WE MUST PASS THE PRESIDENT’S BALANCED APPROACH TO OUR LOOMING CRISIS

By Ken Biberaj

I recently attended a briefing at the White House with business leaders from around the country. The message was clear: Going off the fiscal cliff would be devastating to every sector of our economy. The president understands this and is willing to take hard steps to solve it, but the House Republicans have not acted in kind. We need their action.

The automatic cuts associated with going off the cliff would cause a loss of jobs, cuts to essential social serves and higher taxes for all Americans, likely resulting in a double-dip recession at a time when we are making steady economic progress.

Our country cannot afford this option, and there is no excuse why our leaders in Washington cannot come to an agreement. Those stubbornly refusing to act are more interested in self-preservation. The only option is a deal that addresses both spending and revenue. The president’s balanced approach to the situation would restore confidence in our political system and markets by providing greater certainty for businesses, and lowering the debt burden we pass on to our children.

If House Republicans do not act, the mandatory reductions will take a sledgehammer to Social Security, Medicare and other programs that are essential to our seniors. The average middle-class family will see an immediate increase of $2,200 in taxes. This is not the way to cut the deficit. The president is willing to compromise and address cuts in a way that protects seniors and keeps the economy moving forward. A version of the Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans has already passed the Senate, and the president is prepared to sign it. Now the House Republicans need to vote for it.

The stakes are especially high for New Yorkers.

State Controller Tom DiNapoli recently projected that working New Yorkers would see a $43 billion increase in taxes and 3.4 million people would also be forced to pay the federal alternative minimum tax. All in all, the state would witness an automatic drop of $600 million in federal funds—devastating local budgets. This, coupled with the projected costs associated with the recovery from Hurricane Sandy, would put our most vulnerable communities, small businesses and seniors at risk. New York City is surviving the recession, but not on even footing: Issues of inequality have been exacerbated. Not responding to the fiscal cliff would hurt those already suffering the most.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that consumer confidence would nosedive if a deal is not made; resulting is nearly $200 billion less in spending next year. The taxes in our city are already high. Adding a tax increase on middle-class New Yorkers coupled with a double dip in the recession would cripple New York businesses, especially those that benefit from the over 50 million visitors who come through our city each year, a major part of the New York economy. Places like the Russian Tea Room, which benefit from this tourism, would be hit even harder by reduced travel and spending in our city.

As a businessman, I believe the White House approach is the only real option available. Yet as we get closer to the cliff, it is becoming clear that the Republicans are not willing to make the obvious choices that are needed to keep our economy moving forward. I urge all New Yorkers to look past the distractions and recognize that going over the fiscal cliff is not an option. Act now and call our elected officials in Washington to push them to support a balanced approach. In 2013, we need our leaders to turn their attention to other important issues that affect New York’s economy: immigration reform, innovation and infrastructure, to name a few.

Running a business in New York City is very challenging, and as the Russian Tea Room celebrates its 85th anniversary on West 57th Street, we hope that our leaders in Washington don’t make it even harder for us to survive the years to come.

Ken Biberaj is the VP of the Russian Tea Room and a Democratic candidate for City Council on the Upper West Side (www.ken2013.com). The views expressed here are those of the writer and not the Russian Tea Room.

By Alan S. Chartock

Political theorists have long raved about the advantages of balanced government. It is always best to have one independent branch looking over the shoulder of the others; balanced government helps prevent abuses.

When the very popular Andrew Cuomo was elected governor, it could easily be said that he had a mandate from the people to clean up Albany. In fact, that’s exactly what he said he would do. Unfortunately, from this perch, Albany looks pretty much the same as it always has.

We still see the powerful legislative majority leaders drawing districts that give them a better chance of winning. We still see legislators asking for raises and likely getting them while they dismiss the possibility of raises or pensions for civil servants, including our teachers.
There are some very dangerous things happening in the state capital. One of the most dangerous is a move by the powerful governor to take away the “pre-auditing” function from the independently elected state comptroller. The people who wrote the state constitution made the comptroller independent so he or she could audit the other branches. Anyone who runs a business or a not-for-profit organization knows that at least once a year, businesses have to be audited.

In New York State, the comptroller has always had the ability to pre-audit contracts. That means that before a state contract can be let, the comptroller has to take a look at it to determine if there is any bad smell to it.

Is a contract about to be let to people who are fiscally enigmatic? You wouldn’t want suspicious people like the mob pouring the concrete for the soon-to-be-rebuilt Tappan Zee Bridge. You wouldn’t want suspicious people running a large gambling casino in Queens. Without this important pre-auditing function, by the time the contract had been let, the horse would have long been out of the barn.

Unfortunately, the power to pre-audit major contracts was taken away from the comptroller in the powerful governor’s budget. When that happened, my eyebrows shot up toward the sky. Why in the world would you take this kind of protection away from the people of New York? I wrote about it in this column; I opined about it on the radio, but the response was anything but deafening. The subject, esoteric as it was, was ignored by almost everyone.

I recently spoke with State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli about it on the radio. He was not reticent in his response. When I asked him about the governor’s move to strip him of the important pre-audit function, he said the move “made no sense.” And, with imaginary dark music playing in the background, DiNapoli said that he hoped that there would be no other moves like this one to cut down on the comptroller’s powers. He has always said, “It is my responsibility to be an independent voice, and I take that very seriously.”

It is no secret that DiNapoli was not Cuomo’s choice for the comptroller’s job. DiNapoli is the kind of guy who gets along with everyone. Cuomo’s reticence in supporting his fellow Democrat was perplexing.

When the comptroller’s office is vacant, it is the Legislature’s responsibility to fill the office. The Legislature elected DiNapoli, who then went on to run for a full term without fellow Democrat Cuomo’s support. Anyone besides DiNapoli might have resented that just a little, but DiNapoli is like Ferdinand the Bull: He does not like these things to become personal, he’d rather just smell the flowers.

Despite that attitude, the more bellicose Cuomo has carried the fight to the comptroller for no good reason that I can see. Maybe it’s that the comptroller could get in the way of some of the governor’s plans.

In any case, I’m glad I asked DiNapoli the question and I’m especially glad that he answered it. Sometimes, even Ferdinand got angry—like that time he got stung by the bee.

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tom DiNapoli – Conservative critics like to portray State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli as a puppet for big labor, a pawn of the unions that line his campaign coffers. This week, DiNapoli took two important steps to squash those rumors. First, he appointed former Rockefeller Institute deputy director Bob Ward as his deputy for budget policy. Ward is a known budget wonk whose fiscal analysis can run conservative, at least as far as the unions are concerned. Second, DiNapoli released a report that found that even as overtime costs by state workers was trending down, three state agencies were still raking in the lion’s share. Unions like their overtime, but DiNapoli proves that he likes saving taxpayer dollars even more.

Kirsten Gillibrand – Solid poll numbers and a bulging campaign account leave Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand sitting pretty while her three Republican rivals duke it out for recognition and cash. Gillibrand’s solid approval rating among voters may be buoyed by the current lack of a visible campaign against her, which will likely change once primary voters chose her opponent in June, but she still has plenty of reasons to smile. And senator? That $23 we found for you? You’re welcome.

Michael Grimm – Those New York Times exposé into the Staten Island pol’s campaign funds? Yesterday’s news. Grimm’s campaign has only been heating up since then, as he’s racked up endorsements from unions, apparently avoided a challenge from former Rep. Mike McMahon and still has a huge cash advantage over the upstart Democratic challenger, Mark Murphy. And this week he landed the Conservative Party nod, which will go nicely with the Independence and Republican party lines come election day.

To find out who else made City & State’s winners list for this week click here.

By Dan Rivoli and Allen Houston

While Republicans made a political comeback around the country, New York State Democrats fared relatively well. Andrew Cuomo is now Governor-elect, Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand trounced their GOP opponents and Tom DiNapoli held on to the State Comptroller seat.

Future New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo had a meeting Nov. 13, where they discussed all of the things that were taking place in the AG’s office right now. Photo by Daniel S. Burnstein

And with Eric Schneiderman soon to be sworn in as the next attorney general, Upper West Siders were able to elect one of their own to statewide office.

Schneiderman held his first press conference with Cuomo Nov. 13 to discuss how the pair would work together going forward.

“We had our first conversation today and I’m looking forward to many more,” Schneiderman told Cuomo, during a gathering after their meeting. “And as someone who is going to be representing you for a long time, I’m very pleased to see how circumspect you are.”

Schneiderman said that the two talked about all of the things that are currently taking place in the attorney general’s office, as well as the historic role that the office has played throughout New York’s history.

“I intend to work with the governor and to build on his great work,” he said. “Obviously we face significant challenges in this state right now.”

The governor-elect danced around whether he would give Schneiderman any special “executive order powers” to help him battle public corruption and clean up Wall Street.

“That’s something we will talk about going forward,” he said.

Cuomo said that a comprehensive reform package passed by state lawmakers would be a much better tool for taking on Albany, rather than any obscure provisos that he could give to the attorney general.

“The best way to do this is not by a bunch of hodge-podge efforts but by a piece of legislation, passed by the state legislature,” he said. “Everyone who ran said that they were running to clean up Albany, and now they have to do it.”

The governor-elect and the future attorney general agreed that Khalid-Sheik Mohammed, alleged 9/11 mastermind, shouldn’t be tried in New York, though they offered no ideas on another venue.

“I’m against it. Period,” Cuomo said. “Not in New York. Not in New York.”

Added Schneiderman: “I’ve previously said that it shouldn’t happen in New York City.”

He added that the trial shouldn’t take place elsewhere in the state, either.

While they have that in common, the two campaigned under completely separate styles. Cuomo portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative and Schneiderman campaigned as progressive, said Mark Landis, a local Democratic district leader and lawyer.

“He put out a progressive campaign message throughout the primary,” Landis said. “But it was also a pragmatic progressive message… realizing an attorney general is not a chief prosecutor but a chief lawyer for a variety of interests for the people of this state.”

One of his early campaign messages highlighted his work as counsel to the nonprofit West Side Crime Prevention Program. The ad delighted Marjorie Cohen, the nonprofit’s director.

“I’m very proud of the connection to the beginning of his community activism,” Cohen said.

Joan Paylo, a district leader for Schneiderman’s home club Community Free Democrats, said that Schneiderman would have to be front and center when attorneys general from other states tackle national issues.

“Our hometown guy can put that on his shoulders,” Paylo said, “and run with it.”

Most of the races West Siders will be voting for are foregone conclusions.

Democrats are expected to trounce their Republican opponents in the two Senate races and Andrew Cuomo is a lock for governor. Locally, state legislators will walk into a new two-year term.

There are nearly a hundred heated House races throughout the country that will decide which party controls Congress. But West Side Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Charlie Rangel are safe bets.

Still, Upper West Side voters lived up to their reputation and came to the polls. Home to the most loyal of Democratic voters, a good turnout could only help Eric Schneiderman, the liberal Upper West Side state senator locked in a tight race for attorney general, and State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who faces a strong challenge from Republican Harry Wilson. (West Side Spirit went to press before election night results were announced.)

A poll worker outside of P.S. 87 on West 78th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus avenues said additional hands were called in to help with the higher than usual turn out for the morning, lunch time and evening rush.

“You expect a big turnout for what we call a major election,” said Council Senior Center volunteer Florence Kohn, referring to the 2008 presidential race. “I think we have a pretty good turnout.”

Kohn, who quoted the adage that those who don’t voting can’t complain, said she was dedicated to getting out the vote for her favorite candidates. She did, however, have choice words for Carl Paladino, the Republican gubernatorial nominee that she and other West Side voters would not mention by name.

“It’s offensive to even have someone like that on the ballot,” Kohn said.

In a city where Democrats rarely have competitive general elections, there were Upper West Side voters that wanted to show their support for progressivism.

Richard Levenson said it was important to vote against the conservative Tea Party activists and Paladino, “the great ‘genius’ from Buffalo.” Levenson voted straight down the Working Families Party line, which cross-endorsed Democrats this year.

“I like to vote for the liberal left-leaning party,” Levenson said.

Despite being a tenant lawyer who likes “rent to be low,” Levenson opted for Cuomo over the Rent Is Too Damn High Party’s candidate for governor, Jimmy McMillan.

But there was more on the line this election day than just the election of candidates. This is the second time New Yorkers used new scanning machines that read paper ballots marked by voters.

The new voting method had a rocky debut during the Sept. 14 primary as machines broke down, malfunctioned or jammed with a paper ballot. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the primary day operation a “royal screw up” that was “unacceptable.”

But there were some reoccurring complaints about the ballot this year.

“It’s not laid out particularly well,” said Peter Chapin, who had voted at P.S. 87. “The type is too small.”

But Sally Cohen called the paper ballot and the electronic scanning machine the “best of both worlds.”

“It’s worked beautifully today,” Cohen said. “I know the primaries had problems.”

Though Cohen said that the candidates she voted for are on track to winning Nov. 2, she wants a high turnout on the West Side.

“The more noise we can make,” Cohen said, “the better.”

With the amount of dissatisfaction and disappointment that many have expressed toward New York State government, it’s clear we need a governor who has a strong vision for the office and who can take control of a Legislature that has caused embarrassment on a national level. The choice for voters is between Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and the Republication businessman from Buffalo, Carl Paladino. We wholeheartedly endorse Cuomo for governor.

Paladino has little to offer and has run a campaign filled with bigotry and bluster. While we recognize the strain of populism that has appealed to those disgruntled with government and the way politicians have been behaving, we do not want our state governed by anyone who has so little respect for his fellow citizens.
But this is not simply a Cuomo-by-default decision. As attorney general, Cuomo has a strong record as the state’s chief lawyer, investigating the pay-to-play scandal that led former Comptroller Alan Hevesi to plead guilty.
His blueprint for ethics reform includes a section that would legislate that lawmakers would have to disclose their earnings from outside jobs, something we think should also happen. While we are wary of family “dynasties” in all levels of politics, we feel Andrew Cuomo has shown a clear path and ambition in politics separate from his father’s, while also learning from his time working with him.
We do, however, hope that Andrew Cuomo stops playing it safe when it comes to his stated principles, coming out strong in favor of marriage equality (something that nearly all New York City politicians agree it is time for) and other progressive legislation. Getting any of his reforms passed with an obstinate Legislature will not be easy. But we feel Cuomo can make good on his promises to restore trust and create transparency in government.

Attorney General: Eric Schneiderman

The next New York attorney general has big shoes to fill. Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo were both crusaders who were able to balance complex issues of national importance as well as move the reform ball forward. The next attorney general must have the experience to be able to tap dance his way through the minefield of Albany corruption as well as find new ways of protecting consumers. That’s why we endorse Eric Schneiderman, a state senator from the Upper West Side, as our next attorney general.
While our state government has increasingly started resembling a Saturday Night Live skit, Schneiderman has been one of the few bright stars at the state level. He’s a smart, effective, reform-minded legislator who has stood up to his party when required, as well as crafted important legislation that promotes equal justice under law, such as ending the draconian Rockefeller drug laws.
Cleaning up Albany has become something of the mantra of this election. But Schneiderman has actually done it by convening a bipartisan panel to expel fellow Democrat Hiram Monserrate after he was convicted of assault against his girlfriend. In addition, he has spent many years standing up against Republican senators that have blocked his progressive reform-minded legislation.
We are confident that his background and experience plus core philosophy of equal justice will ensure that the interests of all New Yorkers are heard. He has a broad agenda that protects consumers, prevents the pollution of the environment and fights discrimination.
Mr. Schneiderman’s opponent, Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan, has a record that he can be proud of. As the Staten Island DA, he has amassed a high conviction rate for dangerous felons; he has also served respectably under Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau. Donovan has a competent, nuts-and-bolts plan for the attorney general position. What he doesn’t have is the sweeping vision needed to implement the changes as well as the reform-minded vision of Eric Schneiderman.

Comptroller: Harry Wilson

Officially, the state comptroller is responsible for the nearly $130 billion pension fund, auditing agencies and releasing economic reports. But former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi’s recent guilty plea in a pay-to-play scandal put a spotlight on the sleepy, unglamorous office. Now, New Yorkers need a state comptroller that is pragmatic, vigorous and innovative. We endorse Republican Harry Wilson for state comptroller.
The current comptroller, Democrat Tom DiNapoli, has implemented necessary reforms and protected the pension fund since he was appointed to the seat in 2007.
But Wilson, the Republican candidate, is a Harvard-educated investor with an extensive and unique background in the public and private sectors.
His resume includes Goldman Sachs, Blackstone Capital and, most, recently Silver Point Capital. He was the only Republican on President Barack Obama’s auto-industry task force, where he led the successful restructuring of General Motors.
Wilson has the investment and managerial background needed to make the comptroller’s job integral to fixing New York’s economy. He is a moderate Republican who has a proven record of bipartisanship and pragmatism. Much like his work saving General Motors, we believe Wilson would work well with unions, rather than conveniently blaming them for all of the state’s fiscal problems. He believes in a low-tax burden for business rather than spending tax dollars on corporate welfare.
After Hevesi’s resignation, the State Legislature tapped DiNapoli, an Assembly member from Long Island, to become the new comptroller. While DiNapoli had no prior investment experience, he has the vision to continue being an able comptroller. He also instituted important ethics reforms in the office, from banning pay-to-play practices and placement agents from the investment fund.
But Wilson has the vision, skills and temperament to be an excellent comptroller. Though he is a Republican, this is one of the few races where Upper West Side voters can cast a ballot for the GOP without voting for a conservative ideologue.

State Legislature

The Upper West Side has quality, progressive legislators in Congress and in Albany. The Republican alternative in these races are either nonexistent or not a credible choice. We endorse State senators Bill Perkins, Tom Duane and Assembly members Linda Rosenthal, Daniel O’Donnell for re-election. In the open State Senate seat that covers parts of the Upper West Side, all of Northern Manhattan and parts of the Bronx, we endorse Adriano Espaillat.
In the House, Jerrold Nadler and Charles Rangel deserve re-election to their seats.

Ballot Measures:

Earlier this year, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called a commission to study and recommend changes to the city charter. This Nov. 2, voters in New York City must approve the changes at the ballot.
The questions are printed on the back of the ballot, on the other side of the candidate list. If approved, the changes would bring back two-term limits for city officials and make running for office easier. Voters should vote “yes” on these two questions.
Upper West Siders should vote “yes” on the question that would limit the next mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough presidents and Council members to two, consecutive four-year terms. Voters established these limits through two ballot initiatives in the 1990s. But when Bloomberg wanted to run for a third term last year, the Council passed a law that overturned the two referendums.
Bringing the term limits law back to two terms would respect the voters that chose two terms for local elected officials. Most importantly, the new law would also block the City Council from again changing the term limit law through legislation.
The second question contains seven parts that, in part, will help more candidates get on the ballot. Voters should say “yes” to the question, which would approve all seven changes to the charter. These changes would lower the onerous ballot laws that inhibit competitive elections and insurgent candidates running for office.

The changes include:
• Greater disclosure of campaign spending from independent groups.
• Cutting the number of petitions needed to get on the ballot in half for each elected office.
• Increasing the fine for violating the city’s Conflicts of Interest law to $25,000 from $10,000.
• Consolidating the number of “administrative tribunals,” where people charged with violating a law or regulation can contest the charge.
• Creating a commission of appointees from the mayor and City Council to review the necessity of Charter and Administrative codes that require agency reports.
• Adding government-operated transportation and waste-management facilities in the annual map of the city’s property used to site new city facilities.