projects alone, the White House said Tuesday that 150,000 jobs would be created or saved.

The only problem was that there wasn't enough money to fund all the projects that states wanted to begin on. Obama wanted something quick and he got that, the only trouble was that it got watered down. Now that the construction industry is rehiring workers they let go, it is time to put together a real, comprehensive transportation stimulus package. This past bill had to cover many different segments of the economy but when we really focus on infrastructure, the benefits we'll receive will far outweigh the costs to the treasury.

Instead of another TARP-like bill, we should be spending at least half a trillion solely on transport. Further, roads should only be a small percentage of that. Mass transit must be made a priority as we make the transisition from a petro-economy to a green-economy. The other day I heard someone complaining about the NYC transit system, and rightly so. It is packed and overcrowded and the service stinks. That person's response was a typical one when thinking on the individual level...buy a car to have your own space. The only problem with that is the government must spend money to maintain both options and going the 'car' route only makes things worse for us all. Now if we made mass transit more amenable by running more trains, had more routes and cleaned things up a bit, then the complaints would drop as we invested more in the system.

So if that small infusion of cash that we are seeing go to work now makes an impact, imagine what a comprehensive package would do for the country.

Tedisco Lies About Stimulus Bill In Debate With Murphy

It has to be hard to stick to the facts as a Republican in 2009. When you tell the truth, the picture is bleak, especially since the financial crisis was primarily caused by their deregulation agenda and "greed is good" mentality. As Tedisco and Murphy face off for Gillibrand's Congressional seat, the Republican has some serious hoops to jump through in order to look good, but it is nearly impossible to use a GOP talking point and not get yourself into trouble.

From The Albany Project:

Tedisco is in a rather uncomfortable position. He's trying to keep at least some distance from the trainwreck that is the House GOP by continuing to refuse to say whether he would have been the only member of the House Republican caucus to vote for the recently passed stimulus package, something he is still refusing to do.

Murphy asked Tedisco directly to declare his stance on the federal stimulus plan, as he has been pushing him to do on the campaign trail for more than 2 weeks. Tedisco didn't respond, but turned to an example of one of his accomplishments as an assemblyman, the alternative fuel fund.

But then he did something to make sure he didn't stray too far from GOP orthodoxy by repeating the now thoroughly debunked claim that the stimulus package contained $30 million for protecting a marsh mouse in San Francisco. You remember that bit of nonsense don't you[...]

Tedisco even invented a new price tag for this completely made up, nonexistent program claiming that it would cost "$32 million."

Philip asks whether Tedisco is lying or merely misinformed. Although I suspect that is a rhetorical question, I'll answer it anyway. The man is lying. Why would the residents of NY-20, in such crucial times for upstate New York and the nation, want a man that can't stake a position on the stimulus bill and on top of that, lies about what's in it. The country is collectively trying to get rid of Congressmembers that are denying the reality of our situation. Why on Earth would we want to add another to the mix?

Rep. Kaptur Scolds Republican Congressman For "Democrat" Reference

It has been happening more often lately, Democratic members are standing up to Republicans who play childish games with them. Here we have Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur tearing Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling for his disrespect for the Majority party.



Nice work Marcy!

Under George Bush, Freedom Of Speech And The Press Were The First To Go

We pride ourselves as a nation of being a beacon of freedom, land of liberty, shelter for the oppressed masses....or at least we used to before George Bush became President. As bad as we saw it get under our last President, it was much, much worse. It was obvious President Bush didn't have much respect for the laws, but not to the degree that Attorney General Eric Holder has uncovered.

From ThinkProgress:

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder released several Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel memos, which show the astonishing extent to which the administration expanded its wartime powers. An October 2001 memo from John Yoo, for example, states that the “Fourth Amendment would not apply” for domestic military operations. The memo also restricted basic First Amendment rights:

In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Yoo wrote in the memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States.”

Thank goodness we have a competent and truthful Attorney General now that is willing to uncover and expose the abuses from the previous Administration. The more I hear from Holder, the more I like him. Of course, I could like a horde of rats in a dark subway tunnel more than John Yoo and the Attorney Generals that he worked for from 2001 to this past January. Hopefully these small nuggets of truthful morsels will keep coming out and ideally, that we prosecute each and every Bush Administration official that willingly broke the laws of our country that are supposed to keep us as free a nation as possible.

Schumer No Longer Such Good Friends With Wall St.

For as long as Chuck Schumer has been in the Senate, he's been one of the first legislators that the financial industry went to in order to get their business "taken care of." As a Senator who represents the little piece of land that Wall Street resides on, in order to get access to the bankers' pockets, he had to do his best to please them...for nearly thirty years. Thanks to the pro-business legislation he helped pass, we are in the worst fiscal crisis in more than a generation (or three). Unlike Republicans though, Mr. Schumer might just be seeing the error of his ways and could possibly repent for them.

From Crain's:

One massive economic crisis later, Mr. Schumer said that a strong financial-services regulator is needed to help rebuild confidence in U.S. markets, because jittery investors around the world are looking for places where they can trust that tough regulators will protect their interests. To that end, he called for the most dramatic overhaul of the U.S. financial regulatory system since 1933 and urged the new regulators be granted the power to “get in ahead” of problems before they explode.

“We need a smarter regulator, a tougher regulator,” he said, adding that he would like to see the Securities and Exchange Commission move its headquarters to New York from Washington so it can be closer to the banks and brokerage houses it is charged with overseeing. He added that federal regulation of financial services should be overhauled to become more global in scope and that supervisors should be watching for “systemic risk” so that problems at places like American International Group do not infect the entire system.

Mr. Schumer, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, said that a regulatory reform bill would be presented to President Barack Obama by April.

Two years ago, Mr. Schumer, along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, released a report prepared by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. which warned that the regulatory system was a big problem that threatened New York’s standing as the world’s financial capital.

Even if you idolized Gordon Gekko in the eighties, that doesn't mean you have to follow him off the cliff in 2009. I suspect Schumer enjoyed that movie when it came out, but the consequences of that mentality are front and center for the senior Senator from New York these days. Like Rep Walter Jones's (R-NC) transformation on Iraq after signing so many letters to the families of fallen troops, everyone has the ability to change their ways. If Schumer keeps it up and actually starts regulating, beyond just moving the SEC's location and generalities about improving the system, then I wholeheartedly welcome him to the more economically liberal wing of the Democratic party.

Corporate America Can't Scare Us From EFCA

The Employee Free Choice Act will be a serious boon to all working Americans, both in and out of unions. This scares the hell out of the top executives in this country that profit off keeping the working and middle class down. As the vote on EFCA draws near, don't buy their scare tactics and keep your eye on the ball.

Stand Up For The Fair Share Plan This Thursday At City Hall

Fair share tax reform is one of the most important debates within the state budget battle this year. If New York could pass this legislation and raise half amount needed to close the budget gap with a progressive tax scale, the implications going forth are instrumental. For far too long, the income gap has been widening between rich and poor at exponential levels. Something must be done to turn that tide and bring our society back to shared human values and not just pure, unadulterated greed.

The Fair Share Plan is a crucial step for us to not only help us in this fiscal crisis but from here on out so that we can take care of our communities whether it be in good times or bad. Even during the boom years, it was the wealthy that got ahead and the rest of us remained static. To change that we must pass the fair share bill in the State Senate. While we have more than twenty on our side, it is up to the community to push a few more of them to vote the right way. If you are in Manhattan Thursday afternoon, come out to City Hall and have your voice heard.

From Fair Share Reform:

Devastating budget cuts threaten our communities, our jobs, our neighbors and our families. Join union members, community groups, non-profit organizations and concerned citizens to speak out against the dangerous budget proposals now being considered in Albany and City Hall.

Download the rally flyer here to spread the word: http://FairShareReform.com/NYCflyer

Call the Rally Hotline at 718-222-3796 x.248 for more information. Please be sure to dial the extension.

Time:	Thursday, March 5 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Host:	Shain Anderson
Location:	City Hall (New York, NY) New York, NY 10007

If you know you can make it, sign up here and let the organizers know. It may be a Thursday afternoon, but a strong showing of people, who then call their Senators and tell their friends to do the same can make a huge difference.

See you there!