By Adam Janos

If you’re a New Yorker with a kid, you may have some cash that’ll be waiting for you in your mailbox, come next autumn. That’s because the state is issuing a $350 tax rebate check to families with at least one child (under 18) whose total household income falls between $40,000 and $300,000 per year. There’ll be no forms for you to fill out; claiming the money will be as effortless as a walk to the bank.

Just in time for the general election.

That’s the claim made by Citizen Action of New York, a grassroots organization that advocates for economic justice and an end to electoral corruption.

“Mailing out checks is designed to make people appreciate the incumbent legislators at election time, because they just got a check in the mail,” said Karen Scharff, executive director. “It’s an election year gimmick… I think it’s fine to make the tax system more progressive. A child tax credit is fine, but we need a comprehensive reform to our tax system; we shouldn’t do one-time rebates that are tied to election cycles.”

State Senator Brad Hoylman agrees, which is why he voted against the bill when it came to the senate floor. But beyond his problems with the gimmick element, Hoylman also believes that the $375 million which will be spent over three years on this rebate is a poor use of taxpayer money, which could go to a variety of programs, including – amongst other things – restoring $90 million in cuts to New York State’s Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), providing $25 million to start up the Dream Act, and increasing community college-based aid.

“I’m not saying that people need to pay more taxes,” explained Senator Hoylman. “But we need longer term strategies. No one has studied the impact of this rebate check. It came up at the last minute behind closed doors. No constituency was campaigning for it. On the other hand, I had troves of seniors, kids with disability issues, public school parents… all trying to preserve their programs. I mean the New York State AIDS Institute was cut by $5 million. That’s what I find objectionable. The rebate discussion came within the course of a few days without any data or economic information to back it up.”

Hoylman, who served as Vice President at the Partnership of New York City, has some background working in the world of commerce and fiscal policies. However with this tax rebate, his thinking comes less from his experience in the financial sector and more from his philosophy regarding the relationship between the state and its citizenry.

“The basic function of government is to protect the most vulnerable in our society,” said Hoylman. “For families and individuals who have conditions [ranging] from cerebral palsy to autism… they’re left behind in this budget [due to cuts in the OPWDD]. I’ve met with a lot of people who directly benefit from those services, and there’s widespread concern that with this budget, some people will have to institutionalize their family members. That’s a very frightening prospect.”

Hoylman also questioned the exclusivity of the tax rebate: immigrants, senior citizens, and the extremely poor will all be left off the payroll when the checks start getting cut. Meanwhile, at the more affluent end of the rebate bracket, households with $300,000 will be receiving money for their kids. “At the upper scale, it makes no difference,” Hoylman said.

Hoylman is indignant that his colleagues in the Senate and Assembly are trying to buy votes, rather than help advance the greater good; for him, programs like these rebate checks are the seeds from which cynicism with government grows. “One-time feel-good rebate checks are not the answer, particularly when they’re not targeted at the poorest people. There’s a growing income inequality in New York, and to me the better approach is to fix it in a systemic way.”

Congressional District 12, Carolyn Maloney vs. Chris Wight

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney

In this race for Congress, our endorsement goes to Democratic incumbent and prolific legislator U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Maloney has consistently delivered federal funding and services to her district, championing the Second Avenue Subway and other capital projects, working hard on the 9/11 Zadroga bill to grant healthcare to those affected by the terrorist attacks, and pushing against the Republican onslaught on women’s rights at the national level. While her Republican opponent Christ Wight has said that he is pro-choice, he doesn’t have a platform for promoting continued access to abortion and reproductive healthcare. Wight also toes the Republican line on cutting taxes and said that he would focus more on reducing corporate taxes than bringing federal dollars into the state and the district, which we believe would hurt, not help, the Upper East Side.

Senate District 28, Liz Krueger vs. David Garland

Sen. Liz Krueger

David Garland, a Republican and Independence Party candidate, presented a strong campaign with well-developed ideas for the Upper East Side. Garland, who speaks six languages and works at a management consultant for Fortune 500 companies, is a fiscal conservative, advocating for better use of tax incentives at the state level as well as reducing taxes for small businesses and corporations to keep them in New York. He also is a social libertarian, supporting gay marriage and reproductive and abortion rights. He is running, however, against a very strong opponent in State Senator Liz Krueger, and our endorsement goes to her in this race. Krueger has been a consistent champion of women’s rights as well as a powerful force in the Senate, as she serves as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and could become the chair if her party takes the majority. She consistently provides excellent constituent services while diving into the weeds of budgets and complicated legislative issues, like the Reproductive Health Act that would move the state’s reproductive health laws from the penal to the civil code. While we support Sen. Krueger in this race, we hope to see David Garland continue in politics and would have considered endorsing him against a weaker Democratic candidate.

Senate District 31, Adriano Espaillat vs. Martin Chicon

We are declining to endorse either candidate in this race. While Republican Martin Chicon argued that he would be able to better serve the district as part of the (currently) majority party in the Senate and said that he would bring development and transit improvements to the district, we were not completely convinced that he would be the best representative for the Upper West Side’s heavily Democratic and liberal constituency. We are unable to endorse his opponent, incumbent Sen. Adriano Espaillat, however, since he did not make himself available for an endorsement interview.

Assembly District 76, Micah Kellner vs. Mike Zumbluskas

Assembly Member Micah Kellner

Democratic incumbent Micah Kellner presented a compelling case for promoting his reelection, specifically with an eye toward his advocacy on behalf of creating a new middle school in the district and his work against the East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station. He also is supportive of raising the minimum wage as well as creating an angel investor tax credit, similar to what other states have implemented successfully, to keep tech innovators in New York. He is a strong opponent of hydrofracking in the state and said that he will continue to push to prevent or restrict it. His opponent, Mike Zumbluskas, is an Independent candidate running on the Republican line, and while he presented some ideas similar to Kellner, his emphasis on reducing taxes and challenging the Democratic majority in the Assembly were not strong enough reasons for voters to choose him. Despite the widely circulated rumor that he will be running for city council in 2013 (which he would neither confirm nor deny), we endorse Kellner in this race.

Assembly District 73, Dan Quart vs. David Casavis 

Assembly Member Dan Quart

In this race, we endorse the freshman incumbent Assemblyman Dan Quart. After winning the seat just over a year ago in a special election, Quart is running for a full term with a focus on improving the state and city’s energy policies and improving access to quality education on the Upper East Side. While we wish that Quart had presented a slightly stronger case for voters to return him to Albany, we also recognize that he’s only had a year in the job and we look forward to seeing what he can do if he wins reelection and had a full term to develop some of his positions and advance his ideas, especially in promoting green energy. His Republican opponent, David Casavis, who ran for Manhattan Borough President against Scott Stringer in 2009, presented little in the way of specific plans to help his district and almost no indication of the type of legislation he would pass, aside from opposing Democrats.

Assembly District 65, Sheldon Silver vs. Wave Chan 

Assembly Speaker Sheldon SIlver

While we wish that there were a stronger challenger running against all-powerful Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, our endorsement in this race still goes to him. Especially in light of his botched handling of the Vito Lopez sexual harassment scandal, many argue that Silver’s iron-clad hold over the Assembly could use a shake-up, but the Tea Party Republican candidate Wave Chan isn’t the person to do that. Silver remains popular in his district and does advocate for his constituents’ needs, while Chan could only present vague ideas about severely cutting corporate taxes and encouraging new housing development without clear plans as to how he would specifically help the Lower East Side. He also would be a poor fit for a district with an active LGBT population, as he does not support gay marriage, only civil unions.

Highlighting this weekend’s annual New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride March, Hoylman noted, “The Pride March has always been a special event for me. This year it’ll be even more meaningful as I seek election to the Senate seat occupied by State Senator Tom Duane, one of our community’s greatest leaders and champions . . . I’m especially pleased to announce that this morning, to kick off Pride weekend, Tom endorsed me to succeed him.”

In an official statement, Senator Duane said, “He shares my progressive values and commitment to reform, and he has devoted the last two decades to serving our community. I know he will continue to champion so many of the causes that I have fought for throughout my career.”

Hoylman has also received Assembly Member Deborah Glick’s endorsement, and will be walking with both pols in the Pride March on Sunday. Spot them lining up at 12:30 pm on East 39th Street between Madison and Park Avenues.

For more political coverage visit City & State by clicking here.

“I wanted to do something else and realized it’s time to start the next chapter,” Duane said in a recent interview. “I would say ‘retire’ is not a completely accurate term; I’m just not ready for re-election. I plan to continue working in my own small way to make the world a better place.”

Duane, who was elected in 1998 and was New York’s first openly gay senator, was the first senator to introduce the Marriage Equality Act in 2001 and continued to push for its support until it was passed last year. He also made waves in 1991 when he won election to the City Council after disclosing his HIV-positive status, and in the Senate he passed legislation expanding routine HIV testing.

Duane said he is proud to have passed laws that directly impact his constituents as well as serve as models for other cities.
“I supported the Midwifery Modernization Act to allow nurse midwives to practice in New York State. I’ve supported routine HIV testing and helped lessen the stigma, particularly within correctional facilities. I also supported the prohibition of insurance companies to create tier four drugs with incredibly expensive co-payments,” Duane said of his accomplishments.

He also introduced the anti-bullying Dignity for All Students Act in the Senate and fought for its successful passage, helped secure passage of a law that eliminates the criminal statute of limitations on many serious sex crimes and worked on measures that toughened laws against hate crimes and discrimination.

Duane’s announcement to leave public office after the current Senate term, which ends Dec. 31, has many already lamenting his departure and others scrambling to replace him.

“I am sad to hear of Tom Duane’s departure from public life,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose district overlaps Duane’s, in a statement. “Locally, he has been a powerful and unyielding advocate for affordable housing and tenants’ rights, serving his constituents as only a truly committed and compassionate public servant can. In Albany, Tom has been a legendary champion for civil rights, sponsoring and supporting legislation over the years to benefit all New Yorkers.”
Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also praised the senator, singling out his contributions to gay rights in the state.

“Today’s generation of LGBTQ youth will grow up in a world made more free and more fair because of Tom’s service,” de Blasio said in a statement. “He will always be remembered for his pivotal role in securing marriage equality for all New Yorkers.”

Hoping to follow in Duane’s footsteps, current chair of Community Board 2 and longtime Democratic activist Brad Hoylman has already officially declared his candidacy for the seat. Hoylman is promising to bring reform to Albany and continue Duane’s legacy of fighting for equality at the state level, and political players expect him to receive the coveted endorsement from Duane himself.

City & State also reports that a woman named Tanika Inlaw has been going to local Democratic clubs to seek support for a 29th District candidacy that she announced on Facebook last week.

Duane said that for the time being, he’s focused on finishing out his final term strongly. But he said that he’ll definitely miss parts of the job.

“I’ll miss the challenges of garnering the widest possible support for issues I believe in, especially from people who have not shared my points of view,” Duane said. “I’ll miss finding that common ground and working with people in a collegial manner to pass bills that help people in a way they should be helped.”

New York City Comptroller Calls for an End to Stop-and-Frisk
City Comptroller John C. Liu released a statement calling for the abolishment of stop-and-frisk tactics by NYPD officers. According to Liu, there were nearly 700,000 instances of New Yorkers being stopped and frisked last year, nearly all of them targeting Black or Latino people innocent of any crime.
“It’s just impossible to say stop-and-frisk is not racial profiling, and continuation of this practice not only violates the department ban against racial profiling, it raises civil rights questions,” Liu said, decrying the tactic. “It also poses a potential financial liability to the city, as evidenced by rising claims against the NYPD and the federal judge’s ruling allowing class-action status in a stop-and-frisk lawsuit.” Supporting Liu’s claim, there were 2,241 civil rights claims filed against NYPD officers in 2011, up 23 percent from 2010.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer spoke in agreement with Liu’s assessment, but applauded Commissioner Ray Kelly’s acknowledgement that greater training and oversight is needed in current stop-and-frisk procedures after the commissioner announced changes to officer training, monitoring, supervision, transparency and accountability. Stringer also spoke in support of the “call-in” approach, a proven tool for reducing violence.

State Senate Passes Resolution to Honor Beastie Boys Founder
Last Tuesday, May 15, the New York State Senate passed a resolution introduced by State Sen. Daniel Squadron honoring Brooklyn native and Beastie Boys founder Adam “MCA” Yauch for his contributions to music and political activism.
Yauch and the Beastie Boys gained prominence in New York City, which is reflected in the resolution. “The Beastie Boys exemplified New York through a period in which grassroots creativity and a community of iconoclastic artists helped redefine and rejuvenate a city on the ropes, with iconic imagery from Brooklyn to Ludlow Street,” reads part of the resolution.

Governor Ends Food Stamp Finger Imaging
Last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the end of finger imaging for food stamp recipients. The practice was thought to prevent many hungry New Yorkers from acquiring much-needed food at a time when one-third of New York City’s children live in poverty. Arizona now remains the only state to continue this practice.
“It makes no sense for children to go to bed hungry while we waste local tax dollars on a senseless program that puts food farther out of reach,” State Sen. Daniel Squadron said, applauding the governor’s decision.
The reform also impacts the elderly. “Removing stigma and ensuring dignity in applying for food stamps for the elderly is critical,” said Bobbie Sackman, director of public policy for the Council of Senior Centers and Services.
The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies  also announced its support of the governor’s decision, praising the removal of this “needless hurdle” in a time of economic hardship.

“Only a nonpartisan solution accurately reflects the voting publc,” – Liz Krueger

by Liz Krueger

Liz Krueger, (D) Senator, NY

Two years ago, I committed to vote against any redistricting plan unless it was developed through a nonpartisan redistricting process. I stand by that commitment, and not just because our current process is flawed. Not surprisingly, both houses’ majority parties are pushing their own partisan plans, despite the fact that every Republican senator and a majority of Assembly members made the same pledge I made: to vote against partisan redistricting and support real reform. It is now up to Gov. Andrew Cuomo to veto the plan and allow a federal court to draw districts without the interference of self-interested legislators.
Some have argued that instead of sending the matter to the courts, Cuomo should allow a bad map this year in exchange for the promise of a better redistricting process in 2022. Unfortunately, this can’t work. Albany leaders have already welched on promises of reform—as the New York Times asked, “How can we trust this gang?”
Even if we could be guaranteed a better system a decade from now—which I believe is hardly certain—a decade is a long, long time to wait for reform. And make no mistake, the lines Albany’s partisan leaders have drawn are bad. They are designed for one purpose: benefiting the majority parties in each house at the expense of equal voting rights and rational representation for communities and neighborhoods.
The proposed state Senate lines are particularly egregious, but that’s to be expected; it is much harder to draw lines that protect Republican senators in New York because our state has been trending Democratic for years. To protect their vulnerable majority, the Senate Republicans’ proposal gives New York City one less district than the census figures warrant and adds an additional 63rd District upstate. They manage this—in spite of the fact that the state’s population has shifted downstate over the last 10 years—by once again putting many more people in New York City and Long Island districts than in upstate districts.
In addition, the plan once again creates Senate districts that systematically split the African-American and Latino communities on Long Island, despite dramatic growth in these communities over the last 10 years. Dividing, or “cracking,” these communities into multiple districts is a tactic clearly aimed at protecting the nine Republican incumbents who represent Long Island in the Senate.
The argument for accepting these maps is that we will fix the problem in the future. But the proposed constitutional amendment is simply too weak to work. The amendment would set up a commission appointed by politicians whose work could be edited or even rejected by the legislature. Even worse, the commission would be susceptible to deadlock and political pressure.
Furthermore, we would be accepting these bad lines on a promise, since the constitutional amendment would have to pass the legislature again next year before the voters could consider it. Since so many legislators have broken their promises on this subject already, I don’t understand why we are so sure they will keep their promise and vote for an amendment again next year, when the pressure is off.
Compare the Legislature’s political machinations, last-minute announcements and strategic heel-dragging to the work of magistrate judge Roanne Mann, the special master already overseeing our congressional redistricting after the Legislature failed to develop congressional lines in time to prepare for a June congressional primary. Judge Mann has announced clear deadlines, has openly named the experts she will be consulting and has articulated legitimate, explicit criteria for the maps she will produce. She has set a standard for what New Yorkers should expect in redistricting, a standard the Legislature has refused to meet.
Newsday’s editorial board stated it perfectly: “New York could still get fair political boundaries this year, but for it to happen, the special master, the judges and Cuomo are going to have to stand tall and make the difficult, proper decisions.”

Liz Krueger is a State senator who represents the Upper East Side.

A former aide to Rep. Charles Rangel is seeking the State Senate seat currently held by attorney general candidate Eric Schneiderman.

The aide, Miosotis Muñoz, was a community representative for the longtime Harlem Congressman between 2005 and 2007. Her career in government also includes stints as a Latino liaison in the offices of Manhattan borough presidents Ruth Messinger and C. Virginia Fields. Muñoz also served on Barack Obama’s National Latino Leadership Council during the 2008 presidential primary, organizing voter outreach in northern Manhattan.

Schneiderman is from the Upper West Side part of his sprawling district, which also covers the Dominican-heavy Washington Heights and Inwood, plus parts of the Bronx.

Muñoz sent out an invite for a May 28 fundraiser on West 150th Street, between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, announcing her candidacy. In the invite, Muñoz touts her 16 years in government and community service.

Washington Heights district leader Mark Levine is the only other candidate to formally announce a run for the seat. Assembly Member Adriano Espaillat of Washington Heights may also make a bid.

An aide to former Rep. Charles Rangel is seeking the state senate seat currently held by attorney general candidate Eric Schneiderman.

The aide, Miosotis Muñoz, was a community representative for the longtime Harlem Congressman between 2005 and 2007. Her career in government also includes stints as a Latino liaison in the offices of Manhattan borough presidents Ruth Messinger and C. Virginia Fields. Muñoz also served on Barack Obama’s National Latino Leadership Council during the 2008 presidential primary, organizing voter outreach in northern Manhattan.

Schneiderman is from the Upper West Side part of his sprawling district, which also covers the Dominican-heavy Washington Heights and Inwood, plus parts of the Bronx.

Muñoz sent out an invite for a May 28 fundraiser on West 150th Street, between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, announcing her candidacy. In the invite, Muñoz touts her 16 years in government and community service.

Photo by Andrew Schwartz

West Side Spirit: State Sen. Pedro Espada, who led the June 8 coup and month-long stalemate, is now the majority leader and has defended landlords. How has this affected the tenant rights laws you were pushing for?
Linda Rosenthal: We really have great hopes going into this session that all of these pro-tenant rights bills will pass both houses. In fact, that’s how some of the Democratic senators got elected. You know, when Sen. Espada got named the head of the Housing Committee, I wasn’t happy with that, but I didn’t realize that would be sort of an omen for where these tenant bills were going, which was nowhere.

WSS: You introduced legislation that would end landlords’ ability to convert rent-controlled apartments into market-rate units. Given Sen. Espada’s opposition to these types of bills, is there any room for compromise?
Rosenthal: He has thousands and thousands of tenants in his district [in The Bronx]. I mean, you’re elected to represent the interests of your district and you’re also elected to be your statewide voice. So I think the best way to represent your district is to hear concerns and try to address them. But there are others that really care a lot about this issue, so there’s always room for compromise in bills. If I said there wasn’t any room, then nothing would pass. Rarely are bills written that satisfy everyone, so I guess that’s the nature of lawmaking.

WSS: You supported mayoral control of the city school system. What do you think of the new parent training academy?
Rosenthal: Parents want the best for their kids, and we need to give them the tools to advocate for the best programs and the best system within the schools. The more they know, the more educated their advocacy will be. A lot of parents come in and say, “I don’t like the teacher, and the curriculum is too hard.” But once they actually have in-depth knowledge, they can make more informed demands and I think it will be better for the system.

WSS: Same-sex marriage is again being pushed in Albany. Do you think this is something that will pass?
Rosenthal: I’m very hopeful. It’s very dismaying that all of these other states are going before New York State, because we like to pride ourselves in being leaders in so many areas. Plus, we have such a huge lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender population, yet if they want to get married they have to go to Connecticut or Massachusetts or Iowa. So we’re clearly not serving their interests.

I think a part of it is because of the demographics in the Senate. People 25 and under who’ve been brought up knowing gay people say, “So what?” I think once the Senate age goes down a bit, it won’t be such a struggle to convince people that people who are gay or lesbian are just like everyone else. I think there will be a big push between September or maybe next year, but I hope we do it before next year. It’s getting kind of embarrassing.

WSS: You’ve become known for introducing laws on animal cruelty.
Rosenthal: All the cats and dogs are talking to me. I didn’t know it was a priority when I got to Albany, but you know, you learn many things when you’re in office, and one of them was how important animals are to people. They’re their companions, they’re their best friends often and they serve a purpose. Constituents who care about animal issues are among the most—what’s the word—they send the most emails, they are the most focused and they actually do demand a lot from their representatives. How we treat animals is also sometimes reflective of how we treat each other. I’m trying to make a kinder, gentler society. I also find gaps in the law where animals are not protected and unfortunately, there are cruel, abusive people out there.

WSS: Are you a pet owner?
Rosenthal: Of course! I have a cat who I got at the ASPCA about 14 years ago. Her name is Olivia because she has big green eyes, and I call her Livi, and she’s not happy when I go to Albany.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Correction added

Think about the words “representative government.” The word “representative” has two important components: “re” and “present.” Yet it turns out that the last thing the Democrats or Republicans really represent is our interests.

Of course, there are some very good Senators. Take the Senator from the East Side of Manhattan, Liz Krueger. She has always favored reform and represented the interests of the little people. When the Democrats were in the minority, she always said that when they took over, things would be different. I am quite sure that at the time, she and others like her meant every word of what they were saying. But as soon as the Democrats took the majority, the primal struggle for power commenced. They elected Malcolm Smith as their leader. He just wasn’t up to it. He was domineering but weak.

Those few senators like Krueger who fought for reform were shunted aside and the same old, same old, took over. Some reforms were passed, but the effort was pathetic, considering the scope of the problem. When they were in power, the Republicans ruled with an iron hand, taking no prisoners. But when they lost, despite their gerrymandered districts and near-bribery with all their pork-filled member items, they didn’t go quietly into the night. Instead, they fought a rear-guard guerrilla action, trying to pick off two of the worst of the so-called Democratic bunch, an accused girlfriend slasher and an accused election fraudster. These were men who those very same Republicans had attacked as worthless.

While all of this was taking place, the people were hurting. The school districts, the county governments and the not-for-profit sector, all doing such important work, were left without the necessary cash to go forward. Worse, they didn’t even know how much they would be getting. Try budgeting under those conditions.

The whole sorry situation would be laughable except for the fact that there is so much at stake. They don’t care that school districts are flying blindfolded. They don’t care that state government has come to a standstill. The question now is what do we do about it?

What do we tell the kids who are having mock elections in their schools? Do we tell them that their elected representatives are not worth emulating? That democracy is a fraud and just a cover for a few venal men and women? This is the time for true reform. The division of spoils should include the people.
–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.